Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[Swift]

Originally Posted by T@T

What about the Muslim sectarian part? Sunni's and Shia's hate each other, are there different mosques for each sect or is all forgotten once they move to Canada?

I would imagine so. Just like Christianity has Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by T@T

What about the Muslim sectarian part? Sunni's and Shia's hate each other, are there different mosques for each sect or is all forgotten once they move to Canada?

Yes there are separate Sunni and Shia mosques, but nobody is going to get mad if you're a Sunni and you go pray in a Shia mosque here, or vice versa.

Sunnis and Shias don't really hate each other. Most muslims I know hang out with other sects, or Arab Christians, even Jews for that matter without any issue. Even in the Middle East, the hate between Sunni and Shia is mostly political, ie. Saudi (Sunni) vs Iran (Shia), Saddam (Sunni) murdering Shia who were backed by Iran, etc.

I took my best friend who is an Iranian-Canadian to some very Sunni places in the Middle East a few years ago and he had zero problems whether at the airports or on the streets, even after people found out he was Shia.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

hmmm

I don't know bout that. There are conflicts everywhere. Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, all over Africa, Ukraine etc.. Yes the western media does pick and choose. They are outraged that Russia invaded Ukraine but if China invaded Laos i don't think anyone would care. Americans have bases everywhere in the Pacific and stick their nose in everyone's business. They control the corrupt government of the Philippines and Filipinos were the most immigrated people to Canada last year. But they're not upset that their country is bring controlled by the west and they really are just an American puppet state. Once they are in Canada they adapt. Become Canadian and move forward, don't look back.

Yeah, there are definitely degrees and shades to all this. But I think it's one thing to control a country and another to bomb it. If America actually started bombing the Philippines like they did Iraq, I would think that even Filipinos born here would at least take some notice and show some objection.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by T@T

You have a point but because Paris isn't a war zone it will get more attention, Muslims killing muslims sadly is like gang wars in Chicago, nobody cares as long as it remains within the gangs. It's actually puzzling the world doesn't hunt the Al-Shabaab down though.

There's some truth to this, but I think there's an undercurrent of this is one of "our" cities that was attacked. If isis were to have committed the exact same attack in another relatively safe place, let's say some major city in South Africa, I don't think NHL arenas would be having moments of silence. To give another example, the manner in which USA went to war in Iraq, full of lies, deception, and death, would the reaction have been the same in the West had a Muslim country attacked a non-Muslim country this way? To be sure there was some outrage, but I think some of it was mitigated because it was a White/Western country attacking a non-White/Western country.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yes there are separate Sunni and Shia mosques, but nobody is going to get mad if you're a Sunni and you go pray in a Shia mosque here, or vice versa.

Sunnis and Shias don't really hate each other. Most muslims I know hang out with other sects, or Arab Christians, even Jews for that matter without any issue. Even in the Middle East, the hate between Sunni and Shia is mostly political, ie. Saudi (Sunni) vs Iran (Shia), Saddam (Sunni) murdering Shia who were backed by Iran, etc.

I took my best friend who is an Iranian-Canadian to some very Sunni places in the Middle East a few years ago and he had zero problems whether at the airports or on the streets, even after people found out he was Shia.

Happy to hear that in Canada you don't have a divide but I have to correct you on Saddam Hussein, even know he was born a Sunni he died a socialist under the Baath Party and a secularist. he shaved, watched hollywood movies/porn...far from a Sunni freakazoid.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by T@T

Happy to hear that in Canada you don't have a divide but I have to correct you on Saddam Hussein, even know he was born a Sunni he died a socialist under the Baath Party and a secularist. he shaved, watched hollywood movies/porn...far from a Sunni freakazoid.

I think your definition of what a Sunni is or isn't is a bit skewed. You can be a fairly secular Sunni Muslim. Not all Sunnis are like ISIS. Over 80% of Muslims worldwide are Sunni.

In fact the most liberal countries in the Muslim world (like Turkey, Indonesia and Morocco) are made up of Sunni Muslims. And yes, Alqaeda as well as ISIS are also Sunni, but I would say they both follow the Wahabi movement rather than mainstream Sunni Islam.

[_Q_]

Let me put it this way.

Wahabis are the crazy branch of Sunni Islam that beheads infidels, wants to cover women from head to toe in black robes and thinks that Shia, Christians, Jews and even Sunnis that aren't as devout are the enemy. Sunni and Shia are your regular folks that you see in Canada that just want to live a decent life and practice their religion however they please.

The Wahabis come from Saudi Arabia so they have boat loads of money and can push their agenda throughout the middle east. The regular Sunni and Shia come from poorer countries that need the Wahabi money. Theirein lies the problem.

[driveway]

Good article about how the explicit purpose of the ISIS attacks is to provoke Western backlash against Muslims and, in particular, Syrian refugees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eee_story.html

The Islamic State’s strategy is to polarize Western society — to “destroy the grayzone,” as it says in its publications. The group hopes frequent, devastating attacks in its name will provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities throughout the continent.
...
The strategy is explicit. The Islamic State explained after the January attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine that such attacks “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselves. . . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize . . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.”

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Sorry, I don't completely understand your question. Are you asking if one is born Muslim if they have to be a Muslim?

In doing a bit of google-research to refine and clarify my question...it was answered.

That was, basically, what I was asking, though. I was more wondering if/what the options for religion were. Or if one was born into the religion, and had no choice but to accept it, regardless of their thoughts on it.

[Thor]

lol now the talk in Iceland is should we arm our police. They have access to lock boxes in their vehicles and we have swat always on stand by.

Yep Iceland, such a high priority target, best arm the crap out of our cops. Maybe the US can give us some of their military vehicles like they do for their own cops.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I would say that there's some form of tribalism in most people. Take for example what happened in Paris. Would there be this sort of outrage in the West had isis done the exact same thing in a non-Western country?

We all have circles of empathy. They tend to be strongest for people who are like us. Canadians feel more strongly what happened in Paris than they are about the bombings in Beirut because we can more easily picture ourselves being a tourist in Paris going out to a concert than we put ourselves in the streets of Beirut. Or we might know people who live in France. And yes, most Westerns feel they share a cultural heritage with France, where they don't feel the same about Lebanon or Yemen. I don't think that's anything to feel ashamed about, as long as it doesn't turn into hating or fearing those outside the closest circles of empathy. You can recognize our common humanity without feeling the exact same degree of empathy for every other human being on the planet (which is impossible).

But yes, tribalism - the tendency to turn issues into an us versus them struggle, to internalize all that is good and externalize all that this bad - is the greatest challenge we have to overcome to continue to make progress in reducing war and violence.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Yeah, there are definitely degrees and shades to all this. But I think it's one thing to control a country and another to bomb it. If America actually started bombing the Philippines like they did Iraq, I would think that even Filipinos born here would at least take some notice and show some objection.

yes but it's kind of a chicken an egg argument. Why was the US bombing? Saddam was a US stooge fighting Iran with US weapons. Then over 20 years he became the enemy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by driveway

Good article about how the explicit purpose of the ISIS attacks is to provoke Western backlash against Muslims and, in particular, Syrian refugees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...eee_story.html

Yeah, it drive ISIS bonkers that millions of Muslims are fleeing TO the West. It undermines them in every way. And the one thing they hate more than an infidel is an apostate.

[temple5]

I know this happened in other cities in North America but pretty cool video of the tribute at the Bruins game.

https://vine.co/v/iB6QMxvxZDl

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yes but it's kind of a chicken an egg argument. Why was the US bombing? Saddam was a US stooge fighting Iran with US weapons. Then over 20 years he became the enemy.

This really is an exaggeration. The Iraq/Iran war had already been going on for about 2 years before the US gave any kind of real support. Even then, the amount of support was relatively small given the scope of the conflict.

The main supplier to Iraq in that conflict was the Soviet Union.

[DiracSpike]

So, moving forward from a Candian persepctive I'm curious to see what happens on our end.

It sounds like Trudeau is sticking with pulling out the CF-18's which, as far as I know, is our only Military contribution to fighting ISIS right now. I'm not sure how he can say we are still dedicated to fighting ISIS after removing our jets, seems like kind of a two-faced comment.

Additionally, and probably more military inclined posters can answer this, but does the fact that France has essentially declared an all out war on ISIS after being attacked carry any obligations to Canada as a NATO member?

[Igottago]

I don't like Trudeau's approach on this, even though I'm unsure if bombing is the best counter terrorism tactic in the long run. You have to make decisions based on the temperature of things internationally, and clearly, that temperature has changed again. If you are going to be part of a comprehensive counter terrorism effort you need to engage with your allies in a fully coordinated effort, I don't think you can just pick and choose which aspects you want to participate in. If the consensus is a military effort is required, you probably need to back them on it.

The way I understand it, if the French invoke article 5 of NATO we pretty much have to go anyways -- otherwise NATO isn't worth the paper its printed on, and we give up our most important security alliance.

[CroFlames]

I just want to say a huge thanks to Q and WCW Nitro for their contribution in this thread. Very insightful stuff.

Originally Posted by _Q_

Let me put it this way.

Wahabis are the crazy branch of Sunni Islam that beheads infidels, wants to cover women from head to toe in black robes and thinks that Shia, Christians, Jews and even Sunnis that aren't as devout are the enemy. Sunni and Shia are your regular folks that you see in Canada that just want to live a decent life and practice their religion however they please.

The Wahabis come from Saudi Arabia so they have boat loads of money and can push their agenda throughout the middle east. The regular Sunni and Shia come from poorer countries that need the Wahabi money. Theirein lies the problem.

I know of some obscure ass village in central Bosnia that practice Wahabism. I don't think they are much of a threat since they are so obscure and likely uneducated/dumb people there, but you are right about how they get financed. Most of my extended family lives in Bosnia & Hercegovina, and they mix and mingle with both Serbs and Muslims. For their part, they are past the conflict of WWII and the 90s. Their Muslim friends however, say how the Saudi's pump money into places and groups in Bosnia that will act more conservatively, even to the point of Wahabism. My own parents said say the same thing how times have changed a lot over the past 20 years.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

So, moving forward from a Candian persepctive I'm curious to see what happens on our end.

It sounds like Trudeau is sticking with pulling out the CF-18's which, as far as I know, is our only Military contribution to fighting ISIS right now. I'm not sure how he can say we are still dedicated to fighting ISIS after removing our jets, seems like kind of a two-faced comment.

Additionally, and probably more military inclined posters can answer this, but does the fact that France has essentially declared an all out war on ISIS after being attacked carry any obligations to Canada as a NATO member?

On the NATO side its only if an attack hits French Soil and they request help with their defense. The NATO offensive side of things, you can ask for assistance and NATO will decide if they're going to run it as a NATO lead operation.

So there's no obligation from Canada unless NATO makes the request for Canadian help, which I doubt is going to happen.

When Trudeau called Obama and probably the NATO general command and informed them of his decision to pull out, they probably all thought the same thing, that Canada is going to go back to being an unreliable NATO ally under this leadership (This isn't a shot at Trudeau, but an indictment about how NATO is going to react)

Basically Canada isn't going to have a seat at the table for the discussions around France's and possibly NATO reaction to this terrorist event.

Canada over the most recent years was given a bit of a slip about their Military spending not meeting NATO requirements because they were pretty robust in terms of working with NATO and supplying men and equipment when needed. But spending 1.1% of the GDP on defense and pulling out of what is considered a pretty significant NATO mission isn't going to fly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I don't like Trudeau's approach on this, even though I'm unsure if bombing is the best counter terrorism tactic in the long run. You have to make decisions based on the temperature of things internationally, and clearly, that temperature has changed again. If you are going to be part of a comprehensive counter terrorism effort you need to engage with your allies in a fully coordinated effort, I don't think you can just pick and choose which aspects you want to participate in. If the consensus is a military effort is required, you probably need to back them on it.

The way I understand it, if the French invoke article 5 of NATO we pretty much have to go anyways -- otherwise NATO isn't worth the paper its printed on, and we give up our most important security alliance.

I doubt that France is going to invoke Article 5, it doesn't make sense. What France will do is pour support into the current NATO mission, and ask for a bigger seat at the Command Table.

They will also probably prosecute their own objectives over there.