11.14.2015 10:36 AM

Adler-Kinsella Show: why Trudeau may reconsider his ISIS decision, my son’s message, and a Canadian live in Paris

Recorded live during last night’s events. Charles and I speak to a Canadian woman, hiding in a Paris bookstore during the attacks; we listen to a shaken Justin Trudeau, and wonder if his ISIS decision will now (and must now) change; and we discuss my son’s Facebook post, which has now been seen by 65,000 people around the world.


  1. Rich says:

    I suspect he may be immune to any arguments related to changing the original decision.
    He’s in for bringing 25K in no matter what is my take,

    • Rich says:

      …..plus stopping the bombing and the general military activity too.
      (I forgot to add that in the original.)

      • Ted H says:

        The planes are symbolic more than effective, according to the government the plan is to be more effective than symbolic. There is lots more to be done on the ground, Canada is not withdrawing from the struggle against ISIS.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      If he’s getting any half decent and rational advice at all, including from senior Liberals, there will be a climb down on both the mission in Iraq and the refugees.

      And rational people would forgive him for it.

  2. Al in Cranbrook says:

    CNN reports now that one of the passports found on the attackers was cleared through Greece as a refugee.

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I still favour admitting twenty-five thousand but the vetting process needs to be slowed down.

    Any terrorist intent on getting in has a good chance of doing so: small, unmaned border points not to mention planes flying under the radar and craft arriving at small air, ocean and river ports where CBSA is not present.

  4. dean sherratt says:

    NB that France declared this to be an act of war. This may simply be rhetoric but could also be triggering the NATO commitment to mutual defense. Similarly Trudeau in his statement indicated Canada would provide all possible assistance to France. When I heard that, I was assuming it was 95% rhetoric as I assume we already provide any intelligence with France relating to terrorist activities.

  5. JT says:

    Why must Trudeau’s decision change? Harper’s decision to bomb Syria didn’t prevent these attacks.

    • Kelly says:

      You make far too much sense.

      Does anyone think ISIS would exist if France and the UK and later the USA hadn’t decided to carve up the middle east for themselves in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman empire?

      • dean sherratt says:

        Your argument lacks quite a lot of historical muscle. It is a very long stretch to tie ISIS with France and Britain’s mandates post WWI.

        • Kelly says:

          The Middle East operates on a different historical timescale than many Westerners can imagine…particularly North Americans. A lot of the countries, Iraq as an example, were designed to be weak by creating borders that encircle traditional rivals…Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims…then are pacified by installing despotic puppet regimes, which eventually were overthrown by domestic despots (Saddam, for Example). Western corporate interests were harmed, so in rides the cavalry under false pretenses and boom. Here we are. It really isn’t complicated. You stir up hornets, you get stung.

          This won’t end until countries like Saudi Arabia straighten out. They are a major source of funding and theology behind violent radical Islam. To say so isn’t controversial in the least.

  6. Louish says:

    The western world is at war with religious zealots…It is hardy the first time in history that this has occurred .. History is laden with too many instances of zealots of all religions waging war on those they deem to be lessors..In this instance they are Islamic zealots… After the genocides caused by the waging of industrialized war in the late 19th and the 20th centuries up to the horrific bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , the world has had a relative peace compared to the past , as the powers held back from battle to avoid nuclear extinction. We are up against a virus , not a rival country , it must be eradicated.. We must take exception steps to kill it.. There is no excuse for allowing Isis internet sites to be allowed to operate , we must infiltrate all those individuals who advocate hatred and terror and jail or extradite them, Imans who advocate war must be jailed ..Or are we going to “manage” the risks , tolerating some deaths and terror because the losses may be less than the alternative ? We are too comfortable and smug , soft and weak , and someone is coming for us.

  7. dean sherratt says:

    The Ottawa Citizen has a statement by Trudeau post-attack affirming that the government will end the ISIS mission and take in 25,000 refugees as planning proceeds. That is to say, no change in course.

    • Darren H says:

      Then we will be labelled a nation of cowards. Cutiing and running from a fight even as one of our NATO allies is attacked. I don’t remember this being the “old” Canada that everyone supposedly voted for. Good thing we as a nation had more balls and resolve dealing with the Nazis.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Then he’s even a bigger idiot than I feared.

      RCAF air strikes to date…



    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      CNN – Coalition leaders reaffirm commitment to take the battle to ISIS.

      Well…all except one.

      Canada prepares to bail on its allies in a fight against hideously murdering and barbarian monsters.

      Proud day for Canada, eh?

      So disgusted I can’t speak.

      • Rod says:

        “So disgusted I can’t speak.”

        Is that a promise Al?

      • Ted H says:

        It’s the mindless hyperbole and false accusations that I find disgusting.

      • Matt says:

        Funny ain’t it?

        Since the attack in Paris has officially been linked to ISIS, and Greece’s confirmation one of the terrorists arrived there on October 3rd posing as a Syrian refugee, the Trudeau fanboys and fangirls have gone oddly silent.

      • Jack D says:

        Then by all means, don’t.

        Evidently, you completely lack the capability of showing respect by referring to the PM of Canada as an “idiot”.

        You also display an utter incomprehension of foreign politics and the current situation in the Mid-East with relation to Canada’s role. I very, very much doubt you hold any degree of intelligence on the matter enough to provide qualified comments other than rhetorical anger towards those who disagree with you.

        • Matt says:


          Harper had nine plus years of being called a Nazi, a facist and many other names, and you throw a hissy over Trudeau being called an idiot?

          • The Doctor says:

            Matt, blaspheming The Messiah is met with outrage in Trudeaupia.

          • Jack D says:

            Matt, exactly where in my post did I condone any such language towards Stephen Harper?

            I completely disagree with the majority of the policies put in place by Stephen Harper and on many occasions held resentment towards him, but never resorted to calling the man names seeing as he was elected by the Canadian in 2011 for the job he held.

            Hissy fit?

            I’m sorry, you wanna bitch about people calling Harper names and you then imply its somehow acceptable to call the current PM an idiot on that basis?

    • Matt says:

      What a fucking idiot.

      And if France activates Article 5 of the Nato Accord, the what? He still going to run away?

      • Mike says:

        Funny how conservatives think Article 5 means we need to whip out our CF-18s to show everyone how big they are.

        Nowhere in Article 5 does it outline what action a member nation has to take when the Article is invoked. It is up to the member nation to decide how it will respond and what action it will take.

  8. Ian Howard says:

    Assad stays. Iraq dissolves. Kurds and Turks go to war. Iran and Saudi Arabia’s proxy war continues on and their is a good chance Lebanon sees another civil war. Who wouldn’t want to be in on this. Perhaps there is a role in training and supporting the Kurds but otherwise their seems to be more than enough countries willing to wage a punitive campaign against ISIS.

    • Rich says:

      Yes….but if Trudeau basically says no combat, he is effectively finished as having any credibility as a leader in my view…others will disagree of course.

  9. Ian Howard says:


    David Ignatius

    Ultimately, the errors of judgment that led to ISIS’s rise have been too consequential for any easy prescriptive advice. Instead, I share a comment made to me in June 2003, as this terrible story was beginning, by a Syrian businessman named Raja Sidawi. Here’s a passage from the Washington Post column that quoted my friend’s warning:

    “I am sorry for America,” Sidawi said. “You are stuck. You have become a country of the Middle East. America will never change Iraq, but Iraq will change America.” …

    This tragic sensibility—the sense that in most instances, things do not work out as you might have hoped—is generally lacking in the American character. Americans are an optimistic people: They have difficulty imagining the worst. That was why 9/11 was so shocking. Most Americans never considered that such devastation could be visited on them.

    Arabs grow up in a culture where it is always best to assume the worst. Sidawi rattled off the list of wars and disasters that have afflicted the Middle East almost continuously since he was born in 1939. That is the bloody history in which America has now enmeshed itself.

    “You will learn the culture of death,” warned Sidawi.

    And so we have.

  10. SG says:

    Trudeau has nothing to lose by reneging on his 25,000 economic migrants (sorry, “refugees”) pledge.

    Conservatives never wanted it in the first place, and Liberals will understand that the Paris tragedy has changed the game for the worse.

    Given that, I admire his principles in pushing ahead with this plan although any possible resulting violence befalling Canadians will be on his head.

    • Matt says:

      I’m not sure anyone is suggesting reneging on the 25,000 number, just slow it the hell down to make sure all possible security and other checks will be done properly.

      Reports are coming now at least two of the terrorists posed as refugees. In light of that, Canadians will understand pushing back the deadline 3 or 6 months, or even longer.

      As security expert and former OPP commissioner Chris Lewis said today if you’re rushing this just to keep an election promise, you’re doomed to fail.

  11. Jack D says:

    In Canada, before we descent into partisan demagoguery there are a few things we need to note:

    1) With regards to the refugee issue, the fact still remains that the vast majority of those fleeing are attempting to escape the bloodshed perpetrated by the very people who perpetrated this attack last night. So scapegoating refugees as a whole is neither rational nor sensible.

    2) In reality, Canada plays an insignificant role in the mid-east conflict, so to suggest that Canada withdrawing from the mission would lead to catastrophe is incorrect. To anyone claiming that the former PM’s approach was effective clearly haven’t listened to what our partners abroad have said about Canada’s involvement. We as a country can and will likely do more, the question remains, in what capacity?

    3) Those (other than ISIS) who are culpable for this tragedy are the Americans, Russians, Saudis, Iranians and the Turkish; all of whom have displayed an utter inability to devise a coherent approach to Syria & Iraq. Instead, motivated by domestic politics all have failed miserable to carry their weight as world-leaders. Sadly, this event is a by-product of months and months of perpetual “talks” that cease to end in meaningful cooperation.

    As Canadians, we need to realize we aren’t the heavyweights on the global stage we have led ourselves to believe. We are very much at the mercy of the decisions made by larger, more powerful nations. While rhetoric is abundant, we will act in consort to other nations while respecting values that Canadians hold most dear. There is much anger and hurt over these attacks, and though I don’t fault anyone for reactionary emotions, we should recognize that this terrorism problem didn’t star over night. We now have an opportunity –keeping in mind the lessons learned from the early 2000’s –to make informed decisions.

    Those who resort to cheap partisanship at a time when humanity has suffered such a profound shock are directly insulting the value of the lives lost last night. These people deserve neither respect nor attention. They are clearly incapable of empathy.

  12. Matt says:

    Lawrence Martin said it best in todays Globe and Mail:


    A top adviser to Mr. Trudeau says his position on the airstrikes and the refugees will not change in view of the Paris bloodbath. But as the pressures ramp up, as they surely will, the new prime minister might indeed alter course. He won’t want to be seen as a flip-flopper. But when circumstances change, leaders of statesmanlike quality need to show a readiness to change with them. With the terror from Islamic State escalating, and with France promising to expand the war against the terror network, circumstances have indeed changed.

  13. Scotian says:

    No, Trudeau should NOT reconsider his plans regarding the coalition. The problem with the mission as it existed under Harper was that it was wasteful of our resources and gave little actual meaningful results back. Canada does not have much to contribute to the air war in terms of bombing and such, that other nations such as the US, UK, Hells even Jordan does not have better capacity for than we do. However, we have extremely good ground force training skills and for helping manage refugee camps and such, and do not kid yourselves people, while far less sexy than bombing it is at least as much an important strategic military element and one we are far better suited towards. The problem with the air war from the Canadian perspective comes down to that old expression about getting the best bang for your buck, well in terms of military effectiveness for this coalition we were getting about the WORST bang for our buck with this approach.

    This idea that pulling out of the air combat element means we are pulling out of the coalition is complete and utter garbage, and those putting this forward should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially at a time like this! We are still going to to be training ground forces in the region, and we are going to be shifting focus more towards aiding nations like Jordan Turkey and Lebanon with coping with the refugee disaster they have on their hands. Why is that a strategicly important goal? Simple, we need those nations to stay stable and continue being our few remaining allies nation-wise in that region, we need to keep their capacities out of the hands of the extremists, and we also need to manage the refugees so they do not continue to spill out into the rest of the world with all the attendant problems both humanitarian and security that come with it!

    We are a nation with fairly limited resources for this mission compared to many others in it, so we should focus our resources and our abilities to maximize their effectiveness, and THAT is why pulling out of the air combat element is the right call for Canada, we never should have been doing this in the first place! That was all about satisfying the macho need of certain elements of the government of the day and supporters of it, it had nothing to do with serious strategic military considerations and aims, which is why Trudeau’s comment about whipping out the F18s while impolitic and a bit on the crude side was also directly on point, which is why it caused so many to be so offended by it, because it underscored the TRUE reason the Harper government volunteered our air force into this mission.

    People have said we shouldn’t let others do the combat role, otherwise we are just cowards and pussies dishonouring our past. Well, a military mission is made up of many components, and the “teeth” to “tail” of any military is always going to favour the tail because the teeth needs that tail working properly to be effective. You may have heard the old cliche about how an army marches on the bellies of its stomachs, how logistics is the true military science and key to victory, etc, etc, etc? Well in terms of this mission this is also an important way to consider things, and on the logistics with the refugees in those nations, with the logistics of training and supplying the locals to become an effective ground fighting force, THERE is where we have the best marriage of our financial resources to our military capacity and maximize our effectiveness to the coalition as a whole.

    That is why we need to be following through with the Trudeau approach, because while it is far less sexy than bomb dropping (on those few occasions where we did), it is in terms of being of actual impactful importance to the success of the mission is it the niche we are far better equipped to play our part in. It would be nice if we went back to treating this sort of thing seriously instead of this my military might is more than yours dick comparing analogue it has become for far too many people these days.

    In case it wasn’t readily apparent, not only am I irritated about the wastage of the last couple of years, I am more than a little disgusted by the way some in this thread are trying to pervert this situation for partisan advantage and trying to portray us as surrender monkeys to the dreaded jihadis baying for our blood all because we are changing the nature of our contribution to this multinational multi-vector coalition against said extremists. I prefer to fight smart myself, and to not waste our resources in what is at heart mainly imagery and illusion, and not effectiveness. It’s called I want to fight to win, not merely to feel good, and I wish some of those so hot and horny over the combat planes element would start to think this way instead of with other parts of their anatomies.

  14. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Wait until the G7 and NATO start to turn the screws…Trudeau will get the message — one he had better heed. God prevent such an attack taking place here otherwise, with their present position on air strikes, they will be done for politically.

  15. Ian Turnbull says:

    This is junior’s chance to demonstrate to Canadian’s that he actually has substance. He needs to back down on his military pull out and slow down the refugee in take to ensure they are processed properly (bring as many as we can in but do it properly and make sure they are legitimate refugees). Chretien always ran on the left and then governed from the right. He was smart enough to conveniently ignore or forget the stupid promises he would campaign on (like eliminating the GST, or when he signed the Kyoto accord). I am hoping junior has learned from the master.

    • Mike says:

      Why does showing he has substance mean backing away from his original plan?

      Showing substance means doing the right thing, and sticking to his original plan, when it would be politically easier to given in to the hawks calling for a more robust military response.

      Doing what’s easy does not show substance, doing what’s right does.

      • Matt says:

        Chretien refusing to join the Iraq war despite mounting pressure from the opposition and allies showed substance.

        Trudea holding to the plan to pull the fighters out and rush 25,000 Syrian refugee’s to our shores by December 31st simply to keep a promise despite confirmation at least one of the terrorists involved in the attacks in France posed as a refugee to gain entry into Europe is being blindly ignorant of the facts.

        The new Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale blowing off questions about it essentially saying that would never happen here because of Canada’s “robust screening” is unbelievably arrogant.

        Are you so naive to believe there are no ISIS operatives in the UNHRC refugee camps Canada will be selecting people from posing as refugees?

        Again, stick to the 25,000 number, but slow the hell down.

    • aggo says:

      Thanks for proving and justifying how meaningless Liberal promises are.

  16. ottlib says:

    Um, Canada and its allies have had scores of war birds fighting ISIS for months. They have carried out thousands of sorties against ISIS targets.

    However, yesterday attacks that ISIS claimed they orchestrated killed around 150 people. The capabilities of ISIS were supposed to have been degraded by these air strikes yet they are still going strong in Iraq and Syria and they had the capability to organize a devastating attack outside of the region, in a major western capital

    Tell me again how Canada leaving its half-dozen F-18s in the region will change that.

    Really, those who were predisposed to disagree with Mr. Trudeau’s plans for the CF-18s and the refugees are clutching at the events in Paris to push their agenda but there really is no reason why Mr. Trudeau should listen.

    The Western effort against ISIS is an utter failure and yesterday proved that. If Western governments were really concerned with bringing ISIS to heel then I would hope they would acknowledge that (not necessarily publicly) and come up with a strategy that might actually be effective.

    Oh yes, Mr. Trudeau is now Prime Minister and it is extremely insulting to call him “junior”. If you cannot show the class necessary to afford him the respect he earned then you are a dick and your opinions can be rejected on spec.

    • Ian Turnbull says:

      Our NATO ally has been attacked. French President Francois Hollande has declared it an “Act of War”. President Hollande has also promised a “merciless fight”. Unless Mr. Hollande asks our Prime Minister to “cut and run and replace our airforce with blankets” we should reconsider. Nobody on this site (unless they are on the ground in Iraq) is in any position to debate the effectiveness of our air campaign there.

      Let’s see how many of our G20 friends gathering in Turkey will follow junior’s lead and reduce their military commitment to the war.

      • ottlib says:

        I like your statement about no one being able to debate the effectiveness of the air campaign unless you are on the ground in Iraq. It is a great cop out.

        Why just Iraq? Why not Syria where ISIS is within 30 kms of the main highway leading into Damascus and continuing to advance? That is 12 lanes of indefensible major highway leading straight into the heart of the Syrian capital. If ISIS reaches that highway all of Syria becomes part of the Caliphate. This is common knowledge if you read news publications other than just the National Post and the Sun group of newspapers.

        Despite almost a year of air strikes ISIS is continuing to advance. It is as strong as it was when this all started and it seems to be getting stronger. It is looking outside of its immediate environment, which is not the actions of an enemy that is supposed to be under siege. It is continuing to pursue its strategy instead of reacting to the strategy of its enemy. My greatest hope is that the professionals who are paid to actually pursue the policies of their political masters are seeing this and are talking to those same masters about making some adjustments.

        If President Hollande states that France will commit ground troops to the fight against ISIS then Mr. Trudeau should reconsider. If not then the President is only doing what all politicians do when events overtake them, engage in rhetoric they consider to be politically wise to get on top of those same events. And this is going to get rather hairy for him in the coming weeks when the shock wares off and people begin to ask where the hell was the French intelligence and security forces.

        Nothing will change in Turkey. None of France’s allies will commit more than what they are already committing. They will make all of the right noises but that is all it will be, noise.

    • Matt says:

      So cute you Libs are getting upset at people calling Trudeau junior.

      And Harper being called a Nazi for nine plus years? That was A-OK with all you “progressives”.

      And if our contribution to the bombing mission is so insignificant, what’s the bing deal in continuing it?

      Pulling out burns a lot of bridges with our allies. When, not if, WHEN these attacks happen here, who’s Trudeau going to turn to for help?

      It’s now being reported as many as 5 of the 7 who actively participated in the attacks got into Europe posing as Syrian refugees. What do you think the USA’s reaction is going to be if he pushes ahead with his irresponsible rushed plans to bring in 25,000 refugees by December 31st? Get ready for increased security and increase scrutiny for everyone and everything trying to get into the US from Canada.

      It’s time for you progressives to step out of your sunshine, rainbow and unicorn fantasy land and step into the real world.

    • Matt says:

      The Western effort has been a failure because the response has been so timid. Hell, even some Canadian Liberals have said from day one the international military efforts aren’t going far enough.

      Expect France to lead the charge to change that.

      • ottlib says:

        Expect them to fail, miserably. The only way the military campaign against ISIS can have a chance to succeed (a very minute chance at that) is to use western land forces, a large number of soldiers on the ground in combat operations. That will not fly with western public opinion because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

        The populations of all of the western countries are expressing solidarity with the French right now but watch that solidarity evaporate as soon as someone suggests using ground troops.

        That leaves us with the air war, which I pointed out did not degrade the capabilities of ISIS enough to prevent them from planning and executing a major attack in a major western capital.

        Military strategy 101, if you are in a war and your current strategy is ineffective you change your strategy or lose the war.

    • BillBC says:

      It’s insulting to call him names. But I guess after ten years of Liberals referring to the former PM as Herr Harper, Harpo etc. etc., you can put up with a bit of payback without getting huffy…

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        Never heard “Herr Harper”. I’ve been politically aware, sometimes active (even if not astute) for over 30 yrs and I’m no fan of the terrible government we received from the Rt Hon. Stephen J,. Harper, P.C., M.P., and the gang. However, even if he was called “Herr’, isn’t that simply German for “Mr.”?

        “Harpo”, which I’ve also not heard before, is the name of the production company for the richest woman in the world.

        I’ve heard “Dear Leader” a lot. I’ll go with whatever Brent Rathgerber preferred.

        From deficits and debts unheard of, to fixing elections, lying about almost everything, to contempt of Parliament, doing whatever he did to Chuck Cadman, to attacking public servants just doing their jobs, to gumming up courts and drafting unconstitutional laws and appointing the incompetent to places as the Senate and SIRC, to picking fights with allies and Chief Justices, “Herr” and “Harpo” would be least of the nicknames.

  17. billg says:

    I have friends with an Autistic child, 22 years old, needs constant 24 hour care, he can spend a few hours unattended but, but for the most part he requires constant care. His medication averages 2500.00$ per month and due to his specific issue many trips to Toronto are required for updates and new advancements in medication.
    This couple gets help from the community, but, because he’s turned 21 our health system insists he’s no longer a “child” and the parents are now on their own.
    Their house may have to be sold, and, they are at a point where they just don’t know what to do.
    In conversations with them they tell me there are over 5,000 of cases like this in Canada.
    Homes are needed, this “children” can function but need constant care and world class medication.
    Nurses are needed as are caretakers for these people.
    My heart breaks trying to understand the tragedy that is Europe right now, but, for the life of me I cant understand why its more hip or cool to fight for the rights of 25,000 refugees to get to Canada but 5,000 Canadian special needs children don’t warrant a headline or a concerning breath.

  18. Matt says:

    You know what would be really interesting?

    When Trudeau announced his new cabinet, he claimed he trusted them and they would have the autonomy to make their own decisions regarding their portfolios.

    What if the new Defence Minister were to decide to keep the planes in the fight?

    • cgh says:

      He’d be out of office in a heartbeat. Prime Ministers, even lame ones like the current office holder, do NOT tolerate mutiny. However, when you’ve already got Bob Rae and Dosanj firmly on the side of armed participation against ISIS, and Liberal talking head Terry Milewski providing the justification, you’ve lost.

      However Trudeau plays this, he’s in trouble. If he maintains or ups the combat role, he infuriates a host of rad-left supporters like lots of commentators on this site. Those very same folks many of whom ditched the NDP to give him his government at the polls. If he pulls out, he demonstrates to the international world that the principal characteristic of his government is moral cowardice.

      We can already see the rad-left getting twitchy. You just have to look up this thread to see some folks squirming to deny any connection with the Syrian refugee flood.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Trudeau said there was now an effective government-by-Cabinet.

      Do you even know what the role of a minister is at a department? Departments are little fiefdoms.

  19. Tim Sullivan says:

    Why change the policy? Because someone bombed Paris? Paris has been attacked before, long before the Liberals were in power, before Trudeau was leader.

    The bombing has been rather ineffective. I’m not even sure why it is our fight, but if fight we must, let’s get the job done and stop with the show-war.

    • David_M says:

      You have echoed my thoughts. I would only add this:
      ‘The bombing has been rather ineffective.’ – I would say our f-18’s, refueling tanker and 2 surveillance planes have done what was asked of them and their effectiveness is product of the situation, I wouldn’t want to diminish our forces efforts.

      ‘I’m not even sure why it is our fight,’ – Because someone is going to need to put on the big boy pants and address this mess. Those who are responsible for this situation in Iraq, as Matt has pointed out, have been timid. The coalition of the willing were pretty decisive in 2003 but not in 2014/2015. It would be the height of irony that Canada would throw itself into the breach with troops on the ground to diffuse a dangerous and escalating situation that our closest allies created 13 years ago. Does our non-participation in 2003 make us the righteous soldier today?

      Something has to change. There’s no shortage of fighter/bombers ready to target locations in the Middle East. Stop with the show-war and get on with meeting our challenges with courage.

    • Matt says:

      If you won’t fight savages like ISIS, who will you fight?

      Thank God a Trudeau wasn’t Prime Minister in 1914 or 1939.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        When did you enlist, Matt?

      • Nicole says:

        Did we really have a choice in 1914? We were barely a country and mother England ordered us in. Sure some Quebeckers didn’t understand why we should get involved in a fight between royal cousins, but who cares what they think.

        1939 was different, but Hitler and Germany were obvious enemies and old style military strategy with better guns and tanks could be used.

        ISIS is evil and no one denies that. The problem is that they are using guerilla warfare tactics that can’t simply be stopped by bombing a location, because they are everywhere. It makes more sense to fight smarter, especially when Canada is not a military superpower. Trudeau is not going to pull out entirely if the ISIS mission.

        And really the whole Saudi question needs to be examined a lot more. They are at the source of a lot of these problems. Kind of a good argument to get off their oil.

  20. CC says:

    ISIL would not exist if it was not funded. Let us go to the root of the problem and stop their funding. We have allies which are not allies. Please read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html

  21. Danny says:

    Every Liberal government in my lifetime has campaigned to the left and then governed to the middle. It is unfortunate that the ISIS mission and bill C-51 may have to be early changes from campaign promises to policy decisions. But they can be made quickly & quietly by just doing nothing ie. maintaining the status quo. Nobody expects JT to reverse 10 years of CPC policy overnight.
    And staying in the fight against ISIS is the right decision now. Things changed on Friday. Policy needs to be able to change as the situation changes. I say the bet is on him staying in Syria. It will show him growing into the job to admit that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *