Bonam

No, I'm just responding to your own statement.

How do you expect what to end? Islamic terrorism? Western intervention in the middle-east? Flows of refugees from one country to another?

If that was true, why would anyone ever willingly choose to be a "leftie"?

In fact, they've come out and condemned ISIS actions as being too barbaric and such. So yes, you can count them among the "moderate Muslim majority" now.

Just like over time reality changed your mind about the blacklivesmatter movement, so to you will eventually understand about the movement that harps endlessly on about things like "microaggressions". As much as it would be nice if it were true, they aren't simply there to provide people with helpful advice on how to not accidentally offend others.

Huh? You do know that every nation spies on every other right, including its allies? That's just how things are done.

Seems beyond stupid that anyone would use colistin ("the drug of last resort") as a blanket drug continuously applied to herds of pigs. These antibiotics should be controlled substances and should be strictly forbidden for any use except medical treatment in humans and for scientific purposes, period. We should have an international protocol on this, and countries that fail to comply should be compelled to do so, through military force if need be, cause honestly they pose a far greater danger to the world than the cave men with guns who we wage war against the rest of the time. And any doctor who prescribes an antibiotic because they feel pressured by the patient to do so, when the doctor knows that an antibiotic is not applicable to the problem the patient is having, should be banned from the profession for life, cause they obviously don't have the character to be a doctor. Also, not completing your prescribed course of antibiotics should be a criminal offense (unless you have a valid medical reason).

Both of these statements seem to be in stark contradiction to both of your opinions that the majority of Muslims are moderates, that ISIS and those like them are just a handful of extremists, etc. If you can't tell between an ISIS fighter and any other Sunni in Syria, if for every one of the 30,000 Sunni fighters there are 1,000 others who are sympathetic, then the whole population is basically ISIS. And if that is your position, then it seems not self-consistent not to treat all the rest of the population the way we would treat ISIS, either.

A very misleading statement. Muslim women experience 47% of the 6.2 hate crimes / 100,000 people. That means 2.9 Muslim women per 100,000 experience hate crimes. Meanwhile, Jews are victims of hate crimes at a rate almost 10 times higher than Muslims: 54.9 / 100,000 people. Even if only 10% of the Jews that experience hate crimes are women (the % is not given in the article), that's would still be 5.5 Jewish women per 100,000.

That seems very optimistic. The F-35 process dragged on for over a decade. If the whole process is being scrapped and started again from scratch, it seems doubtful we'll be seeing any new planes of any sort until the 2020s.

I'm a bit conflicted on if it's a good idea to try to stop this particular one of the funding sources. Before they started selling looted antiquities, they were just smashing them. A vast amount of priceless historical artifacts and irreplaceable ancient works have already been destroyed, and if some of them can instead be preserved by people who buy these items and keep them safe in collections outside ISIS control, there's definitely an argument to be made for that.

This is true but Canadians can easily get the TN visa instead, which is not subject to a cap.

Key difference being Canada's indigenous people don't tend to do mass bombings and mass shootings.

And I'm guessing a lot of Europe is gonna be thinking hard about their intake of refugees, as well. I'm not sure I share your confidence in the capabilities of our government agencies in competently evaluating and tracking the latest influx of refugees after they are already in Canada. Not to mention proper processing could likely take years, and that is plenty of time for the bad apples among them to do whatever they came here to do.

Trying to rush 25,000 refugees over in the next 1.5 months sounds to me like a recipe for all kinds of failures of investigation and oversight. I imagine it would be absurdly easy for ISIS to get a few of their agents planted among the 25,000, if they so desired.

The government mandates car safety rules and enforces traffic laws to mitigate the risk of car accidents. It is properly the function of individuals to safeguard themselves against frostbite. The government has implemented building codes that almost completely eliminate the danger of being killed by lightning while in a city, and when out in the countryside, it is the individual's responsibility. Dog attacks... dunno, blame it on the dog owner. Probably the government would try a dog owner who lets their dog kill people for manslaughter or something. Terrorist attacks... yes, I'd expect a government to do what it can to prevent and deter those. Like all other things, the risk has to be weighed against the cost of mitigating it. Spending trillions of dollars on wars on the other side of the planet which don't improve our safety? Likely not the best approach. Infringing on everyone's freedom and privacy with mass surveillance to try to prevent attacks? No, the violation of rights is not worth the mitigation of such a statistically small risk. Filtering our stream of immigrants and refugees? Seems fairly low cost and potentially effective. Maybe we should try it?

I agree that Western intervention contributed to the current situation. It's hard to know how the world would have turned out in an alternative history without said intervention.. it could have been better, or it could have been worse. But regardless of that, I think that the first and foremost function of any nation's government is to ensure the safety of its own citizens. In that light, I think anyone we bring over as a refugee needs to be given time to be properly background checked. In the meanwhile, if we want to aid the refugees, we can provide aid to them in the locations where they currently are.

The "real problem" in this example may be the hypothetical "Chinese foreign policy", but it still remains true in this case that it would be in the interest of Chinese citizens if China's government kept people like Bob out of China, since people like Bob may pose a danger.

How about instead of complaining about the number of people that disagree with you, you support your posts. Why do you advocate going over to Syria and bombing Syrians so the tiny % of those Syrians that are terrorists won't attack us (an approach which has a long track record of failure), but oppose much more peacefully preventing such attacks by simply not bringing those Syrians to Canada?

Very simple. It's a criticism of our immigration/refugee system. And as everyone on the left knows, any criticism of said system means that the speaker is a racist/bigot and all around terrible and disgusting person. Going over and bombing and killing people? Fine. Being a bit more discerning about who we let into Canada? Evil! Racist! Nazi!

No, what's disgusting is people that advocate going off to other countries and bombing them (and inevitably killing civilians) to "fight terrorism" and "keep us safe" but at the same time vent outrage about suggestions to keep us safe through much more peaceful means (not bringing terrorists over in the first place).

Of course. But the more people we bring in from that part of the world, the greater the chance we'll end up with additional ones that want to carry out these types of attacks, besides any that might already be in Canada.

Because if even 0.1% of the people we bring over end up being terrorists rather than refugees, that's enough to do in Canada what just happened in Paris. And you can bet organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are doing whatever they can to get as many of their operatives as possible into various Western countries. And setting artificial time limits like "by the end of the year" for 25,000 people clearly means that there will not be sufficient time to properly investigate the background of each individual to minimize the chance of terrorists slipping through.

It's not necessarily unacceptable, depending on the situation. But it seems odd to me that people view changes to an immigration system as somehow more problematic of a response than air strikes and ground troops.

I think bombing ISIS and killing a lot of civilians as collateral is a much harsher and more violent response than closing Western borders to immigration from Islamic countries. I don't know why people are so willing to go out and kill other people, mostly civilians, as a response to try to stamp out terrorism (which is plainly impossible to do, anyway), but are utterly unwilling to consider securing our borders so that (most) terrorists simply can't get into Western countries in the first place. Suggesting that we go forth and bomb people indiscriminately is mainstream, but suggesting any review of our immigration system is "bigoted" and "racist". Oh well, I'm sure the irrationality will go on and on until the death toll is in the millions not in the hundreds.