Should we deport immigrants who support terrorism?

[eyeball]

This is called moral relativism, and it's a common tactic among the left,

This is a common tactic among all human beings Argus.

[DogOnPorch]

Not sure re: Argus's claim...however:

Total casualties (KIA) all causes by the Provo IRA 1969-2001: 1,821

Casualties 9-11 (KIA): 2,732

This is a common tactic among all human beings Argus.

No. It's true. Islamic terrorist may have just blown the crap out of a school but some dipweed will pipe-up about how the RC Church killed thousands of native children or how Israel is starving children in Gaza...blah, blah, blah. I've seen it before...so have you.

Edited April 12, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

What the moral relativists like you don't seem to comprehend, and cannot for an instant accept, is that there is a difference between the terrorists we have had, and still have to a small degree in the West, and the terrorists of the Muslim world. The difference is an order of magnitude degree in brutality and violence. More people are killed by Islamic terrorists every year than have EVER been killed by western terrorism, going all the way back to the beginning of the IRA provos. When it comes to killing and brutality, the Tamil Tigers are the NHL while the IRA - they were maybe your local high school peewees.

What you refuse to accept is that the dictatorships we in the west support are by any moral definition, terrorists, and by the very same moral definition, we are part of the terrorist networks that support and aid these. The order of magnitude of violent blowback we see probably reflects the level of human suffering and brutality that is inflicted by the terrorists we support.

I don't know about your grandfathers Argus but I suspect mine are spinning in their graves. They didn't sacrifice their health or lives fighting for our right to support terrorists. They'd be just as ashamed of our country as I am and as you should be.

[Griz]

Ship immigrant terrorists? That means boat loads of people will be shipped back to Europe and the UK You immigrant terrorist squatter you

[capricorn]

I heard a caller's opinion on a radio talk show that it is not to the advantage of Tamils who are refugees in Canada (and future Tamil refugees) for the conflict to end in Sri Lanka. If a peaceful solution was found between the Sri Lanka government and the LTTE, Tamils coming to Canada, (and I presume some who are already here) would lose or be refused refugee status. They would then have to queue up for admittance as regular immigrants. That's an interesting angle to this situation.

[Smallc]

Interesting angle in that I find it hard to believe that anyone would want a conflict in their country that is so bad they are forced to leave.

[eyeball]

Interesting angle in that I find it hard to believe that anyone would want a conflict in their country that is so bad they are forced to leave.

I'm quite certain I've read before that many immigrants would prefer to stay in their home countries and communities if conditions were better. It stands to reason, people being human after all... I've seen many leave my region because of economic downturns and more than a few who've stayed in touch have wistfully wondered if sticking and staying and making it pay would have resulted in a more fulfilling life.

I'd be far more willing to believe and even bet there is a military/enforcement industrial complex that is benefitting from maintaining this conflict before believing in some refugee/immigrant complex.

Edited April 12, 2009 by eyeball

[Sabre Rider]

Nor, in all likelihood, do you see yours.

What the moral relativists like you don't seem to comprehend, and cannot for an instant accept, is that there is a difference between the terrorists we have had, and still have to a small degree in the West, and the terrorists of the Muslim world. The difference is an order of magnitude degree in brutality and violence. More people are killed by Islamic terrorists every year than have EVER been killed by western terrorism, going all the way back to the beginning of the IRA provos. When it comes to killing and brutality, the Tamil Tigers are the NHL while the IRA - they were maybe your local high school peewees.

Actually you are the moral relativists Argus, not me in that I make no distinction between terrorist, to me a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what their cause is or have large or small their body count is.

I see no difference between Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and those that flew airliners into the World Trade Center. Both used violence and terror in order to further their political goals. The same can be said of the IRA and even the right-wing Zionist group, the Irgun who blew King David Hotel on 22 July 1946 during the British Mandate of Palestine. Then there is the case of the Olympic Park Bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph who as a member of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement exploded bombs that killed two and injured 150 people. His main targets after the Olympic Park bombings were Abortion Clinics and Gay Bars. His stated goals, to stop the holocaust of abortion and to end the gay agenda. His method to reach these goals, terror.

Then there is state sponsored terrorism which most major powers have used, including the US. The US ran the so-called "School of the Americas" which trained many of the security forces of some of the most vicious regimes in Central and South America which used terror tactics to subdue their populations, quell dissent and stay in power. Then there is the case of Libya's involvement of the downing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Terrorism is simply just another tool of the body politic. Depending on how it is wielded and by whom it can either be effective as in the case of the Israeli Zionist and arguably the Prov IRA or in can be ineffective as in the case of AQ so far. To be blind to all aspects of terrorism and simply focus on Islamic terrorism is myopic at best, and dishonest at worst.

[Argus]

Argus,

Firstly, give us a stat please on the Islamic terrorist point

TheREligionofPeace

Secondly, we need to point out the IRA and issues like it in order to make it clear that terrorism comes in many forms. Your posts have thought behind them, but there are utter reactionaries out there who want to deport all Muslims because they just don`t like them.

Terrorism, like any crime, does indeed come in many forms. But there are degrees to crime. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the guy who peeps through womens' windows is not as deserving of condemnation as the one who rapes them in alleys and cuts their throats.

The IRA, and indeed, the other western terrorist groups - all mostly diminished into near impotence now - had their vicious sides, but none of them would ever consider the level of routine barbarity commonly seen from Islamist terrorists who murder innocent people by the truckload. The IRA was certainly capable of doing so, as, no doubt, were the other groups, but they refrained. Perhaps because they had a degree of civility uncommon among Islamists.

How are you going to define "supporting terrorism" ? Protesting in support of a banned group is still freedom of speech.

We could start by looking at the British laws against giving aid and comfort to terrorist organizations, and we could and should be watching what is being said in mosques, recording it for translation. The only time I'm aware of that happening the Star did so and found that some of the Imams - all of them foreign born - were preaching hate to their congregations.

We cannot deport all the immigrants who have sympathies with foreign terrorist groups, but we can damned sure deport the ones who organize demonstrations, and collections, and preach hate and violence. And we should be much more careful about the attitudes we bring in, screening potential immigrants from Muslim nations, as well as the Sikhs and Tamils to learn their background attitudes and believes before approving them.

I know it goes against the grain to suggest we screen people, that we, in effect, target people for special screening based on their religion, but I damned sure don't want to see things get to the point here that we see in the UK, France and the Nordic countries. Do you?

[Argus]

Actually you are the moral relativists Argus, not me in that I make no distinction between terrorist, to me a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what their cause is or have large or small their body count is.

And yet, here you are to defend Tamil terrorists and those who support them. Why is that again?

I see no difference between Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and those that flew airliners into the World Trade Center.

Nor do I. So what is your point?

Terrorism is simply just another tool of the body politic. Depending on how it is wielded and by whom it can either be effective as in the case of the Israeli Zionist and arguably the Prov IRA or in can be ineffective as in the case of AQ so far. To be blind to all aspects of terrorism and simply focus on Islamic terrorism is myopic at best, and dishonest at worst.

Almost all terrorism today is Islamic based. I am not blind to the manipulations and behaviours of governments, nor to the misery that can sometimes cause. But that is not the subject here. The US is not flying airplanes into buildings, nor is it kidnapping children and putting rifles in their hands, nor blowing up markets and pizza parlors. Bringing up the US training of Latin American police forces from the sixties as an excuse for terrorism today is a cop-out and a pathetic excuse for refusing to judge the behaviour of the Tamil community who support these people.

[tango]

Nor, in all likelihood, do you see yours.

I expected this kind of post. It's so utterly dreary and predictable. Whenever anyone suggests we ought to disapprove of some kind of brutality in the world which involves "brown people", however horrific it is, someone will come on to defend that brutality - while of course, denying that's what they're doing.

This is called moral relativism, and it's a common tactic among the left, especially the politically correct zealots who will snear openly at anything American, and have no difficulty talking about the defects of American culture, but then be aghast if you criticize Islamic cultural traits. Whatever the topic; honour killing, terrorism, homophobia, terorrism, child abuse and rape, if you criticise "dark people" some PC fanatic will leap in to defend the practice - while denying he's doing it - and start trying to indict the west on some spurious, vaguely similar, but generally much lower level "crime".

This is the bizarre contradiction you see here, where people on the political Left will constantly defend rape, honour killing, terrorism et al, because "brown people" are doing it, and they cannot bring themselves to criticize brown people, nor allow anyone else to.

There have been some 12,000 terrorist incidents related to Islam since 911. Can you tell me how many such incidents were committed by the IRA or Basque separatists? I bet you don't even care. Do you know how often the IRA or the Red Brigades exploded nail bombs in the middle of packed crowds? How often they blew up pizza shops filled with teenagers? How often they pulled over buses and machine gunned everyone inside? How often they executed teenage girls for not wearing the proper symbols of their religion? How often they blew up entire airliners filled with people?

What the moral relativists like you don't seem to comprehend, and cannot for an instant accept, is that there is a difference between the terrorists we have had, and still have to a small degree in the West, and the terrorists of the Muslim world. The difference is an order of magnitude degree in brutality and violence. More people are killed by Islamic terrorists every year than have EVER been killed by western terrorism, going all the way back to the beginning of the IRA provos. When it comes to killing and brutality, the Tamil Tigers are the NHL while the IRA - they were maybe your local high school peewees.

You are doing a lot of generalizing and stereotyping of 'the left' argus.

Stereotypes are seldom accurate.

Do we know how many of those 'terrorist' incidents were instigated by the CIA to provide excuses for the US to step in militarily and 'defend' its commercial/industrial interests?

You will find the CIA's hand in every conflict in the world.

Example: Sudan

In 1978 oil was discovered in Southern Sudan. Rebellious war began five years later and was led by John Garang, who had taken military training at infamous Fort Benning, Georgia. "The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the 'front-line' states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime." [Federation of American Scientists fas.org]

Between 1983 and the peace agreement signed in January 2005, Sudan's civil war took nearly two million lives and left millions more displaced. Garang became a First Vice President of Sudan as part of the peace agreement in 2005. From 1983, "war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades." [CIA Fact Book -entry Sudan]

The BBC obituary of John Garang, who died in a plane crash shortly afterward, describes him as having "varied from Marxism to drawing support from Christian fundamentalists in the US." "There was always confusion on central issues such as whether the Sudan People's Liberation Army was fighting for independence for southern Sudan or merely more autonomy. Friends and foes alike found the SPLA's human rights record in southern Sudan and Mr Garang's style of governance disturbing." Gill Lusk - deputy editor of Africa Confidential and a Sudan specialist who interviewed the ex-guerrilla leader several times over the years was quoted by BBC, "John Garang did not tolerate dissent and anyone who disagreed with him was either imprisoned or killed."

CIA use of tough guys like Garang in Sudan, Savimbi in Angola, Mobutu in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), had been reported, even in mass media, though certainly not featured or criticized, but presently, this is of course buried away from public awareness and meant to be forgotten, as commercial media focuses on presenting the U.S. wars of today in a heroic light. It has traditionally been the chore of progressive, alternate and independent journalism to see that their deathly deeds supported by U.S. citizens tax dollars are not forgotten, ultimately not accepted and past Congresses and Presidents held responsible, even in retrospect, when not in real time.

Oil and business interests remain paramount and although Sudan is on the U.S. Government's state sponsors of terrorism list, the United States alternately praises its cooperation in tracking suspect individuals or scolds about the Janjaweed in Darfur. National Public Radio on May 2, 2005 had Los Angeles Times writer Ken Silverstein talk about his article "highlighting strong ties between the U.S. and Sudanese intelligence services, despite the Bush administration's criticism of human-rights violation in the Sudan." Title was "Sudan, CIA Forge Close Ties, Despite Rights Abuses." Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, won a 2006 Pulitzer Prize for "his having alerted this nation and the world to these massive crimes against humanity. He made six dangerous trips to Darfur to report names and faces of victims of the genocide for which President Bush had long before indicted the government of Sudan to the world's indifference." [Reuters] But last November saw the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Juba the capital of the Southern region. (Maybe consider this an example of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" especially where oil is involved.)

Don't be so gullible!

Edited April 12, 2009 by tango

[Sabre Rider]

And yet, here you are to defend Tamil terrorists and those who support them. Why is that again?

Excuse me? Where in the hell did I say that? How in the hell did you infer that from anything I have written on the subject? Did I not state very clearly that "A terrorist is a terrorist no matter what their cause or body count is"?

Nor do I. So what is your point?

Read the above...sheesh...some mothers do have them don't they?

Almost all terrorism today is Islamic based. I am not blind to the manipulations and behaviours of governments, nor to the misery that can sometimes cause. But that is not the subject here. The US is not flying airplanes into buildings, nor is it kidnapping children and putting rifles in their hands, nor blowing up markets and pizza parlors. Bringing up the US training of Latin American police forces from the sixties as an excuse for terrorism today is a cop-out and a pathetic excuse for refusing to judge the behaviour of the Tamil community who support these people.

Sorry mate, but the School of the Americas is still alive and kicking however it has been rebranded as the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation", basically the same crap but different label.

Communities will support those groups that they identify with and agree with, be they Irish, Jewish, Islamic, Christians, Tamils, Iranian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Basque, Serb, Chechnyan or what have you and they will funnel funds and arms to them. Its always been that way and it always will be that way. Case in point, my cousin was in the bomb disposal unit of the Royal Corp Of Engineers during "The Troubles" and disarmed more then a few Provo Bombs only to find them made of C4 explosives with US Army markings that had somehow mysteriously and magically made its way to Belfast.

And while the US does not fly planes into buildings they do drop bombs and fly cruise missiles into houses, weddings, and what have you in order to take out a target regardless of "collateral damage" and if that is not a definition of terrorism I don't know what is. As for not kidnapping and arming children to fight, sorry again mate, but while the US may not do this directly, it does support those that do with arms and funds. Call it proxy terrorism if you will.

Sadly in you narrow world view, the only terrorism and terrorist that bear watching and being dealt with are those who are Islamic, Arabic or some other weird and scary "Darkie". So what was Timothy's body count again?

[Wild Bill]

Excuse me? Where in the hell did I say that? How in the hell did you infer that from anything I have written on the subject? Did I not state very clearly that "A terrorist is a terrorist no matter what their cause or body count is"?

Judging by what you have written, would you and I not then agree that the tactics and actions of the aboriginal protesters from Six Nations at Caledonia, Ontario would fall under YOUR definition of terrorism?

[tango]

Judging by what you have written, would you and I not then agree that the tactics and actions of the aboriginal protesters from Six Nations at Caledonia, Ontario would fall under YOUR definition of terrorism?

No.

[Keepitsimple]

If they are not a Canadian citizen, then in general, they should be expeditiously booted out - along with any other immigrants, refugees or wannabe citizens who commit felonies or repeatedly break the law. The sad part of our bleeding heart, non confrontational approach along with our endless appeal process is that there are only a finite number of immigrants and refugees that we can accept. As a result of keeping those who import their homeland battles and prejudices, we keep out hard-working, level-headed people who genuinely want to start a new life - not just bring their old life to Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

And while the US does not fly planes into buildings they do drop bombs and fly cruise missiles into houses, weddings, and what have you in order to take out a target regardless of "collateral damage" and if that is not a definition of terrorism I don't know what is....

Nonsense...collateral damage is specifically factored into operations and weapons deployment, otherwise the Americans could just bomb everything at will. And of course. you would consider Canadian Forces to be terrorists for operations in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe (e.g. Serbia).

[tango]

I heard a caller's opinion on a radio talk show that it is not to the advantage of Tamils who are refugees in Canada (and future Tamil refugees) for the conflict to end in Sri Lanka. If a peaceful solution was found between the Sri Lanka government and the LTTE, Tamils coming to Canada, (and I presume some who are already here) would lose or be refused refugee status. They would then have to queue up for admittance as regular immigrants. That's an interesting angle to this situation.

OR ... If there were no conflict, they would likely not be coming here.

[Argus]

You are doing a lot of generalizing and stereotyping of 'the left' argus.

Stereotypes are seldom accurate.

Do we know how many of those 'terrorist' incidents were instigated by the CIA to provide excuses for the US to step in militarily and 'defend' its commercial/industrial interests?

No, but if you will loan me your tinfoil hat I'm sure I'll see them all, juuuust like you.

[capricorn]

OR ... If there were no conflict, they would likely not be coming here.

Presumably.

Here's another thought. If the conflict was ended peacefully, there would be no need for the Tamil Tigers. An end to hostilities is not in the LTTE's best interests. Who would all those Tamil sympathizers send their donations to if there was no LTTE?

[Argus]

Excuse me? Where in the hell did I say that? How in the hell did you infer that from anything I have written on the subject?

Why are you here on this thread? What inspired you, after reading a thread about immigrants who support terrorism to leap in and say "But wait! We're just as bad! They're okay! They're just doing what we're doing! Don't judge them badly!"

And other bubbling inanities. You are defending this group which openly supports the world's worst terrorists. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it.

And I don't give a crap about the school of the Americans and the rest of your dumbass anti-American ranting. When the yanks are blowing up markets and pizza parlors you give me a shout. Yeah, they've interfered a lot in Latin America. And what shape is that place in now as compared to forty years ago? Meanwhile, how much progress towards freedom and peace has the Muslim world made?

Sadly in you narrow world view, the only terrorism and terrorist that bear watching and being dealt with are those who are Islamic, Arabic or some other weird and scary "Darkie". So what was Timothy's body count again?

No, in my narrow world view, on this topic, we're discussing communities which support terrorism, mainly immigrant communities, and yes, they happen to be "darkies", for the most part. But you'll find my dissaproval of communities which support this kind of violence has no correlation with their skin pigmentation. I judge the Russians and Serbs as harshly as I do the Palestinians and Tamils.

What I DO NOT do, as most of you Lefties do, is leap to the defense of a group because it has brown skin. Personally, I feel that's because I consider them to be equals and thus hold them to the same standards. Most of the Left seems to secretly think "darkies" are inferiors, like children, who can't be held responsible for their actions or beliefs to the same degree as White people. So they constantly make excuses and defend them whenever anyone casts an accusing gaze their way. The Americans are horrible people because they degraded and humiliated people in Iraq. But the Chinese, who routinely murder people for opposing the government, or for trying to practice their religion - they're wonderful people! The Israelis are evil people for their "oppression" of the Palestinians, but the Arab nations around them who oppress their own people worse, they're FINE people with a colourful culture!

[tango]

I needed some information about this, so I will share it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_th...re_Independence

A primary contributor to the development of political awareness amongst Tamils was the advent of Protestant missionaries on a large scale from 1814. Missionary activities by missionaries of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Methodists and Anglican churches led to a revival amongst Hindu Tamils who built their own schools, temples, societies and published literature to counter the missionary activities. The success of this effort led to the Tamils to think confidently of themselves as a community and prepared the way for self consciousness as a cultural, religious and linguisitic community in the mid nineteenth century.[4][5]

Great Britain, which had come to control the whole of the island in 1815, instituted a legislative council in 1833 with three Europeans and one each for Sinhalese, Sri Lankan Tamils and Burghers. This council's primary requirement was to play an advisory role to the Governor. These positions eventually came to be elected. From the introduction of advisory council to the Donoughmore Commission in 1931 until the Soulbury Commission in 1947 the main dispute between the elite of Sinhalese and Tamils was over the question of representation not on the structure of the government. The issue of power sharing was used by the nationalists of both communities to create an escalating inter ethnic rivalry which has continually gained momentum ever since.

Since 1948 when Sri Lanka became independent, successive governments have adopted policies that had the effect of net preference to the majority Sinhalese at the expense of the minority Sri Lankan Tamils.[12]

The most important contributor to the strength of the militant groups was the Black July pogrom which was perceived have been an organized event in which over 1000 Sri Lankan Tamil civilians were killed prompting many youth to prefer the armed path of resistance.

Importing Tamil language films, books, magazines, journals, etc. from the cultural hub of Tamil Nadu, India was banned. Sri Lanka also banned groups such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham and the Tamil Youth League. Culturally, Tamil Sri Lankans were cut off from Tamil Nadu. Foreign exchange for the long established practice of Tamil students going to India for university education was stopped. Equally, examinations for external degrees from the University of London were abolished. The government insisted this was a part of a general program of economic self-sufficiency, part of its socialist agenda, however most of the Tamil population did not accept nor believe this.

So ... instead of accepting forced assimilation, the Tamils fought back.

Terrorists?

Freedom fighters?

Edited April 13, 2009 by tango

[Smallc]

Who would all those Tamil sympathizers send their donations to if there was no LTTE?

Aid groups in Sri Lanka....to say that they like the war because they like to send money to help the people...well....

[Argus]

So ... instead of accepting forced assimilation, the Tamils fought back.

Terrorists?

Freedom fighters?

They deliberately target and murder children. They use mass-rape as a weapon. They kidnap small boys and girls, beating them into submission, forcing the boys to become soldiers, using the girls as sex slaves. They murder any Tamil who rises to any position of leadership who disagrees with them or who tries to set a more middle path. They use suicide bombers against civilians, against schools and hospitals.

There have been riots in other nations before, including India. There have been many minorities who have been mistreated to a far, far worse degree than the Tamils. There are ways of resisting, of fighting back, even violence, which do not encompass the degree of sheer barbarity and cruelty which the Tamil Tigers have enthusiastically adopted. I don't care what the Sinhalese have done. The Tigers are worse. And anyone who supports them or who questions whether they are worthy of being called terrorists is a moral vacuum.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Argus

[Cuzzin E]

Define 'supporting terrorism'

[benny]

It's a waste of time and energy to deport terrorists or immigrants who support terrorism. National security cannot be maintained by people unable to withstand terror from the inside (i.e. in their foro interno).