westguy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Army Guy - should that be "tolerant"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Violence is a way of life for not only Afghans but most middle eastern countries....I say most because some are tollerent of foreignors, until you cross thier lines, then find out the hard way, just how tollerent Muslims are....As for proving my piont the media does that every night....Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, pakistan, any stan really, Iran, thats off the top of my head.... Is that really a good way to measure the tolerance of a religion ? To find out how much they appreciate an occupying army ? The US wasn't very tolerant of the British either. You can chase this one around forever, but you will never find a way to measure the worth of a religion on its own. It's forever tied to the peoples, the culture and so on. And those who want to flee those things to come to Canada might be assumed to be different than them. Eastern Europe yes there are a few countries that would make the shit list, Russia included....and as you say there are alot of countries from across the globe....So where are you going to get immigrants from, from those nations not on the shit list, Here is a question for you why is it that the Avg Canadian family only has 2 children...is it because of lack of cash....would making it benificial to families to have 3 or 4 children be an option., how many more options are out there. I'm not again'st Immigration i'm about cherry picking off the list, thats all Some questions: There are other 'bad' nations - so why don't we hear about those other nations then ? Why do we hear, instead, about the Muslim religion ? How are you going to make it worthwhile for Canadians to have children, rather than import them cheaply ? How are you going to get more immigration from favoured countries ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013  Army Guy - should that be "tolerant"? Yes my bad. thanks for the pick up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Is that really a good way to measure the tolerance of a religion ? To find out how much they appreciate an occupying army ? The US wasn't very tolerant of the British either. You can chase this one around forever, but you will never find a way to measure the worth of a religion on its own. It's forever tied to the peoples, the culture and so on. And those who want to flee those things to come to Canada might be assumed to be different than them. ----------- Thats just it NATO is not occupying anything, it is there at the request of the Afghan government... If your asking me would these events encompass all the muslims in the country....I would have to say no...would it encompass enough to raise the alarm bells i'd say yes....It would like saying all Germanys were Nazi's and we know that not to be true, and yet millions were, and we did target them all, IE when we bombed their cities it did not matter......we targeted all Germans....good and bad... Yes they might be assumed to be different, the fact they want to leave is proof of that. But that brings up this question, If other nations accept these people in , who is going to force change that is needed in their homelands, be it diplomatically, or by force...So does this action of accepting these people delay change, or does it just help a few thousand that mange to flee...and as reported already here through study, it is the 2 and generation that are becoming the problems..... Don't get me wrong I'm not about freezing these nations out entirely, there are many ways we can help, be it with aid, military power, diplomatic solutions....in their country, their tuff...eliminating some of the issues we face now with importing them into our country...I think my 3 tours in Afghan speaks to that, many Canadian soldiers believe and still do today it was worth the price we had paid....and we left without the job being completed...it's a western thing no patients....and too many politicians screwing the pouch.... -------------------- Some questions: There are other 'bad' nations - so why don't we hear about those other nations then ? Why do we hear, instead, about the Muslim religion ? --------------------- We do hear about them Russian mafia hits the media every once, and how about Chechnya, it is still on going with hundrds dying daily it's old news, Russia controls media, and chechnya does not sell copies any more.... Why , maybe because we are saturated every day with it....and we have become hardnered to it, except Muslims are in the news everyday.... -------------------------- How are you going to make it worthwhile for Canadians to have children, rather than import them cheaply ? ---------------------------- Familiy allowance did a great job convincing families to have kids, kind of outdating now, but i'm sure it could once more entice families to have more kids, increase tax cuts for growing families....I know it is cheaper to import, money drives everything in the west but soon we are going to dilute Canadian culture to the point we will not even recongize it, and one day we will wake up english will not be our primary language , hockey will not be our national past time.... Or maybe this is all in my head, the rantings of an old soldier...but it is the Canadian way, to diversify,except different cultures as they are, change our ways incoporate their culture into ours. or maybe it's time to take a deeper look how our imigration system works, and be alittle more picky on who we accept, stop changing our culture, while still accepting them or whom ever we let in as equals, while they are accepting of us and who we are ...i mean they chose to come here...English and french are our primary languages not Mandrine, or what ever, and hockey is our national past time not criket, or soccer.... Edited February 19, 2013 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Thats just it NATO is not occupying anything, it is there at the request of the Afghan government... If your asking me would these events encompass all the muslims in the country....I would have to say no...would it encompass enough to raise the alarm bells i'd say yes....It would like saying all Germanys were Nazi's and we know that not to be true, and yet millions were, and we did target them all, IE when we bombed their cities it did not matter......we targeted all Germans....good and bad... We don't do this anymore. There would be a great outcry if we did. We do hear about them Russian mafia hits the media every once, and how about Chechnya, it is still on going with hundrds dying daily it's old news, Russia controls media, and chechnya does not sell copies any more.... Why , maybe because we are saturated every day with it....and we have become hardnered to it, except Muslims are in the news everyday.... Right, so we only hear about Muslim immigration policy on this board, for example. That tells us something. Familiy allowance did a great job convincing families to have kids, kind of outdating now, but i'm sure it could once more entice families to have more kids, increase tax cuts for growing families....I know it is cheaper to import, money drives everything in the west but soon we are going to dilute Canadian culture to the point we will not even recongize it, and one day we will wake up english will not be our primary language , hockey will not be our national past time.... So you're going to increase my taxes by how much so we still have hockey in 100 years ? Sorry, but I'm not into it. Just over 100 years ago, Canadians played Cricket in great numbers and that can come back again. Things change, we just have to get used to it. Those people who own Canadian cultural touchstones love to milk cash out of them without thought for the long term value of their assets. They will just have to pay for that, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) We don't do this anymore. There would be a great outcry if we did. Would there be, we have not been in total war for over 60 years. And yet most countries still keep WMD's Nukes, chemical ,bio, and some countries have used them , shit during gulf war 1 Britian threaten Sadam with the use of WMD's if he used his.....it should be noted that they are not controlable....once used they are designed for mass cas, military or civilian....would there be an outcry, sure, enough to stop a second attack with WMD's i'm doubtful. what would happen if Russia decided to Nuk Chechnya....would the world gasp...sure, would it be enough to start another war....I don't think so. What if the US decided to use one...Great out cry sure...anyone taking any action..or doing anything about it aside from what sanctions... Right, so we only hear about Muslim immigration policy on this board, for example. That tells us something. Not just this board, but in the media as well, we discuss what makes the news... ----------- So you're going to increase my taxes by how much so we still have hockey in 100 years ? Sorry, but I'm not into it. Just over 100 years ago, Canadians played Cricket in great numbers and that can come back again. Things change, we just have to get used to it. ----------- You asked me for an option, that is one yes, and while hockey may have been a poor example , is there any thing, value, morals,that are Canadian worth keeping. And that seems to be the another catch phrase we change with the times or get left behind....does that mean we become a nation with the same problems as say the typical middle eastern country....that is one huge ball of worms, why not shria law for those that want it, why not solve our Native Indian problems, settle those land claims,give them self government, i mean we say we are deverified, we acept everyone and yet we are trying so hard to hang on to our old ways....why not totally diversify. why is the glass only half full... Edited February 19, 2013 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardworker786 Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 There has been a bit of discussion lately about Canadian terrorists, particularly around whether we should allow dual-citizenship, stop letting in refugees, and/or be more selective about where Canada's immigrants come from. CSIS released a report about Canadian terrorists and the results shatter a lot of the myths that are floating around the forum. A Study of Radicalisation: The Making of Islamists Extremists in Canada Today. The report tells us that terrorists in Canada mostly commit their acts of terror abroad, are almost always born in Canada, rarely are they immigrants, and never have they been refugees. The report goes on further to say that not only are they not immigrants, but they almost never come from marginalized groups and are typically fully integrated into Canada. In other words, they don't come from those immigrant enclaves that struggle or refuse to integrate into Canada. In fact, CSIS says these terrorists are usually "highly integrated into Canadian society." MI5 also conducted a study in Britain that was released recently and found very similar results. MI5's study went further to say that "religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization," which flies in the face of generally accepted forum commentary. What does this tell us at the end of the day? Well, the experience of immigration, immigrant communities, and religion are almost never the source of terrorism here in Canada. People are not bringing extremist ideas with them here, despite popular belief to the contrary. Furthermore, the most religious are the least radicalized. The findings of CSIS (as well as MI5 and some American intelligence experts) has found that Islamic Extremists, who are religious by definition of course, are typically radicalized politically well before they adopt their extreme religion stance. In other words, there is no direct path from being deeply religious to becoming radicalized, rather it seems the radical become deeply religious. What CSIS and others believe these terrorist activities are really about is political motives, territorial claims about securing the "land of Islam." These terrorist activities and their narratives seem to have more in common, at least according to CSIS, with the IRA and FLQ than with Muslim communities around the world. Man. As a Muslim I know that to be true already. Wish more Canadians could understand this as well as Europeans and Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Actually, it's good that you brought this reply back up because it perfect fits with another discussion on the forum right now that I was having with Argus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 I don't think the report shatters the myth at all, it does strenghten the fact that most.... not all Immigrants have fled their homelands in search of a better life....and do not want to put their new lifes at risk for any cause. But it does not explain that most of the problems is with the second generation, they have not experience what life was like in their in their former homelands, lived the same hardships their parents have, and want to some how connect back to their roots.....and during their search they are being radicalized via social media outlets. and while these indivs are small in number it only takes a few to spoil everything for the others... The fact remains that most of these home grown terrorist are muslim, and they are returning to their homelands to do their part, in the fighting. it is not just a few people but rather hundrds....So there remains a connection, with it's root of the problem being tied back to immigration. I personally think that the problem should be tackled from both ends, on the government side and the muslim community, finding the problems out before they reach the radical side of the house and offer or educate them to becoming less radicalized....working together to wipe out this stigma.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 The fact remains that most of these home grown terrorist are muslim, and they are returning to their homelands to do their part, in the fighting. it is not just a few people but rather hundrds....So there remains a connection, with it's root of the problem being tied back to immigration. I personally think that the problem should be tackled from both ends, on the government side and the muslim community, finding the problems out before they reach the radical side of the house and offer or educate them to becoming less radicalized....working together to wipe out this stigma.. Unless of course those Canadians are causing "terrorism" in Syria, right? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 No, that should include all Canadians. regardless of where they choose to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Not according to Obama. He wanted to air strike in support of those terrorist! Just like Harper helped out those terrorists in Libya. But not sure if there were any Canadians mixed in with those. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.