Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

[Michael Hardner]

If you allowed 100 people in to your community knowing that 15-20% were pedophiles and rapists, how many child molestations and raped women is acceptable?

Assuming 3 rapes per rapist and 5 molestations per molestor, and an even 10%/10% split, the break even point would be 30 rapes and 50 molestations.

Edited: Note that I answered your question very specifically and carefully and you didn't answer mine.

[Hal 9000]

In Canada we currently have about 3% muslims. Historically, when that number reaches 4% is when you start to see uprisings and protests. I do think, as I mentioned in another thread, that we'll see a terrorist attack within 4 years. But, once we have approx. 250K more muslims in Canada, that's when it's gonna get tricky. That's where the Mr. nice guy act stops and we see protests for Sharia law and complete no-go zones.

[freeloader1969]

It seems that 30% of all men would rape if they thought they could get away with it and between 6 and 15% of men are already rapists. The vast majority of pedophiles are male, though it's really hard to get an exact percentage of how many are pedophiles out of the entire population. Still this is obviously an unacceptable level of risk for women and children in this country. Can we please get rid of *all men* because 30% of them are potential rapists and an unknown number of them are pedophiles?

I hope you're not trying to compare pedophiles to possible terrorists embedded with Syrian refugees. The biggest difference is terrorists kill people, pedophiles, as disgusting as they are, tend not to.

[freeloader1969]

In Canada we currently have about 3% muslims. Historically, when that number reaches 4% is when you start to see uprisings and protests. I do think, as I mentioned in another thread, that we'll see a terrorist attack within 4 years. But, once we have approx. 250K more muslims in Canada, that's when it's gonna get tricky. That's where the Mr. nice guy act stops and we see protests for Sharia law and complete no-go zones.

Unfortunately what you're saying will fall on deaf ears. People can't seem to look beyond our own borders to see what problems Muslim immigration has caused in the European Union.

[Hal 9000]

Assuming 3 rapes per rapist and 5 molestations per molestor, and an even 10%/10% split, the break even point would be 30 rapes and 50 molestations.

Edited: Note that I answered your question very specifically and carefully and you didn't answer mine.

As long as you're good with letting in 100 people and seeing 80 women and children get raped because of it - there's not really much to add.

[dialamah]

I hope you're not trying to compare pedophiles to possible terrorists embedded with Syrian refugees. The biggest difference is terrorists kill people, pedophiles, as disgusting as they are, tend not to.

It is not I who brought up pedophiles as a way to compare the risk of Syrian refugees.

Terrorists are extremely unlikely to be embedded within the terrorists, despite Daesh's desire that we believe so. It simply doesn't make sense on a few different levels.

[On Guard for Thee]

There would be no citizenship application process. The refugees would essentially be "renting" Canada temporarily. If you were successful as a refugee while here, then go back to Syria and apply for immigration back into Canada; after the war is over of course.

I suspect/hope that by the time you got the citizenship act altered to affect specifically Syrians the war would be over anyways.

[Hal 9000]

It is not I who brought up pedophiles as a way to compare the risk of Syrian refugees.

Terrorists are extremely unlikely to be embedded within the terrorists, despite Daesh's desire that we believe so. It simply doesn't make sense on a few different levels.

I assume you meant "refugees".

But, Really - "extremely unlikely" - WoW!

[capricorn]

But, once we have approx. 250K more muslims in Canada, that's when it's gonna get tricky. That's where the Mr. nice guy act stops and we see protests for Sharia law and complete no-go zones.

To add, that's where we'll see more muslims in elected positions and in politics,and more in community leadership roles.

[freeloader1969]

It is not I who brought up pedophiles as a way to compare the risk of Syrian refugees.

Terrorists are extremely unlikely to be embedded within the terrorists, despite Daesh's desire that we believe so. It simply doesn't make sense on a few different levels.

Have you been watching the news lately? You can bet your life that there will be terrorists embedded with the refugees.

[freeloader1969]

To add, that's where we'll see more muslims in elected positions and in politics,and more in community leadership roles.

That's the part that drives me nuts. I don't care if they reach those positions as long as they don't allow religion to guide their decisions and they don't try to change what Canada is fundamentally. Seriously, I don't care if the PM was Muslim. As long as he did what he believes is right for everyone and didn't try to institute any type of Sharia in Canada, then I don't have a problem.

[Hal 9000]

To add, that's where we'll see more muslims in elected positions and in politics,and more in community leadership roles.

Well yeah, They'll have control of certain regions. They'll have large voting blocks in places like Toronto and Montreal. Much like greater Vancouver has Chinese and east Indian ridings led by Chinese and East Indian candidates (not that theres anything wrong with them), but the point is, like you say - Muslims will will have a bigger and more direct role in Canadian politics.

[Hal 9000]

That's the part that drives me nuts. I don't care if they reach those positions as long as they don't allow religion to guide their decisions and they don't try to change what Canada is fundamentally. Seriously, I don't care if the PM was Muslim. As long as he did what he believes is right for everyone and didn't try to institute any type of Sharia in Canada, then I don't have a problem.

Yeah, and what are the chances of that?

[freeloader1969]

Yeah, and what are the chances of that?

Slim to none and none just left the building!

[Hal 9000]

Assuming 3 rapes per rapist and 5 molestations per molestor, and an even 10%/10% split, the break even point would be 30 rapes and 50 molestations.

Edited: Note that I answered your question very specifically and carefully and you didn't answer mine.

Ok, I'll bite!

25,000 refugees

International intel says that 15-20% are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...so 4-5000 possible undesirables. Because you'll argue the % numbers, lets bring it down to 10%...or even 5%. Ok at 5%, lets assume that 60% of that is sympathizers and 40% actual active terrorists, that gives us a net of 2% people willing to actually go out and bomb something.

2% is equal to 500. 500 terrorists that will recruit others and plot terror attacks in Canada. The average terrorist kills about 8-10 people when he/she pulls of an attack - that equals 4000 people. But if you argue this number, fair enough, lets say each terrorist can kill even 2 people, that still equals 1000 people.

Yeah, 1000 is still too high for me. Paris was "merely" 130-140 dead. That's too high for me also.

Your question is basically, what would be an acceptable number of casualties? I'd have to be pretty sick to give a number, but it''s way less than 130.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Hal 9000

[Wilber]

I think as long as we do due diligence when it comes to vetting these people, they will present a minimal threat.

[freeloader1969]

Ok, I'll bite!

25,000 refugees

International intel says that 15-20% are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...so 4-5000 possible undesirables. Because you'll argue the % numbers, lets bring it down to 10%...or even 5%. Ok at 5%, lets assume that 60% of that is sympathizers and 40% actual active terrorists, that gives us a net of 2% people willing to actually go out and bomb something.

2% is equal to 500. 500 terrorists that will recruit others and plot terror attacks in Canada. The average terrorist kills about 8-10 people when he/she pulls of an attack - that equals 4000 people. But if you argue this number, fair enough, lets say each terrorist can kill even 2 people, that still equals 1000 people.

Yeah, 1000 is still too high for me. Paris was "merely" 130-140 dead. That's too high for me also.

Your question is basically, what would be an acceptable number of casualties? I'd have to be pretty sick to give a number, but it''s way less than 130.

I like the number 0. If we don't accept a single refugee, then we can say with a 100% statistical certainty that the number will be 0.

[Hal 9000]

I think as long as we do due diligence when it comes to vetting these people, they will present a minimal threat.

Which we're not doing - and we won't. What we will do is accept the UN's idea of who is acceptable.

[capricorn]

What we will do is accept the UN's idea of who is acceptable.

Beats having to hatch a plan to vet Syrian refugees in accordance with our own criteria. Plus when you're in a big hurry all outside help is welcome.

[dialamah]

I assume you meant "refugees".

But, Really - "extremely unlikely" - WoW!

I do, thanks for correcting me.

Yes, extremely unlikely, because:

1. The refugee pool that we would be drawing from have been in refugee camps for several years. How many terrorists are going to wait *years* to launch an attack when they could just enter Canada on a tourist Visa and achieve their goal much sooner?

2. The priority will be families with children, the demographic least likely to harbour terrorists

3. The refugees determined to be suitable for resettlement are less than 1% of the entire refugee population.

4. Daesh told us they would embed terrorists among the refugees; why would they warn is, other than to discourage us from taking refugees?

5. All the above is true BEFORE Canada begins their own check.

6. Refugee claimants are interviewed by Canadian Visa officers to make sure their stories/history are compatible.

7. Their information is run through CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP databases.

8. They are then eligible to be resettled in Canada

9. About 10,000 refugee claimants were already *approved* for Canada, prior to Trudeau's promise. In essense, he's only adding 15,000 to what was already slated to come.

“The idea that ISIS would use the refugee system to infiltrate Canada is vastly overblown. There is no history of this,” said Wesley Wark, a security expert and professor at the University of Ottawa. “You could never be certain your jihadi would even arrive.”

[Black Dog]

Ok, I'll bite!

25,000 refugees

International intel says that 15-20% are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...so 4-5000 possible undesirables. Because you'll argue the % numbers, lets bring it down to 10%...or even 5%. Ok at 5%, lets assume that 60% of that is sympathizers and 40% actual active terrorists, that gives us a net of 2% people willing to actually go out and bomb something.

2% is equal to 500. 500 terrorists that will recruit others and plot terror attacks in Canada. The average terrorist kills about 8-10 people when he/she pulls of an attack - that equals 4000 people. But if you argue this number, fair enough, lets say each terrorist can kill even 2 people, that still equals 1000 people.

Yeah, 1000 is still too high for me. Paris was "merely" 130-140 dead. That's too high for me also.

Your question is basically, what would be an acceptable number of casualties? I'd have to be pretty sick to give a number, but it''s way less than 130.

You know, everyday that passes brings more and more evidence showing the Paris attacks were plotted and carried out by domestic extremists, which makes all of this hand wringing about potential terrorists in the ranks of refugees look stupider and stupider.

Look, if you, like Argus, simply don't like Muslims and don't believe Canada should add to their numbers here, say so. But lay off the bogus stuff about security because nobody is buying it.

[scribblet]

You know, everyday that passes brings more and more evidence showing the Paris attacks were plotted and carried out by domestic extremists, which makes all of this hand wringing about potential terrorists in the ranks of refugees look stupider and stupider.

Look, if you, like Argus, simply don't like Muslims and don't believe Canada should add to their numbers here, say so. But lay off the bogus stuff about security because nobody is buying it.

Oh yes they are, the majority want better screening rather than a much too short time line.

But 'domestic terrorists' - really - are you saying because some of them were Islamists who were born in Europe there isn't a problem. All the reports about terrorists posting as refugees with fake passports are not a problem?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html

[dialamah]

Unfortunately what you're saying will fall on deaf ears. People can't seem to look beyond our own borders to see what problems Muslim immigration has caused in the European Union.

Check out this site, about half-way down, where the caption reads: "Muslims burn the Canadian Flag"

Now, check out this site, where you'll see the same picture - and the real story.

You need to be careful that what you are 'seeing' is the truth, and not some anti-Islamic propaganda.

Now, I agree that Europe has a serious problem with refugees, but that is mostly because the refugees can walk there and they are indeed being over-run - my heart breaks for both the refugees and the people in the countries who feel this sudden press of desperate people on their doorstep.

But these refugees are not going to walk to Canada. We can very effectively control how many refugees can actually get in.

As for the hysterical claim that Muslims are forcing Sharia law in Europe, you'll need to provide some actual credible cites. I've seen some disturbing news stories, who hasn't, but even a little bit of research beyond these stories has always demonstrated just inaccurate and over-stated they are.

[Black Dog]

Oh yes they are, the majority want better screening rather than a much too short time line.

The majority of Canadians likely have no idea what the refugee process entails, so the opinion of an ignorant public doesn't mean much to me.

But 'domestic terrorists' - really - are you saying because some of them were Islamists who were born in Europe there isn't a problem. All the reports about terrorists posting as refugees with fake passports are not a problem?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html

Did you actually read your link? None of the terrorists whose identities have been confirmed were posing as refugees. They came and went on their own EU passports. As for the report about the Syrian passport:

But there were claims that the document was stolen or a fake, made in Turkey, and French investigators said it may even have been 'planted' at the scene of the bombings at the Stade de France as part of a sophisticated propaganda plan by Isis to infiltrate and exploit the refugee crisis.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Black Dog

[Big Guy]

CSIS and the RCMP are on record as stating that security will not suffer from the timelines.

Somebody know better than these guys?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-csis-support-trudeaus-plan-to-resettle-25000-syrian-refugees/article27342588/

Edited November 19, 2015 by Big Guy