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

[WestCoastRunner]

It is Islamophobic to suggest not rushing the screening process over security concerns, but it isn't when you exclude a portion of the refugees for simply being unattached males, the vast majority of whom are obviously not terrorists, it's the very definition of profiling. But when it's being done by liberals it's suddenly not a problem.

You can thank the fear mongers for excluding single men.

[Michael Hardner]

But when it's being done by liberals it's suddenly not a problem.

Do you think it's a problem ? I do. They took a political response that tacitly confirms unfounded fears, while assuring that the Liberal political shield will protect them from criticisms from progressives.

I think it's cynical and cowardly.

[Guest]

You can thank the fear mongers for excluding single men.

It doesn't matter anyway. The potential for an attack in any city in the world is probably not noticably changed by any measure such as this.

[WestCoastRunner]

Do you think it's a problem ? I do. They took a political response that tacitly confirms unfounded fears, while assuring that the Liberal political shield will protect them from criticisms from progressives.

I think it's cynical and cowardly.

I agree.

[WestCoastRunner]

It doesn't matter anyway. The potential for an attack in any city in the world is probably not noticably changed by any measure such as this.

It doesn't matter? Why not?

[Guest]

It doesn't matter? Why not?

I mean it isn't going to make a difference. Let's face it, if ISIS really wanted to put operatives into Canada amongst the next batch of refugees they now know what to do. Put them in a family. That can't be too hard. Personally, I don't think they care too much. I think they probably have enough operatives dotted around the world's major population centres to use up all the suicide belts and AK47 ammo they have.

[WestCoastRunner]

I mean it isn't going to make a difference. Let's face it, if ISIS really wanted to put operatives into Canada amongst the next batch of refugees they now know what to do. Put them in a family. That can't be too hard. Personally, I don't think they care too much. I think they probably have enough operatives dotted around the world's major population centres to use up all the suicide belts and AK47 ammo they have.

Ok I agree with you there. I misunderstood your response.

[capricorn]

You can thank the fear mongers for excluding single men.

Or, it's an admission by the Liberals that they are unable to screen that group on time to meet their timeline. Of course, I doubt they would admit it.

[scribblet]

Or, it's an admission by the Liberals that they are unable to screen that group on time to meet their timeline. Of course, I doubt they would admit it.

You beat me to it... of course they can't admit that the promise that all have been vetted and screened isn't quite so. Did you see the piece from the CBC Thursday showing the Minister with a group of refugees? All males, including two kids.

[Smallc]

You beat me to it... of course they can't admit that the promise that all have been vetted and screened isn't quite so. D

Based on what? Certainly not on the word of a ) CSIS, b ) the RCMP, or c ) the former head of the Canadian refugee program.

[WestCoastRunner]

Ahhh no, members living in the shacks receive their mail to said shacks, and pay a monthly sum for said accommodations.......plenty of junior members, often on their own for the first time, live on base......

You can spin it how you want, but doesn't change the fact that members of the Canadian Forces will be vacated from their current residences for Syrian refugees, so Trudeau can keep an election promise.........weeks before the Holidays.

I like the spin you applied.

[eyeball]

It is Islamophobic to suggest not rushing the screening process over security concerns, but it isn't when you exclude a portion of the refugees for simply being unattached males, the vast majority of whom are obviously not terrorists, it's the very definition of profiling. But when it's being done by liberals it's suddenly not a problem.

Profiling men seemed to be a bigger problem when discussing niqabs. Then it was all on the women to bear the misogynistic sins of the men. Why was that a problem for conservatives?

[Guest]

Profiling men seemed to be a bigger problem when discussing niqabs. Then it was all on the women to bear the misogynistic sins of the men. Why was that a problem for conservatives?

This seems to me to be an odd argument. If your contention is that both issues reflect upon Islamic males, then surely not allowing refugees into the country is far, far worse than (maybe) not allowing them to influence a female member of their family to wear a veil at a citizenship ceremony.

Edit> Add to that, the male family members allowed in might be just as guilty of the latter. Probably more likely as they have family members to influence.

Edited November 23, 2015 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

My contention is that these issues reflect on conservatives.

They don't like niqabs because they're Muslim, the same reason they don't like refugees.

[Derek 2.0]

I like the spin you applied.

What spin?

-------

The Star/Canadian Press is reporting that Trudeau's Syrian refugee plan will cost five times more than expected, and he won't be able to bring in his promised 25000 refugees by the end of the year.....

The plan is likely now to see all screening conducted overseas, which will set back efforts to reach the Dec. 31 milestone.

If this is true, does this mean the Trudeau Government, in going back on their election promise, is sorta Islamaphobica? I ask since they are precluding single men, well increasing screening overseas and delaying bringing Syrians to Canada...........

What's the problem? I thought all this refugees were screened by the UN?

[Guest]

My contention is that these issues reflect on conservatives.

They don't like niqabs because they're Muslim, the same reason they don't like refugees.

No, I don't think that's true at all.

Edited November 24, 2015 by bcsapper

[ReeferMadness]

Except for the leader of the attacks.....

You guys really don't have very much interest in facts, do you? They get in the way of your opinions.

Salah Abdeslam was born on September 15, 1989 in Brussels. Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud were friends when children, when both were living in Saint-Jean Molenbeek

[eyeball]

No, I don't that's true at all.

I'm not surprised, nobody likes having their hard wired illusions challenged.

[Argus]

Argus you sound like one of those people who could justify anything that "your side" does to "their side". Are you even aware of the slightest thing that happened to the Palestinians that might have made them a bit angry?

Sure! I don't blame them for being angry. I'd be angry too in their place. Their anger is misdirected, though. It should be aimed at Arab governments which encouraged them to go on fighting but refuse to shelter them, and make pious declarations while refusing to fund them.

And I don't have a dog in this race. If I've settled on the Israelis as the victims (overall) it's because I've watched what's happened over the over the past forty odd years and made that assessment based on the actions of the two parties.

Something that they might have retaliated for? Or do the Israelis have the sacred right to retaliation by definition?

I've noticed over the years that when the Israelis retaliate they tend to aim for terrorist leaders and bomb builders. The Palestinians just kill any Jew they can find old, young, man, woman, it doesn't matter. A pile of Palestinians are 'retaliating' these days, by stabbing people at random, including children. I find that behaviour indicative of a warped cultural value set.

All I ever did here is draw attention to the fact that the Israelis aren't as pure as the driven snow, which is by far the popular opinion among canadians.

Stalinisque Israelis? No, that's not all you ever did. You condemned them in totality without a shred of context.

I never said that everything was a-ok in every other country in the middle east, that's a straw man argument.

When someone claims to be angry at the Israelis due to human rights concerns it is natural for me to ask why they aren't more angry at their neighbours for their worse human rights violations. No one ever has a good answer for that.

[Argus]

That is not, first, the same situation. Second, it isn't a known fact at this point.

They are looking for another one in Belgium who slipped in with the 'refugees'.

[Guest]

I'm not surprised, nobody likes having their hard wired illusions challenged.

It shows.

[Argus]

Because he's trying to save his political bacon?

And if something happens here Trudeau will be desperately trying to do the same.

[Smallc]

And if something happens here Trudeau will be desperately trying to do the same.

Of course he will. It's unlikely that anything will though.

[Argus]

Not really. I think your way of thinking is the problem.

We have over 1 million Muslims in Canada and we seem to be doing pretty good with them here. I have Muslim co-workers who are smart, successful and great contributors to our society.

And we have Muslim rapists and murderers and drug dealers, as well. Much of the violent crime in Ottawa seems to be done by guys named Mohamed, though the authorities will not give us crime stats on race or religion.

[Argus]

Are there not dual citizens, born in France?

further, if we're using motivation as a reason for stripping citizenship, how far do we go with this? Where is the line next drawn? What about a home grown terrorist, as many of these were? Are they somehow more worth of French citizenship?

I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. I am against useless laws.

Citizenship should not be a right, but an honor and a privilege, one you can lose by betraying your country and what it stands for. That's particularly so of newcomers. And I'm fine with stripping anyone of his citizenship, even if his ancestry goes back twenty generations here, if their crime is against the state and people of the state.