Bonam Posted November 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Why would you hope he backtracks on the Syrians? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Paris like attacks can happen in Canada even if zero new refugees are landed. The 25,000 quota was made during an election campaign, and is always subject to change. IMHO, Canada will not be landing 25,000 Syrian refugees after this...far less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Paris like attacks can happen in Canada even if zero new refugees are landed. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Why would you hope he backtracks on the Syrians? Because it only takes a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Because it only takes a few. Seriously. That's your answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 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. Honestly. This is disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Honestly. This is disgusting. Why? How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Honestly. This is disgusting. 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 As I said, I suspect ISiS. And since ISIS is seen to be responsible for the latest attacks, shouldn't we do more to stop them? We have a responsibility to join the battle to fight terrorism. How's the war on terror been going since 9/11? It's been mostly a disaster as far as I can tell. I don't see any reduction in terrorist attacks in Western countries, and I see them gaining territory for their own sovereign caliphate state in Iraq/Syria, the Taliban insurgency has spread through more of Afghanistan since 2001, they're stronger in Syria/Iraq/Libya/Yemen etc than ever before despite our meddling. Terrorists are fighting the West because of our military presence in the middle-east. It's essentially an international insurgency against us. We will not defeat them, ever. At least not while we have significant military operations in their countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Why? How?Why are you suddenly weighing in? You normally ignore my posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Why? How? 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Clearly I'm being ganged up on. I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Clearly I'm being ganged up on. I get it. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 going back decades Exactly. You have to go back decades. Newsflash: the cold war ended. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Clearly I'm being ganged up on. I get it. It's the Patriarchy! On a more serious note, I don't even disagree with the option of military force against ISIS. My problem is I don't trust the politicians in charge to make good decisions because all of them refuse to identify what ISIS is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 We need to obliterate ISIS. So you want Canada to get itself knee deep into the Iraq War? (Harper first got us into the Iraq War when we started bombing ISIS targets in Iraq last year). If we want to "obliterate ISIS" we'll need boots on the ground big-time and another 10-15 years of war like in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even then we won't destroy them. Let's also not forget, ISIS is in other countries too, like Libya. We need to get the hell out, and let the US and UK deal with the giant mess they caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Exactly. You have to go back decades. Newsflash: the cold war ended. Get over it. No....the Syrians have just as much blood on their hands even after the Cold War ended. Payback is a bitch...get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 So you want Canada to get itself knee deep into the Iraq War? (Harper first got us into the Iraq War when we started bombing ISIS targets in Iraq last year). If we want to "obliterate ISIS" we'll need boots on the ground big-time and another 10-15 years of war like in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even then we won't destroy them. Let's also not forget, ISIS is in other countries too, like Libya. We need to get the hell out, and let the US and UK deal with the giant mess they caused. The problem is we have Canadians travelling abroad. Why is it the the responsibility of the U.S. And the UK to protect us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 No....the Syrians have just as much blood on their hands even after the Cold War ended. Payback is a bitch...get over it. You are as bad as the SJWs. People are individuals, not a collective. The median age in Syria is 24 years. Most of the Syrians alive today were NOT alive during the cold war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Some folks apparently think that ISIS will give Canada a pass if only they stay home and not drop bombs on them. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 You are as bad as the SJWs. People are individuals, not a collective. The median age in Syria is 24 years. Most of the Syrians alive today were NOT alive during the cold war. That's part of the problem....too young to know any better. The bombs don't care.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 The problem is we have Canadians travelling abroad. Why is it the the responsibility of the U.S. And the UK to protect us! What makes you think that having armed forces in the middle east is protecting us? There is no evidence of that. None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 What makes you think that having armed forces in the middle east is protecting us? There is no evidence of that. None. So who evacuated all those Canadians each time a crisis happened ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 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! Yep, you have explained yourself well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 The beauty, RM, is that this is not a decision for me to make, thank goodness. I have an elected government that is supposed to act in my best interest (and yours too) and I trust them, and a dedicated pubic service to make the appropriate decisions. You trust your government to make good foreign policy decisions? Are you mad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.