Paris might be problem for Trudeau

[Big Guy]

Needs versus wants. Who knows what they need? Why would we be so stupid as to not assume that was what they want?

What they want is no mystery. They have been telling us for years. Their want is that we get the hell out of there and let them solve their own problems. I find no problem with that.

[Big Guy]

And did you ever think that in order to develop and maintain a terrorist network in any country, a support group of "sympathizers" is needed - fund-raisers, recruiters, safe-houses, weapons, documents, etc? How do you screen out sympathizers? The answer is you can't completely - but you'd better be bloody thorough in your efforts to do so.

Canada accepts 250,000 immigrants a year - that is a fact. There are a minimum of 3,000 refugees who land on our shores yearly. Most of them disappear before their backgrounds can be checked and verified.

I think that as I understand it, your position is that this latest effort of allowing 25,000 Syrian immigrants is a mistake because it will allow ISIS recruiters, fund-raisers, safe house, a terrorist weapons procurement system et al to now enter Canada.

If that is your position then I certainly disagree. It does not make logical sense to me.

[August1991]

You'll be delighted to hear that the Kurds and the western coalition just did that near Sinjar.

With air strikes.

No blankets were involved.

True, and you make a good point. We can defeat ISIL.

(I'll leave aside my own opinion of Kurds... )

=====

But I think that it should be clear now that al-Qaeda, ISIL, the "caliphate" are not organised in any sense of a State. This is not a military campaign to defeat an enemy with a flag in a bunker some place.

I suspect that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is similar to 9/11 and to defeat this Islamic threat, we will have to resort to the defeat of the Japanese in 1945.

[Keepitsimple]

Canada accepts 250,000 immigrants a year - that is a fact. There are a minimum of 3,000 refugees who land on our shores yearly. Most of them disappear before their backgrounds can be checked and verified.

I think that as I understand it, your position is that this latest effort of allowing 25,000 Syrian immigrants is a mistake because it will allow ISIS recruiters, fund-raisers, safe house, a terrorist weapons procurement system et al to now enter Canada.

If that is your position then I certainly disagree. It does not make logical sense to me.

Yes- that is my position - if we are not very, very, very careful about who we let in from that cauldron of religious/political/ant-West/anti democratic strife....then yes, we run a very serious risk of enabling a terrorist network on Canadian soil.

Fact - ISIS publicly stated they would embed ISIS zeolots among refugees.

Almost Fact - at least one of the Paris terrorists entered Europe as a refugee.

[Topaz]

First of all. Goodale, said the immigrants are being checkout before and after they get into Canada, especially now that some of the attackers in France were immigrants. Anyone in Canada, that wants to fight against ISIS is free to go, anytime. Will you?

[August1991]

Does anybody really think that a group like this would need to use Syrian refugees as cover to get to Canada?

Normal screening of immigrants, while faulty, takes months. Trudeau Jnr wants to accomplish all this for 25,000 immigrants from a troubled region in 6 weeks.

These Syrian refugees are in no way comparable to Hungarians in 1956, Vietnamese (Chinese) in 1979 or Ugandan (Asians) in 1972. Indeed, when we last accepted such immigrants/refugees, we specifically accepted particular racial groups. Maybe, this time too, we should specifically accept women and Christians.

When Idi Amin expelled Asians from Uganda, we accepted them. If ISIL wants to kill Christians, let's specifically accept these persecuted people as we did in the past.

Edited November 15, 2015 by August1991

[Guest]

What they want is no mystery. They have been telling us for years. Their want is that we get the hell out of there and let them solve their own problems. I find no problem with that.

What they want is a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and to kill you because you don't. But that's just a couple of things. They might also want to infiltrate bona fide refugees to get their way. They can be sneaky bastards, these Jihadists.

Edited November 15, 2015 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

Yes- that is my position - if we are not very, very, very careful about who we let in from that cauldron of religious/political/ant-West/anti democratic strife....then yes, we run a very serious risk of enabling a terrorist network on Canadian soil.

Fact - ISIS publicly stated they would embed ISIS zeolots among refugees.

Almost Fact - at least one of the Paris terrorists entered Europe as a refugee.

And why do you think that ISIS publicly stated that they would embed ISIS zealots among refugees? Was this statement made to make it easier for them to embed ISIS zealots among refugees?

I guess ISIS cares about the rest of the world so that they warn others of what they intend to do so that we can set up new systems to counter act their intentions. Does that make sense to you? It sure does not to me.

I would think that it is an effort to discourage Western nations from organizing to alleviate the refugee problem in Europe.

[-1=e^ipi]

we should specifically accept women

You are deluded if you don't think women can be terrorists, that there aren't a lot of ISIS-supporting women, or that women don't play a larger role in raising and indoctrinating children into the ideology of Wahhabism.

Actually, if anything more women in that 25000 might be a bad thing since that will result in that 25000 having a higher birth rate, which means more terrorists 2 decades from now.

[Big Guy]

What they want is a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and to kill you because you don't. But that's just a couple of things. They might also want to infiltrate bona fide refugess to get their way. They can be sneaky bastards, these Jihadists.

Perhaps you are correct but I cannot read their minds and certainly do not believe those Westerners who tell us what these terrorists want. These are the same folks that got us into Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Syrian ISIS.

What I do know is what they have stated that they want - get out of our country and let us settle our own differences. The same thing that the Taliban had been telling us for years before we finally got the message and let them to it.

That I believe.

[August1991]

What they want is no mystery. They have been telling us for years. Their want is that we get the hell out of there and let them solve their own problems. I find no problem with that.

Big Guy, as you, bin Laden specifically noted the presence of infidel/Christian US troops on the soil of the "Two Holy Cities". Yet, the US military was in Saudi Arabia in 1990 because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuweit.

Bush Snr sent the US soldiers there, to Arabia, to stop this illegal invasion.

=====

IOW, Big Guy, our soldiers "can get the hell out of there" but then it will be something else: cartoons, names of pets, prayer places...

In this 21st century, we live in a world where we go there and they come here. It is simplistic to believe (Ron Paul style) that if "we get the hell out of there", all will be well.

Edited November 15, 2015 by August1991

[ReeferMadness]

What they want is a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and to kill you because you don't. But that's just a couple of things. They might also want to infiltrate bona fide refugees to get their way. They can be sneaky bastards, these Jihadists.

Thanks for supplying a satirical example of the type of mindless nonsense that is used to create fear and justify endless military action against Muslims.

But now tell us - what do you really think?

[August1991]

... These are the same folks that got us into Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Syrian ISIS....

In the case of Vietnam, Big Guy, we won. And for the good of us all.

The Soviet Union is no more - and make no mistake, this happened because ordinary Americans fought in Vietnam.

====

I have no desire to hijack a thread and discuss the merits of the Vietnam War here. [For the record: I happen to think that Vietnam was an important battle in the Cold War and critical in the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union.]

Edited November 15, 2015 by August1991

[Guest]

Thanks for supplying a satirical example of the type of mindless nonsense that is used to create fear and justify endless military action against Muslims.

But now tell us - what do you really think?

Thanks for supplying a satirical example of the type of mindless nonsense that is used instead of an argument when you don't have one.

But now tell us - what do you really think?

[cannuck]

Sorry not to be able to check in on my own thread today, but we have some pretty good weather and I had a pile of tasks outside that are a lot easier at +6 than -6. Life gets in the way of some good politics some time.

I actually did take the time to read all of the way through, but I think I will paraphrase a bit rather than multi-quoting.

To call ISIS part of a "civil war" is IMHO a long way from the truth. In my view, what has been going on is a lot closer to Rwanda than a civil dispute. I am disgusted at how the whole world turned its back on the Tutsis, just as much as I am disturbed on how the whole world (until recently) turned its back on the non-fundamentalist jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Just substitute religious trait for tribal trait and they are about the same thing. It is NOT the citizenry of one country having a bit of a disagreement with their compatriots. I was disgusted with how my country (and so many others) left the Kurdish people hang out to dry after Iraq 1 and once again with the advent of ISIS invasion of their territory (once more, the very definition of NOT a "civil war").

Have the West and some Saudis meddled endlessly in the area and contributed greatly to the situation as it exists? Yes, they have. That, again IMHO, in no way releases any caring nation from the moral imperative to protect innocent victims as much as possible (and that to some extent DOES mean with minimal exposure and risk to Canadian troops). Still, as was pointed out, we have a VOLUNTEER force, and should Canadian forces in ANY capacity participate, it is with the full consent of those who go there. All the arm-chair Generals on this website have to risk is their share of the tax bill. BTW: you will note that our new Minister of National Defense served THREE rotations in Afganistan as a volunteer - so I have no doubt at all that someone sitting at the new cabinet table is 100% aware of a lot more than any of us posting on a political forum what is at stake.

And, YES, my concern about 25,000 refugees by the end of the year is that there is no real way to effectively screen them. There will be a significant effort (since this is extremely public information) by economic opportunists to gain access - as this is a pretty darn good...as in pretty much the BEST place in this world to live. It is also as countless countries are very aware, the soft underbelly of the USA. Russia knew that all through the cold war and you can believe that the Taliban, al Queda and ISO are all extremely aware of the unique opportunity to infiltrate via the totally irresponsible political and diplomatic blunder.

Am I opposed to refugees? Hell NO, I consider taking GENUINE refugees as important as any other thing we might do as responsible citizens of the world. I would (and HAVE) with great pride and satisfaction worked with and hired Vietnamese refugees when they first came to Canada - and have had the privilege and pleasure of gaining some very good friends from that community. BUT: remember that there was very little reason for "implants" in that crisis to be in any way harmful to Canada (not so for the USA), but, hey, I am Canadian. ISO, on the other hand has made it crystal clear that anyone not fully on board with their "jihad" is on their hit list. NONE of my Muslim friends in Canada are in any way remotely supportive of ISO, so I can easily see ISO as a clearly different thing from Islam (and my reasonably good understanding of Islam from working within KSA and several other Muslin countries). Defering to a very close friend and Islamic/Quranic scholar, I also see Wahabbists on the wrong side of Mohammed's teachings.

There there is the NATO thing. Our participation in the underlying treaty is that we will respond to ANY kind of aggression against another signatory - not just a declaration of war or invasion of sovereign territory. WE ARE OBLIGATED to defend France against any kind of aggression, and the ISO attack(S) are just that. More than just embarrassing to withdraw our air support in what constitutes a related coalition that seeks to prevent exactly what happened.

And, you can bet your bottom dollar that if we are not fighting ISO on their turf today, we will ultimately be fighting them on ours tomorrow. THAT is why we have a military defense force, and THAT is why they have been doing exactly what they have been doing in Syria and Iraq. Anyone becoming leader of this country that is not fully aware of that is certainly proving to be a political and diplomatic lightweight.

Edited November 15, 2015 by cannuck

[Big Guy]

...

In this 21st century, we live in a world where we go there and they come here. It is simplistic to believe (Ron Paul style) that if "we get the hell out of there", all will be well.

...

I do not believe that "all will be well". It would be dirty, tragic and with many, many casualties - but there would be an end in sight. A balance of power would be the inevitable result.

There is none in sight at this time.

The West let the Sunni/Shia genie out of the bottle a few years ago but it cannot force it back in again. The locals have to re establish some sense of equilibrium.

[Argus]

To people blaming refugees for attacks in Paris. Do you not realize these are the people the refugees are trying to run away from?

They are bringing the problem with them.

[Argus]

Now you're just being ridiculous, or disingenuous.

It isn't about people.

It's about access to resources ... oil ... and Russia.

War is always about money, not people.

.

Ah, okay, another leftist conspiracy theorist...

Edited November 15, 2015 by Argus

[BC_chick]

Ah, okay, another leftist conspiracy theorist...

Ah, okay, another simplistic righty thinking it's all about Islam.

[Argus]

Ah, okay, another simplistic righty thinking it's all about Islam.

Yeah, simplistic, just because they say it is, and have been saying so for years, there, and in a bunch of other countries, that's no reason to believe them.

Instead, let's read conspiracy websites, treat them like the gospel, and then smirk at anyone who doesn't believe the same crap.

Western governments are all evil and in the pay of oil interests, while the poor, pathetic locals are just mistreated innocents who only yearn for the freedom from the cunning western banking, oil and Jewish interests.

[BC_chick]

Saying there is a proxy war between Russia, China and the west over oil is not a conspiracy theory. Most people acknowledge that.

Edited November 15, 2015 by BC_chick

[jacee]

Jacee, it ended World War II sooner. In the long run, Japan is now a better place and has made the world a better place.

I disagree, and I was referring to Syria.

.

[H10]

The real question is why SYRIAN economic migrants. Why not real refugees in refugee camps like the ones in kenya and sudan and jordan who are being murdered by muslims for being christians?

[jacee]

Yeah, simplistic, just because they say it is, and have been saying so for years, there, and in a bunch of other countries, that's no reason to believe them.

Instead, let's read conspiracy websites, treat them like the gospel, and then smirk at anyone who doesn't believe the same crap.

Western governments are all evil and in the pay of oil interests, while the poor, pathetic locals are just mistreated innocents who only yearn for the freedom from the cunning western banking, oil and Jewish interests.

You really haven't read or thought about anything!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/13/the-age-of-despair-reaping-the-whirlwind-of-western-support-for-extremist-violence/

It was Washington that led and/or supported the quashing of secular political resistance across the Middle East, in order to bring recalcitrant leaders like Nasser to heel and to back corrupt and brutal dictators who would advance the US agenda of political domination and resource exploitation.

.

[August1991]

I disagree, and I was referring to Syria.

.

Jacee, do you disagree that the people in Japan (post Hiroshima) have made the world a better place?

Edited November 15, 2015 by August1991