The Left invites terrorists into our home

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

Don't forget that he "hates science" too.  No sense insulting someone if you're not prepared to do it right.

Thanks,

Lol,....hey now ....t I do appreciate the melting point of steel and  certain people's  intelligence levels.

Regards,

Rue dah Jew who's  a Whitey too unless I meet Taxme den i'z Hebrew

 

 

[capricorn]

 

20 hours ago, Rue said:

Yesterday I watched Justin Trudeau complete with eye make up, mascara and new eye lashes, preening before the cameras. How the hell could he possibly understand digging a ditch is nothing to be ashamed of, rebuilding a country is hard work. For phack's sake the man was wearing mascara and actally had someone curl his eyelashes for the photo ops. There is no limit to this popinjay's  tenure. The only thing missing is a kerchief, a beauty mole on his cheek and a white powder wig.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Ok Scooby Doo and pretending you are not white means what exactly?  Lol.  Whitey. Man oh man. Go check out who Rooster was on Baretta the t.v. show or Antonio Fargas on Starky and Hitch. Leave "Whitey"  to them and do yourself a favour, get out of Mama's basement.

Where do you watch all these TV shows that form your world? You are an intellectual coward loaded with silly memes.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Hydraboss said:

Don't forget that he "hates science" too.  No sense insulting someone if you're not prepared to do it right.

Thanks,

That's a given, but not so much that he hates science, he's just no good at it. Or its just usual Rue deception.

Had you seen his rants in his brief appearance then abrupt departure from the 911 threads, you would know this.

While I have the opportunity I'll point out the same for you, Hydraboss. 

Where the hell has Omni disappeared to?

[Charles Anthony]

Guys, 

Stop the banter. 

Do not post if you have nothing to contribute to the topic of discussion. 

[Argus]

So after seven pages I have noticed no one has come up with any justification for the continued importation of middle east Muslims. They aren't needed. They are, as a group, economically unsuccessful, and they bring with them the certainty of cultural disruption, disharmony, religious fanaticism and terrorism. And for all that, what do we get in return that we couldn't get more of by bringing in other types of people? Even bringing in Christians from the Middle east?

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

So after seven pages I have noticed no one has come up with any justification for the continued importation of middle east Muslims. 

Since we don't reject people on religion, your post has a bad assumption.  'Middle East Muslims' isn't a group that means anything, if you leave off which country they're from, what skills they're bringing and so on.  If a group has characteristics you don't want to have then you just base immigration on the desired characteristics.  Grouping in the way you want isn't practical and isn't going to happen for a lot of reasons.  You have to justify the grouping first, and why any other factors are being ignored.  Otherwise, you would be doing things like banning Black Americans based on group statistics.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Since we don't reject people on religion, your post has a bad assumption.  'Middle East Muslims' isn't a group that means anything, if you leave off which country they're from, what skills they're bringing and so on.  If a group has characteristics you don't want to have then you just base immigration on the desired characteristics.  Grouping in the way you want isn't practical and isn't going to happen for a lot of reasons.  You have to justify the grouping first, and why any other factors are being ignored.  Otherwise, you would be doing things like banning Black Americans based on group statistics.

We've been trying for forty years to figure out how to bring in successful immigrants and not bring in unsuccessful immigrants. We still haven't gotten it right or our public housing projects wouldn't be full of them. And no, I'm not denying many are successful, from every region. But the statistics suggest that immigrants from certain regions are much less likely to be less successful than others. Therefore, for economic reasons, it seems logical to avoid those regions.

Second, there is no getting around the fact that the more Muslims you bring in, especially without screening of any kind, the more religious fanatics with anti-social values and beliefs you bring in. It's not a coincidence that the European countries with larger numbers of Muslims have terrorism issues, while the ones with almost no Muslims have no terrorism issues. My reasoning here is the same as above. There is a much higher failure rate from this region. Why are we risking it when we can instead shift to a different group where there's no, or very little risk of bringing in violent religious fanatics with hostile, anti-social values?

There's no getting around the fact that if we had not brought in Muslims willy-nilly without screening we probably wouldn't have farces like the Parliament Hill Canada day security mess, and wouldn't need to block off every public gathering for fear of crazed terrorists. And I would suggest, things are going to get worse, not better. Many of our Muslim immigrants came from a time before Saudi influence had achieved the state it has now in the world. The populations of the Middle East nations we are drawing people from now are far more religiously conservative than they were even twenty five years ago, and they are bringing those extreme beliefs with them to Canada. Nor is this changing in their children. If anything, their children are more religious than the parents. We need to do our best to curb Saudi influence here, and curb those who were subjected to it abroad from coming here.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

We've been trying for forty years to figure out how to bring in successful immigrants and not bring in unsuccessful immigrants. We still haven't gotten it right or our public housing projects wouldn't be full of them. And no, I'm not denying many are successful, from every region. But the statistics suggest that immigrants from certain regions are much less likely to be less successful than others. Therefore, for economic reasons, it seems logical to avoid those regions.

Second, there is no getting around the fact that the more Muslims you bring in, especially without screening of any kind, the more religious fanatics with anti-social values and beliefs you bring in. It's not a coincidence that the European countries with larger numbers of Muslims have terrorism issues, while the ones with almost no Muslims have no terrorism issues. My reasoning here is the same as above. There is a much higher failure rate from this region. Why are we risking it when we can instead shift to a different group where there's no, or very little risk of bringing in violent religious fanatics with hostile, anti-social values?

There's no getting around the fact that if we had not brought in Muslims willy-nilly without screening we probably wouldn't have farces like the Parliament Hill Canada day security mess, and wouldn't need to block off every public gathering for fear of crazed terrorists. And I would suggest, things are going to get worse, not better. Many of our Muslim immigrants came from a time before Saudi influence had achieved the state it has now in the world. The populations of the Middle East nations we are drawing people from now are far more religiously conservative than they were even twenty five years ago, and they are bringing those extreme beliefs with them to Canada. Nor is this changing in their children. If anything, their children are more religious than the parents. We need to do our best to curb Saudi influence here, and curb those who were subjected to it abroad from coming here.

Argus you are scaring me. Where in Canada are these crazed violent terrorists and fanatical religious monsters with their violent anti social values and beliefs?  

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Argus you are scaring me. Where in Canada are these crazed violent terrorists and fanatical religious monsters with their violent anti social values and beliefs?  

 

Some of them are in U.S. jails or prisons, like Amor Ftouhi (stabbed a police officer in Michigan) after crossing the border.

Edited August 26, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[OftenWrong]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Some of them are in U.S. jails or prisons, like Amor Ftouhi (stabbed a police officer in Michigan) after crossing the border.

Some are now millionaires.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Argus you are scaring me. Where in Canada are these crazed violent terrorists and fanatical religious monsters with their violent anti social values and beliefs?  

There are a lot of extremists here. Irshad Manji has spoken about how she was confused as a child in British Columbia and kept trying to pester her teacher in the Islamic school she went about why Jews were evil spawn of pigs and dogs, and why she shouldn't play with non-Muslim kids and a lot of other stuff to the point she was booted out of school. You think Muslim schools aren't teaching that here now? You think the people coming here from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia, simply unzip their cultures, value systems and religious beliefs as they cross the border? They bring them in with them. A person's beliefs are largely governed by how they were raised, after all. And while it's true some will cast that off or ignore it some will not. Most will not break the law, but you'll find some who will obey a higher law, especially if they believe it will reward them with virgins and God's favour.

In a lot of places in Europe the media has sent Arabic speakers into the mosques to hear what the imams are saying in Arabic and other languages. Canada doesn't do that. And in other countries they have asked questions, like "Do you think homosexuality should be illegal?" and "Should blasphemers be killed or imprisoned" but we don't ask rude questions like that here.

The point is, you don't get this when you bring in people who are not religious extremists. So why should we bring in religious extremists? Where is the benefit? I see some danger, but no benefit. Why not simply choose immigrants from safer places?

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Argus

[cannuck]

I believe our best bet would be to add NO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OR BELIEF to EVERY immigrant who can qualify otherwise as having skills and qualifications VERIFIED and enough cash to prove they are not losers.   Everyone else should just stay at home a pray to their God for better luck in the next life.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, cannuck said:

I believe our best bet would be to add NO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OR BELIEF to EVERY immigrant who can qualify otherwise as having skills and qualifications VERIFIED and enough cash to prove they are not losers.   Everyone else should just stay at home a pray to their God for better luck in the next life.

It isn't having religious beliefs which is the danger. It is having religious beliefs which include violent punishments for those who go against them which is the danger. If the Mormons don't like what you do they will ignore you, shun you. Not much danger there. But a religion which clearly states apostates, blasphemers and adulterers as well as homosexuals be executed would be one in which the 'true believers' present a danger to the rest of us.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

We've been trying for forty years to figure out how to bring in successful immigrants and not bring in unsuccessful immigrants. We still haven't gotten it right or our public housing projects wouldn't be full of them. And no, I'm not denying many are successful, from every region. But the statistics suggest that immigrants from certain regions are much less likely to be less successful than others. Therefore, for economic reasons, it seems logical to avoid those regions.

It's not logical.  It's akin to saying 'we know men commit more crime than women so we're not admitting men'.  That means that you are using an aggregate statistic to make a blunt force conclusion when there are other signifiers that would help make a better decision, such as - for example - education, family situation and so on.

 

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Second, there is no getting around the fact that the more Muslims you bring in, especially without screening of any kind, the more religious fanatics with anti-social values and beliefs you bring in. It's not a coincidence that the European countries with larger numbers of Muslims have terrorism issues, while the ones with almost no Muslims have no terrorism issues. My reasoning here is the same as above. There is a much higher failure rate from this region. Why are we risking it when we can instead shift to a different group where there's no, or very little risk of bringing in violent religious fanatics with hostile, anti-social values?

Yes, the more people you bring in from any country that doesn't share Canadian values - not just Muslims - then this is a risk.  But in order for it to be a real risk, the level of ignorance has to exceed some undetermined level.  One thing for sure is that resident Canadians are also ignorant of these unstated values, or even how our government works.   And risk of terrorism is only one kind of risk.  Again, you are talking about aggregate stats here, although in this paragraph you say 'region' which is different than religion, and probably more legal and politically acceptable.  "Different group" you say.  Well, you have decided the grouping, as I said, without doing a full assessment.

Although I have respect for your approach here, as you're at least using numbers and facts to try to justify... let's just say justify whatever you're trying to achieve.  Although that's good, you are starting with an assumption that religion is a signifier of something.  It may well be, but an investigation would have to examine available factors first.

 

16 hours ago, Argus said:

There's no getting around the fact that if we had not brought in Muslims willy-nilly without screening we probably wouldn't have farces like the Parliament Hill Canada day security mess, and wouldn't need to block off every public gathering for fear of crazed terrorists. And I would suggest, things are going to get worse, not better. Many of our Muslim immigrants came from a time before Saudi influence had achieved the state it has now in the world. The populations of the Middle East nations we are drawing people from now are far more religiously conservative than they were even twenty five years ago, and they are bringing those extreme beliefs with them to Canada. Nor is this changing in their children. If anything, their children are more religious than the parents. We need to do our best to curb Saudi influence here, and curb those who were subjected to it abroad from coming here.

Lots in this paragraph.  Bulk response to all the points: 'Willy-nilly' is hyperbole.  Thinking that we can have pre-911 security approaches if we change immigration policy is speculative and probably wrong.  "Things are going to get worse" - how do you define that ?  How about Islamist attack deaths exceed those from lighting strikes or somesuch ?  I don't understand what you mean by Saudi influence changing - is it more or less ?  I don't think I have seen a cite about religious conservatism trends in Islamic homelands.  I have actually posted a stat indicating that Muslims attitudes are changing.  If you are making a fact-based argument then you have to acknowledge it, even if it was a single poll.

 

[Argus]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not logical.  It's akin to saying 'we know men commit more crime than women so we're not admitting men'.  That means that you are using an aggregate statistic to make a blunt force conclusion when there are other signifiers that would help make a better decision, such as - for example - education, family situation and so on.

I put some effort into this reply and then mistakenly clicked cancel instead of post. Extremely irritating! So unfortunately this will be shorter.

Yes, it is akin to saying men commit more crime. Men DO commit more crime! Imagine a city with only women, and what the violent crime rate wold be! But we can't function as a society without men, so that's not an option. THIS is an option.

Quote

Yes, the more people you bring in from any country that doesn't share Canadian values - not just Muslims - then this is a risk.  But in order for it to be a real risk, the level of ignorance has to exceed some undetermined level.  One thing for sure is that resident Canadians are also ignorant of these unstated values, or even how our government works.  

The degree to which there will be issues is a function of the variance between the immigrants' religious, moral and cultural values and their language - and ours. So clearly people from Ireland would have very little difficulty assimilating into our society. People from Mexico would have more difficulty. People from Afghanistan would have enormous difficulties.

Quote

]Lots in this paragraph.  Bulk response to all the points: 'Willy-nilly' is hyperbole.  Thinking that we can have pre-911 security approaches if we change immigration policy is speculative and probably wrong.  "Things are going to get worse" - how do you define that ?  How about Islamist attack deaths exceed those from lighting strikes or somesuch ?

Remember when there were no Muslim terrorist attacks in the West? Remember when there was maybe one every year, or every seven or eight months? What are down to now, about one a week? Two yesterday. It's becoming routine in Europe. What makes you think it won't become routine here? The Muslims who come here are from the same regions as the ones who go to Europe, after all.

Quote

 I don't understand what you mean by Saudi influence changing - is it more or less ?  I don't think I have seen a cite about religious conservatism trends in Islamic homelands.  

For some reason, perhaps the short-sightedness of media, it rarely gets a mention, but the spread of islamism is relatively recent, as in since the 1970s when the Saudis became so rich and began to spread their cult through the Muslim world. They have spent, by some estimates, $100 billion or more on spreading Wahhabi Islam to the Muslim world, giving loans or grants to build mosques, supplying paid imams and teachers for Islamic schools, supplying the educational materials... The result is the growing islamism (political islam) through the Muslim world, and a growing rigidity of beliefs. People seem to forget the hijab and burqua were largely unknown in most Muslim nations as recently as the 1970s. Some say it spread through the region when Arabs went to work for the newly wealthy Saudi Arabia and gulf coast countries, and returned to their homelands. The Muslim Brotherhood also had a hand in spreading political Islam, including the veil as a symbol of ones devotion to Islam and islamism. It's difficult to find much online about this but this is one which is reasonably good. 

Experts say that statistics prove that the use of burqas and niqabs in South Asia has increased exponentially in the past three decades; hence the phenomenon is linked to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the region to a large extent. Be it the 1979 Iranian Revolution or the Afghan War in the 1980s, the foreign influences on the South Asian culture and politics cannot be overlooked, they stress.

"In the 1960s and 70s, many urban-based women in South Asia revolted against religious clothing and started donning western-style dresses. Women in Kabul, for instance, would even wear skirts," Arif Jamal, a US-based expert on Islam, told DW.

"However, the rise of Saudi-Wahhabi Islam in the 1980s revived the use of veil and also introduced the hijab, which only covers head and neck. The hijab became popular among the working women who wanted to appear both religious and modern at the same time," Jamal noted.

This is a longer read but also interesting if you care about the subject of the spread of islamism.

What we can say is that the hijab and the zia islami from the 1970s on were a brand new phenomenon in Egypt. True, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic organizations from the 1930s to the 1950s had used the veil as “an emblem of resistance to colonialism and of affirmation of indigenous values.”

But with the Islamic resurgence in the 1970s “the hijab’s meanings began to break loose from their older, historically bound moorings.” In her own words,

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Argus

[Rue]

15 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Argus you are scaring me. Where in Canada are these crazed violent terrorists and fanatical religious monsters with their violent anti social values and beliefs?  

I am convinced these days they all work at MacDonald's and Tim Horton's. Try order something.

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Rue

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

We've been trying for forty years to figure out how to bring in successful immigrants and not bring in unsuccessful immigrants.

I would say with with confidence, your grandparents, or great-grandparents were immigrants.  That's more than 40 years. More like 80-100.

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I would say with with confidence, your grandparents, or great-grandparents were immigrants.  That's more than 40 years. More like 80-100.

I've already dealt with this many times. For much of the early days our newcomers were all from the British Isles and thus of largely the same cultural background. Later, we began to take immigrants from elsewhere in Europe. Now there were initial language problems, but the cultural backgrounds were not that dissimilar - and the newcomers, for the most part, learned the language quickly.  During this period there was no economic help for them, and if they were losers it cost the existing citizens nothing. It was only really in the 1970s that we began to get immigrants from places with vastly different cultures than ours. And by then, the economic and educational disparities between us and our source countries was suddenly much greater than ever before, too.

Now on top of that growing gulf between both our cultural values and our educational/technological levels we have this growing Islamic extremism and sense of determined political Islam among many of our source countries.

Think back to when we had a lot of Italian immigrants. A lot of the women wore kerchiefs then, but their daughters born in Canada soon cast them off. Now we have a case where the Canadian born daughters of Muslim immigrants, caught up in this new Islamic fervor, are actually wearing hijabs and burquas more than their mothers and grandmothers were before them, defiantly demonstrating their otherhood, their devotion to a very conservative strain of Islam. Those Italian born daughters were determined to be as Canadian as possible. Too many of these Muslim girls seem determined to show they aren't.

By the way, when my grandparents came to Canada from the UK, they didn't have to immigrate. They simply moved here. Canadians were British citizens, too, after all. It wasn't until 1947 that the Citizenship act was passed which declared Canadian as our citizenship, and at that time all British citizens living in Canada became Canadians.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Argus

[Hal 9000]

You know how they say "you cant defeat radical Islam with convention war, you must convince them to accept and join our belief system"?  Has anyone realized that Radical Islam is actually doing that exact same thing to the west - and winning?

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Yes, it is akin to saying men commit more crime. Men DO commit more crime! Imagine a city with only women, and what the violent crime rate wold be! But we can't function as a society without men, so that's not an option. THIS is an option.

Right, but you don't see how ineffective and unfair such a blunt force rule is ?  Given the assumption that the government wants immigrants, it's not a good way to screen.

5 hours ago, Argus said:

The degree to which there will be issues is a function of the variance between the immigrants' religious, moral and cultural values and their language - and ours. So clearly people from Ireland would have very little difficulty assimilating into our society. People from Mexico would have more difficulty. People from Afghanistan would have enormous difficulties.

There may be something to that, yes.  But if you're truly looking for fact based you'd have to test it, and test it against some target range.

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Remember when there were no Muslim terrorist attacks in the West? Remember when there was maybe one every year, or every seven or eight months? What are down to now, about one a week? Two yesterday. It's becoming routine in Europe. What makes you think it won't become routine here? The Muslims who come here are from the same regions as the ones who go to Europe, after all.

I don't know that it won't become routine here but I'm open to a discussion of how to mitigate/assess the risks.

5 hours ago, Argus said:

For some reason, perhaps the short-sightedness of media, it rarely gets a mention, but the spread of islamism is relatively recent, as in since the 1970s when the Saudis became so rich and began to spread their cult through the Muslim world.  

1. So this "Many of our Muslim immigrants came from a time before Saudi influence had achieved the state it has now in the world."   Means many of our Muslims immigrants came before the 1970s ?  Ok on the cite.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right, but you don't see how ineffective and unfair such a blunt force rule is ?  Given the assumption that the government wants immigrants, it's not a good way to screen.

THIS is where those on one side of the political spectrum deviate so strongly from those on the other.  What makes you think we as a country and society have ANY obligation or even reason to be "fair"????   This is OUR country, to define as WE see fit, but sadly the two polar opposite political ideologies have one side that wishes to protect the culture of Canadians and one that wishes to destroy it.

[-TSS-]

Your PM really seems like a globalist puppet without a single idea of his own.

Unfortunately, we in Finland can't boast with ours either. He is a former businessman who came from nowhere into politics and the stupid sheeple voted for him and now he treats the office of PM as an opportunity to skim off as much money as he can before he leaves the country altogether.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, cannuck said:

THIS is where those on one side of the political spectrum deviate so strongly from those on the other.  What makes you think we as a country and society have ANY obligation or even reason to be "fair"????   This is OUR country, to define as WE see fit, but sadly the two polar opposite political ideologies have one side that wishes to protect the culture of Canadians and one that wishes to destroy it.

We don't, but some think that we should be I guess.

If you don't care about fairness, then there's the pragmatic part of it that doesn't work.

[cannuck]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

We don't, but some think that we should be I guess.

If you don't care about fairness, then there's the pragmatic part of it that doesn't work.

The question is to whom do you wish to be fair?   The taxpayers and citizens of THIS country, of someone from a different country who seeks to come here?

and, yes, you wish to destroy the culture of this country as it stands.   Inviting radical Islam, and for example Caribbean drug criminals galore for instance is a perfect example.