Syrian Refugee Thread Deleted??

[FICU]

What happened?

Anyway...

Food for thought...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shoo ... -1.3318444

Hopefully a wakeup call to the Liberals.

[Diadem]

How do you know that had anything to do with Syrians? Or even Muslims? Why do you jump straight to that conclusion? French citizens of North African descent have been responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in that country, so Syrians and immigrants may be totally uninvolved. And it may not even be Muslim terrorism; France also has a long history of political terrorists, like communist groups. Assuming that it's Muslims, and Syrians in particular, with no evidence is outright bigotry.

[PositiveRate27]

To keep this aviation related, and if this does turn out to be the workings of ISIS, The liberals are pledging to pull our F18's out of Syria and only participate in "peace keeping" endeavours. Does Canada not have a responsibility to assist it's allies in eliminating what appears to be a legitimate threat?

[FICU]

Did I say the attacks are by Syrians or Muslims? No one has claimed responsibility yet that I know.

My point being that fast tracking a massive amount of refugees from a known anti-west embattled part of the world is foolish. There must be proper vetting with no deadline to get people on our shores. Screw the Liberal promise.

You have to be a fool to not think that AQ and ISIL will do anything to get their fighters on our soil.

[scopiton]

Did I say the attacks are by Syrians or Muslims? No one has claimed responsibility yet that I know.

My point being that fast tracking a massive amount of refugees from a known anti-west embattled part of the world is foolish. There must be proper vetting with no deadline to get people on our shores. Screw the Liberal promise.

You have to be a fool to not think that AQ and ISIL will do anything to get their fighters on our soil.

please shut-up.

[NunavutPA-12]

Our new Minister of National Defence (whose credentials I admire by the way) has said we "need not worry" about ISIS. I wonder if he'll have a change of heart after today.

[FICU]

please shut-up.

Anything constructive to add? You're welcome to put me on your ignore list. It takes less effort than writing that so well thought out reply.

[crazyaviator]

What happened to my post concerning red poppies verses white poppies? too political ?

What folks do not understand is that the syrian crisis is not about syria but rather about the regime change by the likes of america and saudi arabia etc. Its also about economic migrants from areas like africa! A FEW good folks are from Syria and they need to be accomodated indeed !!. Also, If there was still wisdom in Canada, We would accept ONLY economic immigrants who would integrate with like values and BELIEFS. How foolish are those who believe in multicultulturalism and other foolish errors that have been taught in our schools!

[Boreas]

To keep this aviation related, and if this does turn out to be the workings of ISIS, The liberals are pledging to pull our F18's out of Syria and only participate in "peace keeping" endeavours. Does Canada not have a responsibility to assist it's allies in eliminating what appears to be a legitimate threat?

F18s are useless against Muslim Extremism!

Pulling out of the endless war is the most effective way of tackling the actual threat.

[7ECA]

To keep this aviation related, and if this does turn out to be the workings of ISIS, The liberals are pledging to pull our F18's out of Syria and only participate in "peace keeping" endeavours. Does Canada not have a responsibility to assist it's allies in eliminating what appears to be a legitimate threat?

F18s are useless against Muslim Extremism!

Pulling out of the endless war is the most effective way of tackling the actual threat.

Yes, but the military industrial complex doesn't want people knowing that, or even worse believing it.

Diplomacy, before conflict - or at least that used to be the ideal. Or as Churchill so eloquently opened volume VI of his Second World War series; "How the great democracies triumphed, ad so were able to resume the follies which had so nearly cost them their life."

[AuxBatOn]

Diplomacy would work if we were fighting a recognized state. We are not.

[complexintentions]

How do you know that had anything to do with Syrians? Or even Muslims? Why do you jump straight to that conclusion?

Well, could be information like this that gives sensible people pause for thought about the wisdom of rushing to allow thousands of people into a country...

Paris terror attack: Syrian passport found on attacker was used to seek asylum in Greece as one Briton confirmed dead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -live.html

Which of course doesn't mean the terrorist was Syrian (passport could be forged), but surely I don't have to explain how this could pretty easily by duplicated in Canada? Just substitute Toronto for Paris. Canada is involved fighting ISIS, just like France.

People need to wake up. Not all threats are imaginary.

[tbaylx]

To keep this aviation related, and if this does turn out to be the workings of ISIS, The liberals are pledging to pull our F18's out of Syria and only participate in "peace keeping" endeavours. Does Canada not have a responsibility to assist it's allies in eliminating what appears to be a legitimate threat?

F18s are useless against Muslim Extremism!

Pulling out of the endless war is the most effective way of tackling the actual threat.

Yes, but the military industrial complex doesn't want people knowing that, or even worse believing it.

Diplomacy, before conflict - or at least that used to be the ideal. Or as Churchill so eloquently opened volume VI of his Second World War series; "How the great democracies triumphed, ad so were able to resume the follies which had so nearly cost them their life."

How are you going to use diplomacy exactly vs ISIS and radical islam? Churchill was dealing with countries and people you could actually talk with. Burying your head in the sand and hoping that if you don't get involved it will somehow all pass you by is not an effective strategy despite what some people would like to believe. If you are part of the civilized world then you need to be involved in the fight in some capacity.

[timel]

What a tragedy. All my sympathies to the victims and families.

I agree with the wise words said by Prime Minister Couillard this morning:

“One of the worst outcomes that could come out of this crisis is that we would become more closed and entrenched,” Couillard said. “We should have to opposite reaction … we should not turn our backs on refugees.”

Canada has been welcoming refugees for many years now, the 25000 will be vetted in Canada on a controlled territory before they can live with the rest of us.
I am sure it will be done in a professional manner by government officers. What do you people want more?

We are a country of law, let's not fall for fear mongering.

So far foreign military intervention has weakened North African and Middle East 'governments', in the midst of all the conflict and destabilization ISIS expanded and gained more power. ISIS has no borders and there are no borders across Europe. It appears now that intelligence service is unable to scan for such a huge amount of migrants and refugees escaping bombs and war.

What is the exit point in all of this mess?

Red lines = movement of Jihadist
Red states = destroyed government
Yellow states = weakened government
Black circles = occidental military interventions

image.jpg (157.2 KiB) Viewed 6619 times

[FICU]

How do you know that had anything to do with Syrians? Or even Muslims? Why do you jump straight to that conclusion? French citizens of North African descent have been responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in that country, so Syrians and immigrants may be totally uninvolved. And it may not even be Muslim terrorism; France also has a long history of political terrorists, like communist groups. Assuming that it's Muslims, and Syrians in particular, with no evidence is outright bigotry.

"ISIS claims responsibility, warns attacks are 'first of the storm' "

Are you still going to keep your head buried in the sand?

[7ECA]

So please enlighten me - because I am apparently some sort of a moron in your "enlightened" eyes, as to how successful the US policy of "intervention" has been?

The US has decided that it is a world power who can do whatever it wants to, on any other countries sovereign territory. And no need for actual evidence, just the mere mention of WMD's, or repressive regimes will bring the wrath of god against you. Iran, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the list goes on.

I'd say that the more accurate interpretation of the quote I typed out would be, to take care of your own affairs at home, and then aid your allies when they need assistance. I am not advocating an isolationist policy (which mind you the US did take pre-WW1 and post-WW1 - only to realize that war is great so give 'er). Rather I am advocating a policy where we take care of ourselves and our allies when they need support.

Is there any need in this day an age, especially with all of the examples of history and hindsight as our guide, to go marching in and trying to assert some flawed ideal in places across the globe?

And an interesting post from elsewhere, but please do continue the raving fear mongering: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/11/14/paris/

[complexintentions]

Is there any need in this day an age, especially with all of the examples of history and hindsight as our guide, to go marching in and trying to assert some flawed ideal in places across the globe?

Errmm...perhaps you should direct that thought towards ISIS, as they haven't really kept it a secret that their ultimate goal is to reestablish an Islamic caliphate and are certainly quite intent on re-drawing borders.

Or are we only allowed to accuse the West of having conquering ambitions? Do enlighten us.

[Johnny#5]

Iraq and Afghanistan were great successes. I'm sure Syria would be too...

[complexintentions]

So your solution is....? Allow IS to continue on their merry way with beheadings, rape, and the occasional massacre in Paris?

Got it.

I'm not in favour of conventional warfare to attempt to defeat terrorist states. But only a total moron thinks nothing should be done.

[YYZSaabGuy]

I am not advocating an isolationist policy (which mind you the US did take pre-WW1 and post-WW1 - only to realize that war is great so give 'er). Rather I am advocating a policy where we take care of ourselves and our allies when they need support.

I suspect 3,600 casualties and the loss of four capital ships and nearly 200 aircraft at Pearl Harbour did more to bring the U.S. into the war as an active combatant. Less a sudden epiphany that "war is great, so give 'er."

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Iraq and Afghanistan were great successes. I'm sure Syria would be too...

Not to mention Libya.....

[timel]

Iraq and Afghanistan were great successes. I'm sure Syria would be too...

It always looks good on paper.


I agree with 7ECA, the whole foreign intervention against terrorism and the pro-democracy policy is a failure and a joke. There is a serious need for new strategies.

image.jpg (184.97 KiB) Viewed 5795 times

[7ECA]

I am not advocating an isolationist policy (which mind you the US did take pre-WW1 and post-WW1 - only to realize that war is great so give 'er). Rather I am advocating a policy where we take care of ourselves and our allies when they need support.

I suspect 3,600 casualties and the loss of four capital ships and nearly 200 aircraft at Pearl Harbour did more to bring the U.S. into the war as an active combatant. Less a sudden epiphany that "war is great, so give 'er."

I tend to disagree, mainly looking back at the Great War experience. The US entered the war in 1917, apparently due to the sinking of US ships during the German unrestricted warfare campaign in the Atlantic. The US had apparently been neutral up to this time - when in actual fact they were arming the British and French, and profiting handily from doing so.

During the Second World War, the US was again making a great deal of money from arming and supporting the British, first they "allowed" the British to purchase arms and equipment using the British Pound, and then as the value of the Pound began to fall they demanded payment in gold bullion. Eventually the British negotiated the Lend-Lease agreement - of course not before the Americans had profited once again from a war.

Why did the US get involved actively in World War Two, obviously Pearl Harbour being attacked allowed the US to more easily break their so-called neutrality and get in - once again allowing the military industrial complex to have a field day (which continued into the Cold War, and to this day).

But let us also consider the so called tactical victory that the Japanese won at Pearl. The US Pacific Fleet, or more specifically what was based at Pearl around that time was an old and more or less obsolete fleet. Old, tired ships, with less than modern weaponry. The US needed to dock and refit the works before they became a threat to any modern fleet. And as for all the ships damaged and sunk during the attack, only two were destroyed. The first was the USS Arizona, a battleship from the First World War, and the USS Utah which was a decommissioned First World War battleship that was being used as a target ship. Every other ship was re-floated, repaired, and sent back into action - except for the USS Oklahoma, which was re-floated, but decommissioned/scrapped, and then sunk in 1947 while being towed to the breakers.

[crazyaviator]

Can one name a single country in the West in which the significant influx of Muslims has not been accompanied by severe social strain? Can one name any country affected in the same way by Hindu immigration?

Those willing to open their minds will find that, regardless of the excuse-du-jour, the remarkably wide-spread level of narcissism, repression and violence is deeply ingrained in the teachings, double standards and early history of the Islamic religion. While there is not a single verse in the Quran that commands love for those outside Islam, there are nearly 500 that either promote violence or allude to Allah's hatred for unbelievers - in a book that is largely about how to think of and deal harshly with those outside the "true" faith.

Why rely on rosy platitudes and carefully-edited fragments of Quran verses from apologists when Islam speaks so well for itself? Beyond the whitewashing are obvious reasons why so many devotees do horrible things in the name of Allah, while most of the rest never seem to get terribly upset by it - busy as they are throwing tantrums and demanding for themselves what they explicitly deny others.

How much favor are we really doing Muslims by not challenging them to the sort of self-critique necessary for moral progress? How much favor are we doing ourselves by desperately trying to accommodate that which has no intention of accommodating us, or by continuing to sacrifice blood and budgets for those who hate us in return? Is it really in our best interests to assist the expansion within our own borders of a religion that is consistently incapable of building countries in which even Muslims themselves want to live?

Tolerance is a good thing, but not when we allow it to be used cynically against us by those who have no use for it once they obtain power. We need to back away from the altar of political correctness and throw out our preconceptions. We need to embrace critical thinking.

The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace and it is not like other religion. Sometimes the truth isn't comfortable. Sometimes the truth offends. But it is far better that we offend others than lose our own freedom.

Taken from : The Religion of Peace- Islam

A few thousand years ago, it was commanded of the Israelites ( not the "jews" ) to : Not learn the ways of the heathen. not to incorporate their ways or worship their gods.

France now is a breeding ground for Islam and so-called radicals who go away and come back to kill, maim and murder. There is segregation and sharia law there. We know that countries like Sweden and Germany are either completely controlled by their dictators or are uttery brainwashed OR BOTH !!

This is NOT hate speech, it is truth! And im more than happy to house a family from Syria who would walk away from this bastardly religion and into the arms of love and respect for one another.

[tbaylx]

This about sums it up. Posted by a Muslim in Singapore. Left and right religious nutjobs need to be tuned out. Maybe one day humans will move on from worshipping various deities and stop killing people because some god told them that it was the right thing to do in their opinion.


Sulaiman Daud

November 14 at 5:32am · Singapore, Singapore · Edited ·
.

I want to thank well-meaning non-Muslims who, in the wake of these attacks, have emphasised that they have been carried out by a small, twisted minority. A terrorist's goal is to sow hatred and discord, and by not giving in, you are defeating their plans.

But I want to say that as a Muslim, I wish that we weren't so quick to emphasise that this has nothing to do with us. While I personally have never killed anyone and none of my friends and family have ever resorted to violence, radicalism has everything to do with Islam. And the failure to address that out of a well-intentioned commitment to tolerance is making the problem worse.

ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that.

ISIS attackers scream 'Allah hu'akbar' during their attacks.
ISIS recruits cite Qur'anic verses as justification for the rape and enslavement of women.
ISIS soldiers kill archaeologists, gay men and women, and people who refuse to convert to Islam because they are blasphemers.

There are no Christians in ISIS. There are no Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Taoists, Houngans, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus or even Scientologists in ISIS. ISIS is a Muslim organisation and they kill in the name of Islam.

So don't say that ISIS aren't 'true Muslims' or that they are 'not really Muslims'. Like any large organisation, ISIS exists in a spectrum. You have the aimless, restless teenager who never amounted to anything in his life and traveled to Syria because he can't find a job and doesn't know if the Qur'an is to be read from left to right or right to left. But you also have pious professionals, businessmen, and academics who read their Qur'an cover to cover, pray every day, were seduced into radicalism, and truly believe that the Islamic State's goal of conquest is a noble one. The so-called 'Caliph' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.

So if you feel that Muslims are being oppressed or killed in Muslim countries, I expect you to also be just as outraged by ISIS. Because they have killed more Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Jordan than the entire US army. They have done more damage to the name and reputation of Islam than any Western nation. ISIS is Islam's biggest enemy, not the US, not Israel or France or Germany or the Russians.

We have to own the problem. We have to admit that this is a religious problem, and we need to renew our commitment to a secular country which treats all religions equally. I have believed in the importance of secularism all my life, and with every day that passes that belief grows stronger. Religion is no way to govern a nation. Not any religion, and not any nation.

ISIS is not America's problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq's problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can't admit that, you're not really a good Muslim either.