Videodrome
Senior Member
He gets one thing right.
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
He gets one thing right.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
No, im saying its not one or the other. Doing one thing doesn't automatically relieve us from doing the other. That's such a stupid way of looking at things. And newsflash, our doors are open indefinitely. Canada is always accepting refugee applications.
As for the claim... You suggested it was unsustainable, and then referenced cost as your only reason, ignoring the fact that refugees are sponsored by private groups and citizens, save for time when there is an urgent need to take in a large number of refugees at once, such as this case. You're assuming that these refugees won't be contributing to this country, and that they are only going to cost us money.
ttk77
Senior Member
It's not just 25K. Hopefully it's 25K this year and every year until the refugee crisis is resolved. With Canada and other first world nations participating it will make a huge dent in the problem. Refugee camps, no matter how much humanitarian aid they receive, are breeding grounds for violence, crime and civil unrest. We need to get people out of there and settled as soon as responsibly possible.
BurlOak
Senior Member
So let's look at the options.
Either we take in 25k and they are good honest people. This ensure the concentration of radicals in Syria increases and we contribute to the rape, oppression and death of the remaining population.
Or
We take in the odd radical and put Canadians at great risk of harm. Since we will do some type of screening, we can assume we will take a larger percentage of good people than the general population of Syria - meaning we are still increasing the percentage of radicals in Syria and contributing the the rape, impression and death of the remaining population.
Either we take in 25k and they are good honest people. This ensure the concentration of radicals in Syria increases and we contribute to the rape, oppression and death of the remaining population.
Or
We take in the odd radical and put Canadians at great risk of harm. Since we will do some type of screening, we can assume we will take a larger percentage of good people than the general population of Syria - meaning we are still increasing the percentage of radicals in Syria and contributing the the rape, impression and death of the remaining population.
Videodrome
Senior Member
I hope that the CPC supporters are happy!
A mosque in Peterborough was also set on fire. Harper supporters?
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
The bottom line is the bible commands you to kill non-believers, just like the Koran. You've failed to take into account the part of the Koran that says this, and the context. And yet you still think it's okey to spew your anti-Islam bigotry, simply because you don't understand the Koran.
Does it matter which part of bible it's from? It's all a bunch of malarkey.
Read up the thread. You made bigoted and hypocritical claims that "Muslims are actually commanded to kill those with dissimilar views." and yet the bible says the same thing.
You outed yourself as a bigot. Pointing out your bigotry and hypocrisy isn't bullying.
You also blatantly lied, claiming that "It isn't Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists that are slaughtering people that don't view the world through a similar lens." despite hundreds of years of these groups doing exactly that. There's hardly a shortage of recent examples - even in Canada (and at the same time, I can't think of an example of a hate crime committed by a Muslim in Canada, that killed more than one person).
It's this kind of horrific and evil bigotry that leads to physical attacks by Canadians on Muslims (and Hindus apparently).
Here are three examples in today's news, just from this area:
1) http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/11/15/peterborough-mosque-fire-under-investigation
2) http://www.citynews.ca/2015/11/16/m...tside-of-her-childrens-school-near-don-mills/
3) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...u-temple-windows-smashed-by-vandals-1.3320866
The evil shit who think it's okay to attack Muslims (and Hindus - I'm guessing they are too ignorant to know the different) should be stripped of the citizenship and deported.
We should also expose and treat harshly the bigots within our midst.
nfitz
Superstar
Another factor is that France (like the UK) is still a very racist society. Middle-eastern Muslims are likely to be treated differently there, and not have the same opportunities as whites are.
This leads to the disenchantment. Fortunately - as racist as Canada still is - it's nowhere near as bad as in Europe, where even France and the UK have active mainstream neo-nazi party's campaigning openly. We have more opportunities, and less disenchantment.
This should insulate us from much of the terrorism that we see in Europe - which remember is primarily being done and orchestrated internally. The racists out there would have you believe that this is being organized by those that have slipped in from the Middle East, but the truth is that these are French and Beligan citizens (many born there) that are behind this - and the same was true of the UK bombings.
How does Trudeau protect us from this? Perhaps we should send our CF-18s to bomb Brussels and Leeds.
picard102
Senior Member
Every forum needs someone randomly calling people racists.
Skeezix
Senior Member
The ship on that (addressing the issues causing the crisis) has sailed. Syria is devastated, divided and dangerous, and that is unlikely to change soon enough to meaningfully help the people who are fleeing now. Like I said, 25000 refugees is the least we can do. Accepting refugees and humanitarian aid are not mutually exclusive. The massive scope of the problem does not mean that we should do less. When it comes to refugees, Canada's history is one of both shame (St. Louis) and honour (Vietnamese boat people). That's our choice here - shame or honour.
Last edited:
Skeezix
Senior Member
Canada has benefited tremendously from the refugees it has taken in.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Taking in 25000 refugees will not solve the problem. But we will literally be saving the lives of 25000 people and giving them hope for the future. Nobody said Canada "should open its doors indefinitely" (whatever that means). You're just making stuff up here -- somehow you have crafted this false dichotomy that we can only meaningfully help if we let in millions. Or that if we accept refugees, we somehow can't offer humanitarian aid or help oppose IS. That's just false.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Yes, because there are only 25000 "good honest people" in Syria. What a load of nonsense. We shouldn't take in people who are being terrorized and whose homes have been destroyed and whose country has been devastated, and we should force them all back into Syria, where many (most) will be killed, because of ... demographics.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It was faulty logic anyways - as if you require an increase in the concentration of radicals (as much difference as taking 25K would make) for them to kill. I mean, let's boil it down - let's not take in any refugees because the supposed end result is more innocents in Syria will get killed. Any bets as to how many of those 25K would have died if they had stayed in Syria?
As to the crowd that complains about withdrawing the jets - beyond optics, let us pretend that you can somehow defeat terrorism through airpower and not boots on the ground (and as Afghanistan taught us so well, even then...) I don't see anyone advocating full mobilization like the Second World War.
AoD
As to the crowd that complains about withdrawing the jets - beyond optics, let us pretend that you can somehow defeat terrorism through airpower and not boots on the ground (and as Afghanistan taught us so well, even then...) I don't see anyone advocating full mobilization like the Second World War.
AoD
Skeezix
Senior Member
Islam is no more an extremist ideology than Christianity, or many other religions. There are bloody passages in the Koran, but also in the Bible (if not moreso). The extremism is not the religions themselves, but the deranged who use religion as the pretext and justification for violence. Christianity has a violent history itself, and it wasn't that long ago that Christians themselves were involved in sectarian violence against themselves and others.
Tewder
Senior Member
That's not how it works. Our government decides on responsible quotas and addresses refugee claims accordingly, including the proper vetting of applicants. This is hardly an 'open door'.
This is the second time you've insisted on this false allegation. You still haven't shown where I said this. Let's keep the discussion civil and stop the trolling. Being concerned about a mass influx of 25K refugees by the end of the year is not the same thing as claiming that refugees will never integrate or contribute long term to society. Heck, I'm not even really against accepting these refugees. My greater concern is the bigger picture overseas and what we are not doing about it.
These people have a humanitarian right to live in peace in their homeland. Your suggestion that we turn our back on them is beyond heartless. We have an obligation to help them with finances, with aid, and with a solution to ISIS. Integrating 6million people (and growing), en masse, into Europe and North America is not a sustainable option. No rational individual would dispute this.
... and I'm not suggesting we shouldn't accept any refugees, merely that this '25K by Christmas' election promise is more political and symbolic than truly helpful to the wider situation.
Do you understand the hypocrisy in slamming people for painting all Muslims with the same brush, then turning around and doing the exact same thing with respect to 'CPC supporters'? Do you understand how incredibly offensive your comment is?? I understand that there is a political element here, but there is a far more responsible way to express it than this. These individuals acting in this way are lone-wolf crackpots and do not represent the opinion of the majority of Canadians, conservative or otherwise.
It's rather alarming that you feel there is no hope for this region, that you would advocate that the world abandon it. I do sincerely have to question the motivations of such a viewpoint...
There is honour in Canada's traditional role of stepping up where there is conflict in the world. The story of the St. Louis is a tragedy, no question, but Canada did step up for the larger cause, that of fighting and defeating Nazi Germany in World War II, and at enormous cost and sacrifice as we just honoured on Remembrance Day. As an analogue, I am not suggesting we turn our back on a 'shipload' of refugees - whether a politically motivated and arbitrary target of 25K by year-end makes any real sense or not, ok fine - but you and Tuscanio are suggesting that Canada does not engage in the greater conflict. You would save the ship yet abandon the millions of others when saving the ship is actually the easy way out.