[RABAUKE]

So our shiney new PM is quoted in the MSM today as saying that he hasn't commited to signing the Trans Pacific Pact, in another MSM paper the front page has Obama saying both he and PM sunshine and lollypops will be signing the TPP soon......

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

It's funny how some of these statements and arguments get recycled throughout the media and the internet...almost as if people of a certain ideology all use the same "sources" for their claims.

The reality is that statement is extremely deceptive and is simply using semantics to make its case. While perhaps true, though I'd be interested in seeing how such a grand statement was fact-checked, the reality is that there have been many terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks on US, and even Canadian, soil by people who were children of or were themselves recent emigrants from countries that are plagued by Islamic extremism:

9/11 attacks:
All foreign born (from countries throughout the Middle East); 15 of them being Saudi's.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/sep...rs-fast-facts/

Lackawanna 7 plot in upstate NY:
All 7 were US citizens from Yemeni families, families that had been in the US for no more than a generation or two.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../profiles.html

Fort Dix Terrorist Plot:
All of the plotters were born outside the US (4 were from Albania, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Jordan) and some of them had come in illegally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050800465.html

Chattanooga shooting from earlier this year:
The shooter had been born in Kuwait and was Jordanian citizen (dual American citizen I believe).
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/us/ten...erve-shooting/

Attempted attack on Muhammad cartoon drawing in Texas:
1 perpetrator was of Pakastani descent (his father had been born in Pakistan) and had spent a good part of his childhood living in Pakistan. 2 of the others were Americans who had significant interactions with Islamic extremists, including ISIS.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/moh...test-shooting/

The Shooting at Canada's Parliament Hill:
The shooter, born in Canada, with a father who had emigrated from Libya.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/can...ament-shooting

Were any of these perpetrators refugees? No, at least not according to the legal status that was assigned to them.

Were they, or their families, all from countries that had varying degrees of exposure to radicalized Islam? Yes.

So to say a country, whether it be Canada or the US, should simply let in thousands of refugees from Syria, the country that is arguably the greatest hotbed of Islamic extremism at this time, with minimal screening and planning does spark some doubts in most peoples' minds, and reasonable doubts at that.

You know this whole refugee situation wouldn't occur if we would stop bombing / invading other countries under false pretenses to pursue our own political interest while destabilizing their country. Funny thing is I never heard about ISIS when Sadam was in power (not saying he's the greatest leader).

My statement was not deceptive at all. You simply provided a list of individuals who were radicalized here in the US whom then in turn committed acts of terror.

Would you like me to provide a list of right wing terror attacks? But maybe you don't care about those since they aren't Muslim and don't feed into your agenda.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

You know this whole refugee situation wouldn't occur if we would stop bombing / invading other countries under false pretenses to pursue our own political interest while destabilizing their country. Funny thing is I never heard about ISIS when Sadam was in power (not saying he's the greatest leader).

My statement was not deceptive at all. You simply provided a list of individuals who were radicalized here in the US whom then in turn committed acts of terror.

Would you like me to provide a list of right wing terror attacks? But maybe you don't care about those since they aren't Muslim and don't feed into your agenda.

You do know that refugees are escaping corruption of their own government, superiors, and militants, not because we decided to start randomly bombing them under "false pretenses". Do you even have the slightest clue of what's going on in Syria, or any of the middle East for that matter?

Also, just because you didn't hear about ISIS when Sadam was around, doesn't mean it didn't exist. It's a radical group, they sprout up all the time, it could have been a small group at the time with not enough followers to really do anything worth while. Besides, the Taliban had all that on lock during the time, now it's ISIS time to shine.

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Ask the Native American's how their "refuge" event turned out for them. Do you think we just came here to this empty land and planted a flag? All of our ancestors who came here as "refuges" nearly made Native American's extinct through disease, rapid procreation, and mass murder based on nothing more than the lack of understanding of their culture.


Leave it to a women to stand up and tell the truth.

Oh trust me I know what occurred with the Native Americans. The majority of people here in the states just want to deny that we did nothing but enjoy a fabulous Thanksgiving dinner with them.

We like to leave out the whole we committed genocide against a group of people who we believed GOD gave us the right to take their land and conquer them.

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by Axius

You do know that refugees are escaping corruption of their own government, superiors, and militants, not because we decided to start randomly bombing them under "false pretenses". Do you even have the slightest clue of what's going on in Syria, or any of the middle East for that matter?

Also, just because you didn't hear about ISIS when Sadam was around, doesn't mean it didn't exist. It's a radical group, they sprout up all the time, it could have been a small group at the time with not enough followers to really do anything worth while. Besides, the Taliban had all that on lock during the time, now it's ISIS time to shine.

Absolutely my friend I understand that there are multiple reasons why refugees are leaving their country but the main reason is that they are fleeing the violence that is occurring.

I mentioned bombing under false pretense because our foreign policy has been nothing but to undermine any country that doesn't fit our bill or doesn't see eye to eye with us. I'm sorry not sorry do you have the slightest clue whats going on?Have you even visited the Middle East or spent time in it? Do you want me to list you a couple countries that we undermined? Iraq, Bolivia, Panama...

Radical groups don't sprout out of the ground like a weed lol. You do realize that during the Russian "invasion" of Afghanistan the United States backed rebel fighters whom were all of either Pakistani and or Saudi decent. Those fighters later on became the Taliban. Funny how things work out right?

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Absolutely my friend I understand that there are multiple reasons why refugees are leaving their country but the main reason is that they are fleeing the violence that is occurring.

I mentioned bombing under false pretense because our foreign policy has been nothing but to undermine any country that doesn't fit our bill or doesn't see eye to eye with us. I'm sorry not sorry do you have the slightest clue whats going on?Have you even visited the Middle East or spent time in it? Do you want me to list you a couple countries that we undermined? Iraq, Bolivia, Panama...

Radical groups don't sprout out of the ground like a weed lol. You do realize that during the Russian "invasion" of Afghanistan the United States backed rebel fighters whom were all of either Pakistani and or Saudi decent. Those fighters later on became the Taliban. Funny how things work out right?

I think you're falling into the trap of simplifying what are otherwise very complicated situations and historical events.

There were a lot of external and internal factors which led to the rise of the Taliban in the following the Soviet withdrawal, the US support of Afghan fighters being only one of those factors.

Similarly, the US invasion of Iraq, while it had significant repercussions throughout the Middle East, is not the only reason why we are dealing with instability in that region of the world. The struggle between secular strongmen and religiously-motivated groups has been an ongoing theme in the Middle East for several decades now. The most recent illustration of that struggle, the Arab Spring, was what ignited the current conflict in Syria....the degradation of Iraqi governance following the US withdrawal in 2011...the increased bloodshed inflicted by Assad's regime on the Syrian people....it's mulit-faceted situation that requires a nuanced understanding of that region's history and politics.

To simply say that the US performed action A 11 years ago, resulting in outcome B 3 years ago devolves this whole conversation into a sophomoric blame game. The reality is most western nations have known for quite some time now that Assad's civil war was instigating new levels of extremism and displacing millions of people. We've known this since 2012, but there was a wide scale refusal to address the issue head on...but it took a whole bunch of French people dying for the World as a whole to understand what the exact implications were of letting this conflict go unchecked.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Radical groups don't sprout out of the ground like a weed lol. You do realize that during the Russian "invasion" of Afghanistan the United States backed rebel fighters whom were all of either Pakistani and or Saudi decent. Those fighters later on became the Taliban. Funny how things work out right?

What you described is the Taliban pretty much sprouting out of the ground like a weed. At least as a time frame comparison anyway.

So are you suggesting that the Taliban sprouted because the US backed them? Sure, the US's interest was to bleed out Soviet resources and stop them from acquiring more land, but would it have been better to not be involved? Are you saying the Taliban wouldn't have ever existed if the US didn't get involved or the Taliban wouldn't have existed if the US didn't back them?

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

What you described is the Taliban pretty much sprouting out of the ground like a weed. At least as a time frame comparison anyway.

So are you suggesting that the Taliban sprouted because the US backed them? Sure, the US's interest was to bleed out Soviet resources and stop them from acquiring more land, but would it have been better to not be involved? Are you saying the Taliban wouldn't have ever existed if the US didn't get involved or the Taliban wouldn't have existed if the US didn't back them?

That would be something only time could tell. A civil war was bound to happen with opposition that was against the secular and modernizing tendencies of the King and of the PM that toppled him (look up Afghanistan pre-1970s completely different from what you see today). The opposition was poised to create a right wing Islamic country, so would the Taliban have come into power still? I believe so since they were backed by Saudi Arabia. The majority of these fighters / leaders that opposed the King & PM weren't even Afghan to begin with.

On a side note: I personally find it appalling that we are allies with one of the worst human rights violators in the region (Saudi Arabia). How we can aid a country that regularly carries out beheadings, a country were women rights is non existent, and a country that has religious police beats me.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

That would be something only time could tell. A civil war was bound to happen with opposition that was against the secular and modernizing tendencies of the King and of the PM that toppled him (look up Afghanistan pre-1970s completely different from what you see today). The opposition was poised to create a right wing Islamic country, so would the Taliban have come into power still? I believe so since they were backed by Saudi Arabia. The majority of these fighters / leaders that opposed the King & PM weren't even Afghan to begin with.

On a side note: I personally find it appalling that we are allies with one of the worst human rights violators in the region (Saudi Arabia). How we can aid a country that regularly carries out beheadings, a country were women rights is non existent, and a country that has religious police beats me.

In what other middle eastern countries do those things don't take place?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

That would be something only time could tell. A civil war was bound to happen with opposition that was against the secular and modernizing tendencies of the King and of the PM that toppled him (look up Afghanistan pre-1970s completely different from what you see today). The opposition was poised to create a right wing Islamic country, so would the Taliban have come into power still? I believe so since they were backed by Saudi Arabia. The majority of these fighters / leaders that opposed the King & PM weren't even Afghan to begin with.

On a side note: I personally find it appalling that we are allies with one of the worst human rights violators in the region (Saudi Arabia). How we can aid a country that regularly carries out beheadings, a country were women rights is non existent, and a country that has religious police beats me.

Why are other countries allied with the U.S., which has a death penalty many others find barbaric?

The answer to your question is simple - we want stability in their country because we want their oil and access to their location for military position. It is not much different than others ignoring our death penalty for access to our economy and military protection. Not every decision is a simple yes / no with human rights as the highest priority. The world is far more complicated.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Absolutely my friend I understand that there are multiple reasons why refugees are leaving their country but the main reason is that they are fleeing the violence that is occurring.

I mentioned bombing under false pretense because our foreign policy has been nothing but to undermine any country that doesn't fit our bill or doesn't see eye to eye with us. I'm sorry not sorry do you have the slightest clue whats going on?Have you even visited the Middle East or spent time in it? Do you want me to list you a couple countries that we undermined? Iraq, Bolivia, Panama...

Radical groups don't sprout out of the ground like a weed lol. You do realize that during the Russian "invasion" of Afghanistan the United States backed rebel fighters whom were all of either Pakistani and or Saudi decent. Those fighters later on became the Taliban. Funny how things work out right?

Dude, there is SO much history that you are looking so far past it's not even funny. Everything they are experiencing right now, is due to problems in their own nation, for fucks sake they still behead innocent people over there, this isn't a first world country. People who have nothing, but their "superiors" to lead them, in their own corrupt fashion, is at their taking because they coerce people into their beliefs. Our involvement there in our own government is in part because of oil, but also to help them become a self sustaining nation of their own, but they're constantly battled with backlash from ISIS.

You don't need to spend physical time in the middle east to understand what's going on, so to answer your question, no I have not. You gain nothing of being over there other than seeing genocide first hand.

Dude, what you said is exactly sprouting like a weed. Rebel fighters helping, to rebel fighters turning against. That's how weeds sprout. Think back to Nazi Germany for a second, how many Nazi's were storming around hating Jewish people before Hitler sprouted up and clouded the minds of people who had no source of information otherwise? Oh yeah, that's right, none. Hitler sprouted, and when one weed grows, it tends to spread across your whole lawn.

You sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mr Tonka]

Thread is getting a bit off track, but i don't think any American will ever understand what it's like to live in any of those countries. The American mindset is polar opposite of the way people think in the middle east. We are hyper focused on individual rights in the US. In the middle east, there is no individual right. What 2 or more agree should happen to another is what will happen. When conflict comes around in those countries the citizens flee. When they come in contact with oppressors, they beg for mercy. That is quite a foreign, no, down right alien concept for the average American to wrap their brain around.

When countries breed a populace made up of people with a tendencies to flee conflict and beg for mercy rather than fight back, the struggle for power will always exist between those who crave it. Those who gain the power, for however long or short of a time will never allow individual rights to exist anywhere close to a western level.

It's almost as if there is no hope for them. Though i know one thing is certain. The western world will never be able to fix the issues so that the middle east becomes the stable territory that we all want it to be.

::: Back to refugees entering North America.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Why are other countries allied with the U.S., which has a death penalty many others find barbaric?

The answer to your question is simple - we want stability in their country because we want their oil and access to their location for military position. It is not much different than others ignoring our death penalty for access to our economy and military protection. Not every decision is a simple yes / no with human rights as the highest priority. The world is far more complicated.

While I agree the death penalty is a controversial and somewhat contradictory measure to have in our justice system, I don't think there is much of a comparison between that and what practically amounts to summary executions and political/religious persecution that is rampant in many other countries, including most of the Middle East.

You can argue all day long about how the death penalty is unjust and cruel, and you'd probably find a lot of agreement from many Americans, but there is a due process that all defendants enjoy and have access to. Our system, is by no means perfect, but I'd much rather be tried in an American court system than be subjected to the corrupt, crony, inherently flawed systems that exist in much of the rest of the world.

Heck, even a fairly modern and developed country like Italy is a total shit show when it comes to criminal proceedings...anyone remember that whole back-and-forth with Amanda Knox? I'm not professing any opinion on whether or not she was guilty; but the way the Italian courts handled it was absolutely cringe worthy.

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by Axius

Dude, there is SO much history that you are looking so far past it's not even funny. Everything they are experiencing right now, is due to problems in their own nation, for fucks sake they still behead innocent people over there, this isn't a first world country. People who have nothing, but their "superiors" to lead them, in their own corrupt fashion, is at their taking because they coerce people into their beliefs. Our involvement there in our own government is in part because of oil, but also to help them become a self sustaining nation of their own, but they're constantly battled with backlash from ISIS.

You don't need to spend physical time in the middle east to understand what's going on, so to answer your question, no I have not. You gain nothing of being over there other than seeing genocide first hand.

Dude, what you said is exactly sprouting like a weed. Rebel fighters helping, to rebel fighters turning against. That's how weeds sprout. Think back to Nazi Germany for a second, how many Nazi's were storming around hating Jewish people before Hitler sprouted up and clouded the minds of people who had no source of information otherwise? Oh yeah, that's right, none. Hitler sprouted, and when one weed grows, it tends to spread across your whole lawn.

You sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah you're right I have no idea what I'm talking about when I've spent time in multiple countries in that area. You're right. You on the other hand who's not even crossed into the area know far more than I could imagine. In fact we should structure our foreign policy to your standards since you have so much knowledge.

And you are also right not experiencing whats occurring their first hand or having no understanding of the cultural, religions, and ethnic groups definitely wouldn't help you to understand why things are they way they are.

Please tell me more about how you know so much more than anyone else.

You do realize that anti-semitism has been documented throughout history... It didn't just come to life under the Nazis.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

While I agree the death penalty is a controversial and somewhat contradictory measure to have in our justice system, I don't think there is much of a comparison between that and what practically amounts to summary executions and political/religious persecution that is rampant in many other countries, including most of the Middle East.

You can argue all day long about how the death penalty is unjust and cruel, and you'd probably find a lot of agreement from many Americans, but there is a due process that all defendants enjoy and have access to. Our system, is by no means perfect, but I'd much rather be tried in an American court system than be subjected to the corrupt, crony, inherently flawed systems that exist in much of the rest of the world.

Heck, even a fairly modern and developed country like Italy is a total shit show when it comes to criminal proceedings...anyone remember that whole back-and-forth with Amanda Knox? I'm not professing any opinion on whether or not she was guilty; but the way the Italian courts handled it was absolutely cringe worthy.

I think you may have missed my point or I poorly communicated it... I was not trying to insinuate the death penalty is equal to what others do. I am not trying to advocate an anti-death penalty stance.

Rather, I was simply trying to illustrate that other countries who find the death penalty to be barbaric "look the other way" just like we do when there is a strategic value of doing so. Without trying to say the death penalty is worse than what happens in Saudi Arabia (or vice versa) the point is we all accept the practices of allies when it is in our interest to do so. You can't just base all foreign policy decisions entirely on human rights.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Axius

Our involvement there in our own government is because of oil

Fixed that for ya

[Axius]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Yeah you're right I have no idea what I'm talking about when I've spent time in multiple countries in that area. You're right. You on the other hand who's not even crossed into the area know far more than I could imagine. In fact we should structure our foreign policy to your standards since you have so much knowledge.

And you are also right not experiencing whats occurring their first hand or having no understanding of the cultural, religions, and ethnic groups definitely wouldn't help you to understand why things are they way they are.

Please tell me more about how you know so much more than anyone else.

You do realize that anti-semitism has been documented throughout history... It didn't just come to life under the Nazis.

Absolutely. Structure everything from my standpoint, because I am the all knowing. Being there involves you in the situation, but you don't need to be stuck in the middle of fire to know what's going on. Just because someone doesn't live there, doesn't mean they don't understand their culture, religion, or ethnic groups. I grew up around Muslim culture, and I still relate with many people in that sanction.

I can tell you more, but all you keep doing is giving some kind of sarcastic "You're right", instead of providing some intellectual refute to this little debate. I do realize that, as it's basic knowledge. HOWEVER, it did take a certain person with ambition and an end goal, to turn innocent people into Nazi supporters. This is like a weed. You start with one infecting the rest, even if they don't know any better, much like ISIS inspiring people who don't know any better.

The United States and Canada shouldn't accept refugees. Free country or not, there are already supporters of ISIS in every 50 state and Canada providence alike, what gain do we get by possibly letting more in hiding as refugees? We're all people in the end, but I value the safety of the US and Canada.

[ASBSECU E93]

Mr Tonka
Axius

this is my position on the subject...

[MrRoboto]

Isn't the US planning on brining 250,000 Syrian refugees? Makes Canada's plan of 25k a bit less significant.

The saving grace for JT may be that the refugee program will be extremely expensive. $1.2B over six years with is far more then the Liberal govt earmarked for the plan. I can see us scaling back the number to fit within the budget.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Isn't the US planning on brining 250,000 Syrian refugees? Makes Canada's plan of 25k a bit less significant.

As of June, we've taken less than 1,000.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Isn't the US planning on brining 250,000 Syrian refugees? Makes Canada's plan of 25k a bit less significant.

The saving grace for JT may be that the refugee program will be extremely expensive. $1.2B over six years with is far more then the Liberal govt earmarked for the plan. I can see us scaling back the number to fit within the budget.

I thought it was more like 10K over the next year.

There are people from other countries, some of whom have suffered / are suffering for a variety of reasons, who could not / can't get in very easily or at all. Haiti comes to mind. Aside from all the debates in this thread, there is a fundamental inconsistency in arguing it is "un-American" not to take in the people from Syria, when many others have and will continue to be turned away.

[imserious]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I thought it was more like 10K over the next year.

There are people from other countries, some of whom have suffered / are suffering for a variety of reasons, who could not / can't get in very easily or at all. Haiti comes to mind. Aside from all the debates in this thread, there is a fundamental inconsistency in arguing it is "un-American" not to take in the people from Syria, when many others have and will continue to be turned away.

It is arguably "un-american" to not help or do something about a very real crisis that we arguable had some involvement in influencing.

But why, why, do people think it is so important to make a gesture of helping by transporting a small fraction of people halfway around the world and resettling them in a foreign culture that they won't adapt to well and won't readily accept them? WHY do people think that is the answer? It's not the answer. It's a political sideshow.

If the US really wants to help, they should along with the international community figure out how the help the maximum amount of people in the short term and then deal with the root of the issue. Pressure the Middle East to do something about it. Shame them publicly. Get the media to help. Create a safe zone. Give other Middle Eastern countries incentive to help resolve the situation by burdening them with the outflow of refugees.

Help the most people where they are at right now.