November 2015: Paris Bataclan attack/hostage taking

[jollyjacktar]

So sad but true.  We don't have the balls.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-only-2-equally-bad-options-for-taking-on-isis-1.3320226

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am aware that Islam is not a race, and that there are Muslims around the world. This actually proves my point about what Tomahawk and George are saying. There are Muslim nations that have female leaders for example. This is not a homogeneous group by any stretch, and yet they are portrayed as such.

Of course increased immigration will change demographics, what's your point? It's a bit precious that Europe who sent immigrants around the world where they were most certainly not welcome (the whole imperial thing), is now in a panic at refugees fleeing a conflict that much of Europe is actively or indirectly involved in. Anyone bombing Syria has a responsibility to deal with the refugees leaving, it's that simple. Anyone who is or has provided weaponry, ditto.

Why are Syrian refugees fleeing Syria?

#1, ISIS: A group one of our closest allies in the region armed and trained with our complicity as a bulwark against our bigger enemy, Iran. We had a hand in the creation of ISIS. We also created conditions in which they would thrive by creating a vacuum in Iraq and Libya.

#2, War: War is destructive. Our bombs are destroying infrastructure to deprive ISIS but it has the same effect on people living in those areas. Our refusal to engage with Assad/Russia/IRan also means ISIS has been able to advance more than it otherwise would have. No one wants their family to live in an active war zone, so they're fleeing to Europe.

We the West have a large hand in the drivers forcing these people out. If we don't do what we can to help those that are merely trying to ensure their families survival, we're not much better than the Russians. Or the Syrian government for that matter.

You are 100% correct. You and I may disagree on how to help and on how much we can, usefully help, but, in the main, we agree.

 

[tomahawk6]

The spotlight is on Belgium as a base for jihadists.

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-guns-god-grievances-belgiums-islamist-airbase-052823562.html

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - "A breeding ground for violence" the mayor of Molenbeek called her borough on Sunday, speaking of unemployment and overcrowding among Arab immigrant families, of youthful despair finding refuge in radical Islam

AND the terror mastermind of the Paris attacks has been named.A Belgian based terrorist.

http://news.yahoo.com/belgian-jihadi-idd-mastermind-paris-attacks-114507010.html

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So you're suggesting that desperate migrants fleeing an active war zone are somehow homogeneously part of a broader Muslim conspiracy? That ISIS represents all Muslims? Racist paranoia.

OMG... this conversation line is why I am beginning to hate social media....

1. RIGHT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents the minority SUNNI populations of Syria and Iraq (and nominally all of the Sunni arab population). It is not "muslims" but a portion of a portion of muslims living in a specific corner of the earth. This is why Iran, for example, is not a supporter of ISIS. Therein, the shia, allawite, christian, and yazzadi (and LGBTQ, educated, moderate islam, etc) are completely warranted to want to get out of the area- they are the as much the targets of ISIS as we are, if not more so. Using widesweeping terminology such as "islam" to describe a sect makes you look uneducated and xenophobic. Attempting to bring in 25,000 new persons to escape a war is really not a big deal (we are a country of 31-33 million after all) and is quite literally the least we can do. If you are so H and H to go bomb things than you should be at least somewhat willing to help a pittance of the people that are affected.

2. LEFT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents a group that has proven that it is perfectly capable of committing attacks against western targets and is more than willing to do so to advance it's goal of the establishment of a sunni muslim caliphate. Their main tactic is terrorism (or 4GW if we want to get into it). They use terrorism as they cannot establish a strong enough military force to fight the west in a contiguous, linear fashion. As a purveyor of terror as a political weapon, aimed to erode our will to assist arab governments that they want to overthrow it is perfectly rational that they may attempt to put a small number of terrorists or ISIS sympathizers in the group heading into Canada. The people placed could be men or women, or perhaps even children who have been brainwashed with a religious philosophy. Perhaps the people coming would want to attack us themselves, or perhaps they would be used to recruit Canadians into ISIS and act as technical SMEs. Who knows? Also, remember that "Syria" is a "fake" country that is a collection of religious sects that have been warring for generations and that only 5 years ago Syria was calling for the destruction of Israel. The point is that there is a real threat and that we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to ensure to the greatest extent possible that we protect our population for threats. Therein, is it not reasonable that there be a compromise and that we vet the people coming into Canada to the best extent we can to minimize potential direct or indirect threats to Canadian citizens? Wouldn't extending the timeline to look at establishing a vetting process, IAW what terrorism and immigration experts are saying, be a reasonable trade off for helping the Syrians and ensuring that we protect our own? Also, calling anyone who has concerns xenophobic or racist retracts from your argument and makes you look pretentious.


As per normal, some political compromise is what is called for. Unfortunately what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.

 

[George Wallace]

OMG... this conversation line is why I am beginning to hate social media....

1. RIGHT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents the minority SUNNI populations of Syria and Iraq (and nominally all of the Sunni arab population). It is not "muslims" but a portion of a portion of muslims living in a specific corner of the earth. This is why Iran, for example, is not a supporter of ISIS. Therein, the shia, allawite, christian, and yazzadi (and LGBTQ, educated, moderate islam, etc) are completely warranted to want to get out of the area- they are the as much the targets of ISIS as we are, if not more so. Using widesweeping terminology such as "islam" to describe a sect makes you look uneducated and xenophobic. Attempting to bring in 25,000 new persons to escape a war is really not a big deal (we are a country of 31-33 million after all) and is quite literally the least we can do. If you are so H and H to go bomb things than you should be at least somewhat willing to help a pittance of the people that are affected.

2. LEFT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents a group that has proven that it is perfectly capable of committing attacks against western targets and is more than willing to do so to advance it's goal of the establishment of a sunni muslim caliphate. Their main tactic is terrorism (or 4GW if we want to get into it). They use terrorism as they cannot establish a strong enough military force to fight the west in a contiguous, linear fashion. As a purveyor of terror as a political weapon, aimed to erode our will to assist arab governments that they want to overthrow it is perfectly rational that they may attempt to put a small number of terrorists or ISIS sympathizers in the group heading into Canada. The people placed could be men or women, or perhaps even children who have been brainwashed with a religious philosophy. Perhaps the people coming would want to attack us themselves, or perhaps they would be used to recruit Canadians into ISIS and act as technical SMEs. Who knows? Also, remember that "Syria" is a "fake" country that is a collection of religious sects that have been warring for generations and that only 5 years ago Syria was calling for the destruction of Israel. The point is that there is a real threat and that we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to ensure to the greatest extent possible that we protect our population for threats. Therein, is it not reasonable that there be a compromise and that we vet the people coming into Canada to the best extent we can to minimize potential direct or indirect threats to Canadian citizens? Wouldn't extending the timeline to look at establishing a vetting process, IAW what terrorism and immigration experts are saying, be a reasonable trade off for helping the Syrians and ensuring that we protect our own? Also, calling anyone who has concerns xenophobic or racist retracts from your argument and makes you look pretentious.


As per normal, some political compromise is what is called for. Unfortunately what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.

:goodpost:

At the same time, although our Government has changed, the people (Public Servants) who are already in the chain to process refugees have not.  The process of vetting refugees started in the past by the Conservative Government should not have halted mid-stream due to the election, but still be processing according to our standards.  That process should not be seriously affected.  The throwing open of our doors to a mass influx of refugees in the next thirty +/- days is sheer madness.  I hope that if the numbers are to be drastically increased or sped up, that will be those who are already in the process and already being vetted who would be accepted.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think you mean "sheer madness", George. Unless you actually want to shear someone or something  :dunno:

 

[George Wallace]

I think you mean "sheer madness", George. Unless you actually want to shear someone or something  :dunno:

Thanks...  :nod: ...Not enough coffee.  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

As per normal, some political compromise is what is called for. Unfortunately what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.

And, of course, Neil nails the real problem.... the West are all wimps in the eyes of the zealots:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-only-2-equally-bad-options-for-taking-on-isis-1.3320226

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm more interested in the government publishing the amount of people that don't pass the security checks, why they didn't and what the government did with them after the fact.

Those numbers would likely be pretty revealing also and I think Canadians have a right to know them.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And, of course, Neil nails the real problem.... the West are all wimps in the eyes of the zealots:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-only-2-equally-bad-options-for-taking-on-isis-1.3320226

Mr Macdonald says: "But disengaging and letting the Middle East sort itself out would involve a hideous price for the populations on the ground."

That may be so, however, if we did completely disengage and the slaughter ensued, my conscience would be clear, especially if the Sauds, Jordan, the Emirates, etc stayed disengaged the way they currently are doing.

This is their backyard, it's up to them to clean it up. Not us.

 

[suffolkowner]

Recce I can agree with both your above points but I just don't see this staying a middle eastern/arab/muslim problem. I too would love to know how one vets a refugee. A person who by definition is likely to have lost any ability to prove their identity. I certainly doubt the quality of the people doing the vetting as well as I have too many experiences with their ilk.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I do wonder, however, if DAESH are a death cult trying to bring about the Apocalypse as some surmise.  Will they keep poking the various Bears that own nukes until one of them finally snaps and goes postal, thus kicking it all off?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Recce I can agree with both your above points but I just don't see this staying a middle eastern/arab/muslim problem. I too would love to know how one vets a refugee. A person who by definition is likely to have lost any ability to prove their identity. I certainly doubt the quality of the people doing the vetting as well as I have too many experiences with their ilk.

Well, I would suggest that we have processes for vetting refugees into Canada now, so we ought to maintain the same standards. i would also be surprised if the vast majority of the people didn't have identification of some sorts on their person. If someone is hiding amongst the refugees that wants to do ill against us than there is a possibility that they will still get in. However, running finger prints through databases, pictures, etc will assist in sorting some of this out I would imagine.

As mentioned earlier- finger printing, taking photo's and doing staff checks on the pers were bringing in will be an inconvenience to the refugees. We could assist them in the meantime by estblishing "forward assembly areas" if you will or something to that effect in Europe under Canadian control and bring them into Canada on a reasonable yet expedited timeline. This would also provide time to establish better networks in Canada for these folks than what we can offer now (and unfortunately time to sell the plan to our own population- there was just a mosque burnt down in Peterborough after all).

 

[Tuan]

OMG... this conversation line is why I am beginning to hate social media....

1. RIGHT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents the minority SUNNI populations of Syria and Iraq (and nominally all of the Sunni arab population). It is not "muslims" but a portion of a portion of muslims living in a specific corner of the earth. This is why Iran, for example, is not a supporter of ISIS. Therein, the shia, allawite, christian, and yazzadi (and LGBTQ, educated, moderate islam, etc) are completely warranted to want to get out of the area- they are the as much the targets of ISIS as we are, if not more so. Using widesweeping terminology such as "islam" to describe a sect makes you look uneducated and xenophobic. Attempting to bring in 25,000 new persons to escape a war is really not a big deal (we are a country of 31-33 million after all) and is quite literally the least we can do. If you are so H and H to go bomb things than you should be at least somewhat willing to help a pittance of the people that are affected.

2. LEFT WING PEOPLE- ISIS represents a group that has proven that it is perfectly capable of committing attacks against western targets and is more than willing to do so to advance it's goal of the establishment of a sunni muslim caliphate. Their main tactic is terrorism (or 4GW if we want to get into it). They use terrorism as they cannot establish a strong enough military force to fight the west in a contiguous, linear fashion. As a purveyor of terror as a political weapon, aimed to erode our will to assist arab governments that they want to overthrow it is perfectly rational that they may attempt to put a small number of terrorists or ISIS sympathizers in the group heading into Canada. The people placed could be men or women, or perhaps even children who have been brainwashed with a religious philosophy. Perhaps the people coming would want to attack us themselves, or perhaps they would be used to recruit Canadians into ISIS and act as technical SMEs. Who knows? Also, remember that "Syria" is a "fake" country that is a collection of religious sects that have been warring for generations and that only 5 years ago Syria was calling for the destruction of Israel. The point is that there is a real threat and that we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to ensure to the greatest extent possible that we protect our population for threats. Therein, is it not reasonable that there be a compromise and that we vet the people coming into Canada to the best extent we can to minimize potential direct or indirect threats to Canadian citizens? Wouldn't extending the timeline to look at establishing a vetting process, IAW what terrorism and immigration experts are saying, be a reasonable trade off for helping the Syrians and ensuring that we protect our own? Also, calling anyone who has concerns xenophobic or racist retracts from your argument and makes you look pretentious.


As per normal, some political compromise is what is called for. Unfortunately what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.

While I agree with your point of view of both political spectrums, I would like to state a fact as I see it. Terrorists/insurgents are like fish in an ocean of people. As such, when you try to separate the ocean of population from the terrorist fish; they are threaten. How? You don’t have to take my word for it since attacks in Paris have already prompted calls for Western countries to reconsider accepting refugees from Iraq and Syria. But Syrian-American political researcher Nader Atassi argues that backlash will only make it easier for ISIS to gain supporters.

Point is our anti-refugee sentiment is exactly what ISIS is hoping for!

X-POST

When ISIS launches attacks like the one we've just seen in Paris, what are they trying to accomplish?

I think what ISIS wants to do is provoke a right-wing backlash against refugees and immigrant communities that come from Islamic countries, because that conflict gives credence to their world view that there is a war between the West and Islam. This Islamophobic backlash that we see happening is exactly what they want. They think that this will on the one hand, drive Europeans towards that right-wing point, and on the other hand, drive those communities towards them.

How would that work? How would a public backlash against refugees and Muslim communities in Europe affect the ability of ISIS to recruit people and gain public support?

ISIS believes they've set up this Islamic utopia, but all these Muslims are fleeing that Islamic utopia -- so that's kind of embarrassing to them. So they think that by provoking this kind of backlash, maybe it will lead people to sympathize with them more. Because then these people that are being welcomed in Europe will think, well, actually maybe we're not being welcomed in Europe. Maybe ISIS' world view is right, that there is this fundamental difference between our world and the West.

It's been getting most of the coverage, but Paris was not the only target of a terrorist attack this past week. Forty-three people were killed in Beirut on Thursday, and ISIS is claiming responsibility for that as well. What do you think ISIS was trying to accomplish with the Beirut attack?

I actually spent a lot of my childhood in Beirut, so this issue is really close to my heart. I think that, basically, ISIS are operating under a similar logic everywhere, but in Beirut the circumstances are a bit different. You have about a million Syrian refugees in Beirut, and things are tense, but there is some kind of coexistence happening. What ISIS wants is to provoke Lebanese civilians...the sectarian warfare in Beirut is also in their interest and furthers their narrative, similar to what happened in Paris.

These attacks are operating under the same kind of logic and they're killing civilians in order to provoke backlash. They're killing civilians in order for communities to start fighting each other... We need to start seeing these as the same. ISIS is operating under the same logic everywhere, and we need solidarity with all of its victims, not some more than others.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/paris-attacks-why-keystone-was-a-powerful-symbol-and-robot-doctors-1.3316988/how-isis-benefits-from-anti-refugee-sentiment-1.3319618

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This would also provide time to establish better networks in Canada for these folks than what we can offer now (and unfortunately time to sell the plan to our own population- there was just a mosque burnt down in Peterborough after all).

I'm not jumping on the Peterborough mosque bandwagon just yet. It's not like it's the first time arson may have happened from property owners for various reasons.

And I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'll wait and see what shakes out first.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

While I agree with your point of view of both political spectrums, I would like to state a fact as I see it. Terrorists/insurgents are like a fish in an ocean of people. As such, when you try to separate the ocean of population from the terrorist fish; they are threaten. How? You don’t have to take my word for it since attacks in Paris have already prompted calls for Western countries to reconsider accepting refugees from Iraq and Syria. But Syrian-American political researcher Nader Atassi argues that backlash will only make it easier for ISIS to gain supporters.

Point is our anti-refugee sentiment is exactly what ISIS is hoping for!

X-POSThttp://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/paris-attacks-why-keystone-was-a-powerful-symbol-and-robot-doctors-1.3316988/how-isis-benefits-from-anti-refugee-sentiment-1.3319618

When was there any statement that we should adopt anti-refugee policies? The point was that the political right wants security and the left wants humanity... there's a middle ground to be had that meets both ends. Saying things short of "bring them all in now!" isn't anti-refugee...

On a side note- I thought one of the new governments principles was compromise and "real change" in parliament through the engagements of all parliamentarians? What I see today is decisions (pull CF-18s out, accept refugees, etc) made outside of parliament without allowance for debate. Where's the "real change"?

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... what social media gives us is zealots from two totally different ends of a political spectrum screaming at each other with megaphones hoping that they can yell the loudest.

#nonuance  >

Seriously, well summed up BG45.

 

[Tuan]

"She suddenly turned around and saw me waiting and said, ‘Oh, my God. I’m sorry. Please don’t blow me up."

Fear and hatred in a grocery store: How not to treat Muslims after the Paris attacks - Globe and Mail

Shenaz Kermalli is a freelance journalist based in Toronto.

My younger sister just experienced her first brush with anti-Muslim backlash in Mississauga. Fatema, like me, was born and raised in Toronto and wears hijab.

“I was at Loblaws in the produce section and patiently waiting for a lady to move her cart so I could get some green pepper,” Fatema wrote about the incident on Facebook.

“She suddenly turned around and saw me waiting and said, ‘Oh, my God. I’m sorry. Please don’t blow me up,’ and then quickly moved away from me. Seriously?! ‪#‎neverthoughtthiscouldhappenincanada.”

My sister was flabbergasted. Later, when checking out, she realized no one was behind her in the checkout line. “I looked at all the other lines.…They each had a long line with five to six people waiting. I was next to pay and no one was behind me, but they were all staring at me.”

This was a minor incident with no real ramifications. Nor is racism something we, all Canadian visible ethnic minorities, haven’t experienced at some point in our lives. But in Mississauga?

The most diverse city in the province – and where a Muslim Arab MP had just been elected?

Are there people out there who really believe the random Muslim woman in hijab standing in front of them at the checkout line at their local grocery store could be hiding a bomb?


Apparently so.

My sister’s Facebook post received a flood of sympathetic responses from non-Muslims and Muslims, some of whom said they had experienced similar encounters. Which makes me wonder – and fear – for the Muslims who live in less diverse areas of Canada. If this kind mentality exists in Mississauga, how much worse will it be for those living in Parry Sound or Winnipeg?

A mosque in Peterborough has already been set alight by suspected arsonists late on Saturday night. No one was injured but about 70 families were inside just half an hour before, celebrating the birth of a couple’s baby.

And then there’s the Toronto couple who put a sign on their lawn asking Muslims if they were sorry for the attacks in Paris.

Here’s a response for them – I am not apologizing for the attacks in Paris. I had nothing to do with them.

But I am utterly disgusted at the terrorists responsible and deeply despair for all the innocent lives lost. Yes, France is launching airstrikes inside Syria that are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians.

Yes, Western foreign policy continues to be a driving factor towards the bloody, chaotic mess the Middle East lies in today.

But the Islamic State needs to hear this loud and clear: No country’s actions are worse than yours. What you choose to carry out is infinitely more reprehensible – because whenever you do something horrific you have the audacity to invoke God’s name first.

The only comfort Muslims in Canada can take is knowing that no one will face God’s wrath more than hypocrites – and that’s a promise coming from the one book and God that ISIS claims to follow.

The fear of all Muslims is unnecessary and cruel – in our grocery stores, in our neighbourhoods.

We are all mourning, we are all angry.  And as long as we are all united, ISIS will never win.

 

[Remius]

Would this be an appropriate response?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/france-seeks-united-u-s-russia-assault-on-islamic-state-militants-1.2659208

I think so, but only if it swift, massive and unrelenting.  But the article poinst out that the US and Russia would have to put aside their differences to make it happen.  Maybe, just maybe there might be enough sympathy amongst allies and alike to see something like this happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, that's a fourth option.

So we have four choices, so far:

    1. Isolation ~ fairly complete isolation which includes removing the human "safety valve" of emigration;

    2. Boots (and tracks) on the ground ~ lots of killing followed by a hasty, complete withdrawal. Let the locals sort themselves out in their own ways;

    3. Boot and tracks on the ground followed by a reimposition of Western (and Chinese?) colonialism until the (necessary, in my opinion) enlightenment happens; or

    4. The worst possible choice: more of President Obama drawing lines in the sand.

I wanted to get back to this one but my computer is in the shop and was working from my phone.. 

Anyway - 

I am with Option 3.  Especially with China on board. (You have swung me on this one ERC).

I am convinced that there is a profitable conversation to be had there between the West (writ large and including the EU and the Anglosphere) and China.  The examples that give me comfort that Confucius and Mammon can co-exist include Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, every Chinatown in the West and every western shopping mall in the East.

BUT if we are going to get back into the colonialism game it has to be under the auspices of something supra-national.  We will need an organization that is widely, not necessarily universally supported, to hoist a flag over the endeavour.  Maybe something like this?

But with Chinese Rules of Engagement.

No fan of the UN I, but if it didn't exist it would have to be created, and it radically needs reform.  The best hope is of separating Russia and China at the Security Council to eliminate the Veto.

Maybe the youngster is the opportunity for a wedge?