Canada's new Prime Minister's stance on Terrorism given the attacks in Paris

[asta]

Experts are adamant that the more they stay in these camps, the more they are prone to radicalization. Just one of the many sources on the subject.:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us
"Refugee camps are fertile ground for breeding extremism. The generally squalid conditions in the camps provide terrorists organizations with convincing propaganda for recruiting. The camps also are easy places to hide within, allowing terrorist recruits ample space to carry out their efforts with very little oversight. Therefore if our response to the refugee crisis is to encourage massive refugee camps, we may unwittingly be fostering training camps for the next generation of terrorists."

"The screening process for refugee admissions is already rigorous. A group of former security and diplomatic officials recently wrote an open letter to the Obama administration arguing that the U.S. could accept as many as 100,000 refugees. A Department of Homeland Security official stated that there is no evidence that refugees accepted into the U.S. are more likely to commit terrorism than anyone else in the country. In fact, there have been no recorded terrorist attacks committed by refugees. The U.S. has admitted 1.5 million refugees from the Middle East since September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11 have been committed either by American natives or non-refugee immigrants."

I would suggest to people fearful of the refugees a little research on the subject, see what experts around the world are saying about the intake of refugees. It's seems overwhelmingly clear that turning our backs to them will do more harm.

Here is another nice read on the subject, this is from HuffPost, but the same line of thought is found in many many news outlet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...ris_b_8577480.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

But the conditions in the ready made and vacant Saudi Arabian tent cities are much better than squalid. The tents are air conditioned with kitchens and bathrooms. These conditions are much better than the makeshift camps in Europe. Why not house them there until permanent sponsorship can be arranged?

It is silly and irresponsible to deny that the refugees could not have terrorists in their midst. What has happened in the past is no assurance it will not happen now especially since ISIS has told us this is what they will do. It looks like they may have done this in Paris.

Even a small amount of research shows a repeated theme that refugees entering an area without assimilation is breeding ground for terrorists. Just bringing them here without knowing who they specifically are and what plans they have to fit in with our way of life is not the answer.

 

[mnrose]

But the conditions in the ready made and vacant Saudi Arabian tent cities are much better than squalid. The tents are air conditioned with kitchens and bathrooms. These conditions are much better than the makeshift camps in Europe. Why not house them there until permanent sponsorship can be arranged?

It is silly and irresponsible to deny that the refugees could not have terrorists in their midst. What has happened in the past is no assurance it will not happen now especially since ISIS has told us this is what they will do. It looks like they may have done this in Paris.

Even a small amount of research shows a repeated theme that refugees entering an area without assimilation is breeding ground for terrorists. Just bringing them here without knowing who they specifically are and what plans they have to fit in with our way of life is not the answer.

No one is bringing people without vetting them to the US. The process for refugee asylum in this country is rigorous and takes a LONG time, which is why (to my knowledge) we've resettled only a handful of Syrian refugees. Yes, we need to continue that. Yes, it needs to be as rigorous as it has always been. BTW, we've accepted more than a 1.5 million Middle Eastern refugees in our country since 2001. How many of them have committed terrorist attacks? That's right. ZERO. A big whopping ZERO. Why this doesn't satisfy people that our process is rigorous and works is beyond me. No, instead let us be driven by hypothesis and fears. Facts be damned. What's "silly and irresponsible" is the knee jerk reaction we've seen from 27 governors.

 

[nanienamou]

It is silly and irresponsible to deny that the refugees could not have terrorists in their midst. What has happened in the past is no assurance it will not happen now especially since ISIS has told us this is what they will do. It looks like they may have done this in Paris.

No, it looks like they planted a fake Syrian passport to instill fear in people. That is what the French police is saying.

"Four of the five attackers so far identified were French citizens.
An international manhunt is underway for 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, who was born and raised in Belgium. Police believe he took part in the attacks with his two brothers -- one of whom is dead, and the other was arrested.
French police are hunting for a second fugitive they say is directly involved in the deadly Paris attacks.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was raised in Brussels, is believed to be the mastermind of the assault."
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/police-b...2662167?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I'm thinking it's time you start presenting your credible sources backing up your claims: I'm understanding that you believe that we should wait until there is no homelessness/needy people in America to help refugees, that people living around terrorists *most surely* know that their neighbors are up to no good and that we should all ship the refugees to Saudi Arabia since in your opinion, they have all the resources necessary to take care of them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I just get the feeling that these arguments seem to be based on the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

 

[asta]

No one is bringing people without vetting them to the US. The process for refugee asylum in this country is rigorous and takes a LONG time, which is why (to my knowledge) we've resettled only a handful of Syrian refugees. Yes, we need to continue that. Yes, it needs to be as rigorous as it has always been. BTW, we've accepted more than a 1.5 million Middle Eastern refugees in our country since 2001. How many of them have committed terrorist attacks? That's right. ZERO. A big whopping ZERO. Why this doesn't satisfy people that our process is rigorous and works is beyond me. No, instead let us be driven by hypothesis and fears. Facts be damned. What's "silly and irresponsible" is the knee jerk reaction we've seen from 27 governors.

Several times I have seen you or others post about ZERO terrorists among refugees. This article fron abc.com indicates that is just not true.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Just saying zero in all caps does not make it true.

 

[Skywalker]

People are letting fear get the better of them.

My opinion is not based on fear, it is based on logic and common sense. From my point of view, you are the one who is letting "emotions" get the better of you.

 

[asta]

No, it looks like they planted a fake Syrian passport to instill fear in people. That is what the French police is saying.

"Four of the five attackers so far identified were French citizens.
An international manhunt is underway for 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, who was born and raised in Belgium. Police believe he took part in the attacks with his two brothers -- one of whom is dead, and the other was arrested.
French police are hunting for a second fugitive they say is directly involved in the deadly Paris attacks.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was raised in Brussels, is believed to be the mastermind of the assault."
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/police-b...2662167?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I'm thinking it's time you start presenting your credible sources backing up your claims: I'm understanding that you believe that we should wait until there is no homelessness/needy people in America to help refugees, that people living around terrorists *most surely* know that their neighbors are up to no good and that we should all ship the refugees to Saudi Arabia since in your opinion, they have all the resources necessary to take care of them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I just get the feeling that these arguments seem to be based on the "not in my backyard" syndrome.

There is no need to be insulting. I can't believe you expect me to source every opinion I have posted. I have provided many quotes as back up but also have responded to ridiculous statements that challenge the logic of someone of average intelligence. Those responses don't require a source other than I have a brain. As regards to the tent camps in Saudi Arabia, please reference the article I quoted in my prior post.

No "not in my backyard syndrome" just that it is stupid and irresponsible to ignore a stated threat.

 

[CPanther95]

My opinion is not based on fear, it is based on logic and common sense. From my point of view, you are the one who is letting "emotions" get the better of you.

You clearly have forgotten your elementary school rules. When someone calls you a "scaredy cat" you're supposed to abandon all reason and caution and just do it to prove that you aren't afraid.

 

[nanienamou]

Actually, what is being said in this thread and that can be easily verifiable is that their has been zero terrorist attacks by refugees in the States since 2001.
"U.S. refugees don't become terrorists: The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from refugees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...ris_b_8577480.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Nobody is saying that there is no risks, as with any population movements, there are risks. What is being said is that the benefits outweigh the risks. I think we can all agree that there is no no-risk situations. In this case, the risks are being blown out of proportion. The fact that this fear is rampant is giving power to the terrorists to recruit more. This is exactly what they want and what they are counting for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/

 

[mnrose]

Several times I have seen you or others post about ZERO terrorists among refugees. This article fron abc.com indicates that is just not true.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

Just saying zero in all caps does not make it true.

Nope what I said was 100% correct. Point me to ONE terrorist act committed by one of these refugees in the US since 2001. Answer. Zero.

 

[asta]

Actually, what is being said in this thread and that can be easily verifiable is that their has been zero terrorist attacks by refugees in the States since 2001.
"U.S. refugees don't become terrorists: The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from refugees."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...ris_b_8577480.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Nobody is saying that there is no risks, as with any population movements, there are risks. What is being said is that the benefits outweigh the risks. I think we can all agree that there is no no-risk situations. In this case, the risks are being blown out of proportion. The fact that this fear is rampant is giving power to the terrorists to recruit more. This is exactly what they want and what they are counting for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/

This is just not true. I am verifying for you that the claim of zero is wrong:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

 

[CPanther95]

This is just not true. I am verifying for you that the claim of zero is wrong:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

I'll trust ABC News over a Huffington Post article any day of the week.

But I guess since people like to carefully parse words, they could claim that the statement that "US refugees don't become terrorists" is true. Very misleading but true.

What they can't claim is that all "US refugees aren't terrorists". Since what your link shows is that some let in were already terrorists - they didn't "become" terrorists after coming here.

 

[pat fan]

which is why (to my knowledge) we've resettled only a handful of Syrian refugees.

If "we" is USA, it is more than a handful.

United States – As of September 2015, the United States has resettled 1,500 Syrians,[261] up from 90 Syrian refugees in 2013.[262]

If "we" is Canada,
In July 2013, Canada had promised to resettle 1,300 Syrian refugees by 2015[201].

Not sure how many Canada has taken to date, I honestly haven't looked that hard.

 

[asta]

Nope what I said was 100% correct. Point me to ONE terrorist act committed by one of these refugees in the US since 2001. Answer. Zero.

I guess you can take comfort in that these guys attacks were caught by the government before they were completed. I think that the fact that these guys were convicted and are sitting in prison is proof. They were terrorists, came as refugees and planned and tried terrorist attacks that were thwarted. I don't call it zero just because their plans didn't result in death.

 

[nanienamou]

This is just not true. I am verifying for you that the claim of zero is wrong:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

I'm reading this over and over again, and I'm not seeing where it states that there has been a terrorist attack on US soil by refugees since 2001. What the article is saying is that two terrorists were living as refugees in Kentucky and were apprehended. The rest is conjecture. Even the title is conjecture : US *MAY* have let dozens of terrorists into country as refugees. The two terrorists were discovered in 2009. If dozens were let in, how come no attacks on the US soil by refugees since 2001?

 

[CPanther95]

OK, now I get it.

We can welcome terrorists into the country because no terrorist we've welcomed into the country has attacked us yet - well not since 2001. (as if 2001 should be considered a non-factor)

 

[nanienamou]

If "we" is USA, it is more than a handful.

United States – As of September 2015, the United States has resettled 1,500 Syrians,[261] up from 90 Syrian refugees in 2013.[262]

If "we" is Canada,
In July 2013, Canada had promised to resettle 1,300 Syrian refugees by 2015[201].

Not sure how many Canada has taken to date, I honestly haven't looked that hard.

We will have received 25 000 by the end of December if all goes well. Reports are saying that we have already received anywhere from 3000-6000.

 

[asta]

I'm reading this over and over again, and I'm not seeing where it states that there has been a terrorist attack on US soil by refugees since 2001. What the article is saying is that two terrorists were living as refugees in Kentucky and were apprehended. The rest is conjecture. Even the title is conjecture : US *MAY* have let dozens of terrorists into country as refugees. The two terrorists were discovered in 2009. If dozens were let in, how come no attacks on the US soil by refugees since 2001?

The fact that these guys planned terroristic attacks but were thwarted by the government, were convicted and are serving long prison terms is not conjecture. All of this after entering as refugees. The fact that their plans did not result in death does not make them any less of a terrorists. They are not less guilty because their plans did not kill and maim.

All of this information can be sourced back to the previous article from abc that I linked to in a prior post.

 

[CPanther95]

The fact that these guys planned terroristic attacks but were thwarted by the government, were convicted and are serving long prison terms is not conjecture. All of this after entering as refugees. The fact that their plans did not result in death does not make them any less of a terrorists. They are not less guilty because their plans did not kill and maim.

All of this information can be sourced back to the previous article from abc that I linked to in a prior post.

This is how you you suffer endless casualties, you only address situations after they have cost innocent lives instead of thinking ahead and trying to address as many vulnerabilities as possible.

 

[NFLDERS]

If "we" is USA, it is more than a handful.

United States – As of September 2015, the United States has resettled 1,500 Syrians,[261] up from 90 Syrian refugees in 2013.[262]

If "we" is Canada,
In July 2013, Canada had promised to resettle 1,300 Syrian refugees by 2015[201].

Not sure how many Canada has taken to date, I honestly haven't looked that hard.

The "Previous" Canadian government only a 1,300 promise. Our "New" government is going to bring in many, many more as promised.

Edited:. 25,000 before 2016 reported on local news today.

 

[asta]

Is this a credible news report:

JUST IN: Turkey arrests 8 suspected ISIS members who planned to travel to Germany posing as refugees, Turkish officials say.

I copied this from ABC news Twitter feed. I saw this a few minutes ago as a CNN breaking news headline but it is no longer there. I tried googling and the ABC Twitter entry came up.