Quake3World

If there was an obvious solution that I or anyone else could come up with, we wouldn't be in this mess now would we? So to clearly answer your question, there is fuck all that I or any single person can do and there is no magical solution. But I can choose to forgo fear, and instead opt for tolerance and understanding as we deal with the immediate issue of the Syrian refugees. Take them in, give them the support that they need. Paris has tragically lost 140 people in the attacks, but that's a small number compared to Syrian losses.

So back to you now, can you state your opinion on any single aspect of this whole discussion?

What have you got?

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers president: "2.5 million refugees and immigrants over the last ten years. Not one of them has been involved in a terrorist attack."
Mitchell J. Goldberg, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Nov. 16, 2015:

In reply to a friend who asked the question that is on the minds of many: How can we be sure that Syrian refugees are not a security risk?

My reply:

Canada brings in 250,000 refugees and immigrants per year. Plus tens of thousands of temporary visitors, students, workers... That's over 2.5 million refugees and immigrants over the past ten years. Not one of them has been involved in a terrorist attack. Not one. Yet last year, the terror incidents in Ottawa and Québec were perpetuated by two white Canadian born individuals. The way some are carrying on about guilt through association, you'd think people would be clamoring to round up detain and deport all white Canadian born people. On the other hand, if you go to the hospital or need other emergency life saving services, the odds are pretty good that a refugee or immigrant will be attending you.

What are the lessons from our history?

1. We can have confidence in our robust security screening. Experts who have spent time on the ground with Syrian refugees in Lebanon assure me that robust security screening continues to be easily doable.
2. All communities have their Paul Bernados and Karla Homolkas or Hells Angels. Thankfully we also have our share of amazing dedicated people who make Canada great. I for one would not want a return to the days of a "No Jews are too many" immigration policy, the Chinese head tax, or detaining Japanese Canadian families in concentration camps. Today I'd like to believe that the human mind is capable of distinguishing between the victims of terrorism and the perpetrators, even if some may share the same race, nationality, or religion.

obsidian wrote:If there was an obvious solution that I or anyone else could come up with, we wouldn't be in this mess now would we? So to clearly answer your question, there is fuck all that I or any single person can do and there is no magical solution. But I can choose to forgo fear, and instead opt for tolerance and understanding as we deal with the immediate issue of the Syrian refugees. Take them in, give them the support that they need. Paris has tragically lost 140 people in the attacks, but that's a small number compared to Syrian losses.

So back to you now, can you state your opinion on any single aspect of this whole discussion?

What have you got?

So you've got nothing but tolerance and acceptance, and still suggest the situation in Syria is somehow being dealt with. Well let me help you out with something that should be as obvious as your previous statements. This isn't going to be solved with tolerance and acceptance. Because the people perpetuating the death and destruction don't operate on that frequency. And taking on refugees is merely a quick fix that only severs the situation at hand. It also burdens our infrastructures, opens us to potential security risks and provides zero motivation to the Syrian citizens to fight for their own country.

The Syrian people should be receiving support and aid with-in their own country. Help them secure an area of their country where they can live. Assist them with re-development, training and arms to eradicate the oppressors... That should be the temporary fix. The permanent fix is a global collective to remove ISIS, Daesh, al Qaeda and groups like them from power. That's the messy part that will inevitably kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. But you can't expect to promote that type of change without devastating results. However, at that point you can hold out hope that if it is widely know that the world stands against them and is prepared to take action, people will be less likely to join.

You still seem to have a lack of understanding of what's going on over there. There is no Syria as we have known it, there is no legitimate government there, just Daesh. It's all well and good to say that we should provide Syrians with the tools to fix their own problem without getting dirty up to your elbows yourself. It didn't work very well for Iraq, Afghanistan or even Syria itself when Assad's regime started crumbling. It all kind of backfired because all the munitions that we gave them ended up falling into the wrong hands.

So what's your plan? Hand Syrian refugees a bunch of guns and tell them to go back and fight to win their country back? It's not going to work very well since the people fleeing are just families and untrained civilians. All while on the other hand, effectively nuke the whole region? That surely won't anger people with family members still left behind and unable to escape.

Or you can take the alternative strategy and collapse their support from within by taking away what fuels them - limit their ability to finance themselves, curb domestic extremism through tolerance and equality.

YourGrandpa wrote:Another problem is nobody can agree on what needs to be done.

True, cause every party involved has a different agenda/partner that he depends on, be it fossil fuels, regional influence or political power. And all of whom are directly responsible for what has developed into the shit we are confronted with right now.
There is no easy way out. This will haunt us for a long tme coming, I'm afraid.
Starting with the Sunni/Schii-conflict ranging back to the 7th century.
Conflict between those two over 1300 years.
Fossil fuels coming into the equation=enormous wealth and global power to whomever can aquire it.
Being dictated by the 1. World, having their own borders being decided by foreigners giving a shit about ethical groups (Sykes-Picot Agreement).
And then Israel. That is a very difficult topic to talk about without sounding antisemite. Believe you me, I am not. I wished every person on this planet could live in peace and prosper. But religion, whatever way and thesis it may be, seems to hold us all back from that.
The 1. World's greed for fossil fuel...

Do most of us have to throw their ideals over board? Be it religion, wealth for the ethical group we belong to, personel soil, to finally get together?
Or can we politically via the UN solve this shithole we are in?

Just throwing this in. Haven't read Obs vs YGP arguing while writing.

Just realized, my words may have sounded like some PEGIDA-shit. Sorry, I didn't mean to.
The answer to the rethorical question "Do most of us have to throw their ideals over board? Be it religion, wealth for the ethical group we belong to, personel soil, to finally get together?" should of course be "yes, in some way." And if we can't come to that conclusion as general people of the world by ourselves, maybe then the UN can help us to show our each individual part. Which is wishful thinking but anyway .

[youtube]xIJ5Rwwk81o[/youtube]

YourGrandpa wrote:I'm still waiting to hear the solution to the problem.

What have you got?

how about we parachute 100,000 chlamydia-infected goats into ISIS-held territory, which they then fuck, leaving them too busy scratching their itchy junk to dodge the drone strikes and Kurdish bullets raining in on them

or if that's not to your liking, how about we drop 100,000 concealed carry permits on them, so they get infected with FREEDOM and come to love America

makes about as much sense as your solutions

Why does it seem like lately that Slurpsmanjam is trying out his shitty jokes for his even shittier brick wall act?

got him

They did. So they say.

After all, it was a quick and sufficient operation, in my opinion.

obsidian wrote:You still seem to have a lack of understanding of what's going on over there. There is no Syria as we have known it, there is no legitimate government there, just Daesh. It's all well and good to say that we should provide Syrians with the tools to fix their own problem without getting dirty up to your elbows yourself. It didn't work very well for Iraq, Afghanistan or even Syria itself when Assad's regime started crumbling. It all kind of backfired because all the munitions that we gave them ended up falling into the wrong hands.

So what's your plan? Hand Syrian refugees a bunch of guns and tell them to go back and fight to win their country back? It's not going to work very well since the people fleeing are just families and untrained civilians. All while on the other hand, effectively nuke the whole region? That surely won't anger people with family members still left behind and unable to escape.

Or you can take the alternative strategy and collapse their support from within by taking away what fuels them - limit their ability to finance themselves, curb domestic extremism through tolerance and equality.

I think I have a pretty good understanding. The Syrian people should be fighting for their own country. Who do you think fights in civil wars anyway? Untrained civilians who get trained, that's who. And what do you mean by "collapse their support from within by taking away what fuels them"? They are fueled by hate and religious fanaticism. What are you going to do, take away their Qurans and deprogram their youth? How do you propose to limit their finances, when you yourself said sanctions won't work? Tolerance and equality? Are you suggesting that the world start some kind of grass roots campaign to re-educate humanity? And how long would all this nonsense take, 2 maybe 3 generations? You've got nothing but pipe dreams son.

YourGrandpa wrote:The Syrian people should be fighting for their own country.

What country? The one ruled by assad? I don't think the part of the population who fought assad would want to join in. There was a civil war against him before the IS entered the stage, remember? There are way to many rivaling fractions involved to unite everyone under a common cause.

It's nothing like the american civil war.

You seem to have a very simplistic perspective on the situation.

Again, someone else with nothing to offer. I never said we should simply give the Syrian people guns and send them back into battle. Nor did I try to draw a comparison to the American civil war. However, there are real Syrian people, from a real country, that should really be trying to take it back (along with the assistance of like minded nations).

Why does everyone hate Assad? He's secular and normal compared to the rebel morons...

scared? wrote:Why does everyone hate Assad? He's secular and normal compared to the rebel morons...

Because morons think that because he's a dictator everything will be better if they can democratically elect a leader. If Syria had an election right now they'd end up with Al-Baghdadi running things.

What's Daesh?

One of the many names of IS. I think it's a spoken version of the Ariabian abbreviation of ISIL, and also a derogatory term. The French haved adopted it, mostly because IS and ISIS and ISIl are confusing to pronounce for them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/w ... -1.2438861

a good watch

http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -the-world

ey look over here dont look over there!

and if not there, check out this climate change wooo!

you busy now!

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3373 ... ce-and-war

http://newsthump.com/2015/11/20/we-cant ... ight-face/

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:a good watch

http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agend ... -the-world

an excellent watch, kind of explains why France and England have a snackbar problem?
Thanks

This is a really good article, especially if you're an ignorant moron:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opini ... .html?_r=1

That's a gay feedback article... The truthout one was more accurate...