General Chat

Agreed Dermot, I'm pretty sure I haven't been rude on here in any way if I have I apologise.

Where dissenting arguments arise, they are often met with deaf ears. It is possible to post alternative views on these threads without being disrespectful to others.

I'm learning slowly but surely that sometimes my own opinion is sometimes best kept to myself - and that's a pitiful shame.

Agreed...but no one has answered my question...if not them then who ?
As in stopping IS other than correctly pointing out it would be a very difficult task ID the actual enemy ....if not the local fit young men of many different countries not just Syria , then who....
The first people here in Toronto were not just from Syria but also Armenian.

So if I'm "daft" for asking who will stop IS then I'm "daft".
If I'm "daft" for asking for equal treatment of refugees and locals then I'm "daft"

People on these boards should understand; like you said; everyone is entitled to their point of view. To be called daft because you disagree is discouraging to many. Just because someone may go on the boards more often does not make their opinion more relevant.

I never ever said refugees shouldn't be allowed here but straight away I was told I should move to America and vote for Trump.....

Just to clarify I'm not sitting here crying into my coffee, but I can see why many would not bother voicing their opinion. :-)

Quite...that's my point lol, if someone has a silly opinion then it's no good pretending otherwise or giving that opinion equal credence with one that is well thought out,. :-) I am sure Kanye West ( who I wouldn't recognise if I fell over him in the street) thinks his own opinion is as valid as mine.

Of course everyone should be entitled to an opinion, and freedom to express it ( within decent boundaries) but that doesn't mean it can't be challenged or the basis of it questioned, or the person asked "How would that work in practice then?"
:-)

Well if you're going to bring in the opinions of Kanye West then it's just getting silly....... :-D

"On that logic then IS will never be fought/stopped as they often don't stand out in the crowd"

. Just a thought...as so many people have said on here ( I'm not one of them) 'how do you tell a genuine refugee from an IS terrorist?'...by that same argument, how do you tell a genuine anti-IS/anti-Assad young man from one who isn't before you arm and train him? The psych assesments alone would take far too long, there will be nothing left of Syria to 'win back' by then.

If someone has a different opinion to me and they can defend that opinion in a reasoned manner, even if I disagree ( and I often do even with people who I recognise have a 'good' argument) I do TRY and listen to their argument and think about it.

But if something is daft ( imo) then there is no getting away from it, it's no good saying every opinion is as valid as the next...by that reasoning the opinions of Hitler, Jesus, Gandhi, Pol Pot and Kanye West are of equal value... which personally I don't reckon they are?

Dermot it's not always a question of not understanding though is it? sometimes it's a case of understanding only too well :-)

There won’t be agreement until each understands what the other is talking about.

On that logic then IS will never be fought/stopped as they often don't stand out in the crowd !
Surely within the bubble of free speech one shouldn't think any thought/question is daft it's just different to your own. Without differences what is there.......

"Guinevere, it wasn't a daft question I also stated we should arm and train them."

Just my opinion, free speech and all that. Still think it's a daft question. Rose has given all the reasons why.

:-)

I didn't think you had Caroline, I was just a bit surprised that of all my posts that was the one that went, ie because it wasn't 'my words' but a direct quote from a news article :-) I'm sure someone had a good reason though.

For the record in case there was any confusion I did not report you Rambling Rose.

Guinevere, it wasn't a daft question I also stated we should arm and train them.

Someone has to stop IS so why not with the help of the local fit young men.

Margee I'm sorry your post got twisted like it did, I never ever said they shouldn't be allowed over here I just asked for equal funding to others.

Oh yes I do remember, how odd to have reported that though..unless it was thought it off topic? which in a way I suppose it was, but I mentioned this only in relation to arming young men, my thought process being that you really do have to know WHO you are arming first, or you put the arms closer to where the terrorists can use them perhaps?

I give the link rather than the quoted article,

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/gun-linked-to-paris-attacks-traced-back-to-florida-arms-dealer-implicated-in-iran-contra-scandal/

EDIT as an afterthought. I wonder if it was reported because the article I quoted ( posted on FB) included the name of the company that sold the gun and named individuals, both of whom had every legal right to sell it. Perhaps it was felt they should not be so named on here, in which case the report was understandable...but you could just have asked me to edit :-)

well I wish I could remember what I had posted that has since been reported, perhaps someone might remember and remind me?

Rose has said it all and very succinctly.

But in answer to this question, "I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but if not the local fit young men then who should stand up to IS ?"

Maybe people who have weapons. Local fit young men aren't armed or army trained. Daft question.

My french grandmother (married to an englishman) caught the last boat over from France to Bristol during WW2, I have spoken of her before.

She worked hard for 19 years in a factory, without taking a day off. She had to wash her clothes at night and put them on damp in the morning. She had no knickers for three years.

I would have loved her to have had a pair. She didn't know of the Red Cross and certainly repaid the little help she was given, eventually owning her own shop.

I'm also a very proud Canadian at what has been achieved by this new government of ours, and all the people helping .....

and I must point out that ALL the refugees who have arrived in Canada so far are privately sponsored ones, because those applications had been in the works for a year or more, yet our previous government had not been acting in good faith.

Therefore, the 163 who arrived on Thursday and the 162 who will land in Montreal in a few short hours are having their expenses paid by sponsors, housing etc etc paid or supplied by the sponsors.


There is also plenty of evidence from past experiences with such refugees (from Africa in the 70s, Vietnam in the 80s, and on and on) that the adults will be off welfare as soon as they can possibly be. They will end up paying back more in taxes than many others.

If that means supplying them with language and skill training, then so be it ............... it's well worth it in the end.


I agree that every country has got its own problems with the homeless and jobless ................ but I grudge nothing that is done to help the true refugee.


And also remember that the refugees that are coming in at the moment are all families, single parents (father or mother) with children, orphans, etc, including a lot of family reunification.

The government chosen refugees will start coming in later, and will include in addition to the groups already mentioned, those who might be in danger because of their sexual orientation.

Otherwise, young single men will be subject to further security checks before a decision is made on their admittance.

Where would we be right now? Presumably not in Canada.

There's a difference between fighting a war in which the enemy is clearly identified, as a potential invader. You do have to be able to pick a side surely? To know which one to fight for and who to fight against. That's why I said there is no comparison to WW2. The Nazi's and their allies were the enemy...you knew what and who you were fighting, and of course no mother wanted to let their son or daughter go to war...but there was a clear reason, a clear threat.

I ask again, who are you expecting these young men to fight, both Assad and IS together? If so I would assume you think that the West as a whole should arm them, train them and join them in the fight to bring down both Assad and IS? I'm not saying that's wrong, though it is not a particularly popular viewpoint over here at least, getting involved in another war, certainly not in committing ground troops to the region.

IS is a grouping of like-mined people from many different countries as you're aware. No mother wants their child to fight any war, but if all mothers had their way over the years where would we be right now.
Going west isn't an option as they will eventually get there too given the chance.

Maybe if the West hadn't supported Assad in the first place, IS would not have developed? We, as well as the people of the country in question, pay the price for supporting governments that we should probably not support? ( usually because morals are less important than the oil supply, arms deals, trade etc?)

Maybe young men should stay, or maybe if it were my son (and after all it is just an accident of location that it is not my son or yours) I would say 'go west young man and find a safer place where you can live longer than me, leave this place behind'.