You might be right, and certainly read in that context it reads better.
I would have preferred CC had used the word "if" in his post.
Yes, the "if" would have changed it.
I thought he was opposed to allowing refugees into our country out of some sort of certainty that we were allowing ISIS sleeper agents into our borders based on my interpretation of what he wrote. Maybe he's in favour of allowing them to come here - he'll probably clarify his position when he comes back into the thread.
I'm still amazed the Fear Mongering works on so many citizens.
Some key reminders. In June 2013, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) issued its first appeal to the international community for assistance in resettling extremely vulnerable Syrian refugees who had urgent protection needs.
Our compassion and fairness are a source of great pride for Canadians.
Under our legislation, all resettlement cases must be carefully screened to ensure that there are no issues related to security, criminality or health.
Canada’s refugee protection programs have helped the world’s most vulnerable, while ensuring the health and safety of Canadians.
Through our refugee protection programs, refugees bring their experiences and skills as well as their hopes and dreams to Canada which, in turn, has contributed to an even richer and more prosperous society for us all.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to takinghits For This Useful Post:
For the third time, the FBI director is concerned the available information isnt enough. That's what he is saying, not me. If he is concerned about security, then we should try and address those concerns. That's what I'm saying.
Multiple levels of vetting is being implemented, and that's fine, the question is, is it enough?
That's kinda misrepresenting his words (not putting it on you, because the media sources are misrepresenting it a bit too). He's saying that there are risks and he and the related agencies will do everything they can to mitigate the risks. He's not addressing the question of whether the information available is or is not enough. He's simply saying it's not 100% risk free, and will never be 100% risk free. He also agrees with Johnson that what they have already is a good and thorough process. But it's pretty clear that these three department heads all feel very confident in their systems, but all agree that it's not and is never going to be 100% risk free. I'm sure you've already watched the relevant testimony in full rather than just taking media snippits, but for anyone interested in the full quotes, it's here:
"JOHNSON: Chairman, I am concerned that we do the proper security vetting for refugees we bring into this country. We’ve committed to 10,000, and I’ve committed that each one will receive a careful security vetting.
It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about a lot of the Syrians that come forth in this process, just given the nature of the situation. So we are doing better at checking all the right databases in the law enforcement and intelligence communities than we used to, and so it’s a good process and it’s a thorough process. But that definitely is a challenge.
COMEY: I don’t think I have anything to add to Jeh. I think he describes it well. We see a risk there. We will work hard to mitigate it. Our challenge will be, as good as we have gotten ourselves at querying our holdings to understand somebody, if the person has never crossed our radar screen, there won’t be anything to query against, so we do see a risk there."
Just a friendly reminder that ISIS/ISIL are Wahhabi/Salafi Islamists, which is a pretty small offshoot of about 40+ sects of Islam.
Syria is 70% Sunni, with the remainder Alawites, Twelvr Shia, and Ismailis. Chances of them being Wahhabi is around the same as rounding up 100,000 Canadian Christians and finding a snake handler.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 11-17-2015 at 03:10 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Reza Aslan is a fundamentally dishonest actor. He is an ideologue who is willing to deliberately lie to promulgate what he believes is the correct world view - an "ends justify the means" sort of philosophy. It's frankly pretty annoying that CNN gives him a platform so frequently.
EDIT: which isn't to say that Maher isn't facile and frequently obnoxious. But at least he actually believes what he says he believes.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-17-2015 at 04:21 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Reza Aslan is a fundamentally dishonest actor. He is an ideologue who is willing to deliberately lie to promulgate what he believes is the correct world view - an "ends justify the means" sort of philosophy. It's frankly pretty annoying that CNN gives him a platform so frequently.
EDIT: which isn't to say that Maher isn't facile and frequently obnoxious. But at least he actually believes what he says he believes.
I guess it's possible that Maher is just a much more sophisticated liar in that he's not easily unverifiable and sounds sincere, but he seems to me just not to understand in any depth a lot of the topics he discusses. Whereas on the subject of Islam, Reza Aslan clearly knows what he's talking about. He knows what he's saying is either misleading or outright false, yet he says it anyway, on the apparent view that the audience will take him at his word and any fact-checking will be confined to youtube-folk who no one listens to anyway. If that's true of Maher, he's a good actor, or good enough to fool me.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I guess it's possible that Maher is just a much more sophisticated liar in that he's not easily unverifiable and sounds sincere, but he seems to me just not to understand in any depth a lot of the topics he discusses. Whereas on the subject of Islam, Reza Aslan clearly knows what he's talking about. He knows what he's saying is either misleading or outright false, yet he says it anyway, on the apparent view that the audience will take him at his word and any fact-checking will be confined to youtube-folk who no one listens to anyway. If that's true of Maher, he's a good actor, or good enough to fool me.
I guess with Maher I find that he wants to be considered as an intellectual on subjects, with zero ulterior motives, when he pretty clearly has an agenda. I'm not saying he's coy with his liberal bias. In fact I'd argue that he uses that bias as a means of cloaking some of the more toxic beliefs he clearly holds.
I agree with the writer for the Post who suggested that potential refugees be asked on their forms whether they would live next to a Jew, work with a Jew or have ever chanted death to a Jew.
Yes I am more than a little scared.
Last edited by Manhattanboy; 11-17-2015 at 05:28 PM.
It might be time for me to take a break from social media. I myself am leery of bringing in this many refugees so quickly but the social commentary is getting so over the top it's sickening.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilboimcdavid
Eakins wasn't a bad coach, the team just had 2 bad years, they should've been more patient.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaperBagger'14 For This Useful Post:
I guess with Maher I find that he wants to be considered as an intellectual on subjects, with zero ulterior motives, when he pretty clearly has an agenda. I'm not saying he's coy with his liberal bias. In fact I'd argue that he uses that bias as a means of cloaking some of the more toxic beliefs he clearly holds.
Well, not being a fan of Maher myself, I'm not inclined to defend him on that score. I just hadn't detected as much blatant dishonesty from him as is evident basically any time Aslan talks about anything on television. I could easily just have missed it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I agree with the writer for the Post who suggested that potential refugees be asked on their forms whether they would live next to a Jew, work with a Jew or have ever chanted death to a Jew.
Yes I am more than a little scared.
Loooooooooooooooooooooooooool
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Reza Aslan is a fundamentally dishonest actor. He is an ideologue who is willing to deliberately lie to promulgate what he believes is the correct world view - an "ends justify the means" sort of philosophy. It's frankly pretty annoying that CNN gives him a platform so frequently.
EDIT: which isn't to say that Maher isn't facile and frequently obnoxious. But at least he actually believes what he says he believes.
I agree about Aslan. I've never agreed with his premise that religions are essentially empty vessels with no content, and that the dogmas and doctrines themselves can't affect an individual's worldview or how they act. He's a key contributor to the "any criticism of Islam as a set of ideas is Islamophobia" culture.
Good interview on the CBC this afternoon with Raj Sharma (https://twitter.com/immlawyercanada). I know nothing beyond that he's an immigration lawyer who formerly worked resettling refugees. He has serious concerns about Canada's timeline and is basically of the same view as I am with "what's the rush, why the arbitrary deadline". To be fair he did say that they'll never be 100% sure on screening since they never are. These people have no I.D., no history and their countries don't have any records to check against.
While the UNHCR welcomed the Canadian announcement to settle Syrians, “I am afraid I cannot talk about Canada’s program,” spokeswoman Ariane Rummery said in an email from Geneva “until we know more about the modalities.”
One of the reasons things were going so slowly was that Canada has not yet provided the UN with the numbers of refugees it wants the agency to identify for resettlement from each country, a UN spokesperson in Beirut said.
