Canada's New Defence Minister

[Remius]

So, Minister Sajjan, ISIL isn't a threat, right? Isn't that what you just said?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/paris-police-report-shootout-at-restaurant-explosion-near-stadium/article27256201/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/paris-attacks-kill-127-hollande-blames-islamic-state/article27263830/

I believe he said: ISIS is a threat, no doubt about that. Should we fear it? No. The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe.

Let's not use recent events to misquote what some people are saying

 

[The Bread Guy]

So, Minister Sajjan, ISIL isn't a threat, right? Isn't that what you just said?

With all due respect, E.R., if CBC quoted him correctly, no, that doesn't seem to be what he said.  Here's what (CBC says) he said:

...."ISIS is a threat, no doubt about that. Should we fear it? No. The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe." ....

Attack what anybody says?  Let's go for it full speed, like in any democracy.  That said, we can do better than putting words in folks' mouths during high-tension times like this, though.

And if you're not a Liberal fan, don't worry -- Trudeau fils & Co. have more than enough 'splainin' to do just based on what actually is said without making stuff up.

 

[Edward Campbell]

With all due respect, E.R., if CBC quoted him correctly, no, that doesn't seem to be what he said.  Here's what (CBC says) he said:
Attack what anybody says?  Let's go for it full speed, like in any democracy.  That said, we can do better than putting words in folks' mouths during high-tension times like this, though.

And if you're not a Liberal fan, don't worry -- Trudeau fils & Co. have more than enough 'splainin' to do just based on what actually is said without making stuff up.

Sorry, but he said: "Should we fear it? No." Well, I beg to differ. ISIL is using tactics (terrorism) that are designed to spread fear, and, as we can see in Europe, today, it works. Canadians should be apprehensive about this government's plans to fast track 25,000 "refugees" (almost all of whom will be, no doubt, decent folks who just want a chance) because a "small part" of that 25,000 are possibly, indeed likely, to be radicals bent on using terror tactics against Canadian soft targets.

It's no secret that I oppose the entire refugee scheme ... I think that converting the "fast track" election promise to policy is wrong, even dangerous because I fear it will offer a free visa to terrorists.

So I repeat my assertion that Minister Sajjan, and the entire Trudeau regime, needs to give his head a shake.

 

[Remius]

You claimed that he said that ISIL wasn't a threat and gave a face palm and posted a pic of the aftermath of last night's tragic event. That is a misquote.  His take on not fearing them I think was meant that we should trust our security apparatus and live our lives like we normally do. 

But I agree that Canadians should be apprehensive about the refugee scheme.

What I do fear is inspired attacks here at home, I fear for some of our Muslim communities that will suffer a backlash over this, I fear that some people will want irrational action on this. 

One way or the other, this government will be tested in the months to come.  Maybe more than they wanted.

 

[opcougar]

Do you "oppose" it for every country / race/ culture that wishes to come here, or is it just a particular? I ask because you can see how this can come across if say you think it's OK for Ukranians, Bosnians, Americans (yes some claim asylum here), Polish to come to Canada.

It should be one rule applies to all.

Sorry, but he said: "Should we fear it? No." Well, I beg to differ. ISIL is using tactics (terrorism) that are designed to spread fear, and, as we can see in Europe, today, it works. Canadians should be apprehensive about this government's plans to fast track 25,000 "refugees" (almost all of whom will be, no doubt, decent folks who just want a chance) because a "small part" of that 25,000 are possibly, indeed likely, to be radicals bent on using terror tactics against Canadian soft targets.

It's no secret that I oppose the entire refugee scheme ... I think that converting the "fast track" election promise to policy is wrong, even dangerous because I fear it will offer a free visa to terrorists.

So I repeat my assertion that Minister Sajjan, and the entire Trudeau regime, needs to give his head a shake.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Do you "oppose" it for every country / race/ culture that wishes to come here, or is it just a particular? I ask because you can see how this can come across if say you think it's OK for Ukranians, Bosnians, Americans (yes some claim asylum here), Polish to come to Canada.

It should be one rule applies to all.

If you will bother to search my posts you will see that my opposition to (most of the world's) refugee policies is complete, regardless of race, creed our region of origin.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You claimed that he said that ISIL wasn't a threat and gave a face palm and posted a pic of the aftermath of last night's tragic event. That is a misquote.  His take on not fearing them I think was meant that we should trust our security apparatus and live our lives like we normally do. 

But I agree that Canadians should be apprehensive about the refugee scheme.

What I do fear is inspired attacks here at home, I fear for some of our Muslim communities that will suffer a backlash over this, I fear that some people will want irrational action on this. 

One way or the other, this government will be tested in the months to come.  Maybe more than they wanted.

You're quite right.

I should have said "So, Minister Sajjan, ISIL isn't to be feared, right? Isn't that what you just said?" and then posted a bigger, double face-palm. That would have been more accurate and effective.

Minister Sajjan might be speaking for himself, but I suspect he's got a list of "talking points" from the campaign team/transition team/PMO, one of which says, "Don't be afraid of <insert group here> we have everything under control."

I do trust the security services ~ as much as any sensible Canadian should trust any bureaucratic entity ~ but I fear that political expediency may will result in the security services being told to turn a blind eye to problems with these 25,000 "refugees" ~ see my "small part" comments, again.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe."

Can someone explain to me the security services we have in place to stop this from happening when we cram 6000 undocumented refugees a week onto military bases?

 

[opcougar]

Good to know. As I mentioned before, I despise when people utter buffoonery comments that are so xenophobic even when they try to hide what they really mean. The same person that will make a comment like "these people come over here....", is the same one that will claim "I can't be a racist / xenophobe because I have friends that are x,y,z" which is always crap really and made just for convenience sake  :

 

[opcougar]

The same one we had when refugees from Europe (Most Eastern) came here years ago

Can someone explain to me the security services we have in place to stop this from happening when we cram 6000 undocumented refugees a week onto military bases?

 

[Remius]

You're quite right.

I should have said "So, Minister Sajjan, ISIL isn't to be feared, right? Isn't that what you just said?" and then posted a bigger, double face-palm. That would have been more accurate and effective.

Minister Sajjan might be speaking for himself, but I suspect he's got a list of "talking points" from the campaign team/transition team/PMO, one of which says, "Don't be afraid of <insert group here> we have everything under control."

I do trust the security services ~ as much as any sensible Canadian should trust any bureaucratic entity ~ but I fear that political expediency may will result in the security services being told to turn a blind eye to problems with these 25,000 "refugees" ~ see my "small part" comments, again.

Agreed. 

Your post just threw me for a loop. I normally enjoy and respect your posts and opinions.  That one just seemed out of character.  Thanks for the explanation.

Cheers.

 

[Stoker]

The test of this government and new minister for me is if they go ahead with the pull out of the CF 18's. I would like for Trudeau to tell the French President just that at next months summit.

 

[Remius]

Can someone explain to me the security services we have in place to stop this from happening when we cram 6000 undocumented refugees a week onto military bases?

How many are actually undocumented though?  I suspect that we will be bringing in UN screened refugees from neighbouring countries at least initially. Also some that may already be in process for sponsorship. We screen thousands of people a day that come into this country.  But this will be a major undertaking involving border services, public health, industry canada, national defence etc etc.

 

[Stoker]

How many are actually undocumented though?  I suspect that we will be bringing in UN screened refugees from neighbouring countries at least initially. Also some that may already be in process for sponsorship. We screen thousands of people a day that come into this country.  But this will be a major undertaking involving border services, public health, industry canada, national defence etc etc.

Depends on what you would call screening. If it proves that the terrorist's in France were part of the refugee influx then the French with some the best security and immigration policies in the world missed them, then I really don't trust screening from the UN. In my opinion we can't take the chance.

 

[Haggis]

The test of this government and new minister for me is if they go ahead with the pull out of the CF 18's. I would like for Trudeau to tell the French President just that at next months summit.

Our contribution of CF-18's is symbolic and adds nothing to the operational and tactical campaigns.  Politically, if (when) we withdraw them, Trudeau get a domestic win and international loss.  Strategically, the insurgents get a win.  If we stay the course, particularly at this point in time, Trudeau could spin this into a domestic and international political win.  Strategically, the insurgents get a lose.  Operationally, it's a draw in any scenario.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Here's a counter narrative for you on the whole refugee / migrant front.

1)  By some counts, there are 11M people who have made the decision that having their families barrel bombed by their own government is a bad idea, and have decided to leave (I do not trust those numbers).
2)  Assad reinstated the mandatory service clause for all "fighting aged males" in the Spring, asking people to contribute to the bombing of their own homes and families
3)  The people on the move could have walked 150 miles to Raqqah to join the Caliphate.  Instead, they walked 1500 miles to Rotterdam or 2500 miles to Rouen - and then on to Regina. 

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

We have radicals here (in the West) now.  They are either home-grown or plants - likely the former, as the latter requires a degree of sophistication so far lacking in ISIL tactics - it is so much easier to turn someone in place, than to train and dispatch them.  Either way, we have mechanisms and institutions charged with protecting us from that threat.  So far, they have done a bloody good job.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as well.

Alternatively, we could close our borders, harden our hearts to the suffering of others, forgo all civil liberties, and be very safe.

That is not the Canada I wish to serve.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sorry, but he said: "Should we fear it? No." Well, I beg to differ .... So I repeat my assertion that Minister Sajjan, and the entire Trudeau regime, needs to give his head a shake.

That's more than fair game - and agree with that bit re:  there being more than enough for Trudeau & Co. to need to reassure Canadians about.

The test of this government and new minister for me is if they go ahead with the pull out of the CF 18's. I would like for Trudeau to tell the French President just that at next months summit.

Yeah, it would be pretty crappy having one ally fighting the bad guys telling another, "sorry, we can't help you in the way you want," wouldn't it?

.... The people on the move could have walked 150 miles to Raqqah to join the Caliphate.  Instead, they walked 1500 miles to Rotterdam or 2500 miles to Rouen - and then on to Regina ....

Good point - there's a case to be made that these folks, to paraphrase a Twitter post out there, are running away from those we want to get rid of.

 

[Stoker]

That's more than fair game - and agree with that bit re:  there being more than enough for Trudeau & Co. to need to reassure Canadians about.Yeah, it would be pretty crappy having one ally fighting the bad guys telling another, "sorry, we can't help you in the way you want," wouldn't it?Good point - there's a case to be made that these folks, to paraphrase a Twitter post out there, are running away from those we want to get rid of.

Yes that was seven years ago, I would hope to think we are better than that and recognize the threat that ISIS is. If we had bombs going off in Ottawa I would like to think France would stand with us.

 

[Stoker]

Here's a counter narrative for you on the whole refugee / migrant front.

1)  By some counts, there are 11M people who have made the decision that having their families barrel bombed by their own government is a bad idea, and have decided to leave (I do not trust those numbers).
2)  Assad reinstated the mandatory service clause for all "fighting aged males" in the Spring, asking people to contribute to the bombing of their own homes and families
3)  The people on the move could have walked 150 miles to Raqqah to join the Caliphate.  Instead, they walked 1500 miles to Rotterdam or 2500 miles to Rouen - and then on to Regina. 

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

We have radicals here (in the West) now.  They are either home-grown or plants - likely the former, as the latter requires a degree of sophistication so far lacking in ISIL tactics - it is so much easier to turn someone in place, than to train and dispatch them.  Either way, we have mechanisms and institutions charged with protecting us from that threat.  So far, they have done a bloody good job.

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as well.

Alternatively, we could close our borders, harden our hearts to the suffering of others, forgo all civil liberties, and be very safe.

That is not the Canada I wish to serve.

Perhaps the "fighting aged males" should join the rebels and try and get their country back.

So far we in Canada have been lucky something larger hasn't happened and i'm not comfortable with giving them the benefit of a doubt.

If we are to bring them in then we should restrict their movements and have a plan in place to repatriate them to their home country when the situation improves.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If we had bombs going off in Ottawa I would like to think France would stand with us.

My mind's not made up about the CF-18's -- pro:  if the house is burning, it's a good idea to help put out the fire; con:  how much (numbers-wise) are we actually helping put out the fire, and is the overall firefighting approach an effective one?).

If I were of the "GTFO" persuasion, I could say, "our jets (as well as those of several other countries) have been there for a while, and didn't stop the Paris attacks, so how much will more of the same help?" 

There's more than one way to stand with France at a time like this than keeping jets in theatre.