Spotted this great post over at Army.ca (DISCLOSURE: I’m a moderator there) bemoaning the loss of nuance in the social media back-and-forth, and HAD to share it, with thanks to the original poster for permission (edited only a touch for spelling):
1. RIGHT WING PEOPLE– ISIS represents the minority SUNNI populations of Syria and Iraq (and nominally all of the Sunni arab population). It is not “muslims” but a portion of a portion of muslims living in a specific corner of the earth. This is why Iran, for example, is not a supporter of ISIS. Therein, the shia, alawite, christian, and yazadi (and LGBTQ, educated, moderate islam, etc) are completely warranted to want to get out of the area- they are the as much the targets of ISIS as we are, if not more so. Using widesweeping terminology such as “islam” to describe a sect makes you look uneducated and xenophobic. Attempting to bring in 25,000 new persons to escape a war is really not a big deal (we are a country of 31-33 million after all) and is quite literally the least we can do. If you are so H and H to go bomb things than you should be at least somewhat willing to help a pittance of the people that are affected.
2. LEFT WING PEOPLE– ISIS represents a group that has proven that it is perfectly capable of committing attacks against western targets and is more than willing to do so to advance it’s goal of the establishment of a sunni muslim caliphate. Their main tactic is terrorism (or 4GW if we want to get into it). They use terrorism as they cannot establish a strong enough military force to fight the west in a contiguous, linear fashion. As a purveyor of terror as a political weapon, aimed to erode our will to assist arab governments that they want to overthrow it is perfectly rational that they may attempt to put a small number of terrorists or ISIS sympathizers in the group heading into Canada. The people placed could be men or women, or perhaps even children who have been brainwashed with a religious philosophy. Perhaps the people coming would want to attack us themselves, or perhaps they would be used to recruit Canadians into ISIS and act as technical (Subject Matter Experts). Who knows? Also, remember that “Syria” is a “fake” country that is a collection of religious sects that have been warring for generations and that only 5 years ago Syria was calling for the destruction of Israel. The point is that there is a real threat and that we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to ensure to the greatest extent possible that we protect our population for threats. Therein, is it not reasonable that there be a compromise and that we vet the people coming into Canada to the best extent we can to minimize potential direct or indirect threats to Canadian citizens? Wouldn’t extending the timeline to look at establishing a vetting process, IAW what terrorism and immigration experts are saying, be a reasonable trade off for helping the Syrians and ensuring that we protect our own? Also, calling anyone who has concerns xenophobic or racist retracts from your argument and makes you look pretentious.
Which side is right? Yes, it is ….