I am impartial about the refugee issue, however, whether we take them or not has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris attack. All the fear mongering is more about xenophobic than anything else (often safety etc.). Therefore I decide to support taking in the 25000 refugees just to irk them.
Security concerns surrounding the refugees are legitimate, clearly. It is irresponsible to ignore this. Open borders only facilitate the mobility of terrorists and this is already well established.
Nevertheless, Europe cannot sustain these levels of migrants and it simply isn't constructive to drown yourself in order to help another that is drowning! Again, the global community needs to intervene in the region to bring stability and aide. It is the only logical and sustainable option available, as monumentally difficult as it may be.
ISIS emerged precisely because America decided that Saddam "has to go" (and we all know the previous Al Qaeda threat is nothing but Washington's creation too). More military attack isn't the solution.
I agree with your first statement, however to conflate these two issues (invasion of Iraq under Saddam with the invasion of ISIS) would be a grave mistake. The invasion of Iraq was a phoney war trumped up for nefarious political and economic motivations. This is not the case with ISIS. ISIS may be a crisis of our creating but it is still a crisis, and a legitimate one. Our abstaining from a concerted military option speaks more to our inability to move on from past mistakes than it does to any inclination to repeat them. In the meantime this equivocation has allowed ISIS to grow and to further destabilize the region, and it now risks destabilizing Europe and other zones beyond its territory. Potentially North America?
Sincerely though, If somebody has an idea how to defeat ISIS without military intervention I'd like to discuss it.
Who are we, Canada, a middle power at most, to say "we have this and that obligation"? If more attacks like the Ottawa incidents happen, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.
We are a 'middle power' with a long history of responsible participation in global conflicts.
Ksun, no nation exists in a vacuum. Canada has a number of very important economic and political/strategic relationships that must be considered when weighing options, NATO included.... but let's be honest that this is not completely altruistic on our part. Participating in global events means we get to have a voice, that the Canadian perspective is relevant and 'at the table'. As a 'middle power' we can be a moderating influence. As a 'middle power' we need to respect these alliances for our own security.
ISIS may be evil, but why do we think the attack happens in France, not Switzerland or Portugal? Because it meddles.
It is far more complicated than this... and remember, France did not join America's 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq. This sort of contradicts your hypothesis, no?
In the end you make the error of ascribing too much logic or rationale to ISIS. They are looking to further their position in any way possible, plain and simple. They are driven by economics and power, using hatred and religiosity as just one more weapon in their recruitment arsenal.
The question of 'Why France?' is a good one though. It may just boil down to the fact that France makes sense. France has the largest population of muslims in Europe, some of whom are marginalized and disenchanted. The open borders of Europe have allowed easy access to them and easy mobility. The attacks on France also provide good symbolic value. The french values of 'laicite' are manipulated by ISIS as propaganda, as proof of an ongoing western crusade against muslims.
