Terrorists recruiting in Canada

originally posted by: TKDRL


If it's fine for isreal to come recruit in our country, why not hamas or isis?

See above:

The long and the short of it is that neither the IDF nor Israel are declared enemies of America, but ISIS is - by it's own declaration. Going to fight for ISIS is treason at best, while the same thing cannot be said of going to fight for the IDF.

a reply to: nenothtu
What I'm saying is, I think if you are an American, by birth, or by choice, then it should be illegal to leave the US and fight for another country's military. I'm against dual citizenry. -Either you're American or you're foreign. I can't be a dual citizen in Israel. For the people who do go and fight for a foreign country, they shouldn't be allowed back.

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: nenothtu
What I'm saying is, I think if you are an American, by birth, or by choice, then it should be illegal to leave the US and fight for another country's military. I'm against dual citizenry. -Either you're American or you're foreign. I can't be a dual citizen in Israel. For the people who do go and fight for a foreign country, they shouldn't be allowed back.

What about the UN?

Should an American soldier be part of the UN peacekeeping force? We know that peacekeeping force is really just a slogan for "I can't shoot back, but I have a gun!".

a reply to: Fylgje

But "should be" and "is" are two different things, especially when discussing the legalities of an action. That's why you can fight for one but not the other, One is the enemy, one is not.

Now, to be honest, I'm against dual citizenship myself. It seems to me that it could lead to a severe conflict of interests. With that said, there's nothing wrong with fighting for a foreign cause per se (after all, Lafayette did it here, for us, as did the likes of Koszciusko and Pulaski), but when that involves fighting on behalf of your nation's avowed enemies, which has the potential for active combat against "your own", it seems that it should (and legally can) lead to a permanent revocation of citizenship in your native nation, since you chose it's enemies over it.

Let the ISIS recruits get an "Islamic State" passport, and let the recruiters follow right behind them. Since there is no such passport, too bad, so sad, they can remain stateless, and fair game to all.

Your assertion that anyone fighting for any foreign military shouldn't be allowed to come back would prevent people like Claire Chennault from ever returning to America after kicking Japanese ass on behalf of China. I can't find anything wrong with the way it's set up now - fight for the enemy overseas, STAY overseas, otherwise, it's just a job. Come home and pay the taxes due on your overseas earnings.

a reply to: nenothtu

Here though is where we get into very grey areas.

Take for instance the Muslim Brotherhood. You and I BOTH know they are the enemies of the United States (and Canada and Europe and Australia etc), yet, the US (and other) governments are idiotic enough to think they are friends with them. Which is idiotic at best since we know the goal of the Brotherhood.

If someone went overseas to fight in another country to further the goals of the Brotherhood I wouldn't want them back either - regardless of whether or not the government considers them terrorists. I know for a fact they are.

Things like that are where the grey matter comes into play because by the time some government official decides they really are terrorists, it will be a day late and a dollar short.

a reply to: OpinionatedB
That's how I feel about isreal lol.
I don't have a problem with dual citizenship, that would make me a hypocrite lol.

a reply to: nenothtu

You know, we really have to hand it to the Philippinos in WWII, we were there, not as citizens, but it became a territory, but they went through the Spanish and then the Japanese invasion and yet, they still fought with us and many of them also died or were taken as POWs.

My grandfather was a POW in Bataan. As much as people complained about us holding the Japanese here in camps, the media was really not allowing the American public to know what happened to our soldiers and the Philippinos. I have found my grandfather's service record from the National Archives and know what camps he was at. He wrote about what happened in a journal and when he died many years later, it was from a direct cause, it just took a while. He was tortured and the Japanese soldiers had forced bamboo needles into his chest, and not all of them could be removed later and one eventually pierced his heart. This I do know is true because of his VA medical records.

We know the Japanese are not fanatics as they were then, but they tore over China and Korea. But all we have to do is read about Bataan and know that fanaticism in any form is dangerous.

The Japanese at that time were very fanatic, viewing their emperor as a living god and patriotic fanaticism to the Empire of Japan, great atrocities were perpetrated by that.

When our government finds itself in such a place that it has to take that ultimate action, it is because fanaticism drove it. Whenever I meet someone from the Philippines today, I always thank them for their grandparents' sacrifice as well, because the Japanese tore them up.

On both sides of the planet, fanaticism caused the greatest amount of bloodshed than any other century before. The Japanese were fanatic over their empire and emperor and the Germans were fanatic over Nazi ideology. If we have learned anything, it should be that fanaticism is bloody and should be bombed out of existence. That's how we had to do it then and we can't allow it to continue today.

And MacArthur had financial interests in Australia and the Philippines. He was comfortable in Australia, still making money off his interests, as a general in the US armed forces.

For these people who think we should be soft and diplomatic...Remember Bataan.

a reply to: TKDRL

I don't think dual citizenship should be allowed. But that is a personal opinion. Citizenship is where your loyalty is.. generally speaking.

What happens then when you are loyal to two countries, both having different goals and aims, different values?

You cannot be loyal to both at the same time, you have to choose where your actual loyalty is, which group, which country. Man cannot serve two masters - as the saying goes.

Citizenship should be where and who you are loyal to - at the very least the most loyal to. Who would you choose if the two became enemies? That is where you should have citizenship.