No, I know that. What he said is not what you said. That's not his argument. His argument is totally different. I recommend that you listen to him and to read exactly what he said. It's not the same logic at all.
He blamed Canada for the situation in Syria and Iraq. He blamed the Canadian foreign policy for that. He was not suggesting such logic as you said. This is exactly the logic for some of the community leaders in the Muslim community. This is their logic in opposing the policy, blaming Canada and the west in general as the cause of the problem of extremism, and not taking any responsibility for their side of creating the problem of extremism, not only here in Canada but in general in the Middle East.
Where is the cause of extremism? Because extremism is not the west. It's not retaliation.
We heard just yesterday what the Ottawa jihadist has said. He said that this is retaliation for the oppression. What oppression? They regard—and I'm quoting, it's their position; it's not my assessment—that when Muslims cannot pursue jihad and cannot spread Islam, they are being oppressed and they are being victimized and then they have the right to launch an attack against the oppressors. The meaning of that is the causes of jihad always exist.
What this imam specifically said is that to be neutral means you should not take any action against the Islamic State. Don't take any action. If you don't take any action against the Islamic State, what's the meaning of that? You give licence to the Islamic State to pursue its policy regarding minorities in Iraq and Syria. I think we should not tolerate that.