Syrian refugees

[stconquest]

Just stating my opinion. Coward is the best word to describe what I think of this fear of helping other human beings.

 

A person's life experience has everything to do with risk assessment.  I got into a bit too much trouble growing up.  As things got more serious, as I got older, I was focused more on conflict de-escalation than escalation.  I learned to take a situation where people were hopped up on adrenaline, and diffuse it peacefully.  When I think back, I actually get scared because some of those situations were really dangerous.

 

When someone does not understand the value of communication, especially in the scariest of moments, then all they know is to fight... or avoid.

[ShiftHitTheFan]

My grandparents were immigrants during ww2. They left due to ww2 and the constant fighting in Holland. These refugees are leaving due to war, Canada has lots of room. As long as they are are workers I welcome the.

[Albatross]

Here in Slovenia they burned down their camp then, some migrant took a selfie infront of the flames

Also most of them are young men ~20 years old

 

also why would a single woman travel alone with a kid for hunderds of kilometers (walking)

 

Why did they burn down their camp? Where do they expect to live now? :huh:

 

Just stating my opinion. Coward is the best word to describe what I think of this fear of helping other human beings.

 

Some people here mentioned the "Paris Attack" like it changes something...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hollande-france-plans-to-take-in-30000-refugees-over-two-years_564c78bae4b06037734bb934

 

France is still planning on taking in refugees. Sounds like Americans are wimpy loudmouths.  

 

Cowards? Wimpy loudmouths? All because they don't want to just let potential security risks waltz right into their country, right after a large terrorist attack in a country that did? Riiiiight. They're cowards and loudmouths, not people with rational concern... I think you guys need to stop looking at this like it is simple. It isn't.

 

But whatever, that's cool, you decide for yourself then. Stop trying to push what you believe and how you feel on other people and then degrade them for being smart about safety and for being responsible. You are okay with putting other people's lives at risk carelessly? Fine, feel free to do so. But others aren't "wimpy loudmouths/cowards" because they don't want potential terrorists to repeat the Paris attacks on their own country or against their families, or potentially witness another 9/11. It isn't some irrational "fear" either, and Paris proves it (again). You can't just let thousands and thousands of people into a country you can't vet, that you have absolutely no idea about or who they are connected to. It is illogical and highly irresponsible to other innocent people, or do they not matter to you guys? :huh:

 

But yet you, and many others, seem to think because these refugees are suffering (and that really sucks, it does) we should just throw caution to the wind because they need it. A smart nation will never do that. Well, of course in a different world were criminals didn't lie, cheat and blend in with sickly families or hover around children to commit their crimes, I would agree with you entirely and everyone would be happy and safe and loved. But we are talking about a group of criminals that will stop at nothing to achieve their goal here in the real world/reality, not immigrants trying to cross over our border for the American dream. The difference is enormous and treating it like they are one and the same is absolutely naive. If France wants to just let them in again and forget how dangerous it is—or if any other country does—fine, their right to decide. But we Americans? We want to be sure of who is coming into our country and give priority to our citizens above all else because France, Italy, Canada etc etc aren't 1# on terrorist hit lists.

 

And if push comes to shove, I bet none of you would open your house to strangers, especially any stranger that could very well be a terrorist. You can sit at your keyboards and say the words on the internet to other strangers that can't ever be backed, but we know you wouldn't be quickly opening your door for them, if at all, without knowing who they are, what they do, who they are related to or know etc etc.

[stconquest]

@Tmt97

 

Just step away from the "Post" button. 

[Tmt97]

Why did they burn down their camp? Where do they expect to live now? :huh:

 

 

 

Cowards? Wimpy loudmouths? All because they don't want to just let potential security risks waltz right into their country, right after a large terrorist attack in a country that did? Riiiiight. They're cowards and loudmouths, not people with rational concern... I think you guys need to stop looking at this like it is simple. It isn't.

 

But whatever, that's cool, you decide for yourself then. Stop trying to push what you believe and how you feel on other people and then degrade them for being smart about safety and for being responsible. You are okay with putting other people's lives at risk carelessly? Fine, feel free to do so. But others aren't "wimpy loudmouths/cowards" because they don't want potential terrorists to repeat the Paris attacks on their own country or against their families, or potentially witness another 9/11. It isn't some irrational "fear" either, and Paris proves it (again). You can't just let thousands and thousands of people into a country you can't vet, that you have absolutely no idea about or who they are connected to. It is illogical and highly irresponsible to other innocent people, or do they not matter to you guys? :huh:

 

But yet you, and many others, seem to think because these refugees are suffering (and that really sucks, it does) we should just throw caution to the wind because they need it. A smart nation will never do that. Well, of course in a different world were criminals didn't lie, cheat and blend in with sickly families or hover around children to commit their crimes, I would agree with you entirely and everyone would be happy and safe and loved. But we are talking about a group of criminals that will stop at nothing to achieve their goal here in the real world/reality, not immigrants trying to cross over our border for the American dream. The difference is enormous and treating it like they are one and the same is absolutely naive. If France wants to just let them in again and forget how dangerous it is—or if any other country does—fine, their right to decide. But we Americans? We want to be sure of who is coming into our country and give priority to our citizens above all else because France, Italy, Canada etc etc aren't 1# on terrorist hit lists.

 

And if push comes to shove, I bet none of you would open your house to strangers, especially any stranger that could very well be a terrorist. You can sit at your keyboards and say the words on the internet to other strangers that can't ever be backed, but we know you wouldn't be quickly opening your door for them, if at all, without knowing who they are, what they do, who they are related to or know etc etc.

We arnt pushing our beliefs any more than you are. All either of us have done has replied on a forum stating our opinions. I wasnt using the word coward as a personal attack, that's just my opinion. I think that its cowardly. If anything your pushing your belief on me by trying to tell me I cant express my opinion...

 

 

 

@Tmt97

 

Just step away from the "Post" button. 

Yea, maybe your right. Was just speaking my mind. I think I've pretty much expressed everything I have to say on this matter so I'm done on this topic.

[SpaceNugget]

Just stating my opinion. Coward is the best word to describe what I think of this fear of helping other human beings.

Its like no one on the internet can be intellectually honest. You know that its not the helping that they are afraid of don't be a dolt. They are tough on immigration already, they aren't likely to make it easier for people to get in when there is a much higher chance of the immigrants committing mass murder. How many homeless people are you currently sheltering? which countries did you go to aid during the ebola crisis? or are you a coward who is scared of helping people.

[stconquest]

Its like no one on the internet can be intellectually honest. You know that its not the helping that they are afraid of don't be a dolt. They are tough on immigration already, they aren't likely to make it easier for people to get in when there is a much higher chance of the immigrants committing mass murder. How many homeless people are you currently sheltering? which countries did you go to aid during the ebola crisis? or are you a coward who is scared of helping people.

 

Exactly, the USA has enough Americans committing mass murders... why would they want to risk immigrant terrorism when they can't even admit they have a much more prevalent domestic problem.

[Albatross]

We arnt pushing our beliefs any more than you are. All either of us have done has replied on a forum stating our opinions. I wasnt using the word coward as a personal attack, that's just my opinion. I think that its cowardly. If anything your pushing your belief on me by trying to tell me I cant express my opinion...

 

 

No, you are, though you decide not to use directness in doing so. You try to tell people, mostly here, that they are cowards because they don't want to let strangers who could harm innocent people into their country. I personally believe (and have stated it here), in America, each state should have a vote on what to do. I even went on, several times, to say do what you want, just don't expect others to do it because you have no problem with it or to act like there is no concern whatsoever. So how is that me pushing what I believe on anyone or telling them not express themselves? That's me expressing in America, you have a vote as a citizen and that if anyone else wants to let them in, go ahead.

 

I'm not offended by your term at all, no need to apologize or state it wasn't an insult etc etc. I'm more concerned with your logic in using it. You refer to people who are cautious for real, legitimate reasons as "cowards", as if this entire situation is so simple and innocent a rock could make the decision. You don't think Americans want to be able to help? They do, but they don't want to do it stupidly or at their own country/family's risk. But yet you throw out their very real concern because you don't see the problem. You shouldn't treat things as serious as this as something so black and white. The world is a dangerous, conniving, evil place and trust shouldn't be placed so easily.

[SurvivorNVL]

If they're not willing to fight, die, and work for making the country they're fleeing from, a better place; why should we expect them to do the same here?  That is my take on it.  

[adman29]

Ok, in my honest opinion: The united states should take in foreign refugee's. To clarify: I'm not saying that we should take in literally all of the refugees; that's pretty much impossible both fiscally and socially. 

 

Basically I have one contention. It is the most moral and just thing that we can do; seeing that that the United States can be directly related to the displacement of these refugees. You see, we're directly related to their displacement due to the fact when we left Iraq, we left a power vacuum. It was basically a weak and corrupt government that favored a minority over the majority (see Sunni-Shia conflict). This power vacuum that we left left a huge hole open for an evil power (the Islamic State) to take power, and well, left unchecked displace millions of people by invading literally everything around it. We should be there to right this wrong that we unintentionally released on the world by helping the affected in whatever way possible, be it

nuking the middle east (which trust me, is the very last, least rational option) or help in taking in the displaced (which is probably the more rational decision). 

 

As to the decision for states, due to federalism (separation of powers between the state and federal government) they technically have the choice whether or not to accept refugees. However, though it may be contrary to what my own state has chosen, I believe that each state should do whatever they can, or even better take an equal amount of responsibility, to take in these refugees for it would serve the greater good. Here in America, the refugee's would have a decent chance do succeed, that shouldn't be squandered by a xenophobic attitude taken by a minority. It serves the greater good better to take in an amount of refugees rather than block their entry and leave them on an unsure plane of existence where they might die. Imagine what would've happened to the South Korean and South Vietnamese refugees if we turned them away during the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts -- they probably would've faced a fate worse than death, much like turning Syrian refugees would face with the Islamic State. Remember what happened to the Jews we denied entry to during WWII? They also faced a fate worse than death. This greater good we serve by receiving these refugees far outweighs the risk we take by the possibility of a few terrorists entering our nation.

 

Also: making the generalization that all Muslims are terrorists is a great oversight of their culture that is honestly bigoted and racist (sorry, kids in my debate class made that oversight, and wanted to make that clear to everyone).

[KingKeith55]

I think we should not accept military aged men. I see so many 20 year old men coming into the country, heck if we had to fight for our country in the past then they should fight for theirs. We have given them training, weapons and support. They have no reason not to, other than the fact that they are cowards. In wars we fought, the women even worked in factories making bombs and ammunition. They are not excused either, and most of them have children just to make the countries feel bad for them and take them in. It's an act.

 

Not only that, but how are we to know that someone isn't a fake refugee? They could be a terrorist. They all dress the same. They all look the same, they all act the same.

 

The only people we should take in is people who:

 

- is probably not a terrorist/threat (This means anyone who can possibly recruit or spread propaganda for the islamic state or other extremist cultures)

- Isn't fit for fighting or helping out with the war (children, maybe 5-12)

- Isn't too young (Noone has the space to take in your newborns or 2 year olds)

 

Part of the reason it's better to bring kids in is it's going to be easier for them to become accustomed to american culture and way of life. They will also not be forced to believe in the Muslim religion and given a choice, where as in those countries they would most likely be forced or brainwashed into believing in that culture. I think everyone deserves a choice to choose what they believe in themselves, and I was given that choice too. If their parents really care about their children becoming successful, they will send their children here and leave them while they fight.

 

The other reason is these children can be educated and won't complain about or protest our ways of living (A lot of the REFUGEES even complain about this, "oh no we don't agree we don't want to do this it's against our religion" bullcrap)

 

The problem is, the Muslim religion all of the middle eastern people believe in basically says "People who do not follow islam are the enemy", whether they are extremist or not.

 

 

I think some of these people need to break certain rules of their religion for future generations wellbeing and for their own lives and wellbeing as well.

 

I remember a story of a Sikh man who took his turban off in order to save a drowning person. The drowning person grabbed ahold of one end and was pulled to safety. And in their culture, you are not supposed to take it off at all. And look what he did, broke a rule to save someones life. Was he not a proper Sikh anymore? No. He still believed and was accepted as a Sikh. Not only that but he was honored for saving someone's life.

[Yuval]

Why is the "opening doors for terrorists" such as strong argument for anyone?

Wake up and see what's happening around you - terrorists don't ask for permission to get in and they find their way no matter how high you may stack your fences.

 

Nah.. They don't. They use fake syrian passports they get in turkey to move into europe. Refugees say that allot of the people who come with them are ISIS. Keep telling that to yourself but even if shutting the border doesn't stop the terrorists from getting over to europe it will reduce it substantially. you saw what a handfull of ISIS can do in paris imagine now what the thousands which will flow to europe do if you don't shut the borders

[stconquest]

Nah.. They don't. They use fake syrian passports they get in turkey to move into europe. Refugees say that allot of the people who come with them are ISIS. Keep telling that to yourself but even if shutting the border doesn't stop the terrorists from getting over to europe it will reduce it substantially. you saw what a handfull of ISIS can do in paris imagine now what the thousands which will flow to europe do if you don't shut the borders

 

You should apply to Fox News or something.  You would fit right in, you know... being the fear mongering specialist you seem to be.

[Yuval]

You should apply to Fox News or something.  You would fit right in, you know... being the fear mongering specialist you seem to be.

 

 

Nah, just being realistic. Personally i don't fear ISIS as i live in a safe country. Just giving you fellas a heads up, they already took a plane down and slaughtered people in paris. I wonder what will happen when they decide to go all out war against europe. Very least it would cause a tear between muslims and non muslims. But oh well i'm a fear mongerer so don't listen to me..

[stconquest]

Nah, just being realistic. Personally i don't fear ISIS as i live in a safe country. Just giving you fellas a heads up, they already took a plane down and slaughtered people in paris. I wonder what will happen when they decide to go all out war against europe.

 

lol.  That was my dream going up in Canada... let's become like Israel.  Isolate our neighbors and actively pursue an endless war... ah what a dream.

[Yuval]

lol.  That was my dream going up in Canada... let's become like Israel.  Isolate our neighbors and actively pursue an endless war... ah what a dream.

 

ikr? We in israel should totally be BFFs with ISIS, Jabhat el Nusra, Hezbollah and Hamas. Lets not forget Assad too! Great buddies

[stconquest]

ikr? We in israel should totally be BFFs with ISIS, Jabhat el Nusra, Hezbollah and Hamas. Lets not forget Assad too! Great buddies

:lol:

[Yuval]

:lol:

Yeah i doubt that Canada would be talking peace with any of those.. Easy to judge when you know jack shit about the situation 

[stconquest]

Yeah i doubt that Canada would be talking peace with any of those.. Easy to judge when you know jack shit about the situation 

 

Whoa, ok. 

 

When you live with the smell of shit all your life, the idea of smelling a rose might seem scary I know. 

 

That is all, i will not argue further.  It will get bad. 

[Yuval]

Whoa, ok. 

 

When you live with the smell of shit all your life, the idea of smelling a rose might seem scary I know. 

 

Yeah true, you live in a very developed country whilst i live in a house made of clay riding my camel to work. You sir are morally superior whilst i am just a peasant middle eastern. That what you wanted to hear?

[petem]

 

Let them in. If you do your work right they will have trouble getting access to weapons if they are extremists
and no states should not be allowed to choose not to

 

That's a pretty big if, especially under Obama's watch. I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog, let alone keep America safe. I can't believe I voted for him in 2008. Not to sound harsh, but I haven't seen him do anything competent except talk, and that's what got him elected. He's long on excuses and claims, but pretty short on results.

 

 

Oh stop it. White (a lot of them christian)homegrown terrorists cause more death then any muslim terrorists in your country.... year after year.

 

How about the USA stop terrorizing innocent muslim countries? ...maybe they won't come after you.

 

Or maybe you could study history and see that expansionist ideologies (including America squeezing out the Indians) will all eventually have to resort to violence because no one wants to be trampled on, and will eventually fight back. ISIS is an expansionist ideology, ergo violence is a necessary result.

[stconquest]

 

That's a pretty big if, especially under Obama's watch. I wouldn't trust him to walk my dog, let alone keep America safe. I can't believe I voted for him in 2008. Not to sound harsh, but I haven't seen him do anything competent except talk, and that's what got him elected. He's long on excuses and claims, but pretty short on results.

 

Your government just blocked a bill last week, to keep guns out of that hands on anyone on the terrorist watch list. I understand that bill could also be used in a corrupt manner, but that goes for any law on the books anyways.

 

Obama is not the on blocking these bills. Don't blame one person for all the stupidity coming out of the electorate.

 

 

Or maybe you could study history and see that expansionist ideologies (including America squeezing out the Indians) will all eventually have to resort to violence because no one wants to be trampled on, and will eventually fight back. ISIS is an expansionist ideology, ergo violence is a necessary result.

 

You really fear ISIS is going to take over the USA, huh? Okay, I will leave now.

[Haikal_Zakwaan]

 

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

They're dickheads. They were blinded by their money and wealth that they forget about their suffering brothers. What a disgrace to Muslim community.

 

 

Im asking you to elaborate, idk who white terrorists are? lol

The Bush. The thick green bush.

[petem]

 

Oh stop it. White (a lot of them christian)homegrown terrorists cause more death then any muslim terrorists in your country.... year after year.

 

How about the USA stop terrorizing innocent muslim countries? ...maybe they won't come after you.

 

Yes, they do. But does it follow that we should flood our country with enough radical Muslims to dwarf the violence caused by our own citizens, like France has? I don't think so.

 

But I do agree with the idea of your second sentence, if not the characterization. The U.S. spends way too much time and resources trying to keep Muslims from killing themselves and their neighbors. Innocence is a bit of a stretch. The Muslims, and many other nations before and beside them, have been bloodying their hands when it suited their purposes since before history, so I'm no buying that canard.

 

As for motives, the U.S., flawed as it may be, has ever strived to bring peace and aid to any nation or people that has sincerely asked for help. And we have similarly strived to bring hell to those who have spread violence and suffering. As a nation, we are young and foolhardy, and slow to learn from history, but that hardly makes us evil, or justifies terrorist acts against us. If you can justify terrorism against us, then it is justified against anybody. At that point you don't have a civil society, you have might makes right. Outgrowing that attitude is what has allowed mankind to rise above brutish existence. Reinstating it just pushes us back to the dark ages and beyond. Hardly a shining civilization to be a beacon for hope and prosperity for all who encounter us.

 

And that sword slices both ways: we terrorize you because you harm us. So then we don't try to help, and it becomes we terrorize you because you abandon us. I think the U.S. helping Muslims is like police trying to stop a married couple fighting eachother. They may hate eachother and be tearing eachother limb from limb, but as soon as a policeman arrives, if he tries to stop one of them, the other will attack them and tell them to get the hell out of there.

 

George W. didn't know his history, and neither does Pres. Obama. There is no law against being ignorant. It would be nice if we, as a people, would elect our leaders based on their wisdom and effectiveness, and not their polished words or down home appeal.

 

 

Nah, we have the police terrorizing minorities.

 

Close enough?

 

Yea, but the police are pikers, compared to what the minorities do to themselves

[stconquest]

Yes, they do.  But does it follow that we should flood our country with enough radical Muslims to dwarf the violence caused by our own citizens, like France has?  I don't think so.  

 

But I do agree with the idea of your second sentence, if not the characterization.  The U.S. spends way too much time and resources trying to keep Muslims from killing themselves and their neighbors.  Innocence is a bit of a stretch.  The Muslims, and many other nations before and beside them, have been bloodying their hands when it suited their purposes since before history, so I'm no buying that canard.

 

As for motives, the U.S., flawed as it may be, has ever strived to bring peace and aid to any nation or people that has sincerely asked for help.  And we have similarly strived to bring hell to those who have spread violence and suffering.  As a nation, we are young and foolhardy, and slow to learn from history, but that hardly makes us evil, or justifies terrorist acts against us.  If you can justify terrorism against us, then it is justified against anybody.  At that point you don't have a civil society, you have might makes right.  Outgrowing that attitude is what has allowed mankind to rise above brutish existence.  Reinstating it just pushes us back to the dark ages and beyond.  Hardly a shining civilization to be a beacon for hope and prosperity for all who encounter us.

 

And that sword slices both ways: we terrorize you because you harm us.  So then we don't try to help, and it becomes we terrorize you because you abandon us.  I think the U.S. helping Muslims is like police trying to stop a married couple fighting eachother.  They may hate eachother and be tearing eachother limb from limb, but as soon as a policeman arrives, if he tries to stop one of them, the other will attack them and tell them to get the hell out of there.

 

George W. didn't know his history, and neither does Pres. Obama.  There is no law against being ignorant.  It would be nice if we, as a people, would elect our leaders based on their wisdom and effectiveness, and not their polished words or down home appeal.

 

Since this is too long of an argument for my taste (ATM), I have taken the liberty of highlighting your absolutely erroneous comments in bold and you arguably erroneous ones in italics...

 

You are welcome

 

BTW, I was corrected on the statement you quoted twice.  Did you not think that would be relevant in the course of this thread?