Syrian refugees

[SpaceNugget]

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.

 

1. The president himself has done multiple speeches about how they have an unacceptable number of domestic mass murders especially compared to other G8 countries. So they do admit they have a problem,

 

2. Their domestic mass murders do not factor in to the risk that they take when they accept refugees. They are two completely separate issues.

 

like it or not the government has a duty to the citizens of their country and no one else. 

 

The problem with all of the people in this thread saying how they would risk their own lives to help people is two fold. Firstly, no they fucking wouldn't, Secondly, with accepting a lot of people at once without the ability to properly screen them is not risking your own life, You are choosing to risk the lives of lots of other people as well. By all means be a martyr and go to syria and try to help people but you shouldn't get to decide to put other peoples lives at risk to make yourself feel like you are making a difference.

[stconquest]

1. The president himself has done multiple speeches about how they have an unacceptable number of domestic mass murders especially compared to other G8 countries. So they do admit they have a problem,

 

2. Their domestic mass murders do not factor in to the risk that they take when they accept refugees. They are two completely separate issues.

 

like it or not the government has a duty to the citizens of their country and no one else. 

 

The problem with all of the people in this thread saying how they would risk their own lives to help people is two fold. Firstly, no they fucking wouldn't, Secondly, with accepting a lot of people at once without the ability to properly screen them is not risking your own life, You are choosing to risk the lives of lots of other people as well. By all means be a martyr and go to syria and try to help people but you shouldn't get to decide to put other peoples lives at risk to make yourself feel like you are making a difference.

 

I don't think you understand what I mean.  There is a good portion of the US population that believe ISIS is a big threat to the USA.  I was pointing out a very real fact that there are bigger problems with terrorism in the USA than the muslim fundamentalist variety.  This is an example of misinformation being spread among the populous... fear mongering if you will.  It is relevant.  It is very evident in the political pandering sphere.  Politicians are actually praised for their public misinformed proclamations by a very ignorant constituency.  This causes bad policy to be enacted on so many issues.

 

If there was a way to actually help, a lot of these "cowardly" citizens/political figures, would not even see it.

[Guest Generallee]

Am I saying that all the refugees are with ISIS? No, not at all, it's possible that none of them are, but it's also possible that some of them are, and they're going to use it to attack us from the inside.

 

 

Okay here is an example.

 

Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house and your house is a country. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

 

Okay here is an example

 

Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house because you fucked up their house with airstrikes, put a dictator in charge and turned their house into a hell on earth. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

[TheKDub]

Okay here is an example

 

Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house because you fucked up their house with airstrikes, put a dictator in charge and turned their house into a hell on earth. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

 

Nope, not gonna take that chance, they can go somewhere else.

[AresKrieger]

Okay here is an example

 

Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house because you fucked up their house with airstrikes, put a dictator in charge and turned their house into a hell on earth. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

That increases the odds that they will be extremists so.......

 

They should have just left saddam and assad alone (didn't help anything), as an indifferent dictator is better than an angry mob

[Guest Generallee]

Nope, not gonna take that chance, they can go somewhere else.

 

So you are basically saying that your government should not take the responsibility for the situation in Syria ?

 

 

They should have just left saddam and assad alone (didn't help anything), as an indifferent dictator is better than an angry mob

 

Yes they should have. The US government, among others, created the instability, they should at least take the responsibility for that. Trying to be the world's police isn't easy.

 

If you can't manage to secure your country from terrorists, you shouldn't bomb a country full of terrorists.

[terrytek]

I feel like Syrian refugees should be allowed in because they need a safe home from their war torn country and they should be treated fairly.

 

I live in california, home of the liberals. and plus, we allowed them, provided they already have family here.

[TheKDub]

So you are basically saying that your government should not take the responsibility of the situation in Syria ?

 

I'm saying that they should prioritize the safety of the people of america, if they just start letting refugees flow into america, there are bound to be ISIS members mixed into that group, that way they can get into the country, then kill more people.

 

 

 

I feel like Syrian refugees should be allowed in because they need a safe home from their war torn country and they should be treated fairly.

 

I live in california, home of the liberals. and plus, we allowed them, provided they already have family here.

 

Don't forget, there are plenty of other countries they could go to, most of which aren't even involved in this war...

[AresKrieger]

So you are basically saying that your government should not take the responsibility of the situation in Syria ?

 

Yes they should have. Your government, among others, created the instability, they should take the responsibility for that. Trying to be the world's police isn't easy.

We're damned if we do damned if we don't, the reason Saddam was killed likely was due to him attempting to kill Bush Sr, and Jr didn't like that one bit. But if we don't get involve people would still hate us, really it's a no win situation. Side note WWI is the root cause of most of these issues, as the British had no clue how to divide the Ottoman Empire into separate countries, which is why countries are so ununited  in the middle east.

[petem]

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?

 

Sorry, didn't read through the entire 10 pages before I responded - didn't mean to pile on:) 

 

Don't know why you bolded the France bit, they have 7.5% Muslim population, and I'm pretty sure we'd be in the same boat as them if we did too.

 

Sorry about the second, I thought it was obvious, so I'll say it here - In my opinion, the U.S. spends way too much ...

 

As for the 3rd part, I'm talking about us as a foreign power, since that is the context of my (yea, too long) dissertation.  We sure didn't help the indians or anybody else that stood in our "manifest destiny" way - as I pointed out in my prior post.

 

Trying to keep it short and to the point...

[Guest Generallee]

I'm saying that they should prioritize the safety of the people of america, if they just start letting refugees flow into america, there are bound to be ISIS members mixed into that group, that way they can get into the country, then kill more people.

 

I'm saying that they should take their fucking responsibility. The US, with France and other countries, have fucked up Syria so badly it's not even a country anymore. If the US cannot secure it's own citizens against a terrorist menace, they shouldn't try to be the world's police by airstriking thousands of innocent civilians and calling that collateral damage. 

[petem]

1. The president himself has done multiple speeches about how they have an unacceptable number of domestic mass murders especially compared to other G8 countries. So they do admit they have a problem,

 

2. Their domestic mass murders do not factor in to the risk that they take when they accept refugees. They are two completely separate issues.

 

like it or not the government has a duty to the citizens of their country and no one else. 

 

The problem with all of the people in this thread saying how they would risk their own lives to help people is two fold. Firstly, no they fucking wouldn't, Secondly, with accepting a lot of people at once without the ability to properly screen them is not risking your own life, You are choosing to risk the lives of lots of other people as well. By all means be a martyr and go to syria and try to help people but you shouldn't get to decide to put other peoples lives at risk to make yourself feel like you are making a difference.

 

1. Not sure if we have the same president.  I think anything President OBAMA says should be taken with a block of salt.  A grain is not enough.  I have researched many of his claims (the ones that weren't patently absurd) and found them to be ... misleading at best.  Global warming, JV team, not a smidge of corruption, keep your doctor, check is in the mail, blah blah blah - damn republicans, but I still wouldn't have voted for McCain.  One thing the President leaves out is that all important phrase "per capita", meaning vs. the size of our population.  We are not #1 per capita, we are behind, and some of them WAY behind a number of other nations: Norway, Finland, Israel, Switzerland, I can't remember who else, but, well, you can wiki just about any "<nation> mass murder" and figure it out.  We have more because we have more people. And Australia, even after their tightened laws and gun buy back program, continues getting mass murders, they are just more creative without the obvious weapon of choice as available as it is here.  In any event, even though we are high on the list, our number are much closer to those below us than those above us.  PER CAPITA.

 

2. Many of the terrorists in the attack in France were recruited "domestically", but there is no word about how many of them were recruited from outside vs. inside the Muslim population.  Would be interesting to see if there's an overlap between domestic and immigrant, or recent immigrant.

[TheKDub]

I'm saying that they should take their fucking responsibility. The US, with France and other countries, have fucked up Syria so badly it's not even a country anymore. If the US cannot secure it's own citizens against a terrorist menace, they shouldn't try to be the world's police by airstriking thousands of innocent civilians and calling that collateral damage. 

 

Does it make fucking sense to you to just let people from another country, which may very well include terrorists, into the country that you're trying to defend from the terrorists? It's like trying to keep robbers out of a bank vault, but then letting random people just go in, some of which are robbers, and are going to steal as much money as possible. ITS A BAD IDEA!

[Picklenuttz]

Does it make fucking sense to you to just let people from another country, which may very well include terrorists, into the country that you're trying to defend from the terrorists? It's like trying to keep robbers out of a bank vault, but then letting random people just go in, some of which are robbers, and are going to steal as much money as possible. ITS A BAD IDEA!

That's it....no more white American men allowed to cross the border since some of you are fucking nuts and shoot schools up. See how stupid that sounds?

[petem]

I don't think you understand what I mean.  There is a good portion of the US population that believe ISIS is a big threat to the USA.  I was pointing out a very real fact that there are bigger problems with terrorism in the USA than the muslim fundamentalist variety.  This is an example of misinformation being spread among the populous... fear mongering if you will.  It is relevant.  It is very evident in the political pandering sphere.  Politicians are actually praised for their public misinformed proclamations by a very ignorant constituency.  This causes bad policy to be enacted on so many issues.

 

If there was a way to actually help, a lot of these "cowardly" citizens/political figures, would not even see it.

 

I don't think it's just about terrorism now, today.  I think it's more about nipping it in the bud before it becomes something that is much more prevalent and difficult to combat later on.

[Guest Generallee]

Does it make fucking sense to you to just let people from another country, which may very well include terrorists, into the country that you're trying to defend from the terrorists? It's like trying to keep robbers out of a bank vault, but then letting random people just go in, some of which are robbers, and are going to steal as much money as possible. ITS A BAD IDEA

 

It was a bad idea to touch Syria in the first place, but your government didn't learn the lesson from Iraq 

 

Someone's gotta pay the bills, and it's gonna be the countries who started this fuck up. 

 

It's so funny to see a country whose history is nothing to be proud of, giving lessons about letting refugees in

[stconquest]

 

Sorry, didn't read through the entire 10 pages before I responded - didn't mean to pile on:) 

 

Don't know why you bolded the France bit, they have 7.5% Muslim population, and I'm pretty sure we'd be in the same boat as them if we did too.

 

Sorry about the second, I thought it was obvious, so I'll say it here - In my opinion, the U.S. spends way too much ...

 

As for the 3rd part, I'm talking about us as a foreign power, since that is the context of my (yea, too long) dissertation.  We sure didn't help the indians or anybody else that stood in our "manifest destiny" way - as I pointed out in my prior post.

 

Trying to keep it short and to the point...

 

 

France - last I checked, they do not have a policy aimed towards flooding their population with fundamentalist of any nature, quite the opposite in fact.  You make it sound like they take absolutely no precautions to keep violence out of their country.  This is false.

 

The general problem I see with your perspective is that you truly believe your country is "the good guy" in these global war efforts.  I assure you the USA is not the good guy by any stretch of the imagination.  I know my country (Canada) participated in Afghanistan actively and Iraq covertly, but I in know way would defend such a poor decision to do so by romanticizing their efforts to be the "the good guy" when the policy directly associated with those war efforts was corrupt and "evil".  Yes evil, as in designed to do only harm in order to selfishly gain type of evil. 

 

Everybody wants to put in the cookie jar, sometimes they don't notice the venomous scorpions until it is too late. 

[petem]

That's it....no more white American men allowed to cross the border since some of you are fucking nuts and shoot schools up. See how stupid that sounds?

 

Lolz, nice try.  Someone who has an axe to grind (real or imagined) locally, doesn't decide to go to another nation and f**k them up instead.  But if it *were* true, I don't see why they wouldn't want to prevent it by whatever means they deemed reasonable.  

[stconquest]

 

I don't think it's just about terrorism now, today. I think it's more about nipping it in the bud before it becomes something that is much more prevalent and difficult to combat later on.

 

You might be too far gone it seems.

 

Terrorism will not be conquered by policy set by a central authority. Can't happen. All a central authority can do to stop terrorism is destroy everything and everyone in the effort.

 

Populations defeat terrorism through education, tolerance and patience.

 

All the US (last 50 or so years) lead campaign has done is fuck up the world more than before. Other military powers will follow suit and fuck it up some more.

 

Welcome to everything the USA is supposed to be against, the real world of bullshit it is now an exclusive member of.

 

 

Lolz, nice try. Someone who has an axe to grind (real or imagined) locally, doesn't decide to go to another nation and f**k them up instead. But if it *were* true, I don't see why they wouldn't want to prevent it by whatever means they deemed reasonable.

 

Hmmm, check your country's actions.

 

That was a tad amusing.

[petem]

 

France - last I checked, they do not have a policy aimed towards flooding their population with fundamentalist of any nature, quite the opposite in fact. You make it sound like they take absolutely no precautions to keep violence out of their country. This is false.

 

The general problem I see with your perspective is that you truly believe your country is "the good guy" in these global war efforts. I assure you the USA is not the good guy by any stretch of the imagination. I know my country (Canada) participated in Afghanistan actively and Iraq covertly, but I in know way would defend such a poor decision to do so by romanticizing their efforts to be the "the good guy" when the policy directly associated with those war efforts was corrupt and "evil". Yes evil, as in designed to do only harm in order to selfishly gain type of evil.

 

Everybody wants to put in the cookie jar, sometimes they don't notice the venomous scorpions until it is too late.

 

Hmmm, you bring up a good point - what is the difference between the good guy and the bad guy? Is it intentions or results or something else? You can look at any massive undertaking, be it evil or good, and find the opposite effect in it. It's not about whether suffering happens, it's about whether you are trying to reduce it or increase it, and who you are doing that to.

 

I don't think we are the good guy in the sense you mean it, I think the difference that you seem to ignore is that we strive to keep other bullies from beating the crap out people that are too weak to defend themselves. It's not that we are successful, it's that we try. Help the sufferers, punish the bullies. You can't fix everything, and you can't ruin everything, so the question is how do you do the most fixing with the least damaging. If all you choose to see is the suffering, then stay in your house. And when the rest of us do that too, the real bullies win.

 

 

You might be too far gone it seems.

 

Terrorism will not be conquered by policy set by a central authority. Can't happen. All a central authority can do to stop terrorism is destroy everything and everyone in the effort.

 

Populations defeat terrorism through education, tolerance and patience.

 

All the US (last 50 or so years) lead campaign has done is fuck up the world more than before. Other military powers will follow suit and fuck it up some more.

 

Welcome to everything the USA is supposed to be against, the real world of bullshit it is now an exclusive member of.

 

Read some history; your wishes don't make it so. Central authority is not the issue. Plenty of "central authorities" have pushed back and defeated it in the past, without tolerance, patience, or education. Brute force. Name me one nation that, through education, patience, and tolerance, defeated terrorism?
I can name you 10 that didn't.

 

Hmm, well maybe 8 without googling it...

[SpaceNugget]

I don't think you understand what I mean.  There is a good portion of the US population that believe ISIS is a big threat to the USA.  I was pointing out a very real fact that there are bigger problems with terrorism in the USA than the muslim fundamentalist variety.  This is an example of misinformation being spread among the populous... fear mongering if you will.  It is relevant.  It is very evident in the political pandering sphere.  Politicians are actually praised for their public misinformed proclamations by a very ignorant constituency.  This causes bad policy to be enacted on so many issues.

 

If there was a way to actually help, a lot of these "cowardly" citizens/political figures, would not even see it.

 

Oh don't worry I 100% agree that ISIS is not a significant threat to the states. they definitely have much bigger problems, But that doesn't mean ISIS isn't a problem, just a relatively small one. And I was just pointing out that it is a separate problem from domestic mass murderers.

 

 

1. Not sure if we have the same president.  I think anything President OBAMA says should be taken with a block of salt.  A grain is not enough.  I have researched many of his claims (the ones that weren't patently absurd) and found them to be ... misleading at best.  Global warming, JV team, not a smidge of corruption, keep your doctor, check is in the mail, blah blah blah - damn republicans, but I still wouldn't have voted for McCain.  One thing the President leaves out is that all important phrase "per capita", meaning vs. the size of our population.  We are not #1 per capita, we are behind, and some of them WAY behind a number of other nations: Norway, Finland, Israel, Switzerland, I can't remember who else, but, well, you can wiki just about any "<nation> mass murder" and figure it out.  We have more because we have more people. And Australia, even after their tightened laws and gun buy back program, continues getting mass murders, they are just more creative without the obvious weapon of choice as available as it is here.  In any event, even though we are high on the list, our number are much closer to those below us than those above us.  PER CAPITA.

 

2. Many of the terrorists in the attack in France were recruited "domestically", but there is no word about how many of them were recruited from outside vs. inside the Muslim population.  Would be interesting to see if there's an overlap between domestic and immigrant, or recent immigrant.

 

We do not have the same president. I am not a united statesian. I don't have a president.

[petem]

(Populations defeat terrorism through education, tolerance and patience. )

 

And I will concede your point on education, but the education came at the end of a gun (or sword, or what have you), because the children of the defeated were forced to be educated at the schools provided by the nations in question, not at the schools of the terrorists. You want to educate them your way, you'll have to forcefully, i.e. non-patient, non-tolerant, take them from their homes and educate them at your schools.

 

 

Oh don't worry I 100% agree that ISIS is not a significant threat to the states. they definitely have much bigger problems, But that doesn't mean ISIS isn't a problem, just a relatively small one. And I was just pointing out that it is a separate problem from domestic mass murderers.

 

We do not have the same president. I am not a united statesian. I don't have a president.

 

Ok, let me rephrase, I don't think the president you are talking about is the same one I have experienced.

 

 

Hmmm, check your country's actions.

 

That was a tad amusing.

 

Wasn't talking about the actions of the U.S., was talking about how making an invalid argument leads to a not surprisingly stupid conclusion.

[stconquest]

(Populations defeat terrorism through education, tolerance and patience. )

 

And I will concede your point on education, but the education came at the end of a gun (or sword, or what have you), because the children of the defeated were forced to be educated at the schools provided by the nations in question, not at the schools of the terrorists. You want to educate them your way, you'll have to forcefully, i.e. non-patient, non-tolerant, take them from their homes and educate them at your schools.

 

 

I have no words left. 

[Boyce05]

After the attacks in Paris? I personally do not think we should take in any refugees at the moment. It didn't go so well for France, and other countries. There is no guarantee on Americans' safety, and as a nation, we put our citizens lives above all else. However each state should have the authority to decline/accept if we have to have them, as each state has sovereignty.

If another country or people in those countries have a problem with it, then you take them in. We aren't obligated to do anything that puts our people at risk.

And then we have situations like this, where we don't do anything, a terrorist group/etc causes havoc and we are forced to accept the aftermath regardless...

Oh. Some can already worm their way in, why be cautious at all? Makes perfect sense.

just thought i would mention, the people who carried out the attacks were exceptions, and had been living undetected for anywhere between 6-12 months. Not very recent, almost like they were here before the main appeal to let in refugees. Also the fact that why should so many people, innocent suffer because of the few extremists, who attach to the name of islam. Hundreds of thousands of people should not suffer because of the actions of a few radicalised 'terrorists'. Also our people, why should a line on a map and where your born make the land you live on yours, circumstance shouldn't determine how you life should be?

[flowalex]

My parents just got back from Texas and what they told me is that someone could fly there no visa required and buy a gun no questions asked, which would be easier for a terrorist to do this than a refugee because it takes two years of screening and goes through multiple agencies.  I think it is fine that they accept refugees, even the governor who started it just wants to know what the screening process is (Source:  http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/11/20/npr-governor-who-started-stampede-on-refugees-says-he-only-wants-answers).  Here are the rest of my sources (Yes I know they are from the same site):

http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/11/dayton-rejects-house-gop-leaders-stance-on-syrian-refugees/ (Allowing them in MN)

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/11/20/npr-visa-waivers (VISA Program info)

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/11/18/npr-syrian-refugees (Screening Process)