Syrian refugees

[Albatross]

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?

 

The attacks themselves were recent. It doesn't matter if they wormed their way in a year prior to the attack. It doesn't take away from the fact that allowing any and all Syrian immigrants into their country as France did (or as easily as it is) was a serious security risk that ended with people being murdered brutally.

 

No one said anything about all Syrian immigrants being radicals, but because they exist and not in such a small gathering as you seem to think, precautions and priorities must be set. You can't just let in thousands of people you cannot vet, it puts other innocent lives at risk. Can you justify letting native innocents die or be compromised for this refugee crisis? Do their lives > all others because their country is falling apart?

 

And because that's how it is (I'm not going to argue the "should countries exist"). If there were a way to know for sure each and every soul entering America was of sound mind and non-extremist, there wouldn't be a problem at all. But America and Americans must think about the millions of innocent people in their country first...you know, the ones the terrorists always cite when they talk about who to kill for Islam.

[rjfaber91]

I'm not going to quote any people in particular, because there's been too many of them who have touched on the same point in this thread, namely that Syrian refugees should not be let in on the basis that there might be terrorists among them.

 

The thing is that people aren't born as terrorists. Some people may lead perfectly socially acceptable lives for forty years, and then suddenly radicalise, and equally people who have been involved in terrorism may denounce that life and become good citizens again. Is there a potential threat that Syrian ISIS members might try to sneak through borders surrounded by legitimate refugees? Yes. Is there a threat that people who have never been to Syria might be radicalised by ISIS' significant propaganda efforts on the internet? Yes. In fact, looking at all the acts of terrorism commited by Islamic extremists in the Western world, it's easy to see that the vast majority of these attacks were commited by people who were radicalised in their own countries, the very countries they then commited their acts of terrorism in; it is really rather rare for terrorists to come from extremist strongholds in the Middle East to the Western world in order to propagate a terrorist attack.

 

To put it more bluntly; if you live in New York (for example), happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and die at the hands of an Islamic extremist gunman or suicide bomber, said Islamic extremist is very significantly more likely to have been radicalised in the US than in Syria. Therefore, refusing Syrian refugees on the basis that there might be small numbers of ISIS-supported terrorists among them is, quite frankly, a truly nonsensical move. You're refusing your moral obligations to the genuine refugees in order to stop a handful of terrorists coming into the country, that frankly aren't more than a drop in the ocean of the existing pool of Islamic extremists anyway.

[sgtcool]

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

 

 

i have no idea why

 

new camp and we opened another entry point to austria, so another new camp lol

[Albatross]

i have no idea why

 

new camp and we opened another entry point to austria, so another new camp lol

 

Wow... the people who did such things should be sent back to their country, far away from those who are honestly seeking a better life.

[Tocsin_786]

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

I think Jordan has taken more refugees any alot of other countries (somewhere around 600k http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=87 ) but yea Saudi Arabia and all those other Gulf states should really stop being a bunch of ass holes. 

[Boyce05]

The attacks themselves were recent. It doesn't matter if they wormed their way in a year prior to the attack. It doesn't take away from the fact that allowing any and all Syrian immigrants into their country as France did (or as easily as it is) was a serious security risk that ended with people being murdered brutally.

No one said anything about all Syrian immigrants being radicals, but because they exist and not in such a small gathering as you seem to think, precautions and priorities must be set. You can't just let in thousands of people you cannot vet, it puts other innocent lives at risk. Can you justify letting native innocents die or be compromised for this refugee crisis? Do their lives > all others because their country is falling apart?

And because that's how it is (I'm not going to argue the "should countries exist"). If there were a way to know for sure each and every soul entering America was of sound mind and non-extremist, there wouldn't be a problem at all. But America and Americans must think about the millions of innocent people in their country first...you know, the ones the terrorists always cite when they talk about who to kill for Islam.

i can see your point, yet using the word native is ridiculous when america itself was founded by the movement of people, now you plan to protect these people by stopping the same cycle of people moving to a safe place , with the risk that maybe a few 'natives' might die. I can guarantee that people will die as a result of not helping. If america doesn't want this problem of thousands of uprooted people needing a home, don't start bombing their homes.

[Albatross]

i can see your point, yet using the word native is ridiculous when america itself was founded by the movement of people, now you plan to protect these people by stopping the same cycle of people moving to a safe place , with the risk that maybe a few 'natives' might die. I can guarantee that people will die as a result of not helping. If america doesn't want this problem of thousands of uprooted people needing a home, don't start bombing their homes.

 

It is naive. I never stated the idea of immigration was naive, but letting in thousands of people we cannot properly vet when doing so in France resulted in a terrorist attack. Until we can ensure safety of our citizens or ensure that those entering aren't a security risk, we shouldn't let them in. And you still haven't answered me; are the refugees more important at the moment than those living in the country you want to just freely accept them? Does their safety and livelihood not matter because foreigners' lives were displaced? You honestly think letting in thousands of people we have no idea who they are connected to (or may be) is a good idea, especially for America, 1# country on terrorist hit lists?

 

And they are currently leaving because of ISIL and their terror as well as civil war, not just because of U.S bombings on innocent people. There is a war going on over there between ISIL and just about everyone else (even Russia is involved). I think you need to get your facts straight.

 

edit

 

grammar and stuff. it is hard to write on a moto g's tiny screen.

 

I think Jordan has taken more refugees any alot of other countries (somewhere around 600k http://syrianrefugees.eu/?page_id=87 ) but yea Saudi Arabia and all those other Gulf states should really stop being a bunch of ass holes. 

 

The last time I checked, that was accurate. I think they (Jordan) have taken even more refugees now.

[stconquest]

It is naive. I never stated the idea of immigration was naive, but letting in thousands of people we cannot properly vet when doing so in France resulted in a terrorist attack. Until we can ensure safety of our citizens or ensure that those entering aren't a security risk, we shouldn't let them in. And you still haven't answered me; are the refugees more important at the moment than those living in the country you want to just freely accept them? Does their safety and livelihood not matter because foreigners' lives were displaced? You honestly thinking letting in thousands of people we have no idea who they are connected to (or may be) is a good idea, especially for America, 1# country on terrorist hit lists?

 

And they are currently leaving because of ISIL and their terror as well as civil war, not because of U.S bombings on innocent people. There is a war going on over there between ISIL and just about everyone else (even Russia is involved). I think you need to get your facts straight.

 

Just:  Wow.

[Albatross]

Just:  Wow.

 

Care to explain?

[stconquest]

Care to explain?

 

No, sorry.

[Albatross]

I'm not going to quote any people in particular, because there's been too many of them who have touched on the same point in this thread, namely that Syrian refugees should not be let in on the basis that there might be terrorists among them.

 

The thing is that people aren't born as terrorists. Some people may lead perfectly socially acceptable lives for forty years, and then suddenly radicalise, and equally people who have been involved in terrorism may denounce that life and become good citizens again. Is there a potential threat that Syrian ISIS members might try to sneak through borders surrounded by legitimate refugees? Yes. Is there a threat that people who have never been to Syria might be radicalised by ISIS' significant propaganda efforts on the internet? Yes. In fact, looking at all the acts of terrorism commited by Islamic extremists in the Western world, it's easy to see that the vast majority of these attacks were commited by people who were radicalised in their own countries, the very countries they then commited their acts of terrorism in; it is really rather rare for terrorists to come from extremist strongholds in the Middle East to the Western world in order to propagate a terrorist attack.

 

To put it more bluntly; if you live in New York (for example), happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and die at the hands of an Islamic extremist gunman or suicide bomber, said Islamic extremist is very significantly more likely to have been radicalised in the US than in Syria. Therefore, refusing Syrian refugees on the basis that there might be small numbers of ISIS-supported terrorists among them is, quite frankly, a truly nonsensical move. You're refusing your moral obligations to the genuine refugees in order to stop a handful of terrorists coming into the country, that frankly aren't more than a drop in the ocean of the existing pool of Islamic extremists anyway.

 

I'm not going to argue that they can become radical later, even after moving into the country, as that was never argued. But the reason we bring it up is because we don't wish to allow the ones that are already radical into the country until we can properly vet the people coming in. You seem to think that because they already exist in this country or can be radicalized in our country, we should just say "fuck it" and allow potentially even more in? Now that is nonsense.

     And It isn't nonsensical when a country was just attacked because of it. You claim it is "small", but why does that matter more than the safety of our people? That small number of terrorists just killed over a hundred people in Paris and America doesn't want to put its people at risk, even if you seem to think it doesn't warrant any worry.

     But what you are basically saying is that the deaths of Americans and potential terrorist attacks against America that will come from it means nothing up against helping Syrian refugees because we would be saving more of lives than the terrorists will take from America. Their lives > American lives. You don't/won't say it with direct words, but that what is what you are implying with that "drop in the ocean" and the "moral obligation to refugees" comment.

 

No, sorry.

 

Then don't spam the thread, please.

[stconquest]

- -

 

Then don't spam the thread, please.

 

I could say the same about some of your posts. 

 

Edit:  Comment removed by me.

[petem]

OK, I think OP should have enough ammo to fight on either side, now

[Kobathor]

How about America doesn't let them in?

 

That's all.

[Boyce05]

It is naive. I never stated the idea of immigration was naive, but letting in thousands of people we cannot properly vet when doing so in France resulted in a terrorist attack. Until we can ensure safety of our citizens or ensure that those entering aren't a security risk, we shouldn't let them in. And you still haven't answered me; are the refugees more important at the moment than those living in the country you want to just freely accept them? Does their safety and livelihood not matter because foreigners' lives were displaced? You honestly think letting in thousands of people we have no idea who they are connected to (or may be) is a good idea, especially for America, 1# country on terrorist hit lists?

And they are currently leaving because of ISIL and their terror as well as civil war, not just because of U.S bombings on innocent people. There is a war going on over there between ISIL and just about everyone else (even Russia is involved). I think you need to get your facts straight.

edit

grammar and stuff. it is hard to write on a moto g's tiny screen.

The last time I checked, that was accurate. I think they (Jordan) have taken even more refugees now.

first of all, i believe all humans are equal and that a person born on certain land is more important than others. Second ask yourself why america is number 1 on terrorists hit list, could it be because of their involvement in several middle eastern countries? No that couldn't be it. Also if your so paranoid of every single refugee shooting up your schools, maybe you should look internally. How many terror groups are home grown, i will give you one if you need, how about...oh KKK. All this is, is a excuse to keep america separate from its drones. On another point, if you are so scared that you will be attacked in a paris style, maybe check the passports properly, unlike France, it won't happen. Surely by refusing to help desperate people the growth of terrorism will increase, as they will look elsewhere for support. They are vulnerable and scared, if they can't be helped they will be exploited. Why not just go the whole hog and build a nice big wall around america, i heard a nice man called Donald Trump is offering one of them. Just think about why these things are happening and maybe start to be just a little less closed minded.

[Albatross]

first of all, i believe all humans are equal and that a person born on certain land is more important than others. Second ask yourself why america is number 1 on terrorists hit list, could it be because of their involvement in several middle eastern countries? No that couldn't be it. Also if your so paranoid of every single refugee shooting up your schools, maybe you should look internally. How many terror groups are home grown, i will give you one if you need, how about...oh KKK. All this is, is a excuse to keep america separate from its drones. On another point, if you are so scared that you will be attacked in a paris style, maybe check the passports properly, unlike France, it won't happen. Surely by refusing to help desperate people the growth of terrorism will increase, as they will look elsewhere for support. They are vulnerable and scared, if they can't be helped they will be exploited. Why not just go the whole hog and build a nice big wall around america, i heard a nice man called Donald Trump is offering one of them. Just think about why these things are happening and maybe start to be just a little less closed minded.

 

So because the government involved itself in other countries, our citizens mean nothing compared to the refugees? I can't believe you seriously just tried to justify why terrorists hate us. The average American has done absolutely nothing to a terrorist, and yet they want us all to die in the most painful way possible.

     I'm not worried "every single refugee" is going to shoot up my schools, so please don't put words in my mouth—it doesn't win your argument for you but makes you look like you can't argue it.  And I said numerous times we can't let them in until (or if) we can properly vet them, but okay, you think a passport is going to say "this man is a terrorist: reject him!"? I wish it were that easy and simple, but it isn't. They come in all shapes and flavors, you know.

 

Again you (or someone) bring up terrorists already in the nation and it still makes no sense as an argument. I say it again from above, as it rings relevant here too: You seem to think that because they already exist in this country or can be radicalized in our country, we should just say "fuck it" and allow potentially even more in? Now that is nonsense.

 

It is easy to call someone closed minded because they don't agree with you, doesn't make it true. If anything, you need to stop thinking the world is this flowery, loving place where problems don't exist. Or maybe stop viewing things as black and white—this is far more complicated than you seem to understand.

[rjfaber91]

I'm not going to argue that they can become radical later, even after moving into the country, as that was never argued. But the reason we bring it up is because we don't wish to allow the ones that are already radical into the country until we can properly vet the people coming in. You seem to think that because they already exist in this country or can be radicalized in our country, we should just say "fuck it" and allow potentially even more in? Now that is nonsense.

     And It isn't nonsensical when a country was just attacked because of it. You claim it is "small", but why does that matter more than the safety of our people? That small number of terrorists just killed over a hundred people in Paris and America doesn't want to put its people at risk, even if you seem to think it doesn't warrant any worry.

     But what you are basically saying is that the deaths of Americans and potential terrorist attacks against America that will come from it means nothing up against helping Syrian refugees because we would be saving more of lives than the terrorists will take from America. Their lives > American lives. You don't/won't say it with direct words, but that what is what you are implying with that "drop in the ocean" and the "moral obligation to refugees" comment.

 

Quite the contrary, in fact. My whole point rests on the fact that potentially stopping ISIS-backed terrorists from coming into your country, by completely shutting the border to Syrian refugees, is not going to stop ISIS from planning and possibly commiting terrorist attacks on US soil, because as we've seen in the past, terrorist organisations are perfectly happy to rely on locally groomed terrorists for that sort of thing. Were it possible to stop all chances of an ISIS-sponsored attack by closing the borders to Syrian refugees, then your point would carry more value, but that simply isn't the case; if ISIS was determined to commit a terrorist attack on US soil it could do so regardless of whether you close the border or not. As such, with the difference in potential terrorist threats between opening and closing the border being so minor, I feel it makes no sense to keep it closed and do a gross injustice to the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees.

 

As for your last point, I'm struggling to see the logic in that. Surely, if my reasoning was based solely on a net result of lives saved versus lives taken, which incidentally it isn't, I would be valueing all lives equally, and wouldn't consider Syrian lives as more important than US lives... If anything, keeping the border shut on the off chance that a terrorist attack might occur is unevenly valueing lives, to the point where any one saved US life is considered worth thousands of Syrian lives. Then again, if a closed-border policy is what the US is going to go with, it's not as though we'll all be surprised in the rest of the world; the US doesn't have much of a reputation for giving one hint of a toss for the lives of people who aren't US citizens, after all...

[Albatross]

Quite the contrary, in fact. My whole point rests on the fact that potentially stopping ISIS-backed terrorists from coming into your country, by completely shutting the border to Syrian refugees, is not going to stop ISIS from planning and possibly commiting terrorist attacks on US soil, because as we've seen in the past, terrorist organisations are perfectly happy to rely on locally groomed terrorists for that sort of thing. Were it possible to stop all chances of an ISIS-sponsored attack by closing the borders to Syrian refugees, then your point would carry more value, but that simply isn't the case; if ISIS was determined to commit a terrorist attack on US soil it could do so regardless of whether you close the border or not. As such, with the difference in potential terrorist threats between opening and closing the border being so minor, I feel it makes no sense to keep it closed and do a gross injustice to the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees.

 

As for your last point, I'm struggling to see the logic in that. Surely, if my reasoning was based solely on a net result of lives saved versus lives taken, which incidentally it isn't, I would be valueing all lives equally, and wouldn't consider Syrian lives as more important than US lives... If anything, keeping the border shut on the off chance that a terrorist attack might occur is unevenly valueing lives, to the point where any one saved US life is considered worth thousands of Syrian lives. Then again, if a closed-border policy is what the US is going to go with, it's not as though we'll all be surprised in the rest of the world; the US doesn't have much of a reputation for giving one hint of a toss for the lives of people who aren't US citizens, after all...

 

We know it isn't going to stop ISIL from attacking us. The problem is, we don't want to make it worse by just letting them in. We don't want to make it easy for them to kill us. And my point isn't that it will stop "all ISIL-sponsored attacks"...you seem to have misunderstood my position entirely. The goal of keeping the refugees out until we can properly and thoroughly vet them isn't about long term removal of terrorism—that would be idiotic. It is about preventing as much as we can. If we can't vet them, we shouldn't let them in. Is that forever? No, it shouldn't be. Could it be? I'm not sure. All I know is that letting thousands of people into our country we can't possibly vet, a country that terrorists hate most above all else (well, except Israel!), is a terrible and unsafe idea for American lives. You are only seeing it for the benefit for the refugees and disregarding the safety of Americans because of it. So isn't it also an injustice to put our people at risk? Why aren't we allowed to put our people first? Why do their lives not matter in comparison to the refugees?

 

But that's what you were getting at. You said twice that because the threat or the outcome of it is is minimal (a drop in the ocean), we shouldn't worry about it, because we'd save more lives than those that could be lost. That's lowering the value of American lives in favor of refugees because we "owe it" to them to bring them in by the thousands. If you valued American lives as closely as you do the refugees, you would consider the risks and why Americans are so apprehensive about doing this...especially after Paris was just attacked by some refugees. Do you know several of the people involved in the Paris attacks had been arrested before and had no visible connection to terrorism? Another, Bilal Hadfi, had fought in ISIL and was supportive of Boko Haram and no one knew it, because it isn't something written on their passwords or foreheads, but hidden in their lives. At the moment we can't vet them (due to many reasons) and yet we're supposed to just let them in? Nonsense.

 

Oh, look, anti-U.S sentiments. Now I know you're perfectly unbiased in this discussion. And yet, with this, I am to believe you value our lives as much as you do the refugees? :rolleyes:

[stconquest]

Quite the contrary, in fact. My whole point rests on the fact that potentially stopping ISIS-backed terrorists from coming into your country, by completely shutting the border to Syrian refugees, is not going to stop ISIS from planning and possibly commiting terrorist attacks on US soil, because as we've seen in the past, terrorist organisations are perfectly happy to rely on locally groomed terrorists for that sort of thing. Were it possible to stop all chances of an ISIS-sponsored attack by closing the borders to Syrian refugees, then your point would carry more value, but that simply isn't the case; if ISIS was determined to commit a terrorist attack on US soil it could do so regardless of whether you close the border or not. As such, with the difference in potential terrorist threats between opening and closing the border being so minor, I feel it makes no sense to keep it closed and do a gross injustice to the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees.

 

As for your last point, I'm struggling to see the logic in that. Surely, if my reasoning was based solely on a net result of lives saved versus lives taken, which incidentally it isn't, I would be valueing all lives equally, and wouldn't consider Syrian lives as more important than US lives... If anything, keeping the border shut on the off chance that a terrorist attack might occur is unevenly valueing lives, to the point where any one saved US life is considered worth thousands of Syrian lives. Then again, if a closed-border policy is what the US is going to go with, it's not as though we'll all be surprised in the rest of the world; the US doesn't have much of a reputation for giving one hint of a toss for the lives of people who aren't US citizens, after all...

 

...or the ones that are US citizens a lot of the time.

 

You will learn that what you write will be valued by some members when it has merit... 

 

...but sometimes you will happen across a member that is completely resistant to the idea of developing a perspective of their own and hides in what they perceive to be a socially supported ideology even if that ideology might not be accurate or even logical.  They will argue for the sake of arguing disguising their personal inadequacies in a run around of gibberish-like points-of-fact that have no end.  Just going around in circles... round and round and round.

 

You have to decide when to stop.  One of my bosses used to quote this:  "Don't argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."

 

Anyways, you make some good points rjfaber91.

[Albatross]

@stconquest

 

Ah come on man, at least have the cahoonas to insult me (and the others here who disagree with you guys) directly—or do so in a contributing fashion for the thread at least.

[stconquest]

@stconquest

 

Ah come on man, at least have the cahoonas to insult me (and the others here who disagree with you guys) directly—or do so in a contributing fashion for the thread at least.

 

I am sorry, why would you ask that?  Insulting people is not allowed on these forums, are you trying to get me in trouble for some reason?  :unsure:

[Albatross]

I am sorry, why would you ask that?  Insulting people is not allowed on these forums, are you trying to get me in trouble for some reason?  :unsure:

 

Ah, come on man. How many times have we debated stconquest? You think that after all of what we have discussed before (and was far more serious me thinks than this) that I would try to pull some GoT scheming to get you in trouble? I respect your opinion too much to do something like that, and find this too much fun to end so childishly. And the request wasn't really serious on that end...though I really would prefer to face criticisms and remarks directly, so that I do not have to dig through charades to get the other poster's meaning. I'd just prefer you do so in a way that can contribute to the thread and can be discussed.

[rjfaber91]

We know it isn't going to stop ISIL from attacking us. The problem is, we don't want to make it worse by just letting them in. We don't want to make it easy for them to kill us. And my point isn't that it will stop "all ISIL-sponsored attacks"...you seem to have misunderstood my position entirely. The goal of keeping the refugees out until we can properly and thoroughly vet them isn't about long term removal of terrorism—that would be idiotic. It is about preventing as much as we can. If we can't vet them, we shouldn't let them in. Is that forever? No, it shouldn't be. Could it be? I'm not sure. All I know is that letting thousands of people into our country we can't possibly vet, a country that terrorists hate most above all else (well, except Israel!), is a terrible and unsafe idea for American lives. You are only seeing it for the benefit for the refugees and disregarding the safety of Americans because of it. So isn't it also an injustice to put our people at risk? Why aren't we allowed to put our people first? Why do their lives not matter in comparison to the refugees?

 

But that's what you were getting at. You said twice that because the threat or the outcome of it is is minimal (a drop in the ocean), we shouldn't worry about it, because we'd save more lives than those that could be lost. That's lowering the value of American lives in favor of refugees because we "owe it" to them to bring them in by the thousands. If you valued American lives as closely as you do the refugees, you would consider the risks and why Americans are so apprehensive about doing this...especially after Paris was just attacked by some refugees. Do you know several of the people involved in the Paris attacks had been arrested before and had no visible connection to terrorism? Another, Bilal Hadfi, had fought in ISIL and was supportive of Boko Haram and no one knew it, because it isn't something written on their passwords or foreheads, but hidden in their lives. At the moment we can't vet them (due to many reasons) and yet we're supposed to just let them in? Nonsense.

 

Oh, look, anti-U.S sentiments. Now I know you're perfectly unbiased in this discussion. And yet, with this, I am to believe you value our lives as much as you do the refugees? :rolleyes:

 

I get your point, but where I think your fallacy lies is that you view threats of terrorism as an absolute. The moment there is any potential increase in that threat, it seems enough for you to veto everything. You say ISIS, or rather Islamic extremists in general, hate the US more than they hate any other country except Israel, and you're probably right on that point, but did you ever wonder where that hatred comes from? For more than half a century, the US has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for its own benefit, which is absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned, but any of the US politicians that ever suggested or sanctioned such actions would have done so in the knowledge that it would increase the risk of terrorist attacks directed against the US. If the US as a whole would have the same views as you, that anything that increases the risk of terrorism is immediately off-limits, neither of the Gulf Wars would have happened, the US wouldn't be supporting Israel to the absurd extent that it is, it wouldn't have messed with the authority of the Shah of Persia and nor would it have intervened in Afghan affairs time and time again. I'm not saying the US was wrong to do all of these things (although some of them are pretty questionable), but it just seems a bit hypocritical to entertain those thoughts in the knowledge that they will increase Amerophobia among radical Islamists, while at the same time refusing to do something that is unquestionably a good thing, namely letting in Syrian refugees, for reasons that are propped up as being very important on this issue, but are discarded immediately when US interests in the Middle East are at stake...

 

You may say that the last statement I made is Anti-US (a term I've never quite understood the supposed gravity of, by the way), but is it not also factual? Maybe you'll view this differently from within the US, but as a European, I have the most tremendous difficulty thinking of a single occassion in which the US did anything that wasn't directly beneficial to itself or its citizens, but was instead meant to achieve a greater good for the world at large. I'd even go so far as to say that lacking evidence to the contrary, the US has never done so, in the 232 years it exists...

[Mo_z_Art]

Here is my opinion on the topic as a european who has three refugees living in his guest-house right now (I only managed to read the first two pages of the thread):

 

Should a country let refugees in: Yes definitely, you can´t let them die out there somewhere. As there are some of the richest countries in europe it´s our duty to help the poor.

But this shouldn´t be done in an unorganized fashion. What do I mean by that? You always have to keep the control over your refugees, you need to have camps and personnel (teachers, doctors, armed forces) ready to cope with them. It´s really important that there everyone coming to your country gets a backround-check as quickly as possible (mainly to make sure they are not economic refugees) and then you need to integrate them into the country as fast as possible! This works best if you don´t have a big camp for refugees somewhere in nowhere, where 5 thousand refugees live side by side, but distribute them among the people of the country. Then the threat is not as great for us that they might get together and plan bad things, because the hownowner would certainly know it. Also they get to know our culture and they see what we are really like and maybe this can change their minds, if they came to attack us.
Sadly even in my country this doesn´t work really well because you don´t get any information about what its like to shelter refugees and many many people are really sceptical when it comes to refugees in general and they support the idea of closed off camps for refugees where the government pays a private company (which is from another country) 19€ per refugee per day, whereas if somebody shelters them at home, this person gets 250€ per month per refugee MAX. It seems the governments likes supporting foreign private companies instead of its own inhabitants.
Also the time it takes for the background check is far too long! Our refugees came to my country 3 months ago and only one has gotten his invitation for an interview in order to get his backround checked 2 weeks ago and the appointment for the interview is in may. So it takes the government 8 months to backround check one of our three refugees.

 

If a country has a good and quick system to deal with refugees, there won´t be any problems and the threat of a terroristic attack can be kept very small. But as we have seen in the Paris attacks the most dangerous people have grown up with us, were radicalised and won´t be backround-checked because they are citizens of our countries.

[Albatross]

I get your point, but where I think your fallacy lies is that you view threats of terrorism as an absolute. The moment there is any potential increase in that threat, it seems enough for you to veto everything. You say ISIS, or rather Islamic extremists in general, hate the US more than they hate any other country except Israel, and you're probably right on that point, but did you ever wonder where that hatred comes from? For more than half a century, the US has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for its own benefit, which is absolutely fine as far as I'm concerned, but any of the US politicians that ever suggested or sanctioned such actions would have done so in the knowledge that it would increase the risk of terrorist attacks directed against the US. If the US as a whole would have the same views as you, that anything that increases the risk of terrorism is immediately off-limits, neither of the Gulf Wars would have happened, the US wouldn't be supporting Israel to the absurd extent that it is, it wouldn't have messed with the authority of the Shah of Persia and nor would it have intervened in Afghan affairs time and time again. I'm not saying the US was wrong to do all of these things (although some of them are pretty questionable), but it just seems a bit hypocritical to entertain those thoughts in the knowledge that they will increase Amerophobia among radical Islamists, while at the same time refusing to do something that is unquestionably a good thing, namely letting in Syrian refugees, for reasons that are propped up as being very important on this issue, but are discarded immediately when US interests in the Middle East are at stake...

 

You may say that the last statement I made is Anti-US (a term I've never quite understood the supposed gravity of, by the way), but is it not also factual? Maybe you'll view this differently from within the US, but as a European, I have the most tremendous difficulty thinking of a single occassion in which the US did anything that wasn't directly beneficial to itself or its citizens, but was instead meant to achieve a greater good for the world at large. I'd even go so far as to say that lacking evidence to the contrary, the US has never done so, in the 232 years it exists...

 

I don't view it as an absolute, I view the risks being to high to put our people in danger. I mean the chances are incredibly high, given that they even managed to terrorize France, but the risks of it is too much at the moment. And I also don't recall throwing out the idea of helping the refugees at all/entirely. It is unwise and unsafe to let them in at the moment, when we can't do anything to vet them and make sure there aren't radicals coming in to kill innocent Americans—even if we bring in 60k refugees and lose 200 Americans in the process. And there isn't really a "probably" about it. Israel and the U.S are the countries Jihadists want to destroy above all else at the moment. And I hate this argument! Why do so many leftists/equivalents use it? I don't have to understand where that hatred comes from because from the perspective of a terrorist, it means crap. They were perfectly fine with U.S involvement when we were giving billions of dollars away to Osama Bin Laden and helping them fight back the Russians. In fact, they were perfectly okay with hiding their hatred against us so long as we filled their pockets or gave them weapons to terrorize their own people with (like they were okay in Iran until the Revolution).

     I would care more about why the innocent people in Iraq etc etc had distaste for us (like our presence, though intended to help, only sets off their oppressors etc or Obama's usage of drones kills them and they hate us for it), not what crazy militant morons think about us—because their reasons for hating us is because we represent something they despise and fight against due to their interpretation of the Qu'ran and Ahadith; equality, change, peace and humane treatment. Our existence threatens theirs and if they can destroy us, they keep their power. Trying to make me understand terrorists is giving them a sense of normalcy, as if they are just regular Muslims angered by injustices done by the U.S or other western nations (and Israel) when they aren't.

     I'm not even going to direct that "supporting Israel to the absurd extent that it is" comment because I'm sick of the anti-Israel discussions that arise constantly due to one-sided hatred, but I do want to know what in the world makes you think I or any other sane person should stop and think about Jihadists (all Jihadists and Islamics are all radical, mind you—Muslims aren't) and "why" they hate us. Their views and their "reasons" should never be considered and are unimportant because they are radical.

     And it doesn't matter if letting in the Syrian refugees is a good thing when letting them in at the risk of Americans is not a good thing. We owe our citizens first above all else, which means not letting in thousands of people from a country that has out sourced radicals to Paris we cannot vet. I wish I could let them all in without worry, as I believe in immigration (my family immigrated) but America lives in a time where we know that is just naive and dangerous for us. We don't want to hand them a passport to repeat 9/11on us or something. I understand it would be the right thing to do, but we have more to think about than what is right for the refugees.

 

No, it isn't factual. It is garbage spewed by anti-U.S try-hards. Just because we show a sense of responsibility and logic most countries don't—like knowing just letting immigrants flow across our borders without IDs or proper entry is incredibly stupid—doesn't mean we don't care about "non U.S lives". People take complicated situations and twist them to their liking to fuel their own hatred whilst hypocritically stating they don't hate anyone or value all life. But I guess the millions of dollars we donate to humanitarian aids mean jack to the rest of the world (like the near 500 million we have given to Syrian Refugees).  We just help the world differently and the best we can with what we have (because we still have our people to think about too), it is just ignored or twisted because we're "'MURICA" (unless you don't count aid to people and countries across the sea as "beneficial to others"?). I'm not saying the U.S hasn't done things that were for its own good, but what country hasn't? Denying that would be absolutely stupid, yet for some reason the whole world seems to think America invented it or something...but that's besides the point of the discussion, so let's get it back on topic please. I'm not in this to discuss the intentions of America/Americans but why we should or shouldn't let in Syrian refugees at the moment.