https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...refugees-from-syria/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening
There really isn't anything wrong with it since nothing bad has happened since 9/11. Really....? That's the line of reason you're going to go with?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
French getting another round of "inshallah"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...refugees-from-syria/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening
There really isn't anything wrong with it since nothing bad has happened since 9/11. Really....? That's the line of reason you're going to go with?
No it isn't. The goal of the group claiming caliphate is to expand its borders and fight infidels, per its own self-imposed charter (without which, it could not claim to be a caliphate under the Koran). Causing nations to fear Muslim peoples is incidental to that goal. If you were to argue that us fearing and hating refugees is helpful to that group, then I would agree. Either way, that isn't the basis for my arguments. The apparent ostrich-like mentality of the current executive branch is.
So, our leaders shouldn't even pause to discuss the issue in light of recent events? I would think- if anything- the fact that over half the state governors oppose something should be alarming enough for national leaders to take a pause on this, if only to understand and address our own people's concerns. Overruling such concerns and putting refugees into communities which oppose their immigration will hardly make them more loyal to the US. It also disenfranchises a large portion our own people.
Utterly ridiculous argument. Where have you been since 9/11? Aso, the refugee vetting process is only for one legally-defined group of people. Whether you call them asylum-seekers, refugees, undocumented workers, or just good swimmers, the outcome is the same. Physical security shouldn't care what you call an outside body bent on destruction. Yet these distinctions open a "back door" to the wrong kind of people through multiple standards and processes. Your flawless vetting process only applies to some of the people coming in. Therein lies the problem.
There is no process by which anyone's true loyalty- present and future- can be ascertained. The crux of the matter for me not only about what is being done, but also how it's being handled. I see a very dismissive attitude toward our own people's concerns, which I find perplexing. On the former point, I think there are physical security measures (hinted at above) which could go a long way toward reducing the chances of another domestic incident without completely closing the door to refugees. That is precisely what top officials should be taking a pause to discuss right now.
Last edited:
BPeterson93
Soon to be Naval Aviator
I don't disagree with the article you've posted. It will be difficult, it's always been difficult to vet any amount of people as refugees. But 10,000 people wouldn't even represent a single percent of the U.S. population. Assuming that ten of those people were IS agents, there's a greater likelihood that we as American citizens will kill more people daily than any refugee could.
I mean after 14 years of accepting other refugees since that event, I'd say that the process has been successful. Further, 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by refugees, so to say we should close our doors to them possibly having terrorists in their ranks seems odd. When the likelihood of those agents being present is pretty low. There are much easier and faster ways to get into the U.S. than as a refugee.
I'm quickly growing tired of the "letting the terrorists win" meme. Being thoughtful about who we take in is letting terrorists win, as opposed to giving consideration to plans to prevent those terrorists from moving in next door? I'm no terrorist, but my guess would be that setting them up for another Paris-style attack would probably make them feel more victorious than a change in our immigration policy. Do you [global] really think that they would be happier about a change in our policy than they would about being able to get a cell in and established?
And let's face it. These guys are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of our policy. They are going to try to bomb London and shoot up Munich and kill as many of the "enemy" as they can, as often as they can. If we don't change this policy, are they really going to hate us less? Are they really going to back off on their plans for mass murders? Are they suddenly going to run out of new recruits? No, no, and no. They are masters of propaganda and if they don't have our immigration policies to use for recruiting and hate-masturbation, they will use something else.
When Medusa has this many heads, you cut off the one that's about to bite you in the face, and hope like hell you can keep cutting the worst threats while you form a plan to kill the whole damn thing.
And let's face it. These guys are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of our policy. They are going to try to bomb London and shoot up Munich and kill as many of the "enemy" as they can, as often as they can. If we don't change this policy, are they really going to hate us less? Are they really going to back off on their plans for mass murders? Are they suddenly going to run out of new recruits? No, no, and no. They are masters of propaganda and if they don't have our immigration policies to use for recruiting and hate-masturbation, they will use something else.
When Medusa has this many heads, you cut off the one that's about to bite you in the face, and hope like hell you can keep cutting the worst threats while you form a plan to kill the whole damn thing.
BPeterson93
Soon to be Naval Aviator
No matter who is speaking out for or against the administration and their efforts, there will be someone disenfranchised by the decision. That's bound to happen with any decision where people have such a vested interest with the scenario. If they let refugees in, then one group's voices aren't heard and if they don't allow refugees, then the other group isn't heard.
Could I ask, what are the physical security measures? Would they be able to prevent American citizens from committing domestic terrorist acts as well? (I ask legitimately, not as a sarcastic or loaded question). Because if those measures could decrease domestic terrorism on the whole then I'm all for it.
There was a time during WWII where we as a country were torn on whether or not to accept Jewish people seeking refuge. And a majority didn't want to. For the same reasons that are posed now.
Right. But sevenhelmet's point is that since the majority of governors so far have voiced they don't want refugees in their states, the federal government would be deliberately ignoring what the people have asked for if they let them in.
Is it the truth though? Just because these folks claim to do something in the name of the a religion doesn't mean the religion is that. Do we label the KKK or other 'white power' groups as 'Christian terrorism' since they sometimes claim to perpetrate their violence in the name of Christianity? What about David Koresh or Jim Jones? Or Yitzhak Rabin's assassin and these morons, why aren't they called Jewish terrorists? It's all the truth too.
Do you really think the KKK's primary motivation or justification is Christianity? Do you really think they are literally interpreting the teachings of Jesus?
ISIS is more or less literally following the guidance of their holy book and spreading their religion through conquest, like their prophet spread it in the beginning. They specifically state that Islam is their motivation and justification.
But you knew that.
Sorry Brett, I wasn't part of that thread. However, I did try to steer the argument in a more relevant direction.
This is exhausting. The guys who flew jets into buildings, the guys who blew up the Cole, the guys who shot/blew up Paris were Islamic extremists. That is a fact. Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to call it something else. That's what they were. There's this underlying premise from some in the country that calling them what they are automatically translates to some level of xenophobia or bigotry towards others of the same religion or culture. It's insulting and implies that I'm not discerning enough to know the difference. Are there some that can't draw the distinction? Sure, and we should all point and laugh at them. I think we can call the Westboro Baptists Christian extremists without at the same time condemning all who subscribe to the Baptist way of worship/belief. This is similar to how it is now fashionable to label people who are concerned with the nation's capacity to adequately process and receive refugees as being narrow minded, hateful, and generally ignorant.
It is exhausting, but it is not you or others on this board I would be worried about taking that label and running with it way too far. We still have folks in this country who are convinced the President wasn't born here and/or is a secret Muslim who is bent on destroying this country, I am still waiting for his commie/racist/Islamo-facist plan for this country to come to fruition so I can enjoy the paradise that ensue, it is the ignorant dumbasses like that I am worried about.
Then there is the entire idea that we have to 'label' it. Who has to label or call it something in particular? The government? Then who in the government? The press? Or should we leave it to the candidates for President? Why not just leave it at calling it what it is, terrorism? Simple as that.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
They can be called Islamic extremist, but the value of calling them something else, ie Daesh, is that it avoids sparking long winded debates over whether a Muslim is a good witch or a bad witch. We live in a democratic republic, so we can only fight the enemy as long as the public writ large supports the campaign. It's easier to get America galvanized using a term that more narrowly defines the enemy instead of one that elicits debates over who is/isn't really a Muslim on CNN. The same thing goes for calling it terrorism - aside from terrorism implies criminal activity, not military, it opens the floor to a lot of questions because the term is overly broad.
I mean, we could have called the Germans 'white protestant extremists' in WWII, and then had subsequent debates about whether Hitler was really following Christian values or whether he was really extreme....oh and we need to be careful because not all Germans are Nazis so don't say that because that's offensive... but that would have been silly and a waste of time.
The Nazis were assholes. They wanted to conquer Europe and kill anyone not protestant and white. They needed to be pounded.
The Daesh are assholes. They want to conquer the middle east and kill anyone not Sunni Muslim. They need to be pounded.
Simple, clear message that almost anyone can get behind.
I mean, we could have called the Germans 'white protestant extremists' in WWII, and then had subsequent debates about whether Hitler was really following Christian values or whether he was really extreme....oh and we need to be careful because not all Germans are Nazis so don't say that because that's offensive... but that would have been silly and a waste of time.
The Nazis were assholes. They wanted to conquer Europe and kill anyone not protestant and white. They needed to be pounded.
The Daesh are assholes. They want to conquer the middle east and kill anyone not Sunni Muslim. They need to be pounded.
Simple, clear message that almost anyone can get behind.
Last edited:
