Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, putting this issue in such simplistic terms will just make those who support the refugee program build pressure until their heads BLEVE. Which is interesting since they tout "common sense" as the foundation of their arguments. Yes, the Trojan Horse analogy is quite appropriate. The ancient saying coined out of Homers story to "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" can perhaps be modified to say "Beware of Islamists bringing cultural enrichment".
I'd like to know just exactly how Islam has "enriched" our society, as the appeasers claim. Personally, I'm not seeing it. Letting in people who's religion requires them to be at war with us doesn't quite strike me as "enrichment". A religion, I might add, that they believe in above and beyond all else. Their fanaticism makes the most fundamentalist and rabid of Christians look like a box of Corgie puppies, and I'm hard pressed to bring to mind any other religion through history back that is more violent.
Most other religions in this age have evolved with the times. Not Islam. They are firmly mired in 1800 years ago. How can such backward thinking "enrich" any thing? Except perhaps the leadership at the helm of the faith. They , of course, live opulently attended by slaves with all their whims catered to while the people live in mud huts and are sent to their deaths clinging onto promise of reward in the afterlife for their suffering. Hell, if I had to live like those people do I would be sorely tempted to just pull the lanyard on a bomb vest and see what's next too.
Meanwhile, it seems as if even the most radical Imams and Mullahs aren't above getting a little...Earthly reward. Lol, such it is with fanatical theocracy. Even in atheistic societies it is thus. The old USSR was a good example and modern Russia ain't much different. Nor is China. Sheesh, the US isn't any different in terms of the gap between the people and the government. When a billionaire will spend billions of dollars to secure an office that pays a measly 200 grand a year, that should be a tell.
But I digress, the leadership of Islam has a few less issues to deal with than secular governments. They aren't concerned with domestic issues of individual rights and "social conscience". Their GDP is all about Islam and they don't have any tariffs or such to worry about in the countries they export to. End use of the product is brutally simple as it stocks itself on the shelves and the receiving countries are even covering the cost of shipping. Again though, that is far to simple for the appeasement mindset to grasp.
YOU are bringing RELIGION into this, but I never did mention RELIGION did I?
We are talking HOSTILE TERRITORIES here with bringing in refugees from a KNOWN HOSTILE TERRITORY. We are talking about the ACTIONS of the TERRITORY not the BELIEF of the territory.
This entire discussion is INDEPENDENT from the entire concept of RELIGION.
Please do not detract the thread with ignorant comments turning this into a ETHNIC or RACE issue.
Pay attention to the question that was asked.
Last edited by Mikelee81; 12-04-2016 at 08:59 AM..
These are not unknown strangers. These are devout Muslims, i.e. radical jihadist terrorists. The belong to a religion whose founder commanded his followers to kill all non-Muslims.
Yes they are unknown strangers. Just with any religion, you have those that are devout and those just going through the motions more due to cultural reasons.
Agreed that those that are truly following the KORAN dedicated to it will no doubt ACT OUT what is IN the Koran.
Some of this instruction INCLUDES AGGRESSIVE DISPLAY OF ACTION toward nonbelievers.
The issue once again is the ACTION not the RELIGION.
We have laws written in this country with intent do curb behavior. It's not socially acceptable to forcibly threaten someone with a gun or knife, regardless of the reason.
Once again the ultimate issue is the BEHAVIOR/ACTION NOT the "Religion".
Muslims can be in this country, BUT they have to abide by the laws of the country. To exclude this group is not American. The issue is not legal immigration.
Just as if I was in your home, I'd abide in the rules you've established.. Take off shoes upon entry or whatever.
YOU are bringing RELIGION into this, but I never did mention RELIGION did I?
We are talking HOSTILE TERRITORIES here with bringing in refugees from a KNOWN HOSTILE TERRITORY. We are talking about the ACTIONS of the TERRITORY not the BELIEF of the territory.
This entire discussion is INDEPENDENT from the entire concept of RELIGION.
Please do not detract the thread with ignorant comments turning this into a ETHNIC or RACE issue.
Pay attention to the question that was asked.
Ummm, OK. Well, that being the case just remove the motive for the hostility that I inserted so blithely into the equation and extrapolate. I can concede that hostility can have multiple motives. The biggest motive out there right now, and the most hostility are stemming from a particular source more so than others, and the Trojan Horse analogy fits it better than it does others.
That being in consideration of the largest source of hostile intent being allowed into our midst. At any rate, the question can be answered using just about any living thing coming from just about anywhere. Most folks I know don't tolerate the presence of a Black Widow spider that's taken up residence behind their toilet. Measures are usually taken to ensure that doesn't even get that far. So, asking people if they would set that aside and allow two legged life from a "hostile environment" into their homes has a brutally simplistic answer, to my mind. No. And it need not be broken down to any specific reason for just WHY that hostility exists. There. That better?
well, somebody bring Religion (obviously, only Christianity), and women and babies into the discussion.
As a Christian, I would definitely bring a baby, (perhaps two, no more than three) to my house until I find an orphanage for the baby. If I cannot take care of them, what is the point of bringing them to my house?
Will I let a woman stranger stay in my house? Nope.
well, somebody bring Religion (obviously, only Christianity), and women and babies into the discussion.
As a Christian, I would definitely bring a baby, (perhaps two, no more than three) to my house until I find an orphanage for the baby. If I cannot take care of them, what is the point of bringing them to my house?
Will I let a woman stranger stay in my house? Nope.
I think I may have been a little too subtle with my reference. BTW, I'm not Christian. But, this most certainly is about religion. You know it and the OP knows it. Hope you find that hot marine.
I think I may have been a little too subtle with my reference. BTW, I'm not Christian. But, this most certainly is about religion. You know it and the OP knows it. Hope you find that hot marine.
Thank you, but I had many hot Marines, and i have a hot Marine now.
I know what op means, and I also can see your point, however,
The key word here is STRANGER.
The relevant security offices like German BND have publicly warned that because of the high number of Asylum applications they are not able to do any vetting nor the necessary surveillance of asylum seekers who are deemed a security risk. With so many refugees it's not even possible to do any vetting like the language dialect test Maya La is referring to. This is why Sweden wants biometric passport controls at Schengen borders in order to prevent people on the terrorist watch-list to move around Europe undetected.
I understand this is a very sensitive issue, but I don't think using emotion to solve the problem is the right way.
In a nutshell, this is exactly what we are doing when we allow "refugees" from hostile territories into America.
If there is a rule that we don't allow anyone in from 'hostile' areas, wouldn't it make sense for dangerous people to come through 'nice' areas like London?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I'm not seeing it. Letting in people who's religion requires them to be at war with us doesn't quite strike me as "enrichment". A religion, I might add, that they believe in above and beyond all else. Their fanaticism makes the most fundamentalist and rabid of Christians look like a box of Corgie puppies, and I'm hard pressed to bring to mind any other religion through history back that is more violent. 
Lol, such it is with fanatical theocracy. Even in atheistic societies it is thus. The old USSR was a good example and modern Russia ain't much different. Nor is China. Sheesh, the US isn't any different in terms of the gap between the people and the government. When a billionaire will spend billions of dollars to secure an office that pays a measly 200 grand a year, that should be a tell. 
Again though, that is far to simple for the appeasement mindset to grasp.
He has to cook and clean, find a job and pay rent. 
