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.
Our esteemed governor has stated that even those young children should not be allowed to enter.
Do you think they should? Wouldn't they be put into the foster system or whatever? Jut another unwanted kid someone has to adopt, or maybe will never be adopted. No way; not when we have plenty of AMERICAN kids in the system who need homes. The last thing we need is more parent-less kids.
Wowza, I get the desire for safety, but really... blaming the victims???? Any other groups of oppressed/slaughtered people that you want to make RESPONSIBLE for their own demise?
It's nice that you and I hit the birthplace lottery.
I think there is a certain level of truth to what he said. A brutal terrorist network did take over and is maintaining control over a large part of the country despite what has now been a prolonged global effort against them. That just does not happen without a certain level of popular support among the populous.
Therefore you have to be a lot more skeptical towards them then you would people from other regions of the world. Thats just the reality of the situation.
No women. No children. No men. No dogs. No cats. No refugees. A woman Muslim blew herself up with a bomb today in order to collect her virgins.
If the refugees wanted a better life, they would not have allowed power to accrue to the worst among them. People are RESPONSIBLE for those who lead them, and those who lead them to slaughter.
It seems that the conflict there is based on international efforts and not their own domestic civil war. Both sides are funded and armed by G20 members I suppose it's their fault for not living in a Super Power country as well. I mean, Yes there are 2 sides to this, out of 100k of refugees how many are going to be terrorists ? 1 ? 2 ? 4 at most ? We would be saving lives over all while sacrificing a small ammout of American lives. it's like WW2 you know, there are civilians that hitler is going to slaughter, but no-one is accepting refugees. On the other hand among those civilians there will bad apples planted by evil doers, but over all significantly more lives will be saved and we have enouph of evil doers of our own as well. I mean it's not a decision we want to reach quickly out of fear. The amount of refugees we were to get was symbolic numbers compared to European countries. W
I think there is a certain level of truth to what he said. A brutal terrorist network did take over and is maintaining control over a large part of the country despite what has now been a prolonged global effort against them. That just does not happen without a certain level of popular support among the populous.
Therefore you have to be a lot more skeptical towards them then you would people from other regions of the world. Thats just the reality of the situation.
its not that complicated. isis has primarily had success in sunni areas because they are a sunni militia. they enjoy the support of the local population. only the kurds have been able to hold them back because they do have their own ethnic identity. still, kurds have had significant problems with terrorism within because they are primarily sunni.
isis has not had success when it comes to taking Shiite territory. their success hasn't come because they are all level 17 paladins. it has come because they are fighting in friendly territory. that isn't to say that there aren't large numbers of sunni muslims among the refugees. the government was Shiite, so when isis went after the government; they were killing a hated Shiite government. so people let it happen and more militant people helped. but then it didn't leave a very nice place to live and raise kids or even live a normal life working for a living. so they leave for a better place.
i have read a lot about the conflict in Iraq & Syria because i think its fascinating. its like a game of thrones middle east edition over there. ive even had the amazing opportunity to communicate with kurds and other locals in iraq and Syria on facebook (basically each group hates each other group and is happy to see them get killed. that's why Shiites aren't going to help kurds and kurds aren't going to help Shiites. they wont team up against Islamic state because they hate each other just as much as they may hate isis). its also why the long term solution there will be 3 states in Iraq; shiite, sunni & Kurdish. really interesting to talk to them. people dont realize that Baghdad has terrorist attacks almost daily. just google "Baghdad bombing" and hit news, there are always new bombings there. i am very much America traveling there to kill them but i think its a bad idea to bring them here.
For a country that's in so much debt and owes money to China and other countries i think the last thing we should be doing is taking in over 100k people. I do agree setting up "safe zones" in Syria is the best idea. i would like to see my tax money going to Americans with issues not these people coming in and getting hand outs for a few months. I stand with Trump with a lot of issues building a wall keeping people out is number 1.
It seems that the conflict there is based on international efforts and not their own domestic civil war. Both sides are funded and armed by G20 members I suppose it's their fault for not living in a Super Power country as well. I mean, Yes there are 2 sides to this, out of 100k of refugees how many are going to be terrorists ? 1 ? 2 ? 4 at most ? We would be saving lives over all while sacrificing a small ammout of American lives. it's like WW2 you know, there are civilians that hitler is going to slaughter, but no-one is accepting refugees. On the other hand among those civilians there will bad apples planted by evil doers, but over all significantly more lives will be saved and we have enouph of evil doers of our own as well. I mean it's not a decision we want to reach quickly out of fear. The amount of refugees we were to get was symbolic numbers compared to European countries. W
You mean "international efforts" to CONTAIN THE EXPORT OF MADNESS AND MAYHEM. Otherwise nobody would give a rat's anus about this dark and primitive mystical hell hole part of the world.
In any case, this is a utilitarian sort of argument. A few Americans will be detonated or incinerated so that many aliens will be saved. I am not persuaded by utilitarianism. The premise is incorrect and corrupt. The needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the FEW, or the ONE. Spock, and Robin Hood, are both corrupt. I am not willing to sacrifice ONE domestic American life so that aliens may be imported into my country along with "a few" terrorists who will decapitate my fellow citizens.
Not a single one.
Furthermore, I absolutely am not willing to give ONE RED CENT of my money to feed, clothe and shelter these aliens, who will be 100% welfare cases for the duration of their stay. Producing nothing, taking our largesse and killing us with bombs and poison to thank us while maintaining and promoting their dark and evil Sharia mystical collectivism.
We cannot allow the importation of these aliens to our country. Europe, in its infinite collectivist insanity, has allowed it, and even encouraged it. And now the chickens have come home to roost. Only after a diet of Sharia and mysticism, the chickens have transmogrified to Jabberwocks, with jaws that bite and claws that catch.
If things keep up the way they are going, a World War and complete occupation will become necessary to destroy this evil, much like we saw in the 1940s when evil was appeased and allowed to proliferate for much too long.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 11-18-2015 at 10:42 PM..
ISIS stated they will strike NYC next, thats rough. I pray for the NYC area.
yep, with safe houses in NJ.
If Obama was so concerned about 3 year old orphans, why didn't he do something three years ago when he drew the dred line in the sand and Assad crossed it. Why didn't obama lift a finger when, in the past, ISISwas beheading and crucifying little children?
To charge CC with not wanting 3 year old orphans is obama playing consumate politics. The DOJ investigation for two lane closures didn't eliminate CC from a presidential run so Obama digs him every chance he gets.
Who do you think will accompany orphans and pretend the kids are their children? No, ISIS and islamic radicals never thought of using the few children thet didn't crucify as free tickets to ride.
Obama et al is of the school of absolutes. All refugees accompanying children are squeaky clean. they are unable to differentiate situations with their legal/ computer program logic that lacks even artificial intelligence. Some good comes with the bad and topretend all is good is as bad as chrgaing repubs with the false claim they see all refugees as bad.
I think there is a certain level of truth to what he said. A brutal terrorist network did take over and is maintaining control over a large part of the country despite what has now been a prolonged global effort against them. That just does not happen without a certain level of popular support among the populous.
Therefore you have to be a lot more skeptical towards them then you would people from other regions of the world. Thats just the reality of the situation.
Can you think of any other situation in history that mirrors your statement?
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.
I suppose it's their fault for not living in a Super Power country as well. I mean, Yes there are 2 sides to this, out of 100k of refugees how many are going to be terrorists ? 1 ? 2 ? 4 at most ? We would be saving lives over all while sacrificing a small ammout of American lives. it's like WW2 you know, there are civilians that hitler is going to slaughter, but no-one is accepting refugees. On the other hand among those civilians there will bad apples planted by evil doers, but over all significantly more lives will be saved and we have enouph of evil doers of our own as well. I mean it's not a decision we want to reach quickly out of fear. The amount of refugees we were to get was symbolic numbers compared to European countries. W
