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.
Yeah, so go ahead and admit them by the hundreds of thousands, because, after all, there are some terrorists here already anyway. Right? Admitting a few thousand or so more won't make a difference. If out of 200,000 Syrian (Muslim) refugees, only 1% are terrorists, that's only 2,000 terrorists. What harm can they do? Right?
Would you be okay with them in your city?
Five Somali's (Muslim) who were recently captured near here. Makes me very nervous.
Just think how nervous Syrians would get when the president of the United States starts talk of overthrowing their government?
I'll never believe that. German soldiers came home from the camps on furlough and SURELY told people what they saw. You can't murder that many people in total secrecy. It's just not possible.
Really? Then how is it that much of what was going on in Germany (the holocaust) wasn't known until after the war, when the concentration camps were discovered?
This is not a post about what we should or should not do. However, no matter how someone feels about the Syrian refugees, common sense tells us that those who want to harm Americans will know how to pass the so-called test for Christianity people are talking about. They were able to infiltrate our country, get driver's licenses and fly planes into the WTC, so I doubt passing for Christians will be a major feat. So either we want to allow them into our country or we don't. IMHO, a terrorist won't try to enter as a refugee because of the long vetting process.
OTOH, often people who hate have a lot of patience. I don't think the WTC attack was a spur-of-the-moment decision. It obviously took a lot of careful planning. As I've written before, it's probably no coincidence that it happened on Sept 11, 11 years after a speech Bush made to Congress, but maybe it was. There are a lot of theories about the attacks.
I'm torn on this issue. I think we should allow the 10,000 refugees we're committed to if only to show the rest of the world we are a compassionate nation that steps up to its responsibilities. It's not a huge number and can be contained as long as there's a stringent vetting process. After all, over 10,000 deaths each year on our roads are due to drunk drivers. Maybe we should keep better tabs on them.
The Taliban have a saying: "You might have all the watches, but we have all the time."
Think about it. The so-called "vetting" process appears to consist of survey questions and a waiting period. If you want to infiltrate the west and recruit people to your cause, what's 24-months? Heck, you can begin recruiting in the camps while you wait.
As for this wonderful vetting process we have, we let in at least two Iraqi soldiers as refugees after the war, one of whom had fingerprints all over improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And that's from a country we were close to and presumably able to get records and information on people.
We have no way to know who is coming from Syria. There is no database to check against from that country...none. The only thing we have is apparently fingerprints, which may be useful later on if one of these refugees goes on to committ a terrorist act. We can check to see their point of entry, but a fat lot of good that will do for the people killed or maimed in a potential terror attack.
A few weeks ago, I was very strongly against us taking in refugees from Syria. I'm not so sure about my stance anymore.
You are comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about a different situation and a totally different era. We know America is the most giving country in the world, we have compassion for those in need, but, if, for no other reason we need to think of the cost involved when 1000s of people, many probably uneducated and untrained enter our country. Who is going to pick up the bill for medical care, housing, education, food and other personal needs? We know who, us, our kids and grandkids.
We already have a problem with illegals from many countries and now we want to add more problems? I am one, who does feel most of these people are just wanting to escape a bad situation, but what about the 1 or 2% who are not good people? If there was a bowl of 1000 MandMs on the table and you knew 20 of them were filled with poison but you didn't know which ones, would you eat any of them?
Because of 1 person who you've only heard about because of a book? Oh sure lets keep allowing refugees into our country which takes away from helping Americans in need.
I just love the right's sudden interest in helping Americans in need.
Funny how how that wasn't the message from the right until it became a convenient excuse for not helping Syrian refugees in need.
The World Jewish Congress predates Israel, and is an international organization with headquarters in NYC. To say it is affiliated with the Israeli government is about as valid as saying ANY Jewish organization is affiliated with the Israeli government.
On top of all of that, The World Jewish Congress, foolishly, DOES believe that Israel should take in Syrian refugees. Netanyahu doesn't.
When Netanyahu tells Europe to start taking in refugees, get back to me and then we can talk about hypocrisy.
Your point is irrational. Predating anything has nothing to do with affiliation. Furthermore, instead of "affiliation" you mean to say "arm of" or "organ of" the Israeli government. That is not a requirement for hypocrisy. You are imposing it on the conversation and I do not agree.
Even a requirement of actual private group "affiliation" with the Israeli government is a filter that I don't agree is necessary nor logical.
If an organization is Zionist either passively (stated support but not a central focus) or actively, nationally or internationally influential, and hypocritical on refugees then that fulfills the hypocrisy criteria for a political Jewish group in my stated point. There is no logic for that group needing to be a part of the Israeli government.
Here are powerful international and national Zionist organizations working in tandem for refugee hypocrisy:
See below. If this isn't affiliation then I don't know what is. Apparently, your statement that 'a view that the WJC is affiliated with the Israeli government is as valid as stating that all Jewish organizations are affiliated with the Israeli government' (paraphrase) is completely invalid and uninformed. Of course, as I before stated, affiliation doesn't actually matter. The policy hypocrisy of powerful Zionist supporting organizations was my point:
There is no credible position that holds that there is no hypocrisy because Netenyahu is 'simply his own man who ignores these organizations on Israel taking refugees'. I have seen no credible evidence of heavy pressure from these organizations, reflected in the media, on Israel to take refugees. Claiming "well, we can't do anything about that stubborn Netenyahu" isn't credible given the lack of pressure on him to take refugees and the pressure on other Western nations.
Every single one of these international Jewish organizations should be putting heavy and successful pressure on Israel, first and foremost, to take refugees before they exert their influence internationally. This would avoid the impression of hypocrisy. Without this, merely citing Netenyahu's intransigence does not inspire trust. In essence, these organizations, in the case of the WJC an organization with intimate ties to the Knesset and likely throughout the Israeli political structure (let's be honest about the power of the WJC), could very well be using Netenyahu's simple answer of "no" to willfully ignore Israel's refusal and to concentrate pressure on other nations despite their repeated and strong "no" positions.
I'm not going to endlessly debate irrational goalposts and legalistic points, with no basis in reality, to absolve these organizations of their clear and almost uniform hypocrisy. The facts are that they have put significant political pressure on Western countries, mostly by cynically abusing history for modern political purposes, while largely ignoring Israel's non-participation. Those are the facts.
A few weeks ago, I was very strongly against us taking in refugees from Syria. I'm not so sure about my stance anymore.
If anyone has a unique moral claim that parallels the Jews of Europe, it is the Syrian Christians, Iraqi Yazidis, and other minorities being persecuted by radical Islamist forces in the Middle East. But that is not true of the broader wave of Syrian refugees. That is not to blame them for the war, but it does suggest there is a good moral case for distinguishing among refugees, rather than admitting all who wish to come.
I would argue that during ww2, turning away Jewish refugee is a mistake, but NOT allowing Japanese or German immigrants is an acceptable move. It is what it is.
But seriously, I wish people can stop comparing ww2 to the unconventional warfare we are fighting now. apples to oranges. Why bother?
If you really want to argue, well, there are countries (we all know what they are) are able to rebuild their homes from ashes. Desperate people make desperate choices. Help these refugees rebuilding their homes is more productive.
I can't explain it, but people learn to hate from their parents, friends and neighbors. Some people just need to blame others for their failures and target a particular group by race or religion. Did the 9 people who died in Charleston do anything to provoke Dylan Roof?
The paradox here, however, is both humorous and disturbing to me. Hitler ranted about the Jews being subhuman and an inferior race. He wrote in Mein Kampf that they must be destroyed because they were preventing Germany from becoming superior. Yet these Jews who were no better than rats, controlled all the money and destroyed the economy. This same twisted logic is used today in hate groups.
Absolutely spot on. That's a strange paradox. But it shows how stupid bigots are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Really? Then how is it that much of what was going on in Germany (the holocaust) wasn't known until after the war, when the concentration camps were discovered?
It WAS known. That's my point.
It's been recorded over and over again that German soldiers came home on furlough from the East, mentally disturbed by what they saw. And when they'd go to their local bars (a German custom if there ever was one), would get drunk and tell the locals about the things they saw. Where do you think the Germans, Austrians, French, Dutch, and others thought their Jewish neighbors were going? You think they're that stupid? Why do you think the Danish made sure that they got almost all of their Jews out of the country when the Germans demanded that they be rounded up? Why do you think Anne Frank's family were hiding?
There were concentration camps in Germany and Austria. Everyone in the area knew what happened in those places. The Jewish Ghettos in Poland weren't out in the middle of nowhere. The Poles saw the transports. Where do you supposed they thought those transports were going? Jerusalem? Stop it.
I will never believe that no one knew what was going on. Millions of people just vanish out of thin air, and no one knows it? Yeah, i know everyone FEIGNED surprise AFTER it was over, but i don't buy it, and you shouldn't either.
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.
