Paris Attacks

mcgruff10 said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

I know you didn't say those words, but that's the reality of it.

I think anyone who loves their country puts their own people first. I see nothing wrong with this.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?

This makes no sense- its an unfair question.

Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?

I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.

PP193448 said:

show previous quotes

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PP193448 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.

I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.

It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.

So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.

Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.

Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach?
The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.

That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.

But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.

You know your comment can probably be used as concern for taking in refugees into other countries, especially Western, right??

Not if your informed and have a basic understanding of how the refugee process works.

Exactly. And also, I said homegrown. That specifically means not refugees by definition. So I suppose it could be used as concern if the person in question is refusing to use basic reasoning skills.

So I guess if you apply those non reasoning skills you would also say that there would never ever be a refugee to make terror in your country. Great completely naive reasoning. So you blindly trust your government vetting process. I live in the US and don't trust the US government to do its job correctly. Example: Maybe explain to me why the IRS can't stop billions of dollars distributed to fraudulent tax claims, with so many identity theft issues where my local county sheriff dept actually carries tax ID theft forms in the police cars. How do I know... Cause my wife and I were victims. Now what kind of fucking IRS idiot would not red flag the fact that we haven't filed an EZ form in the past 12 years and that we have never direct deposited any refund. We had to prove to them that we didn't file a fraudulent claim. We spent more money to our CPA, more lost time filing forms and waiting in IRS office than worth the measly $350 tax return.
Plus no one is held to blame for incompetence in government here. There is so much waste in the US government. Just keep throwing tax money into programs that are not working properly, increase more government jobs, spend spend spend. Politicians are corrupt. People are paid off by lobbyists for votes Democratic and Republican alike. So I'm supposed to believe that the US government vetting process will be done the way they say it will, even if on paper it looks like overkill. Give me a fucking break.
Plus I never said that I wouldn't take refugees because of humanitarian issues. Take them all in Canada if you believe so strongly about it.

BS44325 said:

show previous quotes

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.

Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.

Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.

It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.

Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.

Yes you can

Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.

Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.

So you would be ok for troops to be there for like the next what 50 yrs cause maybe by then you would change their ideology ....

Yes

eddiec said:

show previous quotes

PP193448 said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

PP193448 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

bootlegger10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.

I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.

It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.

So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.

Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.

Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach?
The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.

That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.

But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.

You know your comment can probably be used as concern for taking in refugees into other countries, especially Western, right??

Not if your informed and have a basic understanding of how the refugee process works.

Exactly. And also, I said homegrown. That specifically means not refugees by definition. So I suppose it could be used as concern if the person in question is refusing to use basic reasoning skills.

So I guess if you apply those non reasoning skills you would also say that there would never ever be a refugee to make terror in your country. Great completely naive reasoning. So you blindly trust your government vetting process. I live in the US and don't trust the US government to do its job correctly. Example: Maybe explain to me why the IRS can't stop billions of dollars distributed to fraudulent tax claims, with so many identity theft issues where my local county sheriff dept actually carries tax ID theft forms in the police cars. How do I know... Cause my wife and I were victims. Now what kind of fucking IRS idiot would not red flag the fact that we haven't filed an EZ form in the past 12 years and that we have never direct deposited any refund. We had to prove to them that we didn't file a fraudulent claim. We spent more money to our CPA, more lost time filing forms and waiting in IRS office than worth the measly $350 tax return.
Plus no one is held to blame for incompetence in government here. There is so much waste in the US government. Just keep throwing tax money into programs that are not working properly, increase more government jobs, spend spend spend. Politicians are corrupt. People are paid off by lobbyists for votes Democratic and Republican alike. So I'm supposed to believe that the US government vetting process will be done the way they say it will, even if on paper it looks like overkill. Give me a fucking break.
Plus I never said that I wouldn't take refugees because of humanitarian issues. Take them all in Canada if you believe so strongly about it.

But at this moment in time there hasn't been a flaw in the vetting process and 35% of our refugees last year came from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. Should we stop taking those refugees as well? Loads of terrorists in those countries last time I checked.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?

This makes no sense- its an unfair question.

Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?

I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.

Of course it makes sense. Refusing to accept any refugees makes a virtual certainty that some Syrian lives (children?) that would have been saved will be lost, that refusal, on the chance that some strangers might be killed as a result in this country, is a gamble on Syrian lives.
That is placing less value on Syrian lives than American lives any way you slice it.

The business of flipping a coin over my child is the unfair question that lacks sense. In an acute scenario where I have to choose my child over another, of course I won't flip the coin. That has nothing to do with flipping the coin to allow refugee children into this country with the infinitesimally small chance that another refugee will harm my son... I will flip that coin all day long.
Yes, my own son takes precedence, but strangers sons are all of equal value to me, whatever color and origin they happen to have.

So you and McScruffy feel the same- instinctually protective of your own versus another: you in more 'acute' scenarios... him in more 'broader' scenarios.

rgambs said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?

This makes no sense- its an unfair question.

Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?

I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.

Of course it makes sense. Refusing to accept any refugees makes a virtual certainty that some Syrian lives (children?) that would have been saved will be lost, that refusal, on the chance that some strangers might be killed as a result in this country, is a gamble on Syrian lives.
That is placing less value on Syrian lives than American lives any way you slice it.

The business of flipping a coin over my child is the unfair question that lacks sense. In an acute scenario where I have to choose my child over another, of course I won't flip the coin. That has nothing to do with flipping the coin to allow refugee children into this country with the infinitesimally small chance that another refugee will harm my son... I will flip that coin all day long.
Yes, my own son takes precedence, but strangers sons are all of equal value to me, whatever color and origin they happen to have.

So you and McScruffy feel the same- instinctually protective of your own versus another: you in more 'acute' scenarios... him in more 'broader' scenarios.

That's a fair assessment, but I think the distinction you made makes all the difference. We are talking about lives hanging in the balance, denying all refugees entry will surely cause death and massive suffering of them, letting them in might cause death and suffering for us.
The risk to us is a risk that many are willing to take, and many others are not willing to risk American lives but they don't seem to have a problem with the inevitabilcity of suffering among Syrians.
I think it's fair to point out this is inherently placing less value on foreign lives, especially since most of the people I have seen expressing this sentiment don't seem to have thought it through to it's conclusion.