patrick.net

What if the refugees Obama want to bring are victims of violence done to them by ISIS, and what if they are totally unlike this guy, and in fact will be eternally grateful for being taken in by the U.S. ?

I know, I know, we can watch the propaganda videos T-lips posted that show refugees are never like that. They're all ungrateful assholes and future suicide bombers.

But the fact is, most of the 3 million or so Muslims already living in the U.S. are virtually all not like this, and there is little reason to expect those being rescued from a terrible situation in Syria would be either.

Xenophobia much Patrick ?

marcus says

Xenophobia much Patrick ?

nah, it's just the religion with a mandate to convert or kill the whole world that bothers me.

.marcus says

What if the refugees Obama want to bring are victims of violence done to them by ISIS, and what if they are totally unlike this guy, and in fact will be eternally grateful for being taken in by the U.S. ?

Marcus, guaranteed... those little girls who were married off at the ages of 11, 12, 13... who are pregnant... and are now in Denmark fighting to be reunited with their middle-aged husbands... They will never appreciate the fact that they were put into foster care. They don't appreciate the fact that Denmark's government took their sons away from them. They don't appreciate the fact that Denmark's government took away their status as someone's wife from them. Everything they've been told is their role in life is being taken from them. Why, because Westerners think kids being married off is child abuse. No good deed goes unpunished. Denmark WILL pay for this, someday.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with Denmark's position on all this. I just know that the refugees will not appreciate it as I do. You need to accept the fact that they don't really want to be taught by you.

marcus says

But the fact is, most of the 3 million or so Muslims already living in the U.S. are virtually all not like this, and there is little reason to expect those being rescued from a terrible situation in Syria would be either.

most american muslims are fine people because they are not very devout muslims, so they do not feel the need to convert non-muslims or kill them as islam demands that they must do. (for example "2.216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.") though i personally have had several try to convert me.

the ones from syria are much more likely to be young men who know about guns and bombs from personal experience using them or having them used against them, not good at speaking english therefore hard to employ, and much more inclined to take islam seriously. not good.

nah, it's just the religion with a mandate to convert or kill the whole world that bothers me.

IT bothers me too. And partly I'm playing devil's advocate.

But also, when I step back and think about it, I realize that bringing in 10, 000 Islamic refugees (a friendly act), and adding those 10,000 to the 3 million or so Muslims already living in the U'S. is not likely to cause a real change in the probability of an Islamic student going on a stabbing or shooting rampage. In my opinion it's just as likely to slightly lower that probability as it is to raise it.

the ones from syria are much more likely to be young men who know about guns and bombs from personal experience using them or having them used against them, not good at speaking english therefore hard to employ, and much more inclined to take islam seriously. not good.

In my opinion, you sound like you're trying to hard to justify your point of view. But it's understandable after what just happened in Paris.

we'll chat again after the next mass murder of random innocent civilians by muslims.

and the next.

and the next.

...

check for updates undoubtedly coming soon, at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

marcus says

Xenophobia much Patrick ?

nah, it's just the religion with a mandate to convert or kill the whole world that bothers me.

Giving this some analysis it seems that you often hear this sort of leftist do-gooder self-destructive mentality from people who tend to have less if no kids. It is simply a difference whether you teach other kids or have a job that involves kids as opposed to having your own with the big responsibility to take care of them and provide them with a reasonable cultural and economic outlook for the future, It is mostly white leftist feminist types that are childless and therefore do not feel the genetic need to provide for their descendants and fight for their culture. If you have no immediate offspring to take care off you may as well go off into the world and play the savior for other cultures.

we'll chat again after the next mass murder of random innocent civilians by muslims.

Not sure whether the next violent act by Islamic terrorists in Europe or here will be giving me any new insight about whether I'm right about this.

marcus says

bringing in 10, 000 Islamic refugees (a friendly act), and adding those 10,000 to the 3 million or so Muslims already living in the U'S. is not likely to cause a real change in the probability of an Islamic student going on a stabbing or shooting rampage. In my opinion it's just as likely to slightly lower that probability as it is to ever so slightly raise it.

Build the wall...around NYC and Hollywood...then import the terrorists refugees to those places...

marcus says

In my opinion it's just as likely to slightly lower that probability as it is to raise it.

You know what they say about opinions: they're like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink!

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-france-holds-special-mass-attack-victims-061354472.html

The Latest: Alabama will refuse Syrian refugees

http://wric.com/2015/11/16/texas-indiana-alabama-and-michigan-refusing-to-take-in-syrian-refugees/

(WRIC/KXAN) — Two months ago, President Obama said the U.S. would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees. However, since the attacks in Paris, the governors of Texas, Alabama, Indiana and Michigan are now saying they will not allow refugees in their states.

Governor Greg Abbott said in a letter to President Obama that Texas will not take in any new Syrian refugees. Currently, Texas has more Syrian refugees than any other state in the country.

“Effective today, I am directing the Texas Health & Human Services Commission’s Refugee Resettlement Program to not participate in the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the State of Texas. And I urge you, as President, to halt your plans to allow Syrians to be resettled anywhere in the United States,” Gov. Abbott said.

it's really kind of amazing that the UN is demanding that america take in large numbers of muslims after muslim countries alone, of all countries, refused to sign the UN's universal declaration of human rights:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

the main sticking point for muslims was the UN's inclusion of freedom for all people to change their religion.

islam requires death for anyone who dares to leave islam.

Create a site where muslim are near any other religion, and check of all the areas where there is terrorism.
First they will be nice, then they build fort mosque, then they don't follow local laws and want everyone else to follow their rule. Then they want to take over the country and land. War between Burma baddhist and Bangladeshi muslims, Phillipines, india-pakistan ... list goes on. If you think of them as brainwashed Zombies who gets instruction 5 times a day from allah, you can only survive.

So Obama is secretly trying to fill his mission, you can't even mention other religion in muslim country without getting killed.

Why don't muslim countries who protested Charlie habido help out their buddies.
send them to Pakistan, Saudi arebia etc.

All countries should join to purge extremism muslims. Maybe this is venting

Obama sucks.

Considering that the majority of these refugees are fighting age males.

Why not train them up and send them back to Syria to fight for their homes?

Are we really doing the Middle East any favors by allowing this brain-drain to occur by accepting all the "moderates" and leaving the place for ISIS to run their sex slave camps, blowing up ancient archaeological sites and commit genocide?

sorry, but this is unacceptable. islam is utterly incompatible with democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

sure, only 10% of them really really want to kill us, but that's still 1,000 people.

aid them somewhere else, just don't bring them here!

Go visit Manzanar. Hysterics like you made it possible.

It might give you some ideas as to a final solution to the Muslim problem.

1830s: Dirty Irishmen are defiling America, know no decency.

1880s: Filthy Chinamen are defiling America, know no decency.

1900: Filthy wops are defiling America, know no decency.

1940s: The Japs will destroy America - the enemy in our midst!

One huge problem with xenophobic bigots like you is their abysmal track record with respect to ever being right about anything.

I'm sure it's different this time.

socal2 says

Why not train them up and send them back to Syria to fight for their homes?

I really like this idea! What could possibly go wrong with training and arming these guys and then sending them off to fight for us?

On a more serious note, this whole situation is just unfathomably sad. There are some very solid arguments against helping them. Yet, they're people and people can change. Many of them may already be wonderful people. Some of them are not even Muslim. It's sad to think of what will happen to such people, just as it is sad to think of what will happen if a few violent refugees kill innocents here in the states after we show compassion by allowing them in.

I predict all of the national discussion about this will focus on whether or not we let them in. It will be a bitter debate and both sides will hurl insults at the other. If we directed our energy toward finding a better solution ... perhaps we could find a better solution. Here's one - albeit a dumb one that would not work - let all the atheist, christian, and jewish refugees in. Then, perhaps, devise some comprehensive personality test for the rest - identify all the people we can be reasonably certain are not a threat (even if it's just 1%) and let them in. Accept all the babies, even if the parents can't come, and pay Americans to adopt them. It would be expensive, but it's the sort of expenditure that might save money and lives in the long run.
Maybe this would not work, but it's very sad to me to think of all the innocents - especially the young children - who will die because, arguably, nations around the world spent more time worrying and arguing about whether or not to take any risk rather than planning and devising strategies to save as many innocent lives as possible. Here in the US, we spend so much of our tax money on bullshit - I would be happy to spend more for a good cause, if only our leaders were capable.

Let them in on one condition: neuter

HydroCabron says

It might give you some ideas as to a final solution to the Muslim problem.

1830s: Dirty Irishmen are defiling America, know no decency.

1880s: Filthy Chinamen are defiling America, know no decency.

1900: Filthy wops are defiling America, know no decency.

1940s: The Japs will destroy America - the enemy in our midst!

One huge problem with xenophobic bigots like you is their abysmal track record with respect to ever being right about anything.

I'm sure it's different this time.

you cannot just extrapolate some bullshit trent to the muslim problem.
India has assimilated several religions and people over many centuries due to its inclusive religion but guess which religion they still have problem with ? --> muslims.
infact , india is the only country on the face of the earth where jews were never prosecuted. India is also the birthplace of the buddha and yoga.
basically , indians are very non -violent and tolerant ..birthplace of gandhi.
If a country like india still has issues with muslims...you can only imagine what US will have.
The bottomline is that islam is the only religion ( unique) which has its primary holy books like quran having legal system ( sharia) and political framework ( sunna) mixed up with religion.
"no other religion has it". all religions only deal with spiritualism. i don't think bible has a chapter on setting up a government.
There is no religious hindu text which talks about governance.
it's easy to assimilate other religions without any conflict with a country's political and legal framework because they don't have anything except spiritualism in their religion. I can be the most conservative hindu but still can easily accept american legal/constitutional/political system because it does not conflict with my religion.
Any devout muslim will have a fundamental struggle with any democracy or man made system because it conflicts with a system that's there in Quran.
There is a reason why almost all the countries have problem with muslim assimilation.
The bible which almost entirely deals with spiritualism still causes contention in american politics because it conflicts with gay rights , women's rights ...etc. now imagine , if it had everything from law and order to how to elect the president in it ?

indianguybayarea says

The bottomline is that islam is the only religion ( unique) which has its primary holy books like quran having legal system ( sharia) and political framework ( sunna) mixed up with religion.

Yes - they are a special devil. As are all the previous devils.

Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him.
And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form.
Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world.

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

HydroCabron says

Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him.

And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form.

Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world.

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

India is a relatively non-violent country that has integrated people from several religions and cultures, including Jews and yet they still have difficulty with insurgent muslims who have questionable loyalties.

Indian muslims cheer when pakistan beats India in cricket even if they have been in the country for centuries because they are muslims first and indians second. Irish, Japanese Chinese and Italians are most definitely different from that perspective

Not sure what the mein kampf post was about.

MMR says

because they are muslims first and indians second

Hitler says the same about Jews: they never adopt the nationality of countries they inhabit.

I'll dig up my copy of Mein Kampf later. It is in my storage locker.

indianguybayarea says

i don't think bible has a chapter on setting up a government.

There is no religious hindu text which talks about governance.

you need to look closer, its loaded with governmental objectives. Chock full, in fact.

I'm still trying to recall those incidents where Irish, Italians , Chinese and Japanese people funded terrorism in their native countries. I'm still trying to remember when Japanese people went back to Japan during WWII to become kamikaze fighters or those who openly expressed great delight in pearl harbor. Which Irish and Italians killed in the name of religion, with the exception of the IRA in Northern Ireland? Chinese spies are a tad bit more 'terrorist' than their Indian counterparts in this country but nowhere near the threat of the 1% of radicals in the name of Islam. The 99% of moderate muslims defer to them.

In all seriousness, any links to the latter from anyone else to the contrary would be greatly appreciated

The hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men invading Europe aren't refugees. They're an invading army. Country after country has had to close its borders to them after the tide of looting burning rapists came through terrorizing their citizens. This army might not have guns, but anyone who thinks that doesn't make them dangerous is a fool. Their most tolerant and well-meaning mission is to settle in Europe, get as many wives from the local population as possible, and breed like lemmings until they've displaced the locals. Then they'll be in a position to write whatever laws they desire. It's just a matter of 25 years or so and they'll be the clear majority. This invasion has been planned for a while and it's taking place now. European leaders are complicit. They know what they are doing and they know why. Europe will fall not to the crash and boom of guns and bombs, but to the sound of a baby crying and the static wail from a minorette. All this will be accomplished in the name of that great sacred cow "multiculturalism."

MMR says

with the exception of the IRA in Northern Ireland

the IRA does not kill for religious reasons at all. they don't care if you become catholic or not.

they simply want to unify their own country and get equal rights. that said, it's a horrible disaster for their cause that they ever set off bombs to kill civilians.

HydroCabron says

Hitler says the same about Jews: they never adopt the nationality of countries they inhabit.

jews do resist assimilation (not all that successfully lately). but what they do not do is:

1. attempt to impose jewish religious law on everyone
2. murder you if you use freedom of speech to criticise them
3. murder you if you leave judaism
4. deliberately murder random civilians in their host countries

There's a reason the water bastard isn't taken seriously. He's impervious to common sense!

22% of Syrians call ISIL/Daesh "a positive influence." Could we please at least exclude those 22%, even if they say it's their religion?

These refugees that you are so afraid of are mostly widows and children who's loved ones were murdered by ISIS or other violence in the area. They are subject to 18 months of scrutiny before they are let in. There have been zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001. Time to put the goblet of fear and loathing away.

jews do resist assimilation (not all that successfully lately). but what they do not do is:

1. attempt to impose jewish religious law on everyone

2. murder you if you use freedom of speech to criticise them

3. murder you if you leave judaism

4. deliberately murder random civilians in their host countries

So, why did most Americans want to prevent immigration of refugees from Hitler's regime? In particular, they didn't want to take the Jews. Here's snope's take on it if you don't trust the social media posts RE the Harvard Crimson poll: http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/17/harvard-crimson-jewish-refugees/.

Quigley says

The hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men invading Europe aren't refugees. They're an invading army.

Does this gem come from your own head or some sort of fear-based news program?

YesYNot says

Does this gem come from your own head or some sort of fear-based news program?

It comes straight from the blood of the victims in Paris. You should be ashamed of your smug attempts of downplaying this violence.

mell says

It comes straight from the blood of the victims in Paris. You should be ashamed of your smug attempts of downplaying this violence.

Perhaps you should be ashamed of inferring meaning from blood. What are you going to read next, the tea leaves? Does calling me smug make you feel better about your fearful position?

Rough cut plan...

0- Surround isis held territory with massive NATO forces to contain them and make it impossible for them to escape.
1- create refugee cities in syria/iraq
2- Heavily fortify them with NATO forces, 100,000 or so, making it impossible for isis to penetrate
3- redirect all refugees to these places. Vet each one as much as possible to minimize the amount of sleeper cells.
4- Have the world contribute to food/water/shelter to keep the place going indefinitely.
5- Set a date to which refugees must evacuate isis held areas
6- Bring in the b52's and level the places to the ground.
7- Send in NATO ground troops to clean up the survivors.
8- Have the refugees rebuild and restock the land
9- Rinse and repeat until the majority wake up and enter the 21st century.

curious2 says

22% of Syrians call ISIL/Daesh "a positive influence." Could we please at least exclude those 22%, even if they say it's their religion?

I would guess it's even high because the poll probably didn't sample as many Syrians from the East of the country, due to ISIS control, where Sunni Islam dominates and hatred of Alawites, Kurds, and Shi'a is more prevalent.

YesYNot says

These refugees that you are so afraid of are mostly widows and children who's loved ones were murdered by ISIS or other violence in the area. They are subject to 18 months of scrutiny before they are let in. There have been zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001. Time to put the goblet of fear and loathing away.

They are overwhelmingly young men, and many of them are married and left their wives and children in MENA. Also, a huge number are non-Syrians pretending to be Syrian, by ditching their own passports in the sea. Authorities are reporting hilarious cases of black-as-midnight Eritreans and Somalis claiming to be Syrian. Multiple Copies of one of the Paris attackers' fake passport, same name and personal information but different photo, have been found in Europe in the hands of other migrants.

Like I said earlier - sending young British Males to South America 1939-1945 would contribute to an Allied Loss, not a Victory. Why accept young male Syrians?

thunderlips11 says

They are overwhelmingly young men, and many of them are married and left their wives and children in MENA.

Well, perhaps that is true of the refugees he is afraid of, but for all of the refugees in general, it is not true. Of those, 38% are under 12, and the slight majority are female.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

YesYNot says

Well, perhaps that is true of the refugees he is afraid of, but for all of the refugees in general, it is not true. Of those, 38% are under 12, and the slight majority are female.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian-refugees/

That is all refugees registered by the UNHCR. In other words, that counts all those living in Jordanese and Turkish and Lebanese Refugee Camps, it is not a count of the people streaming into Europe.

Where da women and children at?

Luegenpresse!

Don't know. But that picture doesn't necessarily represent the 10,000 Obama wants to bring in. If it does (I doubt it), I'll change my opinion.

YesYNot says

There have been zero arrests of refugees for terrorism in the US since 2001.

What is your source for that assertion? I have read of three cases, and I don't presume to know of most, let alone all. Furthermore, calling ISIL/Daesh "a positive influence" is not an arrestable offense, even though it suggests an alarming risk level.