Paris Terror Attacks

[dkolo]

5 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

The bigger issue is after the refugees settle.   They do not easily assimilate, they lack resource to succeed.   Their children inherits their culture, poverty, and look for different ways to be accepted (like kids in ghetto are attracted to gangs).   ISIS and other similar groups will exploit this.

I am just applying math here.   For every 10000 Syrian/Iraqi refugees we accept, let's say 1% of their kids will grow up to sympathize with ISIS.  That's 100.  Let's assume for the sake of argument, 1% of those who sympathize turns to violence.   That's 1 in 10000.   Let's say those refugees invite their relatives through legal means every year, and so on and so on.    We won't be talking about 1 or 2 terrorists.  In 20 years, I can't even guess what those numbers will be.   We will be in the same situation as France - having no resource to monitor all those kids turned ISIS.  That's not what I want my child and his children to deal with.  

And let me reiterate, I am not a Christian and don't believe in turning the other cheek in this case.   It's about preserving my way of life in US as best as I can.  

Even if I were to concede everything you said, you need to weigh your scenario against the alternative of not accepting anyone. I would submit that America telling those same thousands of people to go eff themselves, leaving them in a humanitarian crisis, will create much more hostility and resentment against America than your scenario will. In other words, I believe that the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of admitting refugees. 

[rkim291968]

2 minutes ago, dkolo said:

Even if I were to concede everything you said, you need to weigh your scenario against the alternative of not accepting anyone. I would submit that America telling those same thousands of people to go eff themselves, leaving them in a humanitarian crisis, will create much more hostility and resentment against America than your scenario will. In other words, I believe that the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of admitting refugees. 

I disagree and would like our government to take that chance.   It's not like the resentment isn't there now.   I heard something like 40% of Muslims in that region supports what ISIS is doing.   I will take that as a gross exaggeration but I got the point.  Many Muslims still believe 9/11 was created by US.   We can't win with these folks.   

[dkolo]

15 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

I disagree and would like our government to take that chance.   It's not like the resentment isn't there now.   I heard something like 40% of Muslims in that region supports what ISIS is doing.   I will take that as a gross exaggeration but I got the point.  Many Muslims still believe 9/11 was created by US.   We can't win with these folks.   

We took in hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cuban refugees throughout the height of the Cold War despite similarly unfounded fears of letting in destabilizing ideologies. Meanwhile, you don't have to look beyond other places with humanitarian crises caused by displaced peoples (see, eg, Palestinians) to see how that instability breeds future radicals. 

And while I similarly don't approach this from a religious standpoint, I am compelled by my own morality and my morality as an American, where the country was founded in large part as a refuge for oppressed people, to support helping these people however we can. And we can absolutely take these people in. 

[Gunther]

19 minutes ago, dkolo said:

Even if I were to concede everything you said, you need to weigh your scenario against the alternative of not accepting anyone. I would submit that America telling those same thousands of people to go eff themselves, leaving them in a humanitarian crisis, will create much more hostility and resentment against America than your scenario will. In other words, I believe that the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of admitting refugees. 

We've already taken in 2100 Syrian refugees since '11.  Our govt has been secretly importing and placing them, unbeknownst to local authorities, which is shameless but not surprising.

 How much has ISIS grown since '11?  These barbarians care nothing of our benevolence, they continue to grow and their hate towards us multiplies regardless our actions.  

1.  Kill them.  They actually do not like that, contrary to what pacifists would like us to believe.

2.  Do not let any more in, they cannot be vetted; they are kids who have virtually no electronic footprint.  

There is no other logical option, on either front.

[dkolo]

2 minutes ago, Gunther said:

We've already taken in 2100 Syrian refugees since '11.  Our govt has been secretly importing and placing them, unbeknownst to local authorities, which is shameless but not surprising.

 How much has ISIS grown since '11?  These barbarians care nothing of our benevolence, they continue to grow and their hate towards us multiplies regardless our actions.  

1.  Kill them.  They actually do not like that, contrary to what pacifists would like us to believe.

2.  Do not let any more in, they cannot be vetted; they are kids who have virtually no electronic footprint.  

There is no other logical option, on either front.

Thank you for that nuanced policy proposal. 

[rkim291968]

6 minutes ago, dkolo said:

We took in hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cuban refugees throughout the height of the Cold War despite similarly unfounded fears of letting in destabilizing ideologies. Meanwhile, you don't have to look beyond other places with humanitarian crises caused by displaced peoples (see, eg, Palestinians) to see how that instability breeds future radicals. 

And while I similarly don't approach this from a religious standpoint, I am compelled by my own morality and my morality as an American, where the country was founded in large part as a refuge for oppressed people, to support helping these people however we can. And we can absolutely take these people in. 

In a perfect world, I'd like to accept them with open arms.  This has been a major humanitarian crisis and I feel for the refugees.   But in an earlier post, someone suggested that there are other ways to help - by stabilizing Syria.   That may mean shaking hands with Puiten to prop up the government what have you.   But moving 30% (don't remember the latest count) of Syria/Iraq population to Western countries is a recipe for more future tragedies. And who is to say such thing will not generate more refugees by making ISIS in that region even stronger. 

[Mr. Desmond]

Can I say I think we are forgetting something about the difference in this refugee crisis.

These refugees are primarily members of a religion that is easily abused by Mullahs, the refugees from what I understand are typically uneducated, and who are difficult to integrate into our society and advocate their own Sharia system of law. I don't think they want to be here --- they are forced to be here. We are a totally different society.

Other refugees in the past, for the most part, entered into the country for economic,  political reasons, and wanted to come here (I assume).

We are dealing with a different type of refugee, and I do not think we are setup for assimilating them or educating them into our society. 

If you are balancing our safety, I would look at alternatives for refugees closer to their country so they can easily return after the war. I am trying to think of long term consequences. Sure, short term allowing "widows and orphans" to enter seems harmless, but long term what happens? Maybe we can look at other places in the US with large Muslim communities. But will it work -- can we carry the process of assimilation into our society?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Did you actually read what I said and what Cruz said, 

"He returned home shortly after Castro seized power in 1959 but, Ted Cruz writes, was appalled to see Castro had “declared to the world that he was a communist”. Castro did not formally call his revolution socialist until the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.

By sounds of things Cruz's dad was not a communist but a man who thought he was fighting for something that wasn't what he thought he was fighting for. If he was a communist then he would be celebrating Castro when he returned, not appalled by him. 

 

Matt, did you understand what I was getting at? Facts don't matter in xenophobic rhetoric. All a xenophobe would have seen is the affinity for Castro. They don't care about the rest. 

All the rhetoric now is Syrian refugee = ISIS. Where do we draw the line? How long before they start talking internment for Syrians, Muslims? Deportation? This is how it starts. And why stop at Muslims. Trump wants Mexicans out. Bush thinks Asians are the "anchor baby" threat. Irish=IRA, Italians=Mafia. It is all xenophobia and all intended for political gain and all of it is against American values. 

[Mr. Desmond]

And then there is the other side of not allowing refugees. ISIL will use our unwillingness to allow refugees to enter as propaganda. So do these refugees enter as temporary residents, and then we force them to leave after their war? Or do we establish security guidelines? Tough questions

[rkim291968]

17 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

And why stop at Muslims. Trump wants Mexicans out. Bush thinks Asians are the "anchor baby" threat. Irish=IRA, Italians=Mafia.

A good point.  The only answer I can give is ... ISIS threat is far worse than what other refugee groups brought to US.  Just look at how 9/11 changed all our lives.  

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, dkolo said:

Thank you for that nuanced policy proposal. 

Logic whips nuance every time.

[boogielicious]

20 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

A good point.  The only answer I can give is ... ISIS threat is far worse than what other refugee groups brought to US.  Just look at how 9/11 changed all our lives.  

That is the same thing they said about refugees fleeing from communism. ISIS is just the latest threat. When we defeat ISIS, a new threat will appear. We keep repeating our mistakes. The Mujahadin, who we funded and trained to resist the Soviets, became the Taliban and al qaeda. ISIS is similar and when they are gone, someone else will appear.

When we defeated Japan and Germany in WWII, we took a different approach. We rebuilt their economies making them stable and even economic powers costing us billions of dollars. But it saved trillions because we ended up with allies instead of enemies. Japan and Germany were far greater enemies than ISIS or al qaeda could ever dream of being.

Unless we take a similar approach with the middle east and other regions, unrest will always breed corruption, violent hate and terrorism. 

[Golfingdad]

26 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

A good point.  The only answer I can give is ... ISIS threat is far worse than what other refugee groups brought to US.  Just look at how 9/11 changed all our lives.  

I think you meant to say "perceived as."  You can't fairly compare what other refugee groups have/haven't done in the past to what you think some might do in the future without qualifying it.

10 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is the same thing they said about refugees fleeing from communism. ISIS is just the latest threat. When we defeat ISIS, a new threat will appear. We keep repeating our mistakes. The Mujahadin, who we funded and trained to resist the Soviets, became the Taliban and al qaeda. ISIS is similar and when they are gone, someone else will appear.

When we defeated Japan and Germany in WWII, we took a different approach. We rebuilt their economies making them stable and even economic powers costing us billions of dollars. But it saved trillions because we ended up with allies instead of enemies. Japan and Germany were far greater enemies than ISIS or al qaeda could ever dream of being.

Unless we take a similar approach with the middle east and other regions, unrest will always breed corruption, violent hate and terrorism. 

I've wanted to post this many times (and heck, maybe I have and just don't remember) but this little scene from Charlie Wilson's War is about exactly to which you are referring.

Spoiler

Here's a piece of trivia from IMDB about this scene:  Near the end, while Charlie Wilson is standing on the balcony with Gust Avrakotos during a party celebrating the defeat of the Soviet army in Afghanistan, Gust warns Charlie of future problems if he and the other members of Congress do not follow up on giving economic aid to the Afghani's. As Gust finished this warning, Charlie thinks about what he said, and you hear an airliner flying over Washington DC. It is an obvious, ominous reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

 

[saevel25]

44 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is the same thing they said about refugees fleeing from communism. ISIS is just the latest threat. When we defeat ISIS, a new threat will appear. We keep repeating our mistakes. The Mujahadin, who we funded and trained to resist the Soviets, became the Taliban and al qaeda. ISIS is similar and when they are gone, someone else will appear.

Communists were nothing like ISIS. Communism was pretty much a pissing contest between the USA and the USSR. ISIS is a legit threat who wants to see all non-Muslims actually dead. Bit difference. 

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

When we defeated Japan and Germany in WWII, we took a different approach. We rebuilt their economies making them stable and even economic powers costing us billions of dollars. But it saved trillions because we ended up with allies instead of enemies. Japan and Germany were far greater enemies than ISIS or al qaeda could ever dream of being.

Unless we take a similar approach with the middle east and other regions, unrest will always breed corruption, violent hate and terrorism. 

I agree. I was listening to a talk show the other evening and a woman was on talking about Muslim's and how they are treated in Paris. Basically there was a big anti-muslim push in France. At some point they even banned the hijab from being worn in public and schools. France has done a lot to make Muslims feel unwelcome and 2nd class citizens, even though they have one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. 

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Communists were nothing like ISIS. Communism was pretty much a pissing contest between the USA and the USSR. ISIS is a legit threat who wants to see all non-Muslims actually dead. Bit difference. 

I agree. I was listening to a talk show the other evening and a woman was on talking about Muslim's and how they are treated in Paris. Basically there was a big anti-muslim push in France. At some point they even banned the hijab from being worn in public and schools. France has done a lot to make Muslims feel unwelcome and 2nd class citizens, even though they have one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. 

We didn't treat it that way (McCarthyism). Not sure how old you are, but growing up in the 60s, the Red Threat occupied all the foreign policy decisions we made. Vietnam was all about stopping communism. We spent trillions over the decades combating it. We're treating the current terrorist threat the same way in my opinion.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

We didn't treat it that way (McCarthyism). Not sure how old you are, but growing up in the 60s, the Red Threat occupied all the foreign policy decisions we made. Vietnam was all about stopping communism. We spent trillions over the decades combating it. We're treating the current terrorist threat the same way in my opinion.

The difference is that there was a country we could blame for everything.

Now, it's just an assortment of people who hate the West for what they perceive to be wrongdoers for putting them into the struggles that they live every day.

Then there's the 2nd or 3rd generation young male (or more rarely female) immigrant who is still treated as an immigrant by many people in any number of Western countries. They have no way to go back to their native lands and are not fully accepted in the lands where they live. Easy prey for the groups that cater to reverse hatred like ISIS.

There is no easy solution.

[nevets88]

http://lefooding.com/fr/souvenirs/peace-for-paris-tous-au-bistrot

 

[RandallT]

 

On a similar note, @nevets88:

"They have weapons. F*** them. We have champagne!” Charlie Hedbo