Can you guarantee everyone in your neighborhood isn't a terrorist?

 

Exactly what I was trying to say, except my wording must have been poor. I don't see how ANYONE can GUARANTEE that NOBODY on my flight, in my neighborhood, etc. is a terrorist.

The issue with all the refugees is the problem of the world, as we all sat back for at least 4 years and did nothing. Even when being told that this would happen, the rest of the world turned their backs on Syria, now we all are paying the price, but a lot less of a price than the refugees. We, the world, was a huge part of this problem, and now we must fix it.

 

This does not happen often SG but I totally agree with everything you just said. Obama bailed on Syria and ignored ISIS in the beginning when people told him he had to deal with them and that is a big reason why so many are trying to get out. I agree that we do NEED to help these people. However, that does not mean we have to let them come here. I am all for setting up safe zones with military protection for them in the ME.

 

The one thing about ISIS is that they will TELL you what they are doing and their plans. They said they would infiltrate Europe with the refugees going there and they have. They have said they would blow up Europe and they have started. Now they have said that they will do the same thing in the US through the refugees coming here...and they will. Our politicians primary job is to protect American citizens, not bring in Syrian (or any other country's) refugees. Helping them does NOT mean we have to put American lives in danger.

This does not happen often SG but I totally agree with everything you just said. Obama bailed on Syria and ignored ISIS in the beginning when people told him he had to deal with them and that is a big reason why so many are trying to get out. I agree that we do NEED to help these people. However, that does not mean we have to let them come here. I am all for setting up safe zones with military protection for them in the ME.

 

The one thing about ISIS is that they will TELL you what they are doing and their plans. They said they would infiltrate Europe with the refugees going there and they have. They have said they would blow up Europe and they have started. Now they have said that they will do the same thing in the US through the refugees coming here...and they will. Our politicians primary job is to protect American citizens, not bring in Syrian (or any other country's) refugees. Helping them does NOT mean we have to put American lives in danger.

 

I can agree with this post. It's we just have some different views of how to solve the problem.

The difference in ways of solving the problem is 1, the US getting involved, or 2, letting the Syrian people fight for their own country. If we permit refugees in this country, are those who are excepting of this policy willing to publicly except the circumstances if something goes wrong? Are you willing to lose everything in your life? I would guess not! I would guess though you'd be willing to place the blame on something or someone else.

The difference in ways of solving the problem is 1, the US getting involved, or 2, letting the Syrian people fight for their own country. If we permit refugees in this country, are those who are excepting of this policy willing to publicly except the circumstances if something goes wrong? Are you willing to lose everything in your life? I would guess not! I would guess though you'd be willing to place the blame on something or someone else.

 

I'm with you on not wanting to bring the problems of the ME over here. The problem with letting the Syrian people fight for their country, is that they are severely out gunned and out willed. Why would they want to stay and fight an enemy that has demonstrated such brutal tactics, when they can just come over here, or to Europe, where they will be handed a check and a key to a better life?

 

Touching more on the being out gunned, how do you arm the Syrian people, without ensuring that the weapons you provide the Syrian people (which I would assume we would if we want them to have any chance in fighting ISIS) don't ultimately fall into the hands of ISIS. We have seen it already with the US Humvees that ISIS has acquired. I don't think dumping weapons into the region is a wise route, but one that would need to be taken if we are expecting the Syrian people to fight.

 

As of right now, I am a believer of setting up refugee camps inside of Syria. Protect those camps with a coalition force. Send the money/food/ supplies that we would be providing refugees here, over to the camps to provide the necessities. This would limit the potential for a terrorist to slide into the US under the guise of a refugee, and would allow the refugees continue on with their life in their own homeland, making it easier to return to their homes when ISIS inevitably is defeated.

Can you guarantee everyone in your neighborhood isn't a terrorist?

 

No and I can't control that. The United States CAN control this.

I'm with you on not wanting to bring the problems of the ME over here. The problem with letting the Syrian people fight for their country, is that they are severely out gunned and out willed. Why would they want to stay and fight an enemy that has demonstrated such brutal tactics, when they can just come over here, or to Europe, where they will be handed a check and a key to a better life?

 

Touching more on the being out gunned, how do you arm the Syrian people, without ensuring that the weapons you provide the Syrian people (which I would assume we would if we want them to have any chance in fighting ISIS) don't ultimately fall into the hands of ISIS. We have seen it already with the US Humvees that ISIS has acquired. I don't think dumping weapons into the region is a wise route, but one that would need to be taken if we are expecting the Syrian people to fight.

 

As of right now, I am a believer of setting up refugee camps inside of Syria. Protect those camps with a coalition force. Send the money/food/ supplies that we would be providing refugees here, over to the camps to provide the necessities. This would limit the potential for a terrorist to slide into the US under the guise of a refugee, and would allow the refugees continue on with their life in their own homeland, making it easier to return to their homes when ISIS inevitably is defeated.

 

this^^^^^

No and I can't control that. The United States CAN control this.

 

The people doing Gods work are basically saying some of us will be expendable.

The people doing Gods work are basically saying some of us will be expendable.

 

I have long shared this same sentiment. I feel that people are to tied to taking the "moral high ground," and I agree that when applicable this route should be taken. However, when dealing with a terrorist group, such as ISIS, it is only going to get more people killed.

 

ISIS is leveraging our morals against us, and is aware that the US is bound by their morals. I am not saying throw our morals aside, and stoop the the level of ISIS, but the US needs to put the safety and security of its own citizens at the forefront of its priorities when fighting this battle. That means doing the things that under normal circumstances would not be popular.

 

For all of those who are electing to take the "moral high ground" approach, I ask you this: what did our morals do for us when our citizens were being behead on national tv? How did our morals help us out in Paris, or the numerous other terrorist attacks? Despite an official declaration, this is a war, and innocent people will die in a war. By continuing the let morals guide our decision, as opposed to strategy, we will forever be bound and restricted from what actually needs to be done.

 

Now, let me make it clear, I am not advocating the adoption of similar tactics to ISIS. From a strategic standpoint their tactics rely on the emotional damage that brutalized tactics have on the American people, and as we know ISIS members clearly have no emotions. However, I think that we need to lose the fear of committing collateral damage when striking the enemy. I know that sounds harsh but we need to realize that we are in a time of war, and for the sake of protecting ourselves from the enemy, we need to be willing to take necessary measures.

Is anyone on here willing to lose everything they have, including family, to take the risk of permitting a terrorist into this country? Using the claim "your neighbors" might already be a terrorist is a cop out in leanding sympathy towards the refugees. You are defending the undefendable. Its not hysteria, its common sense in preventing these people into this country. Stand up and create a safe haven in your own country if its worth fighting for. The left wing of my country is so far removed of weighing the risks to benefits of this refugee crisis is beyond reasoning.

Did you read the article?

No and I can't control that. The United States CAN control this.

By doing this does it guarantee that a) no terrorist gets into this country otherwise or b) that nobody in this country becomes a terrorist?

@Wireman @footstomp

 

I learned several things from the article. I bet you two could as well.

It was especially interesting to me, to learn the differences in how the process differs for asylum seekers and refugees.

Agreed, I didn't realize the differences at all.

The article tells a lie in the very first few lines saying only 3 refugees since 2001 have been convicted of a terrorist act. There have been dozens. I could point to the Boston Bombers off the top of my head. I'll find the article but there have been dozens in the last decade.

The guy who murdered the sailors in Chattanooga was a "refugee" also.