20+- Somalis from the Minnesota area have managed to join up with ISIS.

 

Where these refugees?

Children of refugees?

How many more there want to kill us?

 

I've also always thought ISIS has to laugh when or morals gets in our way of killing them.

Again your splitting hairs on what they are.

That wasn't the article I read the other day I can get one from a more reputable sitell if you prefer , I just did a quick Google search and took the first article.

 

The point I'm making is I think both sides of this debate have legitimate points. But we can't start with a lie. 3 people is just a lie , it's that simple. It's an easy point to prove.

 

PP92 and I came to an agreement in the other thread I posted that it only makes sense to freeze the program for a short period of time so Obama can make a case to the American people on how this program won't affect anyone's saftey. Right now he isn't getting that message across. 2/3 the country doesnt want the program according to a recent Bloomberg poll. 2/3, when does 2/3 of the this country agree on anything ?

 

Fearing for the saftey of your family and friends is a legit fear. We have had 2 capitals of NATO countries get attacked. A Russian plane blown out of the air . 5 Syrian refugees trying to get on a plane in Honduras to enter the United States with stolen passports from Greece.

 

This is all happening so quick and people are nervous. I would say those fears are justified.

 

I also understand our obligation to the world as its only true world power , it is a legit reason to help.

 

But if your going to take my tax payer money give these people money, bring them into our neighborhoods in a time where people from their country are blowing things up across the globe. Well this program better be 100% transparent and I should be able to know everything about every person they bring in.

We can progress with this discussion when you can get past this. It's not a lie. The Tsarnaev's were here on asylum status not as refugees. If you took a bit to read the article you would see there are differences between the two.

 

It's funny that you claim it's an easy point to prove...but you can't prove it.

Yes, and I don't care. Have you paid attention to how the terrorist operate ? We must change our view and strategy for the defense of our people and that means closing down, buttoning up and lending assistance where we can.

 

The United States has lost it's will to protect it's own people because of political correctness....close the borders until we can gain the military advantage and quit being the band aid to the hemorraging of the world...

If you read the article you'd realize they aren't a threat to the "defense of our people"./

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.

 

Well stated....America doesn't seem to have the stomach to protect the lives of our citizens because we feel sorry for a persecuted group. We can assist with the ability to shield ourselves as much as possible.

I haven't found anything concrete on how Abdulazeez's parents arrived here.

 

But as with the Boston bombers he was here for well over a decade before he developed his beliefs.

The Boston bombers' beliefs were that of their parents who were sympathizers.. Ever here the the moms rants on Americans ??

If you read the article you'd realize they aren't a threat to the "defense of our people"./

 

If you believe everything you read is done from an altruistic journalism perpsective then nothing I can say will persuade you that this is bad policy.

 

People want to kill us and a refugee intake program is a perfect Trojan Horse.

 

Until you believe that these people will stop at nothing to kill you, you are a prime target for them....keep on believing, it's only a matter of time before Paris comes to the US.....again...

Did you read the article?

 

I have read the article, and have numerous contentions with it. One of my strongest contentions is under the sub heading "Security Screenings for Refugees." One of the points claims that those who have housed opposition forces will not be allowed access to the United States. I don't have any idea of how that can be proven or dis-proven, but I have my doubts that it actually can be. Also, the claim that there will be "stringent background and security check." How do you run a background check on someone that has no previously recorded background? Its not like the US is keeping tabs on every person in Syrian, so what will our government be using to base these background checks.

 

Do you oppose the plausibility of establishing refugee camps within Syria? Wouldn't this be a solution that minimizes the potential risk of a potential terrorist entering our country and not being discovered until it is too late?

If you read the article you'd realize they aren't a threat to the "defense of our people"./

 

But they are a threat. The article is wrong. How many more times does it have to be proven for you to see that these people are ruthless assassins who thrive on carnage and fear.

But they are a threat. The article is wrong. How many more times does it have to be proven for you to see that these people are ruthless assassins who thrive on carnage and fear.

 

Unfortunately for most Americans, sitting in the comfort of their brick homes watching CNN, they do not feel the threat.

 

It's easy to say there is no threat when you are tucked safely in at night...

 

These people will stop at nothing to kill us, and really haven't stopped trying to kill off Christians since the time of Christ....why would they stop now ?

If you believe everything you read is done from an altruistic journalism perpsective then nothing I can say will persuade you that this is bad policy.

 

People want to kill us and a refugee intake program is a perfect Trojan Horse.

 

Until you believe that these people will stop at nothing to kill you, you are a prime target for them....keep on believing, it's only a matter of time before Paris comes to the US.....again...

I'd be find with a refugee moving in next door to me. Honestly.

I have read the article, and have numerous contentions with it. One of my strongest contentions is under the sub heading "Security Screenings for Refugees." One of the points claims that those who have housed opposition forces will not be allowed access to the United States. I don't have any idea of how that can be proven or dis-proven, but I have my doubts that it actually can be. Also, the claim that there will be "stringent background and security check." How do you run a background check on someone that has no previously recorded background? Its not like the US is keeping tabs on every person in Syrian, so what will our government be using to base these background checks.

 

Do you oppose the plausibility of establishing refugee camps within Syria? Wouldn't this be a solution that minimizes the potential risk of a potential terrorist entering our country and not being discovered until it is too late?

:dancingpa

 

Everyone needs to give @HHSHOG62 a round of applause. Someone who read the article and wants to actually address it. Seriously man, my hats off to you.

 

Also, the claim that there will be "stringent background and security check." How do you run a background check on someone that has no previously recorded background? Its not like the US is keeping tabs on every person in Syrian, so what will our government be using to base these background checks.

 

This is a very good point. I'm going to dig further and see if I can find the answers. There is a lot to wade through on the internet so it may take be a bit.

 

Do you oppose the plausibility of establishing refugee camps within Syria? Wouldn't this be a solution that minimizes the potential risk of a potential terrorist entering our country and not being discovered until it is too late?

 

On face value I'm definitely not opposed.

I'd be find with a refugee moving in next door to me. Honestly.

 

I wouldn't, but not because they were a "refugee", because I don't trust that the United States government can appropriately vett those that are entering this country from a terrorist hot bed.

 

This is how splinter cells get started...

But they are a threat. The article is wrong. How many more times does it have to be proven for you to see that these people are ruthless assassins who thrive on carnage and fear.

You're speaking from emotion. I'm here to discuss this from a factual side and the merits of the points brought up in the article.

Unfortunately for most Americans, sitting in the comfort of their brick homes watching CNN, they do not feel the threat.

 

It's easy to say there is no threat when you are tucked safely in at night...

 

These people will stop at nothing to kill us, and really haven't stopped trying to kill off Christians since the time of Christ....why would they stop now ?

When you say these people who do you mean?

I'd be find with a refugee moving in next door to me. Honestly.

 

I think that is a fairly easy thing to say, given that you probably haven't been directly impacted by a terrorist who slipped through the system. Do you think those in Paris, who lost loved ones over the weekend, would be as willing? I think its easy to have an all inclusive perspective when the situation hasn't directly impact you.

 

ISIS has made it very clear that they intend to attack the US. Given their proven ability to come through on similar claims they have made, there is nothing leading me to believe that they wont come through on this one. Although you don't believe that terrorists can come to the US under the cover as a refugee, you must be willing to admit that by allowing refugees coming from a hotbed of terrorism into our country, the chances of such happening are greater.