Lol, ok that is tottaly unfair and you know it. (Edit:Not to seem mad, it just feels like an unfair thing to say.) I am not calling them all terrorists.
When you keep going on that way about "the vast majority" without qualifying much, it sounds pretty close to me. What % did you mean
to focus on with that term, then?
I am saying that Isis doesn't send idle threats, and such a move would make complete and tactical sense on their part. Therefor we should have a air of CAUTION.
Perhaps, but that can be played various ways. There is Donald Trump: We should be cautious, so send them all back -- which was curiously said just the other day and here you are with this. Perhaps just coincidence, but the language is rather similar. Made me wonder a little.
There could be the version: We should be cautious, and I don't trust them much generally
as a people or a broader demographic collection (something like, oh "the vast majority" or just 'many of the many people coming in from the Middle East lately'), say partly because you may (and you did say you do) think some/however many of them are not really in need but merely taking advantage somehow unfairly. Now that's actually something that's probably been said many times about immigrants both legal and illegal in the US, and also just about anyone with any sort of difference to be seen really throughout history in many different situations....
To which I could say, big deal: It was often wrong
then too. On the security side, it was at least partly
in overlap with the kind of domestic rhetoric that got so many Japanese-Americans locked up during World War Two -- the notion that if hardliners from Japan said all good Japanese would follow the Emperor, then of course
recent immigrants from Japan (of whom there were already plenty inside the US) would all necessarily be made of that same idea and part of the project, whether by active conspiracy or merely by calls of culture and conscience upon them. On the economic side, people seem to have gotten on and either 1) rather integrated, with considerable abuse and hard labor in the meantime, the minorities that were once considered dirty and cheats (Irish, Italians) or 2) kept them serving a low rung of the economic ladder under all sorts of pretenses for the most part (Blacks) -- but only a certain fringe now says we should have denied or expelled any of those wholesale.
Anyway, part of what worries me is that one can simply say vaguely, we should be cautious -- but often when that's said with sweeping terms like "the vast majority" and the like, the underlying message is closer to wink, nudge, let's make it damn near impossible in practice for most of these men to get in.
I never said fuck the migrants. I said we should have, at the very least, some caution. Even if it is something as small as a identification process.
Oh, maybe I missed it in all the threat rhetoric... But I don't actually recall much discussion of any identification process in what you had before? What I do recall is repeated sweeping generalizations and suppositions about so many able-bodied men.
Especially since it is obvious quite a bit are using the crisis to obtain free government aid. (Joke ahead)
It feels a little weird to me that one moment you claim to be worried about being bombed, and the next it's all about the budget or economy? Just saying. Something's strange. Or are you just fishing for as many disparate pins as you think might somehow include a good one, or somehow add up to a vague 'lot'? But these are pretty different types of concerns to be juggling this way. Clear and present danger of mass casualties, or monetary cost assessment. Which are you really doing.
But know what, by all means. Let's accept literally THOUSANDS of people we do not know and have not checked out into our country. Because that makes sense.
And you apparently didn't notice that I said, I would expect a few reasonable background questions might be asked. I'm just a little worried with the way the rest went on at length, that you might
perhaps be much happier if the questionnaire kept people locked away for a pretty long time rather than allowed in at all. How many of these young people coming out of a civil war that's lasted for years do you think we'll have super clear information on that would satisfy you, really? Again, I am not saying do no
checks... I'm just doubting whether you really want many people to even have a realistic, timely chance to pass at all -- that's given the way you phrase the rest of your concerns.
After all, a regime that video tapes it's self committing diabolical murder', and goes on social media to tell any one they can indoctrinate to attack their fellow Americans, are surely bluffing when they say they will use this crisis to send thousands to the US and European countries. It's not like they use the kindness and political correctness of the United Nations to their advantage time and time again right? Joking aside, am I really such a bad person for saying we should be careful? Or are we so progressive, so politically correct, so afraid of being racist that we will risk national security because we dont want to look bad?
(And also re: a bunch of stuff that follows that.) See above, but I wonder if you wouldn't be uneasy with that fellow who once said "Those who would prefer security over liberty deserve neither." At some point, you take some
risks having a country of immigrants too. Though it might make me feel better if it wasn't so simple for virtually any adult to pick up almost military-grade weapons without a background check in the US... Oh, but you might be worried there will be ten thousand box cutter incidents?
Actually, if you look up Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation, women
were also quite involved in arms smuggling if not outright fighting. Women have been effective suicide bombers in Iraq, and I think Afghanistan (it's been a while since I've heard a lot from there but I seem to recall) and Israeli-occupied areas/Jerusalem (not sure which side of the border exactly). So if you take your logic that all the men of age etc. are such heightened
threats for scrutiny simply because they could
perhaps fight, then maybe you should just be consistent and say everyone
will have to be held up extra long searching for years of information on people whose government is trying to kill many of them and whose cities have been destroyed over the last few years. Again I wonder, how far is this going to go.
And when you start adding that 'just btw' you're also
(or is it perhaps more? who knows) concerned that you think too many people might have it too easy after entering the country wherever you're focusing? Then I begin to suspect you could be more interested in finding any rationale available to keep as many out as possible -- because it sounds like you might well have had that concern anyway, without need for any civil war or refugee crisis to be seriously considered otherwise.
See, I dont blame you for asserting this. The news is not covering the whole truth to you. They are leaving out the fact that many of these men have been found to not even be from Siria.
I'm sorry if you are dyslexic or something, but I'd honestly be more convinced you were reading much seriously documented stuff about this, if you could spell Syria
. Citing someone might also help. But I believe we have been over this question before in this thread, and I'm not very convinced by the thrust of that argument. Just one of the easy answers is, Syria is just one
example among several places in turmoil that people are currently entering Europe from. There are a lot of political refugees from several sources these days. Not
being from Syria, wouldn't make those that aren't any less imperiled (and then, we could still debate the numbers perhaps). And there is also a long (and less than rosy) history of industrial states accepting
a good many immigrants who were known to come for economic reasons, too. Portes discusses this well.
The most common nationality by far of those currently arriving in Greece and Italy is Syrian. Other common nationalities are Eritrean, Afghan, Somali, and Iraqi. In most cases they are fleeing civil war, violence and oppression. Those who do make it to the UK are highly likely to be granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. Legally and morally, they are not illegal immigrants, still less “bogus asylum seekers”. But that’s not the whole story by any means: a considerable number are from countries in west Africa, including Nigeria and Ghana. Here the motivations for most are likely to be primarily economic.
But this is not a new story. My own great-grandparents left Russia and eastern Europe for the US around the beginning of the 20th century. Jews didn’t have an easy time in tsarist Russia and, certainly by contemporary standards, they were a persecuted, oppressed minority. Equally, it would be naive to think that they weren’t in large part motivated by the desire to build a better, more prosperous life in the US. The same is probably true for many of today’s migrants: both push and pull factors are at work.
In fact, quite a number of ID's from different countries have been found scattered and discarded along the roads. Many of these young men are not escaping the persecution, they are trying to take advantage of the government aid they would receive in Europe and here in the states.
How many is quite a few for you and what does it imply? It does seem quite a step down from "the vast majority" when you seemed to be worried about terrorism. Absolute or relative numbers? Sources? And I probably won't fuss with it if I feel it's already been said and I'm repeating stuff that's been beaten around here quite a lot. But I can't even begin with that.
I am not pretending there is not a crisis, I KNOW there is. Think I am not paying attention? There is, and they are fleeing. But not all are, in fact it is to be assumed by logic a LOT are not as they say they are. So, as I said. Bring them in, but have CAUTION. I dont want my tax payers money to go to some one who is not escaping persecution, and does NOT need the aid.
How many do you think are which, or both? You're playing shotgun with two different issues and it's hard to figure out what you think the reality is. Is this an infiltrating army, a horde of freeloaders, a little of one and a lot of the other? Or do you even care whether they cost more lives or money -- Is it all the same? You seem very eager to shift between the two issues as if they're somehow interchangeable. Or perhaps, they just don't have enough moving substance going on individually to be clear how it works.
Especially as much that we are not being shown, suggests we should be careful.
Can I say again you haven't talked much about the context and background of the few videos you've actually chosen to show as counterexamples? You haven't bothered to go into what's going on in those places locally, that might obviously feed that unrest. If everything
hinges on things "not being shown," then at some point I'm going to declare empty conspiracy theory and go away. UFOs are not being shown either. Maybe they're actually invading too.
A lot of these people are RIOTING. Causing problems, stealing, and other such things. I understand they are in need. But to just bring them in willy nilly will bring the same chaos they are showing in Greece, Hungary, etc over here.
That thing about context. Now if you propose that we do something a bit akin to what Greece and especially (to my understanding) Hungary have been doing, and treat refugees much the same as the US treats the current Black population? Sure there will be riots. We already get riots. And there are very logical reasons why.
Lol, are you asserting I am racist?
Would you care to provide a quotation? As far as I'm concerned, you just pulled that out of nowhere.
But now that you do that? It might suggest
to me that maybe you're holding onto something, which makes you very, very paranoid about the notion that people have, or might sometime, suggest you're being racist... Cause otherwise I'm not sure where the heck you got this from.
All I said (in what I believe is the vicinity you were talking about before this very bizarre question) is I don't think you understand much about the phrase "Allah Akhbar" also being in more general use. I'm no expert but I would be highly surprised if only fundamentalists ever use it; I think it's thrown around like various groups in the US toss references to Jesus, except probably much more often -- whenever someone is really upset with the state of affairs, I would imagine. And the term is not racial
as Americans talk of race. It is a religious
Islam does have a broadly invoked concept of social justice (with a bit of moral outrage, sure) that has broader applications than the sorts of social prescriptions favored by Al Qaeda and Isis and the Taliban -- although reading enough of some people like Vekseid off in another thread, might just lead one to think there's little point looking it up. At most, you can play Samuel Huntington writing Clash of Civilizations and imagine
it as some unitary ethnic term that should somehow drive one group against everyone else magically... But calling that race? Islam is not a race. No. And even if it were: Saying you don't know something is not the same as calling you racist or whatever. But you sure seem awfully jumpy about it.
It is actually the FUCK YOU part of their chant I refer to as being dumb. They are saying fuck you to people helping them. How ridiculous is that? I can see where you got that idea. But hey, heres an actual lesson I know I can give you. Hanlons Razor: Do not attribute to malice as which can be easily attributed to Stupidity/ignorance. ^^ Helps a lot in conversation. And helps to keep myself from having knee jerk reactions.
Assuming that the only choices people have are malice or stupidity, sounds like a pretty knee jerk philosophy to me. You've already made up your mind there could be 'no reason' you would ever believe for it, and now you're just looking for a culprit. Look for people being motivated by something other than old cliches about hand that feeds you. I don't have to accept anything from you if I think taking it is going to put me in a bad position for the next year or five, after I've just suffered for hundreds of miles for something different. There are pressing modern ideas, like the one about the EU country that spends time caring for you, gets seen by the others as the one that gets to decide your fate -- and we already know what Hungary's most likely to decide.
Tell me what mass migration of persecution in history have you seen where roughly
80 percent Edit:meant most of the men, not that 80 percent are male. I shouldnt bring in nub=mbers, im bad with them. lol.
It would help if you would bring in sources so we could compare notes about wherever all this is coming from and who said what about which group, where when. Looking at UNHCR, there's nothing like that breakdown among registered refugees in Mideast countries listed (although I don't know details about who typically registers and how all that is run).
Registered Syrian Refugees
This figure includes 2.1 million Syrians registered by UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, 1.9 million Syrians registered by the Government of Turkey, as well as more than 26,700 Syrian refugees registered in North Africa.
Regional demographic breakdown below is based on available data from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon
Last Updated 01 Oct 2015
Source - UNHCR, Government of Turkey
Male (49.7%) Age (50.3%) Female
8.9% 0 - 4 8.4%
10.8% 5 - 11 10.2%
6.6% 12 - 17 6.2%
22.2% 18 - 59 23.8%
1.3% 60 + 1.7%
So I might venture one alternative explanation: Many of the Muslim countries are more conservative (even more than the Deep South, sigh) and ranging from merely gender segregated to pretty gender discriminatory in quite a few areas. That doesn't mean they are all Isis, nor are all -- nor anywhere vaguely near
majorities -- simply composed of would-be terrorists.
Maybe they aren't so often comfortable sending women without "protectors" when they can only afford to pay smugglers for some. Maybe they prefer to place female relatives in more culturally familiar settings until they get established overseas. And come to think of it? If your own logic about security and gender suspicion stands, then other regional states might well be more accepting of women than of men also, thus making it eminently practical to place the women there while the men take more physical risks (often having to travel illegally or deal with unknown middle parties, often separated from what relatives they do travel with) and go off to look for jobs and places to stay abroad!
Where most men are healthy young men that could very well be fighting to defend their own people.
Perhaps, if you believe it's their duty to be tortured and gassed. This thing has been going on for years, the US has barely gotten involved despite talk of redlines and the documented use of chemical weapons, Isis has its own regional base more or less entrenched, and now Russia is even sending in planes to bomb everyone except the pro-Assad forces (how is that
going to make life for the opposition/those just scrambling to get by in the cities Assad is already bombing?). And to stay there at the very time when Europe is obviously trying to make it increasingly difficult for them to get in later.
Caehlim: Sorry if you thought I said that most are males and few are children and women. What I meant was, a majority of the males are young and healthy. Of which can easily be fighting.
You just said above that 80% are men. Or was this about a different group somewhere? (Again, not sure who/what exactly you're looking at...)
Edit: Here I found a news article on it myself. People are actually pretending, and that is my main concern any way. Isis can and would be dealt with if they make it over here. But I dont want at all to help some low life preying on the pain of others to get literally an easy way into america. With free housing and such on top of it. http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/refugee-crisis-in-europe-something-fishy-among-migrant-flood-as-discarded-id-papers-appear/story-fnh81p7g-1227515922792
Sounds like you were much more concerned about welfare programs, than about Isis all along. I refer you back to others who have found that the majority are actually in trouble. Or to parts of the conversation which have somewhat already been done about the economics rather than about terrorism so much. Sure ask a few questions of arrivals, but I don't see good reason to act too much like the politics of Hungary or maybe, Pat Buchanan and more recently, Ben Carson or Donald Trump might suggest.