House passes bill that could limit Syrian refugees

[ihop]

Did I just funking see someone say "you reap what you sow"

funk it I'm out of this. Don't funking quote me, or anything. I'm not touching this topic again. funk you.

 

christ, relax. I'm talking about refugees here, not terrorist attacks. America's part of the reason people are fleeing Syria and America is partially responsible for helping the people who are fleeing.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is it does not matter what we would have done, they have attacked and killed all those people anyways. 9/11 after all, was totally America's fault, right? That, after all, started the chain reaction that brought us here.

 

And what I'm trying to say is that it does matter and they wouldn't have attacked and killed all those people were it not for some greedy people at the top who messed about with the Middle East for personal gain and created an incredibly amount of anti-West sentiment. The "chain reaction" was started a long time before 9/11.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Because clearly Iraq and Iran were the first Western actions in the Middle East. 

 

Totally ignoring the Gulf War of course, but who cares? And iirc correctly the relocation of hundreds of Thousands of Jews post WW2 to Isreal, and a lot of cold war action in Afghanistan. 

 

Like seriously; Some of the stated reasons for the 9/11 attacks were based heavily on Americain foriegn policy and America's actions in and around the Gulf War; The fact they kept a tonne of troops in Saudi Arabia, were part of imposing sanctions on Iraq, heavily supported Israel

 

So no, the attacks weren't inevitable. Just a direct response to foriegn policy.  

[King K. Azo]

My understanding of the problem came from when the United States invaded Afghanistan the first time, as a direct response to the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, where they armed Anti-USSR rebels in an attempt to push the Soviets out to prevent the spread of Communism. What happened in Paris was undeniably horrible, and innocent civilians should not be the ones bearing the brunt of insane extremists attacking all our s***, but to say that the West is entirely blameless in this situation would be incorrect, we're not the problem, but we've certainly not exactly helped ourselves.

 

 Also, holy clickbait title batman.

 

I'm not trying to say we're blameless.

 

But it seems like everyone wants to pile ALL the blame on us.

[ihop]

I'm not trying to say we're blameless.

 

But it seems like everyone wants to pile ALL the blame on us.

 

We're not trying to pile ALL the blame on you but you're basically proposing NONE of the blame goes to you and washing your hands completely of the affair by saying "we don't want refugees" when, as I keep saying, the US is heavily responsible for those refugees existing.

[.Rai]

I'm not trying to say we're blameless.

 

But it seems like everyone wants to pile ALL the blame on us.

It's not a blame game in the first place, and I don't really know why you're bringing it up as such. But if you're going to bring it up, I don't see the point in refuting Phil and Barty's points, which is essentially just a factual statement: actions in the West have caused consequences in the Middle East over the past two decades.

[King K. Azo]

Okay, you know what?

 

I'll admit I was defensive. For multiple reasons, most being this title. Dear god.

 

Anyways, I apologize, because I thought they were trying to blame solely America for all this, and I was being defensive. Anyways....

 

I personally believe we should help these people and let them in, but I understand why they say no. Even though that doesn't really help because apparently ISIS is trying to jump the Mexican border to get to us or something like that, I don't know...

[Resident Fascist]

Go back 1000 years and Islam is the religion of the most advanced cultures in Europe and Africa. Christians were basically savages those days, justifying mass murder in the name of God to slaughter infidels. It's got nothing to do with the religion itself, just how people are interpreting it in a certain location of the world. 

 

Radical Islam is a problem yes, as is every religion when Radicalised. Be in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or Judaism. 

 

Basically this. I mean, god save the Queen and all that, I love Britannia and it's my home and always will be, but we Europeans have done far, far more evil over history than any other continent. I'm by no means ever going to justify killing innocent people to further your goals, because that's disgusting and horrible. Regardless of where we were born, we are all human and we should all stop doing this to each other. 

 

 Much like how in a way, America is partly responsible for the Japanese Empire by forcing her to open her ports and rapidly modernize under Emperor Meiji, we are partly responsible for the fact we've helped funk up the Middle East. Barty is right, any religion put into the hands of insane, murderous people will become a problem. Personally, I'm an agnostic. I know for a fact that Atheists and Agnostics have also done horrible things, Josef Stalin is a perfect example.

 

 There's a quote I'll state now and it's what I plan to live by. "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

i'm a huge moron so disregard that post. keeping it so people understand what happened. yes America has f***ed up hardcore i won't deny that, both in the past and this present topic.

 

I still wish it all was presented better. pls change title for one.

Edit: Yay Rai

[epicmemesbro]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8TzR3CEk73Q

 

This is just sickening. Some preacher at some Baptist church is exploiting the tragic events to his advantage. He basically trashed all Muslims, French people, homosexuals, and people who listen to Metal all in one sitting.

 

Its people like this who are bigoted enough to deny innocent people refuge anywhere.

[Tentacruel]

I hate to break this to you guys, but it's not that funking simple.  It's easy to believe that anyone who isn't wholeheartedly supporting taking in the refugees is just a racist, but that's just not the case.

 

There is absolutely a risk of letting terrorists in with the refugees.  It's a shitty situation and there isn't an obvious solution. 

[Flame Dragon]

Because that process is perfect.

 

Just ask Boston.

 

Or the apparent terrorists hiding in several states. (I know it may be a bluff, but my girlfriend lives in one of the threatened states and I'm terrified for her)

 

EDIT: Okay, harsh, I know, but I'm sick of people blaming America when there are other places they can flee to! I mean, no one else is telling anyone else to open their doors.

How is the Boston bombing related to this? From what I remember and looked up they weren't refugees, they were people who just moved to the country. Are you saying we shouldn't let anyone in for fear that they might be evil? Your GF living in a threatened state is scary, I understand that. However, note I live in NEW YORK CITY. I've lived here my whole life. The simple reality is that choosing to do nothing because something terrible might happen simply means you should never do anything because anything you do can result in something terrible happening.

 

Yes they are. Social media has been super critical of how some of Europe has handled the refugee crisis. They ARE fleeing to other places but the scope of the crisis is much more than a handful of nations ca handle. If the US wants to act like its a leading nation in the world than it can't pretend that part of it isn't doing what it can to help people in need fleeing from terrorists.

 

See, no, Radical Islam was ALWAYS a problem. Long before America was even created. A religion that bases itself in 'kill those that don't believe like you do' and 'It's okay to lie as long as it's for the glory of Allah' will always be a problem. Notice I say Radical. It may not be everyone, but there's enough of them in power, and even just those with enough screws loose, that they do cause problems.

 

If the base of the religion was on those ideas than this wouldn't be an incredibly small percentage of people. Islam is NOT evil. Certainly no evil than any other religion. Every holy book as problematic passages. The Bible is A-OK with slavery. Tons of people use it to justify hatred towards homosexual individuals.

 

I hate to break this to you guys, but it's not that funking simple.  It's easy to believe that anyone who isn't wholeheartedly supporting taking in the refugees is just a racist, but that's just not the case.

 

There is absolutely a risk of letting terrorists in with the refugees.  It's a shitty situation and there isn't an obvious solution.

Which is certainly something I can sympathize with. I just think "don't let in refugees/Muslim refugees" is a much worse choice than "increased screening of refugees looking to enter the country".

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Radical Islam is a problem, period. Long before we bombed them, will be for long after we did. Radical Islam will never be not a problem.

 

Radical Islam is a plot device, feeble ingenue. 

 

 

Did I just f***ing see someone say "you reap what you sow"

f*** it I'm out of this. Don't f***ing quote me, or anything. I'm not touching this topic again. f*** you.

 

 

Good to see some passion from you!

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Radical anything is a problem KKK (Christianity) Tamil Tigers (Hindu) for examples

[Agro]

Refugees are already the most screened people coming into this country. The problem with the new bill is that it requires one man, the director of the CIA, to have to go through every individual person that could be brought in as a refugee and go through an even longer unnecessary process that he certainly does not have time for. It's a roundabout way of saying that we're not going to let in that many refugees. Even though we're already screening to only take in the refugees most affected– women, children, and those who have been tortured or targeted.

 

The point in taking in Syrian refugees is important because it is essentially telling ISIS to go funk itself. In planning and taking credit for the Paris attacks, ISIS even stated that their goal is to spread Islamophobia in the west and make the battle between them all black and white– Islam vs. everyone else. Saying no to refugees, especially on the basis of their religion, is exactly what ISIS wants at this point. Doing so is arguably an admission of defeat. Taking in refugees and helping those affected by ISIS's attacks– who are mainly Muslims, by the way– through peaceful means is a great way to get those who might otherwise fall into ISIS's side of the black-and-white vision they're trying to accomplish to instead align themselves against them. That's why France is taking in tens of thousands of refugees, and it's why we shouldn't be trying to wall them out.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I hate to break this to you guys, but it's not that f***ing simple.  It's easy to believe that anyone who isn't wholeheartedly supporting taking in the refugees is just a racist, but that's just not the case.

 

There is absolutely a risk of letting terrorists in with the refugees.  It's a shitty situation and there isn't an obvious solution. 

You are right it is a very complicated situation. 

 

But that didn't stop the French or the German's from taking in refugee's. And actually being attacked made the French take in even more refugees. 

 

So really refusing to help the refugees on the basis that there may be terrorists in there ranks is just silly. Because you are denying the many over fear of the few, and that's literally just playing into there hands. 

 

Combined with the attitudes certain notable individuals (such as governors) have had towards this, and you kinda understand that the idea of you not doing this out of some kind of racisism becomes pretty apparent. Of course it's not true of every individual who doesn't support it, but it's still bad that your elected officials are doing this sort of thing. 

 

This is doubly so when you consider America's position in both the world, and in the middle East; There should be no question about whether or not you guys should be helping to take people in. And you've made it so, based off of paranoia in part. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I honestly see no problem with the title. People need to call their s*** s*** and not sugar coat it. Bottom line the House just sentenced thousands of innocent children to death.

 

If that bothers you, look to your political leaders, I'm not going to sit here and take PC cuddly s*** when ISIS is actively grabbing kids who we have a moral obligation to save, and corrupting them to hate and kill us

 

Warning me if you must. But the US created this damn mess, we're reaping exactly what we sowed

 

We should have 1) Stayed the f*** out of that cancer region 2) Having f***ed things up, attempt to not get anyone else killed or 3) Actually grow the pair to do what needs to. We have too many regulation on what weapons we can use against ISIS, so this fight won't end anytime soon. It's our moral duty as humans to make sure that other's don't due cause WE f***ed up.

 

And no, Russia should not have to take in the people, ideally non of Europe except England should, cause it's England and our fault that s*** storm is even a thing.

 

Ideally we should be past the need for stone-age legends that some guy wrote a thousand years ago, however Tom nailed it perfectly, literally no religion is free of this kinda sheet.

 

 

These are just a bunch of happy campers roasting a giant smore right?...before you criticize Islam, you really need to realize Region as a whole is a pile of polarizing dog sheet

 

Did I just f***ing see someone say "you reap what you sow"

f*** it I'm out of this. Don't f***ing quote me, or anything. I'm not touching this topic again. f*** you.

Yeah I'll say it. We should have thought about this when we trained Osama and his ilk and removed the one man keeping the people like ISIS in check. We should have 1) not had proxy wars 2) killed the rebels after they finished fighting the soviets. We're reaping the reward of our lack of isolationism

[Aerion Brightflame]

The title was changed because this, like all threads in general, are meant to be about generating discussion. Thus it's kinda best to make them impartial so you don't start a shitstorm before things even start. If your personal viewpoint is one of distaste for the subject matter so be it, but don't express it in the title. 

 

And I was not implying religion is at fault; Extremism is not an idea unique to religion, but to simply contrasting viewpoints. There is nothing positive or negative about a religion, simply people interpreting it in a negative fashion. It's essentially about rationality of individuals when it comes to morals. Whatever rationalisation these kinds of people make are against the spirit of the religion they claim to belong to. It's just them being irrational beings. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The title was changed because this, like all threads in general, are meant to be about generating discussion. Thus it's kinda best to make them impartial so you don't start a shitstorm before things even start. If your personal viewpoint is one of distaste for the subject matter so be it, but don't express it in the title. 

 

And I was not implying religion is at fault; Extremism is not an idea unique to religion, but to simply contrasting viewpoints. There is nothing positive or negative about a religion, simply people interpreting it in a negative fashion. It's essentially about rationality of individuals when it comes to morals. Whatever rationalisation these kinds of people make are against the spirit of the religion they claim to belong to. It's just them being irrational beings. 

It is impartial. 

 

House passes Bill to basically make refugee entry impossible (individual sign off)- Fact

Daesh is attempting to marginalize peaceful members of Islam to get more recruits- Fact

This bill ensures more of those members remain in the caliphate- Fact

 

 

Is the house not signing the Death warrants of all those Children?

 

I think you will also find that region plays one of the largest parts in human extermination 

[.Rai]

I'm not entirely sure you know what an impartial statement is. My edit of the title was certainly impartial: it simply states the effect of the bill. You've clearly changed the title to further your own opinion. I changed it in the first place so people can formulate their own conclusions.

 

At the very least, you are approaching it from an incredibly aggressive angle. I certainly don't feel enthused by your wording, nor do I have the patience to discuss the topic from that angle.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not entirely sure you know what an imperial statement is. My edit of the title was certainly impartial: it simply states the effect of the bill. You've clearly changed the title to further your own opinion. I changed it in the first place so people can formulate their own conclusions.

 

At the very least, you are approaching it from an incredibly aggressive angle. I certainly don't feel enthused by your wording, nor do I have the patience to discuss the topic from that angle.

Fine. I'm just really tired of all the violence and death. If you start using words as "may" and such, it really doesn't convey the gravity of what has happened. The ONLY way things will change is if people in the US start realizing that these are real, live, kind humans that are being killed, not the stereotypical jihadist "raghead"

 

I'm sorry that I come off as aggressive, but when I witness videos of Daesh taking and corrupting 5 years olds, I cannot help but not be in order to make people open their damn eyes

 

 

The title was changed because this, like all threads in general, are meant to be about generating discussion. Thus it's kinda best to make them impartial so you don't start a shitstorm before things even start. If your personal viewpoint is one of distaste for the subject matter so be it, but don't express it in the title. 

 

And I was not implying religion is at fault; Extremism is not an idea unique to religion, but to simply contrasting viewpoints. There is nothing positive or negative about a religion, simply people interpreting it in a negative fashion. It's essentially about rationality of individuals when it comes to morals. Whatever rationalisation these kinds of people make are against the spirit of the religion they claim to belong to. It's just them being irrational beings. 

 

Barty, give me one reason why these people pose threats....really the only discussion to be had is how to lobby the congress to reconsider. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Diffidence is hardly any more appropriate than aggression given the context. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's always good to remember just why I dislike you so much, Winter. You really don't know what you're talking about.

I'll focus on the least annoying part for now.

 

Russia should take in refugees. Everyone should. Because it's not a matter of who is to blame and who should do it based on that. Makes it sound like a punishment instead of just doing what's right because we're all human.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Diffidence is hardly any more appropriate than aggression given the context. 

It's good to remember just why I like you so much, Polaris. You see things as they are.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

 

It's always good to remember just why I dislike you so much, Winter. You really don't know what you're talking about.

I'll focus on the least annoying part for now.

 

As if you do! Look how selectively you disperse your contempt amidst the airs of free-hugs-for-all! You're an ambassador for cowards everywhere.

 

Winter, I like you too. You speak your mind and fearful prigs hate you for it. It's the way it's always been, happened to Socrates and Jesus. 

[Aman Indra]

Well i dont mean to intervene or anything but as far as my time at this forum, cow is better in conversations and lots then both of you, and why the personel hate being conveyed here inspite of the topic ? and making comparisons with Socrates and jesus ? damn.