adaher, you cowardly shit

[Skywatcher]

@Clothahump

Let me draw you an analogy. I offer you a bowl with hundreds of M&Ms in it. You know that a large number of them have been laced with a deadly poison.

More like some anonymous schmucks claim that a large number have been laced with deadly poison with zero evidence that it actually happened. There is, however, evidence that those who are supposedly responsible for any poisoned M&Ms to simply want these schmucks to think those poisoned M&Ms exist.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Or perhaps you could provide a citation for your presumed belief that “a large number” of Syrian refugees are ISIS operatives.

… “personal communication to Clothahump from his most wonderful Dear Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”

[elucidator]

…to think those poisoned M&Ms exist.

Its the ones with the “W” printed on them.

[iiandyiiii]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I know abstract thought is tricky for you but maybe you should try an analogy that bears some resemblance to the issue we’re discussing. Or perhaps you could provide a citation for your presumed belief that “a large number” of Syrian refugees are ISIS operatives.

Not just a large number – he said “most of them are terrorists in disguise”.

[up_the_junction]

@Smapti

Considering that ISIS is estimated to have somewhere around 30,000 fighting men, it would be pretty impressive if they’d managed to incorporate 166% of their forces into US-bound refugees while still keeping up the fight on the home front.

I think “fighting men” is probably a bit strong. ‘guys with guns’ might be better.

‘rag tag fuckwits’ better still.

[elucidator]

Do we have any numbers on how many are ex-military, like Sunnis cashiered from the Iraqi Army?

[ElvisL1ves]

@andros

… my chelonian chum.

That sounds better if you imagine Adam West saying it to a “Batman” villain.

[silenus]

@Clothahump

Not letting in refugees when it is already known that most of them are terrorists in disguise is common sense, not fear.

Let me guess…you think the Transformers are real too, don’t you?

[up_the_junction]

@elucidator

Do we have any numbers on how many are ex-military, like Sunnis cashiered from the Iraqi Army?

General view is the officer corp is good, very good in places, but the ground troop quality is variable. Higher percentage of foreign wannbee Jihadists now. Decent troops increasingly watered down.

Looking a lot more like second and third raters vs. 4th rate Iraqi Army and 2nd/third rate Kurds.

[74westy]

@andros

@Clothahump

it is already known that most of them are terrorists in disguise

Count me among those who would like to know the basis for this claim, my chelonian chum.

Did he say terrorists or terrapins?

[ElvisL1ves]

Armed with ninja weapons?

[Nava]

@Kimstu

Especially since in many cases it never meant to assimilate them at all: starting in the '50s and '60s many European countries started recruiting cheap labor from postcolonial Muslim nations, assuming they’d be staying only for a short while and never really addressing the problems of their acculturation till much more recently.

Germany is “many European countries”?

[andros]

@ElvisL1ves

That sounds better if you imagine Adam West saying it to a “Batman” villain.

The entirety of my internal narrative sounds like Adam West.

[jasg]

@Morgenstern

Too stupid to believe Homeland Security’s take on it?
https://homeland.house.gov/press/mccaul-says-admitting-unvetted-syrian-refugees-us-very-dangerous/
<snip>

As noted above, this is both an old report and not from Homeland Security.

This ‘old’ piece in The Hill predates the Paris attack by two weeks, but has a rather different take from Homeland Security and on the dangers posed by refugees.

@TheHill : We risk more in not accepting Syrian refugees into the US

The screening process for refugee admissions is already rigorous. A group of former security and diplomatic officials recently wrote an open letter to the Obama administration arguing that the U.S. could accept as many as 100,000 refugees. A Department of Homeland Security official stated that there is no evidence that refugees accepted into the U.S. are more likely to commit terrorism than anyone else in the country. In fact, there have been no recorded terrorist attacks committed by refugees. The U.S. has admitted 1.5 million refugees from the Middle East since September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11 have been committed either by American natives or non-refugee immigrants.

Although there are some valid security concerns about admitting more refugees, it must be remembered that keeping refugees at arm’s length carries its own security risks. When we fail to provide refugees with the opportunity to resume normal, productive lives, we contribute to the hopelessness and alienation that really does breed terrorism. Restricting the flow of refugees to a trickle will give Americans a short-term sense of security but it risks creating the very dangers we are so anxious to avoid.

The author also makes a compelling argument in favor of distant resettlement refugees.

A 2013 study by Daniel Milton, Megan Spencer, and Michael Findley found that the location of resettlement for refugees is critical in determining whether refugees would be susceptible to to extremism. The study found that refugees placed in countries that had historic rivalries with their countries of origin were more at risk of becoming radicalized than refugees settled elsewhere. As the Middle East has long had interstate rivalry and conflict, moving refugees as far from the areas of conflict as possible must be strongly considered

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@BigT

There is no such debate in this thread. This is you trying to change the topic. The topic is about how fucking immoral your position is. This thread is about how accepting no one is obviously the most immoral action, yet you keep defending it. The only debate in this thread is about YOU.

And because you know you can’t defend yourself against the allegations, you’re trying to twist the thread to be about something else. That is the definition of moving the goalposts.

And it’s not even a good move. You fucking well know that many Democrats are actually pushing for accepting lot more people (65,000 is the number I’ve heard). But that’s a discussion we can have–how many people can we accept? How many people can we process (including background checks), and how quickly? How many is “as many as we can handle”?

The discussion we can’t have is “should we accept any at all?” because there’s literally no reason to not accept any unless you are a bigoted sack of shit. And that is what you are being pitted for.

No amount of tu quoque will change that. You are choosing to let the terrorists win.

It seems to me this isn’t a political issue at all. On either side. It’s all about the cowards vs the non cowards. Cowardice comes on both sides and I will condemn it either way.

What made me think is this issue right here. Bringing in all the refugees from anywhere should be a goal of the right. I mean, they can be seen as practicing “Christian Kindness” and they could assimulate these people into the jobs that the illegal aliens are currently doing. No jobs and many of those will self deport, right? Should be a republican win.

But there are a lot of cowards in that party right now and their cowardice is trumping their racism and xenophobia. Fear is a powerful motivator indeed.

You’re right it is amazing that the side that draws the line in the sand at zero actually feels it’s a winning argument to point out that the other side compromised to get anything at all accomplished vs your obstinance meaning that there is any moral equivalence between the two positions. That’s some heavy duty bullshit there and we need to remember that these people don’t live anywhere near reality and pity them while we pit them. It’s the moral thing to do.

[foolsguinea]

@Iggy

Yes. In Syria.

Textbooks in Syrian schools espouse an anti-Semitism much like has been seen in Palestinian schools.

Your cite is pretty slanted its own self.

[adaher]

The public overwhelmingly backs my position, so if someone wants to change this thread title to “Americans are cowardly shits” it might be appropriate at this point:

Poll: A Majority of Americans Oppose Accepting Syrian Refugees

[Ravenman]

I’m pretty sure that as people learn what refugees have to go through to get here, that the poll numbers will change.

You just announce that you were right the whole time, even if your opinions change.

[Smapti]

@adaher

The public overwhelmingly backs my position

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

[adaher]

Like I said, I see the points of those who disagree with me. I’m just not so sure how playing the moral superiority card accomplishes anything. It can work to cow opposition when opposition in a minority, but winning over a majority to your point of view takes persuasion. If the pro-Syrian refugee side is just going to morally preen then they might make themselves feel better but won’t do much to help Syrian refugees.

In other news, the President’s central claim that we don’t do religious tests is flatly false. We have very frequently put religious minorities under persecution to the front of the line, and Syrian Christians certainly qualify.