• Member Since 17th Mar, 2012
  • offline last seen Saturday

Starman Ghost


More Blog Posts18

Feb
7th
2016

So about that refugee crisis... · 11:15pm Feb 7th, 2016

Turns out human nature doesn't change.


If you asked most people, they'd tell you they value human life. I don't think that's quite true. I think most people value the right kind of human life. Often, that category is terrifyingly arbitrary and narrow.

Report Starman Ghost · 387 views ·
Comments ( 30 )

Opinions seem to have gotten a lot less one sided to me.

3739382 I suppose on balance 56% isn't nearly as bad as 67%.

Maybe I just have high standards.

3739405
Yeah, man, you act like America stands for Liberty and Justice for All or something.

Makes me glad I live in Canada.

But seriously, with the current political climate in the US, this looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy on your side.

It's a more complicated issue than simply "good guys take refugees". Probably best left at that.

People are just as susceptible to the media's scare tactics today as they were in the past. These don't reflect people's opinions on the value of human life. They are afraid that ISIS going to get them using the refugees as smoke screen. Also, these same people most likely think that the high-tech arsenal of the US is only killing the bad guys. I'm willing to bet that most of those people never saw imagens of of the aftermath beside the flashy imagens of machine gun shooting at the "nothing" beyond the TV screen.

I don't trust any Muslim sorry but I have the scars to prove why I don't and look at Sweden and the rapes that have risen since this all started hate me for having my own opinion sorry if any one wants to block me for speaking my mind

3739625

I don't trust any Muslim sorry but I have the scars to prove why

Whatever happened, you have my sympathy. But the thing is... whatever happened, was it a man? Do you not trust any men because of it? If that's not the case, what's the difference?

and look at Sweden and the rapes that have risen since this all started

Has anyone actually proven this? There are many reasons I can think of why it would look like refugees rape more than other groups:

- Refugees are more likely to be convicted if they do rape someone compared to native Swedes, because very few people will be sympathetic to them.
- Rape victims of refugees are more likely to report their rapes, because they know police are more likely to believe them and investigate the crime.
- Refugees are under greater police scrutiny, and thus more likely to be caught than native Swedes.
- Juries are unsympathetic to refugees and, all else equal, will be more likely to push for convictions.

Can I prove any of these? No. But a mistrusted group getting worse treatment in the justice system - which is something that's happened time and time again in history - seems a hell of a lot more likely than "A bunch of guys spent their life savings and risked life and limb to cross a continent, only to immediately decide to commit crimes that would get them jailed or thrown out."

3739685 I lost limbs in Iraq and have a minor brain injury due to a IED attack on the hummer I was on and well about the thing with Sweden I guess I should not say anything about a country not my own don't mean to come off as a racist but when I was in Iraq I saw kids fire RPGs at us and aks a terrorist swims in a school of innocent people how can you tell the bad guys from the good guys ? All it takes is 2 or 3 getting past and next thing you know a building goes boom

We can't forget that other circumstances need to be considered.

After all, it's very difficult for people to justify taking in refugees from other countries when they feel that their own country is barely able to do its housekeeping without unanticipated guests.

3739775 I can kind of see the point when a country doesn't legitimately have the infrastructure to handle all the people coming in. I don't think anyone reasonable's going to expect them to. But if you look at the numbers in, for example, America's case, it's taking in 10,000 refugees. In a country of 330 million people. That's about 1 refugee for every 30,000 people living here. I just can't help but think, why not make it 15,000 or 20,000? Would it really kill us?

3739791
It's not actually about whether or not the infrastructure is there or not, though. It's about perception, and if the perception is that the country is barely able to take care of its citizens even without refugees, no one will believe that taking some in, no matter how tiny a percentage, is a good idea.

Right now, there's not really a single American citizen that has any faith in the government to handle refugees, because the government has done plenty over the last few years to demonstrate that it either can't — or won't — do what it needs to do in order to take care of its citizens. It sucks, and it's not a good place to be in, but that's the unfortunate reality of the situation.

No one is interested in looking after their neighbor when they aren't certain if they'll be able to take care of themselves.

3739791
There are other countries that can take immigrants, and aren't. It's not the duty of America to play super hero to the rest of the world.

3740058

There are other countries that can take immigrants, and aren't.

So? We can't control their actions. We can control ours.

It's not the duty of America to play super hero to the rest of the world.

Why's it have to be our duty? Why not just do it anyway? Are you saying people should only ever help each other when they're absolutely obligated to?

That aside, America and Europe's mucking about in the Middle East was what gave rise to modern Islamic fundamentalism, ISIS, and the current refugee situation. So yeah, it only seems fair to me that they help clean up their own mess.

3740242
We have our own problems we need to deal with before we start focusing on international matters, which is something I'd really love our government to realize. America is not responsible for the rest of the world. The more people we bring in, the bigger a drain it is on our government programs, which eventually requires taxes to be raised to help pay for them, which is definitely something I'd rather avoid given our own increase in poverty over the years.

America is currently in a bit of a rut. Anyone who say's otherwise needs to take off their rose tinted glasses. We are not the best country to be taking in immigrants. There are other places like Australia that could, and won't do it, and the reason why they won't is because they know damn well that it's going to negatively impact their quality of life. Look no further than the UK for proof of that, which is another country that really should not be taking large amounts of refugee's because they already have lots of problems with Muslims extremists demanding Sharia law and getting violently angered by the littlest things to the extent that the country basically had to up their political correctness on Islam as a defense mechanism.

Also America did make a lot of mistakes overseas. But we aren't responsible for another group of idiots deciding to kill, rape and enslave people in the name of Islam. That's just bad people being bad.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't take any immigrants... But I am saying we shouldn't try to play hero and take as many as we can, because quite frankly I don't see that working out too well for us. I don't want a growing part of our community demanding Islamic reforms. I don't want a huge community of people who will turn domestic terrorist the moment someone decides to draw a picture of Mohammed. That's not being heartless. It's being practical. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible outcomes.

3740319

The more people we bring in, the bigger a drain it is on our government programs, which eventually requires taxes to be raised to help pay for them, which is definitely something I'd rather avoid given our own increase in poverty over the years.

This way of thinking pits poor Americans and refugees against each other, when it's the rich and powerful who benefit at the expense of both of them. American politicians and their buyers have spent the last couple of decades slashing taxes on the absolute richest while they shipped all of our businesses overseas because impoverished foreigners are more exploitable. It's like a starving guy worrying another starving guy's going to steal his crust of bread, while ten feet away there's this obese guy double-fisting turkey legs at a table with more food than he can possibly eat.

Look no further than the UK for proof of that, which is another country that really should not be taking large amounts of refugee's because they already have lots of problems with Muslims extremists demanding Sharia law and getting violently angered by the littlest things to the extent that the country basically had to up their political correctness on Islam as a defense mechanism.

Do you have any useful links for this? I'm not aware of the situation in the UK.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't take any immigrants... But I am saying we shouldn't try to play hero and take as many as we can, because quite frankly I don't see that working out too well for us. I don't want a growing part of our community demanding Islamic reforms. I don't want a huge community of people who will turn domestic terrorist the moment someone decides to draw a picture of Mohammed. That's not being heartless. It's being practical. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible outcomes.

1. The people in question are fleeing from radical Islamic militants. Why do you assume that they themselves would be radical Islamic militants? Do you think the people fleeing East Berlin during the Cold War were hardcore Stalinists? Do you think the people fleeing Germany during the 30s were fanatical Nazis?
2. Who gives a shit if they push for Islamic reforms? How many refugees are you thinking of? How many of the 330 million people already living here want these reforms? How would they push those reforms through in a democracy where the people don't want them? We could triple the number we've committed to taking in and they'd still be outnumbered ten thousand to one.

3740344
Cool we... Halfway agree on something. Vote for Bernie so we can watch as he can do absolutely nothing to stop the rich and powerful from exploiting everyone else... But hey, points for trying?

Anyway, you summed up the situation about how bad it is and you seriously want to bring more people here to make it worse? Poverty is a problem. Poverty is going to become more of a problem. Bringing refugee's over here is going to make poverty even more of a problem because we will need to compete for federal aid.

I'm sure I could bug one of my British friends for more information as one of them ranted to me about this very issue about a month ago, but this is the most current link I could find:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/634802/New-law-Muslims-Sharia-prosection
Basically it's been a reoccuring problem that Muslims in Britain have been demanding that the British government conform to Islamic law. Now you'd think that since they are a minority this would be laughed at... Except, 2 things make this kind of serious:
1.Islam is REALLY rapidly growing in the UK: https://www.rt.com/news/christianity-decline-uk-islam-rise-405/
2.Muslims have a habit of blowing things up when they don't get their way. Like the 2005 London bus bombings, which is just the most famous incident. They also like to threaten beheading of people who say... Draw pictures of Muhammad.

To answer your questions:
1.Not all radical Muslims are ISIS. Just because they are refugee's does not mean they aren't extremists.
2.The difference between Muslims and all other minorities is that Muslims tend to jump right to violence when they don't get their way. Which is actually encouraged by the Quran. Like the UK we might end up in a situation where we are forced to be politically correct to avoid angering them, to the extent that they can get away with violent crimes because we don't want to cause the Muslim community to explode:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3141/britain-political-correctness
We might also need to pass laws to appease Muslims, much like we already do with Christians regarding Blue Laws.

I'm not actually surprised. With what's been happening, people tend to turtle up when the topic of potentially bringing in more problems to your doorstep is not favourable. In the simplest way, you don't put your hand in the fire after it burned you the first time. I'm not fully informed of the situations of those countries, but right now, aren't they in a total political war? Considering the events of the New Year's incident in Cologne, the media and police silence, and now the outburst of a counter-movement in the country itself, most of the political refugees will tend to be those that don't support the current stance with the government.

I don't know if the US wants to bloody itself in a political war considering it has a ton of problems of its own, or whether they don't want to insult their allies, as I said, I'm not too surprised.

As for the Syrian Refugees, this isn't on the US. I'm actually going to support limiting their entries for the simple fact that the cultures clash. And we aren't talking about disagreeing about what color of clothes is better. We're talking about values of treating each other, the other gender, and sexual orientation. Add some extreme version of Islam in the mix, then it's a recipe for disaster.

Though one can argue about Media sensationalism. However, I don't think it's just that anymore.

I have no opinion about military action. If they don't, there won't be much change for the next few years. If they do send them, it's going to cost a lot, especially if they want to do it right, like actually stabilizing the country. Iraq was a good example of a Pyrrhic victory. They were able to put down a rather well-armed country in a matter of weeks, but couldn't help the country in the long run.

As an European, I'll just say "be happy people oppose the massive migration of muslims".
And I'll live this here:

3740344 Something like this?

3741781
Yeah, this is one of those situations where idealism is very harmful. What sounds like the "right thing to do", might sound downright dumb once you get the full story. Morality isn't some black and white issue where certain actions are always the right choice to make. Sometimes helping someone results in a lot of negativity later down the line.

3740378 I'm curious. Do you apply the same logic to Christians? Do you think that, because of incidents like the Oklahoma city bombing, or Breivik's massacre, or the abortion clinic bombings, that we should be barring Christians from entering the country? What about the very real and very influential fundamentalist Christian voting bloc, which is trying to push creationism in schools and criminalize same-sex love among other things?

3741781 I watched the first video, and okay fair cop, but why not just throw out the assholes doing these Sharia patrols rather than everyone who shares a religion with them?

3742105
As much as I hate to admit it, the Christian's who believe Evolution has been disproven, that earth is only 6000 years old, and that homosexuality and abortion are both affronts to god... They are already here and nothing is going to change that. The refugees? We can turn them away before they start problems here. No reason to invite more problems here under the justification that we already have similar problems.

All that being said. The massive increase in religiosity as well as the frequent calls for America to be a Christian nation scares me as well.

3740378 Been unavailable for a while but I can finally go over this in more detail.

I'm sure I could bug one of my British friends for more information as one of them ranted to me about this very issue about a month ago, but this is the most current link I could find:

This article gives no indication of how widespread this actually is, only that the government is considering legislation. If you think that the government considering legislation proves anything, look at America's Satanic Panic in the early 80s.

Islam is REALLY rapidly growing in the UK:

You're citing Russia Today, a propaganda arm of the Russian government known for sensationalist newswriting and conspiracy theories.
imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fastest_growing.png

2.Muslims have a habit of blowing things up when they don't get their way. Like the 2005 London bus bombings, which is just the most famous incident.

Statements from the bombers:

"Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."
"What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel."

The London bus bombings were motivated by the UK's participation in Middle Eastern wars. Wanting Sharia law in the UK or whatever had nothing to do with it.

Like the UK we might end up in a situation where we are forced to be politically correct to avoid angering them, to the extent that they can get away with violent crimes because we don't want to cause the Muslim community to explode:

You cited the Gatestone Institute, whose staff includes such figures as Iraq War architect Harold Rhode, far-right politician Geert Wilders, and Robert Spencer, who founded "Stop Islamization of America" and hints that Obama is a secret Muslim. What I'm saying is, they're hardly trustworthy.

No reason to invite more problems here under the justification that we already have similar problems.

You say that as if there weren't already Muslims in America. There are. Another few thousand is hardly going to make a difference.

The difference between Muslims and all other minorities is that Muslims tend to jump right to violence when they don't get their way.

And here's the crux of my whole issue with this line of argument.

People were afraid of Jewish immigrants destroying their countries. They were afraid of the Irish, Chinese, Italians, Japanese, Germans... you name an ethnic group, and people have probably thrown themselves into a panic about how those people couldn't be trusted, how they weren't like others, how they should be kept out. Every time, they were proven wrong. Why should this one time be different? How many times does the boy have to cry wolf before we stop believing him?

3773489
Satanists never represented one of the most widespread religions in the world, and they don't typically try to enforce their views on others. Actually modern satanism preaches tolerance... Ironically enough. So it's not really comparable. There was never a massive satanist immigration to America, nor are we at war with a group that's killing people in the name of satanism. However in this case, there's some very well thought out reasons for the current "panic".


OK... Attacking the article source is a bit fallacious. A quick google search would have given you other sources that raise the same issue.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5632/uk_muslim_population_of_26_million_by_2051
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years
British citizens are VERY against having more Muslim immigrants come into their country, however their government seems to be ignoring that and bringing them in anyway.

I never said that the London Bus bombings had anything to do with wanting Sharia law. My point, which still stands, is that Muslims tend to get violent very quickly when they don't get their way.

So what if the source has a hidden agenda. It's still a valid issue. It's also not hard to find other links discussing the same issue.
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/islam-growing-at-astronomical-rate-in-uk/

Sure, a few thousand isn't going to make a difference. While we are at it, let's take all the unwanted people of other countries, I'm talking rapists, murderers, and other criminals, I mean we already have them here right? So we can't make a bigger problem. The idea we already have something therefore adding more of it can't be a problem is something I REALLY hope I don't need to point out the problem with. But seriously, American Muslim's extremists are already killing people, bombing parades, and celebrating terrorists attacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4
I mean, the stuff extremist Muslims are doing in the United States right now is pretty small scale. We take in thousands of refugees, then we are taking in thousands of people who share the same beliefs, and as I said before, just because they are fleeing from extremists, does not mean they are not extremists themselves.

Listen, when you bring up some examples of Jewish patrols going around London and telling people they can't eat bacon cheeseburgers, then maybe I'll consider your analogy relating the current refugee crisis with the WW2 Jewish immigration as being on the ball. But since we never had a sizable Jewish extremist population prior to WW2 attempting to enforce their views on others, I think it's pretty safe to say that the comparison falls flat. There was never any extremist Jewish terrorist groups recruiting people in other countries to rape, kill, and slaughter in the name of their religion.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Nor right. But you do seem to be seriously simplifying why this is an issue and acting like this is a very black and white scenario where our options are "good or bad". This is a complex problem. It's not as simple as "good guys take refugees". This is a serious issue that could have a negative fallout. And yes, you are right, it's also possible that nothing bad could happen... But we don't know that is the case. What we do know, is that we have suffered numerous terrorist attacks within our country, and other countries are having problems with their own Muslim populations. So doing the "right thing" here? Might not be the "right thing" after all. I'm actually convinced there is no "right way" to approach this issue.

Comment posted by Starman Ghost deleted Mar 3rd, 2016

3788852

If the anti-Jewish article made a valid point. Yes. The source really shouldn't matter. Even an idiot can make a good point from time to time, and if the evidence supports the idiot's claim, then for once you aren't an idiot by agreeing with the idiot. This is why attacking a source is fallacious.

You respond with 2 xkcd comics that deliver a barely relevant punchline. What's your point here? That you don't like statistics? Just because you can make a joke about something doesn't mean... Well, anything really. Islam is growing fast, which is becoming a concern for people in the UK. You can make jokes about what "fastest growing religion" means if you want, but the fact is Islam IS growing very fast in relation to other religions at the moment.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the comparison between radical Christians and Muslims. I'm pretty sure I already explained why having one problem is not an excuse to invite another. Want to know the main difference though? There isn't a massive Christian terrorist organization recruiting people to go kill people.

There's no massive Catholic refugee immigration at the moment. No massive Catholic terrorist movement recruiting people to go kill people. So it's a moot point. The IRA also had a significantly more complex reason for terrorism than "These people don't share our religion and must die." so it's not really the best comparison.

We also have the benefit of the internet now to show us which accusations are right or wrong so we are a lot less well informed than people during WW2. The Jews never had anything similar to Sharia patrols, at least not to my knowledge. Nor have they had any major terrorist organizations conducting attacks in the name of their religion. They also don't have an incredibly sexist views against women, nor a history of violently attempting to impose their views on others or attempting to overtake local governments in the name of their religion. Islam hits all those bullet points by comparison. You can make all the comparisons with WW2 Jewish refugees and the current Islamic refugee crisis, but the fact is we are talking about 2 very different groups of people in 2 very different world situations. During WW2, people's xenophobia was largely due a lack of information or misinformation. The current opposition to Muslim immigration is quite frankly due to public knowledge of recent events.

Look, I understand you want to advocate "the right thing" in the name of tolerance and what-not. But as I've said. Sometimes an issue that at first glance has a clear "right thing to do", is a lot more complicated under the surface. As I said, maybe inviting so many refugees over might not be a bad thing. But quite frankly I don't see it as likely being a good thing either. Too many factors leave me skeptical. The issues in the UK with Muslims, the way ISIS recruits people, the way even non-ISIS Muslims tend to overreact to perceived slights on their religion, as well as my own experiences living in a mostly Muslim neighborhood. Heck we can ignore all of that and I'd understand not wanting refugees over here due to not wanting more competition for jobs and federal aid. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut right way to handle the situation. That's what you don't seem to be getting. You seem to think it's binary, where "take refugees = good" and "not take refugees = clearly bad", but it's a heck of a lot more complicated and people who are against taking large amounts of refugees probably have more complex reasons than simply disliking Muslims.

3788939

The source really shouldn't matter. Even an idiot can make a good point from time to time, and if the evidence supports the idiot's claim, then for once you aren't an idiot by agreeing with the idiot. This is why attacking a source is fallacious.

Idiots can have stopped clock moments, yes, but that's not a reason to take them at their word. Pointing out that your source is untrustworthy is an indication that you should find a better one.

Islam is growing fast, which is becoming a concern for people in the UK. You can make jokes about what "fastest growing religion" means if you want, but the fact is Islam IS growing very fast in relation to other religions at the moment.

That might be because religion as a whole is on the decline in the UK. It's not hard to be the fastest-growing religion when your biggest competitor is hemorrhaging members and your next-biggest competitor is Hinduism. I don't see an explosion of British Hindus anytime soon.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up the comparison between radical Christians and Muslims. I'm pretty sure I already explained why having one problem is not an excuse to invite another.

All I'm expecting is consistency. Arguing in favor of barring Muslims from entering the country because of their religion's history of violent extremism, that's one thing, but if you're going to suggest it, at least be consistent about it.

The IRA also had a significantly more complex reason for terrorism than "These people don't share our religion and must die." so it's not really the best comparison.

You don't think that the surge in Muslim terrorism has anything to do with the US and European nations having been warring in the Middle East and rearranging the political landscape to suit their interests for decades? I mean, I already posted about how the perpetrators of the bus bombing were motivated by the UK's role in the Iraq War.

The Jews never had anything similar to Sharia patrols, at least not to my knowledge.

Neither did the vast majority of Muslims. The UK arrested - not convicted, arrested - a grand total of five people who were connected with the incident. I challenge you to find any decent-sized group of people that doesn't have five douchebags in it.

Nor have they had any major terrorist organizations conducting attacks in the name of their religion.

The Jewish Defense League has been active for decades and is still carrying out terror attacks today.

They also don't have an incredibly sexist views against women

It's common policy in Israel to censor women from photos. There's also an active ultra-orthodox movement in Israel who, among other things, issued death threats against a woman for not moving to the back of a bus. and beat another woman for the same reason.

people who are against taking large amounts of refugees

It's odd that you'd specify "large amounts" when earlier you said

Sure, a few thousand isn't going to make a difference. While we are at it, let's take all the unwanted people of other countries, I'm talking rapists, murderers, and other criminals, I mean we already have them here right? So we can't make a bigger problem. The idea we already have something therefore adding more of it can't be a problem is something I REALLY hope I don't need to point out the problem with.

So does quantity matter or not? I honestly don't get what you're trying to say. You specify large amounts at one point, then you say something implying you think any number is too many.

3789095
I did provide other sources.

Good point about non-Islamic religions losing members. But that's also due to the fact that people who give up Islam are supposed to be punished by death. Leaving the religion essentially means your family disowns you, or in some cases threatens violence. Islam isn't really a religion people tend to be casual with, unlike Christianity. It requires active participation. Of course that religion is going to self perpetuate more than others.. Other religions are, quite frankly more tolerant. It's partially cultural too, as Christians are supposed to be more active in their religion as well (not working on Sundays for example), but there is still a clear difference in how much religious participation the two religions are expected to engage in. Christians aren't expected to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for example, like Muslims are with Mecca.

I am consistent about it. If there was a reason to be worried about a sudden influx of overzealous Christians, then I'd feel roughly the same way. However right now Islam is quite frankly the most dangerous religion in the world. Perhaps 200 years from now, Christianity will be the most dangerous religion in the world. But I doubt it.

Yes I do think that, however ISIS's statements have mainly followed the tune of "Killing in the name of Alah is commendable. Non-Muslims deserve death.", and their stated goal is a religious government. You can try to place the blame on whoever you want, but the fact is they are a religious terrorist group, killing almost entirely in the name of their religion with any secondary motivation being downplayed even by the group in question.

5 people related to the Sharia patrols. That's just one issue though. There are several issues with Islam in the UK. The Sharia patrols were just one of the more blatantly out there ones. Some of the links I posted mention other issues. So the issue isn't just 5 idiots who were arrested for the Sharia patrols.

The Jewish Defense League wasn't pre WW2. That's the key thing here. You compared Jewish refugees from WW2 to the current Islamic situation. Had the Jewish Defense League existed back during the initial reluctance to accept Jewish refugees, then the reluctance would have been more justified.

At the risk of sounding like a No True Scotsman argument, those aren't the same type of Jews. I'd be even more worried about a sudden influx of Ultra-Orthadox Jewish immigrants than I would Muslim refugees. Israel is honestly such a ticking time bomb that I'm worried they could be the next ISIS. Although until recently it was more their militarism I was worried about than their religious views.

Go back to my third post in response to this blog post, because my stance hasn't changed and I'm the same person you've been arguing with from the start. : "Now I'm not saying we shouldn't take any immigrants... But I am saying we shouldn't try to play hero and take as many as we can, because quite frankly I don't see that working out too well for us."

Please do not try to strawman my stance to give yourself some sort of moral highground. I never said we shouldn't be taking any refugees, and if it appears I did, it's because I didn't feel the need to specify an amount every time I refered to refugees because most of my points talk about refugees "in general". In fact I don't think I ever outright stated my stance on the refugee issue to begin with, although I could be wrong. Something I TRIED to make apparent was that I wasn't arguing to prove you wrong, but to point out the complexities of the situation that you seemed to ignore to state your stance. I wanted to show that this isn't the black and white issue you seem to think it is, although quite frankly I'm probably just going to drop this if this goes on much longer as you seem to have an aversion to acknowledging the individual complexities of the issue, which makes for a quite frankly circular and pointless discussion. It's not black and white. It's not a case of there being a simple "right thing to do".

I'd be even more worried about a sudden influx of Ultra-Orthadox Jewish immigrants than I would Muslim refugees. Israel is honestly such a ticking time bomb that I'm worried they could be the next ISIS. Although until recently it was more their militarism I was worried about than their religious views.

This more than anything has me convinced that we are, if not on the same page, at least reading the same book. I realize some of my assumptions have likely been uncharitable, but sadly past experience has led me to be prepared to assume the worst. I swear, you have no idea how many times I've heard "The Middle East is bad because it's full of religious extremists! Now, let me tell you why we must support Israel no matter what."

Please do not try to strawman my stance to give yourself some sort of moral highground.

I wasn't trying to strawman you. I was legitimately confused about your stance. You've answered that, so all I'm really left with is the question of how we figure out who's a Muslim.

Login or register to comment