Are you ok with Muslim refugees moving in next to you in the US?

I stopped watching the news years ago. I do miss out on some important things.. But ultimately i miss out on tons of unimportant or biased things. I even cut off facebook.. Pretty much i was told i was an ass because i called people out on their posts for agreeing or reposting dumb shit with nothing backing it up. Media sucks lol.
 
They're a better example of American values than many Americans right now.

Stalwarts of freedom of expression, women's and gay rights, all!

Frankly, I would be far happier having my son play with their kids than I would with the hood rats and fundamental Baptists that I currently share a street with. For the most part, they are more tolerant and better educated.

You think Muslims are tolerant and dare to criticize American insularity? Please.

Tread lightly, you are making the bed that your children must lay in. Islam is not the enemy here, fundamental extremism, from every faith, is the problem.

Yes, because fundamentalist Presbyterians are known for blowing themselves up, virulent anti-Semitism, child marriage, the subjugation of women and female genital mutilation. Those damn fundamentalists Christian's are the real problem here. And the fundamentalist Buddhists too. Those crazy bastards are always in the news for blowing up a daycare center or beheading someone. And fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Zoroastrians... well, the Zoroastrians that weren't exterminated by Islam, that is. And the fundamentalist Janes...

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/Author/Nadim.Koteich (<br />)
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/Author/Nadim.Koteich (Nadim Koteich)
Published: 13/01/2015 01:08 PM | Updated: 15/01/2015 02:01 PM

We are all ISIS
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/564668-we-are-all-isis


These killers are us. They are our religion at its most extreme.

000_del6386531.jpg



Condemnations are no longer sufficient. They were never enough in the first place and they never bore any weight except as an entry point to more advanced steps.

They are not enough, especially when what follows them amounts to no more than idiotic expressions suggesting that a crime like the Charlie Hebdo massacre is not an expression of “true Islam.” In an effort to divorce Islam from responsibility for other crimes, some have said that the Islamic State (ISIS), Jabhat al-Nusra, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Somalia’s Al-Shabab, the Taliban and hundreds of other armed groups also do not represent true Islam.

So what is this true Islam that those who condemn crimes committed in the name of Islam are supposed to be bestowing upon us? Beyond condemnation, what confrontation with the criminals have the proponents of true Islam been engaged in since the defeat of the Mu’tazila — the defeat of rationality in Islam 1,100 years ago?

Condemnation alone is not enough. The people from the Sunni camp of contemporary Islam who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Pakistani school massacre before it, the massacres by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the 9/11 attacks and other atrocities all belong to true Islam. The same applies to the people in the Shiite camp of contemporary Islam who kidnapped and killed foreign journalists in Beirut, and issued and renewed the fatwa that said the blood of British writer Salman Rushdie could be spilt. They are a central part of true Islam and its many schools of jurisprudence.

It doesn’t matter which Islamic text, whether it is a Qur’anic or jurisprudential text, or a text recounting the sayings of the Prophet Mohammad; the killers do not kill for nothing, they kill in the name of books, fatwas, ayahs and age-old tradition. All of these things are inseparable parts of true Islam. They will remain Muslims as long as they pronounce the shahada and as long as the religious institution doesn’t dare to modernize the criteria for being a Muslim.

These killers are us. They are our religion at its most extreme. They are our true Islam taken to its furthest extent and they are not beyond the scripture. If the West says in one united voice “we are Charlie” we should say “we are ISIS.”

As Muslims, what should we do with Ayat as-Sayf, the fifth verse of Surat at-Tawbah, one of the last Qur’anic chapters delivered to the Prophet in the city of Medina, and thus of central importance with regard to the structure of Islamic rulings and the system for the relationship with the other? The ayah says:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! God is Forgiving, Merciful.”

With this in mind, was the ayah not instrumental in building Islam’s military glory? Didn’t Islam become a vast empire of might, dominion, high renown, money and power? Was this ayah not the central compass that directed the wars of the Muslims, from the preparations for the conquest of Mecca to jihadist pamphlet “The Neglected Duty,” by Muhammad abd-al-Salam Faraj, one of the clearest and most dangerous pieces of jihadist literature ever written? For those who are unfamiliar with Faraj, he was the emir of the Al-Jihad group that assassinated Anwar Sadat in the name of the very same true Islam.

What kind of ruling can there be against “idolaters” in the 21st century and what should we make of the ruling to slay them “wherever [we] find them” now that we have international law and the nation state? Where do today’s Muslims draw the line between Islamic jurisprudence and law?

As Muslims, what should we do with the 20th verse of Surat at-Tawbah, which is dedicated to our relationship with Christians and Jews? The text is as follows:

“Fight those who do not believe in God or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Do these ayahs belong to the so-called ayahs of forgiveness that Muslims praise as evidence of Islam’s kindheartedness in conferences of flattery and social deception? Are they really all we have left of Islam in its latest incarnation?

What is the verdict on the fatwas of Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who still presides over the jurisprudence of jihad eight centuries after his death, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS? What is his position, in view of who he is in the history of Islamic jihadist jurisprudence, in today’s Muslim world? Who will draw the borders between the jurisprudence of jihad as one of the Islamic sciences and the criminal jurisprudence that was practiced in Paris, especially as both of them are derived from the same original texts?

It was very telling that straight after the announcement of the Charlie Hebdo massacre people’s thoughts turned to Islamist extremists, despite the fact that the French magazine’s satire spared not Judaism, Christianity nor the French political establishment. This is because Islam’s relationship with the present is in crisis, and any group going through such a crisis is always the first suspect. In fact, Islam as a whole stands accused in advance, and not only its extremist fringe. The original texts that form an inseparable part of true Islam and inspire the ongoing crimes committed in its name are also guilty. This will be true as long as there is no central authority to reorganize the relationship between the Islamic text, as a piece of history, and the necessities of the present day, in the same way the Qur’anic text itself acclimatized as the ayahs were gradually sent down, with some new rulings replacing older ones.

The truth is that what the killers did in Paris has only reinforced the images drawn by the artists of Charlie Hebdo. The only difference between the actions of the artists and the killers is that the number of people who follow caricatures is far less than those who followed the international drama caused by the massacre. Nothing can insult Islam and Muslims as much as such crimes, and yet we still make do with saying that they do not represent true Islam, without providing a clear description of what true Islam is, beginning with our religious schools, some of which are factories for crime, to our constitutions which are rigged with the mines of Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia law.

Nothing insults Islam more than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, which says, from the belly of true Islam itself: Those of us who love the Prophet most are our greatest criminals.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/ar/commentaryar/564657-%D9%83%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 (This commentary has been translated from the original Arabic by Ullin Hope.)
 
Last edited:
The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates
by Mark Steyn
Steyn on Europe

http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates


November 13, 2015
1585.jpg


As I write, Paris is under curfew for the first time since the German occupation, and the death toll from the multiple attacks stands at 158, the vast majority of them slaughtered during a concert at the Bataclan theatre, a delightful bit of 19th century Chinoiserie on the boulevard Voltaire. The last time I was there, if memory serves, was to see Julie Pietri. I'm so bloody sick of these savages shooting and bombing and killing and blowing up everything I like - whether it's the small Quebec town where my little girl's favorite fondue restaurant is or my favorite hotel in Amman or the brave freespeecher who hosted me in Copenhagen ...or a music hall where I liked to go to hear a little jazz and pop and get away from the cares of the world for a couple of hours. But look at the photographs from Paris: there's nowhere to get away from it; the barbarians who yell "Allahu Akbar!" are there waiting for you ...when you go to a soccer match, you go to a concert, you go for a drink on a Friday night. They're there on the train... at the magazine office... in the Kosher supermarket... at the museum in Brussels... outside the barracks in Woolwich...

Twenty-four hours ago, I said on the radio apropos the latest campus "safe space" nonsense:

This is what we're going to be talking about when the mullahs nuke us.

Almost. When the Allahu Akbar boys opened fire, Paris was talking about the climate-change conference due to start later this month, when the world's leaders will fly in to "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist rather than to address the one that does. But don't worry: we already have a hashtag (#PrayForParis) and doubtless there'll be another candlelight vigil of weepy tilty-headed wankers. Because as long as we all advertise how sad and sorrowful we are, who needs to do anything?

With his usual killer comedy timing, the "leader of the free world" told George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning, America" this very morning that he'd "contained" ISIS and that they're not "gaining strength". A few hours later, a cell whose members claim to have been recruited by ISIS slaughtered over 150 people in the heart of Paris and succeeded in getting two suicide bombers and a third bomb to within a few yards of the French president.

Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that "nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable": We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away.

Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight's events as "an attack not just on Paris, it's an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share".

But that's not true, is it? He's right that it's an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world - an attack on one portion of "humanity" by those who claim to speak for another portion of "humanity". And these are not "universal values" but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta "universal" when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those "universal values" are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don't want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live - modern, pluralist, western societies and those "universal values" of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who's been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more "Syrian" "refugees" walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:

I would like to ask Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt what's their happy ending here? What's their roadmap for fewer "acts of violence" in the years ahead? Or are they riding on a wing and a prayer that they can manage the situation and hold it down to what cynical British civil servants used to call during the Irish "Troubles" "an acceptable level of violence"? In Pakistan and Nigeria, the citizenry are expected to live with the reality that every so often Boko Haram will kick open the door of the schoolhouse and kidnap your daughters for sex-slavery or the Taliban will gun down your kids and behead their teacher in front of the class. And it's all entirely "random", as President Obama would say, so you just have to put up with it once in a while, and it's tough if it's your kid, but that's just the way it is. If we're being honest here, isn't that all Mr Cameron and Miss Thorning-Schmidt are offering their citizens? Spasms of violence as a routine feature of life, but don't worry, we'll do our best to contain it - and you can help mitigate it by not going to "controversial" art events, or synagogues, or gay bars, or...

...or soccer matches, or concerts, or restaurants...

To repeat what I said a few days ago, I'm Islamed out. I'm tired of Islam 24/7, at Colorado colleges, Marseilles synagogues, Sydney coffee shops, day after day after day. The west cannot win this thing with a schizophrenic strategy of targeting things and people but not targeting the ideology, of intervening ineffectually overseas and not intervening at all when it comes to the remorseless Islamization and self-segregation of large segments of their own countries.

So I say again: What's the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn't prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his "pitiless war" isn't serious. And, if they're still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel's mad plan to reverse Germany's demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren't serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil.
 
The Real Containment
http://www.steynonline.com/7305/the-real-containment

by Mark Steyn
Steyn on Europe
November 19, 2015


1594.jpg


It works for Barry Manilow concerts, so why not against ISIS?

Because (per Obama's latest complaint) of "how decentralized power is in this system", over 30 American governors have told the President they don't want him shipping battalions of "Syrian" "refugees" to their states. He, in turn, has sneered that his critics are scared of "widows and orphans". With his usual brilliant comic timing, he said this a couple of hours before a female suicide bomber self-detonated in St Denis.

Nonetheless, the presidential-gubernatorial split is an interesting development. Obama has responded with a brand new hashtag: #RefugeesWelcome. If you live in Hashtagistan, this is another great hashtag to add to such invincible hashtags as #PeaceForParis, http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzAxLzA3LzNkL0plU3Vpc0NoYXJsLjU2ZGRjLmpwZwpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/32658293/a06/JeSuisCharlie.jpg (#JeSuisCharlie), #UnitedForUkraine and, of course, #BringBackOurGirls. If you live in the real world, the magic hashtags don't seem to work so well, and these governors seem to think #RefugeesWelcome will perform no better for New Mexico and New Hampshire than the others have worked out for Paris, Ukraine and Boko Haram-infested West Africa.

So reality is not yet entirely irrelevant - and reality is on the march:

Dinajpur:

An Italian priest is fighting for his life in northern Bangladesh after being shot and seriously wounded by unidentified gunmen.

The attack on Wednesday is the latest in a series targeting foreigners in the country, which have been blamed on Islamic militant groups including Islamic State.

Marseilles:

A Jewish teacher has reportedly been stabbed in Marseille by three people claiming to be ISIS supporters... The suspects, who were reportedly wearing ISIS badges, made anti-semitic comments before stabbing the teacher.

London:

A married couple plotted an Isil suicide bombing of the London Underground or Westfield shopping centre around the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide attacks, a court heard on Tuesday.

Mohammed Rehman, 25, and his wife Sana Ahmed Khan, 24, had enough bomb material to "cause multiple fatalities"...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-france-shooting-honduras-idUSKCN0T72UE20151118#JgergBhLtZePEbC9.97:

Honduras Detains Five Syrians Said Headed To U.S. With Stolen Greek Passports

Ottawa:

The man arrested Tuesday trying to enter Parliament carrying a hidden meat cleaver probably has mental illness and isn't a terrorist, the head of the RCMP said Wednesday.

Toronto man Yasin Mohamed Ali, 56, was arrested outside the Centre Block of Parliament in Ottawa and appeared in court Wednesday.

Hmm. "Mentally ill" "Toronto man"... But then, as John Kerry has assured us, all of the above is nothing to do with Islam. Objecting to mass murder in your country of nominal citizenship is also nothing to do with Islam:

France: Only 30 Muslims Show Up For Rally Against Paris Jihad Attacks

What's the punchline? "...and seven of those were wearing suicide belts"?

ISIS is not itself the cause of the problem. What ISIS is is the most effective vehicle for the cause - which is Islamic imperialist conquest. What ISIS did in the Paris attacks was bring many disparate elements together - Muslims born and bred in France, Muslim immigrants to other European countries, recently arrived Muslim "refugees"... An organization that can command numerous assets of different status - holders of 11 different passports - and tie them all together is a formidable enemy. Playing whack-a-mole on that scale will ensure we lose, and bankrupt ourselves in the process.

Meanwhile, the caliphate is coining it: ISIS is the wealthiest terrorist organization in history, making billions of dollars a year from oil sales, bank raids, human smuggling, extortion and much else. So they have a ton of money with which to fund their ideological goals.

And yet, as I say, ISIS is merely the vehicle for the ideology, which in the end can only be defeated by taking it on. You can't drone the animating ideas away. And the biggest obstacle to a vigorous ideological pushback is the west's politico-media class - Obama, Kerry, Merkel, Cameron, Justin Trudeau, etc - who insist that Islam and immigration can never be a part of the discussion, and seem genuinely to believe that, say, more niqabs on the streets of western cities is a heartwarming testament to the vibrancy of our diversity, rather than a grim marker of our descent into a brutal and segregated society in which half the population will be chattels forbidden by their owners from feeling sunlight on their faces.

But best not to bring that up. So the attackers got suicide bombs to within a few yards of the French president. And a football match intended to show that European life goes on ended in cancellation, security lockdowns and the German chancellor being hustled away to safety. And the Belgian government has admitted it can no longer enforce its jurisdiction in parts of its own capital city within five miles of Nato headquarters... And yet, for all that, the European papers are surprisingly light on analyses of what's going on. The multiculti diversity omertà is ruthlessly enforced, and few commentators (and even fewer editors and publishers) want to suffer the taint of "Islamophobe!" or "Racist!" Easier just to run another piece on how heartwarming that Eiffel peace symbol is - as even my old friends at the Telegraph, a supposedly "right-wing" paper, did.

Meanwhile, during the moment of silence for the dead of Paris, Turkish soccer fans aren't shy about yelling "Allahu Akbar!". It was, in fact, the least silent "moment of silence" of all time. Euphemism, circumspection and self-censorship are strictly for the infidels.

So is the gubernatorial pushback (against a president who calls them bigots and racists) a sign that the sappy hashtags are having a harder time post-Paris? Or is it just a passing phase in the immediate aftermath of mass slaughter?

Donald Trump had a good line at his Massachusetts rally on Wednesday night:

ISIS is 'contained'? The only thing that's contained is us.

Whether that's true in America, it's certainly true of the European political discourse. And, unless that changes, in Sweden, Belgium, Austria and elsewhere, we are approaching a point of no return.
 
Borrowing from AndreaTantaros,
"If they can't run the VA, deport criminals or get Obamacare website running, this govt cannot vet Syrian refugees. Only a fool would buy it."

What could go wrong
 
Published on: November 17, 2015
Base Politics
President Obama’s Cynical Refugee Ploy
Walter Russell Mead

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/11/17/president-obamas-cynical-refugee-ploy/

The debate we are having over the acceptance of Syrian refugees is not the conversation the country needs.

The governors of 26 U.S. states signaled yesterday that they will not be willing to take in any Syrian refugees, following the lead of http://the-american-interest.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f24302ce799fa4d884b86e032&id=07397b82eb&e=3fe92095bd (Michigan) and Alabama, which announced similar objections this past Sunday. Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire became the first Democrat to voice opposition to President Obama’s plan to accept 10,000 refugees from the war in Syria in the next year. Governors of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Connecticut, on the other hand, came out in explicit support of the initiative.

Goodhearted liberals have reacted with handwringing to the avalanche of dissenting governors. Some have earnestly quoted relevant Bible verses about taking in the poor and the afflicted, while the usual righteous tut-tutters have engaged in their usual righteous tut-tutting. “Everybody who disagrees with my proposal is a bitter-clinging xenophobe, not to mention a racist,” is the clear implication of the President’s supporters.

That there are racist xenophobes in this country is clear to anybody who has ever perused the comments section of an internet news site, or has spent too much time on Facebook and Twitter. And many of these people are spewing ugly hate about Syrian refugees in ways that appall—or should appall—anybody with an open mind and a humane spirit. That said, the refugee issue is not, despite President Obama’s rhetoric, a simple morality play featuring Wise Liberals and Racist Jacksonians. It is something more complicated and, at least as far as President Obama’s own role in the debate, a bit uglier.

To see the full cynicism of the Obama approach to the refugee issue, one has only to ask President Obama’s least favorite question: Why is there a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place?

Obama’s own policy decisions—allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones—were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time.

Moreover, many of those “benighted” people were willing to sign up for the U.S. military and go to fight ISIS in Syria to protect the refugees. Many Americans who now oppose the President’s ill-considered refugee program have long supported the use of American power to create “safe zones” in Syria so the refugees could be sheltered and fed in their own country. If President Obama seriously cared about the fate of Syria’s millions of displaced people, he would have started to organize those safe havens years ago. And if he understood the nature of America’s role in Europe, he would have known that working with the Europeans to prevent a mass refugee and humanitarian disaster was something that had to be done.

Not even President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq has been as destructive for Europe or as damaging to the Transatlantic alliance as President Obama’s hard-hearted and short-sighted Syria policy. The flood of refugees is shaking the European Union to its core, and Obama’s policy has cemented perceptions among many around the world that the United States is no longer the kind of useful ally that it once was. France didn’t even bother to invoke NATO’s Article 5 after the Paris attacks; nobody really thinks of President Obama as the man you want at your side when the chips are down.

The collapse of President Obama’s Syria policy is hardly a partisan issue. He has repeatedly overruled his own national security officials, top diplomats, and advisors, many of whom have been horrified by the President’s passivity in the face of onrushing disaster. His abrupt policy switch on airstrikes left many senior Democrats who had supported his apparent determination to enforce his “red line” against Assad twisting in the wind.

To think that conspicuous moral posturing and holy posing over a symbolic refugee quota could turn President Obama from the goat to the hero of the Syrian crisis is absurd. Wringing your hands while Syria turns into a hell on earth, and then taking a token number of refugees, can be called many things, but decent and wise are not among them. You don’t have to be a xenophobe or a racist or even a Republican to reject this President’s leadership on Syria policy. All you need for that is common sense and a moral compass.

And it’s worse. The Obama Administration’s extreme caution about engagement in Syria led it to insist on such a thorough process of vetting potential Syrian allies that years of effort and tens of millions of dollars resulted in only a paltry handful of people being found acceptable to receive American weapons and training. The refugee vetting process won’t be nearly this thorough; it’s almost certain that the President’s program will result in settling people in the United States who could not be certified to fight for the United States in Syria. Given our gun laws, uncertified Syrians living in the United States will soon have the opportunity to get weapons that the United States government would refuse to give them in Syria. To millions of Americans, this is a double standard they can neither understand nor accept. To call people troubled by these concerns racists and xenophobes is to divide and polarize this country in ways that will cost us all dearly down the road. We have enough hate, enough radicalism, enough mutual misunderstanding and distrust between left and right in America as it is. The President is adding to that distrust, and doing it in a particularly ugly and damaging way.

If President Obama really had the superior moral insight and wisdom that he believes makes him so much more humane and far-seeing than the ignorant rednecks who keep on opposing him, he would have approached the refugee issue with less arrogance and more self-awareness. It is not given to the sons (or even to the daughters) of mortals to be right about everything all the time; Presidents make mistakes, even in the Middle East. A little humility, a little acknowledgement of responsibility, a little self-reflection could go a long way.

For no one, other than the Butcher Assad and the unspeakable al-Baghdadi, is as responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria as is President Obama. No one has committed more sins of omission, no one has so ruthlessly sacrificed the well-being of Syria’s people for his own ends, as the man in the White House. In all the world, only President Obama had the ability to do anything significant to prevent this catastrophe; in all the world no one turned his back so coldly and resolutely on the suffering Syrians as the man who sits in the White House today—a man who is now lecturing his fellow citizens on what he insists is their moral inferiority before his own high self-esteem.

From the standpoint of American interests and of the well being of the Syrians, the primary responsibility that the United States has toward the people of Syria is not to offer asylum to something like 0.25 percent of its refugee population. The primary duty of this country was to prevent such a disaster from happening and, failing that, to support in-country safe havens and relief operations. No doubt President Obama and the unthinking press zealots who applaud his every move prefer a conversation about why ordinary Americans are racist xenophobes to one about why President Obama’s Syria policy has created an immense and still expanding disaster.

The “why are Jacksonians such xenophobes?” conversation, given the way so much of the country’s media works, is the conversation we are having. It is not the conversation the country, or even the President, needs. The Syria war has not finished creating refugees, undermining regional and even global security, putting WMD in terrorist hands, or spreading the poisons of radicalism and sectarian war across the Middle East and among vulnerable Muslims in Europe and beyond. Things can and will get worse as long as American policy continues to flounder; instead of arguing about how to shelter a few thousand refugees we need to look hard at how we are failing to address the disaster that has created millions, and that continues to grow.
 
Saudi Arabia has 100,000 air-conditioned tents sitting empty, still won’t take Syrian refugees

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/

As Saudi Arabia faces mounting criticism for refusing to take in any of the millions of Syrians fleeing conflict in their homeland, it was revealed this weekend that the country has over 100,000 empty, air-conditioned tents that could house up to 3 million refugees.

The tents, located roughly 2,150 miles from Syria in the city of Mina, are only used a few days a year to house pilgrims on their way to Mecca for the hajj, the news station TeleSUR reported.

The huge tents are also fireproof and equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities.

But while Europe struggles to find space to take in the millions of asylum seekers making the perilous journey there, Saudi Arabia has been largely unresponsive to the crisis.

According to the to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are about 500,000 Syrians living inSaudi Arabia, but they are not classified as asylum seekers and it is not known when they arrived in the country.

Other reports indicate that Saudi Arabiahas not taken in any new refugees, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

No Gulf country has signed the U.N. Convention on Refugees, an accord standardizing the level of treatment of people fleeing to new countries.

Saudi authorities insist they had done all they can to support refugees by allowing them residency in the country, but say they do not brag about their support to the media.

“[The kingdom] was keep to not deal with them as refugees or to put them in refugee camps,” said one Saudi spokesman Friday, Reuters reported, adding they did so to “preserve their dignity and safety and gave them complete freedom of movement.”

The representative added that Saudi Arabia has given $700 million in humanitarian aid to Syrians.

Last week Saudi officials offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany to accommodate Muslim refugees.
 
Islamic Gunmen Storm Luxury Hotel In Mali Capital, Take 170 Hostage; French, US Special Foreces Follow - Live Feed

Less than a week since the Friday 13th Paris terror attack, hours ago the newswires lit up with news of another terrorist attack at least 10 gunmen shouting and screaming "Allahu Akbar" attacked the Radisson Blu, a luxury hotel full of foreigners, in Mali's capital Bamako, taking 170 people hostage. The identity of the Bamako gunmen, or the group to which they belong, is not known.

full article
 
‘Rabid’ dogs and closing mosques: Anti-Islam rhetoric grows in GOP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rabid-dogs-and-muslim-id-cards-anti-islam-rhetoric-grows-in-gop/2015/11/19/1cdf9f04-8ee5-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

One of the front-runners in the Republican presidential race said Thursday he would “absolutely” want a database of Muslims in the country and wouldn’t rule out giving them special ID cards that noted their religion.

Another top candidate likened Syrian refugees — who are largely Muslim — to dogs. Some of them might be rabid, he said, which was reason to keep them all out.

And a third stood up in the Senate on Thursday and called for banning refugees from five Middle Eastern countries. He was explicit that the point was to keep Muslim refugees out while letting Christians from the same places in.

A week after terrorists tied to the Islamic State terrorist group killed 129 people in Paris, some Republican politicians have responded with the kind of rhetoric that another Republican — George W. Bush — explicitly avoided after the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the angry aftermath, Bush said that “Islam is peace” and that all Muslims should not be judged for the deeds of a few radicals.

But in this election — already defined by a suspicion of government and anger about immigration — the rhetoric on Muslims has become a dominant feature of the Republican response to the attacks. It also comes as 47 House Democrats joined with 242 Republicans on Thursday to pass a bill placing new security constraints on President Obama’s pledge to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees, most of whom would be Muslim.

Some Republican presidential candidates have said they would go further and argue that all Muslims should bear greater scrutiny because it is too difficult to tell which ones are the radicals.

“If there’s a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably going to put your children out of the way,” retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said Thursday in Mobile, Ala.,when he was asked about Syrian refugees. “It doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re putting your intellect into motion.”

...
 
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over 62% of all Syrian "refugees" are military age males. So 62% won't fight for their country, but expect the U.S. Military to leave our home to fight for them.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php#_ga=1.119801736.1605768934.1447705249
 
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over 62% of all Syrian "refugees" are military age males. So 62% won't fight for their country, but expect the U.S. Military to leave our home to fight for them.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php#_ga=1.119801736.1605768934.1447705249
Most of them would be much happier if the US stayed the fuck out of their country. They don't expect the US to fight for them; they expect the US to drop bombs on them as the US has been doing all over the ME for the last two decades. The US is in Syria to kill Assad, and has been intentionally arming terrorists as its proxy.
 
‘Rabid’ dogs and closing mosques: Anti-Islam rhetoric grows in GOP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rabid-dogs-and-muslim-id-cards-anti-islam-rhetoric-grows-in-gop/2015/11/19/1cdf9f04-8ee5-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

One of the front-runners in the Republican presidential race said Thursday he would “absolutely” want a database of Muslims in the country and wouldn’t rule out giving them special ID cards that noted their religion.

Another top candidate likened Syrian refugees — who are largely Muslim — to dogs. Some of them might be rabid, he said, which was reason to keep them all out.

And a third stood up in the Senate on Thursday and called for banning refugees from five Middle Eastern countries. He was explicit that the point was to keep Muslim refugees out while letting Christians from the same places in.

A week after terrorists tied to the Islamic State terrorist group killed 129 people in Paris, some Republican politicians have responded with the kind of rhetoric that another Republican — George W. Bush — explicitly avoided after the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the angry aftermath, Bush said that “Islam is peace” and that all Muslims should not be judged for the deeds of a few radicals.

But in this election — already defined by a suspicion of government and anger about immigration — the rhetoric on Muslims has become a dominant feature of the Republican response to the attacks. It also comes as 47 House Democrats joined with 242 Republicans on Thursday to pass a bill placing new security constraints on President Obama’s pledge to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees, most of whom would be Muslim.

Some Republican presidential candidates have said they would go further and argue that all Muslims should bear greater scrutiny because it is too difficult to tell which ones are the radicals.

“If there’s a rabid dog running around in your neighborhood, you’re probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you’re probably going to put your children out of the way,” retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said Thursday in Mobile, Ala.,when he was asked about Syrian refugees. “It doesn’t mean that you hate all dogs by any stretch of the imagination, but you’re putting your intellect into motion.”

...

Well, it worked for Netanyahu. Why not the republicans? Actually, now that I think about it, it worked for FDR and Wilson as well.
 
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over 62% of all Syrian "refugees" are military age males. So 62% won't fight for their country, but expect the U.S. Military to leave our home to fight for them.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php#_ga=1.119801736.1605768934.1447705249

As of 2010, the US has approximately 86,500,000 males from the ages of 18-64 years old. Out of 120,000,000 people who are fit for service we only have 1,400,000 frontline personnel in the military. That's just over 1%. So how many Americans won't even fight for their county?????

Edit* and echoing what Flenser said as well
 
We're confounding 3 classes of people here:
1 - persecuted religion followers - first of all Christians (and maybe some Jews) and probably Sunni or Shia depending on location and conflict - definitely in need
2 - economic opportunists who are trying to leverage the conflict to jump first in line - understandable, but shouldn't be accepted, we're supposed to have a process for this
3 - scum - the Jihadists - trying to blend in with the sheep

It's pathetic that we can't have a debate (media and our Golfer-in-Chief being main culprits) that clearly delineates the 3 - and then responsibly and honestly states the process we can use to weed out 2 and 3 above, so we can let in the 1 group.

Letting in number 2 is simply not fair to those doing the right thing, waiting patiently. Number 3 is obviously not acceptable at all.
 
Meanwhile, the savages (that we don't want) are back at their favorite activity, slaughtering innocents, again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unch-grenade-shooting-rampage-hotel-Mali.html

If you scroll down, ironically, you'll see the French PM Hollande at a global warming event... talk about worrying about the deck chair placement on the Titanic. Hello France (and EU and the US), man-made global warming is nowhere near the top of the list of things worth worrying about...
 
Back
Top