The debate "We shouldnt let refugees in. we should only allow educated scholars from around the world" was started by
July 19, 2016, 6:49 am.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Blue_ray posted 6 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 5 arguments, dalton7532 posted 1 argument, JakobBoghora posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 14 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Blue_ray, dalton7532, llemponen, Marshallechols, sabrina, JakobBoghora and 3 visitors agree.
SwaggerPoptart, RogueAmerican, Bodaciouslady16, divine05, EddyCamacho, Pablerasdh, StubSloth and 7 visitors disagree.
Refugees let their country fall apart.
refugees are parasites called refusites.
yup. it's scary. they showed up in Europe en mass with 0 vetting.
ISIS wants them back and will continue to sneak in operatives to demonize them to the west so they will be sent back. at this point I wouldn't blame Europe for sending them back, but I hope they do it in a careful way clearly explaining that this risk is far too great and that they wish they could help. that they do not think that most of them are violent but the risk of sleepers is too great. please don't hate us for this.
I think Europe will be in a similarly dangerous place if ISIS were to rearm and be reinvigorated with a million fresh recruits and laborers. cause there is no way in hell these people will choose Assad over them, I wouldnt.
Dalton, yes there were more attacks, but your oversimplified answer lacks any nuance or reality. both keeping them and sending them have dangers but you are simply trying to justify a predetermined narrative rather than trying to objectively tackle a complex reality.
conclusion: at this point I can't blame them for sending them back, I just hope they explain it and do it with care. communicate with the refugees, send a diplomat into their camps and talk to them. sending them back may be necessary but try your best to make sure they don't hate us for rejecting them. at this point they probably understand due to the repeated attacks, but perhaps their unique perspectives can offer a different option. idk.
More Syrian refugees commit terror attacks in Germany!
"I said our current bombings... Is the incomprehension my fault if you constantly say I want to bomb cities?"
I answered that question AND presumed question that was going to follow. not or, both, your fault was not incomphension, it was inability to read. sure you can debate my extra answer, but you just ignored the clear answer to your actual question and asked the same thing again...
and if stepping up the campaign would be good was not your follow up questions, then what was the point, were you just gonna praise Obama for his lead from behind strategy? of course not, so stop acting stupid cause you got preempted.
""If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Albert Einstein"
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see." -Ayn Rand
the only way to step up the bombing campaign is to target more civilian areas. if you want to drop more bombs then you are advocating for bombing civilians. it is a simple fact.
"If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Albert Einstein
I said our current bombings... Is the incomprehension my fault if you constantly say I want to bomb cities?
the current Obama lead from behind campaign? yes it is effective. I've said that clearly in my previous post.
me getting emotional cause I have to constantly repeat things is not your win, although your free to think what you want. it's a loss, not for you, but for all of america.
"a small suppressing bombing campaign of military bunkers to aid local ground forces will help, not hurt.
a strong bombing campaign to kill leaders who often live in places full of people and families will hurt not help."
is what I said, and your very next posts asks again what I just answered..... I would love to have a civilized discussion with educated perspectives, but until you learn to read properly that can't happen.
so yeah, consider it your win if you want, but that won't make it true. just cause Einstein failed to explain relativity to a 5 year old doesn't mean the 5 year old wins.
Well since your comment has become emotional and void of logic yourself (which supercedes my own), I guess thats a W.
i swear, I've repeated this several times today alone. this is why I'm not pulling my punches anymore. logic is clearly beyond many here, especially on the right. this app has killed my hope for American unification. the right will refuse to break with their parties platform even in the most extreme positions.
whether it's trump abuse of our systems or his hyper liberal economic plans that you lot would have bashed a year ago, and still would if the same thing came out of a Democrats mouth. I guess as long as you got your xenophobia and backward social issues covered yall really don't care about economics or the nation at all. you'll sell out your values, your ideas and your positions to satisfy your masters. the modern right is pathetic.
I actually think you are twisting my words. Would you describe the current campaign as successful to fight the caliphate.
yeah, I see what your doing, twisting my words.
unlike you and your right wing sheeple, I live in a world where it's not black or white.
a small suppressing bombing campaign of military bunkers to aid local ground forces will help, not hurt.
a strong bombing campaign to kill leaders who often live in places full of people and families will hurt not help.
the current campaign is shrinking the caliphate, the proposed Republican campaign will destroy it.... and then itll come back many times stronger and more ruthless.... just like with alqueda.
Is that current bombing failing to stop and shrink the caliphate?
western nations are doing a suppressing fire restrained bombing campaign just to weaken some military positions to help local ground forces. an actual elimination bombing campaign will have to be much more extensive and target more sensitive areas... like civilian areas that will hate us.
if local Muslim forces bomb them they can rightfully blame the respective government instead of generalizing it into a Muslims vs west ISIS narrative.
They are already being n
oh yeah, the bombing campaign worked great on alqueda. great job on creating ISIS btw, what's that? you want to go back and create something even worse again? MURICA!
think about it, if these people are sent back to Syria AND you start a bombing campaign in their region, how will you not send more people to the arms of ISIS or whatever far worse group you create in their place?
it's not the act of keeping out terrorists, but singling out a people that makes local Muslims fear and hate you back.
I mean sure, you can ban international Muslims and then launch a PR campaign showing love to local Muslims to fix the issue, but instead yall root for stepped up enforcement instead, the usual Republican idiocy. cause more enforcement is the best way to pacify a disgruntled population (the riots of the 60s are a great testament to that strategy)
What!?!?!? If you keep individuals with the propensity of terrorism, as you claim, out that encourages domestic terrorism? And is this world with a restocked ISIS the one where they arent being pushed out of cities by ground forces and bombed out of their commercial trade?
so your scared. that's why what Trump is doing is called fear mongering.
yes by keeping them out of the US you will prevent the unlikely chance of a foreign based terrorist attack, while increasing many times the very real threat of domestic terrorist attacks by disenfranchised people.
but the local threat aside, do you think the world will be a safer place with a rearmed, restocked, and refinanced isis? can you think beyond the tip of your nose and at the longer term consequences of your choices?
Also we let in bomb makers in the past
Im against them because we have absolutely NO idea who these people coming from there are. Absolutely none.
You said that if they stay in Syria some will become terrorists ONLY if they stay in Syria.
That implies that they have a propensity to be terrorists in which case they should never come to America.
because there is only assad and ISIS in syria. and assad is far worse to them, whereas ISIS welcomes them with restrictions.
obviously they would prefer freedom, but that option doesn't exist in syria atm.
and I don't know where you got that I was implying that they are natural born killers.
Are you implying that those who wish to flee are natual killers because they are from the middle east then? And are you saying that we should let those natural killers into our country. The ones who want to support ISIS want to sypport ISIS. Those who dont wont. Why would you assume that they will become terrorists over there?
I am for taking Syrian refugees because I want to hurt isis.
what do you think isis wants more? to launch a handful of terrorist attacks on the west? or get back a million potential recruits, laborers, and "tax" payers so they can try to rebuild their armies and get back to creating an Islamic state?
your second link refutes your first link...
I am for refugees.
I am wondering why you are against refugees since they don't do anything bad in the United states.
wait a second. iam against refugees. are you for refugees? please read the meaning of the thread.
so... no refugee violence in the United states?
and you need this too
nemiroff i challenge you for a debate.
refugees are violent people. we shouldnt allow them.
and you can cite these violent activities by refugees in the united states?
cause refugees have been such a violent group in the US?