to meathead

[dragonslayer]

Did you see/hear about the English family that took in a 12 year old refuge.Turns out he is actually a 21 year old that was trained in Afganistan as a jihadist fighter that lied about who he was.This is not an isolated case,more show up every day.Will you still feel the same letting them come here as you stated before.All others ,start watching the news from Europe even though it only shows the tip of the iceburg.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I stand by my previous statements of saving women and children from rape, torture, death. If you choose to see that as letting in Jihadists there is not much I can say to that.

[GARY G]

I stand by my previous statements of saving women and children from rape, torture, death. If you choose to see that as letting in Jihadists there is not much I can say to that.

         MEAT HEAD  you need to get your head out of the sand

[The emperor has no clothes]

I stand by my previous statements of saving women and children from rape, torture, death. If you choose to see that as letting in Jihadists there is not much I can say to that.

         MEAT HEAD  you need to get your head out of the sand

I have been accused of worse. So I take it you are not in favor of trying to save children from slaughter ?

[Gryphon Rider]

By age 23, approximately 30% of Americans have been arrested, and right now 8.6% of the adult population are convicted felons.  So just by giving birth, there is a small but significant chance that you are admitting a future criminal to the US.

[Jess from VA]

By age 23, approximately 30% of Americans have been arrested, and right now 8.6% of the adult population are convicted felons.  So just by giving birth, there is a small but significant chance that you are admitting a future criminal to the US.

that may be the single most irrelavent statement I have ever heard. At no time during your rammbling incoherent babblings did you make any sense at all. We are all dumber for having listened to it.

I think this is a very relevant (and interesting) point.  

However, the criminal records referred to in the article is only arrests, not necessarily convictions, and with a high percentage of misdemeanors and minor mischief among those that are convicted.

state criminal history repositories contain more than 100 million records. These are popularly referred to as “rap sheets” or “criminal records” although most people who have them have never been convicted of a serious crime. These repositories chronicle nearly every arrest, regardless of whether or not it leads to an indictment or conviction.    

I did my part (once).... I got caught with beer at 17.  Having to lay out all the facts and details over and over on numerous security questionnaires for school, bar exam, bar admission, USAF direct commission, USAF clearance, and federal employment was far worse than the actual $58 fine and costs that was my punishment.

Well, my dad pushed me down the courthouse stairwell (because I refused to tell the judge where I got the beer... and boy did that make both the judge and my dad mad; both former Marines), but that was not part of the official punishment.  

[mike72903]

Did you see/hear about the English family that took in a 12 year old refuge.Turns out he is actually a 21 year old that was trained in Afganistan as a jihadist fighter that lied about who he was.This is not an isolated case,more show up every day.Will you still feel the same letting them come here as you stated before.All others ,start watching the news from Europe even though it only shows the tip of the iceburg.

As reported by the Sun. A British supermarket tabloid.  Snoops "TheSun did not cite any sources to document the veracity of their story, which also lacked any specific details that would make it possible to independently confirm". Made up BS To make money by selling newspapers to the gullible, paranoid and dillusional. 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?


I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

[Robert]

After all even though these kids might be Muslims, are they not still God's children ?

Actually, NO!

[Gryphon Rider]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

Well, every victim can only be murdered once, so removing potential victims actually will reduce overall crime numbers.  In most places we do this by removing some of the criminals from their future victims.

Your logic also fails this way:  The death and misery refugees are fleeing is dealt by military/paramilitary organizations, e.g. Russian bombers, ISIS soldiers, the Syrian army.  When they explode their shells, fewer people in the vicinity means fewer deaths and maimings.

The goal of sheltering refugees isn't first to reduce crime, but to save people, to give them hope for life.

[Willow]

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?

I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

Two problem words with your position, innocent and minimal.  A lot of folks simply refuse to get it that the groups fighting and victimizing each other a two factions of the same culture.  The only determinate in who is the victim is which group is dominant in a particular region.  It's a little like a story of an anaconda victimizing an alligator and we choose to rescue the victim.

Minimal?  Take a close look at Dearborn. 

I think it is right for us to do what we can to oppose atrocities but I do not think that includes bringing the poison into our own homes. 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?


I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

I'm still OK with my logic, as usual my English is questionable though. PoDunk English I guess.  And many thanks for the respectful & rational reply. 

[Gryphon Rider]

I think it is right for us to do what we can to oppose atrocities but I do not think that includes bringing the poison into our own homes. 

We have few qualms about bringing poison into our homes.

[Gavin_Sons]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?


I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

I'm still OK with my logic, as usual my English is questionable though. PoDunk English I guess.  And many thanks for the respectful & rational reply. 

Victims are victims. If you remove 50% of potential victims from a populace then the predator move onto the other 50% and therefore you did nothing but turn non victoms into victoms.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Assuming we could, without a single error separate the victims from the criminals and only import victims and potential victims it would probably have zero effect on the numbers of crimes committed in these countrys. It would just mean the same number of criminals preying on a diminishing number of victims. In other words, those left would be victimized more often and net numbers of rape, torture, child-molesting and murders in these county's would remain the same.

However, in the real world we are going to bring victims, potential victims and perpetrators into our country at some unknown ratio. While bringing their criminals into our country should reduce the number of crimes in the parent country, it will of course increase the number of crimes in our own country. Again, having little affect on the total number of crimes but changing the nationalities of some of the victims.

In actuality though, since most of us have no cultural connect with these people, we will be completely unable to tell the criminals from the good guys. Which means a target rich field for the rapists, murders and child molesters we'd be bringing into our country which would probably equal more overall victims.

In other words, the only thing accomplished by bringing these refugees into our country is the opportunity to "feel good about it" as long as you don't look too deeply at the actual effect.

The only thing that can actually reduce the number of victims is to kill the criminals where they are without bringing them here first.

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?


I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

I'm still OK with my logic, as usual my English is questionable though. PoDunk English I guess.  And many thanks for the respectful & rational reply. 

Victims are victims. If you remove 50% of potential victims from a populace then the predator move onto the other 50% and therefore you did nothing but turn non victoms into victoms.

Yep. Only removing the criminals or making the victims too dangerous to attack has much chance of a positive outcome.

[Serk]

What does Saudi Arabia know that we don't?

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

[art]

I'm against bringing them here. We have plenty of poor people here that live terrible lives in slums with little food and are afraid to go outside due to the shootings. We have Vets living on the street with no hope and we want to help people from a terrorist state,No it's stupid. Why doesn't China,Japan or the S. American countries take them in? Because they don't want them and don't need the problems. Bring them in and put them in Washington DC.

[Serk]

Bring them in and put them in Washington DC.

Isn't having an America hating Muslim in Washington DC exactly how we got into this predicament in the first place?

(I keed, I keed.... Kinda...)

[Oss]

Notice that the Saudi's and the other Gulf States have taken NO refugees.

I see no reason why those countries which share a common denominator (religious sects) should not have to absorb all of the refugees so they can be safe and benefit from the high standard of living in those countries

Bringing these people here to a place which is impossibly far from their homelands makes no sense to me   How can they ever return or want to return to their country of birth one day


As for the UN, its just a fetid bowl of excement who needs it

[phideux]

I stand by my previous statements of saving women and children from rape, torture, death. If you choose to see that as letting in Jihadists there is not much I can say to that.

Look at Orlando Fla, San Bernadino and the Boston bombing mom when you talk about the women.
Then there's the kids.







https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSp6HGq3VSzfmw23dOfG1n-MNdAzjpfVsMdvlaidkdN9AqcX16hwQ

[phideux]

Terrorism knows no bounds, It does involve women and kids. Who is going to Vett these "Refugees"?? Do you really trust the FBI nowadays?? The Attorney General???

Remember the FBI vetted the Boston Bombers, after being told by Russia twice that they were terrorists, they let them in.

The FBI vetted the San Bernandino guy 3 times, let him go every time, Look what happened.

The list goes on and on. Don't want that crap happening here, don't them come here. Stop taking them in with open arms.

[Rams]

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?

I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

Two problem words with your position, innocent and minimal.  A lot of folks simply refuse to get it that the groups fighting and victimizing each other a two factions of the same culture.  The only determinate in who is the victim is which group is dominant in a particular region.  It's a little like a story of an anaconda victimizing an alligator and we choose to rescue the victim.

Minimal?  Take a close look at Dearborn.  

I think it is right for us to do what we can to oppose atrocities but I do not think that includes bringing the poison into our own homes.  

While I do have some concerns about bringing vetted refugees here, mostly economic concerns.    Those concerns would be drastically cut if, those wishing to bring them here were to take personal responsibility, bring them into their own homes and accept what they are asking us as a nation to take on.    Adopt a family and bear that responsibility and risk but, don't ask me to bring them into my community.    All God's children, maybe.   All Saints?   Doubtful.   Doubtful is not even a valid response to that question.   BTW, I'd get rid of any potential explosive devices, pressure cookers and such if you're bringing them into your home.

I'm not trying to pick on those who wish to "save" these folks, all I'm saying is, if that's what you want to do, man up and volunteer to take a few into your home.    They are not welcome in my home any more than I am in theirs.      

Proper vetting is also a challenge but, you who wish to save them can accept who you get.    

[The emperor has no clothes]

Frye, I mean this with all due respect . But that is some F'd up logic.

If you have X number of innocent victims, removing X number of them reduces the amount of victims. Nothing in this world is fool proof. The Jews in Eastern Europe were victims also. I imagine some that escaped ended up being criminals. Would you have left them to die in the Gulags ?

I am not advocating that we bring everyone over here willy nilly. But if we can save a number of them with minimal risk to us I believe it should be a moral imperative that we try. After all even though these kids might be muslims, are they not still God's children ?

Two problem words with your position, innocent and minimal.  A lot of folks simply refuse to get it that the groups fighting and victimizing each other a two factions of the same culture.  The only determinate in who is the victim is which group is dominant in a particular region.  It's a little like a story of an anaconda victimizing an alligator and we choose to rescue the victim.

Minimal?  Take a close look at Dearborn. 

I think it is right for us to do what we can to oppose atrocities but I do not think that includes bringing the poison into our own homes. 

Would you say a 3 year old child is guilty ? I say they are innocent. If my wording is not entirely accurate, I would think innocent is closer than guilty. The example you use of Dearborn not being minimal. Is this because they congregate together ?
And for the rest of the story..... It appears the original post is more fearmongering BS. If anybody can find some facts to back up the story, I'm all ears.

[Wizzard]

Talk to the guys that lived VietNam about kids and weapons.

[Oss]

Well lets get into that

The jews is europe were never a danger, never blew things up, never killed in the name of religion,
never said their laws had to apply to everyone, They were called the people of the book,
and with few exceptions had no weapons and were no threat .

A  fascist religion that pays families of suicide bombers and glorifies beheading is a clear and present danger to us all.  Any "religion" that states its law is over our Constitution is a clear and present danger

Unfortunately or perhaps accurately Islam  has ALWAYS been about conquering land, subjugating whole populations and killing those or enslaving and killing those who are "infidels"    Africans who know history should know that they need reparations from the Arab countries not us.  Men for centuries had been and may still be captured castrated and sold into slavery.  Most died from their grievous wounds.  Women are sold and used for whatever depraved purpose.  This still goes on. Slavery has not been eliminated worldwide.

These arab or islamic or moslem groups are wholesale killing christians because they can not quote its scripture such as it is. Its been going on since about 790AD  Jews, Buddists, Hindu same thing they are subject to being killed.  Kids are taught in mosques all over the world to kill jews and americans. Iran wants to wipe israel off the map and then we the big satan are next. This is no joke its real. Wake up and smell the coffee

So pardon me for not wanting even one of these people in our country.  Political correctness and sympathy have no place in this one IMHO, its them having declared war on us and we have to fight it to win or we will all lose.  Hillary saying its not who we are is just another lie. She would not take in one child herself I would bet the farm on that.

So lets ask why this religion of peace is not accepting their own. Why the Shia and Sunni are locked in this death war? Yes  HRC and OBAMA have caused the problem to get worse by letting Russia have free reign to kill anyone anti Assad but let them cajole our "allies" to set up refugee camps to prevent the genocide in the middle east where the people lived.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Well lets get into that

The jews is europe were never a danger, never blew things up, never killed in the name of religion,
never said their laws had to apply to everyone, They were called the people of the book,
and with few exceptions had no weapons and were no threat .

A  fascist religion that pays families of suicide bombers and glorifies beheading is a clear and present danger to us all.  Any "religion" that states its law is over our Constitution is a clear and present danger

Unfortunately or perhaps accurately Islam  has ALWAYS been about conquering land, subjugating whole populations and killing those or enslaving and killing those who are "infidels"    Africans who know history should know that they need reparations from the Arab countries not us.  Men for centuries had been and may still be captured castrated and sold into slavery.  Most died from their grievous wounds.  Women are sold and used for whatever depraved purpose.  This still goes on. Slavery has not been eliminated worldwide.

These arab or islamic or moslem groups are wholesale killing christians because they can not quote its scripture such as it is. Its been going on since about 790AD  Jews, Buddists, Hindu same thing they are subject to being killed.  Kids are taught in mosques all over the world to kill jews and americans. Iran wants to wipe israel off the map and then we the big satan are next. This is no joke its real. Wake up and smell the coffee

So pardon me for not wanting even one of these people in our country.  Political correctness and sympathy have no place in this one IMHO, its them having declared war on us and we have to fight it to win or we will all lose.  Hillary saying its not who we are is just another lie. She would not take in one child herself I would bet the farm on that.

So lets ask why this religion of peace is not accepting their own. Why the Shia and Sunni are locked in this death war? Yes  HRC and OBAMA have caused the problem to get worse by letting Russia have free reign to kill anyone anti Assad but let them cajole our "allies" to set up refugee camps to prevent the genocide in the middle east where the people lived.

I hope my example of the Jews in WWII didn't come across as saying they were equal to the Muslims of today. That's not what I meant and if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize . I understand all the points you make. And I can agree with them. At that then. Would a compromise of saving the non Muslim women and children of the area be acceptable ? I don't even know if there are any still alive. But surely we can agree on trying to save them.
Hope the roads are still rideable for you my friend. It's just now getting decent here. Still 96* on the way to Prescott the other day.

[Serk]

Would a compromise of saving the non Muslim women and children of the area be acceptable ?

A temporary ban on allowing Muslims into the country? Careful my friend, you're starting to sound a lot like Trump now!

[phideux]

I hope my example of the Jews in WWII didn't come across as saying they were equal to the Muslims of today. That's not what I meant and if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize . I understand all the points you make. And I can agree with them. At that then. Would a compromise of saving the non Muslim women and children of the area be acceptable ? I don't even know if there are any still alive. But surely we can agree on trying to save them.
Hope the roads are still rideable for you my friend. It's just now getting decent here. Still 96* on the way to Prescott the other day.
[/quote]

Do you think the powers to be in this country give a Rats Ass about the Non-Muslims over there???
Look what happened after we pulled out of Iraq, where we shouldn't have been to begin with but that is another issue, ISIS started rolling in there and we hear all these reports that ISIS has 250,000 Christians trapped in the mountains, we have to help the Christians fight  off ISIS who wants to kill them. What was our great leaders response???? What did we do???
We armed this whole other group of Muslims who hate America, to fight off the other group of Muslims who hate America, so the first group of Muslims who hate America, and Christians, can help the poor Christians.
Why didn't we just arm the Christians???? Not on our leaders agenda I guess. Now we're still fighting the first group of Muslims who hate us and the second group of Muslims who hate us, who we armed to the teeth, and the Christians are either all dead or the women and children were taken for sex slaves.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Would a compromise of saving the non Muslim women and children of the area be acceptable ?

A temporary ban on allowing Muslims into the country? Careful my friend, you're starting to sound a lot like Trump now!

Not even close.  Just trying to compromise on the issue to save a kid.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I hope my example of the Jews in WWII didn't come across as saying they were equal to the Muslims of today. That's not what I meant and if it came across that way, I sincerely apologize . I understand all the points you make. And I can agree with them. At that then. Would a compromise of saving the non Muslim women and children of the area be acceptable ? I don't even know if there are any still alive. But surely we can agree on trying to save them.
Hope the roads are still rideable for you my friend. It's just now getting decent here. Still 96* on the way to Prescott the other day.

Do you think the powers to be in this country give a Rats Ass about the Non-Muslims over there???
Look what happened after we pulled out of Iraq, where we shouldn't have been to begin with but that is another issue, ISIS started rolling in there and we hear all these reports that ISIS has 250,000 Christians trapped in the mountains, we have to help the Christians fight  off ISIS who wants to kill them. What was our great leaders response???? What did we do???
We armed this whole other group of Muslims who hate America, to fight off the other group of Muslims who hate America, so the first group of Muslims who hate America, and Christians, can help the poor Christians.
Why didn't we just arm the Christians???? Not on our leaders agenda I guess. Now we're still fighting the first group of Muslims who hate us and the second group of Muslims who hate us, who we armed to the teeth, and the Christians are either all dead or the women and children were taken for sex slaves.
[/quote]So many inaccurate points, I don't know where to begin. First of all. We did help the Christians on top of that mountain. We did and continue to arm the Kurds to help. The Kurds appear to be the only ones able or willing to fight. They also don't appear to hate America as you state. As I remember it, it was 50,000 trapped on the mountain not 250,000.

[Oss]

Unfortunatrly Obama and Hillary cant or wont do more to help the Kurds because the Turks are a part
of Nato and they are convinced that angering a Moslem country which has our air bases
is contrary to national security interests

To the Turks the Kurds are terrorists just like to the North Koreans the South Koreans
are a bastard country and the Chinese thinks Taiwan is theirs

I think Churchill described the Jews in Europe as canaries in the coal mine.  Once they are gone the fascist come after gays, gypsies, catholics and so on down the line. 

Just substitute Arab/Moslem/Islamist for Nazi and you have the RX that Iran and their Saudi friends are working towards

I dont think any thinking caring person wants to see innocent women and children of any religion slaughtered  the issue is where to keep them safe until the ISIS wars are over  I say not here but over there and the arabs should pay for it

[The emperor has no clothes]

Unfortunatrly Obama and Hillary cant or wont do more to help the Kurds because the Turks are a part
of Nato and they are convinced that angering a Moslem country which has our air bases
is contrary to national security interests

To the Turks the Kurds are terrorists just like to the North Koreans the South Koreans
are a bastard country and the Chinese thinks Taiwan is theirs

I think Churchill described the Jews in Europe as canaries in the coal mine.  Once they are gone the fascist come after gays, gypsies, catholics and so on down the line. 

Just substitute Arab/Moslem/Islamist for Nazi and you have the RX that Iran and their Saudi friends are working towards

I dont think any thinking caring person wants to see innocent women and children of any religion slaughtered  the issue is where to keep them safe until the ISIS wars are over  I say not here but over there and the arabs should pay for it

My friend, if we aren't bringing them here and we aren't paying to help them over there then we really aren't helping at all are we ? I agree about the issue with the Kurds. It's unfortunate. But it's not something that just started with Obama. Bush had the same dilemma and pretty much handled it the same way. So.... Can we agree to bring any non Muslim children here ? If there are any still alive. 

[Rams]

My friend, if we aren't bringing them here and we aren't paying to help them over there then we really aren't helping at all are we ? I agree about the issue with the Kurds. It's unfortunate. But it's not something that just started with Obama. Bush had the same dilemma and pretty much handled it the same way. So.... Can we agree to bring any non Muslim children here ? If there are any still alive.  

I know you were not addressing me or my post but, I'm taking this opportunity to respond.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by a tribe of warriors looking for scalps.   The Lone Ranger said to Tonto:  "Tonto, what are we going to do?"

Tonto's response was: "What you mean we white man?"

IOWs, if you wish to help, go for it.   Do all you can do, be all you can be but, use your own resources and risk your own assets and family.    Don't volunteer us to do what you think is the thing to do.

[The emperor has no clothes]

My friend, if we aren't bringing them here and we aren't paying to help them over there then we really aren't helping at all are we ? I agree about the issue with the Kurds. It's unfortunate. But it's not something that just started with Obama. Bush had the same dilemma and pretty much handled it the same way. So.... Can we agree to bring any non Muslim children here ? If there are any still alive.  

I know you were not addressing me or my post but, I'm taking this opportunity to respond.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by a tribe of warriors looking for scalps.   The Lone Ranger said to Tonto:  "Tonto, what are we going to do?"

Tonto's response was: "What you mean we white man?"

IOWs, if you wish to help, go for it.   Do all you can do, be all you can be but, use your own resources and risk your own assets and family.    Don't volunteer us to do what you think is the thing to do.

Well, I said that because Oss said "I think any caring person would want to help". I know Oss to be a very caring person. (At least to small critters)


AND JUST FOR THE RECORD......I'm not too comfortable seeing my handle in the title every time.  I am a shy unassuming person who prefers to stay in the shadows. 

[Rams]

My friend, if we aren't bringing them here and we aren't paying to help them over there then we really aren't helping at all are we ? I agree about the issue with the Kurds. It's unfortunate. But it's not something that just started with Obama. Bush had the same dilemma and pretty much handled it the same way. So.... Can we agree to bring any non Muslim children here ? If there are any still alive.  

I know you were not addressing me or my post but, I'm taking this opportunity to respond.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by a tribe of warriors looking for scalps.   The Lone Ranger said to Tonto:  "Tonto, what are we going to do?"

Tonto's response was: "What you mean we white man?"

IOWs, if you wish to help, go for it.   Do all you can do, be all you can be but, use your own resources and risk your own assets and family.    Don't volunteer us to do what you think is the thing to do.

Well, I said that because Oss said "I think any caring person would want to help". I know Oss to be a very caring person. (At least to small critters)


AND JUST FOR THE RECORD......I'm not too comfortable seeing my handle in the title every time.   I am a shy unassuming person who prefers to stay in the shadows.  

I have no doubt you're a "caring person" and in fact, admire that about you but, you demonstrate a typical Democrat attitude when it applies to a social agenda in this case.   I don't mean that to be demeaning but, it is, what it is.    Again, I have no issue with someone putting themselves or assets on the line for something they believe in but, don't demand that WE do something WE all don't agree on.    

People used to depend on themselves, then the church, family and neighbors when things weren't going well, knowing all those resources were limited.   Now, people have learned to siphon off of the government teat and claim special circumstances in order to get more "free stuff".    This is no different, that cow has given all the milk she has.    Give her a break.

If you or anyone else wants to help, go for it but, don't volunteer me for something.   I'll volunteer myself when and where I see fit.   Additionally, don't expect me to support something I don't think is the answer.     I don't pretend to have the answer but, I'm sure that bringing them here is not the right answer for America.

Edited:  As to being "shy unassuming", I'll have to take your word on that.   
Me, I'm an Officially Recognized PITA.   

[baldo]

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD......I'm not too comfortable seeing my handle in the title every time.  I am a shy unassuming person who prefers to stay in the shadows. 

I'm jealous....

[Pappy!]

Read through the whole thing here. Some great thoughts by all however I think we can simplify it.

Think of the "refugees" as Skittles. With one exception. In every 100 Skittles there will be 2-3 poison Skittles.
Would you be willing to take a handful and eat them?

Instead, why not place the "refugees" in a safe zone, not inside our borders, and maintain the zone(s) through the UN. With UN monies and protection.

A temporary ban on eating handfuls of Skittles would be nothing short of prudent until the Skittles can be "Vetted".

[Master Blaster]

Think back and research history.  We are a free people because our ancestors stood up and fought for this freedom.  Nations didn't take us in to protect us, our own people did it.  These people are not lusting to come here to become Americans, they want to come here and live their life just like they lived it in their home country in their own enclaves that back up their laws, not ours.  It is a precious few that really want to become Americans and want to change their entire lifestyle to do so.  They have to want real change to ever make it happen, and it has to happen in their countries.  If not it will swamp our nation with outsiders, and in not too many years our nation will no longer be ours.  Sure we should accept others as our own, but only if they want to become part of us, not the other way around.  There is a valid reason immigration here was set up so tough, and it has worked fine for many years.  It should be a real challenge to become an American.

[Wizzard]

Think back and research history.  We are a free people because our ancestors stood up and fought for this freedom.  Nations didn't take us in to protect us, our own people did it.  These people are not lusting to come here to become Americans, they want to come here and live their life just like they lived it in their home country in their own enclaves that back up their laws, not ours.  It is a precious few that really want to become Americans and want to change their entire lifestyle to do so.  They have to want real change to ever make it happen, and it has to happen in their countries.  If not it will swamp our nation with outsiders, and in not too many years our nation will no longer be ours.  Sure we should accept others as our own, but only if they want to become part of us, not the other way around.  There is a valid reason immigration here was set up so tough, and it has worked fine for many years.  It should be a real challenge to become an American.

Very accurate. Could not agree more.