Reader Susan called my attention to this incredibly moving tribute by a Parisian, Antoine Leiris, to his wife Helene, killed by terrorists in the Bataclan theater. Antoine is left with a 17-month-old son, Melvil, and addresses a few well-chosen words to those who murdered his wife.
Even as we try to figure out how to stop this from occurring again, or even if we can make a dent on this terrorism (and remember the attack on Mali on Friday, the downing of the Russian airliner, and the 43 killed in two suicide attacks in Beirut a bit over a week ago), let’s pause in our analyses and recriminations and remember that almost 400 people died in these attacks. Every one of those people leave behind people who are bereft, devastated, and asking, “Why him?” or “Why her?” Leiris is just one of those left behind, so multiply his pain by 400 and more.
Would that those Americans trying to bar the oppressed and fearful from finding refuge in our country had the courage and compassion of this man!
Good thoughts. I wonder sometimes if the terrorists, in their inner thoughts, don’t feel some hesitation over this kind of atrocity. When they are alone, or with their own children. Don’t some of them sometimes have doubts? Will these doubts grow until they can no longer support the cause and they become x-terrorists?
What is the acceptable number of Americans killed by terrorists sneaking into the U.S. as refugees? 100? 1000? 10,000? How many Americans have to die before letting these people into our country becomes a bad idea? Anybody?
I’m not sure that is a helpful question.
How many people have to die on the roads in traffic accidents because people don’t drive safely before you ban human-controlled cars? 30,000 per year appears to be a number most people appear to be relatively okay with. So far there is no major public outcry on Fox news that cars are unsafe for Americans.
Human-controlled cars transport people and goods. This is a huge benefit. I don’t see Islam bringing any benefit, of any sort.
Really. When someone says the word refugee all you can say is Islam? You wish to turn upside down the long held believes and culture of the U.S. because you don’t like Islam. Smart move.
I like that message. And I also find that the initial message you are obligated to address is about as relevant to the posting as asking how many terrorist can a religion create.
Instead of Imagining numbers of terrorist refugees and pure paranoia he should listen to the video again.
Not only is it not a helpful question, it can be a systematized way of framing unsubstantiated accusations:
“Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.”
[ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions ]
While we may never know why an individual would make a question, we should be aware that it may simply be aggressive accusatory.
Very similar to “Just sayin'”. One of the phrases I detest most in argument. A weasel phrase if ever there was one.
cr
Meanwhile, Sweden has been reported to now have the highest rate of rapes in Europe, thanks to being “enriched” by Muslim immigrants.
Any comment on that?
“On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries.
But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries’ records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely.
“In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics,” she says.
“So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record – one victim, one type of crime, one record.”
The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden – it’s almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
The Rebel Media report mentioned a woman being gang raped by many Afghan migrants for a whole week. That should definitely be reported as multiple cases of rape.
And how predictable that the BBC article hasn’t said anything about the fact that vast majority of rapists in Sweden are Muslims!
“So far there is no major public outcry on Fox news that cars are unsafe for Americans.”
I don’t think that’s a particularly good analogy. First of all because switching to all computer controlled cars isn’t an option, and secondly because we don’t have enough of them on the road. I suspect when we start seeing headlines like “Four children killed by man operating his own vehicle”, there will be an outcry.
That being said I support bringing in the refugees because I don’t see it as particularly risky. I read yesterday that 2 of the terrorists were so clean they could have entered the US on an ordinary travel visa that can be obtained in one day. Being a refugee from Syria (and having to undergo a 2 year vetting process) strikes me as just about the worst way to try to sneak into the country.
These people? You mean people like Noujain Mustaffa, the famous 16yo Syrian refugee with cerebral palsy who made the journey in a wheelchair?
Before you dismiss this as maudlin manipulation, the point is that “these people” need help. Some of them really, really need help. You’re not going to stop horrible people from doing horrible things by refusing to help those who need it.
“These people” need help where they are. They need decent lives in their own country. It is good that a boy in a wheelchair has made it, but the recent exodus of refugees here in Europe is mostly of military-age men elbowing their way while the weak are left behind to rot. Anyway, the USA has not intended and technically cannot take a number of refugees significant enough to bring relief. Maybe enough just to make some Americans feel good.
Good point. From watching the news it is obvious that 8 out of 10 refugees are men. Where are their wives and children? If they are fleeing ISIS and the strikes from the west, shouldn’t they be in Europe as well?
What about the refugees chanting allahu akbar in train stations?
Maybe not all refugees are inclined to commit terrorist attacks but some of them probably are. How can a state that is overwhelemed with hundreds of thousands of refugees get rid of those rotten apples?
“‘these people'” need help where they are, They need decent lives in their own country.’ I don’t know where you have been for these few years, or whether you actually pay attention to what is even now going on in the Middle East, but there have been and are wars going on with thousands and thousands killed and displaced – or perhaps you have some wonderful ideas about creating a situation in which they can have those ‘decent lives’ they need in ‘their own country’. And ‘From watching the news it is obvious that 8 out of 10 refugees are men’: perhaps statistics rather than impressions might more acceptable. And to be very ad hominem, mayamarkov has spoken of coming from a formerly Communist state, and implied how horrible life was there: if mm no longer lives there and is not contributing to creating a ‘decent life’ for himself to herself and his or her compatriots, then by what right does he deny others the chance that he or she has benefitted from?
Well said.
That goes for me too.
cr
I am “she”. I am still living in my former Communist state. It ceased being Communist, partly due to the actions of two great men, Reagan and Gorbachev. Then Clinton saved us from being isolated from Europe proper by the mess of a war-mongering, genocidal maniac (Milosevic).
I fully agree that everybody deserves what I have. Everybody deserves to live safely in his own country. Syrians deserve someone to intervene on their behalf. The West intervened to overthrow Qaddafi. Why not Assad? Why is Assad still a sacred cow? (Sorry for asking questions, after other commenters specifically objected against asking questions.)
Actually, I am not against accepting some refugees, if this is done with open eyes. However, when I see people shutting their eyes, putting their fingers into their ears and singing “la-la-la” in reply to warnings, I advise them to stay on the safe side.
Americans should keep in mind that here in Europe, nobody seems to know how the Muslim minority became so large and so fundamentalist. The process has apparently come out of control, while native Europeans thought that they must react to every problem with more tolerance.
Now in the USA, it would be good to use the immigrant quota to accept war refugees. However, from all I hear, it seems that the refugees will be accepted in addition to the quota.
I am worried by the repeated statement that Syrian refugees cannot be fundamentalist because they flee ISIS. First, most of them flee Assad. Second, even of those who flee ISIS, most cannot grasp the causality between Islam and ISIS. So, the statement that those who flee ISIS cannot be an Islamist threat makes as much sense as saying that those who flee Ebola cannot be infected.
The West intervened… the West intervened… considering the pusillanimity of Western European nations during the break-up of Yugoslavia (during which, incidentally, large numbers of Muslim Europeans were massacred if male and raped if female, all in a splendidly Christian spirit), I was very glad that Clinton did what he did.
But the West already has intervened to topple Assad by supporting various anti-Assad groups, including at one time ISIS. I should be very happy to see Assad disappear tomorrow if a reasonably painless way of getting rid of the man could be found, but we have seen what wonderful things have happened in consequence of the interventions in Afghanistan (where ISIS is settling in for the long haul), Iraq, and, since you mention it, Libya, where yet another failed state ripe for taking over by Islamist bully boys has been created. Seriously, what more do you want to be done? I find this statement of yours extraordinary: ‘of those who flee ISIS, most cannot grasp the causality between Islam and ISIS.’ On what grounds do you say this? Have you spoken to these people? Or do you just suppose they are pig-ignorant and stupid?
I recommend watching the video ‘Desperate Journey: Europe’s Refugee Crisis’, which may be seen by going to the website of Human Rights Watch. Contrary to those confident, and, I suspect, dishonest, assurances of mayamarkov and Siaj, a very large percentage of those fleeing their countries are women and children.
Boris didn’t seem concerned about any real logistics. If real logistics can inform our refugee acceptance protocol, fine. But asking how many Americans have to die before accepting refugees is finally recognized as a bad idea is simply rhetoric. Of the 784,300 refugees accepted by the U.S. since 9/11, three have been arrested for terroristic plans. Yes, that’s plans only. That info is from the State Dept.
It doesn’t matter if you think they should be getting help from their own countries. They’re not. If we can do something to help, then we should. It’s the human thing to do.
In any case, helping the people where they are, in their own countries, would mean that many more people in total would be able to receive such help for the expense incurred. Below is a carefully data-researched, fact-based and compassionate capsulized analysis of the West-bound Middle Eastern migrant crisis that deserves to be taken into account by everyone, whether or not the crisis concerns them personally at present.
https://youtu.be/_3VN3k8F_Ns
Oh dear – an American version of that dreadful Englishman whose name I forget: the same folksy presentation of what a nice, ordinary, reasonable guy I am and what nice, ordinary, reasonable things I say. I see there’s another video of him up going on about ‘white guilt’, of which he predictably and strongly disapproves. I am reminded of Gertrude Stein on Ezra Pound: “A village explainer, excellent if you were a village, but if you were not, not.” And just as I don’t like the sort of village adumbrated in Pound’s politics (his best poetry is another matter), so I don’t like the sort of village that is being called into being by this fellow – or its villagers, or those who want to be its villagers.
“Before you dismiss this as maudlin manipulation, the point is that “these people” need help. Some of them really, really need help.”
OK as I said I don’t oppose bringing in the refugees but I do have an issue with some of these arguments. The 20k+ children who are starving to death every day really really need our help, why aren’t we bringing them here? And wouldn’t it be far more cost effective, and less risky to use the resources that vetting, transporting. and supporting refugees will cost to feed the children. I’m willing to bet the farm we could save more lives for less money.
The probability that there are terrorists among the refugees is low. I welcome these people so that I can share my ideas with them: humanist ideas of tolerance and secular ideas of challenging beliefs.
That is not a real question. It’s a political opinion statement disguised as a question. Here’s the logic:
Assumptions: If we allow people from Syria and other Middle East countries to seek refuge in the USA, some number of terrorists WILL enter the USA by pretending to be refugees. These individuals WILL kill Americans. [Mostly “liberal”] Americans WILL allow this killing to proceed indefinitely.
Further assumption: the increase in American safety outweighs the humanitarian benefits of welcoming refugees.
Therefore, in order for these killings not to happen we cannot allow any refugees to enter the USA.
In other words, the risk is too great. What is the evidence, however? Are the fears of those who make this argument justified?
On the surface, this looks to be analogous to getting a flu shot. There is evidence that flu shots help, but they don’t entirely eliminate the risk of getting the flu.
In the case of taking in refugees, there appears to be no evidence that this will increase the risk of terrorist attacks. The risk is there already, and the question is whether allowing Syrian, etc., refugees in will increase that risk.
What is the evidence that turning away refugees based on an unknown element of risk is more moral than welcoming them in?
Final observation: It seems that a large part of the fear sprang from reports that one of the French attackers had entered the country along with some refugees. This was later shown to be untrue. But the damage was already done.
I think it is worthwhile to find out how many terrorist acts are done by people who have lived in the country for a long time versus those who recently entered its borders, legally or illegally. I am guessing that most are done by citizens or resident aliens, but I can’t be certain.
Good points, and something else I didn’t see mentioned in the comments so far. How many Muslims will hate us, and be more susceptible to radicalization if we keep the refugees out, and add to the perception that we hate Muslims.
You can safely assume that the number of Muslims that hate America will not change. Remember, we’re talking about taking in 10,000 people which is nothing compared to 10 to 20 million Muslim refugees worldwide.
Because you cannot accept all refugees, I guarantee you that many, many who are not accepted will hate you. Even if one is not a refugee but just a wannabe immigrant or visitor, being shut out while others are let in creates much ill feeling. Even if the population wasn’t inclined to hate the West to begin with. Here, I talk from first-hand observation and experience.
I think it would be easier for others to accept what you say if instead of hinting at the dark and inexpressible knowledge you have as a result of first-hand observation and experience, you would specify what that observation and experience consisted in.
It has actually been confirmed that two of the jihadists sneaked into Europe from Greece posing as refugees:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1903930-two-of-the-paris-suicide-bombers-posed-as-refugees-to-sneak-into-europe-via-greece-prosecutors/
It only took 8 men to kill more than 100 people, maybe a hundred people isn’t much but it still sucks if one of your loved ones happens to be one of them.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud was a Belgian citizen, not a Syrian refugee. He could circulate freely and legally through Greece or any other EU country of his choice.
At the moment we don’t know enough about Ahmed Al-Mohammad, except all the others were French or Belgian. Analysts seem to think his Syrian passport could very well be a fake. Or do you think terrorists carry real identification with them because they’re terribly concerned with not breaking rules?
“Abdelhamid Abaaoud was a Belgian citizen”
But his loyalty was clearly not to Belgium or the European Union. And that’s a problem all European countries with large populations of unassimilated Muslims have to address ASAP!!
I think the point here is, he was NOT a recent refugee.
cr
Only a madman continues to do the same thing over and over again (accepting new Muslim refugees and migrants), and expects to get different results.
Interesting. How about Anders Breivik? Where was his loyalty? Was he an “unassimilated” native Norwegian? How about Timothy McVeigh?
And just out of curiosity- what exactly is your definition of unassimilated? Are you implying French Muslims don’t speak French? Don’t interact with other French citizens?
From what I know Anders Breivik’s loyalty was to the European Union, though he of course was a deranged individual, with no helpers and/or followers. A completely different story with Muslim extremists subscribing to political Islam.
As for whom I would consider an assimilated French, well, surely someone who identifies with France, embraces its culture and values, and is willing to act in the best interest of the country in his or her civil conduct.
The point is that they posed as refugees to return to Europe, maybe to avoid detection. Meaning that any other terrorist- european or not- can do the same.
For the love of Mithra- seriously?
In case you haven’t been following the news, the overwhelming majority of the attackers were French or Belgian citizens. There’s a very good chance that’s the case for all of them.
So please clarify how that fact plays into your “terrorists sneaking in” scenario as these people didn’t have to sneak in…?
Or are you simply laying the groundwork for more substantial demagoguery that’s still to come?
“In case you haven’t been following the news, the overwhelming majority of the attackers were French or Belgian citizens.”
The problem is none of them identified as French or Belgian. Their allegiance was clearly to another region altogether.
Utterly irrelevant. Most of them are not only Belgian or French but were BORN in Belgium or France,, and their parents do not share their radicalism. At which point would stopping refugees stop them? By preventing their law-abiding parents from seeking a better life 30+ years ago, just like generations of people immigrating into USA?
One can also say that the allegiance to Timothy McVeigh was clearly not to the USA, and the allegiance of Anders Breivik was clearly not to Norway. Each of those sickos had pledged implicit or explicit allegiance to an utopia that they built in their heads. Just like ISIS, with the exception that ISIS is now trying too build that murderous, savage utopia in real life. Stopping and vilifying people who flee from them won’t help matters, quite the contrary.
“Utterly irrelevant. Most of them are not only Belgian or French but were BORN in Belgium or France,, and their parents do not share their radicalism.”
What their ID cards said was UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The moment they embraced political Islam, they effectively relinquished their French and Belgian citizenship. And it would be wise for the French and Belgian officials to finally recognize this fact.
What their ID cards said was UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. The moment they embraced political Islam, they effectively relinquished their French and Belgian citizenship. And it would be wise for the French and Belgian officials to finally recognize this fact.
It doesn’t matter in the least what you think they did “effectively”. Belgium and France are democratic countries with a rule of law. What matters is if those people broke the law or not. Neither Belgian nor French laws forbid their citizens from embracing political Islam (whatever that means) as long as they do not get involved in actions that are against current laws. It seems that you are failing to grasp the basic concepts of what responsibility before law entails in a western democratic country.
“It doesn’t matter in the least what you think they did “effectively”.”
It’s a key to tackling the problem actually.
Do you realize that more British Muslims have joined ISIS than are enlisted in the UK’s armed forces?
It’s really high time European countries thought more deeply about whom they are inviting to the EU…
From The Independent (I don’t know the date):
‘It has been reported this week that there are more British Muslims fighting for the extremist Islamic State than there are serving in the British armed forces.
‘Newsweek first published the story online on Wednesday and it was followed up by a front page splash in The Times on Friday.
‘The main crux of their headline comes thanks to a quote from MP Khalid Mahmood, who refuted Ministry of Defence (MoD) estimates (of around 500), to instead guess there are 1,500 British Muslims fighting in Iraq and Syria.
‘The Times reports that 560 Muslims serve in the British army, which is correct according to this MoD data released after an FOI request.
‘As an aside, there are also 28,430 members of the armed forces who declared no religion when they signed up to fight.
‘So to claim that there are ‘twice as many’ British Muslims fighting for Isis as there are in the British armed forces is pure guesswork.
‘To reiterate the point, security forces admitted to The Times that there is no way of telling how many Britons have joined radical Islamist groups in Iraq and Syria because there is no way of keeping track of every British passport holder.’
And a quotation:
‘My home is the UK. As a Muslim, that’s the place I’d happily die for and kill for.
‘If you narrow it down, we’re not just fighting Muslims we’re fighting extremists. Every culture, every faith… has an extremist background in it.
‘That’s something I personally feel should be eradicated, so this is why I’m here to fight this war really.’
Pte Shehab El-Din Ahmed El-Miniawi, a British Muslim who served in the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan – speaking to the BBC.
The above doesn’t diminish the problem one bit, because the number of British Muslims who joined ISIS (whether it’s 500 or 1500) compared with those enlisted in the country’s armed forces (560) is still disturbingly high!
But it certainly qualifies your bold assertion, does it not?
And, as a matter of fact, I do believe that some genuine and benevolent measures need to be taken so that Muslims and others from other cultures can become assimilated – and the first thing would be to get rid of those ‘faith schools’ that Tony Blair was so keen on and which Amartya Sen was so eloquently critical about – as well as to get rid prayers and religious education in school.
“But it certainly qualifies your bold assertion, does it not?”
It was as qualifying as stating that a given country has 500 and not 600 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.
I agree with you with regards to faith schools, which serve to divide groups of people from an early age.
“In case you haven’t been following the news, the overwhelming majority of the attackers were French or Belgian citizens. There’s a very good chance that’s the case for all of them.”
Uhm yeah….and from immigrant parents most likely. Or do you think the majority of muslims in Europe are converts?
Ultimately, their nationality is irrelevant..what is relevant here is that the majority of these refugees ARE muslim and not all of them might be interested in adopting western values.
If you are ok with having muslim neighbors then good for you but not all people are ok with that and they deserve to be heard as well.
Now, where I have heard that before…? ‘If you are ok with having (blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Indians, goyim, gaijin, etc etc – enter your favourite antipathy)living next to you, then good for you but not all people are ok with that and they deserve to be heard as well.’ Oh, brave new world of gated communities, gated nations, border fences, refugee camps and sundown towns! (Yeah, keep the buggers out! Our voices, like dear Donald T’s, deserve to be heard!) I can hardly wait! Nor, it seems, can siaj and one or two others…
Do you really believe that people who are concerned about unceasing Islamist violence in Europe are simply racists?
I am also concerned about Islamist violence in Europe (and elsewhere). That doesn’t mean I agree with your attitude towards the refugees – I don’t. I don’t think you are a racist, just that you haven’t thought very clearly about either the causes of the problems or the consequences of different ways of responding to them.
One of the main tenets of western civilization and its tolerance and anti-racism is as follows: You should never discriminate an individual based on some (real or made-up) statistical propensity of a population he or she belongs to. It does not matter if an individual belongs to a group that harbours a higher proportion of terrorists, drug dealers or alcoholics – if you treat that person as a potential terrorist, drug dealer or an alcoholic without direct evidence that that person him/herself is one of those things – that makes you a racist. Not “simply racist”, just a racist. Because you are doing what textbook racists do – denying rights and freedoms to an individual on the grounds of (alleged) statistical propensities of the group he/she belongs to, and to which he/she has not chosen to belong to.
FYI, political Islam is a dangerous ideology, not a race.
Yes – and you are suggesting to deny help to individual members of a particular race/ethnicity because it is a race/ethnic group with a higher (but still low likelihood of belonging to that ideology. Which makes you a racist. Not because political Islam is a race, but because you want to punish all members of a race/ethnic group (by denying them help) because it has a small percentage of people influenced by a toxic ideology. It IS, for all practical purposes, spreading guilt to a race/ethnic group, a.k.a. racism.
“and you are suggesting to deny help to individual members of a particular race”
Nonsense. I’m not even discussing race.
Well, you are discussing an ethnic group (Syrians are an ethnic group) and effectively putting all its members under suspicion for something only a small minority of their members can reasonably be accused for. Yep, racism.
Syria is a country, not a race.
There are Syrian Christians, gays, lesbians, atheists, etc.
Again, not a race.
“According to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
You see, it doesn’t have to be a race for you to be a racist.
Why would you suppose that I do? I have nowhere suggested this – if you look closely, you will find that what I wrote is a response to a particular person’s particular pandering. Any sensible person is concerned about Islamist violence. That said, the hysterical reaction we are seeing from Trump, Carson & Co, and pretty well the whole Republican Party, not to mention razor-wiring Hungarians, is profoundly racist – or, which seems to me to be worse, it is a profoundly cynical and fear-mongering appeal to racism for political gain.
Axolotl and Tim – very well put.
I’d like to see ISIS/DAESH utterly destroyed. It is an abomination.
Still more reason, then, not to be manouvred into complicity in its atrocities by abandoning its victims.
cr
Race, ethnicity, etc… Are irrelevant we are talking about ideology, we are talking about values that threaten our freedoms in the west… Brussels is in lockdown right now you know.
Also, have you noticed that many muslims are indeed racist? Many of them hate “westerners” or any white person for that matter…
Members of an group who are convinced of that group’s superiority to others are often racist as a consequence. Yes, many Muslims have been brought up to despise the “kuffir”. But it is not only Muslim. (The late Christopher Hitchens famously called North Koreans “a nation of racist dwarfs” for their deeply felt superiority to the rest of humanity.) It is something one has to be educated out of.
“Race, ethnicity, etc… Are irrelevant we are talking about ideology, we are talking about values that threaten our freedoms in the west… ”
I’m surprised that some people still don’t get it.
They evidently haven’t drawn any conclusions from the famed TV exchange between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck!
Sorry, but French law doesn’t make distinctions based on ethnic origins or religion. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the values of the French Republic. Obviously, you yourself haven’t embraced those western values of civilization in which we don’t accept discrimination. In which case, what are we supposed to do with people like you?
Let me also just clarify for you that this convoluted attempt to conflate refugees with terrorism in hopes of fomenting anti-immigrant sentiment won’t work here. It might work at a Front National rally, or a UKIP rally, but not here. Most people around here are interested in evolution/science/biology (scroll up and check the name of this website) and have a level of education that makes us immune to this sort of simplistic manipulation. Try the Fox news forums, I’m sure you’ll find a more receptive audience. And that’s the last I’ll say to as to no break this site’s roolz.
So those who disagree with the OP are not allowed to share their opinions? Where in the rules does it say so?
By trying to shush those who disagree with you you are being intolerant yourself buddy.
And many of us have been following WEIT for quite a while…others might be new, nothing wrong with that as long as they are respectful and follow the rules.
I remember they put the words of this post up as the ITV ten o’clock news finished last Sunday/Monday. It just broke me in two.
It’s a fair point to be concerned about the risk of terrorists sneaking in by pretending to seek asylum. Equally fair is to look at the evidence that this never happens in reality.
Most terrorist plots in the United States are not by foreign jihadists to begin with and of the ones that are committed by foreign jihadists, they all came to the country legally and were not seeking asylum when they did not. I had this discussion with some Trump supporters on Facebook, who were adamant that we should “just close the borders.” I couldn’t even get out of them what that meant and pointed out that if that’s the method of preventing foreign terrorist from entering, we’d literally have to prohibit travel for everyone. It’s like tenting an entire city because one house has termites. They insist I wouldn’t say this if my kid got blown up by terrorists, which in return I responded that my children (and all of us) are many orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist. So do we simply reinstate Prohibition. Living in fear is no way to live. If we do that, the terrorists won.
+1
I’d cite the Tsarnaev brothers in the USA and Yasin Hassan Omar and Muktar Said Ibrahim in Britain.
What troubles me is not that such individuals exist, but that their existence is denied. This is the behavior I complained of earlier, of shutting eyes, putting fingers inside ears and cheerfully singing in reply to warnings.
The link I posted actually mentions the Tsarnaev brothers. How many generations back is it acceptable to go in blaming a terrorist attack on the United States having admitted his ancestors to the country? Maybe the Native Americans should have nipped things in the bud 500 years ago.
This is not shutting my eyes and sticking my fingers in my ears. Even if you wish to count the Tsarnaev brothers, the rate of terrorists seeking entry to the United States in this manner is exceedingly low. In fact, the chance is much lower than that of a jihadist coming in via a passport and ordinary means of travel. This is the argument that I have actually had with some people who say the border should be closed. Closed how? Everyone gives up their freedom to travel because we’ve let the terrorists terrify us into a police state? No thanks. We should not simply let refugees flood in and go unaccounted for, but not allowing them in due to the Tsarnaev brothers is akin do denying travel here to UK citizens because of Richard Reid.
Well, first things first. That had me in tears. A very beautiful tribute. I very much wish it were not necessary.
same here
The comments in this thread show a very important pattern that is repeated throughout our society.
And that it is the godless who are statistically much more likely to offer help and hope to those in need, even when such offers come at personal risk and the chance of helping those who would harm us.
We have no hope for a life after death to extend the one life we have here. We have no imaginary authority figures commanding that we do this or that.
We are all alone save for our fellow humans, and we vulnerable, and yet we do not fear — or, at least, we do not let our fear turn us into that which we hate.
I cannot help but wonder just how many religious people would attain the peace and morality they claim to seek would they but let go of the faith they cling so desperately to.
b&
sub
Very very moving , I wish I had the capacity to be like that,but I don’t, I want to wipe the Terrorists from the face of the Earth.
America has always been very reluctant when it comes to accepting refugees despite the welcome sign on the Statue of Liberty. Once Americans had their own identity, one of the chief characteristics has always been isolationism and xenophobia. The Irish were Catholic, diseased beggars, the Italians were Mafia, the Chinese were strange and clannish. The Jews fleeing Germany were simply undesirable. Mexicans are steeling our jobs and bringing in drugs. In the 50’s Hungarian refugees fleeing Russian oppression were resisted and limited. Cubans would sneak communism in and take over the state of Florida. Vietnamese refugees would sap the welfare system.
So it goes with Syrians and other Muslims. The furor is way overblown. In the end we will probably see few who make it. Most will stay in Europe and neighboring countries.
(ref: María Cristina García, Washington Post)
I’ve mentioned a couple of times in the comments that I’m not especially opposed to allowing these refugees. That being said I can’t honestly say that my position on this is based on logic, and reason. I think it’s largely motivated by the fear that opposing it will make me feel like I’m being a bigot.
Will someone explain to me why it’s rational to allow in (Muslim in particular) refugees who we know are particularly susceptible to a radical, and violent strain of Islam. Aren’t there other more reasonable, and as I said before, cost efficient ways of helping people in the world who need help (starving children, aids victims) that doesn’t involve such an obvious potential risk? Are we really doing this because it’s the best thing we can do as humanitarians, or are we doing it to counter the type of rhetoric we hear from the Donald Trump types, and to hell with the potential consequences.
Id they are _refugees_ (and not economic migrants), this means they are fleeing their country of origin because it is unsafe, often deadly so, to remain there.
It is rational and humane to offer shelter and amenities to people fleeing from armed combat and grave threats to their safety, period.
If they are refugees, the fact that they are fleeing danger is a certainty. Susceptibility to a radical and violent strain of Islam are only a probability, and a low one at that.
If you are utilitarian, you may want to calculate how high the probability of islamic radicalisation should be to deny help to innocent people who need help. Shall we deny help to 100 people if one of them may cause trouble in the future? 1000:1? 10000:1?
Or, alternatively, we can stop being jerks and decide to treat them as humans in need, and to give this small minority as little reason for radicalisation as possible.
“If you are utilitarian, you may want to calculate how high the probability of islamic radicalisation should be to deny help to innocent people who need help.”
I’m looking at it that way. I concede the risk is exceedingly low, but the cost involved (food, clothing, housing, state dept resources for the vetting process, costs involved in getting them established here) IMO far exceeds the number of starving children we could save at less cost, and even less risk. Unless you can convince me I’m wrong why are we giving the refugees priority? The only reasons I can see for it is because it’s in the news, and it gives us the chance to Advertise how compassionate we are, and counter right wing rhetoric, and not because it’s the best way to allocate our resources.
I think that, unless you are on a dating site wishing to make the best impression on a potential girlfriend :-), you needn’t care too much whether people will think you a bigot. I’ve had many fruitful discussions with people whom I’ve considered bigots, and also with ones who consider me a bigot.
To help the starving, however, may be even more difficult than solving the Syrian crisis, let alone accepting a few thousands of refugees. I mean, when one tries to see why people are starving, very often it turns out that the famine is man-made, that someone is using starvation as a weapon against people he doesn’t like. Such a problem has only military solution, and it is easier said than done. Somalia and Mohamed Farah Aidid come to mind, and also Sudan.
“To help the starving, however, may be even more difficult than solving the Syrian crisis”
We’re not going to solve the problem of starvation, but I suggest the estimated $20,000.00 per head could be better spent.
“Id they are _refugees_ (and not economic migrants), this means they are fleeing their country of origin because it is unsafe, often deadly so, to remain there”
It’s obvious by now that not all of them are refugees. Some of them simply want to get to rich Western countries.
See the report below:
Calais Jungle: Women fear rape by fellow Muslim “refugees”
You are still suggesting to deny help to the majority that legitimately needs it.
And as for fears of rape and of freeloading economic migrants – any large group of people will contain a certain proportion of problematic individuals. Denying everybody help because of them may be cost effective, but it makes you a bad person who ignores all previous situations, in USA and Europe, where refugees got the help they needed – and at least some of them included your ancestors, too.
I’m not denying “everybody” help, but rather implore the EU officials to do a better job of screening the incoming people from the Middle East and exercising a more effective control over them.
Sweden has already become the rape capital of Europe.
If THAT doesn’t tell you that the handling of the migrant situation in Europe is in need of a serious overhaul, I don’t know what possibly can send this signal to you.
Congratulations, you have just managed to be a racist again.
Yes, a disproportionate number of rapists in Sweden are Muslim men. Yes, it probably does have to do with their cultural background.
It is stil a very tiny proportion of Muslim men. Putting all Muslim men under suspicion because of what tiny minority does is racist as hell.
And, please read up why rape statistics are not comparable across countries. Sweden official rates are high predominantly because of higher reporting and lower, still decreasing, tolerance of Swedish women (and women in other countries with high levels of woman emancipation) towards any type of coercion. Indeed, it is agreed among experts that this is a major factor.
“Congratulations, you have just managed to be a racist again.
Yes, a disproportionate number of rapists in Sweden are Muslim men.”
Again, I don’t know how many times I need to explain to you that Muslim is not a race.
And great job downplaying the rape problem in Sweden: It’s just a reporting issue, nothing to see here.
Yes, Muslim is not a race, but most people are Muslims not by their own choice but by birth. And if you discriminate them by something they have become by birth – in the absence of any knowledge how it affected them as individuals since birth – yep, you are a racist.
“And great job downplaying the rape problem in Sweden: It’s just a reporting issue, nothing to see here.”
Here you go, sir: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372
My sources are BBC and an expert from National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. What are yours?
Like I said earlier, if a Swedish woman is gang raped by many Afghan migrants for a whole week, that should definitely be reported as multiple rapes.
And though they may be some discrepancies in reporting rape between different EU countries, it doesn’t change the fact that, as you already admitted, “a disproportionate number of rapists in Sweden are Muslim men.”
Now you do not believe the Swedes themselves, but would rather stick to your prejudices, for which I have by now provided ample evidence that they are both misinformed and racist. And you top it up by MAKING UP a a week-long Afgan gang rape of a Swedish woman – excuse me, but are you out of your mind? You are getting increasingly desperate and despicable with each subsequent post…
Dude, I haven’t made anything up. The week-long gang rape of a Swedish woman was reported in the YT video I posted above.
Multiculturalism promoters are quite happy to push women under the bus in order to promote a misogynist culture.
Maybe they think that the raped women are some kind of a sacrifice Europeans must pay on the altar of white guilt?
Muslim Rape Gangs roaming Europe seeking white rape victims.