Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I know, it's not your fault, I'm sure you didn't read the posts between the ones you were referencing.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

track11 wrote:And the ideologies amongst different Muslims in different countries in different scenarios are vastly different. So why do I not see that nuance in your arguments?

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

Strat wrote:Kill everybody. I dont discriminate

Birds in Hell wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

track11 wrote:And the ideologies amongst different Muslims in different countries in different scenarios are vastly different. So why do I not see that nuance in your arguments?

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

This really is a kind of dogmatic athiesm, LV.

I think I may've mentioned this before on RM but I'd really recommend checking out Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Min ... 0307455777

BurtReynolds wrote:

Strat wrote:Kill everybody. I dont discriminate

Yogist extremism

turned2black wrote:track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

Strat wrote:Ban the Unbendables

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Strat wrote:Ban the Unbendables

strat, answer my question in your yoga thread plz.

Gov. Jack Markell: Delaware will accept refugees 03:09
Instead, our government enforced the strict quotas in place at the time. Forced to return home, more than 500 were trapped by Germany's European conquests and about half of those died in the Holocaust.

The fact that so many of these men, women, and children were sentenced to death camps because of U.S. laws restricting immigration reminds us of what the abolitionist Lydia Maria Child so eloquently said: "Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice."

Vast differences exist between that situation and the humanitarian crisis that has led millions of Syrians to flee the devastating violence and horrifying conditions of their war-torn country. The sheer numbers of refugees are much greater, and the solutions more challenging. But they are attempting to leave dire situations at home -- sometimes akin to ethnic cleansing -- in hope of a better life.

I'm again reminded of Child's quote as many politicians reflexively jump to take the harshest possible stance against these refugees, seeking to scare Americans with rhetoric that demands changes to our policies with no basis in the facts of our refugee system. Perhaps most frightening is the explicit appeals by some presidential candidates to discriminate against refugees on the basis of religion -- an idea that directly contradicts one of our oldest and dearest values.


The refugees that President Obama and supporters of his approach are talking about are families in desperate straits. According to the United Nations, about half of these individuals are children -- a group particularly at risk of falling ill, being malnourished, or suffering from abuse or exploitation. They continue to run toward the harsh weather of a European winter and take other tremendous risks, because anything is better than the chaos that has engulfed their homeland.

As the highest-ranking official of my state, I take no responsibility more seriously than the safety of our residents. No one should suggest relaxing our process for approving refugees in any way. The situation in Syria in particular demands that we take every precaution before admitting someone inside our borders. But we must show empathy by taking into account their individual situations and ensuring they are treated humanely.

Rather than use the attacks in Paris to make a political statement about closing our border to people in dire need, let's understand the facts:

• Refugee admissions are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of travelers;

• Biographic and biometric information is vetted against a broad array of databases, including those of law enforcement and the intelligence community, to confirm an applicant's identity, check for criminal history, and identify information that can support the work of our trained interviewers;

• A refugee applicant cannot be approved until all required security checks have been completed and cleared; and

• The full process is finished before any Syrian refugee would be allowed to cross the Atlantic.

The President has rightly kept his commitment to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States within a year.

If his administration decides to place some of those refugees in Delaware, we will work with our federal partners, while expecting them to recognize the federal responsibility to provide or pay for services these individuals may need.

The calls for states to reject them not only runs counter to our values, but also our law, which gives the federal government authority to place refugees and does not provide states the right to refuse.

While parts of today's refugee crisis are difficult to compare with the time when the St. Louis approached our shores, our fundamental choice is the same. Instead of using the mourning in France to deny opportunity to thousands of innocent people, we should recall the most famous gift we received from the French -- the Statue of Liberty, with the famous inscription recognizing America as a place that welcomes "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

We should rally around the President's call for compassion for a suffering population that wants nothing more than a safe place to rebuild their lives from the rubble of war.

BurtReynolds wrote:wow those german lady cops are hot.

Strat wrote:I like this,

Gov. Jack Markell: Delaware will accept refugees 03:09
Instead, our government enforced the strict quotas in place at the time. Forced to return home, more than 500 were trapped by Germany's European conquests and about half of those died in the Holocaust.

The fact that so many of these men, women, and children were sentenced to death camps because of U.S. laws restricting immigration reminds us of what the abolitionist Lydia Maria Child so eloquently said: "Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice."

Vast differences exist between that situation and the humanitarian crisis that has led millions of Syrians to flee the devastating violence and horrifying conditions of their war-torn country. The sheer numbers of refugees are much greater, and the solutions more challenging. But they are attempting to leave dire situations at home -- sometimes akin to ethnic cleansing -- in hope of a better life.

I'm again reminded of Child's quote as many politicians reflexively jump to take the harshest possible stance against these refugees, seeking to scare Americans with rhetoric that demands changes to our policies with no basis in the facts of our refugee system. Perhaps most frightening is the explicit appeals by some presidential candidates to discriminate against refugees on the basis of religion -- an idea that directly contradicts one of our oldest and dearest values.


The refugees that President Obama and supporters of his approach are talking about are families in desperate straits. According to the United Nations, about half of these individuals are children -- a group particularly at risk of falling ill, being malnourished, or suffering from abuse or exploitation. They continue to run toward the harsh weather of a European winter and take other tremendous risks, because anything is better than the chaos that has engulfed their homeland.

As the highest-ranking official of my state, I take no responsibility more seriously than the safety of our residents. No one should suggest relaxing our process for approving refugees in any way. The situation in Syria in particular demands that we take every precaution before admitting someone inside our borders. But we must show empathy by taking into account their individual situations and ensuring they are treated humanely.

Rather than use the attacks in Paris to make a political statement about closing our border to people in dire need, let's understand the facts:

• Refugee admissions are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of travelers;

• Biographic and biometric information is vetted against a broad array of databases, including those of law enforcement and the intelligence community, to confirm an applicant's identity, check for criminal history, and identify information that can support the work of our trained interviewers;

• A refugee applicant cannot be approved until all required security checks have been completed and cleared; and

• The full process is finished before any Syrian refugee would be allowed to cross the Atlantic.

The President has rightly kept his commitment to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States within a year.

If his administration decides to place some of those refugees in Delaware, we will work with our federal partners, while expecting them to recognize the federal responsibility to provide or pay for services these individuals may need.

The calls for states to reject them not only runs counter to our values, but also our law, which gives the federal government authority to place refugees and does not provide states the right to refuse.

While parts of today's refugee crisis are difficult to compare with the time when the St. Louis approached our shores, our fundamental choice is the same. Instead of using the mourning in France to deny opportunity to thousands of innocent people, we should recall the most famous gift we received from the French -- the Statue of Liberty, with the famous inscription recognizing America as a place that welcomes "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

We should rally around the President's call for compassion for a suffering population that wants nothing more than a safe place to rebuild their lives from the rubble of war.

dimejinky99 wrote:

Strat wrote:I like this,

Gov. Jack Markell: Delaware will accept refugees 03:09
Instead, our government enforced the strict quotas in place at the time. Forced to return home, more than 500 were trapped by Germany's European conquests and about half of those died in the Holocaust.

The fact that so many of these men, women, and children were sentenced to death camps because of U.S. laws restricting immigration reminds us of what the abolitionist Lydia Maria Child so eloquently said: "Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice."

Vast differences exist between that situation and the humanitarian crisis that has led millions of Syrians to flee the devastating violence and horrifying conditions of their war-torn country. The sheer numbers of refugees are much greater, and the solutions more challenging. But they are attempting to leave dire situations at home -- sometimes akin to ethnic cleansing -- in hope of a better life.

I'm again reminded of Child's quote as many politicians reflexively jump to take the harshest possible stance against these refugees, seeking to scare Americans with rhetoric that demands changes to our policies with no basis in the facts of our refugee system. Perhaps most frightening is the explicit appeals by some presidential candidates to discriminate against refugees on the basis of religion -- an idea that directly contradicts one of our oldest and dearest values.


The refugees that President Obama and supporters of his approach are talking about are families in desperate straits. According to the United Nations, about half of these individuals are children -- a group particularly at risk of falling ill, being malnourished, or suffering from abuse or exploitation. They continue to run toward the harsh weather of a European winter and take other tremendous risks, because anything is better than the chaos that has engulfed their homeland.

As the highest-ranking official of my state, I take no responsibility more seriously than the safety of our residents. No one should suggest relaxing our process for approving refugees in any way. The situation in Syria in particular demands that we take every precaution before admitting someone inside our borders. But we must show empathy by taking into account their individual situations and ensuring they are treated humanely.

Rather than use the attacks in Paris to make a political statement about closing our border to people in dire need, let's understand the facts:

• Refugee admissions are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of travelers;

• Biographic and biometric information is vetted against a broad array of databases, including those of law enforcement and the intelligence community, to confirm an applicant's identity, check for criminal history, and identify information that can support the work of our trained interviewers;

• A refugee applicant cannot be approved until all required security checks have been completed and cleared; and

• The full process is finished before any Syrian refugee would be allowed to cross the Atlantic.

The President has rightly kept his commitment to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States within a year.

If his administration decides to place some of those refugees in Delaware, we will work with our federal partners, while expecting them to recognize the federal responsibility to provide or pay for services these individuals may need.

The calls for states to reject them not only runs counter to our values, but also our law, which gives the federal government authority to place refugees and does not provide states the right to refuse.

While parts of today's refugee crisis are difficult to compare with the time when the St. Louis approached our shores, our fundamental choice is the same. Instead of using the mourning in France to deny opportunity to thousands of innocent people, we should recall the most famous gift we received from the French -- the Statue of Liberty, with the famous inscription recognizing America as a place that welcomes "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

We should rally around the President's call for compassion for a suffering population that wants nothing more than a safe place to rebuild their lives from the rubble of war.

Sleeper cell operatives won't arrive as refugees. That's something authorities all over Europe are aware of but still sticking to as they have to cover all bases. The real ones posing a threat will come in legitimately. Almost invisible to immigration services at airports.

track11 wrote:

turned2black wrote:track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

There is a BIG difference between supporting Hezbollah (Iran) and supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda (Saudis). Gigantic. I don't view Hezbollah as a threat to the USA homeland at all. In fact, I believe the US has taken Hezbollah off our terror threat list. Now, if we go and put troops and military barracks in Beirut, you better believe Hezbollah will go after them with a vengeance, because they know our true loyalty ain't with Lebanon. But they aren't sending suicide bombers to the US to indiscriminately kill civilians.

There are no ideal options. We just so happen to continually pick the absolute worst options!

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:wow those german lady cops are hot.

No shit

turned2black wrote:

track11 wrote:

turned2black wrote:track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

There is a BIG difference between supporting Hezbollah (Iran) and supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda (Saudis). Gigantic. I don't view Hezbollah as a threat to the USA homeland at all. In fact, I believe the US has taken Hezbollah off our terror threat list. Now, if we go and put troops and military barracks in Beirut, you better believe Hezbollah will go after them with a vengeance, because they know our true loyalty ain't with Lebanon. But they aren't sending suicide bombers to the US to indiscriminately kill civilians.

There are no ideal options. We just so happen to continually pick the absolute worst options!

But you have to see that it's a little disturbing that terrorism is seen as a reasonable response, whether in the U.S. or not.