Syrian refugees to blame?

[DanieltheDragon]

It has been suggested that European policy of allowing Syrian refugees is at fault for the terror attacks in Paris:


WinePusher:

Right, so in order to save the lives of the Syrian refugees we must put the lives of Americans, French, German and other Western people at risk? Given the situation, the only practical option would have been to build safe zones in Syria itself. At least one of the Islamic terrorists who blew up Paris last night came through the refugee program. Given this fact there should be NO migration of refugees into the west. The risk is too high.

Wootah:

In broader terms Islam is winning, with mass migration of Islam to the West. Of course I want to protect refugees but so few are fleeing Islam (the thing that is persecuting them) and so they bring the persecution with them.

It appears however that the Mastermind behind the attacks was Belgian(Satter,2015) and 3 others were French Nationals. It also appears that the Syrian "refugee" was using a fake passport and might not have even been a refugee at all(Ford,2015).
Even if we assume the other 4 attackers were Syrian refugees it seems this would have still taken place. Nor can it be shown that allowing Syrian refugees in caused the attacks in the first place or allowed it to occur.

Should we ban people from Belgium from entering our country?

Should we ban the French from crossing borders?

Is it the fault of Syrian refugees for these attacks?

Did the policy of allowing Syrian refugees into Europe lead to these attacks?

(Ford,2015)
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... rs/416082/

(Satter, 2015)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d4dd049b ... is-attacks.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by WinePusher]

Are you talking about the accurate term 'regressive liberal' coined by an atheist (Sam Harris) that I've been bringing up?

You do realize your use of it has appeared pejorative? Even in Sam Harris's case he even seems to use it as a pejorative. Regardless your applying that label to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

Your argument stops at Islam, I am trying to go beyond that the underlying motivating factors. Even Danmark whom you doth protest much with. Has acknowledged religious motivations especially regarding fanatical religious motivations.

What i can't stand though is inaccurate or misplaced stereotyped fear that has been exhibited. The title of the thread, are Syrian refugees to blame? Your argument is yes:

1. Islam is way worse than Christianity
2. There was a fake Syrian passport ergo Syrian refugees
3. The Syrian refugee crisis provided a cover for the fake Syrian ergo ban all Syrians
4. Europe can't assimilate Muslims


1. Is irrelevant
2. You have used this to associate the refugees themselves with the terrorists there has not yet been a single Syrian refugee to commit a terror act though. 38 American have been arrested on ISIL related plots. your more likely to find an ISIL terrorist in America than you are in a Syrian refugee camp.
3. The cover argument is silly because it assumes no other means for someone to get into the country.
4. Is false because of the millions of Muslims who have assimilated into European society. Pointing to a few cases unrelated to Islam re: the 2005 riots. Just hurts your case more than it helps it.


You go on and on about how my argument is indefensible. You could try defending your own in the first place.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 28 by WinePusher]

The 'Crusades' were not 2000 years ago. Christian racism has been with us a long time.
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

The only difference I see is that there are MORE Muslims stuck in the Centuries old past.
Unfortunately the right wing of this country includes the right wing fundamentalist Christians.

Phillip Kayser is among the several speakers joining Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa this weekend, and as we've reported, he, along with the conference's chief organizer, Kevin Swanson, has called on the government to execute gay people. Kayser's views are so extreme that back in the 2012 election, Ron Paul's campaign tried to cover up his endorsement.
However, it seems that in today's GOP, calling for the execution of gay people isn't beyond the pale.
At the conference, where he is giving two speeches on how local officials and others can defy the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision, Kayser distributed the very pamphlet calling for the death penalty for gay people that caused a stir back when he endorsed Paul.
In the pamphlet, “Is The Death Penalty Just?,� Kayser unsurprisingly concludes that the death penalty is in fact just, and lists homosexuality among the offenses deserving of capital punishment. Ironically for a "religious liberties" summit, he also claims that the government should treat "breaking the Sabbath," "blasphemy and cursing God publicly," "publicly sacrificing to other gods" and "apostasy" as death penalty crimes as well.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/d ... O2ONV.dpuf

Christianity and Islam are at the root of the death penalty for homosexuality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... -by-death/

The problem is not so much which religion, but religion itself, or rather taking it seriously. As has been demonstrated on this forum on numerous occasions anyone can find Bible Verses to support the death penalty for all kinds of perfectly legal acts.

The problem is rooted in religious extremism, not just in jihadist Islam.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_ ... m_partner/

[WinePusher]

Are you talking about the accurate term 'regressive liberal' coined by an atheist (Sam Harris) that I've been bringing up?

You do realize your use of it has appeared pejorative?

You do realize that the term 'regressive liberal' is no different than the term 'fanatical Christian' that is COMMONLY used, right?

Even in Sam Harris's case he even seems to use it as a pejorative. Regardless your applying that label to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.

Nope, I just think it's an accurate term that helps shed light on the reason why some people are fixating on Christianity only a few days after over 100 people were killed by radical Muslims.

Your argument stops at Islam, I am trying to go beyond that the underlying motivating factors. Even Danmark whom you doth protest much with. Has acknowledged religious motivations especially regarding fanatical religious motivations.

Right, you are trying to downplay the role Islam had in the Paris attacks. You see Daniel, the left's response to the Paris terrorist attack was completely predictable. Rather than blame the culprits and call out the culprits for who they actually are (radical Muslims), those on the left cried about Islamaphobia, brought up what Christians did hundreds and thousands of years ago, and a host of other irrelevant points.

If you think that liberals are NOT being horribly inconsistent on this issue then I suggest you start listening to what ATHEISTS like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been saying.

What i can't stand though is inaccurate or misplaced stereotyped fear that has been exhibited.

What I can't stand though is inaccurate and misplaced characterizations of what I've been saying.

The title of the thread, are Syrian refugees to blame? Your argument is yes

In my very first post on this issue I said:

Who is blaming the Syrian refugees for anything? That is NOT the argument. The argument is that bringing in thousands of people from Syria, many of whom do not have proper documentation, is not a SMART thing to do given that Islamic extremists may be mixed in with them.

Please STOP misrepresenting my argument.

1. Islam is way worse than Christianity.

Radical Islam poses a far greater threat to the world than does radical Christianity, as has been demonstrated by Paris, Beirut and the explosion of the Russian airplane. Why can't you concede this?

2. There was a fake Syrian passport ergo Syrian refugees.

I NEVER brought up the passport. My argument has been that it is likely that ISIS terrorists will infiltrate the refugee migration AND that our national security apparatus has stated that it doesn't have the means to properly vet the some refugees. From now on, please start representing my arguments accurately.

3. The Syrian refugee crisis provided a cover for the fake Syrian ergo ban all Syrians.

No. Rather than replying to my responses to Danmark how about replying to my responses directed towards you? Because as I said to you in the other thread:

We automatically allow in all women and children refugees. We allow in male refugees if and only if they are apart of the family AND can be thoroughly vetted and screened. Those males who CANNOT be vetted and screened to the FULLEST extent will not be allowed entry.

This seems to be the most reasonable strategy given the situation with ISIS trying to exploit the migration and the killings in Paris.

And yet, for some reason I still think you'll object because of your 'morals.' The harsh reality is that your morals don't matter, my morals don't matter, nobody's subjective moral compass matters. This is not 'my way or the highway.' Our goal should be to formulate the best strategy to deal with the refugees that eliminates the risk to Americans and that preserves out commitment to welcoming the world's 'huddled masses.'

We welcome women and children first, as has been the precedent throughout most of history, and we only exclude those men who CANNOT be properly screened and vetted since the threat of terror comes out of that demographic.

4. Europe can't assimilate Muslims

4. Is false because of the millions of Muslims who have assimilated into European society. Pointing to a few cases unrelated to Islam re: the 2005 riots. Just hurts your case more than it helps it.

Daniel, with all due respect I would encourage you to read more about this issue before commenting on it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... pe/243769/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ts-muslims
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... ty-behind/

Please carefully read these news reports. You will notice that a major reason why Muslim assimilation isn't working that great in Europe is precisely due to the fact that many parts of Europe are heavily secularized.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 33 by WinePusher]

Broad and actually ambiguous labels, like "regressive liberal" are not helpful. Recognizing the difference between Christians and Muslims who reject murder, terrorism, and killing innocents rather than use their religion to justify atrocities is a helpful distinction.

If the case can be made [and it can in some regions] that large percentages of Muslims support killing innocents to achieve an Islamic State, then criticism of that aspect of Islamic culture is justified. So is the criticism of those 'Christian' clerics who preach the death penalty for same sex marriage.

I admit that it is difficult not to be prejudiced against Islam in general. But then, I'm also prejudiced in that same faction among Christians. If there is one thing Christianity stand for, it is helping the poor. Yet we have many Christians who oppose helping the poor and are opposed even to affordable health care for the poor. They are an abomination to Christianity, just as the Jihadists are an abomination to Islam.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to WinePusher]

WinePusher wrote:
Are you talking about the accurate term 'regressive liberal' coined by an atheist (Sam Harris) that I've been bringing up?
DanieltheDragon wrote:
You do realize your use of it has appeared pejorative?


You do realize that the term 'regressive liberal' is no different than the term 'fanatical Christian' that is COMMONLY used, right?

No need to get defensive. Just pointing out that your use of regressive liberal seems pointed at other debaters whereas the limited use of fanatical Christian is not directed at fellow debaters.

[Danmark]

"Nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by right-wing extremists since 9/11 as have died at the hands of radical Muslims on US soil, a new report found. There have also been nearly three times as many deadly right-wing attacks as jihadist ones."
https://www.rt.com/usa/269506-american- ... cks-study/

Since 9/11, more Americans have died at the hands of homegrown “white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims,� the New York Times reported this week. Citing a count provided by Washington research center New America, the Times confirmed that with the race-base mass murder in Charleston, S.C. last week, 48 Americans have now been killed by “people espousing racial hatred, hostility to government and theories such as those of the ‘sovereign citizen’ movement,� as compared to 26 Americans who have been killed by “self-proclaimed jihadists.�
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/05/why_fox ... a_partner/