European refugee crisis thread

[Edi]

So what do you suggest? Write off the US as irredeemably stupid and evil and stop trying to improve things so you can wallow in your cynicism and anti-American hostility? Yes, their are a lot of assholes with a lot of power, and a lot of ignorant people who go along with them, but honestly, what purpose does defeatism serve other than to let you pat yourself on the back for how smart you seem to think your cynicism makes you and how much better you are than those horrible Americans?

I'd rather act on the assumption that progress is possible than concede defeat to the radical Right or write off my entire country.

And if the situation was as hopeless as you think, Sanders wouldn't be capable of mounting a serious campaign. Their is a left wing opposition in America that is not particularly hawkish or anti-Muslim, and I would argue that it has been stronger of late, in some respects at least, than it has been for much of recent history. Because I sure as hell don't recall an openly socialist candidate who is a real primary contender before. Not that I'm suggesting that everything hinges on one man. Its just an example I find useful.

I'm not saying you should write off your entire country, but what the more liberal folks in the US need to do is actually grow a spine and confront the right wing instead of toothlessly standing by and wringing their hands. You are not going to get anywhere trying to be reasonable with them, and you're also never going to gain any traction with anyone who they have any sway with unless you address at least some of their fears. This is what the establishment liberals in the US have never learned. They also refuse to call out conservatives on their lies, which just helps perpetuate them. They need to stand up and fight, and if they can stab the conservatives in the back or blindside them, they should do so, and make no apologies, ever. Use the right's own playbook against them.

In short, the American population needs to grow a collective spine and reject the fearmongering conspiracist bullshit. They need to get out of the puddle of their own piss and think for themselves rather than let demagogues whose personal profits depend on keeping them terrified rule them.

Your personal problem is that you inhabit some sort of a naive, idealistic, moralist bubble that is almost as detached from the real world as the conservatives are, and you refuse to question certain assumptions that you hold. That leaves you utterly unable to deal with reality as it actually is, as opposed to a picture of the world as you desire it to be. Reality trumps fancy every time, which is why you're not getting much traction no matter how large walls of text you post.

You have huge potential, but you need to take the blinders off first and learn to see, and to act according to what is real instead of what your wish for reality is. If you manage to do that, you'll be a force to be reckoned with, but if you don't, you'll always be given short shrift.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what do you suggest? Write off the US as irredeemably stupid and evil and stop trying to improve things so you can wallow in your cynicism and anti-American hostility? Yes, their are a lot of assholes with a lot of power, and a lot of ignorant people who go along with them, but honestly, what purpose does defeatism serve other than to let you pat yourself on the back for how smart you seem to think your cynicism makes you and how much better you are than those horrible Americans?

I'd rather act on the assumption that progress is possible than concede defeat to the radical Right or write off my entire country.

And if the situation was as hopeless as you think, Sanders wouldn't be capable of mounting a serious campaign. Their is a left wing opposition in America that is not particularly hawkish or anti-Muslim, and I would argue that it has been stronger of late, in some respects at least, than it has been for much of recent history. Because I sure as hell don't recall an openly socialist candidate who is a real primary contender before. Not that I'm suggesting that everything hinges on one man. Its just an example I find useful.

I'm not saying you should write off your entire country, but what the more liberal folks in the US need to do is actually grow a spine and confront the right wing instead of toothlessly standing by and wringing their hands.

Some of us have.

I consider Sanders' campaign very significant partly because it shows that their is now a significant block of the Left that is willing to openly embrace outright socialism boldly.

You are not going to get anywhere trying to be reasonable with them,

While I fear that's largely true, I do think there's something to be said for trying to win people over from the other side.

and you're also never going to gain any traction with anyone who they have any sway with unless you address at least some of their fears.

I agree with this. The Left should hammer home the following points (all of which I believe I've argued in some form on this forum before):

1. That terrorism kills relatively few people and is not an existential threat.
2. That treating Muslims as the enemy is likely to fuel more terrorism, and that tolerance is actually a strategy to protect our national security.
3. That choosing between safety and liberty is a false dichotomy, that one cannot be preserved without the other.

I'm not sure if that's what you had in mind, but that's what comes to mind for me.

This is what the establishment liberals in the US have never learned. They also refuse to call out conservatives on their lies, which just helps perpetuate them. They need to stand up and fight, and if they can stab the conservatives in the back or blindside them, they should do so, and make no apologies, ever. Use the right's own playbook against them.

While I think you are overgeneralizing somewhat, I also feel that their's some truth to this. I have often been frustrated by the failure of some on the Left to take strong, principled stands.

However, I do not and will never condone using the Tea Party's tactics against it, because I am not an advocate of politics by fraud, fanaticism, defamation, disenfranchisement, and threats and acts of violence. Replacing the Tea Party with a Left wing equivalent is no victory. It scarcely matters who wins if both sides behave like fucking monsters.

In short, the American population needs to grow a collective spine and reject the fearmongering conspiracist bullshit. They need to get out of the puddle of their own piss and think for themselves rather than let demagogues whose personal profits depend on keeping them terrified rule them.

Again, you're overgeneralizing about the American populace, but for many people, this is an entirely fair critique.

Your personal problem is that you inhabit some sort of a naive, idealistic, moralist bubble that is almost as detached from the real world as the conservatives are, and you refuse to question certain assumptions that you hold. That leaves you utterly unable to deal with reality as it actually is, as opposed to a picture of the world as you desire it to be. Reality trumps fancy every time, which is why you're not getting much traction no matter how large walls of text you post.

You have huge potential, but you need to take the blinders off first and learn to see, and to act according to what is real instead of what your wish for reality is. If you manage to do that, you'll be a force to be reckoned with, but if you don't, you'll always be given short shrift.

Walls of text? Sometimes, I suppose, and I'm sorry if its off-putting, but its hard to write a succinct response to such complicated issues without ignoring important points. I'm hardly the only person here who's ever felt compelled to write a lengthy response to something.

As to the rest of this, if I abandoned my moral principles because they are impractical or inconvenient, would I not be showing the very weakness that you castigate the American Left for? Hell, if you want a Left wing version of the Tea Party, you should be applauding me for supposedly inflexibly adhering to my ideology in defiance of facts.

Regardless, while one's principles should always be based in reality, of course, I would contend that we need the idealists. Idealism exists to remind people of what they should be striving towards. And I'd rather aim high than settle from the start. I don't know if that's something I can prove. Its a matter of personal philosophy.

Are my views inaccurate? Sometimes, undoubtably. And believe it or not, I am constantly reevaluating my positions (indeed, I believe this forum has influenced me considerable over the years). To take a pertinent example, my position on airstrikes in Syria evolved from indecisiveness to more or less absolute opposition when Russia became involved, because I felt that the risk of escalating conflict with Russia was too high. That is actually a case where I allowed principle (opposition to Assad and IS) to bow to practical reality (its not worth risking an incident with Russia).

Edit: However, I'd really rather not argue the merits of my intellect or character. It doesn't seem pertinent to the topic, and turning a debate into a defence of my own character comes off as a tad egotistical.

[Broomstick]

I'm not saying you should write off your entire country, but what the more liberal folks in the US need to do is actually grow a spine and confront the right wing instead of toothlessly standing by and wringing their hands.

I am not convinced there are enough liberal people left in the US to pull off anything approaching a major shift. Even "liberals" have shifted very far to the right from where they were a half century ago.

That doesn't mean I'm writing off the country, for one thing, I'm stuck here for the rest of my life so I don't feel I have a lot of choice in the matter. I do think that the US is going to be far to the right of Europe for the next generation at least, and also far right of my own viewpoint.

[Broomstick]

1. That terrorism kills relatively few people and is not an existential threat.

The problem with that statement is that it trivializes the deceased. No one wants to be unregarded collateral damage, no one wants themselves or their loved ones to be seen as disposable.

Compared to the overall population of the US traffic accidents didn't kill a lot of people, either, but we didn't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh, well", we found ways to reduce the carnage on the road. People still die, but in substantially fewer numbers than a few decades ago. Likewise, even if terrorism isn't a leading cause of death that doesn't mean we can't find ways to make people safer.

Another problem is that most people can only digest sound bites. You need to convey to them that you take their fears seriously, you do care about the dead, and you are taking steps to keep them safe without resorting to scare-mongering and do it in simple, easily digested sentences.

Don't know how to do that myself, I'm no politician.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to the supposed weakness of the Left, I keep bringing up Sanders because he shows that their is a real demand for a more Left wing alternative. Granted, he's a long shot candidate, but the fact that a self-proclaimed socialist politician can even be a significant contender in the US shows the Left is not as dead or diminished here as some may think.

And I understand the point about diminishing the importance of the deceased, though that is certainly not my intention. Its more about trying to calm the panic.

Nor, of course, am I saying that we should not try to make people safer from terrorism. This should be obvious. What I am saying is that we need to keep a sense of perspective.

And since you brought up traffic accidents, I would point out that while we do try to make the roads safe, we do not spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do so, or institute massive surveillance campaigns, or turn on entire demographics. People accept that traffic accidents happen, probably a lot more than they should.

Edit: And frankly, if someone told you that traffic accidents were an existential threat to the nation, you'd probably think they were a nutter.

[ray245]

As to the supposed weakness of the Left, I keep bringing up Sanders because he shows that their is a real demand for a more Left wing alternative. Granted, he's a long shot candidate, but the fact that a self-proclaimed socialist politician can even be a significant contender in the US shows the Left is not as dead or diminished here as some may think.

And I understand the point about diminishing the importance of the deceased, though that is certainly not my intention. Its more about trying to calm the panic.

Nor, of course, am I saying that we should not try to make people safer from terrorism. This should be obvious. What I am saying is that we need to keep a sense of perspective.

And since you brought up traffic accidents, I would point out that while we do try to make the roads safe, we do not spend hundreds of billions of dollars to do so, or institute massive surveillance campaigns, or turn on entire demographics. People accept that traffic accidents happen, probably a lot more than they should.

Edit: And frankly, if someone told you that traffic accidents were an existential threat to the nation, you'd probably think they were a nutter.

The fact is we can punish those responsible for causing traffic accidents. It's less of an issue because traffic accidents tend to be accidents as opposed to intended murder. Human society has already made the distinction between manslaughter and murder, so there is no point in bringing up traffic accidents at all.

Terrorism is scary compared to traffic accidents because there's a lot less safety precaution you could take to protect yourself. You have already accepted some degree of risk when you are on the road, while you would consider yourself in a safe environment if you are in a restaurant having dinner.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying traffic accidents are a perfect analogy for terrorism. And I brought them up because Broomstick did.

And no shit we punish people who cause traffic accidents. What's your point? That we should also punish terrorists? Because I never said we shouldn't arrest terrorists or anything like that, for fuck's sake. Of course we should.

That doesn't mean we have to freak out and throw liberty and equality down the drain over terrorism. Which is what I'm arguing against.

Clear now?

[Broomstick]

The thing is, you have people arguing that because ONE of the Paris attackers was Syrian (maybe - has that been 100% determined yet?) we should exclude ALL Syrians from their country. Well, what, 4 of the attackers were French, right? So you have four times the justification to exclude all French people, right? And Belgians, too, right?

So... if this isn't about bigotry why aren't these same people arguing for a ban on French and Belgian immigrants?

[ray245]

The thing is, you have people arguing that because ONE of the Paris attackers was Syrian (maybe - has that been 100% determined yet?) we should exclude ALL Syrians from their country. Well, what, 4 of the attackers were French, right? So you have four times the justification to exclude all French people, right? And Belgians, too, right?

So... if this isn't about bigotry why aren't these same people arguing for a ban on French and Belgian immigrants?

Obviously the answer is they are not truly French or Belgian.

[Titan Uranus]

The thing is, you have people arguing that because ONE of the Paris attackers was Syrian (maybe - has that been 100% determined yet?) we should exclude ALL Syrians from their country. Well, what, 4 of the attackers were French, right? So you have four times the justification to exclude all French people, right? And Belgians, too, right?

So... if this isn't about bigotry why aren't these same people arguing for a ban on French and Belgian immigrants?

Obviously the answer is they are not truly French or Belgian.

I know that you are joking, but that's not entirely incorrect.
As I understand it, the vast majority of French and Belgian Muslims live in self-segregated ghettos, where they are so isolated from the surrounding country that families who have been there for generations can get by without learning French/Dutch/German. If that is the case, then they aren't really French/Belgian, they are citizens of isolated cauldrons of poverty and backwardness, almost perfect for turning angry young men in to murderers.

[Zaune]

And the Daily Mail exercises its usual sensitivity and good taste.

I'm not sure I should even be embedding this as it might be considered NSFW on hate-speech grounds, but I suppose if people can bring it into work in a print newspaper...



Fucksake.

[Broomstick]

Reminds me of Nazi propaganda comparing Jews, Gypsies, etc. to rats and other vermin.

[Zaune]

Funny you should mention that... From the same source, but been circulating for years and apparently genuine:



And this is how a liberal European manages to seriously creep out his Texan, self-proclaimed redneck significant other with how desensitised he is to racist language.

[Thanas]

Meanwhile, eastern Europe continues to give the middle finger to the rest of the EU when it comes to helping others:

Remember that relocation scheme? The one that was designed to stop nations like Italy, Greece, Sweden and Germany from having to deal with all those refugees? The schemes where the nations were supposed to appoint liaison officers?

Hi, we are the ones who take the money from the EU and then run when we have to give something back.

But the figures released the day after the self-imposed deadline show that 11 member states still have not done so – and six of these – Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia – have not provided liaison officers at all.

At the council meeting member states had also said they would “endeavour to fill by 16 November 2015 the remaining gaps in the calls for experts and border guards” requested by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Frontex, the European border control agency.

However, the commission figures reveal that only 177 of the 374 experts requested, and 392 border guards of the 775 requested, have so far been provided.

Fuck them. When they need help with Russia or development money, Merkel should just refuse to do anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

And in today's news, a rare appearance of the President's balls, as Obama harshly criticized the approach of much of the Republican Party to refugees:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17politics/o ... d=18835887

I hate to use CNN as a source (God they're a sorry excuse of a news network), but I haven't found a video of it anywhere else yet.

Edits: Tried to fix the link. Hope it works now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's another link:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris- ... ar-n465301

[Joun_Lord]

I agree with this. The Left should hammer home the following points (all of which I believe I've argued in some form on this forum before):

1. That terrorism kills relatively few people and is not an existential threat.
2. That treating Muslims as the enemy is likely to fuel more terrorism, and that tolerance is actually a strategy to protect our national security.
3. That choosing between safety and liberty is a false dichotomy, that one cannot be preserved without the other.

Thats the same argument people make about shootings being not so bad and look at the clusterfuck gun rights and shootings are in the US. Liberals especially are more then happy to hammer home the exact opposite of all that, more then happy to act like shootings are an existential threat, happy to treat gun owners as the enemy further pushing them to more extremes, and downright ecstatic over thinking one must sacrifice liberty of safety.

The left would be more then happy to dick ride the terrorism train if they could but considering the Republican't have already claimed that cock they cannot because if the other side if for something they can't be for it too. Still a vast majority of Lefties aren't exactly opposed to it beyond some minor lip service.

Dems are for anti-muslim sentiments the same reason they are for anti-gun, fear. Fear is at the heart of alot of these things. Fear of terrorism for the Muslims, fear of being shot (or fear of little people having power over their betters) for guns. Just the same with the Right. Terrorism is the same, fear, and then theres fear of the gay people for making them gay or whatever, fear of atheists and other religions trying to strip away their good clean Christian values, fear of minorities creeping in and raping and murder and thieving.

The Left won't hammer home those points you listed because they are based on logic, logic does not sell quite as well as fear and emotion does. And unfortunately the general attitude for most people towards Muslims right or left, American or pig dog other, is based on fear. All the facts and logic don't mean dick when a great deal of people honestly believe that Muslims are all terrorists, that they are all wanting to either outbreed or blow up the West, and Muslims can never be moderate or integrate in the western world. Thats the only points that are hammered home by politicians and media, any views of Muslims not chanting "death to America" or trying to root out extremism is ignored, doesn't fit the fear and doesn't matter.

Thats why I don't have much faith in the American Left to stop acting like cunts and try to help Muslims, they are cunts by default. Bernie Sanders might have had a chance with his pro-Muslim shit before but now very little chance.

[The Romulan Republic]

So what arguments would you suggest would be more effective, if you presume that even the Left is not open to reason when it comes to Muslims and refugees?

I do worry though about how this shit will affect Sanders' chances. Still, its a while until the Primary voting starts. It will give people more time to calm down and rethink things. Some on the Left may panic after the Paris attacks, but their aren't going to be as many entrenched, hardened bigots as in the Republican Party.

[Civil War Man]

Thats the same argument people make about shootings being not so bad and look at the clusterfuck gun rights and shootings are in the US. Liberals especially are more then happy to hammer home the exact opposite of all that, more then happy to act like shootings are an existential threat, happy to treat gun owners as the enemy further pushing them to more extremes, and downright ecstatic over thinking one must sacrifice liberty of safety.

This is a segue, but I was reminded of it when you compared fear-mongering about terrorism with fear-mongering about guns.

Texas State representative believes the US shouldn't accept any refugees because it'd be too easy for them to buy guns

A Texas state legislator wants the U.S. to stop allowing Syrian refugees into the country. His reasoning: They might be able to buy guns in his state.

Rep. Tony Dale (R) made this argument in a television interview on Monday and in letters to Texas’ U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz (R) and U.S. Reps. Michael McCaul and John Carter (R).

“While the Paris attackers used suicide vests and grenades,” Dale wrote, “it is clear that firearms also killed a large number of innocent victims. Can you imagine a scenario were [sic] a refugees [sic] is admitted to the United States, is provided with federal cash payments and other assistance, obtains a drivers license and purchases a weapon and executes an attack?” He urged the lawmakers to “do whatever you can to stop the [Syrian refugee] program.”

But Dale is one of the Texas legislature’s most fervent gun-rights advocates. Two weeks ago, he tweeted his National Rifle Association membership renewal. In accepting an “A” rating from the group and the Texas State Rifle Association’s PAC in 2012, he observed: “Perhaps no right is more fundamental than the right to keep and bear arms.” And his campaign website vows his fealty to the Second Amendment, saying it “isn’t just an archaic document,” a “guarantor of all of our other freedoms.” And he and his colleagues in the state legislature have blocked mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.

This not the first time Dale has raised concerns about non-citizens in Texas. “I’m not saying all of these people are bad, but there are certainly people from countries of concern,” he said in March, explaining the need for legislation to create special drivers licenses for “foreigners.”

The NRA frequently claims that restrictions on gun purchases are unnecessary because “criminals don’t legally purchase firearms.” But in reality, a comprehensive analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that most guns used in recent mass shootings were purchased legally.

While those applying for refugee status must complete “the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States,” those attempting to purchase guns through private sales at gun shows in Texas and many other states are not required to undergo any background checks whatsoever. Virtually none of the millions of refugees admitted into the United States since 1980 have become terrorists, but the U.S. leads the world in mass shootings — almost all of which are perpetrated by people born in America.

[ray245]

So what arguments would you suggest would be more effective, if you presume that even the Left is not open to reason when it comes to Muslims and refugees?

I do worry though about how this shit will affect Sanders' chances. Still, its a while until the Primary voting starts. It will give people more time to calm down and rethink things. Some on the Left may panic after the Paris attacks, but their aren't going to be as many entrenched, hardened bigots as in the Republican Party.

I don't like to categorise people's fear based on their political view, be it left or right. We are all humans and we all fear the threat of terrorism. One big thing would be stop treating people's fear based on whether they are left-wing or right-wing. Don't be so eager to claim the moral high ground because you only end up alienating the general public and your audience.

There are many arguments against the left for being hypocritical, namely it is seen as being protective of Muslim communities which can be just as conservative as many Christian churches/communities. The left is seen as a group that is more about being anti-establishment as opposed to being genuinely trying to push for greater progress. Then there's a tendency to outright ignore people's fear of Muslim communities and treating all fear as being irrational and have zero basis in truth.

It's not entirely wrong to admit that Muslim communities are more vulnerable to radicalisation than most non-Muslim communities. It's not about denying that any other religious community could not carry out acts of terrorism, but to acknowledged that Jihadist movement and Salafist movement are more well-funded and better connected than any other fundamentalist groups.

There's too much assumption that Muslim communities would automatically become liberal on their own, and every single case of domestic terrorism acts from a native-born Muslim jihadist only serve to reinforce the perception that efforts to integrate Muslims have failed. That's a very deep fear that even well-off middle-class Muslim families would have children that are very vulnerable to radicalisation.

In other words, the left are seen as being too overly protective of Muslim communities and not be willing to criticise Muslim communities for not being progressive. Until the left can shake off that image, and actually show others that Muslim communities are indeed liberal enough, this fear will always defeat any argument put forward by the left.

[madd0ct0r]

So what arguments would you suggest would be more effective, if you presume that even the Left is not open to reason when it comes to Muslims and refugees?

I do worry though about how this shit will affect Sanders' chances. Still, its a while until the Primary voting starts. It will give people more time to calm down and rethink things. Some on the Left may panic after the Paris attacks, but their aren't going to be as many entrenched, hardened bigots as in the Republican Party.

I don't like to categorise people's fear based on their political view, be it left or right. We are all humans and we all fear the threat of terrorism. One big thing would be stop treating people's fear based on whether they are left-wing or right-wing. Don't be so eager to claim the moral high ground because you only end up alienating the general public and your audience.

There are many arguments against the left for being hypocritical, namely it is seen as being protective of Muslim communities which can be just as conservative as many Christian churches/communities. The left is seen as a group that is more about being anti-establishment as opposed to being genuinely trying to push for greater progress. Then there's a tendency to outright ignore people's fear of Muslim communities and treating all fear as being irrational and have zero basis in truth.

It's not entirely wrong to admit that Muslim communities are more vulnerable to radicalisation than most non-Muslim communities. It's not about denying that any other religious community could not carry out acts of terrorism, but to acknowledged that Jihadist movement and Salafist movement are more well-funded and better connected than any other fundamentalist groups.

There's too much assumption that Muslim communities would automatically become liberal on their own, and every single case of domestic terrorism acts from a native-born Muslim jihadist only serve to reinforce the perception that efforts to integrate Muslims have failed. That's a very deep fear that even well-off middle-class Muslim families would have children that are very vulnerable to radicalisation.

In other words, the left are seen as being too overly protective of Muslim communities and not be willing to criticise Muslim communities for not being progressive. Until the left can shake off that image, and actually show others that Muslim communities are indeed liberal enough, this fear will always defeat any argument put forward by the left.

fear is irrational - surely that will defeat any argument anyway?
Besides I take issue with your statement that everyone's fear is identical. It's not. Not everyone is scared, and nobody is scared the exact same amount. Some people are outright paranoid and with a fear that is damaging their lives. Other people grew up in unstable areas prone to terrorism and, now living in the safe west, tend to view even the majority of people as behaving like hysterical idiots. Or better still incompetent hysterical idiots, becuase despite their fear they don't alter their behavior in ways that genuinely reduce their risk.

By way of explanation, half my family is from Belfast. They tend to laugh contemptuously at earnest fearmongers but will stay away from windows in public areas, watch the bins, watch for boxes, and can normally point out the shooting lanes if you ask.

[jwl]

You know, I was just wondering what people who live in northern Ireland think of all this.

[ray245]

fear is irrational - surely that will defeat any argument anyway?
Besides I take issue with your statement that everyone's fear is identical. It's not. Not everyone is scared, and nobody is scared the exact same amount. Some people are outright paranoid and with a fear that is damaging their lives. Other people grew up in unstable areas prone to terrorism and, now living in the safe west, tend to view even the majority of people as behaving like hysterical idiots. Or better still incompetent hysterical idiots, becuase despite their fear they don't alter their behavior in ways that genuinely reduce their risk.

By way of explanation, half my family is from Belfast. They tend to laugh contemptuously at earnest fearmongers but will stay away from windows in public areas, watch the bins, watch for boxes, and can normally point out the shooting lanes if you ask.

Of course not. The only issue is that we must acknowledge that there are people on the political left and right that share the same kind of fear, even if there are many varieties of fear.

The fear of some Muslim communities being more prone to radicalisation than others is not a fear that is shared by the right-wing. There are plenty of true stories about SOME Muslim youth being radicalised and joining ISIS. The fear that not all Muslim communities could be properly integrated is not entirely an irrational fear as well.

Just because there is one member of ISIS hiding among millions of genuine refugees does not mean there are no ISIS members hiding among the Syrians. There are many people ( be they right or left) that are angry because it seems like the Left-wing is trying to deny the possibility of this happening in the first place. Trying to dismiss their fear does not address their fears at all, and it only serves to undermine the left's position when it comes to refugees.

It's akin to telling anyone suffering from depression to cheer up and inform them they have nothing to be depressed over. For many people, we are emotional being first, and rational beings second. You can talk about logic for all you want but that will not convince a very frightened person to come out of their cave. Laughing and mocking them for their fear is also not going to help.

[madd0ct0r]

You know, I was just wondering what people who live in northern Ireland think of all this.

On phone. But basically some are already quite practiced in religious community hatred.http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/ ... nce-18836/

[Thanas]

The head of Jewish councils in Germany has just come out and said Germany should limit the influx of refugees.

Confirming once more their moral bankruptcy.