Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

US states halt taking Syrian refugees

404 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beefers

Put a dome over America......Seal it for at least 100 years.

We'd be dead within 5 years though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

Yeah but , we in our country are seen as targets, they're saying soft targets. It's not a matter of not wanting to take the refugees in. I'm conflicted on this situation because of the terror units that will want to infiltrate , move within the refugees . We are guilty by association because we are Americans. Our allies too are guilty by association. I don't know exactly when bitter feelings came into effect about us & our allies. I'm guessing maybe it was when Israel made a deal with I think Rothschild & the bank of England for Palestine.

The thing is, they do not need to send anyone to the US disguised as a refugee. They will simply radicalize some of your people. That is easier and much cheaper. And that is how they did it in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

I actually think that this is against what the USA stands for. You used to be admired for helping and taking in the persecuted - heck, that was how your country came into existence.

yep. but that time is gone, things are different now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

Let me ask you this - if you were the French president for a day, how would you handle things going forward? I get the impression that you would keep the doors wide open and your fingers crossed behind your back for good luck

I cannot give you an answer on that. It is a tough question.n But I do not see how keeping the refugees out would help me there, as the French president, since the attackers were French nationals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

yep. but that time is gone, things are different now.

I see that. Now you just bomb countries and flourish your imperialism and then cry because so many people hate the US (not me, to get that out of here.).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

I see that. .......

yep, you see that. so i guess this is how it is than,

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

I find it sad, and not a very helpful development. That is all I meant to say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

The thing is, they do not need to send anyone to the US disguised as a refugee. They will simply radicalize some of your people. That is easier and much cheaper. And that is how they did it in France.

Yeah I understand that part. I think people are sick of the synthetic system we are born into and have spread around the world by means of our "foreign policy". It was Bush's foreign policy that lead us into Iraq. Bad policy. Who pays for it , in many ways who pays for these consequences. Not really a question for you because i think you already know & knew before I was aware of it.

I think that's part of why some western people are going to the far extreme measures of being radicalized. I think it's more than just religion here that's going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I see that. Now you just bomb countries and flourish your imperialism and then cry because so many people hate the US (not me, to get that out of here.).

It's not the people of America or Paris or any other . But, it's the people that keep enabling these bankers to control this system, this way of life that America was never meant to do. Why can't everyone just admit what's really the cause of terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

Yeah I understand that part. I think people are sick of the synthetic system we are born into and have spread around the world by means of our "foreign policy". It was Bush's foreign policy that lead us into Iraq. Bad policy. Who pays for it , in many ways who pays for these consequences. Not really a question for you because i think you already know & knew before I was aware of it.

I think that's part of why some western people are going to the far extreme measures of being radicalized. I think it's more than just religion here that's going on.

Indeed, yes. There is a radicalization problem everywhere in our world. We also see the right-wing becoming more radical again - and they are just as dangerous. We have had so many right-wing attacks in the recent weeks, and I don't think that will be declining.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Sorry Ella but the foreign policy that lead us into Iraq far preceded Bush...

Every pres for the past 50+ years has had their meddling hands in on it republicans and dems alike.Our middle east problems didnt just start with W ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EEHC

By all means people, take them all to your country or fill the rooms of your home with them. Every last one of you who want to push them on everybody else wouldn't have them in your own homes. If 10,000 bleeding heart liberals invited them to live within the walls of their homes and paid for them out of their own pockets then maybe I'd be a little more positive. Not one of you would consider doing what you dictate to others.

The US has bombed the heck out of Syria, probably killing many civilians in the process and don't want to take refugees? Odd.

Edited by Sam.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

Sorry Ella but the foreign policy that lead us into Iraq far preceded Bush...

Every pres for the past 50+ years has had their meddling hands in on it republicans and dems alike.Our middle east problems didnt just start with W ;)

It still was a big mistake. Especially going there because of faulty intelligence.

Edited by FLOMBIE
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

The US has bombed the heck out of Syria, probably killing many civilians in the process and don't want to take refugees? Odd.

odd??? not really, only logical. , you do not want to let tens of thousands of people in, whose country you destroyed. they will destory yours in return. even if only fraction of them are capable and willing to do it. we are not really able to separate them on the spot.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

It still was a big mistake. Especially going their because of faulty intelligence.

lmao. do you honestly think you know why we really went there? false wmd intel, lol, that is an excuse for entire world. not real reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Given that we have no constitutional obligation to take people in I cannot see how states do not have the right to refuse.

The power over accepting refugees resides with the President, and the SC has already long ago recognized Freedom of Movement as a constitutional right so there isn't much state governors can do. Other than freak out which they are already doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

It still was a big mistake. Especially going their because of faulty intelligence.

No doubt about that!I would prefer to stay out of that region completely,but this constant blame game from one side or the other is just sad and not realistic!Bush also had plenty of agreement from the dems for his plans,labeling who is responsible for all this mess isnt realistic...Either both are guilty or both are innoccent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EEHC

odd??? not really, only logical. , you do not want to let tens of thousands of people in, whose country you destroyed. they will destory yours in return. even if only fraction of them are capable and willing to do it. we are not really able to separate them on the spot.

What about those 823,000 Boat People who have been resettled in the US after the Vietnam War ? That was responsible.

Edited by Sam.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

lmao. do you honestly think you know why we really went there? false wmd intel, lol, that is an excuse for entire world. not real reason.

Yes, of course do I know that. That does not make the scenario look any better. Pretend being the world police and actually go get something else. People remember that kind of behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE

No doubt about that!I would prefer to stay out of that region completely,but this constant blame game from one side or the other is just sad and not realistic!Bush also had plenty of agreement from the dems for his plans,labeling who is responsible for all this mess isnt realistic...Either both are guilty or both are innoccent.

Indeed, you are right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

From what I understand, there is still a recourse the State Governors do have...They can still dictate the funds/how they are administered/living quarters/etc. The Government is bad at these things in normal situations, imagine if they decide to really screw them up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

What about those 823,000 Boat People who have been resettled in the US after the Vietnam war ? That was responsible.

, you can say irresponcible, but it is not exactly the same, boat people started comming in in 78, war ended in 75.

we take about a million every year as it is, . but since there is a rick of islamic fighters come in as well, and today risk of it is a lot higher then amongst boat people coming 3 years after war.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

The US has bombed the heck out of Syria, probably killing many civilians in the process and don't want to take refugees? Odd.

Sensible. Neither you nor the president could give me guarantee or swear on your mom's grave that the vetting process is absolute. I refuse to give my vote of confidence to this act as it is a gamble on American lives. It isn't worth it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

Sensible. Neither you nor the president could give me guarantee or swear on your mom's grave that the vetting process is absolute. I refuse to give my vote of confidence to this act as it is a gamble on American lives. It isn't worth it.

Dude, calm down - they're just refugees.

1447639825352.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

Sensible. Neither you nor the president could give me guarantee or swear on your mom's grave that the vetting process is absolute. I refuse to give my vote of confidence to this act as it is a gamble on American lives. It isn't worth it.

I agree. Gambling on lives is the exact right word.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm compassionate for those people that are fleeing a horrible situation. Tough decisions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.