LakersGround.net :: View topic - Terrorist attacks in Paris

Terrorist attacks in Paris
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:01 pm Post subject:

marga86 wrote:

While I see what you are trying to say, I think it is perfectly rational to FEAR the fact that some attackers could be masked as refugees.

Sure, it's reasonable to view that as a concern - and one should. But one can't let fear dictate one's actions. That's what the terrorists want.

Quote:

I just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it is not a viable threat. I completely understand the notion of being 'careful' with these refugees.

No one is saying that it can't happen or is not a threat. The point is one has to assess ALL of the possible threats and respond based on what the clearer, more definitive and realized ones are and act accordingly. If we over-react to every possible threat, even those that have not demonstrated to be viable or active, we are wasting and dividing our efforts.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:10 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

If we had to take in people from most European countries, they would have a lifetime of data to sift through. We would have records. It would be easier to do risk assessment.

We would be dealing with a government that was friendly to us and would want to give us information.

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

I've never insinuated that. That is the way you choose to read it even though that is not what's been said.

But I did say that we can't do proper vetting because the information about these peoples' backgrounds does not exist. If any info does exist, it's owned by a government that is not friendly with us.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:13 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:36 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

In the meantime, let's overreact by dispelling our sense of humanity despite a lack of evidence.

Last edited by DaMuleRules on Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:40 pm Post subject:

Islam is no more a problem than Christianity, in and of itself. Just as Catholicism doesn't intrinsically lend itself to pedophilia more than Islam does, or Mormonism, or Seventh Day Adventism. What matters is the time and context. So it is an Islamic issue, but not necessarily an issue of Islam.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:43 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

Sure, because there's no need to address a crisis while it's a crisis. Let's do nothing and wait and see. And then, if they aren't terrorists, we can agree to let in the people who no longer need letting in.

Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number

Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:50 pm Post subject:

LakersNewEra wrote:

At some point we will need to have an adult conversation about Islam. Its a violent religion, it is a problem and it is the root cause of all this mess. Some even claim that ISIS is in fact the purest form of Islam and I dont really think its far from the truth.
HOWEVER, it is crucial that we don't call it for what it is right now, that we tell noble lies and that we don't condemn moderate Muslims. All in all, it we should stay away from calling it religous violence as much as possible.

This is far too simplistic. There are absolutely violent factions within Islam. But Islam itself is not a violent religion at all. It is easy to conflate Wahhabism and the like with Islam as a whole. However, there are about 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. There are about 3 million Muslims in the US. If the problem was really Islam, per se, things would be a lot worse than they are.

Wilt wrote a good general discussion a few pages back in this thread. There is a faction within Islam that is rebelling against modernity and the values of the West. Wahhabism is a manifestation of this. However, conflating Wahhabism with Islam as a whole is analogous with conflating the Amish with Christianity.

As we move forward in dealing with the jihadists, we must remain aware of the complexities and avoid simplistic, feel good solutions. Those sorts of solutions usually just create more problems.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:51 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

In the meantime, let's overreact by dispelling our sense of humanity despite a lack of evidence.

No.

But let's be smart.

ISIS has stated that they have infiltrated the refugee population.

They have a goal of attacking the West and building unrest from within.

There can be other solutions for helping refugees. I don't know why some people are so adamant about working towards other solutions besides bringing them here when there is no way to reliably vet them.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:52 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

And since when did I advocate doing nothing?

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:09 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

And since when did I advocate doing nothing?

Tat's fair, I think you're advocating not doing hat is possible and instead doing some fairly unworkable thing, so the upshot would be inertia.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:18 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

And since when did I advocate doing nothing?

Tat's fair, I think you're advocating not doing hat is possible and instead doing some fairly unworkable thing, so the upshot would be inertia.

Why do you believe any other option must be unworkable?

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

In the meantime, let's overreact by dispelling our sense of humanity despite a lack of evidence.

No.

But let's be smart.

ISIS has stated that they have infiltrated the refugee population.

No you are repeating yourself. Yes, they have said that, and as I said that has yet to be seen. Meanwhile we have genuine threats to address. AS has also been said. If we are just going to keep going around in circles, I don't see much point in us continuing it.

Quote:

They have a goal of attacking the West and building unrest from within.

Yep. As we have seen from the attacks in Paris - none of whom involved tie to Syria, but instead to Europeans.

Quote:

There can be other solutions for helping refugees. I don't know why some people are so adamant about working towards other solutions besides bringing them here when there is no way to reliably vet them.

Reflexx
Franchise Player

Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

In the meantime, let's overreact by dispelling our sense of humanity despite a lack of evidence.

No.

But let's be smart.

ISIS has stated that they have infiltrated the refugee population.

Quote:

They have a goal of attacking the West and building unrest from within.

Yep. As we have seen from the attacks in Paris - none of whom involved tie to Syria, but instead to Europeans.

Again. Not relevant.

Quote:

No one is against viable plans that don't involve simply barring their entry. You keep saying, "there can be other solutions", but you have only offered vague and improbable ones that create other problems. That's not a "solution", just a deflection.[/quote]

Sure you're against other solutions. Anything that doesn't fit into what Obama wants to do is not deemed viable because of his stubbornness, not because other solutions can't be worked out.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:29 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

In the meantime, let's overreact by dispelling our sense of humanity despite a lack of evidence.

No.

But let's be smart.

ISIS has stated that they have infiltrated the refugee population.

Quote:

They have a goal of attacking the West and building unrest from within.

Yep. As we have seen from the attacks in Paris - none of whom involved tie to Syria, but instead to Europeans.

Again. Not relevant.

Of course it is. I think you are confusing the term "relevant" with "not conducive to my argument, so I'm ignoring it".

Quote:

Sure you're against other solutions.

Pretty bold statement since I have never stated that and never expressed any opposition for a viable solution.

Quote:

Anything that doesn't fit into what Obama wants to do is not deemed viable because of his stubbornness, not because other solutions can't be worked out.

Oh god. The lame partisan "Obama" argument. I couldn't careless what Obama wants. I'm more interested in doing what is right and proper from a human standpoint.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:31 pm Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

24 wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

DaMuleRules wrote:

Reflexx wrote:

You act as if we are just going to open the floodgates and allow refugees to flow in without screening at all. That's not the case.

Quote:

And again, you keep ignoring the point that the attackers so far have had no ties to the refugee influx. And in fact, the one attacker that was thought to bee from Syria was carrying a fake passport.

It's not relevant. I've never listed that as a reason for being cautious.

The fact that none of the acts of terrorism have been sourced from the influx of refugees is not relevant to the relative threat that influx presents?

That's ridiculous.

The refugee crisis is a fairly recent one. Let's see in another few years.

And since when did I advocate doing nothing?

Tat's fair, I think you're advocating not doing hat is possible and instead doing some fairly unworkable thing, so the upshot would be inertia.

Why do you believe any other option must be unworkable?

Well, let's run down the list of ways to do it:

1. Create a safe zone within Syria. First of all, how do you determine where? And assuming you can figure that out, how do you avoid the inevitable issues that you had in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia? How do you drive out the current occupants (who could be ISIS and thus will wreck your safe zone), manage the resettlement, and secure it? And how do you fight ISIS, the locals who have had their land stolen, the sovereign government of Syria (who isn't going to approve this), not to mention pissing off Russia, and dealing with Hezbollah and the Iranians, who will also oppose this?

2. Create a zone in another country? Simple question, whose country? And many of the same issues apply.

3. Camps. That's worked well everywhere...

The bottom line is that you have a concept that has no real implementation possibility.

marga86
Star Player

Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 3442

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:39 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

Islam is no more a problem than Christianity, in and of itself. Just as Catholicism doesn't intrinsically lend itself to pedophilia more than Islam does, or Mormonism, or Seventh Day Adventism.

What matters is the time and context. So it is an Islamic issue, but not necessarily an issue of Islam.

Radicals are the problem.

LakersNewEra
Star Player

Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 1526
Location: Vancouver BC

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:51 pm Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

LakersNewEra wrote:

You are undermining the problem that is within Islam. More than 50 % of Muslims support the Sharia law. Muslim leaders in many countries including Ireland where Im right now have said they would like to see it implemented as the state law at some point.
That is because in Islam there are two houses. House of peace and house of war. In the house of peace, Islam is the ruling religion. In the state of war, it is not. It fights to become the ruling religion. I'd say ISIS is as authentic to Islam as the most peaceful follower of it. Beesides, isnt the ISIS leader one of the most educated people on the Islamic scripture? The giuy knows his stuff, gets into arguments with other Sunni scholars easily and quite often wins those arguments. Islam is vast and therefore contradicts itself often but lets not act like ISIS is twisting things, everything they do and attempt to do is consistant with Islam to some point. Are they selective? Sure. But theyre not just pulling things out of their ass. They have scholars and academics in their ranks justyifing everything with verses and passages from Islamic literature.

Its a huge problem. The reason why ISIS won't go away anytime soon is because it is simply very authentic to what Islam is IMO. They argue they are true to Islam, their leader said himself (and this is the guy thats highly educated in Islam.and knows.his stuff) that Islam is not a religion of peace but of war and can you really disagree?
I think I read some place that out of 32 IIRC ongoing wars, 26 involve a Muslim country.

Obviously, ISIS is very sophisticated with technology and many other things but again I think they have been able to get so many people.to join them because they are very Islamic, very authentic to the true Islam as they claim.

It sucks but its how it is. Islam and democracy, Islam and secularism are not too compatible. For many years however, it wasnt a huge problem. Heck, Saddam Hussein at one point wanted to stop Sharia law. He thought it was outdated. Most Muslims werent all that educated in Islam, in differences between the branches...now you have ISIS, this terrible organization that is absolutely evil...but also absolutely true to Islam. Its why they wont be destroyed so easily and why the war is really for minds and hearts above all..and because ISIS is so true to Islam, its gonna be a long one.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:54 pm Post subject:

marga86 wrote:

24 wrote:

Radicals are the problem.

Sure. But radical what? It is disingenuous of both sides to leave stuff out. Yes, the problem is occurring in Islam, and thus Islam must be addressed as part of the issue, especially its structure, context, and politics. It is an Islamic issue. But at the same time, the tenets of Islam itself are not the driver, but the vehicle. Just as the priest Scandal WAS a catholic issue, but not because of the tenets of catholicism. Christians have had the same issues that Islam is experiencing. Part of it relates to the power of religion, and the power of those wielding it to use it for corruption, and part of it is geopolitical and timeframe context.

LakersNewEra
Star Player

Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 1526
Location: Vancouver BC

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:57 pm Post subject:

marga86 wrote:

24 wrote:

Radicals are the problem.

You absolutely cannot, I repeat cannot compare Christian and Muslim radicals at this point. A few centuries ago? Sure. Not right now though.
And what is a radical.Muslim by your definiton? Is it the one that does terrorist acts? The one that supports the Sharia law? Whatever your definition is, radicals are an extremity, hence a minority. But if they are the majority, are they really radicals then or are they the norm, that is normal?
So yes, depending on your definition of what a Muslim radical is, you could easily think of over 50 to perhaps even over 70 % of Muslims as radicals.

Btw, I know I may seem like I have something againsg Muslims but I don't.
I condemn the religion, not the people. Its a very uncomfortable and awkard conversation.

Omar Little
Moderator

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:09 pm Post subject:

LakersNewEra wrote:

marga86 wrote:

24 wrote:

Radicals are the problem.

That's the problem. There isn't anything more or less violent about Islam itself than Christianity, so it is the people and the current context.

OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player

Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:16 pm Post subject:

I am torn on the refugee issue. While I feel that allowing people to come in without screening is irresponsible, I am mindful of how these decisions in the past have led to some really ugly outcomes. We blocked the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany from coming here and helped trap them in a situation that led to their extermination. I just do not see any easy answers.

LakersNewEra
Star Player

Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 1526
Location: Vancouver BC

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:21 pm Post subject:

24 wrote:

LakersNewEra wrote:

marga86 wrote:

24 wrote:

Radicals are the problem.

That's the problem. There isn't anything more or less violent about Islam itself than Christianity, so it is the people and the current context.

Disagree big time.. Again, I think you are undermining Islam. Theres a lot of crazy (bleep) in the Bible for sure but Jesus isnt beheading anyone, nor suggesting it, not condoning it.
Theres no such (bleep) as killing infidels.
See, Islam is interesting.. I know theres a passage that says that if you save one innocent person its as if you saved all of humanity. Which is beautiful, right? What is innocent thought? Didnt Muhammed himself personally kill and behead who knows how many people for doubting him? So yeah..who's really innocent? Isnt there a pasaage that basically condones killing infidels?

See, I think Christianity and the Bible isnt really that bad. Its people and the churh that made it bad.
Whereas Islam is messed up. And when people follow it, they do messed up stuff. No lack of interpretation as with christianity. Its why ISIS is very much true Islam IMO.

LakersNewEra
Star Player

Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 1526
Location: Vancouver BC

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:25 pm Post subject:

OregonLakerGuy wrote:

I am torn on the refugee issue. While I feel that allowing people to come in without screening is irresponsible, I am mindful of how these decisions in the past have led to some really ugly outcomes. We blocked the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany from coming here and helped trap them in a situation that led to their extermination.
I just do not see any easy answers.

Agree. Almost an impossible issue right now. At first I was all for taking refugees in and helping as many as possible but now that the worst has happened, Im just not sure anymore.

DaMuleRules
Retired Number

Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:40 pm Post subject:

OregonLakerGuy wrote:

They wouldn't be coming without screening, so I wish people would stop perpetuating that myth.

WWII Britain admitted German refugees knowing with certainty that there would be a tiny portion that would be German spies. They did so because the benefits of doing the right thing by aiding those refugees outweighed the potential risks and that doing otherwise would be cowardly.

Since the outbreak of war with the middle east over a dozen years ago, there have been thousands and thousands of refugees from the region coming to the US and absolutely no instances of any of those refugees attacking us here in the US.

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17 Next

Page 15 of 17

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.

We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.