Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Morrus]

They have no business being here. It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis.

Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty.

The whole world is doing it. Everyone is doing what they can.

Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done.

To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it is. It's everybody's job. Your country, my country, all the countries. That's what makes us not evil. We help people in need. We give to those less fortunate than ourselves. It is humanity's duty.

Then let's give them some money to help them in one of their local countries. We don't have to burden our country when we can help them survive and get back home by putting them up in the Middle East.

Just like during WW2 when people fled the Nazi persecution. That enriched your country, particularly. Not that the benefit is why it should be done.

To have so much and deny it to those is desperate need is wrong.

This is not like WWII. You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.

 

[Kramodlog]

They have no business being here.

Whoa. Flashback from 1938.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/

Maybe any objection is just doom to fail. The right buttons have been pushed. The right levers pulled. The West is just gonna go down the path Islamists want it to go: stigmatize, exclude and bomb Muslims. It certainly makes recruitment easier.

 

[MechaPilot]

They have no business being here.

If you're referring to the U.S., they have as much business being here as anyone else does. Perhaps they have more business being here than in other nations since we have a national monument whose inscription specifically invites them by quoting the following poem (The New Colossus):


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



If that isn't literally an engraved invitation to those seeking refuge, what is?

 

[MechaPilot]

This is not like WWII. You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.

To be fair, there are enough similarities that I feel the comparison has some valid weight to it.

Nazis and Islamic extremists are (or were, for the Nazis) death cults attempting to masquerade as legitimate authorities.

They both preach a philosophy of hate and murder while trying to bill themselves as "heroically defending" the oppressed.

They both want to wipe out the Jewish people.



And let's not forget that WWII didn't start out as WWII. For a long time we just didn't give a crap about what the Nazis did because it didn't affect our isolationist society. Hell, Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year for 1938, only one year prior to the start of WWII. The fact is that most people in the U.S. still tend to forget that the rest of the world is even there (apart from a few major allies and rivals).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

They have no business being here. It's not our job to take in everyone fleeing some world crisis. There is always a crisis of some sort somewhere. There are many surrounding countries that should be taking the Syrian refugees in locally so that they can go home when the crisis is over.

I'll repost this, since you seem to have missed it:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us

The farther away you can remove refugees from the conflict they are fleeing, the lower their chance of becoming radicalized. IOW, just looking at the issue through the lens of the goal of reducing odds of particular refugees becoming radicalized, we're better off with helping them here than we are trying to help them there.

The data they're using goes back decades: Arabic refugees from the conflicts between Arab nations and Israel who went into the refugee camps in the adjacent nations (they were not allowed to resettle, but had to remain in the camps) were far more likely to join the litany of anti-Israeli groups than those refugees who resettled in Europe or the USA.

See also US history repeating itself:

You don't think that they plan things years in advance? Or that they would try several different avenues to get into the country?

Certainly they can, but attempting to enter the USA via the refugee process, which takes 18-24 months and subjects you to the highest level of scrutiny is asking to fail. It is literally the path of greatest resistance. They're far more likely to gain entry via our student visa program, our guest worker programs, or the various paths of illegal immigration.

A dozen is an issue, and that's just the dozen that was caught.

That is just paranoid. If I were to follow that kind of logic, I should be demanding the exile of all white people and NRA members.

 

[Morrus]

Then let's give them some money to help them in one of their local countries. We don't have to burden our country when we can help them survive and get back home by putting them up in the Middle East.

"Their local countries"? What on earth does distance have to do with it? Did you only accept aid from Canada during Katrina?

Yes, we do have to burden our countries. It is the right thing to do. We have so much.

Do you really want the embarrassment of your country being the only Western country not to do their part?

You know the day after it was attacked, France announced it would accept an additional 30,000 refugees?

This is not like WWII. You're comparing a match to a bonfire and declaring it the same.

Scale is not the point, and a poor excuse for not helping your neighbour.

Ugh. This thread is making me feel a little sick. I'm getting out if it. I don't need to be seeing things like this.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, there are enough similarities that I feel the comparison has some valid weight to it.

Nazis and Islamic extremists are (or were, for the Nazis) death cults attempting to masquerade as legitimate authorities.

They both preach a philosophy of hate and murder while trying to bill themselves as "heroically defending" the oppressed.

They both want to wipe out the Jewish people.

As I pointed out, it's a matter of scope. A match doesn't warrant the same response as a raging bonfire does.

 

[Maxperson]

"Their local countries"? What on earth does distance have to do with it? Did you only accept aid from Canada during Katrina?

We didn't move to Canada or any other country over it. Give them aid........over there.

Yes, we do have to burden our countries. It is the right thing to do. We have so much.

Then let's burden it with aid and locate them close to home so they don't have far to go when the turmoil ends.

Do you really want the embarrassment of your country being the only Western country not to do their part?

I'm not embarrassed by it. Nor am I suggesting that we not do "our part." Our part, however, is to give them aid so that they can live close to home and be able to return to where they live when the turmoil is done. "Our part" doesn't require that we take in refugees.

You know the day after it was attacked, France announced it would accept an additional 30,000 refugees?

Scale is not the point, and a poor excuse for not helping your neighbour.

Ugh. This thread is making me feel a little sick. I'm getting out if it. I don't need to be seeing things like this.

If you're seeing things you don't like, look in a different direction. You're only looking down the very narrow pathway that you want to look down and that only includes us letting refugees in. If you were looking elsewhere, you wouldn't have suggested that I'm saying that we don't help. I'm not suggesting that we don't help. I'm suggesting we help in other ways.

 

[MechaPilot]

As I pointed out, it's a matter of scope. A match doesn't warrant the same response as a raging bonfire does.

Granted, that's why the response to WWII and ISIS should vary in scope. However, accepting more refugees is a step up from current policy: it recognizes that ISIS is a real threat to the stability of the region, it focuses on the humanitarian crisis, and it doesn't accelerate us straight to WWIII like ground-invasion would (which, sadly, is a thing that I've seen news clips of people suggesting we should do).