what would be the best way to eliminate isis/al queda

[IronWing]

Regardless of how Hitler was defeated, it's a fact that the muslims joined forces with the Nazi's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world



Interesting that not many people know who muslim leader Amin al-Husseini was and that he was knee deep in collusion with the Nazi's. The principles of the Koran fit right in with Germany's agenda it would seem.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_views_on_Islam

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Arabs won a revolt against the Ottomans only to have the Brits and French hose them at Versailles.

 

[NAC4EV]

Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:29pm EST

Islamic State says it has executed two captives from Norway and China.

They said that their governments had "abandoned" them, and that they were "for sale" and ransom payments would have secure their release.

 

[JSt0rm]

If only they listed the msrp on the ad they may have gotten an offer.

 

[werepossum]

For the record, the Boston Marathon bombing was initiated by children of Muslim refugees from a war torn country. Think about that for a second. Out of a small batch of muslim refugees, we spawn a terrorist attack on American soil. On the other hand, we have taken in MILLIONS of Mexican refugees with no terror attacks. Not all immigrants are equal. Immigrants with a world view that includes the destruction of technology, science and secularism are not helpful. It is stupid risk that we need not take.

Well said.

If only they listed the msrp on the ad they may have gotten an offer.

Great, I laughed and now we're both going to Hell.

 

[MongGrel]

Regardless of how Hitler was defeated, it's a fact that the muslims joined forces with the Nazi's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world



Interesting that not many people know who muslim leader Amin al-Husseini was and that he was knee deep in collusion with the Nazi's. The principles of the Koran fit right in with Germany's agenda it would seem.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_views_on_Islam

Italy and Japan joined forces with the Nazis, somehow I doubt the Arabic nations that joined at the time he really cared about much.

I guess it didn't work out too well for them, as they are kind of a foot note.

As far as solutions go.

Some of the tactics we used in WWII would get them banned here on AT. This just goes to show you that the world today does not have the stomach to do what is necessary to win a war.

 

[woolfe9998]

For the record, the Boston Marathon bombing was initiated by children of Muslim refugees from a war torn country. Think about that for a second. Out of a small batch of muslim refugees, we spawn a terrorist attack on American soil. On the other hand, we have taken in MILLIONS of Mexican refugees with no terror attacks. Not all immigrants are equal. Immigrants with a world view that includes the destruction of technology, science and secularism are not helpful. It is stupid risk that we need not take.

Assuming that everything you say here is correct, what does it matter, since Canada is taking 10's of thousands of them and if a determined terrorist can't get in with refugees because we aren't taking any, all they have to do is go to Canada and cross somewhere over the length of our 4,000 mile border.

It's really the same problem that France has only worse for them I suppose. That one who got in with refugees probably could have gone to Germany instead and crossed over into France if France wasn't taking in refugees.

The bottom line is I doubt we can keep determined terrorists out either way. Because of that I would favor letting in a limited number for humanitarian reasons. My only hesitancy is if one ends up participating in an attack we may be handing the keys to the government over to the GOP. I suspect that even if the terrorist could have gotten in through another route, this argument will lost on American voters because this is the politics of fear, and fear overrides reason.

 

[werepossum]

Assuming that everything you say here is correct, what does it matter, since Canada is taking 10's of thousands of them and if a determined terrorist can't get in with refugees because we aren't taking any, all they have to do is go to Canada and cross somewhere over the length of our 4,000 mile border.

It's really the same problem that France has only worse for them I suppose. That one who got in with refugees probably could have gone to Germany instead and crossed over into France if France wasn't taking in refugees.

The bottom line is I doubt we can keep determined terrorists out either way. Because of that I would favor letting in a limited number for humanitarian reasons. My only hesitancy is if one ends up participating in an attack we may be handing the keys to the government over to the GOP. I suspect that even if the terrorist could have gotten in through another route, this argument will lost on American voters because this is the politics of fear, and fear overrides reason.

Plus, you know, the people killed in a terrorist attack. Obviously not on the same order as the GOP winning elections, but not optimum, I believe the proper response goes.

 

[woolfe9998]

Plus, you know, the people killed in a terrorist attack. Obviously not on the same order as the GOP winning elections, but not optimum, I believe the proper response goes.

Yes, I get your point, and it would make sense but for all the words in my post before "my only hesitance...." If you paid careful attention, it is my opinion that any terrorist who gets in as a refugee then participates in an attack would have done so by so other means even if we hadn't taken in any refugees. Meaning that whoever died, would have died anyway. The only difference being the political consequences.

See how your quip allowed you to avoid the real point I was making? Try addressing it head on next time.

Nice try.

 

[NAC4EV]

ISIS videos from Raqqa Syria show children training to kill. D:

 

[JSt0rm]

ISIS videos from Raqqa Syria show children training to kill. D:

They getting ready for a holy war. They literally think god is going to come down and kill us all for them if we are fighting them in their land.

Its kinda funny the mass delusion the average human will accept. I think we were close as a evolutionary species but our god spot in the brain is a mistake. I dont think we will make it for the long temr because of this. Hopefully some species out there is evolved better then us.

 

[CitizenKain]

For the record, the Boston Marathon bombing was initiated by children of Muslim refugees from a war torn country. Think about that for a second. Out of a small batch of muslim refugees, we spawn a terrorist attack on American soil. On the other hand, we have taken in MILLIONS of Mexican refugees with no terror attacks. Not all immigrants are equal. Immigrants with a world view that includes the destruction of technology, science and secularism are not helpful. It is stupid risk that we need not take.

We also haven't spent years bombing Mexico.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I get your point, and it would make sense but for all the words in my post before "my only hesitance...." If you paid careful attention, it is my opinion that any terrorist who gets in as a refugee then participates in an attack would have done so by so other means even if we hadn't taken in any refugees. Meaning that whoever died, would have died anyway. The only difference being the political consequences.

See how your quip allowed you to avoid the real point I was making? Try addressing it head on next time.

Nice try.

But that's a cop-out. It's like saying "No use shutting down Megadownload because people who steal are simply going to steal it somewhere else" or "No point in building a border wall because people who come here illegally are always going to find a way to do so." There is literally nothing one can propose doing about anything that can't be answered with that.

We also haven't spent years bombing Mexico.

Purely coincidentally, Mexico has not sheltered a terrorist group that killed thousands of Americans, nor decided to annex Guatemala. Pure coincidence, obviously, since we select who to bomb solely by examining their names and skin tone.

 

[woolfe9998]

But that's a cop-out. It's like saying "No use shutting down Megadownload because people who steal are simply going to steal it somewhere else" or "No point in building a border wall because people who come here illegally are always going to find a way to do so." There is literally nothing one can propose doing about anything that can't be answered with that.

"Copout" or no, you knew very well the argument I was making, and that it didn't imply callousness about people dying in a terrorist act. I was implying that they would die in either scenario.

And indeed they would. Do you really, honestly believe an organization as well resourced, sophisticated and tenacious as ISIS would in a million years call off an intended attack because the US had stopped taking refugees and hence one intended method of getting into the country was foreclosed? Why would they do this when we have a 4000 mile essentially unguarded border with Canada that anyone can basically just walk across? This is not even mentioning the three other methods which could be used. It's just the easiest one.

Look at the situation with the Paris attack. That one attacker who entered by posing as a refugee, had France decided to take no refugees, could have just gone to Germany, who had taken in over a million, instead, then walked across somewhere at the 350 mile Franco-German border, which as I understand it, isn't terribly difficult. So even if that particular attacker was absolutely necessary to that attack and could not have been replaced by anyone else, he still could have gotten in quite easily using a different geographic approach.

Your analogy with shutting down a piracy site doesn't hold because the behavior of people who pirate download is a tad different than the behavior of a militant group like ISIS. Many people who pirate download will do so when it's convenient and the opportunity presents itself. If one site is closed, they may find another, or maybe not. They have a motive but their incentive is mild. By contrast, a group like ISIS is not going to be deterred if we make it just a little harder. They are way too militant and determined for that. If we bust the entire cell and foil the plot, that is a major setback. Making it a little harder to get one or two people into the country, not so much.

I don't think that not allowing the refugees in will improve US security. However, when we decline to help a small number of refugees in need because we are paranoid about all Muslims, this sends an unhelpful message to Muslims world wide that Americans just don't like Muslims. How helpful do you think that is in preventing more Muslims, including those already in the US, from radicalizing? If we can promote even a modicum of goodwill with Muslims who are not yet radicalized by taking in a tiny percentage of the existing Syrian refugees, then we should do it, particularly when doing so is not really going to increase our risk.

Also, has it occurred to you that it may be better for our security to have a known terrorist approach immigration through legal channels where they at least might be caught trying to get in, then by crossing over the Canada border, or being smuggled in by some other means, under no scrutiny? Indeed, should we identify a known militant through facial recognition or whatever at our own border, we'd likely allow that person in and put him under surveillance, giving us the opportunity to possibly bust the entire cell and foil the entire plot. I'm not saying those opportunities would present themselves, but they are at least possible if they try to enter legally. Not so if they walk across the Canada border undetected.

Bottom line, I'm not sure that allowing these refugees in will harm US security a little bit, improve it by a little bit, or do nothing one way or the other. The effect is, however, likely to be small either way and it's just as likely to be a benefit as it is a detriment, if not more so.

If you've read any of my other posts regarding Islam, then you know how critical I am of the religion. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about US security just like you are. I just think your approach isn't the best for our security.

 

[NAC4EV]

From another thread

Originally Posted by SP33Demon
What ISIS Really Wants
Article by the Atlantic that everyone interested in learning more about ISIS should read. It clearly outlines why the ideology is the root cause, and not poverty/lack of education/skin color/government/[insert variable here] etc. Bombing does nothing when the ideology will just as quickly replace them. Outside of death and physically taking land from the caliphate, there is nothing we can do will appease them so the only way for peace is to change the ideology. In my opinion, this will mean Muslim leaders of a new and legitimate, peaceful caliphate rewording and/or reinterpreting the text to be more peaceful to take away their rallying catalyst.

Good reading

 

[Perknose]

Yes, I get your point, and it would make sense but for all the words in my post before "my only hesitance...." If you paid careful attention, it is my opinion that any terrorist who gets in as a refugee then participates in an attack would have done so by so other means even if we hadn't taken in any refugees. Meaning that whoever died, would have died anyway. The only difference being the political consequences.

But that's a cop-out. It's like saying "No use shutting down Megadownload because people who steal are simply going to steal it somewhere else" or "No point in building a border wall because people who come here illegally are always going to find a way to do so." There is literally nothing one can propose doing about anything that can't be answered with that.

Wow! Both of your analogies are lol flawed.

It's like saying "No use shutting down Megadownload because people who steal are simply going to steal it somewhere else."

What wolfe said was that KEEPING Meagadownload/Syrians out of our country won't stop those bent on attacking us from doing so. In fact, when you shut down "Megadownload", another pops up. Haven't you noticed? In real life? Repeatedly? Over years and years?

So, too, when we kill a bunch of Islamic militiants, more are drawn to the cause. Have you not noticed that as well? We can't kill our way out of this.

...or "No point in building a border wall because people who come here illegally are always going to find a way to do so."

You put forth this statement an example of fallacious reasoning. But, guess what? It happens to be true.

 

[Jhhnn]

Plus, you know, the people killed in a terrorist attack. Obviously not on the same order as the GOP winning elections, but not optimum, I believe the proper response goes.

4400 Americans died in Iraq because GWB won in 2000.

Go figure.

 

[Perknose]

Outside of death and physically taking land from the caliphate, there is nothing we can do will appease them so the only way for peace is to change the ideology. In my opinion, this will mean Muslim leaders of a new and legitimate, peaceful caliphate rewording and/or reinterpreting the text to be more peaceful to take away their rallying catalyst.

Exactly! We simply can't kill or exclude our way out of this. In case any of you think we can, please listen to Medal of Honor winner and military analyst Colonel Jack Jacobs explain the problem.

Basically, he says it would take several thousand ground troops a decade or two to destroy ISIS, and that neither the US nor any of the regional Gulf powers is willing to do this.

There is no quick fix. This is not the time for dangerously simplistic ideas like, "All Muslims bad." Furthermore, fear-based exclusion of those refugees fleeing ISIS terror is despicable and would be playing right into their hands.

Leave the fear, ignorance and exclusion to ISIS.

 

[deustroop]

As Belgium is doing, criminalize as hate crimes all those determined to be radical islamists, put them in leg bracelets and then arrest all returning fighters until the bombing stops. Pows basically.

Destroy isis in raqqa. The time is quickly coming for that city to fall but leaders are fleeing the ship--its fall will be a huge positive PR event for the defenders of open society. Control them after that using a permanent in place force of the French army like the US army has done in afganistan and Korea.

 

[werepossum]

"Copout" or no, you knew very well the argument I was making, and that it didn't imply callousness about people dying in a terrorist act. I was implying that they would die in either scenario.

And indeed they would. Do you really, honestly believe an organization as well resourced, sophisticated and tenacious as ISIS would in a million years call off an intended attack because the US had stopped taking refugees and hence one intended method of getting into the country was foreclosed? Why would they do this when we have a 4000 mile essentially unguarded border with Canada that anyone can basically just walk across? This is not even mentioning the three other methods which could be used. It's just the easiest one.

Look at the situation with the Paris attack. That one attacker who entered by posing as a refugee, had France decided to take no refugees, could have just gone to Germany, who had taken in over a million, instead, then walked across somewhere at the 350 mile Franco-German border, which as I understand it, isn't terribly difficult. So even if that particular attacker was absolutely necessary to that attack and could not have been replaced by anyone else, he still could have gotten in quite easily using a different geographic approach.

Your analogy with shutting down a piracy site doesn't hold because the behavior of people who pirate download is a tad different than the behavior of a militant group like ISIS. Many people who pirate download will do so when it's convenient and the opportunity presents itself. If one site is closed, they may find another, or maybe not. They have a motive but their incentive is mild. By contrast, a group like ISIS is not going to be deterred if we make it just a little harder. They are way too militant and determined for that. If we bust the entire cell and foil the plot, that is a major setback. Making it a little harder to get one or two people into the country, not so much.

I don't think that not allowing the refugees in will improve US security. However, when we decline to help a small number of refugees in need because we are paranoid about all Muslims, this sends an unhelpful message to Muslims world wide that Americans just don't like Muslims. How helpful do you think that is in preventing more Muslims, including those already in the US, from radicalizing? If we can promote even a modicum of goodwill with Muslims who are not yet radicalized by taking in a tiny percentage of the existing Syrian refugees, then we should do it, particularly when doing so is not really going to increase our risk.

Also, has it occurred to you that it may be better for our security to have a known terrorist approach immigration through legal channels where they at least might be caught trying to get in, then by crossing over the Canada border, or being smuggled in by some other means, under no scrutiny? Indeed, should we identify a known militant through facial recognition or whatever at our own border, we'd likely allow that person in and put him under surveillance, giving us the opportunity to possibly bust the entire cell and foil the entire plot. I'm not saying those opportunities would present themselves, but they are at least possible if they try to enter legally. Not so if they walk across the Canada border undetected.

Bottom line, I'm not sure that allowing these refugees in will harm US security a little bit, improve it by a little bit, or do nothing one way or the other. The effect is, however, likely to be small either way and it's just as likely to be a benefit as it is a detriment, if not more so.

If you've read any of my other posts regarding Islam, then you know how critical I am of the religion. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about US security just like you are. I just think your approach isn't the best for our security.

I'm not so much concerned about known terrorists - I suspect any such would want to stay in ISIS and fight. But if we take in another 100,000 Middle Eastern Muslims, their children and grandchildren are here, and some small number of those will become radicalized. Those are extremely problematic because they will have all the rights and privileges of citizens; we can't simply expel them or even surveil them without cause. Saying we might as well let them in because they'll find a way to get in anyway is just saying let's do nothing and hope for the best, except let's not hope 'cause we already know we're going to lose. If that's the best we can do as a nation, we don't deserve to be a nation.

Wow! Both of your analogies are lol flawed.

It's like saying "No use shutting down Megadownload because people who steal are simply going to steal it somewhere else."

What wolfe said was that KEEPING Meagadownload/Syrians out of our country won't stop those bent on attacking us from doing so. In fact, when you shut down "Megadownload", another pops up. Haven't you noticed? In real life? Repeatedly? Over years and years?

So, too, when we kill a bunch of Islamic militiants, more are drawn to the cause. Have you not noticed that as well? We can't kill our way out of this.

...or "No point in building a border wall because people who come here illegally are always going to find a way to do so."

You put forth this statement an example of fallacious reasoning. But, guess what? It happens to be true.

Congratulations. You have discovered that law enforcement is an ongoing process. I assume you are now going to also advocate eliminating border crossing checkpoints and airline ID/weapons/bomb checks since by their very nature such efforts are pointless? Or - just maybe - you may one day discover that each effort solves a bit of the problem, even though none alone (indeed, not even all together) actually solves all of the problem.

On the other hand, if we can't keep them out and we can't fight them, then we are but herd animals hoping to breed faster than they can prey on us. Not a state I'd willingly embrace, but obviously, people differ.

 

[werepossum]

4400 Americans died in Iraq because GWB won in 2000.

Go figure.

lol Point taken.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not so much concerned about known terrorists - I suspect any such would want to stay in ISIS and fight. But if we take in another 100,000 Middle Eastern Muslims, their children and grandchildren are here, and some small number of those will become radicalized. Those are extremely problematic because they will have all the rights and privileges of citizens; we can't simply expel them or even surveil them without cause. Saying we might as well let them in because they'll find a way to get in anyway is just saying let's do nothing and hope for the best, except let's not hope 'cause we already know we're going to lose. If that's the best we can do as a nation, we don't deserve to be a nation.

Yeah, I figured you'd try this gambit. The problem is there are already 2.7 million Muslims in the US, any of whom could in theory become radicalized in the future. Adding another 10,000 will not significantly increase that likelihood. Most importantly, the more hostility we display toward Muslims in our foreign policy, the more we increase the chance of any of them becoming radicalized. It could well be a higher chance of getting home grown radicals by not admitting the refugees than if we do admit them. At most I doubt it makes much difference one way or the other because the demographics just aren't that compelling.

It's different in Germany. There they took 1.2 million. Even if that doesn't create a security concern, at the very least it may cause longer term culture clashes if they admit that many people from a culture whose values are so opposed to their liberal western culture. I am not in favor of multi-culturalism because I do not believe liberals are duty bound to tolerate an intolerant culture. That situation, however, is on different orders of magnitude. 1.2 million added to a population of 80 million is a very different scenario than 10,000 added to a population of 310 million. If we were talking about letting a million Syrians in, I would most definitely oppose it.

Edit: another article I read suggests Germany took in 800,000, not 1,200,000. Still too many!

 

[Perknose]

I assume you are now going to also advocate eliminating border crossing checkpoints and airline ID/weapons/bomb checks since by their very nature such efforts are pointless?

You assume incorrectly. I do notice you never admitted how laughably wrong both of your analogies were, though.

On the other hand, if we can't keep them out and we can't fight them, then we are but herd animals hoping to breed faster than they can prey on us.

^^^ Defective, disjunctive reasoning. Lazy-assed, to boot.

1. We can keep the Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS out. It's just a stupid, counterproductive, ignorant, morally bankrupt, fear-based idea, is all.

2. We can fight them. Just not with ineffectually bombing them to make us all feel good. This is a war of ideas. It will be a long, hard slog, exactly like the cold war with Russia was.

That seems to be something you are either incapable of comprehending, or, as in your pseudo-science based "critical mass" argument against admitting the Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS, unwilling to admit.

There is no quick fix. Why does the reflexive, retrograde right wing always leap to the simplistic quick fix, a la Trump/Carson/Cheney/Bush?

AGAIN, this is a war of ideas, just like the Cold War. So far, your side's ideas on the matter suck.

In any even, if you're going to start trying to out-breed them, I have but one word for you . . . Pics?

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I figured you'd try this gambit. The problem is there are already 2.7 million Muslims in the US, any of whom could in theory become radicalized in the future. Adding another 10,000 will not significantly increase that likelihood. Most importantly, the more hostility we display toward Muslims in our foreign policy, the more we increase the chance of any of them becoming radicalized. It could well be a higher chance of getting home grown radicals by not admitting the refugees than if we do admit them. At most I doubt it makes much difference one way or the other because the demographics just aren't that compelling.

It's different in Germany. There they took 1.2 million. Even if that doesn't create a security concern, at the very least it may cause longer term culture clashes if they admit that many people from a culture whose values are so opposed to their liberal western culture. I am not in favor of multi-culturalism because I do not believe liberals are duty bound to tolerate an intolerant culture. That situation, however, is on different orders of magnitude. 1.2 million added to a population of 80 million is a very different scenario than 10,000 added to a population of 310 million. If we were talking about letting a million Syrians in, I would most definitely oppose it.

Number given on the news today (in the context of Harry Reid vowing to defeat this bill in the Senate so that Obama doesn't have to veto a bipartisan bill with majority public support) was 100,000 Syrian refugees. But even if we take your number, why fuel an admitted problem 10,000 souls at a time? Presumably no one in Europe set out to develop an entrenched sub-society spawning domestic terrorists either; they just inched their way into it by doing the "right thing" (i.e. ignoring the religious proclivities of those they took in) a crisis at a time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/w...ion-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill that the total number of refugees taken in by the United States could rise to more than 100,000, from the current figure of 70,000. State Department officials said that not all of the additional 30,000 would be Syrians, but many would be. But Mr. Earnest said that members of Congress “misunderstood” Mr. Kerry, and that the number of refugees would not rise to 100,000 next year but might in later years.

You assume incorrectly. I do notice you never admitted how laughably wrong both of your analogies were, though.

^^^ Defective, disjunctive reasoning. Lazy-assed, to boot.

1. We can keep the Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS out. It's just a stupid, counterproductive, ignorant, morally bankrupt, fear-based idea, is all.

2. We can fight them. Just not with ineffectually bombing them to make us all feel good. This is a war of ideas. It will be a long, hard slog, exactly like the cold war with Russia was.

That seems to be something you are either incapable of comprehending, or, as in your pseudo-science based "critical mass" argument against admitting the Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS, unwilling to admit.

There is no quick fix. Why does the reflexive, retrograde right wing always leap to the simplistic quick fix, a la Trump/Carson/Cheney/Bush?

AGAIN, this is a war of ideas, just like the Cold War. So far, your side's ideas on the matter suck.

In any even, if you're going to start trying to out-breed them, I have but one word for you . . . Pics?

My side (the right) won the Cold War with strength. You may feel the left's ideas were superior, but had we continued down the path of Carter, appeasing them because Communism is far too strong to oppose, the Soviet Union with all its evils would still be going strong. You feel that the best ideology will always win out, but that simply isn't true in any reasonable length of time. Communism did not win out in Eastern Europe because it was the better ideology, it won out because there were more Communists with guns willing to kill to impose it on their fellow man. Not withstanding that Islam has a hell of a lot more staying power than communism, I don't wish to see my nation (or any nation) subjected to even a half century of darkness before discovering that their previous culture really is worth fighting for. Also, please note that this is not a short term "quick fix". On the contrary, this is a cold recognition that this will be a very long battle of cultures and in such, entrenching the opposing culture within our own is not smart.

As far as fear-based, the left is always saying we must admit these refugees because otherwise we give the appearance of not liking Islam. THAT is fear-based. I am simply recognizing that Islam (at least as practiced in the Middle East) is not fundamentally compatible with Western democracy and freedom, not least because Islam also contains a built-in form of government. It's one thing to allow Muslim immigration; those are people who have decided for themselves that America (being the ultimate free Western democracy) is superior to their birth country. But refugees have made no such determination; they are simply fleeing violence in their birth country. Any port in a storm. Once here, they may well decide that Islam is a superior way of life.

EDIT: I'm also curious as to why you oppose a wall but support border crossings. Am I missing something that makes it sensible to have measures against something undesirable as long as those measures aren't effective?

 

[adamantine.me]

Biological warfare. Program a virus to infiltrate only ISIS members...

 

[woolfe9998]

Number given on the news today (in the context of Harry Reid vowing to defeat this bill in the Senate so that Obama doesn't have to veto a bipartisan bill with majority public support) was 100,000 Syrian refugees. But even if we take your number, why fuel an admitted problem 10,000 souls at a time? Presumably no one in Europe set out to develop an entrenched sub-society spawning domestic terrorists either; they just inched their way into it by doing the "right thing" (i.e. ignoring the religious proclivities of those they took in) a crisis at a time.

While I'm somewhat less comfortable with 100,000 than I would be with 10,000, I'm a little confused after reading that article as to what will be the actual number. However, you do realize that we take in about 100K Muslims per year through ordinary, legal immigration channels, right? If you run some basic math, it would take roughly 3,000 years for Muslims to equal the non-Muslim population here, assuming literally zero pop growth from both groups, an assumption which actually cuts the other way because the non-Muslims start with a much higher base. In any event, to even become 10% of the population would take 300 years. Allowing an extra 100K in would advance that timeline by...one year.

In Europe I'm afraid they let in quite a lot more than that, especially in relationship to the lower populations in those countries. It's just a problem on an entirely different scale that isn't really going to be affected by a one-off situation where we let some refugees come in.