Syrian Refugees in USA and Beyond, Paris Attacks, "Islamic Extremists"

I wanted to open a discussion on the topic of welcoming Syrian refugees into our respective countries and communities because I can see why two opposite sides of the discussion might feel the way that they do. I can see why groups of individuals are afraid and also why other groups of individuals are compassionate. I would also like to include discussion of the argument that fanning the flames of fear increases the risk of terrorists striking. This is an especially touchy subject after it was discovered that one of the terrorists that struck Paris last week had snuck into Europe along with Syrian refugees. I don't believe that anyone is saying that the individual in question converted from being a refugee to a terrorist, but rather that the individual used the wave of refugees as a cover for getting in, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. This thread is also open to discussion of the policy of many Democrats to use the term "extremists" without including Islamic or Islam versus the approach of many Republicans to refer to the same terrorist groups as "Islamic extremists." Does adding the Islamic label really help? Could it actually hurt?

Does anyone have direct experience with refugees or perhaps even being a refugee or the offspring of a refugee?

I know this could be a very divisive subject, so I am hoping that everyone takes a calm, measured approach to any responses in this thread since I value the sense of community we have here on DV, brought together by our love of dreaming and lucid dreaming.

Hi, let's start by dissecting the meaning of the word refugee ,it means you go somewhere where you think you are going to be secure,safe,where nothing can harm you ,somewhere where peace will engulf you so you are seeking a refuge from everything that disturbed your security your wellbeing .
You cannot really accept a stranger and expect him to follow your rules your way of life,and be grateful for labeling him a refugee and don't forget what he has been through during the journey till he arrived in the land of the charitable who welcomed them of course with mixed feelings and that's understandable so now it's a big gamble that's Russian roulette ,so with all that in mind don't forget that a war is going on in their countries they use to have houses ,peace security they wouldn't have fled their countries if they weren't afraid for their lives and the lives of their children.
Now I'm going to tell you my storie ,I live in Libya and the Arab spring came for us as well bombs terror,terrorists ,you name it we have it,many people from fled to Tunisia to Egypt wich ever border was the nearest,for us we choose not to you will say why well because we didn't want to become a refugees we had money we could have gone anywhere but we chose to stay in our countries just to keep our dignity and we are suffering from the aftermath of the war of the extremist all over the place it has four long years of pure hell but that's our destiny the world has changed and we better learn to accept that it's getting ugly ,so let's pray that God will have mercy and keep everyone safe all over the world.:)

If you had a bag of 1,000 M&M's and found out that three of the M&M's were poisonous, would you eat the bag of M&M's?

Sure... if I also had a method for checking the M&M's for poison that allows me to separate the three bad ones before eating. That metaphor may work in both directions, I think, as it would be a shame to discard a whole bag of M&M's just because three are bad.

I think it is a bit odd that we -- not just the U.S., but the entire west -- are willing to let fear control our actions... even relatively small ones, like allowing 10,000 refugees into a country of 300 million people. This seems to be exactly what the terrorists want.

The refugee vetting process is thorough enough that it would be akin to chemically analyzing the M&M's (I've heard Skittles from a coworker today, too) before eating them.

Deny entry to Syrian refugees and you increase the risk of them falling into the hands of IS. Either they die or they become enemies. Which would you prefer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amedee

Now I'm going to tell you my storie ,I live in Libya and the Arab spring came for us as well bombs terror,terrorists ,you name it...

---

Thank you for sharing! Since I hadn't seen your username around the forums yet I looked up some of your prior posts and it brought up strong thoughts of what you must be going through there! Stay safe! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you had a bag of 1,000 M&M's and found out that three of the M&M's were poisonous, would you eat the bag of M&M's?

---

Besides what Sageous said, there is also the point that people aren't candy...we should care about them a little more than we care about keeping or discarding candy I'd say, and I certainly don't recommend that you eat any refugees. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

Sure... if I also had a method for checking the M&M's for poison that allows me to separate the three bad ones before eating. That metaphor works in both directions, I think, as it would be a shame to discard a whole bag of M&M's just because three are bad.

I think it is a bit odd that we -- not just the U.S., but the entire west -- are willing to let fear control our actions... even relatively small ones, like allowing 10,000 refugees into a country of 300 million people. This seems to be exactly what the terrorists want.

---

Great point. The groups that fan the flames of fear domestically could be seen as aiding those who's modus operandi is fear/terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Descensus

The refugee vetting process is thorough enough that it would be akin to chemically analyzing the M&M's (I've heard Skittles from a coworker today, too) before eating them.

Deny entry to Syrian refugees and you increase the risk of them falling into the hands of IS. Either they die or they become enemies. Which would you prefer?

---

On your first point, do you have a source for how thorough the vetting process is? I simply have no idea.

I really like your 2nd point and could very easily see this being the case!

I will be honest ,I will discard the whole bag I wouldn't put my life in danger and that's the point ,who can guarantee that there are no terrorists among the refugee ,it's very complicated but at the same time inhuman to refuse entry to them. I think instead of this chaos they should try and restore peace in those countries and stop this dreadful wars ,and ensure their safety aswell as the safety of others . :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fogelbise

On your first point, do you have a source for how thorough the vetting process is? I simply have no idea.

---

The first two points in this article are the most relevant, and seem consistent with other things I've read: 4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees : NPR

I also read that Syrian refugees can expect to wait up to 3 years to enter the U.S.; a bit longer than regular refugees (~2yrs, IIRC) since the region is of great concern security-wise.

^^ You'd think, with a 2-3 yr wait to sneak into the U.S. as a refugee, that a terrorist would get a bit impatient and choose a different route, like getting a passport from a country that participates in our visa waver program, or perhaps get a student visa, both of which would get him here fairly immediately while avoiding all those pesky interviews and background checks. Then of course there are the 10,000 or so miles of U.S. borders, most of which are unattended... the politicians may have chosen to fearmonger the wrong thing this time, I think.

If fear must be sold to the public, I think it would be better (though still bad; fearmongering, in my mind, is never a good thing) if it were done so to fight deaths by things like, say, guns, cancer, or traffic, all of which kill far more people every year than terrorists have killed in the U.S.'s entire history. I guess those things just don't work as well on the TV screen.

The screening process is not completely reliable. Not all members of ISIS are known by U.S. intelligence, and there is no way to be certain about whether a Syrian refugee is a terrorist. The countries ISIS does not want to destroy should take the refugees. The U.S. is the last country that should. There are almost 200 countries in the world. Why does my country need to be the one that takes Syrian refugees when we have a Syrian terrorist problem?

Of course M&M's are not people. That issue is outside of the relevant parallel of the analogy. Should an analogy only be between a thing and itself? Analogies always involve comparisons of two different things. That is what makes them analogies. However, the things are only compared in terms of a common aspect. An analogy is not a suggestion that two things are alike in all aspects. If they were, they would not be two different things. A dog has legs, and so does a table. That doesn't mean tables bark.

Sageous, we do try to control gun deaths, cancer, and traffic. Controlling domestic terrorism is much more effective. The reason we have so little domestic terrorism is that the prevention measures are so effective. Not letting Syrian refugees into the U.S. is another necessary measure.

^I am of the mind that the number and variety of dissimilarities between two things in an analogy weaken the analogy (fill in the dissimilarities between m&m's and refugees). This seems especially relevant when it seems that almost any sane person would not need such a simple analogy to understand that there is a danger. Though not a perfect analogy, I think the following one has more similarities to the subject than the analogy in question: *Do you not help the little old lady cross the road because of the danger that exists in crossing the road?

I do appreciate your continued input Universal Mind as I do want different sides to chime in since this is not a simple, black and white issue.

Does anyone want to discuss the other question posed regarding using labels such as "Islamic Extremists" instead of simply "Extremists" or "Terrorists?" It seems to be getting a lot of play among the Republican candidates as a way to attack Democratic candidates and the President.

I have no fear of helping old ladies across the street. I can watch for cars and be just fine. I do not feel safe letting Syrian refugees into the United States while ISIS infests Syria and is obsessed with kiling Americans. There is a 100% chance that some of the Syrians coming into the country would be members of ISIS. We have to keep ISIS out of the country, just like we have to keep poisonous M&M's out of our bodies. We can't take the bag although doing so would have its good aspects. We would be guaranteed to get poisoned.

Hi all I will start by saying its a shame what the world is going through these days and it's not the choice of the people it's the choice of the politicians . So if you want to know my opinion about terrorists extremists Islamic terrorist my country went through all that as I mentioned before and when NATO started bombing Libya I felt terror and I thought that it was extreme the way they did it they could have simply shot him ,send a special unit anything that would have been merciful for all concerned party so do you think I should call them terrorists extremists ? As for the Islamic terrorists it's a label Islam or Moslems don't have nothing to do with it how come 99 per cent of the people who are dying all over the world are Moslems and by the hand of these jihadists there's a French saying Qui vivra verra .it means the one who will survive will see ,so I don't think our discussion will lead us to anything because lots of clues are missing and let me assure you that these people Do not belong to Islam we preach peace not war I wish that the politician should go back to the Roman age and fight each other in a big arena and who win rules the world and take out religion from this equation and I forgot the most important thing the adversaries they should of course represent the Good and Evil and we will comply ,end of the story or what do you say I really think we should ask them to do that lets Vote !,...:mwahaha:

If you saw 10 people drowning and someone said one of them might be a serial killer, would you still help them?

This analogy works a lot better, since it address the fact that refugees lives are in danger and not helping may result in their death, as well as the fact that the serial killer might not even exist. The M&M one doesn't work as well, since it assumes that there are some guaranteed to be bad and also no one is going to equate throwing out a bag of M&Ms, with all the M&Ms dying.

My analogy is about the probability. I was totally aware that necessity is not part of the parallel.

Your analogy, taking into account the variables it is meant to illustrate, only works if I know that there is guaranteed to be a serial killer in the group, there are plenty of other potential rescuers, and I am the person the serial killer wants to kill by far the most. It is his number one goal in life. No, I would not be a rescuer in that situation. The other potential rescuers would need to do the rescuing. I would tell them that.

I'm tired of my country being the daddy of the world. We have done so much to help the world with so little appreciation in return, and now we're taken for granted. We are expected to be the chief rescuers of the Syrian refugees as if we are everybody else's dad. You don't hear anybody bitching about Paraguay or Angola not helping, and they have accepted zero Syrian refugees to our 1,500. We have at least done that. Lots of countries have taken none. Put them in the world hot seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

Sure... if I also had a method for checking the M&M's for poison that allows me to separate the three bad ones before eating. That metaphor may work in both directions, I think, as it would be a shame to discard a whole bag of M&M's just because three are bad.

I think it is a bit odd that we -- not just the U.S., but the entire west -- are willing to let fear control our actions... even relatively small ones, like allowing 10,000 refugees into a country of 300 million people. This seems to be exactly what the terrorists want.

---

out of curiosity, and i know it's not really on topic, but do you support gun control or do you believe in the right to bear arms?

^^ That's an odd question for this thread, and here is my slightly odd answer:

First, "believe in" implies that I care far more about the subject -- on either side -- than I actually do. Now:

Though I do have a problem with our Supreme Court choosing to ignore two centuries of precedent by reinterpreting the Constitution to say the 2nd Amendment is about individuals owning guns and not about the States' right to assemble their own militias, I have no problem with people owning guns.

I also have no problem with states deciding that gun ownership ought to be a privilege and not a right; a privilege that is earned through proof of knowledge of their responsible use (just like they do with driving a car, which no one seems to complain about). This pretty much reflects the existing laws that the NRA would call gun control. So, after a fashion, I suppose I am okay with gun control... and no, gun control does not equal taking away your guns.

What I do not "believe in" is the bizarre, almost manic obsession far too many Americans have with guns, most of which was fueled not by their need for guns, but by the NRA's relentless propaganda campaign the they have waged for decades; and waged not for the sake of gun-owners but for the sake of their own profits. This obsession has led both to far too many available guns (and the commensurate increase in gun deaths), and a very dangerous attitude that guns are an excellent solution to so many of our problems.

So: Though I'm not fully on board with an individual's Constitutional right to bear arms, I have no problem with the responsible ownership of guns.

And I also believe that this has absolutely nothing to do with Syrian refugees or Islamic Extremists, so I hope that any advocates of gun ownership who want to turn this into an argument choose to do so on a different thread...