Courtesy of Mike Miles:
Click the image for a larger view, and please pass it on. In the light of events in Paris last week, it's the clearest possible explanation for why we shouldn't be accepting Syrian refugees into our countries, but rather offering them help in their own country - if necessary creating safe areas for them (and keeping them safe) by armed occupation. I think that's one use of the US armed forces that almost every American could support, and I think a number of Middle Eastern countries would be willing to contribute troops and resources to the effort.
Peter
10 comments:
read 'what isis really wants' march issue of 'the atlantic'.
from that article i gather that soldiers sent there would help them fulfill some prophecy they have. not a good idea.
It depends. Prophecy has the wonderful aspect of being terribly important to our enemy, and completely inconsequential to ourselves. It is rather like during the Crusades when they kept rolling out dubious 'relics' and then desperately trying to regain them when lost. If your enemy thinks a useless piece of land is fore ordained to be important let him try to take it. It is not like we have a great terror of going against them in a pitched battle on open territory.
A better idea would be to supply sufficient funding, via the UNHCR, to the refugee camps already existing in Syria's neighbors -- Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan -- so that the people are adequately housed, clothed, fed, their children in schools, etc. In short, make it so they can live in dignity. The cost would be only a fraction of what it takes to provide for them in Sweden and Germany.
Of course, Turkey is not entirely free from blame in Syria's civil war, so they should have to pay a big chunk of the cost themselves. As well as Qatar and Saudi, who are heavily funding the anti-Assad fighters.
If Turkey continues playing games by opening the refugee spigot to extort money and concessions from Europe, they should be kicked out of NATO and struck with economic sanctions.
Yup, I'm pretty sure saving people can be equated to self-indulgence. What a nice Christian way to look at the situation.
I want to like this, but I've seen this same analogy used by feminist airheads (coupled to bogus statistics) to justify treating all men as "guilty until proven innocent". That said, this does seem to be a better/more accurate use of the analogy.
Only 10 in 10,000? Dream on. According to an opinion survey, one in eight Syrian refugees hold a “to some extent”-positive view of the Islamic State:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/219218/
and how hard is it to do testing for poison? but of course psych testing would not be politically correct.
Conservative estimates by most intelligence services calculate 10% to 15% of muslims have been radicalized. The world muslim population is, again conservatively, 1.3 Billion. I majored in social work not math but I think 10% of 1 BILLION is 100 million. That's a lot of jihadists.
Perhaps, but if you are a jihadist why leave? That is to an extent a point of confusion for some of the Daesh group, though one wonders how serious they are in not understanding the dislike of living in the Seventh Century.
Oh yeah, and by the way? Can anybody guarantee that the 10,000 people in closest proximity to you are ALL of sound mind? There is a lot of crazy out there, it is not just centered in 'the M&Ms'.
Post a Comment