will come to your rescue.

31 states don't want them but 19 does. We are taking 10,000 so give them to the 19 states. What is wrong with that? The whole thing is ridiculous. Bring them and divide them by 19. Sometimes I think I should be in charge.

So much for the home of the Brave. These people are seeking to live their lives in peace and stability and we refuse to let them through the Golden Door because we're scared...

Meanwhile, Daesh just laughs at it's apparent success.

...because at least one of them was a Syrian Refugee.

That MEME is worded very poorly, subtly racist and xenophobic IMO.

Who cares if the attackers were Syrian or a refugee, you don't punish and turn away thousands of starving people living in deplorable conditions away because of the actions of a few criminals. That my friend makes NO SENSE!

If I follow the reasoning of the pic, let's let in all the refugees in on the grounds Paris 11/13 were EU citizens.

Let's make all refugees EU or US citizens. 50% hold literalist views, wishing Sharia law to be in force.

They will educate their children, all US or EU citizens, with these values (anti gays and atheists for instance)

Fertile grounds for future terrorists in support of global jihad.


Not saying things will pan out that way, just saying the pic is senselessly wishy washy.

Depopulating Syria by spreading their citizens all over the world won't solve much.

(In fact the migrant influx is causing massive problems in Europe and is a threat to the already existing immigrant and minority communities).

The end goal is to have greater sunni fundamentalist influence in Syria as happened in Libya.

And if and when that happens that will be the start of further instability in the region.

If it was a Republican administration pushing these regime change strategies there would probably have been more pushback from the left.

Of course, Romney probably would have had ground troops there by now.

But it pays to remember that it wasn't backing the rebels in the far east of the country. They were a problem from 2002-2009 and Bush II, the Iraq government, and Assad were tacit allies in squashing the Salafists there. That they did fairly well.

The instability caused by protesters and the newly armed factions in the West of the country helped cut the lines of military force that kept the east under control. All attention was focused on Idlib, Aleppo, Damascus, the fairly well-watered area down near Jordan, and the Salafist east of Syria was just left unattended.

One cannot chew gum and walk at the same time, it would appear. If you focus on chewing gum and walk into traffic, that doesn't mean you intended to commit suicide.

There was a goal to have more Sunni influence, since we have minoritarian states. The very idea of a non-majority ruling over a majority rankles, no matter how good the results or how bad the consequences of having it go the other way. Even in the US, we play games with sophistry--if progressives are in the minority, we still say we should rule and that somehow we really are the majority.

I doubt that the goal on the part of Western powers was more Sunni fundy influence. Just more "moderate" Sunni influence, since, well, the protesters were all middle class and educated and liberal, like us. (More sophistry, this time of the "we are the world, so everybody's really just like us" variety. "They", of course, outnumber "us," so they are the world--but few of us would argue we're just like them.)

much safer than the Syrian refugees are. They are the ones more likely to be killed by Daesh, not us.