The other video that was posted on here in another post also does a good job of summarizing the entire situation, but seems to slightly spin it at the same time, focusing on the hardship of the refugees rather than the core of the issue which is whether or not CIA members are being mixed in with the refugees. It even mentions at the 5:38 mark: "How do we want to be remembered? As xenophobic rich cowards behind fences?" Really? Perhaps what's important is not how we will be remembered, but protecting our country and attempting to find another solution to this problem.
You seem to be dismissing their hardships as if keeping a few extremists out is more important than saving hundreds of thousands of lives. (If that's not the case then I'm sorry) We can't be just thinking about ourselves here; they're in need and we can help. Of course a few bad apples are going to come through, but it's not going to cause anything significant enough to justify allowing hundreds of thousands of refugees to be killed.
CIA has already claimed to have members mixed in with the refugees (sources: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-CIA-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees , http://www.ibtimes.com/refugee-crCIA-CIA-fighters-europe-islamic-state-extremists-exploit-refugee-flow-2085787 , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/CIA-fighters-hiding-on-migrant-boats-coming-to-europe-report-says-10255887.html), and it's believed 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 of the refugees are Islamic extremists.
Two out of your three sources are directly from the extremists themselves. They're
terrorists. They use psychological warfare all the time, on the internet, in their videos, everywhere, and this is exactly the kind of fear that they want to instill. Under what circumstances do you think their information should be trusted?
Your other source comes from a former rebel weapons smuggler who claims that an
unknown number of militants have gone on boats to Europe. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, still no number is given on how many, and it's also mentioned in one of your articles that a significant portion die on the trip there. Is there any reason to believe any significant number have not only gotten on the boats, but survived the trip and gotten through screening? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.
Your claim of 1/3-1/4 refugees are extremists also goes completely unjustified, I checked for it in all 3 sources. Even if the 4000 number is correct, that's wayyyyy less than 1/4.
A former terrorist (turned double agent) also mentions an attack on U.S. soil is very likely within the next two weeks, especially around our holidays. As a past follower of Islam, he goes into detail about the Islamic ideals (which also make up Sharia Law), claims of Muhammad and the Hadith (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn2sqqe_TQg).
I suppose we'll see if this turns out. Again though, is a few deaths (Not to try and downplay death, it's truly terrible thing to happen to anyone) a reason to deny hundreds of thousands of non-extremists a safe place?
Saudi Arabia is capable of accepting 100,000 refugees right now, but refuses to do so. They claim they are doing things behind the scenes as not to “show off or brag in the media,” but if your saving human lives who cares how the media views you?
Saudi Arabia confirmed shady.
That doesn't mean that the refugees aren't going through emotional hardship, or that they should be abandoned, or that all Muslims are bad, or that we should wage war on Islam and eradicate it, or that those who are against Islam are marginalizing, or that we should hate those who follow Islam, that those who are against taking in refugees are haters or are "xenophobic rich cowards behind fences", etc. etc. Instead of throwing insults and labels back an forth, we should discuss an alternative to the situation.
I fully agree that we shouldn't be throwing insults around, but only discussing only alternatives is definitely not the way to go. We need to discuss all options.
In my opinion, we should protect the refugees from within Syria itself, but that's just me.
As far as I can see, we have no other option if we want to save as many people as possible. Protecting them in Syria would just put more lives in danger (Both soldiers and civilians) than if we give them a safe place to be. Not saying we should just move the entire country into Germany or something, that's just ridiculous, but make sure we can economically handle it.
The incoming refugees are going through a vetting process, but the question is : how can we know for sure we can filter out the terrorists?
Obviously, no screening system will be able to predict with 100% certainty. I also don't know how effective the screening process actually is, but it's safe to assume that it will weed out a good percentage of extremists, assuming they have well trained people doing the screening.
