In the world of politics, things should rarely ever be allowed to devolve to the point of name-calling. It’s the thing that sites like left-wing Salon and right-wing WND do that really makes me upset. With that said, I’m going to start calling people names, just this once.
Terrorists have infiltrated the Middle East refugees. The extent of the infiltration is unknown, but the conspicuously young-male-dominated group of “helpless, hopeless refugees” screams out the following words to me:
“Please, bleeding-heart liberals, ignore the obvious and accept us within your borders. Protect us from those dastardly, discriminating conservatives who would rather see us suffer than to allow us to kill infadels in your homeland.”
After the Russian passenger jet was downed over Egypt, I hoped that some people would start to accept the sophistication level of the Islamic State had exceeded that of its predecessors.
After the bombing in Hezbollah-controlled sections of Beirut, I hoped that some people would wake up to the fact that the enemy is fearless, resourceful, and driven.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris, I hoped that all people would recognize that the threat of the Islamic State is exacerbated by the free flow of “refugees” into Europe and now into the United States.
Paris Backlash: Fear of more devils in refugees' sad tide https://t.co/lAF09nkUiw
— Lutherious (@Lutherious) November 16, 2015
My hopes were dashed. Stupidity has won another round.
There are ways to ease the suffering of legitimate refugees and give them the opportunity to wait out the conflicts in Syria and throughout the Middle East that do not include blind faith in the idea that taking in refugees is the only solution. A better solution was recommended on our sister site that might be radical but is no less outrageous than the idea of bringing refugees to the west.
As has been noted before, if 1% of 1% or 1 in 10,000 refugees are terrorists, that’s enough to cause turmoil. With President Obama committing to bring over 200,000 that means 20 terrorists imported in to meet with any who are already here. It took fewer people to commit the attacks on Paris.
I can see making the argument that the turmoil and suffering are so bad that we have to take the risk. What I can’t see is the argument that the risk is small because we can somehow screen out the bad guys. Until DARPA figures out how to read minds, you can’t screen out ideologies. History is not enough to isolate the terrorists.
Until these realizations are made, I’m going to have to call people idiots.