Syria

Obama's Right, Anti-Syrian Refugee Sentiment a Powerful ISIS Propaganda Tool—So Are Obama's Wars

Accepting refugees would go a long way to win hearts and minds. So would ending stupid interventions.

|

YouTube

At a press conference in Manila while in the Philippines for a Asia-Pacific summit, President Barack Obama addressed the ongoing debate in the U.S. over whether it's wise to accept Syrian refugees, which the U.S. has promised to do next year. "I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric coming out of here in the course of this debate," the president said.

I can: an anti-ISIS offensive led by the U.S. ISIS is a death cult looking to bring about the eschatological final battle between good and evil. Such a U.S.-led offensive fits into the propaganda ISIS uses to radicalize its fighters and legitimize its claim as the one true defender of the faith. As I started arguing last year, a regional coalition, operating without U.S. support, would be a more effective strategy to deal with ISIS. Those governments threatened by the rise of ISIS, even when they hate each other, need to, for lack of a more graceful phrasing, get their shit together. U.S. "leadership" in the anti-ISIS campaign only reinforces the dependency of countries in the region on the U.S. for their security, a situation that breeds both poor governance and anti-American sentiment. And U.S. interventions aren't just powerful recruiting tools for ISIS, they help create the conditions for it and groups like it.

Nevertheless, the president is right that the debate over accepting Syrian refugees is also "potent recruitment tool" for ISIS. The overblown fears of the threat Syrian refugees may pose plays into the narrative ISIS pushes as it seeks to impose a caliphate on the Middle East and the world. Worse, it works toward erasing years, and decades, of good work. The U.S. accepts about 70,000 refugees a year. In 1980, that number was 207,000, a record high. Since 9/11, the U.S. has accepted 750,000 refugees, including tens of thousands from countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, where U.S. interventions contributed to instability and helped foster the conditions for radical Islamist groups to gain power. ISIS took advantage of the vacuum the Iraq war created in Iraq, while the 2007 U.S.-Kenyan intervention in Somalia ousted the Islamic Court Union. Al-Shabaab, now the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, was formed in the aftermath of that intervention. None of the refugees from those countries, or from any other country, have committed an act of terrorism, not since 9/11, not since 1980.

On the other hand, the U.S. decision, belated as it was, to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, can be a powerful recruitment tool against ISIS. Mercy is an important component of Islam as well as Christianity. Obama is no secret Muslim, and the U.S. is a country that separates church and state even if its leaders focus on its "Judaeo-Christian" roots. Showing mercy in a way "stewards" of Islam like Saudi Arabia (Syrian refugees accepted = zero) or self-proclaimed standards like ISIS (which has created countless refugees) speaks louder than any catch phrases about American leadership. And for Republicans worried about the U.S. becoming a "post-Christian" nation, accepting Syrian refugees would be a powerful message that Christian (and secular!) values like mercy still matter for Americans.

That's not just up to the government, which must approve the entry of refugees for security purposes (the process takes up to two years), it's up to the American people, not as some collectivist rhetorical tool but as individuals, practicing what they preach. Social media is full of pro-refugee sentiment—but sentiment isn't worth much. If more of those Americans supporting the U.S. accepting refugees stepped up to help them themselves, there's a chance for the debate to escape the sorry partisan framework its fallen into.

NEXT: John Kerry's Shamefully Familiar Victim-Blaming: Matt Welch on Tonight's Kennedy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As I started arguing last year, a regional coalition, operating without U.S. support, would be a more effective strategy to deal with ISIS

    So foreign interventionism is good after all?

    1. Would he also think it ok for America and Canada to send troops into Mexico or bomb the coyotes smuggling criminals into our nation? Because they’re probably as large a %age of Mexicans as ISIS is in Syria.

      Regional coalition, if you will.

      1. If the cartels united into an army and started conquering large areas of Mexico (ok, de jure conquest), claiming statehood, warring with Mexico City (which may or may not ask for US aid), and reasonably threatening to expand their conquest into Texas or California, then he just might.

        There are indeed similarities, but it’s still a very different situation than ISIS and Syria’s neighbors. Given your comments below, I’m curious if you want American troops in Mexico. Your justification for the US in Syria does apply to the cartels. They are barbarians who have massively violated the NAP against Americans.

        1. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

          http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. Bull crap,this is a middle east problem.Let the gulf states Saudi Arabia Iran,Turkey , Egypt ect take care of ISIS.If Russia wants to waste time and money ,so be it I’m tired of this US must lead always line.The refugees need to be sheltered in that region.Europe needs to stand on their own two feet also. No more Uncle Sugar providing most of their defence.

      1. And yes,I’m drinking,you should be too.

      2. We’ve already satisfied our requirements under the NAP. It’s time to eradicate these barbarians from the race of the earth. We owe it to every woman they would enslave, every child they would force into military subservience, every gay person they would stone to death for a voluntary association and every person whose head they would cut off because they refused to convert.

        1. Hoiw about all the terrorist groups in Africa,and the near genocides in Rawanda and Sudan,North and South?Where does this end? Your a fool.Let those people handle it.Or are you saying they can’t and need their Uncle Sammy to take are of them?

          1. ISIS has violated the NAP against us. They have a stated goal of destroying us. They murder innocent people. They enslave women and use them to rape. They enslave children and force them to be soldiers. They execute gays. They cut heads off of people who refuse to convert.

            Are we not righteous enough to help their victims? Not even after they’ve attacked us?

            1. Wait…is this bait? Who are you? WHERE IS THE REAL SLOOPY? Stop trying to confuse me!

              1. I adhere to the NAP. They’ve violated it. I’ve not changed one bit and still am anti-interventionist. But they have aggressor against us. And now we must utterly destroy them. I don’t mean murderdrone Yemenis that pose no threat to us. I mean utterly destroy the people that have waged war against us and will not stop until they, or we, are wiped off the earth.

                Apples and oranges.

                1. “murderdrone Yemenis that pose no threat to us”

                  AQAP has violated the NAP just as much. Your schizophrenia must be difficult to deal with. Still I’ll take alt Sloopy over none.

                  Destroying ISIS could be tricky. I don’t like the idea of sending troops into a region where one of America’s ‘friends’ will be Iran-directed militias (another country that has violated the NAP against America). Echoes of Lebanon. Maybe destroy them both? Double feature?

                  1. Nope. Sloopy is right.

                    1. jeezus….after reading that headline, I wondered if this was Salon. Ed actually thinks taking in refugees, no matter how you posit it in humanitarian terms, will “win hearts and minds.” Seriously?

                    2. It will absolutely win hearts and minds. Not of the people who are staying in those shithole countries (not our business), but the people who immigrate here. Our culture is fundamentally assimilationist, and each new flavor we assimilate makes the mixture better.

                    3. Yeah look at all those hearts and minds europe is winning with their large and constantly aggrieved muslim populations. Muslims are just super tolerant, friendly, nonexplody nonrapey people if you pay them to colonize you.

                    4. EUROPE IS NOT ASSIMILATIONIST. Continental Europe is full of xenophobic cultures that go out of their way to push immigrants into ghettos and keep them from assimilating. Anyone darker than the average native has a very difficult time there.

                      I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand – Europe and the US are very different cultures (as far as you can talk about Europe as a single meta-culture).

                      Being let in and then herded into a ghetto with a bunch of long-term pissed off co-religionists is the European model.

                      And I would point out, Sloopy’s contention to the contrary, that *ISIS* hasn’t actually violated the NAP against the US in any meaningful way. Those French attacks – not ISIS. The one guy from Syria – fake passport. ISIS is as responsible for those attacks as Brandenburg would have been for any lynchings in the wake of his comments.

                    5. Now, with that said – I do agree that there is no reason whatsoever for the US to feel any obligation to take in refugees from Syria. Or Europe for that matter. Maybe a few that have family here, but this is a local problem and the local nations should step up to the plate and act responsibly.

                    6. why should muslims assimilate to european cultures ?

                    7. Why should europeans bend over backwards to provide for them?

                    8. Because they moved there?

                      By “assimilation” I don’t mean to give up one’s own culture, language, or religion – but one has to learn the local language and agree to abide by the local cultural norms or go home. It is part and parcel of being an immigrant.

                      And I say this not from some removed, academic perspective but as an American citizen with permanent residency in another country where I have lived for a couple decades.

                    9. My above response was supposed to be under the question about why muslims should assimilate

                    10. Continental Europe is full of xenophobic cultures that go out of their way to push immigrants into ghettos and keep them from assimilating.

                      In my fairly extensive experience with the place, continental Europe is full of multiculturalists who do everything they can to pretend that the Muslim inhabitants fit their narrative of cultural and ideological agreement. And they vociferously shout down skeptics and critics of Islam not at all unlike the leftoid PC nazis we’ve just now been fully introduced to here in the States.

                    11. The UK is about the only place there that does that.

                    12. Not at all. Germany puts the UK to shame, and in the Netherlands, the multiculturalist groupthink runs extremely deep. Germany and NL are two places where I’ve had that extensive experience.

                    13. It will absolutely win hearts and minds.

                      Bullshit. And the word “assimilate” might be a good reason why. What problems exist here with immigration stem from a lack of it, and Muslims are not noted for their celebration of Western culture.

                    14. On the other hand, the Latin Americans should pretty much cancel out the Muslims, in terms of religion and birthrate. If I had to choose one culture to take over, it’s not even a difficult choice.

                    15. Can I choose “None of the Above”?

                    16. Does Ed really think that, or is it what he was tasked to write by his cosmoRINOprogressivitarian masters?

          2. There are a great many regimes whose destruction would be morally praiseworthy. Just because we cannot or choose not to go to war against all of them doesn’t somehow make it morally unacceptable to go to war against one that is particularly obnoxious.

            It may be unwise to make a more serious military commitment against ISIS, but it would not be immoral.

      3. “this is a middle east problem.”

        I didn’t know France was in the Middle East.

        1. They are now.

          1. No, the Middle East is in France.

    3. Okay so serious question for the nativist warboner yokeltarians: when you post comments like this, are you being deliberately obtuse for comedic effect, or are you seriously incapable of comprehending the words you read? I desperately want to interpret your comments charitably, but I also need to recalibrate my Poemeter.

      1. I’m no nativist. I don’t think we should keep the refugees out of America. I just think we should destroy these barbarians in the name of righteousness. For every person they would subjugate (I listed above the categories they have directly identified-if I’ve missed any, I apologize).

        1. “Righteousness” is not a legit reason to go to war. Only defense of the rights of citizens is. ISIS hates us for our freedoms so that condition is met! Bombs away!

          1. I think righteousness is a good reason to go to war when you contrast our rights vs the rights they would impose on us. It’s basically saying the same thing with different words.

            1. I’m being anal-retentive but that’s just too vague and flexible.

            2. Sloop, intentions vs. capabilities. The only capability they have is manipulating us to destroy ourselves in an orgy of pants-shitting.

              1. Oh. I’ll let the victims in Paris, Boston, Ft Hood and NYC know the Islamists don’t have any real capabilities.

                1. We should think of this as an opportunity for world peace. Every group in the world, male and female, gay and straight, Christian, Jew, Shi’ite, Yazidi, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, atheist, etc., Russian and Chinese and European and African and American, can set aside our differences for one shining moment and unite as one to stomp these Wahabi fuckers into paste.

                  Not North Korean, though, because they’re probably behind the whole thing.

              2. “Sloop, intentions vs. capabilities. The only capability they have is manipulating us to destroy ourselves in an orgy of pants-shitting.”

                Retard.

      2. You are aware that I didn’t mention immigration at all and it was Ed with a warboner here?

        1. Also I should say that Ed is the same guy who called me out for saying that libertarian foreign policy is to leave Iraq to its fate which seems to imply that he thinks the US should remain in Iraq. Care to defend that Hugh?

      3. Is Ed not saying nations from the ME should band together and intervene to stop ISIS? If he’s not, please explain to us what exactly he means by those words.

        Please, Hugh, help us comprehend these words: As I started arguing last year, a regional coalition, operating without U.S. support, would be a more effective strategy to deal with ISIS

        Because they look pretty straightforward to me.

        1. Yeah, regional coalition being the operative phrase. Combating a local force that presents an actual threat to the security/existence of your nation isn’t a foreign intervention.

          1. So Morocco’s bombing of Yemen (it’s a part of that coalition) is not ‘foreign intervention’?

          2. It sure as fuck is a foreign intervention if it happens before they cross your border.

            Also, define “actual threat”. Is there a body count we have to reach? A certain number of rape victims? Or,child,soldiers? Or,heads cut off of missionaries?

            I just want to know when we reach that “actual” threshold. Or will you just know it when you see it?

          3. Combating a local force that presents an actual threat to the security/existence of your nation isn’t a foreign intervention.

            Oh lord, Hugh Akston has gone full retard. Crossing the border makes it a foreign intervention, you neocon.

            1. Nah ah, because he used the magic word “local”.

              1. Local. In the sense that Georgia and the Ukraine are local from Russia’s perspective.

                Nothing to see here. Move along. It’s not really a foreign intervention.

                1. Bullshit. Was the Mexican War not foreign intervention?

                2. Oh Heedless were you being sarcastic? If so then I’m sorry.

      4. Okay so serious question for the nativist warboner yokeltarians

        The bit after “for” contradicts the bit before it. Grow up, rephrase, and try again. 🙂

      5. Perhaps they and Reason’s editorial staff took a mutual pact to go absolute rock bottom in their responses to the refugee crisis.

        Not sure who’s winning at this point, to be honest.

  2. Obama’s Right, Anti-Syrian Refugee Sentiment a Powerful ISIS Propaganda Tool

    [citation required]

    1. Yeah, they loved us before.

    2. Me before article: oh boy that’s a contentious claim. I am skeptical that there’s going to be evidence to back it up, and indeed I fear that the article will consist of Special Ed sophistry and lies about foreign affairs.

      Me after article: I hope somebody picks up that phone….

  3. Obama has rarely been right about anything in the last 7 years that he’s been POTUS. When he has been, I’m pretty sure it was an accident.

  4. ISIS is a death cult looking to bring about the eschatological final battle between good and evil.

    Or they espouse that rhetoric to rouse the rabble and provoke the West in order to seize power.

    1. Nope they believe it. Why the fuck would ‘provoking the west’ get them closer to seizing power? These guys can’t even beat the Kurds let alone The West.

      1. Cyto, a third of the Republican Party thinks that electing Donald Trump will solve their problems, and you can’t wrap your mind around the idea that demagogues can appeal to base hatreds to attract a following?

        1. Touche, however why would they need to goad the west to do that? They can already rile people up with lies about how the Jews are trying to sterilize them with vaccines. Hugh is playing mindreader. Like John.

          1. They may not believe we’ll do anything significant. We usually don’t, and even when we do it doesn’t last long before the American public gets sick of it.

      2. I don’t think anyone doubts the Kurds’ will to survive, but Islamists who read Western media could be forgiven for thinking we would pretty much welcome rapists and murderers while throwing flowers at them for liberating us from our terrible culture of oppression. Unfortunately for them, I don’t think they’ve taken into account the extent to which the European right has been driven into the shadows, moreso than destroyed.

        Every day, it gets easier and easier to convince even non-right-leaning Europeans that not only are Muslims an existential threat (and bad people), but that their own governments are more loyal to the invaders than to their own people. When Euro governments punish native right-wingers over homophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism, or bigotry, while they give immigrants nearly a free pass on the same behaviors, they completely lose the ability to actually persuade the right that their attitudes are wrong, and instead suggest that they not only despise their own people, but actively aid and abet crimes against them.

        1. Unless the left wakes up quick, there won’t be reforms or electoral defeats, there will be fascist takeovers, and the liquidation of minorities and their defenders. And the sad thing is, depending on how real the threat of theocracy, rape, and jihad is, that might be the better of the two likely paths. Fascism is a temporary madness that won’t really displace liberal values in Europe so much as force them underground for a generation or two, until people lose their fear. However, if they import Middle Eastern values, they may be headed for a new dark age that could last much longer.

    2. Man, it must suck being part of ISIS. You spend all this time becoming a crazy religious nutter, throwing Christians of buildings, cutting journalist throats, etc. in the hopes that ‘Rome’ finally shows up and kickstarts the apocalypse so you can get them sweet afterlife chicks. And then some Westerner just says you’re full of shit.

    3. What Cytoxic said. Why can’t you people ever take these ass clowns at their word? They are interested in provoking the West. They want to destroy the west.

  5. Instant poll:
    What is a greater recruiting tool for a terrorist organization?
    A: Anti-refugee sentiment from their sworn enemies as it relates to the people they are murdering.
    B: Apologia and victim-blaming by the leaders of the nations of their latest victims and their allies.

    1. C. Hitler?

    2. I didn’t want to murder innocent woman and children but those damn republicans make me so angry I have no choice now.

    3. B. Groveling just makes the look more powerful than they are. Sadly Special Ed doesn’t get that.

    4. Of course it’s B. This article is bull.

    5. C. Bombing their neighborhood, killing and maiming local innocents.

  6. OT:

    I’m pretty sure that there’s at least one unapologetic fascist running for POTUS, and she cannot wait to prove it:

    Heil Hitlary!

  7. ISIS is a death cult looking to bring about the eschatological final battle between good and evil.

    Yeah, so let’s leave them alone and hope they’ll fizzle out…even though they continue to kill indiscriminately, enslave women and children for sexual purposes and to use as soldiers, and want nothing more than to destroy the entire concepts of free will and individual liberty.

    1. If we leave them alone, they’ll go back to killing each other like they’ve been doing for the past several thousand years, guaranteed.

      1. They’ve been attacking western targets for at least two generations.

        1. We’ve been fucking around in the ME for 60 years.

          1. How many of their women have we enslaved for rape,torture? How many people there have we cut the heads off for not converting to a western philosophy? How many people that follow a non-western sexual lifestyle have we put to death? How many of their children have we enslaved and conscripted? How many heads have our leaders ordered cut off?

            We’ve been “fucking around” sure. But most of that was trying to import classical liberalism to a region where half of the citizens are de facto property of the other half. (Most, not all). And our military adventurism there was often misguided and criminal. I’ll grant that. But this is truly a clash of cultures and their side will not quit until we or they are utterly destroyed. They state that at every opportunity and follow through with it every chance they get. So IME, this situation is a far cry from anything that happened over there up to this point.

            1. Sloopy, maybe you should read my comment downthread a ways there. I explain my views on this.

              It doesn’t matter that whether we have raped or not or beheaded anyone. When you threaten someone’s culture and way of life that they’ve had for millenia and try to force them to accept your own, and then kill them when they won’t, I don’t think they are sitting around mulling over the details of what methods you are using.

              1. “When you threaten someone’s culture and way of life that they’ve had for millenia and try to force them to accept your own, and then kill them when they won’t, I don’t think they are sitting around mulling over the details of what methods you are using.”

                The historical irony is deafening.

              2. What, like the Moors? Or the Ottoman Empire?

              3. When you threaten someone’s culture and way of life that they’ve had for millenia and try to force them to accept your own,

                Yeah well, their millenia old ‘culture’ is one of constant aggressive war, conquest and enslavement.

                Western colonialism began when the west was able to turn the table on them due to superior technology and economic growth in the 19th century. And that ‘colonialsim’ took the form of attempting to impose classical liberalism on those cultures.

                While I agree that project obviously failed, the alternative is not ‘leaving them alone’ to reengaged in warfare and slavery against the west at their own pace.

          2. We’ve been fucking around in the ME whole world for 60 years because reality requires it.

            No suicide bombers from Panama or Grenada. ME Islamic terror really only became a problem after 1979, which is when America started openly tolerating states that sponsor Islamic terror attacks on Americans.

            1. You’re like the Lindsey Graham of the north. Like we need one.

              1. You’re like the Ben Carson H&R. You should try ‘thinking’ some time. Also, ‘knowing stuff’. You might not get your ass kicked in threads like this.

                1. You’re starting to sound like Shreek. I’m like Ben Carson? Lol, I’ve pretty much never agreed with anything the guy has said, and you and Lindsey are like the same person.

                  1. Hyp,
                    I think he is impugning your knowledge of international affairs, not suggesting you share common opinions with the good neurosurgeon.

            2. ME terrorism reemerge do when they got oil money. Their ferocity never diminished. Their ability to do anything about it was retarded by their backwards culture missing the industrial revolution. But they’ve been attacking since the beginning. The caliphate to the Barbary wars to today.

  8. This is not going to end well:

    Pussy administrators are pussies

    Europe has ISIS, we have universities. I

    1. I’m not sure how Europe will fare, but our coming civil war with angry rich kids who think a two-sided talk about Halloween costumes is the next Ferguson is going to be short and hilarious. Plus, our football stadiums will finally serve a legitimate public purpose.

  9. “Accepting refugees would go a long way to win hearts and minds.”

    Bull shit. You mean just like in Paris last Friday? And like Paris we’ve been accepting refugees from these shit holes and we have still had some of these same people turn to terrorism here.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..error.html

    Reason is going full retard on this issue.

    1. That’s where you stopped reading the article isn’t it?

      1. What did I say above that you’d like to address, Hugh? Please, be specific.

        1. The whole point of this post is that the propaganda effect of the US taking in refugees from middle eastern conflicts is weak tea compared to the effects if the US were to stop fueling those conflicts. In fact, whatever charity or compassion goodwill the US might engender by taking refugees in is obviated by the fact that they’re the ones dropping bombs on them in the first place.

          1. “the effects if the US were to stop fueling those conflicts.”

            But America clearly isn’t fueling these conflicts.

          2. In fact, Hugh, the author has two points in mind, as the title of the piece clearly states. I am addressing one of them, the one that I specified with the quote. Apparently, you didn’t bother to even read that quote because you were in such a rush to show your ass in the comments. So let me walk you through it, real slow like.

            Hugh, the author seems to believe the ridiculous proposition that we will somehow win hearts and minds, if we just keep on taking in Muslims from these regions. This proposition was overturned in a spectacular way last Friday, when at two or perhaps even three terrorists who entered Europe through Greece as refugees helped to kill over 120 people in a city that has long been accepting a large number of people from these same areas.

            Now, Hugh, this proposition continues to be overturned by the fact that we’ve have accepted refugees who have turned to terrorism once they arrived here. Further, we have even given citizenship to some from these areas and they have still pledged themselves to ISIS, turned to terrorism, and tried to kill us.

            Bottom line, Hugh, it really doesn’t matter what we do. They hate us and want to kill us. Their hearts and minds are not going to won over. And should we really care what they think of us when it comes to ensuring the safety of our citizens here? No, Hugh, we shouldn’t.

    2. Reason is kind of like an autistic version of The Onion. It’s great for the lulz, just don’t take the politics seriously.

      1. More irony…

  10. Hmm, what do we have here:

    OMG, white dude!

    Wilson, a progtard hero, getting erased from history. Good job proggies, keep on destroying yourselves.

    1. Wait till they learn that New Jersey was founded by and it’s name was chosen by a slaveowner to honor his birth place.

    2. How many things are named after Robert Byrd? There’s a lot of protesting to do!

  11. Phrases to reconsider:

    “Michael Bay movies are cinema gold”

    “Golden Corral’s pizza isn’t horseshit”

    “Fake tits are way better than real”

    “Obama’s right”

    1. “Coors Light tastes delicious.”

      1. I drank some of that one time in my life when I didn’t have much money, and I failed to taste anything. Does water have a taste? It’s sort of like asking if clear is a color.

        1. The flavor is cold. They even make the cans change color so you don’t accidentally drink one that isn’t so cold it has no taste.

          1. In college, we referred to Coors and Coors Light as “Water” and “Diet Water”. No taste is exactly right.

  12. I don’t think that Ed Krayewski and Barack Obama realize they are making their critics’ case for them.

    After all, what Ed and Barack are saying claiming is, in essence: “a significant number of people from this part of the world will respond to insults and ostracism with violence and murder”. If that is true, then obviously we should not only tightly restrict immigration from that region, but take a close look at the people we’ve already admitted.

    The open borders case is “these people are no threat. They’re like you and me”. But people like you and me don’t respond to vicious speech by becoming killers. Psychotics do that.

    1. If you lived in that area would you try to escape to another country?

      1. If I was a flaming lefty that lived in California, I might recognize how fucked it was and want to leave, but it doesn’t necessarily mean I would ever perceive how my values were responsible for the shittiness of the place I came from, and it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to shit up the next place I moved to. And if there were a lot of me, I might very well succeed.

        1. That…. is actually a pretty apt comparison.

      2. Of course, but that’s not the point. The point is: if I was in Syria or Iraq and wanted to flee, and I saw that Americans were saying “for fuck’s sake don’t let Dan come to America, he’s evil”, would I respond by signing up with ISIS and raping and killing my way across the Levant?

        And the answer is “um… no. And why the hell would you expect me to react that way?”

        I would, instead, try escaping to a country where people… don’t hate me.

        This is how I live my life, really. Places like (for example) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a death penalty for religious freethinkers like me. So I respond not by strapping on a suicide vest and walking into a crowd of French people, but by… not going to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There is a world with 7 billion people in it. Roughly 95% of them are neither members of ISIS nor Americans. I think that leaves plenty of elbow room, don’t you?

    2. Leftists believe that everyone except for those on the right, who are all evil white male conservatives and libertarians, are just like them. They believe that what they feel is reality. They are also retarded and will get us all killed if they are left to get their way.

  13. Nevertheless, the president is right that the debate over accepting Syrian refugees is also “potent recruitment tool” for ISIS. The overblown fears of the threat Syrian refugees may pose plays into the narrative ISIS pushes as it seeks to impose a caliphate on the Middle East and the world.

    Citation needed.

    Seriously. What kind of human being sees a video of Chris Christie or Doug Ducey being an asshole and decides to join a death cult that beheads people and rapes women?

    Either Muslims in the Middle East are barbarians or the appeal of ISIS is much more complicated than the ridiculous conceit that people in Iraq care as much about American politics as people who get paid to write about it do.

    1. What kind of human being sees a video of Chris Christie or Doug Ducey being an asshole and decides to join a death cult that beheads people and rapes women?

      The kind of human being who poses no threat whatsoever to America or anyone else, obviously. Jeez, it is like you haven’t even read Reason’s seven hundred identical articles on this topic.

    2. Politicians tend to be extremely stupid and their sycophants in the modern media seem to inherit the disease.

      The reason that these movements exist is because of what we, the USA, have done in the ME. They feel threatened, they feel that their entire way of life and their culture is threatened. I guess that’s what happens when you keep trying to force your culture and political system on a group of people who do not want it, and then when they make clear they don’t want it, you start blowing up their country.

      1. In a just world, any culture that actively cuts the heads off of people who refuse to convert, or enslaves and rapes women, or enslaves and conscripts children, or murders anybody with different sexual beliefs should feel threatened. They should be terrified to come out of the cave they’ve been forced,to retreat into lest they get their ass blown to smithereens.

        1. The only solution is to leave them to doing these things to each other until they evolve beyond the 5th century. And if they don’t, then please just leave them where they are. But nooooo, Murika couldn’t do that, being the great saviors of the world that we are. We had to fuck around with them until we created terrorists. And our politicians love it because they use it to take away our civil rights.

          Again, I say leave them alone and don’t bring them here. Of course Obama wants them here and most politicians do because then they can use that so say ‘oh well, we have to really tighten up security now because there’s more of a threat, you know, because we’re so tolerant.’. No, hell no and fuck no, I am not willing to give up my civil rights so those fuckheads can feel morally superior.

          1. “We had to fuck around with them until we created terrorists.”

            Is there a way we can enter your world? Is the sky blue?

          2. The only solution is to leave them to doing these things to each other until they evolve beyond the 5th century.

            They’re not “doing these things to each other” though. Unless I missed the stories where the women there were enslaving men in scores and riding their dicks raw. Or the stories where the fags were rounding up the hardliners and stoning them to death for not embracing buttsex. Or the stories where bands of kids were strapping suicide vests to grown men and forcing them to ru n into town squares. Or where Christians and moderate Muslims are cutting their fucking heads off for being too serious about their faith.

            They’re doing them to victims. Real, Innocent victims. And we have the moral high ground to utterly destroy them.

            1. If that were the case we should have nuked the Soviets and the Chinese. They killed far more.

            2. Are you kidding me? The Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing the fuck out of each other for centuries. Do you think it’s really important to the dead whether they were raped or beheaded? No, they’re fucking dead. Killing is killing.

              1. Sloopy’s point, which you are too retarded to see, is that they haven’t been killing each other for centuries but rather that violent assholes over there have been victimizing innnocent people over there that just want to be left alone, for centuries.

                Your recitation of the conventional wisdom about them killing each other equate victims and victimizers – which is morally repugnant.

                1. You aren’t really convincing me. You’re telling me that Sunnis and Shiites have not been killing each other for centuries, which is the common wisdom that I so naively believe in. Links or something would be ok.

                  1. No, he’s saying that if you leave the Sunnis and Shiites at each other’s throats, you’re also leaving every gay, woman, and less-violent religious minority in region at their mercy as well.

                    1. “if you leave the Sunnis and Shiites at each other’s throats, you’re also leaving every gay, woman, and less-violent religious minority in region at their mercy as well”

                      So the US should be the world’s policemen?

                      I have seen that rejected here rather uniformly. IMHO We should stay out except to aid in the defense of those groups who actually ask us to intervene. And we should park a hospital ship nearby to offer med assistance to all.

                2. The Sunni’s rape and kill Shiite women and children and gays and the Shiites turn around and rape and kill Sunni women, children and gays. With some smatterings of Christians and Atheists of the same ethnicity as these same Shiites and Sunnis for good measure.

                  I mean, it’s not like there are large swaths of ME populations that are Christian or gay, so by definition they have to be killing “each other”.

          3. Nah, the Saudis created terrorists, mainly as a way to keep the lower classes focused on external religious rather than internal class enemies.

      2. “The reason that these movements exist is because of what we, the USA, have done in the ME.”

        Said no one with any knowledge of history or the actual statements of these groups.

        1. Well, educate us then, oh wise one. Tell us how it is. I’m waiting.

          1. I am probably wasting my energy on the wantonly ignorant but here goes.

            These crazies don’t give a shit about ‘imperialism’ in the ME. That’s why they target cartoonists and most of their victims are other Muslims. And the fact that they want to annex Al-Andalus to ‘the caliphate’. America matters about as much to the Shia-Sunni rift as does Israel: barely a sideshow. It was going on before America was even a thing.

            There is, buried in your bullshit, tiny corn of truth: America has abetted these groups by tolerating states that sponsor Islamic terrorism from 1979 onward.

            1. They do care about imperialism. Bin Laden was enraged by infidel boots on the ground in the ME during Kuwait. They also care very deeply about cultural imperialism which unfortunately, we can’t do much about.

              1. “Cultural imperialism” sounds like it could mean anything, including having to see a McDonald’s on your street.

                If they care about imperialism so much why didn’t they do anything about France’s multi-decade neo-colonial project across much of North Africa? While I don’t think it was a good idea for America to be in Kuwait/Iraq, OBL was building AQ before then.

                1. “Cultural imperialism” sounds like it could mean anything, including having to see a McDonald’s on your street.

                  Which is kind of the point. The Jihadi’s are in a violent culture class with Western liberalism as much as they are with any physical encroachment. We could literally vacate the ME tomorrow, and ISIS would still be there and still hate us.

                  1. We could literally vacate the ME tomorrow, and ISIS would still be there and still hate us.

                    And they’d keep on with their murder, rape and torture of the people whose lands they invade like locusts. Until they’re destroyed, anyway.

                    1. This comment is like the ISIS of the Internet.

                  2. We could literally vacate the ME tomorrow, and ISIS would still be there and still hate us.

                    And they’d keep on with their murder, rape and torture of the people whose lands they invade like locusts. Until they’re destroyed, anyway.

                  3. We could literally vacate the ME tomorrow, and ISIS would still be there and still hate us.

                    And they’d keep on with their murder, rape and torture of the people whose lands they invade like locusts. Until they’re destroyed, anyway.

                2. If they care about imperialism so much why didn’t they do anything about France’s multi-decade neo-colonial project across much of North Africa?

                  Huh? Like the Algerian War?

              2. Bin Laden was enraged by infidel boots on the ground in the ME during Kuwait.

                Best part, if US recognized Saddam’s conquest and annexation of Kuwait instead of intervening, he’d have been enraged how a Muslim nation was conquered by an atheist butcher with the connivance of Yankee imperialism, and screech murder about it.

            2. Wow, you are all over the place. I’m the one who just said that they have been killing each other for millennia and if we leave them alone, they will continue to do so.

              We have been fucking around in the ME for a lot longer than since 1979. They don’t fucking want western democracy. They want their sharia and they want to kill each other over minute religious disagreements. It’s incredibly stupid to not let hem do so and instead at the same time make sure they focus their attention on us and make sure we import large numbers of them.

              You’re going for peak derp.

              1. “It’s incredibly stupid to not let hem do so”

                Again, you’re attacking me for a pro-nation building position I do not even hold. Maybe you should stick to something a lot more in your depth like gluing popsicle sticks together.

                “We have been fucking around in the ME for a lot longer than since 1979.”

                So has everyone else and America has been fucking around everywhere. Haven’t gotten the ‘blowback’ boogeyman anywhere else.

                1. No, I’m not attacking you for a nation building position. Did I say that? No. In fact, I didn’t start attacking you at all, you started attacking me, you foolish ninny. I was actually trying to dissuade you of the fact that everyone lives in Cyto/Lindsey world and of the notion that America is not some totally innocent entity of saints.

                  I’ve also not defended the Islamists at all. I’m the one who is thinking logically here and thinking outside of the box, a skill you clearly have not learned yet, and need to do so.

                  You want open borders and you want to bomb Syria. That’s a disaster of a plan. Try again and remember that your enemies and everyone else in the world do not think exactly like Cyto and Lindsey. You’re acting like a progressive. Your feelings are not reality.

                  1. You want open borders and you want to bomb Syria.

                    Dude has some serious cognitive dissonance.

            3. America has abetted these groups by tolerating states that sponsor Islamic terrorism from 1979 onward.

              The two options with states that sponsor terrorism are (a) war and (b) toleration.

              We’ve tried both. Libertarians generally prefer (b).

      3. Why do people like you seem to believe that non-Americans are a Borg-like hive mind with identical beliefs?

        You don’t think there are people in Syria who want to be able to worship freely without being killed for apostasy? That there are no women who balk at choosing between “death for adultery” and “marrying their rapist”?

        Yes, we are “imposing” views like “basic human rights should be respected”. Yes, people who do not respect basic human rights are angry about that. Please explain why an attitude other than “well, fuck ’em” is called for in response to that. Why should we respect the right of a culture to oppress its members against their will?

        1. Because it’s easy, and Hyperion likes easy because he’s lazy.

          1. I’m not sure he’s replying to me.

    3. Apparently they hate us so much they have to genocide some random minority that has nothing to do with us, and buy and sell people as slaves. It’s hilarious and sad how fucked up and guilty the West is when it comes to these pieces of shit. It’s a like a woman who tries to understand what she’s doing wrong that causes her husband to keep beating her — the thing she’s doing wrong is not taking the fucker out, he’s a sadistic piece of shit and it has nothing to do with her.

  14. The US took in 10s of thousand of Vietnamese refugees when Saigon fell. This was good, it worked out well, but I am not getting a nostalgia hit from the Syria refugee crisis. Letting the Syrian Christians in would probably work out well too, the Muslims not so much. Donald Trump is correct.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzDAvemJG8

    1. How many Asians have you seen go flying planes into stuff and blowing themselves up to kill people? I mean really, we nuked Japan 2 times and they still don’t want to kill us.

      I’m not even blaming Syrians for wanting to kill Americans. You kill people’s families and that might just piss them off. But importing hordes of them is a bad fucking idea, it’s not worth the risk.

      1. Uh, Asians and flying planes into stuff and blowing themselves up is not exactly unheard of.

      2. ” I mean really, we nuked Japan 2 times and they still don’t want to kill us.”

        Must be a Stockholm syndrome thing because Japanese chicks are all over me. And yes, lots of them make that squeaking noise.

    2. How many Asians have you seen go flying planes into stuff and blowing themselves up to kill people?

      The Kamikazes did this toward the end of WWII, to argue with you and myself.. But this was a matter of personal honor and a sign of a warrior’s allegiance to the Emperor, not a sacrifice to Allah. It’s a subtle difference at first glance, but it has worked out to be much more.

      1. Well, the emperor will say different things at different times. Allah never changes his tune.

      2. No, it was *exactly* a sacrifice to a deity. A sacrifice of desperation by a foe that had no other rational options to destroy their enemies.

        Just like suicide bombing is today.

        1. But that was before we nuked them and they realized that they are in fact a nation of latent pacifists.

  15. Mercy is an important component of Islam as well as Christianity.

    OK, you’ve convinced me. Now take your “blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy” roadshow to ISIS in Syria. There are hearts and minds to be won there.

  16. 2 phase solution here.

    1. Get the fuck out of the ME, period.

    2. Don’t import the ME to here. I’m not talking about normal immigration. I’m talking about taking in massive amounts of new immigrants from countries where it is a known fact the there is a large amount of hatred for the West. I know that we are responsible for a lot of that hatred, but I don’t care now because my goal here is to protect Americans while not harming anyone else. Not taking these refugees is not harming them. Germany and France are perfect willing to take them all, so let them. Then stop fucking around in Syria and creating more refugees. Also, try Hillary Clinton for war crimes and execute the hag.

    There I said it. I don’t care who it offends. Political correctness is the biggest problem in the West today and it has to go, it’s a total fucking disaster.

    1. If it weren’t for political correctness, I wouldn’t have “Safe Space” signs in my coffee shop, created by a department whose literal stated mission is to print safe space posters.

      Our Mission:
      The mission of the SPD SAFE PLACE is to provide the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/ Questioning (LGBTQ) community with signage and resources that provide easily accessible safety information.

      http://www.seattle.gov/spd-safe-place/

      Political correctness creates jobs. QED

      1. Well, I’m glad to see that someone is getting their priorities straight.

        /derp

        1. Intersectionality: The Seattle Police Department recognizes that social categories such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, mental, physical, or sensory handicap, homelessness, marital status, age, parental status, gender, class or political ideology and the associated discrimination and disadvantage that may occur to an individual and/or group is all interconnected and must be addressed collectively instead of separately.

          Those words got $500,000 of initial funding. How much funding do you have?

      2. OMG. The college kids are running the asylum.

    2. There’s no ‘get out of X’ option anywhere. The world is global. There will always be some intervention, everywhere, forever. If you don’t like it too bad.

      “Then stop fucking around in Syria and creating more refugees. ”

      Yes, the whole region would just be at peace if it weren’t for the 12 guys the CIA trained. Cripes do you get off to your own ignorance?

      1. You voting for Hillary, Cyto? I mean, do you want to, do you dream about it?

        1. Only if Trump is the alternative. Funny thing he seems to know about as much about Syria as you do.

          1. You don’t even know the difference between Kentucky and Kansas. Maybe you should study a little geography and history and then you can debate with adults. Now you’re only making a fool of yourself.

            1. Well really what IS the difference?

              1. If you have to ask that question, do as I suggested, and study some geography and American culture. Do I ask you what’s the difference between Quebec and British Columbia. No, because it’s a stupid question.

      2. There is a pretty obvious difference between “a mess” and “a mess we created”, Cyto.

        We arguably have a duty to refugees from our own wars. We have no duty to anyone else who isn’t an American.

        1. The only duty this government has is to see to the interests of the people of the United States. Period.

          1. This. Job numero uno.

          2. Bernie agrees wholeheartedly.

        2. And you do realize you are talking to someone who refuses to admit that the USA is even partially responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Syria?

          1. A lot of ISIS members are guys from Saddam’s old army. Fucking Bremer, what a fucking disaster.

            1. Which makes them literal Islamofascists.

              1. Which makes them our creation.

                1. What else were supposed to do? If a Saudi Arabian uses Saudi Arabian money to train a bunch of Saudi Arabians to attack us, obviously we have to take out Iraq. Because Iraq doesn’t pay the Bush family shit.

  17. “Nevertheless, the president is right that the debate over accepting Syrian refugees is also “potent recruitment tool” for ISIS. The overblown fears of the threat Syrian refugees may pose plays into the narrative ISIS pushes as it seeks to impose a caliphate on the Middle East and the world. Worse, it works toward erasing years, and decades, of good work. The U.S. accepts about 70,000 refugees a year. ”

    Oh, sorry for my post in the other thread in which I called Reason’s take on this situation peak retardation. I was wrong.

    The idea that being against bringing in Muslim refugees is wrong because it will make the jihadists even madder at us because they like us so much now due to us always taking in refugees in the past, is peak retard.

    1. It’s about as retarded as the ‘bombing jihadists makes them stronger’ lie. And make no mistake: it is a lie.

      1. I don’t think bombing makes them stronger per se but it does not appear to be a particularly effective tactic in the long-run.

        Of course being familiar with you I take it your main objection is that the US isn’t glassing all the locations where they are headquartered with civilians as shields?

        1. One of my objections is that America and France *only just* started bombing oil facilities. Now. They wanted ‘nice bombings’ I guess. Maybe the campaign would be a bit more effective if it weren’t totally hamstrung.

          1. It’s not like Washington has any experience with politically directed wars. It’s a learning process.

            1. It’s like Memento. Have to start over every damn time a door slams ?

      2. I’m still not sure what your plan is for the “the call is coming from inside the house” scenario that Europe is dealing with, where effectively it now has little barbarian colonies that are functionally out of its control despite being within its borders.

        Hmm… that should be a Civic in the next Civ game. “Multiculti” – generates 3 smug/turn, but allows barbarian armies to spawn in territory you control.

  18. Oh look a headline by Ed with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE IN THE ARTICLE THAT SUPPORTS IT and three pounds kilos of bullshit in a five kilo bag.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, where U.S. interventions contributed to instability and helped foster the conditions for radical Islamist groups to gain power.

    Bullshit. America took out the radical Islamists in Afghanistan and helped remove them in Somalia. Iraq is less clear but there’s no reason to believe the region would be better off without Sadaam.

    ISIS took advantage of the vacuum the Iraq war created in Iraq Syria -FTFY

    while the 2007 U.S.-Kenyan intervention in Somalia ousted the Islamic Court Union. Al-Shabaab, now the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, was formed in the aftermath of that intervention.

    Oh noes! The Islamist movement has changed its name! Intervention is teh badz.

    I like how ‘instability’ is not the go-to boogeyman for ‘libertarian’ non-interventionists. Hey, tyrants might be evil and all but at least they give us ‘stability’. Like Assad look what a great job he’s done keeping Syria peaceful.

  19. I’m sure this will make me worse than Hitler, but I wonder if there’s a compromise here.

    Like putting young Syrian men of fighting age through a much tougher “vetting” process (and no one, but no one has described to me what this vetting process is that we’re told currently exists).

    How many little old ladies or 57 yr old men have committed coordinated terror attacks against western nations.

    1. How productive will these people be? Will they be employed or will the live forever in some ghetto on welfare? Who’s gonna pay, is my question.

      1. Interesting question. No, wait. Retarded question.

        1. No, dumbass. Very real question…how much of your income are you willing to donate for this cause.

          I’m guessing you suck government tit so you don’t know the difference.

    2. Like putting young Syrian men of fighting age through a much tougher “vetting” process

      I agree with this, but we can’t because of profiling, blah blah blah

    3. We could quite easily take a corner of Syria, secure it and let refugees live there. The people executing that would be volunteers in the military. There’s absolutely no reason to ship refugees to the US except for some retarded diversity initiative.

      And that’s only if you accept the premise that taxpayers owe some responsibility to bring kindness to the rest of the world. Which up to a few days ago was an idea completely opposed by essentially all brand of libertarian thought.

      1. Apparently the Koch brothers sold Reason to the House of Saud at some point.

    4. Women do help with terrorism, both with support and with suicide bombings, though I haven’t heard much about women using guns and bombs and the like. That said, this bullshit is crazy enough that it’s mostly young or middle aged people. Pretty sure most people that actually make it to old age see this for the insanity it is.

      1. Reminds me of the saying:

        “If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.”

        Just sub “jihadist” and “moderate” in the appropriate places.

  20. Sigh, not accepting refugees won’t be some sort of recruitment tool. The American and European Muslims who voluntarily join ISIS were already radicalized to begin with.

    If we deport people caught at the borders and Mexican gangs start shooting people out of retaliation, is it time to open the borders? No matter what we do, some random wacko is going to attack Muslims or paint hate graffiti on Mosques. Seriously, it’ll happen. ISIS won’t care that whether it’s a isolated incident or a part of a rise in Islamophobia. They won’t care if a justified drone strike on one of their training camps causes unforeseeable civilian casualty. Their narrative is already SET.

    ISIS is certainly fishing for some severe backlash against refugees, but refusing to accept ADDITIONAL migrants on top of the ones we already took doesn’t qualify as one. What are they going to say/? “These western nations won’t accept Muslim refugees” Gee, why are they running the in the first place?

  21. I wonder if anyone will study the feelings of ‘helplessness’ that occurs when these terrorist attacks come off, and what government policies might contribute to that feeling of helplessness.

  22. Obama is a worthless piece of S$#$% that should have been impeached long ago! Worthless sack of SH$#

    http://www.CompleteAnon.tk

    1. whoah, anonbot, take it easy.

  23. The American and European Muslims who voluntarily join ISIS were already radicalized to begin with.

    Britain is having more trouble with gen-2 Muslims than gen-1. That they haven’t been welcomed with enough enthusiasm on the part of their hosts is the real problem.

      1. I what Gidget is trying to say is that it’s the kids of recent ME immigrants doing all the Jihading about (which is probably true) and it’s because they haven’t been hugged hard enough by England Home. Which I presumed was snark.

  24. I am confused. Why the insistence on bringing them here? They already have asylum in Turkey. Why can’t they stay there? Why can’t other countries in the region shelter them? We can’t help with that? Why do so many keep insisting that they come here?

    1. I’m guessing because Middle Eastern countries have repeatedly proved themselves to be rather unsympathetic to the cause of other middle-easterners.

      1. So
        The
        Fuck
        What

    2. You have to think like a proggie to understand it. These are future Democrats. At least that’s what they believe.

      1. I figured that had something to do with it, along with prog style white guilt, and BOOOOOOSH! its all our fault. An element of making yourself feel like a good person for giving a dollar to the con artist on the corner with a ‘will work for food’ sign is probably in there also.

        It’s all feeelz and progtard horseshit. And it is suicidal.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnOF7y-KuHE

      2. It would be kind of cool if for each imported Democrat voter, 2 native Democrat voters converted.

    3. It’s an appeal to emotion.

      1. As opposed to concern trolling about whether refugees are going to work or stay on welfare for life. That’s some cold, dispassionate logic.

        1. No, moron, its reacting to shit on the ground, which you seem unable to do.

    1. Yeah, ISIS deserve the Guy Fawkes mask more than Anon anyway.

  25. If more of those Americans supporting the U.S. accepting refugees stepped up to help them themselves, there’s a chance for the debate to escape the sorry partisan framework its fallen into.

    Take your last sentence. Throw away the rest of the article. Write a new article based on that last sentence – you will have done something much better, less stupid, and, as a bonus, something that’s original and new.

  26. Outside of truly stupid acts, such as, say, Trump’s recent ‘CLOSE THE MOSQUES’ rhetoric, or anything else that generally violates freedom of religion in a secular context, how is this a good thing? Does it really speak well of Muslims if not accepting refugees will supposedly radicalize them, when the majority of Middle Eastern Islamic countries are not doing it? If Muslims are apparently willing to join what you correctly identify as a ‘death cult’ with no future over a refugee issue, does that speak well of them (as individuals) or their religion? My grandparents didn’t get a shot at America in the 30s. Instead they got the joys of five years of Nazi rule. Didn’t radicalize them, my father or me into hating America.

    I’m just saying, there’s some uncomfortable implications in that reasoning.

    1. It’s prog logic. I completely understand it, but it’s demented.

    2. You make a really good point, John.

      For myself, I’m a bit tired of being told I’m a terrible person and un-American because I don’t agree with Obama or Ed.

      1. YOU’RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.

        Hmmm, where’d I hear that before?

        1. Walter Russel Mead:

          That said, the refugee issue is not, despite President Obama’s rhetoric, a simple morality play featuring Wise Liberals and Racist Jacksonians. It is something more complicated and, at least as far as President Obama’s own role in the debate, a bit uglier.

          To see the full cynicism of the Obama approach to the refugee issue, one has only to ask President Obama’s least favorite question: Why is there a Syrian refugee crisis in the first place?
          Obama’s own policy decisions?allowing Assad to convert peaceful demonstrations into an increasingly ugly civil war, refusing to declare safe havens and no fly zones?were instrumental in creating the Syrian refugee crisis. This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn. For him to try and use a derisory and symbolic program to allow 10,000 refugees into the United States in order to posture as more caring than those evil Jacksonian rednecks out in the benighted sticks is one of the most cynical, cold-blooded, and nastily divisive moves an American President has made in a long time.

          1. Read the whole thing:

            http://www.the-american-intere…..ugee-ploy/

            1. No doubt President Obama and the unthinking press zealots who applaud his every move prefer a conversation about why ordinary Americans are racist xenophobes to one about why President Obama’s Syria policy has created an immense and still expanding disaster.

              Good article. It would be nice to get writing on international relations like that at Reason once in awhile

              1. Yeah, reason’s FP (and economic) coverage is abysmal.

                Well, I agree and disagree with Mead. I don’t think Obama’s policy created a disaster; I think it contributed to it. The regional players certainly hold more responsibility.

                That said, Obama’s Bartleby like “I’d rather not” position and his general indecision initially – his general lack of leadership – contributed significantly.

                Therefore, I find his moral preening infuriating.

                He’s a tremendous douche.

              2. I’ve been saying for a long time now that Reason has to hire at least one IR realist, if only as a contrast to Richman’s idiocy.

                1. Meh, libertarians don’t do realism. It requires too many compromises.

                  1. It requires too many compromises.

                    Not to sound like bloody Winston, but this is the magazine that published ‘the Libertarian case for Barack Obama’ ‘the Libertarian case for Mitt Romney’ and ‘Barack Obama: Stealth Libertarian?’ And those were written by major contributors. I think Reason’s perfectly willing to compromise for clicks.

                    1. I think Reason’s perfectly willing to compromise for clicks.

                      Nah, they’ve gone full prog. No need for compromise when you really believe this bullshit.

                2. A realist would be an interesting change of pace. But so would a writer with a relevant educational background and a basic ability to research. I really don’t think Reason editors care about information when it comes to drawing conclusions on foreign affairs. I think they believe it’s all down to values or morality or something. Otherwise they’d realize how bad it looks to have nothing but uninformed writing on the subject. It’s not necessarily about the conclusion as much as how much learning took place to get there.

          2. Absolutely everything Obama does is just rife with his narcissism and sense of his own moral superiority. It’s starts to make a lot more sense when you realize it’s not about any kind of consistent moral view or ideology, just that whatever Obama says or believes at the present time is the moral choice because he’s the one who said it. I don’t think he’s the worst president (Wilson fucking up half the world at the Paris 1919 Peace Conference is hard to beat) but he’s really one of the most childish.

            1. The way he’s approached Gitmo is similar. Announce unilaterally that you’re closing it, don’t build alliances with either your party or the opposition, don’t develop an actual plan, stew and bitch about how awful, hateful, and stupid Americans are because they don’t want detainees near them, and then fail to close Gitmo.

              He’s just sooooooo disappointed in us. We won’t do what he needs us to do so that he can feel morally superior.

              Wash, rinse, repeat on gun control and immigration reform.

  27. I like it better when the only people yelling at us about because of what we don’t want is the progressives–rather than Welch, Dalmia, Gillespie, Krayewski, and other libertarians.

    P.S. I don’t like people from Western Massachusetts. What are you gonna do about it?

    1. The cosmos are not us. They are sort of like us in a more leftist sort of way. Or you could just say that they can be partially bullied into political correctness, where that shit doesn’t fly at all with we commentariat.

    2. Who doesn’t like the Berkshires? People, I agree…

      1. The Berkshires are the least offensive region of that state.

    3. I don’t like people from Western Massachusetts.

      You don’t like Penn Jillette? Commie.

    4. Libertarians are quickly becoming left wing liberals, they are abandoning private property rights and embracing the importation of free riders to increase the burden on tax payers.

      1. I don’t see that.

        But those of us who don’t want Syrian refugees have been getting yelled at for two days now.

  28. I agree with you, Ed, that an ideal situation would be ME countries banding together to defeat ISIS, but that’s not going to happen. It’s wishful abstract thinking to voice it. The proxy war of Sunni v Shia makes that impossible.

    As to the propaganda value of rhetoric refusing refugees? What isn’t propaganda for ISIS? If we accept them than they become either apostates or the enemy within from the perspective of ISIS. Rather than how this is perceived by ISIS, possibly we could focus on what would be the best outcome for the US? There’s something incredibly post-modern about reinforcing the propaganda narrative of the enemy rather than the natural cause/effect of the right policy.

    1. Don’t worry. The government will totally screen these refugees.

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/11…..mmigrants/

  29. This is escalating nicely. Nation-building is regaining some cred. I expect to see mentions of nukes by Friday evening.

    Ed, the problem with the propaganda argument is that it’s propaganda. It doesn’t even need to be factual. We could get an impossible 95% of Americans to speak nicely about Syrians and Islam; a propagandist can find enough material from the 5%. Or they could remove context from innocuous statements, or use false translations. And they have plenty of other arguments to use in their propaganda than, “The white devils won’t help the apostates we chased away!” Perhaps it is a recruitment tool for ISIS, but a potent one?

    1. Have you watched any o fthe hundreds of videos of imams preaching hate for the west, of them encouraging people to move to europe as ‘refugees’?

      There is nothing factual about any of it. It doesn’t matter what we say or what we do.

      The biggest mistake I see being made is people assuming that the muslims from the deepest darkest parts of the middle east are just people like us who want the things we want. It is nonsense. They are not like us. They do not have our values or ethics and don’t care about the things we care about. They are not civilized. They are savages. This goes for the increasingly cloistered communities in europe as well.

      1. Oh, great – NOW you’ve pissed off ISIS and they’re coming for us. BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SAID, SUTHENBOY.
        THANKS A LOT!

  30. Question if i do something in my interest why should i care what ISIS thinks?

  31. Tell me reason, why doesnt Japan and Korea have Islamic terrorism? Should they open their borders to refugees as well ?

    1. I am sure china is going to get right on that.

      1. China already has Islamic terrorist attacks. That mass stabbing of 50 unarmed miners a few weeks back was carried about by some of its native Muslims.

  32. *surveys carnage – decides to move on*

    1. No, witch hunts are when backwards, irrational morons engage in mob hysteria against individuals because they think that evil words or evil thoughts can do material harm. You know, like this campus PC bullshit.

  33. Mercy in Islam is enslaving unbelievers instead of killing them.

    There’s no solution to this except discrediting Islam, reforming it like Christianity largely has been, where you are a “radical” if you think gay should have civil unions instead of marriage, as opposed to in islam where they throw them off buildings or hang them.

    And until the West stops with this Islam is peace, it’s a religion of mercy crap it’s never going to happen.

    1. Yep. It’s not remotely difficult to convince us that Muslims can be good people. The hard part is convincing us that good Muslims can be good people.

      We need to stop thinking of religion and ideology and culture as these separate things.

      We hate bigotry in the West because it has often been driven by trivial shit or to cynically drive power struggles. We hate violations of freedom of conscience because they are a form of coercion that not only leaves a much deeper psychological wound than some, but also tend to serve evil and cruelty much more than they prevent it. The notion we shouldn’t hate people because of their religion is transparently ridiculous; if the Nazis had decided to worship Hitler as the incarnation of Odin, it shouldn’t change our disdain for their beliefs one iota.

      There is a form of Islam, as practiced by these buttholes, which is basically the equivalent of “what if Nazis decided to worship Hitler.” Literally, no exaggeration. Slavery, industrialized rape, genocide, the belief that their culture is superior to all others and destined and entitled to subjugate or exterminate everyone else. They are attempting not just to influence other polities though bombings (like Al Qaeda), but to establish a state from which to eventually rule the world. Luckily they took over a war-torn desert shithole instead of Germany, but if all the recent European immigrants relocate to Germany, then we’re going to be in a world of shit.

      1. Yup. The fact is that Muslim societies (in the Middle East, at least) are terribly screwed up in a multitude of ways. Cousin-marriage fucks up their gene pool and lowers their IQs. Low-trust societies with lots of corruption. Polygamy and strict controls on young women mean lots of frustrated young men. Screwed up economies. Low literacy rates, poor education systems.

        It’s just insane for any Western country to import thousands of these people.

        1. Even more insane to think anything we do will actually raise their opinions of us.

  34. It’s really pretty simple. Being the child of immigrants (my grandmother spoke french until she went to school in the 1910s).

    I’m ok with anyone that wants to come here to better themselves, millions have done it and it has worked pretty well over the last century. We have all benefitted from these folks, they have added to our economy in many ways.

    That said bringing in a bunch of folks looking for free shit won’t end well. We already have a segment of the population that relies on free shit, sad as that is, adding to that demographic doesn’t seem wise.

  35. Great job with the projection and mind-reading in this article.

    Rather than search your American / Western European / Judeo-Christian mind for ways to appease people in the Middle East, why not just listen to their words?

    Taking in their excess population won’t appease them. Kindness, weakness, and apologies inspire contempt in that part of the world. And they invite attack.

    1. I think what makes otherwise intelligent people like Ed say incredibly stupid things is because there is some reality that they don’t want to face and will say anything to avoid facing it. In this case Ed just cannot face the truth that radical Muslims mean what they say and that radical Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on destroying Western Civilization. In Ed’s mind that just can’t be true. To avoid that truth, Ed invents this fantasy world where these people are motivated by something else. The CIA was mean to them in the 50s. We bombed their family in the Iraq war. As time goes on and the truth becomes harder to deny, the fantasies become more ludicrous. Now they hate us because we won’t take their refugees. You know the refugees Ed swears are peaceful Muslims who are just running for their lives from ISIS. People are now going to support ISIS because the US won’t take in the people ISIS wants to kill. By Ed’s logic the US refusal to take in Jews during the Holocaust should have made the Jews in Germany Nazis.

      Every day reason gets more pathetic on this topic. And just think; Sheldon Richman hasn’t even crawled out of his hole yet. I can’t even imagine the levels of self loathing stupidity that awaits his writing on this topic.

      1. I would post this in the morning links, but I have a meeting. Best article on the topic I’ve read.

        What ISIS Really Wants

        http://www.theatlantic.com/mag…..ts/384980/

  36. WARNING!!!!! You heard it here first. On or before July 4 2016 their will be a series of attacks across the US that will lead to a State of Emergency. Then Obama will declare Martial Law because the Republicans and Religious Right are the root cause of all the country’s ills because they don’t share his vision. He will cite polls that conclude that people want the Military to takeover because they no longer trust the Congress. What Obama probably doesn’t understand because he lives in a world of his own illusion is that the Generals will eventually oust him. As for me I am to old to care anymore and from what I see the people are fixing to reap what they have sown in the fields of complacency.

  37. In Syria, all military aged males are considered combatants… http://www.washingtonsblog.com…..-zone.html … I presume that our vetting process doesn’t allow combatants to be refugees, so… Logic dictates that all military age males in Syria cannot be refugees. Problem solved.

    1. That is a great point. When we drone strike somewhere, any male of military age is considered a combatant by default. So why are not the military age male refugees not considered the same?

    2. That’s a start. The glitch is that female militants did some damage in France as well.

  38. REASON MAGAZINE has once again lost its mind. The premise here is ridiculous. According to this premise, a football shouldn’t try to score a touchdown at the beginning of the game because that might make their opponent mad and give them extra motivation. If you are thinking like that, you have already lost. The Islamic terrorists don’t think that way. They proclaim “Death to America” and “American blood is the sweetest blood of all.” According to Reason’s premise, they shouldn’t do that because that might make us mad and give us extra motivation to defeat them. The whole premise is based on the false notion that words are more important than actions. We are mad at the Islamic terrorists primarily because of their actions–their terrorist attacks and mass killing of innocent people. They are mad at us for the way we conduct our lives in a free and open society not governed by Sharia law. To say that the words we say about each other is primary is ABSURD.

  39. Whose hearts and minds will we win by accepting refugees? The hearts and minds of people who aren’t already trying to kill us? BFD.

  40. What on earth is the point of a libertarian who wants to import people in here, 90% of whom are immediately going to be put on welfare? You people are the worst of all worlds!

  41. Winning hearts and minds? Such talk by unREASON magazine shows you know nothing about Islam and the Arabs. Just because the Muslims hate the Jews and you hate the Jews (except for the sick, evil self haters who write for your rag), doesn’t mean they like you or will potentially like you. You obviously think the enemy of my enemy (the Jews) is your friend. Complete ignorance and idiocy on your part.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.