Are You Playing into ISIS Hands?

[McCamy Taylor]

In the wake of Paris, do you find yourself wondering if the US should stop accepting Syrian refugees? If so, then you are playing right into ISIS hands.


ISIS is waging an "internal" war with other Muslims--mainly Shia (Iran) but also secular (i.e. Marxists). They do not give a rat's you know what about France. They want to discourage Europe and the US from accepting refugees from Syria and the Middle East. This leads to more poverty and violence in Syria and more disaffected youths whom they can recruit in order to force Sunni down the throats of Muslims. Sunni is the religion of choice of the Saudi Royal family, because under Sunni, the monarch has divine mandate. Meaning if all Muslims are Sunni then the Sauds get to continue to live like gods (not a very devout thing in any religion). So, if you want to play into the hands of ISIS and the Sauds, then yes, by all means reject refugees from Syria. Because the last thing the Sauds want is for Syrian immigrants to get to the US, get jobs, homes, make some money and then use their economic and political clout to attempt to make things better in their home country. Q: Why did England finally have to get the hell out of Ireland? A: Because so many Irish went to the US where they were able to finally give Ireland economic and political power. Saudi Arabia is not going to make the mistake of the UK. It is going to force its unwilling subjects across the world to stay home and live in abject poverty.

Say yes to Refugees and no to the Saud Monarchy and its reign of terror.

[annabanana]

1. If you refer to the territory controlled by ISIS as the Caliphate..

... you are playing into ISIS' hands.

[annabanana]

2. The Syrian refugees have suffered more than anyone at ISIS' hands

ANYONE.

[CJCRANE]

3. Strictly speaking, monarchs are not allowed in Sunni Islam.

That's the whole point of the Caliph: he is elected by the community.

Also, for what it's worth I'm against mass immigration of Syrian refugees. Let's stop destabilizing their country and let them go back to their homeland.

[earthside]

4. Or ... hold the Saudis responsible.

Syrian refugees could be relocated in Saudia Arabia.

But the U.S. and Europe are once again letting the 'leaders' of Sunni Isalm off scot-free.

How about not playing into the hands of Daesh and tell the Saudis no more coddling and that they are going to have to take care of the problems in their own backyard.

The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/

[LittleBlue]

5. So now we have to accept unlimited immigrants to beat Isis?

What utter nonsense. Isis doesn't give a shit how we treat refugees. The truth is that by continously attacking us, they're making it more likely that Europe will tire of this and deport them all. Not to mention close their borders. Which isn't what they want.

I've seen people make this claim but there's no logic behind this at all. It's just another way to distract from the obvious fact that Isis is using Europe's immigration policy to put their agents in Europe.

Those are lies, propagated by politicians who bought into unlimited immigration wholesale and whose jobs are now looking vulnerable.

[leftynyc]

6. You posted this in two different forums

and implying that we are dupes of isis if we acknowledge the truth that it's already been proven that isis is using the Syrian refugees as cover is nothing but bullshit. If they don't have family here and are traveling alone, I wouldn't let them in. PERIOD. Let Saudi Arabia clean up after themselves for a change. How about the other gulf states? Why should the US take them all in? And frankly, I'm not prepared to risk giving the entire government over to right wingers if even one of those refugees turns out to be a terrorist. It's not worth the risk when we already know it's what isis is planning.