Discrimination: 2,098 Syrian muslims admitted into US - Only 53 Christians

[Coyote]

the definition of genocide is anti Christian when it is considered in reference to Christians in muslim countries

Really?

Then it's discriminatory in reference to Muslims, Zorastrians, and other religious minorities living under ISIS.

Persecution in and of itself doesn't equal genocide.

Genocide has been applied to the Yazidi's: Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The persecution of the Yazidi people has been viewed as qualifying as "genocide" by groups such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in a March 2015 report. The organization cited the numerous atrocities such as forced religious conversion and sexual slavery as being parts of an overall malicious campaign.[3][57] Multiple individual human rights activists such as Nazand Begikhani[58] and Widad Akrawi have also advocated for this view.[59] The term itself first arose in 1944 as the creation of a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin, who himself defined the term as reflecting "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."[60]

A lot of groups can be persecuted and killed or might fall under war crimes, but don't qualify as genocide. When the Bosnians were attacked and killed by the Serbs - it still wasn't called a genocide so arguing that there is some sort of religious bias at work is thin.

nothing "thin" about it-----I am alluding to YOUR definitions--------as to who says what------LOTS AND LOTS of people decided that DA JOOOS are committing genocide against the PALESTINIANS-------according to your own statements----DA JOOOOS ain't coming close despite that which lots of people and agencies SAY

Sorry Rosie, I've never said that genocide was being conducted against the Palestinians.

I did not claim you did-------millions of other people do------YOU claimed----"see---other people say it is NOT genocide or ----other people say it IS genocide--------"
I AM NOT IMPRESSED what tom, dick and harry call "genocide" I know what
genocide is. Today people being subjected to genocide are Christians
in muslim shit holes--------lots of them-----arab countries, and others Indonesia,
Pakistatan, Iran, The muslims of the middle east are not subjected to genocide-------and Shiites have to option of IRAN. The Christians are being afforded virtually NO OPTIONS

Christians have the option of the entire western world if you are looking at it that way - they do, after all, comprise 33% of the world's people. The Azidi's, I think, exist no where else.

A lot of sects and religions are being targeted by ISIS - particularly the multitude of small ancient religions that have existed there forever and they include Christians, Muslims, Azidi's and others. I do agree - they need protection.

What I don't see is a deliberate effort by the UN to exclude them or favor one or the other. There is clearly a problem with the system since it relies on who registers in the refugee camps but that isn't the same as deliberate discrimmination.

 

[AceRothstein]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

End ALL immigration, regardless of where those seeking to live here come from and end ALL refugee acceptance. If done, no one can complain that we are discriminating against any particular group.

 

[Coyote]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

Is any religion NOT weird? Seriously...incindiary shrubbery giving orders...zombie prophets....epileptic prophecies...

 

[irosie91]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

Is any religion NOT weird? Seriously...incindiary shrubbery giving orders...zombie prophets....epileptic prophecies...

Moot point

 

[Coyote]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

Is any religion NOT weird? Seriously...incindiary shrubbery giving orders...zombie prophets....epileptic prophecies...

Moot point

Some people think that stuff is normal....

 

[irosie91]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

Is any religion NOT weird? Seriously...incindiary shrubbery giving orders...zombie prophets....epileptic prophecies...

Moot point

Some people think that stuff is normal....

Coyote----try to learn something------you are wrong----Zoroastrians had
the SAME standing as did jews and Christians in classical shariah shit
cesspools. They were DHIMMIS------paid jizya and were subject to the
DHIMMI ORPHAN LAW-----which rendered them ----if bereft of their
fathers-----enslaved to any muslim who wanted a sex slave. Remember---you called me a "liar"-----NOPE-----the Yazidis are enslaved and raped and sold in
under the same ISLAMIC HOLY LAW from which my very own mother-in-law
was rescued. Keep laughing

 

[irosie91]

the definition of genocide is anti Christian when it is considered in reference to Christians in muslim countries

Really?

Then it's discriminatory in reference to Muslims, Zorastrians, and other religious minorities living under ISIS.

Persecution in and of itself doesn't equal genocide.

Genocide has been applied to the Yazidi's: Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The persecution of the Yazidi people has been viewed as qualifying as "genocide" by groups such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in a March 2015 report. The organization cited the numerous atrocities such as forced religious conversion and sexual slavery as being parts of an overall malicious campaign.[3][57] Multiple individual human rights activists such as Nazand Begikhani[58] and Widad Akrawi have also advocated for this view.[59] The term itself first arose in 1944 as the creation of a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin, who himself defined the term as reflecting "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."[60]

A lot of groups can be persecuted and killed or might fall under war crimes, but don't qualify as genocide. When the Bosnians were attacked and killed by the Serbs - it still wasn't called a genocide so arguing that there is some sort of religious bias at work is thin.

nothing "thin" about it-----I am alluding to YOUR definitions--------as to who says what------LOTS AND LOTS of people decided that DA JOOOS are committing genocide against the PALESTINIANS-------according to your own statements----DA JOOOOS ain't coming close despite that which lots of people and agencies SAY

Sorry Rosie, I've never said that genocide was being conducted against the Palestinians.

I did not claim you did-------millions of other people do------YOU claimed----"see---other people say it is NOT genocide or ----other people say it IS genocide--------"
I AM NOT IMPRESSED what tom, dick and harry call "genocide" I know what
genocide is. Today people being subjected to genocide are Christians
in muslim shit holes--------lots of them-----arab countries, and others Indonesia,
Pakistatan, Iran, The muslims of the middle east are not subjected to genocide-------and Shiites have to option of IRAN. The Christians are being afforded virtually NO OPTIONS

Christians have the option of the entire western world if you are looking at it that way - they do, after all, comprise 33% of the world's people. The Azidi's, I think, exist no where else.

A lot of sects and religions are being targeted by ISIS - particularly the multitude of small ancient religions that have existed there forever and they include Christians, Muslims, Azidi's and others. I do agree - they need protection.

What I don't see is a deliberate effort by the UN to exclude them or favor one or the other. There is clearly a problem with the system since it relies on who registers in the refugee camps but that isn't the same as deliberate discrimmination.

Your statement is -----as usual VULGAR------Christians have the CHOICE OF THE WORLD but poor suffering muslims have only wildly wealthy OIL RICH COUNTRIES? The people at risk are the Christians and the Yazidis----but the UN is treating them both like shit and kissing arab muslim ass. Zoroastrians are free in the USA, Israel and------dirt poor Mumbai-----you remember Mumbai------
muslims hate Mumbai--------the Zoroastrians who survived the stink of islam in
iran fled to Mumbai-----where the jews who fled the stink of islam in Iraq and Iran
-----also landed and still get along well with them-----that is why Pakistanis committed the kind of terrorism you so adore in Mumbai-------which is why they built their temples in Israel. It is people like you who have CREATED the Islamic sense of EXTREME ENTITLEMENT which includes a right to blow the brains out of infants

 

[irosie91]

for the record-------IN THE FILTH OF SHARIAH LAW-------not only can Christians and jews be "DHIMMIS" ------historically ZOROASTRIANS were designated as dhimmis ----too. Yazidis are----essentially Zoroastrians. The ISIS now DEFINES them as
PAGAN SHIT worthy of DEATH ----is actually an innovation------they actually have the same standing that Christians "enjoy" in classical shariah shit

Actually Christians have a better standing than Yazidi's who are despised.

The Yazidi's worship a peacock angel. They are kind of weird.

silly comment-------they have symbols just like any other religion-----For those as dim as so many on this board.----SUNNIS HATE IRANIANS because Iran means
SHIITE. Way back in the time of the GLORIOUS AGE OF GLORIOUS ISLAMIC
CONQUEST-------scum from arabia conquered that which had been BABYLON----
and took the very highly INTELLECTUALLY developed city-----that they renamed
BAGHDAD------In that city there were ----Zoroastrians, jews, and Christians-----
of very remarkable intellectual achievement (for that time) in science, math,
astronomy, and---very significantly ---the greek philosophies. It is the city
of Baghdad that muslims STILL CLAIM AS THEIR OWN ACHIEVEMENT----which
is kinda idiotic-----essentially an historic LIE ------in any case---Yazidis ---for sunnie---are shit----because they are ZOROASTRIAN LIKE (read that "parsee"-----ie
PERSIAN in their religious legacy). More of interest-----Zoroastrians have been
literate for thousands of years-------Arabic was not a written language until
about 300 AD-------its writing was adapted from the script of the Zoroastrians----
-------now all sing------"we three kings of orient are-----bearing gifts we traverse afar......etc etc etc FOLLOWNG YONDER STAR..... " The three wise kings
are zorostrians---famous for their knowledge of ASTRONOMY. SEE? the sunnis
of Iraq got lots of which to a JEALOUS In ancient Baghdad (the one invaded
by arabs) zorostrians had the same standing as did Christians and jews---subjugated to the stench of islam-------now they are something like ----dhimmis who have rebelled against the stench-----therefore PILLAGEABLE and RAPABLE

 

[Tilly]

Christian refugees aren't even safe from persecution and murder when they've reached the 'safety' of boats. They need all the help they can get.

 

[irosie91]

Christian refugees aren't even safe from persecution and murder when they've reached the 'safety' of boats. They need all the help they can get.

It seems so to me------but they GOT NOTHING-----they do not have oil-----and
they do not have sluts with bombs on their asses-----most of all----they do not
have the support of their fellows-------ya know-----like YOU!!!!

 

[irosie91]

Christian refugees aren't even safe from persecution and murder when they've reached the 'safety' of boats. They need all the help they can get.

It seems so to me------but they GOT NOTHING-----they do not have oil-----and
they do not have sluts with bombs on their asses-----most of all----they do not
have the support of their fellows-------ya know-----like YOU!!!!

the answer lies in the "LOGIC OF ISLAM". A very interesting feature of islam and
muslims is their fascination with "logic" to which they were introduced----
to some extent in arabia (by jews, Zoroastrians and Christians) but even
more intensely in BAGHDAD. Muslims are working today on their take
on that "logic" which they developed way back then-----like---12-13 hundred
years ago. Logically----the way to CONQUEST-----is progressive harassment
and oppression and DENIGRATION of all things not "them" Thru shariah law
in which non muslims (including the famous "people of the book" ) are progressively disenfranchised and their religions trashed----ISLAM eventually WINS-----slowly but surely. Not by a SUDDEN genocide (in most cases)
but by slow progressive trashing of everything "other". IN MODERN TIMES----
even countries that some people call "ok and modern" like INDONESIA----
all things "not muslim" are slowly trashed out of existence by a really sneaky trick,
In that Islamic shit hole-----there is a list of "legal" religions. That means non
muslims eligible-----by the KINDNESS OF THE MUSLIM OVER LORDS ---
to have a temple and some freedom to use it with permission of the marvelously
kindly muslim rulers. These special consideration can be easily withdrawn and
often are-------like----a church built without "PERMISSION' is illegal. Getting
rid of a whole community or making them disenfranchised is easy-----just take them
off the list and destroy their shrines. A nice place to start would be France-----
INHO----France should make a list of acceptable religions------Christianity,
Hinduism, Judaism, Atheism, Nudism, SALONISM, Impressionism,
and just leave off islam. If a big country like Indonesia can do it-----why not
France? The precedents exist -----thanks to our muslim friends

 

[Picaro]

"...the United Nations itself is strongly beholden to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), it’s largest voting bloc, which has its own views on the refugee situation that are unlikely to conform with U.S. interests and equally unlikely to favor Christians, given that at the OIC’s home headquarters, in Saudi Arabia, the practice of Christianity is itself largely illegal.
"....perhaps most largely problematic, is the appearance of overt anti-Christian bias by the State Department itself. As good friend of the Center, Institute for Religion and Democracy’s Faith McDonnell notes in her recent piece on the state of Christian refugees, the State Department has explicitly declared they, “would not support a special category to bring Assyrian Christians into the United States,” in response to a plan by a private aid group to fund, entirely free of taxpayer dollars, the transport of Assyrian Christians facing extermination by Islamic State.
"In other words, even when its free, no cost to them, the State Department has preferred to snub Christians rather than save them."

Center for Security Policy | The Refugee Resettlement Process is Already Discriminatory

I've posted on this before; good to see others bringing it out as well. The UN is a worthless cesspool whose membership is made up mostly of dictators and organized crime syndicates. Christians and others need to be first in line, and Muslim refugees can be taken in by other Muslim countries; there is more than enough wealth and room in Muslim countries for the 'refugees' from their death cult's civil wars, no need for anybody else to pander to them.

The same method by which Turkey became 'secular' is what non-Muslims have been facing for centuries in their shitholes, so yeah, suddenly there aren't many left as percentages of the population. What a stupid mindless 'talking point' to point out, but cretins will be cretins.

 

[Picaro]

Where have they "refused to accommodate Christians"?

Obama is correct - there should not be a religious test for refugees. Y

Bullshit.

 

[EverCurious]

Semi-related musings: I've had a number of conversations with folks over refugees and there is one question that almost always comes up; left right or middle. How must these folks feel about everything coming from the ME wrapped in their antique culture and be thrust into modern Western society? Can you imagine coming from an area were women have to cover their faces to not incite a riot to a place where sex is used to sell everything? It's gotta be as much of a shock as a modern American woman being thrust into the ME culture; and perhaps a bit worse if these folks have been raised with the twisted, or even not so twisted, teachings of the Koran. There is really no doubt in my mind that they'd be more comfortable with other safe havens in the ME... I suppose the bigger question, though, is if the "rescue" outweighs the "foreignness" - the "stress" of culture shock. On the one hand I can see it, on the other I'm not so sure.

I guess for me there are other bits that weigh in, aside from the whole terrorist possibility, aside from religious affiliations and such; that come into play if we're going to talk about what's good for the refugees. On the surface, frankly, I'd like to westernize every last one of them, so in some ways ISIS is probably right and the West would be the death of their claimed religion. Then I end up in this no man's land of questioning myself - is it proper for us to Westernize them at all because it would lead to the death of at least a school of religious teaching, and/or is it proper for us to encourage their antique teachings (within reason of course) by putting them with those who believe the same. On an intellectual level, would we thrust Christians into the ME as refugees or would we seek a more friendly "Christianized" location for them?

 

[irosie91]

Semi-related musings: I've had a number of conversations with folks over refugees and there is one question that almost always comes up; left right or middle. How must these folks feel about everything coming from the ME wrapped in their antique culture and be thrust into modern Western society? Can you imagine coming from an area were women have to cover their faces to not incite a riot to a place where sex is used to sell everything? It's gotta be as much of a shock as a modern American woman being thrust into the ME culture; and perhaps a bit worse if these folks have been raised with the twisted, or even not so twisted, teachings of the Koran. There is really no doubt in my mind that they'd be more comfortable with other safe havens in the ME... I suppose the bigger question, though, is if the "rescue" outweighs the "foreignness" - the "stress" of culture shock. On the one hand I can see it, on the other I'm not so sure.

I guess for me there are other bits that weigh in, aside from the whole terrorist possibility, aside from religious affiliations and such; that come into play if we're going to talk about what's good for the refugees. On the surface, frankly, I'd like to westernize every last one of them, so in some ways ISIS is probably right and the West would be the death of their claimed religion. Then I end up in this no man's land of questioning myself - is it proper for us to Westernize them at all because it would lead to the death of at least a school of religious teaching, and/or is it proper for us to encourage their antique teachings (within reason of course) by putting them with those who believe the same. On an intellectual level, would we thrust Christians into the ME as refugees or would we seek a more friendly "Christianized" location for them?

I think you underestimate the level of "sophistication" of people from other parts of the world The days of being amazed at an electric light ended LONG AGO
You actually imagine that SYRIA is a primitive country with backward illiterate
people and women swathed in endless veils-----think again. Syria is not Somalia---
in fact even Somallia is not as Somalia as you seem to imagine. Have you ever
met persons from those "primitive" lands? Your concept that EXPOSURE to
THE WEST-------boggles the minds of what you seem to imagine are people living
under a rock--------is, itself ----primitive

 

[Coyote]

Where have they "refused to accommodate Christians"?

Obama is correct - there should not be a religious test for refugees. Y

Bullshit.

We're a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion - it's ingrained in or society, and we are the product of many people's who fled persecution. There was and should be no religious test EVER.

 

[EverCurious]

I think you underestimate the level of "sophistication" of people from other parts of the world The days of being amazed at an electric light ended LONG AGO
You actually imagine that SYRIA is a primitive country with backward illiterate
people and women swathed in endless veils-----think again. Syria is not Somalia---
in fact even Somallia is not as Somalia as you seem to imagine. Have you ever
met persons from those "primitive" lands? Your concept that EXPOSURE to
THE WEST-------boggles the minds of what you seem to imagine are people living
under a rock--------is, itself ----primitive

Well that was actually a question I asked in my "Will you Convert" post. If the beliefs of Islam as a religion was incompatible with Western America as is being purported by the extreme right. I didn't get an answer here, nor on my other discussions as I'd hoped. It seems that people are muzzled on the subject, be that by their PC'ness, or by political divides.

You are correct, I /don't/ know how folks in the ME actually live, but no one is willing to talk about it either - and that presents a problem for me on more than one hand. So you've given me the standard political talking points in your post. Is it your claim that despite all the international uproar about the way the ME treats women, it is all a lie? What is your opinion regarding Muslim culture interfacing with the modern American woman, and on what do you base it?

 

[irosie91]

Where have they "refused to accommodate Christians"?

Obama is correct - there should not be a religious test for refugees. Y

Bullshit.

We're a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion - it's ingrained in or society, and we are the product of many people's who fled persecution. There was and should be no religious test EVER.

"religious test"--???? religion is, simply, IDEOLOGY-------I is old-----well---actually I am not THAT old but have a very good memory and can remember people
saying "I refuse to answer that question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate me"------before I knew the world "constitution" I also remember "have you ever been a member of an organization that supports the violent overthrow of the US government" ---before I knew all the words in that question.
Ideologies that support violence are an issue. I do not believe it is wrong to
ask-----"should abortion doctors be shot"?

 

[Coyote]

Where have they "refused to accommodate Christians"?

Obama is correct - there should not be a religious test for refugees. Y

Bullshit.

We're a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion - it's ingrained in or society, and we are the product of many people's who fled persecution. There was and should be no religious test EVER.

"religious test"--???? religion is, simply, IDEOLOGY-------I is old-----well---actually I am not THAT old but have a very good memory and can remember people
saying "I refuse to answer that question on the ground that it might tend to incriminate me"------before I knew the world "constitution" I also remember "have you ever been a member of an organization that supports the violent overthrow of the US government" ---before I knew all the words in that question.
Ideologies that support violence are an issue. I do not believe it is wrong to
ask-----"should abortion doctors be shot"?

I never agreed with the concept of loyalty oaths or McCarthy era witchhunts. Asking "do get off on murder" is not the same as applying a religious test to immigrants and refugees.