Trojan Horse

To form an educated political opinion about the implications of opening the doors to large numbers of refugees, I think that it is important to fully understand what exactly a Trojan Horse is. It is easy, right after a sentence like that to simply follow the dogma of your side of the political war, but why not have a little more knowledge on it? Here is a bit from wiki:

"The Trojan Horse is a tale from the Trojan War about the subterfuge that the Greeks used to enter the city of Troy and win the war. In the canonical version, after a fruitless 10-year siege, the Greeks constructed a huge wooden horse, and hid a select force of men inside. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greeks entered and destroyed the city of Troy, decisively ending the war."

and this:

Metaphorically a "Trojan Horse" has come to mean any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or place.

It is really nice that so many people can recognize the innocent women and children refugees in need of compassion, but it is also important to understand that these people in need may be coming as part a much more complicated package. Those of us who are concerned about the Trojan Horse have good reason to be. Look beyond the political dogma of your side of the political war! From the liberal headlines and stories that I have read, it does not appear that the left is wanting to look beyond the needs of the refugees.

 

ISIS claims to have infiltrated 4,000 jihadi fighters in the refugee population.

 

I cast a blind eye to the fear.

 

no they didnt

 

People have this weird idea that what a group says is an exhaustive list of what they think. If someone is trying to make a particular argument, they will bring up the information that is relevant to that argument, they will not list pros and cons. It is quite possible to be able to "look beyond the needs of refugees" without deeming it necessary to bring that up when the specific point they're making is about the needs of the refugees. Just like I would think that the right was completely void of compassion for others if I just read the arguments they are presenting, rather than taking into account a full understanding of their position and what role both compassion and concern for terrorists play in it.

 

On what basis?

 

`
Ummmm: Read - Turkey arrests 8 ISIS suspects posing as … Syrian refugees

 

They never would have made it past UNHRC's screening.

 

They hate us.

 

There is a large and growing group of people out there who hate America and Western Civilization, and their ultimate goal is to murder every last one of us. They will stop at nothing to accomplish this, even if they die trying. Posing as a refugee is very easy to do, and it is already being done. I am not saying that you need to agree with me, just making folks aware of what the other side is looking at. We feel compassion for those in need, but we see the big picture of a Trojan Horse. I am delighted that the left is able to have the compassion that they do, I just want them to see what we see over here on the right as well.

 

It's a Trojan horse of a different color.
The Dems supply the problem, the influx of refugees they helped create, and the repubs (and Dems) will supply the solution, increased infringement of rights, increased austerity, increased size of our already bloated corrupt surveillance state.

 

If you're compassionate and cautious then why not consider very restrictive admission? Canada has just indicated they will only accept families, single women and children - no single men. What would you think about doing something like that?

 

Custer was fearless at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Sundance and Butch Cassidy were fearless as they charged 100 soldiers. Even the fearless need to utilize a bit of common sense and discretion or the fearless do not last long.

 

I think this has become a political football where common sense has flown the coop. Perhaps Canada has the right approach. There is usually a middle way, but this has turned into all or nothing which suits the polarized atmosphere of Washington D.C. these days.

 

The single men are being re-located in your neighborhood.

 

I think you're right - the middle ground is too controversial for both sides. It's seen as too weak a position, too large a concession.

 

`
It's not that they hate us, it's just that they want to kill us. j/k

 

What are you talking about?

 

I do not trust the government to use discretion. They have not even been able to successfully identify who the enemy is yet.

 

We need to build a big wall around the country. Then we need to build a wall around
the wall.

Then we need to wrap ourselves in bubble wrap.

Then we can hide in our closets.

Cause the world is scary and we be scared of our own shadows.

 

I think that is an excellent point. First through bumbling they allow the terrorists to slip in, and then they want expanded surveillance power to contain the terrorism that results from their bumbling.

It brings to mind Ronald Reagan's admonition to someone ready to act before thinking the situation through. He told them "don't just do something, stand there."

It's time for the Obama Administration to STOP and first do no harm. Study the issue and then when they know what they are dealing with, and they have communicated what they want to achieve, act in a manner that furthers OUR goals, which is first and foremost, our security.

Diane Feinstein: Our Strategy Against ISIS Is "Insufficient;" Things Are Getting Worse, Not Better

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dianne-feinstein-obama-isis-strategy-isnt-sufficient/

 

I agree with you on the wall. Good fences make for good neighbors.

We do not have to be afraid if we can identify who and where the enemy is. A great number of We The People know who the enemy is, but it is very difficult to know where they are. If the government is ever able to identify who the enemy is, they have the resources to figure out where they are. In the meantime, the second amendment is our friend.

 

The wall has to be at least 10,000 feet high. You need to hire armed guards to guard your guns.
You will only be safe in your closet. Stay there.

 

The sad thing is it is not only dealing with Syrian Refugees, but pretty much anything that comes up in Washington D.C. Politics is the art of the possible. To get Washington to work both sides must play that game, give and take, compromise which is now a four letter word. In my opinion it is better to take one or two steps forward if your goal is ten steps than to remain stuck where you are and take no steps at all.

On the refugees I see not problem in waiting a couple of months if doing so could calm the fears of those who oppose the acceptance of them. If during that time one could convince those in opposition that the vetting process is the best as it can be. Nothing is perfect. But I think that would not be enough, nothing in this world would be enough. Both sides are set in stone. No compromise, no talking to the other, just push and push and try to force.

 

Do you think it would help those who oppose taking the risk if the other side could demonstrate that they know who our enemy is? Do you suppose it would help if they could also demonstrate that they are aware that bringing in these refugees could also be bringing in the Trojan Horse?