Firmly think referring to any holly book on this subject is not helpful
It was such books that got s in to this trouble in the first place
Let us just for the sake of talking say the evil west is the reason terrorists exist
Then claim we should hug the people in question and bring them back, all is forgiven
What then? what happens when we reward mass murderers and those who supported them because we claim to be better than them
Laws are made Foxy, and truly law are not made just by governments
Voters in numbers big enough to have power demand such laws
Think about that Saudi Arabian pilot, cadged and roasted to death on a fire
The hundreds of slave women, remind your selves of the Brides of fighters, walking the streets of occupied towns flogging or ordering the flogging of other women
Then tell me we should be kind to these people

To Belly.

You said:

<<Firmly think referring to any holly book on this subject is not helpful
It was such books that got s in to this trouble in the first place>>

I firmly disagree. It was Muslim holy books that got Islamic terrorist to come to such an evil cause as ISIS. No other religion or religious texts should be banned from the discussion due to one religion. For anyone of a certain religion, regardless what that religion is, if they don't refer to the holy texts of their faith in the hard decisions of life, then they don't really believe in those texts or that faith. If a secular position is worth hearing when it doesn't hold a religious perspective on life and the world, but a religious position is not worth hearing because it is a perspective from a religious text then there is no freedom of thought and freedom of faith. I strongly oppose your criticism, and instead say regardless of a person's faith we should come together and share our concerns and suggestions. Especially on hard dividing issues like this one will likely turn into as more media coverage goes into it.

<<Let us just for the sake of talking say the evil west is the reason terrorists exist>>

For the sake of talking then if this point is believed, then we as part of the west have a responsibility to what's happening in the Middle East. I'm not sure that this point is as true as it's sometimes claimed, but if it is, then we have a responsibility.

<<Then claim we should hug the people in question and bring them back, all is forgiven
What then? what happens when we reward mass murderers and those who supported them because we claim to be better than them>>

That is not what I suggested. I don't think that's been anyone's suggestion so far. Don't put words in people's mouth and then feel like you've won a point when they don't defend the points they never said.

"For the sake of talking then if this point is believed, then we as part of the west have a responsibility to what's happening in the Middle East. I'm not sure that this point is as true as it's sometimes claimed, but if it is, then we have a responsibility."

I'd hate to think that my beliefs align with that of the left;
But sometimes I think I can almost see their arguments.
I just wanted to say that firstly because I'm mindful of where this comment might take me.

You get a lot of 'Not My President' in the US atm.
In the same way I could easily say 'Not My War'.
- Followed by 'Not My Problem'.

In regards to the "...then we have a responsibility" part;
Why is it automatically assumed that 'I', (As I am a part of 'we');
- Should be expected to support 'taking responsibility' for parts of this mess;
IE - I should support us taking these people back under some kind of 'democratic responsibility' due to our involvement in the war.

Why should I automatically be expected to ethically support it
If ethically I opposed our involvement in these wars in the first place?

Why would I go along with this 'democratic responsibility' if support for the war;
- That is supporting the US in the war would've likely occurred under either of the major parties?

I guess the bigger question then is this:
Do we support the US staying the worlds superpower in return for our own protection by them, even if they cause wars, chaos and carnage all over the place for either Israels benefit or to protect the petrodollar and the US economy?

Are we ok with the carnage we either support or turn a blind eye to in return for the United States protection?

Steele Redux,
You are only right on a small technical point, morally you missed the point ! IS weren't just about the Syrian Govt, they are about the first few step to the whole World !

Belly,

You asked, "Would you have let the SS shelter here?"

The short answer is "Yes".

NNSD: I'm not arguing to be a Good Samaritan, like taking an injured person looking after them and taking them to a place they can heal.

Our biggest problem, in the West, is that we look at all situations with "Western Eyes." We should be looking at these problems through the eyes of the Middle East.

In the West we look at a solution for these people as we would if they were Westerners. This is really "Bad Thinking." We can't do that. These people think in terms of the Middle East. They believe that our Western Culture & thinking is inferior to theirs.

When we look at a dilemma, such as how to do deal with these people, we should be thinking, like they think. What would be their solution if the situation was reversed.

I have a suspicion that the outcome would not be very kind to Westerners. The Conditions imposed on Westerners would be horrific, or, suffer the consequences.

The West has a Secular System, even though the Religious keep trying to push a Theocratic view, The Middle East has a very Strict Theocratic System which they are determined to enforce on the World by any & all means possible. Allowing these people back into Western Society makes them all the more determined to succeed. The West would be the cause of that success & they know that & play on it.

My View. No, keep them out of the West & especially out of Australia.