This is topic 26 US Republican Governors (and 1 Democratic Gov) give ISIS exactly what they want in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16864.html

Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
quote:
States protesting the admission of refugees range from Alabama and Georgia, to Texas and Arizona, to Michigan and Illinois, to Maine and New Hampshire. Among these 27 states, all but one have Republican governors.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

I'm sure ISIS is ecstatic. The leaving of a forged passport implying that the terrorists were refugees was probably for exactly this sort of result.

[ November 17, 2015, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
And the states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Why?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
********. Because it is easy and cheap to appeal to the worst in us rather than the best. Because frightened people are easily led. It is pure politics as the governors don't have the power to do this anyway. And because ********.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
ISIS isn't the only possible party that could have arranged for the fake passport to be found. I don't see the clear, obvious line whereby ISIS gains from the passport find. I've heard the theory that they want to elicit backlash which in turn helps their recruiting, but why would it help to specifically think that it was a refugee who did it, rather than an ISIS agent from elsewhere?
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
Wouldn't an exodus of refugees be a near-perfect place to slide in and gain entry into any compassionate country? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these governors (haven't looked into what they're actually saying yet) but it seems you'd be hard pressed to craft a better scenario for bad people from a specific region to enter another country. Unless the assumption is that background checks against impoverished Syrians are reliable enough to mitigate the risk.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 6842) on :
 
From what I can tell, the unspoken argument is that the risk of losing a few hundred or even a few thousand American lives is worth the risk of being compassionate. After all, if we don't let them in here many of them will die in Syria and an American life is not worth more than a Syrian life. From a life for a life calculation we come out on top if we let them in even if that facilitates a terrorist attack on American soil.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Attacks in the West is not Daesh's goal. Their goal is to bolster and expand the territory they control. They don't want to send people to compassionate countries, they want Muslims from those countries to come to Iraq or Syria.

The intent of attacks seem to be to encourage the isolation and oppression of Muslims in the West so they are easier to recruit.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Paris Attackers Weren’t Refugees, According to Top EU Official
The Islamic State wants you to hate refugees
Here's what the U.S. process for vetting Syrian refugees actually looks like
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
ISIS isn't the only possible party that could have arranged for the fake passport to be found. I don't see the clear, obvious line whereby ISIS gains from the passport find. I've heard the theory that they want to elicit backlash which in turn helps their recruiting, but why would it help to specifically think that it was a refugee who did it, rather than an ISIS agent from elsewhere?

Many right-wing sources have claimed that ISIS is sending terrorists in disguised as refugees. Confirming what people want to believe is a lot easier than giving them something else to believe, even when the something else makes more sense.
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
I have heard one candidate (forget who) fallaciously argue that "you wouldn't feed a bag of candies to your kid if you knew one or two in there were toxic".

Of course, if one embraces that argument logically one is forced to embrace all kinds of crazy things, including not letting in young white males on the grounds that some of those have been known to shoot up schools, not letting people drive cars because there are reckless drivers, and not letting people own guns because some of them are irresponsible. It's a shame the fear overrides both logic and compassion.

Chris Christie wins this particular race to the bottom, for arguing against letting in 5 year olds. Really, Chris? Really?

[ November 17, 2015, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Wow, Chris Christie is a real coward, isn't he? I bet he'd be willing to send our troops into Syria, but allow a 5-year-old to live down the street is too dangerous! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
He did say that they shouldn't let orphans in because they didn't have family to care for them. The sentence was a bit mangled but I don't think he was concerned about "vetting" orphans.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Like the LDS thread title, this thread title is obviously false.

Even if we accept the ludicrous premise that ISIS cares aboutvwhat happens to the bulk of the refugees, the governors OBVIOUSLY lack power to contravene the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Their pandering to panic is ineffectual. They haven't given anyone anything except a meaningless soundbite. Their proclamations have as much effect as Dennis Roman's wedding dress
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Am I missing something? Why does it make sense to resettle people with absolutely no cultural similarities into the United States? Maybe the risk is overblown, but its certainly not zero or even trivial.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
..if the federal government wants to make place for the Syrian refugees in the state of Georgia then the refugees are in Georgia. Easier than a spanked Redhead.

Before the 14th states could do like Missouri's extermination order, declare that a group of people cannot enter the state. But the 14a p&e took that power away.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
I am still unclear on the logic behind the assertion that ISIL wants refugees to be blamed for the attacks or has an interest in closing the door on refugees. If anything, it seems to me that their motivation would be to keep the doors open as much as possible.

However, as a matter if disclosure I am in the camp that the refugees should not be allowed in western countries, a position I held prior to the Paris attacks.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*nod* There are many uninformed people who believe that ISIS is primarily interested in fighting the West.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The way I've heard it is Daesh wants all Muslims to live in their "Caliphate" which can't very well happen if they're living in Western countries. It's also bad PR if every one in the territory you control is desparate to leave. Not to mention if enough people leave, quality of life starts dropping even more for the people who are left. It's the same motivators that led to the Berlin Wall.

Seriati, they have a great deal of cultural similarity to a large (in absolute terms anyways) number of Americans. I don't know how many Syrians live in the US but you do have substantial numbers of Arabs.

I have other reasons but their rooted in ideas about the moral obligation of charity and I don't know if we could agree on basic principles even if I could express mine clearly enough.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Am I missing something? Why does it make sense to resettle people with absolutely no cultural similarities into the United States? Maybe the risk is overblown, but its certainly not zero or even trivial.

Ooooh, look what you stepped in!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Because, um, that's what America has always been. A mix of cultures. I concede the possibility that some culture might mix badly with the Americanized ones,but Syrians are basically the same culture as Lebanese. Separating them was a stupid western European idea that has come back to bite them in the ass. Syrians and Lebanese are the most cosmopolitan and European of middle easterners, more so than other successfully assimilated groups.

The threat isn't from the Syrian refugees (though no doubt some Isis types are among us). The problem is from the politically correct dupes and collaborators that say we can't even screen the refugees for Islamist views. If those are the rules, then of course most Americans will want to turn the lot away.

[ November 17, 2015, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
Make 'em eat bacon on the way in. You know, as a test. And also, as a welcome to America, because what's more American than eating bacon?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
If you insist on letting these people in how do you prevent ISIS agents from coming in with them?

Or have you done the math and calculated that a hundred Americans dying in a Paris style terrorist attack carried out by ISIS agents who infiltrated into America with refugees is worth the tens of thousands of refugee lives that will be improved by being able to live in America?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:

However, as a matter if disclosure I am in the camp that the refugees should not be allowed in western countries, a position I held prior to the Paris attacks.

Would you change your mind if a good program were in place to integrate them into the culture and they were not geographically concentrated in one area?
 
Posted by JoshCrow (Member # 6048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
If you insist on letting these people in how do you prevent ISIS agents from coming in with them?

Or have you done the math and calculated that a hundred Americans dying in a Paris style terrorist attack carried out by ISIS agents who infiltrated into America with refugees is worth the tens of thousands of refugee lives that will be improved by being able to live in America?

If it helps your math, I would offer this:
quote:
Of the 745,000 refugees who have arrived in America since Sept. 11, none have been arrested for domestic terrorism charges.
I understand that there is risk involved, and that things could change tomorrow - but is the risk really that much greater than what we see in the already-settled population? We already have mass-shooters present in a certain negligible percentage of the population - would their existence justify disallowing us from being refugees to another country if war came here?

quote:
Since 1945, the U.S. has welcomed over three million refugees, and each wave was accompanied by worries of subversion by America’s enemies. Then, as now, politicians proclaimed that it would be “a tragic blunder” to accept refugees fleeing communism, out of fear of letting in potential communist spies and sympathizers. Past refugees have assimilated so thoroughly into American life that we seem to have forgotten the groundless fears that accompanied their arrival.


[ November 17, 2015, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
As for the governors while I do agree that they lack the power to legally prohibit the refugees from being settled in their states it is still worth the effort to get on record as being opposed to this because when the inevitable terrorist attacks happen and are traced back to ISIS agents that Obama forced in against the will of many Americans we will know exactly the right people to blame and not all of them will be ISIS.

There was a moving sequence in the movie "Gangs of New York" in which it showed the Irish immigrants being immediately drafted into the Union Army as they set foot in America and thousands of them being buried after battle in the Civil War soon after that. But for those who survived they certainly earned their citizenship. Japanese Americans during WWII were also allowed to serve in the American Army and their unit was the most decorated in our history.

Why not allow healthy military age men and women running away from ISIS the opportunity to defeat it instead? I understand Obama spent a few hundred million dollars training 4 or 5 Syrians in Syria to fight ISIS so I can appreciate the criticism that this has already been tried and it failed but surely there is a more cost effective way to go about it. It may be better for the Muslims to volunteer to do this themselves so ISIS can't accuse us of sending Crusaders otherwise I'd be all for letting the more than ten million illegals have this opportunity to fight ISIS.

Upon this service to our country and to Islam and to their own home countries and the people there when ISIS has been defeated they will have earned their citizenship and proven their patriotism and trustworthiness. Obama said if people want to pop off then they should come up with some ideas and plans and that is mine. And if they refuse to serve why do we want more cowards in our country? Don't we have enough liberals and people of French ancestry here as it is? Come on now, don't cry. You knew that was coming or should have.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Josh there is no such program. Every effort thus far has failed. Frankly even assimilation has been no gurantee.

The truth is, the refugee trojan horse is only the most immediate short term threat. The reason France and other European countries are going to be seeing these attacks regularly from now on is because they have big unassimilated Muslim populations.

Inviting hundreds of thousands of new unassimilated Muslims only grows the pool of ISIL (or its successor's) recruits.

The Europeans were fools to let such a huge Muslim population in their borders. Now they face an ugly choice: turn into monsters and engage in ethnic cleansing or learn to live with endemic terrorism.

And no, I still haven't seen any logical explanation as to how ISIL benefits from closing the door on refugees. It is plainly obvious that their interests are served far more by having refugees pouring into enemy lands than by the refugees rotting in Turkish camps.

They have already announced their intentions to exploit refugees and did so prior to the Paris attacks. Maybe we should stop overcomplicating something relatively simple. There is no need for complex motive speculation and reverse psychology. ISIL is not a subtle group.

[ November 17, 2015, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
If you insist on letting these people in how do you prevent ISIS agents from coming in with them?

Or have you done the math and calculated that a hundred Americans dying in a Paris style terrorist attack carried out by ISIS agents who infiltrated into America with refugees is worth the tens of thousands of refugee lives that will be improved by being able to live in America?

We lose 5 times a Paris attack every year just due to accidental gun deaths and we get...what in return? What is the math on that?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I have to wonder if a big part of the reason that most Muslim countries don't want to take in these refugees has less to do with logistics and the ability to support them than it does with the now proven understanding that, just as ISIS promised many months ago, these refugee populations and infiltrated by ISIS agents who will engage in terrorist attacks shortly after they are allowed in. If other Muslim countries understand this and have acted on it by closing their borders and refusing to accept these refugees how does it make any sense that we don't do the same for our own safety?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
As to all the people who die in America in other ways the obvious response is that we have enough people dying already so there is no need to add to their numbers. For instance, illegals who are driving drunk have killed thousands of Americans over the years, maybe even tens of thousands. But of course even more Americans die from other American citizens who are driving drunk so maybe we shouldn't have worry so much about the illegals? Perhaps if an illegal hadn't driven drunk and wiped out three generations of a family on their way back from an amusement park a drunk American would have done it anyway? Unlikely. It's more likely they would have made it home okay. So just like with terrorism deaths there is no need to add any more people killed than we have already.

But in my next post I will make the better counterargument for you.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
They mean what they say.
And they say refugees are their enemy. They forged a passport for a reason.

The Europeans could also stop being so racist and assimilate those populations. An option we need to remember on this side of the pond as well.
quote:
I have to wonder if a big part of the reason that most Muslim countries don't want to take in these refugees has less to do with logistics and the ability to support them than it does with the now proven understanding that, just as ISIS promised many months ago, these refugee populations and infiltrated by ISIS agents who will engage in terrorist attacks shortly after they are allowed in. If other Muslim countries understand this and have acted on it by closing their borders and refusing to accept these refugees how does it make any sense that we don't do the same for our own safety?
It's awful how Muslim countries like Turkey and Lebanon are turning away refugees. Oh. Wait.

The only other accessible Muslim countries are Jordan and Saudi Arabia (unless they go across Iraq into Iran which seems unlikely) and I don't know how many refugees they've taken in.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*nod* There are many uninformed people who believe that ISIS is primarily interested in fighting the West.

Given the billions of dollars in their bank account, ISIL can easily afford to walk and chew bubble gum. Besides which, splashy attacks on the west are fantastic PR for recruitment.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Sometimes it seems like too many posters here are "lawyering" and by that in this context I mean they seem to know the counter arguments to their positions and all the logical rebuttals but they will never bring them up themselves because they don't want to weaken their own arguments. Quite honestly I find that irritating.

So, here is a better argument for bringing in illegals and refugees than people die from Americans with guns or American drunk drivers anyway so a few (thousand) more shouldn't matter.

------------------------------------------------

If these people stayed in their war torn and third world countries they would most certainly never be able to live up to and realize their human potential. Helping them achieve that helps benefit humanity in ways that are too innumerable to be easily measured and defined.

So you have the Boston bombers who killed a few and wounded hundreds. You have the Paris terrorists who murdered more than a hundred innocent people. You have drunk driving illegals who have killed thousands of Americans.

But you have literally millions more hard working and productive people who are all contributing to the economy but more than that you have thousands who are making substantial breakthrough in technology, medicine, and the sciences that help hundreds of millions of people in America and around the world live longer and much more productive lives. And their discoveries and breakthroughs don't end with their own immediate achievements which can be substantial in and of themselves but form and extend the foundations of knowledge upon which even greater achievements and advances can be built in the future.

The benefit to all of humanity of this is much greater than the costs of the bad actions of a relative handful of their compatriots.

So that's a good argument for more immigration and allowing in more refugees. They will contribute much more to humanity than they are likely to do if they are left dodging drug gangs in South America until they are killed or forced to join one or facing equivalently dire situations in Africa and the Middle-East and Asia.

Of course, a counter-counter argument to that is that we never will know what benefits to mankind the Americans who die from terrorism or illegals who are drunk drivers would have come up with now that they are dead and all of the children and progeny they might have had for the next thousand years are lost forever as well. But maybe we don't want to delve that deeply into it.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
We don't have make that argument. We already know it is the right thing to do. We have very little hope in appealing to your compassion and are merely trying to address your fear.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
As for ISIS not wanting us to take refugees I would have to say that doesn't make sense. They not only want us to take refugees so they can infiltrate our countries with their terrorist agents but also they are quite obviously pursuing the hijrah strategy which is certainly another reason why other Muslim countries do not want to take in these Muslim refugees.

I'm sure nobody will like this source but the information about Islam commanding to conquer by immigrating into other lands is accurate.

So that separates Muslims from just about every other group of people in the world, distinguishes them from all other immigrants. Japanese aren't coming to America to convert people to Shinto and Buddhism. Indians aren't coming here to convert us to Hinduism. Jews are not trying to convert people to Judaism. The only possible exception might be Christians but we're already a Christian nation so it doesn't make much sense for Christians to try infiltrating themselves into America as refugees to convert us.

The notion that Muslims are just like any other immigrant group is proven false in so many ways and this is just one more of them.

It might help if their religion didn't directly contradict both our Constitution and the UN Charter on Human Rights by still having AND ENFORCING the death penalty for apostates and people who mock Mohamed. You can't have freedom of religion if there is still the death penalty which is still enforced for converting out of it and you can't have freedom of speech, not in the form guaranteed by our Constitution, if there is still the death penalty in Islam AND IT IS STILL CARRIED OUT for mocking their prophet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/11/expert-warns-against-muslim-immigration-its-a-religious-obligation-to-spread-islam/
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Well I see my next comment and I don't like it very much so I will bracket it in nice sentiments wishing everyone an early Happy Holidays or if you are of the Starbucks persuasion then a very happy red. I hope everyone is doing well and is healthy and full of joy because I know I am. Okay and now for the terrible response to the hurtful arrow of pain shot at the hearts of all conservatives who are accused of not having compassion when that's hardly exactly the case. Maybe they don't have the same degree of compassion for everyone in the world as they have for their fellow Americans but that's not the same has having no compassion at all, is it? So anyways the response that I kind of already regret but...

And I have little hope of appealing to your compassion for the innocent victims of terrorism and illegals either and also no hope of appealing to your fear since you show none. My last hope was to appeal to your reason but I hit another dry well there too.

And having gotten that off my chest let me just say I appreciate the kindness of people willing to allow such venting even as I permit them the same. Hopefully that is good for our stress levels to get them down by being allowed such releases and our blood pressure won't be elevated putting us at risk for heart problems, stroke, and the like. So it's all good, right?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
ISIS wants to rule its territories. The only reason that it attack other countries is because those countries aren't responding well enough to other provocation to come in and cause collateral damage and prove that they're the enemy that the people need ISIS to defend them from. Countries that accept refugees disrupt its narrative, while those that turn them away support it and give it power as it relates the misery of those that are mistreated and kept in limbo back home.

ISIS can only maintain its power so long at there is a bit outside threat to defend against. Without that bogeyman, its oppressive domestic tactics make it the enemy of its people rather than its protector forced into brutality for their best interests.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:

It might help if their religion didn't directly contradict both our Constitution and the UN Charter on Human Rights by still having AND ENFORCING the death penalty for apostates and people who mock Mohamed. You can't have freedom of religion if there is still the death penalty which is still enforced for converting out of it and you can't have freedom of speech, not in the form guaranteed by our Constitution, if there is still the death penalty in Islam AND IT IS STILL CARRIED OUT for mocking their prophet.

Please, feel free to identify one Mosque in the US which enforces this in any way.

I mean, I could rattle off a number of death penalties prescribed in the OT as well, but we don't see hue and cry about Christians or Jews trying to enforce those.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Pyr you haven't explained how closing European borders helps that aim.

Indeed, if the goal is to provoke Western powers into attacking it, then it would seem that using refugees to infiltrate western countries and attack them from within is the logical strategy.

Indeed, that is just what ISIL said it was going to do and exactly what it did. The villification of refugees is a completetly incidental side effect of that strategy.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Because they want Muslim communities currently in the West to feel marginalized and isolated. Villifying refugees will also villify existing communities, fostering attitudes that make more susceptible to Daesh propaganda to either launch further attacks or to travel to the Middle East as reinforcements.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Pyr you haven't explained how closing European borders helps that aim.


Because it makes refugees miserable and belies Western claims of compassion. We treat the Refugees as unwanted Trash? ISIS gains power and supporters, because it "cares"
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Okay but this does not explain how stopping the flow of refugees helps ISIL. If refugees continue to pour into European countries they will still be marginalized and villified and ISIL still gets more opportunities to infiltrate the west.

In my scenario (refugees shut out) ISIL gets a win/ lose. I. Yours they get a win / win. I know which one I prefer and which one ISIL would logically prefer....

quote:
Because they want Muslim communities currently in the West to feel marginalized and isolated. Villifying refugees will also villify existing communities, fostering attitudes that make more susceptible to Daesh propaganda to either launch further attacks or to travel to the Middle East as reinforcements.


[ November 17, 2015, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
If refugees continue to pour into European countries they will still be marginalized and villified...
Only by the ********.
So let's not let the ******** do that.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If refugees continue to pour into European countries they will still be marginalized and villified...
Only by the ********.
So let's not let the ******** do that.

Impossible. A few more attacks (and there will be more) and any politician that thinks like you will be gone. Now I'm just telling you what I think's gonna happen. Care to place bets?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Because they think Muslims should stay in countries run by Muslims, preferably "real" Muslims like Daesh. People fleeing to the secular West refutes their beliefs about how things ought to be.

Also, closing Europe to refugees means they all stay in Middle-Eastern countries which are presumably intended targets for phase II of Daesh's expansion. Western Europe is Phase IV or Phase V, at least. If the presence of refugees is beneficial to them, as you argue, then it makes sense to position them to support the next phase rather than a distant one.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Ben Carson has the right idea here and it doesn't hurt that I thought of it independently a long time ago myself as I'm sure countless others have as well since it is so obvious.

Let's show our compassion by helping these Muslim refugees settle peacefully into other Muslim countries.

Of course Christians and Yazzidis and other religious minorities can come to America since they will not likely be welcomed well into Muslim countries.

Why should we be more compassionate to Muslims than other Muslims, especially when our compassion gets us killed?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Because we ought to be compassionate and should not let fear rule our actions. Because there are too many refugees for the region to absorb even if we send money and other resources. Because some of the refugees don't want to spend cod knows how long stuffed into a refugee camp.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Let's show our compassion by helping these Muslim refugees settle peacefully into other Muslim countries.
We should move people from one war torn region struck with famine to another war torn region struck with famine? That's clever.

And meanwhile, we can still clearly showcase our bigotry and feed ISIS the recruits it wants. Everyone wins. Well ISIS and the bigots, at least. But they're all that really matter here, right?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If refugees continue to pour into European countries they will still be marginalized and villified...
Only by the ********.
So let's not let the ******** do that.

Impossible. A few more attacks (and there will be more) and any politician that thinks like you will be gone. Now I'm just telling you what I think's gonna happen. Care to place bets?
Ah, so you're saying that terrorism really is an effective strategy and that they're winning the overall war by terrorizing us into becoming the vile monsters they want us to be?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Okay but this does not explain how stopping the flow of refugees helps ISIL. If refugees continue to pour into European countries they will still be marginalized and villified and ISIL still gets more opportunities to infiltrate the west.

Shutting out refugees is vilifying them. Accepting them is accepting them, not vilifying them. Individuals will be bigots on their own time, they're not relevant to anyone. ISIS wants cultural rejection not individual jerks outing themselves as jerks. The latter has little to no value to them.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
A few more attacks (and there will be more) and any politician that thinks like you will be gone.
Bull. Just because conservatives are cowards doesn't mean that everyone in the West has lost their spine.

-------

quote:
Let's show our compassion by helping these Muslim refugees settle peacefully into other Muslim countries.
Do you intend to ask each refugee whether they're religious Muslims, cultural Muslims, or non-Muslim? Bear in mind that if you're concerned about being infiltrated, the people you ask can lie.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:

Why should we be more compassionate to Muslims than other Muslims, especially when our compassion gets us killed?

Yep. It is our compassion that is the problem. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
I'm thinking it's about time we sent back all immigrants who speak with an accent or dress differently than real Americans. First we have to find a real American (Duck Dynasty?) to find out what one of them looks and talks like. Lord, let it be me. Let's include Catholics while we're at it. And Italians. Democrats.

Those among us who are immigrants or only second generation citizens may not be completely verifiable. Would any of you self-deport or send your spouses back? It would make the rest of us feel *so* much more secure.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Bull. Just because conservatives are cowards doesn't mean that everyone in the West has lost their spine.
And the fools who created this problem with their multiculturalist idiocy will be swept away by right wing extremists. It is already starting.

But the thing is, I don't have a problem with the boyscout kumbaya position per say if it's honest. Cowardice is demanding "courage" to do the right thing but refusing to acknowledge risk or sacrifice inherent to this path. Courage is asking people to sacrifice with eyes open to the consequences not duping them into it with trickery and double speak and guilt mongering.

When Germans took in Jews knowing they were taking their lives into their hands if caught - that's courage. They didn't need to lie to themselves (and those around them)

[ November 17, 2015, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
The idea that this represents substantial risk is laughable. Accusing people capable of rationally assessing threat of "duping" the public -- when in fact the exact opposite is the case -- is offensively disingenuous.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
After Paris you're the one using laughable reasoning. In the USA with its geographic advantages your point would be at least debatable. In Europe it's a farce. You're already proven wrong and will continue to be proven wrong over the next little while.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
That's a guess, right?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Lol yes. Don't call the NSA on me
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Why should we be more compassionate to Muslims than other Muslims, especially when our compassion gets us killed?
Hey, cherry, who do you think ISIS is killing? Christians? [LOL]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
After Paris you're the one using laughable reasoning.
What about Paris do you think was a game-changer, especially? The attack on Paris was nothing particularly special, although it was deeply tragic for those involved.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I agree that the Europeans made a fatal mistake when they let so many Muslims into their lands unassimilated.

And I have already said that I think the "this is what ISIS wants argument is total crap. Driving moderate Muslim into lands ISIS is not ready to invade is like the cheap Terraforming the core planets did in the Firefly series. Send independent minded people out ahead to build the infrastructure, then come in later and conquer.

I also admit that prior to this Paris attack I was against letting any Syrian immigrants in.

But now that I have seen my own former home city under ISIS' heavy hand, I can't help but see them as potential fellow sufferers from a shared enemy.

the Syrian refugees include Christians, Y-axiss, Jews, and Kurdish Muslims who AFAIK aren't carriers of the Islamist disease.

I use the word ISLAMIST because unlike the Fox News shibboleth "radical Islam", Islamist was coined by moderate Muslims. So anyone who insinuates that I am getting info from islamophobes will be asked to get off my leg. (Ornery rules impede me from using words like intentionally obtuse, fifth column, and collaborator)

I am still OK to live and let die. I am content to save only those we can feel reasonably secure are harmless. I can respect saying, better to let a hundred innocents die than protect another Khomeini from his enemies. But there is a level of moral cowardice that I just can't live with. Some of these people can be shown to be ISIS-free with a little due diligence on our parts. Let's at least look at these human beings that we are sending backstop torture rape and death.

As for a bacon test, that's just dumb. The 911 hijackers hung out with whores and strippers. Like many of the crusaders of yore, they reckon that the infidel blood they will spill will cleanse them from whatever sinful pleasures they indulge in. Their god (related more to Ba'al than to El) would wink at them eating bacon from between the thighs of a menstruating street whore, so long as they shed infidel blood afterwards in the name of their hateful master.

[ November 17, 2015, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Why should we be more compassionate to Muslims than other Muslims, especially when our compassion gets us killed?
Hey, cherry, who do you think ISIS is killing? Christians? [LOL]
Maybe I'm misreading your sarcasm, but yeah, ISIS is killing plenty of Christians, and destroying churches as well. What was the joke again?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Christians, Yazidis, and Muslims who are ethnic Kurds which in this century makes them safe . (Kurds were genocidal bastardy 100 years ago, as were Christians of 600 years ago.)

[ November 17, 2015, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I am stunned at the sheer number of Ornerians on both sides of the political spectrum have forgotten to pay the empathy bill.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
After Paris you're the one using laughable reasoning.
What about Paris do you think was a game-changer, especially? The attack on Paris was nothing particularly special, although it was deeply tragic for those involved.
Newsflash-- tragedy by definition is tragic to any informed and empathic human being. The play Oedipus wasn't only tragic to "those involved." The audience found the story tragic. Hence the word "tragedy."

[ November 17, 2015, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I may have overly narrowed the field to human beings. I suspect that even some lower animals will have a dim sense that what happened in Paris was tragic.

Otho, if by "persons involved" Tom meant "persons who give a flying ****" then what he said is true albeit tautological
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
What about Paris do you think was a game-changer, especially? The attack on Paris was nothing particularly special, although it was deeply tragic for those involved.
Well I'll agree that the fact that a "refugee" was implicated in the attack is not super significant, in the sense that it was pretty obvious what was going to happen. ISIL said they were going to put infiltrators in with the refugees to make attacks on European countries. Thousands of refugees (and other "migrants") poured into Europe's borders with almost no real screening, at Europe's invitation. Then *aghast!!* ISIL did precisely what they promised to do. ISIL is like that - they just flat out tell you what their plans are and then they carry out the plans they have announced to you. Which is why I think all this motive speculation and reverse psychology BS is so funny - ISIL is the one organization that seems to be totally up front about their plans and is pretty honest about them!

I will agree the attack was not special. It's going to become commonplace. And I will agree that the refugee trojan horse problem isn't the main issue - the existing population of Muslims is. But the refugees definitely are going to make things especially easy for ISIL. The Europeans dug this hole with decades of stupid immigration policies. But they probably ought to stop digging.

As for it being a "game changer" maybe not. It might be the next attack, or the one after that. But at some point the game will change. I think you know I'm right about that.

[ November 17, 2015, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
My word. This sort of thing really brings out the bigotry. [Frown] The existing population is the real problem, eh?

But along that line: as far as I know, every single person identified in the attack has been a European citizen. Interestingly, four of them were carrying false passports identifying them as citizens of other countries, and one was carrying a false refugee ID. Are you aware of a killer positively identified as an actual refugee?

[ November 17, 2015, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by ScottF (Member # 6897) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
My word. This sort of thing really brings out the bigotry. [Frown] The existing population is the real problem, eh?

You left out a word, probably by mistake.

But along that line: as far as I know, every single person identified in the attack has been a European citizen.

How does this even even remotely refute the notion of a damaging immigration policy?



 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Maybe I'm misreading your sarcasm, but yeah, ISIS is killing plenty of Christians, and destroying churches as well. What was the joke again?
Sorry, Fenring. I didn't write that right. I meant something like "Mainly Christians," "Mostly Christians," or "Primarily Christians."

Because as horrible and enraging as the persecution of Christians has been by ISIS, it's really only a small fraction of the destruction that ISIS has done.

The group that has suffered the most, the people who have bled more than anyone else in the region--are Muslims. [Frown]

So when cherry muses about "Why should we be more compassionate to Muslims than other Muslims," I wonder what kind of "compassion" he's talking about.

Of course, the reason we should take these refugees in is because we are a Christian nation, although I wonder if cherry even remembers what that's supposed to mean. Love, compassion, sacrifice--he would throw those all away for a little safety. To prevent another Paris attack, happening here, which might raise our murder rate a whole percent for the year, if it's a slow year.

10,000 people that could be helped, so that he'll be perhaps 1 percent safer. That's compassion, all right. A real "love thy enemy" attitude.

Seriously, all these Republican governors, and Republican Presidential candidates who agree with them, are a bunch of cowards. They won't take a small risk of maybe letting in a bad apple or two to help 10,000 people in need. And then they talk about how God is leading them. They have no clue about who God is.

It really is cowardice trumping compassion, fear over love. But, then again, these refugees aren't one of us. They aren't like us. Their Muslims. They aren't people like us. So we don't have to love them or help them. They're just a bunch of those hated Samaritans who don't deserve our help. Not if it might hurt us. [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Tend of thousands of people are dead today because France extended protection to KhomeinK when he needed help. The issue isn't about who "deserves" our help. That's a straw man. It's about who is safe to help.

Playing stupid and pretending this is about religious Christian hatred is a form of cowardice in itself. Confront the real issue and stop cowering behind straw men.

I and many others were as kids molested by people that parents took into the home to help them. Yes, love thy neighbor is the Christian rule, but you seem to have failed to read the small print. Do good to those who hate you, bless those that curse you, but when the enemy's hatred is active, when they 'despite fully use and persecute you, what form should your love take? Jesus says, "pray for them".

He doesn't say take dangerous people into your home where they can hurt your kids, Wayward.

Think about it.

[ November 18, 2015, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Which of these people in need of help hate us and want to destroy us, Pete? By your logic, we should never take someone into our home because potential rapists exist.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Every year about 30,000 people die from gun violence in the US. Most of the victims and killers are US citizens, not immigrants or refugees. That's about 1 in 10,000. The current policy is to admit an additional 10,000 refugees from ISIS. If one of them shoots someone with a gun the arch-conseratives, antiBamans and non-Christian Christians on Ornery and running for elected office will scream that we need to stop letting any of them in. If Christie were in the house, he would say we should send back any orphans among the refugee victims that might result.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Which of these people in need of help hate us and want to destroy us, Pete? By your logic, we should never take someone into our home because potential rapists exist.

You have not engaged what I said, .I am NOT certain that you would recognizemy logic if it sat on your face.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Which of these people in need of help hate us and want to destroy us, Pete? By your logic, we should never take someone into our home because potential rapisths exist.

Their kids will be ISIL's new generation of recruits.

The only difference between the majority of Muslims (as evidenced by poll after poll in every major Muslim country) on an issue like, say, blasphemy, is tbat the majority would expect blasphemers to be jailed or killed by the state, whereas ISIL chooses to do it themselves (see Charlie Habdo). Just because they're not waving around AK 47s and strapping bombs to their backs doesn't mean they're on our side.

And by the way ISIL didn't conquer half of Iraq and Syria with no significant local support. Bull****.

If you want to save refugees, save Yazidi Christians, victims of real genocide and no chance of blowing us up. But you don't wabt to discriminate. Fine, **** them all.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
If we turn them away, they absolutely will be. If we take them in and give them what they need to prosper, they will not.

And ISIS did indeed have local support, especially in Iraq. It have the disenfranchised Sunnis that the Iraqi government kicked to the curb and excluded to pretty upon for support. Including the Awakening defensive forces that we created for them and established. The ones who were primarily responsible for the stability in Iraq that allowed us to leave. They had the Baathist bureaucrats and military leaders that we're effectively banned from employment in the careers they had devoted their lives to.

If the government had listened to our instructions and warnings and employed these people, rewarded them for their talents and participation instead of kicking them to the curb as soon as they could in our wake, ISIS would have had nothing to feed on. The bigotry of the Shia dominated government opened the door to ISIS and gave them the foothold they needed, as well as a huge well of military and administrative talent to draw on.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Their kids will be ISIL's new generation of recruits.
And children born in West Virginia will be Confederate-loving school shooters? C'mon, don't be stupid.

quote:
The only difference between the majority of Muslims (as evidenced by poll after poll in every major Muslim country) on an issue like, say, blasphemy, is tbat the majority would expect blasphemers to be jailed or killed by the state, whereas ISIL chooses to do it themselves...
Are you familiar with the position of Orthodox Jews? I ask this because there are quite literally Orthodox Jews who believe that non-practicing Jews should be put to death but only after the Temple has been rebuilt and a correct leadership chain established. This is not a trivial distinction, mind you; this is what prevents someone like Lisa from hauling people in to die. Because it's not just the existence of the Temple; it's the whole sweeping change that she believes would come along with that re-establishment, without which she agrees that it would be unfair to kill apostates.

quote:
And by the way ISIL didn't conquer half of Iraq and Syria with no significant local support.
The "local support" you're talking about was largely political. You keep inventing this weird religious/racial motivation for ISIS, when in reality it's a fairly savvy political movement that has very little to do with religion at all.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Are you familiar with the position of Orthodox Jews? I ask this because there are quite literally Orthodox Jews who believe that non-practicing Jews should be put to death but only after the Temple has been rebuilt and a correct leadership chain established. This is not a trivial distinction, mind you; this is what prevents someone like Lisa from hauling people in to die. Because it's not just the existence of the Temple; it's the whole sweeping change that she believes would come along with that re-establishment, without which she agrees suggestion that it would be unfair to kill apostates.
I have never heard this before. It is not consistent with any belief I have ever heard of concerning even the extreme Hasids or Lebovich. Which isn't to say that it doesn't exist somewhere.

But okay, I'll bite - if the majority of Jews had that particular belief I wouldn't blame you in the slightest if you were uncomfortable inviting 100,000 of them into your country (as Canada proposes to do). Similarly I'd have reservations about inviting 100,000 Jerry Falwell evangelicals in and so would the majority of liberals eager to throw open Canada's doors to Muslim immigrants.

But in this case we have people whose beliefs are as bad or worse than the the biggest bible thumping redneck, (as confirmed by every poll) who are fleeing from a conflagration of religious violence, whose breathren have vowed to deliver holy war to our shores, and who have a few billion dollars in their bank accounts to make it happen.

By the way on the subject of Paris - even if the attackers weren't refugees themselves (so far we don't know) with torrents of anonymous people washing up on Europe's shores daily you seriously think that ISIL isn't going to exploit that to get their people in undetected?

quote:
The "local support" you mentioned was largely political
Oh well that makes it all better. Millions upon millions of peaceful moderate Muslims won't support black flag waving psychotic pirates for religious reasons - that would be nutty. But if it's political, well then a totally different story. By the way have you checked ISIL's approval ratings in France? What do the polls say? Maybe they like IsIL's "politics"?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I expect the government to exercise appropriate due diligence, and yes, I realize that still leaves the risk that terrorists could exploit our good will and reach our shores. But we can never completely guarantee that they won't, whether we welcome the refugees or not. There are some things we cannot control. We can, however, guarantee that we live up to the ideals America allegedly represents. We can guarantee that we act like decent people.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
He doesn't say take dangerous people into your home where they can hurt your kids, Wayward.
Pete, will all 10,000 of those refugees be "dangerous people?" How did you determine that? What makes you think that?

Yes, perhaps a handful of dangerous people might try to sneak in with the rest. I never said we shouldn't vet them. I never said we should open our doors to everyone. And I never said we should not be vigilant, with refugees and with our own citizens.

But to deny safety to 10,000 innocent people because a handful might threaten us, that is cowardice. Of course we are taking a chance. But isn't the lives of the children we save (and you know that at least half will be children) worth taking a risk? Especially one so small that, even if another Paris attack happened here, it would be only a small blip on our murder rate.

Sorry, Pete, but I'm calling it as I see it. The main reason people don't want any Muslim refugees is pure cowardice. They are cowards who would rather see innocent women and children starve than to feel 1 percent more threatened than they do today. They should just hide under their beds where's it safe, instead of trying to lead this nation. They don't deserve the honor or the responsibility. [Mad]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Just about any terrorist with ~$100K can buy fake papers, fly into the US, buy a few assault weapons, and kill 20-30 people in any crowded place such as a shopping mall, school, etc.

There's no need to hide in a group of refugees, and in fact that would be one of the hardest ways to sneak in.

I can't see how the level of risk is appreciably increased by a rational approach to accepting refugees. Even if the (unconfirmed) assertion that one of the Paris murderers came in with the refugees was true, is there any reason to believe that the terrorists would not have carried out their plans if there was only seven of them instead of eight?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:


But to deny safety to 10,000 innocent people because a handful might threaten us, that is cowardice. Of course we are taking a chance. But isn't the lives of the children we save (and you know that at least half will be children) worth taking a risk?


4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

quote:
The U.S. has admitted some 1,800 Syrian refugees in the past two years, and President Obama wants to allow 10,000 more. The administration says half of those who have been admitted are children and about a quarter of them are adults over 60. Officials say 2 percent are single males of combat age.

 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
with torrents of anonymous people washing up on Europe's shores daily you seriously think that ISIL isn't going to exploit that to get their people in undetected?
Why would they need to?
On one hand, you're trying to suggest that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who mean us harm. On the other hand, you're saying that we need to worry about onesie-twosie attacks like Paris caused by people sneaking in and claiming to be refugees. But here's the thing: those two threats don't actually intersect.

*sigh* I absolutely cannot believe I'm having to argue against "ethnic cleansing" on this forum. It's disgusting.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing". Buy a dictionary and use it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
He doesn't say take dangerous people into your home where they can hurt your kids, Wayward.
Which is why we subject them to 5-6 levels of screening (and that's after the UN has already applied it's own screening processes) leaving them living in intermediate camps for about two years while we vet them so that we can be sure we're only taking in people who are not likely to be a threat.

I mean, sure, it's possible to sneak someone in that way, even given the screening process. But for the time, effort, and expense involved, they could have gotten in a dozen times over through any number of other methods.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
By the way on the subject of Paris - even if the attackers weren't refugees themselves (so far we don't know) with torrents of anonymous people washing up on Europe's shores daily you seriously think that ISIL isn't going to exploit that to get their people in undetected?
We do know, in fact. Exactly one was suspected of possibly being a refugee, and the papers that aroused that suspicion belong to a long dead syrian soldier, not to anyone involved in the attack.

And sure- batches of unidentified people are problematic- which is exactly why it's important to establish a good formal way for them to enter. So that they're coming in through controlled channels and not being forced to jump into unsafe boats and force the issue. Again, it's the reluctance to accept refugees that's causing the unsafe situation you point out. The measures they have to take to get into the pipe to be properly processed, screened, and settled because there isn't an upfront acceptance that allows them to safely ask to be moved somewhere safe and go through the process of being verified without having to jump in a boat and hope they can force the issues if they survive to the other end.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing".
You yourself have observed that the issue isn't refugees but existing populations. How would you resolve that issue?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing".
You yourself have observed that the issue isn't refugees but existing populations. How would you resolve that issue?
It can't be resolved. As I mentioned earlier, years of stupid immigration policy have left Europe with a choice between ethnic cleansing and learning to live with endemic terrorism.

If things get really bad you could end up with really nasty people getting into power or even grassroots uprising / pogroms. The right is already on the rise in Europe. When theatres and cafes are blowing up, there are certain inevitable consequenes. Think about that before you're so quick to invite this lunacy into North America with open arms.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
France doesn't have a problem with immigration. It has a problem with ethnocentrism and a problem with its huge dispossessed population - a population that now spans multiple generations of natural born citizens.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Tom excuse me but barring immigrants isn't "ethnic cleansing". Buy a dictionary and use it.

I would perhaps call it ethnic partitioning. The problem is that the growth and success of western civilization is pretty much based on the migration and mixing of populations. You'd be rolling back the clock by hundreds of years to base those movements on ethnic, religious or racial characteristics or propensities.

The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated event is pathetic, as if populist anxiety is the complement of titillation. It seems like we are turning into our own worst fears, a society and even a culture that betrays every principle and belief it claims to espouse at the first threat. What about freedom and being the last remaining and greatest super power in the history of the world? Ow, owwww, I have a splinter!

[ November 18, 2015, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
> Wayward Son

> The main reason people don't want any Muslim refugees is pure cowardice. They are cowards who would rather see innocent women and children starve than to feel 1 percent more threatened than they do today. They should just hide under their beds where's it safe, instead of trying to lead this nation. They don't deserve the honor or the responsibility.

It's just precious and heart warming to see how brave all these people who never served in the military, like Obama, suddenly are when it comes to volunteering everyone else to be victims of terrorism so they can feel good about themselves.
Not being suicidal or reckless with the lives of other American citizens is not the same thing as cowardice.

There is also a false dilemma here between us sending all of these refugees back to ISIS so they can be killed or letting them come to America where the terrorists among them and the ones who grow up to be terrorists in the next generation can easily murder American victims.

I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/

Of course for the refugees who do get to come to America their life will be much better but for every one of them there are ten more we could have helped but didn't. The analogy made was that we can save one person and put them on a very comfortable yacht or we can throw ten or more people life jackets.

So there is no reason whatsoever why we can't be both compassionate to refugees while at the same time keeping America safe. We just help them over there and we help ten times more of them to boot.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Not all Organic Jew's are fundies like Lisa. Modern Orthodox don't look forward to r wimple men ting the stoning law,

Second, the judeofundy fantasy is limited to classic Israel geography as under King David while islamifundies want to take over the whole world.

Third, the scope of islamofundy atrocities is over 100 times as broad as mere Lilli g of apostates.

With that said, I see no objection in the letter or spirit of the constitution from restricting immigration from non citizen jews who share Lisa's more homicidal views.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
cherry, I was unaware of a magical anti-terrorism shield for liberals. Everyone advocating for bringing them here is exposed to the same risk of terrorism as anyone else.

If you're worried about terrorists in the next generation, why are you dead set on treating Muslims in a fashion guaranteed to make them?
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Oh, and by the way, just out of curiosity, how many Kurdish refugees are we taking in compared to Syrians and Iraqis and Afghans and Somalis?

Just like with Asians being the model minorities I would have to say that the Kurdish people are the model Muslims. For the most part, they are staying over there and fighting for themselves. Sure they may be engaging in terrorism against Turkey which to some extent was helping ISIS but I've never heard of one terrorist against the West being a Kurd. So like the white guy who has a black friend and therefore can't legitimately be called a racist I'm going to say that I really like and respect the Kurdish Muslims as do a whole lot of Americans who have given it any thought so calling us all Islamophobes will miss the mark. It all depends on the Muslim.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"
So there is no reason whatsoever why we can't be both compassionate to refugees while at the same time keeping America safe"

That depends. If the refugee has the views publications and agenda of Ayatollah Khomeini, or thinks that he or people like him are "holy men", I think there is a very good reason to bar the old goat ****er from safe haven.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I'm all for bringing in Muslim groups who have a history of shunning the Islamist agenda. Kurds. Ismalis. Northern Alliance types. That mountain tribe in Syria that Beanie's Baath party dominates.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Well liberals insist on gun free zones that are completely ineffective and get themselves killed all the time along with the law abiding conservatives who let themselves be disarmed so basically the suicidal nature of liberal policies has been well established. I never intended to imply that liberals would be immune to the terrorism they brought upon us all. I suppose in its way perhaps it is courageous to be willing to die for what you believe in whether that is having unprotected sex with multiple partners in gay bath houses and picking up the AIDS, sharing needles to do the same, insisting on gun free zones that make everyone in them sitting ducks, allowing Ebola into the country for purposes of political correctness, leaving our border spread wide open while throwing down the red carpet for illegals, and a host of other policies that get people killed but make them feel good about themselves in the process.

As for the terrorists who will become that way because of wanting to keep them out of America, I've long since given up on worrying about what is going to set off some Muslim. If you are going to do that are you going to ban free speech like what set them off against Charlie Hebdo? Are you going to make women dress more conservatively? Are you going to go along with their policy of death fatwas for apostasy? If you start worrying about what is going to make an Islamist so hopping mad he's ready to kill the infidels then you'll be up all night trying to convince a brown spotted sand flea in the middle of the Arabian desert not to pass gas into the hot desert wind because that's all it takes to set one of these guys off.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I'm going to treat them with the same respect and consideration due any other person. I'm certainly not going to compare them to a plague or accuse them of being potential mass murderers.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated
If you're referring to the Paris attack you are simply wrong. People have been aware of this problem in Europe for years. These kinds of attacks were predicted since before Charlie Habdo. Right wing anti immigrant parties have been on the steady rise.

Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I'm going to treat them with the same respect and consideration due any other person. I'm certainly not going to compare them to a plague or accuse them of being potential mass murderers.

People who carry a plague are people too, no.

Declining to let someone in your house until you know more about them isn't an accusation.

So when someone has concerns for their life,actual fear for their life, you resolve that by shaming them? How's that work out for you?

[ November 18, 2015, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
The utter paranoia and fear about this topic that only arises after an isolated
If you're referring to the Paris attack you are simply wrong. People have been aware of this problem in Europe for years. These kinds of attacks were predicted since before Charlie Habdo. Right wing anti immigrant parties have been on the steady rise.

Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.

So you're saying that the outcry over Syrian refugees in particular and all refugees in general was as strident a week, month or year ago?

You continue to ring that bell in your response...

Cherry:
quote:
I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.
Yes, I heard it, too. I also heard the person on the panel who responded that said that the refugees live in absolute misery in urban slums, trading food for rent, no schooling for their children and no hope of ever becoming a member of the society in the country where they are housed. The second comment directly followed the first. Why didn't you hear it, too? Listen to both sides, not just the one that reinforces what you already think.

[ November 18, 2015, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Calling this "paranoia" is to eschew all logic and reason. Multiculturalism failed. The Europeans have admitted this (I believe Merkel herself has). The reality is if the Europeans could go back in time and curb Muslim immigration they'd do it - it would be an absolute no brainer. But they can't and now they are stuck with the demographic bomb they allowed to plant under their feet.
Are you under the impression that Europeans actually tried multiculturalism? It's a lot more than just letting in to work.
quote:
People who carry a plague are people too, no.

Declining to let someone in your house until you know more about them isn't an accusation.

True, but that's not what cherry was saying.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Yes I heard that too, Al. I'm glad you brought it up. That may have been a bit of "lawyering" on my part that I railed against earlier. It's covered a little bit by the analogy of throwing ten people a life jacket or one person a yacht.

So how about we do something to help more of those refugees have a better standard of living over there? Surely we aren't taking them all in, right? For every one we do take in and provide a life of luxury on the yacht aren't we leaving ten or more stuck in misery, without even a life jacket? Maybe we should try to help them all out a little bit more over there then. Provide incentives to the host countries to let them integrate more into their already Muslim societies.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
We already spend about $4B/yr on humanitarian aid to refugees displaced within Syria. Thinking about foreign aid (not state department operations) in the larger context, the US budget allocates less than 1% annually for FA. In a recent study only about 5% knew that, and the average expectation was that it is about 26%. Even when told the right answer, 28% still think we spend too much.

I have all kinds of problems with hypocritical posturing about how the US does too much in helping people in other countries and spends too little on military engagements that would lead to the death of many of those same people.

IMO, if you want to eradicate ISIS and all other forms of Islamic extremism, you'll have to kill all those currently involved, all those sympathetic, all those who will read about the genocide later, and then millions more just to be sure. Which leg of liberty and freedom will you then have left to stand on, especially when the final tally is made it will turn out that 99% of the victims were among their fellow countrymen, and ethnic and religious cohort?

[ November 18, 2015, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
The most humanitarian thing the West can do is to stop arming terrorists and rebels and trying to bring down governments. The entire refugee crisis only exists because of the unwillingness to allow Assad to defend his borders. Things are the way they are now because they've been allowed to become this way. It didn't have to go down like this.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Are you under the impression that Europeans actually tried multiculturalism? It's a lot more than just letting in to work.
Ahh yes the good old no true Scotsman variant. Just because all of Europe tried it and miserably failed doesn't mean it really failed - it just means they didn't do it right! It wasn't *true* multiculturalism

Seriously though, answer me this: What would a"failed" multiculturalist project look like and how would you distinguish it from present reality in Europe? Or do I take your comment to mean that by definition, multiculturalism never fails?

I'll tell you what - when you discover the secret to integrating millions of third world Muslims into a first liberal world democracy with no dispossession, marginalization and ghettoization, please let us know. The Europeans would love to know that secret sauce.

And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Don't care about eradicating "all forms of extremism"

You watch too much Fox News.

The disease of this hour is Islamism. In the 1930s and 40s it was institutional new age fascism. 800 years ago it was Christendom. Why does it strain the leftist brain that we can focus on the groups currently committing mass murder enslavement and systematic rape?

Yes, it's discrimination. Let's discriminate our heads from our assessment and focus on the crazy groups that actually pose a threat, not on crazies who seem for the moment relatively harmless.

[ November 18, 2015, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.
And who was she blaming for the failure? Hint, not the immigrants.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
And by the way it was Merkel who called multiculturalism an utter failure.
And who was she blaming for the failure? Hint, not the immigrants.
Did I suggest the immigrants were to blame?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
No, but the correlation would be that the citizens of Germany failed to incorporate the immigrants into their society. They weren't welcome, in other words. That's what sounds familiar when people argue that multiculturalism is a failure in the US. A growing number of conservatives are becoming overtly xenophobic and are being pushed by the GOP candidates who they will vote for to become increasingly so.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
No, but the correlation would be that the citizens of Germany failed to incorporate the immigrants into their society. They weren't welcome, in other words. That's what sounds familiar when people argue that multiculturalism is a failure in the US. A growing number of conservatives are becoming overtly xenophobic and are being pushed by the GOP candidates who they will vote for to become increasingly so.

This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The US doesn't seem to have a problem, nor does Canada. Broadly speaking, an expansive national identity and inclusive cultural ideals go a long way.

A failed multicultural society would have marginalized groups falling out of the mainstream and isolating themselves after having previously been integrated. It would be as if the Irish and Italians returned to the ghettos of New York. If they descended from the middle class to the lower class as a group. If they developed an identity that excluded themselves from the mainstream.

None of this applies to Europe because European countries made little effort to assimilate their immigrant Muslim populations. They faced substantial barriers to entering the middle class. There was little incentive to de-segregate and enter into mainstream society. IIRC a lot of them never got recognized as full citizens with the right to vote. They were never recognized allowed to identify soley as French or German or Belgian but were forced into remaining Algerian or Turkish or wherever.

You say all of Europe tried multiculturalism but I see no evidence of it. As I said, just letting them in doesn't count.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I just heard on the radio today, and the liberal channel too, that it takes over ten times as much money and resources to resettle refugees in America as it does to resettle them somewhere safe over there.

That's not what you heard. You heard that it costs 12x as much to bring in a refugee than it does to provide basic support to someone in the middle of a war zone.

Which includes leaving them in the middle of a war zone, just with, essentially, some extra food and bandages.

You also heard a false dilemma put forth, as if we had to choose one or the other and weren't already putting a huge amount of resources into supporting people that chose to stay there, but still needing to also support those that simply couldn't stay anymore.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
'Splain me.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The US doesn't seem to have a problem, nor does Canada. Broadly speaking, an expansive national identity and inclusive cultural ideals go a long way.

A failed multicultural society would have marginalized groups falling out of the mainstream and isolating themselves after having previously been integrated. It would be as if the Irish and Italians returned to the ghettos of New York. If they descended from the middle class to the lower class as a group. If they developed an identity that excluded themselves from the mainstream.

None of this applies to Europe because European countries made little effort to assimilate their immigrant Muslim populations. They faced substantial barriers to entering the middle class. There was little incentive to de-segregate and enter into mainstream society. IIRC a lot of them never got recognized as full citizens with the right to vote. They were never recognized allowed to identify soley as French or German or Belgian but were forced into remaining Algerian or Turkish or wherever.

You say all of Europe tried multiculturalism but I see no evidence of it. As I said, just letting them in doesn't count.

The USA and Canada assimilated successfully a much richer, more educated immigrant population than the Europeans which explains to a large degree why they had such an easier time of it. If you get the cream of the immigrant crop obviously that is easier to deal with than people with no skills, no support. If your ideanof succesful multiculturalism is "pick and choose better who you let in!" then on that point I agree.

But incidentally, speaking from some experience, many of the recent immigrants here in Canada fill our social housing projects living off the state. Hardly a stirring success story but an improvement over people trying to blow us up I will grant you.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
My understanding was that they were resettled in a safe country like Jordan and that costs over ten times less than bringing them to America. Sure you are correct that the countries they are brought to don't treat them well so that should be our focus. It's also my understanding that most of them already live in those countries out of the war zones for months and even years so there is no great hurry to bring them to America especially when it costs so much more and helps tens times less of them as it does to help them over there. The rep on the show specifically said they were out of the war zones and out of immediate danger in that regard though he did confess that of course their lives were still miserable in the camps or wherever they were.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
No, you're confusing that with a separate part of the discussion where he was talking about refugees in transitional camps, waiting to be screened and put in the pipeline for a host country, and suggested, effective,y, that we just leave them in the transitional camps, because he didn't consider them refugees any more at that point.

Something that's kind of absurd, because those camps aren't designed to be long term residences, and because they're already overloaded trying to keep up with the influx while dealing with how long it takes to find permanent locations for those who've passed the initial screening and are trying to be fit with a proper host. Those are not the people that the in-place support spending he was talking about earlier; those are people already starting to rack up the higher cost of being handled as refugees.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
How a refugee gets to America, explained by an actual refugee
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I may not have heard the whole broadcast but it still seems like it would be much cheaper to resettle them over there meaning we could help many more of them. Give the Sunnis to the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and the Shia to the Shia countries like Iran. Help them with logistics like transportation as well as humanitarian aid. That's compassionate. Compassionate enough anyway.

Those countries are all rich enough to take care of their own. They have the resources even without the help we offer them but we'll offer them help anyway. If they are worried about the new immigrants being terrorist security threats then we should be worried about the same thing many times over.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
This is neither a fair reading of what jasonr said, nor is it a balanced guess as to why multiculturalism in this instance might fail.
'Splain me.
Your reading of jasonr's point was that multiculturalism failed because the population didn't assimilate, and you added in that's because they weren't welcome. I can't speak for him but it seems to me he didn't specify a reason why multiculturalism failed, and more to the point he definitely didn't blame the immigrants for it (as he reminded you). Your suggest that it's because they weren't welcome may be part of it, but I doubt it's the whole story if true. It doesn't make much sense to compare Islamic refugees to the European immigrants that came to American over the years. First of all Europe had Christianity as a cultural common ground (even though within that there were deep divides in sect), and second of all European cultures are probably more similar to each other than they are to an Islamic culture in the mid-East.

In short, even with open arms it would be much harder to assimilate Islamic refugees or immigrants than it was to assimilate American immigrants. Gang of New York taught me that assimilation wasn't so straightforward as we now like to think anyhow. People didn't get along so well at the turn of the century. In certain parts of America it probably would have been more correct to say that there was no dominant majority culture than to say that immigrants were integrating into such a culture. But now things are different and there is such a thing as "American culture", perhaps in large part a result of streamlining through TV and film, and galvanizing from WWII and the Cold War.

I also think it's probably fair to say that the Islamic religion isn't geared towards co-mingling with non-Muslims that well. A given Muslim certainly can do so, but the religion itself isn't oriented towards working towards common cause with infidels. Contrast with Christianity where at least its theoretical premise is precisely loving your enemies and having a caretaker's approach to those who are different from you. This is a much more gregarious outlook, even to the point of excess where militant Christendom was reaching out to others with an iron fist instead of an open hand.

It's also possible that there just hasn't been enough time for real assimilation to happen. I think it takes two generations until that really kicks in. Realistically we could expect the grandchildren to grow up in the new environment and not be too restricted by the outlook of the grandparents.

There is lots more that can be said, but your reading of jasonr's comment that reduced it to the evil-sounding "they weren't welcome" was about as uncharitable a reading as you could have made for his statement.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
and second of all European cultures are probably more similar to each other than they are to an Islamic culture in the mid-East.
Careful there. An Islamic culture is what ISIS is bringing to Syria; it's not likely an accurate description of the culture of the refugees. In fact, if they were the kind of people who wanted to live in an islamic country, they probably wouldn't be trying to get so far away from them.

They fact that they're Muslims does not automatically mean that they want to live in an Islamic state.

quote:
But now things are different and there is such a thing as "American culture", perhaps in large part a result of streamlining through TV and film, and galvanizing from WWII and the Cold War.
To the degree it's true. It's something that we export. It's popular in many foreign countries, like Lebanon, and, as I understand it, Syria, before things fell apart there.

quote:
I also think it's probably fair to say that the Islamic religion isn't geared towards co-mingling with non-Muslims that well. A given Muslim certainly can do so, but the religion itself isn't oriented towards working towards common cause with infidels. Contrast with Christianity where at least its theoretical premise is precisely loving your enemies and having a caretaker's approach to those who are different from you.
Again you're crossing concepts. Muslims in general have absolutely no problem integrating into western cultures. They're all around us here and fully integrated. You seem to be implying that they're mostly Islamists like ISIS, but they're as representative of Modern Islam as the WBC is of Christianity. A part or aspect of it, but not even remotely representative.

[ November 18, 2015, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Syria and Lebanon are cosmopolitan cultures... It's only the big money colonization by Iran and Said wahabbist proxies that has turned the area bloody not nutcase Islam. We're talking the land of Kalil Gibran. These are the folks where Christians and nylons got along best until Iran and then Daesh started pissing in the wind.

We don't want Hezbollah allied folks, or Sarah sympathises of course.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"They fact that they're Muslims does not automatically mean that they want to live in an Islamic state"

Think harder. The 9-11 hijackers didn't want to live in an Islamic state either. But we're willing to die for one
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Pyr, remember that the Syrian refugee crisis only began as we knot it recently. It's true that Syrians may be secular to some degree but the Muslim population in Europe didn't only come from Syria. I already acknowledged that any given individual can be more or less religious, and more or less Islamist (which is not the same as Islamic, which is what I was discussing). I merely brought up the religion itself as part of the social reality in the mid-East. It's not a defining point, but I think a relevant one.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"They fact that they're Muslims does not automatically mean that they want to live in an Islamic state"

Think harder. The 9-11 hijackers didn't want to live in an Islamic state either. But we're willing to die for one

So? That doesn't mean that Muslim refugees fleeing Syria and wanting to get to the US would somehow be unable or unwilling to the US once here. They were cosmopolitan people there, they'd be just as cosmopolitan here, given the chance.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Pyr, remember that the Syrian refugee crisis only began as we knot it recently. It's true that Syrians may be secular to some degree but the Muslim population in Europe didn't only come from Syria. I already acknowledged that any given individual can be more or less religious, and more or less Islamist (which is not the same as Islamic, which is what I was discussing). I merely brought up the religion itself as part of the social reality in the mid-East. It's not a defining point, but I think a relevant one.

Not to integration, though. Muslims are just as capable of being cosmopolitan as anyone else, and have a long track record of it in places like Syria.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
In Face of Terror, France’s Hollande Will Honor Commitment and Take in 30,000 Refugees


quote:
Addressing an assembly of mayors Wednesday, French President Francois Hollande reaffirmed his commitment to Syrian refugees in the wake of last weekend’s devastating terror attacks in Paris.

Hollande said the nation will honor its commitment to take in 30,000 refugees over the next two years, assuring the mayors, “France will remain a country of freedom.”


 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
I also think it's probably fair to say that the Islamic religion isn't geared towards co-mingling with non-Muslims that well. A given Muslim certainly can do so, but the religion itself isn't oriented towards working towards common cause with infidels. Contrast with Christianity where at least its theoretical premise is precisely loving your enemies and having a caretaker's approach to those who are different from you. This is a much more gregarious outlook, even to the point of excess where militant Christendom was reaching out to others with an iron fist instead of an open hand.
The historical record vehemently disagrees with you. For instance, Christianity no pre-Christian religions (except Judaism) survived in Europe, even those not absorbed or suppressed by the Romans. There was no openly practicing "heretics" for more than a thousand years after the establishment of Christendom.

Contrast with Islam, where substantial numbers of Christians and Jews survived. Islam is far less obsessed with orthodoxy and more willing to tolerate heterodox beliefs.

Christianity often saw adherents to other religions as dangerous subversives to be eliminated or expelled. Until the modern separation of church and state, Christianity was geared entirely towards the extermination of other religions rather than "co-mingling." Even now, there are major sects who would support the forced conversion or removal of non-Christians.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"They fact that they're Muslims does not automatically mean that they want to live in an Islamic state"

Think harder. The 9-11 hijackers didn't want to live in an Islamic state either. But were willing to die for one

So? That doesn't mean that Muslim refugees fleeing Syria and wanting to get to the US would somehow be unable or unwilling to the US once here. They were cosmopolitan people there, they'd be just as cosmopolitan here, given the chance.
The 911 hijackers were cosmopolitan too.

I was responding to the foolish argument that Syrians are culturally incompatible. Otho, the fact is that some Syrian subcultures are lousy with potential sleepers.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Christianity often saw adherents to other religions as dangerous subversives to be eliminated or expelled. Until the modern separation of church and state, Christianity was geared entirely towards the extermination of other religions rather than "co-mingling." Even now, there are major sects who would support the forced conversion or removal of non-Christians."

You think you need to tell this to an ethnic Mormon?

I don't want to mass import violent Christendom imposes, either. Fortunately there isn't a global movement of them this century. If the kkk had an international following, would you not want their immigration blocked?

You will not convince me on a fairness argument that islamists who like DAESH or think Khomeini is a holy man, should be allowed into the country.

But for fairness sake I agree let's not single out Muslim's. How is this? Anyone entering the country must wipe their ads on a pic of Khomeini, James c Calhoun, Hitler and the Daesh flag.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How many Christians and Jews survived on the Arabian peninsula, Our? Bear in mind they were major religions there until after Mohammed died and one of his followers claimed (I think falsely) that Mohammed had said with his dying breath to drive non-Muslims from Arabia.

[ November 18, 2015, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
quote:
In fact, if they were the kind of people who wanted to live in an islamic country, they probably wouldn't be trying to get so far away from them.
The idea that Muslims fleeing a warzone somehow are by definition adverse to living in an Islamic country is arrant nonsense.

I encourage you to have a look at polls taken in the Muslim world about topics like apostasy, blasphemy, gender equality and homosexuality. Then try to tell me how they have nothing in common with ISIL and desire to live like westerners and want to embrace our values.

As Fenring noted, it took a very long time for European immigrants to assimilate in America and they were largely fellow Christians. More recent waves of immigrants have been far more affluent, well educated and compatible than what the Europeans invited into theur borders, even with Muslim groups.

[ November 18, 2015, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"The historical record vehemently disagrees with you. For instance, Christianity no pre-Christian religions (except Judaism) survived in Europe, even those not absorbed or suppressed by the Romans. There was no openly practicing "heretics" for more than a thousand years after the establishment of Christendom"

I brought this up before you did, although you speak falsely as history shows that El Cod's Spain, and Christian Constantinople had synagogues and mosques. Daesh is the Muslim equivalent of the worst excesses of the Spanish inquisition.

You want to fight the Spanish inquisition, then get yourself a time machine. Let's not contemplate the idiocy of affirmative atrocity.

If Catholics came from Spain in 1500 fleeing Isabella, and wanted to settle in one of the more pluralistic Muslim lands, I would advise the emir to turn then away or scrutinize them closely, as the Spanish Christians of this time are carriers of a plague of religious fanaticism.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
As an aside, even if you accept the premise that multiculturalism failed in Europe because Europeans were "unwelcoming" racist or whatnot. So what? Are you going to wave your magic wand and force people to abandon tbeir prejudices? Who cares why it failed - it failed. Any policy that can't account for the reality of people how they actually are (ugly prejudices and all) is doomed.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I was addressing solely the idea that Christianity is better suited to co-exist with other religions. I find it a particularly present-centric view of global religions.

Those counter-examples don't really fly since the mosques in El Cid's Spain were transitory (and I excepted the Jews). As soon as the Christian monarchs felt strong enough they did away with the pesky stragglers. Likewise, with the pagan temples in Christian Rome. That Christianity tolerated other religions in certain times and places does not outweigh the fact that it rarely chose to do so. I'd be surprised if there were any examples of non-Christian religions surviving the entirety of Christian rule uninterrupted. Contrast with the Coptics, for example, or the Jews of Jerusalem (though I don't know how the Empire would have treated them if it had kept control of the region).
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Noble while your commentary about historical Christianity is interesting you'll agree it's basically irrelevent sans time machine.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Whoops. I forgot to close the historical pedant tag.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I was addressing solely the idea that Christianity is better suited to co-exist with other religions. I find it a particularly present-centric view of global religions.

Those counter-examples don't really fly since the mosques in El Cid's Spain were transitory (and I excepted the Jews). As soon as the Christian monarchs felt strong enough they did away with the pesky stragglers. Likewise, with the pagan temples in Christian Rome. That Christianity tolerated other religions in certain times and places does not outweigh the fact that it rarely chose to do so. I'd be surprised if there were any examples of non-Christian religions surviving the entirety of Christian rule uninterrupted. Contrast with the Coptics, for example, or the Jews of Jerusalem (though I don't know how the Empire would have treated them if it had kept control of the region).

You haven't dressed whether Christianity IS more suited for pluralism. I agree that in ad 1400 Islam was more suited to pluralism. And now in the 21at century, Christianity is.

The only pluralistic society which is mostly Atheistic, Norway, showed some promise but the atheist Breivik gives one some pause.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"I was addressing solely the idea that Christianity is better suited to co-exist with other religions. I find it a particularly present-centric view of global religions"

Since the operative word is IS, the present tense form of the verb to be, I don't understand your trepidation at taking a present-centric view of the bloody present. I acknowledge d before you did that 1400 as Christendom was awash with the sane sort of vitamins misanthropic disease that presently infects the Unman.

It seems to me that those that wish to take a past-centric view of the present are not helping those refugees.

Can we agree to take in Kurdish Muslim's, Yazidis, Syrian Christians, Syrian Jew's among the refugees, since we know those aren't sleepers? Then think about the others.

[ November 18, 2015, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
Why does it strain the leftist brain that we can focus on the groups currently committing mass murder enslavement and systematic rape?
Because if you were sincere about doing that, since 9/11 your focus would have been on Christians in the Congo. So the group is not even extremist Islam, it is extremists who murder, enslave, and rape civilian populations.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Glad to see that some Muslims grasp that this is not a time to stay silent:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34852817
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
typical leftist demagoguery: throw out some news claim that no one has heard of, then imply that anyone who cares about anything else is a bigot.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Why does it strain the leftist brain that we can focus on the groups currently committing mass murder enslavement and systematic rape?
Because if you were sincere about doing that, since 9/11 your focus would have been on Christians in the Congo. So the group is not even extremist Islam, it is extremists who murder, enslave, and rape civilian populations.
My parents were serving missions in the Congo and I assure you they never enslaved or raped anyone. I don't know what you are talking about, and since you didn't cite a link and I have seen nothing on the news when I scrutinize for brides of that area, I can only assume you are grasping at straws.

Tell me Greg, has anyone ever been convinced by this sanctimonious obfuscatory guilt trip game?

What the hell, man. I used to respect you, but that was just despicable.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Where do you get this supposed news, Greg? Are you on Book Harm's email list or something? Because last I checked, which is often, the only slavers in that area are Muslim.

Sure you haven't confused with Uganda or the Ivory Coast? Do all African countries look the same to you? I tend to remember the ones where my parents are serving as missionaries.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Nevertheless I will restate to clarify what I thought was too bloody obvious to need saying:
Why does it strain the leftist brain that we can focus on the groups who are not only currently committing mass murder enslavement and systematic rape, BUT HAVE DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA AND MANIFEST INTENT TO DO US HARM.

This isn't rocket science, folks.
Please stop the dishonest straw man reconstructions about "deserving." Not taking in our sworn enemies during war time is a no brainer. And I guess most here know that or y'all would not have made this an exercise in obfuscation.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Pete, I did not mean to say that any Christian who was in the Congo committed acts of murder, rape or enslavement - merely that those evil actions have by committed by men in the Congo in staggering numbers since 9/11. If we want to focus on evil in our time, focusing primarily on Muslim extremists is a distorted view that ignores a very large number of evil acts committed by non-Muslims.

quote:
The Second Congo War (also known as the Great War of Africa or the Great African War, and sometimes referred to as the African World War) began in August 1998, little more than a year after the First Congo War (and involving some of the same issues), in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and officially ended in July 2003 when the Transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo took power. However, hostilities have continued since then in the ongoing Lord's Resistance Army insurgency, and the Kivu and Ituri conflicts.

The deadliest war since modern African history, it has directly involved nine African countries, as well as approximately 20 separate armed groups. By 2008, the war and its aftermath had caused 5.4 million deaths, principally through disease and starvation,[7] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[8] Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighbouring countries.[9]

As the article notes, the majority of deaths were from diseases and starvation as millions were driven from their homes into the jungle and left to starve, still leaving hundreds of thousands to be directly murdered.

And as for rape

quote:
During the first and second conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), all armed parties to the conflict carried out a policy of genocidal rape, with the primary purpose being the total destruction of communities and families.[1] Such was the violence directed at and carried out towards women that Human Rights Watch (HRW) described it as "a war within a war".[2][3] HRW has reported that as of March 2013, civil conflict had reignited when the militia, March 23 Movement (M23), resumed hostilities following a ceasefire.
Girls from the age of five to women aged eighty have been assaulted and sexually mutilated. Others were raped and their families forced to watch.[a] By 2008 the United Nations (UN) had estimated that up to 200,000 females had suffered from some form of sexual violence.[5] The brutality of the rapes have caused long term health, social, familial, and psychological problems. There have been reports of babies aged one being raped, as well as women in their nineties. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that over 50 per cent of survivors believed that the use of rape was a deliberate tactic used for the extermination of the Congolese people.

I am not quite as sure about slavery, but here's a link to a site claiming the existance of slavery therte in modern times web page

[ November 19, 2015, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
HAVE DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA AND MANIFEST INTENT TO DO US HARM
I am not sure that declarations of war are what they used to be, but could you summarize all of the countries that ISIS has "declared war on"?

[ November 19, 2015, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How does one summarize a country?

Sounds like make work. Not a good faith discussion.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks. I had followed the horrors of the Lord's Resistance Army, which is why I mentioned Uganda. I wasn't aware of their activity in the Congo.

I have spoken against the LRA on former threads so your insinuation that I don't care about that issue is as foolish as it was vile.

To my knowledge the LRA has not committed violence outside its region, has no plans to go global, and has not vowed to strike targets in the USA. So your argument is an incredibly callous game of hide the ball.

I am trying to persuade Americans who are reasonably fearful of bringing in ISIS sympathetic Islamists, that we can safely take in hundreds of people without risk. Why do you have a problem with my making an argument that could give hundreds of innocent refugees a safe haven?

When people are afraid to do good, an intelligent person of conscience attempts to resolve their fears. I just don't know what you are anymore.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Your slavery web page does not mention Christian groups being involved. You realize a substantial part of the population there is Muslim, right?

My parents have seen stoning. A man and woman stoned to death by a mob. It's considered bad manners to ask what the offense is. One is supposed to assume the stones have good cause. Kind of like some lefties say we need to do with protests, strikes and other mob acts
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Scott Card has also been calling for UN action in that portion the world, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. But going into the Congo would mean facing Book Haram as well, and some lefties seem hell bent on not obstructing ISIS affiliates in any way, oh, islamophobia
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You haven't dressed whether Christianity IS more suited for pluralism. I agree that in ad 1400 Islam was more suited to pluralism. And now in the 21at century, Christianity is.

This is basically my response as well. I don't really see what Christianity from 600 years ago has to do with Christianity versus Islam of today. I think we've already covered on this board that the religion isn't the book, it's the book plus the culture/understanding. That being said, if we take the books alone I think the Jesus portion of the NT is probably the most gregarious friendly book around. The fact is that for somewhat predictable reasons Christianity was not able to get its s**t together for many centuries and actually be Christian. Perhaps we can make a case that Muslims were much better at being Muslim historically than Christians were at being Christian. I think there might be something to that, but it doesn't speak to who would integrate better circa 1850-present.

That being said the only reason I brought this up at all was because Al ascribed to jasonr's position the fact that Muslim immigrants were unwelcome purely because they were unwelcome, and I thought that was a bad reading and an unfair charge. But as jasonr pointed out - at this juncture, blame aside, it may not matter. Maybe going forward Europe can do better at integrating Muslims, but I don't think this is achievable in less than two generations; certainly not in time to have any relevance to the ISIS threat.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Scott Card has also been calling for UN action in that portion the world, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. But going into the Congo would mean facing Book Haram as well, and some lefties seem hell bent on not obstructing ISIS affiliates in any way, oh, islamophobia

I see, you want to blame "lefties" rather than apportion blame to any other group, like Christians, conservatives, or any other scapegoat you can think of. That *is* how the political game works, so thanks for playing.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:

I was responding to the foolish argument that Syrians are culturally incompatible.

Okay, they we're in agreement? The notion that we should reject them because they wouldn't be able to integrate into a pluralistic society, especially given that they came from a pluralistic society before things fell apart for them, is nonsense, yes? The fact that they choose to worship in a Mosque rather than a Church is largely irrelevant to whether or not they can integrate, and certainly doesn't justify slandering them with accusations that they want to subvert our political system on religious grounds.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Okay, they we're in agreement? The notion that we should reject them because they wouldn't be able to integrate into a pluralistic society, especially given that they came from a pluralistic society before things fell apart for them, is nonsense, yes?"

Not nonsense, simply false. A conclusion Based on misinformation. Misinformation is corrected with accurate information, fear with reassurance. Ridicule is appropriate only when someone seems to be failing to try, or intentionally obtuse.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Syrian refugees in America: separating fact from fiction in the debate
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
Kmboots from your article:

quote:
But such a fear is misguided because the process of relocating refugees to America is very different from the way that refugees currently arrive in Europe. Syrians flown to the US will be the most heavily vetted group of people currently allowed into the US, according to the State Department.
Okay so refugees coming to America will be "very different" from those coming to Europe insofar as they "will be heavily vetted"

In that statement, do I detect a grudging nod to the fact that Syrian refugees coming to Europe are *not* vetted?

Do members of this board support or oppose admission of more refugees into Europe? If yes, do you admit that the security risk in that process must be substantial, or do you dismiss that risk as well?

My thesis here is that genuine threats are being dismissed or obsfuscated to avoid any conclusion that lessens or eliminates aid to refugees. It is not that the risks are necessarily huge or unsupportable - but they are being hand waved away in order to shut down any debate that leads to any conclusion but the one refugee proponents desire.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
jasonr, I think you are missing the point. Stating that the terror inspired by unreasonable inflating and misunderstanding the risk is not the same as dismissing it.

Nothing in life is without some risk. Some things are worth doing anyway. Helping these people is one of those things.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
In that statement, do I detect a grudging nod to the fact that Syrian refugees coming to Europe are *not* vetted?
They're not well vetted because Europe to to unwilling to take enough in to allow the to be vetted. So instead of waiting to be vetted by the regular admissions process they come in other ways and have to be processed after the fact instead.

quote:
Do members of this board support or oppose admission of more refugees into Europe? If yes, do you admit that the security risk in that process must be substantial, or do you dismiss that risk as well?
Yes, Europe should be formally taking many more in, just as the US should be, so that they can be well vetted and reduce the risks, instead of the current model, which has the refugees pushing their way in out of desperation resulting in many fewer being properly processed and vetted.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
Really, Germany has thus far been "unwilling to take enough in to allow them to be vetted?" Interesting. Here's what Germany had to say about this as recently as September:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/08/germany-500000-refugees-a-year-clashes-lesbos

500,000 a year. Tell me, if that's not enough then how many should they take?

It's a shame that this attack has changed Germany's mind and that they've chosen to close their doors for the time being. But that aside I don't see how that gives anyone the right to say that Europe isn't doing their fair share when America, England, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others have been unwilling to do much at all.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Syrian refugees in America: separating fact from fiction in the debate

Bookmarked for reading when I get to computer.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I do try to give you the facts, Pete.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Do members of this board support or oppose admission of more refugees into Europe? If yes, do you admit that the security risk in that process must be substantial, or do you dismiss that risk as well?
Each country should judge for itself how many refugees to accept and how to integrate them into their societies and economies. The US has admitted about 750,000 since 9/11 with very few crimes related to the fact that they came in as refugees. With all the fear-mongering about closing our borders and expelling those here illegally because they might be infiltrating the country to cause mayhem, I think we've done a remarkably good job of vetting those who came to us on humanitarian grounds.
quote:
My thesis here is that genuine threats are being dismissed or obsfuscated to avoid any conclusion that lessens or eliminates aid to refugees. It is not that the risks are necessarily huge or unsupportable - but they are being hand waved away in order to shut down any debate that leads to any conclusion but the one refugee proponents desire.
My thesis is that people with your thesis are reacting emotionally and have no real empirical basis for your heightened concern. I'll note again that this wave of new anxiety could have been raised at any point in the last few years, but wasn't. It reminds me of the difference in how Halloween trick or treating was done before and after the hoax in the early 70's claiming that a pin had been found in an apple in a child's bag somewhere in the US.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
My own view is that we take the Yazidis, Jewish, Christian, and Kurdish refugees, suggest Iran take the Shiites, and tell Saudi Arabia that if they don't take the wahabbists that the West will shut down all the Saudi funded mosques. Dunno if we could actually do that in the US, but the threat would shame the Sauds
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I do try to give you the facts, Pete.

Noted.

That makes one of you. Master Wessex, Davidson and Davidson Otho proceeds with hostile psychoanalysis
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
BTW if anyone hasn't read Kate's link it is very informative.
I was not aware just how rigorous our screening processes are, but it's consistent with my experience My first client out of law school was a Lebanese refugee, a Lebanese Christian who was tortured by Hezbollah while waiting for his application to process.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
So, Pete, should I understand what you wrote? FWIW, it's Alfred, King of Wessex, not merely Master. My avatar will not tolerate such disrespect (though I will).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
Really, Germany has thus far been "unwilling to take enough in to allow them to be vetted?" Interesting. Here's what Germany had to say about this as recently as September:

Europe. Not germany. And the rest of the world as a whole as well. Germany is just one player, and not enough to absorb the entire tide on its own, so the overflow pushes its way in out of desperation.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate's Article is the first I have seen to address what I said earlier, I.e that state governors are constitutionally barred from determining what classes of person may enter the state.

The fact that Barry's arguments evade that most obvious issue suggests to me that he has no more interest than Al, Tom or Greg in actually resettling anyone and is merely using this issue as a posturing springboard to make himself look morally superior to his rivals.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, stop being a stupid dick, please.

Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
What I meant King Al, was that Kate argues with persuasive facts while others say things like "My thesis is that people with your thesis are reacting emotionally" which accomplish nothing other than confirming the speaker's smugness. Glad you have kept your sense of humor, though.

Kate's Guardian article shoes that the US restriction in place and applicable her fAR more restrictive than the as hock emergency screening that I was proposing for this particular humanitarian crisis.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pete, stop being a stupid dick, please.

14 years on this forum and you still don't grok that "stupid",had never been one of my hot buttons?

I thought I was being a rather clever dick, staying within the lines of the squares Didn't say anything about your intent or motives, just that Obama doesn't care more than you do.
[Smile]

Exactly what did I say that you deny? Do you assert that Barry certainly does care more than you?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm not trying to push your buttons. I am noting that you are being a stupid dick and asking you to stop.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I have no idea what you think being a "stupid dick" means, and I was never a master of middle school lingo, so to me your "stupid duck" phrase looks like more of your thar empty bullying and posturing language like "bigot", those words you throw around except during those rare moments you boot up your frontal lobe.

FYI, that gasp people make when they have a cool idea with complex implications? That's because to run the frontal lobe at mid to high capacity requires more oxygen. So take a deep breath, Tom. Think harder, and let your higher brain join the conversation. Surprise and delight us like you did around page nine of the Mizou thread.

[ November 20, 2015, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by D.W. (Member # 4370) on :
 
quote:
FYI, that gasp people make when they have a cool idea with complex implications? That's because to run the frontal lobe at mid to high capacity requires more oxygen.
I don't know... Calling you a stupid dick lead to me learning the most interesting piece of trivia of the day. [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, there is very little I find more tiresome than someone loudly and smugly asserting that he's more clever than he actually is. So, hey, just stop being a stupid dick, please.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
On the contrary, my dear Tom, I loudly and sadly assert tat I am not as clever as I sound on this forum. I wish you and a few others would stop playing stupid and making me look like the resident genius in comparison. If you are afraid of de oxygen a ting the biosphere if you ran your great brain at higher capacity, just go plant a few trees.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
*sigh* Pete, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. You think you're being clever, there, but it's just tiresome.

What I want is for you to stop being a stupid dick. Please try that.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Tom, that's not going to work.

Pete, I think it would improve the forum if you would never use the "unlike [list of members] this is not terrible in my opinion" pattern. It IS terribleness, and is not likely to lead to less of whatever you consider terrible.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I wish you were right, SF, but on this thread it *has* reduced the behaviors that I consider terrible. And the mod asked me not to use the tactic that actually does, on occasion, induce Tom to boot up his higher brain function.

Just trying to improve conversation resources with the allowable tools at my disposal. Better to have Tom spend his time spewing 5th grade invective than spitting out the left-hand memes that have been tried and tested to suppress thought and discussion at major universities.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
FYI, that gasp people make when they have a cool idea with complex implications? That's because to run the frontal lobe at mid to high capacity requires more oxygen.
I don't know... Calling you a stupid dick lead to me learning the most interesting piece of trivia of the day. [Smile]
Cool, ain't it? a friend was reading me some stuff about the frontal lobe, and when she got to the sliding oxygen capacity thing, I gasped, shared my thought about gasping. And she gasped. So share around, see who gasps.

[ November 20, 2015, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, please stop being a stupid dick.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
Kate's Guardian article shoes that the US restriction in place and applicable her fAR more restrictive than the as hock emergency screening that I was proposing for this particular humanitarian crisis.
I d'not konw why oreths do'nt fnid yuor grbaeld ptsos as irrntiaitg as I do. I wlil gvie you a pataril psas on taht, tuoghh, snice mnay of the tighns you wtire taht I *am* albe to dcpeehir are uiepalnagnlpy jviluene. In ohetr wdros, i'ts hrad to tkae you serlousiy as you wsih to be taekn.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Kate's Guardian article SHOWS that the US restriction in place and applicable her far more restrictive than the AD hock emergency screening that I was proposing for this particular humanitarian crisis.
Fixed those two typos. Better now?

Just be aware that when you single one person out for nitpicking of faults that you ignore in others, it comes off badly. Though not thuggishly so, as repeatedly calling another a "stupid dick" because you think that he thinks that he's smarter than you.

[ November 20, 2015, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
One problem at a time [Wink] . I think dealing with this may help alleviate others...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Just so it's clear that my last post did not impute something to Tom that he hadn't already said himself:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pete, there is very little I find more tiresome than someone loudly and smugly asserting that he's more clever than he actually is.

and that's our 14 year quarrel in a nutshell. A clash of philosophy and personality that ultimately has little to do with politics. I annoy Tom because he thinks I think I am smarter than him, and Tom annoys me because I think he pretends to be dumber than he is. He wants me to shut my mouth and I want him to open his mind. He wants to shut off my oxygen and I want him to turn his own oxygen up.

[ November 20, 2015, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. I think you and I both could benefit from that advice sometimes.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Sure. Otoh, bullies are more fun to tilt at than windmill. Especially when they actually use the vocabulary of high school bugbears
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
The Cato Institute is about as far from the liberal media you can get but even they agree:

I recommend reading the whole thing but here is their conclusion:

quote:
The security threat posed by refugees in the United States is insignificant. Halting America’s processing of refugees due to a terrorist attack in another country that may have had one asylum-seeker as a co-plotter would be an extremely expensive overreaction to very minor threat. Resettling refugees who pass a thorough security check would likely decrease the recruiting pool for future terrorists and decrease the long-run risk.

The current refugee vetting system is multilayered, dynamic, and extremely effective. ISIS fighters or terrorists who are intent on attacking U.S. soil have myriad other options for doing so that are all cheaper, easier, and more likely to succeed than sneaking in through the heavily guarded refugee gate. The low level of current risk does not justify the government slamming that gate shut.

Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks Kate. Good preface on the Cato institute. Plan to pass that around.

The cure for ignorance is knowledge. Cure to fear is love and safety.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

[ November 20, 2015, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Well am already at work forwarding your links to my readership

[ November 20, 2015, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Including some students who will vote for the first time in 2016
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
Remarks like this, addressed to the ononly pro immigrant Iberian who has argued through reasoning rather than be shaming and personal attacks, make me wonder. Setting aside by doubts about your identity and persona, your remarks here operate in tandem with the far left accusations, to suppress reasonable discussion of the facts. Wittingly or not, you personify the straw man argument that Tom ET al impute to all who question them

[ November 20, 2015, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
How many fallacies can you identify in this bit of rhetoric?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
How many fallacies can you identify in this bit of rhetoric?
That question deserves its own thread.

it's like an inverted ad misericordiam getting shagged by an ad homeniem on a blanket of false premises. I think Goebbels just ejaculated in his grave.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I annoy Tom because he thinks I think I am smarter than him...
No. You annoy me because:

1) You continually put words in my mouth despite almost never actually understanding my argument or positions;
2) You are oddly obsessed with me;
3) You are oddly venal and crude and excessively familiar;
4) You try desperately to engage in "humor" that is almost never funny and "allegories" that are almost never functional, and don't realize how bad you are at both. Your sense of humor is terrible even where it isn't grossly inappropriate;
5) You honestly think you know me -- and, God help us, pretty much anyone -- well enough to "press buttons," and yet the "buttons" you use are so far off the mark that your attempts (both aimed at me and at others) make me sad and annoyed and a little bored. Especially when you just keep repeating them in hopes that eventually someone will respond. Were you Rafi, I'd expect that this was itself an attempt at a clever troll, designed to irritate just by its obviousness. But...
6) You veer wildly from affable confusion to bizarre, drooling, sex-offender hostility to smirking troll. You persist in pretending to be pleasantly surprised every time someone you completely fail to understand shares a position with you, or manages to provide exactly the little dribble of easily-available information that you require to believe the precise thing that several other people have been telling you for days, and which -- even once conceded -- never seems to blunt your habit for broad, offensive generalizations about largely mythical groups;
7) And, finally, because these arguments ALWAYS go the same way, you ALWAYS feel like you've had some kind of breakthrough, and you ALWAYS wind up doing this every three or four months for reasons I don't understand. You go crazy like clockwork.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
sounds like a lot of very personal and intimate projection, Tom. Pretty obsessive sounding stuff. Not the first time you have gone on such a rant when your other attacks failed to piss me off.

Next? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Here's the complete context of what Tom was responding to in case anyone is curious what set off his last breakdown:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Just so it's clear that my last post did not impute something to Tom that he hadn't already said himself:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Pete, there is very little I find more tiresome than someone loudly and smugly asserting that he's more clever than he actually is.

and that's our 14 year quarrel in a nutshell. A clash of philosophy and personality that ultimately has little to do with politics. I annoy Tom because he thinks I think I am smarter than him, and Tom annoys me because I think he pretends to be dumber than he is. He wants me to shut my mouth and I want him to open his mind. He wants to shut off my oxygen and I want him to turn his own oxygen up.

 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
No, that's not actually what "set me off."
Let's see if you can identify the post that actually irritated me. I'm genuinely curious.

Either way, I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to not be a stupid dick.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

Let's see if you can identify the post that actually irritated me. I'm genuinely curious

I find it difficult to believe that you are genuinely Curious about anything, let alone about me. I don't recall you ever asking a question you didn't claim to not have the answer to.

whatever post set you off pre dates my Pete at Home account and predated any effective Ornery archiving. You have made this sort of attack on me since my first week on Ornery. I have no idea what it was. I had Red in a tizzy too, so it must have been something bad.

Whatever it was back then, I apologize.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
How many fallacies can you identify in this bit of rhetoric?
Perhaps that made you feel better, that's good.

But the point is, put your money where your mouth is. Based on your acting out, and the others tantrums, I was more on point than I thought. You want to gamble with lives, gamble with yours first. Once I see the courage of your convictions, perhaps I'll listen. Until then, it's mindless rhetoric designed to make you feel morally superior but it's just posturing. Feels good I suppose. Is feeling good good enough?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Since Tom asks me to guess which post "set me [Tom] off" was it this one?

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I do try to give you the facts, Pete.

Noted.

That makes one of you. Master Wessex, Davidson and Davidson Otho proceeds with hostile psychoanalysis

Is that the post that "set off" your seven point hostile psychoanalysis?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Often the cure to fear is the same as the cure for ignorance. But, dear Lord, is it hard work to get fearful people to listen to facts.

How many of them will you sponsor and offer a room in your home?
How many fallacies can you identify in this bit of rhetoric?
Perhaps that made you feel better, that's good.

But the point is, put your money where your mouth is. Based on your acting out, and the others tantrums, I was more on point than I thought. You want to gamble with lives, gamble with yours first. Once I see the courage of your convictions, perhaps I'll listen. Until then, it's mindless rhetoric designed to make you feel morally superior but it's just posturing. Feels good I suppose. Is feeling good good enough?

Hey, send me a Druze, Christian or Yazidi Syrian refugee. I have an extra room now. Just need $300/no for shared rent and power.

Or are you going to obfuscate the difference between "risking life" being willing and financially able to pay for resettlement? I'lol put my money where my mouth is but my money ain't enough to feed and shelter another.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Also, Raf, you responded to Kate, who has never, in my recollection, pitched anything like a tantrum. She posted a Link to a very fiscally and socially conservative think tank, the Cato institute.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*sigh* Pete, that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. You think you're being clever, there, but it's just tiresome.

[Tom continues to rave about Pete's dick]

Don't know if you missed it, but DW seemed to find my remark interesting. You are not the only one here that matters, and not everyone shares your taste.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Is that the post that "set off" your seven point hostile psychoanalysis?
Close, but not quite.
If you got to that one, though, you can probably figure out the central issue, and figure out what exact sort of dickishness you're exhibiting. So please stop.


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ah. Then it was when I criticized G3's attack on Kate in a way that made it impossible for you to pretend that I shared his position. [Big Grin]

Glad to surprise you. This is a breakthrough! Just kidding, obviously. loL.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I have to say, though, Tom, that this whole "guess why I'm abusing you" game is a new sadomasochistic low. Fortunately you'be caught me at my 18 month sobriety date and deliriously happy (other than reading Mother Night for pedagogical reasons)=
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Do you really seek to pretend that I am abusing you, Pete?

I am asking you to not be a stupid dick. You consider that abuse?


Tom: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ November 22, 2015, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
quote:
What I meant King Al, was that Kate argues with persuasive facts while others say things like "My thesis is that people with your thesis are reacting emotionally" which accomplish nothing other than confirming the speaker's smugness. Glad you have kept your sense of humor, though.
Facts are pretty much the same thing as opinions around here, neh? Facts are used either to inform or disinform, and arguments based on facts whether presented or inferred are used to explain or persuade. A well-reasoned opinion uses facts and in some senses are more "reliable" than the mass of facts from which they are formed.

[ November 21, 2015, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
"Easily available information", my arse, TomDavidson! I had to click on links and read things and copy and paste and everything!
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, Raf, you responded to Kate, who has never, in my recollection, pitched anything like a tantrum. She posted a Link to a very fiscally and socially conservative think tank, the Cato institute.

Actually, I did not respond to her with that. I believe all the third grade antics going on here have confused you and the situation. If only there was some type of moderation .... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I agree that you did not respond to what she said, which is why what you said was so inappropriate when you posted it as a repose to her post, including her link.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I am asking you to not be a stupid dick. You consider that abuse?

So does the Oxford English dictionary, you poor over Americanized hyperbole. Do you need a cut and paste?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I am amused that Tom takes issue with the word "abusing" but neither denies nor contests that his obsessive posts to me on this thread are *sadomasochistic*
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I reject the idea that I need to address every point on which we disagree. When you lapse into sex talk, I generally decline to engage you on it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Which is one of the principal reasons I engage in sex talk. But sadomasochism's association with sex is orthogonal at best.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
If I wanted to reference sexual kinkiness rather than the aggression born of projected self hatred, I would have said "Dominance/submission" rather than sadomasochism.

Setting exact terms aside, you recognize that the way you have engaged me on this thread is not healthy, neh?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Actually, I think it's a lot healthier than the usual dance, Pete.

Your typical mechanisms here aren't viable, and I have long put up with them out of a general desire for decorum. But I think this is really just enabling you, and you need a firmer hand. I don't think being gentle with you has helped. [Frown]
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
When Syrian refugees were asked to list the greatest threat, 29 percent picked Iran, 22 percent picked Israel and 19 percent picked America. Only 10 percent viewed Islamic terrorism as a great threat.

Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. 33% oppose the objective of destroying ISIS.

So, yeah. Let's get these guys loaded up in America. What could possibly go wrong with brining in thousands of people that see you as the greatest threat and oppose any actions against the worst terrorist organization in the world?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Thirty-seven percent of Syrian refugees oppose US airstrikes on ISIS. "

If you had friends and family in ISIS territory might you be concerned with Air strikes?

My grandfather was captured at the battle of the bulge. He got sore when US airstrikes hit his concentration camp. He never forgave the US air force. And yet he went on to serve the US in Korea, and retired a lt colonel. Disliking airstrikes doesn't make you a security threat.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Actually, I think it's a lot healthier than the usual dance, Pete.

Your typical mechanisms here aren't viable, and I have long put up with them out of a general desire for decorum. But I think this is really just enabling you, and you need a firmer hand. I don't think being gentle with you has helped. [Frown]

Dandy. Aside from your wildly inappropriate homoerotic "firm hand" banter [Frown] , I much prefer your middle school hysterics to the smug phony "politeness" of the last 14 years. As a bonus, your present routine means ornery a break from you every few days. Just keep an eye on your blood pressure, old boy.

++++++++

Edited to add, if OM is reading this, please don't let Tom goad you into banning him for over two weeks at a time. When you do that, he runs to Mrs Card and gets you replaced.

[ December 01, 2015, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Also, Raf, you realize we can pick and choose which refugees to take, right?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"please, feel free to identify one Mosque in the US which enforces this in any way."

Ah. So people actually murdered for apostasy or blasphemy don't count unless sentence is carried out by a mosque?

Doublethink, Pyr. Please don't go off rattling off irrelevant martial law codes that were written while Moses had Israel wandering, unless you believe that a significant number of Christians actually stone folks that gather stocks on the Sabbath. Or if you missed Jesus'defense of the woman taken in adultery.

Missionaries, even in the USA, fear approaching Muslims. Muslim converts to Christianity fear for their lives and their families. Christians who convert to Judaism or become Atheism, have no such fears here.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, Raf, you realize we can pick and choose which refugees to take, right?

Sure can!

quote:
The woman who took part in the ISIS-inspired San Bernardino massacre is linked to her native country's most notorious radical mosque, American officials believe.
Sources have told Daily Mail Online that US officials handed over information to their Pakistani counterparts about links between Tashfeen Malik and the Red Mosque in Islamabad.

The mosque is infamous for its links to violence and authorities in Pakistan are now considering taking action against its preacher, Maulana Abdul Aziz, after the disclosures by US officials.

CBS reports that Malik passed DHS screening for counterterrorism as part of the vetting for her visa.

Pick and choose, alright. Tell me, why should we assume they're going to do better? Or, was this a intentional pick by the government?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Ah, a conspiracy! Tell us why...?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Rafi, tell us all the difference between the screening for someone coming in as a fiancé of a US citizen vs the screening for someone coming in as a refugee.

But I am sure you don't know that there is a difference. So look it up. Summarize the salient differences. Then try to make your point again.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Greg, you provide the info for your own points yourself. If you have some belief that the DHS will not handle counterterrorism screening and another agency that does a better job will, then by all means sum it up for us. Look it up, give us alla link, then try to actually make a point about it rather than whatever that was you did. I'm sure you have it right at your fingertips ...

My point, that counterterror screening is failing, has been all too tragically made and proven.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
And just as I hit add reply, proven again:
quote:
A man was stabbed in the ticket hall at Leytonstone station this evening by another man who witnesses say shouted "This is for Syria" as he slashed his throat.
Another three are thought to have been injured.

The Met Police said its counter-terrorism command unit is now investigating the incident.

US and UK, the screening sucks and people are dying.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
What do you want to do about it?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
This tweet by Evitri Payet captures the liberal denial so perfectly:
quote:
Horrifying what's happened at Leytonstone.

There's a guy shouting at him "you're not muslim" so so true No religion promotes this nonsense

Yeah man, no true Scotsman....er, I mean, Muslim would do that!
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
The point is that they can't screen for what is in someone's mind.

So there is no way to stop someone with no record from getting in when their first and only act of terrorism is intended to be their last act on this Earth.

That's why all of this nonsense about the how effective screening is going to be is just a bad joke.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
So you might as well let everybody in, I guess, since people here are at least as deadly as people that want to come here.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
So if there are pitbulls running loose around the neighborhood mauling people to death already then we may as well set more loose?

Or maybe we've got enough violence on our plate already so we don't need another helping of it.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Maybe the problem we should solve is violence, instead of over-reacting to the minuscule number of refugees who have been part of the problem. Syed Farook was born and raised in the US. I would call him a home-grown terrorist. His wife came here perfectly legally after extensive vetting, so we know that no vetting process can completely eliminate potential or future threats. Condoleezza Rice and every other senior member of Bush's WH said the same thing, and of the 750,000 refugees we let in after that only 3 were found to be terrorist plotters.

What do you want to do? Rafi G can't muster the effort to explain how to solve the problem, but maybe you can.

[ December 05, 2015, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
Rafi, your assertion is that "counterterror screening is failing" - for that to be a valid statement requires that the screening for a fiance is identical to other forms of counterterror screening (as in that for a refugee).

Not my job to substantiate your assertions, just my perogative to point out that you haven't done so.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
Resettle the refugees in parts of their own countries that are safest. If necessary send it a UN force to establish these safe zones. Also resettle Muslim refugees into other Muslim countries. Let the non-Muslim ones come here and to Europe or where ever they please since they will face persecution in Muslim countries.

You can say there have been few terrorist Muslim attacks but how many of the non-Muslim refugees or immigrants have carried out terrorist attacks? None is better than few.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
The screening for the fiance was more thorough than refugee screening. And it still failed.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
quote:
The screening for the fiance was more thorough than refugee screening.
Cherry, go back and do your homework, because you are wrong. If you disagree, then substantiate your assertion
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
The screening for the fiance was able to use records from an intact government that was not in the middle of a civil war. It found nothing because there was nothing to find, and not in the same way there will be nothing to find in Syria. She was a good girl so there were no criminal records on her and no ties to radicals. She must have been at least well to do since her family had a maid.

How can the screening of Syrian refugees be more thorough when they are few if any records to check against?

Why don't you back up your assertion that refugee screening will be more thorough?

People can be radicals intent on causing harm without there being any record of it anywhere and no where or way for law enforcement to make the connection. This is because radicalization occurs in the mind and unless you can read their mind you will have no idea. And even more difficult, actually impossible, is to screen anyone for what is going to be in their mind once they get here.

If it sounds like I'm saying it's impossible to screen them to prevent this type of attack from happening again, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And everyone acknowledges this. No one disagrees. The only disagreement is that some people say it's worth bringing them here even though we can be sure some may engage in this type of terrorist attack and others say it's not worth it.
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
And if by thorough you mean they will be interviewed more often over a longer period of time just to make sure they and their families have their stories straight, that's not going to prevent a terrorist with no record and a good memory from slipping through. Why with everything we've seen people still choose to underestimate our enemy with wishful pie in the sky thinking is beyond me.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Cherry, Syed was born and raised in the US. There were no signs of radicalization on his part. The only potential outlier that has been reported was amassing a fairly impressive stockpile of weapons, including assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo. Why would anyone who lives in a condo, but never goes hunting or to a shooting range do that?

Isn't that kind of activity something we should keep an eye on?
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Rafi, your assertion is that "counterterror screening is failing" - for that to be a valid statement requires that the screening for a fiance is identical to other forms of counterterror screening (as in that for a refugee).

Not my job to substantiate your assertions, just my perogative to point out that you haven't done so.

Apparently it's not your job to substantiate your assertions either. You just kind of make it up and go along and expect others to believe it. If you think it's wrong, prove it. Don't expect anyone to believe it just because you say it.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The screening for the fiance was able to use records from an intact government that was not in the middle of a civil war. It found nothing because there was nothing to find, and not in the same way there will be nothing to find in Syria. She was a good girl so there were no criminal records on her and no ties to radicals. She must have been at least well to do since her family had a maid.

How can the screening of Syrian refugees be more thorough when they are few if any records to check against?

Why don't you back up your assertion that refugee screening will be more thorough?

People can be radicals intent on causing harm without there being any record of it anywhere and no where or way for law enforcement to make the connection. This is because radicalization occurs in the mind and unless you can read their mind you will have no idea. And even more difficult, actually impossible, is to screen anyone for what is going to be in their mind once they get here.

If it sounds like I'm saying it's impossible to screen them to prevent this type of attack from happening again, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And everyone acknowledges this. No one disagrees. The only disagreement is that some people say it's worth bringing them here even though we can be sure some may engage in this type of terrorist attack and others say it's not worth it.

Quoted for truth. Greg, you're up dude. [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Maybe the problem we should solve is violence"

Right, because that's only one problem. And disarming has worked so well for Sabra and Shatilla, for Bosnia, for Chicago ... where has disarming law abiders resulted in a drop in victims of violence?
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Do nothing.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Better nothing than something counterproductive. But better yet take measures that reduce the culture of violence. Attack the roots of violence. Increase prosperity. Shrink the geography of desperation and isolation.
 
Posted by AI Wessex (Member # 6653) on :
 
Lofty goals. How should we do it?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
I think the female shooter got her visa in less than a month. Here's what it's like for refugees - an 18-24 month process:

quote:
All refugees taken in by the U.S. undergo extensive background checks. The small number from Syria are subject to additional layers of security screening.

“Of all the categories of persons entering the U.S., these refugees are the single most heavily screened and vetted,” explains Jana Mason, a senior adviser to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Here are answers to some of your questions about how the program works.

How are Syrian refugees referred to the U.S.?

The process begins with a referral from UNHCR. The U.N.’s refugee agency is responsible for registering some 15 million asylum seekers around the world, and providing aid and assistance until they are resettled abroad or (more likely) returned home once conditions ease. The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.

Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.

What happens once a refugee is referred to the U.S.?

Our government performs its own intensive screening, a process that includes consultation from nine different government agencies. They meet weekly to review a refugee’s case file and, if appropriate, determine where in the U.S. the individual should be placed. When choosing where to place a refugee, officials consider factors such as existing family in the U.S., employment possibilities and special factors like access to needed medical treatment.

How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.

What percentage of applicants “pass” the screening process?

Just over 50%.

How long does the whole process take?

Eighteen to 24 months on average.

link
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Time Magazine, that's impartial.

Ok, 18-24 months. How consistent is that? I'm sure some take that timeframe. I'm sure some don't. But, given your hysteria over how desperate it is to bring Muslims to America, are you going to stand by that 2 year window? Under this story, refugees fleeing today will not get here until Christmas 2017.

Let's see:
quote:
Once the US State Department receives their case files it employs NGO contractors to pre-screen them for eligibility for refugee status, then they are subjected to health and security checks.

Officers from the Department of Homeland Security fly from Washington to the camps and conduct interviews with candidates, seeking to weed out what a US official called "liars, criminals and

Yep. DHS. And contractors. The DHS that missed Malik's obviously fake address and contractors that have little to no accountability. Hey, sounds great, let's get a million of them.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
Lets take a peek at what the left is proposing we let in: British police ignore the abuse of 1,400 children.
quote:
The people of Rotherham know that it is unsafe for a girl to take a taxi-ride from someone with Asian features; they know that Pakistani Muslims often do not treat white girls with the respect that they treat girls from their own community. They know, and have known over fifteen years, that there are gangs of predators on the look-out for vulnerable girls, and that the gangs are for the most part Asian young men who see English society not as the community to which they belong, but as a sexual hunting ground. But they dare not express this knowledge, in either words or deed.
With that, it should come as no surprise that 95% of all child rape and molestation convictions were committed by Muslims.

Hey, what vetting process are they using in the UK? Doesn't sound much better than ours.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Lofty goals. How should we do it?

Cheap public transport.

Public works programs where the young get Roosevelt style jobs for upgrading roads and the infrastructure.

Promote a unifying pluralist culture.

Pay anyone in the country to get sterilized reversible, no questions asked.

Legalize pot and save prisons for those who really endanger society.

Give immigration priority to relatives of the most productive law abiding residents. Highest productive would be someone who starts legal businesses that have nothing to do with the sex trade and put American citizens into jobs with medical insurance.

Other programs that increase public participation and decrease isolation and alienation. If you put your mind to it I am sure you could come up with some.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Add: Mental health counseling and medication! I suspect that a substantial number of our mass shootings would have been avoided if certain people have been on the right medications.
 
Posted by Rafi (Member # 6930) on :
 
I think, at this point, a renewed focus on mental health is a necessity. Some of the mass shootings we have seen over the last few years are the result of disturbed individuals and their acts may have been prevented with appropriate and timely treatment(or maybe not). I think it's worth the investment.

As important, we need to realize the problem and name it. Muslims have a problem. No, not all of course but enough. They have a culture and religion that tolerate if not outright promotes horrific abuses of the innocent. This is undeniable. The first step is accepting that reality so that we can deal with it. Simply denying it and allowing it into our society is not going to help.
 
Posted by Fenring (Member # 6953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
I think, at this point, a renewed focus on mental health is a necessity. Some of the mass shootings we have seen over the last few years are the result of disturbed individuals and their acts may have been prevented with appropriate and timely treatment(or maybe not). I think it's worth the investment.

The American landscape is currently set up almost expressly to promote bad mental health and anxiety. Between consumerist advertising culture, partisan dislike of half of one's countrymen, exploiting the middle class and poor to benefit the wealthy elite, and treating health care like a luxury, it's no surprise that the U.S. is riddled with crazed individuals. I'll throw in there a distinctly anti-individualist narcissism mentality that has been allowed to pass itself off for the last 30 years as the next step in individualism. "Each person, you and me and everyone else too, matters" has been replaced with "I matter and everyone better recognize that." The latter is not actually individualism but is rather the seed whose growth results in the diminishing of the individual.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I agree particularly re advertising. It(s universal that inequity creates a motive for crime. I think some advertising increases the sense of inequity, and hence the crime rate
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
My experience living in Vegas, a city more ripe with mental illness than any other I have seen, bears up in my mind the connection between conspicuous consumption and mental illness.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1