Trump on National Security

[D.W.]

Eventually we'll ban all religion and start taking our Prozium daily.

[TheDrake]

By these types of arguments, should the UK have banned Irish from entering the UK during the troubles? Should they now? After all, there have been several incidents perpetrated by the RIRA to the present date. Could that have undermined the peace agreement between the UK and the Provisional Irish Republican Army?

I don't go for an "America first" argument, I think more along the lines of "Humanity first". That doesn't necessarily warrant military action in support of people abroad. I think humanity would generally like to see less of our missiles, bullets, and bombs in their part of the world, whether fired by us or by people we sold them to.

[cherrypoptart]

So since the British couldn't, wouldn't, or just didn't keep Irish terrorists out of their country then we have to let Muslim terrorists into our country? I don't know much if anything about the Troubles except for maybe a few movies I've seen about it and what I remember from them is that it was pretty much a police state the likes of which we are now beginning to see in Europe with soldiers on the streets. Like I said, I don't want that becoming the new normal over here.

I guess another way to put it is sure we can let terrorists into America and have bombs going off all the time, semi trucks rampaging into streets crowded with pedestrians, snipers taking pot shots at random people, small aircraft flying into buildings, and all with either soldiers or militarized police patrolling all over the place but that's not my preference if there is any way to avoid it. Oh yeah, and let's also not forget the latest ISIS plan to train and release serial killers across America as well. Instead of shooting up a mall or blowing up a marathon they will pick us off one or two at a time until an FBI task force over a period of years or maybe even decades finally manages to track a few of them down. Their defenders will say so what? We have serial killers here too already and always have so why discriminate against the Muslims ones trained by ISIS that we set loose here because we wanted to stick it to the haters with diversity?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1929676/isis-to-send-wannabe-serial-killers-to-the-west-in-bloody-new-terror-tactic/

"They want their followers to buy a knife, slaughters innocents, then dispose of the knife and start over again.

In an article in the terror group’s Rumiyah magazine they even give advice on what types of knives to use – suggesting striking in secluded places after dark to avoid detection, reports the Daily Express.

They urge would-be jihadis to overcome their squeamishness by using knives instead of guns – because it is easier to carry out large numbers of murders without getting caught.

ISIS chiefs believe random serial killer-style stabbings are almost impossible for security services to detect compared to shootings and bombings, which require coordination and specialist equipment."


Did the Irish terrorists ever do that? If not then maybe that's at least one difference.

[AI Wessex]

I guess another way to put it is sure we can let terrorists into America and have bombs going off all the time, semi trucks rampaging into streets crowded with pedestrians, snipers taking pot shots at random people, small aircraft flying into buildings, and all with either soldiers or militarized police patrolling all over the place but that's not my preference if there is any way to avoid it.

Cherry, as you know better than any of the rest of us, we face a far more grave threat at home from domestic terrorists.  These are the people that you rub elbows with at Trump rallies (or you talk to, or you read emails or posts from) who have threatened to take up arms against our own government in a jihad that is far more a danger to our way of life.  The foreign Muslim terrorists you are afraid of are not attacking our government, but "sending us a message".  I'm not sure what the message is that seemingly random and rare attacks convey, but we know exactly what the Trump terrorists are trying to accomplish.

It is not stretching the truth at all to say that you seem quite comfortable about that avowed threat to our country, even while screaming about the threat that unknown foreigners represent.  I'm comfortable saying that because the Trump terrorists themselves say the very same thing.

If Trump loses, do you think it would be permissible to take up arms against your neighbors?

[TheDrake]

So since the British couldn't, wouldn't, or just didn't keep Irish terrorists out of their country then we have to let Muslim terrorists into our country?

Northern Ireland was as you describe. There was widespread support for the IRA at the time. Quite a lot of the IRA had UK citizenship already, just as many of the attacks in America, like San Bernadino, involved US citizens from birth. Targets spread to the UK, and the UK started using desperate measures including "enhanced interrogation" to get confessions (see Guildford Four).

Note also that the Paris attacks were done by EU nationals (French, Belgian) - not refugees. It is so much easier to recruit people already in place with lives and credentials than to manufacture a refugee background. Severe measures improve recruiting and funding. Just like the US Irish community was a source of funding and support for the IRA, albeit of disputed scope. The harder the British cracked down, the more money and recruits the IRA got.

You are still missing the main calculus - by denying the entry of X people, Y of which are terrorists, do we encourage the recruitment of Z terrorists from within the citizen population of the US? Or do we send them all packing en masse as well, or wipe them out in the manner of Stalin?

Then there's the intelligence value that you still don't acknowledge. Refugees from Syria can provide valuable information and cooperate with FBI for internal monitoring.

Sometimes I wonder how many Americans, particularly Trump supporters, would be willing to push a button that would instantly kill 1.6 billion Muslims around the world. Just because that would Americans safer, after all. Except for the 2.75 million Muslim Americans.

[TheDeamon]

Well, 1.6 Billion fewer humans would certainly help in the fight against climate change. 

[cherrypoptart]

Regarding the domestic terrorists we already have, why make a bad situation worse by adding more ISIS terrorists into the mix than we have to? To help out suffering people? For the sake of diversity?

There are tens of millions of Hindus suffering in India just as badly as the Syrians and sometimes even worse. Why not help them instead? Many face entrenched discrimination because of the technically illegal caste system, dooming them to a life of poverty and sometimes even sex slavery. I don't believe in that system and am certain these people have as much human potential as any of us. They will contribute just as much to our country in terms of becoming business owners, doctors, lawyers, scientists, IT workers, and whatever, and with zero possibility of being ISIS terrorists. If they can come in and get citizenship then they won't be competing against Americans since they will be Americans. And we probably have fewer Hindus in America than Muslims anyway so they are due a representation bump as it is. When the number of Hindu terrorist attacks in America start to outnumber the Muslim terrorist attacks, then we can start thinking about allowing in more Muslims than Hindus again. And it doesn't have to just be Hindus. Buddhists are underrepresented as well and also pose zero danger, well if you don't count the Richard Gere types.

I'm just not getting what this fascination is with danger and the embrace of death like we have seen in Europe that follows welcoming too many Muslims too quickly. Do you think that doing so will teach us tolerance when the Muslims we invite in start killing us in almost daily terrorist attacks? I would be more concerned that such an approach is even more likely to cause a backlash. Or do you think the danger is over-hyped and America will see less Islamic terrorism than Europe? So far it looks like we've only had less because we have not invited as many Muslims in as they have, and already we've had more than enough as it is. We should focus on assimilating the Muslim population we have now and making sure that works out, and to be honest works out better than it has so far. Then we can think about what to do next. In the meantime there are plenty of much less dangerous ways to pursue the goals of diversity and helping our fellow human beings around the world.

[AI Wessex]

Regarding the domestic terrorists we already have, why make a bad situation worse by adding more ISIS terrorists into the mix than we have to? To help out suffering people? For the sake of diversity?

What you should do is obvious: bring down the hammer hard on these people who say out loud that they will take matters into their own hands if Trump loses.  You can't see the nose in front of your face.  There are 1000's of Trump supporters who have publicly threatened to overthrow our government.  You're ok with that but you're worrying about *possible* acts of terrorism from people we bring here to save their lives.

You live in a surreal world where you can't see what's right in front of you in stark daylight while you whine that you are terrified of the dark.

[cherrypoptart]

"Take matters into their own hands" is pretty vague. You're going to lock someone up for that?

Possible acts of terrorism? More like inevitable. And promised by ISIS who say what you want about them has so far managed to keep such promises.

[cherrypoptart]

This is also part of national security, and there is a high degree of probability that Obama is culpable for paralyzing hundreds of American children when he let in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and purposefully distributed them throughout our school systems without a thought or care about the potential diseases they might spread and to which some of them may be for the most part immune.

Of course this article won't mention the connection. Maybe it's just a coincidence in timing but not likely seeing as how this is much more common in Latin America and was much more rare in the U.S. until Obama threw caution, common sense, and any thought for the safety of American children to the wind and flung the borders wide open.

Of course our government will deny any possible links. They won't even seriously look for the links because to find them would be too politically explosive.

This is all just another indication that good intentions often come at a devastating cost.

Now I know some will demand proof of the link. Of course I don't have it. If people want to insist the timing was entirely coincidental then so be it. It's up to everyone to decide that for themselves. Or it they want to insist that improving the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of suffering non-American children is definitely worth this price, and in fact in this is even a very small price to pay, then that's something people can judge for themselves as well.

There are thousands of unaccompanied minors and other illegals still being detained and to my knowledge they aren't being tested for this. That's the first thing Trump should do. Obviously if they test positive they should be given treatment as necessary but it may also be the case that they require no treatment and instead are asymptomatic carriers. What should be done then? Just send them into our public schools to paralyze more of our children the way Obama did? Hopefully a treatment can be developed so they would no longer be a danger to others.

A full and independent investigation of the CDC also needs to take place to make sure there wasn't any sort of coverup and also find out why they haven't insisted on more testing of unaccompanied minors before exposing American children to the dangers they may be carrying. Maybe they did insist on it but were denied by the Obama administration. We need to find out exactly what went on there.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-polio-paralysis-20160823-snap-story.html

"Many suspect that enterovirus D-68 — which gave hundreds of people a severe cold in 2014 — also caused the paralysis outbreak that year. Some of the paralyzed children had enterovirus D-68 in their system, and researchers have found that injecting mice with enterovirus D-68 paralyzes them."

http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/cdc-speaks-on-enterovirus-link-to-illegal-alien-kids/

"However, evidence buried in peer-reviewed medical journals provides support for the argument enterovirus D-68, or EV-D68, in the United States was a relatively rare disease. The EV-D68 epidemic occurred only after the surge this year of unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border from Latin America, a region where the virus is more prevalent among young children."

[AI Wessex]

"Take matters into their own hands" is pretty vague. You're going to lock someone up for that?

Possible acts of terrorism? More like inevitable. And promised by ISIS who say what you want about them has so far managed to keep such promises.

I was very clear that they have said they will declare war on the government.  Can you not hear what they (and perhaps you) are saying and understand that that is no different from the Isamist extremist jihadists you are so terrified of?

They scream that stuff out at every Trump rally, so it's not something you can pretend to be unaware of.  For some inexplicable reason you see nothing wrong with alt-right terrorist rhetoric.  Pretend that the US is under attack from ISIS all you want.  The threat from within is orders of magnitude greater.  Until you condemn it you would have to be considered a supporter, just like you think every Muslim is a secret ISIS supporter.

This is also part of national security, and there is a high degree of probability that Obama is culpable for paralyzing hundreds of American children when he let in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and purposefully distributed them throughout our school systems without a thought or care about the potential diseases they might spread and to which some of them may be for the most part immune.

More of your paranoid fantasy.

Of course this article won't mention the connection. Maybe it's just a coincidence in timing but not likely seeing as how this is much more common in Latin America and was much more rare in the U.S. until Obama threw caution, common sense, and any thought for the safety of American children to the wind and flung the borders wide open.

How and when did he do that?  I love that bolded part because it's so you.  They didn't mention it, which reinforces your absolute conviction that it's true.  But a more objective reader might say they would have mentioned it if it were true.

Of course our government will deny any possible links. They won't even seriously look for the links because to find them would be too politically explosive.

This is all just another indication that good intentions often come at a devastating cost.

Yep, once again they deny it, which can only mean that it's not only true, but they don't want you to know it. 

Now I know some will demand proof of the link. Of course I don't have it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[TheDrake]

cherry, I haven't seen you address my arguments that taking in refugees improves intelligence efforts and reduces the ability of extremists to recruit. It also helps us to recruit people in country, like all the translators who worked for us in Iraq and were then given asylum. Some of these people earn their ticket by helping us.

Of course if we were operating on altruism, we could pick any number of people seeking asylum. And we do. The biggest refugee countries are Burma, Iraq, Somalia, and Congo. Burma had 18k, Syria had 1.7k.

Refugees and Asylees in the United States

Go back to WW2, and you'll see that we had similar fears that Jews were going to infiltrate our country and be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany, something that seems pretty ridiculous now, at least to me.

[cherrypoptart]

To some extent that seems like inviting in people to solve a problem caused by us inviting them in to solve it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886742/IS-claims-responsibility-knife-attack-Germany-left-boy-16-dead-teenage-girlfriend-injured.html

"- Suspect remains at large following fatal stabbing of teenager in Hamburg
  - Man approached the couple from behind and stabbed boy several times
  - Girlfriend, 15, was injured after she was pushed into the Outer Alster Lake
  - ISIS news agency Amaq has claimed responsibility for the attack"

Now we have ISIS inspiring lone wolf serial killers like this guy who is just getting started.

So Germany has lots of other Muslims who will help them to find this guy that got in when they invited those other Muslims to their country thereby solving the same problem they caused. I'm not sure how they puts them ahead.

Helping us fight the war on terror in other countries should be done by the Muslims in those countries. If they aren't willing to fight for their own countries then who needs them? If they are the good liberal Muslims we are promised, then their own countries need them over there much more than we need them here right now.

As it is, we've got millions of Muslims now in America, the overwhelming majority of whom should already be patriotic enough to help us fight Islamic terrorism. There is no reason to bring in more from terrorist countries when we can't know their loyalties. We should concentrate on the Muslims we already have. Are there not enough of them willing to help us fight terrorism as it is? If the American citizen Muslims won't step up to the plate then relying on foreign Muslims to step up in their stead seems like getting ahead of ourselves. But the American citizen Muslims are stepping up to help and do their patriotic duty. That's why we don't need to bring in tens of thousands more right now from terrorist countries.

[D.W.]

There's two things going on right now.  Or maybe just one thing and one symptom.

People are fleeing strife in general and radical Islam in particular.  Some are fearful of these refugees because they may be terrorists trying to blend in and find an opportunity to inflict harm upon "their enemies". 

People are also fleeing from failed states.  And I don't just mean the ones in chaos due to conflict.  I mean places of limited to no opportunity, sometimes lacking infrastructure when compared to places like Europe and the U.S.  The western world has a lot going for it compared to the places these refugees are coming from.  An end to conflict does nothing to lessen the appeal of these places and the opportunities in the places they are fleeing to. 

Some see hope, others just become jealous.  In steps religious extremism to prey upon the latter.  Why are some willing to die for if not kill themselves for their cause?  Because they lack hope. 

Killing hope seems a dangerous bid for peace.   

P.S. you may as well substitute religious radicals with drug cartels and toss in Mexico as well when discussing this topic.  This is the "global economy" waking up and deciding they too should have what the first world countries do.  Telling them to start at the beginning and do it themselves (while also being good sports and doing so more green-ly than WE did) is just not gonna be persuasive.  Particularly not if their country was used to fuel our own growth. 

[cherrypoptart]

There is nothing to disagree with there. There is no doubt that for probably at least 2-3 billion of the world's population the United States would be a much preferable place to be than where they are now. Maybe even 3-5 billion of the world's 7.4 billion people. Maybe even more.

So the question is how many can we take in at a time?

We have legal limits on immigration on the books right now. Why is that?

Whatever the reasons are for those limits, should we just ignore them? Why not change the law then and make it legal for anyone who can get here to instantly have legal status instead of ignoring the law like Obama is doing and Hillary proposes?

I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.

[AI Wessex]

I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.

There are, but you make this point as a smokescreen.  How many of those limits exist to deter extremism and terrorism on US soil?  I remind you that if you want to root out those things, you could fill up a lot of buses with people who go to Trump rallies.  Out of 10,000 or so at each rally, if only 1% of the attendees are anti-American crazies, that's still 100 people per pop.  Getting rid of them would create even more openings for additional immigration of people who would appreciate living here, as you point out.

[TheDrake]

I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.

I agree, it makes sense to limit immigration, but per capita the US is far from the most generous in accepting migrants.

Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway and the UK all have higher migration inflows. Ireland has taken in Muslims at a rapid clip, now totalling 1.1% of the population, roughly equivalent to our own. And I have yet to hear about Muslim knife attacks there.

Other countries like Australia have large populations, partly due to their passage of the Racial Discrimination Act. This replaced the White Australia policy, which sounds a lot like what Trump wants to implement.

I'm all for controlled immigration as a necessary protection against disruption, but the criteria should be education, need, health, mental stability, and other objective criteria rather than religion, country of origin, or other discriminatory policies.

article

[TheDeamon]

If only those were the criteria used.

Regardless, it can't be used if you don't control your borders and don't try to enforce your immigration laws to start with.

[TheDrake]

Our borders are 8,000 miles long, not including coastline. It just isn't practical to "seal" the borders, against drugs, immigrants, or anything else you'd like to keep out. You can and should try, but when people are so desperate they will hide in shipping containers, tanker trucks, and the like, you have to expect people will come here. Allowing more legal immigration would reduce the trafficking, abuse, and swindling in the process, and allow for better inspection of the people coming into the country.

This hardly applies to would-be terrorists with no known record, since they could get a simple tourist or student visa, much like the 9/11 hijackers. 

Naturally, this would play into the idea of not allowing anyone into the country. North Korea does a pretty good job of that. Those that do come in get jailed if they take pictures. They get deported or worse if they say anything against the state. Everyone is a potential spy. I'd personally rather have a few stabbings than take that road.

[cherrypoptart]

How does allowing more legal immigration help the people who still aren't allowed to come here? Do they see someone else who was suffering get in and figure it balances the cosmic karma for the poverty and violence in the lives of their own children?

Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

Allowing more legal immigrants only stops those lucky ones from coming here illegally. It does nothing to stop the ones we still deny.

[TheDeamon]

Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

In tangential information. The global hunger/starvation calculation by the World Food. Programme currently puts it at 12.9% of the population in "the developing world." In the United States, hunger rates amoung children are believed to be as high as 25%. Amoung the U.S. general population, it's somewhere between 1:7 and 1:8 (14.2% and 12.5% respectively)

[yossarian22c]

Cherry,
Would you support planting land mines along the border?  Having drones bomb people who try to cross illegally?  Those are the only ways I can really think of to keep people from walking over.  Walls only make smuggling more expensive, the border is just too long to have guards posted every couple miles watching surveillance cameras ready to jump into jeeps and track people across mostly rugged desert terrain.  That doesn't even touch those who come and overstay visas.  We don't have to stop enforcing immigration law just because its hard but don't act like Trump is going to stop the flow.  The only way to do that is to make America a less prosperous place to live (so people don't want to come in the first place).

[cherrypoptart]

Australia has a good idea which they are applying to the boat refugees. Anyone caught here illegally is on the permanent list of people who can never come here again and will always be deported when caught. Also get rid of birthright citizenship and all benefits for all illegals. Make illegal mean illegal again and stop rewarding law breakers. Any employer knowingly hiring illegals has all of their business assets confiscated just like a drug dealer who loses a car or house, pierce the corporate veil and send the employers who knowingly hire illegals to prison for a few years the same as we would other parties to fraud. All we really have to do is just apply the law forcefully instead of whimsically. We could make huge progress on securing the borders without hiring even one more border patrol agent.

[TheDeamon]

Biggest thing we could do to help secure the border is to seriously look at our failed "war on drugs" as a LOT of the human trafficking that is happening on our southern border is as mules/distractions/side business operations for the cartels and smugglers. Cut their big paycheck, the smaller one will discourage a lot of them.

Increasing enforcement along the border in meaningful and effective ways also helps. Encouraging interagency cooperation along the border between Federal, State, and local agencies should be encouraged. Rather than harshly firewalled as it currently is... At the insistence of the Democrats.

There are a number of other things as well.

[cherrypoptart]

Merkel is Germany's Hillary Clinton and these are the results:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/727263/Angela-Merkel-migrant-crisis-worsens-as-Germany-descends-into-lawlessness

"During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office.

And the country has been hit by a spate of horrendous violent crime including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking...

... Migrants committed 208,344 crimes in 2015, according to a confidential police report leaked to Bild.

This figure represents an 80 per cent increase since 2014 and is equivalent to 570 crimes committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, in 2015 alone.

The report added: "The growing sense of lawlessness is substantiated by an October 24 YouGov poll which found that 68 per cent of Germans believe that security in the country has deteriorated during the past several years.

"Nearly 70 per cent of respondents said they fear for their lives and property in German train stations and subways, while 63 per cent feel unsafe at large public events."

[AI Wessex]

How does allowing more legal immigration help the people who still aren't allowed to come here? Do they see someone else who was suffering get in and figure it balances the cosmic karma for the poverty and violence in the lives of their own children?

Another dark fantasy that justifies your xenophobia.

Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

Not quite sure how this analogy is supposed to pertain to the point.  A better analogy would be what Republicans in Congress have been doing for decades, deny services to people in desperate need because *some* might get more than they deserve or might game the system.  I suppose the only people who are pure of heart and purpose are those who want to keep all immigrants out and overthrow the government.

Allowing more legal immigrants only stops those lucky ones from coming here illegally. It does nothing to stop the ones we still deny.

Right, feeding someone who is hungry only encourages other hungry people to believe you won't let them starve to death.  They are fools, apparently.

[Wayward Son]

You keep talking, Cherry, about the lawlessness in Germany and Europe, about their horrible terrorist attacks, how we don't want to be like them.

You keep forgetting, Cherry, that people are safer in Europe than in American.

The rate of murders--including from terrorist attacks--is still far lower in Europe than in the United States.

So when you talk about us not wanting to become like Europe, what exactly are you talking about?  You're obviously not talking about us becoming more secure than Europe. 

[TheDeamon]

Then you just open up the option that we're violent enough over here as it is, we don't need to be importing more of it. 

[cherrypoptart]

Exactly. I was gonna just let it go because I'm sure I've made that point already but I'm glad it just got reiterated.

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

And as for Europe being so safe, well that's nice so why ruin it?

Is there supposed to be some sort of world quota system for violence we're imposing so that if Muslim countries have too much violence and Europe has too little and not meeting its quota we need to equalize them? Maybe tackle some of that white privilege? 

[AI Wessex]

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

Would this be a new US immigration policy?

[rightleft22]

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering

[Fenring]

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
– Hermann Goering

An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.

[Wayward Son]

Then you just open up the option that we're violent enough over here as it is, we don't need to be importing more of it. 

Exactly. I was gonna just let it go because I'm sure I've made that point already but I'm glad it just got reiterated.

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

Which is a fair point, if you assume that they are at least as violent as we are, if not more so.  I doubt that assumption is true, especially when a vast majority of refugees are women, children and old men.  But it is certainly one that cannot be definitively proven either way.

But the point you are missing is the price of refusing to allow these refugees in. 

Remember, they are refugees.  They don't have homes or businesses.  Most are living in camps.  They have no status in the places they are staying.  A vast majority are living off charity.  They don't know, from one day to the next, if they will be forcibly moved or cut off from any form of aid.

And then you want us to say to them, "Hey, we don't want you here, because a few of you might be as dangerous as we are, because your children might grow up to be as murderous as we are, so we'd rather you stay in your tents far away from us."

Millions of people have been displaced because of the conflict in Syria.  And we're too afraid to let a few thousand into our country because we can't guarantee 100 percent that some of them won't start killing people like we do every day. 

Well, you can't guarantee that my next-door neighbor won't shoot me tomorrow.  So I want a much better reason than that for denying help to people in need.

And as for Europe being so safe, well that's nice so why ruin it?

Is there supposed to be some sort of world quota system for violence we're imposing so that if Muslim countries have too much violence and Europe has too little and not meeting its quota we need to equalize them? Maybe tackle some of that white privilege? 

I am glad for your concern for the Europeans, but I thought we were talking about the U.S.  And when you use Europe as an example of violence we don't want to see here, I think it's worth pointing out that we have worse violence than they are experiencing, even with their terrorist attacks.  So I have to question whether it is the violence per se that you are worried about, or if it is something else.  Because, apparently, it isn't really the safety of Americans--the men, women and children on the streets--that is your utmost concern.

[rightleft22]

An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.

Interesting the projection is strong with this one

[Fenring]

An excellent quote, to apply to administrations for both parties.

Interesting the projection is strong with this one

The implication being that...I, personally, instill fear in the populace to effect control?

[TheDeamon]

Which is a fair point, if you assume that they are at least as violent as we are, if not more so.  I doubt that assumption is true, especially when a vast majority of refugees are women, children and old men.  But it is certainly one that cannot be definitively proven either way.

The live up to my handle and play devil's advocate for a moment. Children become adults, and if there are underlying issues present, providing them refuge may not be sufficient. A Genghis Khan reference may be apt, the women aren't wholly innocent in this. If they've been indoctrinated in a culture of repression and violence, and in turn indoctrinate their children into it, leaving "the violent husband" behind does nothing.

It also ignores things like the Boston Marathon Bombers, who came in as refugees, became citizens, then did what they did. That refugee turned citizen/permanent resident crowd of children have been a demonstrated and proven rich recruiting ground for Islamic Extremists, even in the U.S.

It's "the California plague" writ on an international scale. Yes, people raised as Christians and otherwise have been "Islamified" and radicalized as well, but we know this population grouping in particular is highly susceptible to it.

[AI Wessex]

More false equivalence.  There are millions of Muslims and Mideast immigrants in this country who are as good citizens as any white Christian male of European descent.  The number of so-called terrorist attacks (as opposed to hate crimes) is minuscule.   A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?

I assume almost all such hate crimes and domestic terrorism attacks that aren't carried out by Muslims are carried out by people who are white and would call themselves Christians.  Why don't you start there to find the roots and causes of such crimes instead of denying people who are in fear for the lives or starving to death the relief that our country can offer?  I guarantee you that at least one of them will commit a serious crime one day, but the number will be far fewer than committed by those who don't "qualify" for membership in the group you want to exclude.

[cherrypoptart]

"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.

[TheDeamon]

"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.

Not to join the tin foil hat crowd on this one, but I'm pretty much at a coin toss as to the probability of which way that one ultimately turns out to have played out. Although the other press reports about low black voter turnout in early voting tends to add credence to the idea that it could have been staged to "motivate the vote" with the blacks by making the campaign more a "race issue" for them.

I highly doubt the Hillary campaign was involved however. But wouldn't be surprised if some part of the extended Democratic operative support mechanism didn't have a shadowy hand in play.

[AI Wessex]

"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.

OK, show me the evidence.

[Greg Davidson]

So far there have been attacks on both traditionally Democratic and Republican locations that could have been the work of crazed partisans or false flag operations. Until there's proof it's not worth paying attention to.

[cherrypoptart]

Pamela Geller recently quoted from Patrick Poole:

“A vandalism attack on the Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno on Christmas Day was immediately branded by Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer as a ‘hate crime,’ and the ‘Islamophobia’ grievance industry began to gear up in response. Now that a suspect has been arrested, the narrative is quickly collapsing. This video report by KSEE24 describes the damage done to the mosque...

“Seven windows were broken and bleach was poured on an American flag inside of the center. But police announced today that the suspect arrested in the attack is 28-year-old Asif Mohammad Khan, who, according to news reports, is a Muslim who used to attend the mosque and did the attack in response to bullying by some in the mosque. In response, Dyer has quickly had to walk back his knee-jerk ‘hate crime’ talk.”

I'm not giving a link to this story because the page is harsh but there are enough details there to verify it independently.

Here's another one:

http://politicaloutcast.com/black-church-members-terrorized-by-threatening-racist-signs-from-a-black-man/

"A Colorado Springs man was arrested after police believe he left racist messages outside a church.

Vincent Broughton, 44, who is black, is facing charges for committing a bias-motivated crime and disorderly conduct.

The signs were posted outside the New Covenant church that is predominately attended by African Americans. One sign references the KKK. Another reads, “Black men beware, you are the target.”

The messages had the congregation on edge.

“We locked our doors this morning, so we were inside, but it shouldn’t be that way. You shouldn’t have to lock your doors in the church, it’s just… I’m speechless,” said Pastor Roland Joyner.

No major media picked up on the story. Does that shock you?"

And more: http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=243.50;last_msg=9435

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/muslims-fake-hate-crimes-to-serve-political-agenda/

"Hype: As the attorney general threatens to prosecute Americans for anti-Muslim hate crime, Muslims are faking anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country to prop up the fiction that Muslims are victimized in the U.S.

The latest fabrication involves the torching of a Houston mosque on Christmas Day. The arson was quickly seized on by the national media and Muslim-rights groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that police investigate it as a hate crime.

"We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire," CAIR's Houston chapter said in a statement.

Federal authorities did investigate, and they collared a suspect. Sorry, CAIR, he's not a Muslim-hating Trump supporter. He's a Muslim.

Not only that, he's a longtime member of the damaged Islamic Society of Greater Houston mosque, where he prayed five times a day, seven days per week.

Last Christmas, a similar incident was reported at a mosque in Fresno, Calif.; and in a similar rush to judgment, the media joined Muslim groups in accusing anti-Islamic bigots for the vandalism of the Islamic Cultural Center there.

Only, it turned out that the incident was not an act of "Islamophobia" at all.

As in Houston, the damage was self-inflicted by a member of the mosque. Police arrested Asif Mohammad Khan. They said that he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden.

These are hardly isolated cases of Muslim groups and their media apologists misleading the public about anti-Muslim hate crimes.

They are part of a long series of events — including pure fabrications — that serve to portray non-Muslims as threats and deflect attention away from Muslims as the real threats. Learning from other groups, they've discovered that racism can be blamed for almost everything.

• October 2014: Two Muslim activists released a video showing NYPD cops harassing and "racially profiling" Muslims just for wearing Islamic garb. The video went viral; CAIR demanded an investigation for discrimination. But the whole thing was staged. The cops weren't even real.

• June 2014: After three burned Qurans were found in front of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., the imam there led a campaign to pass a local statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. The media ran with it, and his crusade gained traction — until it was revealed that the Quran barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan al-Assadi.

• April 2014: After murdering his wife, a Muslim man in El Cajon, Calif., made it look like an anti-Muslim bigot did the crime. He left a note with her body that read: "Go back to your country, you terrorist," which led the media to report the murder as an "Islamophobic" hate crime.

Some claimed that the slain wife was targeted for "wearing a hijab." CNN host Reza Aslan blamed conservative "Islamophobic f**ks" for the homicide — even after the truth came out that it was an Islamic honor killing, not a hate crime.

• August 2010: A Muslim high school girl in Ann Arbor, Mich., claimed that a mob physically attacked her in an apparent hate crime which included ethnic slurs and the forcible removal of her hijab.

The "alleged hate crime" prompted CAIR to lead a media blitz calling for investigations by state and federal authorities. Except the assault never happened. The girl was eventually charged and found guilty of disorderly conduct.

FBI data show that hate crimes against Muslims are actually rare, which probably explains the need to make them up.

Such hysteria over "Islamophobia" is merely used by terror-support groups such as CAIR to shut down debate over jihadism and the responsibilities of the Muslim community to reform violent Islam and call out the terrorists radicalized in its ranks."

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426674/black-church-burnings-race-hoaxes-michelle-malkin

"Here we go again: another liberal narrative burned to a crisp. Over a two-week period in October, an arsonist targeted seven churches in the St. Louis area — including several in Black Lives Matter protest hotspot Ferguson, Mo...

Last week, police charged 35-year-old David Lopez Jackson, who is black, with setting two of the fires. “Forensic evidence linked him to the fire on Oct. 18 at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 1011 Theobald Street,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported, and “video of his car near New Life Missionary Baptist Church, 4569 Plover Avenue, links him to the fire there on Oct. 17, police Chief Sam Dotson said.” Jackson is a suspect in the other fires, and additional charges are pending.

RELATED: Church Burnings: Falsified History Repeats Itself The arrest follows another black-church-hate-crime spree-gone-bust in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. In late June, after a pair of churches received menacing notices (“Black men, be aware, you are the target,” read one), black suspect Vincent Broughton admitted to posting the ugly signs. And yes, Colorado Springs is also the home of the January 2015 NAACP office bombing that wasn’t. The smoke-blowing never ends."

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

If you want hard evidence just be patient.

It's quite obvious this was another liberal false flag operation.

Sometimes what is obvious doesn't end up being the reality. Perhaps there is a very small chance that this was actually the stupidest Trump supporter ever who did this even though it would of course only be used against Trump, as it has. But the odds are much better, approaching near certitude, that a Trump hater did this knowing full well that the liberal media would quickly blame Trump supporters, as they have. I heard a long story on NPR this evening about this Vote Trump church burning and what struck me was that nowhere in the story did they even mention the possibility of a Trump hater doing this to garner exactly the type of sympathy it has. Also nowhere in the story were the facts mentioned about how many other types of crimes like this were in fact self inflicted hate crimes. This is why the media has absolutely no credibility.

And when these crimes do turn out to be faked, they NEVER go back and correct the record with the force they used to promote their agenda the first time.

[AI Wessex]

Pamela Geller recently quoted from Patrick Poole:

Cherry, you have to understand that quoting Pam Geller is like drinking out of a toilet.  You just saved me from having to read the rest of your post to find out if it contained a shred of reliable information.

[cherrypoptart]

And... you're welcome.

Yes, most of the sources of information were like that but that's to be expected because as I noted the mainstream media doesn't report the facts that don't fit their narrative.

When the police find out that a Trump hater perpetrated this latest crime you probably won't see it in the regular media either, certainly not if you blink.

[AI Wessex]

Of course, if you read only right-wing, fear-mongering and otherwise extremist sites instead of what ordinary people do you will get a different picture of the world.  I suspect if one of those sites ever posted a story favorable to any of the people you despise you would immediately become suspicious of their "truthfulness" and wonder if they'd been infiltrated.  You'd have to add them to the list of places to "clean up" when the time comes.

[D.W.]

While I can't say I'm on board with cherry's assessment at the end of the list of stories, it does make a VERY important point that we need to stop as a country assuming that a situation fits neatly into a narrative we want to have happened.  It's not always Islamophobia.  It's not always a hate crime.  It's not always racism.  It's not always a bad cop. 

The news outlets need to grab eyeballs and put them on web pages.  They are going to try and push our buttons.  We can't seem to help ourselves and we play along.  Not sure what we can do about that at this point.  What we CAN do is read those stories and watch those videos with a skeptics eyes and ears.  It's OK to agree that all of those things listed above need addressed and fixed.  It's not OK to assume you know the entire story as soon as you have identified the victims and or those involved in the incident. 

(Hint:  We call that profiling.)

[rightleft22]

Circular reasoning and or Non sequitur logic makes dialog impossible

[AI Wessex]

While I can't say I'm on board with cherry's assessment at the end of the list of stories, it does make a VERY important point that we need to stop as a country assuming that a situation fits neatly into a narrative we want to have happened.  It's not always Islamophobia.  It's not always a hate crime.  It's not always racism.  It's not always a bad cop. 

The news outlets need to grab eyeballs and put them on web pages.  They are going to try and push our buttons.  We can't seem to help ourselves and we play along.  Not sure what we can do about that at this point.  What we CAN do is read those stories and watch those videos with a skeptics eyes and ears.  It's OK to agree that all of those things listed above need addressed and fixed.  It's not OK to assume you know the entire story as soon as you have identified the victims and or those involved in the incident. 

(Hint:  We call that profiling.)

Well, the world could be flat.  Why don't we ask someone who believes that it is and they can tell us all about their evidence.  Then the rest of us can chase down all the crap and nonsense leads they throw out and patiently explain why the facts are not really facts or why their trusted soothsayers are not saying sooth.  Good liars use a kernel of truth as the seed for their theories, so that's enough to rebut the rebuttals.  But whatever you do you do knowing that you'll never dislodge them from their "truth" about the matter, because all evidence that says otherwise is false, part of a conspiracy to enslave their minds and the work of l-l-l-liberals, Jews and Communists.  Actually, Communists should not be on that list since Trump has embraced Putin and people like Cherry are suddenly "realizing" how wrong they've been to distrust him.  And Putin is not a Communist like Hillary is, so you can still vilify her for holding her Communist views.

In this particular example Cherry started off by citing someone he considers an icon of reason and beacon of truth, Pam Geller.  She is a proven liar and propagandist for far right ideology and conspiracy theories.  Among other finely reasoned views she has offered is that Hillary Clinton will invoke Sharia law to shut down Breitbart as soon as she is elected.  Don't even think you can prove her wrong, btw.  Geller happens to be a writer for Breitbart herself who regularly makes up false stories to demonize anyone and everyone left of the extreme right fringe, so if you talk about circular reasoning, you can start with that.

Or you can just walk away and hope that people who think like that never get so frustrated that they decide they have to kill democracy in order to save it.

[D.W.]

People we dislike, who's agendas differ radically from our own can still make valid points.  "Don't jump to conclusions" is not a politically biased piece of propaganda.  It's just damn good advice.   

Now if their advice is, "Mistrust everyone who tells you something that isn't me!  Well then you get to test our that critical thinking and skepticism they told you to practice.

[Mynnion]

A confession from a Trump supporter    http://www.wlwt.com/article/arrest-made-in-manure-drop-at-warren-co-democratic-headquarters/8051656