**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

... but they're so bad at it.

Maybe they would be better if we didn't spend the last decade and a half just rompin and stompin Iraq and Afghanistan

Just sayin...

Edit: Also, if we didn't leave so much of our own shit over there, they'd all pretty much have their dicks in their hands at this point.

[BananaStand]

I don't disagree.

Cruz is just the guy I agree with on just about everything whom I think can win.

Of those I think will run, Cruz is the only one I like. Well, and Rand Paul but I don't think he can win the general.

My bet is on either

A) Someone who's currently padding their resume in the Trump administration. Jeff Sessions, Rick Perry, someone like that
B) Someone with some celebrity who appeals to the middle just enough to win. Someone like Dean Cain. But also, not Dean Cain.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe they would be better if we didn't spend the last decade and a half just rompin and stompin Iraq and Afghanistan

Just sayin...

Congrats on conquering a couple of third world countries. The British Empire would be proud.

No idea how ISIS started I guess...

[BananaStand]

Congrats on conquering a couple of third world countries. The British Empire would be proud.

No idea how ISIS started I guess...

Why does it matter how ISIS started? If we wiped them out tomorrow, they'd just be replaced by some other angry entity bent on a caliphate. As long as there is violent, inflammatory, oppressive, Wahabbi bullshit spewing out of Saudi Arabia, there will always be radical jihadists. I thought we agreed on that?

My only point is that we spent a decade and a half diminishing terrorist networks and their support from rogue nations. Certainly that made a difference and is a big reason why they're so bad. They're on their 7th string quarterbacks at this point.

I don't think it follows logic to now say "well they only kill 7 people a year, why are we so aggressive?"

Remember the head and shoulders commercial? "But you don't have dandruff!!" EXACTLY!!

[wufwugy]

No idea how ISIS started I guess...

It goes way back. Some dude named Muhammos. Muhamalam? Mumahhad? Why am I forgetting this one? Anyways, he killed lots of people and his followers are supposed to follow him, or something. I don't really remember. Mahummad? I think that's it.

[wufwugy]

Someone like Dean Cain. But also, not Dean Cain.

I lol'd. Sounds like something Hopper would say.

inb4 Thiel.

[Poopadoop]

Quebec mosque attacker was student Alexandre Bissonnette.

Francois Deschamps, an official with an advocacy group, Welcome to Refugees, said the suspect was known for his far-right views.

Birth of radical Christian alt-right terror?

[BananaStand]

Quebec mosque attacker was student Alexandre Bissonnette.

Who was the second guy?

EDIT: Nevermind. Cops changed their story

[Poopadoop]

Who was the second guy?

A witness.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01...or-attack.html

Interesting chart in the article. I would have guessed Canada has a lot less terrorism. Seems I didn't understand how much Canada likes to antagonize Islam.

The French-speaking province of Quebec has been embroiled in a lengthy debate about race and religious accommodation. The previous separatist government of the province called for a ban on ostentatious religious symbols such as the hijab in public institutions.

The CBC reported that someone left a pig's head on the mosque's doorstep this past June, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Islam's holy book, the Koran, forbids them from consuming pork

Canucks be hatin'

[wufwugy]

Quebec mosque attacker

These types have had terrorists among them as far back as they go. What they don't have is organizational ideology and mobilization to that effect.

[wufwugy]

If we're dealing with separatism, it's something else. There's ideology and mobilization for terrorism in there sometimes.

[wufwugy]

Foul early, foul hard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9b16519fd0e4

[wufwugy]

I'm not stoked by the executive order that for every new regulation, two must be cut. I think this will be only slightly more effective than not effective at all. If taking this route, it would probably need to be something like cut five regulations for every one created, or something more specific that would disallow loopholes. Bad Trump!

Could be that this is a small part of a bigger whole, so okay then.

[BananaStand]

Could be that this is a small part of a bigger whole, so okay then.

I'm pretty sure Trump and others at the top already have a laundry list of regulations they want to ditch. This EO just provides the cover they need to dispose of them quickly and quietly.

Either that, or the entire thing is largely for show. Trump running up the score.

Either way, it will probably do enough good to pay off the effort it took to implement. Political implied odds.

[wufwugy]

How many y'all seen the MSM tell Obama to shut the fuck up? You know, since he spoke out against the President today?

Here's the amount of MSM shills we've seen do that: 0.

I remember back in 09 how the media BOMBARDED the airwaves with how Bush had better not say a goddamn fucking word about Obama. How it's TRADITION for ex-Presidents to keep their shitholes shut. How Bush would be fucking betraying fucking Earth if he said the remotest of peeps inside a year of leaving office.

Where's the media now? Where are they telling Obama to stick a sock in it?

Every day now, the MSM shows us that they are lying to us.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MSM?

[wufwugy]

mainstream media

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh. IDK. I don't follow those sources.

As I recall, you can find either side's bias in MSM sources, so if even the right sources aren't saying it, then IDK.

[BananaStand]

I don't have an exact quote, but I sorta remember Obama giving the impression that he would remain active and visible in politics, even before he left office. He's not calling out Trump by name, and he isn't really in control over what the headlines are.

I always criticize the MSM for manufacturing outrage when they rail against Trump for doing something totally expected and consistent with his character. Like the access hollywood tape. How did they think he talked in private? duH!

It sucks that they have different standards for Trump, but I can't criticize the MSM for having the right take on Obama here.

He's choosing to be an activist. We just got to live with it. It's a free country.

[wufwugy]

The exiting President is supposed to be a ghost. At least when he's a Republican.

[Jack Sawyer]

Not to be gross, but at one point in my life I had problems with IBS. And during that time I made a trip to Canada. My friends and I were forced to sit in a waiting area for over an hour while they checked our papers and searched our car. They would not let me use the bathroom. And I needed it, badly. I wasn't technically "detained", or arrested, or anything like that. I was just held in a room, that I wasn't allowed to leave, and I wasn't allowed the human dignity of being allowed to use the restroom.

I am a dual citizen, US/Canada. Should I have just been allowed to say "Hey fuck face, I salute the maple leaf, now let me in!"?

No

I had to allow the border agents to make sure I wasn't smuggling, terrorizing, or otherwise doing something nefarious to their country. And during that time I was forced to endure severe discomfort and humiliation.

Where's my team of pro-bono lawyers?

And this is what I don't want to happen to people, including to you

[wufwugy]

And this is what I don't want to happen to people, including to you

At what cost?

[Savy]

At what cost?

Little to none.

[Jack Sawyer]

Maybe they would be better if we didn't spend the last decade and a half just rompin and stompin Iraq and Afghanistan

Just sayin...

Edit: Also, if we didn't leave so much of our own shit over there, they'd all pretty much have their dicks in their hands at this point.

So you do know perfectly well who the real culprit of all this brouhaha is

[wufwugy]

Little to none.

What evidence is there that lax border crossing standards result in greater safety?

[wufwugy]

The ineffectiveness of western governments at creating sustained peace in the Middle East doesn't mean they are to blame. Blame those who espouse the horrible political ideologies of murder and subjugation that have taken over the regions instead.

[Jack Sawyer]

First of all, it's not a ban, if it's not permanent.

Second, have I not already answered your question?

We can make lists of people from countries with centralized governments that are friendly and willing to help us vet people.

When we ask Iran for a list, they tell us to fuck off. So we have to make our own list. And that's going to take 3 months. Until then, everyone from Iran can fuck off.

The Lord of Twitter himself called it a ban.



Syrians are on the indefinite list, other countries are supposedly pending the 90 days.

[Jack Sawyer]

The ineffectiveness of western governments at creating sustained peace in the Middle East doesn't mean they are to blame. Blame those who espouse the horrible political ideologies of murder and subjugation that have taken over the regions instead.

This is a very complex issue, but it has a few very simple actors. The blame can be spread around, and if you are lookin for a cause you will find it. As long as you are looking for it.


There is many many many layers to this, and there are many many issues going on at the same time in the Middle East. The sum of these issues manifests itself as the malaise we have on our hands right now.


In any case, the only real ways of dealing with problems is finding the actual cause(s) and fixing it(them), making the problem go away eventually. Hint: Goatfuckers Intl. aka Terror Inc. is not the cause of the disease, just a symptom.


For those that mentioned the Mossadegh incident in ’53, impressive.

[Savy]

What evidence is there that lax border crossing standards result in greater safety?

What evidence is there to suggest my post said this? I highly doubt it would result in greater safety. I just think that the positives of defence by doing something like this are minimal at best and then all the extra negatives it does like straining international relationships, pushing negative stereotypes of foreigners make it a bad idea.

[Savy]

There's also the fact that it creates a barrier for the absolutely fantastic people from other countries that want to move to America and contribute massively.

[Jack Sawyer]

TROLL LEVEL OVER 9000!!!!

https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/8...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

[BananaStand]

So you do know perfectly well who the real culprit of all this brouhaha is

Absolutely.

This 'brouhaha' was caused by an incoming president, bent on fulfilling a campaign promise and boosting his own popularity, hastily implementing a policy despite the best advice of those deemed most knowledgeable about the problem.

Remember....when Obama pulled out of Iraq.

And now here we are

[Jack Sawyer]

About Iraq

[BananaStand]

About Iraq

So the video seems to be saying that the last 40 years of conflict is all because rogue nations are trying to sell oil in currencies other than dollars. That's obviously oversimplified. I mean, ISIS isn't angry because they miss Saddam.

But if we assume there's at least some truth in this clip, aren't you glad Trump is president?

If the problems hinge on banking, currencies, and trade.......who's more qualified?

[BananaStand]

TROLL LEVEL OVER 9000!!!!

https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/8...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Kinda funny if you read through the feed. It seems anyone who disagrees either gets attacked, or ignored. And they still wonder why Trump won the election.

Two pretty awesome points
1) Carter went ape-shit on Iranian immigrants during the hostage crisis. Even had the FBI re-investigate people who were already here. No protests at airports.
2) Saudi Arabia has an empty tent city with plumbing, air conditioning, water, and room for 3 million refugees. Except they have a policy to not accept muslim refugees. Have for years apparently.

[BananaStand]

Quebec mosque attacker was student Alexandre Bissonnette.
Birth of radical Christian alt-right terror?

Can someone explain to me why this is being called a "terrorist" attack?

By definition, Terrorism requires a political motivation. The last report that I saw, used the term "terrorist attack" in the headline, but the body of the article stated that police are still unclear as to motive.

Also, 'intimidation' is a key factor in defining terrorism. By all accounts, this guy is working alone, and there is no threat, or suggestion of future violence from a larger organization. That kinda removes any ongoing fear.

If this guy is a terrorist, then so is Dylan Roof. Why are we re-branding hate crimes as terrorism when it happens at a mosque?

[Jack Sawyer]

Kinda funny if you read through the feed. It seems anyone who disagrees either gets attacked, or ignored. And they still wonder why Trump won the election.

Two pretty awesome points
1) Carter went ape-shit on Iranian immigrants during the hostage crisis. Even had the FBI re-investigate people who were already here. No protests at airports.
2) Saudi Arabia has an empty tent city with plumbing, air conditioning, water, and room for 3 million refugees. Except they have a policy to not accept muslim refugees. Have for years apparently.

Ok,I'llbite:

1) Shouldn't we learn from past mistakes? In todays information day and age, shit's gonna go down differently
2) Shouldn't you lead by example? Saudi Arabia is not the best role model in pretty much any situation, to put it nicely.

Kal Penn, btw, is born in New Jersey.

Also funny how the recurring rhetoric in the feed is:

WEE NEED A STRONGER VETTING PROCESSS!!!!

But what is the current vetting process? Do you know how it goes down?

I DUNNO, IM NO EXPERT, BUT I KNO WE NEED A STRONGER ONE

But we already have a very strong one, it's already in place

DEMOCRATS CAN JUSTIFY TREATING US CITIZENS LIKE SECOND RATE PPL NEXT TO SYRIAN REFUGEES

Wow, that escalated quickly






Oh, also this

[MadMojoMonkey]

TROLL LEVEL OVER 9000!!!!

https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/8...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Isn't this exactly the republican line, though?

We don't need to spend national tax dollars because individuals who support this will spend their own dollars. It doesn't mean that America doesn't support it, it means that our support comes from individuals as a choice rather than en masse as a mandate.

This is both sides working together as intended, but not realizing it.

[Jack Sawyer]

It goes way back. Some dude named Muhammos. Muhamalam? Mumahhad? Why am I forgetting this one? Anyways, he killed lots of people and his followers are supposed to follow him, or something. I don't really remember. Mahummad? I think that's it.

From Ben Swann himself, same dude from Pizzagate Special Edition




And another from Vox. Sorry, can only embed one vid per post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmO6RWy1v8

[wufwugy]

This is a very complex issue, but it has a few very simple actors. The blame can be spread around, and if you are lookin for a cause you will find it. As long as you are looking for it.


There is many many many layers to this, and there are many many issues going on at the same time in the Middle East. The sum of these issues manifests itself as the malaise we have on our hands right now.


In any case, the only real ways of dealing with problems is finding the actual cause(s) and fixing it(them), making the problem go away eventually. Hint: Goatfuckers Intl. aka Terror Inc. is not the cause of the disease, just a symptom.


For those that mentioned the Mossadegh incident in ’53, impressive.

I agree with all except the bolded. Islamism goes way back. Way before oil and America. Islamism was there before foreign governments provided it with a new opening.

[BananaStand]

1) Shouldn't we learn from past mistakes? In todays information day and age, shit's gonna go down differently

Who said it was a mistake?

2) Shouldn't you lead by example? Saudi Arabia is not the best role model in pretty much any situation, to put it nicely.

Lead who? Wouldn't a better example be to influence those countries who have the means to accept refugees, to do so?

Kal Penn, btw, is born in New Jersey.

Not sure why that's relevant. But good trivia I guess, thanks.

[QUOTE=Jack Sawyer;2272536]Also funny how the recurring rhetoric in the feed is

WEE NEED A STRONGER VETTING PROCESSS!!!!

Why is that funny? We do need a stronger process.

But what is the current vetting process? Do you know how it goes down?

I don't know how a lot of things work. THat doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem.

I DUNNO, IM NO EXPERT, BUT I KNO WE NEED A STRONGER ONE

I have no idea what my car does with the gas I put in it, I just know it needs some.

we already have a very strong one, it's already in place

NO WE DON'T!! And that's where the opposition to this policy fails.

If your car's engine stopped working, you'd take it to a mechanic. You'd trust that mechanic to assess the problem, and provide a solution. You do this because you lack the expertise and intimate knowledge of engines to diagnose and fix the problem yourself. So when the mechanic says "you need a new engine", you believe him.

What we have here, is liberals pointing to their broke-down car and saying "but it already has an engine"

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fb...or-ties-video/
Our "mechanic" in this case is the FBI and other national intelligence agencies who are actually the ones responsible for vetting people coming in to the US. They have stated, publicly, that they do not have the procedures and information necessary to vet people. They are telling you that your car needs a new engine.

Anyone who says "we already have a good vetting process" is claiming to be more of an expert, and have more information, then the Director of the FBI.

[wufwugy]

From Ben Swann himself, same dude from Pizzagate Special Edition

Yep.

And ISIS is a renaissance. The caliphate goes back to Muhammad.

[wufwugy]

What evidence is there to suggest my post said this? I highly doubt it would result in greater safety. I just think that the positives of defence by doing something like this are minimal at best and then all the extra negatives it does like straining international relationships, pushing negative stereotypes of foreigners make it a bad idea.

What are you arguing for? Open borders?

[Jack Sawyer]

Not sure why that's relevant. But good trivia I guess, thanks.

Because for whatever reason I knew you would see right around that. See, this whole beef started because some other dude told this dude, Kal Penn, that he doesn’t belong in America. He, and American born and raised in New Jersey, was told that he doesn’t belong in America.


Why? Such an odd thing to say right?


Oh, that’s right, his name is Indian. He looks very much Punjabi. He speaks with a particular accent. You can see where that is going.


He then started a fundraising page for Syrian refugees in his name. Initially with a $2500 goal, and in less that 2 days, they raised 3/4 of a mirrion

[Jack Sawyer]

What we have here, is liberals pointing to their broke-down car and saying "but it already has an engine"


http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fb...or-ties-video/
Our "mechanic" in this case is the FBI and other national intelligence agencies who are actually the ones responsible for vetting people coming in to the US. They have stated, publicly, that they do not have the procedures and information necessary to vet people. They are telling you that your car needs a new engine.


Anyone who says "we already have a good vetting process" is claiming to be more of an expert, and have more information, then the Director of the FBI.

James Comey? Please.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...efugee-crisis/


“I Went Through America’s Extreme Vetting
I’m a Syrian refugee. Trust me, it’s plenty tough.”


http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...vetting-214703




https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...g-process.html


http://lancasteronline.com/news/loca...d615e5030.html


“How long does the vetting process take?


The U.S. Department of State says on its website that the average processing time is 18-24 months.”


What do you want to accomplish adding 90-120 more days to that? Syrians got *kband though


“Individual cases may vary vastly, as LNP learned from interviews with refugees resettled in Lancaster. Mustafa Nuur, of Somalia, on the other hand, underwent six years of health screenings and invasive interviews before entering the U.S.”




http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-process-work/


“Syrians initially file refugee claims with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which then refers them to the U.S. government. The process has no guarantee of approval and takes so long — Syrians wait nearly three years for approval to come to the U.S. — that experts said it would be a longshot for an extremist group to rely on the refugee program as a way to sneak someone into the United States. The Islamic State group has had far more success appealing to people already living inside the United States to commit or conspire to commit violence. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told lawmakers this week that roughly 70 people have been charged with crimes related to foreign-fighter activity and homegrown violent extremism since 2013.”

[Jack Sawyer]

Yep.

And ISIS is a renaissance. The caliphate goes back to Muhammad.

Religious extremism is one of the main problems yes, not only Isis.


Terrorism needs weapons. Weapon manufacturers need customers. Wars need both.


Ever seen “Lord of War”?

[wufwugy]

Religious extremism is one of the main problems yes, not only Isis.


Terrorism needs weapons. Weapon manufacturers need customers. Wars need both.


Ever seen “Lord of War”?

Good movie.

You're right as long as we're talking contributions. As long as we're talking cause, it's different. Tons of places and people have tons of weaponry and don't use them for murder, rape, and enslavement. Islamism does. The cause is Islamism.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Good movie.

You're right as long as we're talking contributions. As long as we're talking cause, it's different. Tons of places and people have tons of weaponry and don't use them for murder, rape, and enslavement. Islamism does. The cause is Islamism.

You're wrong in that isn't the whole story; you pick and choose which parts of it favor your narrative.

It's as though you don't believe there is such a thing as Muslim police. It's as though you believe that if a billion people wanted to invade you, they'd be stopped by anything short of all out war. It's as though you believe that Muslim nations don't have their own international economic and security concerns which are shit-canned by terrorist activity. It's as though you believe that all the various Muslim extremist groups have the same agenda.

It's as though you don't believe there are Christian extremists and Jewish extremists which cite their own religious scriptures as justification of violence.

It's not cool.

[BananaStand]

Because for whatever reason I knew you would see right around that. See, this whole beef started because some other dude told this dude, Kal Penn, that he doesn’t belong in America.

Well I didn't know the backstory, most of the "problem" was blurred out.

James Comey? Please.

Really dude? Really? I know it's fun sometimes to talk about "those idiots in Washington". But when it's time to get real, you have to admit that these are all highly educated, exceptionally driven, and wildly successful people. James Comey is not an idiot.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said in response to a line of questioning from Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson.

“And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

What he's saying there, is that there is no source of proper information. If he was wrong, someone would have come along in the last fifteen months and said "nah dude...we got what you need right here". Instead, seems that the only ones bellowing about our already great vetting procedures are open-border-loving lib-tards who happen to be well travelled just enough to act like know-it-alls.

Lots of irrelevant anecdotes

Look, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find all kinds of horror stories of one or two people who got a hard time that shouldn't have. Shit happens. Most of what I see in those articles is people being "invasively interviewed". Big deal. If a ISIS fighter were posing as a refugee, he's probably prepared to keep secrets while being tortured at a CIA blacksite. Your 'invasive interview' doesn't intimidate him.

Unless that guy has done something to make him visible to US intelligence we can interrogate him, like Comey said, "til teh cows come home" and it won't matter. Its totally irrelevant that the process takes 18-24 months. It could be 18-24 years. That doesn't make it better, or safer. What would make it better is if we could call Syria and ask "did this guy ever pop on your radar? When? With whom? etc etc". Syria won't take the call. So....we have to come up with something better on our own. Until we do, close the book

[wufwugy]

You're wrong in that isn't the whole story; you pick and choose which parts of it favor your narrative.

It's as though you don't believe there is such a thing as Muslim police. It's as though you believe that if a billion people wanted to invade you, they'd be stopped by anything short of all out war. It's as though you believe that Muslim nations don't have their own international economic and security concerns which are shit-canned by terrorist activity. It's as though you believe that all the various Muslim extremist groups have the same agenda.

It's as though you don't believe there are Christian extremists and Jewish extremists which cite their own religious scriptures as justification of violence.

It's not cool.

You're talking about something very different than I am.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're talking about something very different than I am.

No.
You're choosing your words to include all Islamic terrorists under one banner, and to blame the Islamic scripture as the cause.

You're choosing your words to paint a picture where only non-Muslims are fighting these militants.

You're choosing your words to vilify people who are on your side.


If I'm talking about something different, it's only due to your poorly chosen words.
I believe you know this, and continue to choose those words. Your choice to add insult and ignorance to your position is not my fault.

[BananaStand]

No.
You're choosing your words to include all Islamic terrorists under one banner, and to blame the Islamic scripture as the cause.

You're choosing your words to paint a picture where only non-Muslims are fighting these militants.

You're choosing your words to vilify people who are on your side.

I don't think you're entirely wrong here. But you're a long way from entirely right. I mean, ISIS didn't just sit around a bonfire one night brainstorming ideas to come up with this Caliphate. The notion of a world with one race, practicing one religion, under one set of laws, with no fucking compromises, is most definitely called out in Islamic scripture.

There are more than a few muslim-majority countries, including US allies, where 25%, 35%, even 50+% of the population believes that attacking civilian targets to influence political action is justified. Why do you think so many of them practice polygamy? Is it because they love little kids? No, their scripture tells them to reproduce more than the infidels with the goal of driving them to extinction, leaving only muslims. An attack doesn't necessarily require an explosion. The law-abiding, western-styled, peacefully living arab guy with 5 wives and 14 kids, in my opinion, is just as guilty of Jihad as a soldier with a gun.

I related a story in a post a while back about a priest who gave one ten minute sermon and got a whole town full of catholics to shut the fuck up about abortion for a few months. Why is it that a religion with 1.6 billion members can't keep itself from sprouting large branches of extremism?

There are billions of christians in the world too. Only a very small handful have ever shot up an abortion clinic. Christianity keeps its message consistent worldwide. Don't friggen kill people. Where is the voice of Islam? What are the peace-loving Muslims doing to maintain unity within their religion?

I recall people being outraged at that lady who held the 'draw muhammed' art contest. They were outraged because of the offense to Muslims. Though more specifically, I think the backlash was motivated considerably by fear of Muslim reprisal. We KNOW it pisses them off, and we know when they're pissed off, they kill people. So don't piss them off.

Yet I doubt very much they bothered to beef up security at the Nahem gallery after they displayed "Piss Christ"

See the difference?

[wufwugy]

No.
You're choosing your words to include all Islamic terrorists under one banner, and to blame the Islamic scripture as the cause.

I have claimed that Islamism is Islamism. This was response to the notion that Islamism is emergent from separatism. While some terrorism in the ME can be attributed to separatism and the like, most is Islamist. The idea that the West is causing the problems is such a dangerous idea because it downplays the root of the problem.

You're choosing your words to paint a picture where only non-Muslims are fighting these militants.

You're choosing your words to vilify people who are on your side.

Confirmation bias. I don't talk about generic Muslims much, and those who have suffered the most from ME terrorism and Islamists are Muslims.

[wufwugy]

Islamists hate non-Islamist Muslims even more than Christian gays that they hog-tie and launch off buildings.

[Jack Sawyer]

Look, I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you'll find all kinds of horror stories of one or two people who got a hard time that shouldn't have. Shit happens. Most of what I see in those articles is people being "invasively interviewed". Big deal. If a ISIS fighter were posing as a refugee, he's probably prepared to keep secrets while being tortured at a CIA blacksite. Your 'invasive interview' doesn't intimidate him.


Unless that guy has done something to make him visible to US intelligence we can interrogate him, like Comey said, "til teh cows come home" and it won't matter. Its totally irrelevant that the process takes 18-24 months. It could be 18-24 years. That doesn't make it better, or safer. What would make it better is if we could call Syria and ask "did this guy ever pop on your radar? When? With whom? etc etc". Syria won't take the call. So....we have to come up with something better on our own. Until we do, close the book

Yeah, James "A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION I GOT DIRT ON HILLARY OH SHIT TURNS OUT I AINT GOT SHIT ON HILLARY" Mother-fucking Comey. Pardon me if I don't give a shit about what he says or has said, because he has demonstrated to have an agenda. Oh lookee, he's gonna keep his job as FBI director under Trump. How fortunate for him.


And that "an isis fighter will slip through the cracks" rhetoric is very difficult for it to happen. He or she will have to not engage in any kind of terror activities for years in order to be vetted. Difficult for a terrorist to do. We are talking Manchurian candidate levels of difficulty here. Bucky from captain America for the youngins.


While it's possible, the degree of difficulty is quite up there. Also, after they are in, your buddy over at FBI seems to be particularly interested in mass surveillance, As FBI only operates within US borders, you get what that means.


Seems much easier to radicalize one who is already in position. Just a thought.






Your position is tinfoilhatty. Really close to paranoia actually.


PS How are the stories of people who actually went through the vetting process at hand “lots of irrelevant anecdotes”? I did not post about that time I went to Baskin’ Robbins’ now did I?

[wufwugy]

We shouldn't give credence to the idea that separatism and similar types of violence have a marked role in the ME. So, my bad.

Much of the ME was westernizing and loving it. The Islamists loathed it yet they were weakened because the pull of western prosperity was so enticing. The dueling between US and Russia opened the door for the Islamists to put the burkas and chains back on all the westernized women. It was never about separatism so much as it was about the Islamists' on par with Nazism ideology.

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that deeply fundamentalist regimes naturally arise out of war. US and Russia proxy war in Afghanistan was a big problem that opened the door for the oppressive forces it has today.

[BananaStand]

Yeah, James "A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION I GOT DIRT ON HILLARY OH SHIT TURNS OUT I AINT GOT SHIT ON HILLARY" Mother-fucking Comey. Pardon me if I don't give a shit about what he says or has said, because he has demonstrated to have an agenda. Oh lookee, he's gonna keep his job as FBI director under Trump. How fortunate for him.

His comments on this issue came in late 2015, when Ann Coulter was the only one in the world who thought Trump had half a chance. And whatever he said during the election was his duty. At worst, it was a catch 22. If he kept his mouth shut, he could still be guilty of violating the Hatch act. And besides...it's not just comey who says this about our vetting process.

Furthermore, Comey's complaint is a lack of a process. If there was a process, he could be easily proven wrong. It's been over a year since he said that, and no one has refuted it, except lib-tards on twitter who say "I worked for such and such, so I saw what happened to people, so now I'm an expert, nyahhh"

And that "an isis fighter will slip through the cracks" rhetoric is very difficult for it to happen

.
I dont' care that it's very difficult. I want it to be impossible. And we're not just talking about ISIS fighters. Look at the situation in sweden. They let in common criminals with their refugees, now it's rape-city.

He or she will have to not engage in any kind of terror activities for years in order to be vetted. Difficult for a terrorist to do. We are talking Manchurian candidate levels of difficulty here. Bucky from captain America for the youngins.

Dude....are you even listening to the other side of the argument? Or are you just hell-bent on believing that you know everything there is to know about our vetting procedures and how to circumvent it. Leaders of national intelligence totally disagree with what you're saying here. Why are you insisting that it's true?

I'll repeat it for you again. It is entirely possible for a person to have contact with terrorist operatives, visit terrorist facilities, obtain training, and still be totally invisible to US intelligence. It's not like we have eyes and ears all over Raqqa. It's possible for someone to seek refuge that we've never seen before. Just because we haven't seen him before, doesn't mean he's full of good intentions.

Seems much easier to radicalize one who is already in position. Just a thought.

Pretty sure I've read/heard that ISIS's own publications and propaganda are suggesting that people from the Middle east try and get to the west via refugee programs. That demands a response. Just because one front is 'easier' doesn't mean that ISIS won't try to fight us on both. Seems much easier for ISIS to stop being fudge-knots and act like civilized people. They don't seem interested in that though.

Also, going back to your previous point about a manchurian candidate. If it's so easy for ISIS to radicalize someone already in America.....how easy would it be for them to radicalize someone in Mosul, or Fallujah, or Damascus? Possibly someone who's never done a thing to make a blip on the US radar?

Your position is tinfoilhatty. Really close to paranoia actually.

Really? You need a tinfoil hat to believe the sworn statements from the leaders of America's national intelligence agencies? Trusting the credibility of those people is paranoid?

PS How are the stories of people who actually went through the vetting process at hand “lots of irrelevant anecdotes”?

Because it doesn't explain how the US was able to make a determination on their admittance or not. We're only hearing one side of the story. It doesn't tell us what information we're using, or what intelligence we're gathering in order to execute the vetting process. Granted, that information should be secret for security reasons, so I understand why it's not in the article. But we should still hear both sides of the story. Right now, the other side comes in the form of national intelligence officials saying "what we have isn't good enough"

I did not post about that time I went to Baskin’ Robbins’ now did I?

Would have been more relevant. Which flavor you get?

[wufwugy]

I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe.

I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children.

The high quantity of admitted refugees to European countries that do not work and are on welfare and commit violent crime and turn their regions into ghettos is staggering.

These "refugees" are a lie.

[wufwugy]

The sad part is that the majority are legit refugees of a sort.

Trump is fixing the problem with safe zones. They will have a combined effect of providing for real refugees what they need and starving ISIS.

[OngBonga]

Isn't "safe zone" just an unofficial name for "no-fly zone"? Because that causes many more problems than it solves.

[wufwugy]

Isn't "safe zone" just an unofficial name for "no-fly zone"? Because that causes many more problems than it solves.

No, they're not referring to that.

Details are not out on exactly how they will be created and maintained, but so far Saudi Arabia is on board. The idea is that a handful of key geographic areas will be militarily defended by a coalition that ISIS can't defeat. All people fleeing ISIS will be welcomed into them. It is likely there will be a big campaign to get as many women into these safe zones as possible. ISIS would then have virtually no ability to recruit -- because their spoils are the women -- and defections would skyrocket.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe.

So you're against gun ownership, now?
Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?

Americans who have been photographed with guns and have been in gangs and imprisoned eventually get out of prison and are let back directly into the USA.
They can swear that they are not reformed and that they will commit more crimes and we still let them out of prison because their sentence for the crimes they were caught committing has been served.
This is called American justice.
You against that, too?

I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children.

What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?

The high quantity of admitted refugees to European countries that do not work and are on welfare and commit violent crime and turn their regions into ghettos is staggering.

These "refugees" are a lie.

Those refugees are criminals, and those are 2 separate issues.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, they're not referring to that.

Details are not out on exactly how they will be created and maintained, but so far Saudi Arabia is on board. The idea is that a handful of key geographic areas will be militarily defended by a coalition that ISIS can't defeat. All people fleeing ISIS will be welcomed into them. It is likely there will be a big campaign to get as many women into these safe zones as possible. ISIS would then have virtually no ability to recruit -- because their spoils are the women -- and defections would skyrocket.

I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?

[wufwugy]

Clearly what I say doesn't matter.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf:
No judicial system is perfect. Some innocents will be wrongfully punished. Some guilty will be wrongfully set free.
How shall we handle our imperfections?

How many innocent Americans should be imprisoned to prevent any guilty Americans from eluding the system?
How many guilty Americans should be acceptably allowed to be free, so that we minimize the imprisonment of innocents?

Where do you strike balance? Because assuming that you can have a perfect judicial system is fantasy.


***
Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of letting a few criminals be free than risk depriving innocents of their rights.
But then, I'm no coward who thinks it's the gov't's job to coddle me with safety.
Whatever Ben Franklin meant, I'm not interested in trading my essential liberties to purchase a bit of security. I'm certainly not interested in trading anyone else's essential liberties on my behalf.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Clearly what I say doesn't matter.

I'm interested in understanding. If you ignore my honest attempts to understand you, then don't pretend it's on me for not paying attention.

[BananaStand]

I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?

I think it's kinda like when you want to open a legit business, but still need the informal permission of the local Mafia boss.

He's still a vile criminal, but it's still best to avoid rubbing him the wrong way.

[wufwugy]

So you're against gun ownership, now?

What I said doesn't suggest that.

Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?

What I said doesn't suggest that.

Americans who have been photographed with guns and have been in gangs and imprisoned eventually get out of prison and are let back directly into the USA.
They can swear that they are not reformed and that they will commit more crimes and we still let them out of prison because their sentence for the crimes they were caught committing has been served.
This is called American justice.
You against that, too?

Derived from premise my words didn't suggest.

What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?

Not suggested by what I said.

Those refugees are criminals, and those are 2 separate issues.

Importing criminals is not a separate issue from importing criminals.

I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?

Because reality.

@wuf:
No judicial system is perfect. Some innocents will be wrongfully punished. Some guilty will be wrongfully set free.
How shall we handle our imperfections?

How many innocent Americans should be imprisoned to prevent any guilty Americans from eluding the system?
How many guilty Americans should be acceptably allowed to be free, so that we minimize the imprisonment of innocents?

Where do you strike balance? Because assuming that you can have a perfect judicial system is fantasy.


***
Personally, I'd prefer to err on the side of letting a few criminals be free than risk depriving innocents of their rights.
But then, I'm no coward who thinks it's the gov't's job to coddle me with safety.
Whatever Ben Franklin meant, I'm not interested in trading my essential liberties to purchase a bit of security. I'm certainly not interested in trading anyone else's essential liberties on my behalf.

I'm not sure why this is directed at me. How is this related to trying to import fewer terrorists?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What I said doesn't suggest that.

What I said doesn't suggest that.

Derived from premise my words didn't suggest.

Then what is your point with this observation?
"I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."

I thought you were saying this is bad. If you were, in fact, saying this is exactly appropriate, then I absolutely misunderstood you.

If you're saying it's bad, then based on what?
What is your actual premise, I mean.

Not suggested by what I said.

Then what do you mean with this observation?
"I've also seen a ton of photos of refugee masses made up of mostly robust, well-fed men, with very few women and children."

I can't find any motivation to say this if not to suggest that this is a problem.
If you're suggesting that it's a problem, then upon what basis do you posit such?

Importing criminals is not a separate issue from importing criminals.

Of course not.
Making a 1:1 equation of "refugee" to "criminal" is your mistake, here.

Depriving the society of the intelligence, innovation and hard work of non-criminal immigrants is the kind of economic problem I'd expect you to put more weight on than this.

Because reality.

Don't cop out.
Which aspect(s) of reality?

I'm not sure why this is directed at me. How is this related to trying to import fewer terrorists?

Because you're willing to stop all refugee immigration to nullify some of their bad behavior.
"How many innocents is acceptable to punish in the name of the guilty?" seems a core question to elucidate where you're coming from.

[wufwugy]

Here I'll try again:

So you're against gun ownership, now?

The probability of those people being real refugees is very, very low. The probability of them being the enemy is very high.

Or what, you think the appropriate punishment for all crimes is life in prison or capital punishment?

Taking measures to minimize importation of enemies isn't an endorsement of what the enemies do to non-enemies.

What are you saying? That you should be the arbiter of who has which needs?

Refugees typically make up women and children, not well-fed men.

I thought Saudi Arabia was a hotbed of evil and iniquity to you? How is having them on board a plus to you?

Even bad people can do the right thing at times. As bad as Saudi Arabia is, defeating ISIS will take allying with SA.

[wufwugy]

Depriving the society of the intelligence, innovation and hard work of non-criminal immigrants is the kind of economic problem I'd expect you to put more weight on than this.

Fantastic point. It's not what's going on in the "refugee" situation, however. The problems brought with them are far higher than normal. They include everything from economic drain to terrorism.

Because you're willing to stop all refugee immigration to nullify some of their bad behavior.
"How many innocents is acceptable to punish in the name of the guilty?" seems a core question to elucidate where you're coming from.

Entry to the US is a privilege. US residents being defended from enemies is a right. Smart immigration policy is smart. Extreme vetting and temporary banning until problems can be fixed is the least that can be done to ensure the outcomes are the best.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Here I'll try again:

TY

The probability of those people being real refugees is very, very low. The probability of them being the enemy is very high.

A) You're guessing, man.
B) Even if you're right, so what?
(see above point about American justice and tell me how this doesn't apply, here.)

Taking measures to minimize importation of enemies isn't an endorsement of what the enemies do to non-enemies.

What about taking measures to maximize importation of allies?

Where do you strike a balance?

Refugees typically make up women and children, not well-fed men.

A) Source, please.
W/o data to back this up, you are only supporting the impression that you are claiming the ability to identify an innocent from a guilty based on their age and gender.

B) Are you saying your position on immigration reform that we should only admit women and children?

I feel confident that I still don't see where you're coming from on this one.

Even bad people can do the right thing at times. As bad as Saudi Arabia is, defeating ISIS will take allying with SA.

Cool.

Why doesn't this temper your stance on the prior points.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fantastic point. It's not what's going on in the "refugee" situation, however. The problems brought with them are far higher than normal. They include everything from economic drain to terrorism.

This is a myopic POV for an economist to take, though, right?

Of course when impoverished, but well meaning and hard-working people need help there is an immediate and short-term economic drain. That's what it means to need help.
However, that help is short-lived and the immediate investment will yield solid ROI for decades if not generations, yeah?

Entry to the US is a privilege. US residents being defended from enemies is a right. Smart immigration policy is smart. Extreme vetting and temporary banning until problems can be fixed is the least that can be done to ensure the outcomes are the best.

Smart immigration needs to do both:
Maximize the number of innocent and productive immigrants
Minimize the number of criminal and non-productive immigrants

Harping on one side to the ignorance of the other is bad economic policy.