Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Not that I am defending Israel, but we obliterated two civilian cities to end a war. You cant just expect a country to sit back and let its civilians get terrorized and do nothing in response.

That was declared war against a country, though. This is Israel bombing entire villages over the actions of one terrorist not affiliated with the government. It's slightly different.

 

Also, the US had bombers flying over Hiroshima and Nagasaki for days before the bombings, dropping...flyers. Flyers printed in Japanese and warning the population to leave or risk being, you know, nuked. Israel gives Palestinian civilians no such courtesy.

 

Quote:So hamass should be hels harmless for using schools and villages as vases for their rocket fire?

No, Hamas should pay. They should pay with their lives. Thing is, the five-year-old kid on the playground that just got turned into a smoldering crater is not a member of Hamas. His older brother who was two blocks away probably just became one, though. Israel has the most sophisticated and brutally effective secret service in the world: the Mossad. The only reason I can figure for bombing villages instead of using the Mossad to quietly take out Hamas members is to send a message to Palestine. In modern parlance, the practice of using extreme violence to send a message is known as...wait for it...terrorism.

Looks like the state governors, including Florida governor Skeletor, are rallying against accepting refugees.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/sy...ect-215927

 

They can't actually block them, but this does send a message.

Quote:Looks like the state governors, including Florida governor Skeletor, are rallying against accepting refugees.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/sy...ect-215927

 

They can't actually block them, but this does send a message.

How dare you insult Skeletor by comparing him to Rick Scott! Besides, Scott looks a lot more like Bat Boy.

 

But yeah, my take on the refugees: I don't think a great number of ISIS operatives are coming across. In fact, I think ISIS actually wants us to deny asylum to refugees in hopes that it drives a further wedge between the US and the Middle Eastern Muslim population. It's also worth pointing out here that the attackers in Paris were all there legally, and none were refugees.

 

That said, I think we have to look at the reality of the situation we're in. There are tens of thousands of people wanting to escape a war-torn country--a country in which one of the major warring factions is a terrorist group that has demonstrated numerous times that they will go to any lengths to kill westerners wherever they can find them. Denying asylum to the 99.999-ish% of refugees who are just trying to escape a terrible situation won't build us any new bridges with that part of the world, but I just can't find any particularly good, compelling reason to risk letting ISIS sympathizers into the US right now. It's a no-win situation for us, really. If we shut down the flow of refugees, we basically give ISIS what it wants. If we keep holding the doors open, even if by a crack, we're inviting them to come on over.

 

As much as I hate to suggest internment camps (again), I think that ultimately might be the best solution. Refugees are welcome to come over, but they live under tightly-controlled conditions in an enclosed environment (like a military base) while it's determined via personality assessment, interviews and monitoring of daily activities whether or not they harbor the sort of anger or resentment towards the west that would lead them down the road to ISIS.

Quote: 

 

 

 

As much as I hate to suggest internment camps (again), I think that ultimately might be the best solution. Refugees are welcome to come over, but they live under tightly-controlled conditions in an enclosed environment (like a military base) while it's determined via personality assessment, interviews and monitoring of daily activities whether or not they harbor the sort of anger or resentment towards the west that would lead them down the road to ISIS.

These are a people who are extremely patient and methodical in everything they do. I honestly believe they could live in these conditions for as long as they had to with no sign of anger, resentment, etc., knowing the endgame which is to get out and do their dirty work. They have what us Americans don't. An infinite amount of patience and self control when they know the endgame. 

Quote:These are a people who are extremely patient and methodical in everything they do. I honestly believe they could live in these conditions for as long as they had to with no sign of anger, resentment, etc., knowing the endgame which is to get out and do their dirty work. They have what us Americans don't. An infinite amount of patience and self control when they know the endgame. 

But there has to be some kind of medium. From a humanitarian perspective, simply saying, "Nope, none of you can come over because one of you might be a terrorist," is a tough sentence to blurt out. Protecting Americans has to be priority number one, but we can't just turn a blind eye to the reality that the overwhelmingly vast majority of refugees are just that--refugees. By hosting them indefinitely in internment camps until such time as they can either be safely returned to Syria or granted a visa to stay in the US, we offer them a way out while keeping ourselves safe. I don't like the idea of letting Syrians walk free onto US soil after minimal vetting of their identities (if they're vetted at all), but I also don't think that slamming the door entirely is the responsible, humanitarian way out of this.

Quote:But there has to be some kind of medium. From a humanitarian perspective, simply saying, "Nope, none of you can come over because one of you might be a terrorist," is a tough sentence to blurt out. Protecting Americans has to be priority number one, but we can't just turn a blind eye to the reality that the overwhelmingly vast majority of refugees are just that--refugees. By hosting them indefinitely in internment camps until such time as they can either be safely returned to Syria or granted a visa to stay in the US, we offer them a way out while keeping ourselves safe. I don't like the idea of letting Syrians walk free onto US soil after minimal vetting of their identities (if they're vetted at all), but I also don't think that slamming the door entirely is the responsible, humanitarian way out of this.

I agree and it's a difficult position we are in. On the one hand it totally makes sense to say no and close the borders for safety reasons, but on the other there is a true humanitarian issue. 

Quote:I agree and it's a difficult position we are in. On the one hand it totally makes sense to say no and close the borders for safety reasons, but on the other there is a true humanitarian issue. 

And that's where I'm left scratching my head. Not allowing any more refugees to come over I understand. Restraining refugees to a controlled environment indefinitely I understand, but accelerating the timetable to accept thousands more refugees? It just doesn't make sense.

Quote:Please do not forget that we created ISIS.  They were Obama's so-called "junior varsity", the "moderate" rebels we armed to take on Assad in the phony "civil war" in Syria.  There was never a civil war  - the forces trying to remove Assad were always from outside of Syria.  It has always been a proxy war led by the U.S. / U.K. / Israel / Saudis to oust Assad so a natural gas pipeline could be run through Syria to the coast.  

 

That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Quote:...

 

The US created Al Qaeda when it abandoned the Mujahideen after giving them loads of state-of-the-art weaponry. It largely created ISIS when it "liberated" Iraq, leaving behind, again, lots of weapons for the new radicals to find. We're like some kind of failed Batman. We keep creating our own villains, we just don't know how to stop the Joker from gassing Gotham.

 

The arms supplied to the Mujahideen were nowhere near "state-of-the-art".  In fact, they were mostly older, outdated Russian and Chinese weapons.  This was a covert operation by the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI).  The weapons all came from communist countries.

 

Quote:...

 

But yeah, my take on the refugees: I don't think a great number of ISIS operatives are coming across. In fact, I think ISIS actually wants us to deny asylum to refugees in hopes that it drives a further wedge between the US and the Middle Eastern Muslim population. It's also worth pointing out here that the attackers in Paris were all there legally, and none were refugees.

 

...

 

That is very naive and is further from fact than you realize.  I would suggest first reading up on the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims.  As I linked to before, I would suggest that you learn about the Salafi movement and Wahhabism.  This is what the regional conflict is all about and why groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS (just to name a few) form.

Quote:And that's where I'm left scratching my head. Not allowing any more refugees to come over I understand. Restraining refugees to a controlled environment indefinitely I understand, but accelerating the timetable to accept thousands more refugees? It just doesn't make sense.

This is what I found when looking for a way the State Department decides on how many refugees and the cost, etc. The state official does somewhat answer how the process works though it's not a concise answer by any means. Imagine that. It's dated 25 September 2015 so it's fairly recent, but before the bombings in Beruit and attacks in Paris. This is one of many questions asked by Americans through phone calls. Very interesting yet not really informational. There is a question and answer about how they come up with numbers.

 

Background briefing on the United States Refugee Admissions Program

 

<b>QUESTION:</b> Could you tell us, please, what the range of numbers is? You say you want to – the Secretary wants to increase the number of refugees that are admitted, so what is the range you’re looking at and what does that cost? And then it seems that part of the problem is vetting, in that the UN has submitted a list but it takes a long time to vet these people. Are you looking at committing more resources to speed up that vetting process? Thank you.

 

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:'Lucida Grande', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b>SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:</b> The Secretary talked about a range of different numbers, but I will not be sharing them with you today. And there was varying views within the group from the judiciary committees of the House and Senate about how receptive they were to increasing the numbers of refugees coming.

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:'Lucida Grande', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">And the process to bring refugees here is careful and deliberate, and that’s – as a result, it takes a while. It takes between 18 to 24 months between when a refugee is referred to us and when they – if approved, when they end up arriving in the United States. And a big reason for this is the care that’s put into the security vetting for them. It involves several aspects. Part of it is that every refugee has their sort of case file put together with help from organizations that we fund overseas, and then those files and the refugees’ families themselves are interviewed by someone from the Department of Homeland Security, from USCIS. And then we also check their names against a whole series of U.S. Government databases to make sure that they’re not already in there – some sort of derogatory information about them.

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:'Lucida Grande', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">What we’re trying to do is weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would-be terrorists. And this is something that slows down the process and it’s taken very seriously by everyone involved in it.

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:'Lucida Grande', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:'Lucida Grande', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;font-size:12px;">And in the interest of saving some time, wikipedia FWIW.  

The last I checked, one of the attackers did indeed have a Syrian Passport and entered the country under the pretext of being a refugee.  The truth of the matter is this, we can talk about robust vetting until the cows come home.  Vet them against what?  ISIS doesn't have a Social security department that registers all its affiliates and members.  There is no hall of registry for people who have been recruited by ISIS to participate in or incite attacks against our homeland. 

 

Given the fact that you have an inordinate opportunity for infiltration, we also have to consider the demographic composition of the "refugees."  right now we believe that roughly 80% are MILITARY AGE MALES.  let that sink in a minute before you respond.  This isn't a normal contingent of women and children who just need food and water.  This has all the markings of a quiet cultural INVASION.  

 

There is no reason to bring anyone these people here.  The entire premise of bringing refugees to this country is that we fundamentally concede that we will not make any territorial gains against ISIS and it's caliphate.  That's insanity to me.  Carpet bomb a strip of land, drive the enemy out.  Secure the area and establish a safezone.   The idea that we would be rushing headlong to expedite the arrival of unknown foreign assets from this region at this point in time is a betrayal of the governments constitutional responsibility to protect us as citizens!  It defies logic, just like denying 600 security requests defied logic, just like not leaving troops in Iraq defied logic, just like hoarding people onto a website they knew didn't work defied logic, just like not telling millions of americans that their networks and or doctors would be changing defied logic.  

Quote:The last I checked, one of the attackers did indeed have a Syrian Passport and entered the country under the pretext of being a refugee.  The truth of the matter is this, we can talk about robust vetting until the cows come home.  Vet them against what?  ISIS doesn't have a Social security department that registers all its affiliates and members.  There is no hall of registry for people who have been recruited by ISIS to participate in or incite attacks against our homeland. 

 

Given the fact that you have an inordinate opportunity for infiltration, we also have to consider the demographic composition of the "refugees."  right now we believe that roughly 80% are MILITARY AGE MALES.  let that sink in a minute before you respond.  This isn't a normal contingent of women and children who just need food and water.  This has all the markings of a quiet cultural INVASION.  

 

There is no reason to bring anyone these people here.  The entire premise of bringing refugees to this country is that we fundamentally concede that we will not make any territorial gains against ISIS and it's caliphate.  That's insanity to me.  Carpet bomb a strip of land, drive the enemy out.  Secure the area and establish a safezone.   The idea that we would be rushing headlong to expedite the arrival of unknown foreign assets from this region at this point in time is a betrayal of the governments constitutional responsibility to protect us as citizens!  It defies logic, just like denying 600 security requests defied logic, just like not leaving troops in Iraq defied logic, just like hoarding people onto a website they knew didn't work defied logic, just like not telling millions of americans that their networks and or doctors would be changing defied logic.  

If you were any more xenophobic, I'd have to build a fence in your yard.

Verifiable facts and reasoned conclusions vs. namecalling.

Quote:Verifiable facts and reasoned conclusions vs. namecalling.

Yes, equating a refugee crisis to a "quiet cultural INVASION" just screams "reasoned conclusion". 80% of Syrian refugees are not out to take over the west. Now go build your fence. I'll make you a tinfoil hat.

Quote:Yes, equating a refugee crisis to a "quiet cultural INVASION" just screams "reasoned conclusion". 80% of Syrian refugees are not out to take over the west. Now go build your fence. I'll make you a tinfoil hat.

 

It is a cultural invasion. They don't assimilate and outbreed American citizens 4:1. Shoveling them in here by the thousands is a cultural invasion. 10% of Syrian refugees support ISIS. You bring in 200,000 like Obama wants, 20,000 of them are radicalized. Sorry, should not happen. If they need a safe space, the world needs to come together and create it in the middle east.

80% are military aged men. That is disproportionate to any sample of the population.


I find it interesting that you have to misstate my points.


I also find it interesting that the head of the fbi is saying we already have close to 1000 open terror investigations and that at CURRENT we are stressing the levels of the system. He has also conceded tjat there is no way to truly vet these people.


Its amazing that somehow all muslim nations escape the DIRE HUMANITARIAN REQUIREMENT. to take in their bretheren while the main target of aggression is expected to martyr itself.

And all it takes is one.

Quote:If you were any more xenophobic, I'd have to build a fence in your yard.

 

Xenophobia is irrational fear. There's nothing irrational about his comments as Paris outright proves.

Quote:But there has to be some kind of medium. From a humanitarian perspective, simply saying, "Nope, none of you can come over because one of you might be a terrorist," is a tough sentence to blurt out. Protecting Americans has to be priority number one, but we can't just turn a blind eye to the reality that the overwhelmingly vast majority of refugees are just that--refugees. By hosting them indefinitely in internment camps until such time as they can either be safely returned to Syria or granted a visa to stay in the US, we offer them a way out while keeping ourselves safe. I don't like the idea of letting Syrians walk free onto US soil after minimal vetting of their identities (if they're vetted at all), but I also don't think that slamming the door entirely is the responsible, humanitarian way out of this.

I'm fine with saying no the boarders closed. At this point humanitarianism be damned we can't tell the good guys from bad guys so everyone stays out.

Humanitarianism involves food water and safety. Flying someone around the world to this country is symbolic feel goodism.

I read an article somewhere yesterday that said it would cost X amount of dollars to resettle refugees here while it would cost a fraction of that in refugee camps through the UNHCR. I can't find the story now.

 

I understand what it's like to live in fear of your neighbors/neighborhood. To constantly be afraid of drive-by shootings, possible armed burglary, rape, etc. It's not the same as a war zone, but in context it was as bad for me in those conditions as it is for the true refugees in their situations. But there are refugee camps over there that, if funded properly, would meet the needs of these folks until they could be resettled in their own or nearby countries. They would not be forced to stay in their homes/towns/villages, they would be sheltered and fed. But apparently we have to bring a butt ton of folks here. To a country that is trillions of dollars in debt and can't even (or are unwilling) to help the people in need here (and I don't mean the cling-ons). That's not mentioning all of them going to Europe.

 

If we're going to spend money we don't have I don't see why we can't spend smartly by partnering with the UNHCR more that we already do and help more people with less money. I am so tired of politicians making decisions for the People that don't impact them at all. The infrastructure of the states to support all of these people is going to implode. But the politicians don't care because it doesn't affect them.