Obama urges leaders to open hearts to refugees

[NED funded]

Terrorism isn't the only issue, moreover, I doubt you could check for that. Terrorism doesn't have to be a bomb going off killing 20 peopel at a mall, it could be something as un-news-worthy as a cab driver giving money to a terrorist group.

If you had to guess, from 2001 to 2014, how many people in America have been charged with having a supportive role, or direct tie to, Al-Qaeda?

Over 227.

"The nonprofit think tank New America Foundation published a report today after investigating the 227 Al Qaeda-affiliated people or groups that have been charged for committing an act of terrorism in the US since 9/11."

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/you...ram-has-foiled

How many were you and your "checks" aware of?

So I triple checked and I was right. If terrorists really wanted to attack the us there are much easier ways.

[bloodmoth13]

if your gripe is Obama adding fuel to the fire fair enough.

Its more than that, the syrian crisis would have been nothing if it werent for the US stoking the fire, bush started this with the mideast invasion, granted he created the foundations, but the syrian crisis is his handiwork, im not absolving bush, he lit the curtains on fire, obama poured gas on it.

[Taneras]

Are you really demanding that I explain to you how the refugee system works before you'll cite your claim that it doesn't?

We've already discussed my cited material (probably 20 posts back and forth), we haven't even touched on your knowledge into the refugee system. You won't spend a single post displaying your knowledge on this issue despite demanding that that knowledge be a prerequisite for participation in this conversation?

- - - Updated - - -

So I triple checked and I was right. If terrorists really wanted to attack the us there are much easier ways.

I'm just like you, I love to check stuff. Pass me your information, I'd like to triple check it as well

[Wells]

We've already discussed my cited material (probably 20 posts back and forth), we haven't even touched on your knowledge into the refugee system. You won't spend a single post displaying your knowledge on this issue despite demanding that that knowledge be a prerequisite for participation in this conversation?

- - - Updated - - -



I'm just like you, I love to check stuff. Pass me your information, I'd like to triple check it as well

Still waiting for that Brennan cite.

[Taneras]

Still waiting for that Brennan cite.

Tell you what, I'll post it after you show your credentials that you belong in this conversation. I've already spent over a page going back and forth over Comey's crystal clear statement, I don't feel like doing the same with Brennan as well. Since its apparent at this point that you don't know half of what you pretend to know with regards to this issue, its safe to say that I'll never have to drag myself through another back and forth about crystal clear comments for quite some time.

[Wells]

Tell you what, I'll post it after you show your credentials that you belong in this conversation. I've already spent over a page going back and forth over Comey's crystal clear statement, I don't feel like doing the same with Brennan as well. Since its apparent at this point that you don't know half of what you pretend to know with regards to this issue, its safe to say that I'll never have to drag myself through another back and forth about crystal clear comments for quite some time.

About as tedious as I expected. You took a quote from Comey talking about gaps in screening and claimed he was saying that there couldn't be screening. Then there's the mystery Brennan quote you refuse to provide.

All of this of course in defense of someone else's claim that all the intelligence agencies have said that there can't be screening.

Booooooooring.

[Taneras]

You took a quote from Comey talking about gaps in screening and claimed he was saying that there couldn't be screening.

You ignored the part where he explained how large these gaps would be. He said unless they made waves big enough to reach the US they'd have nothing. How many murderers and rapists in Syrians do you think made waves large enough to register on the FBI's database?

Then there's the mystery Brennan quote you refuse to provide.

It's for the best, at this point I don't think you could handle a conversation dealing with two different quotes seeing how hard of a time you're having with Comey's.

[Xarkan]

All of this of course in defense of someone else's claim that all the intelligence agencies have said that there can't be screening.

I thought the point was that there could not be perfect screening. Which is true, you cannot find those on who there is nothing to find yet, where no stone has made ripples in a pond or whatever. This is also true at the air port, these are people who can likely always get into a country. I am unsure why anyone would assume they'd have to join streams of refugees.These could even be born in Belgium (sorry for swearing outside screenplays)

[Taneras]

I thought the point was that there could not be perfect screening. Which is true, you cannot find those on who there is nothing to find yet, where no stone has made ripples in a pond or whatever. This is also true at the air port, these are people who can likely always get into a country. I am unsure why anyone would assume they'd have to join streams of refugees.These could even be born in Belgium (sorry for swearing outside screenplays)

It is true that terrorists can get into the country in other ways, there's still an issue of rapists, murders, and people with various other sorts of violent tendencies (domestic abuse, armed robbery, etc). The FBI has had no reason to waste resources over the past 20-30 years keeping tabs on the worlds rapists and murders, these sorts of people cannot be vetted because the FBI will have no record of them.

There are other reasons to look for alternatives for the refugees. Creating safe zones in their own countries, or pressuring other Islamic countries that share very similar cultures, religion, morals, language, etc. to take them in instead. Many of these refugees aren't literate, and don't have any skills. They're not built for our economy and won't find a place in it. The majority have already shown an unwillingness to integrate into European nations, creating refugee ghettos with high crime rates.

What Europe is doing isn't working. They're solving the immediate problem while building a much larger problem down the road.

[Wells]

I thought the point was that there could not be perfect screening. Which is true, you cannot find those on who there is nothing to find yet, where no stone has made ripples in a pond or whatever. This is also true at the air port, these are people who can likely always get into a country. I am unsure why anyone would assume they'd have to join streams of refugees.These could even be born in Belgium (sorry for swearing outside screenplays)

I mean sure, there's no such thing as perfect screening. However the track record is very good and if someone is trying to sneak into the country to cause problems our refugee program is probably the hardest way to do it.

The refugee program places a significant degree of the burden of refugees to prove that they're who they say they are and qualify and involves cross examination by professional interrogators.

[Merkava]

I mean sure, there's no such thing as perfect screening. However the track record is very good and if someone is trying to sneak into the country to cause problems our refugee program is probably the hardest way to do it.

The refugee program places a significant degree of the burden of refugees to prove that they're who they say they are and qualify and involves cross examination by professional interrogators.

Pointing to the track record as being "very good" isn't an airtight defense as some would make it. Things should be judged right and or proper based on their merits and analysis of the process, not just results. That makes sense, correct?

Brennan has said that he suspects ISIS to be attempting to sneak people into the US through the refugee program, hasn't he? Simply saying that the refugee program might be the hardest, which I might quibble with depending on the exact circumstances, doesn't mean that it's not something that's a legitimate threat.

[Wells]

Pointing to the track record as being "very good" isn't an airtight defense as some would make it. Things should be judged right and or proper based on their merits and analysis of the process, not just results. That makes sense, correct?

Of course its not the end of be all statement on the matter, but the fact that we admit many thousands of them every year without any real crime problems is a strong indicator that our screening works.

Brennan has said that he suspects ISIS to be attempting to sneak people into the US through the refugee program, hasn't he?

He's said it. That statement on its own doesn't mean much of anything. They try all kinds of stuff.

Simply saying that the refugee program might be the hardest, which I might quibble with depending on the exact circumstances, doesn't mean that it's not something that's a legitimate threat.

What's more interesting is how much attention it gets compared to the risk. Wouldn't it be awesome if even half this level of paranoia was applied to, say, shipping container screening?

[truckboattruck]

the less the better
we dont need them

[Wells]

we dont need them

Yes well, basically by definition refugee programs aren't done for our good.

[Xarkan]

or pressuring other Islamic countries that share very similar cultures, religion, morals, language, etc. to take them in instead.

They take what? 2 out of 3? Give or take. The rest of the world can probably share the burde of the rest. It is a big world.

It is true that terrorists can get into the country in other ways, there's still an issue of rapists, murders, and people with various other sorts of violent tendencies (domestic abuse, armed robbery, etc). The FBI has had no reason to waste resources over the past 20-30 years keeping tabs on the worlds rapists and murders, these sorts of people cannot be vetted because the FBI will have no record of them.

Of course they are likely mostly not rapists or murderers in their home country (at least prior to the civil war) so having kept tabs would be irrelevant. [edit] the they here is not the refugees but rather those few amongst them that later rape or murder

- - - Updated - - -

Brennan has said that he suspects ISIS to be attempting to sneak people into the US through the refugee program, hasn't he? Simply saying that the refugee program might be the hardest, which I might quibble with depending on the exact circumstances, doesn't mean that it's not something that's a legitimate threat.

Thought the quote was into western nations. Which is true since it has already happened.

[Merkava]

Of course its not the end of be all statement on the matter, but the fact that we admit many thousands of them every year without any real crime problems is a strong indicator that our screening works.


He's said it. That statement on its own doesn't mean much of anything. They try all kinds of stuff.


What's more interesting is how much attention it gets compared to the risk. Wouldn't it be awesome if even half this level of paranoia was applied to, say, shipping container screening?

Well, in order, I still disagree. I don't think we've been accepting Syrian refugees long enough or in sufficient numbers to declare our vetting methods to be sufficiently secure. I understand that it's difficult to prove either way, and I'm not just arguing for the sake of being argumentative. There are clear shortcomings with vetting people from a place like Syria, and I can only hope that we're being as through as possible. I just don't think the fact that there haven't been problems here automatically prove that.

He did say it, that's correct. And ISIS does try all kinds of stuff. Can you clarify why you think Brennan's statement doesn't mean much of anything?

To your last point, I have no opinion on that. I can't speak to the proportionality of interest to legitimate threat regarding different immigration and customs concerns.

- - - Updated - - -

Thought the quote was into western nations. Which is true since it has already happened.

He did say The West. That's true. And as someone who has pointed out distinctions that others have claimed (wrongly, of course )were merely semantic, I'll concede that point. I could argue that the US is included in "The West," but I think, in this context, with Brennan speaking before Congress, if he meant the United States, he probably would have said "The United States." Thanks for pointing that out.

[Wells]

Well, in order, I still disagree. I don't think we've been accepting Syrian refugees long enough or in sufficient numbers to declare our vetting methods to be sufficiently secure. I understand that it's difficult to prove either way, and I'm not just arguing for the sake of being argumentative. There are clear shortcomings with vetting people from a place like Syria, and I can only hope that we're being as through as possible. I just don't think the fact that there haven't been problems here automatically prove that.

What's the number of Syrian refugees in particular before we can say the screening has a good track record?

He did say it, that's correct. And ISIS does try all kinds of stuff. Can you clarify why you think Brennan's statement doesn't mean much of anything?

"ISIS is trying to use the refugee system" could mean anything from "we caught a terrorist who got past the UN" to "We found some refugee pamphlets in a house in Syria one time". Its uselessly vague.

[Xarkan]

"ISIS is trying to use the refugee system" could mean anything from "we caught a terrorist who got past the UN" to "We found some refugee pamphlets in a house in Syria one time". Its uselessly vague.

It could.. the one i remember off hand having heard about is this one (though obviously in a different media)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fugee-shelters

[Wells]

It could.. the one i remember off hand having heard about is this one (though obviously in a different media)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...fugee-shelters

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised that more direct actors like Germany are more vulnerable. Seems like their system worked as intended though.

[Merkava]

What's the number of Syrian refugees in particular before we can say the screening has a good track record?


"ISIS is trying to use the refugee system" could mean anything from "we caught a terrorist who got past the UN" to "We found some refugee pamphlets in a house in Syria one time". Its uselessly vague.

To your first point, I don't know. But if you'll forgive me for turning that around, I know exactly how many terrorist attacks attributed to Syrian refugees it would take before it (the screening process) was called a failure. And I know that's not a legitimate answer, I'm just trying to point out the danger of pointing to the results as evidence of the process being correct.

To your second point, I see that Brennan was probably referring to European Nations. But, if he was referring to the United States refugee program, I would point out that "uselessly vague," could also be open to interpretations to the opposite extreme. I could argue that Brennan meant that we caught "50 brothers with 50 nukes." But that would just be argumentative.