Obama's Mistaken and Incromprehensible ISIS Strategy

[Alc]

Canada has promised to receive 25,000 refugees by year's end. Bit by bit, the plans are being revealed with regards to how the new government intends to achieve this. As in the US, there are lot of people who have a problem with every part of it - on general principle - and will never, under any circumstances, be satisfied with answers provided to questions they pretend to pose. Where I made a silly mistake, to begin with, was thinking that these were genuine questions, as opposed to thinly-veiled attempts to criticize the person in charge. This thread is the same.

The first posts made sweeping, definitive statements about how

some of the refugees will turn-out to be terrorists who will commit terrorist acts in the West. We have already begun to see, in the West, the rise of unrestrained police powers to combat terrorism. The wholesale acceptance of refugees (some of whom may be terrorists) without proper vetting may continue the slide of the West towards becoming various police states.

The implication appeared to be that the vetting process needed to be thorough and needed to take as long as it takes, in order to protect the US from these groups of terrorists posing as refugees.

Now that those initial objections have been addressed and shown to be based on no real evidence, the same person has moved on to

This is an immediate humanitarian crisis that can't really wait 2-3 years for resolution.

The implication being that the government is taking too long to act and should move faster.

I'm no fan of politicians in general, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that there is a plan in place, they just don't feel the need the share the minutiae with a bunch of people who have nothing to do with its execution.
I'm equally sure that they know that the people who are whining most loudly don't really want answers, so why rush to provide them?

 

[Frothingslosh]

It's not even that they don't want to share the minutiae with folks whose only intent is to use it as fodder to "prove" how the President they dislike is wrong. The data, at least in the US, is publicly available. The data I used to formulate my reply on the US refugee process was taken straight from the White House website, and is a distillation of the official info on uscis.gov (the official site for the citizenship and immigration service), and the President's authority to determine which refugees we take in and how the slots are distributed comes directly from the US Refugee Act of 1980.

Despite what Steve and Blade would have you believe, it's all there in the open and perfectly legal, and has been since long before this crisis ever started.

And note that at the very end of his post, because he's been shown to be factually in the wrong on every point so far, Steve now throws out a strawman to use to try to scare us, namely that Obama will just arbitrarily discard the entire vetting process (and, by implication, the headcount restrictions in the 1980 law).

(Steve, as you have shown repeatedly that reading comprehension at even the most basic level is beyond your grasp, please let me know if I need to translate this into kindergarten-speak for you.)

 

[Bladerunner]

I think this is the salient point. People turning against their own country is a problem, but definitely not the same thing as entering a country under refugee status then turning on that country.

Like you or Frothy said at one time, we don't need to police the world..We don't need to take the worlds throwaways. Let them go to SA... It is in their own type land but SA refuses to take any.

I saw this mentality in communes in the 1960's . The liberals if given enough rope as DOC says will tear down their own house and it does not take long.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Perhaps Blade subscribes to Calvinist theology? After all, if your salvation is preordained, then it doesn't matter at all how much you hate your fellow man.

I think we both know that Blade would have no issue with preemptively incarcerating all non-whites. He's already repeatedly expressed his opinion on the undesirability of Mexicans in America; links to white-supremacist sites aside, his comments here and in the Atheist thread a couple months back show that he thinks black people are violently dangerous menaces to society who are just slavering over any chance to murder people; and he's OBVIOUSLY terrified that the scary Arab people are pouring into the States in order to murder him in his sleep. The perfect solution? If he can't have them all killed, then locking them all up and throwing away the key will do just fine!

If I was you Frothy, I would be a little careful here. You going just a little to far.

 

[Bladerunner]

Canada has promised to receive 25,000 refugees by year's end. Bit by bit, the plans are being revealed with regards to how the new government intends to achieve this. As in the US, there are lot of people who have a problem with every part of it - on general principle - and will never, under any circumstances, be satisfied with answers provided to questions they pretend to pose. Where I made a silly mistake, to begin with, was thinking that these were genuine questions, as opposed to thinly-veiled attempts to criticize the person in charge. This thread is the same.

The first posts made sweeping, definitive statements about how
The implication appeared to be that the vetting process needed to be thorough and needed to take as long as it takes, in order to protect the US from these groups of terrorists posing as refugees.

Now that those initial objections have been addressed and shown to be based on no real evidence, the same person has moved on to
The implication being that the government is taking too long to act and should move faster.

I'm no fan of politicians in general, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that there is a plan in place, they just don't feel the need the share the minutiae with a bunch of people who have nothing to do with its execution.
I'm equally sure that they know that the people who are whining most loudly don't really want answers, so why rush to provide them?

again ALC how many dead people because one or two,etc. terrorist are in the group of 25,000 is ok with you..so you can get your way and try to show the world ---------look at us,,,we are Humanity, we are GOD's within ourselves. everybody who does not believe like we do is scum.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

There are now 12 Jewish groups (with the recent addition of the Orthodox Union) urging the acceptance of Syrian refugees:

www. haaretz. Com /jewish/news/1.687407 (spaces added since I can't post links yet)

It's nice to see some religious organizations aligning with human decency...even the Satanist group offering to escort afraid Muslims in America...

Religion is not necessary to be good and moral.

The world will never be 'safe'...whether some white guy in America goes apesh!t or 1 in 10,000 refugees turns out to be a terrorist. Is it a shame that other closer nations that are Muslim have turned them away? Sure..but we can be above that. Xenophobia is so selfish. I'd rather help others (and be part of a country that does) at the risk of a little less safety. How else will the world transition from an "us vs them" mentality to just an "us" mentality?

 

[Steve R.]

The data I used to formulate my reply on the US refugee process was taken straight from the White House website, and is a distillation of the official info on uscis.gov (the official site for the citizenship and immigration service), and the President's authority to determine which refugees we take in and how the slots are distributed comes directly from the US Refugee Act of 1980.

The reply above is gobbledygook that does not answer the question posed. Obama said today that the refugees will be going through a robust vetting process. While this is occurring, where will the refugees be housed during the 2-3 year vetting period?

Obama is known to "evolve" on his positions. Now if you want to attack my comment that Obama, in a few months, may begin to issue waivers from the vetting process due to asserted immediate serious humanitarian concerns, that is acceptable. But, as I have stated, what Obama leaves unsaid has to be very carefully considered.

 

[Alc]

again ALC how many dead people because one or two,etc. terrorist are in the group of 25,000 is ok with you..so you can get your way and try to show the world ---------look at us,,,we are Humanity, we are GOD's within ourselves. everybody who does not believe like we do is scum.

1. Helping people is right. It'll take a lot more than some brainwashed zealot to convince me or anyone else capable of thinking for their self otherwise.
2. How many have been in the refugees so far? I think you'll find it's a nice round number. Come back when you have some actual evidence to support your xenophobic bullsh*t.
3. You haven't used the word scum but you have explicitly said that anyone who doesn't believe the same fairy story crap that you've fallen for is wrong.

 

[Frothingslosh]

If I was you Frothy, I would be a little careful here. You going just a little to far.

again ALC how many dead people because one or two,etc. terrorist are in the group of 25,000 is ok with you.

The irony here is breathtaking.

 

[Frothingslosh]

The reply above is gobbledygook that does not answer the question posed. Obama said today that the refugees will be going through a robust vetting process. While this is occurring, where will the refugees be housed during the 2-3 year vetting period?

Obama is known to "evolve" on his positions. Now if you want to attack my comment that Obama, in a few months, may begin to issue waivers from the vetting process due to asserted immediate serious humanitarian concerns, that is acceptable. But, as I have stated, what Obama leaves unsaid has to be very carefully considered.

Steve, let me direct you to something more your level. My statement, which is obviously beyond your level of comprehension, is in plain English, stating plain facts. It doesn't get more straightforward, so either you're lying for effect, or your reading level is on par with a preschooler. Which is it?

Also, you love to make accusations, but you never have proof. Please show documented proof of Obama 'evolving' the US Refugee Act of 1980, because as of my last perusal, it has not been modified since it was enacted.

 

[Steve R.]

There are now 12 Jewish groups (with the recent addition of the Orthodox Union) urging the acceptance of Syrian refugees:

www. haaretz. Com /jewish/news/1.687407 (spaces added since I can't post links yet)

It's nice to see some religious organizations aligning with human decency...even the Satanist group offering to escort afraid Muslims in America...

Religion is not necessary to be good and moral.

The world will never be 'safe'...whether some white guy in America goes apesh!t or 1 in 10,000 refugees turns out to be a terrorist. Is it a shame that other closer nations that are Muslim have turned them away? Sure..but we can be above that. Xenophobia is so selfish. I'd rather help others (and be part of a country that does) at the risk of a little less safety. How else will the world transition from an "us vs them" mentality to just an "us" mentality?

Welcome to the fray.

 

[Steve R.]

Steve, let me direct you to something more your level. My statement, which obviously beyond your level of comprehension, is in plain English, stating plain facts. It doesn't get more straightforward, so either you're lying for effect, or your reading level is on par with a preschooler. Which is it?

Also, you love to make accusations, but you never have proof. Please show documented proof of Obama 'evolving' the US Refugee Act of 1980, because as of my last perusal, it has not been modified since it was enacted.

Instead of throwing ad hominem attacks. How about answering the question. Furthermore, I obviously have no knowledge yet concerning whether Obama will "evolve" on the refugee issue since it is in the future.

However, politicians are known to make statements which they later refute based on what they may assert as new knowledge. One being Bush's "read my lips". Another being Obama's: President Obama's "Deferred Action" Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional .

Come-on now. Would you really believe that Obama would disclose now that he will refute, in the future, his current stance on vetting? I don't think so. So there is now way for me to know.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

Welcome to the fray.

Thanks. I usually read from a 'safe' distance.

To Blade and Steve, how many Muslims already in America do you think would become radicalized or gain terrorist leanings if we refused and pressed on with the blather we have seen from so many governors and high-ranking republican officials? To quote some numbers being thrown around, 1 or 2 in 25,000?

There will always be unanticipated effects, and what may seem like a good idea to "keep 'em all out if it means 1 less terrorist in 'Murica" may actual create more than if all the refugees were let in. Refusing all refugees would certainly create more enemies than friends.

Just like on this board, enemies don't easily become friends in the world. Let's not rush to make new ones. And why should we? By allowing these, who have become the least of the least, we make more friends and gain people who could contribute to the melting pot that is America. And we would strengthen the character and moral fiber of our country in the process.

 

[Alc]

Obama's: President Obama's "Deferred Action" Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional .

And that article is certainly from a reliable source http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/center-for-immigration-studies

If you want similar opinions from similar bastions of impartial reporting:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...xecutive-action-its-unconstitutional-n1933035

http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/29/federal-judge-says-obamas-immigration-action-unconstitutional/

The other articles on the same sites give some idea of the sort of tone they aim for.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Instead of throwing ad hominem attacks. How about answering the question.

I refused to answer your question because it is a strawman and and attempt at diverting a discussion which you lost. You were proven wrong in your assertion that Obama is just going to scoop up tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and just dump them, unvetted, into the general population. You were proven wrong in your assertion that he has no right to determine how the US handles refugees. Now you're trying to suggest that they'll just be dumped into the population, despite being told explicitly where you can find the information you are requesting.

You have also maintained your argument that refugees are a clear and present danger to the US despite any evidence to that effect, and continue arguing that it's better to do the Syrian refugees what we did to Jewish refugees in 1939. (You can look that one up.)

Basically, where I've presented facts and documentation that you're wrong, you've responded with a mix of strawman attacks, willful distortions, and claims that you don't understand what I'm trying to say.

Furthermore, I obviously have no knowledge yet concerning whether Obama will "evolve" on the refugee issue since it is in the future.

Let me point you to where you said he is known to 'evolve' his position:

Obama is known to "evolve" on his positions.

Since reading comprehension is, by your own admission, your weak point, let me explicitly lay this out for you.

• You have stated that Obama is known to 'evolve' his position.
• Logic tells us that in order for one to be known to perform an action, then one must have performed this action at least once.
• Ergo, Obama must have 'evolved' his position at least once.
• Your direct implication is that you are substituting 'evolved' for 'reversed'.
• I challenged you to prove the truth of your statement by presenting evidence of a pattern of 'evolving' his positions.

Instead of providing proof, you instead chose to make more groundless - and unprovable assertions:

However, politicians are known to make statements which they later refute based on what they may assert as new knowledge. One being Bush's "read my lips". Another being Obama's: President Obama's "Deferred Action" Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional .

Observation: This has been your approach this entire thread, much as it was during the thread when you argued that the only possible solution to the GOP refusing from day one to allow a single piece of legislation backed by Obama to pass that they could stop, regardless of the effect on the nation, was to impeach Obama.

Conclusion: The entirety of your efforts in this thread have been a bad-faith attempt to tar Obama as a bad person, and you have no intention of allowing silly little things like 'facts' and 'logic' get in your way. You are simply using paranoia, Islamophobia, and a tragedy in order to try to make Obama - and by extension, anyone with compassion - look like either traitors or fools. At no point during this thread were you even remotely interested in an actual conversation.

Addendum: Your source about the illegality of immigrant amnesty is a known hate group. You might convince racists like Blade, but not anyone who bothers to learn anything about them.

Also, out of curiosity, please explain how it was constitutional when Saint Reagan did it, but not when Obama suggests it?

 

[Steve R.]

To Blade and Steve, how many Muslims already in America do you think would become radicalized or gain terrorist leanings if we refused and pressed on with the blather we have seen from the so many governors and high-ranking republican officials? To quote some numbers being thrown around, 1 or 2 in 25,000?

I don't know. Fanaticism (by any religious group) runs in cycles. Currently, ISIS is on the up-tick. But consider that the real blather may be coming from the progressive left which is chipping away at US values.

There will always be unanticipated effects, and what may seem like a good idea to "keep 'em all out if it means 1 less terrorist in 'Murica" may actual create more than if all the refugees were let in. Refusing all refugees would certainly create more enemies than friends..

The refugee question should not be limited to whether the US will or will not accept refugees, but also to the concern that other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, would accept refugees. Moreover, the focus needs to be on ending the fighting in the Middle East so that the refugees can return home and rebuild.

Just like on this board, enemies don't easily become friends in the world. Let's not rush to make new ones. And why should we? By allowing these, who have become the least of the least, we make more friends and gain people who could contribute to the melting pot that is America. And we would strengthen the character and moral fiber of our country in the process.

The "melting pot" may be a fiction, obviously a politically incorrect statement to make. If the "melting pot" concept were true, we would not have politicians, like Hillary, pandering for the Hispanic vote, Black vote, the womans vote, etc.

 

[Steve R.]

I refused to answer your question because it is a strawman and and attempt at diverting a discussion which you lost.

Looks like the discussion is not evolving. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Alc]

The "melting pot" may be a fiction, obviously a politically incorrect statement to make. If the "melting pot" concept were true, we would not have politicians, like Hillary, pandering for the Hispanic vote, Black vote, the womans vote, etc.

True, and the Republicans wouldn't be able to play on the irrational fears that well-off white people have of people possessing the Hispanic vote, Black vote, etc.

 

[jeremy.lankenau]

I don't know. Fanaticism (by any religious group) runs in cycles. Currently, ISIS is on the up-tick. But consider that the real blather may be coming from the progressive left which is chipping away at US values.

I don't limit the application of blather to only one party

The refugee question should not be limited to whether the US will or will not accept refugees, but also to the concern that other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, would accept refugees. Moreover, the focus needs to be on ending the fighting in the Middle East so that the refugees can return home and rebuild.

I agree with you there, as I did previously state the reality of nearby Muslim countries (which a big portion would be Saudi Arabia) refusing refugees is a travesty. I don't expect much budging here, or the 'Palestinian' issue would have been resolved long ago..fault with Jordan and Israel (since I'm a centrist). The focus should be on ending the fighting, but you can't do that with boots on the ground... if this conflict has taught us anything the last 14 years, it has taught us that. And now with Russia involved it could turn into another great proxy war, one I would rather not see happen. Our jockeying in the world has already set many countries back decades in their development.

The "melting pot" may be a fiction, obviously a politically incorrect statement to make. If the "melting pot" concept were true, we would not have politicians, like Hillary, pandering for the Hispanic vote, Black vote, the womans vote, etc.

Perhaps melting pot was the wrong term. People of all ethnic background have made real contributions to this country. Ideally, this country would be stronger through unity of diversity, not unity of conformity.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I don't limit the application of blather to only one party



I agree with you there, as I did previously state the reality of nearby Muslim countries (which a big portion would be Saudi Arabia) refusing refugees is a travesty. I don't expect much budging here, or the 'Palestinian' issue would have been resolved long ago..fault with Jordan and Israel (since I'm a centrist). The focus should be on ending the fighting, but you can't do that with boots on the ground... if this conflict has taught us anything the last 14 years, it has taught us that. And now with Russia involved it could turn into another great proxy war, one I would rather not see happen. Our jockeying in the world has already set many countries back decades in their development.

Don't be taken in by the distortions regarding the refugees. A large reason that the gulf countries are not taking in refugees is that even though they don't actually recognize refugee status, they've already taken in as many as they can support. In Lebanon, for example one person in six is a Syrian refugee. Yes, the richest nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc) are refusing refugees, but others have stepped up to the plate: Turkey has taken in 1.9 million refugees by itself, while Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have taken in a combined 2.1 million.

The richer nations ARE, however donating a LOT of money to the UN for Syrian Aid. Kuwait has donated $800 million, the UAE over $340 million. (Those are actually a higher portion of total GDP than the US's $3 billion donation.)

Yes, we need to push the likes of Saudi Arabia to step up, and the other nations there to take in refugees themselves, but even if they do, their resources are going to be limited by their small populations. But saying that the nearby Muslim nations aren't helping isn't at all correct.

Perhaps melting pot was the wrong term. People of all ethnic background have made real contributions to this country. Ideally, this country would be stronger through unity of diversity, not unity of conformity.

Diversity always makes the US stronger, and it has ALWAYS been opposed by the local reactionaries.

(Note: The anti-Irish and anti-Chinese backlashes seem to have been missed in this meme, I notice. C'est la vie.)