ISIS

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
No more than you are for the next guy that shoots up a school full of little kids.
True.

The same government who vetted a shooter for the purchase of a weapon will be vetting the refugees. Do you remember the Mariel Boatlift? Castro released a lot of prisoners and mental health patients allowing them to migrate to the U.S. during that time.

ISIS controls a few areas where they have access to passports, so there is a lot of uncertainty on that passport. And remember, the woman shooter in San Bernardino was vetted by the government under the immigrant spouse rules.

I'm sure you will be willing to welcome them with open arms in your area. Write your welcoming letter to the President and maybe he will redirect them to you.

I guess on some issues, I too, can be a NIMBY.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
It's so reassuring to find out that, over the past, say, twenty years that fewer than a hundred people have been killed by foreign terrorists (that would be an average of five per year, well above "only a couple on average").
Wrong. If it were fewer than a hundred in twenty years, then that would average to fewer than five per year.



Oh, wait a minute, seems like I vaguely recall some small event that, by itself, had a few more than that. Must be mistaken. Especially since I seem to recall that the people that carried out that attack were all foreigners that had entered legally. So I MUST be mistaken since, apparently, we have never let any killers through.
And since then, ten thousand plus killed every year in random, domestic violence on average. That means many, many times more are killed, not by foreign terrorists, but by their neighbors. You're not mistaken about the attack that happened over fourteen years ago. But what about since then? Again, only a couple a year on average killed by foreign terrorists, probably fewer. I still see no reason to be afraid.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
People know the end-game for ISIS is WMD type mass killings in the west that's not directed on a hated spouse or fellow gang-banger. They want something that will get our boots on the ground for the final conflict by any means necessary. I say we preempt that event and get the deed done before that happens.
So how many guys do you think we will lose? How many wounded?
How many people will you leave in Fallujah, Mosul etc.


Not saying we can't do it, but we better have an exit plan. Shame we let them kill Saddam. :D
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
So how many guys do you think we will lose? How many wounded?
How many people will you leave in Fallujah, Mosul, etc
And how many who want war will sign up and help the effort and not just stay home and watch it on TV while a few make all the sacrifices? Like last time.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
And since then, ten thousand plus killed every year in random, domestic violence on average. That means many, many times more are killed, not by foreign terrorists, but by their neighbors. You're not mistaken about the attack that happened over fourteen years ago. But what about since then? Again, only a couple a year on average killed by foreign terrorists, probably fewer. I still see no reason to be afraid.
Maybe we ought to pass a law making it illegal to kill someone. Let's see how that works out. [/sarcasm]
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Not saying we can't do it, but we better have an exit plan.
That becomes a political problem and some will never agree on an exit strategy. Even the exit strategy in WWII didn't come for a couple of years after the war. We can't even predict the climate for the next decade so why would we be able to predict an exit strategy?

The last exit plan (IRAQ and IRAN) worked as well as the exit plan for Viet Nam.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
And how many who want war will sign up and help the effort and not just stay home and watch it on TV while a few make all the sacrifices? Like last time.
Who knows. Maybe they will have to reinstate the draft once the women start registering.

War is a political solution. The President, under the War Powers Act, can wage whatever war they want for a short period of time. I doubt the President will be issuing "invitations."
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
Who knows. Maybe they will have to reinstate the draft once the women start registering.
Women haven't started registering? That can't be right because my daughter in law is an Army captain.

I doubt the President will be issuing "invitations."

I think it's called "recruitment"

EDIT: Oh, do you mean the draft will be back? What happened the last time? Oh, I remember now, we had the "back door" draft.
 
Last edited:

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Women won't be registering until Congress requires it. I'm sure it will take a discrimination lawsuit since the current law only requires males to register for the draft. It won't be till January before all military billets will be available to women who qualify.
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
That becomes a political problem and some will never agree on an exit strategy. Even the exit strategy in WWII didn't come for a couple of years after the war. We can't even predict the climate for the next decade so why would we be able to predict an exit strategy?

The last exit plan (IRAQ and IRAN) worked as well as the exit plan for Viet Nam.
So you think 100,000 guys (and girls) would do it?
Then leave like 50,000 to hold it?
Shall we pay for this one or leave it off the books?
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
I got an idea.
Lets make 4 countries.
Sunni
Shiite
Kurdish
Turk
Then we might only have to fight the Turks. Everybody else would be pretty happy.
A big relocation - but hey, why not.
 

boatsman

Joined Jan 17, 2008
187
You have forgotten one simple thing; Sunni and Shiite already have their own countries but that hasn't stopped them from attacking others in the region. Both of them want to rule the whole world turning non-believers into victims or a slave-like class.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
So you think 100,000 guys (and girls) would do it?
Then leave like 50,000 to hold it?
Shall we pay for this one or leave it off the books?
The President gives the order and the desired outcome. The generals plan to execute that order. If the president doesn't want to spend more than 1 week on this operation it can be done, but the outcome would vilify him politically.

You want to quantify a battle plan ?

Leaving what off the books? That smoke and mirror game that the politico's play to make it seem like we are not going further and further into debt? Remember the law passed a few years ago with the budgetary nuclear option where every program will automatically get cut? It was hailed as the budgetary savior. Congress didn't have the nads to stand by it. Neither party has the wherewithal to do what is necessary, to do what families must do with their money ... live within their means.

I got an idea.
Lets make 4 countries.
Sunni
Shiite
Kurdish
Turk
Then we might only have to fight the Turks. Everybody else would be pretty happy.
A big relocation - but hey, why not.
Yep. And then there's the saying ... Some would complain if you hung them with a new rope.

You won't get agreement from those groups on geopolitical boundaries. Remember one of the first Acts of the replacement for the League of Nations? They created the State of Israel. That worked out so smoothly in the middle east.
 

boatsman

Joined Jan 17, 2008
187
JoeJester said
Remember one of the first Acts of the replacement for the League of Nations? They created the State of Israel. That worked out so smoothly in the Middle East.
Yes, because it is the only democracy in the whole region.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I doubt that killers will be admitted. The vetting process is much more stringent than how it's being portrayed here.
The most absurd post in this thread. Both the FBI and the DHS have publicly admitted that they have inadequate information to do real vetting and that the Syrians are getting allowed in despite this lack of background information. "Stringent", even if it was, does not equal "effective".
 

Thread Starter

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Hmmm.


I forgot about Assad and his sect, but maybe we could put him in Damascus like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
The most absurd post in this thread.
That would be post #40 where you absurdly declared that a religious test is required by law for those applying for refugee status.

Both the FBI and the DHS have publicly admitted that they have inadequate information to do real vetting and that the Syrians are getting allowed in despite this lack of background information.
Here is how the process works. It's very stringent:

The process begins with a referral from UNHCR. The U.N.’s refugee agency is responsible for registering some 15 million asylum seekers around the world, and providing aid and assistance until they are resettled abroad or (more likely) returned home once conditions ease. The registration process includes in-depth refugee interviews, home country reference checks and biological screening such as iris scans. Military combatants are weeded out.

Among those who pass background checks, a small percentage are referred for overseas resettlement based on criteria designed to determine the most vulnerable cases. This group may include survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, families with multiple children and a female head of household.

What happens once a refugee is referred to the U.S.?

Our government performs its own intensive screening, a process that includes consultation from nine different government agencies. They meet weekly to review a refugee’s case file and, if appropriate, determine where in the U.S. the individual should be placed. When choosing where to place a refugee, officials consider factors such as existing family in the U.S., employment possibilities and special factors like access to needed medical treatment.

How do we know the refugees aren’t terrorists?

Every refugee goes through an intensive vetting process, but the precautions are increased for Syrians. Multiple law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies perform “the most rigorous screening of any traveler to the U.S.,” says a senior administration official. Among the agencies involved are the State Department, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS officer conducts in-person interviews with every applicant. Biometric information such as fingerprints are collected and matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres.
These's more. You can read the rest here:
http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

"Stringent", even if it was, does not equal "effective".
As shown above, the process is very stringent. Not saying it's not a challenge to screen applicants, but every effort is made to prevent terrorists from entering.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
That would be post #40 where you absurdly declared that a religious test is required by law for those applying for refugee status.
You need a better lawyer.

There are a number of ways to seek asylum, but if you are a refugee seeking asylum due to religious persecution (which applies to most? refugees), you have to prove that. Your proof is nothing short of a religious test. If the U.S. government does not agree that your religion is the "right" one, it will not let you in.

For instance, Christians refugees are already being refused asylum based on their religion. Since Obama doesn't want to admit that ISIS is islamic, the refugees cannot be granted asylum based on religious persecution, despite mass murder and public beheadings.


US Code, excerpted from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

****
(b)Conditions for granting asylum

(B)Burden of proof

(i)In general
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. [see below] To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
****

The definition of refugee in 1101(a)42:

****
(42)
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
If the U.S. government does not agree that your religion is the "right" one, it will not let you in.
That's pure baloney, and the law doesn't say that. The only religious 'test' is that as one of a number of reasons to grant refugee status, the person must show he would be persecuted if he were returned to his country of origin. There are absolutely no provisions for the government to refuse entry for a person not having the "right" religion. Your interpretation is pure hyperbole.

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,
Further, if any of the other conditions are met, the candidate needs not meet the religious persecution test.

wayneh said:
For instance, Christians refugees are already being refused asylum based on their religion. Since Obama doesn't want to admit that ISIS is islamic, the refugees cannot be granted asylum based on religiouspersecution, despite mass murder and public beheadings.

I don't believe a word of it. Like the statement above, sounds like fabrication.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top