The 9/11 terrorists were not refugees.  They were all guys who would easily have gotten through even enhanced immigration restrictions.  You can't totally shut down international travel, the economy can't afford that.  People will always be able to get into the country.  The serious terrorist organizations, the ones with the resources to do serious damage to the United States and its citizens, also have the resources to get people in.  Do you disagree?

If you want to help, you could start with background checks for firearm purchases...  I do find it ironic that the same part that's eating up Trump's anti-Muslim bullshit so vehemently opposes policy measures to try to prevent selling firearms to, for example, people with known links to terrorist organizations.

Do you agree that allowing an unknown mass of people from foreign countries increases the chances of terrorist cells arriving on our shores?   You seem to believe that doing nothing or making it easier for terrorists to enter the country is OK because "you can never be truly safe from terrorist attacks in the modern world".  

And, not to get off topic, I'm one of the "crazy right-wing gun owners" and I don't oppose background checks at all.   I'd go a step further and make every American register any firearm they possess or face felony charges. 

RE: your first paragraph, no, I don't agree that allowing refugees into the country increases the odds of terrorist cells arriving.  Or at least not cells with resources, tied to the major terror organizations.  I suspect that there is 100% chance that ISIS, Al Qa'ida, the PLO, Abu Naidal, Boko Haran, etc., have exactly as many agents in the United States as they want to, right now.  They specialize in subtle operations and operating under the radar.  They don't want to move large numbers of people into the country.  That would just provide more potential information leaks.  Particularly people who are likely to be interacting with government officials.  That's not to say nobody would come in posing as a refugee.  But if we don't take refugees, they'll come in another way.  They'll get a work or student visa after establishing a "relationship" with somebody in an American university or something like that.  There are so many ways in.  I just don't agree that Trump-style restrictions make us any safer at all.

I'm not surprised you support background checks.  I would have guessed that.  But I bet douggie opposes them.  Because that's what Rush Limbaugh told him to think.  And unfortunately, at least 10s of millions of people agree for the exact same reason.

Backgrounds checks are for cowards

This is what gets me:  "That's not to say nobody would come in posing as a refugee.  But if we don't take refugees, they'll come in another way."

Hell, that's a damn anti-gun control argument.   "If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns.  They'll get them anyway."   


I don't disagree that there is no way to ensure no terrorist threat gets into the US.   But you make it more difficult by whatever means possible.  Much like you make it more difficult for criminals to acquire firearms. 

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):
RE: your first paragraph, no, I don't agree that allowing refugees into the country increases the odds of terrorist cells arriving.  Or at least not cells with resources, tied to the major terror organizations.  I suspect that there is 100% chance that ISIS, Al Qa'ida, the PLO, Abu Naidal, Boko Haran, etc., have exactly as many agents in the United States as they want to, right now.  They specialize in subtle operations and operating under the radar.  They don't want to move large numbers of people into the country.  That would just provide more potential information leaks.  Particularly people who are likely to be interacting with government officials.  That's not to say nobody would come in posing as a refugee.  But if we don't take refugees, they'll come in another way.  They'll get a work or student visa after establishing a "relationship" with somebody in an American university or something like that.  There are so many ways in.  I just don't agree that Trump-style restrictions make us any safer at all.

I'm not surprised you support background checks.  I would have guessed that.  But I bet douggie opposes them.  Because that's what Rush Limbaugh told him to think.  And unfortunately, at least 10s of millions of people agree for the exact same reason.

We hardly have the federal resources NOW to find the threats that have entered this country... Do you really think its smart to give them 65,000 more names to sift through? The Feds are overwhelmed NOW and all it takes is ONE or TWO terrorists to slip through the cracks to pull off another San Bernardino. The difference between 2001 and now is with social media and the internet its a lot easier to recruit broke *** refugees than it was in the past.

One of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino shooting was a US-born US citizen.  The other one was a permanent resident.  They were married in the United States.  It's like you're making my point for me.  There are already thousands of ISIS supporters living in this country right now.  Furthermore, shootings the size of San Bernardino are perpetrated for non-terrorist reasons numerous times a year already.  You should be worrying about game-changing terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 or bigger.  And those aren't going to become any less likely if we close the borders.

The disturbing aspect of your POV is you seem to be saying "There's nothing we can do so we might as well do nothing."     I'm not built that way.    I'm more "Do something even if it's wrong."

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2016 9:04:00 PM (view original):
The disturbing aspect of your POV is you seem to be saying "There's nothing we can do so we might as well do nothing."     I'm not built that way.    I'm more "Do something even if it's wrong."

I agree.

So lets let's continue to pile on to the workload of our already overwhelmed agents.

Posted by The Taint on 1/13/2016 9:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/13/2016 12:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 1/12/2016 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 1/12/2016 7:57:00 PM (view original):
Had Obama taken care of business in Syria when he had a chance we wouldn't be facing a refugee issue here or a crisis in the EU.

true fact

What exactly was he supposed to do?

???

Putin is Right and Obama is Wrong on Syria

Vladimir Putin is a monstrous, ruthless, power-hungry political and military assassin.

Let me get that off my chest immediately.

I find much of what this former KGB agent does on behalf of the Russian people self-servingly repellent.

But when it comes to leadership, he makes Barack Obama look like a naïve, timid schoolboy.

And on the specific issue of ISIS and how to stop the terror group’s surge through Syria, he’s right and Obama’s wrong.

Today, Putin won authorisation from the Russian parliament to throw his full military weight behind Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad, and launch immediate air strikes in Syria against the Islamic State.
He’s decided the time for jaw-jawing about ISIS is over; it’s time to properly war-war.

Ostensibly, this decision was made to protect ‘Russia’s national interest.’

But in reality, it will protect many other national interests too, including America’s and Britain’s.

I was all in favour of taking out Assad when the Syrian crisis first erupted five years ago.

Like Saddam. Mubarak and Gaddafi, he appeared to be a dinosaur despot eeking out the last vestiges of tyrannical power in a country which, as so much of the Middle East, seemed to crave freedom and democracy.

Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people, many of them women and children, was a disgusting abomination which comfortably crossed President Obama’s infamous ‘red line’.

But Obama cried wolf and did nothing, an act of shocking cowardice which has now come back to haunt him and America.

The overthrow of so many dictators, far from bringing peace and harmony, has simply created a chaotic, violent vacuum through which ISIS has emerged like a fast-mutating virulent virus.
The rebels who won so much sympathy and support in Syria at the start are not the ‘rebels’ we see now.

The new Syrian rebel army has become a hotbed of terrorism, much of it governed by ISIS.

The good guys are now the bad guys, and the bad guys suddenly don’t seem quite so bad by comparison.

It’s a hideously complex and difficult problem for which there is no simple solution.

But the primary job of any world leader is to defend his or her people, and to do so with a clarity of vision and policy.

Frankly, I haven’t got a clue what Obama’s plan is for Syria or ISIS.

As always, he talks a good game, constantly telling us that we can’t beat ISIS with guns, we have to beat them with ideas.

But sometimes in life, guns are the only answer. And I say that as someone whose opinion of guns is fairly well documented.

ISIS leaders have no interest in negotiating any settlement. They want to nuke all we infidels into the ether. Their thirst for blood and mayhem knows no apparent limits, and their power and membership grows daily
Hitler was never going to be beaten with ideas. He had to be beaten with guns, tanks, planes and battleships.

ISIS is not the IRA, nor even Hezbollah. Its leaders have no interest in negotiating any settlement.

They want to nuke all we infidels into the ether.

Their barbaric thirst for blood and mayhem knows no apparent limits, and their power and membership grows daily.

ISIS thus threatens every one of us.

But Obama seems utterly neutered on how to arrest their charge, muttering meaningless platitudes and putting on his best ‘We have to do something, folks’ face.

Putin is no such shrinking violet.

He understands the very real menace ISIS poses and he knows how best to deal with it.

A couple of years ago, I got talking to President Bill Clinton at a small cocktail party in New York and asked him about his relationship with Putin.

Putin may be loathsome, and so is Assad. But they're better than ISIS and less of a danger to world peace
They didn’t cross over as world leaders for very long, but it was enough for Clinton to deliver a pretty good insight into what oils the Russian leader’s wheels.

‘Putin’s very smart,’ Clinton said. ‘And he’s a hard man, a very hard man. But he respects strength. We used to kick everyone out of the room, then go at it with each other. And I mean GO at it! Things would get brutally blunt in there. But we’d get stuff done and agree on things. I think the right strategy with someone like him is to be brutally honest with private, and then, if you want them to help you, try to avoid embarrassing them in public.’

‘Did Putin ever renege on a personal agreement with you?’ I asked.

‘No, he did not.’

‘So he could be trusted?’

‘He kept his word on all the deals we made. But it’s not necessary to trust somebody to take them up on a good offer. You hope for the best and prepare for the worst in this business.’

It was a fascinating insight into diplomacy from one of the world’s greatest exponents of the art.

And one worth bearing in mind as Putin goes into battle with ISIS.

He may be loathsome. So is Assad.

But they’re not as loathsome as ISIS, nor are they as big a current danger to world peace.

Vladimir Putin has backed the right horse in a deeply flawed field, and deserves our support as he puts ISIS to the Russian military sword and seeks to vanquish this vile, devastating mutual enemy.

If he’s successful, he will deserve our deep gratitude too, however much that sticks in our gullets.

^^^ http://russia-insider.com/en/piers-morgan-putin-right-and-obama-wrong-syria/ri10072

It's funny.

The standard question around here is "If you're so smart, what would you do?" 

I can say with 100% confidence that no one posting on this board is qualified to be President, no one is remotely intelligent enough to be President.   But the thing is that none of us are President.   Nonetheless, we can see failed policy because it jumps out at you.    ISIS is growing.   ISIS is becoming a bigger threat to the people living in America.   Can it be stopped?  Beats me, I'm not POTUS.    But I know we can't just shrug our shoulders and say "Nothing we can do".    I know doing nothing will not help.   I know that ideas won't stop them.   Something should be done.   If it's as pointless as not accepting refugees, what's the harm in trying?   If it's as silly as building a giant wall, why is that bad?    I guess the other option is to stand around and wait to see what happens. 

If Canada invaded North Dakota, should South Dakota just wait to see what happens?

I know that's silly but resigning yourself to defeat is worse. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/13/2016 10:57:00 PM (view original):
It's funny.

The standard question around here is "If you're so smart, what would you do?" 

I can say with 100% confidence that no one posting on this board is qualified to be President, no one is remotely intelligent enough to be President.   But the thing is that none of us are President.   Nonetheless, we can see failed policy because it jumps out at you.    ISIS is growing.   ISIS is becoming a bigger threat to the people living in America.   Can it be stopped?  Beats me, I'm not POTUS.    But I know we can't just shrug our shoulders and say "Nothing we can do".    I know doing nothing will not help.   I know that ideas won't stop them.   Something should be done.   If it's as pointless as not accepting refugees, what's the harm in trying?   If it's as silly as building a giant wall, why is that bad?    I guess the other option is to stand around and wait to see what happens. 

If Canada invaded North Dakota, should South Dakota just wait to see what happens?

I know that's silly but resigning yourself to defeat is worse. 

shhhhhhh... Its "strategic patience". Kinda like HOPING for change, huh? The voters got what they deserved with this clown in office.

And what would I do? I'd start by listening to my military advisers over my political advisers when it comes to terrorism. I also wouldn't fire every adviser with a dissenting viewpoint, I'd encourage those viewpoints before I made a decision.