Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Maybe we really DO need a temporary shutdown

thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:24:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
also, assuming that the story about officials ordering the records of individuals with known terror ties is true, those officials are traitors and should be dealt with as such
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:30:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
also, assuming that the story about officials ordering the records of individuals with known terror ties is true, those officials are traitors and should be dealt with as such

The establishment isn't worried about upsetting or gaining favor with Muslims.

They are worried they will be exposed as incompetent and obsolete.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:33:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:30:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
also, assuming that the story about officials ordering the records of individuals with known terror ties is true, those officials are traitors and should be dealt with as such

The establishment isn't worried about upsetting or gaining favor with Muslims.

They are worried they will be exposed as incompetent and obsolete.

To a large extent they are incompetent and obsolete, but intentionally purging the records of individuals with terror ties and who threaten the American public is not incompetence, it's treason.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:48:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:33:47 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:30:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
also, assuming that the story about officials ordering the records of individuals with known terror ties is true, those officials are traitors and should be dealt with as such

The establishment isn't worried about upsetting or gaining favor with Muslims.

They are worried they will be exposed as incompetent and obsolete.

To a large extent they are incompetent and obsolete, but intentionally purging the records of individuals with terror ties and who threaten the American public is not incompetence, it's treason.

The penalty for treason is lighter than the penalty for incompetence.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 11:52:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Nice to see your profile restored, as well as your Trump support.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:02:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
also, assuming that the story about officials ordering the records of individuals with known terror ties is true, those officials are traitors and should be dealt with as such
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:08:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:52:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Nice to see your profile restored, as well as your Trump support.

thanks

But this was a policy I opposed until now. Now it makes perfect sense to temporarily shut it down until we update our vetting processes which are by all accounts treasonously incompetent.

If you disagree I'd ask you and anyone else who opposes my position how many people deserve to die so that we avoid temporarily discriminating based on religion before creating a better system. How valuable is unvetted muslim immigration to you? Be specific, how many lives?

The article gives an extensive list of tragedies that could've been avoided:

"As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit "honor killing" perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015). "

Is it really *that* important to avoid vetting muslims?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:11:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Don't be crazy. The only way to fight fire is with fire. We need MORE terrorists, to fight the terrorists that are already here, and to help us fight the ones in other countries.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:19:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:08:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:52:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Nice to see your profile restored, as well as your Trump support.

thanks

But this was a policy I opposed until now. Now it makes perfect sense to temporarily shut it down until we update our vetting processes which are by all accounts treasonously incompetent.

If you disagree I'd ask you and anyone else who opposes my position how many people deserve to die so that we avoid temporarily discriminating based on religion before creating a better system. How valuable is unvetted muslim immigration to you? Be specific, how many lives?

The article gives an extensive list of tragedies that could've been avoided:

"As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit "honor killing" perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015). "

Is it really *that* important to avoid vetting muslims?

Should we temporarily stop selling ammo till get "get a hold" on this gun violence problem?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:21:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:19:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:08:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:52:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Nice to see your profile restored, as well as your Trump support.

thanks

But this was a policy I opposed until now. Now it makes perfect sense to temporarily shut it down until we update our vetting processes which are by all accounts treasonously incompetent.

If you disagree I'd ask you and anyone else who opposes my position how many people deserve to die so that we avoid temporarily discriminating based on religion before creating a better system. How valuable is unvetted muslim immigration to you? Be specific, how many lives?

The article gives an extensive list of tragedies that could've been avoided:

"As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit "honor killing" perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015). "

Is it really *that* important to avoid vetting muslims?

Should we temporarily stop selling ammo till get "get a hold" on this gun violence problem?

If there was a significant chance that after a very temporary halt the problem would be resolved or at least substantially mitigated, absolutely
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:28:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Government would be hard-pressed to really enforce a kind of law like this; it would be tantamount to 'kicking down doors' and using the military to execute these laws.

Ultimately, there is always going to be a risk with immigration. You can never fully control or vet the type of people going in and out of a nation. The San Bernadino incident was horrendous and unacceptable, but could it have really been prevented?

This incident has received blanket coverage from the media. What about domestic violent crime in the US? There are more deaths caused by gun violence and other types of violence from American citizens that violence from migrants. It think it's important to have perspective here.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:32:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:28:59 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
The Government would be hard-pressed to really enforce a kind of law like this; it would be tantamount to 'kicking down doors' and using the military to execute these laws.

Ultimately, there is always going to be a risk with immigration. You can never fully control or vet the type of people going in and out of a nation. The San Bernadino incident was horrendous and unacceptable, but could it have really been prevented?

Yes, it absolutely could've been avoided. The terrorist did not conceal her jihadist leanings and the law enforcement authorities didn't even attempt to look into it. She passed 3 background checks. If you read the OP, the whistleblower revealed that the current policy is not to keep an eye on potential terrorists but rather the opposite--to purge any terrorist affiliation from their records. Trump is right on this score.

It's a simple exercise of risk management. How many people deserve to die because we're too lazy to update our vetting process into a system that actually looks into the backgrounds of people?


This incident has received blanket coverage from the media. What about domestic violent crime in the US? There are more deaths caused by gun violence and other types of violence from American citizens that violence from migrants. It think it's important to have perspective here.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:41:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

It's not just an issue with the Muslims, now undocumented people flying in from Mexico go right through JFK airport without any customs or border security checks.
http://www.alipac.us...

Also now the numbers of migrants crossing the border from the middle east is rising, and some people still deny that we have a failed immigration policy. Trump is the only person taking a stand to fix the failure and incompetence.
http://www.breitbart.com...

Oh, and the border towns are complete war zones. http://endoftheamericandream.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:45:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:19:19 AM, TBR wrote:

Should we temporarily stop selling ammo till get "get a hold" on this gun violence problem?

Sure, since the vetting process for crazy people is absolutely cockblocked by HIPAA, and we still spend way more tax money registering guns than providing institutionalized mental care. Cause ya know, all that registering really stops the crazy people...

Maybe an ammo ban is what we need to get people truly pissed off at government incompetence.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:55:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:45:23 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:19:19 AM, TBR wrote:

Should we temporarily stop selling ammo till get "get a hold" on this gun violence problem?

Sure, since the vetting process for crazy people is absolutely cockblocked by HIPAA, and we still spend way more tax money registering guns than providing institutionalized mental care. Cause ya know, all that registering really stops the crazy people...

Maybe an ammo ban is what we need to get people truly pissed off at government incompetence.

Point is. This is a ridiculous overreaction with a real downside. Why do it?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 12:21:40 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:19:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 12:08:46 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:52:38 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Nice to see your profile restored, as well as your Trump support.

thanks

But this was a policy I opposed until now. Now it makes perfect sense to temporarily shut it down until we update our vetting processes which are by all accounts treasonously incompetent.

If you disagree I'd ask you and anyone else who opposes my position how many people deserve to die so that we avoid temporarily discriminating based on religion before creating a better system. How valuable is unvetted muslim immigration to you? Be specific, how many lives?

The article gives an extensive list of tragedies that could've been avoided:

"As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit "honor killing" perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015). "

Is it really *that* important to avoid vetting muslims?

Should we temporarily stop selling ammo till get "get a hold" on this gun violence problem?

If there was a significant chance that after a very temporary halt the problem would be resolved or at least substantially mitigated, absolutely

OK. What makes you think that a temp ban on immigration or travel will resolve the problem?

Look. Terrorism is just not that substantial a threat.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:00:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:


Breitbart had a more detailed article on this, and the guy who was involved with this project was mostly tracking Deobandi Muslims, and was studying how they took advantage of Commonwealth passport loopholes to slip in under visa waiver programs after being radicalized abroad. I share his concern; this group is atypical in the same ways that Salafists are, and I think that a targeted ban on people associated with that sect would actually be a great idea. It wouldn't even affect the Syrian refugee issue because Deobandi Muslims are based in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the UK.

As usual, the Left's ridiculous, patronizing view of Muslims has stopped them from actually understanding Islam, and their incompetence will now cause a backlash against all Muslims.

As for a ban, I think that it would be better to restrict the visa waiver program with the UK until they alter the laws regarding how commonwealth states issue passports, and curtail immigration from south-central Asia as an emergency measure. The only people who can really fix the problem for good are the British; we, in practice, have a visa waiver program at the moment not just with the UK, but with every Commonwealth citizen, who are capable of receiving both British passports and passports from their home country. This includes Pakistan and India.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:12:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:00:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:


Breitbart had a more detailed article on this, and the guy who was involved with this project was mostly tracking Deobandi Muslims, and was studying how they took advantage of Commonwealth passport loopholes to slip in under visa waiver programs after being radicalized abroad. I share his concern; this group is atypical in the same ways that Salafists are, and I think that a targeted ban on people associated with that sect would actually be a great idea. It wouldn't even affect the Syrian refugee issue because Deobandi Muslims are based in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the UK.

As usual, the Left's ridiculous, patronizing view of Muslims has stopped them from actually understanding Islam, and their incompetence will now cause a backlash against all Muslims.

As for a ban, I think that it would be better to restrict the visa waiver program with the UK until they alter the laws regarding how commonwealth states issue passports, and curtail immigration from south-central Asia as an emergency measure. The only people who can really fix the problem for good are the British; we, in practice, have a visa waiver program at the moment not just with the UK, but with every Commonwealth citizen, who are capable of receiving both British passports and passports from their home country. This includes Pakistan and India.

Thanks for this. As usual, you know much more about anything to do with Islam than I do.

We shouldn't ban muslims from immigrating. I've known many, many muslim people (my high school was full of them) and for the most part they were fantastic people. But Trump isn't even saying we should...he's saying that we need to temporarily disallow it while we figure out how to weed out the radicalized people. With competent people devising the screening system we may not even need to shut it down at all, just enact sane policy. I don't know if it would be possible for the reasons you explained above but *something* should be done.

Trump wants to keep America safe by doing everything we reasonably can to prevent terrorism. This is is the policy that everyone from the media, to internet warriors for social justice, to the political establishment of both parties from the bottom to the top had a collective meltdown over.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:15:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:12:02 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:00:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:


Breitbart had a more detailed article on this, and the guy who was involved with this project was mostly tracking Deobandi Muslims, and was studying how they took advantage of Commonwealth passport loopholes to slip in under visa waiver programs after being radicalized abroad. I share his concern; this group is atypical in the same ways that Salafists are, and I think that a targeted ban on people associated with that sect would actually be a great idea. It wouldn't even affect the Syrian refugee issue because Deobandi Muslims are based in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the UK.

As usual, the Left's ridiculous, patronizing view of Muslims has stopped them from actually understanding Islam, and their incompetence will now cause a backlash against all Muslims.

As for a ban, I think that it would be better to restrict the visa waiver program with the UK until they alter the laws regarding how commonwealth states issue passports, and curtail immigration from south-central Asia as an emergency measure. The only people who can really fix the problem for good are the British; we, in practice, have a visa waiver program at the moment not just with the UK, but with every Commonwealth citizen, who are capable of receiving both British passports and passports from their home country. This includes Pakistan and India.

Thanks for this. As usual, you know much more about anything to do with Islam than I do.

We shouldn't ban muslims from immigrating. I've known many, many muslim people (my high school was full of them) and for the most part they were fantastic people. But Trump isn't even saying we should...he's saying that we need to temporarily disallow it while we figure out how to weed out the radicalized people. With competent people devising the screening system we may not even need to shut it down at all, just enact sane policy. I don't know if it would be possible for the reasons you explained above but *something* should be done.

Trump wants to keep America safe by doing everything we reasonably can to prevent terrorism. This is is the policy that everyone from the media, to internet warriors for social justice, to the political establishment of both parties from the bottom to the top had a collective meltdown over.

If it wasn't for Skep, I would never have known Salfism.

On that note, Skep, why do most of the non-Trump hopefuls say the solution is to enlist the aid of the Sunnis. Aren't they more affiliated to the jihadists than the Shia?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:17:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Trump takes a lot of heat for saying that he wants a temporary shutdown of Muslim immigration until we can figure out what's going on.

I thought that this was a bit of an overreaction and that we just need to be careful with how we vet people. Until I learned that we don't actually do any vetting.

I just read this article from a dog whistler who worked at the Department of Homeland Security:

"Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to "connect dots." Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database." http://thehill.com...

This fits with the known facts. The San Bernardino terrorist who came from abroad had posted her support for terrorism and jihad on social media...and law enforcement failed to properly vet her. http://www.nytimes.com...

I'm starting to think Trump is right. Clearly our system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely overhauled. Is this really such a controversial stance? How many dead Americans are worth not hurting feelings?

Honestly, i wouldn't mind. But that's because it doesn't concern me. The issue I have with this is the huge chance for a slippery-slope.

2nd, we need to understand whether this is actually doable. How does Trump intend to block every muslim?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:26:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.

All fine, but why are these our choices? We don't have to do either.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:33:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:26:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.

All fine, but why are these our choices? We don't have to do either.

Of course we don't have to do anything. No one is saying otherwise, and I agree that we generally don't want people to rush into action that's not well thought out and/or reasonable. But, in this instance, I think that making it harder to enter the United States is a reasonable response to the threat ISIS poses.

It's not going to solve all the problems, or alleviate all risk, but it's a reasonable response to an extant harm that is likely to prevent foreseeable harm. So, for those three reasons, it's policy worth implementing... but like this: a better way to go about doing this would be to amp up the requirements for obtaining visas for people to enter the United States. That's a more technical argument (functionally the same thing as what Trump wanted, just less anti-Muslim).
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:38:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:12:02 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:00:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/8/2016 11:12:43 PM, thett3 wrote:


Breitbart had a more detailed article on this, and the guy who was involved with this project was mostly tracking Deobandi Muslims, and was studying how they took advantage of Commonwealth passport loopholes to slip in under visa waiver programs after being radicalized abroad. I share his concern; this group is atypical in the same ways that Salafists are, and I think that a targeted ban on people associated with that sect would actually be a great idea. It wouldn't even affect the Syrian refugee issue because Deobandi Muslims are based in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the UK.

As usual, the Left's ridiculous, patronizing view of Muslims has stopped them from actually understanding Islam, and their incompetence will now cause a backlash against all Muslims.

As for a ban, I think that it would be better to restrict the visa waiver program with the UK until they alter the laws regarding how commonwealth states issue passports, and curtail immigration from south-central Asia as an emergency measure. The only people who can really fix the problem for good are the British; we, in practice, have a visa waiver program at the moment not just with the UK, but with every Commonwealth citizen, who are capable of receiving both British passports and passports from their home country. This includes Pakistan and India.

Thanks for this. As usual, you know much more about anything to do with Islam than I do.

We shouldn't ban muslims from immigrating. I've known many, many muslim people (my high school was full of them) and for the most part they were fantastic people. But Trump isn't even saying we should...he's saying that we need to temporarily disallow it while we figure out how to weed out the radicalized people. With competent people devising the screening system we may not even need to shut it down at all, just enact sane policy. I don't know if it would be possible for the reasons you explained above but *something* should be done.

Here's the article, if you want to scroll through it. It's actually really good; I only spotted one or two inaccuracies. Salafism may mean, etymologically, that they follow the original example of the founding generation of Islam (the Salaf), but the sect isn't traditionalist; it was founded a little over 200 years ago and actually goes against a lot of Islam's oldest traditions. And the Deobandi aren't Salafists. They are SIMILAR to Salafists in some of the worst ways, and have political ties to Salafist organizations, but they are not Salafists. Other than that everything checks out; I didn't know about the passport laws in the British commonwealth, but that is how it actually works. People from any Commonwealth nation can apply for an emergency British passport.

http://www.breitbart.com...

Trump wants to keep America safe by doing everything we reasonably can to prevent terrorism. This is is the policy that everyone from the media, to internet warriors for social justice, to the political establishment of both parties from the bottom to the top had a collective meltdown over.

Because it's fashionable. Most of these useful idiots are dumb enough to think that Islam and gay marriage are compatible. Because they view Muslims as a helpless minority to be mollycoddled and protected, they don't realize that Islam is a complex collection of political and religious worldviews with a wide diversity of opinion on pretty much everything, and that some of its incarnations are better/worse than others. The dialogue over Islam right now is either 'they're unfairly maligned kitten-hugging, kumbaya-singing, all-tolerant Mother Theresas' or 'they're murdering, soulless, habitually lying manipulative psychopaths who will stop at nothing on their path to world domination and a thousand years of darkness mwahahahahaha'. The liberals have their heads in the sand, and the conservatives are seeing demons around every corner.

I know I'm probably preaching to the choir, but Muslims are just people, and most people refuse to accept the fact. This results in two seas of misinformation, two echo chambers, and little to no dialogue. It's why I wasn't really surprised by the reaction to Trump's statements: they're a bit excessively cautious, but otherwise middle of the road compared to the two prevailing narratives. It's why everyone freaked out.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:42:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:33:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:26:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.

All fine, but why are these our choices? We don't have to do either.

Of course we don't have to do anything. No one is saying otherwise, and I agree that we generally don't want people to rush into action that's not well thought out and/or reasonable. But, in this instance, I think that making it harder to enter the United States is a reasonable response to the threat ISIS poses.

It's not going to solve all the problems, or alleviate all risk, but it's a reasonable response to an extant harm that is likely to prevent foreseeable harm. So, for those three reasons, it's policy worth implementing... but like this: a better way to go about doing this would be to amp up the requirements for obtaining visas for people to enter the United States. That's a more technical argument (functionally the same thing as what Trump wanted, just less anti-Muslim).

Well, we should start be saying if we are talking about travel/work/residency/asylum. There are obviously huge differences in the vetting for each. As anyone might guess, I could care less if there are more or less Muslims in the US. I only get worked up by the default panic, and the easy button that this is pushing. There just is not enough good reasons for me to fear terrorism enough to spend a dollar or a second of anyone's time working on this largely non-issue issue. We spend plenty of time and money on things that are actually combating terrorism, and could work to improve them over another "lest check everyone shoes" sort of thing.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:47:16 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:42:58 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:33:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:26:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.

All fine, but why are these our choices? We don't have to do either.

Of course we don't have to do anything. No one is saying otherwise, and I agree that we generally don't want people to rush into action that's not well thought out and/or reasonable. But, in this instance, I think that making it harder to enter the United States is a reasonable response to the threat ISIS poses.

It's not going to solve all the problems, or alleviate all risk, but it's a reasonable response to an extant harm that is likely to prevent foreseeable harm. So, for those three reasons, it's policy worth implementing... but like this: a better way to go about doing this would be to amp up the requirements for obtaining visas for people to enter the United States. That's a more technical argument (functionally the same thing as what Trump wanted, just less anti-Muslim).

Well, we should start be saying if we are talking about travel/work/residency/asylum.

I'm talking about across the board; the fact that I didn't specify the purpose for which the visa would be granted implied that.

There are obviously huge differences in the vetting for each. As anyone might guess, I could care less if there are more or less Muslims in the US. I only get worked up by the default panic, and the easy button that this is pushing. There just is not enough good reasons for me to fear terrorism enough to spend a dollar or a second of anyone's time working on this largely non-issue issue. We spend plenty of time and money on things that are actually combating terrorism, and could work to improve them over another "lest check everyone shoes" sort of thing.

Ok, so other than making it more difficult for potential ISIS recruits to enter the country, what would you propose?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 1:54:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 1:47:16 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:42:58 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:33:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:26:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:23:34 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:18:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/9/2016 1:13:43 AM, YYW wrote:
If the issue is what is more humane, blocking people from entering the country is far less bloody to both the United States and all Muslims than to go to war over the issue.

I'm sure the ban will be more temporary than our current bloody occupation of the Middle east..... good god 15 years already...no end in sight.

That's a very reasonable point.

All fine, but why are these our choices? We don't have to do either.

Of course we don't have to do anything. No one is saying otherwise, and I agree that we generally don't want people to rush into action that's not well thought out and/or reasonable. But, in this instance, I think that making it harder to enter the United States is a reasonable response to the threat ISIS poses.

It's not going to solve all the problems, or alleviate all risk, but it's a reasonable response to an extant harm that is likely to prevent foreseeable harm. So, for those three reasons, it's policy worth implementing... but like this: a better way to go about doing this would be to amp up the requirements for obtaining visas for people to enter the United States. That's a more technical argument (functionally the same thing as what Trump wanted, just less anti-Muslim).

Well, we should start be saying if we are talking about travel/work/residency/asylum.

I'm talking about across the board; the fact that I didn't specify the purpose for which the visa would be granted implied that.

There are obviously huge differences in the vetting for each. As anyone might guess, I could care less if there are more or less Muslims in the US. I only get worked up by the default panic, and the easy button that this is pushing. There just is not enough good reasons for me to fear terrorism enough to spend a dollar or a second of anyone's time working on this largely non-issue issue. We spend plenty of time and money on things that are actually combating terrorism, and could work to improve them over another "lest check everyone shoes" sort of thing.

Ok, so other than making it more difficult for potential ISIS recruits to enter the country, what would you propose?

Intelligence services, and good policing are the best investments.

Side story: On 9/11 I was working for a broker/dealer. Bigish, but not a name people would know well. Basically, not a natural target. After, the guys in fulfilment that dealt with the mail started wearing gloves. When I saw this, my thought was these poor guys were working a basically crap job, and now had the added internal irrational worry that they were going to die. Some a$$hole had made them so freaked out that that they would add more misery to mindbending tedium that is working in the f**king mailroom. Point is, why play into irrational fear?