jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Incorrect, he said until we can figure out who is coming in.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Great point! Hillary should be held accountable!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

We have this same conversation over and over. The US has helped create the refugee problem by supplying weapons to those involved in fighting and participating in the fighting itself. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help resolve it. We cannot expect other countries to accept refugees if we refuse. That is the price of leadership and the price of our foreign wars. The refugees that we are considering brining to the US have been in camps for years. There are plenty of them, allowing us to select only those who can be vetted.

No ISIS terrorist is going to sit around in a camp for years hoping to be selected to come to the US. The go to Europe because it does not require waiting in a camp. Comparing the situation in Europe to the situation in the US is apples and oranges.

You can claim not to see things in black and white as many times as you wish, but if your only solution is to not accept refugees, that is a black and white solution. There are plenty of compromise between no refugees and open doors.

Anonymous wrote:Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

Then where? No one wants them. That's part of the problem. Many countries are trying to shoulder some of their share, but one area alone can't hold all the refugees.

Amen to the pps above
Can't we all admit it's a grey area? It's not black and white. One side is trying to depict many of us as unfeeling monsters.
But the grey area is that we don't know certainly that all we are bringing in to the west are OK. All but a few are in need of help. I feel for them. If it were black and white, I'd say bring as many as we can.
Many Americans want to protect what we have. Let's help them get re-settled, but not inside US borders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm at the end about keeping tabs on all white men. We don't do that, obviously, because we don't make a blanket generalization about people. I would be ok with women with young children as refugees. I'd be more wary of single men. But, in any case, we shouldn't assume that ALL Syrians, or ALL Muslims are potential terrorists. That was the point. You are letting your fear (as real as they may be) control you.

New poster here.
Let me try to make this crystal clear for you. I won’t use any big words.
Those of us who are opposed to allowing Syrian refugees (or other refugees, for that matter) into our country have never claimed they are ALL potential terrorists. Never.
What we have claimed, and we have many Obama administration officials who have stated this, is that we cannot adequately vet the refugees particularly from Syria. And, since ISIS has promised to infiltrate (big word, sorry I lied) the refugee population (and have proven they follow through on their threats - see Europe), why would we risk welcoming them to our country?

With an estimated 200000 ISIS fighters (and that's just ISIS), the chances of them getting in are good. Of the one billion Muslims, several hundred thousands are considered the inner circle. The group that wakes up every day and wants to kill apostates.

Outside that, there is the groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. They agree with the Jihadi ideals but use political means to do so. This also includes CAIR which the FBI has charged with disseminating finds to terror groups and who the UAE has banned as a terrorist organization. These number in the several million.

The outer circle, is the Muslims who don't blow themselves up, kill or get politically involved. Yet they support ideas you an I consider abhorrent. According to Pew Research, a polls conducted of Muslims in 30 different countries, 39% believe suicide bombings are justified. Nearly a quarter believe a women should be killed for adultery or pre-martial sex. Nearly 35% believe in honor killings. These ideas are contrary to our values. Yet, hundreds of millions of Muslims believe these are acceptable ideals.

Yeah, so there is an issue when you can't vet who is coming here. These numbers are disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm at the end about keeping tabs on all white men. We don't do that, obviously, because we don't make a blanket generalization about people. I would be ok with women with young children as refugees. I'd be more wary of single men. But, in any case, we shouldn't assume that ALL Syrians, or ALL Muslims are potential terrorists. That was the point. You are letting your fear (as real as they may be) control you.

New poster here.
Let me try to make this crystal clear for you. I won’t use any big words.
Those of us who are opposed to allowing Syrian refugees (or other refugees, for that matter) into our country have never claimed they are ALL potential terrorists. Never.
What we have claimed, and we have many Obama administration officials who have stated this, is that we cannot adequately vet the refugees particularly from Syria. And, since ISIS has promised to infiltrate (big word, sorry I lied) the refugee population (and have proven they follow through on their threats - see Europe), why would we risk welcoming them to our country?

These people are wont get it until they are hit, then they will wring their hands, point fingers, and state they had no way of knowing.

Islamic hit squads among refugees in Germany, per intelligence reports:

http://bit.ly/2b3Cyyc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm at the end about keeping tabs on all white men. We don't do that, obviously, because we don't make a blanket generalization about people. I would be ok with women with young children as refugees. I'd be more wary of single men. But, in any case, we shouldn't assume that ALL Syrians, or ALL Muslims are potential terrorists. That was the point. You are letting your fear (as real as they may be) control you.

Radical Islam - by The Numbers from Raheel Razza. Watch it and come back and say that again...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm at the end about keeping tabs on all white men. We don't do that, obviously, because we don't make a blanket generalization about people. I would be ok with women with young children as refugees. I'd be more wary of single men. But, in any case, we shouldn't assume that ALL Syrians, or ALL Muslims are potential terrorists. That was the point. You are letting your fear (as real as they may be) control you.

New poster here.
Let me try to make this crystal clear for you. I won’t use any big words.
Those of us who are opposed to allowing Syrian refugees (or other refugees, for that matter) into our country have never claimed they are ALL potential terrorists. Never.
What we have claimed, and we have many Obama administration officials who have stated this, is that we cannot adequately vet the refugees particularly from Syria. And, since ISIS has promised to infiltrate (big word, sorry I lied) the refugee population (and have proven they follow through on their threats - see Europe), why would we risk welcoming them to our country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm at the end about keeping tabs on all white men. We don't do that, obviously, because we don't make a blanket generalization about people. I would be ok with women with young children as refugees. I'd be more wary of single men. But, in any case, we shouldn't assume that ALL Syrians, or ALL Muslims are potential terrorists. That was the point. You are letting your fear (as real as they may be) control you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Exactly. Do you think our FBI and other counter-terrorism units need more work to do? They don’t. We don’t have enough LE personnel to deal with those already here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the new york times a couple of weeks ago about how a lot of Canadians are very enthusiastically taking in Syrian refugees.

Did you see the additional article about the ISIS sympathizer killed before he could detonate a bomb in Canada?

Did you see the article about a white DC metro cop who was arrested for helping ISIS? He also had a stockpile of guns. He apparently made contact with another white ISIS sympathizer from VA who was also arrested. We should not allow in anymore white people in this country either, apparently, and we should keep tabs on all white men, just in case.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/dc-transit-officer-charged-with-aiding-isis/

We have enough of our own. How is that reason to bring others?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to keep tabs on mateen's wife, apparently. I'm the pp who was interested in that discussion earlier in this thread. Googled it, and yeah...I was always wondering why she should not be charged. Loretta Lynch confirmed, they lost her.

Here is the quote from Loretta Lynch:

"Right now, I don't know exactly the answer to that," Lynch replied. "I believe she was going to travel but I do not know exactly her location now."

What that means is that Lynch herself didn't know at that moment where Noor Salman was at that moment. That doesn't mean that nobody at the Justice Department or FBI knew where she was at that moment or that they couldn't locate her quickly if wishing to do so.

There's a good chance the precise wording is just her PR spin on the fact that they lost her.

Or that they know, but don't want her or anyone else to know that they know.. you know? What did trump say? You don't tell your enemies where you are going to be, or in this case, what you know.