The News Thread

[arg]

the FBI itself said there are gaps in the vetting process. most Syrians have NO data on them at all. the FBI "query the database until the cows come home" (their words) but if the individual has never done anything, or even if he did there's no record of it, he will not trigger any alerts.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Vice have interviewed EODM and put out a teaser for it and everyone on FB is very offended that they would do such a thing.

http://www.vice.com/read/coming-soo...ut-for-the-first-time-since-the-paris-attacks

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh so tightening up the screening process is "fear-mongering"? WOW. just wow.

It just throws up red tape to keep refugees out as a means of politicians gaining clout. A terrorist could easily come over from France or Belgium with a EU Visa within a matter of days. A Syrian refugee has to go through rigorous, 18 month screening process. Furthermore, most are children and seniors. So why are we dwelling on the most closely scrutinized group to enter the country? This is fear-mongering and a red herring.

 

[arg]

the vetting process is probably relatively effective. as long as any negative information, lack of information, shadow of a doubt, or if they're caught lying in an interview causes their refugee application to be immediately rejected, threats should be able to be filtered at an acceptable level.

The real reason I don't want them here, and I think it's the same reason of the politicians and most average Americans, is economic. We don't want our taxes to go towards supporting them. We don't want the hassle and cost of housing them and providing them healthcare. And it is a perfectly valid and justified reason. They have no entitlement to American money.

 

[Matt]

It just throws up red tape to keep refugees out as a means of politicians gaining clout. A terrorist could easily come over from France or Belgium with a EU Visa within a matter of days. A Syrian refugee has to go through rigorous, 18 month screening process. Furthermore, most are children and seniors. So why are we dwelling on the most closely scrutinized group to enter the country? This is fear-mongering and a red herring.

 

[Dak]

See, it's all very convenient that the only thing people can get up in arms about are the current outliers (horrible as they may be), or standard welfare based arguments. No one wants to touch on cultural values and demographics.

http://malcolmpollack.com/2015/11/22/the-refugee-question-further-thoughts/

.....Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western norms, and that no pious Muslim can ever truly assimilate into Western secular societies. As I have writtenelsewhere:

The problem for the West, and for “moderate” Muslims living here, is that Islam has a perpetual, self-renewing wellspring of fundamentalism at its core. That there may always be some more liberal and secular Muslims at the fringes of the Ummah, and rifts within Islam itself over who is an apostate and who isn’t, is irrelevant.

What matters is that due to the unique nature and origins of Islam there has always been, and will always be, a powerful and persistent gravitational pull away from modernizing reforms, and toward fundamentalism — and this will always be a source of tension and conflict wherever there are large communities of Muslims living in the West.

3) We need not theorize about the effect of establishing large and expanding Muslim populations in Western societies; we have instructive and concrete examples before our eyes. In every European nation that has permitted substantial immigration, the results have been the same. Look at France, England, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Greece, and Italy, to name a few, and ask yourself if they are better off now — happier, more cohesive, safer, better able to operate as well-functioning social-welfare states — than they were before this madness began, and they had their ancestral homelands to themselves.

4) Immigration is the most difficult of all social policies to undo. Laws can be repealed, and agencies defunded, but demographic changes — especially those that introduce new populations with much higher birthrates than the natives — are, barring mass deportation, or worse, wars of “ethnic cleansing”, irreversible, and it is often impossible for a nation to know that it has passed a critical demographic “tipping point” until it is already too late. This alone makes an extremely powerful argument for supreme caution regarding refugee and immigration policy, especially at a time of increasing racial, ethnic and political tension.

The Syrian kerfuffle is just drawing attention to a very old problem, which extends even beyond Liberal and Islamic incompatibilities.

 

[rms]

Maher talked about it this week on his show. One of his guests was part of the Canadian government;

https://www.facebook.com/Maher/

First video, not sure how to link it directly and don't think it's on YouTube.

I'm not sure if I believe this perspective. It always seems to hinge only on Middle Eastern Muslims and not Muslims abroad. I never hear this argument in South East Asia, for instance. I have my doubts.

7) The overwhelming majority of the “Syrian” “refugees” now inundating Europe are young, military-age males, which is a very unusual composition for refugee flows. Why, we might ask, have they abandoned their homelands, their women, and their children, to flee to safety and relative comfort in the West? If the United States were to face an internal enemy like ISIS, don’t you think young American males — at least those worthy of our respect and our assistance — would stay home and fight? Why don’t these young men?

I keep hearing this, and the opposite, but never hear stats. What are the facts, thus far?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

See, it's all very convenient that the only thing people can get up in arms about are the current outliers (horrible as they may be), or standard welfare based arguments. No one wants to touch on cultural values and demographics.

http://malcolmpollack.com/2015/11/22/the-refugee-question-further-thoughts/



The Syrian kerfuffle is just drawing attention to a very old problem, which extends even beyond Liberal and Islamic incompatibilities.

The author's claim contains a factual flaw, and what is sound about it, applies to religion in general. Islam is demonstratively compatible with secularism, as there are numerous secular Islamic states (Turkey, Indonesia, the -Stans, etc.). Secondly, the draw towards fundamentalism is present in all religions, not just Islam. For example, the greatest threat to secularism in the USA quite clearly comes from fundamentalist Christians.

 

[arg]

Any rational person arguing about refugee settlement into the USA should be against it. There is NO benefit to taking them in from any perspective, whether it be economic, security, social or cultural.

What is your argument for accepting them, to be compassionate? haha that's fucking laughable and useless

 

[Dak]

The author's claim contains a factual flaw, and what is sound about it, applies to religion in general. Islam is demonstratively compatible with secularism, as there are numerous secular Islamic states (Turkey, Indonesia, the -Stans, etc.). Secondly, the draw towards fundamentalism is present in all religions, not just Islam. For example, the greatest threat to secularism in the USA quite clearly comes from fundamentalist Christians.

See, you're right to a degree, but it's irrelevant (you're engaging in the same "whatabouttery" that I see all over FB). Christian fundamentalism is dying in two ways: Biologically and culturally. Christian fundamentalism is no threat to Western Civilization, secular or otherwise. In contrast, Islam is growing both biologically and culturally (religious converts):

If your counter argument on the success of secular Islamic states includes the Stans, you really need to reevaluate - and Turkey doesn't help your argument much either if you know anything about Turkish CE. So we are left with Indonesia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/indonesia.You sure you want to ride that pony?

I'm surprised you haven't started comparing Syrians to Jews in the '30s.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

See, you're right to a degree, but it's irrelevant (you're engaging in the same "whatabouttery" that I see all over FB). Christian fundamentalism is dying in two ways: Biologically and culturally. Christian fundamentalism is no threat to Western Civilization, secular or otherwise.

Christians have been literally striving toward the destruction of women's rights, science education and denying of climate change in the country I live in. They are absolutely an immanent threat to secular society.

If your counter argument on the success of secular Islamic states includes the Stans, you really need to reevaluate - and Turkey doesn't help your argument much either if you know anything about Turkish CE. So we are left with Indonesia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/indonesia.You sure you want to ride that pony?

I never stated that these countries are bastions of human rights protections. I stated they are secular, which is true. I'll grant they have flaws, in the cases of some of the countries major ones. However, the major flaws they have do not have to do with fundamentalism, which was the claim of the author you cited.

 

[Dak]

Christians have been literally striving toward the destruction of women's rights, science education and denying of climate change in the country I live in. They are absolutely an immanent threat to secular society.

No, they literally aren't. I know for a literal fact there is not a single Constitutional right under any sort of "immanently threatening" assault on the basis of sex in this country, regardless of the source of the attack.

Science education in the United States could hardly be any worse for wear by sticking in "creationism" as an alternative theory, since it shouldn't be any more than a byline (since it lacks any sort of rigor or actual data, according to the scientific consensus. If you could find any school system in immanent danger of having evolution struck from the curricula, I would be duly impressed.

Finally, denying climate change or accepting it is entirely irrelevant. Changing climates gonna change. It's a fact of nature on this earth. Been changing, is changing, will change. May as well claim flat earthers are an immanent threat to secular society. They exist also.

These claims of doom, doom visited upon humanity via a bunch of nearly dead, mostly poor demographic cohort are amusing, even when the descriptions of the beliefs warned about in the doom reports are accurate.

I never stated that these countries are bastions of human rights protections. I stated they are secular, which is true. I'll grant they have flaws, in the cases of some of the countries major ones. However, the major flaws they have do not have to do with fundamentalism, which was the claim of the author you cited.

You obviously didn't read the link. They either stem from Islamic fundamentalists, or are completely in line with Islamic fundamentalism. That is - those problems which do not stem from fundamentalist group origins would be present even if the "secular" or "moderate Islamic" group were replaced with fundamentalists.

 

[arg]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/opinions/ryan-syrian-refugees/index.html

Testifying before Congress last month, FBI Director James Comey put it most starkly: "If someone has not made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our databases, we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person."

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, meanwhile, has said: "It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process. ... That is definitely a challenge. ... We know that organizations like ISIL might like to exploit this program."

 

[rms]

Anyone with a passport can just walk into America man. Refugees are the long "con" if anything.

 

[King Richard]

It just throws up red tape to keep refugees out as a means of politicians gaining clout. A terrorist could easily come over from France or Belgium with a EU Visa within a matter of days. A Syrian refugee has to go through rigorous, 18 month screening process. Furthermore, most are children and seniors. So why are we dwelling on the most closely scrutinized group to enter the country? This is fear-mongering and a red herring.

I completely agree. And to make this issue even worse, almost all of the terrorist incidents in the US since 9/11 have been domestic. It's fucking dumb to make such a big deal about the few Syrian refugees and is completely un-American.

 

[King Richard]

Any rational person arguing about refugee settlement into the USA should be against it. There is NO benefit to taking them in from any perspective, whether it be economic, security, social or cultural.

What is your argument for accepting them, to be compassionate? haha that's fucking laughable and useless

You do realize that we've been bombing the fuck out of all those Middle Eastern countries for decades right? Not to mention anytime there's a coup or change in government stability, etc, whatever, we've got our hands in it. The fucking least we could do is give the handful of innocent people trying to get out of Satan's asshole a chance to live in peace.

 

[King Richard]

Finally, denying climate change or accepting it is entirely irrelevant. Changing climates gonna change. It's a fact of nature on this earth. Been changing, is changing, will change. May as well claim flat earthers are an immanent threat to secular society. They exist also.

These claims of doom, doom visited upon humanity via a bunch of nearly dead, mostly poor demographic cohort are amusing, even when the descriptions of the beliefs warned about in the doom reports are accurate.

wat. The climate change issue isn't an issue simply because the climate is changing. The actual issue is how much humans are affecting the climate change. Why don't people understand that? No shit the climate has and will change in Earth's lifetime, that's not the point.

 

[Dak]

wat. The climate change issue isn't an issue simply because the climate is changing. The actual issue is how much humans are affecting the climate change. Why don't people understand that? No shit the climate has and will change in Earth's lifetime, that's not the point.

Maybe humans are affecting it. Maybe they aren't. It doesn't really matter. OTOH, pollution is a problem, but let's just worry about whether or not the temp goes up or down.

 

[King Richard]

Maybe humans are affecting it. Maybe they aren't. It doesn't really matter. OTOH, pollution is a problem, but let's just worry about whether or not the temp goes up or down.

We are affecting it. It does matter. Pollution is part of the overall problem. duh

 

[Dak]

We are affecting it. It does matter. Pollution is part of the overall problem. duh

I haven't seen any legitimate reason to be concerned about changing temperatures, unless one has valuable oceanfront property. Should we really be that concerned about the real estate portfolios of the "1%"? Pollution can be treated entirely separately from the gloom & doom about a change in the global mean temp.