Serious 150+ dead in Paris terrorist attack

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
The main question is, though, is that do we really know the backgrounds of these immigrants? It's common knowledge at this point that U.S. is currently against the Syrian government, so there is no intelligent sharing on these individuals. There is no way for us to vet them because we don't have the tools to know their background. I wish we had, but we really don't.

I'm not willing to (try to) debunk the Homeland Security statistic, so I will take it for face value as true and assume that no tricks were played to skew the statistics. However, it is a moot point. Even if there is no correlation back at 9/11, they're could very well be one now, and especially since we realized that at least one of the terrorists in Paris was related to Syria. I understand that that's vague, but even so, it's still important to be cautious on these people as individuals, we simply do not know their background, and just like with any immigrant, if we don't know their background, it's quite risky letting them in..
What part of "year long background check" don't you get? Do you, as a random (presumably) American citizen, already knowing that the US government has done more than their fair share of due diligence, want the name, number, social security, address, photo, and backstory of every single person to enter the US, or just the Muslim ones?
 
What part of "year long background check" don't you get? Do you, as a random (presumably) American citizen, already knowing that the US government has done more than their fair share of due diligence, want the name, number, social security, address, photo, and backstory of every single person to enter the US, or just the Muslim ones?
We have nothing in the databases to properly screen these refugees, the FBI admits this. It doesn't matter how long we do it, the point is, we just don't have things such as arrest records, fingerprints, travel data, etc. to really determine whether these people are innocent or not. And yes, EVERY single person, not just Muslims. It's just in this particular case it's Syrians.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I'm way more concerned about native born Muslims in the US, especially Nation of Islam, than I am of refugees who go through thorough vetting.* Successfully applying for refugee status costs a significant amount of money, meaning that many refugees are well educated and hardworking - they had to be to afford it.

I will note that this is not nearly as guaranteed to be true for the case of Europeans. In their case, reaching Greece (and from there the rest of the EU) is substantially cheaper and less subject to vetting than it is in the US. They are the ones facing a difficult decision and I am impressed with many countries' resolve to not give into fear.

*And if they lack the documentation to be vetted, they're denied... the burden of proof is on showing 1) true refugee status and 2) that you'd pose no threat to the admitting country. If you're worried we can't screen them then there's literally nothing to worry about. You can't get accepted without the screening. Period.

P.S. I'm also not unduly concerned about Muslims in the US in general. I'm more scared of hardline evangelical Christians.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
We have nothing in the databases to properly screen these refugees, the FBI admits this. It doesn't matter how long we do it, the point is, we just don't have things such as arrest records, fingerprints, travel data, etc. to really determine whether these people are innocent or not. And yes, EVERY single person, not just Muslims. It's just in this particular case it's Syrians.
How do you feel about the US relocating German Jews with zero means of identification post Holocaust, or Vietnamese refugees during the war in Vietnam, I'm legitimately curious?

IK I'm being driving but when everyone says "I know there is zero history of any refugee terrorist attack post 9/11 on American soil, and that this is only one of many times where the US has relocated refugees from humanitarian disasters (which all were opposed on xenophobic grounds), but I think we shouldn't do this because I personally don't know them" I get mad.
Whenever there's a humanitarian crisis in the world and people helps survivors displaced by conflict, xenophobic tendencies push back, EVERY, SINGLE, TIME.

Just because someone's from a different Country doesn't mean they aren't people. This xenophobia is literally getting innocent people killed, it's playing into the hands of the people that orchestrate attacks like these, and it's only raising the death count.
 
Last edited:
How do you feel about the US relocating German Jews with zero means of identification post Holocaust, or Vietnamese refugees during the war in Vietnam, I'm legitimately curious?

IK I'm being driving but when everyone says "I know there is zero history of any refugee ever committing a terrorist attack on American soil, and that this is one of many times where the US has relocated refugees from humanitarian disasters (and that they all were opposed on xenophobic grounds), but I think we shouldn't do this because I personally don't know them" I get mad.

Whenever there's a humanitarian crisis in the world and the United States helps survivors displaced by conflict, xenophobic tendencies push back, EVERY, SINGLE, TIME.

Just because someone's from a different Country doesn't mean they aren't people. This xenophobia is literally getting innocent people killed, it's playing into the hands of the people that orchestrate attacks like these, and it's only raising the death count.
We had actual history of German Jews and the Vietnamese refugees, we had a ton of allies (well, at least for WWII) and I'm sure we had background knowledge. You gotta remember the U.S. was at least part of the people who let the remaining Jews out of these concentration camps, we can't really say the same for Syrian refugees. I'll have to say that if we had actual zero information, I'll say no. Though the people in these situations had absolutely no strength, they were starved and depraved, meanwhile there are plenty of strong men to fight against Syria. To be honest, I'm not even sure if we can even afford these immigrants. So many immigrants are on welfare and there's no way we can even guarantee these refugees a good lifestyle. Also remember that we're 19+ trillion dollars into debt. Again, I'll say no, but just note that our situations are different if we actually didn't know anything about them. I linked a video to Rand Paul talking about this, since I think he explains what I have said well. (I tried really hard not to bring presidential candidates to this, but I really want to make sure I nail the point.)

Syrians might be worrysome because of revenge terrorism, but I'm concerned about them for similar reasons I'm against illegal immigration. (I'm aware if Syrians get in it isn't technically the same thing, but it's similar in the sense that we don't have much information about them) Ignoring the fact that so many of these people will be put on welfare, some illegal immigrants, already committing the crime of coming here illegally, can double down on crimes and bring drugs with them. If Syrians come in, they may not bring in drugs while having to live off of welfare, but they'll still have to live on welfare and we don't even know if the Syrians will be able to assimilate well with our culture because we don't have any information on them. I don't blame Islam specifically for this, but I blame Islamic states like Syria and Saudi Arabia for just having a messed up culture, which really comes down to forcing people to follow a religion this certain way and just being terrible places in general. (Just a reminder, I live in a proud Muslim family, but it doesn't mean I can't state negative things about these countries.) Also again, I know what we have so far is vague, but at least one of the terrorists in Paris was related to Syria.

I understand how painful it is to understand that a good portion of these Syrians could very well be innocent, but it's not something we can really afford to do. I really wish we could not only easily figure out the good from the bad, but actually be able to afford the people. Sadly, we can't be the policemen of the world, we owe far too much money in an economy that's already declining, (I linked Donald Trump because I believe he explained this situation quite well) and even though we generally think of being the policemen of the world as being hawkish, it also means we can't afford to be always expected of taking care of other countries problems.
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Please try to use a better source on immigration than CIS. It's a painfully ideologically driven organization. You'll do much better with the truly nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute or if you insist on something still coming from a right-wing perspective (but sane) Cato and AEI aren't terrible.

I mean, really, a CIS senior policy wonk said that Obama didn't even deserve to be drawn and quartered because that would be too good for him.

They're also quite explicit that their general goal is to lower immigration numbers, something most everyone else agrees is, at best, pointless and more likely just bad.
 
Please try to use a better source on immigration than CIS. It's a painfully ideologically driven organization. You'll do much better with the truly nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute or if you insist on something still coming from a right-wing perspective (but sane) Cato and AEI aren't terrible.

I mean, really, a CIS senior policy wonk said that Obama didn't even deserve to be drawn and quartered because that would be too good for him.

They're also quite explicit that their general goal is to lower immigration numbers, something most everyone else agrees is, at best, pointless and more likely just bad.
My source also uses Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which I would judge as a fairly good tool for measuring. Though, I guess I can't trust the Guardian when it talks about economics because of the absolute crap some of the people spew out. (They have Julie Bindel and Jessica Valenti, enough said) Though, unlike many of the Guardian's economic policies, they don't get debunked with 7 minute google searches. I don't really see any particular problem with this source as long as it's accurate, and it clearly uses accurate sources that we currently have available. Even if the site I gave to it would give stats leaned to it, the truth is the stats are like that and the means are legitimate.
 
Last edited:
Even if there is no correlation back at 9/11, they're could very well be one now, and especially since we realized that at least one of the terrorists in Paris was related to Syria.
Kind of inaccurate. The attackers identified so far have all been European nationals (French and Belgian primarily, iirc), and the Syrian passport is incredibly likely to be a forgery (a Serbian guy was arrested for carrying a Syrian passport with basically all of the same details as the one found in the attack). It's believed that both of the forged passports came out of Turkey. Also they're supposedly not very good fakes, something about the numbers not matching a legitimate Syrian passport.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Yeah but those politicians in the state legislatures wouldn't just ban refugees from syria for no reason right? Surely there must be some sense to it?


yall can keep posting to try to convince yourself that your supposed political representatives are taking actions that actually make sense (but they aren't and they never will), and keep embarrassing yourselves. ISIS will cheer you on, don't fear.


You won't thank me for telling you, but yall conservatives are giving exactly the reaction ISIS wants, so just this once I hope you can understand that, it's not for me to know, but for you to decide, whether you want to continue being mentally ill (prejudiced/ media brainwashed to the point of delusional fear), a sheep (playing directly into ISIS hand), and/ or evil. feel free to be disgusted by your own human vulnerability to misinformation, which was discussed on the first page by adamant zoroark of all users:

people keep hearing about religious fundamentalists flying planes into towers, or shooting up the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, or bombing Paris, or whatever the fuck else in the name of Islam, but not so much for other religions other than Christianity (but like 75% of Americans are Christian) so they end up associating terrorism with Islam. Is it rational? Fuck no. But humans are irrational creatures. Basically, people are taking a very teeny-tiny percentage of the Muslim population (like, very small - I wouldn't even claim it's even close to 1%) and judging the entire group based on that, because that's what humans do - the media reports bad news (negativity bias), then people hastily generalize, and then selectively look for evidence that supports the opinion they formed from that hasty generalization (confirmation bias.)
which should have been /thread for you lot, but feel free to be the globalized 2015 edition of the KKK.

as always the fake news got it more right than anything produced by CIS thinktank. Did someone really just argue that refugees might bring drugs with them? You should be ashamed about your lack of feeling for humanity.

http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-warns-refugees-likely-be-driven-terrorism-way--51861

you know the assad regime is backed by christians right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JES
you want to continue being mentally ill (prejudiced/ media brainwashed to the point of delusional fear)
There's a lot of poor rhetoric in your post, but this one is very relevant. Are you aware that's an incredibly poor choice of words? Are you aware of what mental illness actually is? Do you think your toxic rhetoric (namely this bit) is, in any way, illuminating? Would you use "Muslim" as an insult...?

As for the greater topic (well, the portion about refugees), the biggest issue (in my opinion, and for what it's worth) with accepting refugees in America is not that they will end up committing acts of terror (that's incredibly unlikely, all things considered), but providing the means to support and enable them to succeed. I'm aware of how the current programs work, but I'm certain it won't be enough... Largely due to the hysterical hatred and outrage by conservative caricatured being regressive. Having refugees escape death only to end up being socially segregated is a very real problem. It happens among a very many types of minorities, most prominently black communities, and there's been attempts by progressive-minded groups since the founding of this country to eliminate these issues, but they stubbornly remain...

edit: Screw it.

Yeah but those politicians in the state legislatures wouldn't just ban refugees from syria for no reason right? Surely there must be some sense to it?
The most any state legislation can possibly achieve is withholding state funds for refugee assistance. The federal government is still within the right and still has the ability to provide refugees assistance in states run by xenophobes.

yall can keep posting to try to convince yourself that your supposed political representatives are taking actions that actually make sense (but they aren't and they never will), and keep embarrassing yourselves. ISIS will cheer you on, don't fear.
This doesn't make sense. Are you using the absence of a perfectly objective politician that always makes the best decision as an argument against... what? That progress can be made, that refugees can be assisted, that ISIS will collapse eventually?

You won't thank me for telling you, but yall conservatives are giving exactly the reaction ISIS wants
I disagree with nearly every conservative view point (regardless of whatever misconceived notions you may have), and as a result, their policies, but you do know you're making the same mistake your conservative caricature makes? I'll explain it: you're grouping all conservatives together as one collective, homogeneous group that makes unanimous and terrible decisions (and that's putting it nicely). Your conservative stereotype groups all Muslims together as one collective, homogeneous group of terrorists or potential terrorists.

you want to continue being mentally ill (prejudiced/ media brainwashed to the point of delusional fear)
I already highlighted the poor rhetoric here, but I'll elaborate. You paint your conservative tropes as being mentally ill. Accepting certain beliefs isn't mental illness. Accepting irrational beliefs isn't mental illness (or everyone on this planet would be mentally ill; hence why religion and social customs are exempt from psychiatric consideration unless said religious or social beliefs are acting contrarily to what is normal within the individual's group). Beliefs can change under a million different conditions.

Psychiatry has methods to determine if abnormal behavior constitutes mental illness. And yet still, many forms of mental illness caused by chemical or structural changes in a brain that have little basis on abstract factors like political opinions of some random senator for some random rural community. They cannot be educated away. They can't be willed away. They can only be treated (and that's if they can successfully be treated) via professional care. Even if these types of illness were triggered by trauma or stress or injury, mental willpower alone won't overcome them. Do you understand why your comparison is not only potentially offensive, but invalid as well?

a sheep (playing directly into ISIS hand)
Essentially: "You disagree with me so you're a sheep." Where's the mention of Fox News? That's a common boogeyman when mention "conservative sheep."

Again, you explicitly paint all groups identifying with a broad system of beliefs as evil. Do you not notice the problem?

feel free to be disgusted by your own human vulnerability to misinformation
Your conservative trope isn't the only one...

but feel free to be the globalized 2015 edition of the KKK.
Again, you explicitly paint all conservatives as a terrorist organization. I suppose you may claim it's a hyperbolic statement... But I repeat: do you not notice the problem?

You should be ashamed about your lack of feeling for humanity.
Emotionally charged statement. What purpose does this serve?

you know the assad regime is backed by christians right?
I'm very well aware. Christians also fund and enable the House of Saud. And they funded Al Qaeda. And on... and on... Hypocritical, yes, but it's not earth-shattering or by any means new.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but those politicians in the state legislatures wouldn't just ban refugees from syria for no reason right? Surely there must be some sense to it?


yall can keep posting to try to convince yourself that your supposed political representatives are taking actions that actually make sense (but they aren't and they never will), and keep embarrassing yourselves. ISIS will cheer you on, don't fear.


You won't thank me for telling you, but yall conservatives are giving exactly the reaction ISIS wants, so just this once I hope you can understand that, it's not for me to know, but for you to decide, whether you want to continue being mentally ill (prejudiced/ media brainwashed to the point of delusional fear), a sheep (playing directly into ISIS hand), and/ or evil. feel free to be disgusted by your own human vulnerability to misinformation, which was discussed on the first page by adamant zoroark of all users:


which should have been /thread for you lot, but feel free to be the globalized 2015 edition of the KKK
as always the fake news got it more right than anything produced by CIS thinktank. Did someone really just argue that refugees might bring drugs with them? You should be ashamed about your lack of feeling for humanity.

http://www.theonion.com/article/gop-warns-refugees-likely-be-driven-terrorism-way--51861

you know the assad regime is backed by christians right?
Hahahaha. Thanks for turning a very reasonable discussion in which I was talking to someone with actual intelligence to talking to me, and you couldn't even read my argument.

I love how me having a reasonable debate with facts makes me akin to a KKK/Nazi/anti-humanitarian/misogynist/whatever irrational label the person I sent this to gave me because I hurt their feelings. Also, if you can't debunk my statistics, don't bother insulting me for using them.

Just get out. I see morons like you all the time, and much more than I see people who are willing to have an intellectual discussion with me. Hell, I wouldn't bother responding if you people weren't even such a vocal minority on Smogon, let alone the world. So for you and for every person like you. Fuck off. I don't care about how you feel and if you expect me to care then don't act like a jackass.

I'm aware I could've had a more calm and collected response, I just wanted to make good copy/paste material that I can use for anybody who acts like him.
 
Last edited:
Even if terrorists had some bomb or attack vector of incredible power, a nuclear power plant is incredibly resistant to attacks it would be incredibly useless making it a poor target.
The youtube video you posted...maybe you should read some of the comments, unless you believe all those people are making things up. Like how was it possilbe to destroy 3 buildings through plane crash in 9/11, yet, it is not enough to destroy a "concrete wall built".

You should know there are also other reactors besides the nuclear power plants: the research reactors.

Here is an interesting article talking about the weakpoints of research reactors that could be possible for attacks outside:
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Saleem_Zafar_Paper.pdf

Uhh guys, where the hell did you get the information that France just killed 300 civilians?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/france-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/
According to this and the others I have read, there have been no civilian casualties, so unless you have any evidence to prove me wrong, this whole 300 civilians thing has 0 connection to reality.
It is really hard to believe that there haven't been any civilian casualties nor that anyone has been killed besides "terorrist" considering 20 bombs where dropped at Monday and again at Sunday. I said above 300 not because that number is reported anywhere but that it is likely that after such an attack more than just a small number of people would have died compared to the attack on France which I am now unsure if it was 129, 150 or 300 since I am keep reading a different number from somewhere else.

Seriously, one attack from a terrorist, around 50+ people die, but attacks from the US, France or whatever with 20+ bombs..."few" people die.
Unless few means something different depending on what kind of people die for the politicians or news since no numbers were given.
 
It is really hard to believe that there haven't been any civilian casualties nor that anyone has been killed besides "terorrist" considering 20 bombs where dropped at Monday and again at Sunday. I said above 300 not because that number is reported anywhere but that it is likely that after such an attack more than just a small number of people would have died compared to the attack on France which I am now unsure if it was 129, 150 or 300 since I am keep reading a different number from somewhere else.

Seriously, one attack from a terrorist, around 50+ people die, but attacks from the US, France or whatever with 20+ bombs..."few" people die.
Unless few means something different depending on what kind of people die for the politicians or news since no numbers were given.
The core difference with a terrorist attack and bombing on ISIS strongholds is that well...one is meant to attack a specific group in a specific area and one is just meant to kill as many people as possible. I don't really see it as unreasonable to really believe that there have been no/few casualties as stated in these reports, but to say 300 out of your algorithm seems quite over the top since we may have very well killed absolutely nobody that wasn't militant. Hell, we actually killed only a small number of the militants. I'm willing to understand if screw ups happen, but if it's done well, like this one seems to have been, I have no problem with it.
 
The core difference with a terrorist attack and bombing on ISIS strongholds is that well...one is meant to attack a specific group in a specific area and one is just meant to kill as many people as possible. I don't really see it as unreasonable to really believe that there have been no/few casualties as stated in these reports, but to say 300 out of your algorithm seems quite over the top since we may have very well killed absolutely nobody that wasn't militant. Hell, we actually killed only a small number of the militants. I'm willing to understand if screw ups happen, but if it's done well, like this one seems to have been, I have no problem with it.
Bombing on ISIS might be meant to kill a specific group and possibly in a specific area, but that does not automaticly mean that it does not kill nobody but that specific group. Lets assume we are bombing an hospital because there are terrorists inside:
- specific group: check
- specific area: check
- innocent people potencially inside: variable n
n is any possible finite number of people that could potencially be killed...it can be claimed that sadly a few doctors died and all the patient were all ISIS-terrorist to justify the attack.

Would you actually believe that?
 
Bombing on ISIS might be meant to kill a specific group and possibly in a specific area, but that does not automaticly mean that it does not kill nobody but that specific group. Lets assume we are bombing an hospital because there are terrorists inside:
- specific group: check
- specific area: check
- innocent people potencially inside: variable n
n is any possible finite number of people that could potencially be killed...it can be claimed that sadly a few doctors died and all the patient were all ISIS-terrorist to justify the attack.

Would you actually believe that?
Sure, but we have nothing to prove that France killed civilians. If we did, then I'd have a problem with how it was conducted, but if it's not. Then well, can't really be against this.
 
Last edited:

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
We have nothing to prove that there will ever be a terrorist attack conducted by refugees (except for the bit where that has never happened in the past 14 years) in the United States. If we did, then people still wouldn't be justified saying no, but it'd be harder to call them out for it. Then well, can't really be against this.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Sure, but we have nothing to prove that France killed civilians. If we did, then I'd have a problem with how it was conducted, but if it's not. Then well, can't really be against this.
Son, just because you don't investigate who you killed doesn't mean you didn't commit a murder. Blindness isn't a rational argument.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/as-france-bombs-isis-civilians-are-caught-in-the-middle/

Following the first round of strikes on Sunday, the observatory, citing “reliable sources,” initially reported that coalition warplanes firing on an ISIS machine gun in Raqqa “missed the target and killed three people at least by opening fire on a house.” In the days that followed, however, Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, a clandestine activist network that reports on conditions in the city, maintained that no civilians had been killed in the latest strikes. That too changed on Wednesday, when the group tweeted that seven civilians had been killed in an airstrike.
This is the **most conservative** death toll I can find. In fact most of the "terrorists" are so mangled and unrecognizable that it is impossible to tell them apart from civilians. We only have their word that their intel and bombing was spot on (god knows how they have zero on-ground eyes), and I guess those have never ever been inaccurate amirite?
(just fyi) US also denies ever killing civilians, and if you heard their metric of "terrorist" you'd laugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Son, just because you don't investigate who you killed doesn't mean you didn't commit a murder. Blindness isn't a rational argument.

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/as-france-bombs-isis-civilians-are-caught-in-the-middle/



This is the **most conservative** death toll I can find. In fact most of the "terrorists" are so mangled and unrecognizable that it is impossible to tell them apart from civilians. We only have their word that their intel and bombing was spot on (god knows how they have zero on-ground eyes), and I guess those have never ever been inaccurate amirite?
(just fyi) US also denies ever killing civilians, and if you heard their metric of "terrorist" you'd laugh.
You know, I did say that I'm against this if actual proof was given against this and that I'm just against claiming all of this stuff because nothing you guys pointed out was remotely to my sources while you guys had none. I'm against how they attacked ISIS now, unless I find evidence that can prove this wrong.

So, innocent until proven guilty, unless you're an immigrant, in which case the benefit of doubt doesn't apply.
I'm against anybody in if they don't have proper background checks, it's just too risky since we don't know anything about them, socially and economically. I'm not going to continue this discussion. You didn't understand my argument and it's a waste of time and it just ends up getting me riled up over something that will never end.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
I'm against anybody in if they don't have proper background checks, it's just too risky since we don't know anything about them, socially and economically. I'm not going to continue this discussion. You didn't understand my argument and it's a waste of time and it just ends up getting me riled up over something that will never end.
literally the first google search for Syrian refugee immigration procedure

Just some points,
  • If you're even considered for being allowed into the United States, it means you've passed literally YEARS of background checks
  • More than half of the admitted people are children
  • literally less than 2% are men of "combat age"

"The terrorists are coming we need to leave the 3 year old Muslim girl to die" is the single most contrived bit of racist propaganda I've seen in my life time. Stop blaming shit on the people that ACTUALLY have a reason to fear ISIS, stop trying to prove their point that America hates all Muslims, stop hiding behind hypotheticals.

This is fearmongering and scapegoating, just like the Japanese internment camps of WW2 fame (weird parallel there, 0 evidence of a Japanese national spying on the United States, 0 evidence of ANY refugee, let alone Syrian Muslim one's, committing terrorist attacks in the United States post 9/11).

You cannot keep saying "it's too risky" and cite unproven hypotheticals that are literally getting innocent people killed.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
It's not an argument if it's not based on any rational logic. I can argue that ur mom is fat, but that won't hold any water unless I know your mom.

I don't get why some of you guys are just assuming the US just lets in refugees with a free ice cream cup or something rofl.
Do you even know how the system works?

Incase ur too lazy to go over links and numbers - the process takes 2+ years, thousands of dollars and shittons of paperwork, and multiple corroborated background checks from multiple intelligence agencies, the UNHCR, and your personal domestic and counterterrorist background checks (FBI, CIA, and the Immigration services themselves) with fresh interrogations and paperwork from each of these entities. And you can be failed for the most minor of discrepancies between these multiple accounts, including shit like your 3yo son forgetting his teacher's name in school or some shit.
And even perfectly legitimate candidates are sometimes denied asylum because they lived on the same street or shared the same office with an identified terror suspect.

If you tighten this system up anymore, might as well scrap the refugee programme. But I guess ur okay with that.

Mandatory reading: (don't worry no long numbers or statstics - just a storify even pea brains can understand)
[link]How a refugee gets to America, explained by an *actual* refugee


There is absolutely zero rational "argument" to keep refugees out. The process is detrimental in every single way to them and to you. All of this is just basic overriding fear psychosis generated by a terror attack on a white man's soil which was perceived to be safe and secure. This has brought forth that deep instinct of othering between "us" and "them".


Slavoj Žižek in "Against Human Rights" said:
“Liberal attitudes towards the other are characterized both by respect for otherness, openness to it, and an obsessive fear of harassment. In short, the other is welcomed insofar as its presence is not intrusive, insofar as it is not really the other. Tolerance thus coincides with its opposite. My duty to be tolerant towards the other effectively means that I should not get too close to him or her, not intrude into his space—in short, that I should respect his intolerance towards my over-proximity. This is increasingly emerging as the central human right of advanced capitalist society: the right not to be ‘harassed’, that is, to be kept at a safe distance from others.”
and that^ basically sums up what retarded republicans and US Governors are doing.
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
(double post but fuck that)

That tingly feeling when John Oliver agrees with you later in the weekend. :)

 
John Oliver agreeing with Liberals? Oh right, it's still 2015. Come on Soul Fly, he will always agree with you.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
And? Unless you are in one of the those "Liberal Media is biased and wrong" camps then I fail to see a point. It's not like he hides his affiliations or anything. I saw this like barely a day after I made my last post, and was pleasantly surprised to see well-acknowledged personality like him tackle the issue in the same manner with funnier rhetoric. That's all.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top