off topic The politics of terrorism

[Hoss]

The Associated Press

@AP

BREAKING: Man accused in Planned Parenthood shooting says he is 'warrior for the babies'

[darksabre]

 

The Associated Press

@AP

BREAKING: Man accused in Planned Parenthood shooting says he is 'warrior for the babies'

 

Is it still a late term abortion if it comes 57 years too late?   

[PASabreFan]

 

The Associated Press

@AP

BREAKING: Man accused in Planned Parenthood shooting says he is 'warrior for the babies'

 

People can call it domestic terrorism if they want, but when the actor is this unhinged, does it really qualify? There's no logic behind what he did.

[K-9]

People can call it domestic terrorism if they want, but when the actor is this unhinged, does it really qualify? There's no logic behind what he did.

Yeah, I say it qualifies as the act seeks to make a political point and create fear. We can't perceive the "logic" because we aren't missing the humanity gene like this guy and other "God Warriors" like Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, and countless others over the years. 

[LastPommerFan]

People can call it domestic terrorism if they want, but when the actor is this unhinged, does it really qualify? There's no logic behind what he did.

Are you talking about Tim McVeigh or the Unibomber?

[Neo]

Apparently, the Director of National Intelligence informed our President that known terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees and trying to enter the United States. The refugees are not widows and orphans, as the President told us.

 

President Obama did not know Clapper was a fear mongering racist trying to restrict the movement of brown people when he nominated him.

Edited December 10, 2015 by N'eo

[TrueBlueGED]

Apparently, the Director of National Intelligence informed our President that known terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees and trying to enter the United States. The refugees are not widows and orphans, as the President told us.

 

President Obama did not know Clapper was a fear mongering racist trying to restrict the movement of brown people when he nominated him.

Doug Clapper is real and DNI now? Strange times.

 

(hopes someone gets the House of Cards reference)

[LastPommerFan]

Apparently, the Director of National Intelligence informed our President that known terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees and trying to enter the United States. The refugees are not widows and orphans, as the President told us.

 

President Obama did not know Clapper was a fear mongering racist trying to restrict the movement of brown people when he nominated him.

Source Link?

[PASabreFan]

Doug Clapper is real and DNI now? Strange times.

 

(hopes someone gets the House of Cards reference)

I did, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[Neo]

Source Link?

Google DNI Refugee .... Many sources, not simply the "right and left". Washington Post comes up first.

“As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?” said Clapper. “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees. That is a huge concern of ours.” Sept 9

 

That's Clapper. The "known" came from Homeland Security. The bigotry is spreading.

Edited December 10, 2015 by N'eo

[darksabre]

If the infiltrators are known, then we would be able to intercept, no?

 

Or are we to suppose that unknown accompany known?

[Neo]

If the infiltrators are known, then we would be able to intercept, no?

Or are we to suppose that unknown accompany known?

Yes, it's that easy for the known. I think the unknown sometimes accompany the known, or the may travel with other unknown. Of course, some known and unknown may travel alone. In any event, I was more concerned with the bigotry suggested by someone saying there are dangers involved with taking in Syrian refugees. Edited December 10, 2015 by N'eo

[darksabre]

Yes, it's that easy.

My next question is, do we accept the good with the bad? We seem to be willing to do so with other things that kill Americans. Why not with refugees too?

Edited December 10, 2015 by d4rksabre

[Neo]

Do the other things have some status in the US? Are they goods or people? Are you thinking cigarettes?

[TrueBlueGED]

Apparently, the Director of National Intelligence informed our President that known terrorists are posing as Syrian refugees and trying to enter the United States. The refugees are not widows and orphans, as the President told us.

 

President Obama did not know Clapper was a fear mongering racist trying to restrict the movement of brown people when he nominated him.

 

 

Google DNI Refugee .... Many sources, not simply the "right and left". Washington Post comes up first.

“As they descend on Europe, one of the obvious issues that we worry about, and in turn as we bring refugees into this country, is exactly what’s their background?” said Clapper. “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees. That is a huge concern of ours.” Sept 9

 

That's Clapper. The "known" came from Homeland Security. The bigotry is spreading.

 

I'm disappointed you would twist the words this way. Voicing concern that it could happen is quite a bit different than knowing it is happening.

[darksabre]

Do the other things have some status in the US? Are they goods or people? Are you thinking cigarettes?

Goods or people. Interesting. Which one is placed above the other?

[Randall Flagg]

Does anyone know the details of the screening process the US is using? The odds that it wouldn't catch someone? Information on other easier, quicker routes for terrorists to get into the US? 

[TrueBlueGED]

Does anyone know the details of the screening process the US is using? The odds that it wouldn't catch someone? Information on other easier, quicker routes for terrorists to get into the US? 

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

 

More details are available through a bunch of other articles, but that's a nice basic layout.

 

Edit: Here, more! 

 

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/how-americas-screening-of-syrian-refugees-works.html

 

http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Refugee%20resettlement%20-%20step%20by%20step%20USCRI.pdf

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/22/456989115/the-u-s-refugee-screening-process-works

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/refugee-screening-process-in-us-2015-11

 

http://www.newsweek.com/heres-process-refugees-have-go-through-enter-us-398254

Edited December 10, 2015 by TrueBlueGED

[Neo]

I'm disappointed you would twist the words this way. Voicing concern that it could happen is quite a bit different than knowing it is happening.

I think I corrected my post in minutes. Clapper warned, and intelligence officials subsequently reported to the Homeland Security Committee Chair, that extremists "have targeted the refugee program to enter the US". Did I get that right? My news report listed both sources. I confused the "warn" and "have targeted". I didn't twist. Both occurred. My apologies to Clapper for the distinction with little difference. My thanks to Homeland Security for verifying.

 

Would you have been disappointed with "as Clapper warned, intelligence officials subsequently confirmed that extremists have targeted"? I'll call that a posting error if you let me, immediately corrected by me while making the same point. The real point, though, was that some of us here cautioned that concerns around the obvious issue sounded like bigotry. Sounds like common sense to me. What say you? I concede temporarily confusing security agencies.

 

I understand twisting. This needs none.

Goods or people. Interesting. Which one is placed above the other?

For me, people. Goods serve them. Edited December 10, 2015 by N'eo

[Randall Flagg]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

 

More details are available through a bunch of other articles, but that's a nice basic layout.

 

Edit: Here, more! 

 

http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/how-americas-screening-of-syrian-refugees-works.html

 

http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Refugee%20resettlement%20-%20step%20by%20step%20USCRI.pdf

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/22/456989115/the-u-s-refugee-screening-process-works

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/refugee-screening-process-in-us-2015-11

 

http://www.newsweek.com/heres-process-refugees-have-go-through-enter-us-398254

You da best, True.

 

And the worst. Electronics final in the AM but I'll be doing this instead. 

[TrueBlueGED]

I think I corrected my post in minutes. Clapper warned, and intelligence officials subsequently reported to the Homeland Security Committee Chair, that extremists "have targeted the refugee program to enter the US". Did I get that right? My news report listed both sources. I confused the "warn" and "have targeted". I didn't twist. Both occurred. My apologies to Clapper for the distinction with little difference. My thanks to Homeland Security for verifying.

 

Would you have been disappointed with "as Clapper warned, intelligence officials subsequently confirmed that extremists have targeted"? I'll call that a posting error if you let me, immediately corrected by me while making the same point. The real point, though, was that some of us here cautioned that concerns around the obvious issue sounded like bigotry. Sounds like common sense to me. What say you? I concede temporarily confusing security agencies.

 

I understand twisting. This needs none.

For me, people. Goods serve them.

 

I have googled and googled and literally not found a single article, Washington Post or otherwise, stating that Clapper has confirmed that ISIS/L has targeted the refugee program. Are they going to? Probably, but given the screening process, there's no reason to think the risk of terrorists infiltrating the U.S. through the program is somehow greater than the risk of them infiltrating through any other means of getting into the country, most of which are significantly easier than the refugee process itself.

 

Is it bigotry to be wary of the program? Not inherently, no, but it is an easy way for the bigots to hide behind a symbolic act and express their bigotry in an acceptable way. Note, saying that bigots will hide behind the security concerns is drastically different than saying citing a security concern means one is a bigot.

 

In any event, I think it's the politics of fear at its worst. I am willing to revise my opinion if evidence is presented that the refugee entry process provides more risk than any of the other means of entering the country.

 

Furthermore, the House bill does jack squat to actually make the process more secure. Requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, the director of the FBI, and the DNI to all independently certify each refugee is the definition of meaningless if the screening process that gathers all of the information that they review "misses" on a threat. 

 

Literally the only way to remove risk is to go uber-Trump and ban ALL border crossing, not just for Muslims, but for everyone. 

 

Sorry for the semi-rant, but this is one issue that really gets my dander up. 

Edited December 10, 2015 by TrueBlueGED

[dudacek]

Seems to me the US has a problem with allowing dangerous foreigners into the country.

Didn't a bunch of them eventually take up arms and overthrow the lawful government back in the late 18th century?

[JJFIVEOH]

I think I corrected my post in minutes. Clapper warned, and intelligence officials subsequently reported to the Homeland Security Committee Chair, that extremists "have targeted the refugee program to enter the US". Did I get that right? My news report listed both sources. I confused the "warn" and "have targeted". I didn't twist. Both occurred. My apologies to Clapper for the distinction with little difference. My thanks to Homeland Security for verifying.

 

Would you have been disappointed with "as Clapper warned, intelligence officials subsequently confirmed that extremists have targeted"? I'll call that a posting error if you let me, immediately corrected by me while making the same point. The real point, though, was that some of us here cautioned that concerns around the obvious issue sounded like bigotry. Sounds like common sense to me. What say you? I concede temporarily confusing security agencies.

 

I understand twisting. This needs none.

For me, people. Goods serve them.

 

I gave up on discussing the common sense approach so I'm just waiting for the "I told you so" moment.

 

It wouldn't be the first time.

My next question is, do we accept the good with the bad? We seem to be willing to do so with other things that kill Americans. Why not with refugees too?

 

Key word.

Edited December 10, 2015 by JJFIVEOH

[Weave]

I might posit that risk of a mass shooting/terrorist attack is the inherent price we pay to not have an overreaching government.  Immigration, 2nd amendment, etc.

 

I'm actually surprised that Neo hasn't taken this line of thought.

[Neo]

I have googled and googled and literally not found a single article, Washington Post or otherwise, stating that Clapper has confirmed that ISIS/L has targeted the refugee program. Are they going to? Probably, but given the screening process, there's no reason to think the risk of terrorists infiltrating the U.S. through the program is somehow greater than the risk of them infiltrating through any other means of getting into the country, most of which are significantly easier than the refugee process itself.

 

Is it bigotry to be wary of the program? Not inherently, no, but it is an easy way for the bigots to hide behind a symbolic act and express their bigotry in an acceptable way. Note, saying that bigots will hide behind the security concerns is drastically different than saying citing a security concern means one is a bigot.

 

In any event, I think it's the politics of fear at its worst. I am willing to revise my opinion if evidence is presented that the refugee entry process provides more risk than any of the other means of entering the country.

 

Furthermore, the House bill does jack squat to actually make the process more secure. Requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security, the director of the FBI, and the DNI to all independently certify each refugee is the definition of meaningless if the screening process that gathers all of the information that they review "misses" on a threat. 

 

Literally the only way to remove risk is to go uber-Trump and ban ALL border crossing, not just for Muslims, but for everyone. 

 

Sorry for the semi-rant, but this is one issue that really gets my dander up.

 

 

I may or may not be for a refugee program. We'll see.

 

I am against calling people bigots for being prudent in its examination. That's as bad as your bigots hiding behind feigned prudence. It's also the direction the name calling comes from. It's more common, I believe, and part of an anti speech and thought trend in discourse. Don't like an idea? Call the speaker a bigot, a racist, a victim shamer! "First, demonized the person speaking the idea. The idea, itself, will not have to be addressed." Paraphrase - guess who's hero?

 

Clapper, Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies don't matter to me, per se, in making what I thought was my post's main point regarding labels and the left.

 

I'll not throw the cards down and say going all uber-Trump and banning all crossings makes sense. I will say it's shameful to call someone a bigot for suggesting caution. I know 14 people in California who'd agree with me. Wait, I don't anymore.

 

Second attempt re: my reply to you, above. I watched a news story. It quoted Clapper and the Chair of the HSC. Clapper warned and other intelligence agencies reported. I mixed up Clapper and the other agencies with my fingertips. I corrected my fingertips with a post edit in about two minutes. You'll not find Clapper, at least through today, comfirming. I'll bet you do soon. You will find the Chair of Homeland Security reporting intelligence agencies as saying the attempts are underway.