Politics And Current Events

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:35 pm

for the record, this is what I found on that story

TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — A Finnish court on Friday jailed 23-year-old twin brothers from Iraq for four months pending trial on suspicions they were Islamic State militants who fatally shot 11 unarmed soldiers in Iraq in June 2014.

so this happened in Iraq over a year ago. But yeah, it's all the damned refugees

Let's say .1% of refugees in Europe are terrorists/sympathetic to them, there have been about a million or so refugees that have entered. Europe will have already let in at least a 1000 terrorists.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:36 pm

Lovely

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Lovely

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/11/politics/isis-passports/

My .1% might be low...

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:39 pm

huh-whhhaaaaa?? But I was told something like this was right up there with pigs flying. I'm sure tho over here in CandyLand theres no possibility of it ever happening.

Finland Charges Two 'Refugees' With Terror Murder Of 11 dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fin
ah, the classic "let's link a page that doesn't exist"
The, uh, murders..... they were committed in Iraq.

Wait wait wait... Isn't the point that these murderers were *in* Finland as either refugees or immigrants when it was discovered that they had committed these horrific crimes.

I thought NP's point was that like the female San Berdoo terrorist, there is a flawed vetting process here and abroad.

Postby **NailedPenguin** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:44 pm

*post quote gone wrong*

Postby **NailedPenguin** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:48 pm

huh-whhhaaaaa?? But I was told something like this was right up there with pigs flying. I'm sure tho over here in CandyLand theres no possibility of it ever happening.

Finland Charges Two 'Refugees' With Terror Murder Of 11 dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fin
ah, the classic "let's link a page that doesn't exist"

LOL, I was unaware that move was a "classic." I left off some of the post when I selected the text apparently. (or should I say obviously)

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:51 pm

huh-whhhaaaaa?? But I was told something like this was right up there with pigs flying. I'm sure tho over here in CandyLand theres no possibility of it ever happening.

Finland Charges Two 'Refugees' With Terror Murder Of 11 dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fin
We're all glad that you've been vindicated.
Cause thats what its about. Not about constantly having to hear how ridiculous and "Trumpian" it is at the mere suggestion that importing refugees brings a level of risk and danger with. But the liberal stance is fun tho. They get to insult people for even saying it, then get to insult them all over again each time they're proven right.

Or in the case of certain 5AF posters, each time they're proven wrong

Postby **PFiDC** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:55 pm

They get to insult people for even saying it, then get to insult them all over again each time they're proven right.

Shouldn't that tell you something...

Postby **NailedPenguin** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:57 pm

huh-whhhaaaaa?? But I was told something like this was right up there with pigs flying. I'm sure tho over here in CandyLand theres no possibility of it ever happening.

Finland Charges Two 'Refugees' With Terror Murder Of 11 dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fin
ah, the classic "let's link a page that doesn't exist"
The, uh, murders..... they were committed in Iraq.

The, uh, point is....these were terrorists who commited murders and got in another country under the guise of being refugees. Unless your stance is, "see they didnt kill anybody once they got to their new country!"

Postby **AuthorTony** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:57 pm

Let's say .1% of refugees in Europe are terrorists/sympathetic to them, there have been about a million or so refugees that have entered. Europe will have already let in at least a 1000 terrorists.

And they potentially saved 999,000 innocent lives. Or don't they matter? I understand there are risks with taking in refugees. I don't think either side in the debate is right or wrong. If we leave them in, hundreds or a few thousand people might be killed in terrorist attacks. If we keep them out, tens of thousands of refugees might be killed in their homelands. It's a very hard choice to make either way.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:04 pm

They get to insult people for even saying it, then get to insult them all over again each time they're proven right.
Shouldn't that tell you something...

I think he is saying each time the person they insulted before is proven right. It was worded poorly.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:07 pm

Let's say .1% of refugees in Europe are terrorists/sympathetic to them, there have been about a million or so refugees that have entered. Europe will have already let in at least a 1000 terrorists.
And they potentially saved 999,000 innocent lives. Or don't they matter? I understand there are risks with taking in refugees. I don't think either side in the debate is right or wrong. If we leave them in, hundreds or a few thousand people might be killed in terrorist attacks. If we keep them out, tens of thousands of refugees might be killed in their homelands. It's a very hard choice to make either way.

Or you overhaul the vetting system before taking in anymore refugees of any country, race or religion. As a leader of a country you are responsible for your people's safety over other people's safety(within laws of civilized nations)

Postby **AuthorTony** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:10 pm

Or you overhaul the vetting system before taking in anymore refugees of any country, race or religion.

The vetting process is hopelessly flawed. Overhauling it would likely cost enormous amounts of money and, if it that does happen, how to you truly vet people when you can't trust their own governments to be doing thorough background checks and providing accurate information?

Postby **Factorial** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:12 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:13 pm

Let's say .1% of refugees in Europe are terrorists/sympathetic to them, there have been about a million or so refugees that have entered. Europe will have already let in at least a 1000 terrorists.
And they potentially saved 999,000 innocent lives. Or don't they matter? I understand there are risks with taking in refugees. I don't think either side in the debate is right or wrong. If we leave them in, hundreds or a few thousand people might be killed in terrorist attacks. If we keep them out, tens of thousands of refugees might be killed in their homelands. It's a very hard choice to make either way.

Or you overhaul the vetting system before taking in anymore refugees of any country, race or religion. As a leader of a country you are responsible for your people's safety over other people's safety(within laws of civilized nations)

Exactly. And somehow this seems to get lost in the discussion.

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:15 pm

I thought NP's point was that like the female San Berdoo terrorist, there is a flawed vetting process here and abroad.

No one disputes that the visa program is flawed and in dire needs of shoring up; that's how Tashfeen Malik got into the U.S. The Pakistani address she gave on her application didn't even exist.

The U.S. refugee program, otoh, is a very rigorous process that involved months of scrutiny even before the real vetting process begins. Process takes two years in many cases. Except in an instance where the goal is stigmatize refugees (remember, they are apostate to Daesh, and deserve death), I cannot think of a reason why a terrorist would willingly subject themselves to that level of inspection. And in that case, I have a hard time believing they'd make it through the two-year process without triggering something.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:15 pm

Or you overhaul the vetting system before taking in anymore refugees of any country, race or religion.
The vetting process is hopelessly flawed. Overhauling it would likely cost enormous amounts of money and, if it that does happen, how to you truly vet people when you can't trust their own governments to be doing thorough background checks and providing accurate information?

So we just knowingly let 100s and or thousands of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers into countries because it is hard to fix or do? Is that how countries are supposed to run?

Postby **Factorial** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:16 pm

Exactly. And somehow this seems to get lost in the discussion.

What should they include in the new vetting process?

Postby **columbia** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:17 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

I had a Vietnamese doctor, who came here as a kid in 1974. He went to medical school at LSU.
He had two accents going at once, but the Louisiana part made it somewhat hard to understand him.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:19 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

Wait what? The Khmer Rouge was a political ruling party. That is no comparison to what ISIS or Terrorist organizations are...

Postby **AuthorTony** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:22 pm

So we just knowingly let 100s and or thousands of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers into countries because it is hard to fix or do? Is that how countries are supposed to run?

Yeah, that's what I said.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:25 pm

So we just knowingly let 100s and or thousands of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers into countries because it is hard to fix or do? Is that how countries are supposed to run?
Yeah, that's what I said.

Not fixing it bc it is hard and expensive is knowingly doing that. What else would it be?

Postby **tifosi77** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:25 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

Wait what? The Khmer Rouge was a political ruling party. That is no comparison to what ISIS or Terrorist organizations are...

KM was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. in the 90s, shortly before their capitulation.

Postby **Factorial** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:26 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

Wait what? The Khmer Rouge was a political ruling party.

One that eliminated of quarter (2 million) of their population.

Postby **grunthy** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:29 pm

What sort of vetting did the Cambodian refugees face to ensure they weren't Khmer Rouge?

Wait what? The Khmer Rouge was a political ruling party. That is no comparison to what ISIS or Terrorist organizations are...
KM was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. in the 90s, shortly before their capitulation.

The genocide occurred in the late 70s early 80s. So at the time of most refugees it was a political party.