|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough.
I'm sorry...You actually think the US government is competent enough? Typo or something? Born tomorrow maybe?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's really not as simple as just border control. domestic radicalization is a genuine and serious problem especially when some imam in afghanistan or whatever can directly preach via the internet.
the constitutional constraint of freedom of speech must also be respected. so it is a problem of creating positive, non-terrorist speech to combat the ideology that is freely distributed to young people.
|
wow, one can only hope this line of thinking catches on and makes ordinary people ask tough and very inconvenient questions to a few candidates in the sad nomination process.
I mean ben carson for example seems to be a somewhat smart person, but you cannot seriously want to be president and not have a clue about what the hell is going on in regions your country has been involved in for way over half a century.
and that's not even addressing the crazy stuff he has said very recently.
trump's foreign policy is basically "behold my any my countries awesomeness - or perish under my tough deals you will sign unquestionably"
|
On November 20 2015 01:20 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I'm sorry...You actually think the US government is competent enough? Typo or something? Born tomorrow maybe?
Yes. They have prevents terrorist attacks before and they can do it again. I don't subscribe to the cynical belief that everyone in the government is an incompetent rube and then use that as an excuse for inaction on any issue.
|
Having been in a situation where we took thousands of refugees I can tell you that it is an awful situation. My city took 240K refugees from New Orleans in 2005 which represented a 7% increase to the city population. The city murder rate for 2005 was up 23% from the prior year and up 70% in November and December after the New Orleans population arrived.
Long term things more or less stabilized, but taking refugees is going to be a problem. You as a society take on that problem because you know that the other 230k people that came needed help and were valuable citizens.
The democrats are failing in this in that it is a discussion that needs to be had. There are problems and risks and we already are spending way too much money that we don't have so why would we increase spending more?
The republicans are failing in this because frankly these are people whose homes and lives have been destroyed and if you can just turn your back on them that you are hardly more human than ISIS.
The evangelicals had already gotten many refugees into the country through proper channels and completely broke with the republicans over this.
Today there were Syrians caught crossing the border into Texas, yesterday there were Syrians with fake passports caught in Honduras heading to the US.
This is going to be a big mess and its our fault for allowing ISIS to flourish and not stamping them out in Iraq and Syria.
|
Although I believe that was a huge problem for your city, I don’t think the horrible and inadequate response from the government when it comes to New Orleans is how this will be handled. That the poster child for mishandling of a disaster by administration at the time. The refugees wouldn’t all be put in one city, as that is a terrible plan. And the cost of taking in refugees is minimal when spread across the US and we have taken in refugees from other conflicts before.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when it comes to refugees and the u.s. the self selection effect will probably make it a much easier problem to handle. assuming europe is still letting some refugees through, so that the u.s. is not the only western destination or something, those refugees that get to america will be the better off, more educated, and all that.
the 'cap' obama gave is illusory because i doubt that many people will come. it's the atlantic ocean lol
|
On November 20 2015 01:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 01:20 Eliezar wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I'm sorry...You actually think the US government is competent enough? Typo or something? Born tomorrow maybe? Yes. They have prevents terrorist attacks before and they can do it again. I don't subscribe to the cynical belief that everyone in the government is an incompetent rube and then use that as an excuse for inaction on any issue.
It takes pretty much one person to be incompetent in the case of Benghazi (Clinton) or 911 (Bush) or the US Cole (Clinton) or ISIS (Obama) to keep these problems growing, festering, and happening. Time and time again we have seen the government just make bad decisions or be too scared to make a decision. The system at large seems to work, but the leaders and their advisors have not been good in a long time. I mean...our country has pretty good relations with Saudi Arabia and has forever and they seem to be the source of a lot of the funding of terrorist organizations.
|
On November 20 2015 01:56 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 01:34 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 01:20 Eliezar wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I'm sorry...You actually think the US government is competent enough? Typo or something? Born tomorrow maybe? Yes. They have prevents terrorist attacks before and they can do it again. I don't subscribe to the cynical belief that everyone in the government is an incompetent rube and then use that as an excuse for inaction on any issue. It takes pretty much one person to be incompetent in the case of Benghazi (Clinton) or 911 (Bush) or the US Cole (Clinton) or ISIS (Obama) to keep these problems growing, festering, and happening. Time and time again we have seen the government just make bad decisions or be too scared to make a decision. The system at large seems to work, but the leaders and their advisors have not been good in a long time. I mean...our country has pretty good relations with Saudi Arabia and has forever and they seem to be the source of a lot of the funding of terrorist organizations.
This is one of the funniest posts I have read in a while, thank you : )
|
Yeah, I had to resist my initial inclination to openly mock the bare assertion that causality can so easily be traced between those actors and the tragedies described. Hillary having withstood congressional interrogation that failed to establish administrative culpability appears to mean nothing I suppose? Being reminded of the USS Cole was fun though 
|
On November 20 2015 01:56 Eliezar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2015 01:34 Plansix wrote:On November 20 2015 01:20 Eliezar wrote:On November 19 2015 11:48 Plansix wrote:On November 19 2015 11:43 bo1b wrote:On November 19 2015 11:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 19 2015 10:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2015 10:16 RenSC2 wrote:On November 18 2015 23:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting "it needs to stop."
"Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America," Obama said.
Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they're tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn't make good decisions "based on hysteria" or exaggerated risk.
Obama's comments during a meeting with Philippine President Benigno Aquino marked his harshest condemnation yet of Republicans' response to the Paris attacks blamed ISIL that killed 129 people last week.
Republicans in Congress and on the 2016 presidential trail have urged an immediate closure of America's borders to Syrian refugees. Also, more than two dozen U.S. governors, most of them Republicans, have called for Syrian refugees to be barred from their states.
But the Obama administration has shown no sign of backing off its plans to bring an additional 10,000 Syrians fleeing civil war into the U.S.
Several Republican presidential candidates also said over the weekend that they oppose bringing refugees into the United States, and Obama took particular aim at a proposal by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush to admit only Christian Syrians. Bush later clarified he wants to give preference to Christians but not exclude properly vetted Muslims. Still, Obama said the idea of only allowing Christians in amounted to "political posturing" that runs contrary to American values. Source The whole "scared of widows and orphans" line is ridiculous. People are scared of the adult males some of which are rumored to be ISIS members posing as peaceful immigrants. However, I do have a solution. Only allow women and children (12 and under) as refugees. Bring them in, set up homes for them and give them a western education. We're not afraid of the women and children, so bring in a million of them or more and integrate them into a western society. Leave the men behind in Syria to fight or flee to surrounding countries. This way the women and children are out of the way if someone wants to do some heavy bombing. The able bodied men who don't want to fight can flee on their own, as they've shown. And the ones who want to fight can stay and fight without worrying about killing women and children or having their wives/children killed. I don't think I've ever seen someone propose this idea before and I'm wondering why not. Is there something wrong with it? Democrats are going to spit themselves politically if they continue to ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by republicans with regards to the refugee issue. Can you please elaborate on what these legitimate concerns are? I've heard a lot of fearmongering and references to how 3 year olds are probably terrorists, but nothing legitimate. The U.S is now only accepting children as refugees? On November 19 2015 11:42 Plansix wrote:
That is nothing. If we took in 50k, it would 1+ billion spread across the entire US federal government. That is 1/75 the budget of NYC. The federal government looses that much money in the couch cushions. Not a bad thing to say when National debt is pushing 18.6 trillion. And what on earth makes you think it would stop at 50k? So you're scared of the refugees and don't think the we are capable to finding potential terrorist? Because that is what I'm hearing. That you are afraid we can't handle it, that we are competent enough. I'm sorry...You actually think the US government is competent enough? Typo or something? Born tomorrow maybe? Yes. They have prevents terrorist attacks before and they can do it again. I don't subscribe to the cynical belief that everyone in the government is an incompetent rube and then use that as an excuse for inaction on any issue. It takes pretty much one person to be incompetent in the case of Benghazi (Clinton) or 911 (Bush) or the US Cole (Clinton) or ISIS (Obama) to keep these problems growing, festering, and happening. Time and time again we have seen the government just make bad decisions or be too scared to make a decision. The system at large seems to work, but the leaders and their advisors have not been good in a long time. I mean...our country has pretty good relations with Saudi Arabia and has forever and they seem to be the source of a lot of the funding of terrorist organizations.
Your metric for incompetence of government seems to be based on existing in a complex world. Like the sort of person who uses Apollo 13 as proof that NASA is a waste of money and run by skill-less rubes. And our relationship with other sovereign nations is a little more complex and nuanced than good guys and bad guys. We considered Stalin an “ally” in WW2, even though it was very clear that danger they presented to the EU once the war was over.
|
On November 20 2015 01:45 Plansix wrote:
Although I believe that was a huge problem for your city, I don’t think the horrible and inadequate response from the government when it comes to New Orleans is how this will be handled. That the poster child for mishandling of a disaster by administration at the time. The refugees wouldn’t all be put in one city, as that is a terrible plan. And the cost of taking in refugees is minimal when spread across the US and we have taken in refugees from other conflicts before.
We should take in refugees period. But it will not be without problems.
We should vet them, but that doesn't mean they won't turn into terrorists here.
People displaced from their homes are vulnerable. Robbery? Murder? Terrorism? who knows.
But they are people and people deserve a chance at a good life.
But I don't trust the government or the American people to manage this well.
Of course part of this comes down to experience to. I had over an hour interview with the secret service last December/January because of ISIS members in the US discussing killing the president at my place of work. The person whose car's license plate I called in to the police evidently was on his way to the airport and believed to be heading to join ISIS in Syria. The thing is he was from Chicago, in Texas, and the secret service had been looking for him for making threats on Obama's life before I called the police on him and yet he was still able to get to the airport and fly out of the country no problem.
The secret service officer did tell me that he wasn't considered a real terroristic threat on the president because real terrorists don't have conversations in public where anybody can hear, but whatever.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^there are only so much resources at hand, and the procedure for detaining a guy is pretty serious. they don't just arrest and gitmo everyone (or anyone right now) without an immediate threat present. even guys who return from isis are only watched and not quarantined or whatever.
|
Thought the suspicion of terror was enough to send someone to guatanamo bay.
|
What a surprise...
Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Barack Obama’s strategy for defeating Islamic State extremists on Thursday in a sweeping foreign policy speech that called for greater use of American ground troops and an intensified air campaign.
Though ruling out deploying the tens of thousands of US troops seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former of secretary of state made clear she would take a notably more hawkish approach than the current administration if she is elected president.
“The United States has been conducting this fight for more than a year; it’s time to be begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
“We should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is ... but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air on the ground and as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Isis’s enclave of terror,” she added.
The extensive but nuanced speech singled out coalition efforts against Isis in Iraq for particular implied criticism, urging that US troops be given “greater flexibility” to embed with Iraqi troops on the frontline and target airstrikes. She also said the US should arm Sunni tribes and Kurds in the country if the government in Baghdad refused to.
But Clinton called for further US special forces to be deployed to Syria too, reiterated her call for a no-fly zone and demanded an “intelligence surge” to allow the airstrikes against Isis to be stepped up. “We have a lot of work to do to really decimate Isil in Iraq and Syria,” she said, using an alternate name for Isis.
Dressed entirely in white, a determined Clinton also used the speech to attack a number of key allies, including Turkey and the Gulf states for not doing enough to tackle fundamentalism.
She called on Silicon Valley to stop viewing the US government “as the enemy” and urged the tech industry to design encryption tools that can balance privacy and yet still allow for state surveillance.
Source
|
On November 20 2015 01:26 oneofthem wrote:
it's really not as simple as just border control. domestic radicalization is a genuine and serious problem especially when some imam in afghanistan or whatever can directly preach via the internet.
the constitutional constraint of freedom of speech must also be respected. so it is a problem of creating positive, non-terrorist speech to combat the ideology that is freely distributed to young people.
Honestly, I'm more frightened of domestic terrorists (radicalized Muslims or not) than foreign refugee terrorists. It's far easier for a group of citizens to organize and prosecute an attack and it's far harder to identify them as potential threats for monitoring if they're intelligent about it, and the government doesn't force them through hoop after hoop.
That said, the fact that there are far more international terrorists than domestic terrorists does mean we should probably be more worried about international terror attacks than domestic ones. I have my doubts that the ~6,000 men that would fill out the 10,000 refugees really have much of a chance of both being terrorists and avoiding detection to the point that they wouldn't even be monitored though.
The Oklahoma City bombings occurred during a different time with a different security atmosphere, but it killed and injured more people than the Paris attacks. I suppose it might have been stopped if it happened in 2015 instead of 1995, though, so it's not a great comparison.
|
On November 20 2015 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What a surprise... Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Barack Obama’s strategy for defeating Islamic State extremists on Thursday in a sweeping foreign policy speech that called for greater use of American ground troops and an intensified air campaign.
Though ruling out deploying the tens of thousands of US troops seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former of secretary of state made clear she would take a notably more hawkish approach than the current administration if she is elected president.
“The United States has been conducting this fight for more than a year; it’s time to be begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
“We should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is ... but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air on the ground and as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Isis’s enclave of terror,” she added.
The extensive but nuanced speech singled out coalition efforts against Isis in Iraq for particular implied criticism, urging that US troops be given “greater flexibility” to embed with Iraqi troops on the frontline and target airstrikes. She also said the US should arm Sunni tribes and Kurds in the country if the government in Baghdad refused to.
But Clinton called for further US special forces to be deployed to Syria too, reiterated her call for a no-fly zone and demanded an “intelligence surge” to allow the airstrikes against Isis to be stepped up. “We have a lot of work to do to really decimate Isil in Iraq and Syria,” she said, using an alternate name for Isis.
Dressed entirely in white, a determined Clinton also used the speech to attack a number of key allies, including Turkey and the Gulf states for not doing enough to tackle fundamentalism.
She called on Silicon Valley to stop viewing the US government “as the enemy” and urged the tech industry to design encryption tools that can balance privacy and yet still allow for state surveillance. Source
I like how she hits the crowd pleasing points about arming the Kurds and also talks about Turkey, the ally that would be SUPER pissed if we did that. Continue to tell people what they want to hear as solutions, regardless of the realities.
|
United States42009 Posts
I'm inclined to agree with Silicon Valley over Clinton. The threat to American liberty does not come from a handful of zealots half a world away, it's right here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
keep thinking that. these technical barriers are used to hide everything from terrorist preaching to white collar crimes. american liberty never included immunity from discovery by court order.
|
The Tech industry has its own problems with indifferent when their products are used by extremists. I wish they would do more, rather than hope the problem goes away. Reply-all covered the use of Yik-Yak in the recent campus threats(that lead to arrests). It was encouraging to hear that the company is not going to protect people who use the app for hate speech and threats. But most services do not seem to be taking that route and are more interested in keeping their user base or not being involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
