I won't even get into the argument of "who created ISIS" because its utterly irrelevant.
A complete disowning of twenty years of neoconservative foreign policy in one sentence. You gonna burn all your back issues of Commentary?
It's irrelevant to what needs to be done going forward to fight it. Obviously I believe Obama's disastrous policies had much to do with its growth to the threat it is today but that is not what we are discussing here. Obama's supporters, whenever he comes under criticism love to dredge up the past as if that absolves him of his lack of leadership from 2009-2015.
Yup. There we go.
It’s not about any impending threat from ISIS, is it? Isn’t it much more about the fact that Obama dismantled the military foothold in the Middle East that the neocons worked for so long to get established, right?
Don’t even bring the “none of that matters now.” Everything about it matters now, because so many people want to go back there. We’ll always be tied to there, right? Go back again, “stabilize” things again…but guess what? Can’t leave. Ever.
So here we are again, blood saliva pouring out of the mouths of the war-hungry to go in and clean up the mess that the original invasion started.
Refugees?
Yeah, let’s talk about refugees.
How about the husbands, wives and children of the over 3,000 Americans that died in that invasion that doesn’t matter now? Are they refugees?
What about the over 30,000 Americans wounded in that war that doesn’t matter now? Are they refugees?
France was attacked, France is responding. A Russian airliner was destroyed, Russia is responding.
And yet, so many are so willing to set up the meat grinder again to throw Americans into, just in the name of American hegemony in the Middle East. More dead, more injured. Does that matter?
So, I ask, are you willing to see permanent military operations in the Middle East? Should an endless amount of Americans be sent to perform those operations, with no end?
You misspoke in another post, allow me to suggest corrections:
What on earth are you talking about? It's the left that refuses to acknowledge the brutality of Saddam's actions. ANd believe me it is not just Republicans that are concerned. The Democrats are going to ride this issue right into the ground and are going to be shocked at what happens. Saddam doesn't give a damn if we admit refugees or not. He has a broader strategy and a vision. Our plan is to "weaken degrade and ultimately destroy" Saddam. Only a full scale military invasion will make that happen. Airstrikes? Those are tactical victories. Every day Saddam survives or grabs more territory is a day he grows stronger and more innocent people die. Because THAT'S what attracts people to him, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight Saddam ideologically is to put a world of hurt on him. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory he has gained. To let him and the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight Saddam.
The cycle repeats.
If he attacked ISIS as much as he does republicans we just might be ok
I'm so happy Obama has finally started droning Republicans. Does he have a suggestion box Gloucester?
The majority of States are now refusing to allow Obama to dump Syrian refugees on them and endangering their citizens.
Scores of people in a position to know are publically stating that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted.
Yesterday at his G-20 speech Obama was clearly irritated with the media’s repeated questions on this subject. The press kept asking because Obama kept not answering their questions directly. He looked and sounded like Hillary Clinton at Saturday night’s debate. Obama was hammered by the White House Press Corp. and annoyed with those who he used to count on to parrot his agenda. Obama’s embarrassing speech to the world yesterday didn’t make the front page of most American newspapers this morning.
Obama was impassioned about American taking in these refugees who are suffering from the war in their country. Where was Obama’s passion over the last few years while his lack of action and failed foreign policies caused the problem?
ISIS announced a long time ago that they are covertly inserting their fighters into the fleeing refugees.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein was loudest of the Democrats yesterday on the need for Obama to clearly state a Syrian refugee relocation program before Congress and The American People. Sen. Feinstein is one of the few hawks in the Democratic Party but her words carry a lot of weight.
A Trojan horse is coming to American. The American People see it and want Obama to put their safety put first.
This is all nonsense and also cowardly. ISIS was created by George W and is an example of REPUBLICAN failed war policy. Every piece of evidence supports this.
It was the ISIS objective to make the rest of the world fear the refugees. They have succeeded.
The current Republican leadership has surrendered to ISIS. The governors who are almost all Republican have also surrendered to ISIS. They are all afraid! ISIS will be emboldened by this overt display of fear.
I won't even get into the argument of "who created ISIS" because its utterly irrelevant. Bush is not president now. Obama is. ISIS has thrived over the last seven years, is stron ger than ever and is now directly threatening the West. Obama has constantly downplayed the threat and we are not about to take his word now. ISIS couldn't care LESS whether we let in refugees or not. Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate and ensure everyone follows their brand of Islam. Everything they do is intended to further that goal.
It is totally relevant to research the origins of ISIS and your inability to understand this is solid argument for your side of the fence not be involved in any military planning in the future. To understand the military capacity of ISIS one needs to know who the leaders are and what their training and war experience is. It is not good strategy to go into war blind. One needs knowledge of the enemy and the ability of the enemy.
ISIS does care how the refugees scare republicans. They engineered this and the right capitulated and they will be very proud of this victory. Why wouldn't they be celebrating this defeat?
What on earth are you talking about? It's Obama and the left that refuses to acknowledge the religious Islamic basis of ISIS's actions. ANd believe me it is not just Republicans that are concerned. The Democrats are going to ride this issue right into the ground and are going to be shocked at what happens. ISIS doesn't give a damn if we admit refugees or not. They have a broader strategy and a vision. Our plan is to "weaken degrade and ultimately destroy" Isis. There is absolutely no coherent strategy to make that happen. Killing Jihadi John? That's a tactical victory. Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Obama inherited two hot spots from the Bush administration which had lost both the Afghan and Iraq wars. When Obama became President the mood in both Europe and the US had soured towards war, mainly because while there was a level of containment neither war was seen as winnable in the long term. ISIS was not the threat at this time that it grew to be later.
When ISIS expanded its influence and grew more menacing Obama was able to put together a 65 country coalition. These countries would supply various types of support but no country was offering ground troops. Obama was restrained by this reality and it did not look like the US population was amenable to another ground war.
With ISIS actions against Russia, France and now China, the prospect of a new engaged strategy has grown and Obama will be able to shift his strategy. Israel would also have to be a partner in this new senior coalition. This group will be able to defeat ISIS.
The republican congress and the slate of GOP presidential candidates have no understanding of the dynamics of diversity and have already lost two Middle Eastern wars because of it. To fight in the Middle East entails a solid understanding of ethnic complexity. George W Bush apparently did not know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis when he invaded Iraq. Understanding the local culture matters.
ISIS and it soldiers believe they are invincible and want to test their power against US and probably now Russian forces. ISIS does give a damn about the refugees and the fright they have caused republicans is obvious to the rest of the world. This gutless Republican fear of the refugees makes America look extremely weak and emboldens ISIS and attracts new recruits who want to fight Satan.
The army that faces ISIS has to look like an army. The GOP is a mess right now. The voters do not trust their own elected officials and this is why Trump will be the nominee. Trump would never be able to bring together a coalition to fight ISIS.
You are right that the west is not going to roll over. The republican party though already has.
Just put in the words Islamic Terrorist. He won't use it
Come on Billy you can say it
Islamic Terrorist
Imagine in WWII they wouldn't say Nazis. Funny they have a lot in common the Nazis and Islamic terrorist. But I guess in your world they don't exist.
Glad you support a corrupt president that is more concerned with insulting over half the country than our enemy. But then again who is Obama's enemy? What is it 31 Governors don't want these refugees in their state.
Funny how his corrupt justice department didn't go after anyone in the IRS even though there is without a doubt criminal activity that went on there. How many people pleaded the 5th.
Oh that's right his justice department was involved with that from the beginning
It was only conservative they were illegally going after, who cares about the law.
Obama putting politics ahead of the security of the US
what a peach
The majority of States are now refusing to allow Obama to dump Syrian refugees on them and endangering their citizens.
Scores of people in a position to know are publically stating that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted.
Yesterday at his G-20 speech Obama was clearly irritated with the media’s repeated questions on this subject. The press kept asking because Obama kept not answering their questions directly. He looked and sounded like Hillary Clinton at Saturday night’s debate. Obama was hammered by the White House Press Corp. and annoyed with those who he used to count on to parrot his agenda. Obama’s embarrassing speech to the world yesterday didn’t make the front page of most American newspapers this morning.
Obama was impassioned about American taking in these refugees who are suffering from the war in their country. Where was Obama’s passion over the last few years while his lack of action and failed foreign policies caused the problem?
ISIS announced a long time ago that they are covertly inserting their fighters into the fleeing refugees.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein was loudest of the Democrats yesterday on the need for Obama to clearly state a Syrian refugee relocation program before Congress and The American People. Sen. Feinstein is one of the few hawks in the Democratic Party but her words carry a lot of weight.
A Trojan horse is coming to American. The American People see it and want Obama to put their safety put first.
This is all nonsense and also cowardly. ISIS was created by George W and is an example of REPUBLICAN failed war policy. Every piece of evidence supports this.
It was the ISIS objective to make the rest of the world fear the refugees. They have succeeded.
The current Republican leadership has surrendered to ISIS. The governors who are almost all Republican have also surrendered to ISIS. They are all afraid! ISIS will be emboldened by this overt display of fear.
I won't even get into the argument of "who created ISIS" because its utterly irrelevant. Bush is not president now. Obama is. ISIS has thrived over the last seven years, is stron ger than ever and is now directly threatening the West. Obama has constantly downplayed the threat and we are not about to take his word now. ISIS couldn't care LESS whether we let in refugees or not. Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate and ensure everyone follows their brand of Islam. Everything they do is intended to further that goal.
It is totally relevant to research the origins of ISIS and your inability to understand this is solid argument for your side of the fence not be involved in any military planning in the future. To understand the military capacity of ISIS one needs to know who the leaders are and what their training and war experience is. It is not good strategy to go into war blind. One needs knowledge of the enemy and the ability of the enemy.
ISIS does care how the refugees scare republicans. They engineered this and the right capitulated and they will be very proud of this victory. Why wouldn't they be celebrating this defeat?
What on earth are you talking about? It's Obama and the left that refuses to acknowledge the religious Islamic basis of ISIS's actions. ANd believe me it is not just Republicans that are concerned. The Democrats are going to ride this issue right into the ground and are going to be shocked at what happens. ISIS doesn't give a damn if we admit refugees or not. They have a broader strategy and a vision. Our plan is to "weaken degrade and ultimately destroy" Isis. There is absolutely no coherent strategy to make that happen. Killing Jihadi John? That's a tactical victory. Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Obama inherited two hot spots from the Bush administration which had lost both the Afghan and Iraq wars. When Obama became President the mood in both Europe and the US had soured towards war, mainly because while there was a level of containment neither war was seen as winnable in the long term. ISIS was not the threat at this time that it grew to be later.
When ISIS expanded its influence and grew more menacing Obama was able to put together a 65 country coalition. These countries would supply various types of support but no country was offering ground troops. Obama was restrained by this reality and it did not look like the US population was amenable to another ground war.
With ISIS actions against Russia, France and now China, the prospect of a new engaged strategy has grown and Obama will be able to shift his strategy. Israel would also have to be a partner in this new senior coalition. This group will be able to defeat ISIS.
The republican congress and the slate of GOP presidential candidates have no understanding of the dynamics of diversity and have already lost two Middle Eastern wars because of it. To fight in the Middle East entails a solid understanding of ethnic complexity. George W Bush apparently did not know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis when he invaded Iraq. Understanding the local culture matters.
ISIS and it soldiers believe they are invincible and want to test their power against US and probably now Russian forces. ISIS does give a damn about the refugees and the fright they have caused republicans is obvious to the rest of the world. This gutless Republican fear of the refugees makes America look extremely weak and emboldens ISIS and attracts new recruits who want to fight Satan.
The army that faces ISIS has to look like an army. The GOP is a mess right now. The voters do not trust their own elected officials and this is why Trump will be the nominee. Trump would never be able to bring together a coalition to fight ISIS.
You are right that the west is not going to roll over. The republican party though already has.
Swifty nails it. Well done.
The courts will decide; like the previous threat about Obama's last immigration policy defeat
I wonder what the courts would have decided about the Jewish refugees in 1938? Were any of those folks people you know emr?
Was there a danger that hiding among Holacaust refugees were members of a deadly religious death cult that has promised to reek havoc among the Western world?
According to some people at the time, they were worse than that.
Negative feelings were strong and biased; but to my knowledge no one feared that Tevye would blow up their neighborhood
It was still a decision based on fear and ignorance, and in that respect it is very much analogous to what is happening now.
Except we disagree with your conclusion. That was based on fear and ignorance. THIS is based on practicality and sense.
The right wing lunatics who are afraid of 3 year old orphans are lunatics; few disagree with that. But lets face it; there are many 25 year old able bodied men in most of the film I see of the refugees. It is the ability to vette those immigrants that has a lot of moderates (such as myself) calling for very strict measures before letting them in. This is not out of fear or ignorance; it is out of a feeling that one looks before they leap. There is a radical fringe of Islamic Terrorists looking to destroy - that is a simple fact. To date I haven't seen our government act in a manner on social/immigration policy to make me think it is prepared to handle this.
Just put in the words Islamic Terrorist. He won't use it
Think about it in a calm manner.
What would happen if the President of the United States started using that term?
Constitution of Iraq
SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Over 3,000 Americans died for that.
"Not offending" Muslims or Islam has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for many, many years now.
Think ISIS is recruiting a lot of people? Have the President start using "Islamic" whenever possible. ISIS and whoever else can spin that into America has declared war on all of Islam in nothing flat.
The courts will decide; like the previous threat about Obama's last immigration policy defeat
I wonder what the courts would have decided about the Jewish refugees in 1938? Were any of those folks people you know emr?
Was there a danger that hiding among Holacaust refugees were members of a deadly religious death cult that has promised to reek havoc among the Western world?
According to some people at the time, they were worse than that.
Negative feelings were strong and biased; but to my knowledge no one feared that Tevye would blow up their neighborhood
It was still a decision based on fear and ignorance, and in that respect it is very much analogous to what is happening now.
Except we disagree with your conclusion. That was based on fear and ignorance. THIS is based on practicality and sense.
The right wing lunatics who are afraid of 3 year old orphans are lunatics; few disagree with that. But lets face it; there are many 25 year old able bodied men in most of the film I see of the refugees. It is the ability to vette those immigrants that has a lot of moderates (such as myself) calling for very strict measures before letting them in. This is not out of fear or ignorance; it is out of a feeling that one looks before they leap. There is a radical fringe of Islamic Terrorists looking to destroy - that is a simple fact. To date I haven't seen our government act in a manner on social/immigration policy to make me think it is prepared to handle this.
Just put in the words Islamic Terrorist. He won't use it
Come on Billy you can say it
Islamic Terrorist
I have no problem using those words. Never have. You said Obama attacks Republicans more than he attacks Islamic Terrorists. That's patently untrue. The President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, has killed thousands of Islamic Terrorists. You want to make crap up, go ahead. You have that right but I also have the right to say you are full of pig $hit.
The rest of your tirade about the IRS is also pig $hit. It is unAmerican for you to assign blame because someone invoked the 5th amendment. The process puts the onus of proving the guilt of individuals on the prosecution. Do you just pick and choose what parts of our judicial system you agree with?
There are plenty of Obama's stands I disagree with. But I don't know what you are talking about when you just call him "corrupt".
Reading your rant it is clear your hatred of Obama makes it difficult for you to clearly lay out your thoughts.
I was there with both Bush's and Reagan. I hope Hillary doesn't drive me to the brink of hatred induced insanity.
Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Is any President the sole decision-maker on military strategy? I would imagine all of them carry out the advice of their 5-star generals.
Just put in the words Islamic Terrorist. He won't use it
Come on Billy you can say it
Islamic TerroristImagine in WWII they wouldn't say Nazis. Funny they have a lot in common the Nazis and Islamic terrorist. But I guess in your world they don't exist.
Glad you support a corrupt president that is more concerned with insulting over half the country than our enemy. But then again who is Obama's enemy? What is it 31 Governors don't want these refugees in their state.
Funny how his corrupt justice department didn't go after anyone in the IRS even though there is without a doubt criminal activity that went on there. How many people pleaded the 5th.
Oh that's right his justice department was involved with that from the beginning
It was only conservative they were illegally going after, who cares about the law.
Obama putting politics ahead of the security of the US
what a peach
And if he used the term "Islamic Terrorist" would it change anything?
Just a reminder (doesn't mean anyone should stop doing what they do...well maybe one or two should lol)
[Edited on 11/20/2015 by gondicar]
France leads by example while the GOP runs scared of Syrian refugees and in the process is actually helping ISIS and making America look scared and weak.
French President Francois Hollande Welcomes Refugees Despite Paris Attack
By ABC NEWS Nov 18, 2015, 8:02 AM ET
French President Francois Hollande today promised that “France will remain a country of freedom,” defending his decision to honor a commitment to accept migrants and refugees despite Friday’s deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.
“Life should resume fully,” Hollande told a gathering of the country’s mayors, who gave him a standing ovation. “What would France be without its museums, without its terraces, its concerts, its sports competitions?
“France should remain as it is. Our duty is to carry on our lives.”
In the same spirit, he added, “30,000 refugees will be welcomed over the next two years. Our country has the duty to respect this commitment,” explaining that they will undergo vigorous security checks.
Hollande noted that “some people say the tragic events of the last few days have sown doubts in their minds,” but called it a “humanitarian duty” to help those people … but one that will go hand in hand with “our duty to protect our people.”
“We have to reinforce our borders while remaining true to our values,” he said.
It also has some of the most compassionate and some of the most unwilling to see common sense folks I have ever seen and most of them have grown up without being in the service or they are in generation X the missing link group....
WTF?
Bhawk need clarification?
This site has more people on here that are always willing to help others and to fight for the good cause so they think.... and the most that refuse to just use common sense on some matters like global warming !!!! or the second amendment, and unless I am wrong I bet most on here have never been in the service I could be wrong but I doubt it the unfailing support for the left side and the unfailing support for strict gun laws all point to that conclusion now none of this is directed at ANY individual it is a site statistic does that clear up the WTF?
[Edited on 11/20/2015 by Rydethwind]
Hey Gondi! Thanks for the graphic! Totally cracked me up. 
It also has some of the most compassionate and some of the most unwilling to see common sense folks I have ever seen and most of them have grown up without being in the service or they are in generation X the missing link group....
WTF?
Bhawk need clarification?
This site has more people on here that are always willing to help others and to fight for the good cause so they think.... and the most that refuse to just use common sense on some matters like global warming !!!! or the second amendment, and unless I am wrong I bet most on here have never been in the service I could be wrong but I doubt it the unfailing support for the left side and the unfailing support for strict gun laws all point to that conclusion now none of this is directed at ANY individual it is a site statistic does that clear up the WTF?
Actually, Mike, it doesn't, I was speaking directly to the "Generation X" element, but I appreciate the response and respect your opinion.
It shouldn’t be long before we see this hashtag from The White House:
#jihadistlivesmatter
I’ve seen comments here which parrot Obama and his minions about the Syrian refugee issue.
“Republicans are scared of widows and orphans”
“The GOP wants to keep out women and children”
“The Republicans say all Syrian refugees must be kept out of America”
All of that is political rhetoric and outright lies. Not one Republican has said “keep out women and children” or “all Syrian refugees must be kept out”.
What The Republicans, many Democrats and over two-thirds of the American People are saying is the Syrian Refugees must be vetted to screen out the ISIS terrorists first. That is clearly different of how the left is spinning this important issue.
Yesterday, The FBI Director testified before Congress yet again that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted because there is no database now or attainable to vet the Syrian refugees against. Director Comey also said that even if the information was available to vet these Syrian refugees it would take 18 to 24 months to get done.
This is the same inability to vet the Syrian refugees stated by The DNI Clapper, CIA Director Brennan and NSA Director Adm. Rodgers.
If Obama is so concerned about the Syrians why did he allow, after drawing a red line, Assad to kill over 250,000 Syrians? Where has his concern been for the last almost three years?
Why is it that the left is so “outraged” Syrian refugees political issue but seem to consider the ISIS matter just an annoyance?
Noticeably missing from the mainstream news today is the fact that The U.S. House of Representatives vote yesterday to require refugee screening. Obama has vowed to veto that bill. The vote for the bill included many Democrats and the total is enough to over-ride a presidential veto.
Why is it that the left, using misrepresentations, is attacking The Republicans, some Democrats and the clear majority of American People and show no concern about National Security?
I’ve seen comments here which parrot Obama and his minions about the Syrian refugee issue.
“Republicans are scared of widows and orphans”
“The GOP wants to keep out women and children”
“The Republicans say all Syrian refugees must be kept out of America”
All of that is political rhetoric and outright lies. Not one Republican has said “keep out women and children” or “all Syrian refugees must be kept out”.
The public reaction of the GOP supports all of the above.
What The Republicans, many Democrats and over two-thirds of the American People are saying is the Syrian Refugees must be vetted to screen out the ISIS terrorists first. That is clearly different of how the left is spinning this important issue.
You have not looked at any of the data on the demographics of refugees so you are in no position to know what is spin and what is fact.
Yesterday, The FBI Director testified before Congress yet again that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted because there is no database now or attainable to vet the Syrian refugees against. Director Comey also said that even if the information was available to vet these Syrian refugees it would take 18 to 24 months to get done.
You obviously did not understand his remarks. The refugees earmarked for the US and the one's who have already arrived have been through the 22 month vet. Additional scrutiny would have to be applied to the refugees who have moved into the European theater in the last year. So this is another red herring for republicans as what they are flapping over has no direct relevance to US security.
Here is what democrats have proposed. Immediately halt the visa waiver program between Europe and the US. Since a few of the terrorists were in Europe without France's knowledge and they hold French passports they could just get on a plane and fly to the US without additional normal vetting.
Cross check gun purchase applications against the no fly list data. The NRA opposes this.
I saw a show last night and it costs about $20,000 to buy a European passport in the Middle East. In this scenario an ISIS terrorist could buy a passport and be in the US in a few days. Then the terrorist could just go out and buy a gun.
In the refugee scenario ISIS would have to get a terrorist into a refugee camp for 2 years and then there would only be about a 1% chance the terrorist would get assigned to a country. There are refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan that have turned into villages.
What option do you think ISIS would pick?
I’ve seen comments here which parrot Obama and his minions about the Syrian refugee issue.
“Republicans are scared of widows and orphans”
“The GOP wants to keep out women and children”
“The Republicans say all Syrian refugees must be kept out of America”
All of that is political rhetoric and outright lies. Not one Republican has said “keep out women and children” or “all Syrian refugees must be kept out”.
The public reaction of the GOP supports all of the above.
What The Republicans, many Democrats and over two-thirds of the American People are saying is the Syrian Refugees must be vetted to screen out the ISIS terrorists first. That is clearly different of how the left is spinning this important issue.
You have not looked at any of the data on the demographics of refugees so you are in no position to know what is spin and what is fact.
Yesterday, The FBI Director testified before Congress yet again that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted because there is no database now or attainable to vet the Syrian refugees against. Director Comey also said that even if the information was available to vet these Syrian refugees it would take 18 to 24 months to get done.
You obviously did not understand his remarks. The refugees earmarked for the US and the one's who have already arrived have been through the 22 month vet. Additional scrutiny would have to be applied to the refugees who have moved into the European theater in the last year. So this is another red herring for republicans as what they are flapping over has no direct relevance to US security.
Here is what democrats have proposed. Immediately halt the visa waiver program between Europe and the US. Since a few of the terrorists were in Europe without France's knowledge and they hold French passports they could just get on a plane and fly to the US without additional normal vetting.
Cross check gun purchase applications against the no fly list data. The NRA opposes this.
I saw a show last night and it costs about $20,000 to buy a European passport in the Middle East. In this scenario an ISIS terrorist could buy a passport and be in the US in a few days. Then the terrorist could just go out and buy a gun.
In the refugee scenario ISIS would have to get a terrorist into a refugee camp for 2 years and then there would only be about a 1% chance the terrorist would get assigned to a country. There are refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan that have turned into villages.
What option do you think ISIS would pick?
_______________________________________________________________________
“The public reaction of the GOP supports all of the above.”
- Only the liberal Obama lovers support these lies.
“You have not looked at any of the data on the demographics of refugees so you are in no position to know what is spin and what is fact.”
- You have no facts.
- There is no demographic data of refugees available by the Obama administration. The data from Europe is that over half of the refugees are young men.
“You obviously did not understand his remarks. The refugees earmarked for the US and the one's who have already arrived have been through the 22 month vet.”
- Liar. I listened to the entire testimony of the FBI Director who clearly stated that the Syrian cannot be vetted.
“ Additional scrutiny would have to be applied to the refugees who have moved into the European theater in the last year. So this is another red herring for republicans as what they are flapping over has no direct relevance to US security. “
- Liar. I listened to the entire testimony of the FBI Director who clearly stated that the Syrian cannot be vetted.
“Here is what democrats have proposed. Immediately halt the visa waiver program between Europe and the US. Since a few of the terrorists were in Europe without France's knowledge and they hold French passports they could just get on a plane and fly to the US without additional normal vetting.”
- what democrats have proposed will not stop an ISIS fighter getting into the U.S.
“Cross check gun purchase applications against the no fly list data. The NRA opposes this. “
- Liar. The NRA opposes background checks against faulty data.
“I saw a show last night and it costs about $20,000 to buy a European passport in the Middle East. In this scenario an ISIS terrorist could buy a passport and be in the US in a few days. Then the terrorist could just go out and buy a gun.”
- What “show”?
- The open immigration policy of the EU for the last few decades allowed terrorists into Europe and the Paris attacks have the EU reeling about that failed policy. In the mean time the U.S. must take all measures to prevent any more terrorists from getting in the country.
What option do you think ISIS would pick?
- ISIS knows the Obama is weak they can easily get into the U.S. Any option they pick will work for ISIS.
Bloomberg Politics Poll: Most Americans Oppose Syrian Refugee Resettlement
I watched Chris Hayes's show last night and learned a lot. Angus King, Senator from Maine explained that admitting refugees to the US is NOT the problem. The refugees are vetted for 18-24 months before being allowed into this country. They are checked out. Also the refugees are mostly women, children and old people. Isis will not be AMONG THEM. He said that if any Isis members want to come to America they will come thru the Visa Waiver program which has 20 million that's right twenty million people coming here every year, they do not have the screening process as the refugees do. That is how they will sneak in here, OR they just come on phony passports, that is even easier. How easy?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/how-easy-is-it-to-buy-fake-syrian-passport
Forgers in the Middle East are offering fake Syrian passports for as little as $250, days after it emerged that one of the Paris bombers may have entered Europe using false Syrian paperwork. The EU border agency revealed that it does not have the equipment to assess the authenticity of people’s identification documents in all of the Greek islands.
A Guardian journalist in Iraqi Kurdistan was offered fake Syrian passports by two separate smuggling rings, less than a week after French authorities alleged that a terrorist used a similar forgery to enter the Greek island of Leros, before taking part in an attack on the Stade de France in Paris. For just $250, one smuggler based in Sulaymaniyah promises to deliver a fake Syrian passport, ID card or birth certificate within 10 days. A second forger in Duhok says he can procure a passport, allegedly with the help of a Syrian embassy official, within four days – for a premium price of $2,500. Overworked officials who spoke no Arabic could have little idea who they were letting into Europe.
670,000 people have crossed the borders this year seeking asylum!
I read something last week that said the Syrian officials can easily be bribed to put whatever name you want on a passport. They guy owned a business in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn which has a large Syrian community. The man was not part of Isis and denounced them, but said anyone can get a phony passport in Syria just pay them.
[Edited on 11/21/2015 by gina]
“You have not looked at any of the data on the demographics of refugees so you are in no position to know what is spin and what is fact.”
- You have no facts.
- There is no demographic data of refugees available by the Obama administration. The data from Europe is that over half of the refugees are young men.
The Syrians coming to the US are coming from Jordan camps and not Europe.
“You obviously did not understand his remarks. The refugees earmarked for the US and the one's who have already arrived have been through the 22 month vet.”
- Liar. I listened to the entire testimony of the FBI Director who clearly stated that the Syrian cannot be vetted.
He did not say every Syrian cannot be vetted. There are plenty who can and some who can't be.
“Here is what democrats have proposed. Immediately halt the visa waiver program between Europe and the US. Since a few of the terrorists were in Europe without France's knowledge and they hold French passports they could just get on a plane and fly to the US without additional normal vetting.”
- what democrats have proposed will not stop an ISIS fighter getting into the U.S.“Cross check gun purchase applications against the no fly list data. The NRA opposes this. “
- Liar. The NRA opposes background checks against faulty data.
The NRA wants to be in charge of data and they don't care about giving terrorists guns.
“I saw a show last night and it costs about $20,000 to buy a European passport in the Middle East. In this scenario an ISIS terrorist could buy a passport and be in the US in a few days. Then the terrorist could just go out and buy a gun.”
- What “show”?
The reporter was Nick Robinson on CNN and he had just been in Afghanistan.
-
The open immigration policy of the EU for the last few decades allowed terrorists into Europe and the Paris attacks have the EU reeling about that failed policy. In the mean time the U.S. must take all measures to prevent any more terrorists from getting in the country.
What option do you think ISIS would pick?
- ISIS knows the Obama is weak they can easily get into the U.S. Any option they pick will work for ISIS.
It's gibberish like this that proves you really should leave these kinds of topics to people who have more open minds.
“You have not looked at any of the data on the demographics of refugees so you are in no position to know what is spin and what is fact.”
- You have no facts.
- There is no demographic data of refugees available by the Obama administration. The data from Europe is that over half of the refugees are young men.The Syrians coming to the US are coming from Jordan camps and not Europe.
- where not vetting is happening.“You obviously did not understand his remarks. The refugees earmarked for the US and the one's who have already arrived have been through the 22 month vet.”
- Liar. I listened to the entire testimony of the FBI Director who clearly stated that the Syrian cannot be vetted.He did not say every Syrian cannot be vetted. There are plenty who can and some who can't be.
- Where do you propose to warehouse those that need to be vetted?“Here is what democrats have proposed. Immediately halt the visa waiver program between Europe and the US. Since a few of the terrorists were in Europe without France's knowledge and they hold French passports they could just get on a plane and fly to the US without additional normal vetting.”
- what democrats have proposed will not stop an ISIS fighter getting into the U.S.“Cross check gun purchase applications against the no fly list data. The NRA opposes this. “
- Liar. The NRA opposes background checks against faulty data.The NRA wants to be in charge of data and they don't care about giving terrorists guns.
- Another lie. Where is your link to that?“I saw a show last night and it costs about $20,000 to buy a European passport in the Middle East. In this scenario an ISIS terrorist could buy a passport and be in the US in a few days. Then the terrorist could just go out and buy a gun.”
- What “show”?The reporter was Nick Robinson on CNN and he had just been in Afghanistan.
- Nick Robinson is a far-left ideologue who "reports" his opinion.-
The open immigration policy of the EU for the last few decades allowed terrorists into Europe and the Paris attacks have the EU reeling about that failed policy. In the mean time the U.S. must take all measures to prevent any more terrorists from getting in the country.
What option do you think ISIS would pick?
- ISIS knows the Obama is weak they can easily get into the U.S. Any option they pick will work for ISIS.It's gibberish like this that proves you really should leave these kinds of topics to people who have more open minds.
- Facts son. Get informed or STFU.
The majority of States are now refusing to allow Obama to dump Syrian refugees on them and endangering their citizens.
Scores of people in a position to know are publically stating that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted.
Yesterday at his G-20 speech Obama was clearly irritated with the media’s repeated questions on this subject. The press kept asking because Obama kept not answering their questions directly. He looked and sounded like Hillary Clinton at Saturday night’s debate. Obama was hammered by the White House Press Corp. and annoyed with those who he used to count on to parrot his agenda. Obama’s embarrassing speech to the world yesterday didn’t make the front page of most American newspapers this morning.
Obama was impassioned about American taking in these refugees who are suffering from the war in their country. Where was Obama’s passion over the last few years while his lack of action and failed foreign policies caused the problem?
ISIS announced a long time ago that they are covertly inserting their fighters into the fleeing refugees.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein was loudest of the Democrats yesterday on the need for Obama to clearly state a Syrian refugee relocation program before Congress and The American People. Sen. Feinstein is one of the few hawks in the Democratic Party but her words carry a lot of weight.
A Trojan horse is coming to American. The American People see it and want Obama to put their safety put first.
This is all nonsense and also cowardly. ISIS was created by George W and is an example of REPUBLICAN failed war policy. Every piece of evidence supports this.
It was the ISIS objective to make the rest of the world fear the refugees. They have succeeded.
The current Republican leadership has surrendered to ISIS. The governors who are almost all Republican have also surrendered to ISIS. They are all afraid! ISIS will be emboldened by this overt display of fear.
I won't even get into the argument of "who created ISIS" because its utterly irrelevant. Bush is not president now. Obama is. ISIS has thrived over the last seven years, is stron ger than ever and is now directly threatening the West. Obama has constantly downplayed the threat and we are not about to take his word now. ISIS couldn't care LESS whether we let in refugees or not. Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate and ensure everyone follows their brand of Islam. Everything they do is intended to further that goal.
It is totally relevant to research the origins of ISIS and your inability to understand this is solid argument for your side of the fence not be involved in any military planning in the future. To understand the military capacity of ISIS one needs to know who the leaders are and what their training and war experience is. It is not good strategy to go into war blind. One needs knowledge of the enemy and the ability of the enemy.
ISIS does care how the refugees scare republicans. They engineered this and the right capitulated and they will be very proud of this victory. Why wouldn't they be celebrating this defeat?
What on earth are you talking about? It's Obama and the left that refuses to acknowledge the religious Islamic basis of ISIS's actions. ANd believe me it is not just Republicans that are concerned. The Democrats are going to ride this issue right into the ground and are going to be shocked at what happens. ISIS doesn't give a damn if we admit refugees or not. They have a broader strategy and a vision. Our plan is to "weaken degrade and ultimately destroy" Isis. There is absolutely no coherent strategy to make that happen. Killing Jihadi John? That's a tactical victory. Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Obama inherited two hot spots from the Bush administration which had lost both the Afghan and Iraq wars. When Obama became President the mood in both Europe and the US had soured towards war, mainly because while there was a level of containment neither war was seen as winnable in the long term. ISIS was not the threat at this time that it grew to be later.
When ISIS expanded its influence and grew more menacing Obama was able to put together a 65 country coalition. These countries would supply various types of support but no country was offering ground troops. Obama was restrained by this reality and it did not look like the US population was amenable to another ground war.
With ISIS actions against Russia, France and now China, the prospect of a new engaged strategy has grown and Obama will be able to shift his strategy. Israel would also have to be a partner in this new senior coalition. This group will be able to defeat ISIS.
The republican congress and the slate of GOP presidential candidates have no understanding of the dynamics of diversity and have already lost two Middle Eastern wars because of it. To fight in the Middle East entails a solid understanding of ethnic complexity. George W Bush apparently did not know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis when he invaded Iraq. Understanding the local culture matters.
ISIS and it soldiers believe they are invincible and want to test their power against US and probably now Russian forces. ISIS does give a damn about the refugees and the fright they have caused republicans is obvious to the rest of the world. This gutless Republican fear of the refugees makes America look extremely weak and emboldens ISIS and attracts new recruits who want to fight Satan.
The army that faces ISIS has to look like an army. The GOP is a mess right now. The voters do not trust their own elected officials and this is why Trump will be the nominee. Trump would never be able to bring together a coalition to fight ISIS.
You are right that the west is not going to roll over. The republican party though already has.
Bush left him a situation so stable in Iraq that he and Biden bragged about it in 2011 as one of their greatest triumphs and then abandoned the country. Afghanistan Obama said was the "good war" then he abandoned that too. Worst of all though and what really led to the growth of Isis was his total abandonment of his own redlines in Syria and his refusal to support the non Islamist enemies of Assad who have now ceased to exist. But more than any specific thing it is just Obama's refusal to have a coherent vision of Western victory that has let this metastisize.
Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Is any President the sole decision-maker on military strategy? I would imagine all of them carry out the advice of their 5-star generals.
You would imagine wrong. It is well known that Obama has rejected the advice of his generals over and over again for political/ideological reasons.
The majority of States are now refusing to allow Obama to dump Syrian refugees on them and endangering their citizens.
Scores of people in a position to know are publically stating that the Syrian refugees cannot be vetted.
Yesterday at his G-20 speech Obama was clearly irritated with the media’s repeated questions on this subject. The press kept asking because Obama kept not answering their questions directly. He looked and sounded like Hillary Clinton at Saturday night’s debate. Obama was hammered by the White House Press Corp. and annoyed with those who he used to count on to parrot his agenda. Obama’s embarrassing speech to the world yesterday didn’t make the front page of most American newspapers this morning.
Obama was impassioned about American taking in these refugees who are suffering from the war in their country. Where was Obama’s passion over the last few years while his lack of action and failed foreign policies caused the problem?
ISIS announced a long time ago that they are covertly inserting their fighters into the fleeing refugees.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein was loudest of the Democrats yesterday on the need for Obama to clearly state a Syrian refugee relocation program before Congress and The American People. Sen. Feinstein is one of the few hawks in the Democratic Party but her words carry a lot of weight.
A Trojan horse is coming to American. The American People see it and want Obama to put their safety put first.
This is all nonsense and also cowardly. ISIS was created by George W and is an example of REPUBLICAN failed war policy. Every piece of evidence supports this.
It was the ISIS objective to make the rest of the world fear the refugees. They have succeeded.
The current Republican leadership has surrendered to ISIS. The governors who are almost all Republican have also surrendered to ISIS. They are all afraid! ISIS will be emboldened by this overt display of fear.
I won't even get into the argument of "who created ISIS" because its utterly irrelevant. Bush is not president now. Obama is. ISIS has thrived over the last seven years, is stron ger than ever and is now directly threatening the West. Obama has constantly downplayed the threat and we are not about to take his word now. ISIS couldn't care LESS whether we let in refugees or not. Their goal is to establish a world wide caliphate and ensure everyone follows their brand of Islam. Everything they do is intended to further that goal.
It is totally relevant to research the origins of ISIS and your inability to understand this is solid argument for your side of the fence not be involved in any military planning in the future. To understand the military capacity of ISIS one needs to know who the leaders are and what their training and war experience is. It is not good strategy to go into war blind. One needs knowledge of the enemy and the ability of the enemy.
ISIS does care how the refugees scare republicans. They engineered this and the right capitulated and they will be very proud of this victory. Why wouldn't they be celebrating this defeat?
What on earth are you talking about? It's Obama and the left that refuses to acknowledge the religious Islamic basis of ISIS's actions. ANd believe me it is not just Republicans that are concerned. The Democrats are going to ride this issue right into the ground and are going to be shocked at what happens. ISIS doesn't give a damn if we admit refugees or not. They have a broader strategy and a vision. Our plan is to "weaken degrade and ultimately destroy" Isis. There is absolutely no coherent strategy to make that happen. Killing Jihadi John? That's a tactical victory. Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Obama inherited two hot spots from the Bush administration which had lost both the Afghan and Iraq wars. When Obama became President the mood in both Europe and the US had soured towards war, mainly because while there was a level of containment neither war was seen as winnable in the long term. ISIS was not the threat at this time that it grew to be later.
When ISIS expanded its influence and grew more menacing Obama was able to put together a 65 country coalition. These countries would supply various types of support but no country was offering ground troops. Obama was restrained by this reality and it did not look like the US population was amenable to another ground war.
With ISIS actions against Russia, France and now China, the prospect of a new engaged strategy has grown and Obama will be able to shift his strategy. Israel would also have to be a partner in this new senior coalition. This group will be able to defeat ISIS.
The republican congress and the slate of GOP presidential candidates have no understanding of the dynamics of diversity and have already lost two Middle Eastern wars because of it. To fight in the Middle East entails a solid understanding of ethnic complexity. George W Bush apparently did not know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis when he invaded Iraq. Understanding the local culture matters.
ISIS and it soldiers believe they are invincible and want to test their power against US and probably now Russian forces. ISIS does give a damn about the refugees and the fright they have caused republicans is obvious to the rest of the world. This gutless Republican fear of the refugees makes America look extremely weak and emboldens ISIS and attracts new recruits who want to fight Satan.
The army that faces ISIS has to look like an army. The GOP is a mess right now. The voters do not trust their own elected officials and this is why Trump will be the nominee. Trump would never be able to bring together a coalition to fight ISIS.
You are right that the west is not going to roll over. The republican party though already has.
Bush left him a situation so stable in Iraq that he and Biden bragged about it in 2011 as one of their greatest triumphs and then abandoned the country. Afghanistan Obama said was the "good war" then he abandoned that too. Worst of all though and what really led to the growth of Isis was his total abandonment of his own redlines in Syria and his refusal to support the non Islamist enemies of Assad who have now ceased to exist. But more than any specific thing it is just Obama's refusal to have a coherent vision of Western victory that has let this metastisize.
And the neocon anger seethes...cheated out of all that war and death they lost out on.
Don't worry. You'll get more soon.
Every day ISIS survives or enlarges is a day it grows stronger and attracts more recruits. Because THAT'S what attracts Muslims to it, the feeling that they are winning, have God on their side, the wind at their back, however you want to phrase it. The only coherent strategy to fight ISIS ideologically is to put a world of hurt on them. To actually reverse the process by taking back the territory they have gained. To let the Islamic world know that THIS is not how it's going to happen, that the West is not going to roll over. That is how you fight ISIS. Does anyone seriously believe this has either crossed Obama's mind or is in any way a part of his thought process?
Is any President the sole decision-maker on military strategy? I would imagine all of them carry out the advice of their 5-star generals.
You would imagine wrong. It is well known that Obama has rejected the advice of his generals over and over again for political/ideological reasons.
If it is "well known" it is only because people that think like you keep saying it and repeating it over and over again. That doesn't mean it is true.
How do you thoroughly "vet" someone who left their country with literally just the shirt on their back?
No Thank You.
Obama couldnt even vet Bo Bergdahl, the army desterter without telling some bs story.
