[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's not true, we do have a very good vetting process. We may not be able to run conventional background checks like you'd do for a US citizen but that doesn't mean there isn't a good process in place. It's very different than what happens with refugees heading to Europe.

I keep hearing that we have this very good vetting process . . . but the process remains a mystery . . . are we just supposed to take the statement as a validation of itself? That's not a sarcastic question. Would really like to know. Have you looked into the process, studied it, and from that concluded we have nothing to fear from jihadists sprinkling in a few of their own amongst the thousands of refugees?

Quite simply, it would be orders of magnitude easier for a terrorist to sneak into the US via other means than by posing as a UN refugee.

That sounds huge . . . "orders of magnitude" . . . makes it sound like there are "orders of magnitude" ways for terrorists to sneak in. So, even without the supposed orders of tininess posed by massive immigration we are in deep doo-doo. Unless the terrorists are very slow on the uptake, "orders of magnitude" of them must have already snuck in. How can that be? I thought we were being competently protected from such danger. Why would we want to add another, albeit a supposed small order of magnitude, way for the terrorists to enter? And how are we to trust the word of our would be "protectors" about their very good vetting process if they have already allowed this great order of magnitude ways for terrorists to sneak in?

While we must remain vigilant, this is primarily a political issue to stoke fear of Muslims to rally voters = exactly what ISIS wants.

This sounds reminiscent of supposedly stoking fear of Obama's election by creating "codes" to let us know he is black. Sometimes, political times I guess, the obvious is arguable and needs to be revealed in sneaky ways.

It must not be the simple explanation that there is a danger, certainly a fear of it, that some (even in orders of tininess) jihadists could successfully pose as mere immigrants to enter. No, no . . . we must be reminded that the jihadists are Muslim (even though we are told by our "protectors" that they really are not Muslims). Ergo, as in the codes for Obama being black implied that voting against Obama would be racist, wanting a hold on the plan to emigrate thousands of people from a region full of terrorism would be code for being anti-Muslim. There is a tangle of twisted contradictory "logic" in this narrative . . . but so well wrought that it is almost plausible.

And, voila, this is exactly what ISIS (or al Qaeda, or pick your name for whatever Islamic--but not really--terrorist group) really wants. ISIS doesn't really want hundreds of thousands of Muslims who oppose them to emigrate to other places from the world they want to claim as their own. Presumably, they would rather they all stayed in place so they could risk a battle against them. That's why they are slaughtering thousands of Muslims who can't escape.

Again, the twisted logic. But seemingly plausible if you examine situational "contexts" rather than the whole.


Given Trump's recent behavior I'm starting to wonder if he's on their payroll.

There is ZERO evidence of that.