[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

Everything I've read seems to indicate it's pretty good. First off, when you apply you don't get to choose which country you go to. Given the small % of refugees potentially headed to the US that alone would make it difficult to make a plant, which doesn't consider all the additional interviews and 1-2 years of process.

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?

I wouldn't think for a terrorists to find their way to Mexico and get across the border would be that difficult if they were well funded. A wall wouldn't stop them.

The bigger issue is likely dealing with domestic intelligence and also without a support structure you're basically a lone wolf. It would take some time to build the infrastructure so that you could capitalize on a person or persons who find there way here.

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.

So Obama being black was obvious? Was the code that he was black or that his color and name made him different?

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.

It's not that complicated, it's called stereotyping.

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.

I'll give you this, your logic is twisted.

There is ZERO evidence of that.

I can't think of any sane reason why he's saying what he is. Like climate change, there may not be direct evidence, but there also is no other known conclusion.