Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 16:18:54 GMT -5
i think the problem is bigger than one political party, or the other. you want to narrow it down, so you can mock the left because you don't agree with the policies. it runs deeper than conservative or liberal. but it's easier to try to push it all onto the group that you disagree with. What makes it run so deep? You either make Syrian refugees our problem or you don't. Let's say 22 of those refugees turns out to be upstanding, hardworking, good citizens of our fine nation. If 1 in the 23 goes out and kills 100 people in a terrorist attack, is it worth it? Some may say that's irrational fear, but is it, especially what just took place in that area? It's a fairly irrational fear though, isn't it. Because let's be honest, the San Bernadino shootings in 2015 (just checking I've got the right attack, it's hard to find all the shootings in the US. . .) was perpetrated by someone born in Chicago. So saying that Syrian refugees are likely to increase that type of attack, would suggest it may be that type of attack in 40 years. Which might happen with non-refugees anyway. To put it in context, the US has one of the most (if not the most) stringent refugee admission processes that take at minimum 18 months to 3 years to complete. It involves processing, interviewing, and being vetted by at least 11 different US federal structures. To date, 784,000 refugees have been settled in the US since 9/11/2001. Of those 784,000 settled, there have so far been 3 potential terrorist activities noted and disrupted, with 0 completed plots or kills. One of those three was not deemed a credible threat. Two were planning attacks outside of the United States So feel free to say that you want to consider risk, but it's not 1 in 23. It's 0 in 784,000 and counting. Will it stay at 0, almost certainly not. But lets at least put it in the correct context.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 16:26:43 GMT -5
But what better way to show that you do not want to be responsible for the situation, and that you are not the reason for the problem, but rather the solution. More education about what happened, more integration, more kindness shown, the more people from there are going to start saying "these people are good people. They should not be harmed" and tell others like them. The more hornets you can bring home and make peaceful hornets, the less violent hornets there are going to be. Will there always be angry hornets, probably. Can you guarantee that you'll be safe from them no matter what? no you cannot. And that's key to me. There will be attacks, I'm sure, both on US soil and here in Europe. There's no way to stop every dick with a shitty plan from doing some harm to innocents. But if that is allowed to then turn us into racist, xenophobic, generally unhelpful and unfriendly nation states, then frankly the terrorists have won already. We're better than that. We have to be, and we have to show that we are better than that. is it racist, xenophobic, unhelpful, unfriendly to help to construct a safe place within the region for people affected by war, and then also giving those people aid? is that wrong? first, it doesn't uproot them and force them into a place that they don't have much in common with. it is closer to home, geographically, and thus more comfortable, likely. (aside from being nearer to a war torn region) Not at all. That already has happened. Syrian refugees can't be in a safe zone in Syria, for the obvious reasons that it is currently the area with the conflict, with a civil war and terrorist activities. Even so 6.8 million people are displaced refugees in various parts of Syria. The need some help. Lebanon currently has 1 million asylum seekers housed with them. Jordan has taken a further 640,000. Iraq (not the safest of places itself) currently holds around 245,000 individuals. Turkey has the largest number of refugees, with 2.6 million. A lot of these places are receiving exactly the aid you are talking about, and are trying to cope with as much as they can. And there is money and other funds being sent there, but it simply is not enough, and the system is not designed to cope with this many people for this long. It has been several years now since it became such a big problem. There's plenty of organizations you can donate to in order to try and further the aid there, and the ideal situation is to keep pushing ISIS back and making them lose ground, and to stabilize the region. But it's not that realistic at present. Hence refugees keep being taken in elsewhere.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 16:35:06 GMT -5
|
|
zombie
Charter Member
Joined: Oct 1, 2008 8:58:27 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 4,710
Gender: Male
Last Online: Mar 11, 2023 21:10:09 GMT -5
|
Post by zombie on Oct 23, 2016 16:40:46 GMT -5
is it racist, xenophobic, unhelpful, unfriendly to help to construct a safe place within the region for people affected by war, and then also giving those people aid? is that wrong? first, it doesn't uproot them and force them into a place that they don't have much in common with. it is closer to home, geographically, and thus more comfortable, likely. (aside from being nearer to a war torn region) Not at all. That already has happened. Syrian refugees can't be in a safe zone in Syria, for the obvious reasons that it is currently the area with the conflict, with a civil war and terrorist activities. Even so 6.8 million people are displaced refugees in various parts of Syria. The need some help. Lebanon currently has 1 million asylum seekers housed with them. Jordan has taken a further 640,000. Iraq (not the safest of places itself) currently holds around 245,000 individuals. Turkey has the largest number of refugees, with 2.6 million. A lot of these places are receiving exactly the aid you are talking about, and are trying to cope with as much as they can. And there is money and other funds being sent there, but it simply is not enough, and the system is not designed to cope with this many people for this long. It has been several years now since it became such a big problem. There's plenty of organizations you can donate to in order to try and further the aid there, and the ideal situation is to keep pushing ISIS back and making them lose ground, and to stabilize the region. But it's not that realistic at present. Hence refugees keep being taken in elsewhere. fair enough. i see it as potentially creating more problems, especially when america is still involved with wars in that region. but maybe i'm just being too fearful or whatever.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 16:48:26 GMT -5
Not at all. That already has happened. Syrian refugees can't be in a safe zone in Syria, for the obvious reasons that it is currently the area with the conflict, with a civil war and terrorist activities. Even so 6.8 million people are displaced refugees in various parts of Syria. The need some help. Lebanon currently has 1 million asylum seekers housed with them. Jordan has taken a further 640,000. Iraq (not the safest of places itself) currently holds around 245,000 individuals. Turkey has the largest number of refugees, with 2.6 million. A lot of these places are receiving exactly the aid you are talking about, and are trying to cope with as much as they can. And there is money and other funds being sent there, but it simply is not enough, and the system is not designed to cope with this many people for this long. It has been several years now since it became such a big problem. There's plenty of organizations you can donate to in order to try and further the aid there, and the ideal situation is to keep pushing ISIS back and making them lose ground, and to stabilize the region. But it's not that realistic at present. Hence refugees keep being taken in elsewhere. fair enough. i see it as potentially creating more problems, especially when america is still involved with wars in that region. but maybe i'm just being too fearful or whatever. I can't tell you how to feel, all I can do is try and clarify my thoughts and give you the facts such as they are. I've given you the facts about how frequent these attacks are. Whether you think that 15 years and 750k samples and cases is "an anomaly" or not is up to you. And history may not be indicative of what will happen, but its a decent statistical predictor. Yeah, the US is involved in conflicts there, and there's plenty of hatred there. What I would tend to say is that the process for US refugee admission is so strenuous that there is a very low likelihood of someone slipping through. Which means it isn't that you are not a target. It's that your system of admission is so cumbersome that if any terrorist really wanted to sneak into the US, doing so through the refugee admission system is not the way forward. It'd be like choosing to rob a bank by sitting under it in a subway tunnel and waiting for the money to fall down.
|
|
zombie
Charter Member
Joined: Oct 1, 2008 8:58:27 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 4,710
Gender: Male
Last Online: Mar 11, 2023 21:10:09 GMT -5
|
Post by zombie on Oct 23, 2016 17:08:00 GMT -5
fair enough. i see it as potentially creating more problems, especially when america is still involved with wars in that region. but maybe i'm just being too fearful or whatever. I can't tell you how to feel, all I can do is try and clarify my thoughts and give you the facts such as they are. I've given you the facts about how frequent these attacks are. Whether you think that 15 years and 750k samples and cases is "an anomaly" or not is up to you. And history may not be indicative of what will happen, but its a decent statistical predictor. Yeah, the US is involved in conflicts there, and there's plenty of hatred there. What I would tend to say is that the process for US refugee admission is so strenuous that there is a very low likelihood of someone slipping through. Which means it isn't that you are not a target. It's that your system of admission is so cumbersome that if any terrorist really wanted to sneak into the US, doing so through the refugee admission system is not the way forward. It'd be like choosing to rob a bank by sitting under it in a subway tunnel and waiting for the money to fall down. i want you to be right. i want there to not really be a problem with letting people seek refuge here. but the article in question did state that the refugees into victorville were unvetted. if they were actually vetted and put through a screening process and such, then that is just dishonest. we all know that conservatives/republicans are never dishonest, and never would try to frame a narrative just to further their own political aspirations.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 17:11:38 GMT -5
I can't tell you how to feel, all I can do is try and clarify my thoughts and give you the facts such as they are. I've given you the facts about how frequent these attacks are. Whether you think that 15 years and 750k samples and cases is "an anomaly" or not is up to you. And history may not be indicative of what will happen, but its a decent statistical predictor. Yeah, the US is involved in conflicts there, and there's plenty of hatred there. What I would tend to say is that the process for US refugee admission is so strenuous that there is a very low likelihood of someone slipping through. Which means it isn't that you are not a target. It's that your system of admission is so cumbersome that if any terrorist really wanted to sneak into the US, doing so through the refugee admission system is not the way forward. It'd be like choosing to rob a bank by sitting under it in a subway tunnel and waiting for the money to fall down. i want you to be right. i want there to not really be a problem with letting people seek refuge here. but the article in question did state that the refugees into victorville were unvetted. if they were actually vetted and put through a screening process and such, then that is just dishonest. we all know that conservatives/republicans are never dishonest, and never would try to frame a narrative just to further their own political aspirations. There's no way actual refugees were unvetted. Whether there was some kind of cock-up in terms of settlement whereby they hadn't finally been cleared with the local government to settle them in that location, and was decided prior to consultation, is a different question for me. But I'm not sure I have the energy to dig that up. I mean they didn't just house a handful of people they just put on a plane. No government would ever do that. Odds are its deceptive reporting by an agenda-driven media source, but I am just speculating.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 17:16:41 GMT -5
How can the article call them unvetted, when their information comes from one of the many agencies responsible for "vetting" refugees entering the US. You can't find them on the official registered database for refugees if they are unvetted...
Even basic logic seems to defy those driven by an agenda.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 17:36:57 GMT -5
|
|
Reign in Blood
Administrator
King Dick
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 18:18:23 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 4,257
Gender: Male
Last Online: Sept 24, 2018 18:56:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Reign in Blood on Oct 23, 2016 19:44:30 GMT -5
What makes it run so deep? You either make Syrian refugees our problem or you don't. Let's say 22 of those refugees turns out to be upstanding, hardworking, good citizens of our fine nation. If 1 in the 23 goes out and kills 100 people in a terrorist attack, is it worth it? Some may say that's irrational fear, but is it, especially what just took place in that area? It's a fairly irrational fear though, isn't it. Because let's be honest, the San Bernadino shootings in 2015 (just checking I've got the right attack, it's hard to find all the shootings in the US. . .) was perpetrated by someone born in Chicago. So saying that Syrian refugees are likely to increase that type of attack, would suggest it may be that type of attack in 40 years. Which might happen with non-refugees anyway. To put it in context, the US has one of the most (if not the most) stringent refugee admission processes that take at minimum 18 months to 3 years to complete. It involves processing, interviewing, and being vetted by at least 11 different US federal structures. To date, 784,000 refugees have been settled in the US since 9/11/2001. Of those 784,000 settled, there have so far been 3 potential terrorist activities noted and disrupted, with 0 completed plots or kills. One of those three was not deemed a credible threat. Two were planning attacks outside of the United States So feel free to say that you want to consider risk, but it's not 1 in 23. It's 0 in 784,000 and counting. Will it stay at 0, almost certainly not. But lets at least put it in the correct context. blah, blah, blah. End of this tldr non-sense. How bout them Giants in London today?
|
|
Jason
Administrator
We keep odd hours
Joined: Oct 2, 2008 18:08:12 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 8,925
Gender: Male
Last Online: Mar 10, 2024 5:33:04 GMT -5
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2016 19:51:03 GMT -5
A damn shame that incredible pick 6 was wasted in a foreign country where nobody in the stadium had any idea what the fuck was even going on.
Unless Seb was there.
|
|
Sebastian Taro Groth
Administrator
Emperor of Bollocks
Go big or go home, said the fat guy who couldn't fit through his front door.
Joined: Sept 30, 2008 15:55:28 GMT -5
Location:
Posts: 3,511
Gender:
Last Online: Aug 24, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
Post by Sebastian Taro Groth on Oct 23, 2016 20:09:28 GMT -5
Missed out on tickets. Watched on TV though. On the BBC!!!
|
|