Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

Muslims and Terrorism | National Review Online
By Josh Gelernter

Obama's bad math on Islamic Terrorism

"Muslims are no more fundamentally bad than Christians or Jews. But it is not true that, as President Obama has said, “99.9 percent of Muslims” reject Islamic terrorism."

"Pew Research has polled the issue extensively. In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, plus Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent."

The same proportion supports the Taliban. One in four of the Muslims polled supports Hezbollah.

One in three supports Hamas.

In Turkey — which is a member of NATO — one in four Muslims believes suicide bombings are sometimes justified. More than one in two Muslims believe this in Egypt and Jordan; more than two of three believe it in Nigeria.

The situation is not much different among Muslims in Western countries. In Britain and Spain, one in four Muslims believes suicide bombings are sometimes justified. One in three believes it in France.

 

[Buster Bluth]

...This is typical. Move the shell over here...look shiny thing.

What is also typical is "oh those silly Dems and their big spending habits!" which does us all a disservice as the Republicans have been demonstrably awful with spending at the same time. Which is why I brought up one sentence of the easiest examples. There is no shell moving, your comment was malarkey and deserved to be called out.

See the thing is, Mr. Bush, while arguably not always correct,

Way to soften the criticism hahah

made decisions which he thought best protected this nation. He underestimated what it would take in the middle east...indeed a bad deal.

He also made the simultaneous decision to not pay for it. It's one thing to get into wars, it's another thing to toss fiscal responsibility out the window when you go to said wars.

But if you are comparing a wartime president's decision to take the fight to a proven hostile

That's an awfully bad way of phrasing Saddam Hussein's existence and covers up just how bad of a decision it was. Here let me have Dick Cheney spell it out for ya:



Or a guy running for President right now who had a similar opinion at the time:

https://youtu.be/NdFw1btbkLM?t=241

to unsustainable spending from Democrats in state and city governments...

The great thing about spending at state and city levels is that you can't get away with unsustainable spending. You don't have the ability to spend the amount of money that would weaken the country like federal government can.

well you are EXACTLY who I thought you've become.

As for the decisions made to bail out...I disagreed, but then many Democrats were for it. Until it was expedient to be against it. And spare me the special interest scheme shit...Democrats have had their own money laundering service through compulsory labor union contributions for eons...SMMFH.

...This is typical. Move the shell over here...look shiny thing.

 

[wizards8507]

What is also typical is "oh those silly Dems and their big spending habits!" which does us all a disservice as the Republicans have been demonstrably awful with spending at the same time. Which is why I brought up one sentence of the easiest examples. There is no shell moving, your comment was malarkey and deserved to be called out.

While true, that just proves that Republican politicians have abandoned the conservatism of their voters. It does not discredit conservatism, but Republican politicians.

 

[Buster Bluth]

While true, that just proves that Republican politicians have abandoned the conservatism of their voters. It does not discredit conservatism, but Republican politicians.

To a large degree, you are what you are though. There is no time for No True Scotsman.

In short I reject the notion that the GOP has some sort of monopoly on fiscal responsibility, and I think it's debatable if they're even better at it.

 

[wizards8507]

To a large degree, you are what you are though. There is no time for No True Scotsman.

In short I reject the notion that the GOP has some sort of monopoly on fiscal responsibility, and I think it's debatable if they're even better at it.

Again I think you need to draw a distinction between voters and politicians. Progressive voters want entitlement expansion and a cradle-to-grave nanny state. Conservative voters want entitlement reform and a balanced budget amendment. This is the point that Rand Paul was making at the last debate. You can't say you're a conservative and then advocate for an infinite military budget.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Again I think you need to draw a distinction between voters and politicians. Progressive voters want entitlement expansion and a cradle-to-grave nanny state.

That doesn't mean they don't want it paid for, which is really what defines fiscal responsibility. It's not so much less spending, it's sustainable spending.

Conservative voters want entitlement reform and a balanced budget amendment. This is the point that Rand Paul was making at the last debate. You can't say you're a conservative and then advocate for an infinite military budget.

Isn't a balanced budget amendment one of the sillier ideas? I mean if it were so great why haven't we had a truly balanced budget since Eisenhower? And why don't other countries have them? We're still paying off World War II, no one seems to care since the nominal dollars are so small, no? Isn't it about getting the debt-to-GDP ratio to acceptable levels so you grow your way out and inflation takes care of the rest? That seems like a harder sell on a campaign stage so it doesn't happen.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Again I think you need to draw a distinction between voters and politicians. Progressive voters want entitlement expansion and a cradle-to-grave nanny state. Conservative voters want entitlement reform and a balanced budget amendment. This is the point that Rand Paul was making at the last debate. You can't say you're a conservative and then advocate for an infinite military budget.

Do you think the politicians are just going off the rails? Conservative voters say their for small government and balanced budgets (which, like Buster points out, is not sound economics but whatever), but when you start going line by line through the government budget Conservative voters are just as pro-spending as democrats are. Sure, they'll identify programs like SNAP and Foreign Aid that they don't like, but those make up a tiny fraction of the government. Conservative voters are no more willing to dive into the big 3- Medicare, Social Security, and the Military than Democrats are.

 

[IrishinSyria]

All Melons? Really?

Why not let the market offer the option? What about all the "buy local" and "buy American" campaigns? I know that I would be willing to pay a few extra bucks for a good number of things to support fellow Americans. What's wrong with having an option offered?

Buy American - Pay $10
Buy Foriegn - Pay $8

Same page here man. My point wasn't a normative one (we should not grow melons in the US) it was a descriptive one- that while in a closed economic system wages will either rise to the necessary level to pay for labor or you just won't make the good, in a global system there's another alternative i.e. importing goods (though as Lax points out, not so true for services). If we think that there's some advantage to having melons grown in the US of A that are competitive price wise with global melons, then maybe we think having relatively cheap labor that's willing to tend them is a good thing. Unfortunately, given the red tape involved in immigrating here legally, illegal immigration is a major source of this low-cost labor that keeps American agriculture viable.

 

[wizards8507]

Do you think the politicians are just going off the rails? Conservative voters say their for small government and balanced budgets (which, like Buster points out, is not sound economics but whatever), but when you start going line by line through the government budget Conservative voters are just as pro-spending as democrats are. Sure, they'll identify programs like SNAP and Foreign Aid that they don't like, but those make up a tiny fraction of the government. Conservative voters are no more willing to dive into the big 3- Medicare, Social Security, and the Military than Democrats are.

Then they're NOT conservative voters as they claim to be. If I say I'm a vegetarian but eat a ham sandwich every day for lunch, the correct conclusion is not that vegetarians eat meat, but that I am not, in fact, a vegetarian.

Edit: In other words, what often passes for conservatism is a bastardization thereof, not conservatism in its true form. Like you, I have huge problems with the faux-conservstism of the modern Republican Party, not the least of which its hypocrisy.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Then they're NOT conservative voters as they claim to be. If I say I'm a vegetarian but eat a ham sandwich every day for lunch, the correct conclusion is not that vegetarians eat meat, but that I am not, in fact, a vegetarian.

Edit: In other words, what often passes for conservatism is a bastardization thereof, not conservatism in its true form. Like you, I have huge problems with the faux-conservstism of the modern Republican Party, not the least of which its hypocrisy.

Yeah, I have no conceptual problem with true libertarians. I think they overvalue efficiency at the expense of other goals and that they tend to vastly underestimate the positive externalities of, say, a strong US global presence in the world and the negative externalities of things like global warming, but at least they're consistent and more or less principled in their beliefs. "Mainstream" conservatives, on the other hand, are tough to get a handle on. I definitely don't think liberals are much better though, turns out economic policy is tough to turn into campaign slogans so both sides just draw broad lines in the sand and then meet in the back room while the country's attention is on some meaningless beach volleyball game (read: the debates).

 

[IrishinSyria]

Again typical ...

1) the house had more than conservatives on Board, unless I forgot how to count
2) Obama’s Statement from 2011 Shatters His Current Remarks on Bringing Refugees Into the US
3) Terror threat slows Iraqi refugee flow to U.S. | Navy Times | navytimes.com


Apparently Coward is a word you use to describe people who do not agree with President Obama...which is SO TYPICAL it is funny.

I agreed with the President in 2011, and I think the measures he supported then make sense NOW. I'm sorry I'm not looking you in they eye so you could see the coward I am.

Here's the thing though: both the articles you post reference a slow down in admissions in response to a perceived security threat in 2011.* During this slow down, the administration reviewed its procedures and implemented new checks to address possible threats. I believe step 13 is the one specific to Syrians in the times article? If you look here, the number of refugees we admitted started to climb again after those articles were published, even though the number of refugees referred to the US fell as things stabilized in Iraq. So maybe, just maybe, at one point our vetting process was suspect. But whatever possible issues there were with it were already addressed.

So yeah, maybe cowardly was strong. But really, we're talking about a program designed to offer asylum to some of the most vulnerable people on earth- including Christians and other religious minorities, not that one's religion should matter if they meet the criteria. Terrorism works by playing on people's irrational fears. ISIS talks a big game, and they pick spectacular targets that they know will generate media coverage, but in the grand scheme of things they're not that potent. Certainly, they should not be potent enough to alter the policy of the literal strongest nation in the history of the planet towards some of the most vulnerable people on earth.





*sidebar: we've admitted well over 100,000 Iraqi refugees, and only 2 were ever identified as being involved in terrorism, and even that was conspiracy to assist AQ in Iraq, not to undertake domestic terrorism. So query whether the concerns were ever reasonable.**

** I don't think they were, since you asked. My experience with the process was trying to help some of my unit's terps get through. These were dudes and gals who'd gone out with us on patrol day in and day out, not only sharing the same risks as the US Soldiers***, but doing it without a gun and with full knowledge that they risked retribution against themselves and their families for what they were doing. It was impossible. Layers upon layers upon layers of administrative review. The process takes a year, at least, but that doesn't even include the backlog. And this was for people who were actively working for the US. It's a thorough process.

 

[phgreek]

What is also typical is "oh those silly Dems and their big spending habits!" which does us all a disservice as the Republicans have been demonstrably awful with spending at the same time. Which is why I brought up one sentence of the easiest examples. There is no shell moving, your comment was malarkey and deserved to be called out.

...by bringing up federal failures to retort a comment I made regarding a state level election...no shiny thing there at all...RME.

Be glad to say I was wrong if it comes out that way. We'll see a tax hike, and then we'll see how he uses it.


Way to soften the criticism hahah

???

He also made the simultaneous decision to not pay for it. It's one thing to get into wars, it's another thing to toss fiscal responsibility out the window when you go to said wars.

I think War is one of the few things where that is forgivable. It places national security where it belongs. If you do risk management this is one of those deals where nothing else matters until you address this...so yea.


That's an awfully bad way of phrasing Saddam Hussein's existence and covers up just how bad of a decision it was. Here let me have Dick Cheney spell it out for ya:



Or a guy running for President right now who had a similar opinion at the time:

https://youtu.be/NdFw1btbkLM?t=241

Hindsight is awesome...bad intel, bad decision...but not nearly what you would like to make it out to be. Many Dems were on board based on the same intel, and some had the ability to determine the veracity of the intel w/o taking the president's word for it. It wasn't a partisan lie...it was bad intel



The great thing about spending at state and city levels is that you can't get away with unsustainable spending. You don't have the ability to spend the amount of money that would weaken the country like federal government can.

...as a city or State you either set a budget and stay within it or you do not...as relates to weakening the country...meh, its debateable depending on how you define weaken. 300 Mill to Detroit did not threaten to shut the nation down, but it didn't help.


...This is typical. Move the shell over here...look shiny thing.

your shell dude...I took the time to chase the Federal Shiny thing you put forth in retort to my State level observation/prediction. As I said if I turn out to be wrong, I'll admit it.


..

 

[phgreek]

Here's the thing though: both the articles you post reference a slow down in admissions in response to a perceived security threat in 2011.* During this slow down, the administration reviewed its procedures and implemented new checks to address possible threats. I believe step 13 is the one specific to Syrians in the times article? If you look here, the number of refugees we admitted started to climb again after those articles were published, even though the number of refugees referred to the US fell as things stabilized in Iraq. So maybe, just maybe, at one point our vetting process was suspect. But whatever possible issues there were with it were already addressed.

So yeah, maybe cowardly was strong. But really, we're talking about a program designed to offer asylum to some of the most vulnerable people on earth- including Christians and other religious minorities, not that one's religion should matter if they meet the criteria. Terrorism works by playing on people's irrational fears. ISIS talks a big game, and they pick spectacular targets that they know will generate media coverage, but in the grand scheme of things they're not that potent. Certainly, they should not be potent enough to alter the policy of the literal strongest nation in the history of the planet.





*sidebar: we've admitted well over 100,000 Iraqi refugees, and only 2 were ever identified as being involved in terrorism, and even that was conspiracy to assist AQ in Iraq, not to undertake domestic terrorism. So query whether the concerns were ever reasonable.**

** I don't think they were, since you asked. My experience with the process was trying to help some of my unit's terps get through. These were dudes who'd gone out with us on patrol day in and day out, not only sharing the same risks as the US Soldiers***, but doing it without a gun and with full knowledge that they risked retribution against themselves and their families for what they were doing. It was impossible. Layers upon layers upon layers of administrative review. The process takes a year, at least, but that doesn't even include the backlog. And this was for people who were actively working for the US. It's a thorough process.

And my point was I agreed with the assessment and change in 2011, and I presume it hadn't gotten worse/easier since the motivation was to tighten it. The issue I have is I think people still have the right to ask for it to be more stringent than it is now w/o being called a coward. Common sense says if those who fought along side us had it tough, what should the standard be for those we do not have a soldier to vouch for??? When the President decided it was time to look at it in 2011, no one called him a coward. Simply because he is satisfied with it now does not preclude others from adding in their assessments and ideas, or even suggesting we stop altogether while we assess it. Given the ISIS threat spreading, and Syria itself having issues, I think now is a good time for review and discussion. No worse a time than when Mr. Obama chose a time out. The rhetoric the President used set me off on this topic already...the Coward thing caught me already pretty raw. I like who we are with respect to asylum and refugees...But that doesn't mean I should think no one else has identified a point of failure we should look at.

 

[IrishinSyria]

And my point was I agreed with the assessment and change in 2011, and I presume it hadn't gotten worse/easier since the motivation was to tighten it. The issue I have is I think people still have the right to ask for it to be more stringent than it is now w/o being called a coward. Common sense says if those who fought along side us had it tough, what should the standard be for those we do not have a soldier to vouch for??? When the President decided it was time to look at it in 2011, no one called him a coward. Simply because he is satisfied with it now does not preclude others from adding in their assessments and ideas, or even suggesting we stop altogether while we assess it. Given the ISIS threat spreading, and Syria itself having issues, I think now is a good time for review and discussion. No worse a time than when Mr. Obama chose a time out. The rhetoric the President used set me off on this topic already...the Coward thing caught me already pretty raw. I like who we are with respect to asylum and refugees...But that doesn't mean I should think no one else has identified a point of failure we should look at.

If I actually thought there were vulnerabilities, I would agree with you. Even though I don't, I would support a congressional review of our asylum procedures. But Governors tripping over themselves to announce that their state won't be accepting Syrian refugees? The house introducing and passing the "SAFE act" within 3 days of Paris with no indication whatsoever that they had actually attempted to review our current system, identify potential vulnerabilities, and craft legislation that addressed them? No, that's all political posturing, and it's playing on the exact same forces ISIS is.

The thing is, it's easier for people who just want to attack the US to get in other ways. The more we learn about the Paris attacks, the clearer it's becoming that the real threat in Europe is coming from the banlieus of France and Belgium and not the refugee camps of Syria, something that shouldn't surprise anyone whose been paying attention to what's going on in Europe since, well, since the Algerian war for independence. The really scary thing is that those people all hold European passports and could get into the US tomorrow without even getting a visa assuming they're not on a no-fly list. The dangerous ones aren't the refugees, the dangerous ones are those who blend in.

 

[phgreek]

If I actually thought there were vulnerabilities, I would agree with you. Even though I don't, I would support a congressional review of our asylum procedures. But Governors tripping over themselves to announce that their state won't be accepting Syrian refugees? The house introducing and passing the "SAFE act" within 3 days of Paris with no indication whatsoever that they had actually attempted to review our current system, identify potential vulnerabilities, and craft legislation that addressed them? No, that's all political posturing, and it's playing on the exact same forces ISIS is.

The thing is, it's easier for people who just want to attack the US to get in other ways. The more we learn about the Paris attacks, the clearer it's becoming that the real threat in Europe is coming from the banlieus of France and Belgium and not the refugee camps of Syria, something that shouldn't surprise anyone whose been paying attention to what's going on in Europe since, well, since the Algerian war for independence. The really scary thing is that those people all hold European passports and could get into the US tomorrow without even getting a visa assuming they're not on a no-fly list. The dangerous ones aren't the refugees, the dangerous ones are those who blend in.

From my chair the motivation for the rush is to indeed have a CHANCE to review and update current processes. Some-Many may have other purposes, but to me it seems real reasonable to pump the brakes, and discuss all refugees from the region, and how we grant asylum safely and efficiently. I know you are satisfied...and I'm ok generally, but I think most people are ignorant (not in a derogatory way) of the details of the process, that includes congress and governors.

 

[IrishinSyria]

From my chair the motivation for the rush is to indeed have a CHANCE to review and update current processes. Some-Many may have other purposes, but to me it seems real reasonable to pump the brakes, and discuss all refugees from the region, and how we grant asylum safely and efficiently. I know you are satisfied...and I'm ok generally, but I think most people are ignorant (not in a derogatory way) of the details of the process, that includes congress and governors.

This is fair, and maybe I'm guilty of seeing bad faith when there's a genuine desire to make sure we have it right. Obviously, my username tips my hand on this- it's not an academic issue for me. Before I joined the Army, I was living in Syria when I signed up for this site (I used the game day threads to follow the Irish), and the Syrian people treated my white-bread midwestern ass with nothing but hospitality and warmth. This was at a time when our country hardly could be said to have had the best reputation in the Arab world. Just like the Syrians did not associate me with the MPs at Abu Ghraib, the Blackwater contractors at Nisour Square, or with SSG Bales in Kandahar, I'd hope that my fellow countrymen will see the Syrians for who they are and not for what the worst of their countrymen have done when they come to us in their most desperate hour.

 

[Grahambo]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">- Russian jet shot down in Syria
- Turkey: Warnings ignored
- Russia denies violating airspace

Latest: <a href="https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy">https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/669096470407200768">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Turkmen forces in Syria shot dead pilots of downed Russian jet: deputy commander

YAMADI, Syria (Reuters) - Turkmen forces in Syria shot dead the two pilots of a Russian jet downed by Turkish warplanes near the border with Turkey on Tuesday as they descended with parachutes, a deputy commander of a Turkmen brigade told reporters.

"Both of the pilots were retrieved dead. Our comrades opened fire into the air and they died in the air," Alpaslan Celik, a deputy commander in a Syrian Turkmen brigade said near the Syrian village of Yamadi as he held what he said was a piece of a pilot's parachute.

(Reporting by Mehmet Emin Caliskan; Writing by Humeyra Pamuk and Daren Butler; Editing by Nick Tattersall)

 

[IrishinSyria]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">- Russian jet shot down in Syria
- Turkey: Warnings ignored
- Russia denies violating airspace

Latest: <a href="https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy">https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/669096470407200768">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Turkmen forces in Syria shot dead pilots of downed Russian jet: deputy commander

This is crazy.

 

[wizards8507]

.

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">- Russian jet shot down in Syria
- Turkey: Warnings ignored
- Russia denies violating airspace

Latest: <a href="https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy">https://t.co/XAr5G0CiKy</a></p>— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/669096470407200768">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Turkmen forces in Syria shot dead pilots of downed Russian jet: deputy commander

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0-JA1ffd5Ms" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Grahambo]

Hot take alert: Yeah, this isn't going to go over well.

 

[phgreek]

Yea...Putin is not real concerned about killing innocent people...so when he retaliates...and he will in some way...there will be significant collateral damage.

When this happens...Mr. Obama will be forced to make a decision...

I've not been all that tickled with his approach to staving off aggression...

 

[Wild Bill]

Yea...Putin is not real concerned about killing innocent people...so when he retaliates...and he will in some way...there will be significant collateral damage.

When this happens...Mr. Obama will be forced to make a decision...

I've not been all that tickled with his approach to staving off aggression...

Why do you believe Putin's response forces Obama's hand?

 

[IrishLax]

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities | Pew Research Center

Holy crap... is this the new Liberalism?

 

[wizards8507]

This is what happens when you stop teaching civics in high school.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is what happens when you stop teaching civics in high school.

Has that happened? I've got two who just finished HS in the last 3 years and two in HS now. They all took civics.

 

[wizards8507]

Has that happened? I've got two who just finished HS in the last 3 years and two in HS now. They all took civics.

Neither of my sisters (18 and 23) did. I (26) took it, but it was an elective and only offered to honors students.

 

[GoIrish41]

Neither of my sisters (18 and 23) did. I (26) took it, but it was an elective and only offered to honors students.

Unthinkable to me. But I guess that's what happens when there is a push to slash education funding in so many states. Decisions have consequences.

 

[wizards8507]

Unthinkable to me. But I guess that's what happens when there is a push to slash education funding in so many states. Decisions have consequences.

I've never seen a cost-cutting initiative that includes the elimination of math, science, social studies, or English. Cuts are almost always aimed at hockey and football first, music second, art third, and other sports last.

 

[Armyirish47]

Neither of my sisters (18 and 23) did. I (26) took it, but it was an elective and only offered to honors students.

Still a requirement in Arkansas.