skinny21 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 There should be more talk about our current vetting process. Seems like Trump's comments about our 'terrible' vetting process is not being questioned/criticized enough. Relating to that... here's an interview with David Miliband - Prez/CEO of the International Refugee Committee. Trumpcast is obviously partisan, but Miliband has a lot of interesting things to say. http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/slates-trumpcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, PeterMP said: (This is discussed in the 9/11 report. I can't get it to copy and paste, but it is on pg. 168) That's where I'm getting this from. I don't recall it being heavily saudi from the start, I recall it being the exact opposite. I recall them going through pretty detailed accounts of how they had people from other countries that they would fly around the world to try to get them in from different entry points, and they were constantly refused. One simply because he had a stamp in his passport from Yemen. Just like how majority of the hijackers were already on terrorist watch lists, the procedures for dealing with such a person were just antiquated for the type of attack they did. I seem to recall there only being 3 or so people that were finally recruited and trained to lead the attacks, they were saudi. Because of their experience in working with people from everywhere else to get 3 people to lead it, they subsequently filled out their 'roster' with saudis as well. I believe, specifically, they were saudis that were in germany for schooling? Edited January 30, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Busch1724 said: Keep in the mind the outrage, while vocal, is being demonstrated in cities. Trump voters support the ban and those folks are the 46% or so that voted for the guy. Those folks can be found between the coasts and outside of major cities. There are many people I know in my area of PA that fully support this ban. The ban is one of the reasons they voted for him. To them, this ban is important, right or wrong. Very human cost to all that out for everybody to see in people being trapped and or detained. Wonder what effect that is having on his supporters, all sounds good on the campaign trail, now **** done got real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Burgold said: Absolutely not. He made a huge distinction to say ISLAMIC radical terrorism. That first word was the most important to him each and every time. Let's also highlight Rudy's dumbass reveal to Fox that trump used the words "how can i make a muslim ban legal" with when they put the committee together to draw it up. Let's also remind that Flynn has a long record of declaring islam an evil political ideology and not a "real" religion. Add Jeff Sessions. And many. many. more within trump's top tiers. Also know that Kushner's deep commitment to a very traditional form of Judaism may play a role (that one i don't know for sure), Let's also get over any implication that this admin won't baldy lie, anyway, at in-your-face levels beyond most admins (who all lie at times). Quite simply, ands really, obviously, there's a lot of "no like muslims" (period) and a lot of "christians rule" (period) in his turf. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Jumbo said: It's an exceptionally dumb argument. I know it in detail, and it isn't worth the time to unpack. I have noted the people who think that way use it to here as a form of blame game, trying to avoid any culpability (everyone who could vote and didn't vote for hc directly helped elect trump, or as direct as you can short of voting for him). The only way to stop trump was to vote hc. Many made a choice to go alt-candidates or sit home out of "principle" as they sse iot, but to they're sitting on a thin soap bubble re: their rationale. Any vote for a stein or a johnson was helping trump, not hc. Those were the obvious mechanics, not spins or feelings or ideas, and that outcome was easily figurable by any competent intellect with some emotional management. These kind of posts as taylor makes is a way for the person to avoid assuming any culpability in what is being regarded by so many of their fellows as a horror show, but gives them in their mind a "reason" to chide the same side they were chiding before the election, even though they lost. Not surprised soc liked it. You're making several assumptions about debatable propositions that I don't have time to discuss at the moment. The following video deals with some of them: Edited January 30, 2017 by s0crates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, s0crates said: You're making several assumptions about debatable propositions that I don't have time to discuss at the moment. The following video deals with one of them: Given what we've seen of Trump only two weeks in the answer is without question... YES! BERNIE fans should vote for Clinton. If you can't recognize that even in hindsight I don't know what to tell you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, s0crates said: Who said anything about believing him? To paraphrase the conversation: Tailgate: We love Muslims. Trump is evil because he hates Muslims. Me: I love Muslims too, but where was all this love for them while we were bombing the **** out of them? You: Those bombs weren't targeting Muslims, they were targeting terrorists and enemies of the US. Important distinction. Me: I'm sure Trump would make the same distinction. You: Absolutely not. Me: Quote from Trump making the same distinction. You: s0crates believes Trump's lies! Me: :confused A lot of folks were loud and active---as you know if you access it in your head---about the muslim (or any other faith) civilians being killed in afghanistan and iraq under bush. drone strikes got less blowback, and the wisdom/morality of that can be debated, but for many it was such a dramatic reduction in how many civilians were being killed and yet was still fighting terrorism with force of arms, which is a necessary component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Jumbo -Not sure what I'm supposed to say brother? I wouldn't have voted for her either. Didn't like either of them. Considered the whole thing a giant circus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I still can't figure out how Rudy G got elected mayor of NYC. Or has he just gone full bat**** insane since he left office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The plot was heavily Saudi from the start. I have the details a little foggy. Yes, some people early on were Saudi, but on page 156 there is some paragraphs about the traveling issue. Ultimately they were Saudi because of traveling issues, and they did try to use people from other places initially and that's when they discovered the problem with getting a US Visa if you're from/traveled to certain places. I'd love to go into it further but I don't have time to read the pages and refresh my memory, so I won't try to argue any further on the why's. I just wanted to point out the fact that the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia is a lot more complicated than what people generally seem to understand when they start spouting one liners about the nationality of the hijackers. We know they tried to use people from Yemen, and other places, and we know why they ultimately opted not to. We also know why we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, and we know what kind of people participated from Saudi Arabia and we know what that portion of the population is. It wasn't just them sitting in a room talking about it, they actively tested the system with people and found out they had issues getting Visas. But it's never discussed like that, it's always discussed as a travesty of justice that we attacked iraq and afghanistan and didn't attack saudi arabia, which is lazy thinking especially considering the public information available to us. It's kind of like how the iraq war is discussed but the attempts of Hussein to court Bin Ladin is never mentioned, instead it always seems to just be "lol where are the WMDs?!" 9 minutes ago, Jumbo said: Let's also highlight Rudy's dumbass reveal to Fox that trump used the words "how can i make a muslim ban legal" with when they put the committee together to draw it up. On a separate note from the actual EO, this has to be be a huge indictment on just how dumb or naive or something he is. That has to be part of an argument in court against the EO, right? You can't just ignore that the person charged with writing it said this, can you (from the court's opinion)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: I still can't figure out how Rudy G got elected mayor of NYC. Or has he just gone full bat**** insane since he left office? I think he's had failing mental health for the better part of a decade now and was taken advantage of by the campaign this past year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: I still can't figure out how Rudy G got elected mayor of NYC. Or has he just gone full bat**** insane since he left office? It's the latter. When Pat Buchanan ran for President in the 90s on almost the same platforms as Trump (minus the anti-Muslim hysteria - this was before 9-11), Giuliani denounced his anti-immigration stances and proudly proclaimed NYC as a successful city of immigrants. Gingrich, Giuliani, and Christie have all sold their souls for one last ditch effort at political relevance before they kick the bucket. I respected them all at one point in the past, and I thoroughly detest them now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, tshile said: That's where I'm getting this from. I don't recall it being heavily saudi from the start, I recall it being the exact opposite. I recall them going through pretty detailed accounts of how they had people from other countries that they would fly around the world to try to get them in from different entry points, and they were constantly refused. One simply because he had a stamp in his passport from Yemen. Just like how majority of the hijackers were already on terrorist watch lists, the procedures for dealing with such a person were just antiquated for the type of attack they did. I seem to recall there only being 3 or so people that were finally recruited and trained to lead the attacks, they were saudi. Because of their experience in working with people from everywhere else to get 3 people to lead it, they subsequently filled out their 'roster' with saudis as well. I believe, specifically, they were saudis that were in germany for schooling? First, the plan changed over time. KSM wanted to hit multiple targets in different parts of the US (i.e. the west coast) and they thought about a co-US/SE Asia attack too. But of the original 4 people named to take part of the plan (based on the 9/11 report), 2 were Saudis and two were Yemen, but both had essentially grown up in Saudi Arabia and were long time associates with bin Laden. The two Saudi's ended up being involved in 9/11. The one Yemini couldn't get a US visa despite multiple attempts and the other one does not appear to have even tried (pg.152 of the report). There was no flying around to try and get in to the US from different points. To my knowledge only one person associated with the operation was denied entry (after getting a visa and so was a point of entry denial) was Saudi and as I've already laid out above that was for economic reasons not because he had a Yemeni stamp on his passport. Some of the final participants did claim they lost their passport and got new ones so they wouldn't contain Pakistan stamps because they thought that might get them extra attention. I do not believe any of them were on a watch list before they came into the country. Some were put on a watch list after they were already in the country being one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, PeterMP said: There was no flying around to try and get in to the US from different points. There is absolutely a section in the 9/11 commission report where they definitely did this. They tested the system, including using different points to get to the US. I do not have time to find it right now, but I know it's in there. I don't have an issue with the rest of your post though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Taylor703 said: Jumbo -Not sure what I'm supposed to say brother? I wouldn't have voted for her either. Didn't like either of them. Considered the whole thing a giant circus. No need to say anything, amigo. I get people not liking her to the point they can't get past it. It was hard for me to get past my disapproval (which looks different than what i see most hillary bashers go after). But, amigo, that's what I meant about the emotions. While her policies are certainly as debateable as any others, and her honesty was a huge and real issue, the same was simply magnified by several factors with the only other guy who could win. The logic of justifying an alt vote to avoid such flaws by going an alt route does not hold if the idea was to avoid dishonesty and bad policy. But there was a lot of "personality" based (intense) dislike, and other emotional elements ("clinton hate") that most people carried in their hc disapproval bag. I do hold myself and other adults accountable in discussion, when I think it's appropriate. And please be sure to note i was referring to the argument (prompted by having seen it a few times from others), not you as a poster, and that I explained why. The "chiding" thing coming out of that position also prompts me. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 It's probably the wrong venue (though I don't know where else to put it), but to continue the convo... I believe many bought into a some (or a lot of) of the BS directed towards HC. A lot of people thought Trump would change or didn't really mean much of what he said I don't really have a problem with the protest vote, persay, though there is obviously some culpability there. I find it ridiculous to place blame on HC supporters for the current situation (which is different from criticizing the campaign). There's a huge swath of the population that 1) voted Trump but weren't all that sure of him, 2) abstained from voting (whether from uncertainty, diffidence, laziness or in protest), or voted for another candidate because they didn't like the top 2. I really hope those folks can be persuaded to help this country (attempt) to regain it's footing over the next few years. I may be less of an optimist than I was a short time ago, but I find myself hopeful that this... blight wakes up the American population to the need for political engagement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 btw this thread is screaming for predicto but he's not here #thankstrump 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 If this is what it took to get Jumbo actively posting again then I am willing to ride it out. Silver linings and all............. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, tshile said: There is absolutely a section in the 9/11 commission report where they definitely did this. They tested the system, including using different points to get to the US. I do not have time to find it right now, but I know it's in there. I don't have an issue with the rest of your post though. They came into and out of the US multiple times and yes were trying to see how robust security was. You've disconnected that sentence from the sentence just below it related and both go together in relationship to your statement that they were trying to get people into the US "and they were constantly refused". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, tshile said: btw this thread is screaming for predicto but he's not here #thankstrump Predicto.... Predicto.... Predicto.... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, LD0506 said: Predicto.... Predicto.... Predicto.... You did it wrong. @Predicto @Predicto @Predicto 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I think the best way forward is for all citizens to claim responsibility for this mess. A simple 'I didn't vote for the guy' is just an excuse to continue to sit on the sidelines. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, visionary said: The stupidity of this is breath taking. How long does he think it takes to get a visa from those countries now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 57 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: BBC this morning said 48% of the US supports the travel ban. I'd like to know their sample size because that seems pretty high considering what we're seeing now as a public response. If anyone could post some competiting or verifying stats, I might have a better idea about how to feel about your post. You're not wrong, just not sure how much support there would be to go further then what we're doing right now with this kind of public backlash. If it's the same poll I saw last night, it is dated January 5th-7th or something like that. I think it is too early for a good poll since it was actually enacted. Hopefully seeing how it was done will change people's opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now