gun control/mudslime immigration working out great for France again

[ChumpDumper]

That's a pretty reckless position to take. You'd have to prove that ICE, DHS, the State Dept., etc. could effectively screen 65,000-100,000 "refugees" for every single potential terrorist. That's an awfully high batting average, and I haven't seen you articulate a single reason why the government is capable of following through. It's a reckless position because, as we've seen, 8 people can wreak havoc. Yet you seem willing to gamble lives on a less than 0.00008% error rate to satisfy your guilt.

And before you cite the Iraqi example, you'll have to explain why that is an analogous situation considering ISIS is now using the refugee situation to export terrorists to the west.

There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

Yet you are terrified to answer a very straightforward question.

Do you think there will be at least 1 terrorist out of the 65,000 yes or no?

Don't know.

Do you think there is one in the 2000 already here?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump says your argument is only valid if you can define exactly how many are security risks.

There are already 2000 of them here.

How many of them are terrorists?

[ChumpDumper]

That's not entirely fair to his position. It's guilt from ing up the region -- not just strikes on ISIS.

Regardless, he or anyone in that camp is hard pressed to explain why that guilt should expose innocent lives to the risk, no matter how small, of domestic terrorism, considering how destructive we've seen that terrorism to be.

They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

[vy65]

There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?

I understand that you're plagued by guilt, but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?

They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exac ude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[vy65]

There are Iraqi terrorists.

How many of them are in the 85,000 that have been granted refuge in the US?

There are already about 2000 Syrians refugees in the US. How many of those are terrorists?

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?

I understand that you're plagued by guilt, but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?

They're already here.

What is our exposure right now?

Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exac ude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[tbdog]

I don't know how relaxed gun control could have negated this attack? It could have been worse if civilians had guns.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the numbers, neither do you. You can't definitively say none are would-be terrorists just as I can't say some are. It's a a non-sequitur. But you'll harp on them to deflect from the basic, logical point that you've refused to address: why give ISIS the opportunity?

Why let Daesh win by default?

I understand that you're plagued by guilt

Don't tell me how I feel, OK?

but you haven't explained why assuaging your guilt should result in exposing people to the risk of terrorism: regardless of how high or low that risk is, why expose people to it when it is totally avoidable (i.e., not bringing in 65,000-100,000 refuges)? Are you really so arrogant to say that there is no risk whatsoever? That the government can screen all security threats before allowing them in?

There is risk, but turning tail in the face of terrorism is exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

Considering what happened over the weekend, I'd say our exposure is higher than anyone previously thought. But neither you nor I can answer that question with any level of exac ude - but I have a feeling that won't stop you from obfuscating on irrelevant points to deflect.

How is it irrelevant?

Do you want to expel every Muslim refugee we already took in because you think there is some unquantifiable risk?

More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

[ChumpDumper]

There are over 200 Syrian refugees in Texas already.

There are few in Austin where I live.

What should I do to minimize my risk here since they definitely might be terrorists?

[vy65]

Why let Daesh win by default?

Because it's not letting them win.

Don't tell me how I feel, OK?

No. You've plastered your guilt for ing up the region all over this thread, so don't complain.

There is risk, but turning tail in the face of terrorism is exactly what the terrorists want us to do.

Opening our borders for up to 100,000 Syrians is what we gotta do to not "turn tail?" What kind of misinformed machismo is this? Are there not more effective methods of combating terrorism that allow us to save face?

This isn't like the debate about the PATRIOT ACT where the "don't let the terrorists" win mantra emanated. That is unless you can explain how allowing up to 100,000 Syrians to come to this country is necessary to protect the civil liberties of US citizens, in which case, I'm all ears.

How is it irrelevant?

How is what irrelevant? The numbers? What?

Do you want to expel every Muslim refugee we already took in because you think there is some unquantifiable risk?

I don't know about expel, I haven't thought about it. I'd certainly think heightened observation of them would be in order -- I think it'd be prudent to do something proactive even if it turns out unnecessary. Don't you agree? Or do you think it prudent to give them free-reign to do whatever they want?

[ChumpDumper]

Because it's not letting them win.

Of course it is. Changing our policy to one of su ion of every Muslim plays right into their hands.

No. You've plastered your guilt for ing up the region all over this thread, so don't complain.

It's about paying for what you break. Now I know you want to act like we are blameless. Tough.

Opening our borders for up to 100,000 Syrians is what we gotta do to not "turn tail?" What kind of misinformed machismo is this? Are there not more effective methods of combating terrorism that allow us to save face?

It's doing what we say we are going to do and not cowering in fear as you want to do for some threat you can't even describe.

This isn't like the debate about the PATRIOT ACT where the "don't let the terrorists" win mantra emanated. That is unless you can explain how allowing up to 100,000 Syrians to come to this country is necessary to protect the civil liberties of US citizens, in which case, I'm all ears.

I just did.

How is what irrelevant? The numbers? What?

So you don't know what you said is irrelevant? I believe you.

I don't know about expel, I haven't thought about it. I'd certainly think heightened observation of them would be in order -- I think it'd be prudent to do something proactive even if it turns out unnecessary. Don't you agree? Or do you think it prudent to give them free-reign to do whatever they want?

Do they have free rein now? do they do whatever they want? Tell me everything you know about the refugees you didn't even know were in the country until I just told you.

[boutons_deux]

Actual evidence, on the other hand, shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated.

In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature;

in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

rightwingnut haters exploiting Paris to express their racism, nativism, xenophobia.

[vy65]

So you've acknowledged that a) allowing 100,000 Syrians to come to this country poses some risk of terrorism and b) that risk is needless, except for assuaging your guilt. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't see you addressing this point directly. I also don't see you defending the assertion that not one of those Syrians could be or is a (potential) terrorist. Please let me know if I missed that too.

Of course it is. Changing our policy to one of su ion of every Muslim plays right into their hands.

We've already got a policy of su ion -- people still freak out when muslims fly on airplanes, we still have Homeland Security, etc... Whether that su ion is reasonable or not is another debate.

But what you're advocating for is not like the above. You want open borders for 100,000 Syrians because that somehow rejects a policy of su ion. You haven't explained why. More to the point, you haven't explained why that's reasonable considering the security risks: do you not think that we can reject a "policy of su ion" without needlessly exposing ourselves to a risk of domestic terrorism. Or are open borders the only way to do so?

It's about paying for what you break. Now I know you want to act like we are blameless. Tough.

I'm keeping the ad hom out, but I guess you can't. Also, where'd I say or act like we are blameless? I know we ed the region up, but you haven't persuaded me that guilt for doing so should open our borders.

It's doing what we say we are going to do and not cowering in fear as you want to do for some threat you can't even describe.

That's some great rhetoric that didn't address my question. So I'm guessing you're conceding that opening or not opening borders for Syrian refugees has no relationship to the civil liberties and rights of US citizens. Once you answer this question, I'll address the point you're making.

And its not like open borders for refugees has been some long-standing policy of ours.

So you don't know what you said is irrelevant? I believe you.

I said a bunch of things. Your assertion was vague so I asked for clarification. Are you incapable of providing it?

Do they have free rein now? do they do whatever they want? Tell me everything you know about the refugees you didn't even know were in the country until I just told you.

Do they not? Are they under surveillance? Do they check in with government liaison officers? Do we know who they associate with? Do we know their backgrounds? Since you seem to know so much about them, please enlighten us all.

[ChumpDumper]

So you've acknowledged that a) allowing 100,000 Syrians to come to this country poses some risk of terrorism and b) that risk is needless, except for assuaging your guilt. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't see you addressing this point directly. I also don't see you defending the assertion that not one of those Syrians could be or is a (potential) terrorist. Please let me know if I missed that too.

You're wrong. You're corrected.

We've already got a policy of su ion -- people still freak out when muslims fly on airplanes, we still have Homeland Security, etc... Whether that su ion is reasonable or not is another debate.

Why is it another debate? Your "reasonable" reaction is to refuse any refugee from Syria. This is exactly what we are debating.

But what you're advocating for is not like the above. You want open borders for 100,000 Syrians because that somehow rejects a policy of su ion. You haven't explained why. More to the point, you haven't explained why that's reasonable considering the security risks: do you not think that we can reject a "policy of su ion" without needlessly exposing ourselves to a risk of domestic terrorism. Or are open borders the only way to do so?

We already screen the refugees that have come into the US for the last 8 years from that area, including Syria. If you think they have done something wrong and let in terrorists already, say what they did wrong and what they should do to correct their mistakes.

I'm keeping the ad hom out, but I guess you can't.

You already used it. Don't act like you didn't.

Also, where'd I say or act like we are blameless? I know we ed the region up, but you haven't persuaded me that guilt for doing so should open our borders.

It's not guilt.

That's some great rhetoric that didn't address my question. So I'm guessing you're conceding that opening or not opening borders for Syrian refugees has no relationship to the civil liberties and rights of US citizens. Once you answer this question, I'll address the point you're making.

What rights of yours have been infringed by the Syrian refugees that are already here?

And its not like open borders for refugees has been some long-standing policy of ours.

It has never been open for anyone and it won't be for the Syrians, so you can drop the straw man once and for all.

I said a bunch of things. Your assertion was vague so I asked for clarification. Are you incapable of providing it?

So you don't know what you said is irrelevant. I believe you.

Do they not? Are they under surveillance? Do they check in with government liaison officers? Do we know who they associate with? Do we know their backgrounds? Since you seem to know so much about them, please enlighten us all.

you just found out they are already here in the thousands.

How does that make you feel?

Do you feel safe right now?

Are you personally going to do something to make yourself more safe in the face of this potential threat -- especially since for all your ignorance on the matter, they could have free rein and could be outside your door this very second.

What are you going to do about it?

[vy65]

You're wrong. You're corrected.

Nope. You still haven't persuaded me that your guilt is reason enough to unnecessarily expose people to the risk of terrorism.

Why is it another debate? Your "reasonable" reaction is to refuse any refugee from Syria. This is exactly what we are debating.

Because the examples I gave you are not examples of an open border policy, which is what you're advocating. That's why it's another debate

We already screen the refugees that have come into the US for the last 8 years from that area, including Syria. If you think they have done something wrong and let in terrorists already, say what they did wrong and what they should do to correct their mistakes.

The question has been asked, and you still haven't responded as to why that screening process would be effective in identifying each and every potential terrorist of the 100,000 proposed to emigrate here. Past success does not guarantee future safety.

You already used it.

Where'd I use it?

It's not guilt.

Sure it is, and you've admitted as much.

You think we should needlessly expose people to unnecessary threats just because it'll make you feel better.

You should own up to your position instead of waffling on it.

What rights of yours have been infringed by the Syrian refugees that are already here?

You're confused - opening borders doesn't engender the same issues that came with the PATRIOT ACT. That's why this isn't an issue of "letting the terrorists win." I never said opening borders to Syrians infringes my rights so try again.

It has never been open for anyone and it won't be for the Syrians, so you can drop the straw man once and for all.

Sure it's open. It's not a straw man - it's what we've been debating the entire time.

So you don't know what you said is irrelevant. I believe you.

I asked for clarification. I honestly have no idea why you refuse to give me an idea of what you're talking about?

you just found out they are already here in the thousands.

How does that make you feel?

Do you feel safe right now?

Are you personally going to do something to make yourself more safe in the face of this potential threat -- especially since for all your ignorance on the matter, they could have free rein and could be outside your door this very second.

What are you going to do about it?

Why are you trying to make this about me? Are you that interested in me? How do you know what I do and don't know?

My personal feelings are irrelevant to the point of government policy - which is what this discussion has been about. Your need to make this personal is par for the course so I can't say I'm surprised.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. You still haven't persuaded me that your guilt is reason enough to unnecessarily expose people to the risk of terrorism.

You're wrong in saying it's guilt. You have been corrected several times.

Because the examples I gave you are not examples of an open border policy, which is what you're advocating. That's why it's another debate

Straw man.

The question has been asked, and you still haven't responded as to why that screening process would be effective in identifying each and every potential terrorist of the 100,000 proposed to emigrate here. Past success does not guarantee future safety.

Why would it not be? The US has already done it for seven years in that region and Syria for over a year and not a peep out of you til you got scared.

Where'd I use it?

The guilt crap.

Sure it is, and you've admitted as much.

No. I told you specifically what it is about.

You think we should needlessly expose people to unnecessary threats just because it'll make you feel better.

You should own up to your position instead of waffling on it.

Keep pitching the straw and ad hominems.

You're confused - opening borders doesn't engender the same issues that came with the PATRIOT ACT. That's why this isn't an issue of "letting the terrorists win." I never said opening borders to Syrians infringes my rights so try again.

Straw man.

Sure it's open. It's not a straw man - it's what we've been debating the entire time.

It's not open. It's a straw man.

I asked for clarification. I honestly have no idea why you refuse to give me an idea of what you're talking about?

Thanks for tell me you don't even know what you are talking about.

Why are you trying to make this about me? Are you that interested in me? How do you know what I do and don't know?

You already made this about me.

My personal feelings are irrelevant to the point of government policy - which is what this discussion has been about. Your need to make this personal is par for the course so I can't say I'm surprised.

You already made it personal. You aren't concerned enough to do anything about the Syrian refugees who are already here and whom you claim are a terrorist risk, so why should anyone care what you want to do about the ones who are already in the screening process?

You're damn right you are irrelevant. You really don't care about any of this.

[ChumpDumper]

There were 12 Syrian refugees in Austin as of a month ago; there are probably more now and definitely more on the way.

What should I do to minimize my risk of being terrorist attacked by one of them?

[vy65]

It's about paying for what you break.

These are your words. I interpret that as guilt. You haven't given me an alternative explanation as to what this means.

However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever.

I've only made this thread about the positions you've taken. You've pounced at the opportunity to make this personal.

Why can't you have a debate about something without making it personal?

[vy65]

As for the rest, you need a more substantive response that "ad hom" or "straw" if you want a reply.

I don't care enough to tell you what to do with your life. This thread was never about how Chump should deal with Syrian refugees. It was about the merits of the USFG allowing 100,000 Syrians into the country. Again, why do you feel the need to make this personal?

[ChumpDumper]

These are your words. I interpret that as guilt. You haven't given me an alternative explanation as to what this means.

It's not guilt. I can't make you understand something so simple.

However, this has nothing to do with you personally. Calling a position you've taken in this thread as guilt is not the same as an ad hominem attack, i.e., you calling me "tough" for no reason whatsoever.

I didn't call you tough. I said "tough" as in "tough ."

I've only made this thread about the positions you've taken. You've pounced at the opportunity to make this personal.

Why can't you have a debate about something without making it personal?

You made it personal and now your upset that it was turned on you. Tough .

Did you understand it this time?

[vy65]

You never explained what else it was. And when given the opportunity, you still didn't explain what it is.

If you had meant tough as in tough , why not say as much? Why leave it open?

You've successfully deflected from the topic once again in order to make a discussion personal. Why do you do that?

[ChumpDumper]

As for the rest, you need a more substantive response that "ad hom" or "straw" if you want a reply.

Provide something more than an ad hom or a straw man and you will get something different.

I don't care enough to tell you what to do with your life. This thread was never about how Chump should deal with Syrian refugees. It was about the merits of the USFG allowing 100,000 Syrians into the country. Again, why do you feel the need to make this personal?

The Syrian refugees are already here. Your whole argument is based on your fears of Syrian refugees. If the government doesn't rid us of this potential terrorist threat already in our country, what are we supposed to do?

What will you do if they remain?

This is a real question to you because you have stated a real personal fear of the Syrian refugees as potential terrorists. if they stay and the government doesn't make them go away, will you just post on a message board about them? Sign an online pe ion?

I personally will do the same thing I have done regarding the Syrians already here mere miles from me: nothing. I'm sure you will do the same.

[ChumpDumper]

You never explained what else it was. And when given the opportunity, you still didn't explain what it is.

I already did. It is not my job to comprehend for you.

If you had meant tough as in tough , why not say as much? Why leave it open?

I overestimated your ability to understand. I apologize.

You've successfully deflected from the topic once again in order to make a discussion personal. Why do you do that?

Because you made it personal. Stop making it personal and it will stop being personal.

[vy65]

I already answered this long ago: More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

I'm not having a personal conversation with you. If you want to get back on topic, let me know.

[ChumpDumper]

I already answered this long ago: More to the point, just because they're here (at least according to you) doesn't mean we should give them a greater opportunity than they already have, does it?

Opportunity to do what?

I'm not having a personal conversation with you. If you want to get back on topic, let me know.

Then quit making it about me.