Human catastrophe

Boston and Paris---my god come on ---the Boston bombers family was vetted...the Paris murderers' families were vetted....as stated, if you want to cut the chances of terrorists getting in, you have to cut down on all entry..it's just basic math....the 9-11 murderers were vetted....Nidal Hassan, Ft Hood, Palestinian parents were vetted...of all people to let in!! .the Belgium terrorists were vetted....etc etc etc etc.....? the problem now is our southern border....they know that's the weak point....not north....yes --PROFILE--..
I can't believe that knowing we are at war, and after seeing this Paris, Belgium, and fake passports stuff, you people STILL do not want to cut immigration, entry, etc big time! let them all in ..come on ..free taxpayer money along with it......what, you want to kill us all?? sure come on in

 

One point not greatly discussed is the costs of the program to bring in Syrian refugees. The number I find is 1.2 Billion dollars short term and perhaps 50 billion long term. Canada estimates for 2016-17 their costs are nearly 880 million (Canadian) dollars. Isn't it far better over all to use that money to improve conditions in the refugee camps?

10,000 people in a 4 million person problem is a token drop in a bucket.

 

1. 2 billion salutes for this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
during WW2, we did not let Germans and Japanese come in by the hundreds of thousands, but you want to let the enemy in now?......sure, sure , not all are terrorists, but why let some in to kill your people?? o, feely good stuff...PC...this is 2015, not 1850, not 1950......
they also cover their footprints....they immigrate and live in Germany, or some other country for a while, before moving on to their target country...so you think --o, not from ME, must be ok..they send in the sleepers who are ''ok'' so they can vet the terrorists

 

Ummm...Let's see...We stopped immigration and refugees with Nazi Germany during World War II.

The Germans were still able to land saboteurs in the United States.

 

And they were captured and hanged, not pampered as some people are today :lol:

 

It's not at all clear that we should be on a war time status. I suspect a risk analysis would not support your positoin. As for no refugees and no immigraiton like WW2 I have yet to read that we banned either during the war. Indeed we were accepting both from what I recall reading. As for "more security checks" the FBI of WWII would love to have had the tools and capabilities the the FBI and Homeland security have now.

I think you will find that there are secutity checks on those who we know might prove a danger. That doesn't mean all Muslims or MEs (who are they by the way).

Actually it's not common sense at all. Last I heard there wasn't an effort to bring in more "people that hate us and want to kill us" either. Some may get through the net but no system is perfect and it comes down to just now much you are willing pay for secutity. Not all the cost is in dollars by the way.

They may have been vetted but not to the level they are now and some of the indicators of radicalization are taken a bit more serious today as well.

??? The fake passports indicate failures. Furthermore they were tourist approaches which indicate that they don't think they could have gotten in as refugees. If you are serious about us being at war why are you suggesting a course that hands critical victories to the other side? It's not just about body count. Symbols are important.

As above a token is a symbol and symbols are important particularly in war that is fought to a large extent in the media.

That's a seriously flawed analogy though isn't it? First of all there was no way for them to get here. If they could have would we have accepted them? Very likly because then as now removing them from the control of our opponents weakens them.

And your are suggesting we are capturing them and pampering them today? If so I'd like to see sources. Gitmo doesn't sound like a pleasure palace to me. There's a fair number of them with dead or alive bounties and not a few bounties have been collected on the former.

 

Snce I just read an article on this thought we might revisit it:

See:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20151122.aspx

The article then goes on to discus some of the culture clash problems with NGO's. It's more into explaining some of the reasons we are seeing more tensions related to them than to making judgements one way or the other IMO but it's possible for people to read it either way (sometimes even the same sentence could be seen as neutral or favoring either side)

 

Thanks for this link. I have read the article several times carefully. I am always trying to see things from different angles and the cited article was quite informative and rather convincing.

The whole world is at war or should I say, these fanatics are at war against the rest of the world. The bastards should be beaten wherever they are, regardless of the name of the place they hold.

 

Electrocuted...Goof.

They were captured only because two of the eight turned the rest in. Had it not been for Dasche and Burger, Hoover would have been clueless

 

no it's not.....we would've accepted people who commit suicide to kill others?? the Japanese?? remember?, we were at war with them......we would've accepted them during the war??.....
the Syrians/ISIS/MEs, etc brag that they will and want to kill us.....and you say, what????!! not just ''''come on over''', but ''please, we want you to come over here'' !!! that's way beyond ingenious
young males with fake, doctored passports?? moving through multiple airports...? just a misunderstanding

 

It's seriously flawed because we were indeed at war wtih Japan. We are not at war with Syria or any other country in the Mid East. Although to our shame we did refuse Jewish immigrants prior to our entry into WWII. So refusing Syrian refugees would be more like refusing French, Danish, Norwegian, or Polish refugees. Note the role that French, Norwegian, Danish, and Polish "refugee" forces played in WWII.

Then there's the vetting period. It takes 18 months to 2 years for a Syrian family to be vetted for entry into the US! It's hardly a hasty or trivial process.

 

the catastrophe is the immigrants and refugees ruining other countries

http://abcnews.go.com/US/family-teen-arrested-homemade-clock-seeks-15m/story?id=35385993

link is to ''clock'' family wants to sue America.......we have enough people here..we have enough crime, lawsuits, etc.....we do not need to import any...the US produces enough already...

 

Certainly we have enough crime and lawsiuts. Not sure we're importing those though. It's also not clear that we have enough people that are willing to actually work we do seem to have more than enough who aren't. The numbers we're talking about however are a drop in the bucket one way or another. Didn't see where they said anything about suing "America" in the article, the shool district and city yes. Don't think they can make it stick vs the school district but vs the city they've got a reasonable case IMO. Don't see this as being all that much of an immigrant issue though more one of racism.

 

I'd like to see a thread on the economics of jobs regarding availability after births/retirement, etc per decade plus immigration/etc if job growth keeps up with all that....plus cost per immigrant for social services/education/etc.....that's definitely another subject though

 

There was a study on the impact of the pulse of immigration in the Miami area related to the Cuban boat lift. NPR had a brief article/interview with one of the authors I believe. From what I recall there was either no discernable long term impact or a slight positive one. Would be interesting to see the whole study though. From what I recall of the event it contained not only Cubans who were not happy with the communist but Castro used it to get rid of a lot of criminals as well so the population may not have been representative of other immigrants.

 

Sorry, if I confused you. When I wrote that I did not remember the exact year of the first immigration wave. That's why I wrote "before the first Jewish immigration wave at the end of 1800". For me that still seems pretty clear.

Also the date is correct since the moment before the first Zionist immigration was the "status quo" situation. No cherry picking there then.

No, I didn't. The disinformation you presented in that Zionist propaganda site contradicts "my" map, which was e.g in your other source and accepted by the UN, which is for the HOLE of Palestine - Israel included.

In that map the ownership in every district is clearly presented and it shows clearly, that the Palestinian ownership was much higher, also in the districts unfairly allocated to Israel.

The chart below supports that. Overall the Palestinian individual ownership was almost 48 %, the crown land 46 %.

View attachment 23395


http://www.4data.ca/palestine/whoseLandIsPalestine/historyOfPalestine-II.html

Sounds like pointless semantics to me. If I was a head of family and somebody told me convincingly, that the murderers were on their way, I wouldn't wait to see whether that was actually true or not!

There were plenty of cases to make the threat very real indeed.

Those were just a couple of examples. In that source you'll find plenty of others.

Please show some evidence about the Jews encouraging the Muslims to stay. And even if you do, some isolated exceptions do not change the bigger picture.

They were in general not the foreign invaders before 1948. After that they were.

You got it upside down! The clear effort of the Jews to remove and/or enslave the Palestinians was reason enough for them to take up arms. Unfortunately also in Palestine, the justice did not prevail...

Yes, surely there was intolerance on both sides, but it all started with the racist Zionist ideology. If some foreign people come to your country and start claiming, that it now belongs to them, it certainly has consequences - just ask the Native Americans...

I don't have to tell them/us, since they/we know it very well already!

The difference is, that the (unfair) miseries of the various Europeans were somewhat accepted by the UN, unlike those of the Palestinians. The actions of Israel were clearly illegal since they were against the very decisions of the UN!

It's unclear only, if you choose not to see...

It was illegal, because it was against the UN decisions.

The refusal of the partition plan was obvious, since the plan was extremely biased. I wouldn't have accepted it either, had I been a Palestinian then.

The pitiful and miniscule "military preparations" of the Arab states are a sorry excuse when compared to the well-planned and executed Israeli coup.

 

Standard English interpretation of "end of 1800" would be November or December 1800 or possibly late October. Not the 1890's.

Hardly a "status quo". Indeed it's questionable if you can really find a centruy in which there was a "status quo" for Palestine unless you consider the rise at fall of ruling groups and associated population changes a "status quo" in which case the Jewish immigration fits right in.

In any case I still don't see anything wrong with Jewish immigration as long as they weren't stealing land and there's not much of a case for that prior to the formation of the Israel and indeed not much of case for it afterwards. Pretty analogus to some of the neighborhoods in the US that didn't want African Americans moving in.

 

Checked it. I actually originally wrote "at the end of 1800's". AFAIK standard English interpretation for that is at the end of that century.

Sorry for missing the 's in the following posts...

The Israeli - Arab conflict started with the Zionism. Therefor the time before the Zionism was "status quo".

Naturally that does not mean that there were no wars before.

As I think I have already explained, I'm not against the Jewish immigration prior 1948 nor them buying land. I'm against the Israeli crimes (mainly) from 1948 onwards - of which there are zillions of cases. You may start with the many UN resolutions against Israel during the decades, if in need for examples.

"Moving in" is totally different to what the Israelis have done and keep on doing...

 

Israelis (killed by the Palestinians)

Children Killed 129
Civilians* Killed 731

Palestinians (killed by the Israelis)

Children Killed 1,523
Civilians* Killed 3,535 - 4,226

The figures are for 2000-2015.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html

 

??? The site I mentioned, which indeed fits the definition of a propganda site did specifically state it was talking about the area that was allocated to the state of Israel which was not the whole of Palestine so you are indeed comparing apples and oranges. Not that it matters all that much as far as the legality of the situation goes.

Does it? I'd like to see how the numbers work out rather than just looking at a map. Your chart again talks to all of Palestine and is for 1945. Note also that the League of Nations in thier charter to Britain for the Mandate of Palestine specified that land sales were to be split equally between Jews and Moslems which Britain didn't do so that impacted the ownership of lands as well. Whether or not something is fair is a matter of opinion in any case. It was hardly fair that the Jews were discriminated against in regards to immigration or purchases of property in Palestine either. It's also worth noteing that the Jews at least gave some lip service to living in peace with their Islamic neighbors while the talk from the otherside was suggesting that they wouldn't be satisfied with that.

Semanitcs are seldom pointless and certainly not in this case. As an example if I told you today that murderers were on the way to kill you would you leave your home? Certainly not, the message would simply not be credible. So what action one takes is based on a number things and is hardly forced. The exception would be if someone was actually there pointing a weapon at you or them as the case may be.

So if I provide proof it's just isolated incidents which you won't consider as worth anything but when you provide islated incidents its conclusive proof. Bit of a dual standard no?

Sounds to me like you are creating a tautology. Your definition could with equal justification be used by the Israelis to label the various Arab states as "foreign invaders". Indeed that defintion would be more accurate than yours.

Not really. There was a clear effort by leaders in Palestine and it's neighbors to evict the Jews. I have seen nothing that indicates any Jewish attempt to enslave the Palestinians. Once it was clear that Israel was going to have to fight both the Palestinians and the neighboring states evicting probable enemies became a rational decision. Much like the exclusion zone in the Western US during WWII. Maybe not the most just of decisions but not irrational or completly unjustified either. Without the Arab Leage threat the Palestinians and Jews may also have found a way to work together. With it the Palestinians had little reason to and the Jews had every reason to fight.

It most certainly did not start with "racist Zionist idealogy". There is a long history of religious intolerence and descrimination on the part of the Islamic states that controled the region. The history of the region is rife with various powers moving in and claiming the territory. Indeed histories first recorded battle was in the area. Picking an arbitrary cut off and ignoring what preceded that date has no merit.

That's not particularly accurate. Israel was granted it's existance by the UN. Once it existed it had a right to defend itself also recognized by the UN. Now some of the things they have done to defend themselves may not be to the liking of the UN or at least some of the members but that doesn't mean that they are "illegal".

Exactly what decisions? In any case how does a decision of the UN make something illegal? Unless the case has gone before a court of some kind and a verdict offered then I would hesitate to call it "illegal". Especially when one considers the overriding issue of the right of a state to protect itself.

Obvious? Biassed? Certainly those are your opinions and likely the opinions a fair number of others. However it was the best plan that the diplomats of the time were able to devise. Refusing it was as "illegal" as the actions you accuse Israel of by the way. The military preperations of the Arab states were hardly miniscule compared to the miitary power that the incipient state of Israel had nor is it particularly accurate to refer to it as a "coup". In any case given the attitude and statments of the Arab powers and Palestinians such planning would seem justified.