Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Gauthier]

Lindsey Graham will introduce an AUMF against IS. The forever war.

man people who want boots on ground but hesitate on the matter of taking in refugees are weird as fuck
like taking in refugees and straight up invading are symbiotic policies.

Fear that most if not all refugees are terrorist operatives waiting to move into position.

[Kraylandia]

man people who want boots on ground but hesitate on the matter of taking in refugees are weird as fuck
like taking in refugees and straight up invading are symbiotic policies.

Fear that most if not all refugees are terrorist operatives waiting to move into position.

Who's said that? Of course they aren't, there are probably a lot of genuine refugees but the likelihood of terrorists infiltrating them is extremely high and we need to be cautious.

[The Sons of Adam]

Fear that most if not all refugees are terrorist operatives waiting to move into position.

Who's said that? Of course they aren't, there are probably a lot of genuine refugees but the likelihood of terrorists infiltrating them is extremely high and we need to be cautious.

Discretion is necessary. But with our governments having trouble trying to connect the dots between terrorists, there is a high likelihood of extremists slipping through the cracks.

[Kubra]

man people who want boots on ground but hesitate on the matter of taking in refugees are weird as fuck
like taking in refugees and straight up invading are symbiotic policies.

Fear that most if not all refugees are terrorist operatives waiting to move into position.

and it's funny because it's straight up self sabotage, brown dudes are the most important resource for any potential invasion.
but I mean whatever fine iraq occupation 2.0 why not bush got elected for a second term despite the debacle so apparently we all really never learn a thing

[West Aurelia]

Fear that most if not all refugees are terrorist operatives waiting to move into position.

Who's said that? Of course they aren't, there are probably a lot of genuine refugees but the likelihood of terrorists infiltrating them is extremely high and we need to be cautious.

You do realize that the US' refugee vetting process is one of the strictest in the world and takes 18 to 24 months to complete, right? Not a single refugee accepted since 9/11 has been charged with domestic terrorism.

[Kraylandia]

Who's said that? Of course they aren't, there are probably a lot of genuine refugees but the likelihood of terrorists infiltrating them is extremely high and we need to be cautious.

You do realize that the US' refugee vetting process is one of the strictest in the world and takes 18 to 24 months to complete, right? Not a single refugee accepted since 9/11 has been charged with domestic terrorism.

Doesn't mean they should relax it.

[Gauthier]

You do realize that the US' refugee vetting process is one of the strictest in the world and takes 18 to 24 months to complete, right? Not a single refugee accepted since 9/11 has been charged with domestic terrorism.

Doesn't mean they should relax it.

I don't recall any legislator calling for relaxing immigration checks. If anything I hear legislators demanding an outright block on Syrian refugees. Which fits in nice with pre-emptive bans on Sharia Law and mosque constructions.

[West Aurelia]

You do realize that the US' refugee vetting process is one of the strictest in the world and takes 18 to 24 months to complete, right? Not a single refugee accepted since 9/11 has been charged with domestic terrorism.

Doesn't mean they should relax it.

When did I say it should be relaxed? I'm saying that the US' current refugee screening process works.

[Kubra]

man people who want boots on ground but hesitate on the matter of taking in refugees are weird as fuck
like taking in refugees and straight up invading are symbiotic policies.

Boots on the ground. Make it safe for Syrians. They don't have to come over here. Simple.

whoops, sorry, somehow missed your post.
You want to make Syria "safe". With a ground invasion. There is, of course, a sort of contradiction here. You don't make places safe by occupying, bruh. Didn't work for neither Iraq or Afghanistan. You're gonna have to tell us how this will be different.

[Kraylandia]

Doesn't mean they should relax it.

I don't recall any legislator calling for relaxing immigration checks. If anything I hear legislators demanding an outright block on Syrian refugees. Which fits in nice with pre-emptive bans on Sharia Law and mosque constructions.

I didn't say they were calling for it to be relaxed, it sounded like West Aurelia supports it being relaxed although I can't be sure. I don't see anything wrong with banning Sharia Law, mosque constructions I don't really give a shit about.

[West Aurelia]

I don't recall any legislator calling for relaxing immigration checks. If anything I hear legislators demanding an outright block on Syrian refugees. Which fits in nice with pre-emptive bans on Sharia Law and mosque constructions.

I didn't say they were calling for it to be relaxed, it sounded like West Aurelia supports it being relaxed although I can't be sure. I don't see anything wrong with banning Sharia Law, mosque constructions I don't really give a shit about.

While 18 to 24 months seems too long, I'm no expert on how to vet a refugee and if it works I'm not complaining.

[Kraylandia]

I didn't say they were calling for it to be relaxed, it sounded like West Aurelia supports it being relaxed although I can't be sure. I don't see anything wrong with banning Sharia Law, mosque constructions I don't really give a shit about.

While 18 to 24 months seems too long, I'm no expert on how to vet a refugee and if it works I'm not complaining.

Fair enough.

[Kraylandia]

Islamic State claims attack on Italian missionary in Bangladesh http://reut.rs/1kHiuV2

[Eridanus 3]

I don't recall any legislator calling for relaxing immigration checks. If anything I hear legislators demanding an outright block on Syrian refugees. Which fits in nice with pre-emptive bans on Sharia Law and mosque constructions.

I didn't say they were calling for it to be relaxed, it sounded like West Aurelia supports it being relaxed although I can't be sure. I don't see anything wrong with banning Sharia Law, mosque constructions I don't really give a shit about.

If we are talking about banning Sharia Law relative to the United States, consider it already banned. See: 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, Separation of Church and State.

Mosque construction wouldn't be an national issue anyway, as most of that would be regulated by municipal and county law and grants.

Now, about the immigration via exile.

First of all, if you are a refugee from Syria coming to the US (or anywhere across the Atlantic, for that matter), I am hesitant to label you a refugee, as you could seek asylum in other European or North African countries with much less hassle than crossing the Atlantic to try and be allowed into the US. It simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure so good country like France will take you in.

In all seriousness, the US might be a little hecka strict on their immigration and asylum policy, but border control is probably one of the most important policies to keep an eye on. Then again, if we could go back to the old immigration and naturalization styles of basically having people swear an oath, not have the plague, and express a willingness and ability to pay taxes, then I would gladly support that.

[Trumpostan]

We should not lose sight that IS isn't just in Syria and Iraq. Affiliates are active in Nigeria (Boko Haram, which affiliated itself earlier this year) and Libya (IIRC one out of those many groups fighting there pledged itself).

And then there are the smaller unaffiliated cells that sympathize with them.

[Jamzmania]

Boots on the ground. Make it safe for Syrians. They don't have to come over here. Simple.

whoops, sorry, somehow missed your post.
You want to make Syria "safe". With a ground invasion. There is, of course, a sort of contradiction here. You don't make places safe by occupying, bruh. Didn't work for neither Iraq or Afghanistan. You're gonna have to tell us how this will be different.

You destroy ISIS with overwhelming military force and create safe areas within Syria so they don't have to flee. You don't have to occupy it with US troops. That's what locals and the UN are for.

[Uxupox]

whoops, sorry, somehow missed your post.
You want to make Syria "safe". With a ground invasion. There is, of course, a sort of contradiction here. You don't make places safe by occupying, bruh. Didn't work for neither Iraq or Afghanistan. You're gonna have to tell us how this will be different.

You destroy ISIS with overwhelming military force and create safe areas within Syria so they don't have to flee. You don't have to occupy it with US troops. That's what locals and the UN are for.

Sadly the UN is incompetent as hell. I wouldn't trust them moving a crate from point A to point B without the crate disappearing.

[Gauthier]

You destroy ISIS with overwhelming military force and create safe areas within Syria so they don't have to flee. You don't have to occupy it with US troops. That's what locals and the UN are for.

Sadly the UN is incompetent as hell. I wouldn't trust them moving a crate from point A to point B without the crate disappearing.

Only because the major superpowers (most with Permanent Security Council Seats) like it that way. A competent UN would have meant Israel getting some serious bitchslaps ages ago.

[United States of Natan]

Honestly, I think the US should call a truce with Assad for the time being. He may be a horrible, horrible man, but we can't stop ISIS with an increasingly unstable Syria. We need to team up with other nations, and take down ISIS, then worry about Assad. Because who do you think is a bigger threat? One man who refuses to give up power and runs a corrupt government, one that could be stable if it wasn't fighting a civil war, or a giant organization that already controls an area of land larger than Great Britain and wants to spread a horrible, evil ideology throughout the world?

[Gauthier]

Honestly, I think the US should call a truce with Assad for the time being. He may be a horrible, horrible man, but we can't stop ISIS with an increasingly unstable Syria. We need to team up with other nations, and take down ISIS, then worry about Assad. Because who do you think is a bigger threat? One man who refuses to give up power and runs a corrupt government, one that could be stable if it wasn't fighting a civil war, or a giant organization that already controls an area of land larger than Great Britain and wants to spread a horrible, evil ideology throughout the world?

Assad is only around because Russia thinks he's their best man at the moment. A replacement that both sides can agree on turns up and it's Buh Bye Bashar.

[United States of Natan]

Honestly, I think the US should call a truce with Assad for the time being. He may be a horrible, horrible man, but we can't stop ISIS with an increasingly unstable Syria. We need to team up with other nations, and take down ISIS, then worry about Assad. Because who do you think is a bigger threat? One man who refuses to give up power and runs a corrupt government, one that could be stable if it wasn't fighting a civil war, or a giant organization that already controls an area of land larger than Great Britain and wants to spread a horrible, evil ideology throughout the world?

Assad is only around because Russia thinks he's their best man at the moment. A replacement that both sides can agree on turns up and it's Buh Bye Bashar.

I'm all for a better replacement, but right now, Syria needs a leader that can lead a strong, stable, army to take down ISIS, and I've got a feeling the rebels don't have that.

[Ganos Lao]

Sadly the UN is incompetent as hell. I wouldn't trust them moving a crate from point A to point B without the crate disappearing.

Only because the major superpowers (most with Permanent Security Council Seats) like it that way. A competent UN would have meant Israel getting some serious bitchslaps ages ago.

Let's not forget the history of UN scandals and blunders either.

As far as I can make out, the MP isn't the first to make note of these things. I recall that there were attempted lawsuits aimed at the UN over cholera in Haiti, for example.

[Ganos Lao]

Honestly, I think the US should call a truce with Assad for the time being. He may be a horrible, horrible man, but we can't stop ISIS with an increasingly unstable Syria. We need to team up with other nations, and take down ISIS, then worry about Assad. Because who do you think is a bigger threat? One man who refuses to give up power and runs a corrupt government, one that could be stable if it wasn't fighting a civil war, or a giant organization that already controls an area of land larger than Great Britain and wants to spread a horrible, evil ideology throughout the world?

Assad is only around because Russia thinks he's their best man at the moment. A replacement that both sides can agree on turns up and it's Buh Bye Bashar.

You think Russia and the US can agree on a replacement without either propping up individuals based on their propensity to shackle up to them?

[United States of Natan]

Assad is only around because Russia thinks he's their best man at the moment. A replacement that both sides can agree on turns up and it's Buh Bye Bashar.

You think Russia and the US can agree on a replacement without either propping up individuals based on their propensity to shackle up to them?

There would be a better chance of Canada invading the US. And actually winning.

[Gauthier]

You think Russia and the US can agree on a replacement without either propping up individuals based on their propensity to shackle up to them?

There would be a better chance of Canada invading the US. And actually winning.

Canadian Bacon was not a documentary.