Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Seattle Times Gamesmanship: Count the Security Checks
Options
TurdBomber
Member Posts: 20,017 
The Times wants you to think refugees undergo 20 security checks, not 3 or 4. Agenda, anyone? Refugees entering U.S. face a rigorous vetting process
Tagged:
Comments
-
It's because their IT consulting firm hoodwinked them into being convinced they have 20+ security checks that keep people from browsing their website for free in Private mode.
-
That was actually a fairly accurate description of the process...unless the Trump administration is lying about it:
https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/ -
Boobs: The point is not every step in the 20 step process involved security checks and/or vetting. Only 3 or 4 did, but the times wants you to see 20.TierbsHsotBoobs said:That was actually a fairly accurate description of the process...unless the Trump administration is lying about it:
https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/
Point whooshed you, I guess. -
Here are all the security check steps I see in the process:
2. Interview with the U.N.
5. Interview with State Department contractors.
6. First background check.
7. Higher-level background check for some.
8. Another background check.
9. First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
10. Second fingerprint screening.
11. Third fingerprint screening.
14. Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
19. Multiagency security check before leaving for the United States.
20. Final security check at a U.S. airport.
Note: The article said nothing about 20 security checks. It lists out the 20 steps in the process...about half of them are security checks of one form or another.
You're reading way too much into this article that actually seems to prove that extreme vetting has been happening for years, which is why no refugees have committed attacks on US soil. The process is surely not perfect, but it is working. -
So Syria has fingerprint database, electronic criminal records of all the normal criminals in their population, etc, etc. At the detail level it sounds great...when you take a step back a good chunk of those steps are absolutely worthless because they are impossible. There is no infrastructure in any of the countries we are taking refugees from.TierbsHsotBoobs said:That was actually a fairly accurate description of the process...unless the Trump administration is lying about it:
https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/
And those refugee camps have their own issues. As an example...it's true Obama let in almost no Syrian Christians, but in his defense it wasn't a conscious choice. There are almost no Christisns in the refugee camps...they quit going because they were getting raped/murdered. The refugee camp populations are basically 100% Muslim, so the refugees we get are basically 100% Muslim. Sounds like a great group to pick from... -
You don't know if any "security" issues are discussed in the interviews aside from #14, or what levels of supposed "security" are checked. It's a lot less than 20, but the Times has you suckered into believing it's a lot, so mission accomplished, even though I counted only 11 "steps" in your list, which ain't 20, by a long shot.
-
I agreed that not all 20 steps are security checks.TurdBuffer said:You don't know if any "security" issues are discussed in the interviews aside from #14, or what levels of supposed "security" are checked. It's a lot less than 20, but the Times has you suckered into believing it's a lot, so mission accomplished, even though I counted only 11 "steps" in your list, which ain't 20, by a long shot.
Troomps hate reading -
The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
-
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
-
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you. -
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it. -
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it. -
The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.TurdBuffer said:
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.
Fuck off. -
You always say that when you lose.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.TurdBuffer said:
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.
Fuck off. -
Since we're trying to keep it factual, please show me where the Times is claiming there are 20 separate security checks in that article.TurdBuffer said:
You always say that when you lose.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.TurdBuffer said:
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.
Fuck off. -
Read what I wrote. Fuck you are tedious and thick.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Since we're trying to keep it factual, please show me where the Times is claiming there are 20 separate security checks in that article.TurdBuffer said:
You always say that when you lose.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.TurdBuffer said:
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.
Fuck off. -
Appropriate that it took Boobs 7 posts for him to get you to this point.TurdBuffer said:
Read what I wrote. Fuck you are tedious and thick.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Since we're trying to keep it factual, please show me where the Times is claiming there are 20 separate security checks in that article.TurdBuffer said:
You always say that when you lose.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.TurdBuffer said:
So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.TurdBuffer said:
Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?TurdBuffer said:The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?
Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.
You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?
If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.
I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.
If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.
Fuck off.
