Taking in thousands of refugees from middle eastern countries puts American citizens in danger.

Con is suggesting that the videos I linked are showing people protesting a questionable government and/or trying to depict a fraction of the refugees as a representation for the majority. Con has failed to explain what the government has done that is questionable. These governments are allowing thousands of people to stay in countries and scrambling to create accommodations for these people, giving them money for which they did nothing to earn, trying to find jobs for them, and offering them shelter. As con stated in previous rounds, there are tens of thousands of people entering European countries in a mass exodus with no restrictions on their borders. People are literally walking into the countries by the thousands so it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they were not well prepared for the numbers of people entering. There are videos showing refugees criticizing these countries that give them refuge, claiming that the conditions are not acceptable, demanding they be giving spending money when they have done nothing to earn it. Demanding rewards despite nothing to warrant a reward is the logic of small children. If things were truly so bad in there home country they would not be so ungrateful. Con goes on to claim that the videos I linked are using "conveniently" placed words such as refugees and attacking and adding videos containing violence to make a connection between refugees and danger. Con is making the assertion that the publisher has an anti-Islamic agenda. A quote from con regarding the videos showing refugees destroying cities, attacking people, and admitting a planned takeover of the west. "but none of these videos actually show any of that other than people assuming such a radicalization will take place" Evidently con did not watch the videos because they do in fact show these people saying exactly these types of things. Anyone can go on Youtube and find a plethora of exactly the same types of videos. This can be likened to a criminal being shown a recording of himself committing a crime and claiming "that's not me" even though the camera had a clear shot of his face. Con also stated: "along with a few excerpts of the exceptions of the violent in the country" The problem with this statement is that there are not just a few exceptions of violence, there is an epidemic of them. Many of the videos depict thousands of people flooding the streets, attacking police and/or native citizens. Many of these countries have seen a massive increase of sexual assaults coinciding with the arrival of refugees. But for arguments sake lets pretend that the massive amount of chaos and sexual assaults these countries have suffered were caused by the "few" con spoke of. That would mean that a very small percentage of a large number of people were able to cause extraordinary damage. So does that mean that just because a small number of people were behind all of it, somehow that makes it an exception? We've seen videos of police being attacked and chased by massive groups of people, we've seen locations in several European nations become no-go zones for the natives. If a small number of people could do all this it makes the statements by Director Comey and his agency even more concerning. There are two important things to keep in mind: 1. It only took 19 terrorists to conduct the attacks of 911. 2. Europe has seen a dramatic increase of Islamic attacks since the mass exodus con spoke of. If the FBI does not believe we can weed out radicals or terrorists it is perfectly reasonable to assume that dangerous individuals could slip through the cracks and come to US soil. " These people protesting and causing riots could be protesting for a different agenda other than fundamentalism and do not represent the entirety of the refugees. " Con uses the words "could be" meaning he is making an assumption. A dangerous one considering people are losing their lives to radicals. A quote from "In October 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the US National Security Agency, concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident." This cover up was never reported by mainstream media, it took independent journalists to make the America people aware of it. There are indeed regulations imposed upon the news but there is still a dangerous potential for censorship on important topics, like the Gulf of Tonkin. Independents do indeed have the freedom to bypass media regulations but again that means they are free to bring the truth to light without being censored. Mainstream media, despite being regulated is still capable of being unreliable or even corrupt. Take the George Zimmerman case for example. Zimmerman is suing NBC for purposefully editing his 911 call to make him seem more racist. This is a mainstream media source altering the truth to present a false narrative. Dan Rather, one of the most iconic media figures went public with the rampant corruption of mainstream media. The drug example I gave gives a more domestic example to put the situation in perspective. The same principle applies to both examples. Guilty people can and do fall through the cracks. "Comey stating the FBI doesn't have the capability to process the established number the US wishes to establish?" Con either misunderstood Comeys words or used the wrong wording because Comey was not speaking about the capability to process the established number. He spoke about the lack of resources to properly vet anyone coming from Syria, not the numbers of people. Having control over time means given the FBIs concerns. Con is choosing to ignore Comeys very clear words. "we can query our databases until the cows come home but nothing will show up because we have no record of that person"You can only query what you have collected. And with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country"s work there for a decade. [The case of vetting Syrian refugees] is a different situation." (10/21/15)" The following quotes come from the agencies involved in the vetting process. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: "But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we"re not going to know a whole lot about." (10/8/15 Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "The intelligence picture we"ve had of this [Syrian] conflict zone isn"t what we"d like it to be"you can only review [refugees" submitted background data] against what you have." (10/8/15) Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: "But [the Syrian refugees are] a population of people that we"re not going to know a whole lot about." (10/8/15) Ferguson was relevant because it showed that we do not have full control on US soil. And the US may be in control of who enters, but people we don't want here could slip through the cracks. The fact that 19 radical Islamics conducted 911 as well as all the recent attacks we've seen from them in recent years proves that all of Islam does not need to be radical to cause massive casualties and destruction. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel killed 80 people including 10 children and injurying 202 with a truck in Nice, France. This man was a native of France but it is not unreasonable to say that those entering the country could do the same. Radicals can be home grown or come from other countries. http://www.cnn.com...