13/11 Attacks on Paris

[Rehab]

All the attackers actually identified so far are European Nationals

[I.M. Gei]

Majority was the wrong word. Why does it have to be a "significant" portion? And I've read numerous articles that ISIS has gotten fighters through with refugees in different countries. I will gladly link them when I get home from work.

Look, here's what I really fear, so you can stop making assumptions. If an attack were to happen on US soil by fighters masquerading as refugees, the Islamaphobia in this country would reach catastrophic levels. You think it's bad now? And that's exactly what ISIS wants. An attack here would show that they are capable of striking anywhere, regardless of distance from the ME.

This group convinces people to blow themselves up in order to reach heaven (not nirvana, stop nitpicking my words like a dingus) So I completely believe ISIS would attempt to send fighters here because they don't give a flying fuck what happens to them as long as they attempt to carry out the group's agenda.

And yes, I guess you can say I'm condemning these people to death for not allowing them to come here. Where were we in other times of genocide? When people were getting slaughtered in Darfur, why did we not invite refugees here instead of condemning them to their fate?

And no, I'm not anti-immigrant

you (and more importantly, elected officials with views not unlike your own on this issue) are already doing what daesh wants by scaremongering about refugees and demanding they be shut out from the u.s. hth

on another note, something on jewish refugees from germany during the late 1930s:

the more things change, the more they stay the same

Edited November 19, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[Rapier]

Children can't plan attacks but they can be ordered to execute them. How is this difficult, again?

But I agree with the unlikeliness of IS bombing the US, especially with children. Going with such a plan has awfuly high odds of failure.

@Rehab

Are french/belgans able to change their names to muslim names (in official documents, no less) just like that? It is oftenly bureaucratic to do so. Unless they are nationalized muslim descendants.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

Look, here's what I really fear, so you can stop making assumptions. If an attack were to happen on US soil by fighters masquerading as refugees, the Islamaphobia in this country would reach catastrophic levels. You think it's bad now? And that's exactly what ISIS wants. An attack here would show that they are capable of striking anywhere, regardless of distance from the ME.

so you're afraid of something that hasn't happened and will probably never happen, but this actually makes you the good guy

okay

This group convinces people to blow themselves up in order to reach heaven (not nirvana, stop nitpicking my words like a dingus) So I completely believe ISIS would attempt to send fighters here because they don't give a flying fuck what happens to them as long as they attempt to carry out the group's agenda.

yes i believe it too

what we're arguing about is whether they'll try to sneak fighters in with the refugees, which is far less likely to work than any number of alternatives

consider the facts about the paris attack:

- only one of the perpetrators entered europe as a refugee admission

- europe admits refugees in greater quantity and with less rigorous procedure than the US

- most, if not all, of the perpetrators were european nationals

And yes, I guess you can say I'm condemning these people to death for not allowing them to come here. Where were we in other times of genocide? When people were getting slaughtered in Darfur, why did we not invite refugees here instead of condemning them to their fate?

i don't see how this is relevant. furthermore, we did accept darfuri refugees to the US: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5370972

And no, I'm not anti-immigrant

but you should be

because guess how the 19 9/11 hijackers came into the country

EDIT: relevant article http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/can-terrorists-really-infiltrate-the-syrian-refugee-program/416475/

In the 14 years since September 11, 2001, the United States has resettled 784,000 refugees from around the world, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute, a D.C. think tank. And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S., and two of the men were caught trying to leave the country to join terrorist groups overseas.

As U.S. officials and refugee advocates point out, that has never happened in modern history. Not when the U.S. took in tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s. Not when 125,000 Cuban “Marielitos” arrived by boat in 1980. And not in the desperate aftermath of more recent wars in Bosnia, Somalia, or Rwanda.

Edited November 19, 2015 by dondon151

[Tetragrammaton]

Charlie Hebdo’s cover spotlights Paris attacks: ‘F—k them. We have champagne!’

I can't understand their sense of humor. I feel it's really weird.

[eclipse]

Charlie Hebdo’s cover spotlights Paris attacks: ‘F—k them. We have champagne!’

I can't understand their sense of humor. I feel it's really weird.

Keep in mind those are the guys that got shot up by other crazy guys with a similar ideology. It feels like they're saying "you shot our bodies, but not our spirit, which is still capable of merriment". In other words, a very nice "fuck you" to the perpetrators.

---

I get the feeling that any and all refugees granted asylum in the US will be monitored like crazy. Thus, I'm not too worried about an attack from that vector. If I want to live in fear of something, it's going to be other drivers, because I am far more likely to die in a car crash than a hypothetical terrorist incident.

[chococoke]

Lol. Don, this isn't a situation with a good guy. I'm not acting like I'm above anyone in this thread (unlike the methods of arguing you tend to use.) We can have this discussion for another few weeks to a month, but it really comes down to a disagreement over perceived ease/difficulty of sneaking in fighters.

I don't believe it makes much sense to look at other situations involving refugee outflux because this situation is markedly different than other scenarios involving refugees. In "typical" scenarios, refugees are forced out by a group that wants to take over whatever country. However, ISIS wants to take that another step and destroy as much of the free world as possible.

Here's why I think it's easier than "near-impossible" to sneak fighters in: to me, it's impossible to trust the vetting process gathering information from a country that is basically a giant ball of chaos. Anyone could make up any story, and it would be impossible to verify. Are there are easier ways? Perhaps, but I truly believe it's more work to get to Mexico and then sneak across the boarder.

Do you really trust the vetting process that much, or do you believe that ISIS just won't even attempt to send fighters?

EDIT: I should probably stop stooping

Edited November 19, 2015 by chococoke

[Raven]

On the topic of child bombers:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/child-suicide-bombers-they-told-us-the-bombs-would-not-kill-us-only-the-americans-would-die-and-you

I specifically left out "suicide" because these children are made to think they will survive and get to return home. So easily manipulated.

[Magical CC]

You let 10k people who have different cultures, different religion and different languages into your country. People who dont have same languages, culture and religion tend to not share sympathy to the others so it's easier for them to act cruel, commit crime against the others. Crime against refugee by the local people and by refugee against the local people is a big problem. It's very hard to keep things in control.

These 10k people are basically freeloaders, you have to provide them everything they need. Unless your country is used to taking refugees, you will have to build everything from the start, even a tent Turkey refugee camp style still costs a lot if multiplied 10k times. They receive free medical care which even your own citizens dont have. It may be good at the start but when the economy is bad, your citizens will start thinking why should they work like a horse to feed these refugees. It is inevitable that the far-right faction will get more boost and give birth to Hitler-wannabe. Even a rich country such as German couldnt handle more than 12k refugee. Basically, by letting 10k refugees into your country, you are throwing tax money into the sea, asking for more trouble and the party that the president/prime minister belongs to will take a big hit no matter what.

And of course, we have ISIS infiltrators for more fun. It's not only about the risk of being attacked by the terrorists but the unrest in the citizens, the cost of their living, the clash of culture and religion and the raise of far-right parties. And the most troublesome part is not taking them in but asking them to go when ISIS is done. No matter what you do, thousands will stay and blend into your country legally or not. And what comes next? When things go sour again, they will know where to go.

America is very smart for letting a small amount of selected immigrants in. They can say "there, I have done my job" while taking very small risk. There's no way America can say no after the Paris case and many European countries stopped accepting immigrants. America has to say yes to avoid being alienate by the world. But since they only let a some hundred immigrants in, a small number that is easy to watch over and feed.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Magical CC

[Raven]

All of the 8 (confirmed) terrorists involved with the attacks on Paris all have European passports. So in short, they had nothing to do with the Syrian refugees.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html

This stigma the U.S. has against the Syrian refugees as a result of this attack on Paris is quite uncalled for, yet understandable. When external World problems start poking holes in America's perfect little bubble and the risk of deadly foreign objects invading their secure space becomes real, I suppose it's only normal for the inhabitants of this bubble to become scared and uneasy.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Raven

[chococoke]

All of the 8 (confirmed) terrorists involved with the attacks on Paris all have European passports. So in short, they had nothing to do with the Syrian refugees.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html

This stigma the U.S. has against the Syrian refugees as a result of this attack on Paris is quite uncalled for, yet understandable. When external World problems start poking holes in America's perfect little bubble and the risk of deadly foreign objects invading their secure space becomes real, I suppose it's only normal for the inhabitants of this bubble to become scared and uneasy.

Is the investigation closed less than a week after the attacks? Do you know for a fact that there wasn't a single person involved with the operation who pretended to be a refugee?

Also, I'm not going around saying that all Syrian refugees are terrorists. Do you think I'm under the impression that the U.S. Is perfect? LOL quite the opposite really. We have MANY problems to deal with already, more than most western nations.

Edited November 19, 2015 by chococoke

[Raven]

Is the investigation closed less than a week after the attacks? Do you know for a fact that there wasn't a single person involved with the operation who pretended to be a refugee?

Also, I'm not going around saying that all Syrian refugees are terrorists. Do you think I'm under the impression that the U.S. Is perfect? LOL quite the opposite really. We have MANY problems to deal with already, more than most western nations.

My post wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I was simply stating some information as reported by a reliable news outlet. And no - the 8 confirmed are not refugees. That's why I said "confirmed" in the first place. There could well be more involved, and some of them may or may not be related to the Syrian refugees.

Also again, my post was directed at nobody in particular here but more towards these U.S. governors, and people in agreement with them, who do not want to accept any Syrian refugees.

[chococoke]

Right, I just ask that people wait until the investigation is finished before assuming that my scenario is some sort of invented impossibility I'm using to discriminate against refugees

[Yojinbo]

Saying the terrorists are european may be accurate but it simplifies the matter a bit too much. The more accurate statement would be that they are european citizens born to north african immigrants. Immigrants who had their counry ruined in the algerian war in the 50s and 60s, migrated to France and then had been left to rot in some shitty banlieue in Paris where they were essentially segregated and kept strictly among themselves. The children of these people are now in their 20s to mid-30s with no future perspective and the only education they got is what they gathered from their war-inflicted parents. I doesn't take a whole lot for al-Quaeda or Daesh to "radicalize" those people anymore, they're basically just waiting for somebody to turn to them and legitimize their ... tendencies. They aren't members of these organizations in a strict sense either, they've just sworn affiliation to them and operate in their name and get their affirmation.

So yeah Syrian refugees don't really have much to do with it, at least not directly. If anything, I'd expect refugees from Syria to be the target of terrorists rather than their helpers.

[Crysta]

Imagining the worst in strangers and being afraid of even the slightest possibilities isn't anything new. I don't think you invented it.

But I will not be at all surprised if it is revealed that the properly-vetted Syrian refugees, who are fleeing the same terrorism we're so frightened of, are not connected with these attacks in any way... and we turned our suspicion on the wrong people without bothering to wait for the facts to reveal themselves. Because we like to do that.

In fact, I've been betting on that ever since I've started to read this thread, but people needed to figure shit out first.

Maybe everyone should have waited, but naaaah.

[dondon151]

I don't believe it makes much sense to look at other situations involving refugee outflux because this situation is markedly different than other scenarios involving refugees. In "typical" scenarios, refugees are forced out by a group that wants to take over whatever country. However, ISIS wants to take that another step and destroy as much of the free world as possible.

you're saying this as if communism did not want the western world to fall under their dominion

Here's why I think it's easier than "near-impossible" to sneak fighters in: to me, it's impossible to trust the vetting process gathering information from a country that is basically a giant ball of chaos. Anyone could make up any story, and it would be impossible to verify. Are there are easier ways? Perhaps, but I truly believe it's more work to get to Mexico and then sneak across the boarder.

i've tried as hard as possible to concisely explain to you why you're wrong with facts and it seems like you're refusing to listen. it's estimated that 300,000 immigrants arrive in the US per year, most of them via the border with mexico. we do not know anything detailed about them because obviously we cannot interview them before they come over. this is in contrast to the 2,000 syrian refugees that arrive in the US per year, all of whom have to undergo a 12-18 month long vetting process in order to be accepted for asylum.

if you were a terrorist, which way would you pick to enter the united states

there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that

1) refugees have not been and never have been a source of infiltration or entry by terrorists

2) the people responsible for the recent terrorist attacks were neither syrians nor iraqis but foreign fighters of ISIS

3) terrorists prefer other means of entering their target countries

Edited November 19, 2015 by dondon151

[chococoke]

Sorry to disappoint you, but us finding different levels of plausibility in a hypothetical scenario doesn't make me wrong. So sneaking into Mexico is easier. But if said hypothetical fighter submits themselves to the vetting process (which might as well just be a wait list) then they are brought here and placed in a community, and are essentially excused from any suspicion because of their refugee status.

I already said it, but might as well repeat myself: if fighters sneak in through Mexico, how are they going to just show up in communities and blend in without raising suspicion? In fact, if these fighters are caught at the boarder, they have no alibi (would refugees have enough money to fly from Syria to Mexico and then cross into the U.S. on foot?)

In my scenario, fighters just have to get through the vetting wait list. Seems a lot simpler/less risky than sneaking in through Mexico

[Rehab]

It does make you blithely ignorant of observable data and therefore easier to comfortably ignore, though.

[chococoke]

What? So because terrorists have never masqueraded as refugees before this makes everything I'm saying completely impossible? K, ignore me plz

[dondon151]

Sorry to disappoint you, but us finding different levels of plausibility in a hypothetical scenario doesn't make me wrong. So sneaking into Mexico is easier. But if said hypothetical fighter submits themselves to the vetting process (which might as well just be a wait list) then they are brought here and placed in a community, and are essentially excused from any suspicion because of their refugee status.

you would do well to educate yourself on the refugee vetting process before making any claims about how easy it is to be accepted as a refugee into the US: http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

i am making two claims here:

1. it is extraordinarily unlikely, given past history and what we know about the refugee vetting process, for terrorists to be unknowingly admitted through this process. it doesn't make sense to focus on refugee admission when there exist other, more likely ways for terrorists to enter the US. we know that these avenues are more vulnerable because terrorists have used them before (which is why i cited the example of the 19 9/11 terrorists, a citation that you ignored).

2. the cost in potentially accepting unwanted terrorists in this extraordinarily unlikely manner outweighs the cost in human life of denying tens of thousands of benign refugees.

Edited November 19, 2015 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

What? So because terrorists have never masqueraded as refugees before this makes everything I'm saying completely impossible? K, ignore me plz

not completely impossible--but highly, highly unlikely.

[Rehab]

What Phoenix (and dondon) said. It's not a worry we should be completely unconcerned with addressing, and I apologize for getting snippy there and possibly implying that, and/or making it personal, but the dangers in receiving the least amount of refugees just haven't been borne out as dangerous enough to outweigh the clear benefits of saving lives (and the clear downsides of leaving refugees hanging).

Worrying about what could go wrong is fine, and to an extent healthy. Letting it convince us to do nothing is neither, and also just not an option that data suggests will benefit us.

[chococoke]

I hesitate when it comes to looking at past situations because there has never been a scenario like this where terrorists even had the opportunity for deception in this manner. This includes your reference to 9/11, because security wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. I've read your articles on the process, and yes, it seems remarkably stringent. I just don't doubt the ability of people with nefarious intentions to fool the system. I mean, the U.S. bombed a fucking hospital last month due to "intelligence" from "allies" that it was a terrorist hideout. What if someone vouching for a refugee to one of the 7-8 intelligence agencies doing the vetting is a member of ISIS? There's just no way to tell.

Believe it or not, I'm not completely lacking in empathy. I know what the consequences would be of not accepting these refugees. I just worry for the safety of innocent people in this country, as well. Maybe I'm too cautious for my own good. Good thing it isn't my call to make, right?

[peener weener]

Sorry to disappoint you, but us finding different levels of plausibility in a hypothetical scenario doesn't make me wrong. So sneaking into Mexico is easier. But if said hypothetical fighter submits themselves to the vetting process (which might as well just be a wait list) then they are brought here and placed in a community, and are essentially excused from any suspicion because of their refugee status.

I already said it, but might as well repeat myself: if fighters sneak in through Mexico, how are they going to just show up in communities and blend in without raising suspicion? In fact, if these fighters are caught at the boarder, they have no alibi (would refugees have enough money to fly from Syria to Mexico and then cross into the U.S. on foot?)

In my scenario, fighters just have to get through the vetting wait list. Seems a lot simpler/less risky than sneaking in through Mexico

refugees are not excused of any suspicion because of their refugee status, and coming in through mexico does not make you any more suspicious. if a refugee is discovered to be a fighter, what alibi would he have? how would a refugee show up in communities and blend in without raising suspicioun? especially with the current climate surrounding refugees. what are you even saying?

you've completely dominated the topic of discussion in this thread for pages on end on absolutely no ground. the only argument you've essentially made is that something that has never happened and is so unlikely to happen that it surely never will is possible, and potentially dangerous, so we should cut the lifelines of thousands of innocent people escaping the horrible situation in their country (that your country helped create!), all while ignoring data and counterarguments completely because hey, you just want americans to be safe, right?

Good thing it isn't my call to make, right?

you got that right

[Tetragrammaton]

you're saying this as if communism did not want the western world to fall under their dominion

really?

American still believe in this crap?

USA did help create the terrorist by interfering other countries, spreading its democracy, which is a desease that ruins every country if gets infected.

EU were so eager to join the fun game, now they are suffered from the shit while USA is too kind to turn its back and let the shit rot in EU hands.

Edited November 20, 2015 by hanhnn