13/11 Attacks on Paris

[Naughx]

I don't mind having refugees in, just that 25k of them in less than 3 months for my country is quite a lot.

[I.M. Gei]

also, wasn't it the case that just about all the terrorists who attacked five days ago were disaffected and marginalized french or belgian nationals, not devious fighters who slipped in with the refugees

i mean i know exactly what thread i'm posting in, but i'm still a bit stunned to see so many people buying into opposite_of_reality.txt and play right into daesh's hands with reactionary, xenophobic and islamophobic rhetoric

p.s. for anyone interested, mehdi hasan wrote a longpiece on daesh for the new statesman earlier this year; a good deal of their recruits in the west (such as the brothers who did the charlie hebdo attacks) are already nationals in france or canada or wherever, emasculated or humiliated by seeing other muslims getting tortured in gitmo or slaughtered in the middle east or whatnot

Edited November 18, 2015 by I.M. Gei

[chococoke]

i detailed my thought process in the post that you quoted (also phoenix wright articulated it beautifully without being as snarky as i would have been)

i should be the one questioning how you reached your conclusion, not the other way around. as i said before, it would be much easier for ISIS to sneak in fighters via mexico than via refugees.

Why would it be difficult for them to sneak in with refugees? There is absolutely no way to completely vet refugees that are entering the country.

Also, if fighters were to sneak in via Mexico and show up in our communities, I assume people would question where they came from and be at least a little suspicious. If my crazy hypothetical situation is somehow true, then fighters blending as refugees will be in our country, as well as have an "alibi" to deflect any and all suspicion

[Radiant head]

Yeah has it not occurred to people that the typical neocon response is what Daesh wants? Their whole narrative is that the west is at war with Islam, and just like with 9/11 you have racists and warmongerers playing into their hands. They also don't want people seeking asylum in other countries either.

[dondon151]

Why would it be difficult for them to sneak in with refugees? There is absolutely no way to completely vet refugees that are entering the country.

did you even read the article that i linked

i mean yes there could be a theoretically perfect terrorist that can pass off as anyone which no one would be able to detect. but such a theoretically perfect terrorist is not a reason to freeze in your tracks and stop letting in the people who want to get away from the terrorists.

if you're going to capitulate to that kind of irrational fear, then congratulations

that's exactly what the terrorists want you to do

what really gets me is that syrian refugees could be one of the best tools that we can employ against the IS. they are the most adversely affected by the conflict, the most frequently targeted by the IS (as much as we'd like to think that the IS is in primary conflict with the west, they are in bigger conflict with other muslims), and the most attached to their former homeland.

so why are we not using them

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[chococoke]

Didn't read the article. Why does this terrorist need to be "perfect?" Do you really think it's that hard to pretend to be a refugee and make up a back story that is essentially impossible to confirm? Because I think that's really what we're arguing about.

And how would we "use" the refugees? Arm them? That worked really well when it came to fighting Assad

EDIT: also, I assume you missed ISIS' videos containing children shooting and beheading soldiers?

Edited November 18, 2015 by chococoke

[Yojinbo]

Exactly my point. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume that the U.S. is the place ISIS wants to attack the most.

I don't think the USA is a higher priority target to them than Iran, Al-Quaeda or Assad right now, to name a few. The USA haven't been particularly pro-active about stopping ISIL and while their efforts to support the kurds have brought some results, the tactic of supporting "moderate rebel groups" has failed rather pathetically. As it stands, the USA - or indeed, any of their allies - have yet to turn out as a particular threat to ISIL. As long as that remains the case I find it actually somewhat unreasonable to assume that the USA are the place that ISIL wants to attack to most.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, it is ridiculously a America centric to assume that just because Daesh are fundamentalist Muslims automatically means they hate America most.

[chococoke]

Yeah, it is ridiculously a America centric to assume that just because Daesh are fundamentalist Muslims automatically means they hate America most.

My opinion is based on the fact that we have been bombing them longer than any other country

[dondon151]

Didn't read the article. Why does this terrorist need to be "perfect?" Do you really think it's that hard to pretend to be a refugee and make up a back story that is essentially impossible to confirm? Because I think that's really what we're arguing about.

> doesn't read article about refugee vetting process

> makes claims about refugee vetting process

[chococoke]

K, I read the article. And I still believe it's possible for terrorists to pretend to be refugees and make claims that are completely unverifiable, regardless of how long the process takes

[Life]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html

most refugees accepted by the US are kids

"but dondon how do you know that they're not child terrorists"

well now you're just being ridiculous

The fuck are you talking about? We have Palestinian kids as young as 13 trying to stab us in the street.

Ridiculous, my ass.

[dondon151]

yes it is ridiculous

your palestinian kid stabbed two people

kids are not going to be able to deceive a foreign government of their refugee status and then organize terrorist attacks under the nose of that foreign government

holy crap the stupidity in this thread is off the charts

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Life]

kids are not going to be able to organize terrorist attacks under the nose of a foreign government

So it's absolutely impossible for homegrown terrorist adults to give these kids bomb vests? If I recall correctly, some of the terrorists in the Paris attacks were French nationals. Or illegal immigrants don't exist any given country? Because according to you, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to cross borders in an illegal fashion (clear this one up for me, I'd love to know if you believe it or not).

[dondon151]

So it's absolutely impossible for homegrown terrorist adults to give these kids bomb vests? If I recall correctly, some of the terrorists in the Paris attacks were French nationals. Or illegal immigrants don't exist any given country? Because according to you, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to cross borders in an illegal fashion (clear this one up for me, I'd love to know if you believe it or not).

did i not say twice already that it's more likely for ISIS to sneak across a fighter to US via mexico than via refugee

that the majority of terrorists in paris were french nationals and not syrian refugees indicates that by freezing the acceptance of refugees, the US is plugging up the wrong hole

i'll give you credit this time, life, for not outright declaring a strawman, but instead hedging it. that's a step up from the status quo. now if only you learned how to read so that you won't do either.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[chococoke]

Hey don, instead of thumbing your nose at the stupidity of others, would you mind telling me what's so ridiculous about the thought of child terrorists when ISIS is actively brainwashing male children and using them in videos as part of their propaganda?

Edited November 18, 2015 by chococoke

[dondon151]

okay

you're assuming that it's easy for a child to get through the 12-18 month period of refugee vetting without revealing that he has sinister sympathies

you're assuming that a child can organize and conduct a terrorist operation in a foreign country

you're assuming that the refugee admission process is the preferred mode of entry for would-be terrorists

you're assuming that a significant proportion of children seeking asylum are terrorists in disguise

i've done my best to illustrate the extreme improbability of your paranoia, so of course the best i can do now is to thumb my nose at your stupidity. i'm not compelled to convince you of anything; frankly, as long as i've successfully goaded you into saying something dumb, then that's a job well done.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Raven]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/syrian-refugees-u-s-applicants-explainer/index.html

most refugees accepted by the US are kids

It's very unlikely a terrorist will successfully enter considering the process each immigrant must go through, but let's not pretend this process is 100% capable of identifying every person with ill intent. These guys know that the whole process of getting into the country, eventually having the government stop tailing their movements/interactions, and planting the seeds of support for their cause within the community they settle into will take many years. It will not surprise me one bit that some people (whether they're Syrian immigrants or whatever else) will eventually get through this system, but rest easy since it won't exactly happen overnight, either.

"but dondon how do you know that they're not child terrorists"

well now you're just being ridiculous

This didn't really cross my mind, but I appreciate the putting of words into my mouth.

[blah the Prussian]

My opinion is based on the fact that we have been bombing them longer than any other country

Daesh are not morons. They know that they can't actually bring down America, so they focus their energy on Iraq and the FSA. The attack on Paris was a relatively low budget affair. Daesh are evil bastards, but they wouldn't have come this far if they were petty.

[dondon151]

It's very unlikely a terrorist will successfully enter considering the process each immigrant must go through, but let's not pretend this process is 100% capable of identifying every person with ill intent. These guys know that the whole process of getting into the country, eventually having the government stop tailing their movements/interactions, and planting the seeds of support for their cause within the community they settle into will take many years. It will not surprise me one bit that some people (whether they're Syrian immigrants or whatever else) will eventually get through this system, but rest easy since it won't exactly happen overnight, either.

i agree that this process isn't foolproof, but my concession on this point is in the postmodern sense where we can never be absolutely certain of anything. if the inability to achieve absolute certainty is sufficient to stop us from undertaking anything with even a remote possibility of risk, then we would never get anything accomplished.

This didn't really cross my mind, but I appreciate the putting of words into my mouth.

well someone brought it up didn't they

i wasn't intending on putting words in your mouth in particular, but i knew someone would say it

[chococoke]

None of your assumptions are correct. Who said it had to be a majority? All you need is a handful out of many, many thousands to cause problems. Also, you need to stop being so simple-minded. The children aren't planning anything themselves. They're trained by ISIS and therefor are taught that killing infidels is the only way to reach "nirvana" if you will.

In fact, I consider it quite inane to think that there is "extreme improbability" based on a CNN article and your own gut feeling

[dondon151]

In fact, I consider it quite inane to think that there is "extreme improbability" based on a CNN article and your own gut feeling

this is coming from a guy who thinks that kids with bombs is a concern legitimate enough to stop the acceptance of tens of thousands of displaced, destitute, relatively well-educated people who are in this situation in part because of this country's actions

are you the kind of guy who doesn't want any immigrants coming to this country because some of them commit crime

even though immigrants commit less crime than native citizens

None of your assumptions are correct. Who said it had to be a majority? All you need is a handful out of many, many thousands to cause problems. Also, you need to stop being so simple-minded. The children aren't planning anything themselves. They're trained by ISIS and therefor are taught that killing infidels is the only way to reach "nirvana" if you will.

pffft

nirvana is a buddhist concept

and it's fundamentally different from the concept of heaven

no one said majority. please point out where in my post i said majority.

why are my assumptions incorrect? why are they more incorrect than your imbecilic assumptions? you are the one admitting that you are willing to condemn "many, many thousands" of people to death in fear of "a handful" of people who may or may not be able to deceive the refugee vetting process, and there's no evidence thus far that these people have done so. i am only going by the evidence here.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dondon151

[Yojinbo]

My opinion is based on the fact that we have been bombing them longer than any other country

Longer, yes. But longer doesn't mean more successful: the USA have been "bombing" ISIL for four years now with pretty unremarkable results whereas the russians have already forced ISIL to withdraw from Raqqa after a mere 6 weeks of bombings. Honestly, at this point the USA are probably just not a particularly noteworthy factor in this whole mess anymore.

Not intervening in the region was the right decision of the USA. Their main contribution was as a part of the diplomatic Kerry-Lavrov axis and it'd be better if it stayed that way. I don't really see how with all that in mind ISIL would be particularly keen on challenging the USA at this point in time when Russia, Iran, Assad and Al-Quada are bigger threats to them, when the EU is a much weaker target and when the military measures taken by the USA were few and had little success.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Yojinbo

[Irysa]

i agree that this process isn't foolproof, but my concession on this point is in the postmodern sense where we can never be absolutely certain of anything. if the inability to achieve absolute certainty is sufficient to stop us from undertaking anything with even a remote possibility of risk, then we would never get anything accomplished.

All things have risk but not the same kinds of risk. This is not a sufficient counterargument to engaging in actions with risk as long as the chance is low; if the potential "risky" outcome changes then certain actions can be argued to be "not worth the risk".

For example, the risk of having a stomachache from eating certain kinds of food versus the risk of failing an exam in a university course from not studying enough versus the risk of getting an STD from having unprotected sex versus the risk of having large groups of people die from terrorist attacks. These are not equal risks.

Examining a potential elaboration of the initial idea such as "the risk of large groups of people dying in a plane crash is very low, but we consider it worth it" seems a bit more suspect because everyone getting on the plane has to accept that risk to get on it in the first place. There do seem to be a lot of people who don't think it's comparatively worth the risk for something else, so in that example, they'd be people who refuse to get on the plane. Whether or not thats worth ridiculing is a different discussion, but it certainly seems sustainable.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Irysa

[chococoke]

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