[quote]Bismark wrote:
The Paris attackers who have been identified have all been European. Foreign fighters returning home is the real danger, not refugees. [/quote]
Brahim and Salah Abdeslam, Bilal Hadfi, Ismaïl Mostefaï, Samy Amimour, Omar Ismail Mostefai, Ahmad al-Mohammed.
Those are definitely European names Bismark…yeah, long lineage of Europe right there.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Let’s play guess who said it.
“The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends . . . Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists.”[/quote]
And: “Islam is peace.” Not a religion of peace – peace itself.
Can you imagine the pants-shitting puddle of sobbing, screaming toddlers that conservatives would melt into if Obama decided to take out the “a religion of” or “teaches,” and instead simply call Islam peace? Can you picture the idiot-babble about anti-white racism and terrorist sympathies?
so… should we just nuke ISIS and get it over with?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The Paris attackers who have been identified have all been European. Foreign fighters returning home is the real danger, not refugees. [/quote]
Brahim and Salah Abdeslam, Bilal Hadfi, Isma�¯l Mostefa�¯, Samy Amimour, Omar Ismail Mostefai, Ahmad al-Mohammed.
Those are definitely European names Bismark…yeah, long lineage of Europe right there.
[/quote]
What are you babbling on about? Refer to my second sentence. They were European citizens, yet everyone is shitting themselves over refugees.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Honduras arrests 5 Syrian refugees headed to the US using stolen passports.
[/quote]
Women and children, obviously, right?[/quote]
I don’t think folks around these parts realize how lined with red tape the road from displaced person to resettled refugee is. First, the UNHCR or potential receiving state has to determine refugee status. This is spelled out by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is a person that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This is no easy task. The backlogs for the UNHCR alone is close to a quarter of a million applications.
Refugees are then subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States. The process often takes three years. And that was before the recent legislation passed in the United States.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Honduras arrests 5 Syrian refugees headed to the US using stolen passports.
[/quote]
Women and children, obviously, right?[/quote]
I don’t think folks around these parts realize how lined with red tape the road from displaced person to resettled refugee is. First, the UNHCR or potential receiving state has to determine refugee status. This is spelled out by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which states that a refugee is a person that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This is no easy task. The backlogs for the UNHCR alone is close to a quarter of a million applications.
Refugees are then subject to more scrutiny and background checks that any other group admitted to the United States. That screening includes health checks, repeated biometric verification of identity, several layers of biographical and background screening, and in-person interviews. Multiple agencies are involved in the process, including the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Department of Defense. And all of this happens before a refugee’s application for resettlement is ever approved or rejected and long before a refugee enters the United States. The process often takes three years. And that was before the recent legislation passed in the United States.
[/quote]
Syria itself does not have a database with which to cross reference these people, not to mention the stunning incompetence of an administration that could not create a website with any degree of success.
We have some of the most stupid, inept, and incompetent people in all of creation running our government. It took only 8 people to pull off the massacre in Paris, yes it was a massacre, not a set back as Obama labeled it.
And now we have another massacre in Mali.
Boko Haram is my guess as they are operating in that region. Sadly, they have killed more people than ISIS, but they don’t make the news because nobody gives a shit about Africa unless westerners are involved as they are in Mali.
Body count up to 21 so far.
[quote]pat wrote:
And now we have another massacre in Mali.
Boko Haram is my guess as they are operating in that region. Sadly, they have killed more people than ISIS, but they don’t make the news because nobody gives a shit about Africa unless westerners are involved as they are in Mali.
Body count up to 21 so far.
[/quote]
I read it was Al-Murabitoun
*edited with new information via Al-Jazeera
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And now we have another massacre in Mali.
Boko Haram is my guess as they are operating in that region. Sadly, they have killed more people than ISIS, but they don’t make the news because nobody gives a shit about Africa unless westerners are involved as they are in Mali.
Body count up to 21 so far.
[/quote]
I read it was Al-Murabitoun
*edited with new information via Al-Jazeera[/quote]
Okay, So al qaeda affiliates? Makes sense. Maybe boko haram is to chicken to stage a large attack on western targets, lest they get a air campaign their way. Oh, wait I forgot obama is president. This is just a little set back, nothing to see here. As Paris was a little set back.
[quote]pat wrote:
As Paris was a little set back.[/quote]
That’s degrading and insulting to everyone involved. Neville Chamberlain seems likes genius at anticipation compared to this asshole.
Our knuckle dragging potus is too much of a pussy to hit isis trucks shipping oil, because they’re “civilians”; working for isis…
Although maybe he called it a set back in relation to his immigration policy …
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are you babbling on about? Refer to my second sentence. They were European citizens, yet everyone is shitting themselves over refugees.[/quote]
Ahem.
Asylum accommodation? Who would have thought that? Expect more news like this in the near future…
Just a thing here, not really on refugees but on the Islam itself.
I hear a lot of muslims cite that “Islam is peace”, “Islam is a peacefull religion” and/or “Islam is a religion of peace, these terrorists are traitors”.
Not that I wanna bitch, but wasn’t Muhammed himself the guy who started a war to oppose his religion on non-believers?
I’m not saying Christianity was the sweetest kid in it’s history, but as far as I know Jesus turned the other cheek and stuff.
I’m not religious in any way, I have no intrest in talking down or up one particular religion.
But Muhammed was the most important person for them, their profet, the direct speeching device of God. Isn’t it weird that something he wholehearthily did (using violence), is written of as “opposing the religion”?
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What are you babbling on about? Refer to my second sentence. They were European citizens, yet everyone is shitting themselves over refugees.[/quote]
Ahem.
Asylum accommodation? Who would have thought that? Expect more news like this in the near future…[/quote]
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be of concern, they should be. America is far ahead of the curve in that regard. The greatest threat to Europe, however, is European citizens returning from fighting with ISIL. Citizen revocation should be SOP.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Let’s play guess who said it.
“The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends . . . Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists.”[/quote]
And: “Islam is peace.” Not a religion of peace – peace itself.
Can you imagine the pants-shitting puddle of sobbing, screaming toddlers that conservatives would melt into if Obama decided to take out the “a religion of” or “teaches,” and instead simply call Islam peace? Can you picture the idiot-babble about anti-white racism and terrorist sympathies?[/quote]
The apex of hypocrisy. I’ve been called a Muslim apologist and a traitor for saying as much as conservative Bush 43 has. Enough for someone to create a childish call out thread to that end.
[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Just a thing here, not really on refugees but on the Islam itself.
I hear a lot of muslims cite that “Islam is peace”, “Islam is a peacefull religion” and/or “Islam is a religion of peace, these terrorists are traitors”.
Not that I wanna bitch, but wasn’t Muhammed himself the guy who started a war to oppose his religion on non-believers?
I’m not saying Christianity was the sweetest kid in it’s history, but as far as I know Jesus turned the other cheek and stuff.
I’m not religious in any way, I have no intrest in talking down or up one particular religion.
But Muhammed was the most important person for them, their profet, the direct speeching device of God. Isn’t it weird that something he wholehearthily did (using violence), is written of as “opposing the religion”?[/quote]
The temptation to hate muslims is strong, I get it. But we cannot. We know that pretty much all terrorism for the last 3 decades was done by muslims. The muslims have largely been silent about the problem in their religion. But we have to be better than they are. We cannot hate them by default. We are better than they are and we have to stay that way.
However, we have no choice but to treat the Islamic extremists with tremendous force. They come with ak47 with missles. If we want to run an air campaign we have to level the place, not just military targets. They hide behind innocents, we have to show that won’t work.
My problem with the current strategy is that it’s a selective air campaign which works great if you have ground troops you are supporting. But it’s a stupid way to run a war. If you are using air power alone, you have to level the place. Otherwise, if you want to run a selective campaign the only way to minimize civilian casualties is to send in the troops to make that distinction on the ground. That puts our troops at risk.
It’s a catch 22. If you want to minimize casualties you need ground troops. If you want to spare the troops you have to level everything, which means civilian casualties. There’s no easy answers here, there is only what must be done
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Just a thing here, not really on refugees but on the Islam itself.
I hear a lot of muslims cite that “Islam is peace”, “Islam is a peacefull religion” and/or “Islam is a religion of peace, these terrorists are traitors”.
Not that I wanna bitch, but wasn’t Muhammed himself the guy who started a war to oppose his religion on non-believers?
I’m not saying Christianity was the sweetest kid in it’s history, but as far as I know Jesus turned the other cheek and stuff.
I’m not religious in any way, I have no intrest in talking down or up one particular religion.
But Muhammed was the most important person for them, their profet, the direct speeching device of God. Isn’t it weird that something he wholehearthily did (using violence), is written of as “opposing the religion”?[/quote]
The temptation to hate muslims is strong, I get it. But we cannot. We know that pretty much all terrorism for the last 3 decades was done by muslims. The muslims have largely been silent about the problem in their religion. But we have to be better than they are. We cannot hate them by default. We are better than they are and we have to stay that way.
However, we have no choice but to treat the Islamic extremists with tremendous force. They come with ak47 with missles. If we want to run an air campaign we have to level the place, not just military targets. They hide behind innocents, we have to show that won’t work.
My problem with the current strategy is that it’s a selective air campaign which works great if you have ground troops you are supporting. But it’s a stupid way to run a war. If you are using air power alone, you have to level the place. Otherwise, if you want to run a selective campaign the only way to minimize civilian casualties is to send in the troops to make that distinction on the ground. That puts our troops at risk.
It’s a catch 22. If you want to minimize casualties you need ground troops. If you want to spare the troops you have to level everything, which means civilian casualties. There’s no easy answers here, there is only what must be done [/quote]
Many of President Obama’s critics believe the Islamic State will not be defeated without U.S. troops fighting on the ground (beyond special operations forces already conducting direct-action and train-and-equip missions). With the deployment of approximately 50 special operators to Syria, stepping up the U.S. ground presence in Iraq seems even more likely. But this would be a severe mistake. The current plan - which involves training, equipping, and otherwise supporting the Iraqi Security Forces in a way that is contingent on the political reforms necessary to resolve Iraq’s conflicts - is the right one, although there are certainly improvements to be made in terms of execution.
While sending troops to engage in combat operations against ISIL would boost efforts to roll back the group, the benefits would not be worth the costs. Deploying U.S. general purpose forces to Iraq (again) would be a boon to jihadist recruitment and remove key incentives currently pushing the Iraqis to sort out their internal political problems. It would also require a greater commitment than many like to admit. U.S. ground troops fighting ISIL requires more personnel and resources for headquarters, hospitals, helicopters, and a far bigger logistics tail.
Washington has run this experiment before. It did not work. Without capable and dedicated security forces that can fight the Islamic State and hold ground, Iraq has no future. The current course might take longer than we’d like, but will result in a more sustainable outcome. The United States must continue to help the Iraqis stand and fight, but beyond SOF conducting specific missions, we would be doing ourselves and Iraq a disservice by putting our troops back on the front line in Iraq. We should have learned by now that sending the troops in is far easier than getting them back out.
