Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Economic migrants =/= Syrian refugees.

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

The hysteria and fear mongering surrounding Syrian refugees is both shameful and foolish.[/quote]

Maybe there is some “hysteria and fear mongering” that is “both shameful and foolish” but there is a whole lot more [uconcern[/u] that allowing vast numbers of Syrians (and others) to overwhelm Western societies is stupid and shortsighted.[/quote]

No, not some. The question of Syrian refugees has been overwhelmed by hysteria and fear mongering. Unconcern? The intensive vetting process for refugees is more stringent than for any other traveler to the United States. The process often takes two years once displaced persons are granted refugee status by the UNHCR or the potential receiving state. Let’s ignore ISIL’s stated strategy of bringing about a clash of civilizations and its pleas to refugees not to emigrate to the infidel west. It makes little strategic sense for terrorist organizations to funnel operatives through such a scrutinized and roundabout route. The moral and strategic logic of accepting Syrian refugees (10,000, which is hardly vast vis-a-vis the population of the US and its past acceptance of refugees) far outweighs the case to not accept them. Make the effort to read the articles I cite with an open mind for once. [/quote]

What does planting terrorist have to do with emigrating to Europe and to the United States? Nothing. It is a certainty ISIS is trying (and succeeding) to get terrorists into Europe and the USA.

Your naivete is mind boggling.

502

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.

504

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

I’m puzzled why Push linked that article. It concerns economic migrants, not Syrian refugees. Speaking of which, over 50 percent are children and 2 percent are military age males.

507

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Economic migrants =/= Syrian refugees.

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

The hysteria and fear mongering surrounding Syrian refugees is both shameful and foolish.[/quote]

Maybe there is some “hysteria and fear mongering” that is “both shameful and foolish” but there is a whole lot more [uconcern[/u] that allowing vast numbers of Syrians (and others) to overwhelm Western societies is stupid and shortsighted.[/quote]

No, not some. The question of Syrian refugees has been overwhelmed by hysteria and fear mongering. Unconcern? The intensive vetting process for refugees is more stringent than for any other traveler to the United States. The process often takes two years once displaced persons are granted refugee status by the UNHCR or the potential receiving state. Let’s ignore ISIL’s stated strategy of bringing about a clash of civilizations and its pleas to refugees not to emigrate to the infidel west. It makes little strategic sense for terrorist organizations to funnel operatives through such a scrutinized and roundabout route. The moral and strategic logic of accepting Syrian refugees (10,000, which is hardly vast vis-a-vis the population of the US and its past acceptance of refugees) far outweighs the case to not accept them. Make the effort to read the articles I cite with an open mind for once. [/quote]

What does planting terrorist have to do with emigrating to Europe and to the United States? Nothing. It is a certainty ISIS is trying (and succeeding) to get terrorists into Europe and the USA.

Your naivete is mind boggling.[/quote]

You don’t understand what a refugee is or how the are resettled in receiving states. I’ve posted plenty to get you started on that. I’m not going to hold your hand. It’s the primary concern raised by those securitizing the question of Syrian refugees. It rests on little theoretical or empirical evidence, however. Yeah? Care to provide evidence of that? The principal danger is networked or inspired terrorist attacks carried out by radicalized nationals of Western states, not incoming refugees. The Paris attackers were Frenchmen and Belgians, after all.

Your nescience is mind boggling. You clearly don’t have a rudimentary grasp of security policy in general and terrorism in particular, yet you feel the need to spray nonsense in all directions based on your Jack Bauer 24 understanding of the world.

508

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

I’m puzzled why Push linked that article. It concerns economic migrants, not Syrian refugees. Speaking of which, over 50 percent are children and 2 percent are military age males.[/quote]

Bullshit about only 2 percent being military age males. Even if I’m wrong, that 200 out of 10,000 which means we will be sure to have at least a hand full of terrorists.

I welcome the children, by the way. Boys under 14 and girls under 16 adopted into american homes.

509

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Economic migrants =/= Syrian refugees.

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

The hysteria and fear mongering surrounding Syrian refugees is both shameful and foolish.[/quote]

Maybe there is some “hysteria and fear mongering” that is “both shameful and foolish” but there is a whole lot more [uconcern[/u] that allowing vast numbers of Syrians (and others) to overwhelm Western societies is stupid and shortsighted.[/quote]

No, not some. The question of Syrian refugees has been overwhelmed by hysteria and fear mongering. Unconcern? The intensive vetting process for refugees is more stringent than for any other traveler to the United States. The process often takes two years once displaced persons are granted refugee status by the UNHCR or the potential receiving state. Let’s ignore ISIL’s stated strategy of bringing about a clash of civilizations and its pleas to refugees not to emigrate to the infidel west. It makes little strategic sense for terrorist organizations to funnel operatives through such a scrutinized and roundabout route. The moral and strategic logic of accepting Syrian refugees (10,000, which is hardly vast vis-a-vis the population of the US and its past acceptance of refugees) far outweighs the case to not accept them. Make the effort to read the articles I cite with an open mind for once. [/quote]

What does planting terrorist have to do with emigrating to Europe and to the United States? Nothing. It is a certainty ISIS is trying (and succeeding) to get terrorists into Europe and the USA.

Your naivete is mind boggling.[/quote]

You don’t understand what a refugee is or how the are resettled in receiving states. I’ve posted plenty to get you started on that. I’m not going to hold your hand. It’s the primary concern raised by those securitizing the question of Syrian refugees. It rests on little theoretical or empirical evidence, however. Yeah? Care to provide evidence of that? The principal danger is networked or inspired terrorist attacks carried out by radicalized nationals of Western states, not incoming refugees. The Paris attackers were Frenchmen and Belgians, after all.

Your nescience is mind boggling. You clearly don’t have a rudimentary grasp of security policy in general and terrorism in particular, yet you feel the need to spray nonsense in all directions based on your Jack Bauer 24 understanding of the world.[/quote]

Unfortunately, time will prove me correct.

Fuck

511

If we’re letting in all these “refugees” it would stand to reason that every American citizen is fed, sheltered, and has a way to earn a living… right?

512

1013×577 145 KB

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Left wing ideology has infected academia, and government employed wonks, like The Plague; it consumes and eventually kills (intellectually) its hosts. [/quote]

The media is also destroying this nation.

513

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

I’m puzzled why Push linked that article. It concerns economic migrants, not Syrian refugees. Speaking of which, over 50 percent are children and 2 percent are military age males.[/quote]

Bullshit about only 2 percent being military age males. Even if I’m wrong, that 200 out of 10,000 which means we will be sure to have at least a hand full of terrorists.

I welcome the children, by the way. Boys under 14 and girls under 16 adopted into american homes.[/quote]

That’s the data set as it currently stands. You calling bullshit doesn’t refute that. You have evidence to indicate otherwise outside of your gut impulse informed by fearful bigotry? That ignores the extensive vetting process that refugees to the United States undergo. It isn’t perfect by any means, but it is quite intensive. Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees have been resettled in the United States sense 9/11: how many mass terrorist attacks have been carried out? The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees far outweighs barring them. There’s a reason defense wonks are lining up across the board in defense of refugees.

514

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Economic migrants =/= Syrian refugees.

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

The hysteria and fear mongering surrounding Syrian refugees is both shameful and foolish.[/quote]

Maybe there is some “hysteria and fear mongering” that is “both shameful and foolish” but there is a whole lot more [uconcern[/u] that allowing vast numbers of Syrians (and others) to overwhelm Western societies is stupid and shortsighted.[/quote]

No, not some. The question of Syrian refugees has been overwhelmed by hysteria and fear mongering. Unconcern? The intensive vetting process for refugees is more stringent than for any other traveler to the United States. The process often takes two years once displaced persons are granted refugee status by the UNHCR or the potential receiving state. Let’s ignore ISIL’s stated strategy of bringing about a clash of civilizations and its pleas to refugees not to emigrate to the infidel west. It makes little strategic sense for terrorist organizations to funnel operatives through such a scrutinized and roundabout route. The moral and strategic logic of accepting Syrian refugees (10,000, which is hardly vast vis-a-vis the population of the US and its past acceptance of refugees) far outweighs the case to not accept them. Make the effort to read the articles I cite with an open mind for once. [/quote]

What does planting terrorist have to do with emigrating to Europe and to the United States? Nothing. It is a certainty ISIS is trying (and succeeding) to get terrorists into Europe and the USA.

Your naivete is mind boggling.[/quote]

You don’t understand what a refugee is or how the are resettled in receiving states. I’ve posted plenty to get you started on that. I’m not going to hold your hand. It’s the primary concern raised by those securitizing the question of Syrian refugees. It rests on little theoretical or empirical evidence, however. Yeah? Care to provide evidence of that? The principal danger is networked or inspired terrorist attacks carried out by radicalized nationals of Western states, not incoming refugees. The Paris attackers were Frenchmen and Belgians, after all.

Your nescience is mind boggling. You clearly don’t have a rudimentary grasp of security policy in general and terrorism in particular, yet you feel the need to spray nonsense in all directions based on your Jack Bauer 24 understanding of the world.[/quote]

Unfortunately, time will prove me correct.

Fuck[/quote]

Solid retort. Forget my nuanced and heavily cited argument. You win.

517

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Economic migrants =/= Syrian refugees.

The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees.

The hysteria and fear mongering surrounding Syrian refugees is both shameful and foolish.[/quote]

Maybe there is some “hysteria and fear mongering” that is “both shameful and foolish” but there is a whole lot more [uconcern[/u] that allowing vast numbers of Syrians (and others) to overwhelm Western societies is stupid and shortsighted.[/quote]

No, not some. The question of Syrian refugees has been overwhelmed by hysteria and fear mongering. Unconcern? The intensive vetting process for refugees is more stringent than for any other traveler to the United States. The process often takes two years once displaced persons are granted refugee status by the UNHCR or the potential receiving state. Let’s ignore ISIL’s stated strategy of bringing about a clash of civilizations and its pleas to refugees not to emigrate to the infidel west. It makes little strategic sense for terrorist organizations to funnel operatives through such a scrutinized and roundabout route. The moral and strategic logic of accepting Syrian refugees (10,000, which is hardly vast vis-a-vis the population of the US and its past acceptance of refugees) far outweighs the case to not accept them. Make the effort to read the articles I cite with an open mind for once. [/quote]

What does planting terrorist have to do with emigrating to Europe and to the United States? Nothing. It is a certainty ISIS is trying (and succeeding) to get terrorists into Europe and the USA.

Your naivete is mind boggling.[/quote]

You don’t understand what a refugee is or how the are resettled in receiving states. I’ve posted plenty to get you started on that. I’m not going to hold your hand. It’s the primary concern raised by those securitizing the question of Syrian refugees. It rests on little theoretical or empirical evidence, however. Yeah? Care to provide evidence of that? The principal danger is networked or inspired terrorist attacks carried out by radicalized nationals of Western states, not incoming refugees. The Paris attackers were Frenchmen and Belgians, after all.

Your nescience is mind boggling. You clearly don’t have a rudimentary grasp of security policy in general and terrorism in particular, yet you feel the need to spray nonsense in all directions based on your Jack Bauer 24 understanding of the world.[/quote]

Unfortunately, time will prove me correct.

Fuck[/quote]

Solid retort. Forget my nuanced and heavily cited argument. You win. [/quote]

Talk is cheap. If your objective here is to simply debate, well then have at it. If your objective is to get down to the truth, we do have time on our side. If one of these “economic immigrants” or “Syrian Refugees” is implicated in an attack in the next 2 years I’ll admit to being overly paranoid. We probably won’t have to wait more than 6 months for me to be proven right.

I take your word for it the recent Paris attackers were all nationals. I had heard some came into France with refugees.

518

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good grief, what a mess.

Yeah Push, just look at all those poor women & children in those pictures. No one there could possibly be any threat. Damn, I’m so ashamed, I’ve been such a fear mongerer.[/quote]

I’m puzzled why Push linked that article. It concerns economic migrants, not Syrian refugees. Speaking of which, over 50 percent are children and 2 percent are military age males.[/quote]

Bullshit about only 2 percent being military age males. Even if I’m wrong, that 200 out of 10,000 which means we will be sure to have at least a hand full of terrorists.

I welcome the children, by the way. Boys under 14 and girls under 16 adopted into american homes.[/quote]

That’s the data set as it currently stands. You calling bullshit doesn’t refute that. You have evidence to indicate otherwise outside of your gut impulse informed by fearful bigotry? That ignores the extensive vetting process that refugees to the United States undergo. It isn’t perfect by any means, but it is quite intensive. Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees have been resettled in the United States sense 9/11: how many mass terrorist attacks have been carried out? The moral and strategic case for admitting Syrian refugees far outweighs barring them. There’s a reason defense wonks are lining up across the board in defense of refugees. [/quote]

What data set are you looking at? This is what I just found.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

519

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Syrian Men Looking to Flee to Canada Should Practice Their ?Coming Out? Stories

“Country will harbor single dudes only if they?re gay, for now.”

Now then, we dun larnt from Bistro’s interpretation of the Koran that Achmed the Terrorist kin can do “sinful” things in the name of Allah and still be warmly embraced by Mohammed’s goat-fucking penis when he enters heaven. So why wouldn’t Achmed fake his homosexuality in order to access Canuck Land and the Land of the Free & Home of the Brave for nefarious ends?

[/quote]

Hahahaha That’s one line I’m confident those terrorists won’t cross. No one’s more homophobe than those guys.