Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
582

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
[i]The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.

The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.[/i]

http://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-problems-detecting-fraud-among-asylum-seekers-211600842.html[/quote]

Sorry, but I don’t believe this. Bistrolita has assured me thorough vetting is taking place in all instances and
he knows stuff.
[/quote]

Asylum seekers are not refugees. The latter status is conferred by the UNHCR. The designated refugees are then vetted extensively by the intelligence community. The process took two years before the Paris attacks. The link Chushin provided concerns illegal immigrants who are requesting political asylum.

584

[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]

There ya go Bistro, in spite of your “nuanced and heavily cited argument” in less than a week you are proven wrong. WOMAN from QUATAR.

Now do you understand my explicative over knowing that I am right? Fourteen dead in Redlands. Yay I’m right! barf

I’m quite sure you’ll just keep patting yourself on the back over your nuanced writing skills while living in denial.

585

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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]

There ya go Bistro, in spite of your “nuanced and heavily cited argument” in less than a week you are proven wrong. WOMAN from QUATAR.

Now do you understand my explicative over knowing that I am right? Fourteen dead in Redlands. Yay I’m right! barf

I’m quite sure you’ll just keep patting yourself on the back over your nuanced writing skills while living in denial.[/quote]

Quatar? Never heard of it.

Was this “Quatari” a refugee?

586

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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]

There ya go Bistro, in spite of your “nuanced and heavily cited argument” in less than a week you are proven wrong. WOMAN from QUATAR.

Now do you understand my explicative over knowing that I am right? Fourteen dead in Redlands. Yay I’m right! barf

I’m quite sure you’ll just keep patting yourself on the back over your nuanced writing skills while living in denial.[/quote]

Quatar? Never heard of it.

Was this “Quatari” a refugee? [/quote]

She was not a national. You claimed nationals were the threat and wrongly stated it was only Belgium and French nationals that carried out the Paris attacks.

You can cling to “refugees” if it help you sleep at night but everyone here, except you, knows terrorists are going to use all means available to carry out attacks in US and Europe and there’s no way we can possibly screen 10,000 refugees and not get any terrorists or future terrorists in the bunch.

Well, actually there is a way. Girls under 16 and boys under 14 adopted into American homes. Make that American non-Muslim homes. That’s right Uncle Muhammad, non-Muslim homes. After all, you pointed out Nationals are a threat.

589

Physicists Show Both Russia And Turkey Were Lying About The Downed Russian Plane

590

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Quatar? Never heard of it.

[/quote]

Seriously?

Talk about “solid retorts.”

[/quote]

The guy is so caught up in minutiae he can’t see the big picture.
Or, maybe he clings to the details like a scared boy because he can’t see the big picture.

591

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Quatar? Never heard of it.

[/quote]

Seriously?

Talk about “solid retorts.”

[/quote]

The guy is so caught up in minutiae he can’t see the big picture.
Or, maybe he clings to the details like a scared boy because he can’t see the big picture.[/quote]

It was a dig toward someone who is making sweeping counterterrorism prescriptions despite being unable to do so much as spell Qatar correctly, much less being rudimentary acquainted with terrorism studies. The phenomenon hardly lends itself to arguments by analogy and gut impulse. Your “cures” are worse than the disease.

First of all, I argued that radicalized nationals that emigrate to fight for ISIL and then return to their countries of origin are a greater threat than Syrian refugees, especially vis-a-vis the United States.

According to the Washington Post, the identified attackers are Rizwan Farook, a former county health worker born in the United States, and Tashfeen Malik, his Pakistani born wife. They were US citizens, not refugees.

Your entire argument presumes terrorism as the underlying motive. It’s entirely possible, law enforcement has not indicated that as of yet. “[A senior law enforcement official] said the FBI has yet to find definitive evidence that the couple had been radicalized or were looking at jihadist websites or reading terrorist literature such as Inspire magazine.”

If we assume the attack is terrorism, it appears to not have been directed or networked, but rather inspired.

592

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]stefan128 wrote:
So are we ever going to just bomb the hell out of these guys or what?[/quote]

If they attacks are ISIL directed, networked, or inspired, the United States and its coalition partners (including France) have been doing so for well over a year. As of Nov. 12, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 8,125 strikes (5,321 Iraq / 2,804 Syria). Al Qaida . . . it goes without saying.[/quote]

Unfortunately, there is concern and reason to believe that these numbers you posted may have be messaged a bit.

If these allegations, which are credible enough to warrant investigation turn out to be true, then that is a MAJOR issue. Falsifying intelligence is not only illegal but incredibly dangerous. They are playing games with people’s lives and that’s not funny. It’s certainly an impeachable offence if the orders came from the top.

593

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
[i]The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.

The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.[/i]

http://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-problems-detecting-fraud-among-asylum-seekers-211600842.html[/quote]

Sorry, but I don’t believe this. Bistrolita has assured me thorough vetting is taking place in all instances and
he knows stuff.
[/quote]

Asylum seekers are not refugees. The latter status is conferred by the UNHCR. The designated refugees are then vetted extensively by the intelligence community. The process took two years before the Paris attacks. The link Chushin provided concerns illegal immigrants who are requesting political asylum.
[/quote]

I am not concerned about the refugees as much as some others may be. What’s at issue in my book is why regional players are not taking in or playing any role in helping the people of their region. There is plenty of money and space in the Gulf States. There is no language barrier or cultural barrier, at least not to the extent it is for Europe and the U.S. I say we demand the regional states take in these refugees and if their are still refugees left, the U.S. can go ahead and pitch in and help. Europe and the U.S. should not the the first and second choices for Syrian refugees. We should be the last resort when Qatar, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt has done all they could.
The majority of these refugees are muslims and other muslims in their region are turning their backs on them. They should be ashamed, but they have no shame, they are all just assholes.

594

[quote]Aggv wrote:

“We have not contained ISIS”

  • Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

[/quote]

Shit we didn’t need a general to figure that out. It’s kinda obvious. The air campaign has done some damage, but it has not had near the effect it should have.
According to the obama doctrine, if we could just get the environment straitened out, they would be peace loving people who want to spread love and joy. But they are hot, so they’re pissed.

595

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
[i]The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.

The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.[/i]

http://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-problems-detecting-fraud-among-asylum-seekers-211600842.html[/quote]

Sorry, but I don’t believe this. Bistrolita has assured me thorough vetting is taking place in all instances and
he knows stuff.
[/quote]

Asylum seekers are not refugees. The latter status is conferred by the UNHCR. The designated refugees are then vetted extensively by the intelligence community. The process took two years before the Paris attacks. The link Chushin provided concerns illegal immigrants who are requesting political asylum.
[/quote]

I am not concerned about the refugees as much as some others may be. What’s at issue in my book is why regional players are not taking in or playing any role in helping the people of their region. There is plenty of money and space in the Gulf States. There is no language barrier or cultural barrier, at least not to the extent it is for Europe and the U.S. I say we demand the regional states take in these refugees and if their are still refugees left, the U.S. can go ahead and pitch in and help. Europe and the U.S. should not the the first and second choices for Syrian refugees. We should be the last resort when Qatar, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt has done all they could.
The majority of these refugees are muslims and other muslims in their region are turning their backs on them. They should be ashamed, but they have no shame, they are all just assholes.[/quote]

Assholes of the highest order.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/saudi-arabia-has-100000-air-conditioned-tents-sitt/

596

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
[i]The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the United States for their protection, according to a government study released Wednesday.

The GAO review found that more than 4,500 people were awarded asylum in 2014 despite being associated with lawyers or document preparers arrested that same year in an immigration fraud investigation in New York.[/i]

http://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-problems-detecting-fraud-among-asylum-seekers-211600842.html[/quote]

Sorry, but I don’t believe this. Bistrolita has assured me thorough vetting is taking place in all instances and
he knows stuff.
[/quote]

Asylum seekers are not refugees. The latter status is conferred by the UNHCR. The designated refugees are then vetted extensively by the intelligence community. The process took two years before the Paris attacks. The link Chushin provided concerns illegal immigrants who are requesting political asylum.
[/quote]

I am not concerned about the refugees as much as some others may be. What’s at issue in my book is why regional players are not taking in or playing any role in helping the people of their region. There is plenty of money and space in the Gulf States. There is no language barrier or cultural barrier, at least not to the extent it is for Europe and the U.S. I say we demand the regional states take in these refugees and if their are still refugees left, the U.S. can go ahead and pitch in and help. Europe and the U.S. should not the the first and second choices for Syrian refugees. We should be the last resort when Qatar, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt has done all they could.
The majority of these refugees are muslims and other muslims in their region are turning their backs on them. They should be ashamed, but they have no shame, they are all just assholes.[/quote]

I don’t disagree. They are free riding on the anti-ISIL coalition and the resettlement of refugees. You’d think zakat would actually mean something in a situation like this.

597

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Quatar? Never heard of it.

[/quote]

Seriously?

Talk about “solid retorts.”

[/quote]

The guy is so caught up in minutiae he can’t see the big picture.
Or, maybe he clings to the details like a scared boy because he can’t see the big picture.[/quote]

It was a dig toward someone who is making sweeping counterterrorism prescriptions despite being unable to do so much as spell Qatar correctly, much less being rudimentary acquainted with terrorism studies. The phenomenon hardly lends itself to arguments by analogy and gut impulse. Your “cures” are worse than the disease.

First of all, I argued that radicalized nationals that emigrate to fight for ISIL and then return to their countries of origin are a greater threat than Syrian refugees, especially vis-a-vis the United States.

According to the Washington Post, the identified attackers are Rizwan Farook, a former county health worker born in the United States, and Tashfeen Malik, his Pakistani born wife. They were US citizens, not refugees.

Your entire argument presumes terrorism as the underlying motive. It’s entirely possible, law enforcement has not indicated that as of yet. “[A senior law enforcement official] said the FBI has yet to find definitive evidence that the couple had been radicalized or were looking at jihadist websites or reading terrorist literature such as Inspire magazine.”

If we assume the attack is terrorism, it appears to not have been directed or networked, but rather inspired. [/quote]

Bismark, you get caught lying, are proven wrong on multiple facts, over and over again you are proven wrong about all the issues we’ve discussed here. Your turning out wrong at a pace that even astonishes me. I thought it would take months for “proof” to come along and it literally took days. Man, you’re not even getting stuff right by blind chance! lol Now you’re even going as far as to suggest this San Bernadino attack might not be terrorism? lmfao

Well, look at the bright side. At least you have flawless spelling and your writing is so witty and nuanced!

599

[quote]Darnell Becker wrote:

Taken from another forum. Someone else wrote this, and I agree. Food for thought.

“
And as far as the cultural aspect goes, there are not enough of refugees being taken in to cause the demographic shifts that would cause that kind of strife. The small percentage of immigrants combined with exposure to social democratic society like Sweden or a classically liberal society like the United States ensures those problems don’t arise. It could be argued that there are exceptions to this rule, like France. But France has a bunch of baggage related to Algeria, Mali, and other Muslim countries that places like Germany do not.”
[/quote]

Oh FFS the denial is even stronger with this one. Oil & Water. And I not talking the natural resource type.