Paris Attacks

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.

Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.

Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.

Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?

Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.

two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?

2 blended in across virtually unchecked borders. Were not in a controlled situation and were exploited a tenous situation.

The refugees that would come here arent in that situation. Since when did common syrians become our enemy? I didnt catch that news story or hear the president say such.

ldent42

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

ldent42 said:

mcgruff10 said:

ldent42 said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.

Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.

Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.

Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?

Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.

two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?

Who says they will?

Really, that s your counter?

Really, that's yours?

Your counter was weak.

While I support Canada's efforts to assist (they're modest at best)... I think a country and its citizens have every right to be concerned for who they accept into their fold- especially given the potential risks.

I don't think you guys realize that I'm not in some kind of competition. "Counter".
No. Voiced opinion, yes.

PP193448

So we take in refugees because it's humane and the right thing to do after the best vetting process ever performed, now what? What's the plan? So which rich billionaires are going to step up and offer to pay for refugees to live in the US? Corporate CEOs, celebrities, pro atheletes, etc?? Sorry, haven't watched any news lately... Any offers on this yet???

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

rgambs

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?

rgambs

I know you didn't say those words, but that's the reality of it.

mcgruff10

rgambs said:

I know you didn't say those words, but that's the reality of it.

I think anyone who loves their country puts their own people first. I see nothing wrong with this.

PP193448

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

I know you didn't say those words, but that's the reality of it.

I think anyone who loves their country puts their own people first. I see nothing wrong with this.

Obviously there are other countries that feel the same.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

I guess a lot of Americans feel the same way as I do: why do we have to compromise our safety to let even more refugees in, especially one's with possibly terrorist ties (even though it's the vast minority)? Why can't Muslim countries or any other country take these people in? Why does the United states always have to get involved with international problems when we have a plethora of domestic issues to solve? I.e. Thousands of homeless american vets yet we are going to provide housing and education for those emigrating to the united states from the middle east. I guess everyone has their breaking point and this seems to be it.

The countries in the region are hosting millions of refugees, you are just echoing a right wing disinformation point. It is ironic too, considering it has clearly been the conservatives who block veterans bills every time they come up.

I m no conservative; I ve voted democrat every time since 1996. However I did live through 9/11 like many other people and have learned not to be so trusting of people. I agree no one is against law abiding Syrian refugees but you can not guarantee an Isis fighter won't slip in with them.
See by not allowing any of them in you do guarantee that a terrorist won't slip through.

So let me get this straight... You aren't willing to gamble any American lives, but Syrian lives, they can be gambled with?

This makes no sense- its an unfair question.

Not that 'gambling' is the operative term for this situation... would you flip a coin to determine the well being of your child versus another, RG? Does your child hold a special place in your heart?

I'm assuming from this post that your child holds no more value than any other child. This is why I ask. If I am wrong... you should retract your rather arrogant statement where you challenged another for holding such a selfish position.

BS44325

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.

Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.

Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.

It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.

Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.

Yes you can

Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.

Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.

this war is not against a specific country. it goes beyond borders. how do you win a war like that?

It is only won when moderates are able to live free from fear. Again the majority of muslims don't embrace the radical ideology but are deathly afraid of their violence. They cower in the face of that violence which then allows for the radical ideology to grow. Once given security from that evil moderates will join up to defeat it. Moderation will then spread from the inside out as recruitment dries up. The essential factor though is security.

Sounds a lot like Bush and Cheney, and that worked great.

It did work great. The Obama administration called Iraq one of America's greatest success stories...and then they withdrew. Staying would have prevented the collapse, the rise of ISIS in syria and the refugee crisis that followed.

BS44325

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.

Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.

Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.

It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.

Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.

Yes you can

Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.

Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.

So you would be ok for troops to be there for like the next what 50 yrs cause maybe by then you would change their ideology ....

Yes

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.

Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.

Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.

Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?

Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.

two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?

The way in which they are being selected and processed says so. You know that people are just swimming ashore in Greece, right???
There are actually much easier ways for terrorists to enter Canada or the US than to submit themselves to 2 or 3 years in a refugee camp in Turkey and then to a rigorous application and screening process with the government. To think terrorists would do all that instead of taking all kinds of easier routes is laughable. Where were you before Paris happened?? Because whatever threat you're afraid of of now was just as present before the Paris bombing. Probably even more so, now that security is beefed up again.
Your paranoia is illogical, no offense. Even if one single refugee who entered committed a terrorist act (which has NEVER happened in the US before, btw, and the US has allowed many, many refugees in), so? You think they or someone else wouldn't have found another way to do it? Not allowing refugees in only hurts people, and protects no one.

BS44325

eddiec said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.

Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.

Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.

It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.

Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.

Yes you can

Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.

Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.

Peace was never secured in Iraq. Saddam lost but peace was never gained. I would even argue that there became less peace in the country with the fall of Saddam.

There was less peace after the fall of Saddam as the post-invasion chaos was completely underestimated and mishandled. There was then a restoration of peace following the surge. This peace was not secured however. You are correct about that...a secured peace requires a long term presence just like Germany and/or Japan.

BS44325

The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.

I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.

Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.

Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.

Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?

Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.

two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?

The way in which they are being selected and processed says so. You know that people are just swimming ashore in Greece, right???
There are actually much easier ways for terrorists to enter Canada or the US than to submit themselves to 2 or 3 years in a refugee camp in Turkey and then to a rigorous application and screening process with the government. To think terrorists would do all that instead of taking all kinds of easier routes is laughable. Where were you before Paris happened?? Because whatever threat you're afraid of of now was just as present before the Paris bombing. Probably even more so, now that security is beefed up again.
Your paranoia is illogical, no offense. Even if one single refugee who entered committed a terrorist act (which has NEVER happened in the US before, btw, and the US has allowed many, many refugees in), so? You think they or someone else wouldn't have found another way to do it? Not allowing refugees in only hurts people, and protects no one.

This whole refugee argument is really just a way for people to absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for encouraging a withdrawal.

Has anyone on here really asked themselves how come there was no massive refugee crisis during the lead up to the Iraq war or even during the Iraq war? Why didn't thousands flee during the brutal American Occupation? Certainly there were some refugees but the "crisis" only began post American withdrawal from Iraq and after the fall of Gadafi in Libya. I'm sorry but this crisis is a direct result of Obama foreign policy and the people who supported it must know deep down that this is on them. Again I'm all for accepting displaced people but it would be nice to hear the people screaming the loudest to accept some responsibility for why they are refugees in the first place.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.

I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.

It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.

PJ_Soul

I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now.
FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that?? Even if it were true... what responsibility do you think random Americans who want to refugees are supposed to take?? Exactly what role do you think they played so that they should feel guilty and then accept responsibility for what Bush and Cheney started?? I find it odd that you blame the withdrawal rather than the war.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now.
FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that??

I didn't say that's why ALL Americans want to help them...but certainly some. President Obama probably feels the most guilty and that's why he's speaking so strongly about refugees. He withdrew, made his "red line" comment, did nothing about Assad's genocide, allowed ISIS to grow....refugee crisis was his making and Hillary was right there with him.