Terror Attacks in Paris

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

That list is growing by the minute, shooting for 50.

Trump would not allow 1.

I don't like Trump, but he isn't a naïve fool. Therefore, he logically opposes this insane policy.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Some more conservative members here like to rail against RINOs. But take this issue - there isn't a RINO in the country supporting this idiotic policy. A RINO is always better than a Dem.

Mike, let's not quibble about who is a RINO, and who isn't a RINO; nor what is a RINO or what is not a RINO.

Agree with me or not, OK, but here's my take: yes, while all the GOP candidates are in fact much, much better than any Democrat on earth, and the GOP general policy doesn't support at all the current policy of the Obama Administration or Hillary's or the entire Democrat Party, you cannot truthfully ignore the 'problems' of most of the GOP candidates that are running.

Of the GOP contenders only these guys, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Rich Santorum, and Bobby Jindal could be counted on in their beliefs against open borders, amnesty, building a wall, and stopping this upcoming migrant/Syrian invasion.

Of the rest, all have 'issues' pertaining to these issues.

We simply and totally cannot trust Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. They all have a record, either thru their words or their actions while in office pertaining to open borders, illegal immigration and amnesty.

While, I am willing to bet they will now all speak 'tough' it's only because of political expediency due to the Paris attacks.

Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Lindsay Graham have taken 'iffy' stands and positions in the past. These three are 'better' than the other six but you must also take what they say now with a grain of salt as well.

What happened in Paris will almost 'guarantee' a nomination victory and presidency for either Donald Trump or the great Ted Cruz.

Sad to say, but my man Rick Santorum's time has past, and the great Bobby Jindal just can't seem to catch on. They are on the right side of all the issues that are important to me but they can't move up in the polls to warrant a spot for a wider audience in future main debates.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I'm going out on a limb and guessing his objection to the comparison stems from the potential threat factor in each case.

Oh, I know. The mother and father, with their two small children. Very threatening, very scary. Makes me wanna hide. I mean, there are terrorists in the Middle East. Thus, all middle easterners = terrorists.

Just like how all those Americans that shoot up schools and malls and theaters every other month must mean all Americans are terrorists.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Yeah, it sounds good. I just don't understand the logistics of how you do it in a non-war. If, by complete eradication, you mean all muslims, well that's not going to happen. Not all muslims are young arabic men with goofy hair and a rocket launcher on the back of an El Camino. They are old women, little children, your neighbors, the guy that installed dish network, Mike Tyson, etc. If you mean all "terrorists", you have to identify them, all of them, then kill all of their families too, especially the kids, if you are serious about getting the job done. Something tells me that while the plan has an outside chance of providing baby aspirin style temporary relief if you could possibly see it through (which lets be honest we can not and will not), we'd have indiscriminately killed so many civilians in other countries with only the flimsiest of explanations designating them as terrorists in many cases to protect our own secrets or risk divulging our intelligence techniques that we'd probably be at real war with everyone. In either case, someone decides we're as sadistic and haphazard in our quest for justice as they are and calls for our total eradication.

John, I agree with you as I am just aggravated with our lack of "will" to get it done.
Part of the problem is in your first statements...its a NON -war.....That BS isn't going to get it done. Our "enemies" know what we will and wont do. Its kind of hard to get rid of an enemy when they know our steps (either by news reporting or our own administration opening their mouth).
Point is, we need to stop wimping and do what needs to be done. Or, we can deal with this threat as it grows and grows.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Oh, I know. The mother and father, with their two small children. Very threatening, very scary. Makes me wanna hide. I mean, there are terrorists in the Middle East. Thus, all middle easterners = terrorists.

Just like how all those Americans that shoot up schools and malls and theaters every other month must mean all Americans are terrorists.

What in the **** are you talking about now?

[Rookies]

Syrian refugees are really a low brow sidebar to the entire issue of terrorism. The Commie rag (The Economist) has reported that 750k refugees have entered the U.S. since 9/11. Not ONE was ever arrested on domestic terrorism charges! It is true that the events of Paris have given pause to everything, but America could certainly restrict its efforts to families with children and intensive, subsequent questioning about work & residence history.

Canada, when it booted out Harper and the Conservatives on OC 19, is staying the course with 25k. However, due to the same discussions, I would hope the same processes take place in reviewing their acceptability.

The larger issue rests with the one PA was moaning about. Just what the F are these security & intelligence forces doing with the info. To most of us (and it is 100x worse in Euro due to the open borders), simple monitoring of the whereabouts of 100s of known "visitors" to ISIS training camps, when they
return, is completely counterproductive, wasteful of resources and relatively useless in preventing terrorism.

That is so, prior to Iraq/Afghan wars- ancient history! New laws need to be promulgated across all Western democracies, which state the following:
1) If, as a citizen of Western democracy X, you decide to leave the country to attend ISIS/ Al Quaeda/ Islamist terrorist training centres, you are now considered to be an enemy of the state, a potential terrorist and traitor. Should you try to return, you will be arrested and detained on sight and your citizenship is revoked immediately.

Within the borders of the democracy, as opposed to these refugees, severely targeted and intrusive surveillance needs to be established against existing citizens, in multiple venues, where these types of persons potentially
congregate. Any evidence of terrorism, recruitment for, training for, etc. should be dealt with immediately upon detection. If the crime is of a lower nature, any non citizens should clearly be deported ASAP after conviction.

All of this needs to take place quickly and across all of the democracies. The Euros are in a far worse state, as their borders are open everywhere.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

...
Point is...

Point is I'm glad to see you post something again for a change. Gets a little stale reading the same thing from the same people day after day. Visit more regularly, please.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

What in the **** are you talking about now?

You mentioned PA's threat factor concerns, and I mocked the notion that all refugees are threats.

Is that so ****ing hard to follow?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Oh, I know. The mother and father, with their two small children. Very threatening, very scary. Makes me wanna hide. I mean, there are terrorists in the Middle East. Thus, all middle easterners = terrorists.

Just like how all those Americans that shoot up schools and malls and theaters every other month must mean all Americans are terrorists.

I know you are smarter than this.

To begin with, there is evidence that the refugees into Europe were over represented by young MALES. Why are more young males fleeing than their mothers, sisters, children etc... ? I'll tell you why. It's because they are not all fleeing. They have another purpose. Guess what that is.

I'm also beginning to understand that leftists are conveniently incapable of doing basic math beyond maximizing the probability they will get elected, but this a basic probability problem.

X% of all Americans will engage in violence of some sort (like shooting up theaters).

Any group that is below X% is a net positive on the rate of violence and any group that is above X% is a net negative.

Muslims from the middle east are probably 10x%.

Muslims from Syria at this point in history could be 20X%.

Whatever the number is, it's way higher than X%.

It would be like emptying all the jails in the US and expecting no increase in crime. Sure some of the criminals may be reformed or not commit crimes. But overall, it's a bad idea.

To be wiling to accept that greater than X% (no matter what X% is and who the group is), there must be a big upside.

There is NONE.

Historically, we have been willing to accept immigrants and refugees from other countries because X% for that group was similar to America as a whole. In this case, we are at WAR with an extremist subset of Muslims. They don't come with an identify card and can't be background checked thoroughly. That means if you invite a bunch of them, you will raise the risk of violence. That makes it foolish to take them. That goes double when there are countries in the region that can take them and we can easily cut a few checks to pay for it.

If we did accept ANYONE from the region, it should be the Syrian Christians that are being raped, killed, and beheaded. There is nowhere in the region where they can go and be safe. They are probably close to X% anyway.

I'll give you one guess why Obama hasn't been the least bit worried about all the Christians in the region being slaughtered. He doesn't give a shit about them. He's been waging a cultural war on Christians in the US all along. He surely doesn't want more of them here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

You mentioned PA's threat factor concerns, and I mocked the notion that all refugees are threats.

Is that so ****ing hard to follow?

It isn't hard to follow, it is just a bunch of silly nonsense is all. Your Colbert/Stewart impression sucks. If you can't see any difference why citizens of this country would find refugees from a terrorist utopia in the midst of engagement across the world frightening in 2015 compared to post-war refugees from Vietnam three decades ago, then we all have a lot to mock around here.

Not that you ever got around to asking, but I don't really think that it matters if they come or not. Anyone that wants in to this country can do it easily enough by approaching from the south. But that isn't exactly great policy either if we're going to spend billions and restrict the rights and liberties of actual Americans because of this fear. I'm sure that you disagree for obvious humanitarian reasons that a gaping border is bad counter-terrorism policy, but if I'm wrong and you feel the need to rebut, I beg of you to attempt to make the case without the brilliant comedy.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Just like how all those Americans that shoot up schools and malls and theaters every other month must mean all Americans are terrorists.

Terrible comparison. Nearly all of those individuals are mentally deranged losers totally out of touch with society entirely. Virtual time-bombs.
The enemy here we speak of is well organized and function with intense dedication to their beliefs. Their primary objective is to destroy the west
To compare ISIS to localized random nutcases is like apples and oranges.
Try something else, Dan. You'll think of something quickly I'm sure.

[Rookies]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I know you are smarter than this.

To begin with, there is evidence that the refugees into Europe were over represented by young MALES. Why are more young males fleeing than their mothers, sisters, children etc... ? I'll tell you why. It's because they are not all fleeing. They have another purpose. Guess what that is.
m.

Possible.

Much more likely that it is far, far more easier for a single young man to be on the move hundreds of Kms, rather than say- families, seniors, women with children, single women, children- in that order.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Rookies

Possible.

Much more likely that it is far, far more easier for a single young man to be on the move hundreds of Kms, rather than say- families, seniors, women with children, single women, children- in that order.

So the young men are not staying to fight and protect their mothers, sisters, children, families etc...?

Some maybe, but that's hardly a reason to want them either.

We already know the answer to the question about some of them. ISIS has flat out claimed that thousands of the refugees are their operatives and that's exactly what any rational group would do. That's exactly what I would do. Why question it?

[Tall One]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TA...layer_embedded



Pretty interesting, and eye opening stat filled video from Ben Shapiro. There are many other examples that you can find and learn from them if you haven't already surrendered your mind to the liberal diarrhea that Muslims are a peaceful, compassionate people.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

It isn't hard to follow, it is just a bunch of silly nonsense is all. Your Colbert/Stewart impression sucks. If you can't see any difference why citizens of this country would find refugees from a terrorist utopia in the midst of engagement across the world frightening in 2015 compared to post-war refugees from Vietnam three decades ago, then we all have a lot to mock around here.

Not that you ever got around to asking, but I don't really think that it matters if they come or not. Anyone that wants in to this country can do it easily enough by approaching from the south. But that isn't exactly great policy either if we're going to spend billions and restrict the rights and liberties of actual Americans because of this fear. I'm sure that you disagree for obvious humanitarian reasons that a gaping border is bad counter-terrorism policy, but if I'm wrong and you feel the need to rebut, I beg of you to attempt to make the case without the brilliant comedy.

Uhh, not sure what I would should rebut in the case that I.. agree? Disagree? I dunno, that last paragraph is a lot of gibberish, as is your dopey insult that I'm imitating someone simply because I use sarcasm, which I've been using a lot longer than Stewart or Colbert..

So it's silly nonsense to compare 10k syrian refugees (majority of women and children) to 800K Vietnamese, because the former is so singularly threatening, and the latter happened 30 years ago. Fine logic. Consider possibly the attitude at the time regarding those refugees? Were there no concerns or fears about them? Enlighten me as to how there is no foundation to the comparison. And yet, they came. The country absorbed them and was better for it.

The US has traditionally welcomed refugees of war and strife from all over the world. Alas, no longer. Now fear and cowardice of "threats" and "risk" rule the day.

Stand up and be proud.