As States Turn Away Refugees – All Paris Attackers Identified So Far are EU Nationals

originally posted by: RoyBatty

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RoyBatty

When the economy began to tank and unemployment began to rise, the working class began to blame Muslims for a wide variety of ills. Banning headscarves was seen as a direct attack on their culture. Naturally, there was resistance to allowing them to take time off to pray in the middle of the work day, and there were claims that some Muslims were polygamous, and that these extra wives were a drain on the social welfare system. When you live in public housing in the banlieu and can't find honest work... what would you do?

You turn to violence? Is this what you are suggesting? Headscarves are worn every day on the streets of France. They were banned from schools because schools are secular. The hijab was banned for identification (LOGICAL) purposes. France has accepted Muslim immigrants with open arms but that is not enough, somehow France has to adopt the laws (and prayer schedule) of a Muslim country? It is not a Muslim country, the immigrants chose to migrate there, is it not customary to keep one's culture while assimilating to those of your home country as well? I know I did.

Suggesting that they are "second class citizens" thus entitled to violence is unacceptable.

I've read and agreed with most of your comments in this thread, but the part I've placed in bold above I strongly disagree with. Your faith isn't a matter of the country you come from - admittedly several ME countries are of course predominantly muslim, but being muslim doesn't mean you are logically of ME origin. France may not be a muslim country, it's secular so neither is it a Christian one, does that mean you don't think people should practice that religion (or any other faith you care to mention) either?

a reply to: Indigo5
That mismatch was what alerted the Greek authorities, that later lead to his identification.

ps. It's on the news, everything I said was on the tv news, i'll post links as soon as I return home and find some time.

Why is everyone arguing semantics? It doesn't matter if they were EU nationals, refugees or came from Mars. I think the threat has more to do with ideology than anything else. Terrorists tend to be muslim. Muslims tend to fall into one of three categories--peaceful, enablers/supporters, radicals/terrorists. When you allow people into your country without vetting them properly, you take a risk. Even if the refugee is peaceful, who's to say in a month, a year or a generation that they won't be radicalized by other muslims? They tend to stick to their own. All it takes is one radical to stir the pot, then you have potential terrorists. To say that because a terrorist was a EU national, it has no bearing on refugees, is to ignore the 800lb gorilla; radical islam and the potential for conversion to radicalism. The best solution is to vet every refugee, or not let them in your country in the first place.

I believe that, in time, the proof will be in the pudding (pun intended), when refugees start blowing themselves up. When that happens, this debate will be moot. I would even go so far as to say that islam (Sharia law) and Western society are incompatible; history will prove I'm right. It's already being proven in Europe.

a reply to: Freth

Terrorists tend to be muslim.

There are terrorists of every stripe. Europe is more concerned about Muslim terrorists than, say, Basque terrorists because they are now considered "the Other."

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: pavil

Add on top of that the lack of any meaningful integration of those immigrant populations into mainstream Euro life and you have the slum class of second generation kids that are easily swayed to be radicalized and have no real ties to Europe. It was a recipe for disaster to begin with, truth be told.

And exactly what someone seems to be trying to accomplish here in the States with the help of unwitting liberal idealists.

Just like Nor Aid which gave money to Sinn Fein who fed it through to the operational side - the IRA - for training in Libya and the purchase of weaponry to kill British soldiers and civilians - but then again I'm sure you can find some cunning way to call that the fault of Obama too, can't you?

a reply to: uncommitted

Bull

originally posted by: Freth
Why is everyone arguing semantics? It doesn't matter if they were EU nationals, refugees or came from Mars. I think the threat has more to do with ideology than anything else. Terrorists tend to be muslim. Muslims tend to fall into one of three categories--peaceful, enablers/supporters, radicals/terrorists. When you allow people into your country without vetting them properly, you take a risk. Even if the refugee is peaceful, who's to say in a month, a year or a generation that they won't be radicalized by other muslims? They tend to stick to their own. All it takes is one radical to stir the pot, then you have potential terrorists. To say that because a terrorist was a EU national, it has no bearing on refugees, is to ignore the 800lb gorilla; radical islam and the potential for conversion to radicalism. The best solution is to vet every refugee, or not let them in your country in the first place.

I believe that, in time, the proof will be in the pudding (pun intended), when refugees start blowing themselves up. When that happens, this debate will be moot. I would even go so far as to say that islam (Sharia law) and Western society are incompatible; history will prove I'm right. It's already being proven in Europe.

It's not proven at all, sharia law has not replaced existing laws in any European country and only the radical extremists are even suggesting it should - it's a form of common law within the muslim community. There is a similar version that many Jewish people turn to in many countries including America.

originally posted by: Thebraywyatt
a reply to: uncommitted

Bull

wow, how can I respond to such an articulate response? Exactly what are you calling bull? The fact that Americans donated money to a terrorist organisation?

www.securitynewsdesk.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
www.urbandictionary.com...
www.motherjones.com...

Perhaps you'll grace those links (and thousands of others you can easily find) with another wonderfully witty rejoinder?

What about Christian terrorists in Ireland? The U.K.? They were bombing the ish out f each other very recently. What about Hindu terrorists? They are still killing people...

a reply to: Freth

originally posted by: raymundoko
What about Christian terrorists in Ireland? The U.K.? They were bombing the ish out f each other very recently. What about Hindu terrorists? They are still killing people...

a reply to: Freth

I've a horrible feeling that some people on here are looking at the shocking events and seeing it as a way of attacking the faith of Islam (which I do not follow, but have no issue with) by guilt of association, but mention Christians and it's far too close to home and they go into denial mode. Of course genocide is not limited causally to any particular faith or indeed non-faith, but to suggest that means people lose the bogey man/straw man they want to attack.

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

just like the terrorist warnings back in February that they'll use refugees to attack Eu.

Not for nothing, but if anyone get a little board and decides to think instead of react...

Why again...would the terrorists tell the world they would sneak terrorists in among the refugees?

It would seem if that was your plan, you might not announce how you are going to do it to your enemy?

The answer of course is that fear and intolerance of Muslims by the west if what feeds ISIS. No one is screaming to close the borders and turn back refugees louder than ISIS is.

Just a little food for "thought"...now back to refugee Armageddon.

originally posted by: Freth
Even if the refugee is peaceful, who's to say in a month, a year or a generation that they won't be radicalized by other muslims?

Who is to say?...Well obviously YOU are? You did..just there..

With such omnipotent abilities at seeing people's futures you should start visiting schools and pointing out children that will grow up to be school shooters..hell you should open your own criminal pre-cognition unit!

Who is to "say in a month, a year or a generation " that you or your children won't be loony-tunes and firing at some public gathering?

Just wondering where the bar is set at this screening of refugees you are proposing.

EU "citizens", but where did they come from originally? Think about it.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: deadeyedick

No it is because the whitehouse is following the news and when things are said that goes against the pres. plans then it is removed from the news. That is a mandate of the patriot act.

Please quote the appropriate provision in the Act.

As far as I know there is no specific mandate that points to the gov. ability to censor but the act as a whole gives them the power to do anything in the name of national interest with regards to the spread of information.

a reply to: soficrow

If you stop and think, who started all this crap? The United States and our war in Iraq! We disrupted that entire region and have caused this refugee crisis. Europe is paying the price for our intervention into the middle east. I don't like the idea of accepting refugees just like everyone else, but is it right that we put the refugee burden on Europe? If the shoe was on the other foot, Americans would be complaining about accepting refugees because of Europe's intervention! The U.S. has two oceans that protect us from any blow back we create over seas.

If the U.S. is going to continue to have a foreign policy of intervention, they need to be prepared for the consequences. We just can't ignore and refuse these refugees! Unfortunately, we have an obligation to accept them.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: deadeyedick

No it is because the whitehouse is following the news and when things are said that goes against the pres. plans then it is removed from the news. That is a mandate of the patriot act.

Please quote the appropriate provision in the Act.

As far as I know there is no specific mandate that points to the gov. ability to censor but the act as a whole gives them the power to do anything in the name of national interest with regards to the spread of information.

Section 106 expands the President' s power under the Emergency Powers Act to include seizing property and financial assets without due process. Chiefly, the act authorized widespread surveillance. There is no mandate for censorship, so no, the President does not order the media to retract stories. When stories are dropped, or are changed it is either because New information has come to light, or the ombudsman decides that the story is potentially libellous.

originally posted by: raymundoko
What about Christian terrorists in Ireland? The U.K.? They were bombing the ish out f each other very recently. What about Hindu terrorists? They are still killing people...

a reply to: Freth

I believe the posters point isn't that it's always people of Islamic faith, but that within the last 10 years the majority of terrorist activities have been from Muslim backgrounds

I don't subscribe to the fact that all or most Muslims are terrorist

But it's hard to argue hard numbers

I'm sure if you look up the majority of attacks in this mellinium so far you'll find that a strong majority have in fact come from Islamic extremists

a reply to: DJW001

so because section 106 exist you seem to think that the gov. can not legally censor and that it is not happening.

I wonder how they keep the lid on the swine flu cases?

a reply to: deadeyedick

The government has subtler ways of controlling information than censorship, but now we are straying off topic. The point is the the Patriot Act, which I am in favor of repealing, does not authorize censorship. News items can get pulled for a number of reasons, but never because they clash with presidential policies, otherwise, what would Fox News do?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: deadeyedick

The government has subtler ways of controlling information than censorship, but now we are straying off topic. The point is the the Patriot Act, which I am in favor of repealing, does not authorize censorship. News items can get pulled for a number of reasons, but never because they clash with presidential policies, otherwise, what would Fox News do?

That's a really good point. Fox News would be off the air...or maybe not the newscasts but those wacky pundits like Hannity, Coulter, ORielly etc would be looking for jobs as dishwashers.