OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[fleet]

Start how?

They are fake countries. A lot of people in Afghanistan don't even know what Afghanistan is.

The "Sykes Picot Agreement Says So" is a terrible baseline for national pride.

So you think there is anything we are going to do to change that in the next 6 months by taking in refugees? Get real about it. They have to figure something out for themselves. That is reality. It won't get done you say? I'm genuinely sorry. But Not willing to risk the health and well being of my own people.

I'd take in 65k refugees as we've been asked to. It's a legitimate refugee situation.

And most importantly, there's a damn ocean separating us which gives us much more control as to who gets into our country.

Oh I think you are whistling a little too optimistic on that. My mom and Dad were at the Boston Marathon when it got got bombed by Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Those little cherubs were fresh an innocent as daisies, until they weren't.

[Rerisen]

Whether we could or not, we aren't controlling who gets into the country at all. If someone nefarious wants in you don't come via JFK, you go to South America or Mexico first.

So merely refusing to take in refugees doesn't necessarily stop any Paris like attacks, if you haven't dealt with the underlying ideology.

[fleet]

Whether we could or not, we aren't controlling who gets into the country at all. If someone nefarious wants in you don't come via JFK, you go to South America or Mexico first.

So merely refusing to take in refugees doesn't necessarily stop any Paris like attacks, if you haven't dealt with the underlying ideology.

You don't have to be red alert dangerous when you arrive. As I've said already, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were picture perfect kids. Just like George Bush kept us safe. If you think its a good idea to establish large Mulsim refugee populations in your country, there are loads of examples why it may not be.

You know, I had a scare put into me by this issue once, that hit pretty close to home. I don't think a lot of pollyannish idealism originates from that sort of experience

[Rerisen]

These are always intractable type threads. But I think this is the first season that OT threads have looked more interesting than what the Bulls were doing.

[League Circles]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

They generally don't think of "country" as you might. A lot of people in the world have no identity with the nation-state they live within. They have allegiance to god, family, and neighbors/community. And that's it.

#1, they had better start.

Again, I'm tired of making excuses for that part of the world, why its so tough. If it is that tough, and nobody there can get it together enough to fix it, then whats the point of US trying? Let them sort it out, and we'll deal with the next Saddam Husseins that arise to keep a semblance of order. If the people want to topple them with a legitimate effort to govern themselves in a stable way, then we'll help. Until then, I am not for hurting my own neighborhood, because I have to worry about the Syrian teenagers down the street radicalizing on the internet and harming my friends and family.

It's not about excuses. They really don't care about nation-states, many of them. And I agree, let them sort it out on their own. That's what I advocate.

[TheSuzerain]

So you think there is anything we are going to do to change that in the next 6 months by taking in refugees? Get real about it. They have to figure something out for themselves. That is reality. It won't get done you say? I'm genuinely sorry. But Not willing to risk the health and well being of my own people.

I'd take in 65k refugees as we've been asked to. It's a legitimate refugee situation.

And most importantly, there's a damn ocean separating us which gives us much more control as to who gets into our country.

Oh I think you are whistling a little too optimistic on that. My mom and Dad were at the Boston Marathon when it got got bombed by Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Those little cherubs were fresh an innocent as daisies, until they weren't.

That's unfortunate. And clearly you are emotional about this.

Since after 9/11, more people are killed by fireworks in America annually than Islamic Terrorism.

We have profited greatly from being the sole leader of the world. In that position, we certainly have an obligation to help out in a refugee crisis. And this is about as straightforward as a refugee crisis can get.

[Droseisthe1]

I'd take in 65k refugees as we've been asked to. It's a legitimate refugee situation.

And most importantly, there's a damn ocean separating us which gives us much more control as to who gets into our country.

Oh I think you are whistling a little too optimistic on that. My mom and Dad were at the Boston Marathon when it got got bombed by Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Those little cherubs were fresh an innocent as daisies, until they weren't.

That's unfortunate. And clearly you are emotional about this.

Since after 9/11, more people are killed by fireworks in America annually than Islamic Terrorism.

We have profited greatly from being the sole leader of the world. In that position, we certainly have an obligation to help out in a refugee crisis. And this is about as straightforward as a refugee crisis can get.

So if we're expected to take in 65k refugees, why are the super rich oil countries of the Middle East (Saudi, U.A.E., Dubai) never expected to take in refugees? These are people of the same religion yet those nations take nobody.

I'm sorry but as callous as you may think it sounds, it isn't our responsibility to take refugees when we have so many issues of our own at hand. That too, if we can't properly and fully identify each and every person, it's an inherent risk. 70% of these refugees being males? Where the women and children at? Just seems fishy.

[TheSuzerain]

Whether we could or not, we aren't controlling who gets into the country at all. If someone nefarious wants in you don't come via JFK, you go to South America or Mexico first.

So merely refusing to take in refugees doesn't necessarily stop any Paris like attacks, if you haven't dealt with the underlying ideology.

You don't have to be red alert dangerous when you arrive. As I've said already, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were picture perfect kids. Just like George Bush kept us safe. If you think its a good idea to establish large Mulsim refugee populations in your country, there are loads of examples why it may not be.

You know, I had a scare put into me by this issue once, that hit pretty close to home. I don't think a lot of pollyannish idealism originates from that sort of experience

The ocean of separation gives us much more control over the situation.

When we take in refugees, we will surely spread them out to avoid the pockets.

I think irrational fear and cynicism originates from that sort of experience. I don't blame you for that, but it doesn't make you an objective observer in this debate.

[Rerisen]

It's not about excuses. They really don't care about nation-states, many of them. And I agree, let them sort it out on their own. That's what I advocate.

Whether one ascribes to the nutty notion that civilians deserve to be killed due past foreign policies, or just that its simply extremist religious doctrine that lets them justify killing the 'other' for being different, either way I think these kind of terrorists have more than enough ammunition to keep targeting western countries, regardless what we do or not at this point.

So if we were to disengage it better be because we believe that will lead to somehow things sorting out over there better and not because we believe it will change anything about who they view as their enemies.

[AKfanatic]

These are always intractable type threads. But I think this is the first season that OT threads have looked more interesting than what the Bulls were doing.

Would the Bulls be better this early season if Rose just took an isolationist approach? Stop going on the offensive and use all his physical resources for defense?

[TheSuzerain]

Oh I think you are whistling a little too optimistic on that. My mom and Dad were at the Boston Marathon when it got got bombed by Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Those little cherubs were fresh an innocent as daisies, until they weren't.

That's unfortunate. And clearly you are emotional about this.

Since after 9/11, more people are killed by fireworks in America annually than Islamic Terrorism.

We have profited greatly from being the sole leader of the world. In that position, we certainly have an obligation to help out in a refugee crisis. And this is about as straightforward as a refugee crisis can get.

So if we're expected to take in 65k refugees, why are the super rich oil countries of the Middle East (Saudi, U.A.E., Dubai) never expected to take in refugees? These are people of the same religion yet those nations take nobody.

I'm sorry but as callous as you may think it sounds, it isn't our responsibility to take refugees when we have so many issues of our own at hand. That too, if we can't properly and fully identify each and every person, it's an inherent risk. 70% of these refugees being males? Where the women and children at? Just seems fishy.

Because they are **** countries that nobody looks to for help or approval. We are the leader of the free world and that comes with some responsibility. Taking in 10K refugees as Obama has promised is laughably small potatoes in all honestly.

And yes, it sounds callous to an absurd degree to say that we can't take in these refugees (who were displaced partially due to US support of rebels in Syria) because "we have so many problems". What, pray tell, are America's problems that prevent us from taking in a pittance of the refugees?

[League Circles]

It's not about excuses. They really don't care about nation-states, many of them. And I agree, let them sort it out on their own. That's what I advocate.

Whether one ascribes to the nutty notion that civilians deserve to be killed due past foreign policies, or just that its simply extremist religious doctrine that lets them justify killing the 'other' for being different, either way I think these kind of terrorists have more than enough ammunition to keep targeting western countries, regardless what we do or not at this point.

So if we were to disengage it better be because we believe that will lead to somehow things sorting out over there better and not because we believe it will change anything about who they view as their enemies.

You actually, honestly believe that the US's actions going forward would not have an effect on their efforts against us?

That dropping a bunch of humanitarian supplies and GTFO of their would have the same effect on ISIS leadership and recruitment as bombing them would, for example?

[League Circles]

Whether we could or not, we aren't controlling who gets into the country at all. If someone nefarious wants in you don't come via JFK, you go to South America or Mexico first.

So merely refusing to take in refugees doesn't necessarily stop any Paris like attacks, if you haven't dealt with the underlying ideology.

Part of any effective isolationist strategy would have to involve very serious border strengthing in the US. Mexico and Canada borders. That's one place where I agree with Donald Trump. We need a wall. We've needed one for a long time. We can either get serious about having a country of laws and policies or we can continue having a joke.

[Rerisen]

You actually, honestly believe that the US's actions going forward would not have an effect on their efforts against us?

That dropping a bunch of humanitarian supplies and GTFO of their would have the same effect on ISIS leadership and recruitment as bombing them would, for example?

ISIS was growing and recruiting long before we got involved in the bombing of them in Iraq or Syria, in fact they were having sweeping successes and victories taking land and chunks of Iraq before we got (re)involved. I think its actually the successes and invincibility that makes them look most attractive to disenfranchised people that might be inclined to buy into their message.

But you might drop down on their radar a bit short term if you totally capitulated the region to them. But only short term, go back and read the article about what ISIS wants posted a few pages ago. Their grand vision isn't going to change, just a matter of how much power they have acquired at any one time to actually be able to carry out activities toward the end point goals.

The only thing worse than the dictators or repressive regimes running most of the Middle East, is the even more brutal and repressive rule ISIS would install. Even most of their own fellow Sunni's wanted no part of it after a while in Iraq.

[TheSuzerain]

Whether we could or not, we aren't controlling who gets into the country at all. If someone nefarious wants in you don't come via JFK, you go to South America or Mexico first.

So merely refusing to take in refugees doesn't necessarily stop any Paris like attacks, if you haven't dealt with the underlying ideology.

Part of any effective isolationist strategy would have to involve very serious border strengthing in the US. Mexico and Canada borders. That's one place where I agree with Donald Trump. We need a wall. We've needed one for a long time. We can either get serious about having a country of laws and policies or we can continue having a joke.

Do you think people are streaming into our country from Mexico every year?

[League Circles]

Honest question: how is total disengagement not remotely possible? Seems pretty darn straightforward to me.

Do you just mean militarily, or do you mean cutting all economic ties to counties like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and the other gulf states, that we see as a bulwark and counter balance to Iran. And that we have reasoned for decades are better holding together for some sense of stability than letting loose the tinder box beneath them that has been released in Libya and Syria.

I mean that there is no real reason why the official representatives of our nation need to talk to Syrians, for example. Or anyone. All we really have to do is control what comes in and out of our country. And yes, we do need to spend WAY more money on monitoring and controlling this.

"economic ties" to me is a word for controlled economy. The notion that government cooperation is needed to negotiate economic policy treaties. Unecessary IMO. Just allow US citizens and companies to buy stuff from wherever, but if it crosses international waters into US territory, it is subject to full search.

And yes, I realize this would substantially/drastically change our way of life and make us more more reliant on domestically produced goods. And that would be an incredibly beneficial side effect bonus.

See the whole 'we supported bad guys too long' idea, needs to have an after action plan for something actually better once you stop doing that. Nowhere that these dictators have fallen has produced a better outcome. Libya was going to start voting and modernist progressive ideas were going to start propagating there after Gaddafi was taken out, that was the big dream, but that's all it was. The people and the region are not ready or organized to do that yet.

And the failure of that has strengthened groups like ISIS, created millions of refugees, killing, and turmoil. Yet we have people arguing for us to pull out all the foundations so we can make more of the region just like that. That sounds as ill conceived as the idea that we were going to make Iraq a functioning democracy.

It's actually face palming, when the whole idea of Iraq being a screw up, means facing up to and recognizing that what we are promoting instead is that we should have left Saddam in power. So which is it, do we want dictators keeping the lid on things there or not.

Seems people want to have it both ways. Castigate a foreign policy that has backed tyrants, but then say we should have left the very same tyrants in power and not intervened. There aren't any good guys! But the region is too dangerous, too rich, and too ready to expand its violence beyond it, to just let it all blow up.

I don't want it both ways. I want it simple. We shouldn't really even be speaking on the internal affairs of other nations. We shouldn't try to pick who to support. Just let it happen.

Interventionism just doesn't work IMO. It's also immoral because we cannot remotely afford it and our presumption that our children will be able to, that we can just ring up the tab for them to pay for, is absolutely a travesty IMO.

[TheSuzerain]

Yeah, there have been plenty of times in the Middle East where disengagement would have been better than intervention, but I don't think this is one of those times.

The caliphate will and should be rooted out. It serves American interests to do so.

I'm not saying we go in ourselves, but it's becoming pretty obvious that a wide coalition is being formed to liberate all the cities held by ISIS.

[Rerisen]

We shouldn't really even be speaking on the internal affairs of other nations. We shouldn't try to pick who to support. Just let it happen.

We don't even have to pick in order to be in the middle. Merely doing trade, or having diplomatic relations with a country like Saudi Arabia or Iraq, puts us on the wrong side with terrorists. So just because murderous fanatics think they should be running a country (or 'territory they see as part of the caliphate') instead, we should kow to that and cut of all relations with these places like they are Cuba or something?

[Droseisthe1]

That's unfortunate. And clearly you are emotional about this.

Since after 9/11, more people are killed by fireworks in America annually than Islamic Terrorism.

We have profited greatly from being the sole leader of the world. In that position, we certainly have an obligation to help out in a refugee crisis. And this is about as straightforward as a refugee crisis can get.

So if we're expected to take in 65k refugees, why are the super rich oil countries of the Middle East (Saudi, U.A.E., Dubai) never expected to take in refugees? These are people of the same religion yet those nations take nobody.

I'm sorry but as callous as you may think it sounds, it isn't our responsibility to take refugees when we have so many issues of our own at hand. That too, if we can't properly and fully identify each and every person, it's an inherent risk. 70% of these refugees being males? Where the women and children at? Just seems fishy.

Because they are **** countries that nobody looks to for help or approval. We are the leader of the free world and that comes with some responsibility. Taking in 10K refugees as Obama has promised is laughably small potatoes in all honestly.

And yes, it sounds callous to an absurd degree to say that we can't take in these refugees (who were displaced partially due to US support of rebels in Syria) because "we have so many problems". What, pray tell, are America's problems that prevent us from taking in a pittance of the refugees?

Well that should change don't you think? Can only those oil-dense middle east countries live off their wealth and never worry about the rest of the world's problems? I totally get your stance on how we are the leaders of the free world and all that. I get that. But, we've helped many many situations throughout history. At some point, things have to change. Even if it's temporarily. I'm not sure an influx of people whom we have ineffective ways of tracking is the best thing from our country's perspective RIGHT NOW. Take care of our borders. Do something about our current undocumented people here right now.

I just think it's so wrong how none of those rich middle eastern countries are never scolded for never taking any refugees when they have more than enough means to do so. But if we don't take them in, it's evil and callous and just inhumane.

[art_barbie]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

that sounds cool...and even kind of inspiring for a moment. and it may work on some level But as others have pointed out...if a better life and assistance is waiting for you in another country...and for every single women and child this is very likely...then why not leave. We should encourage all women and their children to leave the entire region...100% assistance to all women that are not terrorists and all children under 10 years old.

If you are a male and older than around 10 then their should be a rigorous investigation into all your family, friends, background and make sure you are not actually a terrorists...then all the refugees should be monitored for at least a decade or 2...possibly a full generation...with no boundaries...inspections at will...full electronic surveillance for a full generation to make sure they are not a terrorist laying in wait.

In fact...getting the women and children out of there is probably the best solution. If the local countries like germany can effectively get 95-99% of the women and children out of this country, then put up a wall around the entire region...the refugees can do the work to put the wall up...isolate it...Cut off all supplies....all trade...and let the men that want to stay and...fight out their own boundaries... it wont be but a generation or 2 before the entire region(population) is mostly decimated...without children and women to rape...their quality of lives will be much worse than it already is...maybe at that point...they will be ready to join the civilized world and beg for inclusion.

All the refugees should be monitored for a minimum 20 years and up to a full generation or 2 to make sure none are actually terrorists...and "earn" their way into the new culture just as all immigrants classes have done like in the US through hard work and dedication to their new culture.

But for the most part...they are not accepting of the lines carved out after WW1 and WW2...and frankly...why should they be? They got screwed over royally as Brittish petroleum, Exxon, shell(standard)...to note Rockefeller, et al have all essentially raped their land of oil of the last 110 years. These are some of the largest oil companies and they all made their fortune in middle east oil.

We(mainly US, Brits, and now Nato) have controlled the middle east solely to try to control as much of the oil supply and prices as possible...all of our warships, planes, etc depend mightily on oil as does our way of life in general.

And in the end...thats all they really care about...autonomy and control back of whatever oil is left in their reserves.

Follow the money! Muslims understand that one of the greatest evils on this planet is usury...which is suppose to be illegal....except when Chase(JP Morgan a rothchild agent) BoA(Rockefeller also a rothchild agent) "lend" it to you and have skwered laws to pretend its not usury.

Selling oil is a means to acquiring mass wealth which leads to more mass usury.

To accurately follow the money start here...watch all 4 hours of it! Then follow the oil tree! learn something today...it might help...then to find truth...always follow the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcGldf0UFXU