Only 30 Paris Muslims in City of 224,000 Muslims Turn Out to Protest Bloody ISIS Attacks

[Jack Davenport]

How do you know they aren't upset ?
Just because they don't gather to march in the street doesn't mean they aren't upset. Marching in the street is not a very efficient way to fight ISIS.

We Americans are going to have to show you Euros how to deal with people that enter the country with the intent of doing harm. You have your own problems to deal with now. Your own house is burning, stop worrying about the one across the street dumb asses.

 

[Supafly]

We Americans are going to have to show you Euros how to deal with people that enter the country with the intent of doing harm. You have your own problems to deal with now. Your own house is burning, stop worrying about the one across the street dumb asses.

Please advise us how to get used to people who regurarily walk into schools and shoot lots of people, others who like to burn down churches of minorities, and wole parties who are fullky bought by billionaires and companies.

Your state of mind is really highly effective ignoring this.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Please advise us how to get used to people who regurarily walk into schools and shoot lots of people, others who like to burn down churches of minorities, and wole parties who are fullky bought by billionaires and companies.

Your state of mind is really highly effective ignoring this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(Europe)
And that doesn't include workplace or school shootings dick head.

We're getting ready to make some changes around here. I suggest you come to terms with it. You're not going to like it..

Mind your own fucked up continent.

 

[Supafly]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_(Europe)
And that doesn't include workplace or school shootings dick head.

We're getting ready to make some changes around here. I suggest you come to terms with it. You're not going to like it..

Mind your own fucked up continent.

I see you are getting the right mindset for your new Führer already.That's a good idea, better join sooner, maybe make it into his staff?

 

[Jack Davenport]

We already have a Führer. He's getting ready to experience a rarity. An override of a presidential veto.

 

[sean miguel]

The Tsarnaev brothers' family came to the U.S. under refugee status. How did they choose to repay that generous hospitality? By setting a backpack bomb next to a little kid and detonating it.

And why in THE fuck is Sweden the rape capitol of the world?

capital. my phone.

no big deal but it was getting on my nerves and I was developing a twitch.

 

[sean miguel]

Yes. All Muslims are terrorists, all Christians are Westboro Baptist morons, all white people are racists and all black men have abandoned multiple children. Quit labeling people. Yes we would be better off if we could just get rid of all religion. All it does is make other people enemies for no reason. Daesh has nothing to do with Islam. They just use it as an excuse to push their agenda of fear and intimidation. The sooner that we quit putting labels on people, the better off we will be. The only label that anybody should except is human.

here's my hand, let's sing it.

someone rowed a boat ... kumbaya ... kumbaya ... (i don't know the words)

Daesh has nothing to do with islam? That's fine. Just keep living in that john lennon world. What difference does it make? When you hear the shots ring out, hit the deck.

Where did Ms Gabriel got her numbers from ?
What makes a muslim "radical" or "moderate" ?

I dunno, I guess it's relative. What do the majority of muslims believe should happen to someone who insults their prophet? Or rejects islam and converts to another religion? What do the rank and file muslims believe should happen to them?

 

[D-rock]

Leaving aside the whole having to prove your innocence, and having to do it for the actions of other people no less, I'm amazed somebody over there developed a mind reading device that lets somebody automatically know the religion of somebody else for a crowd of people. That's a pretty big leap in technology.

 

[pool_hustler]

The Tsarnaev brothers' family came to the U.S. under refugee status.

No actually, they did not.

 

[Straight Shooter]

No actually, they did not.

They were children of asylees

 

[sean miguel]

No actually, they did not.

They actually came over on a tourist visa but then applied for asylum and it was granted by the U.S. The technical term for that is still "refugee."

 

[georges]

Tu me fatigues

Je t'emmerde guignol. T'as pigé?

 

[Jack Davenport]

A whole lot of cotdam American treasureness on display in this thread.

 

[Johan]

They actually came over on a tourist visa but then applied for asylum and it was granted by the U.S. The technical term for that is still "refugee."

The Boston Bombers Were Not Refugees -- Neither Was the Paris Attacker


In the wake of the Paris attacks, many are trying to connect refugees to terrorism. I've noted elsewhere that despite millions of refugees having been admitted since the U.S. refugee resettlement program began in its current form in 1980 -- including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East -- not a single refugee has committed an act of terrorism in the United States.

Detractors of refugee resettlement, however, point to Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- the Boston Bombers -- as evidence to the contrary. The pair of brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon in 2013 were not, however, refugees. They were, on the contrary, children of an asylee, according to the State Department, and the distinction is crucial.

Asylees and refugees share one thing in common: a fear of persecution in the their country of origin. But they differ in important ways. Most importantly, an asylee is self-selected--he arrives in the country from which he's seeking status and applies for asylum. Under international law, people with a well-founded fear of persecution cannot be returned to their country of origin.

By contrast, refugees undergo a much different process. First, they must receive designation as a refugee by U.N. officials, most often in refugee camps. The United States selects only the most vulnerable cases for resettlement, such as those with almost no hope of ever returning to their home country or those who have been tortured.

This selection process and the subsequent vetting undertaken to verify the applicant's biography takes a long time -- up to 3 years -- and is normally exhaustingly thorough. Refugee officers at the Department of Homeland Security travel throughout the region in order to verify claims of persecution and facts about the victims' biography.

If the person claims to have been in a certain place at a certain time, DHS checks. If they claim their house was bombed, DHS confirms that bombs were dropped there (it often uses satellite and drone surveillance for this). The Paris bomber with his fake Syrian passport would have had a very hard time navigating that process.

For terrorists, the U.S. refugee process is the worst possible avenue in which to travel to the United States. The background checks involved are the most rigorous and the most extensive of those undertaken on foreign nationals coming here. This is likely why every 9/11 hijacker and all other foreign persons who've committed acts of terrorism were non-refugees -- they were mainly student or tourist visa holders.

Asylum, on the other hand, is much a more attractive route in for a would-be terrorist if they're already in the desired country. If you want to forestall removal, you can apply for asylum, even knowing you are unlikely to receive it. This is what one Paris attacker did. He applied for asylum and then traveled to France for the attack. He was not a refugee in any sense. Neither the U.N. nor any country in Europe or elsewhere recognized him as a refugee, and it is wrong to claim that he was.

In the United States, we have the luxury of being able to screen Syrians before they arrive. Europe simply cannot. Syrians arrive in boats or by foot in numbers too great for European countries to vet thoroughly. U.S. vetting, by contrast, would likely have immediately flagged the fake Syrian passport long before the would-be terrorist came to the U.S. That's why events in Paris has no applicability to the U.S. refugee resettlement process. We can vet.

Moreover, the Tsarnaev brothers were not themselves even applicants for asylum. At less than 10-years-old, they were too young to be vetted, and they received derivative status from their father who had, indeed, come to the U.S. fleeing war-torn Chechnya. It's a stretch to claim that the system broke down because agents could not foresee that these schoolboys might one day grow up to be killers.

This case does not show that the vetting process for the asylees was broken either. The Tsarnaevs' father has not engaged in any acts of terrorism and has led a peaceful life in the U.S.

The millions fleeing ISIS and Bashar al-Assad need the government to get out of the way of their escape. The refugee program allows that escape and does not offer a promising avenue into the United States for would-be terrorists. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose sight of that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/the-boston-bombers-were-n_b_8584016.html

 

[Johan]

We risk more in not accepting Syrian refugees into the US


In the past several months, four million Syrians have poured into Europe and surrounding countries, fleeing conflict back home. Now, a debate is raging in the U.S. about whether we should accept more refugees than the 10,000 President Obama has promised to resettle. Opponents of resettlement point to concerns that if we accept more refugees, the U.S. could unwittingly be putting itself at risk by allowing potential extremists into the country. In light of these concerns, it is of vital importance that we remember that the national security risks in not accepting refugees far outweigh the risks of welcoming them into the country.

A 2013 study by Daniel Milton, Megan Spencer, and Michael Findley found that the location of resettlement for refugees is critical in determining whether refugees would be susceptible to to extremism. The study found that refugees placed in countries that had historic rivalries with their countries of origin were more at risk of becoming radicalized than refugees settled elsewhere. As the Middle East has long had interstate rivalry and conflict, moving refugees as far from the areas of conflict as possible must be strongly considered.

This is not just for the benefit of the current host countries. If Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey are pulled into conflict by terrorism, for example, the U.S. will have to spend far more resources in containing the conflict from spreading even further. As the conflict in Syria rages on, refugees would be trapped in countries that they are already hostile towards. And if the host countries are also suspicious of the refugees, this will create further alienation, maximizing the opportunity for radicalization.

Refugee camps are fertile ground for breeding extremism. The generally squalid conditions in the camps provide terrorists organizations with convincing propaganda for recruiting. The camps also are easy places to hide within, allowing terrorist recruits ample space to carry out their efforts with very little oversight. Therefore if our response to the refugee crisis is to encourage massive refugee camps, we may unwittingly be fostering training camps for the next generation of terrorists.

Concerns about security and refugees are not completely unfounded. The same study found that Western countries did face some security risks in accepting refugees. Yet the U.S. is in a far more advantageous position than other Western nations. Without a contiguous land border, and being so far away from the conflict, the U.S. is able to be selective about which refugees it admits.

The screening process for refugee admissions is already rigorous. A group of former security and diplomatic officials recently wrote an open letter to the Obama administration arguing that the U.S. could accept as many as 100,000 refugees. A Department of Homeland Security official stated that there is no evidence that refugees accepted into the U.S. are more likely to commit terrorism than anyone else in the country. In fact, there have been no recorded terrorist attacks committed by refugees. The U.S. has admitted 1.5 million migrants from the Middle East since September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks that have occurred since 9/11 have been committed either by American natives or non-refugee immigrants.

Although there are some valid security concerns about admitting more refugees, it must be remembered that keeping refugees at arm’s length carries its own security risks. When we fail to provide refugees with the opportunity to resume normal, productive lives, we contribute to the hopelessness and alienation that really does breed terrorism. Restricting the flow of refugees to a trickle will give Americans a short-term sense of security but it risks creating the very dangers we are so anxious to avoid.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...-in-not-accepting-syrian-refugees-into-the-us

 

[Johan]

6 Reasons to Welcome Syrian Refugees After Paris


After the attacks on Paris, many politicians--including (so far) the governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas--have called for stopping refugee flows to the United States from the Middle East, claiming that the refugee process poses a major threat to America's security. Here are six reasons why ending U.S. refugee resettlement is a senseless and reactionary approach:

1. The Paris attackers were not refugees: Assuming that the user of a fake Syrian passport found near the corpse of an attacker belonged to the attacker, which isn't clear, he exploited the flow of people into Europe, but he was not a refugee. He did not receive refugee designation from the United Nations or vetting from intelligence agencies. He was never approved for refugee status in any country. To become a refugee in the United States, you undergo a multi-stage vetting process and only after receiving U.N. designation by trained officers in the field. The U.S. can vet refugees prior to admission, which means we can weed out terrorists and those most likely to become involved in terrorism, accepting only the most vulnerable. Europe cannot do the same. What happened in Paris is not applicable to the U.S. refugee process.

2. U.S. refugees don't become terrorists: The history of the U.S. refugee program demonstrates that the lengthy and extensive vetting that all refugees must undergo is an effective deterrent for terrorists. Since 1980, the U.S. has invited in millions of refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East. Not one has committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. Traditional law enforcement and security screening processes have a proven record of handling the threat from refugees.

3. Other migration channels are easier to exploit than the U.S. refugee process: The previous point can also be made another way. Non-refugees have carried out all terrorist attacks over the past 35 years. That means they used other means to arrive in the U.S. All of the 9/11 hijackers used student or tourist visas. These visas are much easier and faster to obtain than refugee status, which takes up to two years and requires a multi-stage vetting process and U.N. referral. Refugee status is the single most difficult way to come to the U.S. It makes no sense for a terrorist to try to use the resettlement process for an attack.

4. ISIS sees Syrian refugees as traitors: According to ISIS, Syrian Muslim refugees are traitors to the radical Islamic cause. "It is correct for Muslims to leave the lands of the infidel for the lands of Islam, but not vice versa," one ISIS video said in September. Here are several other examples of similar condemnation from this year. Nearly 90 percent of displaced Syrians in Turkey have no sympathy for ISIS at all, even though ISIS is fighting the person, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who most refugees see as their main enemy. Kurdish and Christian refugees see ISIS as their main foe. Some have speculated that the attacker in Paris intentionally left the fake Syrian passport near his body to help turn the West against Syrian refugees. Turning away Syrian refugees plays into ISIS's hands.

5. Turning away allies will make us less safe: Callous disregard for the fate of refugees--our potential allies in the war against ISIS--will drive them back into the hands of the person they are fleeing: Bashar al-Assad, the hated Syrian dictator. This will lead some refugees to see ISIS as their only remaining ally and safeguard against Assad. The evidence in the academic literature is that keeping refugees penned-up in camps near the zone of conflict increases terrorism in those areas, but resettling them outside of those areas does not.During the Cold War, we used refugee resettlement to gain foreign policy assets, spies, allies, and spokesmen to refute the enemy's propaganda. In the fight against ISIS, allies gained from aiding refugees will be as important as any weapon we have.

6. America should demonstrate moral courage: During World War II, the U.S. turned away Jews due to security concerns. We sent shiploads back to the camps because we were scared that Nazi spies could hide in their midst (which was not an entirely unfounded concern). The lesson of the Holocaust is that we must deal with threats without rejecting our ethical obligations. We must not send those fleeing persecution back to their persecutors. The definition of moral courage is to resist allowing fear to overwhelm our humanity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/syrian-refugees-paris_b_8577480.html

 

[sean miguel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/the-boston-bombers-were-n_b_8584016.html

An asylum seeker is someone who is already in this country but in order to be approved has to meet the definition of a refugee.

http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

My point is, the Tsarnaev brothers were done a solid by the United States allowing their family to stay here and in return, they waged war on us. Way to show your gratitude.

In other words, if you like your religion but don't approve of the religion of others or lack thereof in your adoptive country, then stay in your own fucked up country.

 

[xfire]

A limp wristed left-wing pansy ass group I follow on facebook posted a story about a group of "armed gun fanatics stalking" a mosque in Irving, Texas because they heard rumors that the mosque had set up a sharia court. Well, good for the "armed gun fanatics", even if it wasn't true, there's no place in this country for some bullshit sharia court. Shit like that really negates the idea of a moderate muslim.

 

[Straight Shooter]

A limp wristed left-wing pansy ass group I follow on facebook posted a story about a group of "armed gun fanatics stalking" a mosque in Irving, Texas because they heard rumors that the mosque had set up a sharia court. Well, good for the "armed gun fanatics", even if it wasn't true, there's no place in this country for some bullshit sharia court. Shit like that really negates the idea of a moderate muslim.

Nothing pisses me off more than limp wristed lefties

 

[BlkHawk]

Nothing pisses me off more than limp wristed lefties

No kidding, bunch of Godless heathens, the whole mess of them.