Explosions and shootings in Paris

[ChloroformSdxn]

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

For reference, this is how the refugee screening process works. It includes reference checks (with drones and satellites), biometric screening, in-depth interviews, etc. Note that military combatants are automatically weeded out and always have been.

You will also note that half are rejected, and out of the remaining ones, half are children, and a quarter are over 60. Around 2% are young men.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Puts me in mind of the quote, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

Edmond. Burke...just one of his many great quotes. Another..

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"

Just one more of my favorites...

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."

 

[gwynne]

I was looking at mainly the map showing the south. I could be wrong in that regard.

More terrorists to come in under the guise of refugees like they have in the past? You do realize that has never once happened. There has never been a refugee who came in an perpetuated a terrorist attack. And these states aren't saying that they want to make sure they're properly vetted (which they have to be, to meet refugee status, it's some of the most intensive vetting there is), they're saying they want to ban them. They're not saying they want to ban terrorists. They're saying they want to ban Syrian muslims.

Not quite the same, but many similar arguments were had (by some) when the Kurds were sent to Guam. Huge worries about vetting and so on. They were properly vetted. It's part of the process.
JMO-Leaders that sort of fudge the truth about how this is done do it for their own reasons.

 

[cabanafrau]

I was looking at mainly the map showing the south. I could be wrong in that regard.

More terrorists to come in under the guise of refugees like they have in the past? You do realize that has never once happened. There has never been a refugee who came in an perpetuated a terrorist attack. And these states aren't saying that they want to make sure they're properly vetted (which they have to be, to meet refugee status, it's some of the most intensive vetting there is), they're saying they want to ban them. They're not saying they want to ban terrorists. They're saying they want to ban Syrian muslims.

I don't believe you're correct. To my knowledge in Michigan the request is to hold until there is a review of the vetting process to make sure it is as comprehensive as possible to avoid potential threats.

For the record, I myself believe in offering assistance to those truly seeking refuge from terror and deprivation. I certainly would never want to be in that type of need. But my memory of what happens when a nation seeks to export their troubles tells me we need to approach the situation intelligently as well as compassionately. Does no one remember the Cuban crisis of the 1980s?

 

[Donnainnj]

Scared of what though? There's never been an attack perpetuated by a refugee. The UN screens them before they even get to the US or Canadian screening. Look at the states that are saying they want to ban Syrian refugees - why are they the states with the lowest Muslim populations? People were scared of Jews. They were worried about the economy. They refused children - just like how one of your governors says he would refuse a 3 year old. Are people right to be scared of three year old because of their nationality or religion? How is that not xenophobia?

per wiki
There were calculated to be 2.595 million Muslim adherents across the United States in 2010.[108] Islamic populations are 0.6% of the US population per Fareed Zakaria quoting Pew Research Center, 2010.[109]

By state
State Adherents per
100,000 people[110]

Illinois 2,800

Virginia 2,663

New York 2,028

New Jersey 1,827

Texas 1,678

Michigan 1,218

Florida 877

Delaware 793

California 732

Pennsylvania 634
According to the 2000 United States Census, the state with the largest percentage of Muslims is Michigan, with 1.2% of its population being Muslim. New Jersey has the second largest percentage with 0.9%, followed by Massachusetts with 0.8%.

By city
New York City had the largest number of Muslims with 69,985. In 2000, Dearborn, Michigan ranked second with 29,181, and Los Angeles ranked third with 25,673; although Paterson, New Jersey, in the New York City Metropolitan Area, was estimated to have become home to 25,000 to 30,000 Muslims as of 2011. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was estimated to have 30,000 to 50,000 Muslims as of 2012.[111] Paterson, New Jersey has been nicknamed Little Ramallah and contains a neighborhood with the same name, with an Arab American population estimated as high as 20,000 in 2015.[112]

Mosques
The number of mosques in the United States in 2011 was 2,106. The six states with the greatest number of mosques were: New York 257, California 246, Texas 166, Florida 118, Illinois 109, New Jersey 109.[113]

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Edmond. Burke...just one of him many great quotes. Another..

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"

It all depends on the side you are on. Just saying....

 

[asta]

I was looking at mainly the map showing the south. I could be wrong in that regard.

More terrorists to come in under the guise of refugees like they have in the past? You do realize that has never once happened. There has never been a refugee who came in an perpetuated a terrorist attack. And these states aren't saying that they want to make sure they're properly vetted (which they have to be, to meet refugee status, it's some of the most intensive vetting there is), they're saying they want to ban them. They're not saying they want to ban terrorists. They're saying they want to ban Syrian muslims.

We had this discussion on the other thread but I don't think you can say this has never happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qa...terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

They were terrorists, entered as refugees and planned other attacks once they got here that were thwarted. I guess you can take comfort that they were caught before they accomplished their plans but I think planning and trying to execute an act of terrorism doesn't erase their act of terrorism. And since they are still sitting in prison I think our government agrees.

 

[TLSnell1981]

It all depends on the side you are on. Just saying....

This quote can also be applied to daily living...

 

[WIcruizer]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/big-list-all-these-terror-attacks-in-u-s-covered-up-by-feds/

Another link. I don't consider the editorial comments by whoever this website is, but the list they've provided has been published elsewhere many times recently. Some are refugees, many are not. But the screening process is the same. Many attempts at terrorism. Plus, as we know, the FBI Director has even said vetting this group of people is not possible. They don't have enough resources currently to deal with potential threats, and we want to bring in tens, maybe hundreds of thousands more? Enough.

The US has done more than enough. We have sent billions in aid to the refugees. This is not a zero sum game of either we let them come here or they die. The Arab countries can step up and take them in. Better yet, it would be very easy for the UN to set up a safe zone for them within Syria so they wouldn't need to leave at all.

 

[cabanafrau]

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

For reference, this is how the refugee screening process works. It includes reference checks (with drones and satellites), biometric screening, in-depth interviews, etc. Note that military combatants are automatically weeded out and always have been.

You will also note that half are rejected, and out of the remaining ones, half are children, and a quarter are over 60. Around 2% are young men.

Knowing how tangled up our own domestic criminal records are when called upon in the controlled environment of a court case here causes me great skepticism and unease that it's this cut and dried, black and white, easy peasy, simply on that factor of the process alone when you're considering the sheer volume in a chaotic situation.

I also question who's footing the bill for the screening? Hold the phone, no I'm not. Hand me my dunce cap and point me to the corner. Simply the cost of this level of screening will be significant, and you haven't even provided any assistance yet.

The fact brother and sister Arab nations are closing their doors gives me great pause as well. I think we need to strongly consider a wide range of possible answers, with intelligence and compassion guiding the process.

 

[gwynne]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6d52e-8d6a-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html

Breaking---Suspected architect of Paris attacks is dead according to two senior intelligence officials.

Edited to add from article update:
"The confirmation was made after forsenic experts combed through the aftermath — blown-out windows, floors collapsed by explosions — presumably seeking DNA and other evidence. The intelligence officials spoke on condition of anonymity before announcements from authorities."

 

[cabanafrau]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b6d52e-8d6a-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html

Breaking---Suspected architect of Paris attacks is dead according to two senior intelligence officials.

(News currently only in headlines, I expect they will update with more.)

Interesting if true. Potentially more interesting if it's an intentional misdirect.

IMO more likely to be true in light of explosions occurring and the M.O. of these miscreants thus far.

 

[gwynne]

Interesting if true. Potentially more interesting if it's an intentional misdirect.

IMO more likely to be true in light of explosions occurring and the M.O. of these miscreants thus far.

I'm waiting to hear if others confirm. I try to only use reputable news sources.

In the meantime, I'm off to Meijers.

 

[CPanther95]

The French spokesman only stated that the mastermind is not in custody.

 

[cabanafrau]

The French spokesman only stated that the mastermind is not in custody.

Sounds like my kind of spokesman providing my type of information that isn't as informative as some would like. IMO every millimeter of doubt planted potentially could cause some devastating cracks.

 

[cabanafrau]

I'm waiting to hear if others confirm. I try to only use reputable news sources.

In the meantime, I'm off to Meijers.

The misdirect would be on the part of the intelligence community and the authorities, not the media.

 

[pat fan]

More terrorists to come in under the guise of refugees like they have in the past? You do realize that has never once happened. There has never been a refugee who came in an perpetuated a terrorist attack. And these states aren't saying that they want to make sure they're properly vetted (which they have to be, to meet refugee status, it's some of the most intensive vetting there is), they're saying they want to ban them. They're not saying they want to ban terrorists. They're saying they want to ban Syrian muslims.

That's not true. They want assurances of proper vetting. I'm in Ma., so I know what baker said, and I listened to the Texas Gov. yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

 

[taitai]

That's not true. They want assurances of proper vetting. I'm in Ma., so I know what baker said, and I listened to the Texas Gov. yesterday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

It is pandering and fear-mongering in order to score votes plain and simple. Really and truly appalling and history will judge these governor's harshly for their weak and cowardly ways. What is their issue with the current vetting process? Where are the holes? It is an incredibly intensive and invasive 12-18 months (and in some cases over 3 year long) process. Where would they add a step? The process has been in place for decades and no refugee in the US has been involved in terrorism to this point.

If they really want to affect change, why don't they use their bully pulpits for stronger gun control. Right now, all these same governors won't touch gun control as it doesn't poll well despite the fact it is the morally right thing to do. Currently, with our incredibly lax standards, anyone on the US Government terror watch list can legally purchase a gun. In fact, over 2000 guns have been purchased by people in the US on the watch list. Why don't the governors work to change that. I think it is incredibly important to note that in Paris, of the 132 people killed, 131 of them died by gunfire. The suicide bombers blew up themselves and one other person. EVERY OTHER VICTIM DIED BY GUNS. EVERY ONE. Yet, we won't deal with that issue in our country but would rather deny suffering litle Syrian toddlers the chance at a better life in the US. It is beyond frustrating.

 

[pat fan]

fact it is the morally right thing to do.

That is your opinion, which is fine. Doesn't mean everyone agrees with it.

It is pandering and fear-mongering in order to score votes plain and simple.

Again, your opinion, which not everyone, even the FBI, agree with.

 

[WIcruizer]

The suicide bombers blew up themselves and one other person. EVERY OTHER VICTIM DIED BY GUNS.

Yes, Paris is a gun-free zone. So that worked out well.

What is their issue with the current vetting process?

See my post and the link I provided above.

Yet, we won't deal with that issue in our country but would rather deny suffering litle Syrian toddlers the chance at a better life in the US.

Spare me. They could have a better life right there in Syria if a safe zone was created. They could have a better life in neighboring Arab countries.