Oh come on, that's hogwash and you know it. You don't give a toss about what Jesus would do in any other sphere and you don't really care about his views on this issue either (not that he had any).

I'm glad you called him on that. I didn't want to have to throw the BS flag...

sass

You don't give a toss about what Jesus would do in any other sphere and you don't really care about his views on this issue either (not that he had any).

I didn't say I did as a reason for the argument.
I said that the population of the US generally does.

I used the Bible because the majority of US citizens are religionists who purport to follow the teachings of Christ. And who use the phrase, "What would Christ do?" all the time

Can't I use their reasoning and rationale in most matters when it pertains to this? Isn't that fair?

No, it's a pointless waste of everybody's time. Your arguments stand or fall on their merits.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ugees.html

This is a potentially explosive story. A German woman is getting evicted from her flat, where she's lived for 23 years, so that the local council can house asylum seekers there, the second example of this kind of thing to hit the news recently. On the face of it, this seems completely outrageous.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... n-refugees

I think we can now put to bed the idea that Germany made a considered decision, or for that matter the notion that they were able to handle the influx. I won't hold my breath for any kind of acknowledgement of this from those who disagreed with me at the time...

My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

bbauska wrote:My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

The refugees from Syria are largely fleeing terrorists like this, and the Assad government.

I think it is unlikely they came in as recent refugees. This will have taken some planning and not many have got to France from the most recent wave.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

The refugees from Syria are largely fleeing terrorists like this, and the Assad government.

I think it is unlikely they came in as recent refugees. This will have taken some planning and not many have got to France from the most recent wave.

Unlikely? Yes.

However, is it impossible some terrorists are in the hundreds of thousands of refugees?

The solution is to wipe out ISIS, repatriate the refugees, and be done.

Of course, Obama thinks ISIS is under control . . .

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:My prayers go out to France in this terrible terrorist act. I hope that the recent influx of people from the Middle East is not where the terrorists came from.

A terrible cost for a bad decision if that is the case.

Be strong, France

The refugees from Syria are largely fleeing terrorists like this, and the Assad government.

I think it is unlikely they came in as recent refugees. This will have taken some planning and not many have got to France from the most recent wave.

Unlikely? Yes.

However, is it impossible some terrorists are in the hundreds of thousands of refugees?

No, it isn't. But it is not actually possible to stop the refugees, or reliably identify the "terrorists" among them.

The solution is to wipe out ISIS, repatriate the refugees, and be done.

This is a lot easier said than done. The precursor to ISIS were "wiped out" by the "Surge".

And we just send people back to Assad's regime if it is only ISIS that is destroyed? Many of them were fleeing him, not ISIS.

Of course, Obama thinks ISIS is under control . . .

They are losing ground in Syria and Iraq. Sinjar, home of the Yazidis is being retaken now. In a way the exporting of terror is because they need a new tactic.

And the other thing that is happening is that groups are franchising to ISIS, just as happened with Al Qaeda.

danivon wrote:No, it isn't. But it is not actually possible to stop the refugees, or reliably identify the "terrorists" among them.

Sorry to say this, but the more welcomed they are, the more there will be who follow them. And, I'm sorry to say that it is insane for the US to take any of them. Oh, it's humane, but it would be more humane for the rich Arab nations to take them. Why won't they?

The solution is to wipe out ISIS, repatriate the refugees, and be done.

This is a lot easier said than done. The precursor to ISIS were "wiped out" by the "Surge".

Right, then Obama refused to push for a SOFA and here we are.

And we just send people back to Assad's regime if it is only ISIS that is destroyed? Many of them were fleeing him, not ISIS.

I simply don't believe that this describes all or nearly all of them. Assad is a tyrant, no doubt. And, if Obama was as concerned as he feigned, he would have given him the Qaddafi treatment. However, his number one aim and boast was to be the President who ends wars. So, he let loose the dogs of terror.

Of course, Obama thinks ISIS is under control . . .

They are losing ground in Syria and Iraq. Sinjar, home of the Yazidis is being retaken now. In a way the exporting of terror is because they need a new tactic.

20 months ago, he called them "the JV team." he has consistently downplayed them. More than a year ago, he promised to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. If Russia had not joined the fray, nothing would be happening--not even our massive commitment of special forces (all 50 of them).

And the other thing that is happening is that groups are franchising to ISIS, just as happened with Al Qaeda.

Obama should stop minimizing it. He should stop refusing to identify Islamic terrorism for what it is.

For example, someone, anyone, please tell me: what is the STRATEGY for defeating ISIS? Strategy necessarily implies an end goal, so what is that?

As Obama has NEVER outlined this, no one here can either.

ISIS has been allowed not just to live, but to grow. And now it’s demonstrating massive increase in its destructive reach. Within the space of days, it has apparently brought down a civilian airliner, bombed Beirut, and now reportedly launched a multi-pronged urban assault in a western capital. This is what happens when terrorists are allowed safe havens and given free reign to recruit and spread their influence.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... this-3.php

Now, this could be the death throes of a defeated foe, but . . . it doesn't seem like it.

Some steps that are long overdue:

1. Legislation to strip citizenship from any American who travels to ISIS-controlled territory, unless they are kidnapped. If it takes amending the Constitution, then I'd say it's about time. If you join a group at war with the US, you have forfeited your citizenship.

2. Destroying the financial means of ISIS: oil fields and whatever else they are using.

3. A genuine war effort. Maybe France should lead it. Clearly, it won't be Obama. The only enemy he recognizes are Republicans.

4. Economic sanctions against any country shown to be helping ISIS. Some must be. If it be the Saudis or whomever, we need to take action.

It's time to take this seriously. How many more Europeans have to be murdered?

Let's not drag Obama into this thread as well please.

Whether or not any of these terrorists may have come from the recent wave of migrants is something we can't know at this early stage, although it's doubtful given the level of organisation that was involved. That's not to say that it's an irrelevant question though. The terrorism risk is going to be increasingly relevant to the migrant crisis in the wake of this attack. It's going to harden attitudes across Europe.

No, it isn't. But it is not actually possible to stop the refugees, or reliably identify the "terrorists" among them.

The latter part of this statement is true, the former certainly isn't. Since Hungary put up the border fence the number of migrants crossing into their territory has dropped from over 5000 a day to about 27 a day. That suggests that stopping the migrants is very much something that's possible. Granted, the flow has simply diverted to other countries, but nevertheless it's clear that a determination to stop the flow can be effective. And as for the point about the impossibility of filtering for terrorists, isn't this actually a potent argument for restricting migration ?

At some point soon Dan you're going to have to admit that the madness of open borders that Angela Merkel unilaterally tried to impose on Europe is dead. Everything that has happened since has just gone to show that I was right in the first place. Borders going up all across Europe, far right parties growing in popularity, social strife on the rise, hundreds of thousands of non-Syrians joining the rush, thousands more migrants dying... The whole policy was nuts from the beginning and it's now clear that it's wholly unsustainable. It would be nice if you could acknowledge these facts.

Sassenach wrote:Let's not drag Obama into this thread as well please.

Hear, hear. Take your ODS elsewhere, you have indulged it plenty of places already, DF.

Whether or not any of these terrorists may have come from the recent wave of migrants is something we can't know at this early stage, although it's doubtful given the level of organisation that was involved. That's not to say that it's an irrelevant question though. The terrorism risk is going to be increasingly relevant to the migrant crisis in the wake of this attack. It's going to harden attitudes across Europe.

It is. And that is what the fanatics want - the more they can provoke a reaction that affects Muslims in Europe, the more they can sell a clash-of-civilisations, Us v Them narrative to disaffected people.

No, it isn't. But it is not actually possible to stop the refugees, or reliably identify the "terrorists" among them.

The latter part of this statement is true, the former certainly isn't. Since Hungary put up the border fence the number of migrants crossing into their territory has dropped from over 5000 a day to about 27 a day.

First, I'd like a source for that number (and to know that the fence is really complete and unbreachable. Second, the migrants moved around to Slovenia and are not simply going away. Third, we may be able to stem the tide in places, but if they are on Hungary's border they are already IN Europe and so far don't seem keen on heading back.

That suggests that stopping the migrants is very much something that's possible. Granted, the flow has simply diverted to other countries, but nevertheless it's clear that a determination to stop the flow can be effective. And as for the point about the impossibility of filtering for terrorists, isn't this actually a potent argument for restricting migration ?

It is one argument. But the same applies to legal immigration, or home-grown terrorism. We will always miss people. We don't close all borders or intern all suspicious residents.

At some point soon Dan you're going to have to admit that the madness of open borders that Angela Merkel unilaterally tried to impose on Europe is dead. Everything that has happened since has just gone to show that I was right in the first place. Borders going up all across Europe, far right parties growing in popularity, social strife on the rise, hundreds of thousands of non-Syrians joining the rush, thousands more migrants dying... The whole policy was nuts from the beginning and it's now clear that it's wholly unsustainable. It would be nice if you could acknowledge these facts.

I don't think that is what she was trying to impose. If "impose" is even the right word. When you present a bunch of facts to "prove" it wrong, go ahead.

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Let's not drag Obama into this thread as well please.

Hear, hear. Take your ODS elsewhere, you have indulged it plenty of places already, DF.

No. Make me.

I was willing to pass on it at Sass' request, but your haughty demand is detestable. So, no, I won't.

How is the Syrian crisis not related in any way to Obama's ineptitude? Explain that and you win.

The terrorism risk is going to be increasingly relevant to the migrant crisis in the wake of this attack. It's going to harden attitudes across Europe.

It is. And that is what the fanatics want - the more they can provoke a reaction that affects Muslims in Europe, the more they can sell a clash-of-civilisations, Us v Them narrative to disaffected people.

It's not a clash of civilizations. It's a clash of civilization vs. un-civilization.

I'm really sorry for all the murdered and slaughtered in the Middle East. It's terrible. It's also primarily a result of Islam and the war between the various branches. However, make no mistake: the Islamists are intent on taking over the world in service to their god. You may think they are not a serious threat--after all, they're a small percentage of the Muslim population. That's true, but that isn't going to stop them from doing as they did in Paris again . . . and again.

Their ideology has to be visibly defeated. So far, dismissing it (as the last two Presidents have tried) hasn't worked. In fact, they now have a "caliphate." The only thing that will put a temporary halt to this is an overwhelming defeat. However, the dream of a caliphate is a part of the religion and it's not going away. Islam has been a violent religion for most of its history.

Say whatever you want about Christianity and its history. I think you'll have to go some to show American Baptists taking automatic weapons and suicide vests into crowds of people to kill innocent civilians intentionally all the while shouting praises to their god. In fact, good luck showing that.

"We wanted to be here, among all those who saw these atrocious things, to say that we will lead the fight, and it will be merciless," he said.

"When terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they should be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France … a France that will not let itself be intimidated, even if today we are expressing endless emotion at this drama and this tragedy," Hollande said. "This was an abomination because it was a barbaric act."

Meanwhile, Obama doesn't want to lay blame just yet.

Were the terrorists immigrants?

Athens (AFP) - Two men who French police are seeking to trace in connection with the Paris attacks registered as refugees with Greek authorities earlier this year, the Greek police confirmed on Saturday.

French authorities had asked their Greek counterparts to check a passport and fingerprints of one man and the fingerprints of another who were thought to have registered in Greece, which is the main entry point into Europe for Syrian refugees.

At least one Syrian passport was found at the scene of the Stade de France attack.

Greek minister for citizen protection, Nikos Toskas, said in a statement that one of the men had been registered on the Greek island of Leros in October.

"We confirm that the (Syrian) passport holder came through the Greek island of Leros on October 3 where he was registered under EU rules," said a statement issued by Toskas.