Terror Attacks in Paris

[woolybug25]

When the ND football team goes on the road, they are required to stick to a scheduled calendar of events. They may, or may not, get free time. They have to eat when and where the schedule calls out; they have to wear a specific type of clothing; they have to be in bed at a specific time, and their presence is spot checked at that time....... much like prisoners in jail. So I guess the University treats it's football players like prisoners?

This is a comical comparison you're trying to make here.

 

[IrishLax]

When I was in college I had a roommate and slept on a bed at night..... much like prisoners in jail.

 

[kmoose]

This is a comical comparison you're trying to make here.

It's supposed to be comical; just like the assertion that instituting "check ins" for refugees granted access to our country is "treating them like criminals".

 

[gkIrish]

I feel like this is my fault for suggesting a system similar to parole for criminals.

I just felt like that was an easy way to visualize my concept of refugees simply checking in every 2 weeks or something and requiring them to stay within certain geographic parameters. If they wanted to leave those parameters they would have to obtain permission from their immigration officer.

This system would serve the purpose of giving us an ability to know if people slipped through the cracks. If they failed to check in, that would be a red flag and they could be tracked down. Obviously it wouldn't prevent terrorism, but it might make it more difficult.

As I said, this wouldn't be a permanent requirement.

 

[kmoose]

I feel like this is my fault for suggesting a system similar to parole for criminals.

I just felt like that was an easy way to visualize my concept of refugees simply checking in every 2 weeks or something and requiring them to stay within certain geographic parameters. If they wanted to leave those parameters they would have to obtain permission from their immigration officer.

This system would serve the purpose of giving us an ability to know if people slipped through the cracks. If they failed to check in, that would be a red flag and they could be tracked down. Obviously it wouldn't prevent terrorism, but it might make it more difficult.

As I said, this wouldn't be a permanent requirement.

It is reasonable, and it's not your fault that some malcontents will find ANYTHING to cry "injustice" over.

 

[tussin]

I think we shuld take it a step farther and send all refugees to a actoual jail for 90 days, allong with all first time drug affenders.

 

[GoIrish41]

When I first heard about the attacks in Paris, I had a familiar feeling in the pit of my stomach. It was like a distant echo of the same feeling I had on 9/11 -- not as pronounced but still distinct. I began questioning my positions about how I have viewed this whole ISIS situation. Was Trump right? Should we seal our borders? Should we round up everyone who does not belong in this country and toss them out on their ears? Should we build a wall? Nobody wants this kind of savage attack to happen here. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to grips with the idea that if we react that way, if we allow fear to guide our actions then we are conceding a major victory to terrorists. We must remain vigilant but we cannot let these cowardly acts change who we are as a nation ...as human beings. We can't revert back to the same mistakes we made after 9/11 -- willingly sacrificing our freedoms and our compassion to terrorists. We cannot leap into a sustained military campaign with no logical conclusion. Get rid of ISIS and some other nut job power hungry tyrants will fill the void.

I understand the anger and frustration of posters who want to single out all Islamists because they hate us and enough of them have expressed their anger through unspeakable violence and savagery. But I believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims want to live in peace.

I believe that instead of beating the drums of war and revenge, we should be examining an exit strategy for the whole of the Middle East. Poor resources into developing renewable energy and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure. In doing so we would remove the grip that troubled region has on this nation and let them fight their ancient conflicts amongst themselves. I have spent my life hearing about nothing but conflict there. We have done ourselves or the rest of the world no favors in injecting ourselves into their troubles and creating power vacuums for crazier and crazier people to fill. Enough is enough. This only becomes our problem when we force/allow it to be.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think we shuld take it a step farther and send all refugees to a actoual jail for 90 days, allong with all first time drug affenders.

This is the sort of bold leadership America is lacking right now.

 

[tussin]

This is the sort of bold leadership America is lacking right now.

#MakeAmericaGreatAgain

 

[Grahambo]

Kind of poor quality but this pretty much sums up Syria:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vApBZlaePec" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[tussin]

When I first heard about the attacks in Paris, I had a familiar feeling in the pit of my stomach. It was like a distant echo of the same feeling I had on 9/11 -- not as pronounced but still distinct. I began questioning my positions about how I have viewed this whole ISIS situation. Was Trump right? Should we seal our borders? Should we round up everyone who does not belong in this country and toss them out on their ears? Should we build a wall? Nobody wants this kind of savage attack to happen here. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to grips with the idea that if we react that way, if we allow fear to guide our actions then we are conceding a major victory to terrorists. We must remain vigilant but we cannot let these cowardly acts change whose are as a nation ...as human beings. We can't revert back to the same mistakes we made after 9/11 -- willingly sacrificing our freedoms and our compassion to terrorists. We cannot leap into a sustained military campaign with no logical conclusion. Get rid of ISIS and some other nut job power hungry tyrants will fill the void.

I understand the anger and frustration of posters who want to single out all Islamists because they hate us and enough of them have expressed their anger through unspeakable violence and savagery. But I believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims want to live in peace.

I believe that instead of beating the drums of war and revenge, we should be examining an exit strategy for the whole of the Middle East. Poor resources into developing renewable energy and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure. In doing so we would remove the grip that troubled region has on this nation and let them fight their ancient conflicts amongst themselves. I have spent my life hearing about nothing but conflict there. We have done ourselves or the rest of the world no favors in injecting ourselves into their troubles and creating power vacuums for crazier and crazier people to fill. Enough is enough. This only becomes our problem when we force/allow it to be.

I admire your intentions and values. However, I think the focus should be on 1) preventing an attack on US soil and 2) stopping the growth of terrorist organizations in the ME. Given those objectives, I don't think blindly (for a lack of better term) accepting refugees and, more generally, exiting the ME is the answer.

While you are right in that the US should be working towards long-term energy independence, the best approach to fighting ISIS now is decimating them while the organization is young. Likewise, the US should allow some refugees to enter the country, but only after extensive vetting. Finally, I think a profoundly American ideal is attacking and taking out evil doers throughout the world. I truly believe that the US has a moral obligation to the innocent in the ME to fight back against these barbarians.

 

[Irish#1]

When I first heard about the attacks in Paris, I had a familiar feeling in the pit of my stomach. It was like a distant echo of the same feeling I had on 9/11 -- not as pronounced but still distinct. I began questioning my positions about how I have viewed this whole ISIS situation. Was Trump right? Should we seal our borders? Should we round up everyone who does not belong in this country and toss them out on their ears? Should we build a wall? Nobody wants this kind of savage attack to happen here. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to grips with the idea that if we react that way, if we allow fear to guide our actions then we are conceding a major victory to terrorists. We must remain vigilant but we cannot let these cowardly acts change whose are as a nation ...as human beings. We can't revert back to the same mistakes we made after 9/11 -- willingly sacrificing our freedoms and our compassion to terrorists. We cannot leap into a sustained military campaign with no logical conclusion. Get rid of ISIS and some other nut job power hungry tyrants will fill the void.

I understand the anger and frustration of posters who want to single out all Islamists because they hate us and enough of them have expressed their anger through unspeakable violence and savagery. But I believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims want to live in peace.

I believe that instead of beating the drums of war and revenge, we should be examining an exit strategy for the whole of the Middle East. Poor resources into developing renewable energy and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure. In doing so we would remove the grip that troubled region has on this nation and let them fight their ancient conflicts amongst themselves. I have spent my life hearing about nothing but conflict there. We have done ourselves or the rest of the world no favors in injecting ourselves into their troubles and creating power vacuums for crazier and crazier people to fill. Enough is enough. This only becomes our problem when we force/allow it to be.

I don't think this would make a difference to ISIS. If you don't agree with their beliefs, they want to eliminate you. I can see them moving their agenda to other regions of the world if they were allowed to conquer the Middle East.

 

[FearTheBeard]

I admire your intentions and values. However, I think the focus should be on 1) preventing an attack on US soil and 2) stopping the growth of terrorist organizations in the ME. Given those objectives, I don't think blindly (for a lack of better term) accepting refugees and, more generally, exiting the ME is the answer.

While you are right in that the US should be working towards long-term energy independence, the best approach to fighting ISIS now is decimating them while the organization is young. Likewise, the US should allow some refugees to enter the country, but only after extensive vetting. Finally, I think a profoundly American ideal is attacking and taking out evil doers throughout the world. I truly believe that the US has a moral obligation to the innocent in the ME to fight back against these barbarians.

We cant solve the problem by going over and bombing and killing a bunch of people though. Al qaeda, taliban, isis, whats gonna change this time? Attacking is playing into what they want and will help their recruiting

 

[tussin]

We cant solve the problem by going over and bombing and killing a bunch of people though. Al qaeda, taliban, isis, whats gonna change this time? Attacking is playing into what they want and will help their recruiting

What choice do you have? You have to kill ISIS. They are literally evil people...there is no alternative IMO. You can't just let them take over the Middle East and slaughter the innocent.

I will say that ISIS is pretty savvy with their recruitment and spread of propaganda. The US and other democratic countries need to do a better job of connecting with and educating young Muslims about democratic principles and showing that there is nothing to admire about the ISIS cause. If you can somehow capture their "targeted audience" then these organizations will have a hard time growing.

 

[GoIrish41]

I admire your intentions and values. However, I think the focus should be on 1) preventing an attack on US soil and 2) stopping the growth of terrorist organizations in the ME. Given those objectives, I don't think blindly (for a lack of better term) accepting refugees and, more generally, exiting the ME is the answer.

While you are right in that the US should be working towards long-term energy independence, the best approach to fighting ISIS now is decimating them while the organization is young. Likewise, the US should allow some refugees to enter the country, but only after extensive vetting. Finally, I think a profoundly American ideal is attacking and taking out evil doers throughout the world. I truly believe that the US has a moral obligation to the innocent in the ME to fight back against these barbarians.

Good thoughtful post. Part of me feels the same, but I have come to believe that the Middle East is one big, chaotic, ugly cycle of never ending violence. We perpetuate it if we keep doing the same things we have always done .... They'll hate us even more and some crazy mutherfucker will seize control by pointing to the American imperialists who seek to convert mosques to discos while he is filleting some western journalist on tv. Let Israel use all that firepower they've accumulated over the years to defeat their enemy. Let NATO lead the charge. Why is? They attacked Paris not New York.

I think we are the world leader in oil and gas production. Use that supply over the next decade as a bridge to the future of THIS country free of maniac influence over our own affairs (unless Trump gets elected, of course). And if they have the balls to attack our homeland when we are cleared out of that region, show them what an attack looks like from a nation that spends more than the next 10 biggest nations ... combined.

 

[gkIrish]

Growing number of states refuse to accept Syrian refugees in wake of Paris attacks

 

[T Town Tommy]

Here's something to think about. If the Netherlands - a country steeped in multiculturalism - could not assimilate Muslims in to their society what makes anyone think any other country could do the same? The answer is simple. It can't be done because it goes against the very tenant of their religion. The Netherlands spent millions building mosques, schools, etc., allowing Muslims to practice their religion far freer than the countries they immigrated from and for what? Eventual homegrown terrorism from the very people they opened their country to. Why does anyone think it would be different in America?

 

[Cackalacky]

But isn't that the whole problem for Islam? Whereas members of every religion have done awful things (just like their Atheist counterparts), its hard to argue that Islam does not actually teach awful things because of the life of their founder. It's pretty hard to argue that X = evil, if the founder did X repeatedly and is held up as an example to be emulated. The person who sides with the founder has a VERY internally convincing argument.

Anyone can twist any relgion, ideaology, or political movement, but its hard to argue, for example, that America is fundamentally a pacifist nation when the founding fathers fought a war and the first President was its general.



Exactly right. For doing either.

This. Yes. For me it is more the political and societal gain from cultural domination than inherent evil. The exercise of this manifests in confrontations between the majority and minorities. It obviously has different contexts but it is still boils down to who is in power and who is seeking to gain more power.

 

[NDPhilly]

PA Governor says we are still taking refugees. Yay.

 

[yankeehater]

This is crazy. I wonder what the percentage is in America.

Poll Reveals 16 Percent Of French People Support ISIS

 

[gkIrish]

This is crazy. I wonder what the percentage is in America.

Poll Reveals 16 Percent Of French People Support ISIS

That poll is over a year old. I'm sure the number is dramatically lower at the moment.

 

[NDBoiler]

That poll is over a year old. I'm sure the number is dramatically lower at the moment.

Regardless, that's still an alarming statistic IMO.

It was well known that ISIS was murdering, intimidating and enslaving women a year ago.

 

[irishnd31]

PA Governor says we are still taking refugees. Yay.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm definitely surprised the European numbers are so low. Is this misleading due to "asylum seekers" not meaning refugees?

 

[yankeehater]

I'm definitely surprised the European numbers are so low. Is this misleading due to "asylum seekers" not meaning refugees?

I am not claiming to have answers. The word I would question is "application." How many are going through proper channels and how many are just fleeing. I doubt any terrorists are "applying" with anyone.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I am not claiming to have answers. The word I would question is "application." How many are going through proper channels and how many are just fleeing. I doubt any terrorists are "applying" with anyone.

Well then throw the refugee question out the window anyway.

 

[BGIF]

This is crazy. I wonder what the percentage is in America.

Poll Reveals 16 Percent Of French People Support ISIS

That poll is over a year old. I'm sure the number is dramatically lower at the moment.

I wouldn't bet on it. France is 7.5% Muslim.

 

[Irish YJ]

Here's something to think about. If the Netherlands - a country steeped in multiculturalism - could not assimilate Muslims in to their society what makes anyone think any other country could do the same? The answer is simple. It can't be done because it goes against the very tenant of their religion. The Netherlands spent millions building mosques, schools, etc., allowing Muslims to practice their religion far freer than the countries they immigrated from and for what? Eventual homegrown terrorism from the very people they opened their country to. Why does anyone think it would be different in America?

Yep, the Netherlands is like the biggest homer liberal country in the world... Great point 3T

 

[BGIF]

26 No, 7 Yes, 17 Noncommittal

26 No, 7 Yes, 17 Noncommittal

Syrian refugees not welcome in 26 U.S. states - CNN.com

States whose governors oppose Syrian refugees coming in:
-- Alabama
-- Arizona
-- Arkansas
-- Florida
-- Georgia
-- Idaho
-- Illinois
-- Indiana
-- Iowa
-- Kansas
-- Louisiana
-- Maine
-- Massachusetts
-- Michigan
-- Mississippi
-- Nebraska
-- New Hampshire
-- New Jersey
-- New Mexico
-- North Carolina
-- Ohio
-- Oklahoma
-- South Carolina
-- Tennessee
-- Texas
-- Wisconsin

States whose governors say they will accept refugees:
-- Colorado
-- Connecticut
-- Delaware
-- Hawaii
-- Pennsylvania
-- Vermont
-- Washington

Let be clear here, these governors aren't saying no to refugees their asking what measures are being taken to screen out potential terrorists. According to the Administration once refugees are admitted to can roam the 50 states unimpeded by regulation.

 

[calvegas04]

I'm definitely surprised the European numbers are so low. Is this misleading due to "asylum seekers" not meaning refugees?

A more updated article

Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in graphics - BBC News