RE: Paris under attack

RE: Paris under attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tj444 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 11:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Many of the proper vetting procedures are already in place...I just do not want these procedures to be put aside to accommodate the rush of refugees. The process may take up to 2 years or longer and I would not release them to the general population until the process was complete... This would mean long term refugee camps. First... I would want proof that they are refugees who face a reasonable certainty that they would be in mortal danger if they remained in their country of origin. Second... Each member of the family undergo multiple background and security checks involving the National Counterterrorism Center; the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center; Homeland Security; and the State Department. Third... for long term, not short term asylum, they are employable and able to reasonably support themselves. Fourth... that they voluntarily produce or sign a legal financial statement listing their resources for eligibility for government aid. Butch dont you think the US govt depts do all that now and have for a very long time???? what do you think the govt is doing for the 2-3 years that the refugees are waiting for an answer?

mnottertail -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 11:51:14 AM)
remember down near the border a few months ago the last time the nutsuckers blew a headpipe? Busing? Old Schools? Old Prisons? Warehouses? 833 a month at 10 thou.........I would expect a great deal of it could be done in camera in Jordan.

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 11:55:43 AM)
No they do not... All the information I can find on these processes say they may take 2 to 4 years to complete. We do not, as of now, keep prospective immigrants in refugee camps for 2 to 4 years while waiting for asylum...do we? Butch

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 11:57:12 AM)
It could Ron...but do you believe that particular group will be the only ones? I don't know maybe so... It would make a difference. I wonder however if the US would or could withstand world pressure to take in more? Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 11:59:49 AM)
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php theres near 700K there, could also come from Turkey our Nato 'ally' as well I suppose, I doubt we would take from Iraq or Lebanon, because of other issues we have with them at the moment. Look at those poor bastards, and what is flooding Europe, we would not groan under the weight of 10,000. If we do, we better pack it the fuck in, cuz we are done.

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 12:07:08 PM)
It is a mess and a human tragedy... Imagine the cost to those countries to maintain these camps... There are just no easy answers. Myself... getting into more trouble...believe the only answer is to force Muslim nations in the region to raise an army and with the support of Europe... the US...and Russia..defeat radicalism in the Middle East and restore functioning governments in the region. Then repatriate the refugees. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 12:11:51 PM)
I am ultimately distraught that no more people in the area want to fight for their .......uhhhhhhhhh, country; freedom.........but looking at the past, I can see where they are going, WHY? I would like to (in a perfect world) get all the cool kids out of there, and level the fuckin place, as I said at the outset of Iraq, because we will have to end up killing these guys to the last man, woman, and child. We fucked it up bad, and we are up to our necks in it. Other countries are finally coming on board though.........

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 12:14:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If we did that in WW2, we'd all be labelled as yellow-bellied cowards! The history books say that is exactly what you did and exactly what you/chamberlain were/are called to this day. Interesting..... The second act of the Battle of France began on 5 June, with the Germans striking southwards from the River Somme. Despite the fact that the French in many areas fought well, the Germans destroyed the Allied forces in the field in short order. The 51st Highland Division, which had not been grouped with the rest of the British army, was surrounded at St Valéry-en-Caux, and was forced to surrender on 12 June. The Germans launched a major offensive on Paris on 9 June, and on 13 June Paris was declared an open city, as the French government fled to Bordeaux. The first German troops entered the French capital on 14 June, little more than a month after the campaign began. There were still spasms of fighting. A fresh British force was sent to Normandy, only to be evacuated almost immediately. The Royal Navy carried out evacuations from ports down the French coast almost as far as the Spanish frontier. Meanwhile, the victorious Panzers raced in different directions across France, finishing off pockets of resistance, crossing the River Loire in the west on 17 June, and reaching the Swiss frontier a few days later. The end came with the surrender of France on 22 June. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Now if you had ever actually read a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have known this and would not have stuffed both feet in your mouth at the same time. And my quote above would prove you quite wrong. The French fled to Bordeaux and let the jerry's march into Paris without a fight. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Maybe that's what you call us from over there. But I've never heard it said this side of the pond nor when I lived in the US for nine months either. Oh my a britt who never heard of nevil chamberlain. Who??? quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Incidentally, it was the French that turned tails, not the Brits. The history books note that the french surrendered on june 22. The evacuation of dunkirk was complete by june 4 leaving the 40,000 french, who protected the britt retreat, to the tender mercies of the germans. Typical cherry-picking. It was a strategic withdrawal and wouldn't have been done without French collaboration and approval. Try reading the whole gamut, not just bits of it. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx And..... I never did history at all, ever, in my schooling. That would explane why you have both feet in your mouth and your head up your ass. And that's how I managed to prove your cherry-picking ass to be wrong!!

kdsub -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 12:15:23 PM)
quote: I am ultimately distraught that no more people in the area want to fight for their .......uhhhhhhhhh, country; freedom You have to be careful saying the above... or you will join me as a labeled Muslim hater. Butch

tj444 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub No they do not... All the information I can find on these processes say they may take 2 to 4 years to complete. We do not, as of now, keep prospective immigrants in refugee camps for 2 to 4 years while waiting for asylum...do we? Butch Immigrants are different than refugees.. Immigrants apply for a visa (depending on the type) in their country of residence and wait and wait and wait until they are approved to immigrate (or not).. My understanding of refugees is that they are either in an asylum country (over there) or (UN?) refugee camp (over there) until they have been vetted as a legit refugee and accepted.. I believe an asylum application is different from being a refugee application.. If someone comes from Mexico and crosses into the US on their own, then applies as a refugee I expect the process is different and they may be kept in some facility or something.. I expect it depends what kind of situation and application it is, the requirements, etc.. As far as I know thats the way it works.. are you trying to say that anyone that asks gets a plane ticket to the US or something? [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:31:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: only 2% of refugees are males of fighting age, most are children, women, families. Unless my eyes deceive me this is simply not true. I admit not exactly scientific but when running a search on images of Syrian Refugees your 2% does not hold up. Butch Your eyes??? that was from an article in today's newspaper.. which i cant access online but here is the same figures (from the state dept) I was referring only to Syrian refugees (which the GOP & like minded others incorrectly blame for the attacks), not other refugees like those from Mexico/South America.. State Department: Only 2% Of Syrian Refugees In U.S. Are Military-Aged Men With No Family Since the start of the Syrian Civil War in March 2011, the United States has taken in about 2,000 refugees from Syria. Last year, Syrians made up only two percent of the 70,000 refugees admitted, according to the New York Times. Of the 18,000 referred refugees cases from the United Nations High Commissioner for possible resettlement (of which the U.S. is taking 10,000) more than 50% are 18 years of age or younger. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/state-department-only-2-of-syrian-refugees-in-us-are-militar#.jozVLG9V6P Have you never heard of femal terroists? What makes you think that the demographics of the nest 70,000 will be the same as the first 2000, the refugees going into Europe don't match those two thousand.

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: only 2% of refugees are males of fighting age, most are children, women, families. Unless my eyes deceive me this is simply not true. I admit not exactly scientific but when running a search on images of Syrian Refugees your 2% does not hold up. Butch I agree, Butch. [ETA: the EU migrants, not those of the US] Pretty much most of the media coverage I've seen broadcast seems to show more than 75% young, fit, reasonably well-dressed able-bodied men wielding iPhones having paid thousands to traffickers and still able to buy local sim cards with data plans!! They are perfectly capable of forming quite a formidable fighting force to take the fight to their oppressors (Assad and ISIS) if they wanted to. But they don't do that - they want everyone else to fight their war for them while they sit on their butts claiming western benefits that they wouldn't get in their own country. I'm sorry, I know bombs are bad but why don't they even try to fight for their own country?? There are around 11 million refugees that have jumped the Syrian ship. Even if only 10% of them are young and healthy enough to fight, that still makes more than a million to form an army. That's more than 5x what we have in the total UK regular armed forces (<200,000). [Edit#2: Just heard on BBC news that there are estimated 20 million migrants (not just from Syria) knocking on EU's borders and arriving at more than 3,000 a day] If they fought their OWN war, nobody else would be involved. Not the US, the UN, the EU, the Russians..... nobody. Which would imply that we wouldn't be prime extremist targets in 'revenge' attacks. We wouldn't have to support such stupidly high numbers of migrants/refugees either. If we did that in WW1/WW2, we'd all be labelled as yellow-bellied cowards! [/EndRant] You seem to have a firm grasp on this issue.

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:39:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If we did that in WW2, we'd all be labelled as yellow-bellied cowards! The history books say that is exactly what you did and exactly what you/chamberlain were/are called to this day. Now if you had ever actually read a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have known this and would not have stuffed both feet in your mouth at the same time. Maybe that's what you call us from over there. But I've never heard it said this side of the pond nor when I lived in the US for nine months either. Incidentally, it was the French that turned tails, not the Brits. And..... I never did history at all, ever, in my schooling. Anyone who says that once Churchill came into office the Brits didn't do at least their share is a idiot.

BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:42:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Many of the proper vetting procedures are already in place...I just do not want these procedures to be put aside to accommodate the rush of refugees. The process may take up to 2 years or longer and I would not release them to the general population until the process was complete... This would mean long term refugee camps. First... I would want proof that they are refugees who face a reasonable certainty that they would be in mortal danger if they remained in their country of origin. Second... Each member of the family undergo multiple background and security checks involving the National Counterterrorism Center; the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center; Homeland Security; and the State Department. Third... for long term, not short term asylum, they are employable and able to reasonably support themselves. Fourth... that they voluntarily produce or sign a legal financial statement listing their resources for eligibility for government aid. Butch Someone would be happy with refugee camps, like the facilities at the borders perhaps? no one has suggested they would be vetted less severely; NO ONE. YOU want proof? no...doesnt work like that, You have already been given a list of the screening activities and its more stringent than your list. DO you expect them to have to report every day to their employer or a ICE/ FBI/CIA person daily as well? These people come over with the clothing on their backs, what do they have that is proof of their eligibility????? And how do you vet Syrian refugees? Ask the authorities in Syria? Terroists would be the first to come up clean.

Lucylastic -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 1:57:33 PM)
Try reading post 440 .

NorthernGent -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 3:27:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx If we did that in WW2, we'd all be labelled as yellow-bellied cowards! The history books say that is exactly what you did and exactly what you/chamberlain were/are called to this day. Now if you had ever actually read a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have known this and would not have stuffed both feet in your mouth at the same time. Maybe that's what you call us from over there. But I've never heard it said this side of the pond nor when I lived in the US for nine months either. Oh my a britt who never heard of nevil chamberlain. Incidentally, it was the French that turned tails, not the Brits. The history books note that the french surrendered on june 22. The evacuation of dunkirk was complete by june 4 leaving the 40,000 french, who protected the britt retreat, to the tender mercies of the germans. And..... I never did history at all, ever, in my schooling. That would explane why you have both feet in your mouth and your head up your ass. Chamberlain followed suit with his predecessors from centuries back. The British policy was always to avoid war at all costs (almost all costs). See Napoleon, WW1, WW2 etc. The feeling was always that our prosperity depended upon a clear navigation of the seas, not some continental European war involving a load of old shite about blood and that sort of thing. There was also the practicalities of not having a pot to piss in, as after WW1 we were almost bankrupt. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Britain was putting out cardboard tanks into fields in an attempt to give the Germans the impression we actually had something to fight with them. Also, this country was rationed (food) until 1953 which tells you something about the financial state of this country around that time. My Mam was born in 1940 and saw her first orange in 1954 when it was shipped in after rationing, Every day people in England went to the shop with a card and could only have so much food - every day for 13 years. So, this country was in no state to fight a war, nor was it ever Britain's policy to get involved in a dispute that had nothing to do with her unless she felt backed into a corner. Nothing "yellow" about that. Seems sensible to me. After all, isn't part of the problem in the OP countries poking their noses into other countries' business? Still, it wouldn't have mattered if we had been rolling in money because there was nothing for us in continental Europe, why would there be?

Greta75 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 3:38:30 PM)
I was on holiday when this Paris attack happened. I didn't even know it happened, until a friend told me about it. And my first thought was, oh gee, the root of the problem is Islam. But EVERYONE denies it. They can nuke the shit out of Syria, kill all of ISIS, more Muslims will regroup and Form a new terrorist organisation. Until we acknowledge that the root issue is from Islam and from their Islamic scriptures and what they are teaching their followers, is where they are getting their inspiration from, then can we eliminate this ideology, by simply saying, you can practice your faith, but avoid following chapters (Insert harmful chapters). Make it illegal to practice anything negative written in the Hadith and the Quran. Make it clear, you know it's taught in there, and it's incompatible with modern society who wants peace. That's the real solution. Everyone is going to say, it's just a tiny handful of the baddies. But wait a minute..., this tiny handful of baddies are following the literal interpretation of the Quran and the Hadiths. Are we saying Literal interpretation is the false way to follow that religion? Prophet Muhammad followed it literally and led by example. How can we say, they were wrong? And do not follow Muhammad behaviour? How can we say Muhammad was just outdated and behaving in an outdated way accordance to his time? This is silly, our current approach towards Islamic Terrorism is geared towards encouraging more Terrorism, by holding this warm and loving support for Islam. And you know, let the Terrorist attacks keep happening and good men and women die for nothing, over and over again. Let's keep protecting this religion. I would say, we would play a better role in making Islam peaceful, WHEN we openly call them out on certain scriptures that we tell them straight, is illegal to be followed.

thompsonx -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 4:09:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 ORIGINAL: thompsonx If we did that in WW2, we'd all be labelled as yellow-bellied cowards! The history books say that is exactly what you did and exactly what you/chamberlain were/are called to this day. Interesting..... The second act of the Battle of France began on 5 June, Please pay attention...The last britt left dunkirk on june 4. They left enough guns and ammo to equip 80 divisions. The Germans launched a major offensive on Paris on 9 June, and on 13 June Paris was declared an open city, as the French government fled to Bordeaux. The first German troops entered the French capital on 14 June, little more than a month after the campaign began. There were still spasms of fighting. A fresh British force was sent to Normandy, only to be evacuated almost immediately. The Royal Navy carried out evacuations from ports down the French coast almost as far as the Spanish frontier. Meanwhile, the victorious Panzers raced in different directions across France, finishing off pockets of resistance, crossing the River Loire in the west on 17 June, and reaching the Swiss frontier a few days later. Since a quarter million britts had run away and left all of their gear to the germans it was not too difficult now was it. The end came with the surrender of France on 22 June. So contrary to what you posted the brits were the ones who ran away while the french fought on. ORIGINAL: thompsonx Now if you had ever actually read a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade you would have known this and would not have stuffed both feet in your mouth at the same time. And my quote above would prove you quite wrong. The French fled to Bordeaux and let the jerry's march into Paris without a fight. Perhaps you could get a grown up to read and explane what you copy and pasted. The french government fled to bordeau the french army kept fighting unlike the britts who ran away and left all of their guns and ammo for the germans. The history books note that the french surrendered on june 22. The evacuation of dunkirk was complete by june 4 leaving the 40,000 french, who protected the britt retreat, to the tender mercies of the germans. Typical cherry-picking. The britts cut and ran while the french fought on and yet you lable the french as cowards. It was a strategic withdrawal Another euphimism for running away. and wouldn't have been done without French collaboration and approval. Since when has g.b. needed french permission to do anything? Try reading the whole gamut, not just bits of it. It is pretty obvious that I have and you have not by your own admission. ORIGINAL: thompsonx And..... I never did history at all, ever, in my schooling. That would explane why you have both feet in your mouth and your head up your ass. And that's how I managed to prove your cherry-picking ass to be wrong!! All you have proved is that you don't know fuck all about ww2.

thompsonx -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 4:11:45 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Anyone who says that once Churchill came into office the Brits didn't do at least their share is a idiot. Fill us in sarge...what the phoque did the brits do?

lovmuffin -> RE: Paris under attack (11/18/2015 4:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub ............however many we allow apply there must be proper humane areas for them to live during the screening process. I wonder if anyone in the government is figuring how to pay for it and where the camps would be? Butch Somewhere over in Europe is a good place I would think, maybe Politesubs backyard even [8D] I don't see how anyone could possibly think that ISIS or any other terrorist organization won't exploit the refugee situation.......2% are men.....however many are military age.....whatever.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625