I haven’t read that much yet, but they’re saying the majority of the attackers were French citizens. I assume they were primarily from the Muslim ghettos and probably had experience fighting in the Middle East, specifically Syria…
Saw this in the news today,
“Three of the seven Islamist suicide bombers who perpetrated the terrorist massacre in Paris were French citizens, as was at least one of seven other people arrested in neighboring Belgium in connection to the deadly attacks that killed 129 and injured 352 on Friday night.” This has been posted by French (and or Belgian) Authorities, the person they are intently focused on at present. Feel free to repost elsewhere so this bum’s image is in front of the entire World.
Vive la France ! Au diable les terroristes ! Yours from the barricades, JR.
So far this morning, two State Governors are refusing to settle any refugees within their Borders. A great many U.S. citizens are in agreement with this since the attacks in Paris. As of this evening it is reported that 17 State Governors are either refusing, or heavily restricting resettlement of refugees in their States.
I suppose that makes sense to populist political idiots and ignorant bigots who can’t see that, at least for those miserable refugees who have been through the UNHCR refugee assessment processes (unlike those questionable refugees who buy their way onto people smugglers’ boats etc for destinations of choice), these poor bastards are fleeing the likes of ISIS and Assad who, according to the US and its allies, are the worst of the worst. These refugees have sound claims on the rest of the world accepting them on humanitarian grounds.
Their claims are at least as good as, often better than, the humanitarian claims of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Not a few of whom were turned back by the USA and other future Allies before WWII.
As for the likes of ISIS who have forced them out, here’s how to deal with ISIS: Herd them into a corner and wipe them out, like we used to do with rabbits as our most destructive vermin.
Of course, it’s politically incorrect and unacceptable to Western nations to herd merciless murderers and criminal psychopaths like these into a corner and wipe them out, even if it is a case of treating them as they treat others. But it would be highly effective.
Most folks hereabouts agree with your idea of how to eliminate ISIS and would probably lend a hand doing it if allowed. A majority favor allowing resettlement to a point, but so many have expressed opposition concerning Security that their Governors have raised that objection. Many feel that the other Arab Nations could easily absorb the refugees, and that they should go to those places rather than the Western Nations (offering benefits) they are presently going to. The U.S. has a large stock pile of old munitions, and no shortage of modern ones such as the MOAB. It would be agreeable to me personally to see them fall upon ISIS like a Summer Storm.
Many people are just acting out of knee-jerk ignorance here. The numbers being resettled are relatively low and each person under goes between one and two years of vetting. What’s lost here is the vast majority of victims of ISIS violence and butchery are themselves Muslims…
The question of whether non-European nations (notably those of North America) have a moral responsibility to accept a significant quota of Syrian/Eritrean/Libyan refugees for resettlement has not received much public discussion here in Yerp - although it should. We have more immediate problems. A huge number of “refugees” have arrived on our shores. These are not only the Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis and Eritreans, but also the usual quota of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Malians, Nigerians, Ghaneans … I could go on. Most of these people are harmless, indeed, well-intentioned. Mind you, it is also true that many of them are, actually, from the better-off classes in their country of origin, notably Syria. Otherwise, they could not afford financially to participate in the very costly process of human trafficking that gets them as far as Italy, Malta or Greece. A few days ago, I heard a radio interview with a young Syrian woman, speaking for her family. She had perfect English, and was in great form, having arrived on Kos following a “very enjoyable” boat trip from Turkey. In answer to a question about the family’s circumstances back in Syria, she remarked that they were “not badly off”; they owned three houses in Syria.
Funny thing is - people like her are just the sort of migrants Europe would like to receive. Well-educated with the possibility of recovering the value of their former Syrian assets, such people have obvious attractions for just about any European country. A very substantial proportion of the “migrants” will fall into this category and very many of these will qualify for asylum. I feel for the others - Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Malians, Burkians, and so on (maybe not Nigerians and Ghaneans) who are fleeing from nothing else beyond dirt poverty, and will probably spend years in concentration camps before being repatriated to their dirt-poor homes. At this moment, women in West Africa and the Sahel are waiting to hear from husbands, brothers and sons who may have ended up drowned in the Med. Very sad.
A huge number of these people are already with us, bottled up on the far side of razor-wire fences. More will come, and even the best efforts to persuade them that there is no welcome for them. Many among this multitude are fake asylum seekers. A small minority may be terrorists at some level. But what are we to do ? Pen them up in concentration camps called “Italy” and “Greece” ? Or even “Turkey” ? Shovel them back like rubbish ? Shoot them ? Answers on a postcard … JR.
The many Governors refusing to accept refugees are doing so (according to various news outlets) because the Federal gov’t has admitted that they do not have resources to adequately vet said refugees. Governors are unwilling to subject their citizens to such risk .
I saw a quote purportedly from a US soldier a few days ago along the lines of.
All you keyboard warriors clamouring to execute muslims (as a generic term and not just ISIS), to want to kill them all - where were you when I was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, when my friends were dying. You would probably crap yourselves or fire away without identifying your target leading to killing innocents (and possibly spiraling gunfire s more ‘citizens’ who did not know what was happening joined in).
To some extent the west has to take the blame for the rise of ISIS and the current issues. Iraq, Libya, Syria were pretty stable if totalitarian regimes, bombing them to remove the leaders just left the countries in turmoil with bands fighting and vying for leadership (often over their own fiefdoms and not the whole country).
ISIS like many terrorist organisations win the propaganda war, it is easier for them to divide people, to get knee jerk reactions like I see on the net and public media ‘Muslim terrorists’ not ISIS (saw the same in Northern Ireland with some outlets, Catholic Gunman not IRA/PIRA/OIRA/INLA/etc same with Protestant gunmen and not UDF/UVF/Red Hand/etc), a generic distrust and hatred, persecution or lumping all of one religion together as bad (I am more and more against religion having been involved in too many conflicts that started due to it and are perpetuated by it).
Just bombing ISIS held areas (where many innocents live who just want to live their lives in peace) risks collateral damage and lets the terrorists/insurgents (call them what you will) win the hearts and minds of the people inside and outside the regions they control. Strengthens their support and increases their following. Massive firepower and kill them all attitude is not the answer (neither is softly softly cosey chats, like some leaders want). Unfortunately effective boots on the ground, sufficient to protect an area after it is cleared is needed, preferably troops from those countries or regions (and religions).
At the moment we have Syrians in Holland (quite well spoken, fluent English speakers, well dressed) saying they have no life in Europe, that the accommodation they are given and food is no better than a prison (staying in hotels at the moment) and that they would rather go back to Syria than stay here. Then they come to the crux - they came here to work not as refugees, they came on the boats though. Economic migrants.
A group in Sweden complained about being put in a small village and not in a big city, that the log huts (typical houses in the region, with TV, heating, kitchen etc) were disgusting and the forests were cold and scary so they refused to get off the buses for two days.
Afghanistanis in UK claiming that a UK 5 bedroom house was disgusting for them and their 4 kids, it was so small they would not use it for their animals, their house in Afghanistan was 10 times bigger.
Who’s been putting that forward on this forum?
I was arguing that all of you shouldn’t have been there, because it was a doomed exercise from the outset.
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect and value your service and that of all others who served in those conflicts, just that I thought at the time, correctly as it’s been shown over the last fourteen years or so, that it was stupid and pointless to get involved in occupations.
I haven’t heard this, all I’ve heard is that it is a two year vetting process and it was stated that only about 2% were military aged males…
Migration crisis continues chaotically, with European Union “leaders” still clueless as to how to deal with it. Border closures and restrictions proliferate all over eastern and southern Europe, where countries show no willingness to accept either refugees or economic migrants, in some cases, even for transit to the new migrant “Promised Land”, Germany. In Germany itself, hostility to Frau Merkel’s “Liberty Hall” policy is steadily growing. Anti-immigrant incidents, often little reported outside Germany, are on the increase, and opposition has risen to the extent that Merkel has been forced to row back considerably on her stance. Not looking good for the next election. Meanwhile, all this fence-building threatens to turn Greece into a giant concentration camp for migrants, something the Greeks are quite unwilling to accept. Apparently, a senior EU official has opined the Europe has ten days to save the Schengen Common Travel Area; no idea how this can be done, however.
How terribly, terribly predictable. Perhaps the mandarins of Brussels should look beyond Schengen, and look the threat to the cohesion of the EU full in the face. Yours from the Metaxas Line, JR.