Multiple shootings + explosions in Paris

Bataclan: un commissaire et son chauffeur, premiers sur les lieux, ont abattu un jihadiste

Quick translation:

"A police commissioner of the anti-crime brigade (BAC 75) and his driver were the first to enter the Bataclan during the hostage crisis. The commissioner managed to shoot and kill one of the jihadists, stopping him from firing on more civilians. Unfortunately, they arrived armed only with their standard handguns and standard body armor. After the initial exchange, they had to pull back in the face of multiple AK-wielding jihadists."

Attentat à Paris: Comment les policiers de la BRI ont sauvé des otages au Bataclan

Another quick translation:



he photo of the shield above is from when they converged on the terrorists and saved the final 20 hostages.

So Badass. I would like to buy the commissioner and his driver a beer.
 
I was torn on the refugee issue, but after reading wha the process is for refugees (it's long and arduous), I have to say 'bring them'. Why? Because our border is ope, and tthat's a far more likely point of entrance for jihadis. Why go through screening, interviews, vetting, and bullshit, when they can simply fly here, or pay some coyote $5k and come in armed and completely undocumented?

The focus is on the wrong thing here.
 
I was torn on the refugee issue, but after reading wha the process is for refugees (it's long and arduous), I have to say 'bring them'. Why? Because our border is ope, and tthat's a far more likely point of entrance for jihadis. Why go through screening, interviews, vetting, and bullshit, when they can simply fly here, or pay some coyote $5k and come in armed and completely undocumented.
I've looked at it as well. Overview:
How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? - CNNPolitics.com

There is nothing I've read that ensures they're vetted in any meaningful way (is this kind of like, "you can keep your doctor?"). They're interviewed (usually 2 or 3 rounds) but many are undocumented and we have little more to rely on than thier statements. Sure, the process is lengthy and complex, but that doesn't equate to quality or thoroughness in any way. I'm not sure many can be vetted; even the Director of the FBI stated as much just last month:
FBI Director Admits US Can’t Vet All Syrian Refugees For Terror Ties [VIDEO]

Even more to the point, why should they have preference over those that actually earned the opportunity and have been waiting for years:
Forget the Syrian refugees. America needs to bring its Afghan and Iraqi interpreters here first.

The entire timing is piss poor.
 
Last edited:
But why go through that hassle, when the border is open? When they can just fly here on a visa?

If we want to minimize threats, close the border, it'll have more effect.
 
But why go through that hassle, when the border is open? When they can just fly here on a visa?

If we want to minimize threats, close the border, it'll have more effect.

I don't think anyone will disagree with securing our borders. However, she issue of just open arms come on in to refugees of Syria and Iraq, is a bit different and IMHO, insanity.
 
But why go through that hassle, when the border is open? When they can just fly here on a visa?

If we want to minimize threats, close the border, it'll have more effect.
Perhaps you and I have different definitions but our border is not "open".
 
Don't you think the vast vast majority of refugees are fleeing the same things we are trying to avoid?
 
Don't you think the vast vast majority of refugees are fleeing the same things we are trying to avoid?

I would agree on the vast majority. I cant remember where I saw it, but it was something like this: If you had a large bowl full of grapes and you knew that only one of them was poisonous, but you didn't know which one, would you still eat them?
 
An ambulance was found outside of a German soccer stadium full of explosives.

/Comic Intermission.

Neil McCauley approves.
heat-3.jpg


/Comic Intermission.
 
I see both sides of the argument, I mainly sway in favor of not allowing them within our borders.. However, I thought of a scenario that falls somewhat in the middle of the two general thoughts of the refugees. It would involve taking in the mothers and children only, sending the men back to fight against the very reason they are fleeing to begin with. Obviously its a general thought that doesn't determine who is deemed a child versus a man (at which age can a boy be considered to fight) also where elderly folk fit in. Merely a general thought that entered my mind, whether or not its a viable solution is unknown to me.

If they succeed, the women and children obviously able to return to their homeland or have the option of the men joining them in the U.S. through a extensive process and check ups of the family here in the States during the conflict. Citizenship to anyone not granted until the situation reaches a resolution.
 
Probably, but would you agree that some are probably ISIS fighter's attempting to infiltrate western countries for future attacks?

Sure. Trying, but they could also be flying in, trekking across from Mexico or Canada, getting into a boat and sailing across the ocean. At least this way(refugee) we know they are here, and can be easier to track.
 
Back
Top