• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Multiple attacks in Paris, at least 18 dead

Don't want to interrupt the xenophobic huffing and puffing, but thought it would be important to insert some facts into this thread before it goes completely off the rails.

All Paris Attackers Identified So Far Are European Nationals, According To Top EU Official
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015...opean-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/

All of the attackers from Friday’s massacre in Paris so far have been identified as European Union nationals, according to a top EU official. The announcement further casts doubt on the validity of a Syrian passport found near the bodies of a slain attacker.

“Let me underline, the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat,” Federica Mogherini, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, said after a meeting with EU foreign ministers. “It is all EU citizens so far. This can change with the hours, but so far it is quite clear it is an issue of internal domestic security.”

The majority of attackers were identified as French or Belgian nationals. An Egyptian passport was also found, but the Egyptian Ambassador to France said it belonged to a critically wounded victim and not a perpetrator. The Syrian passport caused a ruckus, with some politicians in Europe and the U.S. calling for a halt to Syrian refugee resettlement. An increasing number of state governors are trying to defund the settlement program. American officials told CBS News that the passport might be fake, while British-daily the Independent reported that a man was arrested in Serbia while carrying a Syrian passport with matching details to the one found in Paris.
Your frivolous use of libtard labels, like 21 Steelers, really undermines your credibility and renders the labels worthless.

How are you sure that these refugees are from Syria? There is human trafficking going on all over the ME and S. Asia. You can't be sure, We can't be sure. That is the point. At a time when they are threatening to attack us, we better be sure.

And stick your labels up your ***.
 
Talk to me in 5 years when another attack happens. I guarantee some will trace their history back to this group of immigrants.
Maybe, maybe not. I think the hysteria over these particular refugees is misguided. I'd argue the wide majority of them are fleeing the same terrorists everyone is fearful of letting in. It's akin to Trump wanting to build the giant wall to keep out illegals all the while the majority of them don't even cross over on foot. There are so many potential terrorists already in the country, and entering via airports every day, it's a false pretense to think we're keeping ourselves safe by focusing on refugees fleeing a war-torn country. I do agree the Syrian refugees - all refugees - need to be vetted. I don't support simply letting everyone through. But America and the West has always been a haven for war refugees, and changing that changes the fabric of the country altogether. It's also a cheap and easy form of fear mongering.
 
I totally get that but it still doesn't make sense to bring in more of them.

Exactly. We can't just open the floodgates to middle eastern refugees who aren't vetted or haven't gone through the proper immigration channels. Based on what? Their word that they are refugees? Are there any kind of background checks being done on any of these people, or are they just going to be let in en masse? That seems like insanity to me.
 
And stick your labels up your ***.
Are all right-wingers genetically predisposed to make personal attacks against those with a different viewpoint? Or is it PMS?
 
Maybe, maybe not. I think the hysteria over these particular refugees is misguided. I'd argue the wide majority of them are fleeing the same terrorists everyone is fearful of letting in. It's akin to Trump wanting to build the giant wall to keep out illegals all the while the majority of them don't even cross over on foot. There are so many potential terrorists already in the country, and entering via airports every day, it's a false pretense to think we're keeping ourselves safe by focusing on refugees fleeing a war-torn country. I do agree the Syrian refugees - all refugees - need to be vetted. I don't support simply letting everyone through. But America and the West has always been a haven for war refugees, and changing that changes the fabric of the country altogether. It's also a cheap and easy form of fear mongering.

Only takes one. If I can keep one more out, do it. If I was a betting man I would bet one of those let in would be responsible for something in the future.
 
Exactly. We can't just open the floodgates to middle eastern refugees who aren't vetted or haven't gone through the proper immigration channels. Based on what? Their word that they are refugees? Are there any kind of background checks being done on any of these people, or are they just going to be let in en masse? That seems like insanity to me.

Sure, Allow a flood of people from the same area of the world that is currently threatening us. Yep. Smart.
You want smart? Send them into the wealthy Gulf States that are closer, and more culturally aligned with them.
 
Exactly. We can't just open the floodgates to middle eastern refugees who aren't vetted or haven't gone through the proper immigration channels. Based on what? Their word that they are refugees? Are there any kind of background checks being done on any of these people, or are they just going to be let in en masse? That seems like insanity to me.
Correct. They should be vetted. There should be background checks, they should not be let in en masse. I agree with all of that. But I also disagree with the notion of categorically rejecting all refugees en masse because of some perceived threat. Heck, if you want to go down that road all travel to the U.S. should be halted immediately. Think of all the "vetted" visitors that come through our airports every day, from Saudi Arabia or the EU, or any other country. All of the terrorists that carried out the Paris attacks were free to come to the US with their French and Belgium passports. Basically anyone can have a potential ISIS connection, again, including American and Canadien citizens. Think of the 911 sleeper cells et al, none of those ******* were so called "refugees" they waltzed right in. So my point is the bluster over the Syrian refugees is disingenuous and misleading.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not. I think the hysteria over these particular refugees is misguided. I'd argue the wide majority of them are fleeing the same terrorists everyone is fearful of letting in. It's akin to Trump wanting to build the giant wall to keep out illegals all the while the majority of them don't even cross over on foot. There are so many potential terrorists already in the country, and entering via airports every day, it's a false pretense to think we're keeping ourselves safe by focusing on refugees fleeing a war-torn country. I do agree the Syrian refugees - all refugees - need to be vetted. I don't support simply letting everyone through. But America and the West has always been a haven for war refugees, and changing that changes the fabric of the country altogether. It's also a cheap and easy form of fear mongering.

The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees, fleeing a war-torn country and availing themselves of all the benefits the United States has to offer... it's estimated the family received over $100,000 in welfare benefits. Naturally they were so filled with gratitude, they...oh wait...
 
I do agree the Syrian refugees - all refugees - need to be vetted. I don't support simply letting everyone through.

Yeah right, you stupid ****. "But they'll be vetted" is just more proof of the libtard lack of common sense. Exactly how will they be vetted? Is Assad going to mail over all Syria's criminal records? Most terrorists have never even been arrested. Do people really expect them to tell the truth? Here's how it plays out if Odumma gets his way:

Immigration: Are you a member of ISIS?
Terrorist: No.
Immigration: Welcome to America!
 
Correct. They should be vetted. There should be background checks, they should not be let in en masse. I agree with all of that. But I also disagree with the notion of categorically regecting all refugees en masse because of some perceived threat.

Do we even have the immigration and security infrastructure to properly do this? Are you sure about that?

No, you shouldn't reject them en masse...you should let them get in line and emigrate here with everyone else. And like others have pointed out, some of the Middle Eastern countries are among the wealthiest in the world...why are we responsible for helping these people and taking on the risks? Let them go to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE...why not? Probably because those countries would never have them.
 
Yeah right, you stupid ****.
You are one sad ************ Indy. I feel really bad for your friends and family (if you have any). As I've said many times before, there must be some sort of medication that can help you get off the ledge. Look into it, before it's too late.
 
http://www.vox.com/world/2015/11/16/9744490/paris-attacks-isis-losing

This guy gets it. As their caliphate gets squashed, they will shift resources in efforts to damage
those countries they believe are responsible for defeating them.

That's exactly what's happening, hence Paris. The president is handling it exactly as it should be handled: special forces and air strikes.

Although It is fascinating reading the paranoid ramblings of the CONservative posters on here. Lol

I was listening to a CONservative radio host this morning and he was actually telling his nutter Reich wing audience to calm down and keep it in perspective. His words were to the effect of; " By the end of this year 300 people will be killed in traffic accidents in Iowa, and 2000 children in the u.s.will die of cancer".

He then went on to say he wasn't minimizing the deaths in Paris, just telling the nutters to stop and think. Something very foreign to them I'm sure.

Speaking of which:

Again as I stated in an earlier post you are 20 times more likely to be killed by lightning as an American citizen than to be killed by Isis on American soil

Oh, and about 400,000 people a year die because of climate change.......

We will add 250,000 more a year starting around 2030, but hey we need to put all our focus on a few goat molesters running around with ak-47's

This is the best thing that could have happened for the Republicans running for president and the media is complicit in helping them..,... if it bleeds it leads
 
Last edited:
The Tsarnaev brothers were refugees, fleeing a war-torn country...
Good point. I believe they also became radicalized once they were living here, on US soil. That's what frightens me more than anything, the ******* that turn into terrorists while enjoying all the comforts and advantages of living in the West. Just doesn't make sense. So yes, there is always the threat of an ISIS or other terrorist infiltrating refugee groups and coming in that way. But as I've been arguing, there's probably a 10,000 X larger danger of ISIS symphatizers already here or carrying western passports. I just don't agree the terrorist-playing-refugee angle is the bigger problem of the two. Ask yourself, why would they even go to the trouble? It sucks being a refugee, all camped out and huddling with families and kids, waiting for weeks and months. Why do that when you can get a passport of choice and fly right in on business class?
 
Are all right-wingers genetically predisposed to make personal attacks against those with a different viewpoint? Or is it PMS?

I dunno, I'm a right-winger and I never do. Once in a while I call someone a moron but only after they've obviously earned it
 
Good point. I believe they also became radicalized once they were living here, on US soil. That's what frightens me more than anything, the ******* that turn into terrorists while enjoying all the comforts and advantages of living in the West. Just doesn't make sense. So yes, there is always the threat of an ISIS or other terrorist infiltrating refugee groups and coming in that way. But as I've been arguing, there's probably a 10,000 X larger danger of ISIS symphatizers already here or carrying western passports. I just don't agree the terrorist-playing-refugee angle is the bigger problem of the two. Ask yourself, why would they even go to the trouble? It sucks being a refugee, all camped out and huddling with families and kids, waiting for weeks and months. Why do that when you can get a passport of choice and fly right in on business class?

Exactly, but you have exceedingly few non-Muslims getting radicalized. People who are already Muslims have that base of faith and all it takes is a few months at a radical mosque and presto, instant jihadi.

What we need is for President Trump to wiretap and bug some radical mosques and prosecute CAIR and the Muslim church in America under the RICO statutes. It could work. An observant Muslim is by definition guilty of treason already.
 
Last edited:
ISIS_MEME_SM_zps4xj3b4qu.jpg



Amanpour, CNN Analysts Rip Obama on ISIS: 'The Strategy Is Not Working'

CNN's Christiane Amanpour and two of her network's analysts blasted President Obama moments after he ended a press conference where he defended his anti-ISIS strategy. Amanpour underlined that Obama "something that was pretty incredible...that our strategy is working. People do not believe that to be the case. The only strategy that's working is the strategy that he tends to dismiss — and that's the ground troop strategy. Sinjar, Tikrit, Kobani — those are the only ISIS strongholds that have been taken back by a combination of American intelligence and air power, and local ground forces." [video below]

CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank added that "clearly, the strategy is not working, because of the terrible terrorism we've seen," and bluntly stated that "the idea that you can really contain a terrorist group doesn't really make sense."

Political analyst Gloria Borger contended that the President's "problem is that he has to be able to tell Americans, who may be worried — and tell the world why his strategy is going to work, when they've seen that it isn't working, given what occurred in Paris."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...-analysts-rip-obama-isis-strategy-not-working

------------------

I love it when the lefties eat their own

BWAhahahaha
 
You are one sad ************ Indy.

My heart is filled with glee. I'm one of the happiest people I know. I see you couldn't answer the question. Just re-spewing libtard rhetoric does not actually fix anything. And, why should we let in any refugees at all right now, from anywhere? We have been threatened, we have over 1000 terrorist probes going on in this country now. We are almost $20 trillion in debt (thanks Odumma), we shouldn't be supporting anyone else on the earner's dime when we need to fix our own country that the current administration destroyed. **** you, goodnight!
 
CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank added that "clearly, the strategy is not working, because of the terrible terrorism we've seen," and bluntly stated that "the idea that you can really contain a terrorist group doesn't really make sense."

I agree. I think the military offensive against ISIS should be significantly ramped up and ongoing until that part of Syria and Iraq is nothing but a heap of smoldering ruins. There are more than enough countries that are willing to join the fight, the time is now to take whatever action neccessary. The question is, as always, are we willing to put boots back on the ground at some point?
 
I agree. I think the military offensive against ISIS should be significantly ramped up and ongoing until that part of Syria and Iraq is nothing but a heap of smoldering ruins. There are more than enough countries that are willing to join the fight, the time is now to take whatever action neccessary. The question is, as always, are we willing to put boots back on the ground at some point?

Hey, look at that! Tibs took the Bommacock out of his mouth for a quick second. Well done!
 
But as I've been arguing, there's probably a 10,000 X larger danger of ISIS symphatizers already here or carrying western passports. I just don't agree the terrorist-playing-refugee angle is the bigger problem of the two. Ask yourself, why would they even go to the trouble? It sucks being a refugee, all camped out and huddling with families and kids, waiting for weeks and months. Why do that when you can get a passport of choice and fly right in on business class?

It's not an either or problem, we have to deal with both.

Why would they sneak in with refugees? Because they attract less attention to themselves that way. Pre 9/11 sure, Muhammad could fly in on business class from Syria and no one would notice. It's not so easy now. I don't think potential suicide attackers are all that worried about the comfort level of their travel plans either.
 
This still goes back to my question how males 18-40 are "refugees" in a civil war?

When our country was in a civil war, if you were male ages 18-40 you picked a side and fought for what you believed in. You didn't tuck tail and run to Canada.

I'm all for being fair and human to women and children and old people fleeing civil war. Open up the borders, question them and help them if we can. When I see boatloads of 20-something males, when I see "rock bands" from Syria land in Greece, I don't quite understand how you qualify as a "refugee" or how you are "persecuted". I see someone taking the easy way out and giving up on their country.
 
Last edited:
It's not an either or problem, we have to deal with both. Why would they sneak in with refugees? Because they attract less attention to themselves that way. Pre 9/11 sure, Muhammad could fly in on business class from Syria and no one would notice. It's not so easy now. I don't think potential suicide attackers are all that worried about the comfort level of their travel plans either.
I agree oneforthebus. But I think more than anything, the biggest threat currently is from ISIS symphatizers/agents that are already here and have been living in the country for years. Much like the Paris attacks, where the terrorists had been living in France and Belgium for decades. The common denominator? Travel to and from Syria/Iraq since ISIS came to power. Those are the people I'd be focusing on, people that have left Western countries to travel there, to then return, not neccesarily the refugees that are fleeing...

A couple of quick facts on refugees, fyi:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a:homepage/story

● Rather than Trump’s male-heavy flood of 250,000 coming to the United States, only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

● The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where Syrian refugees are flooding across borders. Here, an ocean away from the conflict, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

● No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

● A plurality of refugees admitted to the United States from all destinations are Christian. A disproportionate number of refugees from Iraq admitted to the United States have been Christian. And while most — but not all — of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”
 
Re: some dumbass meme from some dumbass redneck site
The refugees aren't just fleeing ISIS, they're fleeing the Assad regime.


For Every Syrian That ISIS Kills, Bashar Assad Kills Seven More
http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis/

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Islamic State has killed many Syrians, but Assad’s forces have killed more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...150d0c-4d85-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html

BEIRUT — President Bashar al-Assad’s government has killed far more people in Syria this year than the Islamic State, monitoring organizations and analysts say, even as the extremist group grabs headlines with its shocking brutality.

Between January and July, Assad’s military and pro-government militias killed 7,894 people, while the Islamic State killed 1,131, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain. In a single day last month, government airstrikes are said to have killed more than 100 people in a residential area of Douma, a suburb of the capital, Damascus.

“No human being should have to endure what Assad is putting us through,” said Hassan Takuldin, 27, who witnessed the Douma attacks.

Government forces are responsible for many more of the estimated 250,000 deaths in the four-year-old conflict than are the Islamic State militants and rebel groups, analysts and monitoring groups say. The figures, they say, underscore how Assad’s indiscriminate use of violence has empowered the Islamic State and other extremist groups and forced millions of Syrians to flee to neighboring countries and Europe.

“For all the Islamic State’s horrendous brutality, we can’t forget that the Assad regime has been the main source of death and destruction in Syria since 2011,” said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. “You can’t solve the conflict unless you find a way to address this, which the world hasn’t yet.”
 
Top