Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Political pressure from various sources always leads to exiting the situation before any sort of true difference is made.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, thousands of troops have died, and more than a trillion dollars has been spent to make a difference in Iraq, but here we are with, in your words, no difference made.

It sounds like your solution is "yeah, but this time we'll really mean it".

[Azure]

The West can't just stand back and let countries like France, Germany and Britain deal with this problem alone.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Not because of what we do? We created many of these lunatics. We killed their leaders and they put in crazier #######s than they previously had. We blew up their loved ones and they swore vengeance. They murder our loved ones and we declare war. It is a vicious cycle that we are in and we should be trying to stop the cycle not kill more of "them" so that we create whole new generations of madmen.

Originally Posted by Drak

Agreed - who we are. Decades of imperialism and interventionism create instability, a major part of the problem.

Imperialism and intervention have happened all over the world. Ever heard of the Vietnam war? As many as 1 million Vietnamese killed in the 20th century. And yet we don't see Vietnamese (or Angolans, or Hondurans) blowing themselves up along with hundreds of innocent bystanders at theatres and malls. Africa has been wracked with civil wars and foreign meddling for decades. And the only parts of Africa afflicted with suicide bombing and mass terrorism are the parts with Muslim populations. Latin America has been wracked with civil wars and foreign meddling for decades. And we don't see suicide bombing and mass terrorism in Latin America.

• The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and decent.
  
• Almost all acts of deadly terrorism in the world are carried out by Muslims.

There's nothing incompatible about those two statements.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

What exactly does "finishing the job" entail?

People have been saying this kind of thing since the Vietnam war. You simply can't conflate insurgencies or terrorist groups with traditional nation states and the types of tactics that work against them. Unless "finishing the job" looks like carpet bombing the country into a parking lot, or entangling our forces into a protracted war that will see many, many times more people killed than the odd terrorist attack, that really isn't the issue. Western forces were in Afghanistan for a decade and a half; should they have stayed there for 30 years?

JSOC was brutally effective. Their methods worked and they were successful in completing their 'mission.' The problem is that even if you kill all the terrorists at any given time, someone still needs to rebuild the country.

ISIS is a different beast though. You need complete unification in the Middle East to be able to deal with them.

They are certainly not going to go away on their own.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Has there been any links to refugees who entered France?

I would doubt it, the only link I can fathom is as a message to those fleeing from the ISIS regimes towards Europe. This kind of leads to some mistrust towards the refugees which may or may not be intended from the attacks. Distrust leads to isolation and breeds home-grown radicals.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Itse

I agree. They will also surely do that, as they have done everywhere in Europe. It's just not that easy, as refugees quite commonly don't have much in the way of paperworks, and typically there's no police or government left in the places where they came from who could identify the guys that could be a problem.

Security in an open, democratic society will always be imperfect. It's the price of freedom and the price of giving the refugees a chance.

A quick hypothetical. Let's imagine you're the Supreme Beloved Leader of Canada (but otherwise a rather nice guy).

You are informed that over time 100,000 refugees will come to Canada, and you have to make a choice as to whether to take them in or not.

Your Head of National Security informs you that accepting those refugees will result in about 10 new terrorist attacks in Canada that will kill 10 people on average. They will try to screen them as best they can, but no matter how hard they will try, a total of 10 new terrorists will appear in Canada and 100 Canadians will die in terror attacks on Canadian soil.

On the other hand your Human Rights Counselor informs you that if you don't accept those refugees, about 5% of those people will die somewhere in the Middle-East, and another 1% will join terrorist organizations, most likely ISIS or their affiliates. That's 5000 dead refugees before any new terrorists appear, and 1000 new terrorists that will additionally kill an unknown but probably very large number of people somewhere. Mostly those new terrorists will stay in Syria and Iraq, but obviously there's no way to guarantee that none of those new terrorists will kill Canadians somewhere, like in Paris. Or Toronto.

So, take in refugees or not?

This is a simplified example, but these are the kinds of discussions that the world leaders are very probably really having. Even if you're not a very humanitarian president and don't care at all about people who are not your countrymen, the big picture suggests that somebody needs to take in those refugees or everyone will suffer more for it. So essentially everyone is doing it. It's not because the world leaders are nice people. It's because they know it's the "lesser evil".

The endgame should be trying to help people live where they are. Once you have a huge number of refugees, there are no good options left.

TL;DR
Yes, some of the refugees will very likely be or become terrorists. But taking them in is STILL the lesser evil. Even if you don't actually care about the refugees.

You just have accept that it's an imperfect world, and be prepared for the likely problems.

Yes, all very interesting and hypothetical, but you still need to vet the Syrians. If security measures are not used, Canada becomes a loophole and your percentages then become much higher.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I would doubt it, the only link I can fathom is as a message to those fleeing from the ISIS regimes towards Europe. This kind of leads to some mistrust towards the refugees which may or may not be intended from the attacks. Distrust leads to isolation and breeds home-grown radicals.

Reports are one of the terrorists is allegedly linked as following the refugee path from Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ttacks-killers

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, thousands of troops have died, and more than a trillion dollars has been spent to make a difference in Iraq, but here we are with, in your words, no difference made.

It sounds like your solution is "yeah, but this time we'll really mean it".

My solution is a unified NATO and UN backed confrontation that has never ever occurred before where it is a single goal of all involved to end the advancement of ISIS and force a surrender where actual diplomacy and conversation can the occur in an effort to end this once and for all.


What's yours?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Reports are one of the terrorists is allegedly linked as following the refugee path from Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ttacks-killers

Well, that's not going to end well for legitimate refugees.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Well, that's not going to end well for legitimate refugees.

Nope, it's not.
More distrust, more fear. And probably an even greater increase in threats of violence perpetrated against them.
It truly is no win

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Azure

The West can't just stand back and let countries like France, Germany and Britain deal with this problem alone.

If Article 5 of the Washington treaty is invoked, they wont have to go it alone and Canada along with 60 other nations will have no choice but to get involved. Rightfully so as if this occurred in Toronto instead of Paris you know Canada would be asking the same thing.

it would also be real swell if the spineless UN security council got on board as well.

[Azure]

Well if anyone can unite NATO and the UN all at the same time it would be ISIS.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Itse

...
So, take in refugees or not?..

Not.

For as long as we have an array of our own seemingly unsolvable problems with poverty, homelessness, health care, youth unemployment, neglect of disabled, declining civil service quality, which are all exacerbated by declining economy and looming recession, the answer must be "absolutely not". Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco and many other countries have it right. They do not care to upgrade their international political image by doing grand gestures.

Being royally compassionate on behalf of the country is an unacceptable substitute for being responsible and accountable to the people of the country. Those who want to help struggling families can do so financially and personally through a myriad of good organizations.

[GirlySports]

This Reddit thread is fascinating to read: actively practicing Muslims, what goes through your mind on a day like today?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not.

For as long as we have an array of our own seemingly unsolvable problems with poverty, homelessness, health care, youth unemployment, neglect of disabled, declining civil service quality, which are all exacerbated by declining economy and looming recession, the answer must be "absolutely not". Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco and many other countries have it right. They do not care to upgrade their international political image by doing grand gestures.

Being royally compassionate on behalf of the country is an unacceptable substitute for being responsible and accountable to the people of the country. Those who want to help struggling families can do so financially and personally through a myriad of good organizations.

I'm not sure they have it right. Not having refugees presents its own problems like a shrinking population.

Monaco doesn't even count, it's just a millionaires playground.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

My solution is a unified NATO and UN backed confrontation that has never ever occurred before where it is a single goal of all involved to end the advancement of ISIS and force a surrender where actual diplomacy and conversation can the occur in an effort to end this once and for all.


What's yours?

You know, they aren't a country or a government. It's not like some representative of these nuts to sign a peace treaty on the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

I don't have a solution, that's for sure. I don't know what should be done. I'm not really comfortable "volunteering" thousands of people who aren't me to invade Iraq for the third time in 25 years, and drop into the middle of a civil war in the hopes they finish off an ideology.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm not sure they have it right. Not having refugees presents its own problems like a shrinking population...

That's a problem that can be solved without taking refugees en-masse. I am fully supportive of smart immigration policies.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'm not sure they have it right. Not having refugees presents its own problems like a shrinking population.

Monaco doesn't even count, it's just a millionaires playground.

Canada's immigration system is quite effective in countering the low birth rate. We admit nearly 250,000 people a year, and that offsets the declining birth rate. Bringing in 25,000 refugees seems like a symbolic and noble gesture, but I question the necessity of it, considering we are in a recession.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Not.

For as long as we have an array of our own seemingly unsolvable problems with poverty, homelessness, health care, youth unemployment, neglect of disabled, declining civil service quality, which are all exacerbated by declining economy and looming recession, the answer must be "absolutely not". Switzerland, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco and many other countries have it right. They do not care to upgrade their international political image by doing grand gestures.

Being royally compassionate on behalf of the country is an unacceptable substitute for being responsible and accountable to the people of the country. Those who want to help struggling families can do so financially and personally through a myriad of good organizations.

Its 25,000 people. Thats a 0.0007% increase in our population and the hope is they become contributing members of our economy which is a net benefit for the country.

I hope this attack increases background checks for the refugees though. Canada apparently has one of the most sophisticated data monitoring systems in the world. ####ty for our privacy but should be pretty good for situations like this.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Yes, all very interesting and hypothetical, but you still need to vet the Syrians. If security measures are not used, Canada becomes a loophole and your percentages then become much higher.

I guess I could have made that part even more clear, but I totally agree with you.

Another thing that will make your percentages go up is discrimination of the regufees after they have been vetted. You have to accept them into the society, even though some of them quite possible will be or become terrorists. It's a scary thought, but it's the rational choice.

I might come off as a bleeding heart who loves a rainbow society, but really I'm not. I'm just trying to use my head so that at least I'm not making things worse. I admit, after Helsinki has been "flooded" with Syrians I have to remind myself pretty much daily to not be racist.

(And also not to get infuriated by the much worse racists, who really disgust me.)