Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok new thought just surfaced in my head.

Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?

 Ouze wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
All the refugees Obama took in were men... not children or women, just men. Conspiracies inbound

I'll take "made up garbage" for 100, Alex.

I'll take statistical noise.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ok new thought just surfaced in my head.

Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?

Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,


And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.

Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.

States should not hold carte blanch to be the sole determinator of what constitutes "worth" and gak why would you want them to? Rationalism is not an end to itself. Your position is in fact a judgement, highly subjective, and devoid of actual reason (because 'rational' is not a buzzword meaning 'seems like a smart thing to do').

And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ok new thought just surfaced in my head.

Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?

Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,


And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.

So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one

Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ok new thought just surfaced in my head.

Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?

Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,


And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.

So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one

Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"

Tasty tasty bacon, shame it will kill you eventually. But everyone dies, unfortunately.

It's the whole vigilante idea. A lot of countries still have a large amount of people who have inbuilt racism, and opening the doors will probably lead to quite a few people being attacked for simply being different.

Then if the governments go into search mode, it's a huge breach of privacy and causes a lot of issues. How far are they allowed to snoop in the search for answers?

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Ok new thought just surfaced in my head.

Wouldn't trying to weed out terrorists from the innocents turn into a glorified witch hunt?

Of course it would, it's a very bad idea,


And I was referring to liviticus, which is no where near Corinthians.

So we have to have the presumption that any outcome might be possible because if we assume there are terrorists, then we will search until we find one

Also, New Testament sort of trumps the Old, but thats not to say the old isn't important. The book of Leviticus is a book of laws, most of which were tossed out when jesus came around and said "Y'all so mean to each other. Here, let me teach you to be nice... You can also eat Bacon"

Tasty tasty bacon, shame it will kill you eventually. But everyone dies, unfortunately.

It's the whole vigilante idea. A lot of countries still have a large amount of people who have inbuilt racism, and opening the doors will probably lead to quite a few people being attacked for simply being different.

Then if the governments go into search mode, it's a huge breach of privacy and causes a lot of issues. How far are they allowed to snoop in the search for answers?

Glorious Merica already spies on our citizens, which is technically against the UN Declaration of human rights, but the US found a loophole using RAW. The right in Article 12 states that you cant "spy" (theres more but this is shorter) on people arbitraily. US says they are looking for terrorists, thus making their cause inarbitrary

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The vast majority of those refugees are running from the same terrorists, it is our duty to help them, not detain them and treat them like potential terrorists.

It's not our 'duty' to help all the people fleeing, we don't know anything about the people arriving, what their background is or what their allegiance is. Being cynical, how many fleeing Syria are Assad's supporters trying to get out? Quite a few refugees seem to have quite a lot of money to have travelled as far as they have and still have iPhones and the like.

It's not duty to help everyone, we do so out of well meaning and humanity towards those in need. But it's not an obligation and it's a bit much to hear refugees on the TV demanding their right to live in our countries as though they're already citizens and taking our offer of help for granted. Realistically we can't just open up and let everyone who wants to come to Europe to swarm in however desperate their circumstances, it's not thousands, it's millions. Our infrastructure and society can't take the surge, in Britain we have pressure on housing, education and health, all are overburdened because of underfunding and lack of manpower in these sectors.

If it turns out that the attackers in Paris came through as refugee/migrants it's going to fuel a hardline turn around against migration in Europe. Those running the EU are desperate to keep the open borders policy but the public is going to turn against that. Immigration is pretty much going to be the main issue on which UK membership of the EU is decided unfortunately, all other issues will not get coverage such is the way debate will be distorted.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Why would they carry a passport? Makes no sense.

The harder it is to identify you, the harder it is for the authorities to go after your friends/family/ associates.

As for the grenades, not easy to come by.

Grenades are probably not easy to come by in France, no, which suggests plenty of planning went into this.

Were it me, I'd float 'em across the Med from Libya or something.

I've just been reading up on all the surplus AK47s/military stuff lying around from the end of the cold war/Yugoslav civil war.

There is a scary amount of stuff floating around Europe

This article from back in July might be relevant now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11723764/Forty-grenades-180-detonators-and-plastic-explosives-stolen-from-French-military-base.html

France is to review security at all of its munitions depots after 40 grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives were stolen from a major base in southern France.

"Very well informed" thieves broke into the Miramas arms depot northwest of Marseille, southern France, in the early hours of Monday after cutting through two wire fences, according to judicial sources.

The Marseille prosecutor has launched an inquiry into “theft via a break-in by an organised gang and fraudulent entry of a military base”.

The defence ministry has also launched an administrative inquiry into the worrying robbery of enough explosives to “blow up any bank or, worse, commit a large-scale attack at a time when the terrorist threat is high in France,” according to TF1, the French TV news channel.

 LordofHats wrote:

Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.

States should not hold carte blanch to be the sole determinator of what constitutes "worth" and gak why would you want them to? Rationalism is not an end to itself. Your position is in fact a judgement, highly subjective, and devoid of actual reason (because 'rational' is not a buzzword meaning 'seems like a smart thing to do').

And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry, but not everyone fleeing Syria or any of the current conflict zones are created equal...

Those who are fleeing yet support one side over the other are *much* different from those that are persecuted minorities who are fleeing because both sides in the end will continue to persecute and murder them.
The former is simply fleeing because they don't much relish the thought of being killed as a consequence of a conflict they still support. The latter is a true refugee, because they have no other options at all. No matter which side 'wins' in the end, they're going to be persecuted (and likely killed) just because they're part of a minority that neither sides involved respects or sees as human.

Our refugee focus should primarily be on helping the likes of the Yazidis and Syrian Christians. The only migrants we should be allowing within our borders are those who have skills that can contribute to our society, and won't present a security risk.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's not our 'duty' to help all the people fleeing, we don't know anything about the people arriving, what their background is or what their allegiance is. Being cynical, how many fleeing Syria are Assad's supporters trying to get out? Quite a few refugees seem to have quite a lot of money to have travelled as far as they have and still have iPhones and the like.

That depends. If you're one of the countries that signed on to the 1951 un refugee convention, or the 1967 protocol, then it is your duty to help them. France is a member, along with other countries such as usa and australia. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en Whether or not the treaty should be re-examined is another issue, but as it stands the duty is there.

edit: http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58 for anyone that is interested in reading, has a link to the convention itself.

 LordofHats wrote:

Yes, it is. It's a fundamental difference. Considering a human being extremely worthwhile just because he is a human is highly irrational. Being human being an extraordinary feature on its own makes no sense. It's an emotional, left image of humanity. Like it or not, that's how it is. That isn't a judgement, it's an objective view, although some people certainly take offense on being called out as behaving irrationally. Welp.

And that's before pointing your you're ignoring my actual position to rant about the mean leftie liberals. I am in fact arguing for making rational decisions with regards to refugees and against "feth those guys they're not me" aka a kneejerk emotional response devoid of any humanity (an integral component of Rationalism). Rationalism and Humanism are not mutually exclusive.

Your very response proves the point I made in the last sentence. You are already too far into it and need to step back in order to get the bigger picture. Your thinking already starts on the "We must help refugees" level which already made quite a few steps, ignoring the ones that come beforehand. It is without doubt that Rationalism and Humanism aren't mutually exclusive and many decisions in regards to refugees are rationally motivated. Rational decisions are taken (among a lot of irrational ones) regarding the problem.

Your problem is that you let your subjective, emotional view hinder you from being more objective and less biased. The very first step was what I referred to in my previous post. The very idea of whether a human is inherently worth a lot just because he is a human or not is not rational. Rationally, a human is useful for you or society by having something of worth. Just being human isn't worth. That's the emotional part of it where people consider others of their kind extremely important just because they are one of their kind. Those two views are mutually exclusive. They are completely different. That's the most basic level I was referring to, you already are on a sub-level.

Regarding the refugee problem, my personal opinion is that I don't care. If anything, I am happy about it because I directly profit from the insecurity caused by the uncontrolled immigration. The cost that all those immigrants cause will not be the problem of higher-ups, we don't care about (in our eyes) minor tax relief. The suffering people are, as usual, those in the middle with an average job. People who could really profit from tax relief. Tax relief that now isn't going to happen because of the refugee crisis. I, or rather we, don't care. If worse comes to worst, we will just move to the US permanently. Germany gets less and less attractive anyway.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Sorry, but not everyone fleeing Syria or any of the current conflict zones are created equal...

Technically they're totally created equal. They just might not be equal anymore however many years after they were created

Yazidis and Syrian Christians

Yeah stuff sounds kind of suck for them.

Then again, it sounds like it sucks for just Syrian Muslims too what with all the kidnapping of children to make them child soldiers, forcing women into prostitution, and oh slavery. Somehow, I feel like "supports groups involved in fighting" is a really bad criteria to be applied unilaterally cause there's a gak to of reasons for anyone over there to support some groups over others that are completely understandable. I mean, unless your okay with child soldiers, forced prostitution, and slavery, and the waiting list for the boat out of dodge is a mile long what other options are there?

The only migrants we should be allowing within our borders are those who have skills that can contribute to our society,

Because the only people in any of our countries right now are those that contribute to society (whatever the hell 'contribute' means in this context)? If only we could throw out everyone who doesn't meet your/my subjective idea of contributing... Oh wait. Irony.

and won't present a security risk.

Well duh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your thinking already starts on the "We must help refugees" level which already made quite a few steps, ignoring the ones that come beforehand.

Again, you're ignoring my position. My thinking starts with "we should consider this question carefully because people can die." I've stated multiple times I am not for "always help refugees always."

Your problem is that you let your subjective, emotional view hinder you from being more objective and less biased.

Sure if you want to pretend that it's impossible to disagree with you and still be rational.

The very idea of whether a human is inherently worth a lot just because he is a human or not is not rational.

I don't think you know what constitutes rationalism. To use a classic analogy; McCoy (the Humanist) thinks being 'humanity' is of critical importance and should never be ignored. Spock (the Utilitarian) thinks decisions should be made logically for the greater good. Kirk (The Rational) looks both in the eye, nods, and says he'll think about it. EDIT: Then he goes off to bang green space babes!

The idea that Human beings have an inherent worth is half the backbone of Rationalism. It is based in the principal that human reason is uniquely capable of descerning knowledge and solving problems. It is not a philosophy based in emotional nihilism or that the human state is inherently worthless.

Rationally, a human is useful for you or society by having something of worth.

Try to define worth in a non-subjective manner that can be applied as criteria and you might notice that this is not as objective as it might seem.

Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.

Seaward wrote:
Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.

It was somewhere, I don't remember if it was here, that a poster got incensed when someone claimed refugees could be involved. I believe there was a phrase that the stuff in Paris was what the refugees were escaping from. Now we have new information that terrorists are in fact accompanying non-terrorists in the Syrian exodus.

Lofty intentions should never be a suicide pact.

 d-usa wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

Maybe there could be some snappy slogan they could see on their way into such installation?

Rassenintegration Macht Frei!

You're going to Godwin the thread?

 Orlanth wrote:
@ Dreadclaw - The IRA do not want to restore Northern Ireland 'to the Irish', the Irish protestants are Irish. Threy deny Irishness to their enemies on a point of dogma.

Do you mean the Protestants living in Northern Ireland? And you are aware of how many of the early prominent IRA (pre-Partition) were Protestant?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It seemed like you were arguing in favor of closing borders and stopping refugees from entering.

"Closed Borders?" yes

Refuse to help them? no

Theoretically we could "detain" them somewhere secluded and have the place on high alert in case any are terrorists and they want to try their luck

I fully agree. The only way we can stop these attacks is by isolating them all in camps. Only problem left then is to decide what the hell we should do with those camps full of muslims. Can't put them in there for ever. We need to think of some kind of final solution for the problem.



Oh... wait...

How the feth did you make the leap in logic from detaining and quarantining immigrants...to gas chambers? Quarantining refugees is perfectly reasonable and sensible. Government's have a moral duty to their own citizens to make sure immigrants, especially refugees from conflict zones and regions where extremism is prominent (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Palestine, Yemen, Saudi Arabia...)

And we already have immigrant camps anyway. We call them Detainment Centers.

I get that Godwin-ing is inevitable on the internet, but could you please refrain from employing it as a deliberate form of Ad Hominem?

Anyone know how reliable the Greek media outlet Antenna is? Because they are reporting that the passport found on one of the perpetrators showed he entered Greece as a refugee.

 Breotan wrote:

Seaward wrote:
Greek police are saying one of the dead gunman registered as a refugee in Greece in October, after being asked by French police to run his prints. Source.

It was somewhere, I don't remember if it was here, that a poster got incensed when someone claimed refugees could be involved. I believe there was a phrase that the stuff in Paris was what the refugees were escaping from. Now we have new information that terrorists are in fact accompanying non-terrorists in the Syrian exodus.

Lofty intentions should never be a suicide pact.

The complaint was that comments that boil down to "this is the the fault of refugees" and "this is what happens when you let refugees in" ignore the fact that refugees are not terrorists and that they are in fact running from the same thing that happened here.

Someone using refugees as cover =/= refugees as a cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Anyone know how reliable the Greek media outlet Antenna is? Because they are reporting that the passport found on one of the perpetrators showed he entered Greece as a refugee.

From what I have read it's a mixed back of stuff.

They found a passport near a body that was used to enter Greece as a refugee, but they haven't said if it was one of the attackers. They also said that they submitted fingerprints of the attackers but they haven't been matched yet, but a set of prints from someone else involved (haven't seen how) was matched to refugee processing.

That was the last update on the story that I have heard.

That seems pretty logically consistent to me.
A Terrorist use refugees as cover.
B A country takes in refugees.

C Taking in refugees is a cause of the attacks.

The blame lies more on those who regard human lives as expendable, and don't mind waging indiscriminate war on entire peoples for their ideologies. That's the root cause. But the acceptance of refugees, if it is proven that they are being used to infiltrate fighters, is absolutely a contributing factor. I do not suggest not allowing any refugees in, any more than I endorse no flying of civilians because of 9/11. But I'd be fine with stringent requirements, perhaps even hearings with trained interrogators before admitting any refugees. Put a cap on your camps, and make it a zero sum game. Accept only as many individuals as you clear or deport. Expensive, tedious, callous and frustrating- but likely less horrific than what occurred in France. If attacks still occur, increase regulations or waiting periods.

edited for poor quote formatting on my part.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

That seems pretty logically consistent to me.
A Terrorist use refugees as cover.
B A country takes in refugees.

C Taking in refugees is a cause of the attacks.

The ancient strategy of "Trojan Horse." We should've secluded the refugees like we did with the Japanese be ause as awful as that was, nobody tried

 Gitzbitah wrote:

That seems pretty logically consistent to me.
A Terrorist use refugees as cover.
B A country takes in refugees.

C Taking in refugees is a cause of the attacks.

This is a logic flaw. A rational argument would have the third item read like this:

"C Refugees need to be carefully screened for signs of infiltrators to help prevent terrorist attacks."

And again, we had these attacks long before refugees were a thing.

Exit: IRA bombings, 9/11, Madrid, London

Well, while we're on the subject - How do you even meaningfully screen refugees for "infiltrators"? If they don't have a criminal record or associations, I don't really know an effective way to filter out people with violent ideological leanings.

I suppose you can surveil them for a while, but that doesn't really seem pragmatic on this scale. How do you keep a close eye on 10,000 people?

(BTW, that was an actual question - if one of you guys knows the answer I'm all ears).

 d-usa wrote:
And again, we had these attacks long before refugees were a thing.

Anyone not aware of this is a fool; however the refugee crisis is making it "worse"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And again, we had these attacks long before refugees were a thing.

Anyone not aware of this is a fool; however the refugee crisis is making it "worse"

Madrid had a higher death toll, so what constitutes "worse"?

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And again, we had these attacks long before refugees were a thing.

Anyone not aware of this is a fool; however the refugee crisis is making it "worse"

Madrid had a higher death toll, so what constitutes "worse"?

The media wants us to think its worse, but what if the terrorists were already here so when we are focusing on trying to weed them out from the refugees, they are well into our systems...

 Ouze wrote:
Well, while we're on the subject - How do you even meaningfully screen refugees for "infiltrators"? If they don't have a criminal record or associations, I don't really know an effective way to filter out people with violent ideological leanings.

Intelligence agencies have flagged the identities of many of the people involved in the Syrian civil war. Not just ours, but other countries such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and even the Kurds provide data on these people. It's one of the ways we've managed to develop and update our "no fly lists". Even with this data it is a very porous system as we just don't have the means to identify and track everyone we need to. That leads us to profiling. We need to look for "red flag" type things such as young men travelling alone, Syrian refugees who clearly aren't Syrian, etc. Will it stop everyone? Likely not. But stopping as many as we can catch will at least help out. Then there is tracking. People who are given refugee status shouldn't just be allowed to "disappear" once they cross a boarder.

 Ouze wrote:
I suppose you can surveil them for a while, but that doesn't really seem pragmatic on this scale. How do you keep a close eye on 10,000 people?

You have to set up something, even if it simply mimics the criminal justice system where parolees have to check in with a parole officer and provide updates. You can also send social services to do checkups on refugee families. Not going to pretend this won't strain the system but not doing anything is a recipe for disaster.

The last thing on the list is a plan for what to do with your refugee population once the problem is over in their home country. Do you let them stay as immigrants? Or do you begin deportation? It's all very complex and each step needs to be considered carefully with the interests of the host country above all others.

Something that makes a lot of sense is to start by asking what the Refugee wants;

Do you want to come here and stay?Just sit them in a refugee center and fast track them through the immigration process. If they are rejected from that process, see if the below two apply.

Do you want to go home when the conflict is over?This is probably the hardest kind of refugee to deal with. I mean, how about all those Palestinians who left the regions in the 1960's? Think they're going back anytime soon Lots of refugees leave intending to go back someday, but the violence doesn't end and they never do. Hard decisions. Could set up refugee towns, but comparisons and risks of creating immigrant ghettos and concentration camp like conditions will be high. Could put them on some special visa but we all know how well those work here in the US.

Do you want to go somewhere other than here and need help getting there? Help them go on their way. Probably want to have some kind of multinational administration set up to make this actually work.

One problem is the huge numbers of failed asylum applicants that remain in Europe because they can't be deported for various reasons. Its worth trying to get into Europe for illegitimate reasons as there's a good chance you can just remain anyway.

Secondly, the process requires that asylum seekers make a claim in the first safe country they get to, and are distributed around EU states. But the surge currently had many refusing processing and demanding their right to go to their chosen country of Germany which is not how it's supposed to work. Instead of enforcing these rules Germany then allowed 200,000 to skip intervening countries and access Germany to make a claim in September alone. They have no idea what background any of these people have but will have taken 800,000 in this year.

Theres a myth that the Germans all love this and want to welcome mass migration. Yes, there were photos in the newspapers of people with flags welcoming migrants but in private a lot of germans feel otherwise but feel they are shamed from saying as such publicly. It's like some collective guilt still hanging from WW2 is paralysing them from being realistic about the enormity of the problem of taking a million people a year into your country without them at least being processed for genuine claims first.