[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Mike E]

Should we try the Australian method of refugee-checking? Put them up on an island while their credentials are checked. Let in the refugees, send away those who can't prove their ID.

[yoda]

Should we try the Australian method of refugee-checking? Put them up on an island while their credentials are checked. Let in the refugees, send away those who can't prove their ID.

Midway or Skye should be suitable

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I used the word cowardice to refer to a similar viewpoint presented by two posters including yourself, proposing because people were killed in Paris as a knee-jerk reaction all refugees should be denied entry to western countries irrespective of any other consideration.

That is cowardice, no two ways about it. Nothing has changed about the situation of millions of people fleeing the conflict in Syria. A few of these will be jihaddists, the majority normal people trying to get b in life who have seen terrible terrible horrors. Huge numbers of those want to "westernize". That's not the issue. What has changed is the US particularly (although the phenomenon has been seen across the world) has become more scared as a result of the attack and made a knee-jerk response. The terrorists have won on that score.

No issue with you disagreeing with me. Doesn't stop your view, in my opinion, being one motivated by fear rather than values, with little grasp of the human tragedy unfolding in Syria.

I'm pretty sympathetic to your point of view Joey but how much do the in comers want to " Westernise " ? This is the crucial issue in my opinion. A significant number of them hold similar religious views to the ones that went out of fashion in the UK about 500 years ago.

[Audax]

Syrian was a Cosmonaut; now he's a refugee. Interesting story:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/in-depth/features/muhammed-faris-space-odyssey-refugee-odyssey-1880597043

[Steve Moss]

I used the word cowardice to refer to a similar viewpoint presented by two posters including yourself, proposing because people were killed in Paris as a knee-jerk reaction all refugees should be denied entry to western countries irrespective of any other consideration.

That is cowardice, no two ways about it. Nothing has changed about the situation of millions of people fleeing the conflict in Syria. A few of these will be jihaddists, the majority normal people trying to get b in life who have seen terrible terrible horrors. Huge numbers of those want to "westernize". That's not the issue. What has changed is the US particularly (although the phenomenon has been seen across the world) has become more scared as a result of the attack and made a knee-jerk response. The terrorists have won on that score.

No issue with you disagreeing with me. Doesn't stop your view, in my opinion, being one motivated by fear rather than values, with little grasp of the human tragedy unfolding in Syria.

My values include wanting the West to be safe, to prosper, to thrive, and to survive.

My values do not include self-destruction or inviting those across our borders who may or may not share my attachment to the West and it's way of life.

Our borders is just that, ours. No non-citizen has a right to enter the UK or the USA without permission. So the question becomes, do we let them in or not? As soon as we accept that there is no right for a non-citizen to cross our borders, the question then becomes on what conditions.

I say yes, if they want to be British or Americans who believe in freedom of speech, religion, the vote, etc., and can participate productively in society.

I say no, if they don't value our way of life and don't accept our guiding principles. They can go live somewhere else, if they chose. Better, they can go back to their own country and fight for whatever value system they may possess.

I say no, if they can't contribute to society as opposed to take from society. Our first duty is to our citizens, not people who want to enroll into a benefits system under which neither they nor theirs contributed.

Defining who belongs to which group requires a process, procedures, a system and review. And until that system can be made effective, no one should be allowed to cross.

You call that cowardice. I call it using the brains God gave us. I call that standing up for what we believe in and not caving in because we're afraid of being called racists [1], indelicate, insensitive, uncaring, inhumane, etc.

[1] Considering we're not targeting a race, but rather an ideology, I'm not sure how the cries of racism makes any sense but there it is.

[ultrablue]

It sounds like you want to close the doors totally Steve. Tourists, students, short term employees, the lot.

And yet, as Boston and perhaps San Bernardino show, US citizens can just as easily be radicalised. In fact, recruiting US citizens would be a lot more efficient for the jihadis than trying (and most likely failing) to get their men through two years of vetting in the refugee system, would it not?

[Steve Moss]

It sounds like you want to close the doors totally Steve. Tourists, students, short term employees, the lot.

And yet, as Boston and perhaps San Bernardino show, US citizens can just as easily be radicalised. In fact, recruiting US citizens would be a lot more efficient for the jihadis than trying (and most likely failing) to get their men through two years of vetting in the refugee system, would it not?

No. I'm fully in favor of accepting millions of immigrants, if they want to conform our cultural standards and want to be productive citizens. If they aren't, then bar the door.

The Tsarnaevs (Boston bombing) were Chechen Muslim immigrants who came to the USA under the guise of requiring asylum as a persecuted group, and later acquired citizenship.

As to the San Bernadino shooters, Farook was an American born Muslim who spent time in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Malik was a Pakistani on a fiancee visa.

Which tells me that we could have prevented 3 out of 4 of the terrorists from acting by simply imposing more rigorous standards as to whom we allow in or not. Refugee status should not be enough.

[ultrablue]

The Tsarnaevs were 8 and 15 years old when they went to the US. Do you think they were radicalised before then?? Of course not and no system can predict the future. Terrorists and future terrorists of all faiths, colours and political goals are already in the US. These tighter vetting systems (none of which you have really explained) will do very little to keep you safer.

[Steve Moss]

The Tsarnaevs were 8 and 15 years old when they went to the US. Do you think they were radicalised before then?? Of course not and no system can predict the future. Terrorists and future terrorists of all faiths, colours and political goals are already in the US. These tighter vetting systems (none of which you have really explained) will do very little to keep you safer.

Who radicalized them? I suspect their parents (the mother seems more than a little nutty) played a role. The same parents who traveled here claiming to be tourists, then turned around and claimed that they required political asylum.

I agree that there are terrorists of "all faiths, colours and political goals" within the USA. However, one group seems to be far more terror inclined than the others.

So I disagree with you that a tighter vetting system wouldn't keep us safer. It most certainly would, in that it would at least reduce the number of terrorists within our borders that a certain ideological group seems to produce in disproportionate numbers.

[ultrablue]

But again, radicalisation and recruitment is happening over the internet and is coming from within the existing population. Proportionally, vetting of newcomers doesn't tackle the problem.

You are advocating special screening for all incoming haystacks, when you have needles piling up behind you.

[joey_big_nose]

I say yes, if they want to be British or Americans who believe in freedom of speech, religion, the vote, etc., and can participate productively in society.

If this is your opinion then great we totally agree. However what you say here is a long long long way away from a total ban of refugees which is what you proposed earlier and prompted coward-gate.

[Steve Moss]

But again, radicalisation and recruitment is happening over the internet and is coming from within the existing population. Proportionally, vetting of newcomers doesn't tackle the problem.

You are advocating special screening for all incoming haystacks, when you have needles piling up behind you.

Based on the examples given above, it would have cut-out 3 out of 4 of the most recent terrorists. Since when does any system account for 100% of potential problems? I'm perfectly content with catching most of them. And then dealing harshly with those we miss and who cause harm at a later date.

If this is your opinion then great we totally agree. However what you say here is a long long long way away from a total ban of refugees which is what you proposed earlier and prompted coward-gate.

I called for a ban until proper screening procedures can be put into place. That is a far cry from a total ban.

And some countries can be screened faster than others. Screening someone from the UK, which has good records, should take 2 minutes. Ditto many other countries. Screening someone from the middle of nowhere, who's a complete unknown, will take a lot longer and would likely require a lot of interviews, checking and testing.

[T J Hooker]

Should we try the Australian method of refugee-checking? Put them up on an island while their credentials are checked. Let in the refugees, send away those who can't prove their ID.

i think we should use the swan island on queens park lake and maybe put a few on whiteberk roundabout

[Mike E]

i think we should use the swan island on queens park lake and maybe put a few on whiteberk roundabout

[Paul]

And some countries can be screened faster than others. Screening someone from the UK, which has good records, should take 2 minutes. Ditto many other countries. Screening someone from the middle of nowhere, who's a complete unknown, will take a lot longer and would likely require a lot of interviews, checking and testing.

Watching the BBC news suggests the point re screening someone from the UK could be a very dangerous assumption. I would imagine you might say the same about Americans yet Farook, the San Bernardino murderer, was an American citizen.

Am I alone in finding the FBI stating the San Bernardino shootings were a terrorist attack rather strange? I ask this because the target seems a very personal one rather than one which might be designed to cause terror? I'm thinking of Paris where the attacks were clearly planned to cause maximum terror. I'm not trying to suggest the deaths in San Bernardino mean in any way less but it seems an odd target for a terrorist?

[ultrablue]

Based on the examples given above, it would have cut-out 3 out of 4 of the most recent terrorists. Since when does any system account for 100% of potential problems? I'm perfectly content with catching most of them. And then dealing harshly with those we miss and who cause harm at a date.

You seem to suffer from the same problem as Donald Trump. How would your screening be better? Well it would be a lot better. Well what would you do? We'd do a lot more things, that I can tell you.

There is no evidence at all that any more questions would have predicted the radicalisation of an 8 and a 15 year old. Nor is there any evidence yet that the new wife of a US citizen could have been turned away if together they passed all the immigration requirements.

However, you seem convinced so I'll leave it at that.

[Steve Moss]

Am I alone in finding the FBI stating the San Bernardino shootings were a terrorist attack rather strange? I ask this because the target seems a very personal one rather than one which might be designed to cause terror? I'm thinking of Paris where the attacks were clearly planned to cause maximum terror. I'm not trying to suggest the deaths in San Bernardino mean in any way less but it seems an odd target for a terrorist?

I don't think we know enough about it to really say.

We do know they were Islamic extremists, based on Facebook posts and other information being gathered.

We do know they had many weapons (some illegal) and many bombs in their house, which they did not use. Why that may be, I don't know. Maybe: 1) they acted impulsively and deviated from another more comprehensive plan; or, 2) thought they'd get away with the first shooting (which they did, for a brief while) and had subsequent targets in mind.

We also know they were freaking nuts, more so than the run of the mill drugged out shooters. Who drives their 6 month old to grandma's house on the way to shooting up a room full of people?

But their motives and goals are just speculation at this point. While I think it was terrorism, there's a lot of details we lack but should have before we say it was A, B or C.

[Paul]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/

The main evidence of Islamic extremism seems to come from a deleted and disputed Facebook post. Malik was recently granted a green card and therefore she or he husband cannot possibly have been considered potential terrorists.

There are aspects of this which I find very, very odd. The FBI allow world media inside the attackers' house within 48 hours with no apparent security present. What happens if the authorities need to recheck evidence after the media have trampled through there?

According to the NYT " the F.B.I. left behind a long list of items it had confiscated." This strikes me as really odd, I don't know but I can't imagine UK authorities doing either of these things.

It's almost as if the FBI want to convince America this was a terrorist attack.

[Audax]

Or is it possible that President Obama has problems calling things terrorism? I don't vouch for this website, it is one more off-the-wall website with nothing outright objectionable.

BREAKING: Obama/Jarrett Warn FBI Director Over Anti-Muslim Tone (UPDATED)
Read more at http://dcwhispers.com/breaking-white-house-vs-fbi-over-domestic-isis-terror-threat/#DcPyC01LxTJF3Y38.99

[Mike E]

You seem to suffer from the same problem as Donald Trump. How would your screening be better? Well it would be a lot better. Well what would you do? We'd do a lot more things, that I can tell you.

There is no evidence at all that any more questions would have predicted the radicalisation of an 8 and a 15 year old. Nor is there any evidence yet that the new wife of a US citizen could have been turned away if together they passed all the immigration requirements.

However, you seem convinced so I'll leave it at that.

A separate point on the bit in bold: Quite a few primary teachers I know are now being given training to spot the potential signs of radicalisation. Yes, in children aged 4 upwards.

Depressingly, it includes such gems as 'boys and girls not wanting to sit with the opposite gender'...

[onlyonejackwalker]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/

The main evidence of Islamic extremism seems to come from a deleted and disputed Facebook post. Malik was recently granted a green card and therefore she or he husband cannot possibly have been considered potential terrorists.

There are aspects of this which I find very, very odd. The FBI allow world media inside the attackers' house within 48 hours with no apparent security present. What happens if the authorities need to recheck evidence after the media have trampled through there?

According to the NYT " the F.B.I. left behind a long list of items it had confiscated." This strikes me as really odd, I don't know but I can't imagine UK authorities doing either of these things.

It's almost as if the FBI want to convince America this was a terrorist attack.

My thoughts as well. I am sure it suits the USA far more to attach IS terrorism to this latest gun crime. Althoguh it may of course be true.

Just to put some context to the IS debate, when the Russians invaded Afganistan, the CIA armed and funded Al Qaeda and the Mujahideen in the hope of creating Russia's very own Vietnam. ISIS was formed by a member of the Mujahideen who refused to join Al Qaeda, instead setting up his own jihadist group.

The fall of the Taliban forced IS leaders to flee Afganistan to Iraq. The Bush administration used this as evidence that Al Qaeda were operating in Iraq to launch with the UK and Australia against Hussain along with the imaginary WMD. All of which was palpably untrue.

The CIA funded Bin Laden / Al Qaeda / Muhahideen in the war against Russia. The off-shoot of this is IS. There are countless examples of the USA / CIA funding opposition groups when it suits their purpose for income generation through drugs and weapons, regime change and other strategic / political reasons.

Adding further irony to this debate, the CIA had originally supported Saddam Hussain in his war against the Shah of Iran with weapons and communications technology. The expertise and equipment provided was then used to good effect by Hussain in the Gulf War to prevent the USA deciphering and intercepting communications.

So in a nutshell the CIA funded Saddam, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and indirectly ISIS. And then went to war with them all.

Did people know that Opium prodution in Afganistan was increased three fold AFTER the USA invaded? Big money involved.

War also makes some countries very big money. The USA made much of their wealth immediately after the 2nd World War, lending to countries wishing to repair and recover, whilst dominating world-wide production and manufature by immediately changing factories and facilities focused on the war effort to car production and other industries. Their infrastucture had remained intact, unlike most of the civilised world.

The CIA was established in 1947 ish. Born out of Pearl Harbour and the USA lacking in intelligence.

This is not an anti USA / CIA rant. M16 was established in 1909. We taught the CIA most of the tricks they now employ and they followed our well respected intelligence model for years. Did you know the whilst the USA was fumbling around for years for intelligence regarding Russia and the KGB, during the Cold War, Cuba etc, the UK had a spy already firmly in place at the top of the KGB. I guess as an Island and following the fall of the Empire we had a lot of people well placed to assist with spying and intelligence.

[Audax]

Along with thousands of others, there may have been some people who went on to form Al Qaeda who fought against the USSR in the Afghanistan war but I don't know if AQ existed during that war. Whether cold hard documentation can show Al Qaeda existed during that war, I'm sceptical of. The Taliban hate the Mujahudin who fought against USSR.

Even now, in Syria, you have moderate rebels but you have Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate and some of the forces join together under one umbrella-coalition.

I'd not forget it's pretty well documented that Assad allowed Jihadis to have camps in Syria and plan attacks from Syria during the US invasion of Iraq. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-asked-syrias-assad-not-aid-jihadists-former-official-1553468312

[Newera]

Knife attack in London(tube station) being treated as a terrorist incident.

[Gav]

Knife attack in London(tube station) being treated as a terrorist incident.

I was in the area yesterday, Leytonstone, you don't feel threatened, but you don't feel entirely safe either. I'll be back next week, stiff upper lip and all that.

Hope the victims are ok.

[ABBEY]

Can't believe he got tasered , he should have been shot right between the eyes .