The stupid - it burns! (Isil infiltrating u.s.-bound refugees)

We can only hope Isil plans to send in agents as refugees to the U.S. Because this strategy would be so ineffective as to engender hope that defeating the enemy of humanity will actually be a piece of cake.

From Isil perspective, the math is easy. There are somewhere between 4 and 6 million refugees or potential refugees. Even if the U.S were to admit 40,000 of them - heck, let’s use 80,000 - that means that the odds of any refugee (fake or not) making it to the U.S. is around 2%. And to enter this 2% lottery, the Daeshbag needs to spend about a year and a half in a refugee camp, surrounded by people very motivated to do very bad things to him if they suspect his true identity, while going through a pretty thorough vetting by the U.S. And then, even f he were to succeed, he’s part of a group of people who no doubt gets more scrutiny than just about any other group of immigrants.

Since Isil has money, this contrasts with other strategies available to them, like flying to Mexico City for 1300 bucks (4k if they want to go in style) and paying a coyote another 1200 buck to help them get into the U.S., or, for that matter, just straight flying into the U.S. as a Turkish tourist.

The whole debate about not allowing in refugees because there might be Isil agents among them is just stupid. Well, not just stupid, it’s repugnant as well. But really, really stupid.

You’re posting a reasonable argument in the Pit? Da fuq is wrong with you?

The purpose of terrorism, let’s not forget, is to terrorize, that is, to instill fear. Judging from the reaction of some Governors, including alleged Presidential candidate Chris Christie, it’s working.

Supported!

I knew Stephen King couldn’t be trusted.

Not only stupid, but this issue turns even the Republican front-runners into liars.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/18/repeat-after-me-obama-is-not-admitting-100000-200000-or-250000-syrian-refugees/

As for the terror elements, there are other reasons why the candidates are not using their noggins.

They think it is the miracle issue that will make their dreams come true. Lie manna from Hell.

And why are the citizens responding so positively to these lies? Aren’t the lies really pandering to their constituencies? After all, refugees are no more dangerous today than they were two weeks ago, but after the Paris attacks suddenly we need to “pause” and have a “moratorium” (which are code words for “stop completely forever” and “complete and total ban”). We just need better vetting, say people who have no idea what level of vetting they are already subject to.

Here’s the key suggestion, that keeps coming up over and over again: we should be working to make a safe place for those people over there, so they don’t have to come over here. The translation for that is: we never wanted those brown people with strange clothes, weird guttural language and that other religion to come here in the first place, and now we have an excuse to say so.

It’s up to our government to keep us safe. If only there were a way to be safe from small-minded self-satisfied bigotry.

Firstly, I have no idea what the current political climate is in the USA but…

…ISIS will almost certainly be trying and will continue trying to get people into western countries under cover of refugee status. There is absolutely no downsides to trying to do so and every terrorist organisation that ever existed has tried to infiltrate the enemy.

Only a few short weeks ago we saw the likes of Germany opening doors to tens of thousands of displaced Syrians. Are the vast, vast majority genuinely in fear of their lives? Definitely. Are there likely to be ISIS agents/operatives/terrorists in amongst them? Definitely. Are they likely to be successful in their attempt to establish themselves in the west? Let’s hope not but Almost certainly some will get through.

It is not racist, bigoted or “Islamaphobic” to state this. Those accusations are made simply to shut down debate on the practical safeguards needed to screen out extremists and allow in the deserving refugees.

While my point was specifically about refugees coming to the U.S., I even think putting infiltrators in the mass of humanity coming to Europe is a poor strategy for Isil. It is a very long way to walk, amidst people who’s one common thing is that Isil has ruined their lives - when Isil has plenty of members who can just go their on their non-fake passports because they came from England, Belgium, Holland etc. in the first place.

The real threat of Isil is not that they send a bunch of Syrian former goat farmers to Denmark or Milwaukee. it is that they are able to recruit people (citizens, with papers and all) who are already there

By the way, while some on the right have grabbed this as a talking point, I don’t think it’s a true left/right issue at the base. I’ve heard the whole “Isil hiding among refugees” from a lot of people I know to be core Democrat voters as well. Somehow people feel it “obviously stands to reason” Isil would do this. It’s easy to imagine, like people hiding needles in Halloween candy. And probably about exactly as prevalent.

Islamophobia is unfortunately one of the few things the left and right can agree on, though for different reasons.

Something that bothers me is that some people in the US are freaking out over the idea that something like last week’s attacks in Paris might happen here in the US, and that because of that possibility, they’re willing to close the borders to genuine refugees or impose a religious test on them (i.e., admit only Christians). (Not that there’s anything wrong with freaking out over an event like the Paris attacks.)

And yet in the US over the past couple of decades, we’ve had multiple events in which multiple people were killed by people with guns. I’m referring, of course, to events in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and many other places. These events occur, and then they occur again, and yet no one seems to suggest doing anything or changing anything that might prevent such horrible events.

But people are willing to do all sorts of things, including things that violate civil rights or core principles of Western Civilization, in the hope of preventing another attack from ISIS/ISIL/DAESH.

Bullshit. The accusations of racism and bigotry are made against knee jerk “lock the gates” statements and parodic “tattoo syrian flags on their forheads” suggestions, because that’s what they appeal to.

This has gotten to be one of my litmus tests. If you’re one of the “let’s not let any Muslims in” people, you’re a fucking asshole. No ifs, ands, or buts.

When we are forced to use three acronyms to describe a single organization, the terrorists have won.

But yeah, your average person is notoriously bad at assessing risk accurately. The key is the fact, often mentioned here, that in recent years mass shootings that have nothing to do with radical Islam have killed far more people in the US than Islamist terrorist attacks, yet hardly anyone says boo about it.

Ask and you shall receive.

Are they terrorists? I don’t know, but I’d bet the odds are more they are than they aren’t.

ISTM that you need some basis for assuming - as posters here seem to be doing - that Syrian refugees can be assumed to be opposed to ISIL unless they are infiltrated agents.

As I understand it, there are a lot of people in that region who support ISIL or other comparable entities and a lot who oppose them and all sides are armed to the teeth and fighting like mad and there are displaced refugees of every stripe.

Yes, this is a huge blind spot especially among conservatives. They will readily say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” but won’t say the same about jihadi propaganda emanating from abroad.

To be charitable, I think the idea is that terror attacks are part of an organized effort by a group, and if you destroy the group you end the terror attacks, whereas mass shootings are just one of those random things that happen from time to time. There’s also a common view that if today’s terrorist uses a machine gun, tomorrow’s terrorist will use a nuclear device. I don’t agree with either of these ideas, but I think that explains why people get hysterical about terrorism and less so about mass shootings (again, especially in the right).

It is interesting though that non-Islamic domestic terrorism seems to inspire much less hysteria. Why wasn’t there some kind of massive crackdown on right-wing groups after Oklahoma City?

Fine, I’ll say it. “Jihadi propaganda doesn’t kill people, terrorists kill people.”

That’s a very simplistic notion (which is not to say no one believes it anyway).

FWIW, I think it’s more that people are more willing to clamp down on other people than on themselves. Which is not an irrational concept, BTW.

Huge difference in risk level. Not remotely comparable.

Worth noting, BTW, that the second biggest source of terror attacks worldwide, after Islamic extremists, is far-left groups.