Paris Terrorist Attacks

[ReeferMadness]

So we shouldn't worry until there is an active terrorist campaign here killing lots of people?

So we shouldn't panic and make the problem much worse than it is. Of course, that would mean we'd need to employ some basic honesty about our role in creating the mess in the first place. And whatever honesty existed seems to have been almost entirely replaced by fear.

[-TSS-]

Just think about it; if there was a terrorist attack killing say 100 people every week in any major European city that would still only be 5200 people a year. In other words a trickle in the ocean. But if that really was the case that there was an attack every week in London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels there would be such panic, chaos and fear that people would accept any kind of security-measures to combat terrorism.

I'm just saying that some people may be cheering this development.

[Moonlight Graham]

Would you like to demonstrate how the coup in Iran is responsible for the mess throughout the middle east, and throughout the Muslim world?

Though not all of it, it's responsible for a good amount of it. The coup in Iran (for oil) led to the 1979 Iran revolution, which intensified friction between Iraq and Iran, & Saddam feared the revolution would spread to Iraq, so the Iran-Iraq War started in 1980 to 1988. The US helped arm/fund Iraq to fight its new enemy Iran (which it sold massive arms to during the 70's). After the war, Iraq was in deep debt from it, so they decided to invade Kuwait in 1991 for their oil revenue using US arms. This obviously created the friction between the US and Iraq which culminated in the 2003 Iraq invasion, which led to the created of ISIS. During the 1991 Gulf War, the US built permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Islam/Mohammad and home of Mecca and Medina, & this was the prime motivator for Bin Laden orchestrating 9/11 etc.

The 1953 Iran coup & support for the brutal Shah also created the deep anti-US anger in Iran, & this has led to the bad relations between US and Iran which continues today, & has led Shia Assad to ally with Shia Iran, & of course the reason why we support ousting Assad & arming/funding/training Sunni groups that have defected to ISIS/al-Nusra (aka al-Qaeda) & creating a vacuum for ISIS/al-Qaeda instead of backing Assad & Syrian regime stability.

[bush_cheney2004]

After the war, Iraq was in deep debt from it, so they decided to invade Kuwait in 1991 for their oil revenue using US arms.

No, this is nonsense. Iraq's military was built from hardware sourced from many different nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_equipment_of_the_Iraqi_Army

This obviously created the friction between the US and Iraq which culminated in the 2003 Iraq invasion, which led to the created of ISIS.

This is more nonsense. Iraq was invaded by the United States (and U.K.) to remove Saddam's regime per U.S. foreign policy and public law since 1998 and violations of Gulf War surrender instruments. ISIS' beginnings go way back to the late 1980's in Jordan.

The United States was attacked long before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (e.g. World Trade Center 1993 & 2001, USS Cole, embassies, etc.).

Edited November 14, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

I SAID attacks on US/Franch/German SOIL by Muslim jihadists or fanatics before 1979 like September 11, 2001 or Paris attacks yesterday. It is your ignorance not mine.

Now you are changing the goalposts. You said an attack on Western interests. And even then, blowing up a Swissair flight above Switzerland doesn't count because it's not "on their soil". Don't make me laugh. Your position is ridiculous and preposterous.

[Argus]

Just think about it; if there was a terrorist attack killing say 100 people every week in any major European city that would still only be 5200 people a year. In other words a trickle in the ocean. But if that really was the case that there was an attack every week in London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels there would be such panic, chaos and fear that people would accept any kind of security-measures to combat terrorism.

I'm just saying that some people may be cheering this development.

There were 348 people killed in car accidents in New York city last year. I would suggest that if that number increased by a factor of 12 there would be an awfully large hue and cry and actions taken to ameliorate the danger of traffic.

[Boges]

So uhh one of the attackers posed as a refugee. And we're letting 25k in before New Years. Awesome!

[msj]

I'm not making anything up: I suppose I could have made a rounding error, feel free to correct my math.

My apologies for not getting to this yesterday but I was banned for a day because I ganged up on someone. My bad, but I got better.

Anyway, I find the math here interesting.

Let's break it down to, say, 3,000 people who work at the department are capable of investigating (probably too high but who knows).

Then let's give them 7.5 hour days because that is a civilized work day.

Let's guess the refugee process is starting next week (probably too soon?)

So we have ~ 31 or so work days by the end of the year (depending on how many stats are taken in December).

So, that would be almost 42 million people minutes for 25,000 claims.

Which works out to about 1,700 minutes or 28 hours per claim.

Some claims may be batched together: for example, perhaps there is a guy and his two kids. How necessary is it to investigate the past terrorist activities of a 4 year old and a 6 year old?

Is this enough time?

I dunno.

But certainly much higher than the 2.5 minutes per claim that you first presented.

[Wilber]

Well, if they persist on ramming this through and the worst happens, Trudeau and no one else will wear 100% of the blame.

[msj]

All the more reason to delay it into next year.

Demonstrates careful consideration while not giving into the anti-refugee lobby.

[Smallc]

He could delay it until the end of the fiscal year. That gives him 3 more months. He's not really breaking a promise (kind of but oh well) while allowing more time for 'proper screening'.

[Derek 2.0]

Is this enough time?

I dunno.

But certainly much higher than the 2.5 minutes per claim that you first presented.

No, its clearly not:

Generally, it can take up to 36 months to process an application. In rare cases, it can take longer, depending on:

• whether the person is referred by a sponsor or a visa office,
• which visa office is processing the application, and
• how complex the case is.

To help Citizenship and Immigration Canada process sponsor-referred applications faster, sponsoring groups should:

• include all relevant documents, and
• make sure the contact information is accurate.

I want to know how a process that the GoC states can take upwards of 36 months can be compressed to ~6-7 weeks, safely, with the knowledge that said claims are coming from a war zone and that ISIS (as evident in Paris) has included its members within the exodus of refugees.

[msj]

He could delay it until the end of the fiscal year. That gives him 3 more months. He's not really breaking a promise (kind of but oh well) while allowing more time for 'proper screening'.

Why do we place such stupid demands on this?

If it is delayed by several months will anyone really care and change their vote in an election that is 4 years away?

The anti-refugees types will always vote CPC or Christian Heritage.

The let them all in types will always vote NDP or communist or whatever.

That leaves the middle for people who are still compassionate with respect to refugees while also wanting to be careful about letting in a terrorist while also being cognizant that allowing in refugees is exactly what ISIS doesn't want us to do which is why we need to do it to some extent.

Hence the need for good policy which takes time to implement.

So Trudeau should be selling a "pause and continue" approach and ignore the twits who scream "but you're breaking a promise."

Yeah, no kidding, Sherlock, the promise is broken for good reason - that's all he has to say.

[Smallc]

It's reasonable to assume that means it gets put on a pile of papers and not looked at for 35 months. Then at the end of the 36th month, it's given a once over and stamped either way. That's generally the way government works.

[Smallc]

Yeah, no kidding, Sherlock, the promise is broken for good reason - that's all he has to say.

I agree with you - I was just offering a very easy way to sell it. You'r right though in that any change at this point, including a full reversal, would be easy to sell.

Ironically, this bombing has made me more supportive of bringing the refugees here. The ignorance that has followed the bombings on social media and even here is disgusting.

None of this, btw, means that I don't take the threat of terrorists coming in seriously. I simply wish that people would realize that not every Syrian is a terrorist.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Smallc

[Big Guy]

This operation took place without any indicatioin that it was imminent. The Washington people to-day described it as them "going dark".

This was a very sophisticated operation targeting 7 venues at the same time. The equipment and armaments were standard but at least 7 quite complicated suicide vests. This operation required months or preparation and detailed communication.

Not good news. Either they have discovered a new kind of encryption in their electronic communications or they have discovered another means of communication (a commentator quipped that maybe they are sending letters by post since nobody is monitoring those any more). For French or Western security to have not picked up any indicator of that attack bodes ill.

[msj]

No, its clearly not:

I want to know how a process that the GoC states can take upwards of 36 months can be compressed to ~6-7 weeks, safely, with the knowledge that said claims are coming from a war zone and that ISIS (as evident in Paris) has included its members within the exodus of refugees.

That was already answered previously: the process continues while they are settling within Canada.

The only things we need to determine in the near term is threat assessment and a reasonable likelihood that the refugee claim is legitimate.

While I agree that by the end of the calendar year is too soon for this I think by the end of the fiscal year is possible.

[msj]

I agree with you - I was just offering a very easy way to sell it.

I know. My "Sherlock" comment is not aimed at you. It is something I hope Trudeau says to the anti-refugee crowd.

[Derek 2.0]

That was already answered previously: the process continues while they are settling within Canada.

Brilliant!!! One of the Paris attackers went through a refugee camp in Greece just over a month ago..........lets settle them in Canada, then sort them out.

[Smallc]

Brilliant!!! One of the Paris attackers went through a refugee camp in Greece just over a month ago..........lets settle them in Canada, then sort them out.

We have the luxury of bringing people in that are either vetted or in the process of being vetted by other countries and the UN. Europe doesn't have that same luxury.

[Guest]

It's reasonable to assume that means it gets put on a pile of papers and not looked at for 35 months. Then at the end of the 36th month, it's given a once over and stamped either way. That's generally the way government works.

Even if it doesn't work that way, there is no way of effectively screening refugees. There never has been. Plus, your assumption has an unscreened refugee in Canada for 36 months before a decision is made one way or the other. Plenty of time for any action if said refugee is that way inclined. I really don't think the number of refugees matters one way or another.

The only way to even start to prevent attacks in this country is to put resources into detection before the act, and quit worrying about such archaic concepts as personal privacy in electronic media.

[msj]

Brilliant!!! One of the Paris attackers went through a refugee camp in Greece just over a month ago..........lets settle them in Canada, then sort them out.

No, let's settle the threat assessment and likelihood of the refuge claim and then settle them out.

I don't think Canada has nearly the pressure, other than arbitrary election promises, that Europe has experienced.

Although I am not convinced of this story about the terrorist passport. Very easy to plant passports especially when an operation is as well planned as this one to target several places concurrently.

[Smallc]

Even if it doesn't work that way, there is no way of effectively screening refugees. There never has been. Plus, your assumption has an unscreened refugee in Canada for 36 months before a decision is made one way or the other.

I agree that it's pretty hard to screen someone that isn't in anyone's system. My point was this - these files are going to the front of the line, they're not going to be put on the pile and extra people, from other departments, are going to be brought in. That means other refugees are going to have to wait.

[Derek 2.0]

We have the luxury of bringing people in that are either vetted or in the process of being vetted by other countries and the UN. Europe doesn't have that same luxury.

Perfect, one of the Paris attackers was processed by the UN on the 3rd of October in Greece, allowed to move onto Serbia and Austria (where he was further processed by the UN) and onto France..........lets put our national security into the hands of the UN and NGOs......

[Smallc]

Perfect, one of the Paris attackers was processed by the UN on the 3rd of October in Greece

So your position then is that we should never accept anyone, because as has been said above, proper vetting is impossible (keep in mind that is part of my position, although you're all doing a find job of convincing me to change it)?