Icewolf

We must be reading a different study, or more likely, you're pushing a political agenda. Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree The one entitled "The Threat of Terrorism from Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq" and which specifically talks about the danger posed by westerners who go to fight in wars in Syria and Iraq and then return home, and the introductory paragraph of which talks about an act of terror caused by a French Citizen who returned after fighting in Syria? It's very clearly not talking about refugees.

And despite all that, despite the million or so refugees in Europe that are supposed to be this mass of attackers coming to help out the attacks, all the evidence points to this being an attack carried out 100% by French Citizens. Also the paper you linked to is 100% on that point-it looks at the threat posed by European and US citizens and identifies them as the terrorist threat and not refugees. As for the refugee crises making it easier to cross borders, that also doesn't really add up. If anything it makes it harder because now there are more naval patrols and coastal patrols trying to pick people up and process them through camps. In the past you could just amble across the border. Europe has a very long maritime border. It has never been properly policed. Its just now people have noticed.

Two of the perpetrators were proven to have come through Greece with the migrants. So yes, migration is linked to current terrorism threats in Europe. Let's not argue facts. At the moment, there is no evidence that any of the attackers are anything other than French Citizens. Therefore it is not possible to blame these attacks on the refugee crises. Yes some may have returned to France from Syria, but in the past home grown attackers would go to Pakistan before returning to their home countries. This is nothing new. Sneaking in on a false passport is also not something new. The cause of the refugee crises and the cause of the homegrown terrorism are both linked to Islamic State. However the refugee crises is a symptom and not a disease in its own right. As for the idea that IS would smuggle in attackers disguised as refugees from Syria (rather than recruiting attackers in Europe, training them in Syria and returning them to Europe) that frankly makes no sense. To launch this type of attack you need weapons, you need a base to operate from, you need knowledge of the local area. None of these things are available to a Syrian sneaking into Europe. The weapons need contacts in local black markets, and the ability to work as smugglers. Why would you use Syrians when you can recruit French citizens who can travel with less suspicion and also have the advantage of speaking French, which is kind of useful for logistics in France. The base (a flat or house) needs to be rented or bought from someone. In Europe cash in hand landlords are kind of rare, so you realistically need a bank account in Europe. Again,Syrian's find that hard to get hold of. Knowledge of the local area, again, local recruit tops a Syrian. Ultimately, focusing on refugees as a cause is a dangerous game because that ignores the real problem of home grown terrorists.

No one is saying that there ate not problems from immigration in Europe right now. However they are not linked to current terrorism threats in Europe. No one is saying that there ate not problems from immigration in Europe right now. However they are not linked to current terrorism threats in Europe.

Skimming the first few pages it seems to support the notion of French born and bred terrorists. Which again poses the question of why the focus of the response is on immigration.

I don't see the causal link. Breaking international law is an issue but it doesn't directly help IS

I'm elated to say... you will not be taking part in that decision.Quote me ssying the world will end with a one degree temperature change.

Not that it matters. The republicans are playing to every neoconservative stereotype right now. Be prepared for President Clinton.

So trying to fix the environment before our climate is screwed is totalitarian big government but demanding a cast group of people including citizens be subject to massive state control because of a domestic terror incident in another country that isn't even Europe's biggest terror incident is a rational small government act. Nope still don't get it

And given in the other thread you said you supported a database of all muslims how on earth do you claim to be anti big government? That inconsistency is pretty hard to get my head around.

Pursuit of happiness is a bit difficult in a fucked environment. The overwhelming evidence of peer reviewed science is that global warming is real. Decades of research and thousands of scientific studies and the evidence only gets stronger.

Do you want to foster a home grown terrorist network? Because that is how you create a home grown terror network.

There were soldiers in Gare du Midi when I caught the Eurostar back to London on Tuesday. Still had dinner at the Grand Place as fuck isis I like beer sauce and meatballs.

I didn't say that IS was caused by climate change. I just said it would contribute to conditions that help terrorism grow. I have ni idea what a liberal agenda is so I cannot comment on that. Oh you said it "would contribute"... as in, it has not happened yet. Yes, I know that. According to Al Gore, New York City was supposed to be under water by now if we did not go with his plan of Cap and Trade. This was designed as a scam to scare people into believing that their mere existence is destroying the planet. So they must require, by law, a system of buying and selling carbon credits in order to keep it from happening. When you looked at who gets rich over this scheme, it all becomes clear why it was proposed. Even Democrats were not stupid enough to go along with this bullshit. The only reason you keep hearing about climate change is because powerful people want it to happen, and keep talking about it. When Obama is finished in about a year, and we get a new powerful person that knows it's bullshit, you will hear much less about it. Obama is doing all he can now, to have something to stick into his library... he's only concerned about his "legacy". Outside the land where big oil bought a lot of influence this debate ended about ten years ago. Also the necessary adaptation has not caused economic harm. The USA really needs to get on with putting it's house in order on this one. Unfortunately the Republican party has a distinct anti science element. If you want proof of this look at the attitude to polling data at the last election. It was totally ignored and dismissed even though there was a strong advantage in paying attention.

I didn't say that IS was caused by climate change. I just said it would contribute to conditions that help terrorism grow. I have ni idea what a liberal agenda is so I cannot comment on that.

The UK took in adult refugees as well who escaped from the advancing German army. In any case the fact is that was largely carried out by French nationals. So linking it to the refugee situation is largely a sideshow. Also the middle east is not just sand. There are plenty of farms and oasis there. When water sources run dry and crops fail populations move and suffer. When floods increase and sea levels rise it damages economies and displaces people. Somali piracy and the attached funding for groups now linked to Islamic state arose after overfishing ended legitimate ways to earn money. What do you think will happen if ocean temperature and acidity changes wipes out the coral reefs and ends half the world's fishing?

On my phone so a fairly short response. I don't like the term radical islam because it supposes the actions are linked to and carried out under a legitimate form of islam, and IS is not a legitimate form of Islam. The UK took in refugees in world war 2 through the kindertransport scheme. In hindsight it should have taken far more aa tgose not taken died. I never said it was a terrorist problem instead I said it shouldn't be treated as a pure immigration problem. The overwhelming majority of attackers are french nationals which means that the current immigration issues are not a direct cause, and therefore ut is hard to see why our moral and legal obligations are voided. I haven't seen Sandera comment but certainly climate change creates conditions that make it easier for terrorists to recruit, such as displaced populations, food shortages and economic disruption.

For those proposing a quick fix of ending immigration, it really is not that simple. People are going to keep trying to reach Europe by sea. And that means if you block their entry, they are still at sea in boats that are not seaworthy. There was an attempt in spring to adopt a policy of not rescuing boats sinking in the Med. It lasted as long as it took for hundreds of people, many times the casualty numbers in Paris, to die in a week. So you either have to let them land or you have to condemn them to death. And then what do you do with them? There are two main problems; 1. The entire of Europe has a long standing commitment to various Human Rights documents that prohibit deporting people who have filed an Asylum claim without considering their claim. These Human Right documents are anchored in the structures set up to prevent another world war beginning in Europe. They are also part of the international collection of treaties that all civilised nations, including the USA, are signed up to. It is not desirable to tear these structures down. 2. Where do you deport them to? You have 100 Syrian Refugees you have decided to deport-to where? Phone up Turkey and say "oi, these were in your camp?" What if Turkey says "nope, no records here" and slams the phone down. Back to Syria? What if Syria refuses to acknowledge they are citizens? Or the bit of Syria the person is from is now under IS rule? Ultimately, aiming to first tackle the refugee issues in Europe is firstly very difficult as it is hard to do without killing many more innocents than have already died. Secondly, it is very important to recognise that the refugee situation is a symptom not a disease in its own right, it is caused by the failure to have a comprehensive solution to the Syria/IS problem.

No, they evolved as well. They just evolved in a different direction. If I roll four balls down a cliff, and they end up in different locations because one hit an outcrop and bounced differently, or a gust of wind hit another, the fact they are in different locations does not demonstrate that they were not rolled down the cliff. Ok its a clumsy metaphor, but it works. As for the "its just a theory" statement, I think you are underestimating the significance of something being a theory. For something to be a theory it has to explain all the evidence currently presented, and generally it should be able to predict phenomena that were not observed at the time the theory was written. Anything less is a hypothesis or model, or an observable phenomena. As for a person who does not accept evolution, it does pose a problem in terms of their suitability to lead a nation because it means they reject the scientific process. And given the most important decisions taken in the next administration (namely those on Climate Change) will require the mind of someone who accepts scientific process, a person who rejects it is not suitable to be President of any country.

I think increasingly what we are seeing is that actually, the pool of candidates for the US presidency is fairly poor. I don't see any really stand out candidates. The Republicans seem to have mistaken quantity for quality (and are repeating the mistake of 4 years ago of assuming that winning the primary is winning the presidency as far as I can see), and the democrats haven't even brought the quantity.

So from twitter I understand that the firm consensus was that a British Guy should be the Republican Nominee after last nights debate.

But it's tangentially related to a bible story so it must be true.

Current polling data shows trump has lost his lead in the race and also performs worse than the other republicans in match ups against Clinton. I think we might be getting safer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPyl2tOaKxM This is literally the most amusing thing I have seen this week. It also neatly sums up my recent travel experiences.

Here is the thing. From the votes side it doesn't matter what happened in the room, its the impression in the media that counted. And far far more people got their information from the media than from the live news feed. Ultimately, the Republicans (including you) said that this would be the end of her....and it wasn't. Therefore it was a major win as it made the party look foolish, the media painted the panel as partisan and silly, and once again Clinton walks away to continue leading the Democractic race. Therefore, she won.