'Staggering number' of Europeans embraced jihad, many returning home, EU claims

[Tigerace117]

Yes, I love not having innocent kids die in household gun accidents. I love the fact that so few people get killed during robberies and burglaries.

And we have protection, just not the kind you think is so superior and I think is not the right fit for Europe to have liberal gun laws, and for that reason we have gun control.

Except for the fact that people still get killed in robberies and accidents. Remember all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s, 1980s and more recently.

You have "protection" of a sort, but it's a protection where you have to rely on others for it---versus our protection where we rely on ourselves,

That's the different. Euros feel willing to trust that the government can always protect them---many Americans don't feel that way

 

[Grant]

Except for the fact that people still get killed in robberies and accidents. Remember all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s, 1980s and more recently.

You have "protection" of a sort, but it's a protection where you have to rely on others for it---versus our protection where we rely on ourselves,

That's the different. Euros feel willing to trust that the government can always protect them---many Americans don't feel that way

The many millions killed during European wars doesn't seem to have had much effect on their thinking. Their continuing reliance on government to look after them is discouraging, and can only lead to further problems in the future.

 

[Sweden]

'Staggering number' of Europeans embraced jihad, many returning home, EU claims | Fox News


Anyone still want to be like Europe? This kind of news plays right into Trump's hands.

Import large numbers of Muslims and this is what you get:

Nation within a nation developing says former equalities watchdog | Daily Mail Online

Learn from the British disaster Americans.

 

[American]

I can't find WHO SAID 'staggering number'- who said that?

I see a bunch of quotes saying Europe will fix the issue of refugees and immigrants coming to Europe by clandestine means- but we had that same scare tactic used here when Tancredo and Hunter claimed there were 'prayer mats' in the Arizona desert and numerous terror cells were coming in to launch massive attacks on us.

What Europe is doing is waking up to having to do actual POLICE work to monitor suspicious activities in the various counties.

I'd opine at this point what plays into Trump's hands is moot, he is going down and busy being a cry baby... eace

You want to question the title of the thread, have fun. I just post what it says.

 

[Peter King]

Except for the fact that people still get killed in robberies and accidents. Remember all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s, 1980s and more recently.

You have "protection" of a sort, but it's a protection where you have to rely on others for it---versus our protection where we rely on ourselves,

That's the different. Euros feel willing to trust that the government can always protect them---many Americans don't feel that way

Of course there is never a situation in which the government can totally protect you at all times. neither can Americans, especially not from terrorism.

And the part of the protection is that most criminals do not have guns. And if they have guns they are very unlikely to use them because without the use of the guns/weapons they will get a much lower punishment than if they use their weapons. That too is part of the protection that sensible laws bring to a society.

And only a trained officer/trained official has a real chance to stop crimes/stop terrorism, not cowboy amateurs (not the literal ones but the metaphorical one) with a trigger happy finger. From time to time a cowboy amateur can help in stopping a crime, but I am not sure at all they are effective in real swat like situations.

 

[Tigerace117]

Of course there is never a situation in which the government can totally protect you at all times. neither can Americans, especially not from terrorism.

And the part of the protection is that most criminals do not have guns. And if they have guns they are very unlikely to use them because without the use of the guns/weapons they will get a much lower punishment than if they use their weapons. That too is part of the protection that sensible laws bring to a society.

And only a trained officer/trained official has a real chance to stop crimes/stop terrorism, not cowboy amateurs (not the literal ones but the metaphorical one) with a trigger happy finger. From time to time a cowboy amateur can help in stopping a crime, but I am not sure at all they are effective in real swat like situations.

Criminals will use the most effective weapon that they have available. After all, their criminals. If they were sensible people they wouldn't be robbing a bank or the like.

It's not even that it's hard to acquire firearms over on your side of the pond---it's just with all the restrictions if you do people look at you with suspicion.

The problem is that people who know what their doing often are too far away and by the time they get there what's happened has already gone down. They deter crime but they can't always stop it and as a result people sometimes have to rely on themselves.

 

[Grant]

Import large numbers of Muslims and this is what you get:

Nation within a nation developing says former equalities watchdog | Daily Mail Online

Learn from the British disaster Americans.

Good advice, and we can only hope that the leaders of the democracies put the safety of their own citizens and traditions of their own cultures ahead of any concerns about "Islamophobia".

 

[Mr Person]

Anyone still want to be like Europe?

That's a mischaracterization of what the debates here were about, and I suspect it's a deliberate one.


Everything was kicked off when Trump proposed barring all non-citizen muslims from entering the country (before waffling/back-pedaling) indefinitely, until he'd decided he'd "figured things out (cough cough)."

There's a vast difference between a complete bar, and letting in particular numbers of Syrian refugees after sufficient screening. We're not Europe, so there's no ready geographical way for Syrians to flood into the US.

So again, that mischaracterization was very silly.

 

[American]

That's a mischaracterization of what the debates here were about, and I suspect it's a deliberate one.


Everything was kicked off when Trump proposed barring all non-citizen muslims from entering the country (before waffling/back-pedaling) indefinitely, until he'd decided he'd "figured things out (cough cough)."

There's a vast difference between a complete bar, and letting in particular numbers of Syrian refugees after sufficient screening. We're not Europe, so there's no ready geographical way for Syrians to flood into the US.

So again, that mischaracterization was very silly.

You don't get to decide what the debate is in my thread, I do. Furthermore, European leaders like Merkel are being idiots, and leaping without thinking. They're reaping what they've sown already. For us to do the same is idiotic. Many on the Left, love European policies and want us to be just like them. You want to change the subject, you start your own thread.

 

[Mr Person]

Anyone still want to be like Europe?

That's a mischaracterization of what the debates here were about, and I suspect it's a deliberate one.

Everything was kicked off when Trump proposed barring all non-citizen muslims from entering the country (before waffling/back-pedaling) indefinitely, until he'd decided he'd "figured things out (cough cough)."

There's a vast difference between a complete bar, and letting in particular numbers of Syrian refugees after sufficient screening. We're not Europe, so there's no ready geographical way for Syrians to flood into the US.

So again, that mischaracterization was very silly.

You don't get to decide what the debate is in my thread, I do. Furthermore, European leaders like Merkel are being idiots, and leaping without thinking. They're reaping what they've sown already. For us to do the same is idiotic. Many on the Left, love European policies and want us to be just like them. You want to change the subject, you start your own thread.

You mischaracterized the debate. I corrected it.

If you think I was "hijacking" the thread, then report it to the mods. I suspect they will find that it was a direct response to what you wrote, because it was a direct response to what you wrote AND is on the general point of US policy on refugees, which your thread implicated.

Nobody was saying that we should be exactly like Europe, nor would it be possible because geography.

We're not doing what Europe is doing, nor will we, for the reasons I explained to you.

 

[coldjoint]

That's a mischaracterization of what the debates here were about, and I suspect it's a deliberate one.


Everything was kicked off when Trump proposed barring all non-citizen muslims from entering the country (before waffling/back-pedaling) indefinitely, until he'd decided he'd "figured things out (cough cough)."

There's a vast difference between a complete bar, and letting in particular numbers of Syrian refugees after sufficient screening. We're not Europe, so there's no ready geographical way for Syrians to flood into the US.

So again, that mischaracterization was very silly.

The UN vets our refugees. They tell our State Dept. who they are getting. I wouldn't trust in the UNs judgement on anything.

 

[Mr Person]

The UN vets our refugees. They tell our State Dept. who they are getting. I wouldn't trust in the UNs judgement on anything.

We have a separate vetting process, after theirs.

I suspect a lot of the fuss on this topic results from the fact that people just plain never bothered to research what the refugee vetting process is like.




In short, there are about 20 other ways for terrorists to infiltrate the US that are way easier and faster than the refugee process. Nothing is absolutely impossible, but it would take a very stupid terrorist to try to use the refugee process to get in, as opposed to the other methods.

There's a lot of fear, xenophobia, and failure to properly assess marginal risk coming from those who liked Trump's proposals.

 

[coldjoint]

We have a separate vetting process, after theirs.

I suspect a lot of the fuss on this topic results from the fact that people just plain never bothered to research what the refugee vetting process is like.




In short, there are about 20 other ways for terrorists to infiltrate the US that are way easier and faster than the refugee process. Nothing is absolutely impossible, but it would take a very stupid terrorist to try to use the refugee process to get in, as opposed to the other methods.

There's a lot of fear, xenophobia, and failure to properly assess marginal risk coming from those who liked Trump's proposals.

I saw this on refugee vetting.

You will never guess how the U.S. is 'vetting' Syrian refugees

Read more: Blog: You will never guess how the U.S. is 'vetting' Syrian refugees
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The UNHCR referral is a crucial first step to gaining admittance to the U.S., but the candidate must then pass “the highest level of security checks conducted on any category of traveler to the United States,” a State Department official said.

The highest level of checks! And then only after the United Nations has assured us that each refugee is okay! Very reassuring!

The State Department will first collect biographical information about the candidate and determine whether they qualify for refugee status.

Since there is no government to consult (unless the State Department wants to check with ISIS or Hizb’allah), there is only one source of information: the refugee. As long as the refugees don't lie, I expect this system will catch all would-be terrorists.

The case is then passed to the Department of Homeland Security, which will send a representative to conduct an in-person interview to further screen the applicant for security concerns and to determine whether the applicant is otherwise admissible, a State Department official said.

You see? A terrorist would have to lie to not one but two branches of government to get into the country. So we're perfectly safe.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Many Europeans would be grateful for the Second Amendment if they had the chance but unfortunately their governments, apart from the Swiss, don't trust them with guns.

Yes, and I'm sure there's many a United Statesian school principal just delighted that their government trusted trigger happy fruitloops with guns. When I went to school we had potato guns - they were a damn sight more fun and less harmful than the guns that have been used in US schools.

 

[Grant]

You don't get to decide what the debate is in my thread, I do. Furthermore, European leaders like Merkel are being idiots, and leaping without thinking. They're reaping what they've sown already. For us to do the same is idiotic. Many on the Left, love European policies and want us to be just like them. You want to change the subject, you start your own thread.

You may enjoy this article about the fellow who popularized the term "Islamophobia". It also contains the answer as to why Prague enjoys less terrorism than Paris. The Late Late Show :: SteynOnline