Paris terrorist attacks

[callan]

Because it has other implications that you continue to ignore.

The US has had strict border controls from well before 2001 but that didn't stop 19 terrorists from killing almost 3,000 people.

The only implication is you become more effective at controlling who and what comes and go's.

You seem absolutely intent on missing the logic of reducing risk, why is that?

Why would muslims be any more offended than christians that the borders of the countries they live in are being controlled
effectively?

Your argument solely rests on you wont stop a determined terrorist, I disagree, would 9/11 be able to happen today....possibly but the risk of it happening has been greatly reduced.

 

[callan]

That question is suggesting ending migration as far as I read it...

Where does he say he wants migration ended?

 

[ooh-andy-ansah]

Seeing as over a quarter of a million Syrians have been killed during the civil war, who can blame them. If it was you or I I'm pretty sure we'd be doing the same.

Dozens of countries between the UK and Syria so why keep on travelling until they reach the UK if all they want is safety ? How far do they need to go to escape the violence ? Not this far !!!!

 

[Pubey]

The only implication is you become more effective at controlling who and what comes and go's.

You seem absolutely intent on missing the logic of reducing risk, why is that?

Why would muslims be any more offended than christians that the borders of the countries they live in are being controlled
effectively?

Your argument solely rests on you wont stop a determined terrorist, I disagree would 9/11 be able to happen today....possibly but the risk of it happening has been greatly reduced.

I haven't missed your point about reducing risk. I'm not sure the risk would actually be greatly reduced because well financed and organised terrorist groups like ISIS will be/are able to establish terrorist cells in any country they want.

I don't get your point about muslims being offended? I didn't say that, at the very least. Stopping muslims coming into the country will isolate muslims already in this country. I don't think that's a good idea necessarily.

Would the risk be reduced? probably, but in my opinion not significantly. Would there be other implications? absolutely yes. I've outlined them in an earlier post. Most significantly, our economy would definitely suffer from reduced tourism, migrant labour and trade.

 

[rigsby]

I haven't missed your point about reducing risk. I'm not sure the risk would actually be greatly reduced because well financed and organised terrorist groups like ISIS will be/are able to establish terrorist cells in any country they want.

I don't get your point about muslims being offended? I didn't say that, at the very least. Stopping muslims coming into the country will isolate muslims already in this country. I don't think that's a good idea necessarily.

Would the risk be reduced? probably, but in my opinion not significantly. Would there be other implications? absolutely yes. I've outlined them in an earlier post. Most significantly, our economy would definitely suffer from reduced tourism, migrant labour and trade.

It certainly will when we have piles of bodies in the streets of London.

 

[callan]

I haven't missed your point about reducing risk. I'm not sure the risk would actually be greatly reduced because well financed and organised terrorist groups like ISIS will be/are able to establish terrorist cells in any country they want.

I don't get your point about muslims being offended? I didn't say that, at the very least. Stopping muslims coming into the country will isolate muslims already in this country. I don't think that's a good idea necessarily.

Would the risk be reduced? probably, but in my opinion not significantly. Would there be other implications? absolutely yes. I've outlined them in an earlier post. Most significantly, our economy would definitely suffer from reduced tourism, migrant labour and trade.

Who is suggesting this, not me.

What impact do you think terrorism has on trade in particular tourism?

I wonder how many holidays are being booked to Tunisia and Egypt lately.

I'm sorry you have concluded that having effective border control doesn't do it significantly enough for you....but if one terrorist is stopped causing mayem because of it then I would rather have it.

 

[Danshrimper]

No lets not say we 'make it harder'.

Lets say we have effective border controls in place instead, with full and thorough checks, and a common policy on refugees / migrants etc.

As you point out in your post there is potential then to reduce risk, and why wouldn't you want that.

I struggle to envisage what checks could be put in place to effectively identify whether someone is a terrorist or not.

I doubt restricting migration would reduce the risk because 1) There are plenty of home grown terrorists to carry out any planned attacks and 2) If a Syrian terrorist really wanted to get to Europe to carry out an attack they'd find a way.

The solution to this worrying problem is much more complex than simply shutting the borders.

 

[Pubey]

Who is suggesting this, not me.

What impact do you think terrorism has on trade in particular tourism?

I wonder how many holidays are being booked to Tunisia and Egypt lately.

You want to tighten borders, is that not the same as stopping people from entering the country?

Clearly terrorism has a negative impact on tourism. Stopping people from coming into the country also has a negative impact on tourism.

The whole thing is complex, which was my original point. Looking for broad-brush solutions is pointless, and it's important to consider all implications, even the unexpected ones.

 

[callan]

I struggle to understand what checks could be put in place to effectively identify whether someone is a terrorist or not.

I doubt restricting migration would reduce the risk because 1) There are plenty of home grown terrorists to carry out any planned attacks and 2) If a Syrian terrorist really wanted to get to Europe to carry out an attack they'd find a way.

The solution to this worrying problem is much more complex than simply shutting the borders.

I haven't said shut the borders I have said lets control them effectively and reduce the risk.

Neither have I said end migration.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Its been on the BBC news, a brother of one of the terrorists was detained, then released. Thats nothing to do with tightening border controls , just ineffective policing

As hard as I have tried, I cant see how even a complete UK ban on immigrants would have prevented Brussels based terrorists attacking Paris

Or police abiding by the law - which is more likely the case.

 

[callan]

You want to tighten borders, is that not the same as stopping people from entering the country?

Clearly terrorism has a negative impact on tourism. Stopping people from coming into the country also has a negative impact on tourism.

The whole thing is complex, which was my original point. Looking for broad-brush solutions is pointless, and it's important to consider all implications, even the unexpected ones.

No, it isn't the same, you are talking about banning immigration rather than policing borders more effectively.

 

[Danshrimper]

I haven't said shut the borders I have said lets control them effectively and reduce the risk.

Neither have I said end migration.

My point wasn't whether you said we should shut the borders or not it was that I struggle to see how the borders can be controlled to pick out who are the future terrorists and who aren't.

 

[Pubey]

No, it isn't the same, you are talking about banning immigration rather than policing borders more effectively.

what is policing/tightening borders if it doesn't involve stopping people from coming in?

 

[callan]

My point wasn't whether you said we should shut the borders or not it was that I struggle to see how the borders can be controlled to pick out who are the future terrorists and who aren't.

You stand more chance of catching a known or suspect terrorist, than by not having any border checks.
As I have maintained it will reduce risk.

 

[southendkid]

Who is suggesting this, not me.

What impact do you think terrorism has on trade in particular tourism?

I wonder how many holidays are being booked to Tunisia and Egypt lately.

I'm sorry you have concluded that having effective border control doesn't do it significantly enough for you....but if one terrorist is stopped causing mayem because of it then I would rather have it.

Threats known to the authorities are already stopped from entering the country, what additional measures are you suggesting? It's easy to demand tighter border controls, it's not so easy to figure out how to do it.

 

[callan]

Threats known to the authorities are already stopped from entering the country, what additional measures are you suggesting? It's easy to demand tighter border controls, it's not so easy to figure out how to do it.

Remind me what border controls France had prior to the attacks?

 

[callan]

what is policing/tightening borders if it doesn't involve stopping people from coming in?

Put simply the ability to check passports (more effectively), patrol waters effectively where people smugglers operate, and control as mentioned before who comes and goes.

 

[southendkid]

Remind me what border controls France had prior to the attacks?

I thought we'd started talking about the UK's security? We already have the border checks you want here.

 

[callan]

I thought we'd started talking about the UK's security? We already have the border checks you want here.

I haven't mentioned the UK.

 

[EastStandBlue]

This is being tweeted like mad this morning, but thought it fairly pertinent for this thread.

http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534

The Onion.

In 2003.