We need to have a discussion on what happened in Paris and why. Many know by now about the 4 (I’ve recently heard it could have been unto 7) Islamic Terrorists that lead an attack in Paris, killing over 120 people. However while we all tweet that we stand with Paris, we completely ignore what that means or why we’re saying it. Nearly every country is appalled by what happened in France, but we need to respond to it correctly to justify saying, “we stand with France” or to do what is morally right. If we do nothing except treat ISIS like a disobedient puppy, “bad terrorist bad”, we’re not standing with France, we’re following the crowd. Maybe I’d feel like these profile picture’s being dedicated to France meant something if this kind of thing wasn’t used every time something happens in the media (such as a member of One Direction leaving, same-sex marriage being passed or during every black history month, sports game and presidential debate). I’m glad people were spreading awareness when the attack happened, I’m proud we are offering moral support to our friends, but now we need to focus on what this attack was trying to accomplish.
We call terrorists “terrorists” because we believe their primary goal is to bring terror upon their enemies through extreme violence towards innocent civilians. However what if these terrorists are also employing other tactics. I think ISIS has a bigger plan than just scaring us, they want to eliminate us, dominate the world. Every move ISIS makes, every attack, we should double check if their motives aren’t just to bring terror, but to corrupt us from the inside. ISIS would love nothing more than the federal government of the United States to go after Muslims here. It gives them less people to kill, and the possibility of the free world destroying itself by putting religious freedom in the hands of the federal government. If ISIS isn’t just a bunch of idiots trying to kill without a long term strategy, then all this thinking is pointless; but what if ISIS is trying to have us cripple ourselves, or even aid them by crippling their enemies for them?
What I’m getting at is the new debate arriving on the refugee crisis. Don’t freak out just yet, I haven’t made up my mind on the topic, I just want you to think. This attack obviously had a motive, but was it to bring terror and unrest to France? That very well could have been the only motive, but any independent person shouldn’t end with COULD. What is every possibility? What is the worst possibility this could have happened? Preppers always stay prepared because they have this mindset: the worst may not happen, but it could, and we’re not taking the smallest chance. So let’s dissect the philosophy of this attack.
Now I’m not going to discuss the conspiracy theory since it doesn’t have much to go on, but if France starts making weird calls and the theory has a stronger standing I’ll read more into it. For now I am willing to say the worst case scenario is the French government planned this in order to invade another country out of greed. But if you can at least believe the attack was planned by ISIS and that ISIS is a Islamic Terrorist organization I’d like you to try to understand a theory of my own. It’s just based off what we already know, it isn’t proved, I’m not claiming it’s true, I just want you to think of the possibilities.
So if ISIS did this to terrorize France… why now? Now would be the worst time if they are using the refugee crisis to sneak into nations. If they are sneaking into countries as refugees wouldn’t they wait till this whole thing went down and they got as many of their men behind borders as possible? Unless they have no plan except attack as soon as possible, could we not assume they did this knowing it would spark a reaction? To keep refugees from being able to escape? The world is standing with France, we’re more pissed than terrified of ISIS- the only people who are terrified right now are the refugees who might get turned back around. If ISIS’s big plan was to invade as hidden refugees, you’d think they wouldn’t destroy their chances of invading by scaring nations into closing their borders.
However assuming ISIS is stupid and didn’t have a plan for the future (which very well could be), that means they attacked simply to cause terror as soon as they possibly could. They did not even question if they would be able to sneak into other nations later. Or maybe obama made a deal that gave ISIS faith that they can sneak in as refugees no matter what happens. That I doubt, but it’s a possibility. You see, many conservatives don’t want to welcome refugees, claiming it’s because we do not know how many terrorists might be hiding among them. Even a hundred terrorists hiding among the thousands can be devastating. But what if ISIS’s plan isn’t to sneak in? What if they wanted us to turn away the refugees, or what if they have no idea what they’re doing in the first place? It’s a mess that I just hope people will think about. If ISIS wants us to turn away the refugees, we can’t let them win by doing exactly that. But we also can’t allow thousands of ISIS’s neighbors in without knowing if they’re hiding among them.
Please let me know what you think by sending me an email here. I’d love to hear other’s opinions on why we should or shouldn’t accept refugees from the Middle East, since at the moment I’m undecided and only see possible failure either way.