-1

My assumptions:

  • the recent bombing in Paris was known to happen, there can't be such huge influx of refugees without some terrorist sleeper agents being injected
  • European countries were morally obliged to accept refugees, as most of them are civilians with nowhere to go
  • any government strives to protect its citizens and the state's international interests.

Based on the above, I can imagine the following situation. The president and defence minister agree on the course of action. Psychological profiles are researched among the special forces, without the scientist knowing exactly why. The single soldier, who is most probable to keep a secret is selected. He enters a restaurants and opens fire on the personnel. 4-5 people die. The police knows nothing of this, but our guy very well trained and could be receiving help from above.

Result: 5 people die, instead of 160 and the country has reasons to close its borders. Why was this a bad idea?

  • 6
    Crazy conspiracy theory: What makes you believe that they didn't? – Philipp Nov 15 '15 at 17:01
  • 11
    By the way: The "ISIS uses the refugee crisis to smuggle terrorists into Europe" rumor is propaganda by right-wing nationalists to fanaticize people against foreigners. 1. ISIS has the resources to bring terrorists to Europe in much more elegant ways and 2. ISIS has enough domestic sympathizers to not having to do this anyway. – Philipp Nov 15 '15 at 17:05
  • 4
    (Meta) to the downvoters: This question seems to be perfectly valid. It does not indicate that the asker is a brutal murderer. :) To me, it means that the OP sincerely wants to know the answer, and that's why they gave some rationale. Various social groups have different values, and it is not given for granted that StackExchange is only inhabited by the Westerners. This is especially the case about Politics.SE. – bytebuster for Long Usernames Nov 15 '15 at 19:32
  • 4
    Asylum seekers are not a state you can be at war with. Using the action of a few people to blame several tens of thousands of people which are not guilty of anything goes beyond all common sense (unless you agree to serve jail time if your neighbor kills someone). And as of the most recent news that all of the Paris terrorist who have been identified were French. – SJuan76 Nov 15 '15 at 20:17
  • 2
    (-1) The premise of the question is completely flawed. There might or might not be an attacker who entered Europe on a (possibly forged) Syrian passport and was registered as refugee. Meanwhile, the rest of the known members of the team are French citizens, who were born and/or grew up in France. The refugee situation is not a cause of the attack in any meaningful way, it makes no sense for European countries to stop accepting refugees for that reason, let alone to mount some sort of crazy operation based upon the notion that it would be a risk. – Relaxed Nov 18 '15 at 5:22
7

UPDATE: The answer below is fully confirmed by EU: As per European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker officially said (about Paris attacks):

... there are no grounds to revise Europe’s policies on the matter of refugees.


Most realistic answer:

Because European governments want immigration. They couldn't care less that there are minor unfortunate implications in the form of either possible terrorists, or people who are inherently hostile to the putative values of the countries hosting them.

Europe fell into the same demographic trap as most other late-20th-centuries prosperous liberal democracies - people decided that their life was so comfortable they didn't want to bother disrupting it with having enough babies to ensure stable demographic outcomes.

As a result, nearly every single country in EU (or Japan) found itself in a situation of rapidly rising retired demographics, with not enough young workers to pay for that retirement.

This means that the government needs to either openly admit that their entire socioeconomic system is about to go bust - which they obviously aren't going to ever opt to do. OR, resort to any way possible to raise the population that is of working age to fix the situation somewhat. There are only two ways to do the latter:

  1. Promote higher birthrates 25 years ago.

    Clearly, THAT train has long left the station

  2. Promote immigration.

So, the went with option #2 because that's the only option remotely palatable to them politically.

If you want to read into more detail on retirement issues and demographics:

For more rigorous research, see

| improve this answer | |
  • This makes sense. I had a Syrian co-worker, who was highly prized by the organization for their hard work. – Vorac Nov 16 '15 at 7:05
  • @Philipp - the problem isn't whether it's people who just entered 1 month ago, or 30 years ago. It's that it's people who entered with explicit intent to NOT integrated or accept the host country's culture and values, and how long they have been around isn't germane to that trait. – user4012 Nov 16 '15 at 13:17
  • 6
    Nonsense. It is clear that Europe will have to open the way to immigration at some moment, but if you want immigration, you do it the way USA or Australia does it: pick the profiles you want more (educated people, preferently already fluent in the language, not too many people from the same country). Refugees are supposed to return home when conflict ends, and even if they stay what good will do to Europe, say, a 50 year old farmhand that only speaks Syrian? – SJuan76 Nov 16 '15 at 18:27
  • 1
    @SJuan76 - "pick the profiles you want more" is most decidedly NOT how USA does it (Although Canada seems to fit what you described, ironically). No idea what Australian policies are but wouldn't be surprised if they match Canada's. – user4012 Nov 17 '15 at 1:36
  • 2
    This is complete nonsense, most European countries have implemented increasingly restrictive immigration policies, the refugee situation is completely out of control, they are able to enter because there are international rules about that and they can't be sent back anywhere but there would be much easier way to allow more immigration if that was the goal. – Relaxed Nov 18 '15 at 5:18
4

Because European values don't let the governments kill its own people in favor of political advantages, real or imaginary.

What unites Europe? Money? Market? Security? — No! Values.President Poroshenko


Yes, there are countries who have allegedly committed simulated terrorist attacks against its own citizens.

Looking cynically, one may think that paying a price of several innocent lives may let the officials to gain some advantage. Depending on the level of our cynicism, this may be 5, 50, or 5,000.

World War II. Hitler's SS has orchestrated capturing of a radio station to justify his invasion to Poland in 1939. We know this date as a date when the World War II began.
At that time, Hitler needed only one German farmer dead, Franz Honiok.

Russia. Yet another notable research is done by Alexander Litvinenko, an ex-KGB officer. Among numerous accusations he made, there are cases of KGB's bombing housing apartments on the Russia to justify further escalation of the Russia's war against Chechnya (1785-present), and more specifically, Second Chechen war (1999-2009).


But our values do not work this way. Each life is priceless, period.


We are the people. It is against our values to deliberately kill our own citizens.

Repeat after me: we don't kill our people, whatever imaginary profits it may bring us.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    This post does not answer the question. For the time being, these so-called "refugees" are not citizens of European countries. – Jasper Nov 15 '15 at 19:43
  • 3
    @Jasper I don't follow you. As far as I know most victims of the Paris attacks were not refugees. – Philipp Nov 15 '15 at 19:57
  • Apparently, I misunderstood the gist of your post. It seems you meant, "a false flag attack that deliberately kills European citizens would be immoral." I had mistakenly thought you meant "Operations to deport refugees (by threatening violence against resisters) would be immoral." – Jasper Nov 15 '15 at 20:02
  • bytebuster -- I used the word "moral" in the sense of "morality", not "morale". The topics you mention are key features of "morality". – Jasper Nov 15 '15 at 20:13
  • 4
    Well, to be fair, it should be noted that European values have not prevented service secrets from bombing an ecologist ship (Rainbow Warrior), supporting terrorist groups (GAL in Spain, Gladio in Italy) and executing terrorists (actual or supposed) without allowing for surrender (UK mainly). But at least it is not "free for all". – SJuan76 Nov 15 '15 at 20:33
-1

It would be against the laws of Western governments to do so, but it in theory you could still imagine governments using loopholes in the laws when national security is at stake to use intelligence services to implement such methods. Now Operation Northwoods was proposed and rejected in the past:

it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals.

So, even if we ignore the usual boundaries under which Western governments operate, and consider extraordinary circumstances, we still see that plans along to these lines are likely to be rejected.

| improve this answer | |
  • What I had in mind was a very closed circle of government officials knowing about the operation. Best would be only one man to know what exactly is going on. That person is breaking the low, of course! – Vorac Nov 16 '15 at 7:01
-1

I don't find the hypothesis in OP so absurd; however, I do not believe that such a large-scale attack would be staged, killing in large numbers one's own people. On top of that, it is not to the advantage of the current President, who was already being seen weak. Two such attacks in less than 1 year reflect badly on him and French intelligence, in fact. This can only be useful for the extreme right, if they play their cards well, so that's why I do not think that such conspiracy must have happened.

Similar doubts exist regarding the train burnt in Godhra, which led to the 2002 Gujarat riots and subsequent win for the right-wing Modi, which has culminated in his becoming the Prime Minister of India. Some allege that the train may have been burnt deliberately to instigate riots and create a polarised society, easy to exploit for votes. However, the difference is that these accusations are against Modi, and he was also the person who stood to benefit (and who did benefit). Here, however, I don't see Hollande benefiting from this (unless he plays some masterstroke), so I don't think that he would conspire to do such a thing. And I could believe such a thing from a Sarkozy, but Hollande may not be too bright for such a trick.

| improve this answer | |
-2

The European governments do not need a casus belli against immigrants. A sovereign nation has the right to choose who is allowed to immigrate into its territory. A sovereign nation has the right to deport any non-citizen it chooses to.

If a so-called "nation" cannot control a territory that it claims, then it risks losing that territory to squatters -- or those who would police the squatters.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    This is not entirely correct. The states of the European Union agreed on a unified system of handling refugees (Dublin regulation). A country can not unilaterally break that agreement without facing diplomatic fallout. There is currently a discussion about changing that regulation. But while most states agree that it needs to be changed, there is vast disagreement about why and how. The latest terrorist attack are currently exploited by all sides of the discussion. – Philipp Nov 15 '15 at 19:51
  • 2
    @SJuan76 -- Have you read how Mexico lost Texas? and California? Have you read how the Roman Empire lost the Balkans after 378 A.D.? (The German immigrants were seeking refuge from other barbarians.) Have you read how Morocco took control of the Western Sahara in the 1970s? Immigration can be a form of invasion. – Jasper Nov 15 '15 at 20:20
  • 4
    I have read, and none of those apply to the current situation. – SJuan76 Nov 15 '15 at 20:23
  • 5
    @user4012 why would those who like Sharia rule go towards Europe instead of Daesh controlled zones? But of course, God forbid that your prejudices were challenged by facts, intelligence or common sense. – SJuan76 Nov 16 '15 at 18:23
  • 2
    @SJuan76 - "According to the study, which was funded by the German government, two thirds (65%) of the Muslims interviewed say Islamic Sharia law is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live" (src). I expect a full apology. – user4012 Nov 17 '15 at 1:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .