Two Paris suicide bombers traveled via Greece: Prosecutor

According to Reuters:

PARIS (Reuters) – Two of the bombers who blew themselves up at a soccer stadium in Paris last Friday during attacks that killed 130 people traveled to Greece together, prosecutors in the French capital said on Friday.

One of the suicide bombers at the Stade de France in the northern suburb of St. Denis had been identified from a Syrian passport found near his body as Ahmad al-Mohammad, though it was not clear whether the passport was genuine, or had been stolen.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that the passport holder, who arrived in Greece alongside 198 refugees by boat from Turkey on Oct. 3, may have been traveling with an accomplice.

In a statement on Friday, the Paris prosecutor said the suicide bomber who detonated his explosive vest at Gate H of the stadium had his fingerprints taken in Greece on Oct. 3, at the same time as the bomber who blew himself up at Gate D.

A counter-intelligence source in Macedonia told Reuters that Mohammad was still traveling with a companion two days after reaching the Greek port of Piraeus.

They registered together at a refugee camp in the backyard of an old tobacco plant in the Serbian town of Presevo, though Serbian officials have not mentioned an accomplice.

30 Years in Prison; The Current Price of Treason
"I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees."
  • Charles Harkins

    Is this part of the misinformation that Rick Rice is complaining about? Are these Paris prosecutors working for those governors who have no humanity?

    • No… United States vetting processes are much more stringent/strict than those used by Europe… the misinformation has to do with how some are saying no vetting at all is being done and the piece I linked to is evidence that in fact vetting does occur and it’s extensive. Europe should minimally adopt our guidelines while we work hard to improve our own.

      • Charles Harkins

        Weren’t you the one that posted:

        “1. The Paris attackers were not refugees. [ed: additional link added]”

        Was that misinformation?

        • I didn’t post it, I linked and excerpted to someone who did, someone who at that time, published something that was accurate. It appears it no longer is today given Scalia’s piece.

          And again, the misinformation quote, from the legal immigration expert, was about people who claim there is no vetting process for refugees. There clearly is.

          And again, the United States vetting process is markedly different from the European vetting process.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And it still sucks. As I commented on your post immediately preceding this one by Scalia:

            “I posted this 3 days ago:
            “Another DHS Official Confirms: No Way to Vet Syrian Refugees”

            During a recent congressional hearing a director with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), confirmed that the U.S. has no method of vetting the new refugees because the Syrian government doesn’t have an intelligence database to run checks against. …

            Emrich’s testimony before the Senate panel comes on the heels of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Assistant Director Michael Steinbach’s revelation that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees. “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet,” Steinbach said. “That would be the concern is we would be vetting — databases don’t hold the information on those individuals. “You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that is — does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets — the police, the intel services — that normally you would go to seek information don’t exist.”

          • See my CATO institute post below in response to Scalia.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            When the state from which the refugee flees has no data base, what are you relying on?

          • Faith, it would seem.

          • jim_m

            Blind faith in leftist pundits who he never scrutinizes or evaluates critically, then who he defends unflaggingly because he is too prideful to admit that he has made an error in judgement.

            Pride, refusal to critically assess the claims of others, defending lies, using Christ as a threat to others rather than as a beacon of hope, making false accusations, making heretical claims. All these demonstrate that Rick is not a Christian. Not even close.

          • jim_m

            You posted something that was already 5 days old in a fast moving informational environment. Any responsible person would have known that such old information was no longer valid, but you posted it because it supportedd your left wing narrative.

          • God Someone Save Rice’s Narrative…

          • jim_m

            God clearly has nothing to do with anything Rick says.

          • Thus my line out.

      • Scalia

        From the Washington Post:

        The Obama administration is fighting a growing national backlash against accepting Syrian refugees, saying the government’s exhaustive screening process and security checks for new arrivals mean they can be safely brought to American soil.

        Several high-level administration officials have warned in recent months just how challenging this can be. While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?

        [F]BI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

        Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

        • The CATO institute posted this two days ago:

          Much of the confusion over the security threat posed by refugees is over the term “refugee” itself. It’s not yet clear how many foreign attackers in Paris entered Europe, but one or more may have entered disguised as asylum seekers.

          In the United States, asylum seekers show up at U.S. borders and ask to stay must show they have a well-founded fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or their political opinion if they return to their country of origin. There is an application and investigation process, and the government often detains the asylum seeker during that process. But the investigation and vetting of the asylum seeker often take place while he is allowed inside of the United States. Many of the Syrians and others who have entered Europe are asylum seekers who are vetted through similar, less stringent security screens.

          Refugees are processed from a great distance away and are more thoroughly vetted than asylum seekers as a result. In the United States, a refugee is somebody who is identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in a refugee camp. UNHCR does the first round of security checks on the refugee according to international treaties to which the United States is a party and refers some of those who pass the initial checks to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). The referrals are then interviewed by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer abroad. The refugee must be outside the United States, be of special humanitarian concern to the government, demonstrate persecution or fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and must not be firmly resettled in another country.

          Because the refugee is abroad while the U.S. government checks their background, potential terrorist links, and their claims to refugee status, the vetting is a lot more thorough and can take up to two years for non-Syrians. For Syrians, the vetting can take about three years because of the heightened concerns over security.

          Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner called the security checks for refugees “the most stringent security process for anyone entering the United States.” Coming here as a refugee requires numerous security and background checks that are more intense and invasive than for other migrants or visitors – which is partly why refugees have not successfully carried out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (three have been convicted of attempting to carry out attacks abroad, there was one borderline case from a refugee who entered in 1997, and at least one other for a refugee who entered prior to 2001).

          Few ISIS soldiers or other terrorists are going to spend at least three years in a refugee camp for a 0.042 percent chance of entering the United States when almost any other option to do so is easier, cheaper, and quicker.

          The current refugee vetting system is multilayered, dynamic, and extremely effective. ISIS fighters or terrorists who are intent on attacking U.S. soil have myriad other options for doing so that are all cheaper, easier, and more likely to succeed than sneaking in through the heavily guarded refugee gate. The low level of current risk does not justify the government slamming that gate shut.

          CATO is not what I would call a leftist leaning site by any stretch of the imagination. I think the piece to be credible.

          Is the Reuters piece troubling? Of course. It means we have more work to do, work that I think is already underway but does it mean we completely shut down helping women with young children? I continue to believe the answer is no.

          • Scalia

            As I posted under your thread, women and children participate in terrorist attacks. In this age of terrorism, using women and children as a defense for an argument is regrettably a non-starter.

          • Scalia, given this argument, we should no longer go to theatres because mass shootings have occurred. We should no longer allow our children to go to public schools and universities because shootings have occurred. The other day, some yahoo in Oklahoma participated in over 40 drive by shootings because he’d been fired from an auto repair business. Thank God no one was hurt (though I believe a dog was shot). What should Oklahomans do in response, shut down all auto repair shops?

            Of course some of these examples are absurd but so is the reasoning that would suggest we can’t help women and children because an incredibly small number have been used in evil ways.

          • jim_m

            No. We should make theaters less attractive as targets by no longer making them “gun free zones” simply because ignotant asses like yourself believe that telling cvriminals not to bring guns there will actually have an effect. Same with schools and universities.

            Wow. You whine like a pussy about me creating supposed strawman arguments but the first thing you do is rush to deploy a slew of ultra left wing bullshit to defend your worthless positions.

          • Except, you lunatic, I’m a pro 2nd amendment guy. And you… are a loon.

          • jim_m

            No you’re not. You jumped to the gun control bullshit too fast.

          • No Mr. Looney Tunes… I did not… you did… and now you’re trying to beat me up over it… which is what loons due.

          • jim_m

            Your comments presuppose the validity of gun control laws. Mine did not.

          • In your own mind Mr. Loon. In your own mind. I wasn’t thinking at all about gun control laws and I don’t right give a shit about how many times you think you know what I’m thinking, you don’t.

            But here… what am I thinking right now.

            Bingo. You’re a freaking loon. Go away looney tunes… go comment on your boy Rodney’s posts… God knows he needs the company over there.

          • jim_m

            This is Scalia’s thread and I will post what I want you tin hat facist.

          • Speak to the mirror Looney Tunes…

          • jim_m

            Remember that you just insulted “Jesus Christ, to His face” according to your own words. You prove once again that you are not a Christian and wouldn’t know what one was if Christ Himself confronted you on the street..

          • You hide it well.

          • How long before you delete this comment Rodney?

            And isn’t it amazing that you and Jim show up here at the same time.

            Anyone every seen you two in the same room together?

          • jim_m

            My, aren’t you the paranoid one.

          • Interesting that the comments to which you allude all went missing on your post…

          • I certainly didn’t delete a single one of your comment… you’re stating you’re not deleting them, then who is?

          • Scalia

            I have not deleted any posts.

          • Says the man who referred to finger print evidence as opinion.

          • At the time, the fingerprint story had not been confirmed… plain and simple…

          • Scalia

            Look, Rick, if you and Jim want to knock each other out, help yourselves, but would you please walk back on that? The implication in your last sentence is rather transparent. If Jim said that, I’d reply to him in the same manner.

          • jim_m

            I believe Rick should be given free reign to discredit himself through his continued fevered ravings.

          • Since he rules neither us nor this thread I think you meant “rein” as in the reins of a horse (giving a horse its head, or free rein), vice “reign” (to rule).

          • jim_m

            He rules himself.

          • I see little evidence of that.

          • I thought, given the garbage dished out by both of them toward me it was pretty funny…

          • Scalia

            You must be the only one who thought it was funny. I don’t think it’s funny at all, and given the other serious-sounding names you’ve cast in their direction (and they to you), nothing about that appears to have been made in jest.

            As I’ve stated before, I don’t know just where all the lines need to be drawn, so I try to draw as few as possible. Perhaps I draw too many as it is, but I think that regardless how fierce the debate may rage, that’s something we shouldn’t do.

            You and I have a little disagreement here on the refugee issue. How would you feel if I said, “Rick, why are you so interested in children coming here? Do you have a thing for kids?” I think that you would rightly object that such a statement is way out of bounds and would probably stay upset even if I said I was kidding.

          • jim_m

            “some of these are jokes” as one of our lefties is fond of saying.

          • Suggesting that two people might be one and the same person given their constant similar behaviors and opinions can hardly be compared to suggesting someone is a pedophile but if you want to believe there are similarities allow me to get the hell out if your way…

          • Someday you’ll learn the first rule of holes. I shan’t hold my breath waiting for that day. Just as I shan’t hold my breath waiting for you to master your passions.

          • I shant hold my breath for that day in which you’ll actually exhibit some integrity.

          • That would be a safe one, though your projection is showing once more. The one you should definately not hold your breath waiting on is for me to suffer fools gladly (then again, t’would be amusing).

          • Scalia

            Well, at least we agree that your examples are absurd. When our own government tells us that our vaunted vetting standards can’t do the job we’d like, that’s more than enough cause for concern. It’s been repeatedly pointed out that the very best vetting standards are weak at best without a database.

            We have no obligation to accept any refugee. As I said previously, I’m all for allowing somebody who’s been properly vetted, but we clearly cannot properly vet these refugees. Consequently, the only “prudent” thing to do is offer financial aid, but suspend the system until it can be fixed.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And I must add – we must face the harsh reality of what to do to stop the refugees from leaving Syria. The current situation is no way to run a country – neither Syria nor the US.

          • Scalia

            Agreed, my friend.

          • Not even allow them into Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I was speaking of getting rid of ISIS and, somehow, ending the civil war. As I have posted many times, we must solve the root problem – incessant war causing refugees. Sitting here talking about what to do with refugees is like giving pain pills to a person with cancer. It’s nice – it makes you feel good – the people receiving the pill feel somewhat better – it does nothing to solve the problem.
            No matter what our “solution” is [most likely backing Russia/Iran ally Assad who said must be deposed and helping defeat whatever moderate Muslims we’ve managed to find, fund, train and arm], it’s going to be hard to swallow.

          • Those are issues for Turkey (and thus the EU), Lebanon, and Jordan to decide.

          • I think we could still figure out a way to help mothers with young children…keep in mind that if the process started today, it would take nearly 3 years before any of them would set foot on American soil.

          • Scalia

            Then let’s figure it out before allowing them into the country.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Oh hell, don’t believe what you read from CATO – they published an article I wrote about 30 years ago. 😉

        • jim_m

          It’s interesting to see the dysfunction in the government here. The pols say there is nothing to worry about and the bureaucrats are all saying they can’t do it.

          It is instructive to see who people choose to believe. It says much about their thinking.

          • Scalia

            I don’t know what Rick’s fixation is on this topic. He’s run three straight threads which at the very least imply that we lack compassion or are bigoted because we believe that this refugee program should be suspended. OK, I get that he wants to believe that it can work, but three straight threads?!

          • iwogisdead

            If we don’t agree with them, they don’t think it’s because we have actually thought about the topic and have reached a different conclusion, they think that it’s because we haven’t heard them. So, they keep saying it and saying it. And saying it and saying it. And saying it.

          • Ayup. A lesser varient of the Big Lie.

          • jim_m

            I think in Rick’s case he is desperate to make a show of how incredibly compassionatet he is and to tell everyone what a great person he is and how much better he is than the rest of us for being able to be such a generous person (with everyone else’s money and lives).

            I think it truly irks him that people are not tripping all over themselves to congratulate him on his high mindedness and his piety (especially his piety).

          • iwogisdead

            Isn’t that the case with all of the Dems? They think there’s a “gotcha” here and so they jump all over it.

            “Republicans hate widows and orphans!!!”
            “Republicans want dirty air and dirty water!!!”
            “Republicans want to keep Hispanics from voting!!!”
            “Republicans hate women!!!”
            “Democrats are high-minded and compassionate and pious and fair and give away free shit!!!”

            Yadda, yadda, yadda. Trouble is, these lies seem to work.

          • Certainly seems to be.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but in this case shouting, “Republicans think like you do!” probably isn’t going to sell as well.

          • jim_m

            I think that, like the DNC, he is unable to differentiate between people being opposed to radical islamic terrorists and being opposed to muslims in general. The DNC just ran an add condemning the GOP for being against radical islam. 92% of Americans are concerned about radical islamic terrorism and they are attacking them. Rick seems to be of the same mind.

            To begin with, the ad is horribly tone-deaf. I don’t doubt that the decision-makers in the Democratic Party are horrified by the phrase “radical Islam.” But a new poll released today on the issue found that a supermajority of Americans agree that the United States is at war with radical Islam, including 56% of Democratic voters. Only 24% of the country agrees with the president. So right off the bat, the Democratic Party is attacking Republicans for a stance their own voters agree with.

            But of course, the ad attacked Republicans for just saying “radical Islam,” not saying we’re at war with it. Well, 92% of Americans also say “radical Islamic terrorism” is a serious threat to the United States. But hey, at least the DNC is making inroads with that 8%.

            To say nothing of the timing behind the ad. Literally any other time of the year, voters might have just rolled their eyes at the unbearable PC-ness of it all. But the DNC ad comes after a series of major terrorist attacks across the globe… and after President Barack Obama gave a speech in response that left the impression that he was more fired up about attacking his domestic critics than taking on ISIS. To attack Republicans for “inciting fear” about radical Islam in the wake of nonstop news about radical Islamic terror is just an unbelievable misfire.

          • Rose Calton

            .❝my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
            ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportDaily/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • yetanotherjohn

        Rick, On the other thread you were telling me that it was only my opinion that at least one of the attackers posed as Syrian refugees. So are you admitting that it is fact now that at least one of the terrorist posed as a Syrian refugee based on the fingerprint evidence?

  • Walter_Cronanty

    OFF TOPIC [unless you consider John Kerry and James Taylor’s last performance in Paris to be career suicide bombings] – but I can’t resist passing this on, from Instapundit:


    ● Kerry: It Took A Long Time To “Neutralize” al-Qaeda, “We Hope To Do Da’esh Much Faster Than That.”

    —Secretary of State John Kerry speaking to reporters yesterday.

    ● “At least 27 people were killed when 10 Al Qaeda gunmen stormed the Radisson Blu Hotel in Mali’s capital and took 170 hostages — but the grenade-toting assailants spared the Muslims inside.”

    —The New York Daily News, today.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Greece, often the entry point of refugees, says it’s impossible to vet refugees without a database [which doesn’t exist]:

    “Lesbos (Greece) (AFP) – As the hunt for jihadists widens after last week’s Paris attacks, authorities in Greece warn it was virtually impossible to pick out dangerous extremists among arriving migrants, without prior intelligence.
    “If they are not already registered in the database, it’s nearly impossible,” says Dimitris Amountzias, police captain in charge of Moria, Greece’s main registration camp on the island of Lesbos.”

  • yetanotherjohn

    Turns out the “home grown” leader used the refugee route to return to France, even though he was wanted on a warrant.

    The mastermind of the Paris attacks was able to slip into Europe among Syrian migrants, it emerged last night, as police on the continent admitted they are unable to monitor thousands of suspected jihadists.

    EU interior ministers will today move to tighten the continent’s borders to ensure that every single migrant is checked against a terror watchlist, after French authorities revealed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud was able to return from Syria via the migrant route of Greece.

    But heh, it’s only my opinion that the refugee route was used by the terrorists. Rick has assured us that refugees weren’t involved.