Pray for Brussels
- Thread starter Louigi
- Start date
Only a matter of time til this happens here in US on a similar scale. I have NO confidence that our current POTUS cares about this or will do much of anything to stop it.
do you have confidence in the next potus caring or doing anything to stop it?
and btw, not caring about loss of life is pretty horrible to assume and say about the potus.
yes, though, thoughts and prayers for brussels.
Well let's see YOUR guy Obama has for the last eight long terrible years REFUSED to even call the radical Islamic terror attacks... at Ft hood for example, for what they were and are... Workplace violence ring a bell??? How about the attacks in California recently?? Nope not radical Islam there.
He, along with the entire Democrat party, wants even MORE immigration and amnesty from places like Syria... see the pandering in the recent demo debate that featured your queen Hillary and O 'malley dueling as to just how many Syrians that we are gonna take in ..50k no 60 k no whatever let's take em all in. That is working REAL well in Europe eh.
Obama could not care less about me, my family or anyone who does not share his 'transformation" of America into a third world hell hole. He frankly is too busy right at the moment kissing the asses of the Communist thugs in Cuba, who he greatly admires and wishes to be like.
BTW If god forbid your queen Hillary is elected , you can absolutely expect tens of thousands more illegal immigrants streaming into the US and also can expect her to follow thru on her promise to significantly increase the number of Middle east immigrants. They are a good voting block too, just like the millions of dependent Mexicans that the democrat party needs to have as reliable voters for the next fifty years.
I absolutely believe Trump will do all he can to stop this national suicide that the democrats so gleefully want to happen.
The democrats...ZERO chance they will do anything to stop this BEFORE it happens
He, along with the entire Democrat party, wants even MORE immigration and amnesty from places like Syria... see the pandering in the recent demo debate that featured your queen Hillary and O 'malley dueling as to just how many Syrians that we are gonna take in ..50k no 60 k no whatever let's take em all in. That is working REAL well in Europe eh.
Obama could not care less about me, my family or anyone who does not share his 'transformation" of America into a third world hell hole. He frankly is too busy right at the moment kissing the asses of the Communist thugs in Cuba, who he greatly admires and wishes to be like.
BTW If god forbid your queen Hillary is elected , you can absolutely expect tens of thousands more illegal immigrants streaming into the US and also can expect her to follow thru on her promise to significantly increase the number of Middle east immigrants. They are a good voting block too, just like the millions of dependent Mexicans that the democrat party needs to have as reliable voters for the next fifty years.
I absolutely believe Trump will do all he can to stop this national suicide that the democrats so gleefully want to happen.
The democrats...ZERO chance they will do anything to stop this BEFORE it happens
This is an article about Obama's disastrous Muslim immigration policies that he already has done and will continue to do about immigration from Muslim nations
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2577134
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2577134
actually, he's everyone's potus...unless you wanna leave.
but he's not my guy and hillary is not my queen.
i don't really support any of these candidates, but i will respect the office...and i won't believe that he or trump don't care about loss of life.
but he's not my guy and hillary is not my queen.
i don't really support any of these candidates, but i will respect the office...and i won't believe that he or trump don't care about loss of life.
If the policies are so bad, maybe the Republican-led Congress should have voted against Paul Ryan's omnibus bill that continued to fund them.
You are wrong, Boy Blunder:
FORT HOOD, Texas — In a speech to the nation at a military base rocked by another shooting which left three dead and 16 wounded, President Obama issued a defiant call to arms against the enemies of the United States while saying the attack was "definitely an act of terrorism."
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/04/p...rt-hood-shooting-definitely-terrorist-attack/
Obama, speaking in the symbolic surroundings of the Oval Office, unequivocally told millions of television viewers in prime-time that last week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, was a terrorist attack by a couple who had gone down the "dark path of radicalization" and embraced a "perverted" form of Islam.
"This was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people," Obama said.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/obama-oval-office-address-isis-terror/
The republicans had to make sure they got all of their useless crap through too. The only time both parties come together is when they want to spend a lot of money on stupid things.
I think we need to pause all Muslim immigration into the US until we figure out how to prevent these kind of atrocities by radical Islamic extremist from occurring on home soil. This would include any Muslims attempting to enter the country via Europe. Also, we better be looking for these guys infiltrating across the border...
You can't stop it because to many people fail to see that that peaceful religion isn't so peaceful!
What's your remedy for quelling the actions of characters like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, etc.?
I think the threat of radical Islamic extremism is an existential threat to the US. Radical Islamic Extremists have openly declared war against much of the world in general and the US in particular. That should be our focus here.
Let's break this down let's say you own a beach house and there are a group of Muslims that ask to rent it and you let them and the first time after they leave the lamp in missing and they left a note that they took it in the name of Allah, then a week later another group of Muslims ask to rent the house and you let them and this time you dryer gets missing with a note that reads the same! Well 2 weeks later a Muslim shows up at your house and wants to rent it, and you say hell no the last 2 time I rented to Muslims stuff got stolen! And this person says those were radical Muslims we are not! What are you going to do? I know what I'm going to do I'm going to have a new rule, if your Muslim you can't rent my house from me anymore, so you better tell me a lie when I ask!
Pretty simple solution if you ask me! National security comes first everytime!
Pretty simple solution if you ask me! National security comes first everytime!
I'm not saying that we should lock the doors, but the American born people you listed above are not a valid comparison to the discussion. You can't keep someone out who is already here and already a citizen. There is always going to be some idiot who kills people in this world, but if you can prevent them from coming here (at least temporarily) why not do it?
The U.S. should suspend ALL immigration, regardless of race or religion. There's too many people here as it is and we can't find jobs for all of them. Plus, the population is going to only increase naturally over the years, even without any more influx.
And I know some will say "that's the antithesis of the American Dream" but my answer to that is tough titties.
I would agree with you in theory, but not in practice. There comes a time when you reach critical mass and the addition of more people causes more damage than it does good.
We are under attack from radical Islamic terrorists inside our country and outside our country who are bent on the destruction of our ideals and our beliefs. They fight to have those ideals and beliefs replaced by strict Sharia Law with no exceptions and no compromises and they fight to have our nation assimilated into a global Islamic Caliphate. They will not stop until those goals are either achieved or they are completely annihilated by their enemies. As such, these radical Islamic extremists are willing to utilize any and all means to accomplish their goals. We are in a battle like no other in the history of the world. We should consider the possibility that we might lose this battle unless we are willing to take steps that may, in the short term, be antithetical to our ideals and beliefs; but, in the long run, taking those necessary steps will ensure the survival of those precious ideals and beliefs.
I wasn't drawing a comparison, but I figure if Nuk'EM Heels has at least a theoretical solution for halting "all Muslim immigration into the US until we figure out how to prevent these kind of atrocities by radical Islamic extremist from occurring on home soil," then I would certainly be interested in his answer for stopping homegrown terrorism.
The point is, neither plan is realistic.
You're (purposefully) conflating two issues. Attacks by American-born citizens such as Timothy McVeigh (which was not motivated by Islam) are a completely separate issue from freely allowing the immigration of Islamic peoples, some of whom are bound to harbor thoughts/feelings of wanting to attack innocent Americans.
Since the beginning of modern civilization, senseless attacks have been committed by citizens born and raised in that country. Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, etc. etc. etc. These acts, while terrible, are inspired by the wickedness and craziness of a deranged individual, not by a warped interpretation of the Islamic religion like all these terrorist attacks are. To answer your question, you can never stop a crazy person from growing up to be a murderer, but you can absolutely prevent Middle Eastern Muslims from entering this country. It's the square-rectangle thing. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Not all Muslims are evil and probably the vast majority of Muslims are not evil. But there is a percentage who follow a twisted version of Islam and, motivated by its teachings, commit unspeakable crimes against innocent human beings.
Essentially what you're doing is following the Democrat stance of valuing political correctness over American security. Democrats would rather allow all Muslims in and be viewed as tolerant, than vetting Muslims and attempting to protect national security and being called intolerant.
The microcosm of this can be seen in airport security. Liberals are terrified to single out those of Muslim descent for 'special checks' for fear of being labelled racists. Even though it's Muslims that are way, way, way more likely to commit terrorist attacks in 2016 than whites or blacks or Latinos.
True, you are never going to be able to stop this completely, but there are things that we could do to lower the possibility. If we were to follow the laws that are already on the books that would help prevent some of it.
Yes, in the age of political correctness, the left wants to make sure the Muslim religion doesn't feel profiled against. Which is kind of odd when you think about it, because of the dislike the left has for religion in general. If this was billed as something the left could get behind, it may be a different story. Since they hate Big Oil, all of the nasty pollution and environmental damage that is caused by oil, and are always striving to have renewable green energy, that may be an angle they could get behind. Instead of referring to them as Muslim or Islamic terrorists, why don't we just refer to them as "Terrorists from oil producing nations"? That way we could keep out immigrants from the middle east, but instead of having it done on the premise of them being Muslim, we could have it done on the premise that they're proponents of oil, and opponents of all the tree-hugging energy sources that the left constantly touts.
This is what pisses me off to no end. I realize only .001% (approximation that is probably way off but just roll with me here) of Muslims that go through US airports are inclined to commit a terrorist act. But when compared to the .000001% combination of all other people being inclined to commit a terrorist act - it's clear that Muslims are 1000% more likely to be inclined to commit a terrorist act. Therefore, they should be selected for special inspection 1000 times more often than other types of people, based strictly on math.
Again, if it were found that people wearing UNC hats, or people with beards, or something like that were 1000% more likely to commit terrorist acts, they would absolutely be profiled. But since its a sensitive subject of the Islamic religion, they refuse to do so.
You're missing the point. The notion that we can somehow characterize immigrants, individually as well as collectively, as either dangerous or not dangerous is not practical or realistic. So, first of all, I'm not necessarily arguing against Nuk's suggestion to "pause all Muslim immigration into the US." I'm simply asking for his recommendation on how to differentiate the good ones from the bad ones.
Second of all, I'm not "valuing political correctness over American security." I never have. I'm more moderate than you might think, and as such I'm not entirely opposed to limiting immigration into this country.
And last, speaking of McVeigh, he wasn't as much a "crazy person" as he was a political activist, which has proven to be just as lethal as radical Islamists.
I disagree with your characterization of the issue. This isn't about political correctness or tolerance. It's about treating others with human decency, particularly those in need of asylum. It's about helping others in need when we have the ability and arguably the moral obligation to do so.
Matthew 25
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
The underlying trade-off remains the same. Do we completely shut our borders? Does that guarantee no terrorist attacks by radical Muslims will occur on American soil? Or do we permit refugees, knowing it could result in terrorist attacks, but take steps to mitigate that risk to the extent possible?
(I'm sure someone will be along any minute to tell me why those verses aren't applicable to this situation, by the way.)
With Muslims, you can characterize them all as dangerous, due to association. It's unfortunate for the innocent ones, but enough Islam-motivated attacks have occurred around the world that it's not impractical to consider all potential immigrants to be dangerous if they are followers of Islam. Guilt by association.
Last edited:
It's a tough call to be sure, and yes I know I'm being un-Christian in my opinion that we should close our borders. But I will respectfully point out that in biblical times, the strangers you invited in did not have access to weapons that could inflict massive carnage and loss of life.
The stakes are so much higher in the modern world we live in with modern technology and modern weaponry. I'm all for treating others with human decency, but IMO we should try to accomplish that with organizations like the Red Cross and other agencies that go over there to help. We don't have to bring them here to help. We should also continue to work with foreign governments (or overthrow them if necessary) in an attempt to improve the lives of those suffering. And finally, keep in mind that innocent American-born citizens deserve human decency as well. They deserve the protection of their livelihood.
The way you differentiate between the good Muslims from the bad Muslims is as follows:
1) Secure the border and prevent radical Islamic extremists from infiltrating the border;
2) Develop a rigorous process to thoroughly vet every single prospective Muslim immigrant to the US. Prerequisites for legal Muslim immigration to the US would include:
a) means of positive identification;
b) if they have positive identification, do they pass a background investigation which would include queries of all national and international criminal and/or terrorist databases;
c) if they have positive ID and pass a background check, they would be subject to constant electronic monitoring and surveillance (including biometric, digital social media, internet monitoring, financial activity monitoring, etc.) - if the prospective Muslim isn't agreeable to this monitoring, they don't get in.
3) These requirements would sunset when radical Islamic extremism has been eliminated or hell freezes over, which ever happens first...
1) Secure the border and prevent radical Islamic extremists from infiltrating the border;
2) Develop a rigorous process to thoroughly vet every single prospective Muslim immigrant to the US. Prerequisites for legal Muslim immigration to the US would include:
a) means of positive identification;
b) if they have positive identification, do they pass a background investigation which would include queries of all national and international criminal and/or terrorist databases;
c) if they have positive ID and pass a background check, they would be subject to constant electronic monitoring and surveillance (including biometric, digital social media, internet monitoring, financial activity monitoring, etc.) - if the prospective Muslim isn't agreeable to this monitoring, they don't get in.
3) These requirements would sunset when radical Islamic extremism has been eliminated or hell freezes over, which ever happens first...
I don't understand why NATO can't set up safe zones in Syria for these refugees. That's what really needs to happen. The truth is that no one, except for the people who were born here, has a right to be here. I don't have a problem with immigration, but natural born citizens should come first in my opinion.
By shutting the immigration from terrorist producing nations, we ensure that we will not be letting in any terrorist to commit terrorist acts. Granted, you're right in that radicals that are currently in the country may still commit such acts, but there's not as much that can be done about that.
So the tradeoff as you mention, is fairly simple. What is the ratio of human decency to lives lost that seems fair? If letting in immigrants that 1 in 1000 are radicals that will commit terrorist acts, and say each one of them will kill 50 peoples in their terrorist act, is the ratio of 1000 lives given human decency to 50 American lives lost (so a 20-1 ratio) worth it? If not -what ratio works for you where we can live with "X" American lives lost, in order to give human decency to "Y" amount of immigrants?
This is pretty elementary, on purpose -- when I was growing up, be it in class or playing sports, when one person got into trouble, we all got punished. The whole "one bad apple ruins a bunch" cliche. In sports, if one person missed a free throw or made a mistake, we all had to run sprints.
The result -- as a group, we all learned from it and got better.
This PC bullshit about not labeling certain groups exactly what they are based on the track record has gotten beyond old. Everyone in today's world SAYS that they want to go "against the establishment" or "get rid of political correctness"...but at the end of the day, they ARE the establishment, they ARE the politically correct. Nothing but meaningless talk to cater to mass in this retarded country (apologies). And the fact that so many people think that of all people, Hillary is the answer? Are you f***ing kidding me? No, really....?
The result -- as a group, we all learned from it and got better.
This PC bullshit about not labeling certain groups exactly what they are based on the track record has gotten beyond old. Everyone in today's world SAYS that they want to go "against the establishment" or "get rid of political correctness"...but at the end of the day, they ARE the establishment, they ARE the politically correct. Nothing but meaningless talk to cater to mass in this retarded country (apologies). And the fact that so many people think that of all people, Hillary is the answer? Are you f***ing kidding me? No, really....?
Last edited:
This is a false argument. We are a sovereign nation of laws at war with radical Islamic extremism with a solemn right and obligation to defend our sovereignty and our people. I'm arguing we need a rigorous process to prevent the bad guys from entering the country; until that process is really in place, no Muslims should be allowed entry into the country.
I think your 1 in 1000 example overstates the % of terrorists. It also presupposes acts of terrorism. But the quoted part of your post above is the crux of the matter. That's a number that our beloved leaders will have to decide. It's not zero IMO, but it's not infinity either. If we're going to allow immigrants from Muslim nations, they should be subjected to a more rigorous screening process than that of other nations.
Similar threads
