Ray Jay wrote:Salah Abdeslam, the surviving terrorist from the Nov 13 Paris attack, was able to hide out in a Muslim neighborhood close to home in Belgium for several months. That no one was willing to identify him to the authorities is concerning. It's hard to imagine that he wasn't recognized by at least someone.

I don't understand the comparison to Ireland. The Irish wanted their homeland. What are the demands of ISIS that would stop these attacks? They want the west to no longer attack the ISIS. That's non-negotiable.

danivon wrote:Read again the question at the top of the quoted section.

"So, who has denied that it is radical Islam, DF?"

Instead of clarifying that you only are talking abouts sins of omission, you responded with

"Those who dare not utter the word "Islam" except to praise it. Our esteemed Baseball-Fan-in-Chief, for example."

That is not "denying". It may be insufficiently acknowledging, but there is a difference.

Not my fault you didn't read the question properly.

And where is Obama's "explicit refusal" - can you link to it, or is this again you inferring from an absence?

What motivates terrorists? A lot of things, frankly. Usually it is about a strong ideology, but also an organisation to belong to.

But is it the ideology itself, or the strength with which it is held?

Salah Abdeslam, the surviving terrorist from the Nov 13 Paris attack, was able to hide out in a Muslim neighborhood close to home in Belgium for several months. That no one was willing to identify him to the authorities is concerning. It's hard to imagine that he wasn't recognized by at least someone.

.The Muslim community in the West needs to be a bit less focused on being unfairly being lumped in with radical terrorists and more focused on how to get rid of this virulent form of Islam which seeks conflict with the West.

We are not fighting terrorism, that's just a tool. We are fighting an ideology and we need Muslim allies against that ideology. So far Muslim determination to stamp out that ideology has been missing

In the wake of the ISIS terrorist attack in Brussels, some U.S. politicians are already calling for a ban of refugees and immigrants from countries in which ISIS controls territory. Rather than justifying a refugee ban, this latest attack should act as a reminder why the United States should take the lead on welcoming those fleeing ISIS terrorism. Accepting refugees is clearly important from a humanitarian standpoint, but it is also good for America’s national security.

While there is no evidence that any Syrians were involved in the Brussels attack, we know that the threat from refugees to the United States is entirely overblown. Since 1980, when the U.S. began its modern refugee program, the U.S. has accepted almost three million refugees, including hundreds of thousands from the Middle East, and not a single one has carried out an act of terrorism in the United States. But the logical question is, why take any risk at all? Here are five reasons turning away refugees would actually make America less safe.

1. Refugees undermine ISIS recruitment. The U.S. has killed over 20,000 ISIS fighters in its air campaign, and yet the group’s size has been largely unaffected, hovering between 25,000 and 30,000 fights. This means that the only thing keeping the Islamic State alive is recruiting new fighters to its black flag. Its recruitment of foreign fighters from the West focuses on the grandeur of its “caliphate.” Refugees, however, carry a very different message: that the supposed divine kingdom is a fraud and disaster, a total failure.

One escapee from the Islamic State told the New York Times, “People heard good words from them but didn’t see anything good come out of it.” Another said, “We thought they wanted to get rid of the regime, but they turned out to be thieves.” Refugees warn of foreign fighters who might be tempted to join the terrorist organization. One refugee resettled in the United States said, “Before the war, life in Syria was heaven on Earth... safe and secure... After that, we were targeted, so we had no choice but to leave.” There’s never been a better anti-ISIS ad than that.

2. Accepting refugees deprives ISIS of resources. The Islamic State’s army relies on a population to exploit. “Islamic State takes in more than $1 million per day in extortion and taxation,” the New York Times reports. It finds that “a broad consensus has emerged that its biggest source of cash appears to be the people it rules.” A huge number of people are fleeing its state to avoid the extortion. It’s one reason that ISIS hates the refugees who leave its pseudo-state. “ISIS would not let us leave,” one told the Times. “They said, ‘You are going to the infidels.’” Making the “infidels” more attractive than ISIS is the key to winning this fight. Fortunately, many are escaping. “So many people are migrating,” one ex-ISIS resident said, “ISIS wants to build a new society, but they’ll end up alone.” Good.

3. Refugees counter ISIS propaganda about the United States. ISIS propaganda portrays the West as an anti-Muslim cabal. Muslims fleeing ISIS territory are told that they “will be forced to convert to Christianity, in exchange for money or citizenship.” Accepting refugees refutes this narrative. In the process, it undermines the Islamic State’s credibility and bolsters America’s reputation in the region. It flips the narrative. Instead of the anti-Muslim violent crusaders, the United States becomes a safe haven for fugitives from a terrorist regime. One Syrian who was resettled in the United States told the Las Vegas Sun that despite their initial perception, “When we came here, we liked it.”

4. Accepting refugees undermines ISIS’s strategy. ISIS has said that its attacks on the West are specifically intended to “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselves,” forcing western Muslims to “either apostatize... or [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.” They want America to overreact and reject potential Muslim allies. Arguing that Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS-held areas should only be accepted by Muslim countries, as Ted Cruz says, or deporting those the United States has already accepted, as Donald Trump has promised to do, would appear to verify the ISIS narrative, rather than rebut it.

5. Accepting refugees provides the U.S. with valuable intelligence against ISIS. In 2014, a U.S. intelligence official told the Los Angeles Times that Syria was a “black hole.” That’s changing, largely due to Syrian refugees. Former-CIA intelligence officer Patrick Eddington explained last year that Syrian refugees from these areas are “the single best source of information on life inside ISIS controlled territory.” In fact, Syrian refugees have already handed over huge amounts of information on ISIS military inventory, leaders, and finances.

Americans should not view Syrian refugees as enemies, but as assets to our cause. The U.S. has much to gain by accepting them and much to lose by rejecting them. Humanitarianism is an important reason to accept refugees, but foreign policy is no less significant.

It was not pleasant to be a Communist in the US in the 1950s, regardless of whether one was completely peaceful.

So far Muslim determination to stamp out that ideology has been missing.

Whatever mistakes the United States made with regard to McCarthyism, internship of Japanese, the Vietnam, etc has to be seen in the context of saving the world from Communism and Fascism. When a country is in survival mode, eggs are broken. Sorry, that's just the way it is

the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the camps. The Commission's report, titled Personal Justice Denied, found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and, concluding the incarceration had been the product of racism, recommended that the government pay reparations to the survivors. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 to each individual camp survivor. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."[18] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs

No, Ricky you're wrong. Communism did not end because the intelligentsia figured out it was a bad system

It only ended after the US checked Communist aggression to impose it around the world

But if you want to cherry-pick the mistakes and ignore what the US did to stop fascism and communism go ahead.

Well, it would be great if as you say that all Muslims came to the West were enthralled with Western society, and renounced fundamentalism. But clearly some Muslims at least are feeling disenchantment with western societies and are turning to Radical Islam for meaning. What are Western societies supposed to do about it?

I don't agree with Ted Cruz's proposal to monitor Muslim communities but it is fairly predictable that if the attacks keep coming that societies will tilt to the right in the search for security

freeman3 wrote:It appears Belgian attackers were looking to attack nuclear facility.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brussels-at ... -abdeslam/

I'm not sure what the purpose would have been--causing a nuclear accident, getting material for a bomb?--but in any case an intent to cause or at least threaten to cause mass casualties. Alarming.

I'm not sure what the purpose would have been--causing a nuclear accident, getting material for a bomb?--but in any case an intent to cause or at least threaten to cause mass casualties. Alarming