fate
I am a pretty fundamentalist type. You can throw as many Christians in jail as you want--even if they have not committed acts of terror. Keep them in Gitmo. I'm still not going to favor killing innocent men, women and children.
No way.
What a high bar you set...
fate
You have to accept homicidal theology, e.g. "Death to . . ." before you are susceptible to "radicalization." That seems to be predominately an issue with Islam. (I know it's cool for liberals to defend a religion that is antithetical to what they believe in, but that's not my issue)
The biggest problem in North America are lone wolves who "self radicalize", primarily over the internet these days...
And Trump and the latest "ban - not a ban - ban" has already been used to construct more ISIL propoganda.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/isis-su ... a-45162798Its not always Islam radicalizing these lone wolves either... Nor is the phenomenon of the radicalized loner shooting innocents in schools or malls a new phenomenon or a phenomenon dominated by Muslim.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619And its certainly not a phenomenon in the US that is dominated by former refugees.
examples of recent terror events.
Alexander Bissonnette
Dylan Roof
But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.
Zero.
Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during that time period, according to Nowrasteh’s research.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... sm/514361/I doubt Trump had any idea what he meant by "Extreme Vetting" when he coined the phrase. Since 2011 US refugee applicants go through the most comprehensive vetting process of any person entering the US.
It would have been interesting to know what changes he wanted to make to take the comprehensive vetting up to his hypothetical "extreme vetting". Did any journalist ever challenge him on that?
I'd guess it was just BS and bluster intended for political purposes only, that Bannon seized on, and now his minions are stuck trying to construct some substantive evidence and rationale.
I'd submit that at least since 2011 refugee applicants have already been going through extreme vetting. And the current travel ban, even if a temporary ban, will see no improvements to the vetting process.
Its just a big con.