Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Feb 2017, 2:02 pm

fate
The biggest problem is homicidal Islamists. I don't care where they get radicalized. The truth is there is a kernel of "jihad" in too many.


And yet

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America


http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslim ... ca/5333619

And of those Muslims who carried out attacks in the US, most were born in the US.

Why don't you care where Muslims are being radicalized? Isn't the solution to ending ISIL inspired terror in the US cutting off their supply of adherents? Especially the self radicalized adherents.
And to do that don't you need to inoculate American Muslims in particular from the effects of ISIL propaganda?
In promoting the "ban", its as if you'd eschew vaccinations in favor of quarantine - when the infected patients are already in your midst.
And the ones trying to get in are already thoroughly vetted and risk free.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Feb 2017, 2:16 pm

bbauska
Who has it better,


Christians in America have it better than Christians over there too.
Because despite what Trump says, the US isn't a hell hole.

The places you've named, are tough places for anyone to live prosperous lives in peace, and security.
If you think Christians are uniquely persecuted in these countries you'd be wrong.
In Syria Sunnis are the majority and yet they are discriminated against. Druze are persecuted. Kurds are persecuted. Turkmen are persecuted... The root cause of the civil war was not ISIS but the internal conflict between the ruling minority and the oppressed minorities.

Which simply means that an awful lot of them would like to move somewhere where they can prosper in peace. If only someone would open the door and let them in..
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Feb 2017, 2:30 pm

If you notice, the 7 countries listed are the ones in the travel ban. I am glad you agree that they are dangerous places. If there are people in the countries who are doing evil toward the groups you listed, I would think it is in the best interest of the United States to spend the extra time investigating.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 7:31 am

bbauska
If you notice, the 7 countries listed are the ones in the travel ban. I am glad you agree that they are dangerous places.

Dangerous places to live in. But are refugees coming from these places dangerous? The evidence says no. (Most of the refugees are women and children by the way.)

bbauska
If there are people in the countries who are doing evil toward the groups you listed, I would think it is in the best interest of the United States to spend the extra time investigating

Refugees coming from ANY country, and particular from the countries listed since 2011, have faced the greatest scrutiny of anyone entering the USA.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /97043442/

Explain to me how different Trumps "Extreme Vetting" would differ from the current system?
Then explain to me how the ban of refugees actually targets "terrorists".
Evidence suggests that refugees simply don't become terrorists.... The terrorists in the US were mostly born in the USA.

Here's am indepth analysis of the list of terror events that Trump offered as evidence to support the "travel ban". Notice where the terrorists come from? Mostly home grown. Count how many were refugees.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/opinions/ ... index.html
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 7:45 am

Nice try on your linked chart but it's not quite right. The data goes back to 1980 and stops in 2005. Radical Islamic terrorism does not go back that far and has grown since 2005 so the data is already marginalizing the Islamic effects in a big way. Frankly your chart is nothing but liberal garbage.

The majority of the early 2000's were dominated by the earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Both are eco-terrorism groups that focus on fire bombings of businesses they find wrongs with and deaths are very few. Again, these whackos are not in the same league as Radical Islamic Terrorists and adding them to this same mix waters down effects of deadly attacks.

Let's get some real data and not cherry picked nonsense.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Feb 2017, 9:06 am

You said those are dangerous countries. Why should Americans not want MORE inspection of people coming from those countries?

There would be Face to Face meeting at the consulate.
There would be 90 days to more fully investigate possible terrorist connections.

I answered your question. Answer mine.

Why should AMERICANS not want MORE inspection of people coming from those countries?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 9:06 am

GMTom wrote:Nice try on your linked chart but it's not quite right. The data goes back to 1980 and stops in 2005. Radical Islamic terrorism does not go back that far
:rolleyes:
National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg
250px-Ap_munich905_t.jpg
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 9:10 am

bbauska wrote:[Why should AMERICANS not want MORE inspection of people coming from those countries?


Perhaps it's the wrong question. Perhaps the right question is, why wasn't a ban placed upon Saudi Arabia? (Which is where most of the foreign terrorists who have killed Americans in the USA have come from, in case you forgot, like Tom.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 9:16 am

rickyp wrote:fate
The biggest problem is homicidal Islamists. I don't care where they get radicalized. The truth is there is a kernel of "jihad" in too many.


And yet


Don't change topics. I was on Islam, not whatever you are addressing.

What makes them radicalize? Part of it is the concept of "jihad."

Why don't you care where Muslims are being radicalized? Isn't the solution to ending ISIL inspired terror in the US cutting off their supply of adherents? Especially the self radicalized adherents.
And to do that don't you need to inoculate American Muslims in particular from the effects of ISIL propaganda?


How do you stop the Internet?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2017, 12:16 pm

With regard to our security we have to do what is right with our values as a democracy that does not discriminate on the basis of membership in a group. Whenever possible we should be evaluating security threats based on individualized suspicion. Rolling out a travel ban directed at 7 90%+ Muslim countries without taken any time to assess the current vetting signals group suspicion. The fact that certain friendlier Muslim countries were excluded whose people have either attacked the US (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan) or where a major Islamic terrorist group is located (Egypt), or where a lot of terrorism is going on (Turkey) makes this ban seem like more a signal to the base that something is being done about the "Muslim problem".

We have not had a fatal terrorist attack linked to any of the 7 countries (there was a recent non-fatal attack by someone from Somalia). That's not determinative but a factor to be considered in assessing whether current vetting is good enough to protect us. I would have thought that instead of a disruptive travel ban instituted there would have been like a 90 day assessment of whether current vetting is deemed good enough. And if current vetting is not deemed good enough then options such as more thorough vetting or if that is not good enough then perhaps a ban on certain high-risk groups (e.g, men 18-34) might be considered. Grouping people into a undifferentiated mass of other that poses a threat that we cannot disentangle rationally is not consistent with American values. My strong sense is that current vetting is good enough based by the lack of attacks from people coming into the country since 9-11 but if Trump and his people decide differently it should be based on a systematic informed review, with time for input from the intelligence services, with weighing of the different interests involved, with an assessment of the risks involved, with consideration of less-intrusive alternatives. But just to come in and put in a complete ban before you have had time to make any assessment...that's just ridiculous. I mean, I am struggling to come up with the right words to describe it. It has an Emperor with No Clothes quality about it. Oh the president does something, yeah, that seems reasonable...

As far as the effect on Muslims and terrorism I'll just say this: you do what is right and let the chips fall where they may. We do what is right we don't worry about whether Muslims become radicalized.
Last edited by freeman3 on 09 Feb 2017, 12:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 12:39 pm

Freeman is on point here!
He points to the current facts that support his case and gives real "other' possibilities. I agree with him (shock and awe?) 100% here.(well maybe 90%?)

and George, yes I did generalize. Of course we have had radical Islamist attacks for quite some time. I was of course speaking in a more general wide sweeping way.I also spoke poorly meaning the number of attacks were quite few in the earlier portion of the data set, I did not make that clear at all! Radical Islam was not nearly as big a problem in the 80's or even most of the 90's as it is today.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 12:43 pm

freeman3 wrote:With regard to our security we have to do what is right with our values as a democracy that does not discriminate on the basis of membership in a group. Whenever possible we should be evaluating security threats based on individualized suspicion. Rolling out a travel ban directed at 7 90%+ Muslim countries without taken any time to assess the current vetting signals group suspicion. The fact that certain friendlier Muslim countries were excluded whose people have either attacked the US (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan) or where a major Islamic terrorist group is located (Egypt), or where a lot of terrorism is going on (Turkey) makes this ban seem like more a signal to the base that something is being done about the "Muslim problem".

We have not had a fatal terrorist attack linked to any of the 7 countries (there was a recent non-fatal attack by someone from Somalia). That's not determinative but a factor to be considered in assessing whether current vetting is good enough to protect us. I would have thought that instead of a disruptive travel ban instituted there would have been like a 90 day assessment of whether current vetting is deemed good enough. And if current vetting is not deemed good enough then options such as more thorough vetting or if that is not good enough then perhaps a ban on certain high-risk groups (e.g, men 18-34) might be considered. Grouping people into a undifferentiated mass of other that poses a threat that we cannot disentangle rationally is not consistent with American values.

As far as the effect on Muslims and terrorism I'll just say this: you do what is right and let the chips fall where they may. We do what is right we don't worry about whether Muslims become radicalized.


Is the EO constitutional?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2017, 12:52 pm

It's not constitutional in my mind because it is clearly directed at Muslims as a group without any attempt to justify why all of them from 7 countries need to be banned.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Feb 2017, 1:35 pm

freeman3 wrote:It's not constitutional in my mind because it is clearly directed at Muslims as a group without any attempt to justify why all of them from 7 countries need to be banned.


It doesn't ban just Muslims. It temporarily stops all immigration from those countries unless they are persecuted minorities.

I think it is Constitutional based on the authority Congress has given the President.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2017, 3:05 pm

Well, as you know it will be the guys in black robes who will make the call on that. And they will give great deference to the president on security. But to me his action was arbitrary without informed analysis. If he had done it after 90 days with a comprehensive review that would be different. Or perhaps if there were recent events that would justify immediate action that would be different. Ultimately, the president has to make the call on security and his assessment should be given great deference by the courts IF it is based on a thorough review with input from our intelligence agencies. But I think doing it at the start of his presidency when there was no time for a review means that his order was unconstitutional religious discrimination. Congress may have given him the power but Congress cannot grant him the power to act unconstitutionally. But we'll see.