The laws were pretty similar in Christian nations for a very long time. The real question is, how do you get them to change? In the Christian countries, it was due to moderate reformers - a group of people who are just now starting to rise up in the Muslim world. So my argument would be that, while I sadly see no good short term solution, a decent long term solution is to help foster an environment where moderate Muslims can help transform their religion into something much more inline with the rest of what I would call the (mostly) civilized world.
I mean on a grander scale. If something is a very small, marginal threat - that is already very much contained - Why spend ANY resources, on that - when ANY resources, could be re-directed to account for greater threats?
It's just a Math equation - if not enough people are being damaged by X things, funnel the money for protection of X thing, to handle Y thing instead.
I am questioning the purpose of the very action, at all.
This is disengenuous because radical Islam doesn't make any distinctions between geopolitics and faith. Sharia governs the entire facet of human existence.
Moreover it's systemic, the rest of your bomber examples are lone wolf types and thus not worth basing any policy around other than the general overarching anti terrorist/terrorism laws. You want to trot out all these "moderate" or Western Muslims who have an infinite variance in the degree of their practice of Islam as the defining example but it doesn't work like that because the problem is still Muslims, period. That they're coming from the M.E. is due to our destabilizing interventionism and cowboy actions there, if we were destabilizing Muslim Asia to the extent that we are the M.E. you'd be saying Asia instead, so the location doesn't matter, the existence of lukewarm to non practitioners doesn't matter.
What matters is that we've got a serious problem as does Europe with radical Islam that even as it moves into the West doesn't ever normalize and become compatible with the indigenous host population and there's no reason to believe that is going to change no matter how far we bend over backwards for these cavemen. Therefore not only pushing them out and returning them to their own lands but also stopping that aforementioned interventionist foreign policy is the only thing we can do. This is a oil and water situation at its core.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
While I am no politician, and could be wholly under-thinking this, the broadened analysis appears very reasonable. The people that fall into any of the above categories are very obviously considered a threat to the safety of others. That none have actively committed a terror attack does not preclude those with the means and motive from doing so in the future.
This is a wonderful fact, an we can only hope that it continues to remain such. But as we are all well aware, loss of life is not a requirement for an event to be classified as a terror attack.
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
PROUD PROUD PROUD PROUD
I'm pretty sure @Darsithis wasn't seriously suggesting that. And I'm pretty sure you also don't get sarcasm.
That's true. Injury or property damage is also bad, just not as bad.
But um...I'm pretty sure the injuries and property damage from countries with confirmed kills, also outweigh the list of seven in both of those. I mean, those were two very large buildings in a very crowded city. So, it's still a reason to point out how horrifyingly flawed the list is, if the desire is purely to keep Americans safe from terrorism. Barring actionable intelligence, which the government declined to show any during the 9th circuit court case.
How does the Senate Report on Immigration (written mostly by Dems under Obama) not count as facts for you? Did you even read the link?
I know the Dems questioned facts during the election because the facts were all against them so that is the only way they could get nay votes but c'mon, give it up already.
I stand by the Senate's Report on Immigration (which is where the data comes from) as facts, you can question it if you want- that is all you.
You've never actually met an American Muslim, have you?
- - - Updated - - -
I see a threat where it exists, not in your mind. The made up threat of sharia law in your mind is closer to what the VP wants than what an American Muslim wants. If the sharia law that you fear is ever to become an actual threat in the us, it will be because of laws weakening the separation of church and state brought forth by the right, rather than the immigration of thoroughly vetted immigrants and refugees.
Last edited by Noxx79; 2017-02-12 at 06:32 PM.
Honor killings also aren't a standard in the Muslim world, either. So once again, you're lying about Muslims out of fear and hatred.
This is bollocks. A lot of people don't draw firm distinctions between politics and their faith. It's by no means unique to extremist Muslims.
It's not "systemic". That's a straight-up lie. Islamic terrorism is an incredibly tiny fraction of Muslims worldwide. They may be more organized than lone wolf attackers like McVeigh, but they're not more organized than groups like the IRA.Moreover it's systemic, the rest of your bomber examples are lone wolf types and thus not worth basing any policy around other than the general overarching anti terrorist/terrorism laws.