Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is required reading for everyone participating in this thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Islamophobes" don't seem to be gunning down and blowing up people.

The phrase "Islamophobe" is simply code for 'racist', because that's all you have to defend yourselves against the truth - that Islamic radicals simply want death to all that are not Islamic radicals, and no one 'made them do it'.

"Islamophobe" perfectly describes people like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson who want to discriminate against all Muslims, even those fleeing the violence of ISIS. Do you agree with Cris Christie that even Syrian children under 5 should be barred from entering the US? What do you think of those Americans who turned away the St. Louis and refuse to let Jewish refugees enter the US? Do you identify yourself with them?

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views. If you want to avoid disenfranchised young men in the US, a good start would be to develop a more welcoming attitude. I can't think of a better way to alienate them then by adopting a national policy opposing them. Are we so weak as to allow fear and prejudice to drive our policies?

Our views? ISIS has stated they plan to infiltrate by posing as refugees. I don't remember the Jews stating the same back then. How about you welcome them into your own personal home and not place them in mine?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Islamophobes" don't seem to be gunning down and blowing up people.

The phrase "Islamophobe" is simply code for 'racist', because that's all you have to defend yourselves against the truth - that Islamic radicals simply want death to all that are not Islamic radicals, and no one 'made them do it'.

"Islamophobe" perfectly describes people like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson who want to discriminate against all Muslims, even those fleeing the violence of ISIS. Do you agree with Cris Christie that even Syrian children under 5 should be barred from entering the US? What do you think of those Americans who turned away the St. Louis and refuse to let Jewish refugees enter the US? Do you identify yourself with them?

"they have no family here. How are we going to care for these folks?"

This is a legitimate point by Christie. Do you plan to adopt one?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Islamophobes" don't seem to be gunning down and blowing up people.

The phrase "Islamophobe" is simply code for 'racist', because that's all you have to defend yourselves against the truth - that Islamic radicals simply want death to all that are not Islamic radicals, and no one 'made them do it'.

"Islamophobe" perfectly describes people like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson who want to discriminate against all Muslims, even those fleeing the violence of ISIS. Do you agree with Cris Christie that even Syrian children under 5 should be barred from entering the US? What do you think of those Americans who turned away the St. Louis and refuse to let Jewish refugees enter the US? Do you identify yourself with them?

I don't remember Jewish people threatening to pose as refugees so they can kill our people. Had that threat occurred, I would indeed identify with those Americans. There is nothing wrong with wanting proper vetting before you let people into your country, especially given the ISIS threats.

You might think you are 'way cool' by not thinking so, but the fact is, you are not thinking at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is required reading for everyone participating in this thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

That article is out of date. It may have been accurate earlier this year, but not any longer.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis-caliphate-setbacks-islamic-state-attacks-paris-tripoli

“Although Isis is no longer the same as it was in 2014, they still are capable of recovering if pressure is lifted on them,” said Barzani. “They pose threats to us and the rest of the world. They still control vast areas, rule over millions of people and are expanding in other parts of the world like north Africa. Isis may have lost conventional fighting capabilities, but they are adapting themselves to new tactics and forms of terrorism, such as what happened in France.”

In being able to organise an attack of the scale that took place in Paris, within 10 days of apparently bringing down a airliner in Egypt, and carrying out bombings in Tripoli, Baghdad and Beirut, Isis has shown an international potency that it did not have a year ago. In 2014, sympathisers and cells of the group existed in all these locations, but without the capacity or reach that they have shown lately.

Isis members travel relatively easily to Turkey and several of its senior officials have boasted that the migrant route offers opportunities to move fighters to Europe and beyond.

“I truly did not think that they could do this yet,” one member of Isis with links to the group’s decision-makers said on Sunday. “I thought they would have to make deals with the international al-Qaida groups. Earlier this year, they could not do this by themselves.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-wanted-to-strike-beyond-its-caliphate-long-before-the-paris-attacks-2015-11

But the attacks' severity shouldn't distract from how little of a deviation they represent from the group's past behavior.

ISIS has never been exclusively focused on building its so-called caliphate, an Islamic state presided over by a religious leader.

It was also focused on waging external attacks long before the events in Paris last week.

...

ISIS hasn't had a "change in strategy." It's been consistent in its actions and messaging, which has explicitly emphasized attacks on Western targets since at least September 2014.

"Their strategy hasn't shifted," Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider. "Instead, it's their capabilities that have shifted ... They're focused on attacking, everywhere."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views.

Jeff, you often use this type of lazy argument -- "some people say this and others say the opposite, so who is to say who is justified". Why not examine the differences between 1930 and now and see if a different policy is warranted today?

1. As mentioned, there were no Jewish subgroups in the 1930s analogous to ISIS seeking "death to America" and plotting terrorism in the U.S.
2. In the 1930s, the immigration laws were so strict that there was actually net emigration from the U.S. Currently we are admitting one million people a year as legal citizens, and that doesn't count the 14 million undocumented people. Do you think we should block other immigrants to make room for the Syrians?
3. There is a vast Arab world with the same language and religion as the Syrian refugees. The Jews in the 1930s did not have such a natural refuge to escape from the Nazis.

Having said this, I am not opposed to including a modest number (few thousand) of Syrian immigrants among the one million from around the world that come to the U.S.

Obama wants to accept 10,000 Syrians which is "a few thousand" as you suggest. So, you and Obama are on the same page. As for the rest of your message, the Americans who rejected Jewish refugees felt as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today feel about their reasons. Arguing that today's case is better is really immaterial. The case for rejecting Jews can be viewed through the lens of history while the case for rejecting Syrians can't. As a result, we can tell the rejecting the Jews was a mistake. The judgment of history on the case for rejecting Syrians remains to be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You know, a while back we used to say "Irish terrorists", yet no one took issue with it (or warned against "blaming" all of Ireland).

Honestly I think what was said was "IRA" terrorists, not Irish terrorists.

The Irish don't suffer fools and that one would not have been allowed to stand

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Islamophobes" don't seem to be gunning down and blowing up people.

The phrase "Islamophobe" is simply code for 'racist', because that's all you have to defend yourselves against the truth - that Islamic radicals simply want death to all that are not Islamic radicals, and no one 'made them do it'.

"Islamophobe" perfectly describes people like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson who want to discriminate against all Muslims, even those fleeing the violence of ISIS. Do you agree with Cris Christie that even Syrian children under 5 should be barred from entering the US? What do you think of those Americans who turned away the St. Louis and refuse to let Jewish refugees enter the US? Do you identify yourself with them?

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views. If you want to avoid disenfranchised young men in the US, a good start would be to develop a more welcoming attitude. I can't think of a better way to alienate them then by adopting a national policy opposing them. Are we so weak as to allow fear and prejudice to drive our policies?

Name me a muslim majority country that you would raise your daughter in. That you would be openly homosexual in. That you would openly practice Judaism in. The answer is zero, and you know it. The key to Muslim immigration is ensuring we are bringing people in that abandon their old world prejudices and assimilate to American values. We don't want to replicate Europe's failure of letting in Muslim immigrants en masse without a plan to assimilate them into society. Unassimilated muslim men are a unique security threat that unassimilated Asian, Jewish, Buddist, Hindu men aren't.

You are ignorant and prejudiced. My college roommate came directly from Lebanon. He is a Shia Muslim who had virtually never been out of the southern suburbs of Beirut. He adjusted perfectly to life in the US, becoming an accomplished electrical engineer who is likely responsible for some of the appliances in your kitchen. He is far from unique. People used to talk about the Irish in a similar manner. They would bring there papism, drunkenness, and crime and never assimilate. People talk that way today about poor Latinos.

The hysteria you people are demonstrating is incredible.

How many years ago was that? what has changed?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views.

Jeff, you often use this type of lazy argument -- "some people say this and others say the opposite, so who is to say who is justified". Why not examine the differences between 1930 and now and see if a different policy is warranted today?

1. As mentioned, there were no Jewish subgroups in the 1930s analogous to ISIS seeking "death to America" and plotting terrorism in the U.S.
2. In the 1930s, the immigration laws were so strict that there was actually net emigration from the U.S. Currently we are admitting one million people a year as legal citizens, and that doesn't count the 14 million undocumented people. Do you think we should block other immigrants to make room for the Syrians?
3. There is a vast Arab world with the same language and religion as the Syrian refugees. The Jews in the 1930s did not have such a natural refuge to escape from the Nazis.

Having said this, I am not opposed to including a modest number (few thousand) of Syrian immigrants among the one million from around the world that come to the U.S.

Obama wants to accept 10,000 Syrians which is "a few thousand" as you suggest. So, you and Obama are on the same page. As for the rest of your message, the Americans who rejected Jewish refugees felt as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today feel about their reasons. Arguing that today's case is better is really immaterial. The case for rejecting Jews can be viewed through the lens of history while the case for rejecting Syrians can't. As a result, we can tell the rejecting the Jews was a mistake. The judgment of history on the case for rejecting Syrians remains to be made.

It's not about feelings. It's about fact.

FACT: Jews were not wanting to come here while simultaneously wanting to kill us
FACT: ISIS has stated they want to attack here.
FACT: ISIS has said they plan to infiltrate by posing as refugees.

Now of course they can come via JFK, as you say. But hell, then there's no free ride until they can attack and they don't have the benefit of becoming lost in a wave of migrants, and therefore not as noticeable.

Obama's own administration states vetting is not easy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views.

Jeff, you often use this type of lazy argument -- "some people say this and others say the opposite, so who is to say who is justified". Why not examine the differences between 1930 and now and see if a different policy is warranted today?

1. As mentioned, there were no Jewish subgroups in the 1930s analogous to ISIS seeking "death to America" and plotting terrorism in the U.S.
2. In the 1930s, the immigration laws were so strict that there was actually net emigration from the U.S. Currently we are admitting one million people a year as legal citizens, and that doesn't count the 14 million undocumented people. Do you think we should block other immigrants to make room for the Syrians?
3. There is a vast Arab world with the same language and religion as the Syrian refugees. The Jews in the 1930s did not have such a natural refuge to escape from the Nazis.

Having said this, I am not opposed to including a modest number (few thousand) of Syrian immigrants among the one million from around the world that come to the U.S.

Obama wants to accept 10,000 Syrians which is "a few thousand" as you suggest. So, you and Obama are on the same page. As for the rest of your message, the Americans who rejected Jewish refugees felt as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today feel about their reasons. Arguing that today's case is better is really immaterial. The case for rejecting Jews can be viewed through the lens of history while the case for rejecting Syrians can't. As a result, we can tell the rejecting the Jews was a mistake. The judgment of history on the case for rejecting Syrians remains to be made.

It's not about feelings. It's about fact.

FACT: Jews were not wanting to come here while simultaneously wanting to kill us
FACT: ISIS has stated they want to attack here.
FACT: ISIS has said they plan to infiltrate by posing as refugees.

Now of course they can come via JFK, as you say. But hell, then there's no free ride until they can attack and they don't have the benefit of becoming lost in a wave of migrants, and therefore not as noticeable.

Obama's own administration states vetting is not easy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

FACT: Jews were suspected of being communists and/or anarchists and were very much considered a security threat.
FACT: ISIS hates the refugees and would love to see the doors shut to them.
FACT: The vetting process takes 18-24 months and has not admitted a single terrorist so far.

You probably didn't read the Post article. The concerns were about Europe, not the US. Everyone agreed that the US vetting process is very good.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:As for the rest of your message, the Americans who rejected Jewish refugees felt as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today feel about their reasons. Arguing that today's case is better is really immaterial.

Of course its not immaterial. In the 1940's some people felt strongly that war with Nazi Germany was justified. Today some people feel strongly that war with Iran is justified. I would argue that the case for war with Iran is not nearly as well justified as was the case of war with Nazi Germany. And I also argue that the case for accepting Syrian refugees today is not nearly as well justified as was the case for accepting Jewish refugees in the 1930s. You can disagree with me but don't tell me that my argument is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jews were not shooting up European civilian sites in terrorists attacks. Jews never posed a security threat to the U.S. Europe has a huge problem of unassimilated Muslims that leads to disenfranchised young men turning radical and posing a security threat. Do you now see a concern in Europe that Americans want to avoid here? It's a straw man to think those of us who are concerned about homegrown Muslim extremists can't also recognize that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and just want to live life.

The Americans who opposed allowing Jewish immigrants into the United States felt that their position was justified, just as you think you are justified in your views.

Jeff, you often use this type of lazy argument -- "some people say this and others say the opposite, so who is to say who is justified". Why not examine the differences between 1930 and now and see if a different policy is warranted today?

1. As mentioned, there were no Jewish subgroups in the 1930s analogous to ISIS seeking "death to America" and plotting terrorism in the U.S.
2. In the 1930s, the immigration laws were so strict that there was actually net emigration from the U.S. Currently we are admitting one million people a year as legal citizens, and that doesn't count the 14 million undocumented people. Do you think we should block other immigrants to make room for the Syrians?
3. There is a vast Arab world with the same language and religion as the Syrian refugees. The Jews in the 1930s did not have such a natural refuge to escape from the Nazis.

Having said this, I am not opposed to including a modest number (few thousand) of Syrian immigrants among the one million from around the world that come to the U.S.

Obama wants to accept 10,000 Syrians which is "a few thousand" as you suggest. So, you and Obama are on the same page. As for the rest of your message, the Americans who rejected Jewish refugees felt as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today feel about their reasons. Arguing that today's case is better is really immaterial. The case for rejecting Jews can be viewed through the lens of history while the case for rejecting Syrians can't. As a result, we can tell the rejecting the Jews was a mistake. The judgment of history on the case for rejecting Syrians remains to be made.

It's not about feelings. It's about fact.

FACT: Jews were not wanting to come here while simultaneously wanting to kill us
FACT: ISIS has stated they want to attack here.
FACT: ISIS has said they plan to infiltrate by posing as refugees.

Now of course they can come via JFK, as you say. But hell, then there's no free ride until they can attack and they don't have the benefit of becoming lost in a wave of migrants, and therefore not as noticeable.

Obama's own administration states vetting is not easy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

FACT: Jews were suspected of being communists and/or anarchists and were very much considered a security threat.
FACT: ISIS hates the refugees and would love to see the doors shut to them.
FACT: The vetting process takes 18-24 months and has not admitted a single terrorist so far.

You probably didn't read the Post article. The concerns were about Europe, not the US. Everyone agreed that the US vetting process is very good.

Suspected is one thing. STATING YOU ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING is something else again. Which ISIS has stated. If you think that Obama is going to keep those people in camps for 18-24 months until he can vet them, you are high. Many will disappear. They can't even keep track of illegals. Please!

I did read the Post article. It was NOT just about concerns in Europe. You clearly read that line and stopped.

While they say U.S. security measures are much better than in the past, vetting Syrian refugees poses a quandary: How do you screen people from a war-torn country that has few criminal and terrorist databases to check?

FBI Director James Comey added in congressional testimony last month that “a number of people who were of serious concern” slipped through the screening of Iraq War refugees, including two arrested on terrorism-related charges. “There’s no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting,” he said.

Although Comey said the process has since “improved dramatically,” Syrian refugees will be even harder to check because, unlike in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have not been on the ground collecting information on the local population. “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our data,” he said. “I can’t sit here and offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

But one of the senior administration officials at Tuesday’s briefing acknowledged the limitations inherent in screening refugees from Syria, where it’s very difficult to determine something as basic as an applicant’s criminal history.

“We do the best with what we have,” the official said. “We talk to people about what their criminal histories are, and we hear about that. That’s pretty much where we are.”

He is talking about the US, not Europe. You are full of it.

[Anonymous]

Comparing 1940s Jews to today's Syrians is absurd. Syria has been an enemy of the U.S., is a state sponsor of terror, and we have been in a cold war with Syria for years.

The correct comparison is if Germany was collapsing under the Nazi's and thousands of Germans were fleeing. Obviously, all germans are not Nazi's and some are fleeing Nazi's. But it would be insane not to consider the absorption of Germans in the middle of a war a security concern.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Comparing 1940s Jews to today's Syrians is absurd. Syria has been an enemy of the U.S., is a state sponsor of terror, and we have been in a cold war with Syria for years.

The correct comparison is if Germany was collapsing under the Nazi's and thousands of Germans were fleeing. Obviously, all germans are not Nazi's and some are fleeing Nazi's. But it would be insane not to consider the absorption of Germans in the middle of a war a security concern.

You are distinguishing between Jews and Germans, but considering all Syrians to be the same. In fact, many of the Syrian refugees were just as oppressed under Assad (or the Jihadist groups) as Jews were in early 1939 Germany (when the St. Louis was turned away). In many cases, the Syrians have had it worse.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Suspected is one thing. STATING YOU ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING is something else again. Which ISIS has stated. If you think that Obama is going to keep those people in camps for 18-24 months until he can vet them, you are high. Many will disappear. They can't even keep track of illegals. Please!

During the 18-24 month vetting period, the Syrians are still outside the US. They don't get admitted until they have been vetted. You don't even know the basics of our refugee program. I guess that an indication of the value of your opinion.