Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the Annunaki? Are people still afraid of the aliens in those ancient Sumerian myths?

Yes, there's a website dedicated to the Annunaki.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

[Anonymous]

Unless you're the one killed. LISTEN to yourself. People are asking for the best scrutiny/screening given that two of the terrorists in Paris have now been identified as 'refugees'.

I agree, American needs to work on crime. Support good police/policing. Bowser and Lanier and City Council--yes DC is threatened by terrorists. But also by daily stabbings, killing, rape, theft and transport mayhem. Your job is to address both. It is not , PP, one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get the Koran and educate people about how Muslims are going to hell if they kill non-Muslims. It says so in the Koran, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't say that.

Signed, a person who has read the Quran, and don't make me type what it does say

Well it certainly doesn't say to kill woman and children.

~Someone that has read it several times

It says it's ok to enslave women and children, which is what ISIS is doing

- Someone who has read it and wishes more people would do so

This is the problem with an ancient text. Some say yes; others say no. Interpreting an ancient text using today's standards is useless. Let it represent its time period only. same could be said for the bible

Religion is bullshit.

There was never a time when enslaving women and children was okay. It wasn't okay then and it's not okay now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

What does that have to do with anything?

If it captured the time period, then let it be. That was my point. There's no need in resurrecting the past unless the resurrection is used to TEACH that we've learned nothing as a human race.

The past has everything to do with the present. You are saying that it represents its time period. I'm saying it was wrong in that time period and it is still wrong today. It didn't "capture the time period".

Are you saying that the present conflict and situation has nothing to do with the past? They go hand in hand.

If a group is practicing it's religion the way it was practiced in the past (with violence), we don't just say let it be that was the past.

ISIS has resurrected the past, should people 100 years from now say well that was just a reflection of the time period in 2015- Let it be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're the one killed. LISTEN to yourself. People are asking for the best scrutiny/screening given that two of the terrorists in Paris have now been identified as 'refugees'.

I agree, American needs to work on crime. Support good police/policing. Bowser and Lanier and City Council--yes DC is threatened by terrorists. But also by daily stabbings, killing, rape, theft and transport mayhem. Your job is to address both. It is not , PP, one or the other.

The refugees are screened in depth, including putting family members in separate rooms and interrogating them about their pasts and reasons for wanting to flee. If the stories don't match up, they are kicked out of the pipeline. The bill that just passed the House seems to provide more screening, but it is vague. I'd argue vague to the point of voidness. But it will effectively shut down all Syrian refugee immigration. So it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Designed to look like it cares only about safety and not about exclusion, but its ultimate impact is indeed exclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not get the Koran and educate people about how Muslims are going to hell if they kill non-Muslims. It says so in the Koran, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't say that.

Signed, a person who has read the Quran, and don't make me type what it does say

Well it certainly doesn't say to kill woman and children.

~Someone that has read it several times

It says it's ok to enslave women and children, which is what ISIS is doing

- Someone who has read it and wishes more people would do so

This is the problem with an ancient text. Some say yes; others say no. Interpreting an ancient text using today's standards is useless. Let it represent its time period only. same could be said for the bible

Religion is bullshit.

There was never a time when enslaving women and children was okay. It wasn't okay then and it's not okay now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

What does that have to do with anything?

If it captured the time period, then let it be. That was my point. There's no need in resurrecting the past unless the resurrection is used to TEACH that we've learned nothing as a human race.

The past has everything to do with the present. You are saying that it represents its time period. I'm saying it was wrong in that time period and it is still wrong today. It didn't "capture the time period".

Are you saying that the present conflict and situation has nothing to do with the past? They go hand in hand.

If a group is practicing it's religion the way it was practiced in the past (with violence), we don't just say let it be that was the past.

ISIS has resurrected the past, should people 100 years from now say well that was just a reflection of the time period in 2015- Let it be?

which goes back to my ORIGINAL message - that religion, based on ancient texts, is BULLSHIT!

full circle
Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous]

All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

It doesn't. Al-Azhar is the seat of Sunni scholarship in the Middle East, a university in Cairo. It is moderate. Far more moderate than the Wahhabi/Salafi excrement coming out of Saudi Arabia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

Islam is just like Christianity. You are right. It has no single leader just as all of Christianity does not follow the Vatican and the pope, thankfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American citizens are right to hault the Syrian refugees without knowing more about vetting. However, the genie is out of the bottle now. Europeans can freely enter our country, and they were the attackers in Paris.

We've had 300 killed and injured in mass shooter incidents this year in the U.S. Of those, four deaths and three injuries were caused by Muslims. Draw Muhammad and the Chatanooga Navy recruitment center. Statistically, we are most at risk by run-of-the-mill young, white, non-Muslim men. Based on 2015 stats, we each have about a 0.000002% risk of being killed or injured by an Islamic terrorist. Fewer than 20 Americans are killed worldwide by terrorists each year, and that includes in war zones. Is it really worth shutting down an existing refugee program that has a 2 year vetting process because of such an almost-insignificant risk?

Crunch your numbers for those OUTSIDE of the US. Are the stats higher, lower or the same.

just curious, as I'm NOT a numbers person

I don't know the number of Americans outside the country at any given time. But I think it's important to realize fewer than 20 Americans total are the victims of Islamic terrorist anywhere in the world each year. We have 320 million Americans total. The risk is overwhelmingly low. I realize ISIS is scary and sick. They are. But 30,000 Americans die each year in car accidents. Another 30,000 die from guns. Another 25,000 die from flu.

Yes, but we can be proactive about driving deaths and the flu - and even, to some extent, about guns. We cannot be proactive about ISIS - or other terrorists - as they're not easy to track. That's the goal - to create terror and to strike when it's least expected.

By inviting more people in, however, you increase the chances, yes? Statistics will show you that, I'm sure.

I think back to the sniper. People didn't want to live in fear of this homegrown terrorist. We went about our business - getting gas, driving to work, taking the metro into DC. But think of the 13 people harmed in our area; only three survived.

why? jihad against the US

10 people whose lives - based on your post - are meaningless, right? I don't care if "fewer than 20 Americans are killed." These are husbands, sisters, mothers, uncles, you name it.

Why add more people to the guest list?

I never said any life is meaningless. That's really not fair. I wonder why we compromise our values as a nation for minuscule risk. There is a difference. As people have pointed out multiple times on this forum, we are more at risk from terrorists who hold European passports and who can just buy a ticket and be here tomorrow. No visa, no background check, no nothing. The refugees pose extremely little risk.

There are several motives stated by the DC snipers for doing what they did. One, the DC sniper was terrorizing and ultimately killing his ex-wife, with the cover being she was just one of many random victims. He, by all accounts, snapped when he lost his children in a custody battle. Two, Malvo had talked about Muhammad trying to start a race war and then building an all-black community in Canada. And three, Muhammad wrote fondly of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, while in jail. Not so simple to call it jihad.

fine

But crazy is crazy, right?

If the US couldn't handle a homegrown threat, it certainly can't fight off threats from more and more people entering the US. We've had gang issues all along - Crips who are "made in the USA - and MS 13 from El Salvador. They are destroying neighborhoods and schools.

Sadly, the kids most vulnerable are those who are poor, illiterate and neglected.

Again, we can't seem to care for "our own." How will adding more vulnerable kids to the mix make our society safer?

It's so easy to be a bleeding heart, but if you spend one day in an inner city school you'll see how many kids - "homegrown" and new to this country - become victims themselves.

And that's why I work every day to increase our social safety net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All religions are essentially political entities and if a religion is going to be in such an identity crisis between its internal branches of the faith then what is needed is a reformation, ala:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/heretic-islam-reformation-ayaan-hirsi-ali-highlights-scale-of-the-task[url]

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Islam does not currently have one commonly respected leadership to lead the way, such as Vatican II, under Pope John Paul and the Cardinals

You do realize Christianity and Roman Catholic are two different things