Reply to Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]

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.  [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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 [b]felt[/b] as strongly about their reasons for doing so as those who reject Syrians today [b]feel [/b]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. [/quote]

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/[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[i]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?[/i]

[i]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.[/i]

[i]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.”[/i]

[i]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.”[/i]

He is talking about the US, not Europe. You are full of it.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics