Muslims pridicament

I didn't say we are enemies with the Islamic world, but you don't seem to be able to draw a distinction between the Islamic State and say, Jordan. Is an attack on the Islamic State considered an attack on all Muslims? That seems to be your implication by mentioning that we are inflaming the Islamic world with our bombing. I mean, we're not bombing Qatar.

Frankly, we have a right to control our borders and exclude whoever we want, just like these Islamic countries already do. If they are so fragile that protecting our own borders is considered a provocative act, then that seems to make the necessity of protecting our own borders from such an insane people all the more urgent.

 

that's not what I'm saying, but many people are convinced that is the case (including many in the US)

Let me put it to you this way, the first drone strike conducted by the Obama administration killed 40 civilians, including 21 children and 14 women.. this was to get to 1 suspected al-qaeda combatant. Imagine if a foreign country conducted an airstrike on US soil that killed more children than Sandy Hook. People would be enraged to the point of wanting to wage war on whoever was responsible

Of course the results of this strike weren't intentional, but it is used against us regardless...

As for your remark about protecting our borders, making a legal declaration to keep all Muslims out won't protect our borders, people willing to conduct an attack can easily lie about their religion, or come into the country by illegal means. Basically, all it will accomplish is it will offend the Muslim world, which will in turn be used against us in our fight against extremists. More people than ever would be convinced that the US is at war with Islam, both in the US and worldwide

 

Well I understand, and can even empathize, with the innocent victims of drone strikes gone awry. But there is a causal chain of events that lead us to conduct drone strikes in certain countries, and that was a major attack and the death of our civilians. You don't sound like you have any sort of alternate idea or policy, you just seem to think by appeasement eventually Muslims will not hate us as much.

But if you've lost your child to a drone strike, and find out that now your visa to come to the US to be a cab driver has been rejected, I'm not sure your hatred of America will be that much more intense, and even if it is, better over there than here.

I'm sorry, but we've gone back and forth on this and I'm no closer to understanding that if the middle east hates us so much, we MUST import more people who hate us into our country otherwise, they'll hate us even more. Sorry it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

The same 13% cause almost 50 percent of gun crime in the US. Violent crime in the black community due mostly to the drug economy.

 

21 countries have laws against apostasy.

Whoever falls away from faith in Islam commits -- from an Islamic perspective -- an unforgivable sin. He takes himself away from Allah, his owner -- which is theft -- and weakens the Islamic state, an action branded as revolt or insurrection. He who falls away from Islam must, according to the Sharia, be prosecuted, taken into custody by force, and called on to repent. If necessary, his return is to be "helped" along with torture. He who does not embrace Islam again has, according to the Sharia, forfeited his life and is to be put to death by the state.

 

It is not so, and the decision as to wether his change of religion is apostasy or not is not an obvious one and must be made by an expert.

 

===================

On the off chance that anyone remembers the issue that actually started this thread, it is perhaps worth pointing out that according to FBI hate crime statistics, of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in 2014,
- 56.8 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
- 16.1 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias. (The second-highest hate crime target category)

So, while it is correct to state that Jews remain the primary target of religious animosity, if not persecution, are Jews, 16% for Muslims does not qualify as `very rarely`, either.

 

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ردة‎ riddah or ارتداد irtidād) is commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or through deed. It includes the act of converting to another religion, by a person who was born in a Muslim family or who had previously accepted Islam.

 

It's not a matter of making them hate us less, it's a matter of them understanding that we are not at war with Islam itself, we are at war with extremists. The idea of blocking all Muslims from entering our country is to declare all Muslims the enemy, when they are not our enemy.. if such a policy ever passed more people than ever (both in the US and worldwide) would be convinced that we are at war with Islam (not to mention it would do nothing to prevent dishonest people from entering the country). Muslim countries that have assisted us over the years would receive more political pressure to not support us, and the incentive for more people to fight against us would be increased

This is not a new principle of war, it has been around for thousands of years and is listed in the Art Of War as the number of principle of war. That is having the hearts and minds of the people on your side

 

I'm not sure Sun Tzu would have advocated letting millions of Mongols on his side of the wall to prove they weren't hated.

But in any case, I'm not familiar with any such principle. Nor am I familiar with any historical precedent. At least one that was successful. The Romans were not at war with all German tribes but that didn't matter in the end.

 

Once again, you are presenting the disorderly notion that Muslims as a whole are our enemy.. no, we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with extremists.. it is the idea that we are at war with Islam that we need to avoid. If we act as if we are at war with all Muslims then we will multiply our enemies.

You comparing letting in Muslims to letting in enemy soldiers is exactly the kind of propaganda I was talking about earlier, and the more people there are who actually believe this war is the US vs Muslims, the more challenging this war on terror will become.

Furthermore, your historical examples are faulty, Sun Tzu did not fight against the Mongols, and the passage in the Art Of War that speaks of moral influence (or "moral law" under some translations) is literally in the first chapter of the Art Of War, and is what our military operations "hearts and minds" in Iraq and Vietnam were based on when our efforts in those wars began going south.

Heck you can even google "operation hearts and minds" yourself and you'll find multiple operations. It was our loss of support from the Iraqi public that made that war a disaster.. ISIS took over Iraq's second largest city of Mosul when 800 of their fighter marched on the city and 30,000 Iraqi fighter put down their arms and fled. That's the consequence of losing the hearts and minds of the people

 

You keep insisting that I'm saying that we're at war with Islam. I'm not. But Islam is the pond that the extremists come from. We're not worried about radicalized Buddhists. "Not all Germans" were Nazis, but we didn't allow open immigration of Germans during WWII. The fact that you keep insisting that merely denying Muslims the right to immigrate here will radicalize them seems to demonstrate the danger of allowing them to immigrate here. US immigration law is a pretty thin reed to hang the transition of moderate Muslim to ISIS.

Even if we lived in a world that was free of radicalized Islamist's, I still wouldn't want them to immigrate to the US. The worldview and culture is incompatible with Western civilization and it seems like every non Muslim country that has allowed it has suffered for it. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

You say you do not believe we are at war with Islam, but then you keep making the same ludicrous analogies.

We didn't accept open immigration from Germany?

1. We were at war with Germany, we are not at war with Islam.. again, you say you don't believe we are at war with Islam, but then you use an analogy that draws a parallel to suggest we are at war with Islam (similar to how we were at war with Germany)

2. It is true we didn't have open immigration with Germany (we didn't have open immigration with any country), but we did accept refugees who fled Germany

3. What we're talking about involving Muslims is not a matter of open immigration, we do not have open immigration to any group or country.. However what we're talking about isn't merely a matter of open immigration, but banning all Muslims from entering the US


and again, having a law to formally block Muslims from entering the country does absolutely nothing to stop dishonest people from entering the country (one could simply lie about their faith).. all this policy would accomplish is convincing more people that the US is at war with Islam, which would in turn lead to political pressure on the Muslim nations currently assisting us, and incentivize more people to fight against us. Again, it's not a matter of people getting upset because we're blocking people from entering the country, it's a matter of people getting upset because they believe we are at war with their faith

Let me put it to you this way, people across various countries say we should go out and fight ISIS because they are waging war on Christianity.. that's how people respond when they believe someone is at war with their faith, they are incentivized to go and fight the people they beleive are attacking their faith. When you convince people that the US is at war with Islam, you get a similar response

 

Well I have a compromise for you. We won't ban all Muslims. We'll just ban people from the following countries from getting green cards or any other visa over 90 days:

Group 1: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan or Syria

Group 2: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Group 3: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

Group 4: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait

There. #notallMuslims.

 

It is more practical to block visas from countries than it is religions, as one cannot fabricate/lie about their country of residence as easily as they can their religion. The countries you listed already require additional registrations for some (but not all) people who reside in in these countries before being allowed into the US . However, if we were to extend this monitoring process into a full blockade from entering the US, you'd be talking about embargoing some countries we are not in conflict with. What exactly is your rationale for this?

 

I did't say full blockade. I said ban people from the following countries from getting green cards or any other visa over 90 days.

 

So what exactly are you proposing then? Under the current monitoring process non-immigrants traveling to or from those countries who meet a certain criteria have to make an additional registration, but again this is not a requirement for everyone, only those who meet a certain criteria, and they're still not banned from entering the US. What are you suggesting be changed?

edit: actually, that registration program ended in 2003

 

Yes, many businesses are now owned by Muslims that our government made it very easy for them to accomplish. How many of us natural born citizens that wanted to own a business got the same support as Muslims did in obtaining their goal of owning a business?

 

I actually just posted what I was proposing, but you seem to think there is still extra monitoring from those "special" countries. The NSEERS program was mostly suspended in 2011. So my "proposal" is to bring it back with the addition of not allowing green cards or any visa over 90 days. Pretty simple actually.

 

The special registration program didn't even apply to everyone, only those who met a certain criteria, and even then it didn't actually ban anyone from entering the country. It actually worked both ways, Americans traveling to listed countries had to register. As is getting a visa takes 3 to 6 weeks, basically you're saying we need to extend it to 12 weeks for certain countries. I wouldn't call that a "ban" the way you chose to word it

 

?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're talking about now. I've no idea where you get that I even mentioned time to have a visa processed I was talking about max time it would be good in the US. Nor did I mention anything about Americans having to register....where?

Look, I get that you oppose anything that would slow down Muslims coming here for any reason. You've made that clear. I'm not sure why since the stated reasons you've given (so they won't hate us) don't really make any sense. And I'm not finding much sense in your last comment.

 

I don't think they experience more hardship than the average person does in the US. Most of the cases of alleged"discrimination" are just those suffering from Special Snowflake Syndrome.

 

The list of counties you listed, and the exact order they were organized in comes from the US's special registration procedures which were introduced in 2002. You stated that you think we should reinstall this procedure, with the addition of "banning people from the following countries from getting green cards or any other visa over 90 days"

basically, you want to reinstall the special registration procedure, which required Americans traveling to listed countries to register(You say you want to reinstall this procedure, but then you display your lack of understanding how it actually operates) in addition to extra limitations on visas

Furthermore, reinstalling said policy would't exclusively effect Muslims, as 1. non-Muslims traveling to and from listed countries are effects, and 2. Muslims from countries that are not from listed countries are unaffected

Furthermore, I never expressed any dismay or support for the special registration procedure, I only questioned your notion of limiting visas to 90 days. You should know that the registration procedure in which you got your list from, and in which you expressed your support for reinstalling does not effect people immigrating to the US. Again the special registration procedure only effected people who fell under a specific criteria, including US citizens traveling to listed countries for non-business purposes

 

Why is this irrelevant? How can people who do not defend civil rights expect to receive civil rights?

 

Quote Originally Posted by perdidochas
Probably some, but compared to the plight of Christians in the Middle East, it's nothing.

Why? Does only Muslim suffering count?