I don't know about the "lefty community". I do know that I'm not making any of those arguments. See my post addressed to jem, if you are interested in any of the arguments I have made in favor of not intervening in the politics of other countries.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
IMAM: I Warned DeBlasio About NYC Terror; He Was Too Busy Bashing Trump
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
You can argue that if you have no information then you have no basis for a decision and the default position should be not to let them in. There is some merit to that argument. But it would be made much stronger if there were any numbers to show, for example, what is incidence, so far, of terrorists among immigrants from Syria in countries that are allowing them haven. That data is probably available.
Go for it if you have a need.
My reasons don't require it. Similarly I would not hand out US passports to people who I have no ID and birth and residency history on. Period. You may need to do a meta-analysis of all the studies that show how many unknown, unidentified people who were issue passports eventually committed crimes. I have no need at all. Not even going to start down that road.
Oh, after you get your data be sure to divide it by the square root of Babe Ruth;s lifetime batting average and use exponential smoothing and round it off to three decimal places. Or, just do a little thinking and use some common sense. If we don't know who you are and what your background is, you aint coming. Whether there are a million people or one person in that category. Same answer.
I say this with sadness Piezoe... but its people like you who will give our country over and get yourselves enslaved.
you just pull liberal stupidity out of the air and apply it to ISIS and Al Queda with no regard for your complete lack of knowledge of the situation.
you are worse than ignorant.. you are dangerously ignorant.
Please read a little bit from this article... and try to learn a little bit about the motivations of the groups we should be stopping.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims. Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.
here is more about what this type of belief has caused throughout history.
and bin laden was not much different in his goals... from the same article...
Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
...and more.
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamed Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.
There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
you just pull liberal stupidity out of the air and apply it to ISIS and Al Queda with no regard for your complete lack of knowledge of the situation.
you are worse than ignorant.. you are dangerously ignorant.
Please read a little bit from this article... and try to learn a little bit about the motivations of the groups we should be stopping.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims. Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.
here is more about what this type of belief has caused throughout history.
and bin laden was not much different in his goals... from the same article...
Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
...and more.
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamed Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.
There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
Jem, screening of immigrants will always be imperfect. We will never be able to eliminate the possibility of those who immigrate becoming radicalized after they are here. We may be able to improve our screening. It may be that we need to reconsider who we let into the country. Nevertheless, these acts of terrorism are the result of ideology and influence. Those factors will always be with us, and have always been with us. We are likely already doing what we reasonably can, and maybe more than is reasonable to prevent these horrible attacks.
There is one sure way to greatly reduce terrorism in our own country. We have never tried it, and if we did the result would be far from instantaneous. And too, it might be less satisfactory then putting up a few of our own citizens being slaughtered from time to time. Terrorism in our own country would be greatly reduced, to extremely rare occasions at the worst, if we were to avoid doing anything that would make people want to commit these acts against us. I'll just give you a few examples of things we have done that have put Americans in harms way.
Invading countries that have not attacked you on "Trumped" up charges, is a poor way to make friends. You can get by with disagreeing; with disagreeing vehemently; with refusing to trade, and other sanctions, but when you start invading and killing, watch out. When you interfere in another countries election, or conspire to depose their elected leader and replace them with someone you prefer, watch out. Your not going to be well received in that country. When you mine another countries harbor, don't be surprised if the people in that country do not like you anymore. When you interfere in another countries civil war, don't be surprised when they try to kill you. When you blockade another country's energy supply, you shouldn't be surprised when they attack you. They're over here, jem, because we are over there. Don't be surprised when killing them gets you killed in retribution. Actions have consequences. So when you kill people in other countries, do not be surprised when they return the favor. And all the good intentions in the world won't matter.
Last edited:
That's not happening now is it? Not in the U.S. anyway. I wouldn't spend time worrying about the non-existent.Similarly I would not hand out US passports to people who I have no ID and birth and residency history on.
Why not go over there and volunteer to fight the infidels if you feel that strongly about it. You can imagine you're in a modern day crusade and wave the Christian flag as you charge bravely forward. I'll cheer you on from over here.I say this with sadness Piezoe... but its morons like you who will give our country over and get yourselves enslaved.
you just pull liberals ideas out of thin air and apply it jihadis.
try reading this article...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim “apostates” are the most common victims. Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.
and explaining this with your liberal
by the way here is another quote from the article.
do you understand what a caliphate is?
Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
...
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamed Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.
There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
you have supported immigration during our arguments many times.
I know your position... its whatever soros and the dnc tell you to support.
don't forget everytime I challenged you to explain how you could pretend to be pro workers wages and pro letting in a million immigrants a year... you would never respond.
we know your position.
I know your position... its whatever soros and the dnc tell you to support.
don't forget everytime I challenged you to explain how you could pretend to be pro workers wages and pro letting in a million immigrants a year... you would never respond.
we know your position.
Jem, you don't know what my position is. You're guessing wildly. it's pointless.
Last edited:
the democrat fallback..
when the other person destroys you with facts...
put out the race card
or the religion card.
the old piezoe was better than that.
when the other person destroys you with facts...
put out the race card
or the religion card.
the old piezoe was better than that.
Why not go over there and volunteer to fight the infidels if you feel that strongly about it. You can imagine you're in a modern day crusade and wave the Christian flag as you charge bravely forward. I'll cheer you on from over here.
if you want to talk humanitarian concerns which I too share.
lets help these people in their home countries or close to their home countries where they can still be near their family and friends.
This makes such perfect sense you have to wonder why this isn't being done. Three obvious reasons.
One, most of these "refugees" are really economic migrants looking for a better life or perhaps attractive western welfare systems. It doesn't make them bad, but there is no reason for us to endanger ourselves to help them.
Two, the local countries, eg Saudi Arabia, who could help don't want to risk the threats that accompany these people from terrorist-infested failed states.
Three, and probably most significant, Saudi Arabia and other radical muslim states view the refugee scam as an extremely effective way to use western guilt and compassion to invade and colonize us. Liberals seem unable to grasp that just because they scoff at religion, muslims do not. One of their prime religious duties is to bring other countries under muslim rule. They are succeeding spectacularly well in Europe, with de facto dhimmitude being increasingly accepted by ruling elites. They have powerful allies here. Why else is every muslim terrorist outrage met by the now-familiar demands that we guard against blaming muslims?