That actually sounds like a great initiative...more of this please. And would it be so much to ask as to not put words in my mouth in an attempt to insult? I would appreciate that. Thanks. Extreme vetting of Muslim refugees who are coming from Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Afghanistan is what I've heard Trump espouse as his policy as well as a temporary halt on immigration from that part of the world till we figure out exactly how to vet properly. That sounds pragmatic to me. (p.s. Not a Trump supporter, but I think he's got this one right)
This whole 'admonish the Muslim community to fight against extremism' troupe doesn't work logically if you applied that logic to yourself. In very few instances would an outside group admonishing another group helps. It just adds oxygen to the fire. If one of you are Christian, if someone who wasn't a Christian told you that your religion is a genocidal evil cult that supports slavery, would you sincerely listen to them? I don't think so.
That's not pragmatic. That is exactly the 'gut' decision making that leads to fanning the flames. All that accomplishes is isolating and disparaging the current 5 million Muslims in the U.S. There already is 'extreme vetting'. Again, the average time it takes for a Syrian refugee to be vetted into the U.S. is 1.5 to 2 years. Trump transplants a uniquely European problem(we have an Atlantic ocean as a natural barrier while majority of the refugee problem can be largely attributed to unvetted refugees washing up ashore on the Mediterranean coast) to an American one and the idiots buy it up with no rational thought and instead utilize their gut. That isn't a pragmatic approach at all. That's an instinctual approach. Of course the base instinct is to 'ban'. That's the lowest common denominator form of problem solving.
We already have an extreme vetting process for immigrants / refugees - it's a 2 year process where you they not only interview your family but essentially everyone that knew you as well to make sure you don't have any links to fanaticism. Trump is proposing what already exists - a brilliant move that works because it fools people like yourself and if he wins he doesn't have to do anything.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ahmad Khan Rahami doesn't represent Islam. He doesn't represent Muslims. He represents only himself, & if guilty, only he is to blame.</p>— Nathan Lean (@nathanlean) <a href="https://twitter.com/nathanlean/status/777871894687121408">September 19, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I wouldn't say he's the only one to blame especially if somewhere down the line, someone brainwashed him.
Yes we do but apparently not good enough to stop Tashfeen Malik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik In this case, the current version of "Extreme Vetting" failed. Of course, we are supposed to believe that these "extensive screenings" are above reproach. Never mind that some folks are probably trying to cover their backsides...
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspect in the NYC/NJ bombings is in custody.</p>— Ted Poe (@JudgeTedPoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/JudgeTedPoe/status/777890964685848576">September 19, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'm sure a drunk driver killed someone in the past week. I guess that means, our DUI laws don't work. Also, the male perp was a born U.S citizen. The female perp came from a marriage visa. Not a refugee. SO you can't even find one example of a refugee in the U.S. committing a terror attack? Do you know I can knock down EVERY SINGLE REGULATION/SECURITY MEASURE in existence from the beginning of time to the present if I pointed out the one to two isolated incidents where said security measures/regulations didn't work?
Unless they use different less stringent vetting, the distinction is pointless. If they DO use less stringent vetting then don't you think it makes the point that the current vetting has issues? That's a great argument right up to the point where it's your family that's affected. We can do better.
You are naive enough to believe that vetting works 100% of the time when it comes to judging humans and you are lacking in empathy enough to dismiss an entire group of people because a few of them might commit horrid crimes just like any other entity. It's the perfect combination of being clueless in regards to this topic.
LOL.....Trump's extreme vetting wouldn't have stop this. The family been the US for years. The guy is a naturalized American citizen.
So after multiple posts calling people out in this thread, will Sweet Tard 4 2 ever recover? Why was he making assumptions based on no facts and then gloating? How can he operate a computer? Really makes you think.
Apparently this social degenerate was born in Afghanistan...and became a naturalized US citizen. It is impossible to screen all naturalized US citizens and deem if they pose a risk to the nation...This is a systemic problem within Islam that has deep seeded hate to American politics and values. Our current national policies are NOT working. Something must change. I am willing to admit that I dont know what I'd do...but we have to start SOMEWHERE. People from war torn Muslim countries despise the West...America represents "western" values... Yet these idiots want the freedoms this nation provides (ie. cellphones, technology, education, expression of speech/religion)...but is willing to destroy it all in the name of Islam. In the 21st century...NO other organized religion has such a massive image problem...like Islam does. IF there is a bombing...we all naturally suspect it is "Islamic" militants...that alone should alarm Muslims about the state of their faith.
Serious meta question here. What would a policy that works look like? Zero terrorist attacks from now till the end of time? How do you know how many current potential threats have been successfully eliminated with our current system?
The issue is that when there is a bombing here, we suspect it is "Islamic" militants like you said. On the other side, in a lot of these countries when there is a bombing, they blame the United States. We've killed a lot of civilians. I mean a lot. We're in a long drawn out "conflict" and it is just getting uglier by the day. Hopefully there can eventually be a somewhat peaceful resolution at some point. It doesn't look like it though.
None of that matters. Optics. Facts haven't mattered in this election. This is the PERFECT storm for Trump. You have people that weren't born here, gaining citizenship, bombing New York and no one was killed. The Governor who is a supporter of Clinton comes out initially and says it's an "intentional act", fueling this agenda that Clinton and Dems don't want to call terror, terror or radical islam. Hillary on her plane didn't initially want to call it a bomb. on the threshold of the debates, and just a couple months before the election, with the polls tied, this happens? Timing is almost too perfect of a scenario for Trump campaign Hillary Clinton Corey Brewering the election again.
