Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
thats a typical response from someone who cant look at the topic objectively ... it naive to think its an immigration only issue or an Islamic issue or a class issue or a money issue ... whats the cure ??? do you have one or anyone else on the planet to deal with these Aholes before they commit theses crimes other then deport them based on religion... in the end the blame fall on the perps but not every thing happens in a vacuum
England is trying
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...lso-draws-fire |
"it naive to think its an immigration only issue "
I never, ever said that all acts of terror are carried out by immigrants or refugees. That would be stupid. What I am saying is,
SOME acts of terror are carried out by immigrants and refugees. And because of that fact, it's reasonable to conclude that letting in refugees, at least until we can appropriately vet them, isn't worth the risk. Obama reached that same exact conclusion when he temporarily halted immigration from Iraq for a few months, and I don't recall the left attacking him for it. Do you? If so, please refresh my memory?
"or an Islamic issue "
it's naïve for me to assume that there is a connection between Islam and Islamic jihad? How many people have been slaughtered in the last 15 years, in the name of the Amish? Or the Quakers? Of course, many many people die tragic deaths for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam. But some do, so it's worth asking if the body count is an acceptable price to pay for being tolerant.
I never said it's only immigrants, I never said it's only Islam. You are responding to arguments that
nobody is making. In my experience, one does that when one cannot effectively respond to what was actually said, so it's easier to pretend that I said something else entirely (something stupid) and respond to
that.
"whats the cure ??? "
Do you ever, ever listen to those who disagree with you? How can you not know what the proposed cure is? If we are talking about protecting our citizens from getting slaughtered by Muslim refugees, the answer is to deny them entry until we can safely vet them - which is what Obama did. I agree that's very, very harsh.
The left would have us believe that there is no upside to it, because that wouldn't stop every single wrongful death on the planet. Once again, no one made that argument (notice a pattern here?). What my side is saying, is that banning refugees who can't be vetted, would likely save SOME lives. It doesn't mean we'd all live forever. But it would have kept one of the terrorists who carried out the recent London attack, out of England. So there is a cost (being less tolerant), and a benefit (being safer).
"deal with these Aholes before they commit theses crimes other then deport them based on religion"
Well, we could also get our act more together. In the case of the Boston Marathon brothers, the Russians specifically told our government, that those 2 were Islamic terrorists. We need to be more effective.
But to answer your question honestly, no, I have no other solution but to deny immigration to Muslims, if they are from certain places that are known for terror, AND they can't be sufficiently vetted. Banning them, is all I've got. And it stinks. It really, really really stinks.
What stinks more in my opinion, is letting them in, and then just keeping our fingers crossed that they don't slaughter our neighbors.
I answered your question directly and honestly, no spin, no sugarcoating, correct? Can you show me the same courtesy? How many innocent civilians need to be slaughtered by Muslim immigrants, before you would agree that the ban is a necessary step? Is there a number? I think we have already exceeded that number, which is why I regretfully support the ban. What price are you willing to pay? How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice in the name of tolerance, before you conclude the risk is too great?
Hybrid Mode
