Suggestion: America should not issue visas to applicants from predominantly christian countries until the Rump Administration and the relevant federal agencies improve the vetting process for these potential terrorists and bad hombres. Comments?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The countries that are still predominately christian are very moderate and went through more than one reformation, whereas Islam has had no reformations. If Christians acted like they did 500 years ago you may have a point, but they don't.
Terrorist can be christian too. Christians terrorize abortion clinics, and LGBT.
Sure they do, but that is rare, and Modern Christianity is very moderate relative to modern Islam, which had had no reformations since it was created by the pedophile warlord.
@ Harry Truman
Rare? Not so. It seems that you are wrong. The fact is that terrorism by far right wing nutcases is about on par with radicalized Islamic terrorist. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-do...
Although technically Radical islamic terrorist has murdered a few more people, far right wing nuts have carried out more attacks.
There are more Christians than Muslims, you keep not accounting for that. 2.4 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims.
Makes no difference Harry Truman. Christians commit terrorism. So you justify christian terrorism because there are more christians? Pathetic!
You're misconstruing what I said. I said that Christianity, like most religions, is toxic to society, but since it has had a number of reformations, modern Christianity is far more moderate than modern Islam. Christians may coit terrorism, but at a much lower rate than Muslims, and an even lower rate per capita. Christianity is tolerable, Islam is not. I didn't even say we should prohibit Muslims from entering. I said we shouldn't be letting in anyone from countries with underdeveloped cultures incomparable with our own. That includes many Christians, Jews, and Hindus, it's just that there are more Muslims than these groups, and they are more extreme on average.
In what units?
Well, I have been to Damascus and Beirut and they were very sophisticated. War has ripped those nations apart. They are not backward or unsophisticated.
I would rate Saudi Arabia far less sophisticated than Syria or Lebanon. Hense most terrorist actually come from Saudi Arabia. Check out Wahabbism. That is an extreme intolerant form of islam that generates terrorists.
But if you check out Sunni Kurds or Ismaili Shia muslims you will find them very tolerant and tolerable. Both sects reside in Syria and Lebanon as well as Iraq, Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.
So to discriminate against refugees just because they are escaping from Syria is not right.
Again, many of these so called refugees aren't even Syrians. Also, some Kurds nay be tolerable, but a significant portion of Syria is actually under ISIS control, making it highly likely that many Syrians are going to be ISIS sympathisers.
Ah very true Harry. Just today an American who fights for ISIL surrendered to the Free Syrian Army.
Actually, ISIL is in control of very little of Syria right now. ISIL is in its death throes. They are isolated in just two cities. The fact is that I doubt if there are any ISIL sympathizers.
In Syria, they hold a considerable amount of land in Iraq, where they spread from Syria. The reason they are able to spread so quickly is by radicalizing the Muslim populations in thee countries, and more recently in Europe and the US. That's what they did with that gy who shot up the gay club in Orlando native born Muslim, radicalized by ISIS.
In Syria, they hold a considerable amount of land in Iraq, where they spread from Syria. The reason they are able to spread so quickly is by radicalizing the Muslim populations in thee countries, and more recently in Europe and the US. That's what they did with that gy who shot up the gay club in Orlando native born Muslim, radicalized by ISIS.
They started in Iraq Harry. They started as disaffected Iraqi soldiers that lost the Gulf War. They are almost gone in Iraq as well.
The 2-year vetting process covers foreign origin.
Christians have a long track record of acting like twats.. you don't get absolved of all wrong doing just because you have a new book of fairy tales.
Until Yasser Arafat and the PLO came on the scene, when we heard the word "terrorist" we imagined a Catholic/Protestant with an Irish accent. There was also Greek Orthodox terorrism on Cyprus. Before that there were Jewish terrorists planting bombs in Palestine. And Catholics and other Christian denominations have engaged in some atrocious actions in places like Rwanda.
Christianity is still a dangerous disease.
Well said...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I might add that Yasser and his gang let the people off the planes before they blew them up. The Israelis and the IRA/Loyalists blew up buildings and people without warning.
Sometimes this was true about the ira and the isrealis and the PLO
But still. Imagine a group of Christians like a bunch of M&Ms. If just one of them were poisoned, would you take a handful and eat them. No, of course not. Better to keep them all out til we can vet which ones are and aren't poisonous.
Wait, I think that M&M analogy was used before, hmmm.....
If the administration is going to use a persons religion to vet people then anyone who follows ANY religion should be vetted. Theyre all diseases.
Amen
Anyone who rationally attempts the equate the beliefs and practices of modern tribal Christianity to Islam is also likely to take information from extremist and discredited politifake at face value.
@K Frame: "...equate the beliefs and practices of modern tribal Christianity to Islam"
Their beliefs and practices are irrelevant. They are equivalent in terms of their potential for harm and and their lust for oppressive power.
The OP's point is taken. The ensuing arguments aside, all religions are suspect. That leaves the ban equitable but hardly realistic considering the commercial implications. So, what's a plausible solution?
Can't answer that. Perhaps a strict program of sponsorship for all inbound visitors whether for business or pleasure? The sponsoring agency will be held responsible for the movement of the visiting persons while in-country, monitor their activities and report any suspicious activity. A chaperone would be assigned and accompany the persons at all times.
Make sense? Of course not.
So, considering the sheer number of transients and the impossible logistics of vetting them all, profiling is the next best solution and currently anyone with an Islamic connection draws the short straw.
The myopic equality for all would be great if possible but tell me how a species like man can expect equality for all when clearly he still needs his heroes who he promotes to the levels of adoration whether public or private? Aren't all the players in the game of humanity supposed to get a trophy just for being Human? Libs think so. They also tend to denounce selectively and then leave their fears and lies in the foxholes they abandon when the going gets tough. Angela Merkel comes to mind and I'm sure all here can ante up others.
It's easy to assess and run. It's a whole other thing to assess and provide a resolution. I can bitch long and hard about countless things that have come to pass in my observations but I'd be all the worse for it unless I could show some constructive thought towards resolving them. I'm dead tired of people who bitch and libs are just incessantly old-ladyish about everything for no other reason than to exercise the rights they have been given by dead soldiers and nancies who fancy themselves as statesmen. Thanks a pant load. STFU or state your case and a plausible solution. That's discussion-worthy.