Do you honestly think that terrorism won’t occur if Muslim’s weren’t legally allowed into Sweden?
Better question: Do you honestly think the rate of ISLAMIC terrorism won’t increase if Muslim’s weren’t legally allowed into Sweden?
Well terrorism will always be around as stupid people disagree with government and overreact.
However how will Islamic terrorism stay constant if there is no Muslims?
Nagging question I’ve always had. How will checking for Muslims at the border work exactly? Is it based on the honor system? Banning members from certain countries is pretty straightforward. Banning members from a religion gets a lil tricky. If someone is a terrorist in disguise, do we expect they’ll draw the line at lying?
This is my point and it is a part of a much greater point. There will always be fucked up human beings. Violence is a part of human nature. So, generally speaking, I don’t support policies or laws that give the government greater control over the population thus reducing individual Liberty. That is my default stance.
The data supports that acts of terror are actually on the decline. They are nearing pre-2000s numbers. The data also supports that most terror attacks occur in the Middle East, primarily in Iraq. So why should I support giving the government, any government really, the authority to oppress a specific religion? Do you not see how that becomes a springboard to oppress someone/something else?
It’s hard to say. I think you’d probably see a spike from resentful Muslim’s and/or targeted actions by radical groups, but people can still be radicalized in other ways. The internet for example. In the U.S. there are legal issues to simply shutting it off. Sweden & the UK may be different and they can/should do what they want. That’s the great thing about sovereignty.
Ya, this has been discussed so many times. Ideological tests are okay at best. The same is true for checking cell data at the border. Terrorists will adapt.
1 Like
This is my default stance as well, and I have no gripes with any of your post, barring the below quote.
That could be reading the data backwards, though. As there is a massive operation constantly underway to prevent attacks. GCHQ and the met in the UK have (conservatively) prevented hundreds of them.
Maybe because you’re a dirty lover of the first amendment. Banning Muslims gets a lot easier to stomach when you ignore the bill of rights. Just saying.
Yes the data does show this and the culprit has been better policing in places such as airports. [quote=“Legalsteel, post:66, topic:228299”]
That could be reading the data backwards, though. As there is a massive operation constantly underway to prevent attacks. GCHQ and the met in the UK have (conservatively) prevented hundreds of them.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Please don’t misunderstand, I’m all for supporting continued operations to prevent any potential terror attacks both here and abroad legally. I’m not a part of the intelligence community so I can only go off of the data I see, which shows number nearing historical levels worldwide. The driver behind that could very well be the uptick in operations worldwide and I support them.
Well, I like the Constitution…
That’s fine and I support that within the confines of the law.
1 Like
True but the terrorist is most likely not going to have say an Irish sounding name. Good bet he’s either from the middle east or have ties there, or some sort of wacko religious beliefs tied to Islam. That doesn’t make every Muslim a terrorist only an idiot would believe that. But it does seem that just about every terrorist attack is by a Muslim.
Someone should have reminded FDR of this. It’s funny how during war times Presidents do certain things to protect its citizenry.
I’m not saying it’s right or wrong…just saying…
Who is the them. Most political figures main stream news orgs. It is general frowned on to speak the truth. Islam is a violent religion that believes in domination by way of the sword. And death to all who leave the faith.
Appreciated. My concern is the data’s potential incompleteness, nothing further. Otherwise, I think we are (mostly) on all fours in this matter.
Banning the faith is not constitutional. but there is no right to emigrate to the USA. Demanding that emigrants hold to a set of values that conflict with most who are Islamic is constitutional.
I don’t know, which is why I was asking you who “them” was.
As is Christianity (and nearly all religion), IF you take it literally. Since the vast majority of Muslims AREN’T violent and believe in domination by the way of the sword, this statement is false.
Same question. How do you test for it? 2 people show up at the border. Both are brown. Both have ME backgrounds. It’s not like the set of values you want are hard to fake. How do you tell which one has your values and which one is the terrorist?
Its just the stupidity of the accusation and who normally does the accusing
You pretty much need to take their word for it. But making it clear that the USA is not sharia friendly. (Sharia law is unconstitutional) would help. And a willingness to be dishonest, maybe they are not such devout Muslims and if not they are not a problem. As far as finding a sleeper agent for Isis. No one said that would be easy. Not even trying drops your success rate dramatically
No Christianity is not violent at all. Assuming you are not going to try and go back 400 years. Can you name examples of Christians killing in the name of God?
I think the first amendment pretty much covers this.
Is the implication that we’re not currently trying?
DISCLAIMER: I fully understand this is a terrible source, but I spent 3 seconds googling and this was the top result. Also I understand that Islam takes up more than their fair share of terror attacks. I just don’t believe in punishing the many for the actions of the few.