The flip side of Islamophobia....
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-do-europes-muslims-hate-the-west/
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-do-europes-muslims-hate-the-west/
Occidentophobia
- Thread starter buygreekbonds
- Start date
But, but, but Christianity...but, but, but the Crusades...but, but, but the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing
At first glance I misread "Occidentophobia" as "Accidentophilia", which brought back fond memories of one night when a cute female friend and I unintentionally hooked up.
It means that Trump's policy is the right one. Don't let people in UNTIL we have a way to absolutely verify. Our Country's safety first.
Which will never, ever happen, so effectively a moratorium on Muslims. Yep. Smart. Dealing in absolutes is always the best way.
I don't know why you would say it will never happen. So what's your plan?, let them in without vetting them? Since when does our desire to welcome all come at the expense of the safety of our people? Absolutes? Did you see what happened in Belgium? San Bernadino? This is not movies, people are being killed....???
Again, absolutes. I never said let them in without vetting. What I said was no matter what, you will never identify every single person who might be a threat even with the best vetting process. Thus, you cannot just stop letting them in until you can vet them 100%. We already have stringent requirements for legal immigration. Saying you want to stop them until you're sure you won't ever let another terrorist in means you're just going to stop letting Muslims in altogether because it is impossible otherwise.
So are you saying let them in when even the Gov is saying they can't check them out? Our Gov at least needs to step up to the plate and determine what and how to handle the situation rather than just open the doors. I never said 100%. You said that. How many would you let In? 1000. 10,000. 100,000. ??? One approach would be to only let in Families with Children as they are the most needy. I believe our Pres said he wanted to let in several thousands. To respond to the current crisis that would mean opening the doors.
Tell my your plan. It appears you are saying just let them in.
Last edited:
Vet them, then let them in. It's what we do right now. Pretty simple plan. Anyone saying anything much different doesn't understand the process we currently have in place and is listening to politicians who are telling them what they want to hear.
There certainly are loopholes right now, gr8. The so-called "Spouse Exception" allowed the female terrorist in San Bernadino to come into the US with almost no vetting. She had attended a Wahabist school in Saudi Arabia prior to coming to the US, where it is believed she was radicalized. And no one should assume that this is just a "one-off" situation. This is a serious gap in the vetting process.
I dont believe she was a refugee. She was a spouse for an American citizen and yes they get little to no vetting. You know who else gets little to no vetting? Tourists.
So, should we know stop all tourism until each and every tourist is vetted because we are afraid of something that rarely happens?
The current system is very time consuming. There were something like 3500 refugees allowed in during the last 8 yrs. When the PRES, responding to an international crisis, wants to bring in several thousands it would certainly require doing it much much faster. I think that would be a disaster.
I'd recommend we continue operating like a country that can continue it's principles of being a beacon to the world that folks dream of coming to, that we can take in refugees, that we can take in tourists, and all of that, with no change unaffected, unbowed, and unafraid over something that happens statistically less often than literally most everything else bad that can happen to you.
Which is why I said we should follow the normal process of vetting them rather than making some kind of exception. Cruz and Trump are playing on people's fear. There's this perception among some people out there that we just load up Syrians on a boat and bring 10,000 of them over and settle them in Columbus, Ohio and Dearborn, Michigan. That's not what happens. Let the process play out. If that means we don't bring in 10,000 this year, then we don't bring in 10,000 this year.
We don't need to ban Muslims from coming here. That's stupid.
We don't need to increase monitoring of "predominantly Muslim neighborhoods", whatever those are.
As I've said in a few threads on this topic, you're more likely to get murdered by a Christian with a chef's knife than you are to be killed in a terrorist action in the US.
Both are things we should take action to prevent, but if it was left up to Cruz, Trump, and the RWNJ crowd we'd ban Christianity and revoke people's chef's knives.
Stop watching the 24 hour news channels, people.
Wow! Qaz and GR you just made a giant leap into Hyperbole to avoid a logical discussion. Here we go.
1. In the past several years a few thousand refugees have been admitted. 600 so far this yr according to gov reports.
2. The current vetting process takes a long time. I have no problem with the current process.
3. There is a Syrian crisis resulting in the displacement of millions.
4. President Obama has announced that he is going to bring in 10,000 this year. He announced the number with no explanation of how he would process this number
5. It is therefore a natural assumption that to bring in 10,000 the vetting process would have to be expedited as we do not have the capacity to adequately process 10,000 in one yr. The State Dept can't process that many per their own comments.
6. That is why candidates have called for a time out.
I'm ok with bringing in families that are in need not put Americans at risk by opening the flood gates. We have a precedent of doing that on our Southern border already so to be concerned is very justifiable.
So what's your plan?
Mine is to consider applications for families, women, and children and take the time to check them out. I think this is what Cruz and Trump called for. If we can safely do this and bring in 10,000 I'm good with that. I don't believe we can so I would not commit to 10,000 as Obama did.
1. In the past several years a few thousand refugees have been admitted. 600 so far this yr according to gov reports.
2. The current vetting process takes a long time. I have no problem with the current process.
3. There is a Syrian crisis resulting in the displacement of millions.
4. President Obama has announced that he is going to bring in 10,000 this year. He announced the number with no explanation of how he would process this number
5. It is therefore a natural assumption that to bring in 10,000 the vetting process would have to be expedited as we do not have the capacity to adequately process 10,000 in one yr. The State Dept can't process that many per their own comments.
6. That is why candidates have called for a time out.
I'm ok with bringing in families that are in need not put Americans at risk by opening the flood gates. We have a precedent of doing that on our Southern border already so to be concerned is very justifiable.
So what's your plan?
Mine is to consider applications for families, women, and children and take the time to check them out. I think this is what Cruz and Trump called for. If we can safely do this and bring in 10,000 I'm good with that. I don't believe we can so I would not commit to 10,000 as Obama did.
MOST of the Syrian refugees are women and children, so your "plan" is basically the majority of the Syrian refugee population.
Second, the State Department hasn't said it's impossible to do, but that they need more money, and they I'm assuming probably need more bodies. We bring in more than 10K per year already, we have brought in between 55K and 75K refugees in each year worldwide. I'm pretty sure most of those folks are vetted to some extent.
We don't need to vet infants and small children, so one would assume the vetting would be limited to women and teenagers. So something less than 10K. So the idea that this is some impossible task that can't happen is silly. Now, given that government is never perfectly efficient or sometimes even imperfectly efficient, there's no guarantee we will meet his goal.
And he's said nothing about not vetting anyone to make the goal.
That is not why candidates have called for a time out. They've called a time out because some of their base is so afraid of terrorists that they would rather just not let anyone in because "what if one of them is a terrorist?!!!"
We used to be a nation unafraid, brave, bold...now we have a subset of folks scared of their own shadow and willing to give up just about every liberty and principle in the name of security.
This doesn't totally ring true to me. Back in the day, "the others" were Catholics, Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc. The "natives" protested saying that the nation was being overrun by Papist immigrants and others who didn't speak English and had "strange customs". These demographics assimilated fairly quickly and became good upstanding American citizens in a fairly short period of time. They served their nation with distinction and sacrificed their lives in the Civil War, WW I and WW II.
There is a fair amount of anecdotal information showing that Muslims haven't assimilated particularly well so far, not just here (Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, Columbus, Dearborn), but also in places like the U.K. In some instances they've set up "no go zones" in the UK in which the police are kept out completely. There are reports of people trying to set up Sharia courts.
Actually we don't have any anecdotal information that Muslims haven't assimilated well in America.
What evidence do you have that the vast majority of Muslims (like 99%) haven't served their nation well. Is there evidence they join the military at a lower rate? Is there evidence of higher crime rates among Muslims? Are they significantly more prone to be on public assistance? We certainly have very little evidence of anything but a handful of attacks over the last 20 years or so.
We do have some evidence they haven't assimilated as well in Europe. Obviously the quantity and quality of attacks is way higher, they are much more likely to be poor, there also appears to be less acceptance of them there than here. Europe has a much larger immigration problem than we have. Partially because we are used to the idea of being a melting pot of cultures, it's baked into our heritage and history. Europe is more used to being a salad of different cultures who historically haven't gotten along together for very long periods of time.
You must've missed the part where Trump said he wanted to stop all Muslims - not just Syrians or refugees - coming into the country until they can be fully vetted.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.
You must've missed the part where Cruz said he wanted to increase surveillance on predominantly Muslim neighborhoods. He said "...where there is higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism." Where is that happening in the United States?
The fact is, the vast, vast majority of Muslims in this country have assimilated just as well as any other tiny minority group has in the past and will in the future. That is not the case in Belgium and France, for example, but we're not those places. It is far more difficult to physically get here, which helps, and the legal immigration process is more stringent than it is in the EU at this point.
As I said three previous times, my plan is to let the vetting process work as it stands. If that means we take in fewer than 10,000 refugees, then that's what we do.
Sorry that I do not buy into the fearmongering that you and Ted Cruz do, but that doesn't make my opinions "hyperbole".
I agree, as long as the loopholes such as the "Spouse Exception" are closed too.
"And I will bomb the radical Islamic terrorists into oblivion!!! - Ted Cruz
Just let them in. qaz is going to adopt them and pay for them...NOT.
The fact is we are not financially set to receive these people and have them live off the system. Most of these people are not educated and will struggle to find employment. We need to address the deficit and put a plan in place to start addressing the national debt. When our financial house is in order we will have an idea for how many people we can support. This isn't the ****ing 1800's. Isn't that a favorite saying of the liberals? They want to take us back in time?
The fact is we are not financially set to receive these people and have them live off the system. Most of these people are not educated and will struggle to find employment. We need to address the deficit and put a plan in place to start addressing the national debt. When our financial house is in order we will have an idea for how many people we can support. This isn't the ****ing 1800's. Isn't that a favorite saying of the liberals? They want to take us back in time?
So, you think a nation of 330 million people, the richest nation in the world with one of the strongest economies in a world, that has already averaged taking in 55-75K people a year, can't afford to take in 10K more in one year?
Ah you are one of those deficit crazies who thinks the deficit needs to be the only thing we are concerned about to all other things. Got it.
Yes. We get 11M a year (conservative estimate) in illegals every year. Plus your 55-75k, plus 10k more that will mostly end up on the system. Why are you trying to take us backwards? Since when did sound fiscal policy make someone "crazy"? It actually benefits the people we are trying to help to have the country on solid financial standing. So nice of you to volunteer my money though. I bet that took a lot of sacrifice on your part.
yes those illegals only cost us...why without them, our construction and food costs wouldn't skyrocket.
Oh wait...
you mean they suppress wages. Yes, I agree. and cost us another >10B/year. Oh those facts...always in the way of your good time.
A few comments
-
GR, you and I promote the same plan. Isnt that strange given all of the rhetoric. One point that is very important to me: I am not a Trump or Cruz supporter nor am I a supported of the other two. It is a total shame that our country cannot put forward any better people as candidates. That said, it speaks to what has happened to this Beacon of Freedom that Qaz talks about.
I am married, have children, grand children, and a great grand child. I am very concerned about the safey of the American people. Anyone who doesn't see the threat to our safety by following current events is living in a bubble IMO. My motivation is to insure that our government provides for the security of our people and if that causes some discomfort with some people who would love to come to our country then so be in. IMO.
What threat to our safety is that exactly? What do you think is the threat?
My motivation is that my government follows the Constitution and our values. If they can do that AND provide security, awesome...but believe it or not, having some vague fear that somewhere, someone might do something that happens extremely rarely does not equate to actual safety...and it's not "living" in a bubble to not be afraid of terrorism when there are actual things that happen way more often to be afraid of.
Muslim immigrants come to the USA to pick fruit and do jobs whites don't want to do?
You've got to be kidding.
9-11
Shoe Bomber
United Nations bombing
Fort Hood, oh that's right. That was work place violence
Boston Marathon
San Bernadino
Isis, JV squad
What is it you don't understand?
And, oh, by the way. A government based on the Constitution is something I really would like to see. Problem is that it has been MIA for 75 years.
"The role of the federal is to provide for the National Defense and settle disputes between the States"
Hmmm, how's that working out for ya?
Something to be more afraid for?? Darn right...killing babies by the thousands for convenience !!
Oh But, that a different post that you so eloquently posted you view about. SMH
Wait, you mean there were 6 things that happened in the last 15 years? I thought it was just 5...forget everything I said then.
No more flights for me! And if I take one, I'll just assume it will blow up or crash, and not land safely like the oh 100 or so flights I've taken in the last decade.
Kudos for the mental gymnastics of tying the abortion debate to refugee admittance. A shiny new quarter if you can tie it to wheat prices in China. C'mon, I know you can do it!
Per CNN on 3-23-16
"According to U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who is responsible for all federal terrorist investigations in the country, there were 60 cases prosecuted in the U.S. in 2015. That is more terrorist cases than in any year since September 11, 2001."
Pew Research reported; In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.
8% of US Muslims say that suicide bombings are sometimes justified.
Life in the bubble must be really peaceful. The point of this discussion was simply that for Pres Obama to bring in 10 thousand refugees in one year we better take extra time to vet these people.
"According to U.S. Assistant Attorney General John Carlin, who is responsible for all federal terrorist investigations in the country, there were 60 cases prosecuted in the U.S. in 2015. That is more terrorist cases than in any year since September 11, 2001."
Pew Research reported; In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.
8% of US Muslims say that suicide bombings are sometimes justified.
Life in the bubble must be really peaceful. The point of this discussion was simply that for Pres Obama to bring in 10 thousand refugees in one year we better take extra time to vet these people.
So you want to go to war with a tactic and a religion? How does that war end? When will you be able to tell you have won?
