Whether you choose to believe it or not, the West is in a war with radical Islam. For that reason it is only prudent to be extremely careful about which Muslims you let into the country.
Some Muslim majority countries practice moderate forms of Islam and have reliable records about their citizens, some don't. Banning travel from nations which are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism and which don't keep reliable records is a totally reasonable response to a genuine threat.
I would very much like the situation to be different, I think the people of the middle east have a legitimate beef with the West and I'd like to see that resolved, but until or unless it is, extreme caution is necessary and appropriate.
I dodn't think anybody knows what we need or don't need until something really bad happens. Especially if it happens to them or someone they care about.
Great post. I'm never entirely confident I have the correct answer. That goes double for this one.
Part of my reasoning for agreeing (the ban is unnecessary) is that I'm not convinced this ban will really make us safer. Why doesn't the ban apply to countries from which some of the worst actual terrorists have come (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt)? It's contrary to the ban's goals, so I have to question our motives.
Yes 19 of the 911 terrorists were Saudi and we just sold Saudis a huge arms deal.
It is not about terrorism.
The latest victims are Iran. Iran! WTF.
Sunni VS Shiite. I'll never understand that one, but that's mostly because I won't take the time or effort to even investigate it.
No, they were Muslims.
Um. OKEY DOKEY
I think religion and citizenship are two very different things.
Which is why you never mentioned the former in your deliberately misleading post, Vic.
The travel ban should have been instituted 30 years or more ago. Now it's a contest as to whether the immigrants will become Anglicized or the English will become Islamicized.
Or we will continue to keep church and state separate.
As long as the "church" does not become a political movement.
Tell that to the Tea Party
Liberals have a penchant for making blatantly false moral equivalences, even when they know better, as Charlie Rose admits he does at 0:47 of this clip.
But it makes no difference to Rose that his arguments were destroyed by Maher. The next day, I'm sure Rose would have spouted the same nonsense, as if his conversation with Maher had never happened.
I'm generally not a fan of Maher either, but unlike most libs, he does stray from the lib party line from time to time.
Tea Party Church? Never heard of that denomination.
Tea Party Courts, perhaps? Likewise.
You're... um... prevaricating again, Vic, as usual.
Just as I said, Vic.
Or, maybe no religion?
"Two of the London attackers were British, the Manchester attacker was British, the Paris attacker was French."
And which of these, pray tell, was "no religion"?
I was being ironic. Like maybe, one day, when religions no longer dominate us.
There's only one religion today that has any chance of dominating us.
Especially in Europe.
I have never seen any religion truly dominate, as much as Christianity tried.
But as I said, the day comes when man moves past religion, will be the best day for all of mankind.
You got something right for a change, dd.
The operative word is "tried". And despite that, where did the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution occur?
That's right. Not in Arabia.
And let us not forget the 1000 year war, the Inquisition, the burning of books, the torture of people, the constant converting, the suspicion of Jew, the separating of children from their Aborigines parents, unwed mothers from their babies, Hitler's vision for the world, the KKK, the Hayes office, along with all the scams, and you have just about summed up Christianity's legacy.
Every religion has it's growing pains.
The "1000 year war"? Hadn't heard of that one.
And are you trying to say Nazism was a Christian movement? Hitler's long-term goal was the eradication of Christianity, as Pius XI understood all too clearly. Read his encyclical of 1937, "Mit Brennender Sorge" sometime.
"4. If, then, the tree of peace, which we planted on German soil with the purest intention, has not brought forth the fruit, which in the interest of your people, We had fondly hoped, no one in the world who has eyes to see and ears to hear will be able to lay the blame on the Church and on her Head. The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. [emphasis added] In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men - the "enemy" of Holy Scripture - oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies."
Yes, I am saying that his motive was a pure, white, Christian race, with no defects.
And even if he had become an atheist,(which no one has been able to prove) Christianity would have been spared, if not 'strongly' encouraged.
We could debate the inner workings of Hitler's twisted mind, all day. But you can not ignore the other less 'imperfection contributions' bestowed to us by Christianity.
I have stated, get rid of religion, and you have solved most of the world's problems.
Hitler wanted to 'spare' Christianity, eh? That, no doubt, is why he closed all denominational schools, banned all church youth groups, forced children into the Hitler Youth instead, and imprisoned thousands of clergy.
Hitler did not believe in Heaven or Hell, or the saving of a soul. But he did believe in a divine creator. God.And he believed in the Bible, which he knew, quite well.
Whether he used Christianity for the seizing of power is a certainty. But then so did many many others, before, and after him.
Why don't you speak to the points I raised, namely Hitler's ACTIONS against Christianity?
Sure, Hitler believed in Providence, but not the Christian kind. So did Himmler, the neo-pagan. Himmler established pagan wedding, funeral and other ceremonies for SS men.
"...We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict. If our generation does not do it then it would I think drag on for a long time. We must overcome it within ourselves. Today at Heydrich's funeral I intentionally expressed in my oration from my deepest conviction a belief in God, a belief in fate, in the ancient one as I called him—that is the old Germanic word: Wralda."
Because, as we all know, that he, like so many other douches, manipulated Christianity to get his message across. He cherry picked.
I don't doubt that he would knock down all powerful institutions that challenged him. But he did believe in some elements of Christianity, and he most certainly used it.
And exactly WHAT elements of Christianity did Hitler believe in?
When he wasn't too busy throwing clergy into concentration camps, that is?
Think hard, dd. This is a quiz.
I said what elements, like two replies ago. He believe in a divine creator, God, and he believed in the Bible. He did not believe in saving one's soul, or heaven and hell.
He used that Religion to suit his agenda, which is what most people do.
He threw anyone into concentration camps who challenged him, like royalty and many established respected military officers. Just a couple of examples of those who did not bend his way.
And I answered that belief in a god did not make him (or Himmler) a Christian; almost ANY religion would fill that bill.
And what do you mean, he "believed in the Bible"? If he didn't believe in heaven or hell or redemption, what's left? The Jewish dietary laws?
Of course Hitler used phony words to suit his agenda. He made the Munich agreement and broke it within a year. And he signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin too, so your point about his alleged Christianity only means that he was a liar in that case as well. Nothing unique about that.
Words vs ACTIONS, dd.
Not if you give that creator the name "God". I do believe there is only religion which believes in 'GOD".
Never heard of cherry picking the Bible, to find only that which supports you?
Yes, I would suspect it was not the NEW Testament he believed in.
He was raised a Catholic, as I was, and it's really hard to shake off all of those embedded lessons.
Most so called devote Christians are liars.
You must be kidding.
Is your memory really so short? I gave you a quote from Himmler in which he not only used the term "God", he explained explicitly what he meant by it. And yes, Himmler was also a Catholic by birth.
"Today at Heydrich's funeral I intentionally expressed in my oration from my deepest conviction a belief in God, a belief in fate, in the ancient one as I called him—that is the old Germanic word: Wralda."
So, by all means tell me, what parts of the Bible did Hitler "cherry pick" in his ACTIONS, not mere words?
England isn't even on the list! Your favorite British terrorists would still be allowed free access to slit the throats of loved ones from sea to shining sea.
That is why a ban is pointless
I see what you did there. ---
You turned it all around and made your stupid comment into something totally asinine!
"I see what you did there. ---"
Budwick, I seriously doubt you will ever see.
Not clear here. Are you suggesting that we should ban everyone because there are terrorist of every nationality and citizenship? Perhaps you think we should all build 'terror shelters' and 'safe spaces' so as to not interact with anyone except inbred relatives?
Yeah Vic - I believe those were my exact words.
Fair enough. What exactly are you saying? Because I thought we were on the same page. Banning refugees from Syria doesn't stop radicalized Swedes from entering
Of course not.
I say - let's start someplace. A 90 ban with heavy vetting of those coming from known terrorist state seems like a place to begin.
Your attitude is to nit pick and ultimately find fault with anything that hints of full, free access by anyone, anytime, for any reason.
Sorry. Didn't mean to sound libertarian or free-market or such.
The answer is always love. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Where you been sweety? I missed you.
Well welcome back
Gronk, Vic's a provocateur.
He gets off on the responses he gets to his deliberate claptrap and half-truths.
Oh, ok, as long as everyone knows.
And yes, I usually give his comments to me a love.
He only thinks he knows it all.
In reality, he's usually factually wrong and then runs away when he's called on it.
And what exactly will any "travel ban" accomplish? Are you going to watch ALL of the ports?! Trump said he needed ninety days to review the vetting process, and he has more than that.
Funny how Saudi Arabia didn't make that cut since they sponsored the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Oh, that's right, they kissed Trump's ass....BIG TIME!!
Seems to me that you're okay with that country being left off the list.
Most of the terrorists have been home grown and have NOT come in from the outside. That means that a ban would do nothing.
The only way you are going to fight terrorism is to double down on ALL the ports, and the borders, more monitoring of the internet (since that is how most of them are recruited) and beef up our spy system.
And you can not ALIENATE any of our Muslim countries, or communities, because we desperately need their inside tips.
Sure, they are going to take over the world. Paranoid much?
They might even be responsible for the 1,000 year war, the Inquisition, burning and banning books, burnings at the stake, torture, Hitler's vision of the world, the KKK, the persecution of Jews, separation of unwed mothers from their babies, along with stigmatization, superstition, and not to mention scams.
No, wait, that's Christianity!!
Please, I am not alone in my hatred of Trump, with his pitiful 34% approval rating. The hapless fool can't do anything right. He is in well over his head, and you know it. Every day there is something in the news about ancient orangutan, and it is NEVER good.
I don't hate any religion, but I know that each and every one of them, has baggage. You wanna throw stones? Then be prepared to look into the mirror.
No poll said he was going to win. In fact, most polls had her gaining in the last week. If Ryan hadn't poured 6 million into her sagging campaign, she might not have won. But almost everyone knew that district was a Republican stronghold.
And not once did she mention the president by name. In fact, she distant herself from him.
While being a mathematician your numbers do make sense "the majority in our country who are not on social media" means the Majority of the 37% in our country not on social media support trump. Which coincides with the figure DD was stating of around 32% of the country support Trump, who is on social media and thinks it is a great way to communicate.
Say the man's name. The person whose name she should have shouted out was Ryan. Without his help and fundraising, her sagging campaign would have gone nowhere.
Large amounts of money was spent on both sides, with Ryan chipping in seven million, once again, to save her sorry ass.
With all the amounts of money being poured in from all over, shows just how much people are sick of the Republicans, but once again, it was a Republican stronghold, and has been for many decades. It won't be so slam dunk in 2018, and especially 2020.
People are listening to Tim Ryan.
You have no idea on what my family stood for, so stop taking stabs in the dark.
As I recall, if you are talking about the sixties, "liberals" were against both Johnson and Nixon, because of the escalation of Vietnam. Just like they were against Bush because of his stupid choice to invade Iraq.
Do you have a reading problem? I said a war that was ESCALATED by Johnson (a Democrat!!), AND Nixon. I didn't say that either one of them started that war, so stop with the history lessons.
His own party assassinated him? Have you finally lost it?
Yes, once again, real slow, JFK escalated the war, which in the end, garnished him a very low poll. Nixon saw a chance to end the war, but didn't take it, for political reasons. Then he had his lackey, Kissinger, lie to the American people, by saying that peace was right around the corner. That was the October surprise.
LBJ, was not a "known racist". His use of inappropriate words, was due to his time, and where he was raised. Nothing else. He said in one of his speeches, regarding the KKK, that his father was constantly standing up to those "thugs". He said Mississippi was the worst of the bunch, after the assassination of Medgar Evers. And he is credited for not only passing those bills, but also for weakening the KKK.
I know all about how Kennedy felt about Johnson, thank you very much.
And I know that JFK was luke warm to Civil Right's as well. In fact, it was Bobby who brought him over to the side of Civil Rights.
And as I have said, Johnson was a product of his time, and birthplace. I don't like Johnson, but he is rightly credited for getting Civil Rights, over the cross line.
We'll never know because we didn't try it.
Either ways, it's working for me.
Yep, Vic, you never know until you try it...
(thanks to Will for finding this cartoon)
I believe Chamberlain tried it.
Maybe Chamberlain just didn't try often enough.
Or maybe Churchill should have applied Chamberlain's methods.
We can never know, because he didn't do it.
Wir koennen nie wissen, weil er es nicht gemacht hat.
(psst... I'm speaking to you from a parallel universe, where he did.)
Possibly. Or you run out of feet. :)
I think Vic's a millipede.
Shouldn't we be discussing the banning of Van's? or knives, I mean to say they did use boxcutters to take over planes in 911, now all these stabbings......
Anyway, it is very cold here.
And the sooner more of your compatriots realize that, the better.
Yes, this election didn't go quite as planned.
Interestingly, it seems most of Labour's gains came at the expense of the Scottish National party.
Are you saying that we need Muslim bans instead? You're living in fantasyland.
Bans are pointless