San Bernardino

No.

 

Ugh.

Jay no longer wants to talk about "radical" Muslims. Now, he only wants to talk about Truly radical Muslims:

And by truly radical Muslim, someone who is willing and able to die to advance their cause, as part of their faith.

So, now, someone supporting ISIS, holding anti-American views, being against he right of the State of Israel to exist, thinking apostasy deserves death, etc. is not a big deal, not disqualifying for someone who might want to move here, not reason to monitor someone already here.

Unless we can somehow that they are "ready" to die to advance their cause -- oh, and we also have to determine that they have the means:

The actual number of them who would be willing, able and also have the ability to die for their cause and then actually do so...

then what's the big deal?

Up until that point, they're no more radical than his buddy, who gave up his career to become a CELIBATE!! Greek Orthodox Priest.

Now, that guy sounds truly radical. If we're going to fear anyone, it's the celibate Greek Orthodox Priest.

So, if Jay would like to tell me how he's going to determine which radical Muslims are willing to die, and have the means, I'd be willing to listen to him.

Until then, I think we should consider all radical Muslims to be a potential threat, and certainly shouldn't let them enter our county if we discover they hold radical views.

 

We can't define a radical Muslim?

Can we define radical views? I'd say we can.

If a person holds radical views, what's the objection to defining them as a radical?

Why should someone need to be affiliated or in contact with ISIS? We've seen people inspired by ISIS carry out, or attempt to carry out, acts of terror. If someone expresses support for ISIS, isn't that enough?

 

oh you can define it. I just don't know how you would otherwise ascertain their views? Just ask them, which seems to be the current approach? But Malik at least expressed support (under another name IIRC). These are the things we need to be working on. Now.

 

You'll get no argument from me on that. Yes, we need to do everything we can to keep them out. Of course. And we need to do all we can to bolster the vetting process. The will and means thing I just read straight through. Don't even understand how you'd deduce that. And these groups or local cells can provide the means.

 

So, now we've gone from, "they go through a very thorough vetting process," to learning we had a policy restricting us from viewing visa applicants public social media posts, to wondering how we could ever uncover radical views.

So, let's just get rid of the vetting process all together then. Or, maybe we should institute Trump's temporary plan, if we have no means of discovering who might be a radical.

Fuck. I don't want every US airline passenger to go through El Al style questioning. Our air system is too big, and it would grind it to a halt.

But, for people applying for a visa? Yes. We should take our time to ask them some questions. And, if they're coming from an area with a high concentration of Jihadi activity, and especially if they're a male of a certain age, they deserve greater scrutiny.

So, yes, ask them. Have someone with some training ask them in person what their views are. They might even tell you. Ask their relatives and neighbors. Check their social media sites. Check their references -- employers, schools, etc.

Stoney's posted the poll results. We know that a pretty big percentage of people from Muslim majority nations hold radical views. We should expect a similar percentage of people from those countries applying to come here would hold similar views.

 

I have disagreed with none of this. I have said from day one we should pause the entire program until we can bolster/upgrade the vetting process. I just don't think we should just ban Muslims as a policy. Even temporarily.

 

So that is your definition? Someone who has expressed support for ISIS? Or are there other criteria? If you want to ban anybody you think of as radical, you need to define that very clearly. So have at it.

Also, if you have a problem with Jay's post, why play games? State your problem. Otherwise, you are just engaging in exactly the kind of thoughtless, lazy posts you complained about on the other thread.

 

And I have never said we have a thorough process. We clearly have holes in it

 

It took some time but he did. Yes, someone smarter than me must define what constitutes a radical Islamist and weed them out. But keeping Muslims (who are the overwhelming victims of these groups) from fleeing the carnage seems counterproductive to me.

 

Have you not been reading this thread?

I attempted on many occasions to have a discussion about what constituted a radical.

I'm happy to define it by my terms. I was hoping there might actually be some consensus.

And, if you think I haven't stated my "problem", my beliefs, or my opinions on this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Back to Trump brilliantly working blue by playing red.

Republican ‘House of Cards’? Why Jeb Bush’s Trump Decoy Theory Isn’t Insane