https://x.com/lelemslp/status/1927456055560126535?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/koshercockney/status/1927821728169787464?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/eyakoby/status/1927802388695449812?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/vividprowess/status/1927772605915836903?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/eyakoby/status/1927742624984691044?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
That the UNRWA was complicit in providing direct support to Hamas in their campaign of terror and attempts to eradicate Israel is well known at this point, although largely ignored by the ASPL and MSM in the US and Europe. But now we see increasing reports that the UN was colluding with Hamas in not distributing food aid, isn't to simply time to dismantle the UN? The UN puts representative sof countries with abysmal human rights records in charge of committees on human rights, and hardly anyone even mentions it. Their diplomats run roughshod over NY laws, and it's kind of a joke. Is there a role for a UN like organization, probably, but the UN has proven itself to be increasingly corrupt and ineffective. It needs to go.
Beyond that, it's amazing that so many of the MSM/ASPL types blindly accept the lies out of Gaza even after they're exposed as lies. The lack of outrage over Hamas hoarding food aid and profiting from selling it to their subjects is distressing. The fact that this is ignored, while Israel is blamed is despicable. I'm becoming more and more convinced that Hamas simply needs to be eradicated. I firmly believe that the Arab nations should be in the vanguard of this effort as the existence of Hamas harms them significantly, and expecting them to put actions to their words seems like a reasonable position. Unfortunately, they've chosen to support Hamas, and it's left the Israel to do their dirty work.
https://x.com/realmaalouf/status/1927568298247340416?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
That anyone can support Islam as a philosophical/religious/governmental system that should be respected when this sort of behavior is allowed indicates a sever lack of critical thinking skills. We see women cruelly oppressed in vast numbers, children sexually abused (especially non Muslims in Europe), non Muslims and homosexuals killed, and petty criminals mutilated, yet folx like Dan extol the virtues of Islam and revel in the various false equivalencies to demean other countries/religions/philosophies.
14 comments:
To say that people are the same all over the world is a concept totally discredited by the existence of islam. They are the best argument against that claim, though not the only one. I recall a piece from Ann Coulter years ago in which she spoke of the "machismo" culture of some Latin countries where men too often abuse girls, while the mothers of those girls accept it as "just the way it is". But again, islam is the worst.
What an interesting concept. I'm not sure what you mean, I guess.
If your point is that people's actions are shaped by the culture they live in, then that's obvious.
If you're saying that a child born to Muslim parents, but adopted as an infant and raised by an Amish family will someday turn into a terrorist, I'm not buying that at all.
If you're saying that a child is predisposed to a certain destiny because of it's parents, I'm not buying that at all.
Are there differences in IQ from culture to culture, sure. Are there various systems of morality that allow behaviors that we'd consider beyond the pale, absolutely. Yet, by their standards they are moral. Are there various religions that also have tenets that we'd consider abhorrent, yes.
In the case of the Pakistani rape culture, I posted on this a while back with a piece that was a pretty comprehensive dive into the culture. If I remember correctly, it is from a number of factors, including the Islamic (or at least some branch of Islam) which teaches that kuffar women and girls have no value and can be use for anything. The Pakistani culture also engages in inbreeding at a scale that is beyond virtually any other culture on earth. Therefore you end up with a lot of men and boys with diminished mental capacity. I get that blaming it on Islam (writ large) is an easy conclusion, and Islam has many facets that are reprehensible, but the link may not be as direct as you assume.
Are all humans the same at some level, absolutely. Are we not all created in and do we not all bear the Imago Dei? Are we not all sinners? On some level isn't a society that celebrates the slaughter of millions of the unborn and the mutilation of children, really that much better than the Pakistanis? Is Islam really that much worse than NAZIsm or Communism? What the NAZIs killed @12,000,000 innocent people plus millions more on the battlefield. Communists killed @20,000,000-30,000,000 innocents. The horrors of the Japanese occupation of much of Asia will probably never be fully known or quantified.
The reality of humanity is that we are perfectly willing to follow various leaders into all sorts of depravity because they promise us something better than what we have. Is Islam alone in this, not a chance. Is Islam, at some level, a barbarous and vile religion/philosophy/system of government, yes.
Is it our responsibility to kill every Muslim on the planet?
Look, I regularly document these sorts of actions by Muslims. I do so because slime like Dan are too quick to downplay these behaviors or ignore them entirely. Should the individuals responsible for these horrific behaviors be punished, absolutely. Yet, where in a Christian worldview does one justify punishing one person for the actions of another?
"If your point is that people's actions are shaped by the culture they live in, then that's obvious."
Cultures are shaped by the actions of the people within them. The cultures then influence those born into them, but can be corrupted or altered by the influence of those from other cultures.
"If you're saying that a child born to Muslim parents, but adopted as an infant and raised by an Amish family will someday turn into a terrorist, I'm not buying that at all."
Wow! I didn't even come within a light year of saying that!
"If you're saying that a child is predisposed to a certain destiny because of it's parents, I'm not buying that at all."
Did your parents have no influence on you at all? Did not your surroundings and the people throughout your life?
From this point you choose to ignore the responsibility of a government to protect its people. It is not obliged to allow anyone to cross our borders and the safety of our people is the primary concern, not taking chances on the potential threat a foreigner might bring. That's not putting our people first. There's a cost to our people that puts the onus on the foreigner to prove their value to us, or to at least assure us they intend to assimilate and be "like us" and not a threat at all. Is that punishment to you, particularly when the country from which the foreigner comes has a track record? How's that working out for Europe?
And BTW, your deep dive into the culture only bolsters the truth and logic of my position. And part of that culture includes lying to those not of it for the benefit of their own, to lie in wait until they believe they have tactical advantage and as your own cited sources clearly indicate, to eventually replace our culture with theirs. That's their "religion".
Yet the people in cultures are shaped by the culture.
Yet that is exactly the impression you gave, hence my asking a question about it to clear up my understanding.
Please read the question as asked. I'm not saying that parents have zero influence, I'm asking if merely being born to a particular set of parents predisposes a child towards certain actions/beliefs. I'm not asking about an 18 year old being influenced, I'm asking about from birth. Again, obviously there are some heritable traits. But you seem to be saying that a child born to "Muslim" parents is inextricably going to grow up to engage in certain actions.
Well, as the "responsibility of a government to protect it's people" wasn't something in the comment I was responding to, I can't see why I would have responded to something that wasn't there.
While there is no obligation, there is some degree of self interest in allowing immigration. The problem is in setting the criteria. Strangely enough, I'm not a fan of excluding people (who would otherwise qualify to legally immigrate) because of the actions of others. Literally every single immigrant or visitor comes with some degree of "potential threat", and it's about identifying individuals who's "potential threat" is significant enough to bar them entry. Obviously the goal is to find people who will assimilate, yet how do you propose to filter out those who lie about their willingness to assimilate? I'll simply note that the very concept of "not a threat at all" literally does not exist in the real world. The notion of "threat" is one of degree, not some binary. By your measure why would we allow Italians to enter the country, as La Cosa Nostra has historically been a "threat" to our country.
Preventing a clear and present danger level threat is not punishment. It could be argued that disallowing someone based on the actions of others might be.
I posted on this a while ago. We could drop crime by 80% by "eliminating" a relatively small number of criminals. Likewise, the failure in the UK is as much a failure to prosecute and "eliminate" criminals as anything. Again, I just posted a story about an immigrant who was let off on a rape charge because he didn't know rape was wrong. "Eliminating" this scum would likely prevent multiple future rapes. I'd be willing to bet that the UK could significantly diminish their problems without cutting immigration to zero. Screen them better, and punish them severely when the commit crimes.
Part of our problem in the US is that our justice system is not predicated on preventing crime, but punishing crime. We don't charge or punish people for what the might do, we charge/punish them for what they actually did.
That the "culture" allows "lying" is a problem. Yet to assume that one individual is lying, because it is allowed, is to "punish" a "crime" that not only hasn't happened, but that might never happen.
Obviously anyone who actively engages in an attempt to "replace our culture" should be held responsible for their actions and deported. To presume that someone might, in the future, engage in some action seems like a door that's best left closed.
Like many things, this seems short sighted. It's crazy to think that your personal standards for admission will be set in stone and never change. By all means let's give the next DFL administration the authority and precedent to exclude (for example) Australians from immigration because some of them might pose some vague/undefined future theoretical threat.
This is the same argument given for banning guns. That someone might, at some point in the future, use an "assault rifle" to commit a crime is justification for banning them right now.
"Yet the people in cultures are shaped by the culture. "
Yeah. I said that. But the issue isn't a chicken/egg thing.
"Again, obviously there are some heritable traits. But you seem to be saying that a child born to "Muslim" parents is inextricably going to grow up to engage in certain actions."
It depends upon the parents and how strict they are in teaching and living the life. This doesn't mean that an individual can't or won't come to regard the life as ideal for one's self. But clearly, as we can see by so many examples, be it Gaza, Dearborn MI or Europe, it's quite common and as such presents a risk not worthy taking for governments crafting immigration laws and regulations.
"...it's about identifying individuals who's "potential threat" is significant enough to bar them entry."
That would be muslims in general. Their history obliges us to judge them by that history, as well as by their own "religious" teachings, and as well as by so very many examples of their behaviors outside their muslim nations.
" ...how do you propose to filter out those who lie about their willingness to assimilate?"
Given their teachings, muslims must prove they're not lying. How do we confirm they're being truthful? Better and more efficient to simply deny them entry as not worth the risk.
" By your measure why would we allow Italians to enter the country, as La Cosa Nostra has historically been a "threat" to our country."
We're not speaking of membership of a criminal organization, but of an entire people whose culture is based on world domination and the eradication or enslavement of those who won't convert. Italians are not La Cosa Nostra. La Cosa Nostra are a group of Italians.
"Preventing a clear and present danger level threat is not punishment. It could be argued that disallowing someone based on the actions of others might be."
We've always had criteria for denying entry. Each of them could be regarded as punishment by those denied. So what?
"Part of our problem in the US is that our justice system is not predicated on preventing crime, but punishing crime."
This isn't about prosecuting citizens for breaking the law. It's about denying entry to a people who have a history of behaviors anathema to our culture. Going back to the mafia, you're basically advocating for not denying the mafia because islam is akin to a criminal organization. I mean why not tolerate the mob. Not all of them murder, right? But we don't welcome known criminals and islam is like known criminals.
"Yet to assume that one individual is lying, because it is allowed, is to "punish" a "crime" that not only hasn't happened, but that might never happen."
Not letting them in in the first place because of that tenet of their RoP relieves us of the worry.
"To presume that someone might, in the future, engage in some action seems like a door that's best left closed. "
Again. Tenet of the faith. That makes it far more likely they'd ride the culture change train than not, even if they appear to be "nice".
"By all means let's give the next DFL administration the authority and precedent to exclude (for example) Australians from immigration because some of them might pose some vague/undefined future theoretical threat. "
There's nothing at all "vague, undefined or theoretical" about the threat of islam. Quite the opposite as history has proven.
Your gun analogy only works if guns operate on their own volition. A weak attempt.
Really? Are you really suggesting that humans don't have at least some "herd mentality" that is our natural tendency? That the expectation for members of a society to not be shaped by the society first? It's amazing that we're seeing some Gazans fight against Hamas, not that the majority go along out of fear, or agreement.
Yet the chasm between "quite common" and inevitable is significant. Especially in a culture which goes against virtually every tenet of one's heritage.
Look, I get it, you want to judge individuals based on the behavior of some members of their "group". It's easy, it's efficient, and it literally makes the actions of the individual worthless. By this metric, Von Braun should have been prevented from entering the US because of the actions of Germans in general. For that matter, Bonhoeffer and Von Clausenberg's individual actions should be ignored because they were German in the '40s and Germans did horrible things. I get that broad brushing and assuming the worst possible behavior is more efficient. It would have been more efficient had YWHW simply allowed all who sin to go to hell also.
Yet we are speaking of judging and condemning an entire group based on the actions of a percentage of that group. What other groups do you apply this logic to? Those who posses guns? Those who drive cars? Those who drink alcohol?
Great, again, what other crimes should be punished based on the actions of others rather than that of the individual in question?
You are correct, we do not welcome "known criminals" or those who are "known" for various other things. Unfortunately you are advocating for changing the "known" criteria "suspected" or "guilt by association".
Oh, I get that discriminating against individuals based on actions or beliefs that the individuals might not have done or agree with is efficient and easy. In what other areas of life do you prioritize "efficient" and "easy" over all else?
You can repeat your opinions as often as you want, I'm not likely to be persuaded that "punishing" or judging in individual based on the actions of others is the best course of action. I'm also not a big fan of "guilt by association", but you do you.
The gun argument is exactly the same argument you are making. The argument is that we must deny guns to everyone because some small percentage might abuse guns at some point in the future. As far as your "operate of their own volition" canard, you seem to be suggesting that "Muslims" are incapable of or unlikely to "act of their own volition".
Your entire argument seems to hinge on the US allowing immigration based on the potential value of an individual to the US, while simultaneously dismissing the potential value of an individual without even bothering to actually determine that value of that individual.
Like it or not, the entire premise of Operation Paperclip and bringing of NAZI scientists to the US as WW2 ended, was that their value as individuals transcended the actions they'd engaged in or supported as NAZIs. (Or conversely that the denial of their individual value to the Soviets was important enough to bring them to the US) In that case they based their judgement on the actual (both good and bad) actions of the individuals involved. Are you really suggesting that "guilt by association" is a better metric than individual value?
I was going to offer another analogy, until I realized it would be a waste of time. As ling as efficiency and easy are the two most important metrics for you, then no analogy that doesn't value efficiency and ease will be accurate.
I understand your high value on efficiency and ease, I just don't agree that anything worthwhile comes from prioritizing those two values.
"Really? Are you really suggesting that humans don't have at least some "herd mentality" that is our natural tendency?"
Uh...no. But that herd mentality within islam is a problem regardless. I merely stated the reality that a culture begins with the people who formed it. Unless you think that islam and it's murderous tenets were somehow organic? It had to start somewhere and somehow. We know both and what's resulted is that which is the worst example of herd mentality.
" It's amazing that we're seeing some Gazans fight against Hamas,..."
Well, if one is going to die anyway, one can choose to let it happen or fight with the hope that the threat is removed. Should the latter occur, what makes you think that the Jew-hating Gazans would not simply carry on with the program in short order? Have those fighting Hamas expressed a great love of the Jews? I've heard, seen or read nothing which suggests that's the case, so it's really an irrelevant point.
"Yet the chasm between "quite common" and inevitable is significant. Especially in a culture which goes against virtually every tenet of one's heritage."
I don't care and the chasm clearly isn't as vast as you suggest. They are not without their desire to remain breathing and not in prison. They have less fear of that in Europe and the results are atrocious. But we know there are radicalized muslims in this country and that some are radicalized in their mosques. That they haven't acted as those in other countries yet is just a matter of opportunity and a belief it can be done successfully. How many feel this way is beyond knowing with any confidence. I see no need to take the risk, nor that I'm acting in an unChristian manner by preventing their entry on behalf of my people.
"Look, I get it, you want to judge individuals based on the behavior of some members of their "group"."
"Some"??? I'm not judging anyone, but merely accepting the reality that their ways are anathema to ours and pose a risk far greater than any other demographic. If I'm making the decisions, I'm denying them or imposing strict criteria for entry and I don't freakin' care how it looks to you. I care about the safety of my people.
"It's easy, it's efficient, and it literally makes the actions of the individual worthless."
Boo-hoo. In this case, easy and efficient is best because their own teachings make determining who's truly deserving of our welcome extremely difficult. Again, not willing to risk my own in order to posture.
" By this metric, Von Braun should have been prevented from entering the US because of the actions of Germans in general. For that matter, Bonhoeffer and Von Clausenberg's individual actions should be ignored because they were German in the '40s and Germans did horrible things."
Not even close to being a parallel. Nice try, though.
" I get that broad brushing and assuming the worst possible behavior is more efficient."
You apparently don't get that 1400 years of this crap shouldn't be ignored, especially given there's not much change in their attitudes toward those who don't believe as they do. BTW, how long have the nazis been around? Germany wasn't a nazi nation anywhere near 1400 years.
" It would have been more efficient had YWHW simply allowed all who sin to go to hell also."
Now you're just getting desperate.
"Yet we are speaking of judging and condemning an entire group based on the actions of a percentage of that group. What other groups do you apply this logic to? Those who posses guns? Those who drive cars? Those who drink alcohol?
Great, again, what other crimes should be punished based on the actions of others rather than that of the individual in question?"
You continue to ignore the people on whom we're focused. Are gun owners teaching using guns for criminal behaviors? Do drivers teach reckless, dangerous driving? Do those who drink alcohol teach drinking to excess? What does islam teach?
"You are correct, we do not welcome "known criminals" or those who are "known" for various other things. Unfortunately you are advocating for changing the "known" criteria "suspected" or "guilt by association"."
What people is the subject of this discussion?
"Oh, I get that discriminating against individuals based on actions or beliefs that the individuals might not have done or agree with is efficient and easy. In what other areas of life do you prioritize "efficient" and "easy" over all else?"
Who are we talking about, Craig?
"You can repeat your opinions as often as you want, I'm not likely to be persuaded that "punishing" or judging in individual based on the actions of others is the best course of action. I'm also not a big fan of "guilt by association", but you do you."
How sweet. I'm not a big fan of welcoming those who teach hatred and annihilation of another group of people. But you do you.
"The gun argument is exactly the same argument you are making."
Not even close. Guns aren't people, they're things. They're incapable of acting on their own volition for good or ill. Guns don't seek out Jews for extermination. Guns don't celebrate when others kill Jews.
"As far as your "operate of their own volition" canard, you seem to be suggesting that "Muslims" are incapable of or unlikely to "act of their own volition"."
That's the point. They are capable and the more devoted to the RoP, the more they are likely to act on their taught volition that Jews are pigs. (Clumsy use of the word, but I think my meaning is clear)
"Your entire argument seems to hinge on the US allowing immigration based on the potential value of an individual to the US, while simultaneously dismissing the potential value of an individual without even bothering to actually determine that value of that individual."
Only where muslims are concerned based on their 1400 year history of murder, rape and conquest of non-muslims for allah's sake.
"Like it or not, the entire premise of Operation Paperclip and bringing of NAZI scientists to the US as WW2 ended, was that their value as individuals transcended the actions they'd engaged in or supported as NAZIs."
Do you think they were in a position to do harm? Do you think they had any desire to attempt to f**k with those who destroyed their plans of conquest?
"Are you really suggesting that "guilt by association" is a better metric than individual value?"
I'm suggesting that muslims have earned the honor of being regarded as a uniquely dangerous commodity unlike any other people and thus deserving of a degree of scrutiny which recognizes that fact. When you can figure out a foolproof means by which we can separate the wheat from the chaff, thereby preventing harm to our own people, let me know.
I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either culture shapes people or people shape culture. In the case of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam their cultures were shaped hundreds/thousands of years ago. It's strange that Britain has a population that is 7% Muslim and is turning into a shit hole, yet Singapore has a population that is 17% Muslim and has none of the problems of Britain. Perhaps the problem isn't as simplistic as just making assumptions about all Muslims.
How bizarre. Hamas currently controls Gaza and is responsible for all of the acts of terrorism against Israel, yet you somehow have a problem with Hamas being overthrown because what comes next might be worse. I guess the devil you know is better, huh? So far, those fighting Hamas haven't expressed anything about Israel, but please make whatever assumptions you want to about the future. It's pretty simple, we know Hamas is evil and getting rid of them via an uprising of Gazans is a positive step. It certainly would overturn the Narrative. If the new regime proves hostile to Israel then they continue on their current path.
Well, if you don't care and make unproven assertions, then you must be right. As I note, Muslims are almost twice the percentage of the population of Singapore than Britain, yet we see nothing in Singapore that is even close to the UK. Maybe it's less about Islam and more about other aspects of culture. In the UK, we know that the majority of the Muslims that are problems are from Pakistan, and we know that Pakistani culture has some aspects that are not accepted by Islam more broadly (inbreeding being a big one). So why conclude that it is Islamic, rather than Pakistani culture that is the problem in the UK?
Yes we know that there are individual Muslims in the US that are radicalized, and we know that there are Mosques where radical Islamic beliefs are taught. So your solution is to get rid of every Muslim (regardless of their level of radicalization), rather than to simply get rid of the radicals. I'll note that you breaking out "radical" Muslims demonstrates that even you realize that individual beliefs, behaviors, and actions are important.
Yes, some.
I get it, you'd choose the "easy and efficient" way regardless of whether or not it's a good way, let alone the right way. The Cadet Prayer at West Point talks about choosing the "harder...instead of the easier". Everyone who's ever exercised knows that easy in not the proper technique. But you stick with easy and efficient.
You're right, it's not an exact parallel because Von Braun wasn't just some random German, he was actually a fairly high ranking NAZI. He, at a minimum, stood by as war crimes were committed under his leadership. But sure, as long as you say so.
I'm not desperate in the least. If anything I'm amused by your steadfast clinging to what's easy and efficient, and to judging people by the actions of others. Why in the world would a conservative argue in favor of individual responsibility and against guilt by association.
Yes, some gun owners, drivers, and alcoholics teach other to abuse those things. Strangely enough, we don't blame (well liberals do) the majority for the actions of the minority. Also strangely enough, we don't see all Muslims who teach or believe the same things as the (your term) radicals. Further, we do see Muslims who can subordinate some teachings of their faith in order to live in other cultures. I get it, it's easy and efficient to have one standard for Muslims, and one for others.
The "people" that are the subject of the original post are those Gazans who are fighting back against Hamas and the ASPL/MSM who choose the Narrative over the Truth. You've somehow decided to ignore the topic of the post to return to your same old "Muslims are guilty by association and shouldn't be judged by their individual actions" shtick.
I'm asking a simple question. In what other areas of life (except the immigration of Muslims) do you prefer the "easy and efficient" path above all other options?
I understand that it's difficult for you to distinguish the difference on this issue, but I'm not advocating blindly allowing those who "teach hatred..." into the country. I AM advocating that we not simply broad brush everyone in a group based on the actions/words/beliefs of others in the group. IAM advocating the harder, less efficient, approach of screening ALL those who wish to immigrate to the US and deciding based on their individual beliefs/actions. I AM advocating a zero tolerance policy for those who might be tempted to lie to get in.
No, it is exactly the same argument. The ASPL argument for banning guns is; "because less than 1% of people who have guns use them to commit crimes, that we simply prevent everyone from having guns". It's based on judging the majority of people who have guns on the actions of the minority. Nice goal posts move though.
Some are, and they should be dealt with based on their individual actions.
It's strange that some (large) percentage of Muslims manage to live their entire lives without engaging in these sorts of behaviors. It's almost like some Muslims have enough self control to live in non Muslim countries and play by the rules.
Hell yes they were in a position to do harm. Yeah, I suspect that there's a natural tendency for people to be a little pissed at the people who just bombed their country back to the stone age.
Yes, I understand. You are demanding that Muslims be held to a standard that no other people group be held to and that no matter what their individual beliefs, actions, and behaviors are that they will always be judged on the actions of others.
The problem with your wheat/chaff analogy is that the goal of separation is to get rid of the chaff only. You're approach simply throws out the wheat because there might be some chaff. My approach is that we actually DO separate the wheat from the chaff, not ignore the separation process entirely.
"To say that people are the same all over the world is a concept totally discredited by the existence of islam"
I guess I'm confused by this. I was under the impression that all of humanity was created in and continues to bear the image of YHWH (The Imago Dei), and that humanity was created to be in a relationship with YHWH until sin severed that relationship. I've been told that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of YHWH", have I been misinformed? Do Muslims have some special status which renders them materially different from any other sinful human? Do Muslims not fall under the mantle of "the world" which YHWH sent His only Son to save? I would have thought that the appropriate response of Christians when dealing with Muslims would be to share Christ's love with them. I would have thought that "loving your enemies" would have included Muslims.
Finally, if a Muslim did convert to Christianity, why would you not always distrust their conversion as them lying to advance their faith?
At this point, I really have nothing else but to point out how ridiculous this conversation has become.
"Yes, some gun owners, drivers, and alcoholics teach other to abuse those things."
Really? Who are these alleged teachers? Name a few. Provide a link. Unlike Dan, I'll actually read and study it. I'll note that you changed "drinkers of alcohol" to "alcoholics". They're not the same.
"I get it, it's easy and efficient to have one standard for Muslims"
You don't get it if you insist on dismissing the uniqueness of islam which justly puts them in their own category greatly distinct from all others.
"You've somehow decided to ignore the topic of the post to return to your same old "Muslims are guilty by association and shouldn't be judged by their individual actions" shtick."
Actually, my comments have all been related to your post, particularly that part at the end where you question how anyone could support islam. Indeed, your posts continue to validate my position of regarding the unique character of islam in a unique way. I appreciate the assist.
"I'm asking a simple question. In what other areas of life (except the immigration of Muslims) do you prefer the "easy and efficient" path above all other options?"
A simple-minded question and not especially honest. Plus, it's quite vague. I see no need to explore other possibilities in a specific discussion about a specific people. Maybe another time.
"I understand that it's difficult for you to distinguish the difference on this issue..."
So...you understand that which is not the case? OK. Good for you???
" I AM advocating that we not simply broad brush everyone in a group based on the actions/words/beliefs of others in the group."
They are part of the group because they believe the teachings of the group. How do you determine that a given individual doesn't believe every teaching?
" It's based on judging the majority of people who have guns on the actions of the minority. Nice goal posts move though."
I've moved nothing. Can't say the same for you because those who use guns illegally are similar to those I would deny entry. Islam teaches murdering those who won't convert. The tool they use to do so, just as with criminals who abuse guns, doesn't matter. The difference is that murder is taught to muslims. Murder isn't taught to gun owners. I'm denying murderers, not the means by which they commit murder. Banning guns is stupid because we can't insist that a particular gun won't simply be replaced by the use of another gun or weapon. Banning entry to those who preach murder...and their adherents...is not at all the same.
"It's strange that some (large) percentage of Muslims manage to live their entire lives without engaging in these sorts of behaviors. It's almost like some Muslims have enough self control to live in non Muslim countries and play by the rules."
Dumb luck on the part of whatever nation allowed them entry. How did they affirm that such people weren't likely to be radicalized enough to perpetrate heinous acts? How did they affirm that such people, even if they weren't likely radicalized to that extent would not be likely to join in the fun if they believed they wouldn't face consequences, or that they wouldn't aid and abet those who are? Because their RoP teaches them of the glories and rewards which await them in paradise for killing Jews, the potential for them to follow through is exponentially higher than for those who are just influenced by, say, communist government policy. Again, we're discussing a people unique in the world for whom there is no other like them.
"Hell yes they were in a position to do harm. Yeah, I suspect that there's a natural tendency for people to be a little pissed at the people who just bombed their country back to the stone age."
You misunderstand and again are trying to suggest a false equivalency. First, their ideology doesn't preach about eternal rewards for murdering anyone. Second, they weren't brought here as anyone not of an enemy force and were not necessarily invited like a foreign ally, allowed to roam about at will. I've no doubt they were heavily guarded and monitored. So no, they weren't really in a position to do harm and likely weren't of a mind to.
"Yes, I understand. You are demanding that Muslims be held to a standard that no other people group be held to and that no matter what their individual beliefs, actions, and behaviors are that they will always be judged on the actions of others."
No you don't. You've perverted my position as if I'm speaking of just anyone who has not come out of a culture of death and hatred. Again, there is no other culture like this one. I don't give a flying rat's ass how I'm regarded for caring about the safety of my people. I won't subordinate their safety to the high regard of anyone.
"The problem with your wheat/chaff analogy is that the goal of separation is to get rid of the chaff only."
Exactly. You've no foolproof means by which to guarantee all the chaff will be removed, which is the freakin' point. You're well aware of the adage that we need to be right 100% of the time.
"You're approach simply throws out the wheat because there might be some chaff."
My approach assumes no wheat at all as the starting point. Deny them all until those few grains of wheat can be accurately and perfectly discovered and let them in. How will we do that? What's the plan? Will anyone criticize us for not letting any in until we can? Who cares? No one will die by the hands of a jihadist if they aren't allowed to cross our borders. I'm good with that.
Immigration is for OUR benefit. Deny immigration of suspect people is for OUR benefit.
Post a Comment