patrick.net

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

tatupu70 says

Exactly. But you don't persecute them until after they have committed a crime. That's the point. Unless you are now considering being Muslim as a crime.

It's kind of like child molesters. Once they get out, you can put them on Meghan's Law and make them register, but you can't persecute them until they commit a crime (again). You know they probably want to go molest a kid, but you can't do anything until they actually go and shoot up a Christmas party . . . I mean touch little Billy.

I guess that's not exactly the same, but Muslims do share an identical "rules book" which clearly and unequivocally calls for violence, war, lies, and distrust of the "Kaffir." If they are a true Muslim, that's how they feel about YOU.

At this point I don't consider Islam a true religion, but a barbaric death cult.
Satanists are more charitable.

errc says

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Except I don't think Our Dear Leader has ever read anything as mundane and practical as Sun Tzu. Chairman Mao was more his style.

Muslim, jihadist, and Islam all require genocide for everyone but themselves. It's naive to give any of those groups the cover of a Religion?

reggie says

It's naive to give any of those groups the cover of a Religion?

yes, that's the central problem now.

islam is clearly a religion but it is also a very violent political movement, and always was.

it uses the cover of religion against do-gooders who mean well, but its goal is explicitly to remove secular government and replace it with sharia. whether or not muslims want sharia is only a matter of how devout they are.

tatupu70 says

Exactly. But you don't persecute them until after they have committed a crime. That's the point. Unless you are now considering being Muslim as a crime.

^ ROFL. nice job, mate.

Yawn.
When it comes to what is right (or good) and what is wrong (or bad/evil), it really doesn't matter what The Constitution says. It's not perfect.
Like, saying a slave is only three-fifths of a person. Or even sanctioning slavery. Or prohibition.

Quigley says

but you can't persecute them

Don't you mean prosecute?

P N Dr Lo R says

but you can't persecute them

Don't you mean prosecute?

It all depends on the STATUE of limitations

P N Dr Lo R says

Don't you mean prosecute?

Well, obviously you can't prosecute someone until they are accused of a crime. But treating one differently based on their religion is persecuting them.

I meant persecute, exactly the way tatupu described it. We need to treat Muslims differently because of their barbaric genocidal religion/cult, the same as we treat wild jackals differently than chihuahuas. There's room to be humane, but not for trust.

treating islam as if it were simply a matter of personal beliefs in private time, like most other religions, is simply lying about the central nature of the religion. islam explicitly instructs war.

You may be right, but still, attacking all Muslims is the wrong way to go about it.
The last thing you want to do is create 2 groups based on religion, with 1.6 billions Muslims in 1 group - against you.
In that sense what Trump said is stupid. I think he said it for republicans but didn't realize how that plays in a wider context.

The right way to go about it, is to calmly point at the most violent rules (stoning, amputations, killings), talk to moderate Muslims, and ask them "is this really what you stand for?" and pull them away from it. Ask them to clearly and repetitively state that they don't believe in this. This is not being done now. And Trump wasted an opportunity to do something like that.

Oh jeez. I don't agree with Trump on everything. In some ways his rise in politics is similar to Hitler's (Goebbels and The Big Lie).

That said, no non-Americans have a right to enter our country.

Excluding non-Americans is not denying them a right that they never had, anyway.

And excluding is not attacking. It's only excluding.

I don't understand your post.
There is a lot of non-americans that come in the US perfectly legally: tourists, temporary workers, immigrant workers, etc...
There is also a lot of Muslims Americans that are not "non-Americans".
And sure I can replace the word "attacking" with "excluding" in my post and it stands. I'm talking of the group dynamic.

B.A.C.A.H. says

That said, no non-Americans have a right to enter our country.

Excluding non-Americans is not denying them a right that they never had, anyway.

And excluding is not attacking. It's only excluding.

What's lost in the Immigration discussion is that immigrants are to benefit the United States, meaning it's current citizens.

Too many regressive lefties and their neoliberal pals act like immigration is a right. "The Free Movement of People Across Borders" is pure bullshit.

If immigration were the secret to prosperity, the Eastern Provinces of India would be the new Switzerland.

One thing we certainly do not need is more unskilled people. We have millions of native unskilled immigrants with high levels of unemployment.

Real Asylum Seekers are those who are educated reformers threatened with imprisonment or death for attempt to bring democracy, women's rights, free speech, and freedom of religion. Those would be a few thousand globally per year at best.

Most immigrants are coming for economic, not political reasons. They retain their allegiance to their culture and religion. And no, Irish and Italians and Ashkenazi Jews are very compatible with the West; our 1500 year rivals, even more than that if you extend that to the Persian Empire, are not.

Attacking's hyperbole, "everyone's a victim".

Yes, lotsa non-Americans enter our country. But none of them have a "right" to. Excluding them for any reason, fair or unfair, arbitrary or whatever, isn't denying them a right, because they never had a right to enter in the first place.

thunderlips11 says

Real Asylum Seekers are those who are educated reformers threatened with imprisonment or death for attempt to bring democracy, women's rights, free speech, and freedom of religion. Those would be a few thousand globally per year at best.

People who can contribute to the economy, in other words. So brilliant and yet so simple

thunderlips11 says

Too many regressive lefties and their neoliberal pals act like immigration is a right. "The Free Movement of People Across Borders" is pure bullshit

Yes, some of the asshats on this site complain of h1-B visa holders immigrating legally and actually contributing to the economy. Those guys sure as hell didn't vote for Romney last time.

Of course it would be unfair to the majority of Muslims, who are in fact reasonable and good human beings in spite of the example of Mohammed and in spite of the Koran. But let's wait for a few more massacres of random civilians and see what happens. Just about the only thing you can really count on is that serious and truthful Muslims will continue to massacre random unarmed civilians. Then only question is when they will do it again, not if.

I have an idea. Let's keep only those muslims that drink alcohol. There are plenty that don't take religion that seriously.
Now, what test would you suggest to get rid of fundamental Christians that may go shooting into an abortion clinic?

I think we can stand the four instances of abortion clinic shootings in recorded history. It's the thousands of Muslim attacks that are the issue here.

Quigley says

I think we can stand the four instances of abortion clinic shootings in recorded history. It's the thousands of Muslim attacks that are the issue here.

Also you can easily put armed guards into the clinics for protection because you know the target. With Paris-style attacks you have no idea what the target will be. Paris-style attacks are completely different - because in their nature indifferent - style of attacks. So the anti-abortion-shooter argument - while often brought up - doesn't hold.

In Britain, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428146/more-than-few-islamic-extremists

zzyzzx says

In Britain, more Muslims join ISIS than join the British army.

But certain Brits swear up and down and make ad hominem attacks to support Islamic immigration

Wow. At first we thought 1% were radicals, then it was 10%. Now it's 50%++.
Why do I get the feeling this number is headed for 72??? A terrorists favorite number.