this is quite possibly the dumbest comment I read over and over from leftists. They read some dope from slate or huffpo and they repeat the foolishness. 1. one death is too many when it comes from a terrorist who did not have to be here. but more perhaps even more importantly... Future terrorist acts are not limited in scope or size by previous terrorist acts. Why on earth do you all keep using such ridiculously poor logic.
You are absolutely right. Except you should have written "You'd", not "you'll". Why?, because I am human. Of course these events are terrible for those directly affected. This has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative", political philosophy. You present yourself as a poorly educated fool. I hope that is not the case, but if it is , the chances are slight that you have anything to contribute here. I have respect for you as a fellow human being, but perhaps it is in your best interest to remain silent.
jem, this is an emotional rather than logical response. It is understandable nevertheless. When we grow up we don't lose our empathy nor our emotions, but we are better able to understand. This is a horrible tragedy for those directly affected. We must not however, under any circumstance, no matter how horrible, throw logic out the window. That takes maturity to recognize and act accordingly. It takes maturity to keep a grip on reality in the face of something truly awful and heart rending. I am not unmindful how difficult these times are for those directly affected.
my response was empathetic and logical. and I noticed you avoided the major point. immigration risks huge loss of life. but even your point about logic is illogical. 1. there is no reason to let anyone immigrate in our country until we can screen out potential terrorists. hence any death caused by an immigrant is one death to many. if you want to talk humanitarian concerns which I too share. lets help these people in their home countries or close to their home countries where they can still be near their family and friends. its far more humanitarian and its better for them and us. it also helps wages and keeps carbon footprints smaller. my policy is win, win, win, win with no downside. your policy results in death... and it could result in massive death. so good immigrants get displaced and removed from their homeland and bad immigrants get to kill people we spend more money on them they depress wages they increase global warming. immigration is a lose, lose, lose... big loss.
Ah yes...this again. The prize winning argument of the non-thinker. There are very few muslims in the US. That's why the odds of being killed by a terrorist here are so low. Trying to say they are not a threat simply because we're killed more by lightning is dumb. It's like saying "Hey, Polio hasn't killed any American since the 1970s so we don't really need a polio vaccine anymore" I'd love to see the odds of an American being killed by a terrorist in Syria now. See if the odds go up when you increase the number of muslims.
Jem, screening of immigrants will always be imperfect. We will never be able to eliminate the possibility of those who immigrate becoming radicalized after they are here. We may be able to improve our screening. It may be that we need to reconsider who we let into the country. Nevertheless, these acts of terrorism are the result of ideology and influence. Those factors will always be with us, and have always been with us. We are likely already doing what we reasonably can, and maybe more than is reasonable to prevent these horrible attacks. There is one sure way to greatly reduce terrorism in our own country. We have never tried it, and if we did the result would be far from instantaneous. And too, it might be less satisfactory then putting up a few of our own citizens being slaughtered from time to time. Terrorism in our own country would be greatly reduced, to extremely rare occasions at the worst, if we were to avoid doing anything that would make people want to commit these acts against us. I'll just give you a few examples of things we have done that have put Americans in harms way. Invading countries that have not attacked you on "Trumped" up charges, is a poor way to make friends. You can get by with disagreeing; with disagreeing vehemently; with refusing to trade, and other sanctions, but when you start invading and killing, watch out. When you interfere in another countries election, or conspire to depose their elected leader and replace them with someone you prefer, watch out. Your not going to be well received in that country. When you mine another countries harbor, don't be surprised if the people in that country do not like you anymore. When you interfere in another countries civil war, don't be surprised when they try to kill you. When you blockade another country's energy supply, you shouldn't be surprised when they attack you. They're over here, jem, because we are over there. Don't be surprised when killing them gets you killed in retribution. Actions have consequences. So when you kill people in other countries, do not be surprised when they return the favor. And all the good intentions in the world won't matter.
It is my opinion based on thinking. No, I have no Media Matters presentation. Nor have I relied on google. I know that is radical and perhaps not even acceptable anymore. In regard to statistics on applicants without "vettable" backgrounds I rely on the fact that I heard at length during the Syria refugee debates that many/most fell in that category and it was for that reason so many lefties were advocating in favor of them. I accept the fact that it is true, because who would have a need to make it up. Why would there be heated demands to let people in without background documentation who were fleeing a war zone if the people had documentation or circumstances that could be vetted? Some of those points come up when people kick and scream about how some people have been waiting for years already and now trump wants to vet them even more, type of thing. And they argue, that if you haven't been able to find out anything about them in two years, how are you going to suddenly do it now. They say it is time to let them in then. I say no. The default is that they therefore cannot be let in. They say the default is that they are entitled to be let in. That type of thing.
Surely you jest. You are of the ilk that finds a snake in a crib with a baby and immediately wants to know what the baby did wrong. The lefty community is wall to wall with people who side with muslims in arguing that radical islam is a result of a fundamental failure by the west to understand or tolerate islam. And the fundamentalists argue that if westerners just converted to Islam then that would be the end of it. Here is a wake up call for you. And listen very, very carefully. NO ONE BUT NO ONE KILLS MORE MUSLIMS ON THIS EARTH THAN OTHER MUSLIMS. Thanking you in advance for your reflection on this point.
You can argue that if you have no information then you have no basis for a decision and the default position should be not to let them in. There is some merit to that argument. But it would be made much stronger if there were any numbers to show, for example, what is incidence, so far, of terrorists among immigrants from Syria in countries that are allowing them haven. That data is probably available.