Reply With Quote
no, even regarding the many muslims here who support suicide bombing according to your polls
I don't live in a Muslim majority country I don't have much to worry about.
no, even regarding the many muslims here who support suicide bombing according to your polls
That just talks about suicide bombings in general. Doesn't distinguish between civilian or enemy targets.
Wrong again
More than eight-in-ten American Muslims say suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets are never justified (81%) or rarely justified (5%) to defend Islam from its enemies. Worldwide, most Muslims also reject this type of violence, with a median of 72% saying such attacks are never justified and 10% saying they are rarely justified.
A civilian is not an enemy target such as a combatant or base. The question distinctly said civilian target for a reason.
So to sum up, you're still terrified of all Muslims based on the actions of a handful of middle eastern extremists.
yeah we're definitely on the path to sharia law
I can't figure out how the words....radical, extremist...can be used when talking Islam. We can use the word...moderate. Violence vs those dreaded infidels is Islam, just read a Koran, there it is. Killing off those that will not convert is not radical, it;'s not being the extreme, it's simply doing what is suppose to be done if you are a good Muslim.
well there's a in surprise
Triple bump for Pakistan
smh....evil losers.
they just hate pakistan for their freedoms and democracy and western way of life
yeah my friend ahmed in IT was just saying how the infidels in pakistan should die a firey death
because islamic fundamentalism is ty and places that outright condone fundamentalism and border on theocracy (ie practice sharia) are ty places to live
saying im fine with people trying to escape ty middle east countries and taking safe harbor here is different than saying i approve of everything middle east countries stand for. that's a stupid strawman that i hear all the time (like when people ask "why do liberals like muslims when their countries oppress women and gays"). it's not a matter of liking those policies, and never has been.
when my parents family fled the soviet union and immigrated to the US, they were trying to escape communism/oppression... and the US taking them in wasn't a subtle acceptance of communism or soviet policies.
if a muslim family is trying to escape islamic fundamentalism by leaving one of their countries, and instead are choosing to live in the US, where they know they aren't getting sharia and all that , shouldn't we support those people who are in fact, spurning fundamentalism?
Last edited by spurraider21; 06-24-2017 at 12:12 AM.
Absolutely, but only after extreme vetting.
yeah, i think that's fair. the system we have now appears to be working here, though. the refugee process to get to the US is painstakingly long as it is, and we haven't had waves of refugee violence here. i think some areas of europe ed up to a degree by allowing pockets of sharia to actually have a place in the legal system (albeit limited).
we haven't seen anything like that here, even with 8 years of an allegedly muslim president. believe me, if the US ever tried to shove religion into the legal system (whether it be islam or any other religion) i'll be right there with you fighting that tooth and nail
define extreme vetting.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/tr...in-immigrants/
Extreme vetting is basically calling for references before hiring someone. Not a tall order and it is certainly not racist.A new visa application implemented by the State Department works to fulfill President Trump’s goal of “extreme vetting.”
The application, which will expire in six months, requires potential immigrants or visitors to give 15 years of biographical information and five years worth of social media accounts. It also asks for travel history for the past 15 years, and phone numbers and email addresses used during the past five years.
A posting in the Federal Register says it implements a directive of President Trump’s to ensure “the proper collection of all information necessary to rigorously evaluate all grounds of inadmissibility or deportability, or grounds for the denial of other immigration benefits.” Reuters reported that the new application was approved on May 23.
It will apply to visa applicants “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.” The government estimates that 0.5 percent, or around 65,000 visa applicants, annually will fit this “threat profile.”
what was included in the vetting process of the previous administration?
For refugees -
Refugee screening
Refugees identify themselves to the U.N's refugee program. They are interviewed.
A resettlement center reviews the refugee's do ents.
Those from the Middle East undergo an iris scan.
The FBI, Homeland Security, Department of State, and National Counterterrorism Center screen the refugee.
Homeland Security conducts interviews, collects fingerprints, and looks for fraud.
A medical check is conducted.
Applicants attend cultural orientation classes.
Applicants are booked for travel to the United States. They are screened again by U.S. Customs.
Within a year of their arrival, applicants must apply for a green card.
Difference with this administration is that ICE and the DHS can actually 'enforce' the law.
Also the definition of a refugee under the Obama 'regime' was extremely vague and opaque thus we were flooded with everyone and their dogs claiming refugee from Timbuktu to Constantinople.
still, seems to check a lot of the boxes tbh... and the results have been reflected
and IF the problem was that the former administration didn't give ICE/DHS enough teeth, the current administration could do so without overhauling the entire procedure
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
