Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[Craig B]

It would be just lovely if you could read my posts and arguments for a change, you know?

It's about defeating the terrorists, nothing else. Is that so hard to grasp?

McHrozni

No it's so crude it's only too easy to "grasp". The problem is, it's senseless, unjust and provocative. Also, as I have shown, it's redolent of the xenophobic religious harassment that debased the political system in the U.K. and elsewhere in past centuries. I have given evidence to support my argument. Can you do the same in return, to sustain yours?

 

[Fudbucker]

You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims? The fact that Muslims in general express no such desire and don't engage in violence isn't enough. They must all publicly denounce their holy books! You really can't understand why that's objectionable.

OK I've said I don't require all Jews to renounce illegal occupation of various lands, on pain of holding them responsible, each and every one, for these usurpations. From now on you won't find it objectionable if I require the Jewish community here publicly to denounce the Tanakh, which of course contains many passages mandating and celebrating the occupation of these very lands, and indeed the massacre of their inhabitants.

If I start a campaign along these lines, you won't understand why that might reasonably be considered objectionable?

You ideas contain some very familiar xenophobic themes. They are an exact copy of former manifestations of anti-catholicism^WP.

After the Reformation and until at least the late 20th Century, majority Protestant states (especially England, Germany, the United States, and Canada) made anti-Catholicism and opposition to the Pope and Catholic rituals major political themes, with anti-Catholic sentiment at times leading to violence and religious discrimination against Catholic individuals (often derogatorily referred to in Anglophone Protestant countries as "papists" or "Romanists"). Historically, Catholics in Protestant countries were frequently (and almost always baselessly) suspected of conspiring against the state in furtherance of papal interests or to establish a political hegemony under the "Papacy", with Protestants sometimes questioning Catholic individuals' loyalty to the state and suspecting Catholics of ultimately maintaining loyalty to the Vatican rather than their domiciled country.​

Here's another of your eminent precursors.

As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.​

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), Sir WIlliam Blackstone, Offences Against God and Religion. For Sir William, was it enough that "papists" should be peaceful neighbours, law abiding citizens? No, they must also collectively and jointly "renounce the supremacy of the Pope". Who could possibly object to that? Did they? No. What happened? Nothing. In 1829 they were emancipated. What damage did that do to the UK? None at all.

I would agree with this except for the fact that Muslims in certain countries have some really abhorrent beliefs.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01...ddle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/

I would have no problem restricting immigration from countries like Bangladesh and Egypt.

 

[Craig B]

I would agree with this except for the fact that Muslims in certain countries have some really abhorrent beliefs.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01...ddle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/

I would have no problem restricting immigration from countries like Bangladesh and Egypt.

So you would restrict immigration not on account of what immigrants believe, but because of the incidence of belief in the countries they come from? Even if they don't personally profess these beliefs?

ETA Additionally, these figures seem to fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, obviously reflecting attitudes towards particular events involving these countries. See http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01...ddle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-11/

 

[Fudbucker]

So you would restrict immigration not on account of what immigrants believe, but because of the incidence of belief in the countries they come from? Even if they don't personally profess these beliefs?

Yes.

ETA Additionally, these figures seem to fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, obviously reflecting attitudes towards particular events involving these countries. See http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01...ddle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-11/

It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I wonder if you have actually red any of my posts thus far.

I'm edging towards no, you haven't, you're just replying to various combinations of characters you saw on the screen. Prove me wrong if you can.

McHrozni

I have to prove you wrong?

Or what?

You'll continue avoiding substantive replies to my posts?

All you have is veiled jabs to offer, why would I change from a successful approach that leaves you stammering and unable to counter it?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Yes.



It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?

So 20% of a group of people believing something you find abhorrent means 100% of them should be barred from entry. How should the other 80% who have done nothing wrong feel about that?

I think there's a good to fair chance that you just pushed even more people in the direction of 'well they just hate us, so maybe it is justified.'

 

[Fudbucker]

So 20% of a group of people believing something you find abhorrent means 100% of them should be barred from entry. How should the other 80% who have done nothing wrong feel about that?

I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".

I think there's a good to fair chance that you just pushed even more people in the direction of 'well they just hate us, so maybe it is justified.'

If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".

Says the person who is predicating their allowing someone from a given country to come here on what a poll of people in that country 'feel'.

If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.

It's more the fact that the denial comes in the form of "because you people <insert broad, insulting stereotype based on a minority held opinion here>"

I also said it pushes people in that direction, not that it becomes the sole and entire basis for it. Telling someone that the bad behavior other people who look kinda like them or come from the same geographic area as them is the metric they are to be judged by tends to piss them off. That doesn't excuse turning to violence, but it does have predictable effects in terms of increasing hostility and alienation between people.

 

[Craig B]

Yes.

That is, you will exclude them on account of the beliefs prevalent in their countries, even if the individuals don't share them. Let us call that proposition A

It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?

But proposition A means we attribute the beliefs of the 20% to the other 80%, which makes no sense. Of course I would want most of them in my country, because your own figures show that most of them are not "people like that". You will want to interview immigrants anyway, and at that point you can investigate their personal attitudes to murders of that kind.

But perhaps you're following the idiot ideas of your President elect, who wants to exclude people on account of his assessment of their country, not the people themselves. There's no need for you to be as silly as he is. After all, you're not the President, unless your post is a disguised Trump tweet.

 

[A'isha]

It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

We know for a fact that drone strikes can, will, and often do kill innocent civilians.

58% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes. So 58% of Americans think that civilians deaths can be justified.

I'll admit the presentation of that question doesn't involve 'targeting' civilians, but since we know that is a probable and predictable outcome, it becomes a distinction without a difference. We have a desired goal or outcome in mind, that goal or outcome necessarily will include innocent people being killed, and we overwhelmingly support that goal or outcome. The only difference between the questions, then, is 'does an unknown rationalization excuse it' vs. 'does a known rationalization excuse it.'

 

[Craig B]

I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".

Exactly so. But it's you who are basing your migration policies on "feelings of random citizen from country X". Those who disagree are saying that you should base them on the acts and opinions of the particular applicants for immigration.

If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.

This is just incoherent abuse, but nevertheless I suspect it represents your real feelings more honestly than the various tables and data which you have been presenting to us up to now.

 

[McHrozni]

I have to prove you wrong?

Or what?

You'll continue avoiding substantive replies to my posts?

All you have is veiled jabs to offer, why would I change from a successful approach that leaves you stammering and unable to counter it?

All your replies to date were attacks agains me for points I did't make, and when I point it out you claim I'm avoiding substantive answers?

I think we're done here, at least until you learn some shame. It would do you good to read the posts the other person writes too, while you're at it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Again you are not actually coming up with an estimate you are simply pulling a figure that you consider appropriate out of thin air and then using that to support your claims. So once again why do you think you get to set the appropriate level of protest for 1 or 7 billion people?

If your entire argument is that you think I'm unqualified to make that estimate then please explain who would be qualified.

While you're at it you should also explain what gives you the right to decide who can make such estimates and who can't. You know, pot and kettle thing?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

No it's so crude it's only too easy to "grasp". The problem is, it's senseless, unjust and provocative.

Please substantiate all three. Why is it senseless to call for non-extremist Muslims to grasp the narrative away from the crazies, why is it unjust (??) and why is it provocative?

What do you think it would provoke anyway?

McHrozni

 

[Fudbucker]

Says the person who is predicating their allowing someone from a given country to come here on what a poll of people in that country 'feel'.

Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?

It's more the fact that the denial comes in the form of "because you people <insert broad, insulting stereotype based on a minority held opinion here>"

If the minority opinion is over 20%, and the opinion is, it's ok to blow people up to protect religious ideology X, yes we're going to factor that in to our immigration policies (or we should). This has nothing to do with "you people". If people from Poland felt this way, I wouldn't want them here.

I also said it pushes people in that direction, not that it becomes the sole and entire basis for it. Telling someone that the bad behavior other people who look kinda like them or come from the same geographic area as them is the metric they are to be judged by tends to piss them off.

Can we stop pandering to Islamic people like they're knee-jerk knuckledragging morons? If country X doesn't want Americans, is that going to push you in some direction? Radicalize you? You talk about Muslims like they're two-year olds, ready to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation.

That doesn't excuse turning to violence, but it does have predictable effects in terms of increasing hostility and alienation between people.

So do a lot of things. I don't go through life tip-toeing around people for fear that some provocation will set them off. In the end, people choose to hate, be pissed off, and be offended. We're under no obligation to allow anyone to come here. If someone doesn't like it, they can go to some other country.

 

[Fudbucker]

What it comes down to, is do we use profiling when it comes to immigration? Do people from certain regions, if we allow them in at all, have to go through some form of extreme vetting that we normally wouldn't require from, say, Central America? I think it's obvious that we should do this, and very careless if we just assume every person from every country carries the same amount of risk.

 

[Giz]

Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?



If the minority opinion is over 20%, and the opinion is, it's ok to blow people up to protect religious ideology X, yes we're going to factor that in to our immigration policies (or we should). This has nothing to do with "you people". If people from Poland felt this way, I wouldn't want them here.



Can we stop pandering to Islamic people like they're knee-jerk knuckledragging morons? If country X doesn't want Americans, is that going to push you in some direction? Radicalize you? You talk about Muslims like they're two-year olds, ready to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation.



So do a lot of things. I don't go through life tip-toeing around people for fear that some provocation will set them off. In the end, people choose to hate, be pissed off, and be offended. We're under no obligation to allow anyone to come here. If someone doesn't like it, they can go to some other country.

/end debate

 

[Fudbucker]

[qimg]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f16/aishap/gfhduttxaueh0crpgmnwna_zps4f2vqbwd.gif[/qimg]

That is quite a different question, as you well know. I would answer "sometimes" to that one, because the end goal isn't specified. Do we bomb the civilians working at an armaments factory of the country we're at war with? Quite possibly. Do we bomb them to defend a religious ideology? Absolutely not.

 

[Craig B]

Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?

One of the reasons that might incline N Koreans, or Egyptians, to wish to migrate to the USA, or the Uk or some other country, is that they are unhappy with the political situation in their own. That is why a decision about whether to admit such applicants should be made on the basis of the character of the applicant, not on the results of a survey of the country from which they come.

Of course Trump has promoted the idiotic view that you have embraced, about countries. This is a return to a pretty awful former US immigration policy, and is a clear cover for the racism that, following the Civil Rights Act, no longer openly "dares to speak its name", but has to hide behind other alleged motives.