Donald Trump

[Jack Knave]

M, if a cop can't drive to work in his uniform it's a no go area, I would have thought?

A No-Go-Area is where they can't go at all and would only enter it fully armed, all guns blazing!!! Think NI.

[Shaker]

Yes...I know that.

You didn't seem to.

Just read my post.

I did, I'm afraid.

If we cannot filter out the terrorists from the other muslims...then it means one and the same thing.

What exactly does it mean? That a sizable subset of the population are prevented from moving freely through being tarred with guilt by association by this combed-over cretin?

[Sriram]

The question is very simple, Shaker.  How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the muslim migrants?

[Shaker]

The question is very simple, Shaker.  How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the muslim migrants?

I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.

[Sriram]

I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.

You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority. It appears to be growing. And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!

[Jack Knave]

Just to be the Devil's Advocate....what's wrong in Trump saying that terrorists should be stopped from entering the country? All countries would want that. 

The fact is that, given the way terrorism has evolved and become naturalized among certain groups of muslims, it is near impossible to identify  who is a terrorist and who is not.  So, all muslims become potential suspects even while admitting that all muslims are not terrorists. That is the irony.

So....can terrorists be prevented from entering the country by filtering muslims  in some other way?

One of Trumps salient points was, until our leaders understand what the hell is going on. Instead of finding out what is going on in all dimensions and aspects they just come up with the 'management speak' kind of crap based on their own little wet dream idea of what is going on based on their politically philosophically biased views of how the world should work and function.....

[Shaker]

You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority.

Actually yes, I do. See if you can guess how I know. You can have thirty minutes and more paper if you need it.

It appears to be growing.

Does it?

And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!

Certainly. I don't suppose you've heard of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczinski by any chance, have you?

[Rhiannon]

You don't know for a fact that it is a minuscule minority. It appears to be growing. And are you willing to face the dangers of letting in potential terrorists just to be nice to the others...when you don't know for certain which is which?!

It's not a case of 'being nice', it's a case of doing what is right. And for any country with a Muslim population - which the US has - the potential for an attack from radicalised Muslims already exists. Add to that the fact many radicalised Muslims are converts and the idea that barring entry to all Muslims would achieve anything looks more and more idiotic.

[Jack Knave]

You didn't seem to.
I did, I'm afraid.What exactly does it mean? That a sizable subset of the population are prevented from moving freely through being tarred with guilt by association by this combed-over cretin?

But how do you judge friend from foe if they all look the same?

This kind of thing is what I refer to as the Vietnam war problem.

And this is why I get annoyed at the Muslim community for not pulling out all the stops in dealing with this. If their faith is so precious to them then why aren't they going mad, pulling their beards out, to sort all this out in their own backyard and give themselves a good and honest name? They moan at us when we seem to pick on them but they have done very little to dig out these radicalists in their communities, which tar them all with this dangerous brush.

[Udayana]

Actually, you can't always filter out Muslims from non-Muslims. Terrorists could just say they are not Muslim and carry on as before.

And as Rhi suggests, Discrimination against Muslims would boost radicalization of American Muslims.

[Sriram]

It's not a case of 'being nice', it's a case of doing what is right. And for any country with a Muslim population - which the US has - the potential for an attack from radicalised Muslims already exists. Add to that the fact many radicalised Muslims are converts and the idea that barring entry to all Muslims would achieve anything looks more and more idiotic.

The issue is still about identifying potential terrorists from the others..... and about the risks inherent in admitting migrants freely in large numbers when you are unable to filter the dangerous ones out. 

[Rhiannon]

But Sriram, we know there's a risk. It's still the right thing to do.

If Trump really wanted to eliminate risk he'd be talking about banning gun ownership and the internal combustion engine.

[Shaker]

The issue is still about identifying potential terrorists from the others..... and about the risks inherent in admitting migrants freely in large numbers when you are unable to filter the dangerous ones out.

Going by this hot mess you would also have us bar Irish and Eastern European immigrants to the USA on the basis of McVeigh and Kaczynski.

Think you'd better think this one over a bit more.

[Jack Knave]

I don't know. How do you go about identifying the potential terrorist and the non potential terrorist from among the Muslim migrants? Not by tarring an entire section of the population on the basis of the actions of a minuscule minority of that section.

You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!

[Shaker]

You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!

And that's a just, sane, rational response to a vanishingly small threat, is it?

[Rhiannon]

You do if your life is in danger because a section of them is trying to blow you up!!!

Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.

[Shaker]

Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

[Jack Knave]

Actually, you can't always filter out Muslims from non-Muslims. Terrorists could just say they are not Muslim and carry on as before.

And as Rhi suggests, Discrimination against Muslims would boost radicalization of American Muslims.

What about fenced off ghettos?   

[Shaker]

What about fenced off ghettos?

Been tried a while back.

Didn't end well.

[Jack Knave]

But Sriram, we know there's a risk. It's still the right thing to do.

If Trump really wanted to eliminate risk he'd be talking about banning gun ownership and the internal combustion engine.

That was one thing I noticed that Trump's focus was on the Muslim status of the killers not that they had easy access to high powered weaponry.

[Shaker]

That was one thing I noticed that Trump's focus was on the Muslim status of the killers not that they had easy access to high powered weaponry.

That's because in the USA it's easier to pin blame for anything you like on the predominantly dusky of skin than it is to introduce proper gun laws.

[Rhiannon]

That's because in the USA it's easier to pin blame for anything you like on the predominantly dusky of skin than it is to introduce proper gun laws.

Especially given the demographic that Trump is attempting to appeal to.

[Jack Knave]

And that's a just, sane, rational response to a vanishingly small threat, is it?

It's not small if you get blown up or a loved one does. And who knows how large this problem will get in the future. About a quarter of British Muslims understood and sympathized with the 7/7 bombings, and other acts in the world, mainly because of Western actions and policy. If things get even more polarized in the ME who knows what will follow on from that...

[Rhiannon]

It's not small if you get blown up or a loved one does. And who knows how large this problem will get in the future. About a quarter of British Muslims understood and sympathized with the 7/7 bombings, and other acts in the world, mainly because of Western actions and policy. If things get even more polarized in the ME who knows what will follow on from that...

No, the risk is the same for all. For those who die in terrorist attacks, it really is a case of being incredibly unlucky. That doesn't make it any less appalling or upsetting, but I take a bigger risk every time I go on the school run.

Yes, things could get worse. But as my crystal ball gazing skills aren't up to much I suggest crossing that bridge as and when.

[Jack Knave]

Better ban those bastard car drivers then...they're much more of a threat to you than some bloke from Syria.

I know and understand the threat from cars, which I can see and therefore make judgements about, and can be alert to them. But bombs in bags or suddenly some nutter with a AK spraying bullets all over the place isn't something I can readily see the signs of prior to the event. Nor is it a common occurrence which one can then acquire an instinct for.