Why I believe the Alt-right and neo-nazis are a ticking time bomb [potentially dengerous]

[ripskater]

How would you react if America decided to ban all Christian immigrants for the actions of some Christian extremist group out of Europe who thinks because God flooded the Earth and killed everyone they should too? You don't think Christians would start acting up? You wouldn't be offended by them using your religion as an excuse for violence? Be serious for once.

I don't think you would see the Christians killing 50 at a gay club, running over kids with their car etc.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Then why did we let in the Ohio State terrorist, and why did we let the Pakistan woman in San Bernadino?

Cause I don't think you can tell which Muslims will go jihad.

uh what? It's not like there's a discrimination in place against salafis. Again, you absolutely can tell, muslims are radicalized because of a certain ideology that's booming among young muslims thanks to saudi arabia propaganda all around the globe. You don't see ahmadi or shia muslims go ''jihad'', it's always salafis. The San Bernardino's shooter you mentioned was a salafist.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

How about the thousands that are members of isis then? I couldn't fit them all on 1 picture. What is stupid is a thread talking about terrorists that just might include gun owners, Jews, Christians, and veterans!!

mere thousands?

 

[Jim Bob]

mere thousands?

I am unsure of your question, but there is somewhere around 15-16 thousand isis members.

 

[MMAAAM]

My concerns go equally towards all Americans. I don't place more value on an American because they are a white person like me. I also place high values into our freedoms that we cherish in this country.

Well there you have it, that's precisely why you got this whole thing wrong. You should be more concerned with those who want to uphold the values of the west then with those who want to kills us, REGARDLESS of what their nationality may be.

I'd love for you to put together a reasonable proposal for how we ban a specific religion. What would stop someone from pretending for a decade and saying they are reformed? What do you do about the ones who are citizens of the country? It's just an infeasible idea and a fairly disgusting one too.

I'm not interested in banning religions or ideologies. I'm interested in banning people who behave in ways that are perfectly antithetical to the values that we want to uphold in the west.

By suggesting that I want to ban religion, again another sneaky slight of hand, you imply that I'm an advocate of thought crime which is not true. If there is a Muslim who thinks homosexuality is wrong, I couldn't care less about that. And if he owns a bakery and decides to not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, he is within his right. This Muslim only concerns me when he acts upon this belief by either assaulting or killing a gay person or demanding a parallel law system like sharia law or incites violence against gays. As long as he keeps his belief to himself and conducts himself in accordance with our values, I'm fine with him. But we both know that Islamic beliefs do manifest themselves in the public sphere in a way that alters our society.

 

[Orgasmo]

The leftist argument on immigration ban and deportation of known radicals essentially boiled down to this:

"We don't want to offend them, since they will get mad collectively and attack some more."

With that, you are already admitting Muslims are prone to violence and their ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western society. It seems some of them are only an insult away from becoming radicals. That's not how civilized men behaves. The Chinese had an immigration ban placed on them. The Japanese were put into internment camps. Vietnamese had their homeland bombed by US for nearly a decade. None of them are committing mass acts of terror in retaliation in US. These are what civilied cultures look like and where immigrants should be drawn from, not Jihadistan.

The argument that we shouldn't take drastic action since it wold drive more Muslims into attacking is simply cowardice. The same excuse is used by abused women not to fight back against their violent partner because they might get hurt more. If only 1 in a 100 Muslims are radicals, that's still an entire group I don't want in the West.

 

[uppercutbus]

Everyone goes berserk when they are disenfranchised and treated like lower class citizens.

Uh. Blacks and Mexicans don't suicide-bomb or truck-of-peace.

You come off as quite desperate trying to draw parallels to all disenfranchisement and put it under the banner of "going berserk". Such mass killings isn't "a thing" for blacks and mexicans, stop trying to excuse these muslim mass murderers.

How would you react if America decided to ban all Christian immigrants for the actions of some Christian extremist group out of Europe who thinks because God flooded the Earth and killed everyone they should too? You don't think Christians would start acting up? You wouldn't be offended by them using your religion as an excuse for violence? Be serious for once.

Trump could ban ban all refugees from one country for 6 months like Obama and you would still complain.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The leftist argument on immigration ban and deportation of known radicals essentially boiled down to this:

"We don't want to offend them, since they will get mad collectively and attack some more."

Can you cite? I don't recall seeing anyone argue against deportation of known radicals for any reason at all, and I certainly recall no one making the argument you're describing against the travel ban. I saw people saying it was overly broad, didn't actually do anything to reduce the threat, and was sloppily written and unconstitutional.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

The leftist argument on immigration ban and deportation of known radicals essentially boiled down to this:

"We don't want to offend them, since they will get mad collectively and attack some more."

With that, you are already admitting Muslims are prone to violence and their ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western society. It seems some of them are only an insult away from becoming radicals. That's not how civilized men behaves. The Chinese had an immigration ban placed on them. The Japanese were put into internment camps. Vietnamese had their homeland bombed by US for nearly a decade. None of them are committing mass acts of terror in retaliation in US. These are what civilied cultures look like and where immigrants should be drawn from, not Jihadistan.

The argument that we shouldn't take drastic action since it wold drive more Muslims into attacking is simply cowardice. The same excuse is used by abused women not to fight back against their violent partner because they might get hurt more. If only 1 in a 100 Muslims are radicals, that's still an entire group I don't want in the West.

Which leftists are against deportation of known radicals? It's one thing deporting the shitstains (putting in prison would be more appropriate, since most of said shitstains are second or third generation european muslims, nowhere to deport them), another thing to deport all of them (millions of people) just because they are muslims as a preemptive action.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Well there you have it, that's precisely why you got this whole thing wrong. You should be more concerned with those who want to uphold the values of the west then with those who want to kills us, REGARDLESS of what their nationality may be.

I am more concerned about those who want to uphold the values of the west. Your religious beliefs don't by default determine that. In America you get punished for actions not beliefs.

I'm not interested in banning religions or ideologies. I'm interested in banning people who behave in ways that are perfectly antithetical to the values that we want to uphold in the west.

By suggesting that I want to ban religion, again another sneaky slight of hand, you imply that I'm an advocate of thought crime which is not true. If there is a Muslim who thinks homosexuality is wrong, I couldn't care less about that. And if he owns a bakery and decides to not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, he is within his right. This Muslim only concerns me when he acts upon this belief by either assaulting or killing a gay person or demanding a parallel law system like sharia law or incites violence against gays. As long as he keeps his belief to himself and conducts himself in accordance with our values, I'm fine with him. But we both know that Islamic beliefs do manifest themselves in the public sphere in a way that alters our society.

I've already said that if you can demonstrate with evidence that an individual wants to commit a crime in the west, they should be punished to the fullest extent the laws allow for. Until that chain of evidence is started, you don't punish them for the actions of others they have no actual association with.

Uh. Blacks and Mexicans don't suicide-bomb or truck-of-peace.

You come off as quite desperate trying to draw parallels to all disenfranchisement and put it under the banner of "going berserk". Such mass killings isn't "a thing" for blacks and mexicans, stop trying to excuse these muslim mass murderers.

Blacks account for the vast majority of violent crime in this nation by an overwhelming amount. Way more people are killed by black crime than Islamist terrorism. Mexicans murdered tens of thousands in cartel gang wars just across the border. The cartels are drug terrorists.

Trump could ban ban all refugees from one country for 6 months like Obama and you would still complain.

At least learn basic information about something before you use it in an argument. President Obama issued several bans of limited scope and his major 6 month ban in 2011 didn't even result in banning people from that nation from coming in. It slowed down, but Iraqi refugees still came in. Not much of a ban if nobody is being banned. The scope is the major difference between what Trump wanted and what Obama, Carter, and Clinton did.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It is a privilege that's granted to people unless they show they aren't worthy of said privilege. Maybe you should read up on discrimination and protected classes in the United States and explain to me where "Muslim" fits into that? Maybe you should also remember what's listed on the Statue of Liberty about immigration.

The statue of liberty doesn't determine policy. It's just a piece of art.

 

[uppercutbus]

Blacks account for the vast majority of violent crime in this nation by an overwhelming amount. Way more people are killed by black crime than Islamist terrorism. Mexicans murdered tens of thousands in cartel gang wars just across the border. The cartels are drug terrorists.

Blacks are over represented in crime just as Muslims are in France and UK. What now?

Saying blacks and Hispanics don't suicide bomb innocents or truck of peace is factually correct. It's not "a thing" for them.

At least learn basic information about something before you use it in an argument. President Obama issued several bans of limited scope and his major 6 month ban in 2011 didn't even result in banning people from that nation from coming in. It slowed down, but Iraqi refugees still came in. Not much of a ban if nobody is being banned. The scope is the major difference between what Trump wanted and what Obama, Carter, and Clinton did.

I'm not comparing the two I'm simply stating what Obama did lol.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Those who spend their days apologizing for Islam and blaming others are the true cowards, and will be the first members of our society to convert to it. How many more people need to die before you take your heads out of your asses.

 

[DoomPatrol]

The statue of liberty doesn't determine policy. It's just a piece of art.

Correct to a degree. It's a reflection of our policies and ideals. A country founded by immigrants.

Blacks are over represented in crime just as Muslims are in France and UK. What now?

Saying blacks and Hispanics don't suicide bomb innocents or truck of peace is factually correct. It's not "a thing" for them.

Exactly. What now? You propose banning all blacks immigrants from entering the US because they over represent crime? Where do you want to take that information?

I'm not comparing the two I'm simply stating what Obama did lol.

You literally did just that. You didn't even know what President Obama did.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Yes I'm sure "alt-right" and the Neo-Nazis are the danger.

You must not pay attention to what's going around online.

 

[uppercutbus]

Exactly. What now? You propose banning all blacks immigrants from entering the US because they over represent crime? Where do you want to take that information?

I'm saying over representation is irrelevant to because blacks and hispanics don't do what muslims do (suicide bomb innocents).

You literally did just that.

Not at all, I said you would complain if Trump did what Obama did.

You literally did just that. You didn't even know what President Obama did.

It's on the net dude. He banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months. Obama stopped refugee applications from Iraq for a period of six months after two Iraqi al-Qaeda terrorists were discovered living as refugees in Kentucky.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

No it isn't. 80,000 votes over 3 states is why trump won.

80,000 votes over 3 million votes decided this election. This system we use for the president sucks and is unlike any other election anywhere else

 

[Nihongi]

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm saying over representation is irrelevant to because blacks and hispanics don't do what muslims do (suicide bomb innocents).

Not at all, I said you would complain if Trump did what Obama did.

It's on the net dude. He banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months. Obama stopped refugee applications from Iraq for a period of six months after two Iraqi al-Qaeda terrorists were discovered living as refugees in Kentucky.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/

Refugees from Iraq didn't even stop coming during those 6 months by the way. The flow continued. I'm happy for Trump to put limited scope blocks on immigration from places we can't properly vet migrants from. I'm not for blanket bans of entire countries.

 

[MMAAAM]

I am more concerned about those who want to uphold the values of the west. Your religious beliefs don't by default determine that.

If your religious beliefs are in accordance with the Koran, the Hadiths and the biography of Mohamed , then yes, they do in fact determine that.

Regarding your absurd point that we should let Muslims in and only do something about Muslims when they break the law, why does Poland - like South Korea, Japan, Slovakia among a few other countries - experience little or no problems with Islamic extremism and Islamic terror atrocities?..Would this have anything to do with their relatively tiny Muslim communities and their tight restrictions on Islamic immigration?..Or is this just a coincidence?..