I can't for the life of me understand how a human mind could become so depraved as to think that slitting an 86-year-old Priest's throat is somehow acceptable. To some, "the end justifies the means." To me, and I'm guessing I have just a "normal" Western mind, the means ABSOLUTELY DO matter. If you have to lie, cheat, steal, or kill to get what you want, then what you want is evil.
I read today in the Washington Post the results of an extensive survey* regarding Muslim attitudes towards ISIS in 5 Mid-East countries: Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestine, and Algeria. Keep in mind these do NOT include the dysfunctional Muslim states of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, with Pakistan and Egypt "on the cusp".
Sorry for the blurry chart above, but the takeaway is this: between .8% and 5.5% agree with ISIS tactics, and between 1% and 8.9% believe ISIS tactics are compatible with Islam.
With a population of 2.7 million, this means Jordan has 216,000 potential new terrorists.
With a population of 33.6 million, this means Morocco has 504,000 potential new terrorists.
With a population of 11 million, this means Tunisia has 165,000 potential new terrorists.
With a population of 4.3 million, this means Palestine has 382,700 potential new terrorists.
With a population of 39.5 million, this means Algeria has 3,199,500 potential new terrorists.
Now ISIS task is to convince these 4,467,200 potential recruits to "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk". If only .5%....that's one half of one percent....accept the call to arms, the world will have 22,336 new throat slitters on the loose.
I in no way mean for this statistic to be an endorsement of Donald Trump, but I will say, on this one issue, his suggestion that all applicants for immigration to the US from "certain countries" be thoroughly vetted, is prudent.
If we don't, and we do let even a few hundred of these radicals slip in, and they do the unthinkable, Americans will panic. Let's face it, we're quick to see murder and mayhem behind every tree and rock. Imagine a hundred million gun owners running around looking for those who "don't look right". Yikes!
Then there will be a wholesale backlash against every Muslim, which is exactly what radical Islamist terrorists want. To see Westerners pitted against each other....whether by race, or religion, or whatever....means they have succeeded. They will see us collapse into the abyss with them where for the first time in a thousand years they will be on par with us. That's about the best they could ever hope for.
I say lets just do the responsible, prudent thing now and not give them the satisfaction later.
S
* The Arab Barometer survey was done by:
Mark Tessler is the Samuel J. Eldersveld Collegiate Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Michael Robbins is the director of the Arab Barometer. Amaney A. Jamal is the Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics at Princeton University and director of the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice.
Well.
ReplyDeleteTrump’s “suggestion that all applicants for immigration to the US from ‘certain countries’ be thoroughly vetted” implies that the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, INS and State Department aren’t already doing that - which is Trump speak crap. Even non-vetted U.S. citizens already in country have been recruited by ISIS. All Trump is doing is using the issue for his own political gain. Vetting is already being done by the U.S. government and Trump calling for “certain countries” (which would include our allies) is just another Trump dog whistle for hate.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that immigrants are being properly vetted now. Many of the recent killings are being done by people born here. I know of no one who thinks immigrants shouldn't be vetted, but a ban on any religion is against everything America stands for. In the early 1900s Congress passed laws stopping Chinese immigration and excluding them from citizenship. A Republican appointed Supreme Court threw out those laws as being unconstitutional, as they will again if Republicans continue on the path they're on.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, guys, but didn't Hillary or Obama (?) suggest we should admit 50,000 Syrian refugees this (or is it next) year? I'll assume the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc can vet the number we have applying in one year right now, but that number isn't 50,000. If we can thoroughly vet another 50,000 in one year, that's fine. But if we just want to admit them on a cursory check in order to meet some arbitrary numbers deadline, regardless of how pure of heart our motives, then I say no. I'll admit I'm profiling only a few countries represented by essentially one religion, but only because they have proven to be the ones that are causing most of the terrorism. And even there, I don't want to just keep EVERYONE from that country out (as were the Chinese a hundred years ago), but admit them AFTER a thorough investigation. This vetting would have to include transparent cooperation from the country they are immigrating from. If a terrorist group not related to Islam becomes a worldwide phenomenon, then the same should apply to them, too....EX: the Red Army-type groups of the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteI'm just thinking there must be SOME way to secure ourselves yet be compassionate, too. If we stumble, as I say, we will be playing into their hands both short term and long term.
So, we should start first with Saudi Arabia - our oil buddies - since 15 of the 19 in the 9-11attack were from Saudi Arabia? Maybe it is time to cut ties with the sheiks, but then where would we get the oil? Who is calling for alternative fuels? And since England and France clearly have had terrorists, we should vet anyone from there - or just Muslims? Five hundred or 50,000, we need to know the the government is going to vet immigrants under the current state of affairs. What isn't needed is a demagogue like Trump twisting the facts. Why isn't he railing about the U.S. terrorists killing elementary kids and shooting up nightclubs? Why doesn't he want to vet anyone who buys a semi-automatic gun or assault rifle? The answer is political expediency.
DeleteShould we start first with Saudi Arabia? Yes. They will still sell us oil because they want our money. Time for alternative fuels? You bet! Should we vet only English/Muslims or French/Muslims? No. We should find out if anyone from those countries wanting to immigrate here has any past, close association with terrorist groups there, which by history will most likely be Islamic radical groups. Non-Islamic hate groups from overseas, if they can be identified, should warrant extra special scrutiny, too. Domestic terrorists I sincerely hope are already on the FBI's radar.
DeleteTo use the argument against gun control: "thoroughly vetting" wouldn't work because terrorists would just find a way to illegally get into the country so why bother?
ReplyDeleteSlitting the throat of an elderly priest seems really penny ante for ISIS.
Lets compare workable gun control measures vs what I propose here on immigration from certain countries. Just closing the "gun show loophole" would be helpful, and I would support such a move, but by itself would have minimal effect. What would be needed would be to get guns out of the hands of felons, those who have restraining orders against them, those who are mentally troubled, etc, and close the back alley black market in gun sales. I think even the NRA would go along with that. THAT would be thorough vetting of gun purchasers. It would be as wall-to-wall as possible. That's the kind of vetting I want for those from areas that have sky-high terror problems. Just filling out a questionnaire and having a former boss and two friends vouch for you isn't what I would call proper vetting. And that's what I'm afraid would happen if we tried to run through 50,000 additional immigrants ON TOP OF the number we have now. It could only be just a cursory check, and IMO that won't cut it.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to apologize for semi-agreeing with something Trump has suggested.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said many times, Joe, good ideas can come from anywhere, from the left or the right, male or female, young or old...a good idea is a good idea.
DeleteWell, I think Joe eased gently into it, but I think you've found your candidate. Suggesting your 'survey/poll' is accurate, we need to then look at similar polls here, in the good 'ol usa. How many would like some form of segregation, in the really vague ways, what students from what areas can go to what schools, housing, credit ratings to rent, lease and buy, etc. I think you'd be surprised (maybe) by those results. Does that mean each one of those who said 'yes' to this poll are potential white supremacists, likely to bomb things, shoot up churches? I lived in academics for years, science, statistics. What you are doing with your post is called in polite terms 'spinning', making the statistics result in what you want. Because someone who agrees with some aspect, however small or insignificant, of the ISIS agenda is a potential terrorist?? That's what you are suggesting.
ReplyDeleteYou've found a home, pal.
Whoa there. Are you suggesting the Washington Post, and the survey authors I footnoted, are just shills? These are true academics... from Princeton and Michigan. Seems to me you just want to poo poo anything that doesn't agree with what YOU believe. If you can produce academic surveys from similar acclaimed universities that measure all those things you mentioned, I'd like to see them. I dare you to produce a truly scientific survey that comes to the conclusions you suggest. Sorry...Bubba Joe's School of Home Brewing doesn't count. And did you bother to read my reply to Joe's comment? Don't you believe in "credit where credit is due", or only "credit when it says what I want to hear"? And yes, I AM suggesting that someone who agrees with some aspect(s) of the ISIS agenda is one step closer to being radicalized and committing an atrocity than someone who doesn't agree with ISIS. Sorry, but IMO you're too quick to pounce on things that you don't want to hear/read, but never seem to make a convincing argument to the contrary.
DeleteHuh, haven't been accused of 'pouncing' for some decades, but I guess being 72 and a retired guy that's what happens.
ReplyDeleteI'll spend some time looking into research studies that support what I wrote above. Since it's over a day since the above exchange, it may be a day or two more.
Statistics, like 'a*******s are something everyone has to support their viewpoint. Me included. So, though I doubt anyone will be changed/convinced/anything, I'll do what you suggest.
If the tone of my last post was combative in any way, my apologies. You have your views, I have mine. Nothing, absolutely nothing I say will convince you otherwise, and nothing will do the same with me.
What a fun world we're leaving to our kids and grandkids, eh?
Cheers,
Mike
Thanks Mike, I always enjoy our exchanges. And I agree, it's common to cherry pick sources that prove your point of view. In my case I usually get my post topic AFTER I read the daily news. It may seem bass ackward, but the news gets me to thinking about something, which gives me my subject matter. I honestly do listen and read from many sources of many different political persuasions, just to try and understand a topic from all sides. I think of myself as just a bit to the right of center on most things, but I've been known to go seriously liberal now and then, too. I'll look forward to your findings.
ReplyDeleteS