Religion of Peace Strikes again...64 Christians

• like_that

  

  majorspark;1857836 wrote:Exactly my point. It is not an accurate comparison. A picture and a few words in a meme does not accurately portray the situation. If the Irish catholics were infiltrating foreign nations around the world and blowing shit up you would see the same movements to extremely vet or ban them. The purpose of the meme is to imply religious bigotry. For that reason it is wholly inaccurate.
  
  
  
  My thoughts exactly.

  This is why you don't make arguments with memes.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  I don't thing the IRA comparison is wholly accurate, but he does have a point. Both outfits killed innocent civilians in order to spread terror, and both had a religious basis for existing. There are plenty of differences, but terrorism is terrorism.
• O-Trap

  

  HitsRus;1857822 wrote:If ISIS was confined to Iraq, and the United States had troops there and claimed the northern part of the country as their own, and the attacks were confined to American interests, then we could look at a "civil war" between Iraqian Sunnis and Shites with a 3rd party power involved as somewhat comparable. The IRA as bad as they were, had a negotiable political purpose, that is, the removal of British control of Northern Ireland.....what is the political purpose of ISIS?
  
  This is a unique situation that requires a unique solution/response. Claiming the two different situations are the same or analogous for political purposes is not really helpful.
  I think I've made my point. I don't look at this as being worthy of further debate. Go ahead and make any additional points you wish to make.

  You would confine ISIS to Iraq in order to make it similar, but the IRA wasn't confined to Ireland. The IRA saw Ireland as distinct from the rest of the British Isles, and yet the bomb here was set off in London.
  
  So you still have the terrorists recognizing their own land as being NOT the same as the land they've attacked. Ireland, to the members of the IRA, was distinct and separate from England. They still attacked England on undisputed territory (none in Ireland were laying claim to London, I don't think).
  
  As for the political purpose of ISIS specifically, it's certainly different (my understanding is that the ultimate goal is a worldwide caliphate), but I don't think that's relevant to the point here. Does it matter why the IRA set off a bomb and killed innocents in a country that isn't their own? They still did it. They should still be rightfully condemned for it. And those who happen to call themselves Irish or Catholic, but who do not espouse the same extremist views, should not be treated as though they are involved with or sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.
  
  In the same way, I don't care why ISIS is attacking. They're still doing it. They should be rightfully condemned for it. And those who happen to be from the Middle East or who practice Islam, but who do not espouse the same extremist views, should not be treated as though they are involved with or sympathetic to the cause of ISIS.
  
  For the record, Al Qaeda's and the Taliban's political goals were closer to the IRA's than they are to those of ISIS. However, any acts of terrorism, particularly involving the taking of non-combatant lives, should be equally condemned.
  

  majorspark;1857836 wrote:Exactly my point. It is not an accurate comparison. A picture and a few words in a meme does not accurately portray the situation. If the Irish catholics were infiltrating foreign nations around the world and blowing shit up you would see the same movements to extremely vet or ban them. The purpose of the meme is to imply religious bigotry. For that reason it is wholly inaccurate.

  The point is that "Irish Catholics" were mostly not the ones involved at all. Of all the Irish Catholics, a small fraction were militant and/or involved in the IRA. In the same way, of all the Middle Eastern Muslims, a small fraction are militant and/or involved in the IRA.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1857975 wrote:I don't thing the IRA comparison is wholly accurate, but he does have a point. Both outfits killed innocent civilians in order to spread terror, and both had a religious basis for existing. There are plenty of differences, but terrorism is terrorism.

  It's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's never been claimed as such. I don't think getting hung up on WHY terrorist organizations are killing innocent civilians is relevant. The fact that they're doing it is enough to condemn their actions, but not enough to condemn those who might attend the same church or happen to be born in the same country.
• majorspark

  

  O-Trap;1857995 wrote:The point is that "Irish Catholics" were mostly not the ones involved at all. Of all the Irish Catholics, a small fraction were militant and/or involved in the IRA. In the same way, of all the Middle Eastern Muslims, a small fraction are militant and/or involved in the IRA.
  
  It's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's never been claimed as such. I don't think getting hung up on WHY terrorist organizations are killing innocent civilians is relevant. The fact that they're doing it is enough to condemn their actions, but not enough to condemn those who might attend the same church or happen to be born in the same country.

  I was going to bow out of this with Hits but my gosh. This is what political correctness brings us. The meme sucked ass. Its purpose was to imply religious bigotry. Specifically Islamophobia. Calling it out for what it is does not in any way shape or form defend the terrorist acts of the IRA. Targeting civilians to achieve an objective is where the similarities end. If a small fraction of radical catholics were employing the same tactics from the same breeding grounds in nation states predominantly catholic as well as within immigrant communities in nations throughout the world they would be held in the same light as the Islamic radicals conducting such actions today.
  
  Political correctness demands... but... but.. "Christians" do this stuff to. Yes they have and their acts have been equally heinous. History is rife with examples of so called "Christian" radicals engaging in such acts. At points not condemned or even sanctioned by the leadership specifically the Catholics. The only time I have set foot in a Catholic church is for the funeral of one of my wife's relatives. But I know their history.
  
  That said today there are a small fraction of militant radicals of a particular religion holding a geographical area in the Middle East that boasts every time a radical nutjob ends human life in the west. Whether a foreign implant or homegrown it is becoming the norm in the EU. Time to light more candles I guess. Be understanding, make mathematical comparisons, feel the need to point out the obvious that only a small fraction of this particular religion are nutjobs.
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;1858155 wrote:I was going to bow out of this with Hits but my gosh. This is what political correctness brings us. The meme sucked ass. Its purpose was to imply religious bigotry. Specifically Islamophobia. Calling it out for what it is does not in any way shape or form defend the terrorist acts of the IRA. Targeting civilians to achieve an objective is where the similarities end. If a small fraction of radical catholics were employing the same tactics from the same breeding grounds in nation states predominantly catholic as well as within immigrant communities in nations throughout the world they would be held in the same light as the Islamic radicals conducting such actions today.
  
  Political correctness demands... but... but.. "Christians" do this stuff to. Yes they have and their acts have been equally heinous. History is rife with examples of so called "Christian" radicals engaging in such acts. At points not condemned or even sanctioned by the leadership specifically the Catholics. The only time I have set foot in a Catholic church is for the funeral of one of my wife's relatives. But I know their history.
  
  That said today there are a small fraction of militant radicals of a particular religion holding a geographical area in the Middle East that boasts every time a radical nutjob ends human life in the west. Whether a foreign implant or homegrown it is becoming the norm in the EU. Time to light more candles I guess. Be understanding, make mathematical comparisons, feel the need to point out the obvious that only a small fraction of this particular religion are nutjobs.

  You're grasping here. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with ideological consistency.
  
  I'm not even saying that anyone is defending the IRA's actions. That's the point. Nobody defends those actions. Nobody defends ISIS's actions, either.
  
  What the meme does (which is not just pointing out bigotry of any kind) is draw the parallel between the relationship of the IRA to Irish Catholics and the relationship of ISIS to Muslims.
  
  It's essentially saying this:
  
  IRA:Irish Catholics::ISIS:Muslims
  
  That's it, ultimately.
  
  The meme wasn't to point out that "'Christians' do this too." This meme was to point out that the terrorist behavior isn't an indictment on religions at all. It was to suggest that we got it RIGHT by not reacting to IRA terrorism with paranoid prejudice. Not that we got it wrong, because "Christians do it too."
  
  If it's obvious that only a small fraction of any religion is extremist to this degree, perhaps we ought to behave like it. If that's your take ... that it's obvious only a small group is doing this ... then I agree with you, and perhaps this wasn't even aimed at you.
  
  It was aimed specifically toward people who have expressed a desire for religious or ethnic targeting in response to this small group, pointing out that ethnically and religiously homogeneous terrorist groups in the past were not met with this brand of targeting, and nobody was upset about that fact.
  
  That's all this implies.
  
  If it were about "political correctness," the definition of which seems to be pretty broad these days, depending on who's using it, I would probably agree with you. I don't particularly care for "political correctness" if it's used to mean that we cannot discuss political topics that cover race, gender, sex, orientation, age, etc. I don't even care for the variety that says you're "not allowed" to vocally express your views if they are deemed racist/sexist/ageist/etc. Freedom of speech involves the right to say things that others find offensive.
  
  However, there are also those who will verbalize an opposition to "political correctness" as a means to justify that racism/sexism/etc., arguing that the only reason people disagree with it is because of said "political correctness." While I will always advocate the freedom to express conviction, I'm never going to say that those convictions shouldn't be met with scrutiny or opposition.
  
  The parallel outlined in this meme points out an inconsistency among a group of people who share one position within their overall worldview. It's a response to that body, which has already expressed its position. It's free to respond, as well.
  
  The meme does one thing: It points out that a prior attack, which was committed by an ethnically and religiously homogeneous terrorist organization on foreign soil, was not met with a desire for ethnic or religious profiling as a means of weeding out said terrorists, and that nobody was outraged by that. It implies that the same sense of reason should apply here. That's all.
• HitsRus

  

  Ugh. I didnt think I had anything else to say, but after reading the above....
  
  I'm just going to say this.... if you have a small kitchen fire, you use a fire extinguisher.... if your house is on fire, you call the fire department....if you're dealing with a forest fire, you bring in the forestry service and you cut fire lines.
  
  You don't kill a fly with a .50 cal Desert eagle and you don't take on a bear with a fly swatter.
  
  You make a proportional response to the threat and the virulence.
• O-Trap

  

  HitsRus;1858175 wrote:You make a proportional response to the threat and the virulence.

  Er ... that is kind of the point. We agree on something in this topic, it would seem.
• HitsRus

  

  Well, forgive me then. I thought you were implying that the above posted meme that suggests that the IRA and ISIS are somehow comparable is valid.
  IRA terrorism was a small house fire that was a danger to its own house and its immediate neighbor. ISIS is a raging forest fire that has conflagrated the entire Middle East and is sowing sparks that threaten the entire world. Other than the fact that they're both fires, there's not a lot of similarity in the way that you approach or respond to the threat .
• O-Trap

  

  HitsRus;1858193 wrote:Well, forgive me then. I thought you were implying that the above posted meme that suggests that the IRA and ISIS are somehow comparable is valid.
  IRA terrorism was a small house fire that was a danger to its own house and its immediate neighbor. ISIS is a raging forest fire that has conflagrated the entire Middle East and is sowing sparks that threaten the entire world. Other than the fact that they're both fires, there's not a lot of similarity in the way that you approach or respond to the threat .

  I agree that they're not the same. I even clarified above that their ultimate goal is notably different (the IRA certainly didn't seek a worldwide submission to the Roman church).
  
  The way in which I was suggesting they were comparable was in relation to those who don't espouse their views, endorse their actions, or celebrate the results of their cause.
  
  With regard to their differences, they're not altogether distinct beyond the fact that they both committed terrorism. They're both organizations that are ethnically and religiously homogeneous, sans any one-off consigliere-style relationships that might exist.
  
  That's the similarity I'm addressing, because the ethnic and/or religious commonality is also shared by many outside their organizations. You and I would certainly agree that the MAJORITY of those who hold the particular religious or ethnic identities are not part of the organizations. While virtually all IRA members were Irish Catholic, most Irish and/or Catholic people are not members of the IRA. In the same way, while virtually all ISIS members are Muslim (obviously, given what ISIS stands for) and at least most seem to be of Middle Eastern descent, most Muslims and/or Middle Easterners are not members of ISIS.
  
  As such, it's obviously most sensible to, upon meeting someone who fits the religious or ethnic demographic, treat them as though they are not affiliated. As such, the odds are that we have no reason to.
  
  By the way, in regard to the fire analogy, I misunderstood how you were using it. My apologies. I would agree with the overall point, though. Treating a fire with an appropriate level of response is sensible. I certainly wouldn't treat a lit bug repellent candle or a lit birthday cake as though they might become forest fires, just because both involve flame.
• jmog

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1857975 wrote:I don't thing the IRA comparison is wholly accurate, but he does have a point. Both outfits killed innocent civilians in order to spread terror, and both had a religious basis for existing. There are plenty of differences, but terrorism is terrorism.

  
  The biggest difference was that the IRA was in a war with England and only cared about attacking England.
  
  Radical Islam attacks everyone that is non-Muslim, specifically the West and the USA.
  
  The IRA was never a threat to the US, radical Islam obviously is. That is the difference.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  jmog;1858223 wrote:The biggest difference was that the IRA was in a war with England and only cared about attacking England.
  
  Radical Islam attacks everyone that is non-Muslim, specifically the West and the USA.
  
  The IRA was never a threat to the US, radical Islam obviously is. That is the difference.

  I am not equating the two. But he made a fair point that they both have a religious component and both are terrorist organizations. Both condoned attacking innocent civilians. ISIS wishes to promote Islam everywhere and the IRA wanted the UK out of Ulster - those are very different aims for sure. So that's why i don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison. But there are similarities between any group that practices politics/religious terrorism.
• jmog

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1858261 wrote:I am not equating the two. But he made a fair point that they both have a religious component and both are terrorist organizations. Both condoned attacking innocent civilians. ISIS wishes to promote Islam everywhere and the IRA wanted the UK out of Ulster - those are very different aims for sure. So that's why i don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison. But there are similarities between any group that practices politics/religious terrorism.

  Similarities yes, but the original statement was "and we didn't ban Catholics from immigrating..."
  
  Its really a simple answer, the IRA was not an enemy of the US. Nearly every radical Islamic group is.
  
  The IRA never performed or claimed responsibility for any attack on US soil. Different Islamic radical groups have and continue to do so.
  
  That is why the comparison, with respect to the USA immigration policy, is asinine.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1858262 wrote:Similarities yes, but the original statement was "and we didn't ban Catholics from immigrating..."
  
  Its really a simple answer, the IRA was not an enemy of the US. Nearly every radical Islamic group is.
  
  The IRA never performed or claimed responsibility for any attack on US soil. Different Islamic radical groups have and continue to do so.
  
  That is why the comparison, with respect to the USA immigration policy, is asinine.

  Not really. To say this is to deny the possibility to use other nations' incidents as parallels and to learn from them.
  
  The point is to demonstrate the fallacy of affirming the consequent, where A represents "a person is a member of the IRA," and B represents "a person is Irish Catholic."
  
  In the parallel, A would represent "a person is involved with ISIS," and B would represent "a person is Middle Eastern or a follower of Islam."
  
  Because there are circumstances in which B can exist without A existing, these two are parallel examples of affirming the consequent.
  
  To put it in much less politically charged terms:
  
  If something is a zebra, then it is a mammal.
  
  However, if something is a mammal, I have a better reason to suspect that it is NOT a zebra than I do to suspect that it is one, because there are more mammals which are NOT zebras than there are mammals that ARE zebras, even though every single zebra is, in fact, a mammal.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1858280 wrote:Not really. To say this is to deny the possibility to use other nations' incidents as parallels and to learn from them.
  
  The point is to demonstrate the fallacy of affirming the consequent, where A represents "a person is a member of the IRA," and B represents "a person is Irish Catholic."
  
  In the parallel, A would represent "a person is involved with ISIS," and B would represent "a person is Middle Eastern or a follower of Islam."
  
  Because there are circumstances in which B can exist without A existing, these two are parallel examples of affirming the consequent.
  
  To put it in much less politically charged terms:
  
  If something is a zebra, then it is a mammal.
  
  However, if something is a mammal, I have a better reason to suspect that it is NOT a zebra than I do to suspect that it is one, because there are more mammals which are NOT zebras than there are mammals that ARE zebras, even though every single zebra is, in fact, a mammal.

  All that is true, except you ignored the main point of my post.
  
  The IRA was not an enemy and had not attacked US soil, radical Islamic groups are and have. That can easily explain the difference in immigration policy in the two different situations.
  
  If the IRA had attacked the US, AND the US still allowed Irish Catholics without "extreme vetting", then this would be apples to apples. However, they did not so it is not proof or evidence that the current US policy is somehow anti-Islamic since it didn't prevent Irish Catholics from immigrating.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1858298 wrote:All that is true, except you ignored the main point of my post.
  
  The IRA was not an enemy and had not attacked US soil, radical Islamic groups are and have. That can easily explain the difference in immigration policy in the two different situations.
  
  If the IRA had attacked the US, AND the US still allowed Irish Catholics without "extreme vetting", then this would be apples to apples. However, they did not so it is not proof or evidence that the current US policy is somehow anti-Islamic since it didn't prevent Irish Catholics from immigrating.

  The point of the meme wasn't so address how people from the US responded to the IRA, though. It was to address how those in England responded to it, because they WERE the target of terrorist attacks.
  
  The thing is, nobody looks at the response of English people (whether policy or public inclinations) as being unreasonably cavalier just because they didn't start any extreme vetting of Irish Catholics (as if religion and/or ethnic background were the sort of thing that could reasonably be vetted, really).
  
  But the truth remains that they did, in fact, act in the most sensible way by not attempting to use ethnic or religious affiliations for targeting, because to do otherwise is to fall into the affirming the consequent fallacy.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1858302 wrote:The point of the meme wasn't so address how people from the US responded to the IRA, though. It was to address how those in England responded to it, because they WERE the target of terrorist attacks.
  
  The thing is, nobody looks at the response of English people (whether policy or public inclinations) as being unreasonably cavalier just because they didn't start any extreme vetting of Irish Catholics (as if religion and/or ethnic background were the sort of thing that could reasonably be vetted, really).
  
  But the truth remains that they did, in fact, act in the most sensible way by not attempting to use ethnic or religious affiliations for targeting, because to do otherwise is to fall into the affirming the consequent fallacy.

  But reality of what happened with Britain and the IRA doesn't fit the meme.
  
  1. Britain absolutely targeted Irish men/catholics while they were being attacked by the IRA. They sought out any group of Irish men that were meeting, harassed them, vetted their connections to see if they were radical, etc.
  
  2. Right or wrong, the IRA wanted independence from Britain. Last I checked, ISIS isn't controlled by Britain so they are attacking because they are just savage. I would think most normal people can see the difference between attacking for Independence vs just plain attacking because you don't like the other people.
  
  So even talking about Britain specifically it STILL isn't apples to apples, but Britain absolutely went and harassed and kicked out any Irish that they thought had dubious connections to radical groups during the IRA time frame.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1858323 wrote:But reality of what happened with Britain and the IRA doesn't fit the meme.
  
  1. Britain absolutely targeted Irish men/catholics while they were being attacked by the IRA. They sought out any group of Irish men that were meeting, harassed them, vetted their connections to see if they were radical, etc.

  There's a difference between Brits harrassing groups of Irish men at a local level and legislation for the intense vetting of Irish individuals (not in groups) prior to entry on a national level. What you're pointing to isn't equitable to ethnicity-based legislation.
  
  Also, while this references the ethnic markers, it doesn't address the religious element ... probably because there's no good way of doing so, but even if there were, there's no good reason to do so.
  

  jmog;1858323 wrote:2. Right or wrong, the IRA wanted independence from Britain. Last I checked, ISIS isn't controlled by Britain so they are attacking because they are just savage. I would think most normal people can see the difference between attacking for Independence vs just plain attacking because you don't like the other people.

  Well, it's more than just thoughtless savagery. ISIS has a goal as well, and it has, I do believe, been articulated in one of their pieces of circulated literature: a worldwide caliphate. As such, it's not because they don't like other people.
  
  However, as I've said prior, while there is obviously a difference in the motivation for the terrorist attacks, the motivation doesn't really play a role in why we should treat people who are probably not terrorists as though they might be. Just as well, it doesn't establish a reason for a person/people to need to be vetted before being treated as though they're not affiliated.
  

  jmog;1858323 wrote:So even talking about Britain specifically it STILL isn't apples to apples, but Britain absolutely went and harassed and kicked out any Irish that they thought had dubious connections to radical groups during the IRA time frame.

  I suggest above that the entire parallel is not apples to apples, but that the point it attempts to make is pretty close:
  
  Irish Catholics:IRA::Middle Eastern Muslims:ISIS
  
  While most/all members of the IRA were Irish Catholic, most Irish Catholics were not members of the IRA. See the mammal/zebra example. If I tell you I have a mammal in my home, do you see any reason to suspect that it might be a zebra? Of course not, because the vast, vast majority are not. In the same way, if one were to tell someone that he is a Muslim, there's no good reason to suspect that he might be a member of ISIS, because the vast, vast majority are not.
• jmog

  So your distinction is that while the government profiled Irish/Catholics they didn't have a law passed specifically calling out profiling of Irish/Catholics so therefore they shouldn't have a law profiling Middle Eastern/Muslims?
  
  The fact is they did the exact same things other than have it passed by parliament and be official.
• QuakerOats

  Poland doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1858362 wrote:So your distinction is that while the government profiled Irish/Catholics they didn't have a law passed specifically calling out profiling of Irish/Catholics so therefore they shouldn't have a law profiling Middle Eastern/Muslims?
  
  The fact is they did the exact same things other than have it passed by parliament and be official.

  In a roundabout way, I could answer "kind of" to the question.
  
  Now, I'm certainly not advocating for or justifying the miscarriages of justice against the Irish (the Birmingham Six is the one that comes to mind) in light of it. But I do indeed suggest that they rightly refrained from enacting policy based on ethnic background. That's not the JUSTIFICATION for how we should weigh policy. Merely an example. There's logical precedent, but the situation with the IRA is a teasing out.
  
  I suppose, then, that I should back up:
  
  Do you believe the Brits should have enacted official policy to specifically to target those who looked like they might have Irish ancestry?
  
  Let's also not forget that radical Islam has begun diversifying, with more not-so-brown people adopting it than before.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1858374 wrote:Poland doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn't admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism.

  Poland does this how? An entrance survey asking about religious background? You have to run through a sprinkler of pig's blood to get out of the airplane terminal? "Aw shucks. I hoped nobody would ask me that."
  
  Like some Islamic terrorist is going to try to immigrate for the purpose of an attack, but he'll be thwarted by someone asking about his religious beliefs?
  
  Also, the US still has very little terrorism in relation to the population.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1858379 wrote:In a roundabout way, I could answer "kind of" to the question.
  
  Now, I'm certainly not advocating for or justifying the miscarriages of justice against the Irish (the Birmingham Six is the one that comes to mind) in light of it. But I do indeed suggest that they rightly refrained from enacting policy based on ethnic background. That's not the JUSTIFICATION for how we should weigh policy. Merely an example. There's logical precedent, but the situation with the IRA is a teasing out.
  
  I suppose, then, that I should back up:
  
  Do you believe the Brits should have enacted official policy to specifically to target those who looked like they might have Irish ancestry?
  
  Let's also not forget that radical Islam has begun diversifying, with more not-so-brown people adopting it than before.

  I am not suggesting that they should have enacted laws against Irish at that time, I was showing the error of the meme. It suggested that England is treating this attack much different than when the IRA bombed them. In reality, other than official document from parliament, they are treating it rather similarly.
  
  I personally don't believe radical Islam will ever go away. I don't believe like many now in Europe that this means that we just "have to deal with it".
  
  There is nothing wrong with extra vetting for immigrants from countries known to harbor extremist Islam sects, like ISIS. That is not the same as saying "ban all Muslims" like the media portrayed it recently.
• HitsRus

  

  Also, the US still has very little terrorism in relation to the population

  so comforting
  

  Poland does this how? An entrance survey asking about religious background? You have to run through a sprinkler of pig's blood to get out of the airplane terminal? "Aw shucks. I hoped nobody would ask me that."
  
  Like some Islamic terrorist is going to try to immigrate for the purpose of an attack, but he'll be thwarted by someone asking about his religious beliefs?

  
  Perhaps you've noticed.... many, if not most, of the terror attacks by ISIS are being carried out by radicalized muslims within the population, not necessarily people coming specifically to make terrorist attacks. Importing/immigrating large numbers of individuals who are susceptable to possible radicalization increases the possibility of an attack. ISIS works to do this and is having tremendous success. There is a reason why Poland and Hungary and other eastern European countries have had no attacks....they control there immigration policy tightly.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Yeah, as far as I understand it, Poland outright refuses to take refugees or little to no migrant workers. Nobody comes in from the Calais Jungle, etc. All at the consternation of the EU.
• O-Trap

  

  HitsRus;1858404 wrote:so comforting

  It's unfortunate that it cannot be completely eradicated, but with enough people, it's simply going to happen.
  

  HitsRus;1858404 wrote:Perhaps you've noticed.... many, if not most, of the terror attacks by ISIS are being carried out by radicalized muslims within the population, not necessarily people coming specifically to make terrorist attacks. Importing/immigrating large numbers of individuals who are susceptable to possible radicalization increases the possibility of an attack. ISIS works to do this and is having tremendous success. There is a reason why Poland and Hungary and other eastern European countries have had no attacks....they control there immigration policy tightly.

  The fact that Poland's entire population is only about four times the size of New York City probably doesn't hurt, either. Again, with volume, the chances are simply increased. I would argue that the correlation doesn't exactly mean causation, particularly since Poland had a larger Muslim population for hundreds of years without issue.
  
  And my point about someone wishing to plan an attack was just the teasing out of a hypothetical. Even if a person is genuinely coming for refuge or asylum, if they know that there is official or common policy that might result in them being detained, vetted, and/or denied entry (whether a founded fear or not), do you think they're going to admit their religious views? While some might see it as a badge of honor to be singled out and treated differently because of their faith, even though they are innocent, others might justify a lie for expediting the process or even just out of fear, warranted or otherwise.
  
  Though I was obviously being facetious, I think the pig's blood sprinklers would be more effective.