Quote: 

 

Well, my initial thought is to wonder whether you are including war in your definition of violence. This is not to say that war is always wrong, but it is usually violent. Also, do you consider Germany, Russia, Japan, Western? Not sure, but Stalin alone might outrank all Muslim killers combined in the last 100 years. 


 

 

It feels like we're moving into the weeds a little bit now.  Stalin was the dictator of a country and wielded power over millions of others, not sure how that enters into this discussion.  But in general no I wouldn't include collateral damage of war in this discussion as I'm not sure how that compares to citizens actively targeting other innocent citizens.   We're talking about individuals that have no power over anyone except the power and desire to snuff out your life if you are unprepared to defend yourself and at the same time these people are showing solidarity for an ideology and religion.  Killings associated with the Islamic ideology and religion far outweigh any other type of killing that is associated with any other type of ideology.  Secondly we're not under a dictatorship where ideas and solutions don't flow freely.  There is a mechanism for change of policy if there is support for it.

 

 

Well, I am not sure, but I think that the total number of deaths caused by Muslim immigrants is greater than other immigrants. I draw this sketchy conclusion from the list
here
 .  I think one of the killers in the 2015 California killings was an immigrant. I am not aware of any of the others on the list being immigrants of any kind. So I guess it is Muslim immigrants 1, Non-Muslim immigrants 0. How you get conquering a nation from that I have absolutely no idea. Allow me to put it this way - If there were 70,000 cases such as San Bernardino, the number of civilians killed would not equal the number of civilians the U.S. has killed in Iraq since 2000. Yet Iraq is still around. Dysfunctional yes, but still there.


 

 

Well this requires some foresight on your part as domestic Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil is relatively new in the grand scheme of things as we have been further away from the source than the rest of the world.  But it's clearly increasing in frequency at home and has been a major problem abroad for a very long time.   If you don't get that example of 50 million new immigrants from anywhere over a short span of time can conquer a nation as it currently exists, we should probably just stop here and move on to other topics.  I'm already growing tired of this and have spent too much time responding and should have known better than to comment in a political thread, and when the sarcasm begins it usually signals the beginning of the end of legitimate debate.

 

Regarding 50 million new immigrants, however, it's more than just the potential additional violence their ideology may bring.  It's a significant increase in a voting block of a people who's ideas on a lot of things don't jive with the current majority populations of Europe or the U.S.  I never insinuated that we are conquered or will be in a couple of years.  As I explained, the example was extreme to make the point that if we were already committed to such a policy and had to poll the current citizens of this country where they would prefer to receive these immigrants from that overwhelmingly I believe the answer would be from the non-Muslim population sample and for good reason.  I think if you were being honest you'd choose the same unless perhaps you are a Muslim.  I'm not sure if your intent is to actually minimize the San Bernardino event, but comparing it to casualties of war is again apples to oranges.  We know the circumstances surrounding the victims demise in that case.  We don't know the circumstances of each individual infraction of civilian casualties in Iraq and quite frankly it's performed by uniformed individuals in a war zone vs. citizen against citizen with ideology being cited.

 

 

From what I understand, the San Bernardino example is a case where an immigrant was granted residency based upon marriage. I also believe they were planning the attack prior to the engagement. I am wondering, though, are you stating that you believe it should be the U.S. policy not to allow citizens to ever marry Muslims of a different nation? Or they can marry, but not allow the spouse into the U.S.? I really don't quite get that based on one example.

 

I've espoused no specific policy, only wondered aloud do we need to continue bringing in new citizens en masse who are committed to an ideology that's grounded in violence and whose rulebook allows and encourages the targeting of non-military targets in order to terrorize the citizenry.  And on top of that whose 2nd generation children are now carrying out attacks here in the name of Islam.  I get how difficult it would be to implement such an idea aside from just putting a moratorium on immigration from majority Muslim countries.  That's a band-aid not a true solution though.  Perhaps the best answer is to just have a highly publicized $1 million dollar reward (or whatever is feasible and significant enough to illicit a proper tip off)  for anyone tipping the authorities off about any planned attacks, islam related or otherwise.  If they can give $1 million away on game shows, surely they can give it away for saving lives from potential perpetrators.

<div> 
 

Even if you go back generations, I guess you then include a few others. But we are all descended from immigrants. Does the Virginia shooting mean we should exclude Asians? I also didn't see any weighing of the benefits of immigration. What if we lost a few current citizens but save the lives of 10-fold new citizens. 100-fold? I realize this is a hypothetical, just trying to get an understanding of your thoughts on relative values.


 

Did the Virginia Asian man cite an ideology?  I don't recall that he did other than mocking those that had more than he did.  And yeah we're all descended from immigrants and if you take that thought to it's conclusion no one can justly own property anywhere because it all traces back and belongs to someone else right?  We can get as wishy washy as you want but it ultimately ends up an argument for anarchy and good luck with that.  Again, we're moving way into the weeds with your Virginia example.  There are plenty of bat [BLEEP] crazy people that go on shooting rampages.  Bat [BLEEP] crazy isn't exclusive to one ideology, but there does appear to be more than their fair share of bat [BLEEP] crazy within the Muslim community.  I guess let's just get to the point and ask if you agree or disagree with that statement or not?

 

 

</div>