Western values and Islam are very, very compatible

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue.  Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest?  Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.

It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection.  E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.

He made numerous statements about Syrian refugee admissions nearly all of which were howling lies: claiming that Syrian refugees enter without paperwork, are not "vetted", are mostly young men, and then misstating by orders of magnitude how many would be admitted under HRC's plans.

[Berkut]

Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.

Great discussion.

Ah, I see.  You are free to insult people, but they should always remain polite when adressing you.  Really sounds like a Trump supporter.

Nothing to do with being polite, has to do with creating moronic arguments you know are not true like "Berkut's...most hidden secret desire is to see Trump's plan in action".

I am not polite, but I don't say things I certainly know you do not believe because it makes my argument sound good.

We can have a constructive, impolite conversation. We cannot have a constructive conversation where you lack the intellectual integrty to avoid saying things you are absolutely certain are false as you are typing them.

[Berkut]

I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue.  Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest?  Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.

It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection.  E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.

He made numerous statements about Syrian refugee admissions nearly all of which were howling lies: claiming that Syrian refugees enter without paperwork, are not "vetted", are mostly young men, and then misstating by orders of magnitude how many would be admitted under HRC's plans.

Arguing with anyone about whether or not Trunp's arguments, any of them, are "honest" or not is an exercise in futility.

Honesty doesn't enter into anything Trump says, one way or the other. I don't even think whether what he says is true or not enters into his mind before he vomits it forth.

[The Minsky Moment]

Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans.  Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.

I'm as much for Barry as anyone but  . . . the fact is that ISIS reorganized and grew during his presidency; indeed it came its present form then.  Its resurgence in Iraq was probably unavoidable due to domestic political developments there.  In Syria though there were more options.  Perhaps not good options or ones that ultimately would have worked.  But what can't be argued is that the policy followed gave room for ISIS to expand there.

[Admiral Yi]

It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection.  E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.

It would have been dishonest in the way you describe if he had in fact claimed that only those Muslims who enter on immigration or refugee visas have, or ever will, engage in terrorism.

[dps]

I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party.  He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam.  I hope Trump tries to do the same.

Why?

Because we don't want all of them hostile to us.  I thought that would have been obvious.

It's both the practical approach, and the right thing to do.

If posters here were representative of their societies, given Grey Fox's, Viper's, and Grallon's attitudes toward Muslims, I'd have to say that the Islamic radicals should identify Quebec, rather than the US, as the "Great Satan".

[Berkut]

Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans.  Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.

I'm as much for Barry as anyone but  . . . the fact is that ISIS reorganized and grew during his presidency; indeed it came its present form then.  Its resurgence in Iraq was probably unavoidable due to domestic political developments there.  In Syria though there were more options.  Perhaps not good options or ones that ultimately would have worked.  But what can't be argued is that the policy followed gave room for ISIS to expand there.

I am torn on Obama's polciy towards Islamism in general and ISIS in particular.

On the one hand, I think there was a time when he basically had this "Pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it will go away" attitude towards the ME in general, and Iraq and Syria in particular. I think this went hand in hand with his "We will bail on Iraq so fast when I an elected! So fast! You will be tired of how fast we will bail, it will be so fast OMG! So fast!" campaign promises.

I think that policy was very much responsible for the rise of ISIS, or at least gave it the room to flourish, and a lot of temporal space where we basically turned a blind eye because we were committed to being out of Iraq and hands off in Syria.

But that is a relatively understandable error. Obama was elected on the basis of a lot of angst in the US and Europe about America's role in the Middle East. We had heard for decades how pretty much everything wrong with the Middle East was a result of American meddling, so taking a shot at just not trying being involved anymore seemed like it was worth a shot. Needless to say, absent American meddling, things have gone amazingly well. Not.

Anyway, since he started paying attention again, I think he has mostly done the right things. An agressive military posture in Iraq, a willingness to hold his nose and deal with Iran, and the very clear willingness to bomb the shit out of ISIS si ways from Sunday, all the while maintaining this facade of hands off....

I go back and forth on his own stance on pretending like viper is right, and we should fake like Islam isn't really a problem, it is just like all other religions. He clearly does not act that way, and is doing the right things, but saying something very different. I can understand the argument that while it is important to identify things for what they are, his job is not to be the honest voice, but rather to speak in a manner that can best achieve American goals. So I understand his argument that he should not use terms like "Islamic terrorism". I am not sure I agree that the negative he is trying to avoid is worth the cost however. I think it creates a lot of confusion about our stance, and it makes him look like he is simply in denial among a lot of people for whom this is a significant issue. Now, I will grant that the reason it is a significant issue is that the right has recognized that it is a delicious morsel of fear and bigotry to feed their deplorables, and have been trumpeting that for years now. But that is not a mystery or surprise either, and his vacilitating lets a demagogue like Trump make the claim that only he is willing to stand up to terrorism.

IMO, there was probably a time when that careful language made sense, but I don't think it is still necessary. The continuing violence is going to polarize opinion, and at some point we need moderates to step in and own the conversation, and they cannot do that if they are attacked from the left every time they call a spade a spade.

[Duque de Bragança]

If posters here were representative of their societies, given Grey Fox's, Viper's, and Grallon's attitudes toward Muslims, I'd have to say that the Islamic radicals should identify Quebec, rather than the US, as the "Great Satan".

This is what Viper gets for going PC on Islam(ism). Sad!