Originally Posted by suited
I'm just asking your opinion. It's easy to be a contrarian who never takes a firm position on anything. Many people spend their time here mocking other people's positions while never stating their own, or doing so in very vague terms. If you're going to mock someone's position, at least be clear what yours is. I'm honestly interested in knowing which group you believe represents the biggest terrorist threat.
I'm not an expert--on terrorism or law enforcement. As a lay citizen, yes, I'd agree that right now, Islamic fundamentalism poses the most serious threat to American citizens' lives via terrorist attacks. In this provisional agreement, I am taking a less "firm position" once again. I do so for two related reasons: 1) I don't pretend to be an expert on whatever I think; when I think that I might possibly be a distortion, i'd prefer not to make sweeping declarations that I'll defend no matter what. 2) I also know that taxonomizing things and attributing motives to acts is tricky. Yes, the recent massacre is linked to Islamic extremism because of what the dude said as he committed murder; it's far less clear that he had any kind of coherent allegiance or coordination or even worldview. It's quite possible in this case--although again, I can't be sure--that this was a closeted dude who lashed out by saying stupid shit. This doesn't completely disconnect the killing from Islam (one clear link could be religious anti-gay views); it just upends a straightforward attribution.
Yes, I have mocked your position and will continue to do so in this thread. I do so because you refuse the actual complexity involved in global issues AND in questions of causation and motivation. You simple start with oversimplifications like "Muslim ideas are dangerous so we keep Muslims out!" And then you insist that you're the most truthful and any attempts to think through the complications are PC librul evasions. In this particular case, you began with the blanket, unqualified, and frankly useless statement that Muslims cause the most terrorist attacks. (And we see the aftermath of that--you leave it to others to try to qualify what you could possibly mean, how you're wrong, etc.)
But perhaps the real reason I mock your position: it starts with an oversimplification as if it were truth and then keeps proclaiming on a "solution" that's not a solution at all. "Banning Muslim immigration" makes no sense. I keep asking you or others who mostly agree with you what you could possible mean. Ban all Muslims via a religious identity test? Muslims from specific nations? Who gets to choose? What happens to Muslims nations that are our allies, like Jordan? Or what about Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia? Do we stop granting visas? Of all sorts? (After all, the 9-11 attackers had visas.) Or do we only blocking refugees? If I have any firm position, it's that a blanket claim, "Let's stop letting Muslims in!" is risible for practical and strategic reasons in addition to ones of principle; I'm derisive because we might as well be talking in smart, detailed ways but instead we're taking time bickering over a reductive non-position.