Originally Posted by suited
I disagree with that. Apparently what has already happened is not enough to convince you, and I certainly hope we don't suffer the kind of attack that would change your mind. But I suspect that if 20,000 people were killed in a chemical/biological attack, you would be in here peddling the same stuff.
Wow, yeah, it's always a strong rhetorical move to say, if this batshit crazy thing happened, you sure might feel differently wave fist and polish gun more furiously
. You say you certainly
hope that something terrible (high numbers! those scary chemicals
--so much scarier than bullets!) doesn't happen. And then you invoke it as your patriotism-boner inducing horror movie scenario. We have law enforcement systems in place to help prevent an attack of that magnitude. Those systems clearly include screening immigrants and visitors. I certainly hope they work. And perhaps if a terrible attack of the sort you imagine occurs, I would a) feel scared b) feel terrible c) try to understand what happened even if that knowledge doesn't translate to good politics.
(You know, like when a bunch of Saudis killed 3,000 Americans but then we're still totes BFF with Saudi Arabia and we invaded Iraq. But maybe I'm just a bleeding-heart librul because I keep making those pesky distinctions between Muslims, who are all the same)
Edited by erictheobscure - 6/18/16 at 11:12am
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.