parker Says:
December 10th, 2015 at 12:34 am

neo,

As I have stated many times, I view trump as a great danger, same as I viewed bho in 2008. But I also understand his appeal to his ‘reality’ fan base. I can feel the same tug of emotion, but I am immune to the populist emotive id. Yet, we face an implacable enemy. Such enemies must be fought and defeated with an implacable will. Cruz and Fiorina, IMO, have the …”

Agree. I could be proven wrong, but that is how it looks now.

Erdogan is handing them out like Chicklets.

He’s the patron of ISIS — and doesn’t Putin know it.

Putin is not pulling that opinion out of his ear, either.

Turkey is a gateway for ISIS.

It needs to be expelled out of NATO.

His shoot down of Russia’s plane was purely provocation — theater.

The standard NATO drill — going back forever — is to escort the Russians// Soviets.

The WORST terrorists are coming via Saudi Arabia.

Trump was RIGHT.

Alternatively, there’s Neo’s list of actions, above, and I would say #12 needs a lot more attention. I believe there have been some moderate moslems who have offered to help this administration and Bush’s as well, but who have been rebuffed, largely by the State Dept. Much like they refuse to use Israeli Jewish translators of Arabic, preferring to trust the moslems to translate their co-religionists’ hate speech.

But at bottom, we’re dealing with a Small World problem. In the founding fathers’ time, they didn’t have to worry about mohammedans or head-hunting cannibals coming to America in any numbers. Now, however, we do — and we need to stop treating islam, inter alia, like it’s just another branch of the Judeo-Christian moral universe.

Well, I seem to be “immune to the populist emotive id,” too. 🙂

As I have stated many times, I view trump as a great danger, same as I viewed bho in 2008. But I also understand his appeal to his ‘reality’ fan base. I can feel the same tug of emotion, but I am immune to the populist emotive id. Yet, we face an implacable enemy. Such enemies must be fought and defeated with an implacable will. Cruz and Fiorina, IMO, have the fortitude of a Churchill, and that is exactly what we need.

Dangerous days ahead, especially for those who live in urban areas. I wish everyone a happy, safe holiday; even if I may disagree with any of you from time to time.

Then we are in basic agreement.

I’ve also been in favor of a moratorium on travel back and forth from certain regions. Also in favor of revoking citizenship for those who helped the terrorist cause in Syria, and of trying them for treason. I started writing about that a year and a half ago, so it has nothing to do with Trump.

One of the things that’s been frustrating the last few days is that many commenters here (I’m not including you, by the way, at least not as far as I recall) seem to have forgotten everything I’ve ever written about immigration and think I’ve been soft on these matters or naive about them—just because I don’t think Trump’s idea about vetting by religion is a good one. It doesn’t mean I don’t think we need to do a great deal to avoid making the problem worse, and also to deal with the problem of finding terrorists already here.

There is something very disturbing about this kneejerk reaction of accusing people who don’t agree with Trump’s positions of being too soft on immigration—as though Trump’s position is the only possible one and the best one, and anyone who disagrees is in favor of just letting in a flow of terrorists.

Yes, I know that is not practical. But even the most stringent vetting of those entering from jihad landia will never be anywhere near 75% effective. Thus, out of 10,000 so vetted 2,500 may or not be potential jihadists. Even 25, 20, 5, or 1 out of 10,000 is unacceptable to me. The barbarians in France were amateurs. If I wished to create mass murder I could enlist 10 family members to murder thousands in one fell swoop without flying airplanes into buildings or a wmd.

Determined jihadists, with adequate training, who select the right targets at the right time, can and sooner or later will, murder thousands without sophisticated weapons. Its a given. It can not be prevented even if we become a police state. All I want us to do is reduce the eventual carnage. If that is alt-right (never heard the term before) then count me in.

Do you realize that quite a few of the Muslim terrorists in this country and Europe right now are citizens rather than immigrants? And there are apparently a great many of them. There is no way to avoid “accepting a certain level of death and destruction” unless you intend to deport every Muslim in America, and all the wannabees too.

The question is what is the best way to handle reducing the number of jihadis entering this country (that’s where my suggestions on immigration, including cutting the numbers way back as well as better vetting, come in) and finding the ones who are already here, either as citizens or immigrants, and how best to accomplish both, considering that all suggestions so far (including Trump’s) will allow “a certain level of death and destruction.” Which things will do the least damage for the most reward?—that is the question.

It is a battle with many parts and decisions, all with potential to reduce the level of death and destruction (which will almost certainly not become zero no matter what we do):

(1) fight ISIS abroad
(2) limit immigration from abroad
(3) vet immigrants you allow in
(4) limit visas
(5) track those who come in on visas
(6) reduce or if possible stop illegal immigration
(7) reduce or stop terrorists’ access to money
(8) monitor suspects within this country, including citizens who are suspects
(9) monitor suspects abroad, including citizens who are suspects
(10) try to get the public in this country behind your policies
(11) broaden the rules of engagement for the military
(12) mobilize the local Muslim community to help

I’m sure there are more; that’s just a quick list.