ChatterBank4 mins ago
May Katie H. Have One Of The Last Sensible Words On This Old Site
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Really what you'd expect from Ms. Hopkins - bit of a rant - about as useful as the petition she is ranting about.
But to address the issue that has everyone so vexed, I am a little confused.
If President Trump really believes that barring Muslims from certain countries is going to have the remotest effect on reducing the terrorist threat to the U.S., then he is far to naïve and simplistic to be doing that particular job.
But let's run with his point for a moment -
President Trump believes that banning Muslins from a listed set of countries will enable his administration to 'sort out what's going on ...' as he used to say in his campaign speeches.
I suggest that his rationale is flawed.
If you want to say that Muslims are terrorists, therefore by banning Muslims you ban terrorists, that is a facile argument that belongs in the 'dog born in a stable is a horse' folder.
But if you are banning Muslims because they are terrorists, then surely you have to ban all of them - because all Muslims are terrorists.
The moment you become selective - banning Muslims from countries which have form as producers or terrorists, but not banning Muslims from countries where you have personal profitable business links, then your strategy instantly starts to suck a big one, and people will reasonably wonder if you have actually thought through your policy before you put pen to paper.
So even though President Trump's notion of banning terrorists by banning Muslims, was about as useful as a chocolate tea pot, he instantly shot it down by allowing British Muslims with dual nationality to enter the U.S. as before.
Does President Trump assume that no Muslims from the UK with dual nationality could possibly be terrorists?
Just wondering ....
But to address the issue that has everyone so vexed, I am a little confused.
If President Trump really believes that barring Muslims from certain countries is going to have the remotest effect on reducing the terrorist threat to the U.S., then he is far to naïve and simplistic to be doing that particular job.
But let's run with his point for a moment -
President Trump believes that banning Muslins from a listed set of countries will enable his administration to 'sort out what's going on ...' as he used to say in his campaign speeches.
I suggest that his rationale is flawed.
If you want to say that Muslims are terrorists, therefore by banning Muslims you ban terrorists, that is a facile argument that belongs in the 'dog born in a stable is a horse' folder.
But if you are banning Muslims because they are terrorists, then surely you have to ban all of them - because all Muslims are terrorists.
The moment you become selective - banning Muslims from countries which have form as producers or terrorists, but not banning Muslims from countries where you have personal profitable business links, then your strategy instantly starts to suck a big one, and people will reasonably wonder if you have actually thought through your policy before you put pen to paper.
So even though President Trump's notion of banning terrorists by banning Muslims, was about as useful as a chocolate tea pot, he instantly shot it down by allowing British Muslims with dual nationality to enter the U.S. as before.
Does President Trump assume that no Muslims from the UK with dual nationality could possibly be terrorists?
Just wondering ....
Not that I wish to speak for him, as I don't agree with what he's doing at all, but I believe his argument isn't that all Muslims are terrorists, it's that those Muslims who are terrorists are more likely to come from the countries he's banned. Therefore banning those countries doesn't keep Muslims out of the USA, it keeps Muslim terrorists out. A facile argument, if you ask me, bit there you go.
One thing he knows that we don't is the number of plots that have been foiled that involve Muslim terrorists from those countries. Perhaps if we did know that we'd understand his reasoning a bit better, even if we still didn't agree with it.
One thing he knows that we don't is the number of plots that have been foiled that involve Muslim terrorists from those countries. Perhaps if we did know that we'd understand his reasoning a bit better, even if we still didn't agree with it.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Crosswords30 mins ago
50 Years For Not Killing Or Raping
News40 mins ago
Law62 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.