Not that I support one or the other side of this retarded argument...

But in Aus, something like 1 in 3000 Australians of Lebanese descent were accused (not convicted) of being involved in terrorist planning/actions etc. And Australians lost their shit about it.

1 in 20 of Australian Catholic clergy have been convicted of child molestation, which closely matches a US study of 107,000 clergy turning up 1 in 24 odd. No one seemed particularly perturbed...

Pro tip: The west is more concerned about muslims/arabic types because they're brown and strange (to us), even though your child is far more likely to be molested by a pedo than he/she is to be killed in a terror attack. Though I hate using it, seems like a "won't some one think of the children moment".

Hrm, wonder if you can deport catholics back to the Vatican...

You can't have a meaningful dialogue when one person starts with incorrect facts.

I did notice a solution that helps the most amount of people in a reasonable way, educate them. Lack of education is the biggest factor in being able to radicalize anyone, from any religion. Arab Muslims have few educational opportunities, leaving them open to being duped by the unscrupulous.

Um....you're blaming Trumps flailing illegal orders, and the ignoring of judicial orders on the left? Fuck you. Trump is 100% the responsibility of the right, and the left accepts 0% of the responsibility for what he does. No one on the left cornered Trump into a Muslim ban, he advertised it, promised it, and delivered it for his racist base, and they love it because....fewer darkies.

Our borders are different from Europe. We may close the gates, but we won't be more secure because of it, anyone wanting in will still come in. 1/2 of illegals flew here, and the wall, if it's ever built, won't be done for decades and won't stop illegals, they'll tunnel.

While I respect many of them, I don't take assertions like that for granted without evidence that it's true, not just an assumption. The pew research didn't have a study about religious extremists correlating with insanity in some religions and not others....I looked, but it did have an answer to your question of why Arab Muslims are more prone to extremism, severe lack of educational oportunity.

No, all religions are not equal, but they share certain traits and are nearly all equally susceptible to abuse in the right circumstances.

It's also dishonest to claim only one culture still does those things. Every single one was done by average everyday Christians in America in my lifetime, and are just an okeydoke from someone in authority away from returning to being acceptable in many places.

Edit: I'm not one of those that think everyone is good, the opposite, I think human nature is to be evil if you think you'll get away with it, and to be decent people we must consciously fight that instinct.

Ban Arab Muslims, except from places that have attacked us, and tell all other Muslim countries that more is coming, they may be next.
Terror linked is a different category from terrorist sponsoring, and those nations are not banned. That's absolutely retarded.

I guess he's ignorant of the fact that the right was frothing at the mouth because Obama refused to just arm anyone fighting against Assad and insisted on VETTING them before he armed them. Had Trump and the Republicans been in control, Daesh may have been given battlefield nukes.

The "exemption" to the un-American refugee ban doesn't start for 120 days, and is then ONLY if Trump's people think it's in the national interest to let them in on a case by case basis (based on what, determined by whom?)....which is not likely for those worth less than $5000000. I guess he didn't read the text before calling others delusional or he would have read that.

Oops, the 2014 attack was also preformed by an American, as others have been....I guess we have to ban Americans too.

Yes, because America VETTS those we invite in...contrary to what most right wing idiots believe. They use Europe as an example of what will happen if we don't stop the scary Muslims, conveniently ignoring the vetting process that's completely non existent in Europe.

He's saying that people treated as the enemy often become the enemy, you feculent douche. Learn to read...and think.

Trump is just the bigot. Period. It's absolutely correct that if Muslims were as dangerous as portrayed and treated by Trump and the right, he would have been assassinated. That's a good indicator that Trump is wrong, not that all Muslims are easily radicalized or a call for assassination like the right spent 8 years doing directly and personally towards Obama.

Not a single Syrian that supports Daesh has made it through the vetting process to America.

They don't ban Israelis because of religion, they are banned because they are all in the military and that military is an expansionist fascist oppressor of and provocateur to Palestinians and most other Arab nations. I'm fairly certain Jews from America can go there.

What a fucking brain dead, dishonest idiot.
Mostly good tags though, this is certainly chock full of fail and lies, fearmongering, and has mostly been debunked....but it's absolutely not news in any way. I'll let someone else fix that though.

Found this on Reddit

He was getting his friend to wind people up, then when it all got out of hand he started shouting racism. They were other people on that plane speaking Arabic including a woman sat in front of me and no-one said a word to her.

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.

Right, the Russians who prop up a dictator whose almost immediate response to the Arab uprising was to fire on the protesters and who terrifies his people into submission with barrel bombs and chemical weapons - they're the good guys.

See here's the funny thing. You or whatever you're reading is stuck in the Cold War mindset of the US intervening to prop up murderous dictators against the perceived threat of communism. However now that it's Russia intervening on behalf of its favored dictators you're too stuck in your narrative to see the irony of your position.

Russia is only intervening against ISIS to the extent it props up Assad. The US still of course supports dictators when it is in its economic interests (see Saudi Arabia and implicitly supporting its war in Yemen) but the fact that it's largely avoided arming the government or rebel groups in Syria, neither of which have their hands clean should indicate a lesson learned from arming the mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, not a mistake.

If they were really separated populations, that might be OK (immigrating to the Jewish held territories), but they weren't. The lived in the same areas for the most part, they just didn't intermingle so much socially (although WAY more than they do today).....but expansionist settlements were and are a major sticking point to resolving the conflict, so even if there was a Jewish territory to migrate to, they wouldn't stay in it, and that's a major problem. The governing body of the area didn't want them, and the immigrants armed themselves and fought that government (and beat it senseless), to me, invaders. Your feelings may differ, I get it, I think we understand each other and disagree...and that's fine.

I don't think the US was as closed as you imply (but certainly not open to everyone), but it was difficult and expensive to get here, so practically it wasn't an option for most, agreed.

Perhaps the Arab League's intent was truly expansion into Palestine, at least they were 'invited' by the government of the territory! ;-) I agree, their lack of cohesion doomed them before they started, and should be a national shame to all involved.

YIKES! OK, I'll just say that I, in no way, support Daesh or any of their actions, not almost, not nearly, just not. I can sympathize with a few of their complaints, but that's as far as it goes. The Syrian resistance is in no way tied to Daesh, as you mentioned they are fighting each other. I don't get how you go from support of the resistance to 'near yes' to supporting Daesh, especially if you support the Syrian resistance. Huh?

@newtboy

you said:
Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.
Hence my making the distinction between Arab and Jewish controlled Palestine. Officially the British were still ruling over Palestine, but in most practical ways, Palestine was already divided before the mass immigration started. There was essentially Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and the normal conflicts between close neighbours with different religion were already significant before the illegal immigration. Of all the places for Jewish Europeans to flee to, the land already in the possession and control of welcoming Jewish Palestinians hardly stinks of invasion to me.

Sorry, I know I tried to refocus on what they should have done and immediately leapt off the rails myself.

You said:
should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians
A majority of them that made it into Britain and America did just that. In fact, so many fought against the Nazis that when the civil war in Palestine came to a head and WW2 veteran Jewish soldiers started showing up it's counted part of the Arab narrative as 'western' support and part of the unfair military advantage that made Israel the mighty power and the Arab league army the underdogs.

You said:
The U.S. was open...if they could get here.
No, nothing was open. As pictures of the camps spread, doors started opening but that was very much after the fact. Leading up to and during WW2 immigration numbers were very restricted to jewish people. There simply was absolutely no legal immigration option for thousands and thousands of Jewish Europeans.

You said:
neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders
You misunderstand my statement on the Arab League member's intentions. They had NO intention of defending their neighbouring Arab Palestinian's land. Sure, publicly they declared a joint effort to liberate Palestine. Each member nation though was stating that as code for liberate a portion of Palestine by making it a part of themselves. Israel was able to take the best equipped and trained Jordanian army out of the battle without a single shot fired by agreeing with them to simply abandon the portion of Palestine that Jordan proceeded to make a part of itself. The other Arab states made similar bids militarily, refusing to co-ordinate their assaults because each wanted to declare the ground gained their own. As they each rushed their offensives and attacked individually Israel had the time to plant 100% of their forces in the path of each of them.

You asked:
Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh?
In the sense that you are asking, it's a near yes. The original Syrian resistance is a group I really do support, and the Kurdish fighters have largely been on their same side and I support their efforts there as well. Daesh was much more interested in killing the 'legitimate' resistance than Assad and Putin's forces. Similarly, the Russians have made it a firm practice to exclusively attack the 'legitimate' resistance and doing their best to largely not bother attacking Daesh unless forced to. The main reason being that once Daesh is all that's left, the scorched earth fix becomes all the more easily justified, and the actual rebels pose a much more real and legitimate alternative to Assad's government than Daesh.

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

And now we got much further from understanding each other again.

Would we have any luck coming at this from an entirely different angle. What do you propose that Jewish Europeans, Jewish Palestinians and the Jewish populations around the Middle East should have done between around 1910 through 1948? Staying in Europe was a death sentence and it's just good fortune the allies were able to retake it while any of them were left alive. The jewish population of Palestine was being similarly disenfranchised, but unlike in Europe they weren't as badly outnumbered. The confrontations with the Arab Palestinians had turned violent, and their leadership openly admired Hitler. As preparations for WW2 got underway, British and Allied strategy was taking the strategic route of marginalizing the Jewish minority because the Arab majority support was more important to holding the region.

I don't see anything but death and suffering to the jewish population if they just follow what I gather as your position of basically living by the rules and the law of the land, whether they like it or not.

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

@newtboy
If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%
Jews weren't the only ones relocating to Palestine you know, Arab population growth was being driven up as well. For some strange reason a lot of people were relocating en mass in between WW1 and WW2. Seems disproportionate to me to be the concerned exclusively with the Jewish ones. Doubly so given within that time frame they undoubtedly had better reasons for concern.

My Texas-California comparison stands...
Except for the holocaust part.

Here's the example you want. During the Rwandan genocide, let's pretend we saw a mass exodus of Africans seeking refuge in America. As the genocide in Rwanda was being sifted through, let's pretend that White America decided to ban all land sales to black people, and started refusing to conduct any business with black people. Let's pretend white folks even got up in arms and started committing a few massacres of Black towns and Black people did the same back in defense and retaliation. Now, while all this fighting takes place lets see it escalate to an all out war, and the black population declares independence and accepts a UN mandated solution where they keep Missippi, Alabama and Florida or something. The day after that however, America and NATO announce a joint declaration of war and the president of the USA declares that he's going to drive the Africans into the sea. Now you've got a made in America analogy.