Not that you are able to back yourself on your site for the things you say...

[Al Swearegen]

....but still....here is your chance to address the accusation of me being blatantly bigoted

So increase surveillance and access to intelligence on these communities in US may help deal with future potential problems BUT what will NOT is Clinton trying to bring in 500% of the current rates of Syrian refugees (When the Intelligence community in America registers that they are unable to confidently screen and vet everyone decently). Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently will ABSOLUTELY reduce the potential of more similar attacks.

About 100,000 or so Syrian refugees had fled to Sweden by the end of last year, while a mere 4,000 got as far as the US. We have yet to have anything even remotely like Orlando or San Bernadino here, so I think what you are describing here is yet another logic fail in one of Donald's speeches (and I'm ignoring the blatant bigotry for now).

But the capital letters sure look dramatic.

Its a big implication and I imagine you not addressing it will not reflect badly on me. (Though to be honest I don't think you could make the case for it regardless. In fact I think as badly as you did making a case for me being intellectually dishonest, you will fail harder with this.)

Probably best to pretend that you have not seen it or read it?

[odeon]

"Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently..."

This statement, straight from Donald Trump's campaign book, has no factual basis whatsoever, but it singles out a group of people for... what? There's really not much I need to prove here. You did all the work. This wouldn't have stopped any "similar attack", since the act in question was one perpetrated by an American national, and so your proposed action is irrelevant.

And sorry but yes, this kind of statement does reflect badly on you.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

...it singles out a group of people for... what?

Ooh, ooh, ooh! I know the answer to this one!!! 

[Gopher Gary]

What's the answer, Pappy? What is it? 

[Al Swearegen]

"Freezing Muslim immigration until America can screen more confidently..."

This statement, straight from Donald Trump's campaign book, has no factual basis whatsoever, but it singles out a group of people for... what? There's really not much I need to prove here. You did all the work. This wouldn't have stopped any "similar attack", since the act in question was one perpetrated by an American national, and so your proposed action is irrelevant.

And sorry but yes, this kind of statement does reflect badly on you.

Not at all. It reflects badly on you that you see it as unreasonable. 

San Bernardino, Orlando, Chattanooga and 9/11 and there are more that are caught before they become problems. How many are being actively investigated? 900, the Director of FBI, James Comey says. How many potential terrorist immigrants have slipped through the vetting systems in place? Comey says that it potentially is dozens..  Ex-CIA operative and analysist Clare Lopez says that the FBI and other intelligence agencies, not only cannot cope with what the have but often have no means to check on immigrants records such as with the Syrian government infrastructure. There are simply little to no records they can avail themselves of.

Given the instances that we see of the FBI and DHS failing to identify threats until after the event or not following through. We can reasonably conclude that until better measures and better solutions are in place there will be no way of checking to a degree of certainty needed to ensure a reasonable expectation of national safety.

There is actually a LOT you need here.  I am singling out Radical Islamic fundamentalists and their obvious link to Radical Islamic based terrorism and it's difficulty to distinguish on the basis of poor records, from decent moderate Muslims.

Now tell me HOW singling out Radical Muslims with their hateful beliefs is an incorrect or bigoted thing to say. Is it in any way false?

No?

You have plenty to back and saying you don't is lazy. One might say, intellectually lazy, low.

BTW Don't care that Matten was a national. He was radicalised with Radical Islamic beliefs and did it for ISIS rather than at their behest

[odeon]

But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.

And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each  other. At all.

Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?

Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?

[Al Swearegen]

But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.

And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each  other. At all.

Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?

Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?

Nope I am not singling out all Muslims. You are not (presumably)  silly enough to not see that I have consistently indicated that Radical Muslims AND have not said anything that could remotely be considered bigoted against Muslims as a whole.

I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..

If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair,  injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.

In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.

I like the next part of your reasoning.

"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)

What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America.  Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents,  his ratings died and he got dumped

Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.

As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.

You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.

[MLA]

A Swede and an Australian walk into a bar and begin to argue US domestic policy....

[odeon]

But you're not singling out radical Muslims, you are singling out Muslims. You may think it's "reasonable", me, I think it goes against all that freedom shit the US used to boast about and is bigoted in the extreme.

And it does not address the problems with US nationals shooting each  other. At all.

Did you know that a US citizen is about 5,000 times more likely to die from preventable medical errors than terrorism? No? Why aren't the doctors being hunted down and brought into justice? Do you think it would help to shut the borders?

Did you know that more than 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides in the US every year? Which group should be singled out, and who can the US prevent from entering the country to combat this?

Nope I am not singling out all Muslims. You are not (presumably)  silly enough to not see that I have consistently indicated that Radical Muslims AND have not said anything that could remotely be considered bigoted against Muslims as a whole.

Consistently? Nope, sorry. Look at that other thread where I prove you wrong by quoting you.

I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..

Actually, you've stated some uncomfortably bigoted views--parroted Donald, essentially--and then failed to provide anything to support them. Just like Donald.

If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair,  injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.

In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.

I like the next part of your reasoning.

"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)

Huh? You're not making any sense. I take it this was supposed to be witty?

What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America.  Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents,  his ratings died and he got dumped

Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.

Actually I believe a sizable portion of the US are in favour of the gun control measures suggested by President Obama. Great conversation.

As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.

You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.

You do know that refugees have rights, don't you? There was also this silly little thing written in the late 40s and early 50s, about universal human rights that just happened to include religion. I believe one of its original authors was an American.

[odeon]

Oh, and I have shown that you were bigoted, as you included every Muslim (and anyone living in Muslim-dominated countries I believe it was), without exception, in your post in the Orlando thread. Here it is in its entirety:

The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.

Of course it's a gun problem.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html

It was from a radicalised Muslim man on behalf of ISIS (that is that he did this based on what he thought would please them and they were so pleased and took credit for it).

BUT he used a gun. So what?

Paris http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994

Brussels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

Rotherham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Cologne http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html

Cause and effect. Ascribing the wrong cause is almost as harmful as excusing it

Like this bloke https://www.rt.com/news/338779-somalian-refugee-raped-politician/

Just a gun problem. No. It is an ideological problem. It is NOT a gun problem or a toxic masculinity problem as some Feminists were happier labeling it. It is a problem with radicalised Muslims committing terrorist actions on behalf of a horrible ideology.

End of.

Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.

I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.

Of course one could say, "Why are they displaced from their country in the first place and as a result of who's actions? Surely not the countries they are immigrating to? If they are immigrating there are they likely to be happy with the host country or not? But that is an entirely different point.

I've highlighted the relevant bits.

I don't think we have a peanut gallery (people are probably avoiding these callouts like the plague by now), so I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

Oh, and one last thing:

I like it how you tend to try and use the fact that I pay for our host against me when you are in a sufficiently pissy mood. The subject line of this callout is just the latest example. Is it that you feel intimidated?

[Al Swearegen]

Consistently? Nope, sorry. Look at that other thread where I prove you wrong by quoting you.

I did look and I saw one thread that you had a number of my quotes in and nothing that I disavow and none that was bigoted.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23712.0.html

I have stated some uncomfortable truths and said that I support in principle the idea of preventing ALL Muslim immigrants until the Radical Muslims can be identified within the Muslim immigrant applicants..

Actually, you've stated some uncomfortably bigoted views--parroted Donald, essentially--and then failed to provide anything to support them. Just like Donald.

Actually, that is completely false.
Here is a little thought experiment consider all your biases and preconceptions of what I think and support to one side.

If I said "I think that no radical Muslims should be allowed or able to travel outside their country because they are a threat to any other country they visit"
Would you agree, in principle?

If I said that "These radicalised Muslims are hateful, zealous, ideologues with death and suffering on their mind and are perverting Islamic Belief systems in order to do these terrible things with righteous justification".
Would you agree, in principle?

If I said that "Americans should not have these people in their country and they ought not feel obliged to have hateful radicalised Muslims in the country"
Would you agree, in principle?

If I said that "The screening processes in America and the investigative FBI processes seem a little below par".
Would you agree, in principle?

If I said "It is difficult without good screening measure to know what is in another person's head. Radicalised Muslims do not come with a tattoo on their forehead and the decent Muslim man or woman or child that wants to make their home in America and contribute to the society and culture in America is sometimes very hard if not impossible to pick from the radicalised or the potential radical."
Would you agree, in principle?

Now what is the next step? To my mind if you cannot screen properly and there is a threat (you can argue all you like as to whether there is or how great it is - just as you could about New Years Eve in a German Town or a quick dip in a Swedish pool outside of segregated hours if you are a woman), but I am going to say that we have a difference of opinion on the degree here. So if I am closer to you in the degree of threat then the next step is if you cannot screen effectively and you are at risk of things going really badly, then put a hold on the immigration and direct energies into developing better screening processes and coming up with better options. Simply hold off on the risk of working with flawed systems and wait until a better replacement is in place. If you are unable to differentiate good from bad and radical from moderate do not take the risk until you can reduce it down further.

Its a pretty simple logical follow through. I understand your saying "I don't believe the threat is a bad one". You are entitled to that opinion but it is only an opinion. I have a different opinion. You can say if you stop all Muslim immigration that is bigoted. Okay you can take that position. Its rather sad, but that is fine. I do not think so. I can swing the pendulum back your way and say,

"Acknowledging that the FBI are doing a pretty average job with what they have at the moment, How can they better differentiate good moderate Muslims from Radicalised Muslim Extremists if those extremists are trying to immigrate by pretending to be good moderate Muslims?"

You got nothing. You want to take a dump on the concept without being able to offer a better option? Great. Nice talk.

If a particularly infectious and often fatal disease that was at risk of causing damage to the US and it was difficult to detect the host of said disease in a given community BUT you knew for certain that the country the immigrants were applying to come from was where it was running rampant, then it may well seem unfair,  injustice or even putting the poor healthy non-infected people at risk of harm not letting them in.

In this example the difficult to detect infectious disease is Radical Muslim ideology.

I like the next part of your reasoning.

"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that. What do you suggest about that" (paraphrased)

Huh? You're not making any sense. I take it this was supposed to be witty?

Not making any sense. Okay I will spell it out to you:

If a disease like Ebola on steroids that spreads quickly and is really deadly but also difficult to detect, starts in a country like.....I dunno....Iran. It spreads like wildfire and is not contained before it crosses the border into nearby countries and population. People flee in terror of this horrid disease and try to escape to other countries as refugees. Many do not know they are infected. Some do but are hiding their secret. Many are not infected yet. They all want to immigrate to the United States of America. Three options:

A) Bring them in at normal rates, business as usual - subpar screening.
B) Bring them in at accelerated rates - subpar screening
c) Acknowledge you have subpar screening and cannot detect all the sick ones and do not let any in until you can differentiate healthy from sick and sanction America from the diseased ones even if not allowing perfectly healthy ones in (as they may actually be sick but unable to be diagnosed) and that not doing so may place these innocents in harm's way.

C is not a nice option but it is not bigoted against Iranians.

(Oh yes swap ebola on steroids with Radical Islam and the point should make itself. If not I could make another analogy with Swedish Swimming Pools and the need for segregated swimming times.)

What the Americans do or don't do about this entirely up to the Americans. There was a guy who used to argue a lot about guns in America.  Hostage was Piers Morgan. A lot of similar talking points. He was shut down in the end after being slammed again and again by his opponents,  his ratings died and he got dumped

Let's pretend for a moment that this was another gun problem. Being that Americans are not going to stand for restrictive measures on guns...what would be your answer to that? Nothing? Great conversation.

Actually I believe a sizable portion of the US are in favour of the gun control measures suggested by President Obama. Great conversation.

I believe that Americans are most reluctant to be disarmed by the Government and that they are wary of any restrictions placed on their "gun rights". But we are simply disagreeing on this. We are both foreigners. I know what guns were in Australia prior to Port Arthur and now and it did not stop or impinge on my family's gun ownership or gun use. But we have a different culture here. I am sure Sweden has different culture again, around guns.

As for it doing nothing to stop US nationals shooting each other, well that's just stupid. That National was a radicalised Muslim. He and Nationals like him (and the Chattanooga gunman) are no less Radicalised Muslims for being raised in US. FBI is stretched too thin and if the can be left to stop problems with who they have here and work out how to differentiate decent Muslims from Radicalised crazies, then they have a chance to check the potential menace.

You do know that immigration is not a right? It is not assumed that any country has to take any particular immigrant. It's not what a country owes you.

See I told you I answered this. You asked me again though you know you had asked it and I had answered it. Damn!

You do know that refugees have rights, don't you? There was also this silly little thing written in the late 40s and early 50s, about universal human rights that just happened to include religion. I believe one of its original authors was an American.

Of course I do. Why do I care the nationality of the author or about religions being included. I think that Muslims can practice their Islamic faith and should. I am not religious myself but I have no care if others are. If it brings them joy and comfort, fine. If they pervert the religion and introduce other hateful ideologies and interpretations to foster something that we see with the Radicalised Muslims and ISIS or ISIS inspired terrorists, then I got a problem with them.

SO I know you were trying for implicit but you came across as just vague.

Whatever

Oh, and I have shown that you were bigoted, as you included every Muslim (and anyone living in Muslim-dominated countries I believe it was), without exception, in your post in the Orlando thread. Here it is in its entirety:

The comparison with the Paris attacks is an odd one--that one was a well-planned attack, carried out by a terror organisation cell. The Orlando attack was the act of a loner, a US citizen who bought the weapon legally, no questions asked, in spite of having been previously questioned by the FBI.

Of course it's a gun problem.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-remarks-gun-control-hauntingly-000000581.html

It was from a radicalised Muslim man on behalf of ISIS (that is that he did this based on what he thought would please them and they were so pleased and took credit for it).

BUT he used a gun. So what?

Paris http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994

Brussels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Brussels_bombings

Rotherham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Cologne http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html

Cause and effect. Ascribing the wrong cause is almost as harmful as excusing it

Like this bloke https://www.rt.com/news/338779-somalian-refugee-raped-politician/

Just a gun problem. No. It is an ideological problem. It is NOT a gun problem or a toxic masculinity problem as some Feminists were happier labeling it. It is a problem with radicalised Muslims committing terrorist actions on behalf of a horrible ideology.

End of.

Now Hillary Clinton believes that increasing 500% the amount of Syrian Muslims immigrants into America is a great idea. Trump thinks placing a freeze on immigration of Muslims and folks from Muslim dominant countries is the way to go.

I think Trump is being rational but I don't think his immigration policy would be easily implemented or adhered to. It is something though.

Of course one could say, "Why are they displaced from their country in the first place and as a result of who's actions? Surely not the countries they are immigrating to? If they are immigrating there are they likely to be happy with the host country or not? But that is an entirely different point.

I've highlighted the relevant bits.

I don't think we have a peanut gallery (people are probably avoiding these callouts like the plague by now), so I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

Oh, and one last thing:

I like it how you tend to try and use the fact that I pay for our host against me when you are in a sufficiently pissy mood. The subject line of this callout is just the latest example. Is it that you feel intimidated?

You keep saying that I am in a pissy mood. It looks like projection. As for intimidated? By what? You? YOUR opinions? God, why?

The reason why I did it is quite easy to ascertain. You said that you were not going to answer my callout. I made this callout, bought up the fact that you were boss and could make your own rules, I changed my signature and showed you a number of times of you banging on about the importance of backing yourself. What do you think the result was? Callout answered. Pissy? Please. But I am glad you like it all the same. I will remember that you do.

I see all of what I wrote and you still are not making a point. You were trying to show blatant bigotry. You posted what I said but I saw what I said and what is more I KNOW what I said and so showing me what I wrote is simply copying me not proving a point not showing me.

There was a very specific claim and I think you should back it.

I do think that IF there is a big threat to US (which I believe there is) through the Muslim immigrant population, of radicalised Muslims, AND the FBI is not doing a sufficient job of screen due to either poor records to screen or poor processes (which I again believe), then the concept of stopping this yet unquantifiable risk to US by preventing Radicalised Muslims that are (I believe) very difficult to differentiate in Muslim immigrant populations, stopping all Muslim immigrants until you can improve your screening process is a rational and logical conclusion.

That is the concept. It makes sense in theory. How does it work in  practice? I don't know. But what I do know is that the alternatives seem pretty thin. That is fine if you do not believe that there is a big threat in Swedish swimming pools to the US through immigration of radicalised Muslims, OR if you believe that the FBI is managing this screening process fine.

If you do not believe these things then it becomes "What is the alternatives?" Cross your finger and hope for the best? If you are saying that "These things are a problem but it is ONLY radicalised Muslims and not Muslims as a whole", I never said otherwise and in fact went to great pains to never do so and be VERY clear I was singling out radicalised Muslims.
That said and agreed with, if you say "JUST stop radicalised Muslims from immigrating then if they are the problem", we are back to square one. It does not square away if FBI do not effectively screen the radicalised Muslims. Therefore the threat that is not reduced more than it is already.

Again you made no point. You did not back your position and your sure as Hell did not show where I was blatantly bigoted. It would be super if you could though. You have written enough now to flesh things out and lay the groundwork (hopefully). Now actually show where i am blatantly bigoted.

[odeon]

At first, you thought simply that what Donald said was rational but perhaps difficult to implement, but then, in a later post, said that you'd like to have them stop both Muslims and anyone from Muslim-dominated countries at the border until they know how to fix their screening processes or something to that effect. Can't be arsed to find the quotes but you know which ones I am referring to, right?

And now, in this latest marvel of yours, you are comparing Muslims to Ebola in a nice roundabout way. That's right, isn't it? It's what you are saying.

Me, I think it's bigoted as fuck.

As for the majority of Americans being in favour of Obama's gun control measures, that's not me believing anything, it's a poll.

And you still haven't produced a shred of evidence for anything, just a bunch of largely irrelevant hypotheticals and ifs and what you "believe". I don't know, maybe some of it sounds rational to you, but it's all about playing on people's fears, isn't it? No facts, no numbers, nothing rational in sight.

You managed to find a public swimming pool in Kalmar with cases of sexual harassment (most of them probably about what happened there in the new year and what some suggest was organised), somehow equated that with everyone in Sweden (my family, at the very least) being in danger in public and unsegregated swimming pools, but still failed to produce proof for the actual topic at hand. Or, for that matter, proof of the crime wave you imply would have resulted from the 100,000 refugees (there is none; according to BRÅ, the actual rates have remained largely unchanged). 

So forget about your hypotheticals and "thought experiments". Produce proof. Show us that banning Muslims from entering the US is not at all bigoted, complies with those pesky human rights, and actually does something. Anything, apart from pissing off whole countries, that is. A hint, though: a hypothetical comparing Muslims to Ebola, subtle as it may be, is not the way to go.

[Pyraxis]

"Muslim radicals? Pfftt...American doctors suck. Americans have guns and guns kill people, be outraged over that." (paraphrased)

I wish more people were.

[Al Swearegen]

Again, I know but you don't.  I know there has not been a shift of positions. I know my position has been that there is a very real threat with Radicalised Muslims for the US. My belief is the the FBI are not able to effectively screen/investigate these threats. I believe that these radicalised Muslim immigrants are found within the general, moderate Muslim immigrant community.

These are my beliefs. I see in America, three responses suggested to this threat. Business as usual - Obama. Increase immigration from Muslim communities - Hillary or Put a freeze on Muslim Immigration until screening can better judge the threat - Trump.

It's all too easy to see that if you believe what I believe then you are going to think that the freeze on Muslim immigration the most constructive of the three.
You can say that it would be unfair on perfectly decent and moderate Muslims and I agree totally. It would be. If you said if radicalised Muslims are the problem just keep them out. I agree again. But if screening is not up to scratch and we both agree here then until such time that screening is up to scratch what do you do to make sure the you are decreasing chances to migrating Radicalised Muslims in your country?
If the only thing you have is don't worry I don't believe it a threat, then I disagree. Like with the political options of Trump and Hillary, we have poor options before us and I think both increasing Muslim immigration and leaving it unchanged are worse than Trump's idea,

As to whether idea is workable or practical, that is a different question. As to whether his (rather than my idea) is all Muslim immigrants or all Muslims from Muslim dominated countries,  he has said both. How does this effect the concept? Not a lot. As mentioned before, the determined will go through another non-flagged country and say they are not Muslim. So the practicality of implementing this idea into a strategy or plan may be difficult. Doable? No idea.

There of course is how to quantify risk, threat and improvement. If that idea is to place a freeze on temporarily until the screening process is better, how better? What is going to improve it? How do you measure these improvements?  There has to be an end plan.

Again you lie. No you were confused,  nor did you make a mistake or error in judgement, you lied, again.

Why do I say this? Because after spelling it out so that a child could get it that Good/moderate Muslims were described as both innocents and healthy in my analogy whilst Radicalised Muslims were the unhealthy ones with the disease. The disease itself "Ebola on steroids". The disease analogous to Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

It was not hard. So when you say "I am comparing Muslim to Ebola" you are lying. Straight up. No way you don't get it. At all. Am I comparing a toxic pervasive dangerous threat to a toxic pervasive dangerous threat? Yes. What is that threat? Radicalised Islamic Fundamentalism and this hypothetical disease that is like Ebola on steroids.

So at this stage it is not even defensible by you to say you misinterpreted. You desperately want  to lie about what I said in order to prop up yet another weak assertion. You either ought to take better positions in the first place or if you are forced to lie in order to pad your position, best give it up. Whatever point you were trying to make was obvious weak and likely petty.

You think it's bigoted as fuck? Is that why you are lying about it? No, I think you simply disagree. I think that this is simply a hot button topic for you in which you have strong opinions and you cannot imagine people able to hold opposing views without being flawed. That is what I think. It is like that meme worthy Bill Maher and Ben Affleck viral video.

"That not me believing anything, it's a poll"
I did chuckle at that.
Were you a few posts ago (I'm sure I can find it) going on about the unreliability of statistics due to biases and agenda driven results?
"Clear the way everyone, the truth is here I got a bible poll"

To be honest the swimming pools and the high rape statistics thing in Sweden, was not too hard to find. It is international news. If it is reaching Australia and if it is printed in time magazine or their website,  it's not something you wave away, is it? Why are no other countries getting that treatment?

As for refugees rights, countries have rights too and responsibilities to THEIR citizens. Border control is something that is rightly dictated not by the wants of a refugee but by a country. In Australia if you fill in the right paperwork are screened and are authorised to immigrate, welcome to Australia, in you come. If you jump in an Indonesian boat and make your way here unexpected,  you will be arrested and placed in a detention centre until we work out who you are, where you are from and what your purpose in Australia is.

Australians take border control very seriously.

[odeon]

"Belief".

It's what you counter with, when asked to back up your shit. You believe things.

Not good enough. We are talking about real people here, people whose beliefs are different from yours, people who apparently scare you and who drive you into an emotional argument rather than a logical one. Thinking is hard, emotional arguments are easy. You suck at the former but excel at the latter. Which is why you have yet to back up anything. Which is why you seem unable to critically examine the "evidence" you find on the internet, be it public swimming pools in Kalmar or Muslims at the US borders.

What's really sad is that you don't seem capable of recognising your beliefs for what they are.