Saying "Whoa, let's take a time out to verify ..." after it's been shown that the official policy is to lie about the "official" policy is not a BAD thing.

Our country has 'tinkered' w/immigration policy before and should do so in the future whenever the world's problems require an adjustment. (Goggle it.)

No one said "We are not checking social media because it might be perceived as a negative." The gov't just did it w/no public discussion. People died and now checking social media "presumably" is being done as best as possible.

So regardless of how it appears I don't trust that we "know" what is being done. A time out is just that, not an ending.

Just as w/the "transgenders in the locker room" discussions why do people oppose verifying that we are vetting as best we can?

What is so terrible about ensuring that everyone's interests are met?

A terrorist organization hiding in a group of refugees will be able to terrorize the refugees to avoid detection ("We know where your family is back in _________ so keep quiet."). We know this is done because it's done everyday by criminal organizations in ethnic neighborhoods already.

Who are those behind less verification and why. If it's just a political battle then let's know that.

McCarthy was overbearing/overreaching but there was a problem that needed to be looked at. A sensible review was needed. Politics screwed that up but the problem was there.

"Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. "

Okay, for the purpose of argument, let's take that statement at face value. Criticism of Islam will create a grave threat to our country's existence. Now consider:

1. Where will that threat come from?

2. How will the threat follow logically from the statements made?

Take #1. Where will the threat come from? Obviously, it will come from the Muslim world. So is this to say that the Muslim world has not threatened us before? Clearly this is not true. The threat already exists. The second part of the question is, will it make the threat worse? Answer: it's hard to say how. Arabic Muslim culture is already a cesspit of rage and hatred. We already see that when there aren't any Westerners around to bomb and blow up, they bomb and blow up each other. It's what they do. Is there some magical emotional thermite that will make them double-plus-enraged? The discussion quickly goes off into Dean Wormer territory. There is no way that words can make the problem worse. What can make the problem worse is giving them access, free reign, and more weapons. (All of which we are currently doing.)

Now let's take #2. Under the standards of Western civilization, a rather poorly drawn cartoon of Muhammed should not result in mass murder. Not even close. Clearly, we can dismiss the "explanation" as merely a rationalization, and it follows from that there is no cause and effect relationship. The Islamists engage in what we recognize as a Cluster B behavior, of inventing rationalizations for why they need to harm others. If you've ever dealt with a Cluster B, you know that it is impossible to beat them at the rationalization game. You can be completely compliant and subservient to the, do everything they ask, don't do anything they tell you they don't like, and generally be a tool. And guess what? They will still come up with a reason why you need to be punished. Again, it's what they do. The only way to win that game is to not play.

Patreus won't admit it and he probably doesn't think of it in those terms, but what he is doing is advocating surrender. Pretty disgraceful for a military man, but he is unfortunately representative of a lot of the upper officer corps these days.

Is Isreal at war with Islam?

Listen carefully to the rhetoric coming out of Israel and you won't hear Netanyahu using Islam as a short cut when he talks about the enemies of Israel.

There is a reason for this, Israel has enough trouble fighting Palestinian terrorism, and terror groups, without uniting the entire Arab world against them by making the battle against Islam.

Doesn't mean we need to have unrestricted Islamic/Middle eastern immigration into the US.

In fact, we need to be looking at all refugees, quite a bit harder than we do. And insure that they are not coming in sufficient numbers to set themselves up in identity ghettos where terrorism and anti American resentments tend to flourish.

The anti Islam hysteria tends to flourish, both here, and in Europe, when the government proves ineffective at dealing with the tidal wave of refugees, and the ensuing crime wave, that comes with unrestricted immigration.

The solution is not to get on your soap box and rail against Islam. It is to quietly and effectively, stop the flow by whatever means necessary, and jail or deport the felons in short order.

Something Israel has been doing effectively for years.

Doctrine is not the problem.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Doctrine is not the problem.

I guess you're right. The problem is that there are True Believers who are willing to do whatever it takes to put the doctrine into practice.

But a doctrine that calls for the slaughter of Jews, apostates and the conversion/oppression/slaughter of infidels is not the problem.

Ok, go it.

It's your endless deployment of sarcasm and pretensions of tone that makes me think you're a moral idiot, too cowardly to say something for fear of being challenged and overwhelmed.

Why can't you be more like that nice boy Goggles in the next row? Brilliantly bitter and handsomely sarcastic when it's called for, but otherwise clear, sincere and brief, demonstrating a straightforward and thoughtful social presence. Like that.

It's your endless deployment of sarcasm and pretensions of tone that makes me think you're a moral idiot, too cowardly to say something for fear of being challenged and overwhelmed. - Crid

Crid, put down the mirror and talk to OTHER people

"When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists' propaganda."

Interesting term "blanket discrimination". Of course there is no explanation of how we can be more specific in our "discrimination" is there.

So, the opposite of "blanket" w/no "specific" is surrender, do nothing, pay tribute, bend over, ...

Unless I'm missing something, why not say "STOP".

We already know we can not find those that overstay their visas and they are the "good" guys as in "nothing is wrong w/them" guys.

If we can't find them and we can't successfully deport the criminals I'm not sure we have a viable policy in today's climate.

Do we need them? Are there other ravaged poor refugees (Christians?) we can bring in to soother our souls? Are there technical types of another country we can bring in?

Let the Muslims here foster the ones coming and be held accountable (assuming we can track 'em when/if they run which we can not).

Do We Need Them?

It's not up to us to solve the Islam problem. It's up to Muslims to explain how Islam will be compatible with modernity. So far, their explanation has been "shut up, infidel". Yeah, that's the way to make friends and influence people.

The Economist concurs.

In any case, under no circumstance is Petraeus ro be rehabilitated.

"blanket discrimination"?

NO one; and that includes Trump has advocated "blanket discrimination" against any group.

I do wish some of the fucking idiots would shut up and listen for a change.

Trump (while I am not a supporter, I'll most likely vote for him; although I would have preferred someone else) has advocated a policy of "Let's just stop for a minute and see what the hell is going on before we continue on this trip."

And, that is one of the reasons so many people are behind the Donald. He is simply saying what anyone with decent grey matter between their ears would say when not sure of what is going on.

As far as David Petraeus himself; well, he was in a bit of hot water over perjury and stuff so maybe this op-ed is his way of paying back those who helped him out.

What a fucking dickhead - being some politician's bitch!

I'd love to see what Amy's version of *standing up to Islam * might look like?

When I was much younger than I am now, someone once said: you can never reason a person out of a position they did not reach through reason.

Religion, environmentalism, socialism, and political affiliation all generally fall under that umbrella.

It doesn't surprise me that someone with an established track record of working with Muslims, and getting control over the country of Iraq and killing a lot of terrorists in the process, would be totally dismissed in favor of some sort of unicorn solution of somehow *changing Islam*

Were I in charge I'd order a high altitute drop of, lets say, 150 C-130 loads of dead pigs over Mecca during the Hadj

Cousin Dave: ...double-plus-enraged? The discussion quickly goes off into Dean Wormer territory.

Dean Wormer: Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?

Greg: That would be hard to say, sir. They're each outstanding in their own way.

Dean Wormer: Cut the horseshit, son. I've got their disciplinary files right here. Who dropped a whole truckload of bombs into the swim meet? Who delivered the severed heads to the alumni dinner? Every Halloween, the trees are filled with hijabs. Every spring, many of its members explode.

Greg: You're talking about Isis, sir.

> you can never reason a person out
> of a position they did not reach
> through reason.

☑

And not only that, such people are usually honest about it, precisely because they didn't think it through the first time.

So you'll ask 'em-- "Is there anything I could say, any solid information which you don't know or expect, which might let you to change your mind about ________?" (Immigration? / Sex Stuff? / Global warming? / DDT? / GMOs? / Socialized Medicine? / Becky GoodHair?)

And because you will have by then already done a few back-&-forths with them on the topic, and because modernfolk live in tawdry, insular little brainbubbles —knowing little about how lives are lead elsewhere, or lead effectively anywhere— they'll have plenty of rhetorical inertia in that moment. So they'll often snap "No!" and offer their nostrils for inspection.

So then, maybe you acknowledge that you wouldn't want (or bother) to talk anyone out of a religious belief anyway.

"So then, maybe you acknowledge that you wouldn't want (or bother) to talk anyone out of a religious belief anyway."

Crid +1

So why is it okay for a Somali to refuse to do part of his job (distribute alcohol for example) and not okay for a Christian party to not bake a cake/not participate in or pay for an abortion.

It's discrimination according to those that hold Christians in contempt but hold all other beliefs as "special".

Patraeus' comments "inflammatory political discourse" deserve a "Please state what was said that is inflammatory." response before even reading the rest of his statement.

Don't let them get away w/false presumptions. Screw being polite/nice.

As Crid said above it's rare that you can "talk anyone out of a religious belief anyway."

As for Petraeus, he exposed himself as a fool by having that crazy affair with his biographer. Anyone who holds a high security clearance is, or should be, very conscious of the fact that doing that sort of thing is an express ticket to Cashierville, or worse.

As for Petraeus, he exposed himself as a fool by having that crazy affair with his biographer. Anyone who holds a high security clearance is, or should be, very conscious of the fact that doing that sort of thing is an express ticket to Cashierville, or worse.
Cousin Dave at May 17, 2016 7:08 AM

You are talking about apples and oranges here. Powerful men, including high ranking military officers who have been exposed for having affairs with younger women, and those who have had them.

The first is a very small subset of the latter. And if it wasn't for Obama needing a scandal before the election to distract from Bengazi you would never have heard about it.

It was my experience back in the 80's that the witch Hunts for sexual peccadilloes in the military got started about the same time as objective standards for job performance started going out the window due to affirmative action.
A Patton a MacArthur, or even an Eisenhower would not make it under the moral policies of today's army. Selective enforecemt rears its ugly head again.

However, unlike you, I don't trash the guys opinion on Muslims based on a few personal indiscretions.
He walked the walk in the Middle East. His opinion on Arabs and Muslim culture carries a lot more weight with me, than Amy's for the obvious reasons.

"Indiscretion" doesn't quite cover it.

> back in the 80's that the witch
> Hunts for sexual peccadilloes in
> the military got started about the
> same time as objective standards
> for job performance started going
> out the window

But throughout two wars in distant theater, Petraeus harshly punished subordinates for precisely the behavior which eventually cost him his gig, right?

I might be wrong about that, but have read that his enforcement of the rules was not at all selective.

"He walked the walk in the Middle East. His opinion on Arabs and Muslim culture carries a lot more weight with me, than Amy's for the obvious reasons. "

Judging by this piece, his opinion has not been at all informed by his experience. Sorry, but the more I find out about him, the more I see him as part of the politically correct cadre that started to infest the Pentagon in the 1990s. And as for the indiscretion, I'm sure you've heard countless times the lectures about all of the things that are a really bad idea when you have a clearance.

But throughout two wars in distant theater, Petraeus harshly punished subordinates for precisely the behavior which eventually cost him his gig, right?

Crid at May 17, 2016 12:47 PM

Yes. The ones that got caught. However there seems to be a question as to whether Petraeus and his biographer carried on the affair while he was in the Middle East.

There was a general order about that.

The primary offense in the military is screwing someone in your chain of command. She, was not.

These are two distinctions with very real differences under the UCMJ.

""When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists' propaganda.""

Let us not forget that there is an actual American LAW that works nicely here:

8 USC 1182.

> These are two distinctions with
> very real differences under the UCMJ.

Claiming now (post-termination) that he was working in a legal framework that civilians wouldn't understand seems unlikely to harvest sympathy, either from civilians or from the career-terminated soldiers for whom (we presume) he chose to be such a stickler.

See also 8:24 AM. Different people have different challenges, I get that, but contemporary feminism is not enamored of nuance. Kids nowadays want all their C's of J —M and otherwise— to be radically U.

And to be honest, I think most Americans think men in positions of tremendous power, especially those paid from the gummint till, ought not bang hangers-on so much younger than their wives, especially when the spouses (and both sets of children) are internationally humiliated by the reveal.