Here's Everything You Need To Know About I.s.i.s

[Rikurzhen]

BTW, I hold no desire to see American Troopers once again clearing Tikrit and Fallujah of IS dirtbags. Our presence should only involve air-cover for Iraqi and Kurd fighters and some wet-work boys to take out IS communication capacity. And of course enough helo presence to pick up pilots who get bounced by shoulder-fired missles. Watch the Iraqis stand up on their back legs once they know the Americans are watching again....they ain't cowards....their commanders abandoned them.

Iraqi's are pretty useless and undisciplined. The Kurdish Peshmerga will take it to them. They are some bad ass fierce troopers who will be unstoppable with US air support. I have some spec ops friends who fought alongside with these guys and they have nothing but great things to say about them.

When a people are unified by both blood and culture, they will fight fiercely to protect both. It's an open question as to whether the Peshmerga will go to Syria to fight ISIS and lay down their lives for a cause that is not directly intersectign with Kurdish interests. If we pay high enough to attract them as soldiers of fortune, they might do the minimum needed just for the paycheck, but the quality of fighting will be different "over there" compared to what is seen on their own beloved land.

and give up control of all that oil? Certainly you jest

No one sells their oil just to be a nice guy or because they are friends with America. We need their oil on the world market and they need our cash in order to keep their people eating and driving their cars with subsidized gas prices. None of these countries can really just shut off the oil spigots and continue existing - like a junkie, they need oil revenues to function.

Have you ever been in a combat theatre? If not, why are you lecturing about the will to fight "fiercely" or otherwise? Neither I or anybody else has suggested the Kurds fight in Syria...they have limited numbers and resources. And again, if you know or have known mercs, enlighten us about what they cost.

I've seen the aftermath of combat in Africa. The wounded, the butchered, the dead. Does that put me close enough to war to understand it? I've seen and talked with tribal fighters. Most importantly though, I understand how cultures and people work. I'm extrapolating what I know from my experiences in Africa to similar tribal-based societies in the Middle East. The leap here is not as large as the leap between Western-based social models and Middle-East based tribal models.

Nope, you can see the aftermath of combat in any big city ER on a Saturday night. The sunni tribal traditions are much different than Africans. They hate shia for their differences in philosophy resulting in pretty much unabated warfare for centuries. In fact, it was the fear of shia militias that led to the sunni tribes welcoming in ISIL earlier this year. But the sunnis are more tolerant in their versions of sharia law than al-Qaida or ISIL and will again rise up and throw them out when they've had enough of it, same as they did for Gen. Petreus ie "The Awakening" Sons of Iraq.

You asked about combat, not where I've lived. I've seen the aftermath of war, and no it was not anything close to what is seen in a big city ER. You don't see fucking machete attacks, disembowelments, amputations of children's hands, beheadings in Chicago streets or ERs. It makes me wonder if you've actually seen combat for I doubt that anyone who has seen the effect of an IED on the human body would claim that this is also regularly seen in any big city ER on a Saturday night.

Thanks for the primer on sunni and shia differences, but I don't need it. When I write of tribal experiences, I'm not talking about religious doctrinal differences, I'm talking about mindset and social and power relationships. You telling me that the traditions are different is you totally misreading what I wrote.

 

[BullKurtz]

Iraqi's are pretty useless and undisciplined. The Kurdish Peshmerga will take it to them. They are some bad ass fierce troopers who will be unstoppable with US air support. I have some spec ops friends who fought alongside with these guys and they have nothing but great things to say about them.

When a people are unified by both blood and culture, they will fight fiercely to protect both. It's an open question as to whether the Peshmerga will go to Syria to fight ISIS and lay down their lives for a cause that is not directly intersectign with Kurdish interests. If we pay high enough to attract them as soldiers of fortune, they might do the minimum needed just for the paycheck, but the quality of fighting will be different "over there" compared to what is seen on their own beloved land.

and give up control of all that oil? Certainly you jest

No one sells their oil just to be a nice guy or because they are friends with America. We need their oil on the world market and they need our cash in order to keep their people eating and driving their cars with subsidized gas prices. None of these countries can really just shut off the oil spigots and continue existing - like a junkie, they need oil revenues to function.

Have you ever been in a combat theatre? If not, why are you lecturing about the will to fight "fiercely" or otherwise? Neither I or anybody else has suggested the Kurds fight in Syria...they have limited numbers and resources. And again, if you know or have known mercs, enlighten us about what they cost.

I've seen the aftermath of combat in Africa. The wounded, the butchered, the dead. Does that put me close enough to war to understand it? I've seen and talked with tribal fighters. Most importantly though, I understand how cultures and people work. I'm extrapolating what I know from my experiences in Africa to similar tribal-based societies in the Middle East. The leap here is not as large as the leap between Western-based social models and Middle-East based tribal models.

Nope, you can see the aftermath of combat in any big city ER on a Saturday night. The sunni tribal traditions are much different than Africans. They hate shia for their differences in philosophy resulting in pretty much unabated warfare for centuries. In fact, it was the fear of shia militias that led to the sunni tribes welcoming in ISIL earlier this year. But the sunnis are more tolerant in their versions of sharia law than al-Qaida or ISIL and will again rise up and throw them out when they've had enough of it, same as they did for Gen. Petreus ie "The Awakening" Sons of Iraq.

You asked about combat, not where I've lived. I've seen the aftermath of war, and no it was not anything close to what is seen in a big city ER. You don't see fucking machete attacks, disembowelments, amputations of children's hands, beheadings in Chicago streets or ERs. It makes me wonder if you've actually seen combat for I doubt that anyone who has seen the effect of an IED on the human body would claim that this is also regularly seen in any big city ER on a Saturday night.

Thanks for the primer on sunni and shia differences, but I don't need it. When I write of tribal experiences, I'm not talking about religious doctrinal differences, I'm talking about mindset and social and power relationships. You telling me that the traditions are different is you totally misreading what I wrote.

You ever been in Detroit, boy? IEDs are artillery shells ya egghead douchebag....I've not only seen the results, I've called in artillery strikes to get those results. You think you can talk down to those of us who've done what you've heard about? Since you're fairly new here, let me give you a piece of advice.....nobody cares to be lectured to....we don't come here to read your elitist jive without eventually putting you in your place....either with humor or otherwise. Read more, write less....you'll learn something for a change.

 

[Rikurzhen]

When a people are unified by both blood and culture, they will fight fiercely to protect both. It's an open question as to whether the Peshmerga will go to Syria to fight ISIS and lay down their lives for a cause that is not directly intersectign with Kurdish interests. If we pay high enough to attract them as soldiers of fortune, they might do the minimum needed just for the paycheck, but the quality of fighting will be different "over there" compared to what is seen on their own beloved land.

No one sells their oil just to be a nice guy or because they are friends with America. We need their oil on the world market and they need our cash in order to keep their people eating and driving their cars with subsidized gas prices. None of these countries can really just shut off the oil spigots and continue existing - like a junkie, they need oil revenues to function.

Have you ever been in a combat theatre? If not, why are you lecturing about the will to fight "fiercely" or otherwise? Neither I or anybody else has suggested the Kurds fight in Syria...they have limited numbers and resources. And again, if you know or have known mercs, enlighten us about what they cost.

I've seen the aftermath of combat in Africa. The wounded, the butchered, the dead. Does that put me close enough to war to understand it? I've seen and talked with tribal fighters. Most importantly though, I understand how cultures and people work. I'm extrapolating what I know from my experiences in Africa to similar tribal-based societies in the Middle East. The leap here is not as large as the leap between Western-based social models and Middle-East based tribal models.

Nope, you can see the aftermath of combat in any big city ER on a Saturday night. The sunni tribal traditions are much different than Africans. They hate shia for their differences in philosophy resulting in pretty much unabated warfare for centuries. In fact, it was the fear of shia militias that led to the sunni tribes welcoming in ISIL earlier this year. But the sunnis are more tolerant in their versions of sharia law than al-Qaida or ISIL and will again rise up and throw them out when they've had enough of it, same as they did for Gen. Petreus ie "The Awakening" Sons of Iraq.

You asked about combat, not where I've lived. I've seen the aftermath of war, and no it was not anything close to what is seen in a big city ER. You don't see fucking machete attacks, disembowelments, amputations of children's hands, beheadings in Chicago streets or ERs. It makes me wonder if you've actually seen combat for I doubt that anyone who has seen the effect of an IED on the human body would claim that this is also regularly seen in any big city ER on a Saturday night.

Thanks for the primer on sunni and shia differences, but I don't need it. When I write of tribal experiences, I'm not talking about religious doctrinal differences, I'm talking about mindset and social and power relationships. You telling me that the traditions are different is you totally misreading what I wrote.

You ever been in Detroit, boy? IEDs are artillery shells ya egghead douchebag....I've not only seen the results, I've called in artillery strikes to get those results. You think you can talk down to those of us who've done what you've heard about? Since you're fairly new here, let me give you a piece of advice.....nobody cares to be lectured to....we don't come here to read your elitist jive without eventually putting you in your place....either with humor or otherwise. Read more, write less....you'll learn something for a change.

I didn't lecture to you. You just have piss-poor reading comprehension skills. Now you're telling me that Detroit hospitals treat victims with injuries suffered from artillery shelling? You calling in artillery fire is immaterial to your claim that big city ERs on a Saturday night see the same kind of injuries seen in a war zone. You're boxing yourself into all sorts of corners here and there's no need for it because you apparently misread what I wrote. Wouldn't we both be better off punching a liberal hippy?

 

[BullKurtz]

Have you ever been in a combat theatre? If not, why are you lecturing about the will to fight "fiercely" or otherwise? Neither I or anybody else has suggested the Kurds fight in Syria...they have limited numbers and resources. And again, if you know or have known mercs, enlighten us about what they cost.

I've seen the aftermath of combat in Africa. The wounded, the butchered, the dead. Does that put me close enough to war to understand it? I've seen and talked with tribal fighters. Most importantly though, I understand how cultures and people work. I'm extrapolating what I know from my experiences in Africa to similar tribal-based societies in the Middle East. The leap here is not as large as the leap between Western-based social models and Middle-East based tribal models.

Nope, you can see the aftermath of combat in any big city ER on a Saturday night. The sunni tribal traditions are much different than Africans. They hate shia for their differences in philosophy resulting in pretty much unabated warfare for centuries. In fact, it was the fear of shia militias that led to the sunni tribes welcoming in ISIL earlier this year. But the sunnis are more tolerant in their versions of sharia law than al-Qaida or ISIL and will again rise up and throw them out when they've had enough of it, same as they did for Gen. Petreus ie "The Awakening" Sons of Iraq.

You asked about combat, not where I've lived. I've seen the aftermath of war, and no it was not anything close to what is seen in a big city ER. You don't see fucking machete attacks, disembowelments, amputations of children's hands, beheadings in Chicago streets or ERs. It makes me wonder if you've actually seen combat for I doubt that anyone who has seen the effect of an IED on the human body would claim that this is also regularly seen in any big city ER on a Saturday night.

Thanks for the primer on sunni and shia differences, but I don't need it. When I write of tribal experiences, I'm not talking about religious doctrinal differences, I'm talking about mindset and social and power relationships. You telling me that the traditions are different is you totally misreading what I wrote.

You ever been in Detroit, boy? IEDs are artillery shells ya egghead douchebag....I've not only seen the results, I've called in artillery strikes to get those results. You think you can talk down to those of us who've done what you've heard about? Since you're fairly new here, let me give you a piece of advice.....nobody cares to be lectured to....we don't come here to read your elitist jive without eventually putting you in your place....either with humor or otherwise. Read more, write less....you'll learn something for a change.

I didn't lecture to you. You just have piss-poor reading comprehension skills. Now you're telling me that Detroit hospitals treat victims with injuries suffered from artillery shelling? You calling in artillery fire is immaterial to your claim that big city ERs on a Saturday night see the same kind of injuries seen in a war zone. You're boxing yourself into all sorts of corners here and there's no need for it because you apparently misread what I wrote. Wouldn't we both be better off punching a liberal hippy?

Hey, I enjoy being "cornered"...brings out the best in me.

 

[EconChick]

This is a good thread that can't do any worse at trying to come up with a solution than the idiots in the White House so I'd like to make a plea that ALL of us hotheads, me included, try to stay cool and open to other points of view. Or not even open to other views as much as let's just prevent the spiral downward where it takes a few pages of yelling before we get back to substance. Let's try to help each other remain respectful. Because this is serious shit, folks.

And on that note, I think most everyone posting here is offering a useful insight of some type. I don't see one post I completely agree with, nor one I completely disagree with. I think we'll need to borrow from a number of them.

Having set that diplomatic stage, haha, now let me say that you guys seem to be talking in black and white terms and talk as if Islam is one big monolith.

Rik, I think you have good insights about the religious and cultural part but I think you're way off in other areas. For starters you compared these Muslim fiefdoms to Communism, but they couldn't be more different in a key way. Communism was highly centralized; Islam is highly splintered and decentralized. They are polar opposites in that sense, which is why I disagree with the analogy you were offering with regard to the two.

I also unequivocally disagree with the "destroy all of Islam, pull it out by the roots" stance because I think it is not only too heavily handed, but it makes no distinction between the overwhelming number of moderate Muslims that aren't a threat and the whackos on the fringes.

Believe me, some days it's so frustrating that sometimes I fantasize about the simplicity of just bombing them into the stone ages. Even more than they already are. But that's not realistic.

It's also not realistic to provide air support only without some troops on the ground.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's muslim land involving muslim people in a muslim civil war.

So why do western nations feel they need to interfere? .....

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rik, I think you have good insights about the religious and cultural part but I think you're way off in other areas. For starters you compared these Muslim fiefdoms to Communism, but they couldn't be more different in a key way. Communism was highly centralized; Islam is highly splintered and decentralized. They are polar opposites in that sense, which is why I disagree with the analogy you were offering with regard to the two.

I'm not comparing the rise of a Caliphate to Communism to highlight that they share similar philosophical points, I'm comparing the two to highlight that they're both unworkable because of failings in their own internal logic. They sow the seeds of their own failure. To be a true communist means that your system will crumble. To be a true Muslim means that your Islamic State will crumble.

Liberals here in the West got to witness the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of communism and it broke their hearts and sapped their spirit for revolution. The same will happen with Islam when failure of the Islamic model is shoved into the face of Muslims.

Until they try and fail, they will always believe that their system is the better system. They need to fail and deal with that failure in order to move forward.

I also unequivocally disagree with the "destroy all of Islam, pull it out by the roots" stance because I think it is not only too heavily handed, but it makes no distinction between the overwhelming number of moderate Muslims that aren't a threat and the whackos on the fringes.

Are there such beings as moderate Nazis? Do we condemn only Nazis who participated in genocide? Same with communists, are there such beings as moderate communists whose faith calls for them to kill those who won't voluntarily submit to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

 

[flacaltenn]

What pisses me off the most is our govt's focus on ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
We SHOULD be more focused on the evaluation of the threat they represent to the US at home.. Can't protect journalists that insist on getting captured TWICE like the latest guy. And as far as the Caliphate goes, let them establish it so that we have more and better targets. Easier to nuke if they fuck with us.

But OUR border is porous. I have no confidence that Americans aren't volunteering for Jihad abroad and returning without as much as an interview, and our leaders are outright LYING and spinning facts.

Those are the more important bits to me. We will destroy threats AFTER they represent threats to our land. By doing this -- Obama et al has just signed on to the very BUSH DOCTRINE that all leftist hate.
It is the ultimate example of "pre-emptive" war..

You might get that theory to work if you want failed occupations to go on forever in multiple countries. But it's gonna be less than useless if you just plan on dicking around and acting like John Kerry..

 

[Hossfly]

It's muslim land involving muslim people in a muslim civil war.

So why do western nations feel they need to interfere? .....

How did a lot of countries get to be Muslim lands? Persia for one was not Muslim for thousands of years. That's just one example.

 

[Rikurzhen]

But OUR border is porous. I have no confidence that Americans aren't volunteering for Jihad abroad and returning without as much as an interview, and our leaders are outright LYING and spinning facts.

Those are the more important bits to me. We will destroy threats AFTER they represent threats to our land. By doing this -- Obama et al has just signed on to the very BUSH DOCTRINE that all leftist hate.
It is the ultimate example of "pre-emptive" war..

You might get that theory to work if you want failed occupations to go on forever in multiple countries. But it's gonna be less than useless if you just plan on dicking around and acting like John Kerry..

We need to fight them here so that we don't have to fight there there. Part of fighting them here involves prevention of conflict, such as catching terrorists at the borders, but we also need to stop inviting the world while we simultaneous invade the world.

It's nonsensical in a way to even posit that an American would go and fight for Islamic brutality but it's happening and it's happening because we've so diluted what it means to be American. So we have to either accept that it's possible to be both an American and a person who believes in what ISIS is doing or we need to launch some serious reforms here in America directed at our Muslim community so that it once again becomes impossible to be both an American and a solider in ISIS. Now because Americans are squishy and want to be nice, I predict that we'll simply continue on with diluting Americaness so that it is conceivable to be both an American and an ISIS fighter.

 

[flacaltenn]

But OUR border is porous. I have no confidence that Americans aren't volunteering for Jihad abroad and returning without as much as an interview, and our leaders are outright LYING and spinning facts.

Those are the more important bits to me. We will destroy threats AFTER they represent threats to our land. By doing this -- Obama et al has just signed on to the very BUSH DOCTRINE that all leftist hate.
It is the ultimate example of "pre-emptive" war..

You might get that theory to work if you want failed occupations to go on forever in multiple countries. But it's gonna be less than useless if you just plan on dicking around and acting like John Kerry..

We need to fight them here so that we don't have to fight there there. Part of fighting them here involves prevention of conflict, such as catching terrorists at the borders, but we also need to stop inviting the world while we simultaneous invade the world.

It's nonsensical in a way to even posit that an American would go and fight for Islamic brutality but it's happening and it's happening because we've so diluted what it means to be American. So we have to either accept that it's possible to be both an American and a person who believes in what ISIS is doing or we need to launch some serious reforms here in America directed at our Muslim community so that it once again becomes impossible to be both an American and a solider in ISIS. Now because Americans are squishy and want to be nice, I predict that we'll simply continue on with diluting Americaness so that it is conceivable to be both an American and an ISIS fighter.

Absolutely, pre-emptive war is exhausting and very low probability of success, and pre-emptive Homeland security is dangerous to Civil Liberties. Given that bad choice -- I'll take pre-emptive Homeland security and work to limit the damage..

Easier to hold politicians responsible when WE get bombed or infiltrated. Citizens don't even notice anymore when we bomb another country..

 

[percysunshine]

.

As long as we can frac our shale, none of this shit matters much.

.

 

[dilloduck]

Deposing Assad should go on the back burner until ISIS in Syria and Iraq is resolved. Trying to do both at the same time like Obama is insane although that just may be what he's trying to create. What's the rush on Syria ? Obama already waited a year since his last threat.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Absolutely, pre-emptive war is exhausting and very low probability of success, and pre-emptive Homeland security is dangerous to Civil Liberties. Given that bad choice -- I'll take pre-emptive Homeland security and work to limit the damage..

Easier to hold politicians responsible when WE get bombed or infiltrated. Citizens don't even notice anymore when we bomb another country..

Which off course tees off a big philosophical issue - how much do we value civil rights versus Muslim immigration. If we had no Muslims in the US then we have had no need for preemptive attacks on Civil Liberties. It is a trade-off. Ever since 9/11 I've thought it mad, absolutely mad, that we permitted Muslim immigration while simultaneously waging war on two Muslim nations. That's like allowing Nazis to immigrate into America while we're fighting WWII. Look at Major Nidal Hasan's crime - motivated by his greater allegiance to Islam than to his sworn oath.

As for bombing other countries, I think too many in the country hold bombing to be a strategy rather than a tactic in support of a strategy. "We need to show them who's boss." Yeah, but to what end? Fighting just for the sake of fighting makes one a bully, fighting in defense of a cause or principle makes one honorable.

 

[Moonglow]

It's muslim land involving muslim people in a muslim civil war.

So why do western nations feel they need to interfere? .....

We like to try out new weaponry...

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely, pre-emptive war is exhausting and very low probability of success, and pre-emptive Homeland security is dangerous to Civil Liberties. Given that bad choice -- I'll take pre-emptive Homeland security and work to limit the damage..

Easier to hold politicians responsible when WE get bombed or infiltrated. Citizens don't even notice anymore when we bomb another country..

Which off course tees off a big philosophical issue - how much do we value civil rights versus Muslim immigration. If we had no Muslims in the US then we have had no need for preemptive attacks on Civil Liberties. It is a trade-off. Ever since 9/11 I've thought it mad, absolutely mad, that we permitted Muslim immigration while simultaneously waging war on two Muslim nations. That's like allowing Nazis to immigrate into America while we're fighting WWII. Look at Major Nidal Hasan's crime - motivated by his greater allegiance to Islam than to his sworn oath.

As for bombing other countries, I think too many in the country hold bombing to be a strategy rather than a tactic in support of a strategy. "We need to show them who's boss." Yeah, but to what end? Fighting just for the sake of fighting makes one a bully, fighting in defense of a cause or principle makes one honorable.

I can't go there. Whenever we've been hit internally like in the Nadal case, it's through our own stupidity. The DOD allowed this jerk to put SOA (soldier of Allah) on his Govt biz cards and ignored MANY warnings. We need to be smarter -- not react like we did during WW2.

The threat is STATELESS -- like ISIS and requires including too many innocents to alienate... Even the Boston Bombing had a certain smell of preventability to it if we had watched our borders more closely..

Think you're right that we need to include Islam as a consideration for screening. But smart folks can do that and discriminate between dangerous RADICAL connections and vast majority of Muslim Americans and visitors. I KNOW we can because if the threat was RADICAL Christianity or RADICAL Judaism, I wouldn't fear much for Civil Rights issues. ANYONE with Turkey or ME countries on their passports OUGHT to be interviewed. Just as Israel does to EVERY visitor or returning citizen..

 

[EconChick]

More good posts. I should stop my war with folks on another thread, LOL, and participate. Great points.

But what's funny is sometimes you guys will say things I agree with strongly and disagree with strongly, all in the same post, LOL.

 

[Vigilante]

Major ISIS Leader Recruits Eleven Muslim Men, And Sodomizes [...] Them In Homosexual Islamic Ritual

Shoebat.com ^

In one interrogation by Iraqi officials of an ISIS terrorist who carried out seven beheadings. The terrorist not only confesses the gruesome beheadings he carried out, but also confesses the dark side which is virtually unknown regarding sadistic homosexual group marriages and rituals. In this incredible story, Shoebat.com translates the short testimony of one of eleven recruits who were sodomized by the ISIS “prince” Abu Ala’. Here is the video: ISIS Leader Recruits 11 Muslim Men And Sodomizes All Of Them Abu Ala’ made a fatwa permitting himself to marry and sodomize his recruits, with the exception that no man...

 

[Vigilante]

Sounds like the Subversives Democrats are at it again

Dems block Cruz bill to strip U.S. citizenship from Islamic State defectors

The Washington Times ^

Sen. Ted Cruz tried to get the Senate to consider a measure Thursday providing that any American who joins the fight with terrorist groups such as the Islamic State would immediately renounce their U.S. citizenship, but a Democratic senator objected, saying more time is necessary to weigh the significant constitutional issues it raises. Ahead of the Senate’s scheduled consideration Thursday afternoon of a proposal to arm and train Syrian rebels, part of President Obama’s strategy to combat the terrorist group, the Texas Republican asked for unanimous consent to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act he introduced earlier this month. The measure...

 

[Rikurzhen]

I can't go there. Whenever we've been hit internally like in the Nadal case, it's through our own stupidity. The DOD allowed this jerk to put SOA (soldier of Allah) on his Govt biz cards and ignored MANY warnings. We need to be smarter -- not react like we did during WW2.

The threat is STATELESS -- like ISIS and requires including too many innocents to alienate... Even the Boston Bombing had a certain smell of preventability to it if we had watched our borders more closely.

It is a stateless threat, but that doesn't prevent religious screening. We did just that for communists and anarchists:

After a decade of relative tranquility in immigration law,[22] the outbreak of World War I fueled anti-alien sentiments yet again; this time, German immigrants were targeted.[23] Pushed by the anti-alien fervor, Congress even more restrictive immigrations statutes in 1917 and 1920; these statutes barred even more groups on the basis of ideology. "Sabotage and destruction of property were added to the list of forbidden beliefs, deportation, unbounded by any statute of limitations, had been introduced as a means, separate and distinct from exclusion, of controlling alien radicalism; teaching and advising had joined belief and advocacy as grounds for exclusion or deportation; membership in, or affiliation with, [forbidden] organizations ... had become grounds for exclusion and deportation; [and] writing, publishing, circulating, distributing, printing, ... displaying [or possessing for the purpose of distribution] written materials advocating forbidden doctrines had become grounds for exclusion or deportation...."[24]

The 1920 Act was passed at the tail end of the First Red Scare.[25] In the following years of relative political calm, public demands for the removal of foreign radicals waned, and fewer radicals were in fact deported.[25] As the US sank into the Great Depression in the early 1930s, however, alien radicals—now communists rather than anarchists—were again targeted.[25] Various proposals were introduced in Congress to ban communist immigrants.[26] World War II intensified anti-alien sentiment, and the Smith Act passed Congress in 1940.[26] It banned present and former belief, advocacy, and membership as well as present.[27] In 1941, Congress additionally authorized consular officers to deny visas to any person the officers had reason to believe would "engag[e] in activities which will endanger the public safety" and granted the president the power to deport or bar entry to aliens when required by the "interests of the United States."[28] As the Cold War began in the late 1940s and early 1950s, intolerance of foreigners increased further.[29]

In 1950, amidst hysteria and fear of communists, the Internal Security Act was passed into law. It expressly excluded communists, totalitarians, and fascists from the US for the first time.[30] Unlike the 1903 Immigration Act, which excluded only a few dozen anarchists, the Internal Security Act barred thousands foreigners from entering the US, at least on a temporary basis.[30] When immigration laws were overhauled in the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, these exclusions—along with all prior exclusions, such as those for anarchists—were recodified.​

Think you're right that we need to include Islam as a consideration for screening. But smart folks can do that and discriminate between dangerous RADICAL connections and vast majority of Muslim Americans and visitors. I KNOW we can because if the threat was RADICAL Christianity or RADICAL Judaism, I wouldn't fear much for Civil Rights issues. ANYONE with Turkey or ME countries on their passports OUGHT to be interviewed. Just as Israel does to EVERY visitor or returning citizen..

Islam isn't to religion like Methodism or Pentacostalism are to religion, it's more like Communism or Nazism, an ideology for how to govern the world but Islam just happens to have a God reference at its foundation. So while a radical Methodist distorts the message of Methodism followed by a moderate Methodist, a radical Nazi or a radical Communist doesn't distort the message, he rather takes on a willingness to enact the message even at risk to his own well being. Radical Muslims, Nazis and Communists all must meet the necessary condition of being a Muslim, Nazi or Communist, respectively, before they can be radicalized. The ideology is what leads to radicalization, not a distortion of the ideology.

We didn't import radical Muslim immigrants, we imported Muslim immigrants who at some future time decided that they wanted to act on the truth of their religion. Upthread somewhere I included a poll done in Saudi Arabia which showed that 92% of respondents thought that ISIS was acting in accord with Islam. So who knows better what Islam means, you with your westernized sensibilities which treats Islam as a substitute for Anglican or Catholic teachings, or Muslims who live true to Islam?

Look at what happened with the Nisei, the Japanese Americans, in WWII. I'm not talking of internment, I'm speaking of allegiance properly aligned and realized:

The 442nd Regimental Combat Team of the United States Army was a regimental size fighting unit composed almost entirely of American soldiers of Japanese ancestry who fought in World War II, despite the fact that many of their families were subject to internment. Beginning in 1944, the regiment fought primarily in Europe during World War II,[2] in particular Italy, southern France, and Germany. The 442nd is "the most decorated unit in U.S. military history."[3] It was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations and twenty-one of its members were awarded the Medal of Honor for World War II.[4] Its motto was "Go for Broke".

But more than 75% indicated that they were willing to enlist and swear allegiance to the U.S. The U.S. Army called for 1,500 volunteers from Hawaii and 3,000 from the mainland. An overwhelming 10,000 men from Hawaii came forth.
​

What happened after 9/11?

In seven years of helping ensure the Army met its recruiting goals, Depenbrock was used to reaching out to young people, telling them what the Army could do for them, and mostly answering their questions about how they could get their college paid for by signing up.

“It was almost always for college, for money, and for having a full-time job,” she said, referring to the reasons people enlisted.

Sept. 11, 2001, changed that. In the days, weeks and months thereafter, Depenbrock, like military recruiters around the nation, watched in amazement from her Cincinnati office as people who never would have thought of joining -- or rejoining, as many would have it -- approached recruiters with the sole purpose of defending America.
​

Massive upswing in military enlistment but the dog that didn't bark was there was no massive Muslim upswing in enlistment. Here was an opportunity to defend America against Muslim aggression but that would entail going to fight other Muslims and that's didn't appeal to America's Muslims. They hold to an ideal greater than America, their identity is Muslim First, then American and only because it's convenient.

The mental scripts that many people use, to compare different groups, religions and ideologies are not properly aligned with what reality SHOWS us. A radical Japanese-American in WWII was different from a moderate Japanese-American and we could separate the two and the moderate showed all of America that he was an American before everything else and he would die to defend his nation. The 442nd did America proud and it rewrote the script on how Americans saw Japanese-Americans. American Muslims had a chance to rewrite the script and they passed, they unlike other Americans, didn't surge towards recruiting offices and join the military. They had the most to prove to America, to show us all that they were Americans first and foremost but they put their adherence to Islam before their love of America.

Muslims are not a radical version of a Christian sect, Islam is a totally different beast, it's not a personal religion, it's an all encompassing ideology for how to construct a society. You can't be a true Muslim while simultaneously upholding American principles and values, the two are incompatible. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.