Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Some well chosen questions ought to reveal a jihadist mindset.

Really? What has Trump said about the screening process? That process that you stated you were glad existed?

If he wants more than the screening process already in place, perhaps he's aware of its insufficiencies. Why is that so hard to follow?

Again, why is a jihadist more to be feared than a Christian terrorist, murderer, rapist, drug dealer, burglar, robber, conman ...When folk can't seem to recognize a consummate inveterate liar using some well chosen questions what makes you think they would detect a jihadist mindset?Edited by jar, : left out the word detect.

Really, Faith?Look, how is this meant to work? Suppose someone wants to visit America as a tourist, or on a business trip, or whatever. Should we let him in? Not if he's a Muslim, says Trump, not until "our country's representatives have figured out what's going on". But if he isn't a Muslim, we should let him in, since we don't want to destroy the tourist trade or turn away business opportunities.So, how are we going to do this? Well, you suggest we should ask them. OK, let's do that. We ask "Are you a Muslim?" He replies (let's suppose) "No, I'm a staunch atheist." What do we do then? We could try to trip him up with trick questions but these would be easily avoided. Things like:"So, how many gods do you believe in?"
"None."
"Do you pray to Mecca five times a day?"
"No."
"If you're a real atheist, can you quote any of the sacred scriptures of atheism?"
"No."
"OK, I guess you check out."So, if we let him in on this basis, then we don't have much of a process. Any Muslim terrorist could circumvent it, and we'd let them all in. If, on the other hand, we exclude the tourist or businessman until he can prove the negative proposition that he definitely isn't a Muslim, then we won't let anyone in.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's why you have to waterboard them while asking the questions, it streamlines and improves the process.

Then he might point them out. It would be his patriotic duty. If he's keeping quiet about what they are until (as he hopes) he takes office next January, then he is willfully exposing America to a terrorist threat in the meantime.But perhaps he's not colluding with terrorists. Perhaps he knows of no such flaws, and he's just rabble-rousing and banking on his followers being so ignorant that they don't know about the screening process (like you before we told you) and that even if they find out about this process, they'll have such blind faith in Trump that they'll say something like "If he wants more than the screening process already in place, perhaps he's aware of its insufficiencies. Why is that so hard to follow?"

I'd ask more sophisticated questions than that. Perhaps quote the Koran or ask them to. Ask them what they think of the verses about jihad but switch around. It's not that hard to come up with questions that reveal a person's mental set.So are you convinced now that Muslims are burning cars in France?

I'd heard of the screening process as a matter of fact but figured it's not very efficient. Trump obviously is concerned that potential jihadists are not being identified, whatever screening he knows about.

Well, I can find mainstream sources like Time, Newsweek and the BBC reporting on the car burnings, and halfwitted loonies like Pamela Geller ascribing them all to Muslims without a shred of supporting evidence. Not necessarily. It depends what you say about these subjects.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How did you figure that? What proportion of refugees, to your knowledge, have turned out to be secret jihadists? Or he thinks his target audience can be made to be concerned. But let's credit Trump with a little sincerity (I can barely believe I typed that). Then does he have any reason for his concern? As I say, if he knows of any actual flaw in the process, it's time for him to speak out.

Really? Tell that to Jews, Atheists, other non-christians, and everyone that has been enslaved in the name of the christian god.
Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

Christianity does not teach violence.I'm not going to check your biased references. Let's guess that it's mostly the usual stuff that ascribes Roman Catholic murders to Christians. Rome doesn't follow the Bible, they follow pagan superstitions so their violence is not Christian.

A great example of denial of truth and preferring falsehoods.It is comforting to simply deny the truth that Christianity has been spread by violence and force and that Christianity has been the most successful practitioners of genocide in the history of the world.

Originally, you said hundreds a day - as things are, car burning in France is a weird new year's day phenomenon.It's a French problem, this New Year car burning thing - seems to date back to the 1990s - and seems in part to do with protest (of a variety of types), and in part to do with a bizarre form of ritual vandalism.It's pretty shitty, obviously, and they are trying to stamp it out, but it is certainly not something brought in by Muslims. French farmers were burning British lorries (and live sheep) back in the 1990s, when they were upset they weren't being paid enough. It seems that a protesting Frenchman likes a nice fire. But there you go - every country has a few skeletons in its closet.I suspect that Muslim involvement in some of the burnings this January have less to do with religious protest than they do with protests about deprivation in the banlieus (where there are a disproportionate number of poorer people, protesting about standards of living, and a disproportionate number of out of work young people, bored and happy to be shitty little toe rags, burning someone's car).As a matter of interest, did Christian radio definitely say "100s every day" ?