Is it wrong to put preference on Christian refugees from the Middle East?
 

I read somewhere that Trump is going to try and put a preference on letting in Christians. These people are 2nd class citizens in their countries so I see no problem with this. And besides, when was the last time you heard of a Christian terrorist?

I think it might be time to introduce Liberty4eva to the IRA

EDIT: Posted it in the wrong thread

I see nothing wrong with that. They are victims of both the current situation and have been victims for decades of the people claiming refugee status. They are the most vulnerable.

Anyone can be made into a terrorist
by Evil Isis.


Trump is angry that Terrorists Isis
Cut the heads off
from a group of Christians
stuck in limbo , there.

How do you "prove" your religion? What's to stop people of any other religion (or :omgno: people with no religion!) just saying that they are Christian? Hmmmm. Do you think there will be any racial profiling going on??? Surely not...

The Christians have been largely ignored in the Middle East, despite facing horrors we couldn't even dream about. But we've been distracted by the plight of the Muslims.

The IRA was largely funded by the USA. That said, it was not a religious struggle but a political one. The fact they were Catholic is by the by.

That is a good point.You could easily get terrorists claiming to be Christian and slipping through the net.

tbf Christianity is far too clever to just kill the odd hundred in terror attacks. The good old Catholics like to stop Africa and South America wearing condoms so that hiv flourishes and needless children are born to single mothers who cant afford to look after them

thats the EU

Also just to point out (as it's periodically forgotten) that terrorist LEADERS, the ones who plan and organise large scale attacks, are generally non-religious and are politically motivated. They twist and use Islamic faith as a weapon of indoctrination and war. And they will find people to weaponize wherever they are. Which is why the VAST majority of terror attacks are carried out by citizens of the target country, not recent immigrants.

Those people (the ringleaders) have £££ and connections. They're not sneaking in as refugees.

And how did they become citizens , because their parents/grandparents were allowed to permanently settle in that country. The more people from this religious ideology allowed to live in Western countries the more 'homegrown' terrorism is likely to occur now and in the future.

Take into account that Muslims have been living and working here since the 16th century

My point is that the people behind the attacks couldn't give a shiney **** about Islam and if / when there are no Muslims left to convert, they will simply find another susceptible group.

Have you heard of the reformation?....

Or been to Ireland?

and protestant, the UDA and UVF who get ignored because they carried out their terrorist acts in Ireland so mainly get ignored by the British media.

its good to know that we call apply the word Christian to terrorist though, because its very bad to apply the word terrorist to any other religion :hee:

There's been more incidents of Christian terrorism in the US then there's been of Islamic terrorism in the past ten years.

Thank you!!

No it isn't, what is bad is to ONLY apply the word terrorist to people from another religion, we had no issue with calling Christians terrorists during the troubles... now it's almost impossible to get anyone to admit a white Christian could commit terrorism.

No I don't necessarily agree that Christians should have priority. I think those with the greatest need should have priority. Like those with young children.