After the March 22nd terrorist attacks in Belgium, Republican U.S. Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz said law enforcement should be empowered to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.” In defending the plan, Cruz cited former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his aggressive policing efforts, including the alleged targeting of Muslim neighborhoods for surveillance. Current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton held a press conference where they criticized Cruz’s proposal as “incendiary” and “foolish.”
No, just an illusion to create fear among the people and to bring about their new world order by bringing in martial law as a facade to protect the people when they are actually stripping us of our rights...they are just using a twisted cult of a religion such as Islam to do it..
Yes until they actively and publicly show they are against these atrocities. Just think - if Jews or Christians were cutting off people's heads, raping children there would be an outcry against that behavior by their respective leaders and members. We don't see that condemnation by Muslim leaders.
As one who is not blind to the fact that it isn't anyone but Muslims who are blowing themselves up and committing modern acts of terrorism I cannot deny I would feel safer if there was greater watch over Muslim communities. However, because so very few of all Muslims actually possess the propensity to commit such acts that I can't justify discriminating communities of Muslim Americans in such a way.
We shouldn't even allow "Muslim neighborhoods", there should only be "American neighborhoods". Anyone who has demonstrated an unwillingness to adopt our culture should be expelled with great haste. Diversity is NOT our strength.
No, government surveillance of muslim communities send a message to the public that muslims are collectively guilty for acts of terror. This leads to an increase of hate crimes against american muslims because it creates an "us vs. them" dichotomy. this Dichotomy also is counterproductive because it legitimizes the message of radical groups that "the United states is an enemy of islam" because this enemy creation works both ways.
Additionally there is no statistical evidence that proves any correlation with the teachings of islam and propensity to violence. In fact, the majority of terror attacks in the US are carried out by radical right wing groups such as the sovereign citizen movement. Therefore, focusing on muslim communities would divert finite resources from other, more effective means of counterterrorism.
Genocide is the clear answer here. No need to increase surveillance if they're all dead.
There should be a head Christian, *** and Muslim in the United States government to set an example of human decency and verbally make statements for that religion for the public's understanding of esch of these religions. Without communication the mission statement of any religion can be skewed to promote violence by criminally minded opportunists. Instead, raise bar centrally by having each large religion vote for a higher up we then direct our concerns to in our multi-ethnical country.
Again-- asking such an imperial question- those who cast the quickest reply are doubtful the most considerate.
Certainly there should be vigilant consideration and factors should be considered which seem to increase the possibility of such occurring. Vilifying an entire religion premised that this is the only threat to the America people is asinine and foolish. It not only justifies those already angry folks who look for a scapegoat but creates a panic for those who are frightened. It causes hysteria. Causes panic. Eliminates long term thinking needed when processing critical consequence.
An increased police presence, not meaning surveillance. An increased police presence in the form of community officers gives the police a better idea of what is going on in a neighborhood. People begin to trust the officers and are more open to talking to them openly.
This is another extremely difficult question to answer. I would guess that 90% of all Muslims who enter the US are decent citizens with no desire to injure or otherwise damage people and places in this country--and the number of innocents may be even higher than that. The crux of the matter is that a few Muslims may enter the country with a specific mission to destroy, harm and otherwise wreck the peace and security of this nation. Thus, careful scrutiny of what may be fake passports must be maintained, and background checks carried out on those who would enter this country from Muslim locations--before they are permitted to enter.
Until the Muslims have cleaned up the own neighborhoods and mosques and have acculurated to American way of life. No Dearborn antics. Then the police are going to have to assist in monitoring their communities. Once they have taken responsibility for themselves like adult citizens and shown themselves to be trustworthy citizens as a group then the police will no longer need to monitor them. So the responsibility is on the Muslims to clean their own house or have big brother looking down their necks.
Yes, but only if their neighborhoods are proving suspect, or if they're showing legit higher crime rates. But it is incendiary and racist. It needs to stop. Perhaps cash-incentivizing Muslims to turn in fellow Muslim terror suspects.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.