• I believe they would be more at risk because the hate needed for terrorism would have more places to hide and fester, and since the country is an intergrated one the government would not be able to act and lance that particular infection without breaking it's own laws.
  • Of course. American and European countries must cope with the problem of civil liberties and those who may use them as a shield for terrorist activities. The perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attack had been in the U.S. for years,...taking flight training classes. They lived and moved here as freely as any citizen. Today, descrimination in visas and immigration is not "bigotry". It is common sense. We (our government) would be incredible fools to allow the same scenario to occur again.
  • Unknown. I do not see how such would apply, considering that most terrorists in the East, have no problem attacking their own countrymen.
  • No, by treating minority groups kindly, we reduce that risk. By treating them badly, we radicalize them and make them receptive to the terrorists messages. +5
    • ReiSan
      You need to be more realistic. The kinder you are to terrorists, the more they can do to harm your nation.
  • Possibly, yes. Because it causes them to more easily become fragmented and lose their identity, lose their focus. Which would make them more vulnerable. That is obviously the modus operandi of some entities/bodies.
  • Yes, France is an example.
  • Of course.
  • Integration is not bad if those who come into the nation actually integrate into that society. It's when the immigrants refuse to integrate that the problems occur.
    • Lynda Appell
      Why do you write immigrans refusing to integrate the problem occurs I am no criticizing you. I only want to know more. Thanks in advance.
  • Yes, it is. It allows people to enter with little to no discrimination, and some immigrants only want to cause trouble. It is wise to ban people from nations that have many terrorists. Japan bans Muslims, and so does Poland. Some other nations do as well.
  • maybe, i think everyone is at risk
  • A country that ignores the obvious warnings in favor of "political correctness" or "tolerance" is at more risk.
  • Nope - the opposite. Terrorism is all about self-gratification and isolation. Countries with mass shootings and terrorism tend to be ones with fractured communities where individuals feel they need to "take revenge" for how the community at large treats them.
    • ReiSan
      Not necessarily!
  • it's the country with open borders that's at risk from terrorism.
  • Yes, but it's only one of several factors.
  • The correct answer is: "Not necessarily". That is: what determines a country's risk from terrorism involves a lot more than one thing. "Embracing multi-culturalism and integration" (which, BTW, sounds like paradoxically contrary principles) is not by itself guaranteed to make a country more at risk from terrorism or less at risk from terrorism.
  • No! This is solely the responsibility of the terrorists that choose to terrorize! What the hell is the obstruction from people seeing that INDIVIDUALS are responsible for their OWN CHOICES? No one else, no other reason! Your choice, your responsibility!
  • I believe so. This seems to be the case around the world too.
  • Yes. Look at the UK, Israel, France and Germany.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy