A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Viceregal]

1. No dude, you are making massive generalisations and then applying it to entire ethnic, racial, religious groups.

Islam is to Islamic terrorist/ISIS/Al Qaeda as Christianity is to Ku Klux Klan/The Aryan Nations/Lord's Resistance Army. Only one religion seems to be forced to carry the can for all its violent extremists however.

2. Not sure why "failed states" is relevant... are people living in failed states inherently evil? And if we stop taking refugees from "failed states" then you're probably saying "piss off" to the most legitimate asylum seekers in the world.

3. As for the MLK reference, ******* hell!!!

1) I am speaking of dealing with objective circumstances independently of the ethnicities, racial profile, or religious makeup of the area - I would be equally fine with temporarily banning people from any country, any colour or any religion who met the criteria. If it happens to be that the countries that meet the criteria happen to be located in the Middle East, are majority Muslim etc then that is where the objective realities lie. If you want to claim it is discriminatory because of disparate impact (sp) then go for it but that is another discussion entirely. I am arguing for the rights of nations to choose who enter and to try and keep their citizens safe not against any particular group.

2) Failed states is relevant a) because it is a legit description of the areas but b) mainly because when you are vetting someone who wants to come into your county part of the process is that you ask the govt of the country they come from about them - if that county has no control over who comes into their country, has criminal elements inside the country also printing passports etc, and no real idea about them ... then it makes it harder to vet the person in question.

3) If I am talking about what people do but get bounced because they happen to have a different skin colour - how is that not appropriate. I may be misremembering but the dream seemed to include that one day people would be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. How does that fit in with 'I would prefer not to be taken captive by pirates' getting turned into 'You are a racist' not reflect a flaw in the outworking of said dream?

 

[Viceregal]

But your man Trump isn't avoiding going to Iran or Afghanistan because it may be dangerous, he is wanting to ban them all from coming into the US.

Edit: Sorry, Iraq. I don't know why I keep using Afghanistan as an example.

Easily done - Afghanistan has been an equal opportunity pain for both the old Soviets and the Americans for a looong time and has had their fair share of terror related press.

If they wanted to ban convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles, human traffickers et al from coming into the county (not the terrorist versions of the breed - just your normal everyday run of the mill murderer rapist etc) would that be an issue for you?

 

[Viceregal]

I'm not sure what the relevance of the worldwide terror stat is nor the reference to Earths population. Weren't we discussing refugees and immigration in the US.

Didn't you reference a stat on the chance of being killed by a refugee terrorist was less than 1:3.x billion?

If that was true would that be the way the maths work out? (like I said not a statistician)

 

[Viceregal]

When did conservatives become so scared of monsters under the bed? They used to be the "stiff upper lip" set.

Yet it's the left who are called "cucks"...

Depends where you are reading I guess - everywhere I have seen it used it has been referring to 'cuckservatives' as a pejorative to nominally GOP types who are seen as progressives in sheep's clothing or totally lacking in supposedly conservative principles.

What does it mean when used from the left side?

 

[Elixuh]

Didn't you reference a stat on the chance of being killed by a refugee terrorist was less than 1:3.x billion?

If that was true would that be the way the maths work out? (like I said not a statistician)

I don't think so no...And we are talking about the US, not worldwide.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ce-isis-uses-route-human-rights-a7377961.html

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf

 

[Hollow Knight]

3) If I am talking about what people do but get bounced because they happen to have a different skin colour - how is that not appropriate. I may be misremembering but the dream seemed to include that one day people would be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. How does that fit in with 'I would prefer not to be taken captive by pirates' getting turned into 'You are a racist' not reflect a flaw in the outworking of said dream?

But you're not judging them by the content of their character, you are judging them by the content of other peoples' characters that share the same nationality and/or religion.

2) Failed states is relevant a) because it is a legit description of the areas but b) mainly because when you are vetting someone who wants to come into your county part of the process is that you ask the govt of the country they come from about them - if that county has no control over who comes into their country, has criminal elements inside the country also printing passports etc, and no real idea about them ... then it makes it harder to vet the person in question.

Who is arguing they should have "no control"? Aren't we discussing the fairness/legality/ethics of the ban, not the vetting/extreme vetting process?

 

[James North]

If they wanted to ban convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles, human traffickers et al from coming into the county (not the terrorist versions of the breed - just your normal everyday run of the mill murderer rapist etc) would that be an issue for you?

This already happens - they are talking about preemptively banning a select bunch of people who haven't done anything without pre-cognition even being invented yet.

If this was really about protecting Americans from an early death, guns would be taken away and toddlers would be deported.

Trump is happy to generalise when it comes to countries who he thinks may attack Americans, but he won't generalise about the numerous god-fearing Christians who have killed their neighbours or fellow citizens in fact.

It's indefensible.

 

[ZoBlitz]

If you want to talk about the actual security aspect of it all then it's worth noting that the very large majority of terrorist related incidents in the US since September 11 have involved American citizens and that none of the others involved have come from the listed banned countries. If you're ignoring the ethical side of things and think that banning citizens of a whole country actually stops terrorism, then you'd be better off targeting Saudi Arabia (where Trump registered eight companies during the presidential campaign, interestingly enough) or Pakistan or Egypt.

In reality the ban is just simple dog-whistling designed to demonise Muslims and appeal to the populist drives of those who struggle to comprehend the complexity of terrorism in the modern world and who don't like people who aren't exactly like themselves. And the ban arguably makes the United States less safe as I'm sure the ban will help to radicalise susceptible members of the Islamic community in the country who are already American citizens.

Personally I'd be spending some money to help the Islamic communities engage those most at risk of radicalisation rather than enacting poorly conceived executive orders but that's speaking as someone who's studied terrorism, been to the middle east and has actually met a Muslim or two so I'm probably too qualified to get a job in the Trump administration.

 

[Caiphus]

But we have all this evidence over years and years that negative motivation is a deterrent for aberrant behaviour. If people aren't deterred it's because they haven't been scared enough, we just have to scare them more - anyone with common sense can see that!

 

[SizeMatters]

Israel has blanket banned Muslims and Christians for decades. Nothing said... Laughable

 

[Leemas]

Israel has blanket banned Muslims and Christians for decades. Nothing said... Laughable

Japan too

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Israel has blanket banned Muslims and Christians for decades. Nothing said... Laughable

I'd say plenty has been said on that matter over the years.

Japan too

There is no place on Japanese citizenship or residency forms to nominate religion, so this is false.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the US decision to ban entry to Japanese immigrants was demonstrably a factor behind the militarisation of Japan, the attack on Pearl Harbor and WWII. Not saying for a minute that Japan weren't already heading that way. Have a read about Showa Nationalism to get the idea. While it's probably not strictly fascism, it's not far off - there are definitely some parallel's with Germany during the same period (dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles, arresting outspoken left-wingers).

Short memory, must have a...

 

[Skoob]

1) I am speaking of dealing with objective circumstances independently of the ethnicities, racial profile, or religious makeup of the area - I would be equally fine with temporarily banning people from any country, any colour or any religion who met the criteria. If it happens to be that the countries that meet the criteria happen to be located in the Middle East, are majority Muslim etc then that is where the objective realities lie. If you want to claim it is discriminatory because of disparate impact (sp) then go for it but that is another discussion entirely. I am arguing for the rights of nations to choose who enter and to try and keep their citizens safe not against any particular group.

2) Failed states is relevant a) because it is a legit description of the areas but b) mainly because when you are vetting someone who wants to come into your county part of the process is that you ask the govt of the country they come from about them - if that county has no control over who comes into their country, has criminal elements inside the country also printing passports etc, and no real idea about them ... then it makes it harder to vet the person in question.

3) If I am talking about what people do but get bounced because they happen to have a different skin colour - how is that not appropriate. I may be misremembering but the dream seemed to include that one day people would be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. How does that fit in with 'I would prefer not to be taken captive by pirates' getting turned into 'You are a racist' not reflect a flaw in the outworking of said dream?

"The criteria" is the issue though. He's not banning rapists, murderers and terrorists, is he?

As for

I may be misremembering but the dream seemed to include that one day people would be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. How does that fit in with 'I would prefer not to be taken captive by pirates' getting turned into 'You are a racist' not reflect a flaw in the outworking of said dream?

How does that fit in with "You're from where? * off".

 

[Viceregal]

"The criteria" is the issue though. He's not banning rapists, murderers and terrorists, is he?

And that is part of my whole point - that they have every right to impose criteria. That the criteria in question affects some groups more than others is a reflection of those groups not of the criteria...

How does that fit in with "You're from where? **** off".

Fits in fine with we are looking at everybody but anyone from 1-7 are getting looked at more either 'cause you suck at vetting your own or your track record in the past is dodgy or you have stated publicaly you want to kill us etc.

 

[Viceregal]

This already happens - they are talking about preemptively banning a select bunch of people who haven't done anything without pre-cognition even being invented yet.

No need for pre-cog - at the moment they can't actually look and see what actions they have committed in the past - which they understandably want to - and are holding off processing until they can.

If this was really about protecting Americans from an early death, guns would be taken away and toddlers would be deported.

Statistically if you were going for avoiding avoidable deaths you would be scraping out most of the large inner cities, banning cars and a few other things...

Considering the people who do most of the killing with guns are the ones who don't have licences for them - 'taking away guns' tends to just create more victims...

Not sure where the toddler's fit in - if you allowed to be born you have a much higher survival rate than if your mother decided not to keep you.

Trump is happy to generalise when it comes to countries who he thinks may attack Americans, but he won't generalise about the numerous god-fearing Christians who have killed their neighbours or fellow citizens in fact.

Actually he is being fairly specific in terms of this discussion - and as mentioned the same group of countries have the same rep in quite a few other places as well.

Haven't seen the stats but apparently you have - how many god-fearing Christians killed their neighbours or fellow citizens last year and how many allah-fearing Muslims killed their neighbours or fellow citizens last year?

It's indefensible.

Of course it is defensible! You may not agree with the premises or the outcomes, it may offend your religion/philosophy of life, your heart may bleed with compassion or your sense of justice may be anguished ... but it is perfectly coherent, logical, and has a long history over many civilisations including our own.

 

[Viceregal]

3) If I am talking about what people do but get bounced because they happen to have a different skin colour - how is that not appropriate. I may be misremembering but the dream seemed to include that one day people would be judged by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. How does that fit in with 'I would prefer not to be taken captive by pirates' getting turned into 'You are a racist' not reflect a flaw in the outworking of said dream?

But you're not judging them by the content of their character, you are judging them by the content of other peoples' characters that share the same nationality and/or religion.

No I was judging the safety of passing through the waters off Somalia based on the actions (piracy) that take place there. Treating one place as different from another based on the actions that take place there is normal ... and found in govt travel advisories when going to certain countries with strong traditions of kidnapping westerners. It would be nice if I could walk down any street in the world, any time of day, and be perfectly safe but if I was to try it then objective reality would soon demonstrate the existence of thieves to rob me, thugs to beat me, rapists to violate me, slavers to kidnap and sell me etc etc.

2) Failed states is relevant a) because it is a legit description of the areas but b) mainly because when you are vetting someone who wants to come into your county part of the process is that you ask the govt of the country they come from about them - if that county has no control over who comes into their country, has criminal elements inside the country also printing passports etc, and no real idea about them ... then it makes it harder to vet the person in question.

Who is arguing they should have "no control"? Aren't we discussing the fairness/legality/ethics of the ban, not the vetting/extreme vetting process?

You asked me why it was relevant that the states were failed. Part of the legality of the process is the motivation behind the order - if I can show legitimate reasons why country x is a danger because y then it will be more likely to stand. What people *think* the motivation is not relevant - it based on the logic of the order. Failed states lack of ability to credibly vet their citizens (and others) is germane to the sifting process.

 

[James North]

No need for pre-cog - at the moment they can't actually look and see what actions they have committed in the past - which they understandably want to - and are holding off processing until they can.

No - he's just wanting to complete ban people from certain countries for at least 90 days.

The legal side of that is that if he gets away with it for 90 days, he can do it anytime he likes when a country (that he doesn't have a tower in) pisses him off for as long as he wants.

There is already 'extreme vetting' for people in South East Asia, Africa and the Middle East when they visit the USA. I know plenty of people from those parts of the world who have waited for very long times in US Embassies and LAX to be allowed in under Obama.

Not sure where the toddler's fit in - if you allowed to be born you have a much higher survival rate than if your mother decided not to keep you.

Toddlers with guns:

Logic suggests that guns are a big deal, and that toddlers should be barred from entering the US before any other culture or sub-culture is.

Of course it is defensible! You may not agree with the premises or the outcomes, it may offend your religion/philosophy of life, your heart may bleed with compassion or your sense of justice may be anguished ... but it is perfectly coherent, logical, and has a long history over many civilisations including our own.

It's 2017 - the Ottoman Empire has ended. I'm not offended, I think what he's trying to do is racist, and anti-Muslim and that that element of it is indefensible. Whether or not he might think it makes America safer - it's still in that box. The irony of this of course is that it will piss those people off even more and the small members of those countries who are radicalised will just be more likely to try something.

America has much bigger issues with its own people taking each other out with guns than it does with brown people who speak funny.

 

[Viceregal]

I don't think so no...And we are talking about the US, not worldwide.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ce-isis-uses-route-human-rights-a7377961.html

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf

Tossed 'isis using refugee crisis' into Google and these were some of the hits on the first page.

Traditionally if Obama, Trump, NY Times, Brietbart, Guardian, NATO, and Newsweek all agree on something ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039?rm=eu
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/world/europe/germany-refugees-isis.html?_r=0
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-state-would-use-refugee-flows-to-enter-west/
http://usherald.com/chilling-we-will-use-refugee-crisis-to-infiltrate-west-warns-isis-smuggler/

 

[pulpdriver]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the US decision to ban entry to Japanese immigrants was demonstrably a factor behind the militarisation of Japan, the attack on Pearl Harbor and WWII. Not saying for a minute that Japan weren't already heading that way. Have a read about Showa Nationalism to get the idea. While it's probably not strictly fascism, it's not far off - there are definitely some parallel's with Germany during the same period (dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles, arresting outspoken left-wingers).

Short memory, must have a...

Which ban? The 1924 immigration act? Not gonna try and defend that but it seemed very broad and Japan one of the countries impacted seemed almost incidental considering it seemed to target restricting Italian other European immigration more directly. The militarisation of Japan commenced much earlier, signified by them defeating Russia in 1905. It'd be a stretch to say that American immigration restrictions was a significant or even noteworthy factor behind the militarisation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbour that brought the US into World War 2, though admittedly I'm not familiar on Showa Nationalism and will need to read up on that.

Like you said Japan were heading that way and I'd say the US oil embargo who were supplying over 3/4 of the oil for Japan would have been a far more decisive factor. I recall reading that both Tojo and Yamamoto were extremely pessimistic about Japan's ability to engage in a sustained conflict without US oil and control of the pacific. Their efforts to keep the US out of the war and out of the pacific seem like a calculated risk considering the US's reluctance to enter the war and their low oil and rubber reserves, although in hindsight it obviously had the exact opposite effect.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Tossed 'isis using refugee crisis' into Google and these were some of the hits on the first page.

Traditionally if Obama, Trump, NY Times, Brietbart, Guardian, NATO, and Newsweek all agree on something ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039?rm=eu
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/refugees-isis-nato-commander-terrorists
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/world/europe/germany-refugees-isis.html?_r=0
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-state-would-use-refugee-flows-to-enter-west/
http://usherald.com/chilling-we-will-use-refugee-crisis-to-infiltrate-west-warns-isis-smuggler/

Okay, I eliminated Breitbart from the outset because... it's Breitbart. Don't demean yourself by posting links to that revolting website

The Guardian article was reporting on a NATO Commander who claimed that ISIS was infiltrating Syrian refugees. They weren't endorsing or confirming his statements in any way. The same article quotes people who say it would be a gross abdication of duty not to resettle the refugees.

Ditto the Express article.. it's just quoting an ISIS recruiter who was making some sketchy claims. They aren't making the claim themselves.

US Herald - quoting the same ISIS flog. Doesn't comment on the veracity of the claim other than to say there is the "potential" for terrorists to infiltrate with refugees. Potential. The same article also says that the vast majority are just innocent people desperately seeking a peaceful life. Not bad balance for a site that calls itself "Real Conservative News Online".

The Newsweek article isn't written by Newsweek. It is an op-ed piece by George W Bush's former speechwriter that was written for the right wing thinktank the American Enterprise Institute. Same as when "Beryl from Brendale" writes to the Courier Mail letters section about the possums that keep her up at night. It doesn't make it a "Courier Mail article".

NYTimes - Reporting on a claim by a German official. Not making the claim themselves.

I don't want to sound rude, but don't just google headlines next time, have a quick skim of the articles.

 

[Skoob]

And that is part of my whole point - that they have every right to impose criteria. That the criteria in question affects some groups more than others is a reflection of those groups not of the criteria...
Fits in fine with we are looking at everybody but anyone from 1-7 are getting looked at more either 'cause you suck at vetting your own or your track record in the past is dodgy or you have stated publicaly you want to kill us etc.

Actually, it's a reflection on those setting the criteria. Again, you're bundling entire nations as "a group of people". Somalia is dangerous, therefore Somalis are dangerous. It's a pretty simple and narrow view. It is racist.
The problem with most racists, is that they don't know they're racist.
Again, you (or Trump's policy) are not judging/individuals but entire inhabitants of whole nations.
I don't think I'm going to convince you either way. You are much more informed and well read on global politics than I, so I can only assume that you are deliberately missing the point or your ideology has completely closed your mind to reason.

 

[James North]

We should ban Americans because they're more likely to invade a country (possibly us???), more likely to kill someone with a gun, wear terrible socks, shoes and 'fanny packs' when travelling, heaps of them worship an ideal with a book that suggests violence as a method of solving problems, don't appear to have separation of power between leader and judiciary, caused the biggest financial meltdown in modern history through various frauds, vote on school principals, have a percentage of the population who were fooled into voting for a TV reality star billionaire supposedly helping the poor and maligned white populace and have the best weapons available that could be used anywhere on earth at any time (what is more scary??).

But we don't!

 

[pulpdriver]

Horrific situation in Brazil. Hopefully the strike ends soon but no idea how you restore order at this point. Madness.

 

[SizeMatters]

I'd say plenty has been said on that matter over the years.



There is no place on Japanese citizenship or residency forms to nominate religion, so this is false.

Plenty has been said but nothing has been done. What about the recent increased aggression towards the Gaza strip residents. UN 'intervened' but just gave Israel a slap on the wrist while the USA more or less donated 38 Billion dollars worth of 'military aid'... I mean really you can't make this stuff up.