US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6797

On February 08 2017 14:22 Danglars wrote:

Some people but not your friends? Have you asked them how likely they are to radicalize now that Trump's the president and dishing out immigration executive orders? I mean you're saying these things semi-seriously and expecting to be taken seriously. Or is all this islamophobic junk for the religion on the next planet over with coincidental naming? Farcical, absolutely farcical. And still mainstream Islamophobia that would give Trump a run for his money.

On February 08 2017 14:29 Aquanim wrote:

Given that very few of the people in the United States who follow the religion of Islam are radicalised in any case, the argument you're making here is unsound.

@Danglars: Do you think that legislation/executive orders/etc introduced by the United States which is intended to restrict the ability of Muslim people to do things is going to make any Muslims more sympathetic to the United States?

...
"intended to restrict the ability of Muslim people to do things." Is this word salad executive orders or something? I feel like you're rehearsing the next Sean Spicer SNL skit.

On February 08 2017 15:25 Aquanim wrote:

That's not an answer to my question; please limit yourself to constructive statements.

I doubt anybody is going to be radicalised solely because of Trump's rhetoric, the new, less welcoming immigration policies of the US, or any one other thing you can point to.

I don't think anybody in this thread thinks that. If you are arguing against that position, you are arguing against a strawman.

That does not mean that the rhetoric or the policies will not have an undesirable effect on the number of people who are radicalised. It doesn't have to be the sole and only cause to have an effect.

On February 08 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:

Terrorism affects us all, baby. Like you said, they don't get radicalized at home (well, unless you're talking second generation immigrants). Botched role-out affecting green card holders, probably not, but feeling more safe from terror, oh yeah.

"intended to restrict the ability of Muslim people to do things." Is this word salad executive orders or something? I feel like you're rehearsing the next Sean Spicer SNL skit.

On February 08 2017 15:48 cLutZ wrote:

The reason this becomes an argument is because it is the default argument against any Islamic-precautionary measures in the US. If this load hadn't been blown dozens of times in the last decade the "you just think Muslims are insane people who turn into terrorists at the drop a a dime" rebuttal would be less accurate. However, its the default criticism of any policy that affects the Middle East.

On February 08 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:



Never mind national distinctions, it's a Muslim Ban and if it is granted, it will radicalize a lot of people. Now just admire that in its contextual beauty. All the country restrictions are just a show,

so let's skip on down to accusing the other side of disingenuously pretending it's about hotbeds of terrorism,
and claim widespread radicalization to a lot of people.

How stupid do you take people? I've heard double talk about Muslims vs terrorists out of "the Left" for years, and now you're supposed to
Nevermind about having never felt like you're arguing disingenuously. You've been around for this debate enough times to know the party lines - conservatives argue for targeting Muslims with extra scrutiny to fight Islamic terrorism, liberals say that targeting Muslims reinforces the "US vs. Islam" narrative that spurs radicalization in the first place. For someone to make the latter argument and you to respond with apparent shock and horror ("its insulting and any thinking person should be insulted")... well let's just say I know you're not that dense.

On February 08 2017 11:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Wouldn't the plaintiffs be able to use the fact that it actually is a Muslim ban and is only being worded differently in the media because of the backlash? The wording was done carefully for this very reason, it would be harder to overturn. Being that Obama only slowed down and didn't halt completely remains the key difference. If he had included Saudia Arabia or Pakistan or UAE it would be different I suppose. But it does nothing to try and sugarcoat it. It's a Muslim Ban and if it is granted, it will radicalize a lot of people.

On February 08 2017 14:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Mitch McConnell just created the perfect PR disaster for the Senate GOP:

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/829148988318179329

On February 08 2017 17:27 Wegandi wrote:
When the bombing, the raiding, the occupying, and the support for Israel doesn't rile Islamists against the US, it's not allowing them into the US that's all the hubbaloo. Come on, these guys have plenty of reasons to despise the US. You can make a cogent argument without resorting to this.

On February 08 2017 17:49 Aquanim wrote:

I don't think that adding more reasons for "Islamists" to be "riled" is a good way to fix that problem. Do you think it is?

In other words, I take a dim view of some of the other US policies you mentioned too... that doesn't mean I can't take a dim view of this one as well.

WASHINGTON — Angry at the civilian casualties incurred last month in the first commando raid authorized by President Trump, Yemen has withdrawn permission for the United States to run Special Operations ground missions against suspected terrorist groups in the country, according to American officials.

Grisly photographs of children apparently killed in the crossfire of a 50-minute firefight during the raid caused outrage in Yemen. A member of the Navy’s SEAL Team 6, Chief Petty Officer William Owens, was also killed in the operation.

While the White House continues to insist that the attack was a “success” — a characterization it repeated on Tuesday — the suspension of commando operations is a setback for Mr. Trump, who has made it clear he plans to take a far more aggressive approach against Islamic militants.

It also calls into question whether the Pentagon will receive permission from the president for far more autonomy in selecting and executing its counterterrorism missions in Yemen, which it sought, unsuccessfully, from President Barack Obama in the last months of his term.

Mr. Obama deferred the decision to Mr. Trump, who appeared inclined to grant it: His approval of the Jan. 29 raid came over a dinner four nights earlier with his top national security aides, rather than in the kind of rigorous review in the Situation Room that became fairly routine under President George W. Bush and Mr. Obama.

The raid, in which just about everything went wrong, was an early test of Mr. Trump’s national security decision-making — and his willingness to rely on the assurances of his military advisers. His aides say that even though the decision was made over a dinner, it had been fully vetted, and had the requisite legal approvals.

Mr. Trump will soon have to make a decision about the more general request by the Pentagon to allow more of such operations in Yemen without detailed, and often time-consuming, White House review. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump will allow that, or how the series of mishaps that marked his first approval of such an operation may have altered his thinking about the human and political risks of similar operations.

The Pentagon has said that the main objective of the raid was to recover laptop computers, cellphones and other information that could help fill gaps in its understanding of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whose leaders have tried to carry out at least three attacks on the United States. But it is unclear whether the information the commandos recovered will prove valuable.

The White House continued its defense of the raid on Tuesday, making no reference to the Yemeni reaction.

Washington (CNN)The US military is looking to lease space in Trump Tower.

"In order to meet official mission requirements, the Department of Defense is working through appropriate channels and in accordance with all applicable legal requirements in order to acquire a limited amount of leased space in Trump Tower," Lt. Col. JB Brindle, a Defense Department spokesman, told CNN. "The space is necessary for the personnel and equipment who will support the POTUS at his residence in the building."
Military support for a president, including the military staff assigned to keeping the "nuclear football" nearby, requires close proximity to the commander in chief, which is why the Pentagon needs to rent a more expensive space closer to the penthouse where Trump resides when he's in New York.

On February 08 2017 18:00 Wegandi wrote:


Which has zero to do with what I said. Yeah, sure, all those things listed aren't enough to give Islamists enough fodder to use against the US, it's not allowing Islamists into the country that's going to cause great harm with the US view in the ME or in Dearborn, MI. Yeah...ok. That's just not a compelling argument. Like I said, there are a great many cogent arguments against this, but trying to use this one is just stupid.