In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Well, in the interest of looking for optimism, Trump's executive order and overall attitude towards Muslim immigrants is putting Michigan Republicans in an impossible situation. Many, if not most, of the Lebanese and Iraqi citizens here in Central Michigan, of which there are more than anywhere else in the US, were typically Republican voters. That pill gets tougher and tougher to swallow by the day.
On January 30 2017 19:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I get that you're all about America first, and that spreading positive values to the rest of the world is a secondary priority at best, the problem you're going to be facing is that an america first attitude encourages the rest of the world to say 'fuck america', and that will, on a slightly more long term basis, significantly hurt your interests.
Considering Iraq (not Iran) has just banned all US passport holders as a 'reciprocity measure', probably due to a combination of this clusterfuck and Donny publicly saying that they maybe should have just taken all the oil, looks like ISIS just got a huge lifeline.
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
He probably means arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria who then went on to join up with ISIS.
On January 30 2017 19:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I get that you're all about America first, and that spreading positive values to the rest of the world is a secondary priority at best, the problem you're going to be facing is that an america first attitude encourages the rest of the world to say 'fuck america', and that will, on a slightly more long term basis, significantly hurt your interests.
Considering Iraq (not Iran) has just banned all US passport holders as a 'reciprocity measure', probably due to a combination of this clusterfuck and Donny publicly saying that they maybe should have just taken all the oil, looks like ISIS just got a huge lifeline.
Hm. Where did you find that? I saw that they were considering that, but I think they need US military in Mosul, and are probably not quite ready to shoot themselves in the foot there to spite Trump.
In general, however, this ban is clearly a boon to ISIS. Not only does it boost their recruiting, but goodwill towards the US in Muslim countries is severely dimished, and I'm pretty sure Trump's 30-day plan to defeat ISIS is going to require all the help he can get from Muslim countries...
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
He probably means arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria who then went on to join up with ISIS.
Majority of rebels that defected to extremist factions in Syria defected to Alqaeda not isis, saying Obama gave them weapons is just wrong.
On January 30 2017 21:35 farvacola wrote: Well, in the interest of looking for optimism, Trump's executive order and overall attitude towards Muslim immigrants is putting Michigan Republicans in an impossible situation. Many, if not most, of the Lebanese and Iraqi citizens here in Central Michigan, of which there are more than anywhere else in the US, were typically Republican voters. That pill gets tougher and tougher to swallow by the day.
Same goes for Minnesota republicans and any hope of working with a (for the most part) conservative somali immigrant population. Between the hmong, mexican, and somali enclaves there isn't a future for trump in Minnesota in 2 let alone four years.
If we believe Gallup's tracking poll, Trump is now at -9 net approval and is the fastest to crack more than half job disapproval in history.
Most notable is the fact that his "approve" share of 42% is now well below his share of the popular vote, which is pretty amazing. If we assumed voters were a random sample of the population and every non-Trump voter has been disapproving since day 1, Trump has eroded ~10% of his base in just 8 days.
Fortunately for Trump there are "alternative pollsters" like Rasmussen that show him up +10 in approval somehow so he can just dismiss Gallup as fake news.
On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound.
While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical.
This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation.
I unequivocally disagree.
This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims.
In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with.
No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same.
We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
I am bothered by those. There's that famous picture from pew research showing how big support there is for various attitudes that I myself do find very troubling.
The thing is however, I can extend similar feelings to lots of different groups. For example, Trump supporters supported bombing Agrabah, 41% positive, 9% opposed. This is significantly more disturbing than 90%+ of muslims thinking homosexuality is not acceptable or that 80% think the wife should obey the husband. Agrabah is a fictional city (from Aladdin), bombs are certainly no better than terrorist attacks from a civilian pov, and people having an attitude where they overwhelmingly favor bombing a city just because it has an arab sounding name is incredibly disturbing. Like, I find it hard to believe that I share values espoused by people who believe this in any significant way; if your gut reaction to 'should we bomb this place' is 'yeah why the hell not', that's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.
(Note that among democrats the number was also like 19% in favor and 36% opposed - and I don't take kindlier to those 19%. Link to this research here).
The thing is, I don't think banning Americans from entering Norway is in any way a productive way of dealing with this problem. I think attitudes are more likely to be changed (in what I deem a positive manner) from increased dialogue and interaction. Norwegian Muslims, while still less liberally minded than 'average' Norwegians, are much more liberally minded than Saudi-Arabian Muslims. And then there's very real danger that any type of 'Muslim ban' enacted from any western country, even if this ban had been chosen purely due to 'decrease likelihood of terrorist attacks', has the added consequence of making the Islamic world distance themselves from the west, which in turn makes them less likely to start being accepting of those western values that I cherish so highly and want to be more universally accepted.
I get that you're all about America first, and that spreading positive values to the rest of the world is a secondary priority at best, the problem you're going to be facing is that an america first attitude encourages the rest of the world to say 'fuck america', and that will, on a slightly more long term basis, significantly hurt your interests.
If about 50% of the US is willing to bomb a fictional city just because of Arabic sounding name, maybe we do share some commonalities with Islamic extremists after all!
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
I suppose I missquoted the man. The word, 'ban' actually never appears in the Executive Order. It is about 'temporary suspensions'. No bans. Two, the relevant authorities have been authorized to issue orders on a case-by-case basis.
That the Obama administration "danced around" the issue is not a point in his favor. The fact remains that the State Departement stopped processing new visas on Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011 (pending review of just about 50.000 already existing visas to check for fingerprints on an IED). President Obama might have reacted to two specific incidents in the USA. President Trump is acting on what he was elected to do. He is suspending visas and refugee admissions until certain procedures are reviewed. Prima facie, it does not seem unreasonable.
I think it's completely unreasonable for the reasons highlighted in the article I posted a couple of pages ago, but regardless your initial claim was that Trump wasn't ordering anything Obama hadn't done before, which is simply factually false. What the Obama administration did was reply to a specific event by expanding the review process for refugees from a single country, Iraq, which resulted in the slowing down of the refugee visa granting process considerably. The Obama administration did not, however, apply its measure to immigrants (lawful permanent residents) and nonimmigrants (people temporarily visiting the country as tourists, students, etc.), and to more than one country (Trump targeted seven). In addition, Obama's measures were not illegal, while Trump's seems to be violating 8 U.S.C. 1152 Sec. 202(a)(1)(A) preventing discrimination against immigrants because of their "race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
He probably means arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria who then went on to join up with ISIS.
Majority of rebels that defected to extremist factions in Syria defected to Alqaeda not isis, saying Obama gave them weapons is just wrong.
According to the daily mail when "Fox News asked Turi whether Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia (the group behind the Benghazi attack), or ISIS - which was formed in 1999 - got the weapons; he replied: 'All of them, all of them, all of them.'
I dunno where you get your info from, but the exact amount each organization managed to obtain doesn't matter.
On January 30 2017 19:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I get that you're all about America first, and that spreading positive values to the rest of the world is a secondary priority at best, the problem you're going to be facing is that an america first attitude encourages the rest of the world to say 'fuck america', and that will, on a slightly more long term basis, significantly hurt your interests.
Considering Iraq (not Iran) has just banned all US passport holders as a 'reciprocity measure', probably due to a combination of this clusterfuck and Donny publicly saying that they maybe should have just taken all the oil, looks like ISIS just got a huge lifeline.
Hm. Where did you find that? I saw that they were considering that, but I think they need US military in Mosul, and are probably not quite ready to shoot themselves in the foot there to spite Trump.
In general, however, this ban is clearly a boon to ISIS. Not only does it boost their recruiting, but goodwill towards the US in Muslim countries is severely dimished, and I'm pretty sure Trump's 30-day plan to defeat ISIS is going to require all the help he can get from Muslim countries...
There's this
Two lawmakers say that the Iraqi parliament has approved a "reciprocity measure" after U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning citizens from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.
The measure, adopted by lawmakers at a Monday session of parliament, is to apply to Americans entering Iraq.
On January 30 2017 20:11 pmh wrote: It has been "America first" since like forever. Corporate America first,they don't mind globalization and producing cheap in mexico at all. Now it will be mainstreet America first,at least that seems to be the intention but I guess this will turn out to become a disappointment.
How long is trump going to last? Looking at the press you would not give him even 1 full year but he still holds value for the gop,there is no way they can ditch him yet without negative consequences. A lot more fuck ups would be needed to do that so brace yourself,ha ha.
and wth is wrong with this website btw? I get security warnings all the time and website freezes so often. This is the only website that gives me problems,maybe its one of the adds. Something to look at pls,
dunno about security warnings; I used to get a lot of freezes. it stopped when I disabled flash iirc (I disabled all the ads and a bunch of other stuff, though I think it's just the ads that caused it); there are some threads in the website feedback section iirc of people having similar issues, if you dig a little you can find them. trump will probably stick around until his approval rating amongst republicans drops to around half, and the GOP feels they're better off ditching him than trying to save him.
On January 30 2017 06:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: Xenophobia has the connotation of being an irrational logic. Yes, they think that a high Muslim population is bad for the country, but, not irrationally.
If I got bitten by a dog when I was a child, that does not mean my canophobia as an adult is rational. Extending a past bad experience with a dog to all future encounters with dogs is not logically sound.
While most people can conjure up a reason why they dislike Muslims or feel they make their country unsafe, that reasoning is for the most part not logical.
This is the big lie of the SJW-dominated left. There is a rich history (both distant past and present) from which westerners (and other non-Muslim peoples) can logically and rationally draw concerns about Muslim peoples. And these concerns will always be justified until all of the radical elements of Islam are permanently purged. Tolerance is a two-way street, and unilateral western proclamations of tolerance for Islam will not necessarily translate into reciprocation.
I unequivocally disagree.
This is the big lie of the anti-Liberal crowd. These concerns are in no way justified because very evidently the majority of Muslims have incredibly humane values. In the same way that Americans condemn white supernationalists and neo-Nazis, most Muslims condemn radical extremists. It is the only the existence of the civil unrest in the area that has stained our views of Muslims.
In the same vain, the Liberal left's (in your eyes, SJW's) support against discrimination against Muslims, or any other groups, is a condemnation of people trying to treat all Muslims the same, and is in no way an endorsement of Muslim radicalism and extremist values, as much as you guys keep trying to smear Liberals with.
No one ever says that all Muslims are good. People are saying, stop lumping all Muslims in the same group as the radicals, stop treating everyone from X country as though they're all the same.
We don't have to go as far as ISIS to find the populations of Muslims that are incompatible with the West and Western values. As a good liberal, are you not bothered by the high incidences of anti-homosexual and anti-women's rights behavior in Muslim nations? And I'm just picking those traditions because they're the most obvious. I could point to others as well.
I am bothered by those. There's that famous picture from pew research showing how big support there is for various attitudes that I myself do find very troubling.
The thing is however, I can extend similar feelings to lots of different groups. For example, Trump supporters supported bombing Agrabah, 41% positive, 9% opposed. This is significantly more disturbing than 90%+ of muslims thinking homosexuality is not acceptable or that 80% think the wife should obey the husband. Agrabah is a fictional city (from Aladdin), bombs are certainly no better than terrorist attacks from a civilian pov, and people having an attitude where they overwhelmingly favor bombing a city just because it has an arab sounding name is incredibly disturbing. Like, I find it hard to believe that I share values espoused by people who believe this in any significant way; if your gut reaction to 'should we bomb this place' is 'yeah why the hell not', that's moral bankruptcy of the worst kind.
(Note that among democrats the number was also like 19% in favor and 36% opposed - and I don't take kindlier to those 19%. Link to this research here).
The thing is, I don't think banning Americans from entering Norway is in any way a productive way of dealing with this problem. I think attitudes are more likely to be changed (in what I deem a positive manner) from increased dialogue and interaction. Norwegian Muslims, while still less liberally minded than 'average' Norwegians, are much more liberally minded than Saudi-Arabian Muslims. And then there's very real danger that any type of 'Muslim ban' enacted from any western country, even if this ban had been chosen purely due to 'decrease likelihood of terrorist attacks', has the added consequence of making the Islamic world distance themselves from the west, which in turn makes them less likely to start being accepting of those western values that I cherish so highly and want to be more universally accepted.
I get that you're all about America first, and that spreading positive values to the rest of the world is a secondary priority at best, the problem you're going to be facing is that an america first attitude encourages the rest of the world to say 'fuck america', and that will, on a slightly more long term basis, significantly hurt your interests.
If about 50% of the US is willing to bomb a fictional city just because of Arabic sounding name, maybe we do share some commonalities with Islamic extremists after all!
in fairness, iirc, some of it has to do with assumptions: e.g. they assume if someone is asking the question at all then it's a real issue under contention, rather than a trick question; which is generally a good assumption when being surveyed. mostly it proves that people are ignorant and may make decisions with very inadequate amounts of information.
But it has nothing to do with security and everything with biggotry: those people are dangerous!!!! And evil!!! And brown!!!!!
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
He probably means arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria who then went on to join up with ISIS.
Majority of rebels that defected to extremist factions in Syria defected to Alqaeda not isis, saying Obama gave them weapons is just wrong.
According to the daily mail when "Fox News asked Turi whether Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia (the group behind the Benghazi attack), or ISIS - which was formed in 1999 - got the weapons; he replied: 'All of them, all of them, all of them.'
I dunno where you get your info from, but the exact amount each organization managed to obtain doesn't matter.
I don't get my information from fox news or daily mail that's for sure, still waiting for your sources for "Obama gave weapons to isis".
On January 29 2017 21:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 29 2017 21:29 Madkipz wrote: [quote]
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote: Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
Ofcourse not. Obama was on your side when he won the nobel peace price, used Drones to bomb yemen, gave weapons to isis, and signed into law the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015" to exclude and vet the citizenry of nations the pentagon have had on their list of countries to "do". Trumps amendments to the bill through executive order don't change anything that Obama hasn't done before (Obama Banned all Iraqi Refugees for 6 Months in 2011).
Are you talking about Libya or some #AlternativeFacts that i'm not aware.
He probably means arming 'moderate rebels' in Syria who then went on to join up with ISIS.
Majority of rebels that defected to extremist factions in Syria defected to Alqaeda not isis, saying Obama gave them weapons is just wrong.
According to the daily mail when "Fox News asked Turi whether Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia (the group behind the Benghazi attack), or ISIS - which was formed in 1999 - got the weapons; he replied: 'All of them, all of them, all of them.'
I dunno where you get your info from, but the exact amount each organization managed to obtain doesn't matter.
I don't get my information from fox news or daily mail that's for sure, still waiting for your sources for "Obama gave weapons to isis".
Madkipz took out the context of that quote. Obama and Clinton gave weapons to UAE and Qatar with the idea that they would give Libyan rebels the weapons, but they just gave them to all rebels.
Turi, 48, told Fox that the Obama administration had wanted to arm Libyan rebels to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi during the Arab Spring uprising, but were stopped by a UN sanction on arms sales to the country.
He said he came up with a plan to sell weapons to US allies in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates who would then pass them on to Libya, but was cut out of the deal by Clinton's State Department and the CIA, who transported the weapons themselves.
Those weapons, he said, then went to just about everyone in Libya and Syria - friend and foe alike - after rebels got their hands on them.
Fox News asked Turi whether Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia (the group behind the Benghazi attack), or ISIS - which was formed in 1999 - got the weapons; he replied: 'All of them, all of them, all of them.'
From what I recall Obama and Clinton were quick to say, (not from here), that they stopped that strategy once they learned that was going on.
U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.
But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.
EPT
