Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
OMG there's no way Obama is gonna get reelected after this!

ZOMG! Watch the Clinton (or Trump) administration do the same thing and go largely unscathed!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

 Frazzled wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ban everyone?



Now here's something I can get behind. Don't discriminate, be mean to everyone!


This. If we could just get rid of all the *people* we wouldn't have all the problems. Look, I don't want to sound prejudiced, but 100% of all murders are committed by people. That's not all- every known rapist is, you guessed it, a person (and it is highly suspected even the unknown perps are also people). You can't deny the numbers- all crime is committed by people and every single terrorist has been a person. The solution is simple- keep out the people and crime will fall. The fact that our so called "leaders" refuse to address this and continue to pander to the people vote just demonstrates how broken our current system is.

-James
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Asterios wrote:

muslim, protestent, Catholic, Jewish, what have you, keep em out till better vetted, but more concerned with Muslim terrorists (not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but in America it seems all Terrorists have been Muslim as of late), since have heard of any Irish terrorists or the dreaded Jewish terrorist striking lately, but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.


Why are we banning Protestants and Catholics now?

Why are we banning the Irish and Italians?

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

Asterios wrote:
[...]but other then Muslims would also like to throw emphasis on banning any and all Catholic Priests too.


What the holy frak? When's the last time a Catholic priest turned terrorist?

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideological

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 17:49:45


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

That post was so far removed from reality...
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 18:09:38


 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Asterios wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

Since when?

There have been 20 attacks classed as terrorist acts in the United States since 2010. One of those(the Sony pictures hack timeframe) is a cyber attack.

Out of those 19 attacks which actually utilized violence or threats of violence, 8 can be directly linked to Islamic perpetrators/recently radicalized Islamic converts. One of those was an Iranian national in Mississippi making threats against a hospital and assaulting two sheriff's deputies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

"Violence against property" was used, actually. They bulldozed the fences on the Malheur refuge that prevented the two dumbass ranchers who had set forest fires from "moving their herds".


The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

Just so we're clear:
The reason "anyone was killed by the cops" is because they were stupid enough to pull a gun on cops and because they kept utilizing rhetoric about how they would "never be taken alive". LEOs had every reason to believe that their lives were in genuine danger when some nutter who had been posting up video blogs about how everyone present was willing to die, etc etc yaddayadda heroic nonsense.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

Do you even know what was going on with Malheur?

They were trying pretty desperately to get the "citizens of a false government" around the country to raise up arms and join them.

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?

Do you know what the word "or" means?

When a government agency is breaking something down to the point you are, they would have organized it like this:
<Insert first text explaining the basics here>
(a)<Insert first subtext condition>
or
(b)<Insert second subtext condition>

etc etc as needed

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideologicalYou do realize that a large portion of the Dildo Brigade rhetoric absolutely was ideological and political, right? The stance about "not wanting to pay money" was because he refused to recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management.
Hell, there was even a bit of religious rhetoric in there claiming that Christians are "persecuted".

So yes: Absolutely 100% "political, religious, or ideological".

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

Not being charged or convicted of something does not equate to you not having done that thing.

What it does equate to is that likely the prosecutor wanted charges that would actually stick, and that they could use as a way to weed out jurors who would be biased.

In any regards, educate yourself before spouting off again.


   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Asterios wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said


No, those links say nothing about European countries banning Muslims. At worst they are about some countries trying to restrict the number of refugees. Not the same thing at all.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/02 18:31:01


 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Steve steveson wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


actually several European countries have already started banning them.


No they haven't, and the European convention on human rights would make it illigal, and free movement laws would make it impossible. Some countries suggest they might restrict the number of Muslim refugees, but were very quickly told that was illegal. No countries in Europe have tried or want to try to ban Muslims.


http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/11/syria_s_refugee_crisis_is_a_european_emergency_far_right_parties_are_rising.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/world/middleeast/united-nations-ban-ki-moon-syria-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/slovenia-and-croatia-ban-the-transit-of-refugees

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/syria-war-urges-leaders-accept-refugees-160330092114353.html

nuff said


No, those links say nothing about European countries banning Muslims. They are all about some countries trying to restrict the number of refugees. Not the same thing at all.


refugees who are Muslim.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





No, not all of them are, and their religion is incidental anyway. They are not banning Muslims, which is what you said. They are trying to restrict the number of refugees, some of who happen to be Muslim. Totally different things.

Some of those are just about restrict the movement of refugees once they are in the EU.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 18:37:20


 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the moment it seems that Trump wants to ban people for being a Muslim. It doesn't matter if they are asylum seekers, immigrants or temporary visitors like the Mayor of London.

Leaving aside the human rights angle, it isn't necessarily practical to "prove" someone is a Muslim who therefore must be banned.

So I am asking people if this is what they want to do.

People could give a valid answer to my question with something along the lines of, "No, I want to ban Muslims who were convicted murderers, had tax defaults over X value, or blah blah blah various conditions that realistically are deleterious and can be detected."


already said what i wanted, ban em all till they can be better vetted.

Right, because "better vetting" solves all the issues.

Please. Stop reiterating talking points, actually do some friggin' research yourself and realize that there's a LOT of vetting going on when it comes to people being allowed in.
You know how you can tell that?

The fact that we have not had a major terrorist act from a foreign national in how many years?
Banning people from entering the country will not solve one of the major issues relating to jihadist related violence, which is US citizens being radicalized.

And quite frankly? You're more likely to be shot by some US citizen who got a gun legally and had an axe to grind than you are to be killed in an act of terror on US soil.


so guess you are going to say the Boston Marathon didn't happen? or the military recruitment office shooting in 2015? didn't happen? and those are the ones that happened from foreign nationals.

Question:
How many foreign nationals of Muslim faith come into the country every day?

So you can come up with two examples off the top of your head. That's two examples in how many years with how many people coming into the country?


and how many terrorists attacks in the US since then?

Since when?

There have been 20 attacks classed as terrorist acts in the United States since 2010. One of those(the Sony pictures hack timeframe) is a cyber attack.

Out of those 19 attacks which actually utilized violence or threats of violence, 8 can be directly linked to Islamic perpetrators/recently radicalized Islamic converts. One of those was an Iranian national in Mississippi making threats against a hospital and assaulting two sheriff's deputies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

The reason "all terrorists have been Muslim as of late" is because of the fact that only certain kinds of acts have been getting labeled as terrorism.

The Bundy crap was domestic terrorism and that was basically all white guys in a cabin, but not labeled as domestic terrorism by many news outlets.


Bundy? you need to define your definition of terrorism.

Do you actually know what the definition of terrorism is?

Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigations 2nd Edition
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


There's three definitions used by US government agencies.

Cliven Bundy's Dildo Brigade definitely fall under the auspices of domestic terrorists. They took over Malheur, promised violence if the government evicted them, and generally continued to make threats and try to push a political agenda.

YOU might not agree, but you have no clue what in the world you're talking about.


oh thought you meant Ted Bundy, but still lets break down your definition of terrorism shall we?

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."


as it goes it was peaceful and a standoff, no one blew up things or went shooting people

"Violence against property" was used, actually. They bulldozed the fences on the Malheur refuge that prevented the two dumbass ranchers who had set forest fires from "moving their herds".


The U.S. Department of State defines terrrorism as "an activity, directed against persons involving violent acts or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.


was anyone killed by the group?no, was anyone killed by the cops?yes so are the cops the terrorists?did anyone feel threatened? no.

Just so we're clear:
The reason "anyone was killed by the cops" is because they were stupid enough to pull a gun on cops and because they kept utilizing rhetoric about how they would "never be taken alive". LEOs had every reason to believe that their lives were in genuine danger when some nutter who had been posting up video blogs about how everyone present was willing to die, etc etc yaddayadda heroic nonsense.

and is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


who were they trying to coerce?

Do you even know what was going on with Malheur?

They were trying pretty desperately to get the "citizens of a false government" around the country to raise up arms and join them.

or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.


was someone kidnapped and or assassinated?



etc etc as needed

The Department of Defense defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."


his stance was about not wanting to pay money, not political, not religious and not ideological
You do realize that a large portion of the Dildo Brigade rhetoric absolutely was ideological and political, right? The stance about "not wanting to pay money" was because he refused to recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management.
Hell, there was even a bit of religious rhetoric in there claiming that Christians are "persecuted".

So yes: Absolutely 100% "political, religious, or ideological".

and for the finale, he was not charged nor convicted of Terrorist actions, so what you may presume is not the same thing as what is.

Not being charged or convicted of something does not equate to you not having done that thing.

What it does equate to is that likely the prosecutor wanted charges that would actually stick, and that they could use as a way to weed out jurors who would be biased.

In any regards, educate yourself before spouting off again.

and I repeat if any of those laws accounted for him they would have used them against them, since the government is all big about charging terrorism, hell if you threaten someone you can be charged with Terrorist threats. and yet that group was not charged, the only fatality that happened occurred during a traffic stop. where Bundy did give up his firearms in fact his whole crew did except for two and there is debate on who fired first.

as too the Islamic terrorists attacks if you bothered reading my posts, several posts up, you would have seen I said that Islamic attacks have been more prevalant of late, furthermorethe call to block muslims is from blocking the muslim refugees who have already had terrorists sneak in and attack Paris itself and not talking about those videos in the other discussions but actual terrorists attacks including one stopped by US soldiers on vacation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Steve steveson wrote:
No, not all of them are, and their religion is incidental anyway. They are not banning Muslims, which is what you said. They are trying to restrict the number of refugees, some of who happen to be Muslim. Totally different things.

Some of those are just about restrict the movement of refugees once they are in the EU.


thats why the UN is finding it hard to get some countries to take them. restricting means limiting, right now some countries in Europe are blocking them.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/02 18:43:18


Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





So you agree some countries limiting the number of refugees is not the same as European countries banning Muslims?

 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Steve steveson wrote:
So you agree some countries limiting the number of refugees is not the same as European countries banning Muslims?


I didn't say all European countries were, just some of them are not allowing the muslim refugees in.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in gb
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





No, you said some countries are banning Muslims, (which is not true) in response to me saying that the US could not get away with banning Muslims. I didn't say you said all European countries are doing anything.

This argument is getting silly. Your twisting and turning to make yourself look right. No country in the EU has or wants to ban any religious group. The US will not be able to either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 18:52:59


 insaniak wrote:
Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Steve steveson wrote:
No, you said some countries are banning Muslims, (which is not true) in response to me saying that the US could not get away with banning Muslims. I didn't say you said all European countries are doing anything.

This argument is getting silly. Your twisting and turning to make yourself look right. No country in the EU has or wants to ban any religious group. The US will not be able to either.


the US can ban people from Muslim countries, easy to do and within the law.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Secret Squirrel






Leerstetten, Germany

Every day I feel dumber for having read this thread. I think the amount of verbal twisting and circular logic could actually out-trump Trump. I see why he would vote for him.
   
Made in us
Obergefreiter




Omaha Beach

So, how many people are taking Trump's statements at face value, rather than as hyperbole to drive coverage and to dictate the conversation (holding initiative), coupled with asking high and regular everyday virtue signalling? Which seques into, if people are taking everything at face value, are they irrational or likewise virtue signalling?

I think Trump is saying outrageous things primarily to connect with his base voters on an emotional level (I hear what you are saying and acknowledge your interests) and giving him lots of room to moderate within - letting him compromise whilst still being able to appease his base.

Example:
Trump: "I'm gonna ban all Mohammedans from coming into the US lest they use massive cannons to shoot down the walls of Washington DC and rename it with some bastardized Turkic version of "the City"!!!!"

People who would actually vote for Trump: "Look! A candidate who is willing to put the words "Islamic" and "Terrorism" together in the same sentence! We've been saying this for years! He actually listens to us!!!!"

People who wouldn't have voted for Trump anyway: "Errmagherrd!!! I can't believe he just said that! It's Twenty Sixteeeen! I can't even. Really. Wow. I puked in my mouth a little. I need to change my underpants because I defecated in them like an incontinent toddler. I can't even. Wow."

White House Spokeswoman Zofiya Zbrechniewskichenskowicz, former Slovenian supermodel: [read the following in a sexy accent] "President Trump would like to announce that at this time the United States will not be taking any refugees from the Middle East. Stricter protocols are being introduced by the Department of State to ensure that all visa petitioners are properly vetted before being granted immigrant and non-immigrant visas. The construction start date on the border wall has been postponed until next year though Congress has agreed to increase funding for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Department of Education funding has been withheld from three "Sanctuary Cities". The Mexican Government has agreed to increase patrols on their side of the border. American relief funds to Mexico will continue throughout 2017."
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




dethork wrote:

White House Spokeswoman Zofiya Zbrechniewskichenskowicz, former Slovenian supermodel: [read the following in a sexy accent] "President Trump would like to announce that at this time the United States will not be taking any refugees from the Middle East. Stricter protocols are being introduced by the Department of State to ensure that all visa petitioners are properly vetted before being granted immigrant and non-immigrant visas. The construction start date on the border wall has been postponed until next year though Congress has agreed to increase funding for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Department of Education funding has been withheld from three "Sanctuary Cities". The Mexican Government has agreed to increase patrols on their side of the border. American relief funds to Mexico will continue throughout 2017."


oh how I wish this would happen, but reality wise, maybe not, i'm not voting for Trump because of what hes saying, i'm voting for Trump because I know what Clinton would do.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Obergefreiter




Omaha Beach

 Frazzled wrote:
I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.


That's generally a good policy. Even if you are wrong, the additional caution didn't cost as much as being lax would have. I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US, then? I respect your reasoning, but personally think that we can have decent safety standards without an absolute ban.

Even with expansions on Executive power, I don't think we've gone quite to dictatorship levels. Trump has done much to discredit the media, and without a compliant media a dictatorship has little chance. Perhaps if the next president (Sanders, Biden, or Trump) does overstep his bounds, this time if Congress tries to control the purse strings (aka "shutting down the government") perhaps people won't listen to the media poo-flinging.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?

Trump will be a dictator. He gives off all the hallmarks of a Latin American strong man.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 19:55:13


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Steve steveson wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's rather different to banning all members of racial, religious or cultural group X from possible entry the USA, of course.

I don't think any of the candidates comes anywhere close to stopping illegal immigration. It's basically impossible to close all the borders and thoroughly vet everyone from a foreign country.

Trumpo has a fun narrative about making Mexico pay for a big wall, but it's impractical.


Congress banned Chinese people, anarchists and communists from entering the US in the past. We've also set immigration quotas for countries and regions numerous times in the past. If it was legal then why would it be illegal now? SCOTUS very rarely ever rules against established legal precedent.


Do you want to ban all Muslims?


No, I personally think that position is ridiculous and most of Trump's immigration policy is laughable, grossly misleading and dangerous. I also know that we already have federal immigration laws on the books that specifically grant immigration officials the ability to bar any known or suspected terrorist from entry so there is no need to pass any additional laws to better protect us from terrorists trying to legally immigrate to the US.

However, if the President or Congress wanted to ban all Muslims they would have the power to do so, as evidenced by prior immigration laws that have been passed. We have previously banned immigration from specific countries and people holding specific beliefs, we've also set quotas strictly limitting the number of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US from specific nations or regions. I am not aware of any current laws that prohibit the ability for a current President or Congress to pass similar laws now or to provide grounds for SCOTUS to rule such immigration laws as unconstitutional.


Let's be clear, legal or not there is no way the US is going to ban Mulims from entering the country. The question is not about IF it will happen, but if it is racist to say it should or not.

Why will it not happen? Because the backlash for the US would be huge. There are far to many countries with Muslim majorities or large minority's who would have to respond, including the UK, India and Saudi Arabia.


The argument was put forth that the US couldn't ban Muslims from immigrating to the US because it was unconstitutional. Clearly that is not the case as the US has banned groups of people from immigrating based upon personal beliefs multiple times in the past.

If Trump gets elected president and he still wants to ban Muslims from entering the country it would be theoretically possible for him to do so. It is also theoretically possible for Congress to do so. The argument was never about the likelihood of it happening it was about the legality of it.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Frazzled wrote:
I generally take dictators and terrorists at their word.

So you believe Hillary Clinton would institute a program similar to Australia's Gun Confiscation?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Take a good long look at the First Amendment. Then look at it again. And again. And keep looking at until the words "Congress shall make no law... " finally sink in.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
"I take it you do support banning Muslims from entering the US"
I view any agent who supports that as committing Treason under the Constitution of the United States. Is that clear enough?


if they are not citizens of the United States it is not treason of the Constitution.


Take a good long look at the First Amendment. Then look at it again. And again. And keep looking at until the words "Congress shall make no law... " finally sink in.


take a long hard look at the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


and let that sink in, notice it does not say we the people of the world, but we the people of the United States.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: