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.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

Whereas most people just don't mention the other people exterimated by the Nazi's. Or say Jews and other people... Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import? Simply due to numbers?

.........................

Because what culture was the most hurt by the holocaust? Which dehumanized them so extremely? Really? REALLY?

No doubt the other groups suffered as well, and they all suffered together, but because of the implications of how many were killed simply for being jewish. Millions died, the problem is that they should of mentioned each race effected, each person, each individual, everything the nazi's did to each group of people....

I think you should reread your statement and see how offensive people could take that.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

Whereas most people just don't mention the other people exterimated by the Nazi's. Or say Jews and other people... Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import? Simply due to numbers?

Say what...

Roma, homosexuals, Slavs, handicapped people, plain political dissidents etc etc were also targeted. Lotta people were killed in Eastern Europe without the Nazis bothering about putting them in camps. They wanted to depopulate Eastern Europe to make room for the German farmers they were gonna ship in, after all.

Jews were the largest single group killed in the actual camps, however, and were particularly the target of persecution so not mentioning them at all is cause to wonder.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait. They did this on Holocaust Remembrance Day? The one day every year when you hear that story of the boat full of refugees that was sent back to the nazis who killed them all?

Technically after the US and a few other countries told them to feth off for racist reasons, they were taken in by gracious countries like the Netherlands, France, and Holland etc. And then Germany invaded and killed a good chunk of them XD More than half survived the war but that's not really the fething point now is it?

Rosebuddy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

Whereas most people just don't mention the other people exterimated by the Nazi's. Or say Jews and other people... Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import? Simply due to numbers?

Say what...

Roma, homosexuals, Slavs, handicapped people, plain political dissidents etc etc were also targeted. Lotta people were killed in Eastern Europe without the Nazis bothering about putting them in camps. They wanted to depopulate Eastern Europe to make room for the German farmers they were gonna ship in, after all.

Jews were the largest single group killed in the actual camps, however, and were particularly the target of persecution so not mentioning them at all is cause to wonder.

Yeah, I got the reference and I know the history and the numbers. But someone seriously...I think...asking "Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import?" just kind of left me stunned. It's not designed to lessen the horrors visited upon the other victims of the Third Reich, but to understand the planned, purposeful and genocidal insidiousness of the Shoah, or Holocaust, with relation to Hitler's "Final Solution", places it in a unique position in history with regards to mass murder on an industrialized level. This is the reason for International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the date, in 1945, was when the Soviets liberated Auschwitz.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

Whereas most people just don't mention the other people exterimated by the Nazi's. Or say Jews and other people... Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import? Simply due to numbers?

Honestly, and I say this as a Jew, a certain often-killed minority has to keep reminding people that it is a crime and tragedy to kill them, for self preservation. We know homosexuals, Poles, Communists, the disabled, and others were targeted and killed. We are quick to spread that information in solidarity with other minorities, especially when civil rights issues come up. But we also have to keep hammering on the don't kill Jews part in case people forget. And they do forget. It's just so easy to accidentally advocate genocide sometimes that people really appreciate the reminders.


Please don't kill Jews. Or anyone else, really.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

They weren't perfect but they were lightyears ahead trump. Claiming they are equally bad is like saying flu and terminal brain cancer are equally bad

Guys... it's a temp ban (for 90 days) for only those 7 countries... (there are 57-ish majority countries)... to give this administration time to come up with their "extreme vetting" process.

This includes green card holders (permanent residents)... which seems overkill to include them, but they are reviewed in case-by-base basis. I think the discrepencies we're seeing on the news, is that these departments (DHS / Border Security / Immigration / ??? ) aren't talking to each other very well.

Also, a fun topic, even permanent US citizens don't have full 4th Amendment rights whilst at the port of entries.

To me, focus on what this "extreme vetting" would entail...

Probably another indefinite ban, because, frankly, our refugee vetting process is already pretty extensive.

"This thing I talked about in the middle of the election isn't ready yet because I have no idea what I'm doing" is also hardly an encouraging excuse.

 Spinner wrote:
Probably another indefinite ban, because, frankly, our refugee vetting process is already pretty extensive.

The whole thing probably need review... in some cases, it's probably too extensive.

"This thing I talked about in the middle of the election isn't ready yet because I have no idea what I'm doing" is also hardly an encouraging excuse.

The really big problem here, imo, is with Trump's EOs is that he appears to be issuing them without consultation from the Depts and agencies that must implement.

Most of these agencies and depts still have temporary leadership, since Trump's nominees/political appointees haven't been confirmed yet.

Then, these agencies are left to guess at what the EOs mean, which is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious government action.

It's kinda of a FUBAR situation all over.

The courts won't do anything about this... Congress has long ago delegated the power to deny entry to the executive long ago... If the public want this changed, then Congress must get involved.

 Spinner wrote:
Probably another indefinite ban, because, frankly, our refugee vetting process is already pretty extensive.

"This thing I talked about in the middle of the election isn't ready yet because I have no idea what I'm doing" is also hardly an encouraging excuse.

The reality is that this is a exercise in capriciousness that serves no other purpose. How does a temporary ban make anyone safer? Truth is it doesn't. 90 days isn't enough time to do anything more than a superficial review of procedure, and certainly not enough time to really examine the effects and necessity of current policy. Nothing has happened in any of those countries lately to suggest they're anymore dangerous than they were before the ban, and there is no logic that supports the ban as a necessary in the short term.

It does allow Trump to say he fulfilled a campaign promise, and the idiotic end of the base to pat themselves on the back on a pointless job well done.

The executive order against refugees is not a bad thing.
Enclaves for refugees close to their homes would be the better thing, close or in Syria or Liberya. Obama was against such enclaves.
We have more than a million refugees from Syria and whatnot since 2015/16, and about 10% is able to get a job so far. Not a good prospect. Those people must go back to their countries after the war.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

It isn't like Sunni DaIsh are the only killers, the Hez brigades backing Assad do their fair share too. There are Shia safe havens in Iran and Iraq as well (in theater) if they are not comfortable in the areas of Syria secured by Hez and the Russians. The Christian refugees have been consistently treated like gak everywhere in the region they go.

 CptJake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

It isn't like Sunni DaIsh are the only killers, the Hez brigades backing Assad do their fair share too. There are Shia safe havens in Iran and Iraq as well (in theater) if they are not comfortable in the areas of Syria secured by Hez and the Russians. The Christian refugees have been consistently treated like gak everywhere in the region they go.

So... Trump just signed an EO instructing the DoD to develop plans to defeat ISIS...

I gotta admit... I like how Trump & Mattis are talking about destroying the gak out of ISIS, not merely 'containing' the threat or 'degrading' it.

My only ask, is what do we do with the vacuum once ISIS is obliterated???

 wuestenfux wrote:
The executive order against refugees is not a bad thing.
Enclaves for refugees close to their homes would be the better thing, close or in Syria or Liberya. Obama was against such enclaves.
We have more than a million refugees from Syria and whatnot since 2015/16, and about 10% is able to get a job so far. Not a good prospect. Those people must go back to their countries after the war.

I'm going to go out a limb and guess that you haven't got a clue about how such "enclaves" usually end up rather gakky.

So... Trump just signed an EO instructing the DoD to develop plans to defeat ISIS...

I gotta admit... I like how Trump & Mattis are talking about destroying the gak out of ISIS, not merely 'containing' the threat or 'degrading' it.

My only ask, is what do we do with the vacuum once ISIS is obliterated???

Obliterating IS is a hard task.
Not sure if its possible without ground troops operating in Syria and Irak.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

IOW: "dear terrorists: if you pretend to be Christian you can bypass all that 'extreme vetting' and we'll welcome you with open arms".

 whembly wrote:
So... Trump just signed an EO instructing the DoD to develop plans to defeat ISIS...

IOW, Trump has no idea how government works and is an incompetent clown?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

IOW: "dear terrorists: if you pretend to be Christian you can bypass all that 'extreme vetting' and we'll welcome you with open arms".

That was pretty much my thought

 CptJake wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

It isn't like Sunni DaIsh are the only killers, the Hez brigades backing Assad do their fair share too. There are Shia safe havens in Iran and Iraq as well (in theater) if they are not comfortable in the areas of Syria secured by Hez and the Russians. The Christian refugees have been consistently treated like gak everywhere in the region they go.

My intent wasn't to diminish the threat these people face, but that lots of people face this threat and singling out one feels...odd. I didn't see any particular priority exception for the similarly treated Yazidi's, and many Shia's have little or no escape even if "safe" areas exist in theater, they may be unreachable or simply unable to properly help as many people as they're getting. Same for Sunni's under some areas.

I can't believe nobody in our government tried to come up with a plan, thank God we have Trump!

Of course ISIS has been getting their ass handed to them for a while now. Their battlefield defeats and loss of territory is the main reason why they stopped focusing on nationbuilding and started to embrace AQ style attacks on foreign soils.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

IOW: "dear terrorists: if you pretend to be Christian you can bypass all that 'extreme vetting' and we'll welcome you with open arms".

That was pretty much my thought

So just embrace the strategy that gets Republicans elected?

So, well, I'm pretty sure that this whole ban things going to work for Trump. No muslims are certainly going to want to go to America now.

Or Google employees
Or Apple employees.

Or well, pretty much anyone at all really...

 whembly wrote:
Guys... it's a temp ban (for 90 days) for only those 7 countries... (there are 57-ish majority countries)... to give this administration time to come up with their "extreme vetting" process.

This includes green card holders (permanent residents)... which seems overkill to include them, but they are reviewed in case-by-base basis. I think the discrepencies we're seeing on the news, is that these departments (DHS / Border Security / Immigration / ??? ) aren't talking to each other very well.

Also, a fun topic, even permanent US citizens don't have full 4th Amendment rights whilst at the port of entries.

To me, focus on what this "extreme vetting" would entail...

If you post on this thread they can just use you for their punching bag. Stop and let them have their private time together.

 whembly wrote:
My only ask, is what do we do with the vacuum once ISIS is obliterated???

That assumes Trump has thought that far ahead. He has a ten year-old's view of world affairs, kill the "bad guys" and it will be all over.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
My only ask, is what do we do with the vacuum once ISIS is obliterated???

That assumes Trump has thought that far ahead. He has a ten year-old's view of world affairs, kill the "bad guys" and it will be all over.

Including their families. And secure the Iraki oil.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Guys... it's a temp ban (for 90 days) for only those 7 countries... (there are 57-ish majority countries)... to give this administration time to come up with their "extreme vetting" process.

This includes green card holders (permanent residents)... which seems overkill to include them, but they are reviewed in case-by-base basis. I think the discrepencies we're seeing on the news, is that these departments (DHS / Border Security / Immigration / ??? ) aren't talking to each other very well.

Also, a fun topic, even permanent US citizens don't have full 4th Amendment rights whilst at the port of entries.

To me, focus on what this "extreme vetting" would entail...

If you post on this thread they can just use you for their punching bag. Stop and let them have their private time together.

If someone posts something that does not line up with the established evidence then being corrected does not mean they are a punching bag. There is a great deal of evidence referenced for the arguments people are making, if the 'punching bag' cannot provide evidence in turn it's hardly a mark against those who disagreed.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I hope this wakes the sleeping giant that is the american people.

Almost half of them elected him. To do precisely that. This is America. Be careful what you wish for. I mean, there ain't lynching for now…

On the other hand, it likely means an end to the US brain drain. Which is certainly a good thing for Europe. If the US economy suffer enough that they lose their position of leadership, and if Europe manage to finally united themselves and take it, I will be very happy.
Friendly reminder than without brain drain, Germany would have got the atomic bomb, not the US. Something something “Evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction” something.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The executive order against refugees is not a bad thing.
Enclaves for refugees close to their homes would be the better thing, close or in Syria or Liberya. Obama was against such enclaves.
We have more than a million refugees from Syria and whatnot since 2015/16, and about 10% is able to get a job so far. Not a good prospect. Those people must go back to their countries after the war.

I'm sure you know better than us about this than us or them. I am pretty sure all countries surrounding Syria are in pristine condition to take care of refugee and that they currently don't do it at all.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Almost half of them elected him.

Technically less than 1/5 of America elected him. A little over 1/5 voted for someone else, and more than 3/5 didn't vote at all.

Friendly reminder than without brain drain, Germany would have got the atomic bomb, not the US.

No amount of wishiful thinking or know how would have allowed Germany to make a weapon they didn't have the raw materials to build. It has nothing to do with brains. Germany would have probably figured out how to build a bomb, but knowing how and having the means are separate issues.

 LordofHats wrote:
No amount of wishiful thinking or know how would have allowed Germany to make a weapon they didn't have the raw materials to build.

If Germany had knowledge of how to build a bomb while the Allies didn't believe it possible, I'm sure Germany could have managed to get those raw materials. Similarly, while Britain's treatment of Alan Turing definitely sucks big time, if they had been even worse and had sent him into a concentration camp, it's quite likely they couldn't have broken Enigma…


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
and more than 3/5 didn't vote at all.

Serves them right.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Edit: I was wrong to say something about his wife's artificially smiling face. Ignore that bit. She isn't bothered by it so why should we be?

That was during a prayer, when Trumpesto turned from her she went to her 'serious payer face'.

However, memes from that episode are hysterical.

Kind of curious, then, that all the other people behind her seem to be smiling, and Pence (I believe) is
standing beside her clapping.

So if everyone else was happy, why did she have to be so serious and forlorn?

-Vilegrimm

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

If Germany had knowledge of how to build a bomb while the Allies didn't believe it possible, I'm sure Germany could have managed to get those raw materials.

Finding Uranium in the 1940s, let alone the kind physicists of the time were looking to for fissile material, wasn't as easy as taking a stroll. Germany had no access to the right Uranium in the right amounts to even start isotope separation, plutonium generation, or even to start a basic experimental reactor. Even without allied sabotage efforts the amount of pure heavy water being made by Nazi Germany couldn't have sustained a reactor even if they had the material to fuel it.

This isn't a question of will or ability. It's a frank matter of capacity. Germany had none of the means to create a practical bomb project. They didn't even have enough scientists between the politicization of academics and trying to figure out physics without using "Jewish Physics" Nazi Germany had far too many obstacles in their path to ever realize the bomb. If America didn't build it, Russia would have, or maybe Britain but Nazi Germany wasn't getting there second by any measure.

One of the reasons the US was able to do it at the time was because we sat in the unusual position of having both the knowledge and the materials to build a practical program. Many European countries had the knowledge but not the materials. The USSR had the materials, unexploited but present and known, but not the knowledge. Of course Stalin solved that with one of the best covert operations of the 20th century.

Similarly, while Britain's treatment of Alan Turing definitely sucks big time, if they had been even worse and had sent him into a concentration camp, it's quite likely they couldn't have broken Enigma…

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything previously mentioned?

Serves them right.

My point was merely that there's a lot more people over here than 60,000,000 and it really isn't that hard to look up "Population of the United States of America" before posting.

You seriously think that west Germany would have developed the nuclear bomb whilst under military occupation, literally under the Allies noses?

Whether or not Germany could have developed the bomb is off topic, thanks