Do you feel Trump is our modern Hitler?

Page 5 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Nov 2016, 2:57 pm

EzraS wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

EzraS wrote:

It's plainly obvious that the majority of the nation of Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and are against it.

Just as it's plainly obvious that the majority of Ireland is not a part of the IRA. But it is a fact that the majority of the IRA are Irish and do what they do in the name of Ireland. It's also a fact that most of the IRA are professed Christians and their actions are both nationality and religion motivated. The majority of IRA are Irish Christians. And if you are going to try locating someone with the IRA, you're going to be looking for an Irish Christian. This is just simply my pragmatic way of viewing things. For the record, not that it should make any difference, I am of Irish Christian heritage.

This is factually wrong but that's not important.

You're saying that it's factually wrong that the Irish Republican Army is Irish. Irish Catholics fighting against English Protestant occupation of Northern Ireland. OK guess I got that wrong.

The_Walrus wrote:

[It would be wrong, after a terrorist attack by the IRA, to start treating people differently just because they are Irish.

Of course it would be wrong.

The_Walrus wrote:

[It might be justified to start going after people who fit the description of the bomber ("short ginger man in his late 20s"), but yes, it would be bigoted to hold anti-Irish views because of the IRA.

You'd be looking for an Irishman or several Irishmen since we're talking about an organization that calls itself an army, rather than a lone bomber. Looking for one or likely several Irish people is inescapable. And of course it would be bigoted to hold anti-Irish views because IRA.

The point is, pointing out that the IRA are Irish, does not mean that all or most Irish are IRA. It means most IRA are Irish.

Do you see the difference?

There seems to be this knee jerk reaction, that if you refer to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as Islamic, that's supposed to racist because it's calling everyone in Islam members of ISIS. So you refer to them as swarthy (like ginger haird follow) no wait if you include pigmentation that's also blatantly racist. Unless we're talking about gingers right? BTW, isn't calling a red haired person ginger supposed to be derogatory and insulting? And why did you stereotype someone who's Irish as a ginger? Do you see how ridiculous I find this PC police SWJ whatever knee jerk finger pointing accusing nonsense to be?

Not to get off topic, but North Ireland is not "occupied" by Irish Protestants, as they are themselves Irish, and have the right to live in their homes as much as the Catholics do.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2016, 3:09 pm

EzraS wrote:

So how exactly are we supposed to determine which Muslims entering the United States are terrorists at this point in time? What's your plan? You said if it was IRA to look for a ginger. So what's your surefire plan for this? What's your better idea that can be implemented immediately?

The US has extensive intelligence services. Make use of them.

I didn't say "if it was IRA then look for a ginger", that's a ridiculous idea. I said to look for someone who fitted the bomber's description, and gave a hypothetical description.

Banning Muslims wouldn't stop a Muslim terrorist. You can't actually tell if someone is a Muslim. A terrorist would just say that they aren't a Muslim, while you start imposing religious tests on innocent people...

Quote:

Needless to say if a team of ISIS terrorists entered the US and set off a "dirty bomb" nuke, then everyone would be complaining that tighter security measures hadn't been put in place.

Fortunately the current security measures would make it practically impossible to smuggle a dirty bomb into the US, even if ISIS somehow got hold of one.

That's not really ISIS's style anyway. They're more likely to just radicalise some dissatisfied young man over the internet.

Incidentally, nearly all terrorists are young men (it's probably a better predictor than religion). Should young men be banned from entering the US?

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 Nov 2016, 3:37 pm

sly279 wrote:

Wtf is so wrong with having a temporary ban on muslims coming from known country's to harbor terrorist until we can vet the properly so we don't let terrorist bent on killing Americans in?

There's a reason the middle eastern nations won't even let them in. And look at the violent mess in European nations who took them in.

We are required to let people come here. There's no human right to free movement to other nations.

Yes however countries are supposed to attempt to deal with humanitarian crisis's humanely, disallowing refugees from such regions entry into any countries outside there is not a humane way to handle it.

Realistically the U.S is more responsible for the refugee crisis than countries in Europe so we should actually be taking more than they are instead of trying to sweep the issue under the rug. Turns out violent conflict turns civilians into refugees...I don't understand how the U.S can say it's going to beat Islamic terrorism by doing nothing to help civilian populations in those areas who get their homes and livelihoods destroyed and lose family members and friends to violent deaths.

_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.

Amaltheia
Snowy Owl

Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 154
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

24 Nov 2016, 3:49 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

The US has extensive intelligence services. Make use of them.

These would be the intelligence services that didn't see 9-11 coming? The ones that found rock-solid evidence that Iraq was chock-a-block full of weapons of mass destruction? The ones that went along with claims that Colonel Gaddafi was issuing Viagra to his troops so they could rape civilians?

Those intelligence services?

Seriously, why not use economists or astrologers. I think they have a slightly better batting average.

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

24 Nov 2016, 6:56 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

sly279 wrote:

What 0.o no they aren't. Countries don't even have to give humanitarian aid. They only responsible for their own nation and people.

Because Everyone from the Middle East and letting isis have it isn't a solution. They need to stay and take back their countries

Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,455
Location: AspinatorLand

24 Nov 2016, 7:04 pm

First of all, Hitler was a dictator; the US has 3 branches of government. I have never been a fan of Trump but I wouldn't paint him in such a negative way.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

24 Nov 2016, 8:20 pm

sly279 wrote:

I don't think Trump's revised policy of controlling migration from some countries is unusually unreasonable. It wouldn't be in my utopia but unfortunately we don't live there yet.

I have to correct the misconceptions in this post, however. Firstly, the vast majority of Syrian refugees are in other Middle Eastern countries. Lebanon have taken the most, but there are large amounts in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia. The gulf states attach a stigma to being a refugee, so those countries generally describe them as "migrant brothers" or similar euphemisms.

I think that the US (and the UK) need to take responsibility for the migrant crisis that they have caused in their poor handling of the rebuilding of Iraq, and help shelter refugees. It's unfair to expect Lebanon to take care of so many. A quarter of their population is refugees now. Would it be fair if the US had to take 100 million refugees and nobody else offered support?

wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

24 Nov 2016, 8:53 pm

Isn't the obvious problem with a muslim ban the fact that there is no definitive way to know if someone is a muslim or not? I mean, you could ask them but they could lie about it. It's not like every muslim gets an "I'm a muslim" tattoo at birth or something. There is no way to determine who is muslim and who isn't. That's why you can't ban them.

Any way you set up to determine who is muslim and who isn't is going to end up being an invasion of privacy and also probably racist as s**t in its application.

_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Nov 2016, 10:58 pm

Funny how temporary bans and measures often tend to become permanent. But that's the whole point about keeping Muslims out forever, which Trump's white nationalist friends fully understand.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,774
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Nov 2016, 11:42 pm

seems to me that we amuuricans are much better at making international enemies, than international friends. this can't keep on like it is, something's gotta give.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Nov 2016, 2:22 am

More like Springtime for Hitler...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Nov 2016, 3:03 am

The_Walrus wrote:

EzraS wrote:

Obviously the President elect doesn't consider current US intelligence services effective enough at this time as indicated by his statement "until our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on". So since obviously current US intelligence services aren't considered enough of a measure at this time, then how should the situation be handled?

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Nov 2016, 3:10 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Not to get off topic, but North Ireland is not "occupied" by Irish Protestants, as they are themselves Irish, and have the right to live in their homes as much as the Catholics do.

What I said was English Protestants. From what I understand, many citizens of Northern Ireland consider themselves British as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. But the IRA doesn't want a chunk of Ireland to be part of the UK. They want all of Ireland to be an independent republic.

friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

25 Nov 2016, 10:54 am

EzraS wrote:

When dealing with demagoguery, or particularly-immature people, I have been known to paste a selection of text, into a reading-level application. You can talk to some of these people on the level of an elementary shooler, and they will no longer know the meanings of common words.

We are comparing the next administration to stern, social utilitarianism.

But, that has always followed the most lax sort of demoralization.

Prior to Hitler, the Weimar Republic had supposedly collapsed, due to the burdens of it's liberal institutions.

Down to the nth degree, everything has a measurable expense, and these became word problems in Nazi schoolbooks.

Last edited by friedmacguffins on 25 Nov 2016, 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2016, 11:57 am

The US is under no obligation to take in refugees that will do us harm not to mention the fact they are clearly not wanted which you can moralize all you want about but the government works for the people and listen to its voters. The best thing for Syria would for the US to stop supporting terrorist elements and to work together with Russia & legitimate government against ISIS. It is plenty fair to expect the Sunni Arab countries to take in all these refugees as long as they support the terrorists in the civil war.

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Nov 2016, 7:36 pm

It seems like what is, is that anyone who doesn't religiously worship the PC code, is automatically branded as a bigot/racist/phobe/Nazi. That's a good strategy for enforcing an agenda of control.

That is until enough people have had enough of it.

Page 5 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Do you feel Trump is our modern Hitler? Post Reply New Topic

Do you feel Trump is our modern Hitler?