Yeah but no but yeah but no but
a trial wouldve been much better!
I also dont agree with 'getting' gaddaffi as a win
ILll take those over jambas 4 flimsy criticisms
outofbreath - Member
Interesting that you included killing OBL without trial as a good thing.
... and saving the taxpayers of America from wasting even more money on an unnecessary trial. Yay!
Did that bloke type all that ^^^ or cut and paste. Jeezus late submission for post of the year. Mezzin. I've clearly got to pay more attention to this thread.
Personally just a bit freaked out by the Trump Dynasty already taking shape. I have an awful feeling these gits are going to quite like bossing populations around and will be around for some generations yet. Yeugh.
"As others have said the caveat was "until we figure out what is happening", he has already said there will be much stronger vetting checks. Banning all Muslims inc American citizens was a crazy suggestion but that's not what he said."
Here's what he said:
"total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. "
That's all Muslims. Without exception. With total prejudice.
Imagine if he'd said that about Jews?
well as a counterpoint to jambas tenuous critiques of Obama, heres a 100x more positives (with actual sources)
Apart from all that what has he done for us?
Imagine if he'd said that about Jews?
Then he'd have picked up the Muslim demographic! 😀
That's all Muslims. Without exception. With total prejudice.Imagine if he'd said that about Jews?
If there had just been a spate of terror attacks and some of them were caused by Jews recently entering the country then he might also have had some justification, as the president, to do something similar, put a ban on until they figured out what was going on and what was the link, if any.
It's not unreasonable to say 'somethings up here, let's stop activity until we figure out what the danger is, or is not' - especially as part of his job is to protect his country and its people, not the liberty of people from outside his country.
Being PC about this and not looking for possible cultural undertones is what helped the child-abuse in Rotherham carry on for so long.
It's not unreasonable to say 'somethings up here, let's stop activity until we figure out what the danger is, or is not' - especially as part of his job is to protect his country and its people, not the liberty of people from outside his country.
Yes, it is unreasonable. All races, creeds and religions have their bad elements. If they were to ban every demographic who has members who contributed bad things to their country, the US might as well deport a large portion of it's own citizens.
Blaming en masse is what Hitler did.
TurnerGuy - MemberIt's not unreasonable to say 'somethings up here, let's stop activity until we figure out what the danger is, or is not'
It really is. Collective punishment and mistreatment of a whole faith for the actions of a miniscule minority is plain immoral. The odds of any particular muslim being a terrorist are effectively the same as the odds of any particular christian or atheist or jedi being a terrorist- bugger all. (I've said this often before, maybe even in this thread but it bears repeating). And of those islamic terrorists in the US, few are new arrivals.
And weirdly "it'll only stop honest people not criminals" is an argument that they love for gun ownership but not for terrorists- newsflash, bad guys won't necessarily be totally honest when you say "Are you a muslim? PS, we won't let you in the country if you are"
Law enforcement and security decisions have to be fact-based and effective. So it's not just about fairness/morality, it's also about whether the job is getting done.
You're forgetting the Trump Approved Muslim-O-Meter.newsflash, bad guys won't necessarily be totally honest when you say "Are you a muslim? PS, we won't let you in the country if you are"
[img] 
[/img]
The odds of any particular muslim being a terrorist are effectively the same as the odds of any particular christian or atheist or jedi being a terrorist- bugger all.
There's been some interesting discussions on Maajid Nawaz's (very good) show on LBC recently that might make you think otherwise - including the (also) previously radicalised caller than confessed Maajid had been on his hit list before he saw the error of his ways, but now he had to live far away from where he was raised because so many of his previous friends still held the same views.
Blaming en masse is what Hitler did.
And what was Britain doing when we interred German and Italian nationals during WW2?
The odds of any particular muslim being a terrorist are effectively the same as the odds of any particular christian or atheist or jedi being a terrorist- bugger all.
That's a gross misinterpretation. You'd need to look at the ratio between the two very small percentages. Today the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims - 80% 90 % ??? It is their (mis)interpretation of their faith that is central to their extremism.
Today the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims - 80% 90 % ???
what? did you just pull that out of your arse? when you type all this shit do you just switch your brain off?
Ninfan - A proper Ozzie whine that 🙂
Imagine if he'd said that about Jews?
Maybe he would have if ...
Jews had flown planes full of people into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon or
Cut the heads off of American journalists and aid workers or
Killed 10's thoisands of fellow Jews for being from a different sect within the religion or
Killed a 130 people at a concert or eating dinner in Paris or
Murdered cartoonists and people doing their shopping or
Driven a truck over families watching National day fireworks or
Shot dead people in a Gay night club for being homosexual or
....
You get the idea
It's a #jambafact. Oh and yeah, you would never get a Christian picking out just the bits they need to support their own view.
@nick what's your number then ? IS has 50,000 active militant members. You see my ??? that means its a guestimate
And what was Britain doing when we interred German and Italian nationals during WW2?
Something that was also wrong, just without the genocide. Blaming a whole race/creed/religion not only subjects innocent people to unnecessary victimization at the time, it also tends to have far reaching, stereotyping effects for many many years to come.
world wide? In what time frame?
teeny amount regardless, take Britain Germany France, Spain, vast vast majority of terrorism acts in 20th/21st century were carried out by IRA, Bader-Meinhoff, ETA, etcetc
I'll bet Anders Breivik is responsible for more deaths in Europe than Muslim terrorists in 2011...
IS has 50,000 active militant members. You see my ??? that means its a guestimate
so the answer is to ban 1.6billion muslims from entering the USA 🙄
meanwhile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_price_tag_attacks
with only 15million jews in the world who would be more dangerous?
the politics of fear truly are a sad indictment of Trump and his defenders
Your guess ometer is incredibly wrongToday the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims - 80% 90 % ??? It is their (mis)interpretation of their faith that is central to their extremism.
Its less than 1 % in Europe
We know of the muslim ones because they tend to be the most deadly and they also tend to get the most coverage- they are 36X more likely to do deadly attacks they are not more likely to be terrorists. Not in europe nor in the US - where even Jews are more likely to be terrorists- source there is the FBI FWIW.
Its wrong.You see my ??? that means its a guestimate
[img]
[/img]
I would cite further sources but its pointless as jamby does not interact with them
JunkyardWe know of the muslim ones because they tend to be the most deadly and they also tend to get the most coverage- they are 36X more likely to do deadly attacks they are not more likely to be terrorists.
Oh well that's okay then. So long as it's just the odd deadly attack here and there.
Not in europe nor in the US - where even Jews are more likely to be terrorists- source there is the FBI FWIW.
I'm curious, what's the death toll caused by Jewish terrorists in the U.S in the last oh....16 years and what's the total by Islamists? I can't find exact numbers but a cursory glance suggests it's about 1 to 3000. And the 1 appears to be a suicide.
[img]
I would cite further sources but its pointless as jamby does not interact with them
Lol at your graphic from 2014.
So you are in favour of banning all Muslims entering the UK as well?
Genuine question, if not why defend Trump ?
That view relies very much on an incredibly narrow definition of terrorism.jambalaya - Member
Today the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims - 80% 90 % ?
The horrific number of deaths in September 11 attacks, cannot be dismissed but in total number of attacks
But by number of attacks, is lefties you want to ban !?!
[img] 
[/img]
The sad irony begging that the Wahabist terrorists of 9/11 were of Saudi origin and today we still fund and arm the Saudi government who are dependent on Wahabists to keep them in power
jambalaya - MemberThat's a gross misinterpretation. You'd need to look at the ratio between the two very small percentages.
No. Relative likelihood is absolutely meaningless in this context. X being more likely than Y doesn't make X likely. This is elementary stuff. The only value relative likelihood has, is if you want to make a bullshit argument in favour of ineffectual profiling.
Light relief
(Made a while ago but still relevant)
Junky have you like Clinton [s]had a stoke[/s] fallen, hit your head, had a bleed, lost your memory ? Or more likely just living in a leftwing fantasy world
In 18 months France has suffered 3 large scale terrorist attacks
Charlie Ebdo/Hyper Kacher
Bataclan/restaurant/Stade Francais
Nice July 14th fireworks
Plus numerous other attacks, murder of Cathloic priest, murder of policeman and his girlfried, beheading of chemical co worker ... not even mentioning Jewish museum in Brussells, Brussels airport, German concert/festival attack
@Graham 🙂 shared that ...
Feeling sick now to read all these people sticking up for banning muslims.
When there are [b]a billion and a half[/b] peaceful Muslims around the world, you absoutely CANNOT restrict the rights and activities of innocent pepole based on their religion. To mistrust that many people based on their religion - well if that's not racist I don't know what is.
Boko Haram are black too. Let's ban black people too, shall we? Tell me what the difference is between banning black people and banning Muslims?
Oh well that's okay then. So long as it's just the odd deadly attack here and there.
You can try to mock the fact he was wrong, by making up shit i never said, but it wont make what i said wrong, though it will make you look stupid
I am curious as to why you want to look at deaths when his claim was about the % of terrorists- is there a reason you wish to ignore the measure he chose?I'm curious, what's the death toll caused by Jewish terrorists in the U.S in the last oh....16 years and what's the total by Islamists? I can't find exact numbers but a cursory glance suggests it's about 1 to 3000. And the 1 appears to be a suicide.
.
Lol at your graphic from 2014
your point is?
Junky have you like Clinton had a stoke fallen, hit your head, had a bleed, lost your memory ? Or more likely just living in a leftwing fantasy world
No I have pointed out, using sources, that what you said was provable false. Its what rational folk do form opinions based on facts rather than form opinions based on their pwn prejudicial fallacious cherry picking of events,
you can play the man as much as you like but what you said will still remain wrong
Lol at calling facts a left wing fantasy world- which is what I am sure the FBI operate in 🙄
That's a gross misinterpretation. You'd need to look at the ratio between the two very small percentages. Today the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims - 80% 90 % ??? It is their (mis)interpretation of their faith that is central to their extremism.
That is the most awesome JAMBAFACT everer!!!
I'll ask the muslims I'll be working with this weekend about this hard and proven statistic and come back to you Jambaliar.
Is this because they don't call right wing mass murderers terrorists? You know, those screwed up Christians who (mis)interperate their faith.
What an absolute muppet!! 😆
Tell me what the difference is between banning black people and banning Muslims?
You mean apart from the fact that one is genetic and utterly beyond anyones personal control, whereas the other is a deliberate but delusional choice to believe in a magical sky fairy?
I find it amazing that none of you recognise state terrorism. Baffling. You can not solve the problem of terrorism when you don't even see the biggest instigators.
Boko Haram are black too
what's skin colour got to do with it - the discussion was about banning Muslims - they don't have to be black you know - I think you are applying a stereotype there...
There are 50,000 active militant members of ISIS. For what Junkyard said to be true (ie Muslims represented 1% of terrorists) there would have to be 5 million terrorists.
What I posted is absolutely true, the VAST majority of terrorists today are Islamic extremists and their interpretation of the religion which is their driving force. They are not slaughtering 10's if not 100's of thousands of their fellow Muslims because of anything the West did or didn't do.
Molgrips you can be as distressed as you like but what Trump tapped into was (longstanding) US public opinion on the issue. It was Jihadists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre.
terrorism
NOUN[mass noun] The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:
Joseph:
unlawful
Is one reason why its remarkably difficult to qualify 'State' actions as terrorism. The other is the direct and deliberate targeting of civilians, as opposed to the death of civilians as an unfortunate and regrettable but inevitable result of attacking legitimate targets. (eg. collateral damage & human error, which, like it or not, will always occur despite the best will in the world and extensive steps to avoid it)
You mean apart from the fact that one is genetic and utterly beyond anyones personal control, whereas the other is a deliberate but delusional choice to believe in a magical sky fairy?
Point entirely missed.
In both cases, a group of people are commiting acts of terror. These people can be placed in other much larger groups of people based on unrelated external characteristics. It would be just as ridiculous to block black people because of Boko Haram as it would Muslims because of Isis.
Unless you're going to tell us that Muslims are in fact predisposed to terrorism for some reason?
I'm well aware that's where people try to muddy the waters, nin, but come on, states do not act within the law a hell of a lot of the time. You can't just disregard it because it's difficult. It's an incredibly important part of the equation. "Terrorism" as is it is publicly portrayed is only one part of the picture.
If there's "collateral damage", personally, I call that terrorism, particularly when it's sold under the banner of surgical strikes and indisputable intelligence. Terrorism is a (very successful) tactic in war, used by all sides. It's not exclusive of it.
Is one reason why its remarkably difficult to qualify 'State' actions as terrorism.
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [b](ISIS)[/b] approves of your views.
ol' donald is going to need a thicker skin, one story about the transition in the New York Times and we get.... these ramblings on twitter.
The failing @nytimes story is so totally wrong on transition. It is going so smoothly. Also, I have spoken to many foreign leaders.
I have recieved and taken calls from many foreign leaders despite what the failing @nytimes said. Russia, U.K., China, Saudi Arabia, Japan,
Australia, New Zealand, and more. I am always available to them. @nytimes is just upset that they looked like fools in their coverage of me.
donald by the end of his term assuming he makes it.
[img] 
[/img]
Molly - I'd say anyone who is delusional enough to run their life according to the transcribed commands of a magical sky fairy deserves to be treated with suspicion. Thing is, that the ones currently trying to come into the USA in order to carry out attacks tend to be of one flavour, if the major problem was with another flavour then I would expect them to be singled out for scrutiny just as much.
(edit, just as much as I wouldn't be at all surprised at English football fans being monitored and treated differently from local fans at an international match, given the history of behaviour of a small minority)
