Heartland

Looks like Saint Obama the Holiest is actually the one responsible for the list of banned countries. Where was the outcry back then, hypocrites?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... e-n2278021

nowayjose wrote:Looks like Saint Obama the Holiest is actually the one responsible for the list of banned countries. Where was the outcry back then, hypocrites?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... e-n2278021

The issue is not whether citizens of these countries are allowed to visit the US without a visa, or whether those citizens could apply for visas. The issue is that, having applied for a visa, and having been granted one based on investigations conducted by the State Department, they are then denied entry into the country, in some cases being detained without access to counsel or forcibly put on planes returning to their countries of origin.

Further, the Executive Order was instituted without notice or guidance being given to the authorities at the points of entry, leaving those officials in the dark as to how to to determine the eligibility of the applicant to enter the US, or how to proceed if it was determined that the person was not eligible to enter. The rationale for this, "well, if we'd said that we were going to institute this in a week, then during that week we'd get all of these bad dudes coming in" is laughable - the visa application process takes weeks or months in most cases. If it had been communicated to the border control agents ahead of time, is Trump suggesting that these people could not be trusted not to communicate the information to those outside the agency?

Still further, those people coming in who held Permanent Residency status, who had already been extensively vetted in terms of establishing their suitability to reside in the US, were also being detained at the airports, despite the fact that these people were (according to Priebus) specifically excluded from the EO.

The issue is that something that could have been implemented with a minimum of fuss turned into a sh*tshow of astronomical proportions because the person with his hand on the controls lacks the guidance to make decisions in a rational, mature manner. There is a suggestion that the order itself is in breach of the constitution which the president swore a week previously to uphold. It is clear evidence that those closest to him are either unable or unwilling to rein him in, or to guide him in his decision-making process. The greatest presidents have not been the smartest people, but they have been the ones who gathered around them the smartest, savviest advisors, who had a depth of knowledge, experience, and understanding of the machinery of government. These are the people who could have prevented the current president from looking like an abject ass-hat - and that's their job. The fact that he has surrounded himself by yes-men who lack the courage to tell their boss that he's wrong should be a concern. If it isn't a concern for you, I would like to hear why it isn't.

Obama's ban was much more limited and didn't exclude refugees (after vetting). And the left did complain loudly.
Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban - http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sor ... ation-ban/

Further still, and for the record, there's a neat little chart here that shows who has been charged with or died engaging in terrorism since September 2011.

Conclusion: I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about citizens than visa holders or refugees when it comes to acts of terror.

EvilBastard wrote:Conclusion: I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about citizens than visa holders or refugees when it comes to acts of terror.

You have to add situational awareness. In the past couple years, militants, also many from the West, went to join the 'Islamic State' in the Middle East while it was gaining ground. With the IS now finally on the verge of getting crushed in Iraq, there now is a much higher risk of militants coming over to the US and Europe, to continue their "jihad" here or simply to exert revenge, than there was a few years ago. These are people who have nothing to lose and who think they'll go straight to paradise if they kill us.
Plus, while domestically grown terrorists are an issue, large parts of the Islamic world are a boiling tub of s**t these days and as I see it, it'll only get worse, and I don't want to end up in the middle of that.

It's all very complicated isn't it?

zaltys7 wrote:It's all very complicated isn't it?

I find myself quoting myself.

It's all very complicated isn't it?

zaltys7 wrote:

zaltys7 wrote:It's all very complicated isn't it?

I find myself quoting myself.

It's all very complicated isn't it?

They'd like us to believe that it's very complicated, and beyond the wit of the Man On The Street to understand it. In the same way that investment managers would like you to believe that they're so much smarter than the rest of us, even when almost none of their actively-managed funds can beat the performance of a benchmark index.
It's actually really really simple. First, you build up an intelligence network. Then you use that network to infiltrate terror cells. Then you use the intelligence that you gather to prevent attacks and prosecute the people who were planning them. You use it to establish whether or not a 70-year old man who is a permanent resident of the US who was born in Iran is just a retired maths professor returning to his home or whether he's actually a militant jihadi intent on blowing sh*t up.
Of course, if you alienate the intelligence community, slash its funding, believe that waterboarding is a suitable replacement for intelligence, and hold that detention without trial will actually breed anything except more extremists, then yes, it's all very complicated. The rules of asymmetric warfare haven't changed much in the past 100 years. Certainly they haven't changed since Frank Kitson wrote Gangs & Counter-Gangs, which is The Book on how to engage in conflict where the other guy isn't wearing a uniform. It's required reading for anyone who wants to win the fight (or at least bring it to a stalemate). If you invest the time and the resources, not just in fighting the threat but in understanding and undermining it, you find that there's less actual fighting and more actual success.

So not complicated at all, assuming that you understand how to play a long game, and that wars aren't won by bullets alone. It's a hearts and minds thing - something that recent administrations seem to have lost sight of.

Quite useful are also the 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action by Gene Sharp. If you should doubt whether non-violent action could ever make a difference,
I recommend Why Civil Resistance Works - The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth.
As a matter of fact, never forget that your opponents (in the government as well as on other political sides) have been studying these things deeply and
are making use of it as well... ...

Hi,

I've got front row seats to Armageddon (I live in the ME).

Here's a depressing but insightful read for you.

https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Wars-Secr ... 1786070014

On a lighter note,

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... now-214678

Cheers,

The trouble with "us-and-them" thinking is that the lines drawn are always arbitrary. And if you "other" the them enough, then at least some of them will try to hit back.

markfiend wrote:The trouble with "us-and-them" thinking is that the lines drawn are always arbitrary. And if you "other" the them enough, then at least some of them will try to hit back.

Funny you should say that, given that Islam "others" non-adherents like hardly anyone else does today.
We didn't start this s**t, don't reframe the aggressor as the victim.

I suggest you study American foreign policy since WWII if you think that "we didn't start this sh*t".

markfiend wrote:I suggest you study American foreign policy since WWII if you think that "we didn't start this sh*t".

The bloody Yanks, the world would be paradise without them, wouldn't it.

To spit your words back at you, "The bloody Mooslims, the world would be paradise without them, wouldn't it."

The Muslim ban is being applauded by the Daily Stormer, InfoStormer, VDare, David Duke of the KKK, and various other of the cesspits of the internet. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

markfiend wrote: The Muslim ban is being applauded by the Daily Stormer, InfoStormer, VDare, David Duke of the KKK, and various other of the cesspits of the internet. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

Cheap. I don't accuse you of falling in line with the IS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

I'm also not defending the 'muslim ban'. I defend America's right to decide who is allowed crossing their borders, and who is not. It's only us here in Europe who seem to have given up on that prerogative.
I also think I see Islam for what it is, not for what some idealistic people would like it to be.

nowayjose wrote:

markfiend wrote: The Muslim ban is being applauded by the Daily Stormer, InfoStormer, VDare, David Duke of the KKK, and various other of the cesspits of the internet. I hope you're happy with the company you keep.

Cheap. I don't accuse you of falling in line with the IS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

I'm also not defending the 'muslim ban'. I defend America's right to decide who is allowed crossing their borders, and who is not. It's only us here in Europe who seem to have given up on that prerogative.
I also think I see Islam for what it is, not for what some idealistic people would like it to be.

Do you see Christianity for what it is, based on the behaviours of extremists (the LRA, perhaps), paedophile priests, and men in funny hats telling the poor and hungry that curbing their reproductive habits is an offence in the sight of god, or do you (quite reasonably) conclude that a faith cannot be judged by the tiny fraction (by some estimates, around 0.006%) of its adherents who commit atrocities?

I agree, America should have the right to decide who crosses its borders. This is why they have a visa program, applicants under which are extensively vetted as to their suitability. Interestingly enough, so do most other countries, Britain and German among them. Europe hasn't "given up" on border controls - they've simply agreed within the EU that a citizen of one country of the union can live and work in another country without let or hindrance. You still have to register in the country that you move to, you still have to tell the authorities where you live and when you move, and your employer is required to check that this has been done.

The question is whether or not, having been granted a visa, the CBP or DHS has the authority to deny you entry. Since entry requirements are covered by various US laws, which CBP and DHS are obliged to adhere to, it would seem that the answer to this question is "no". Which leads us to the conclusion that arms of the federal government are overstepping their mark. That the order itself may be illegal raises questions about the counsel that the administration is receiving. These are the concerns.

nowayjose wrote:I'm also not defending the 'muslim ban'. I defend America's right to decide who is allowed crossing their borders, and who is not.

It's a distinction that makes no difference. You're not defending the Muslim ban, you're just defending the Muslim ban. Right.

nowayjose wrote:I also think I see Islam for what it is

Islam is the religion of over 1.7 billion people, with three major denominations and a myriad of smaller sects and divisions. your "seeing it for what it is" is inevitably a massive over-simplification.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

Seneca

Read "Shadow Wars" nowayjose

As far as I can tell, this all seems to be "just" a suspension of access to the US for nationals coming from countries where insurgency is rife & where groups like ISIS have issued threats to the US mainland & have also actually carried out acts in Europe already.
I don't agree with a blanket ban. That's (IMHO) wrong. But what seems to be the issue is that the NSA's vetting mechanism is in question & they need to get it sorted before somebody dangerous does slip through. Although, in saying that, they've done a pretty good job post 9/11 anyway. Obama started by cancelling the visa waiver program for those states, but it still looks like (rightly or wrongly) the administration has little faith in the border controls still in place.
But I don't recall any Iranian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Somalian or Libyan nationals mounting any attacks in the US unless the powers that be have hushed it up, so something seems to be working okay.

Pista wrote: But I don't recall any Iranian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Somalian or Libyan nationals mounting any attacks in the US unless the powers that be have hushed it up, so something seems to be working okay.

If any violent extremist group wants to carry out an attack, they simply send someone of another nationality. There are plenty members at their disposal.

nowayjose wrote:Looks like Saint Obama the Holiest is actually the one responsible for the list of banned countries. Where was the outcry back then, hypocrites?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... e-n2278021

Fact check:- https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... n-refugees

I noticed that the journalist from nowayjoses' post had won a Breitbart award so no real surprises there then.

Being645 wrote:

Pista wrote: But I don't recall any Iranian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Somalian or Libyan nationals mounting any attacks in the US unless the powers that be have hushed it up, so something seems to be working okay.

If any violent extremist group wants to carry out an attack, they simply send someone of another nationality. There are plenty members at their disposal.

That's true. & the executive order includes anyone (regardless of nationality) coming from the countries on the list & (IIRC) those that have visited a listed country recently.
I'm not going to defend the orange clown in any way, shape or form, but I am seeing the word "ban" in all the headlines & then about 5 lines in, it gets "watered down" to a 90 day suspension.

EvilBastard wrote: Do you see Christianity for what it is, based on the behaviours of extremists (the LRA, perhaps), paedophile priests, and men in funny hats telling the poor and hungry that curbing their reproductive habits is an offence in the sight of god, or do you (quite reasonably) conclude that a faith cannot be judged by the tiny fraction (by some estimates, around 0.006%) of its adherents who commit atrocities?.

I've been an atheist from a pretty early age on, and since then have been harrassed by Christians many times because of that, so I have no particularly positive image of Christianity as a whole either. But... at least the core message of Christianity (despite of all its fantastical nonsense) is a positive one. Love thy enemy, etc. It's founder wasn't a maniacal warlord bent on pillaging, conquering, and murdering detractors. That's the major difference between Christianity and Islam. The second difference is, Christianity tends to stay out of state affairs, in principle. "Give to caesar what is caesar's, and to god what is god's" has been interpreted as a basic principle for separating church and state. There is absolutely nothing like that in Islam. Islam is a political as much as a religious ideology, and it seeks worldly domination through a global caliphate.

Ah yes, separation of church and state. That's cute. Wish it was true in the US.