Trump's Ban

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:36 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:If there was 'no limit' to the number of terrorists carrying out atrocities, then there wouldn't be any human rights at all you daft bat.

Then we'd all be terrorists, you and I too. You daft bat.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:53 pm

IT - 'But, maybe this kid isn't a 1 year old but Trump tried to ban a 5 year old, and here's his idiot trying to explain why it's ridiculous to say that someone isn't a security threat because of his age, which means if he was 1 year old then he could also be a security threat. ' What the chuff are you on about? that makes no sense at all! my comment was in response to Lancaster's comment about under-2 year olds! and I don't believe a terrorist should have the same human rights as non-mass murdering law abiding citizens. they kindda lose that when they randomly murder innocent people. and don't forget, more muslims are killed by terrorists than probably any other ethnic group.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:06 pm

"I don't believe a terrorist should have the same human rights as non-mass murdering law abiding citizens."

But unfortunately we rarely find out they're terrorists until they carry out their atrocity, or the FBI/MI5 catches up with them in the planning. But at the point of entry, and without SOLID evidence as to why they shouldn't be allowed in, and they have all the permits in place to do so, then there's no feasible, evidence-based reason for a ban

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:08 pm

biggles wrote:IT - 'But, maybe this kid isn't a 1 year old but Trump tried to ban a 5 year old, and here's his idiot trying to explain why it's ridiculous to say that someone isn't a security threat because of his age, which means if he was 1 year old then he could also be a security threat. ' What the chuff are you on about? that makes no sense at all! my comment was in response to Lancaster's comment about under-2 year olds! and I don't believe a terrorist should have the same human rights as non-mass murdering law abiding citizens. they kindda lose that when they randomly murder innocent people. and don't forget, more muslims are killed by terrorists than probably any other ethnic group.

If you don't believe in human rights for everyone then you don't believe in human rights for anyone. These people want the West to abandon these kinds of principles because it makes recruitment to their cause much easier. They want us to hate and be suspicious of the Muslims among us and they want us to discriminate against Muslims because it allows them more easily recruit those Muslims among us whom we mistreat, marginalise and say "you're not one of us" to.

Blowing us up is their endgame. They can't beat us with bombs or bullets, but they can beat us if we become so scared of them that we sacrifice our own ideals, and that's what you're doing. But I don't think you're doing it because you are frightened of terrorism, i think you're doing it because you just don't like people who are different to you, and using the fear of terrorism is a handy tool to recruit more hateful bigots to your cause. Your methods might be different but your ideas are very much the same as the terrorists.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:14 pm

NRC - that may be true but when I say 'terrorist' i mean someone who has been proven to be a terrorist; ie. someone who has commited a terrorist atrocity. i'm not talking about potential terrorists in that instance.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:26 pm

IT - you seem to think that law abiding, decent muslims across the globe [and that is the vast majority] support the terrorists. they don't. nor are they all just waiting for the chance to join jihad. i'm sure terrorists are reviled by most muslims because most muslims are decent people. i can categorically state right here that i do not believe in the same level of human rights for everyone. i suppose you think that murderers shouldn't be incarcerated as that probably goes against your ludicrous human rights stance. god protect us from idiots like you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:30 pm

biggles wrote:IT - you seem to think that law abiding, decent muslims across the globe [and that is the vast majority] support the terrorists.

You have to be a special type of stupid to think that's what I think.

i suppose you think that murderers shouldn't be incarcerated as that probably goes against your ludicrous human rights stance.

You think that obeying human rights precludes incarcerating criminals?

Please never reproduce.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:31 pm

or a complete idiot to actually think what you think!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:32 pm

biggles wrote:or a complete idiot to actually think what you think!

Where did I even imply that I think all Muslims support terrorists?

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:34 pm

don't bother replying you utter buffoon. i'm blocking your comments. you are much too thick to comprehend simple english and i'm wasting time trying to highlight all your mistakes.

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:37 pm

oh lord, the simpleton that is IT is still trying to convince me he isn't a brain-dead clown. poor old sod.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:38 pm

biggles wrote:don't bother replying you utter buffoon. i'm blocking your comments. you are much too thick to comprehend simple english and i'm wasting time trying to highlight all your mistakes.

Go on then. Throw your tantrum, plug your fingers in your ears and pretend that if you can't hear people telling you your wrong that it makes your right.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:40 pm

biggles wrote:oh lord, the simpleton that is IT is still trying to convince me he isn't a brain-dead clown. poor old sod.

I've seen this style of tweet before.

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:02 am

biggles wrote:IT - you seem to think that law abiding, decent muslims across the globe [and that is the vast majority] support the terrorists. they don't. nor are they all just waiting for the chance to join jihad. i'm sure terrorists are reviled by most muslims because most muslims are decent people.

Depending on the organisation, support for terrorist groups amongst Muslims is usually above 10%.

In a 2013 Pew Study 13% of Muslims had a favourable view of The Taliban whilst 23% said they 'didn't know' or refused to answer.

There are similarly alarming figures regarding Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/mus ... st-groups/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Calling this a 'vast' majority glosses over a rather terrifying problem i think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:18 am

LongsideFacingUp wrote:Depending on the organisation, support for terrorist groups amongst Muslims is usually above 10%.

In a 2013 Pew Study 13% of Muslims had a favourable view of The Taliban whilst 23% said they 'didn't know' or refused to answer.

There are similarly alarming figures regarding Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/mus ... st-groups/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Calling this a 'vast' majority glosses over a rather terrifying problem i think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is from the first link, and I think it is remarkable. It shows that we're winning the ideological war against terrorism. Just look at how most of these figures showing support for suicide bombing have shrunk over the years. That's not to say any support is OK.

There's still plenty to be concerned with but it's important to not blind ourselves to the fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:28 am

biggles wrote:NRC - that may be true but when I say 'terrorist' i mean someone who has been proven to be a terrorist; ie. someone who has commited a terrorist atrocity. i'm not talking about potential terrorists in that instance.

So convicted terrorists shouldn't be allowed to travel freely into the USA? Should maybe even be locked up?

Well no sh*t Sherlock. I think even the lefty liberal handwringing PC human-rights brigade might agree with you on that one.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:05 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is from the first link, and I think it is remarkable. It shows that we're winning the ideological war against terrorism. Just look at how most of these figures showing support for suicide bombing have shrunk over the years. That's not to say any support is OK.

There's still plenty to be concerned with but it's important to not blind ourselves to the fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable.

Just like Brexit opinion polls, we didn't ask everyone.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:27 am

Greenmile, my post wasn't a revelation, it was to point to a hole in biggles' argument, which he subsequently addressed. Just for the sake of clarity mind

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:41 am

NRC wrote:Greenmile, my post wasn't a revelation, it was to point to a hole in biggles' argument, which he subsequently addressed. Just for the sake of clarity mind

I agree with your post and was just pointing out that biggles didn't really address it at all, beyond pointing out the obvious - i.e. once someone is proven to be a terrorist they should have certain rights or freedoms taken away from them. That's not what Trump is trying to do.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:56 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is from the first link, and I think it is remarkable. It shows that we're winning the ideological war against terrorism. Just look at how most of these figures showing support for suicide bombing have shrunk over the years. That's not to say any support is OK.

There's still plenty to be concerned with but it's important to not blind ourselves to the fact that we're making huge progress when it comes to convincing people that terrorism, particularly suicide bombings, is unacceptable.

I do not for one second believe only 3% of people in Pakistan think suicide bombing can't be justified. Maybe if it was a survey taken solely by people in Lahore, but even then 3% is a stretch.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:26 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I do not for one second believe only 3% of people in Pakistan think suicide bombing can't be justified.

Why?

(This should be interesting)

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:05 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why?

(This should be interesting)

You'd have to be more than stupid to think the data you posted has any statistical significance.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:54 am

taio wrote:You'd have to be more than stupid to think the data you posted has any statistical significance.

Pew Research Center are a highly respected polling organisation and they wouldn't publish a poll that doesn't yield statistically significany results. But maybe you didn't know that's who conducted the poll that Right-winger was citing earlier. Maybe you just blindly and stupidly assumed that those figures came from a source of ill repute. Perhaps after a coffee you wouldn't have made such a dumb mistake.

Here's their actual report if you're interested in more than just blindly dismissing what a polling organisation has found.
Link to PDF download

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:24 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Pew Research Center are a highly respected polling organisation and they wouldn't publish a poll that doesn't yield statistically significany results. But maybe you didn't know that's who conducted the poll that Right-winger was citing earlier. Maybe you just blindly and stupidly assumed that those figures came from a source of ill repute. Perhaps after a coffee you wouldn't have made such a dumb mistake.

Here's their actual report if you're interested in more than just blindly dismissing what a polling organisation has found.
Link to PDF download

It was LongsideFacingUp who cited the poll, who may or may not be right-wing, but isn't Right-winger.

Maybe you should have another coffee. Personally, I prefer the smell of pedantry in the morning

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:28 am

Greenmile wrote:It was LongsideFacingUp who cited the poll, who may or may not be right-wing, but isn't Right-winger.

Maybe you should have another coffee. Personally, I prefer the smell of pedantry in the morning

So it was, thank you. My points stand, though.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:33 am

I knew where the results came from but you can't see the limitations and bias of such research - to be fair to you though you're good at finding the time to google stuff.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:47 am

taio wrote:I knew where the results came from but you can't see the limitations and bias of such research - to be fair to you though you're good at finding the time to google stuff.

Explain the bias. If you can see the bias then explain the bias.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:58 am

From the horse's mouth:

"In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls."

I could go much further than that but there's no point given how obvious the limitations are.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:59 am

Course, its also perfectly possible that the use of suicide bombers on muslim targets has resulted in the decline of support for them.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:13 am

taio wrote:From the horse's mouth:

"In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls."

I could go much further than that but there's no point given how obvious the limitations are.

Bullsh*t. Every single poll ever has those problems. You said there is a bias in this particular poll. I've challenged you to explain what the bias is and all you've been able to do is quote Pew as saying that surveys can have biases in them.

You said there was a particular bias with this survey. You can either explain what that bias is, or you can't and you're just talking crap.

Dejavu · Post by **Dejavu** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:40 am

The problem with these threads is that they never mention the 1.5 MILLION innocent Iraqi civilians killed by an ILLEGAL war that we started because of lies...

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:42 pm

Dejavu wrote:The problem with these threads is that they never mention the 1.5 MILLION innocent Iraqi civilians killed by an ILLEGAL war that we started because of lies...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualtie ... casualties" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the above, there have been around 170,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003.

That's been put together by 'Iraq Body Count' (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) who count any violent civilian death regardless of who were the perpetrators.

So a large majority of the deaths counted are due to extremist Islamic groups like ISIS.

The number of civilian deaths attributed to US forces by the end of major combat operations was around 7000.

Dejavu · Post by **Dejavu** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:49 pm

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/un ... 0-39149394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 22, 2017 3:05 am

Trump returning from his first foreign trip.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 22, 2017 6:12 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Trump returning from his first foreign trip.

Cant remember Saudi Arabia being on that list.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 22, 2017 6:18 am

Of course they weren't. Can't go putting state sponsors of terrorism on banned lists if you want to sell them hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 22, 2017 6:28 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Of course they weren't. Can't go putting state sponsors of terrorism on banned lists if you want to sell them hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons.

Whether they should have been on or not is a different matter

That illustration is just a bit dumb, all's I'm saying bro.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 22, 2017 7:07 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Whether they should have been on or not is a different matter

That illustration is just a bit dumb, all's I'm saying bro.

It's funny how it's the country he's visited that you argue makes the joke inaccurate (as if the country was the point) but you don't object to him being called a threat to national security (which was the point).

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 22, 2017 9:19 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's funny how it's the country he's visited that you argue makes the joke inaccurate (as if the country was the point) but you don't object to him being called a threat to national security (which was the point).

I dont think he has proven to be any more of a national security threat than HC would have been at this point, albeit I do worry the current route he has taken is strikingly similar to what I imagined she would undertake but watered down.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 22, 2017 10:39 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I dont think he has proven to be any more of a national security threat than HC would have been at this point, albeit I do worry the current route he has taken is strikingly similar to what I imagined she would undertake but watered down.

Giving codeword classified intelligence (a higher classification than anything Clinton stored on her server) that compromises an Israeli spy to allies of Israels biggest enemy is less of a national security threat than storing emails on a server that wasn't successfully hacked?

Do you think Clinton would have hired someone she knew could be blackmailed by Russia and only fired him when the public found out he knew? Do you think Clinton would have publicly invited Russia to hack her political opponents emails during an election, ever?

You're delusional if you think she was anything close to as bad as Trump, and i think in the next few weeks it's going to become crystal clear just how pathetically compromised Trump and his administration is. Flynn, Manafort, Page, Kushner all dodgy as **** with their Russian ties, three of whom have already had to resign or be fired because of this. At least 18 times the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian officials, including Putin's "fixer" and BFF Victor Medvedchuk. This despite repeated denials prior to this emerging that there had been any contacts between the campaign and Russia.

But yeah, Clinton was dumb with emails to absolutely zero national security consequence, so she's just as Trump.

(in case you can't tell, this line is sarcasm)

Be honest. You don't give a **** about the email server, do you? It's nothing but a deflection (that's all it's ever been) to avoid dealing with the fact that Trump is turning out to be everything people like me warned you he was.And yes, i'm loving it so much. Like this, for example. I oppose selling those people weapons just as much as you probably do. But only one of us supports Trump.

Oops.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 1:48 pm

Given that the Muslim terrorist who was responsible for the barbaric slaughter of innocent children at the Manchester Arena travelled to and from Libya.

Perhaps all those who chose to criticise President Trump and his temporary 90 day ban on travel from that country, may want to take the opportunity to look at their posts and admit that perhaps, he was right and they were wrong.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:12 pm

lakesclaret wrote:I'd hazard that most European countries would LOVE to implement a 3month temp ban on the countries Trump has . Give immigration authorities a chance to clear some backlog and get their houses in order and ensure a smoother future process.

Though try telling that the millions of dippy students and virgins who prefer to just act hysterically

With the benefit of hindsight, you may have been right.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:16 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Given that the Muslim terrorist who was responsible for the barbaric slaughter of innocent children at the Manchester Arena travelled to and from Libya.

Perhaps all those who chose to criticise President Trump and his temporary 90 day ban on travel from that country, may want to take the opportunity to look at their posts and admit that perhaps, he was right and they were wrong.

And yet, he won't do anything towards the one country that is the root of all the problems - Saudi Arabia. Until both the UK and USA stop selling arms for oil etc. then we'll continue to have more issues.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:17 pm

Spijed wrote:So basically he is just protecting his business interests, not the USA from terrorists.

Looks like he was trying to protect the usa from terrorism after all. Given the bomber of the Manchester area came in and had ties and training in Libya. Perhaps you were wrong

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:18 pm

Damo wrote:Why is the action taken so controversial though?
Because it's Donald Trump.
Basically he has placed a 90 day restriction on people travelling from seven countries that are deemed high risk re terrorist activity.
After 90 days he says a new vetting system will be in place then normal service will resume.
Obama deported 2.5 million people in his term. 2.5 million people forcefully removed from the country and you didn't see one weirdy beardy dressed as a vagina protesting anywhere

You appear to have been right on Trump matey

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:20 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:What advice?

His chief of homeland security found out about it from the tv. Surely he should be consulted first?

Perhaps the advice he received was right?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:22 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm against it because I believe this is about his campaign promise to ban Muslims from going to America, and I've explained earlier why I think that, and the reason I'm opposed to that is because discrimination against those of a particular religion is not supposed to be what America is about.

You were wrong

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:22 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Looks like he was trying to protect the usa from terrorism after all. Given the bomber of the Manchester area came in and had ties and training in Libya. Perhaps you were wrong

It's well documented over time about the terrorist links to Saudi Arabia.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amentalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:23 pm

AndrewJB wrote:The US already had extremely tight security in place for people entering the country, and there's no evidence to say it needed to be increased. Like his wall, this is just a pointless thing that will sink America's standing in the world.

Perhaps Trump had evidence for increased security?

Perhaps you were wrong

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu May 25, 2017 6:25 pm

Sidney1st wrote:So you're against him fulfilling his campaign promise?
Ok.

At this moment in time one of the biggest perceived threats to the USA comes from Muslims, especially those who've possibly visited certain parts of the world that are known Isis hotspots.
So logically putting in place restrictions on certain places/people will make sense.
It doesn't make sense to the hand wringers in society, but to the people who voted him in, it's what he promised to do.

Same with the wall across the south, unemployment etc.
He's seen to be doing the things he campaigned about.

You disagree with it, which is fine, but he isn't doing it to please people outside of the US.

"especially those who've possibly visited certain parts of the world that are known Isis hotspots."

Very prophetic side. Sadly....