Donald Trump

[Karl]

Maybe a simple analogy will help.

In the 1980s English football teams were banned from European competitions because a minority of the supporters were violent hooligans.

Before this ban, security forces/ intelligence agencies had to monitor groups and individuals, before, during and after the football matches. They had to infiltrate the groups and monitor their movement across Europe.

After the ban, individuals with previous had to hand in passports, or their passports were marked, so they could not travel at certain times or to certain countries.

Individuals with previous what? Priors? And hooligans had their passports marked? That's news to me.

At any rate, this is why the analogy fails: all of the hooligans were UK citizens. In the case of Trump's ban, most known terrorists have not been citizens of the banned countries. Nationality is not very relevant to the fight against terror.

Don`t you think this ban took the pressure of the British and European Intelligence agencies ?

So you mean they now could relax their shoulders, and do less monitoring as a result? If that is your contention, then why did you say

I`m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
There are border controls and there are the security forces.
Two different things.

If you still maintain what I quoted you on above, then no: that ban did not take the pressure off the British and European Intelligence agencies, because border controls and security forces are two different things. Now you are saying something different again.

So, thanks to President Trump fulfilling his election promises in record time, you guys in the States will be safer for it.
Who really gives a **** if someone from Baghdad can`t visit Disney land this year ?

You mean, "who really gives a **** about Iraqis?"

Isis had been given a good kicking last year. Now their army will disperse around the world. Which is why those particular countries have been flagged.
Now the US security forces can put more resources into monitoring who is flying into the States from say, Belgium or Paris.

The ban does not concern people coming in from the five countries listed, but people who were born there. And the UK have successfully managed to negotioate exceptions for all UK passport holders anyway, so this ban is a sieve within a sieve. Instead of thinking that this ban has had any positive effect in preventing terrorists from entering, they would be far better off putting more resources into monitoring. After all, it's not like the terrorists are now going to give up simply because the guy they originally had in mind is now banned from entering. They'll send someone else instead, someone with a passport from an approved country. The sum of potential terrorists in the country will remain the same: If they want to get in, they'll get in. If not someone from one of the five banned nations (which do not even top the list), then from somewhere else. It is also reasonable to assume that we will now se an increas of false passports on the market as a result so no, security forces will not have less work.

[Patrick S]

Nationality is not very relevant to the fight against terror.

It's not? You mean, a Swede is just as likely to blow up a shopping mall in Jerusalem as, say, a Syrian? You're right. Profiling. It's so WRONG, isn't it? It's just racist! So gross. You'd make a great politician, Karl! That's very heartening and correct and it makes for a great applause line. I bet you'd get a lot of likes or shares or little heart icons if you post that on social media! I'll wait here while you do that.

You mean, "who really gives a **** about Iraqis?"

Aw.....Compassionate outrage. That's wonderful. You're are a really enlightened guy, Karl. That's exactly what was meant! To hell with them! Let them all die! That's the same thing EXAXCTLY as disallowing travel to the United States temporarily, until new controls are put in place. I bet the OP not only doesn't care about Iraqi people but probably doesn't care about gay people, or black people, or women, or Native Americans, or dwarves. I'm OUTRAGED!

The ban does not concern people coming in from the five countries listed, but people who were born there. And the UK have successfully managed to negotioate exceptions for all UK passport holders anyway, so this ban is a sieve within a sieve. Instead of thinking that this ban has had any positive effect in preventing terrorists from entering, they would be far better off putting more resources into monitoring. After all, it's not like the terrorists are now going to give up simply because the guy they originally had in mind is now banned from entering. They'll send someone else instead, someone with a passport from an approved country. If they want to get in, they'll get in.

Oh, man! They didn't give up? Wow. Then I guess no one should do anything! I mean, why even try to make it hard for them. I remember my dear old grandpappy telling me the same thing about some of the early battles between the US and Germany in WW2. They didn't go that well for the US and Germany didn't just give up. So, what was the use!? I mean, why waste time and effort if something is hard. I mean, if Muslims want to kill Americans or Israelis or Christians or, you know, non-Muslims in general and are willing to die in the attempt, how can you stop them, right? So why even try? It's just silly. You've clearly given all this a LOT of thought, Karl. I stand with you, pal. Finally, some common sense!

Some things just have to be addressed.

[Karl]

Some things just have to be addressed.

Pat, I only needed to read your first paragraph to remember why I'm not responding to your drivel anymore. Like I have said before, if you cannot respond without completely distorting what I have said, then there is no point.

[Patrick S]

Pat, I only needed to read your first paragraph to remember why I'm not responding to your drivel anymore. Like I have said before, if you cannot respond without completely distorting what I have said, then there is no point.

Drivel? I thought it was pretty good. Anyway, I want to help. STOP responding to political posts, Karl. I honestly don't think you understand much of what's being discussed.

[Jon Guy]

Individuals with previous what? Priors? And hooligans had their passports marked? That's news to me..

Yes, information was held by the authorities on known hooligans.

At any rate, this is why the analogy fails: all of the hooligans were UK citizens. In the case of Trump's ban, most known terrorists have not been citizens of the banned countries. Nationality is not very relevant to the fight against terror..

As I wrote, ISIS is fracturing and most of these jihad warriors will disperse from the countries that Trump has banned.

So you mean they now could relax their shoulders, and do less monitoring as a result? If that is your contention, then why did you say
I`m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
There are border controls and there are the security forces.
Two different things.

No, they will still be overburdened, but at least border control can monitor border control, and the security forces can do what they do, without having to check the background of people from the banned countries wishing to travel to the States.

If you still maintain what I quoted you on above, then no: that ban did not take the pressure off the British and European Intelligence agencies, because border controls and security forces are two different things.

Well, it did.

Now you are saying something different again.

Then you misunderstand me

You mean, "who really gives a **** about Iraqis?".

Did I write that ?

The ban does not concern people coming in from the five countries listed, but people who were born there. And the UK have successfully managed to negotioate exceptions for all UK passport holders anyway, so this ban is a sieve within a sieve. Instead of thinking that this ban has had any positive effect in preventing terrorists from entering, they would be far better off putting more resources into monitoring. After all, it's not like the terrorists are now going to give up simply because the guy they originally had in mind is now banned from entering. They'll send someone else instead, someone with a passport from an approved country. The sum of potential terrorists in the country will remain the same: If they want to get in, they'll get in. If not someone from one of the five banned nations (which do not even top the list), then from somewhere else. It is also reasonable to assume that we will now se an increas of false passports on the market as a result so no, security forces will not have less work.

That is your opinion

[Karl]

As I wrote, ISIS is fracturing and most of these jihad warriors will disperse from the countries that Trump has banned.

Precisely - travelling from - not originating from. ISIS members do not necessarily hail from those nations, and the ones that don't are not affected by this ban. The ban only takes into account whether or not you were born in one of those countries - nothing more. For the ban to be remotely useful, it should target those who have been in those countries recently, especially if they are not citizens.


No, they will still be overburdened, but at least border control can monitor border control, and the security forces can do what they do, without having to check the background of people from the banned countries wishing to travel to the States.


If you still maintain what I quoted you on above, then no: that ban did not take the pressure off the British and European Intelligence agencies, because border controls and security forces are two different things. [/quote]

Well, it did.

What did what?

Then you misunderstand me

I obviously am, but I would like not to.

Did I write that ?

What you wrote was this:

"Who really gives a **** if someone from Baghdad can`t visit Disney land this year ?"

But you don't really think that's why people from Baghdad want to go to the US, do you?

That is your opinion

Well, I can't argue with that. It is, however, an opinion informed by studying terrorist trends. People seem to think that this is all motivated by religion, but terrorists are usually not recruited from among religious Muslims. Instead, the people targetted for radicalisation are typically young men of minority background who have trouble fitting in. They tend to be irreligious, and often have a history of substance abuse and petty crime. Rebels without a cause. Such people are always easy to recruit, because everybody wants to have a purpose, and to belong. And they can be recruited from any nation. Religion is great as an anchor for such people, but even if Islam did not exist the cause would still be there - and a different motivational anchor would be used then instead. One really shouldn't read any more into religion in this conflict than in the Troubles of Northern Ireland. Or either world war, for that matter.

[sdreid]

It looks like the Statue of Liberty has stopped crying already. Where do Democrats get these goofs?

[Patrick S]

Well, I can't argue with that. It is, however, an opinion informed by studying terrorist trends. People seem to think that this is all motivated by religion, but terrorists are usually not recruited from among religious Muslims. Instead, the people targetted for radicalisation are typically young men of minority background who have trouble fitting in. They tend to be irreligious, and often have a history of substance abuse and petty crime. Rebels without a cause. Such people are always easy to recruit, because everybody wants to have a purpose, and to belong. And they can be recruited from any nation. Religion is great as an anchor for such people, but even if Islam did not exist the cause would still be there - and a different motivational anchor would be used then instead. One really shouldn't read any more into religion in this conflict than in the Troubles of Northern Ireland. Or either world war, for that matter.

You've either purposely distorted this information or you simply don't understand it. Allow me to clarify what should be patently obvious.

Any objective, thinking human being understands that - contrary to the fairytale you tell above - Islamic terrorism is - ALWAYS - motivated by religion. Not religion IN GENERAL. It's motivated by Islam. Period. Full stop.

What IS true is that SOME terrorists - most often suicide bombers - are loners, misfits, etc. They are certainly NOT - in most cases - "irreligious". It's correct to say that - before their recruitment they MAY NOT have been "radical" Islamists. But, make no mistake, by the time ISIS, Hezbolah, Al Quaeda, et al, have finished "training" them they are fully radicalized and ready to die for ISLAM, not to impress their new buddies down at the mosque.

Even if these simply facts are put aside, even if we believe that these poor, misguided "rebels without a cause" are "irreligious" petty criminals with substance abuse problems who volunteered to die for their new friends because they want desperately to fit in, you must AT LEAST understand that these people - the terrorists doing some awful deed for Allah - are irrelevant. Their motivations are completely irrelevant. They're mere instruments used to kill infidels, no different than the bomb, the vest, the car loaded with explosives, the airplane that flew into the Trade Center and Pentagon. What's relevant is that those who planned the attacks, those who recruited these handsome, Arab James Deans, those who trained them are not "irreligious". They do everything - including murder - in the name of Islam. Why anyone would try to obscure or lie about that simple fact is something I will never try to understand.

[Pcdunn]

You've either purposely distorted this information or you simply don't understand it. Allow me to clarify what should be patently obvious.

Any objective, thinking human being understands that - contrary to the fairytale you tell above - Islamic terrorism is - ALWAYS - motivated by religion. Not religion IN GENERAL. It's motivated by Islam. Period. Full stop.

What IS true is that SOME terrorists - most often suicide bombers - are loners, misfits, etc. They are certainly NOT - in most cases - "irreligious". It's correct to say that - before their recruitment they MAY NOT have been "radical" Islamists. But, make no mistake, by the time ISIS, Hezbolah, Al Quaeda, et al, have finished "training" them they are fully radicalized and ready to die for ISLAM, not to impress their new buddies down at the mosque.

Even if these simply facts are put aside, even if we believe that these poor, misguided "rebels without a cause" are "irreligious" petty criminals with substance abuse problems who volunteered to die for their new friends because they want desperately to fit in, you must AT LEAST understand that these people - the terrorists doing some awful deed for Allah - are irrelevant. Their motivations are completely irrelevant. They're mere instruments used to kill infidels, no different than the bomb, the vest, the car loaded with explosives, the airplane that flew into the Trade Center and Pentagon. What's relevant is that those who planned the attacks, those who recruited these handsome, Arab James Deans, those who trained them are not "irreligious". They do everything - including murder - in the name of Islam. Why anyone would try to obscure or lie about that simple fact is something I will never try to understand.

Yes, but what KIND of Islam? The kind your average cab-driver in New York practices, or the fundamental crap terrorists like?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

That article is by a Palestinian-American student. He makes a good point. Racial profiling is one thing, but linking an entire faith to the murderous actions of zealots isn't right.

Don't get me wrong. Islam isn't my favorite creed on Earth, but I wouldn't want all Christians labeled as torturers due to the Spanish Inquisitors' crimes.

[Patrick S]

Yes, but what KIND of Islam? The kind your average cab-driver in New York practices, or the fundamental crap terrorists like?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

That article is by a Palestinian-American student. He makes a good point. Racial profiling is one thing, but linking an entire faith to the murderous actions of zealots isn't right.

Don't get me wrong. Islam isn't my favorite creed on Earth, but I wouldn't want all Christians labeled as torturers due to the Spanish Inquisitors' crimes.

I don't disagree. Although, I find always interesting that we have to go back to the Inquisition or the Crusades for examples of Christians behaving badly on a scale comparable to "modern" Islam. But, I get it. Moral equivalency is the new thirty. My point was directed at Karl's ridiculous assertion that these directionless, naïve outcasts, these "irreligious rebels without a cause" (who simply don't exist, by the way) are some indication that Islamic terrorism isn't motivated by, you know, ISLAM, but instead by some desperate desire for directionless, lapsed Muslims to fit in with the cool kids (aka ISIS)! It's absurd. Let's not devolve into hyperbole here. No one should suggest that being a Muslim means you're a prospective suicide bomber, future ISIS terrorist cell leader, or just a horrible person. But, let's also concede that ISIS is going to have better luck recruiting people willing to die for Allah at the local mosque rather than the local cathedral or temple.

[ChrisGeorge]

[Pcdunn]

I don't disagree. Although, I find always interesting that we have to go back to the Inquisition or the Crusades for examples of Christians behaving badly on a scale comparable to "modern" Islam. But, I get it. Moral equivalency is the new thirty. My point was directed at Karl's ridiculous assertion that these directionless, naïve outcasts, these "irreligious rebels without a cause" (who simply don't exist, by the way) are some indication that Islamic terrorism isn't motivated by, you know, ISLAM, but instead by some desperate desire for directionless, lapsed Muslims to fit in with the cool kids (aka ISIS)! It's absurd. Let's not devolve into hyperbole here. No one should suggest that being a Muslim means you're a prospective suicide bomber, future ISIS terrorist cell leader, or just a horrible person. But, let's also concede that ISIS is going to have better luck recruiting people willing to die for Allah at the local mosque rather than the local cathedral or temple.

I don't disagree, either, and do concede your final point.

We had a case of homegrown terrorism hit in Denver last night. A man working a second job as a transit guard was murdered by a white man who came up behind him and shot him in the neck in front of two women asking for light-rail information.The coward went home, where he was arrested on his patio, apparently praying. He is Ametican, from Texas, taught self-defense to kids, served in the military in Germany, but saw no combat, and apparently was kicked out of a mosque in Texas for "holding extreme views". Definitely fits the crazy loner stereotype, and whatever beef he had with cops seemed to be of his own making. He surrendered without a struggle.

[Karl]

Here's the thing about religion: it's fluff. It is powerless on its own, and cannot force people to do what they do not already want to do. Terrorists do not consult the Quran and say, "hm, it says here I am to kill infidels. I don't particularly want to, but if God wills it, I guess I have to." It is just the opposite: they want to attack a specific target, and then consult the Quran for a verse - any verse - which would justify it. Christians have been doing this since the inception of Christianity as well, which is why Christians have evoked God no less than Muslims in all their wars, religious or not. During WWII you had field priests blessing munitions and artillery pieces, and assuring the troops that God would grant them victory. German soldiers had "God with us" written on their belt buckles. And Americans may be familiar with "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition".

I am reminded of J. C. Squire's poem, banned during WWI:

God heard the embattled nations sing and shout:
"Gott strafe England!"* "God save the King!"
"God" this, "God" that and "God" the other thing.
"My God," said God, "I've got my work cut out."

*"Gott strafe England" ("God punish England") was a German war motto in WWI.


And the irreligous youth who are recruited to terrorism - they are not lured to terrorism with religion, but with a "righteous cause" - and religion is included in the package as an added bonus: if you die a martyr, you'll go to heaven. That's much more appealing, after all, than "if you die, nothing happens".

People also seem to think that "Allahu akhbar" is a sign of religious motivation. If they would look at various video clips, they will soon discover that "Allahu akhbar" - "God is great" - is an extremely common phrase which Arabs use in just about every occasion. They say it when someone is born, they say it when someone dies, they say it when something wonderful happens, they say it when something terrible happens. They say it when they attack, and they say it when they are being attacked. It's an exclamation, much like "oh my god". It is folly to make too much of it.

And obviously ISIS aren't going to have much luck recruiting in cathedrals, given that they are the ISLAMIC state. I doubt the KKK have much luck in mosques, either. Religion is an identifier, and of course you aren't going to recruit people with different religion. Just like during the Troubles, which had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and yet was polarized between Catholic and Protestant. People are like that: we are good at differentiating between "us" and "them". We know that our enemy is the enemy, and so everything that can be used to describe them but not us is interpreted as a sign of the enemy. For this reason, Chinese Americans were ostrasized during WWII same as Japanese because they looked the same (never mind the Chinese had far more reason to hate the Japanese). After 9/11, Sikhs were targetted as if they were Muslims, simply because of their turbans (as if turbans are a Muslim thing - but Afghan Muslims wear turbans, so there you go).

The Quran does not contain anything the Bible does not also contain, for better or worse. Either book can be interpreted to support any number of good or dastardly deeds. As history plainly shows us. To assume that religion came before the will is unsupported by the facts, which show us that there are all sorts of people in this world, even within the same religion. And if people became bloodthirsty simply from their religion, then these people would not be the exception, but the rule. Instead we see that religious people who are out for blood will interpret scripture rather differntly than people who are looking to get along. Man made God in his image, not the other way around.

Another thing to consider is this: whom do the terrorists target? It seems to me that the countries targeted for terrorism are typically countries which have had the most involvement in the Middle East. If it were as simple as "they hate us because we're not Muslim", then the terrorism would be evenly distributed according to Muslim population. Instead we see the US, the UK and France topping the list - even though their Muslim population is on the same level as other European countries.

So why do they attack us if not for religion? Could it have something to do with our involvement in bombing the homes of either them or their brethren in faith? We perceive them as attacking us, but they perceive themselves as defending themselves. And they do have a point. Terrorism is not the tactic of the aggressor - the aggressor moves in with conventional arms, and has superiority of land, sea and air. If one is not confident one will gain this superiority, one simply does not go to war. Terrorism is the tactic of someone who has no better way to fight.

When the Utøya massacre happened, lots of people thought it was Islamic terror at first. Personally I never entertained the thought for a second, and was actually surprised that anyone would think so. After all, the target made no sense from an Islamic perspective. Not only would Norway be an extremely unlikely target given our involvement to help Palestine and general lack of involvement everywhere else, but the people targeted belonged to the Norwegian Labour party, which even before the massacre was accused by the right of kow-towing to immigrants.

[Patrick S]

Here's the thing about religion: it's fluff. It is powerless on its own, and cannot force people to do what they do not already want to do. Terrorists do not consult the Quran and say, "hm, it says here I am to kill infidels. I don't particularly want to, but if God wills it, I guess I have to." It is just the opposite: they want to attack a specific target, and then consult the Quran for a verse - any verse - which would justify it. Christians have been doing this since the inception of Christianity as well, which is why Christians have evoked God no less than Muslims in all their wars, religious or not. During WWII you had field priests blessing munitions and artillery pieces, and assuring the troops that God would grant them victory. German soldiers had "God with us" written on their belt buckles. And Americans may be familiar with "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition".

I am reminded of J. C. Squire's poem, banned during WWI:

God heard the embattled nations sing and shout:
"Gott strafe England!"* "God save the King!"
"God" this, "God" that and "God" the other thing.
"My God," said God, "I've got my work cut out."

*"Gott strafe England" ("God punish England") was a German war motto in WWI.


And the irreligous youth who are recruited to terrorism - they are not lured to terrorism with religion, but with a "righteous cause" - and religion is included in the package as an added bonus: if you die a martyr, you'll go to heaven. That's much more appealing, after all, than "if you die, nothing happens".

People also seem to think that "Allahu akhbar" is a sign of religious motivation. If they would look at various video clips, they will soon discover that "Allahu akhbar" - "God is great" - is an extremely common phrase which Arabs use in just about every occasion. They say it when someone is born, they say it when someone dies, they say it when something wonderful happens, they say it when something terrible happens. They say it when they attack, and they say it when they are being attacked. It's an exclamation, much like "oh my god". It is folly to make too much of it.

And obviously ISIS aren't going to have much luck recruiting in cathedrals, given that they are the ISLAMIC state. I doubt the KKK have much luck in mosques, either. Religion is an identifier, and of course you aren't going to recruit people with different religion. Just like during the Troubles, which had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and yet was polarized between Catholic and Protestant. People are like that: we are good at differentiating between "us" and "them". We know that our enemy is the enemy, and so everything that can be used to describe them but not us is interpreted as a sign of the enemy. For this reason, Chinese Americans were ostrasized during WWII same as Japanese because they looked the same (never mind the Chinese had far more reason to hate the Japanese). After 9/11, Sikhs were targetted as if they were Muslims, simply because of their turbans (as if turbans are a Muslim thing - but Afghan Muslims wear turbans, so there you go).

The Quran does not contain anything the Bible does not also contain, for better or worse. Either book can be interpreted to support any number of good or dastardly deeds. As history plainly shows us. To assume that religion came before the will is unsupported by the facts, which show us that there are all sorts of people in this world, even within the same religion. And if people became bloodthirsty simply from their religion, then these people would not be the exception, but the rule. Instead we see that religious people who are out for blood will interpret scripture rather differntly than people who are looking to get along. Man made God in his image, not the other way around.

Another thing to consider is this: whom do the terrorists target? It seems to me that the countries targeted for terrorism are typically countries which have had the most involvement in the Middle East. If it were as simple as "they hate us because we're not Muslim", then the terrorism would be evenly distributed according to Muslim population. Instead we see the US, the UK and France topping the list - even though their Muslim population is on the same level as other European countries.

So why do they attack us if not for religion? Could it have something to do with our involvement in bombing the homes of either them or their brethren in faith? We perceive them as attacking us, but they perceive themselves as defending themselves. And they do have a point. Terrorism is not the tactic of the aggressor - the aggressor moves in with conventional arms, and has superiority of land, sea and air. If one is not confident one will gain this superiority, one simply does not go to war. Terrorism is the tactic of someone who has no better way to fight.

When the Utøya massacre happened, lots of people thought it was Islamic terror at first. Personally I never entertained the thought for a second, and was actually surprised that anyone would think so. After all, the target made no sense from an Islamic perspective. Not only would Norway be an extremely unlikely target given our involvement to help Palestine and general lack of involvement everywhere else, but the people targeted belonged to the Norwegian Labour party, which even before the massacre was accused by the right of kow-towing to immigrants.

Okay, Karl. Whatever helps you sleep at night. You are so full of far leftist moral equivocation that it's clear that no productive conversation is possible. It's also clear you have no understanding of Islam or the Middle East. I lived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for three years on a communications contract for Prince (name redacted). So, I have plenty of anecdotal stuff that might contradict the talking points you've cribbed the New York Times. Ask me about THEIR immigration laws sometime! Anyway, to each his own.

[Karl]

Okay, Karl. Whatever helps you sleep at night. You are so full of far leftist moral equivocation that it's clear that no productive conversation is possible. It's also clear you have no understanding of Islam or the Middle East. I lived in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for three years on a communications contract for Prince (name redacted). So, I have plenty of anecdotal stuff that might contradict the talking points you've cribbed the New York Times. Ask me about THEIR immigration laws sometime! Anyway, to each his own.

That's a bit like saying, "I lived with the Amish for three years so I have plenty of anecdotal stuff about Christianity". Anecdotal evidence is, of course, anecdotal - and aren't very useful in a constructive debate.

An open question: what are "good, Christian values"? What are "good, Islamic values"? The answer is, depends on whom you ask. The answer lies in culture, not their respective holy books. For example, many people associate female circumcision with Islam, but that practice is older than Islam. It happens to be a cultural trait which coexists with Islam in some countries, and consequently the practitioners - being Muslim - feel justified in Islam - even though it does not come from Islam.

Saudi Arabia, by the way, is not on Trump's banned list.

As for their immigration laws, I fail to see the relevance. They are not our teachers, surely?