Tony_Tarantula on 8/6/2017 at 22:20
What makes you think they're all that different? Both had largely the same campaign contributers, the same cozy relationship with Saudia Arabia and Israel, the same "we have the right to do everything" war on terror policies, and...hell it's a huge list.
Obama was to the point that Dick Cheney had glowing praise for his foreign policy: (
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/dick-cheney-praises-obama-on-drone-use-087511)
Even if you do accept that they're the same parties, continuing the previous course of action doesn't make it OK.
Nevermind that the Obama administration seemed hellbent on starting another major war in Syria to remove Assad and even gave off the appearance of being willing to risk World War 3 in order to make that happen. Around 2011-2012 we even had fictional literature surrounding our training that involved my unit being involved in an invasion of a country that just so happened to have the same ethnic composition, be about the same sized population, have about the same geography, with the same languages as Syria. That they instead had to settle for covert action doesn't make it better.
Hell it's Obama more than anybody else (except, arguably, the Saudi royal family or Israel) who is responsible for the entire refugee crisis to begin with.
SD on 9/6/2017 at 15:49
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
I'd echo the question on the first part: why is that your average soccer hooligan gets his travel rights lifted, but people can go fight with ISIS and be allowed to return to the UK no questions asked?
Oh, that's easy. It's because the Tory government refuse to utilise the Temporary Exclusion Orders that were brought in by the coalition government in 2014. TEOs prevent British citizens suspected of involvement in terror activities abroad from returning to the UK unless they give themselves up to authorities at the border.
In the last two years, against 350 suspected jihadis returning from Syria, they've imposed a grand total of one TEO. You'd have to ask them why.
heywood on 9/6/2017 at 16:02
Quote Posted by Krush
You guys keep saying there is no uncontrolled migration, that all these folks are carefully vetted. I have seen no evidence of this. Plus some of their countries don't have paper trials to "vet" or they will have fake papers (especially if they are part of ISIS).
Let me know when an individual that we've vetted goes on to commit an act of terrorism or gets caught trying to.
Daxim on 9/6/2017 at 16:08
Quote Posted by Starker
whether we should we start banning all nationalists because of violent extremist nationalists like Breivik.
No, because there are both absolutely and comparatively very few extremist nationalists. The current means of dealing with them are fine and do not need to be expanded or made severe, IMO.
I do think that (
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/religion/5231187/Studie_Jeder-dritte-Muslim-hochfundamentalistisch) a third of the Muslims having highly fundamental attitudes is reason for concern.
Starker on 9/6/2017 at 19:23
Since 9/11, more incidents and more deaths in the US are caused by far right extremists than islamist extremists.
Also, do you think that a lot of christians holding fundamental attitudes, such as believing the Bible is literally true, is likewise a reason for concern?
Kolya on 9/6/2017 at 19:45
So how is the bridge holding up?
Starker on 9/6/2017 at 19:51
With some counseling I believe it will be fine.
Gryzemuis on 9/6/2017 at 23:03
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, do you think that a lot of christians holding fundamental attitudes, such as believing the Bible is literally true, is likewise a reason for concern?
Hell yeah.
Starker on 10/6/2017 at 00:05
Well, according to the (
http://www.start.umd.edu/news/threats-violent-islamist-and-far-right-extremism-what-does-research-say) University of Maryland's START consortium, far right extremism has led to more deaths than islamic extremism in that period -- 119 deaths versus 158 deaths, based on their database.
But the larger point is that far right extremism is clearly a significant threat that, at least in the US, rivals that of islamic terrorism. So, the question remains, if muslims should be banned based on acts perpetrated by the radical muslims, should nationalists also be banned based on the acts of far right extremists? And I don't mean just people who read the Daily Stormer and have a copy of The Turner Diaries.
