Author The Refugees  (Read 36899 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #90 on: December 08, 2015, 01:39:01 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35037701
Quote

    The pro-Jewish Anti-Defamation League said the plan was "deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation's deepest values.
    "In the Jewish community, we know all too well what can happen when a particular religious group is singled out for stereotyping and scapegoating."
While true they had bad treatment in many places throughout history why can't we at least treat the Muslims as they do in Israel or the occupied territory? I'm not going full-bore Goldie etc haha but I do find odd how so many of the politicians, activists, and those clamoring for inclusion and refugees are of the tribe (albeit mainly secular or reformed) and defend Israel in any of their actions and even the basis of having a state legally based on a religion. Still seeking revenge on Europeans due to 1290 in England, countries not accepting refugees during WWII, or The Holocaust- or just double-standards?

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #91 on: December 08, 2015, 01:44:25 PM »
The young hipster version of John Birch Society

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #92 on: December 08, 2015, 01:49:51 PM »
Great idea, but finding them is going to be a problem as has been said before. We can raze all of Syria to the ground, everyone and everything. But it won't kill the beast. You cannot kill a philosophy, and this is what makes Trump dangerous and Obama naive. Trump because he thinks it's simply a matter of stopping any Muslim entering America; (Quote) "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Is that a suggestion he doesn't know either? I'm fairly certain the alphabet agencies in the west have stopped and monitored far more attempts to kill than have actually happened, they just don't say so.

And Obama because he made the mistake of going on too long the other day in his chat to the nation. ISIS would love to have him as a trophy kill so it's plain silly to suggest he's sympathetic to them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35037701
Almost certainly not; it hasn't worked out twice before, I doubt we'll get third time lucky and frankly the appetite isn't there. US and UK lost military personell and it isn't popular to fight other countries' battles.

Leaving them alone and doing nothing, is tacit approval to their own barbarism, that we rightly condemn.

For the same reason that we should not have gone into Iraq in 2002, we should not go into Saudi Arabia.  The devil you know...etc. 
Besides the Saudi Royal Family is the only thing preventing true chaos from overwhelming that country.


Re: The Refugees
« Reply #93 on: December 08, 2015, 01:50:48 PM »
The MOOOOOOslims would be far happier in a designated safe area in Syria. THE END.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #94 on: December 08, 2015, 02:04:39 PM »
For the same reason that we should not have gone into Iraq in 2002, we should not go into Saudi Arabia.  The devil you know...etc. 
Besides the Saudi Royal Family is the only thing preventing true chaos from overwhelming that country.

the problem is that they pretty much operate identically to the terrorists and are being duplicitous about their allegiances. They offer condemnation of terrorism while secretly supporting it. It's not conspiracy theory to point out that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. That's fact. This double play thing going on in the Muslim world is going to turn out to be the biggest Trojan horse in history...and everyone's falling for it. You gotta hand it to them. We're being brilliantly played.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #95 on: December 08, 2015, 05:35:32 PM »
Five gay asylum seekers in Amsterdam have been moved to a new location after they were spat on and attacked by other people in their refugee center.

Quote
A spokesman for the Salvation Army, which is in charge of refugee accommodation in the capital, said the menís safety could not be guaranteed in their former housing. ĎThey often donít dare to leave their rooms,í Philip Tijsma from gay rights lobby group COC told the Parool.

I imagine 2015 U.S/Canadian society could leave this peaceful bunch quite parched.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #96 on: December 08, 2015, 07:00:37 PM »
the problem is that they pretty much operate identically to the terrorists and are being duplicitous about their allegiances. They offer condemnation of terrorism while secretly supporting it. It's not conspiracy theory to point out that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. That's fact. This double play thing going on in the Muslim world is going to turn out to be the biggest Trojan horse in history...and everyone's falling for it. You gotta hand it to them. We're being brilliantly played.

So what is the alternative?  Just nuke Mecca and be done with it?  That will really stir things up.  Go into SA like we did to Iraq?  What is your proposition?  I'm all ears eyes.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #97 on: December 08, 2015, 07:06:44 PM »
So what is the alternative?  Just nuke Mecca and be done with it?  That will really stir things up.  Go into SA like we did to Iraq?  What is your proposition?  I'm all ears eyes.
Naval blockade, mine the major harbors, landmines in other areas, no fly-zone over the whole region. No trade, no humanitarian aide, no more arm sales or funds to any group there, no more refugees. Use our troops to move out the fifth columnists already in our countries (where legal, if not at least to secure our borders.) Seize all assets of "royals," governments, and terrorists in our banks (private and reserve) and use those assets to fund the security zone around the region. Let them do their jihad and internecine warfare. Until there is a few left standing, or none, then, if we want it go back and get their oil. In the meantime use hydrocarbons we have in the USA, Canada, Russia, Mexico, Brasil, Arctic, Norway, etc and develop new technologies.
That or investigate if Dr.Wouter Bosson is progressing with his experiments. Kidding, on both?  ;)

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #98 on: December 08, 2015, 07:14:35 PM »
We may have to do something in Arabia eventually but I'd like to wait until the House of Saud falls.  Just my opinion. I'd rather not get in yet another entanglement.  ISIS and Al Qaeda are one thing but another front.  No thanks.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #99 on: December 08, 2015, 07:27:10 PM »
Naval blockade, mine the major harbors, landmines in other areas, no fly-zone over the whole region. No trade, no humanitarian aide, no more arm sales or funds to any group there, no more refugees. Use our troops to move out the fifth columnists already in our countries (where legal, if not at least to secure our borders.) Seize all assets of "royals," governments, and terrorists in our banks (private and reserve) and use those assets to fund the security zone around the region. Let them do their jihad and internecine warfare. Until there is a few left standing, or none, then, if we want it go back and get their oil. In the meantime use hydrocarbons we have in the USA, Canada, Russia, Mexico, Brasil, Arctic, Norway, etc and develop new technologies.
That or investigate if Dr.Wouter Bosson is progressing with his experiments. Kidding, on both?  ;)

Not gonna happen.  You think American corporations and other Westerners with big investments in the ME (like Donald Trump) are willing to risk their riches on a clash of ideologies?

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #100 on: December 08, 2015, 07:43:46 PM »
For the same reason that we should not have gone into Iraq in 2002, we should not go into Saudi Arabia.  The devil you know...etc. 
Besides the Saudi Royal Family is the only thing preventing true chaos from overwhelming that country.
The chaos is there, just packaged for export.  The "royals" are deathly afraid ISIS will leak back to its Saudi Salafist roots.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #101 on: December 08, 2015, 07:54:52 PM »
Muslim refugees (& all other potential immigrants) may have "constitution rights." I understand the US can't permanently ban Muslims, however, changing the language (swapping in "hostile countries/territories" for "Muslims") appears to be a loophole around 'freedom of religion.' US National Immigration laws have so many other overlapping laws, would result in providing arguments for both sides.

Personally, I have no problem with (temporarily) halting refugees from hostile countries.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #102 on: December 08, 2015, 08:13:47 PM »
Not gonna happen.  You think American corporations and other Westerners with big investments in the ME (like Donald Trump) are willing to risk their riches on a clash of ideologies?
Oh I doubt we have the will to confront our enemies. All civilizations and cultures, and even more so countries, die or at least decline.

But maybe these "rich" folks, governments, and companies would if they realized there could be money in it (oil&gas prices would go up- good for many people, companies,) more jobs in domestic areas and so less threat (more so in Europe/Russia than here) of the "little people" rioting or rising up against them, less losses due to terrorism (less cost of insurance, reinsurance, and lawsuits,) and the cost/contracts to produce the mines, drones, and personnel to maintain the no-fly, no trade zone over the ME (lots of fat government contracts and defense spending.) More money spend by consumers, travel, etc (not afraid of Muslims so will go travel to NYC for New Years or Paris to enjoy etc.) And for the politicians! Happy voters, help erase deficits with all those seized monies, gold, vehicles, property owned by ME countries but located in our countries. There could even be "reality tv" shows: catch the Muslim. Or "vote the radical out?" Or "Amazing Race-esque?"


Re: The Refugees
« Reply #104 on: December 08, 2015, 08:54:18 PM »
Smiling in his mugshot. He's been in the states for 4 years.




Re: The Refugees
« Reply #105 on: December 08, 2015, 09:00:47 PM »
Muslim refugees (& all other potential immigrants) may have "constitution rights." I understand the US can't permanently ban Muslims, however, changing the language (swapping in "hostile countries/territories" for "Muslims") appears to be a loophole around 'freedom of religion.' US National Immigration laws have so many other overlapping laws, would result in providing arguments for both sides.

Personally, I have no problem with (temporarily) halting refugees from hostile countries.

Constitutional Rights only apply to American citizens.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #106 on: December 08, 2015, 09:09:03 PM »
Constitutional Rights only apply to American citizens.

That's what I thought, too. What I'm understanding, it would be argued that keeping Muslims out, would be considered "non Constitutional." We'll see.


Re: The Refugees
« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2015, 09:21:59 PM »
Muslim migrant beats, rapes North Dakota woman while chanting "Allahu Akbar"
I wish Obama and all these other politicians here and in Europe would be forced to have their children to live amongst, go to school, play in the park, or have jobs in which they would have contact with the immigrants, illegals, and "refugees" they demand and coerce to come into our countries. I guarantee in a few short months their political perspective would change. Well, I don't wish that because unlike them I don't want people raped or killed, and it is not the children's fault that those are their parents. But it would certainly change their perspective- but maybe it wouldn't considering their craven, selfish nature. But maybe if THEIR SS, armed security, military protection, or private security details etc took a "blue flu" for a few days or at a key event or during one of their lavish vacations or junkets? And they, personally, got to meet a precious illegal, terrorist, or "refugee" up close and personal? Too bad due to sovereign immunity all the victims of their policies and personal or political whims have no civil recourse after the fact to, at least, mitigate and recover from the damages their immigrants caused them.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2015, 09:31:01 PM »
But, he might not be a "real" Muslim...  ;D

Naw, bruv. His sis well verified his authenticity.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #110 on: December 08, 2015, 10:23:21 PM »
That's what I thought, too. What I'm understanding, it would be argued that keeping Muslims out, would be considered "non Constitutional." We'll see.

I'd like to question whoever is making that argument and I want them to point out the clauses that apply to immigrants.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #111 on: December 08, 2015, 10:29:26 PM »

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #112 on: December 08, 2015, 11:02:14 PM »
Constitutional Rights only apply to American citizens.
Its not clear cut.  14th Amendment says all get "equal protection", citizen or not.  That's why Bush put AQ and Taliban in Gitmo.  Else, as soon as they'd touch the US they be able lawyer up, and most legal rights apply. I think for immigration, due process per US Immigration Law is all that's necessary.   Immigrants and tourists aren't in the US until they pass the ICE desk. 

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #113 on: December 08, 2015, 11:38:38 PM »
Naw, bruv. His sis well verified his authenticity.

Piss be upon him.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #114 on: December 08, 2015, 11:45:05 PM »
Its not clear cut.  14th Amendment says all get "equal protection", citizen or not.  That's why Bush put AQ and Taliban in Gitmo.  Else, as soon as they'd touch the US they be able lawyer up, and most legal rights apply. I think for immigration, due process per US Immigration Law is all that's necessary.   Immigrants and tourists aren't in the US until they pass the ICE desk.

Changing the legal language to less specific; like a region and threat oriented, should do the trick. I have one credible source telling me: it's Constitutional to straight ban Muslims. I'm waiting for a citation.   

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #115 on: December 08, 2015, 11:59:57 PM »
Changing the legal language to less specific; like a region and threat oriented, should do the trick. I have one credible source telling me: it's Constitutional to straight ban Muslims. I'm waiting for a citation.
14th Ratified under duress or at least, by ANY modern definition of coercion and intrigue, so rule it invalid (pass this under military occupation or you won't get represented but you never left the country, because it was illegal to do so, we say, so you are still a citizen/state but unless you pass this, or take an oath, you aren't? Basically.)  ;) Then, over turn a few other SC cases and we back to a country that can handle problems, at least on a local level since the Feds won't secure the border, take care of terrorists, etc. Most State laws ensure civil rights and new laws could be made nationally with more logic towards protecting the country and honest citizens.

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #116 on: December 09, 2015, 12:04:28 AM »
Changing the legal language to less specific; like a region and threat oriented, should do the trick. I have one credible source telling me: it's Constitutional to straight ban Muslims. I'm waiting for a citation.
But more seriously, you saw all the new laws and regulations Obama put in over Thanksgiving, right? Most were involved with many, many things, almost every aspect of our live, businesses, and land. But several of them were sanctions/rules on people, countries, companies that couldn't do business, trade, come here etc (called "entities" on various lists.) Doesn't even take Congress these days. He has done worse with his DREAMER and other stuff. There are enough Executive Order, regulatory agencies, Executive agencies, and Presidential Proclamations precedents, sadly, that he could stop the terrorist (and cartel) threat (and prior attacks who were usually 'on radar' or from 'known countries') if he wished to do so. It is CLEAR he DOESN'T. Because he could do so, almost immediately.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST&currentPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=0000&Image58.x=50&Image58.y=25&Image58=Submit

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #117 on: December 09, 2015, 12:11:06 AM »
I'll leave this here...

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #118 on: December 09, 2015, 12:18:02 AM »
But more seriously, you saw all the new laws and regulations Obama put in over Thanksgiving, right? Most were involved with many, many things, almost every aspect of our live, businesses, and land. But several of them were sanctions/rules on people, countries, companies that couldn't do business, trade, come here etc (called "entities" on various lists.) Doesn't even take Congress these days. He has done worse with his DREAMER and other stuff. There are enough Executive Order, regulatory agencies, Executive agencies, and Presidential Proclamations precedents, sadly, that he could stop the terrorist (and cartel) threat (and prior attacks who were usually 'on radar' or from 'known countries') if he wished to do so. It is CLEAR he DOESN'T. Because he could do so, almost immediately.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_LIST&currentPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=0000&Image58.x=50&Image58.y=25&Image58=Submit

I understand your frustration. I think he means well, but man... He annoys me much more than I thought he would. 1st black president, though. So there's that.  :)

Re: The Refugees
« Reply #119 on: December 09, 2015, 12:18:13 AM »
I'll leave this here...
Yes, but the '65 Immigration reformed doomed the country and then subsequent law (and now just plain executive and regulatory stuff and open-border and "refugee") just spins the water faster down the drain.