pantherclub
Footballguy
Good then we can fight as a country and not an ideology. Its stupid to suggest just because we broke Iraq that we have some obligation to hang around.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
More Terrorism in France, or Something else? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Soulfly3
- Start date
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
Twitter in particular has taken steps to identify and stem radical messaging. However what you are suggesting is removing a capability from an entire region or sub region, that IMO goes against the freedoms we stand for in this country.
I find all this very interesting. A lot if the same people who rail on the NSA (not you shader) for their perceived powers, are also the same people who want Twitter and other social media platforms closed to specific people. They also want America to "do something" to protect America from terrorism, but are afraid NSA might see their midget porn.
bueno
In a class by himself
It takes a long time to get a visa - there is plenty of time of vetting, yet we do a terrible job of it when it comes to certain groups because we don't want to profile. Its crazy.
As to home-grown terrorists, just because someone is born here doesn't mean they aren't susceptible to Wahhabi propaganda. That is the real danger of not controlling immigration. For example, Omar Mateen's father should never have been let in, which means that American-born terrorist wouldn't have been American. How many other second-generation immigrants will turn terrorist? We don't know. All we know is that our immigration policies are in part to blame for home-grown terrorism.
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
We never leave. What country have we left that we defeated in an invasion. Japan, Germany, still maintain bases in Korea
shader
Footballguy
So rather than shut off twitter to the Middle East, bomb them instead and kill a bunch of children in the process?
Social media wasn't defined in the US constitution. Neither was internet access.
It's like a firewall. A firewall is a device that is designed to keep people out of your companies' network. So you build a firewall around the MIddle East. They can't access the internet.
But what you can do with a firewall is create exceptions. If you're a legitimate business, you can gain access. If you're a person that is approved by the government for internet access, (whatever that criteria might be), then fine you can have access.
sho nuff
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
Immigration is less ambiguous IMO, and your opinion is a good one. We don't want to militarize our southern border, but we do need to police it better. A police state and surveillance policies on American citizens is downright Orwellian.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I understand the concept - but blocking off all information access to a large region will result in information only coming from the people that are the problem to begin with. You might actually make it worse.
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
Neither were automatic firearms, helicopters, or telephones. Again, some people won't hear of changing the constitution unless it fits their own narrative. Take my assault rifle? Hell no, constitution says I can own that. Shut down the twitters? Damn right, 1st amendment was written before social media!
Parrothead
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
I haven't thought it through. But the bottom line is that you have to figure out a way to keep ISIS off the internet or to keep ISIS from infecting the minds of angry and delusional people everywhere. I think from a technological standpoint, the ability to do that exists now.
shader
Footballguy
I don't see a lot of North Korean terrorists bombing the world, and I don't see a lot of North Korean propaganda infecting the minds of millions.
Parrothead
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
The problem is that Russia is seen as an Assad ally - the agreement will look like a betrayal to the forces we support there.
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Sure. You give security agencies free reign to track them without need for oversight, and upon being tracked and hacking into the telecommunication being used by them, you use targetd airstrikes, assaults and tech attacks on them, their resources and the companies and business that work with them.
bueno
In a class by himself
That was then, this is now. Israel can pretty much defend itself against its neighbors without our help now. Freeing them from the US leash though, might have some unintended consequences.
bueno
In a class by himself
Democracy will never work in a culture based on complete submission to the will of Allah.
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Open audition for dictators, 2-6pm Monday 7/18, Damascus, Syria Marriott, Ballroom 3.
Vanilla Guerrilla
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
Probably. But, when they are ready to fight for those types of freedoms, they are probably ready to move on from some of the strict adherence to select passages from Allah.
My point is more that the people have to want those changes enough to die for, before it will take root. (And, that we have a financial incentive to keep meddling - those that think we are doing this to spread democracy or freedoms, should think again.)
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
And a lot of the problem with our Middle Eastern policy seems to not understand this. The historically most stable Arab governments in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, and Jordan are not democracies. Of the predominantly Muslim nations only Indonesia and to a lesser extent Pakistan, have had success with democracy. And in both cases those nations are impacted by "eastern culture" especially Indonesia.
Eta: turkey also with a European influence and mindset
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me ask you, or anyone else here, a question about this. Why do you think this is? We have plenty of smart people who study and advise on this - I doubt they do not understand this pitfall.
I think the notion of a "failed" policy only comes into play if you consider that our policy is designed to bring peace, democracy, and freedoms to the people of the Middle East. We have pretty clearly failed in that regard. I am beginning to question whether that is our real policy goal in the region.
FishTacoTuesday
Footballguy
Not sure they are. Small incremental changes work in these places (like allowing women to drive) but democracy simply will not work in many of these countries, Iraq is a shining example. Egypt too.
Iran is actually one of the more socially liberal nations in the region, and democracy failed badly there too.
bueno
In a class by himself
sho nuff
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
A very large Jewish state. More Arabs treated as second class citizens, Arabs banned from Jerusalem, my crystal ball isn't specific.
bueno
In a class by himself
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Psst...so did we. Or who did you think we were supporting when they were fighting the Soviets?
You realize, he came here a while ago, right?
Pwingles
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
sho nuff
Footballguy
The point being...you claim a policy would have kept him out. But since we were supporting the same things...it would not have kept him out at that time.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Since about that time, war had been literally continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. For several months during his childhood there had been confused street fighting in London itself, some of which he remembered vividly. But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia.
T J
Footballguy
His was an opinion, not a statement of fact so it is most definitely not "unequivocally true".
But I do agree nonetheless.
That said, I do vigorously support deporting any and all Muslims we can definitively identify as radicalized. I absolutely support that.
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
What I mean is that just because we supported them in ousting the Soviets doesn't mean we should let them come here.
T J
Footballguy
If they're radicalized they are in my opinion an enemy of the state. I genuinely believe that.
The "where" is obviously a question that needs thought, but my knee jerk response is to say I don't care where - just so long as it's not here.
sho nuff
Footballguy
So, what sort of policy were you in favor of that would have kept him out? You said his politics...but our support of those same politics at the time, what would have been the reasoning to deny him entry? Anyone who is political at all?
Godsbrother
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
Obviously, we wouldn't deport American citizens, but deportation of radicalized non-citizens does address the problem in part. As to naturalized citizens, they do take a pledge to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land. I don't know if there is a legal way to strip them of citizenship if they do not, but then how can you uphold the Constitution and the Koran? They are somewhat incompatible.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Parrothead
Footballguy
T J
Footballguy
No. Radical Islam has a stated goal of trying to destroy us which makes them an enemy. If there is another ideology with that as a goal that outwardly acts on it, then sure, throw them in, but yours is a broad stroke question, whereas my views are, for now, narrowly focused.
bueno
In a class by himself
