BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

They're just providing training and funding...

Shahter wrote:

the travel ban is for people from the following countries:

lybia
siria
sudan
yemen
somalia
iraq
iran

enlighten me, what kinda race aspect could there be that would give you that list, and not the rest of islamic, arab or african regions?

so your argument is that because they haven't banned EVERY muslim-majority country in the world, that can't be the rationale? will the ban have to include indonesia to satisfy you?

the simple problem is that the ordinary citizens of these countries are not funding terrorism or propping up extremist thought. are you incriminated with all the russian neo nazis and thugs because you share the same passport? well educated liberal iranians with green cards are being prevented from re-entering the states. how closely connected do you think an ophthalmologist from tehran is to terror networks?

uziq wrote:

so your argument is that because they haven't banned EVERY muslim-majority country in the world, that can't be the rationale?

no. in fact, i'm not making an argument here at all, i'm talking to a person i met on internetz with whom it seems we have different notions of what "race" is.

will the ban have to include indonesia to satisfy you?

if the claim was made that islam was the point - yes. i don't think it is though. but neither is race.

the simple problem is that the ordinary citizens of these countries are not funding terrorism or propping up extremist thought. are you incriminated with all the russian neo nazis and thugs because you share the same passport? well educated liberal iranians with green cards are being prevented from re-entering the states. how closely connected do you think an ophthalmologist from tehran is to terror networks?

/sigh
would you stop with virtue signaling? please? those^ would all be valid points if i supported the ban on the basis that "all muslims are terrorists". i don't. the fact of the matter, i don't give a damn. i was simply looking for opinions, and yours seems... bizarre. race? come on.

uziq wrote:

and i already said in my first fucking post not to be pedantic about calling anti-islamic discrimination 'racism'.

well, given the topic of discussion, it seems important. because, no matter how you put it, "anti-islamic discrimination" doesn't come nearly close to describing the criteria used in making that list imo.

we have this semantics debate every time. call it whatever you want – manifestly unjust is what it is.

well, that's politics for you.

maybe so. wouldn't affect me though - wouldn't move to the libertard-infested shithole like usa for all the welfare money in the world.

can't believe shahter thinks he is making intelligent points. such a wise guy. "that's politics for you". so wise! truly a man of this earth.

go and eat your mother's cunt

you are the most tedious person on this forum. you don't add anything. you just split hairs and then shrug off everything with your faux-realist jaded bullshit when you get cornered on a point. you are pondweed.

I'm an open borders guy, but I can sort of understand banning immigration from the utterly broken countries on the list. Aside from Iranians, they tend not to integrate well.

It is not surprising to see you falling in line behind Trumpism.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Then again, most of the Iranians I've met are Christian or Jewish and were fleeing persecution.

the vast majority of iranians who left were the educated middle-class. don't obscure the fact they were and are muslims who have integrated perfectly well into american society.

I'm not denying that at all. But I think people are very quick to have their heartstrings tugged over refugees from that part of the world without understanding the effort that must be made to integrate these people into our societies successfully. You can't just plop them down in ghettoes and toss them welfare benefits like Sweden has done and call it a day. They need to be taught how to navigate our roads, our schools, how to use a library, how to find work etc. Very basic stuff, but you need either a (vetted, because we don't need sponsors on welfare teaching arrivees how to game the system) foster-family style sponsorship system or a very robust government integration system in order to support it. I am pro immigration, I just also feel strongly that it needs to be done correctly and with the right support structure in place. I don't believe that their religions necessarily hold them back, but I do believe that the religious governments that they have lived under have so far retarded their advancement that it becomes a burden to bring them up to speed with the way the West lives. If we as societies are willing to help them enough to make the transition, then I'm fine with them coming here.

uziq wrote:

the immediate role of accepting refugees isn't to have them integrate as full citizens. it is to provide refuge from an imminent threat. it's sort of in the name. are you a global bastion of human rights or not?

and you're making some convoluted argument that the administration aren't making. their reason is terror threats. 2 americans per year have been killed on average by foreign jihadis since 9/11 on american soil. seems like a legit threat to deny all those refugees.i

I'm expressing my own opinion, not Trump's. O'Bannon is a racist who thinks he's going to lead a Crusader army back into the middle east with the US in the lead.

We should be taking the refugee men and boys and training them to fight. We then arm them and reintroduce them into Syria with total western air and ground support. We use them to carve safe zones out of the territory held by ISIS and AQ. We then protect them from the government.

boom, just solved the refugee crisis.