Trump Moves In

First topic message reminder :

Okay, so the American Election thread has run its course and it has been proven in a bombshell wikileak today that all Intelligence agencies involved (American, Russian, British, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Australian and Brazilian) are now in total agreement that the election was above board, clean, non-contentious, valid and entertaining.

So onto the special day.  What a celebration we're all going to have tomorrow as the most popular President in the history of Illuminati Conspiracy Theory stands on a half filled podium and puts his hand on the book - that cannot be named lest it offend some of the sensitive Satanist protesters present - and swears allegiance to his family, his business empire, his twitter account and Alex Jones.

I believe he intends to make a conciliatory speech whereby he'll pledge to continue the war on terrorism by suppressing Rosie O'Donnell's freedom of movement and methods of funding.  He might even declare sanctions on Meryl Streep but he secretly loves her so....well, the CIA better keep an eye on that one.  Trump might be caught fraternising with the enemy yet again if she ever accepts the dove's feather of peace and attends one of his many planned orgies at Trump House.

We all waited impatiently for this day and now it's upon us.  Let's hope the marksman is off to the right a little.  Let's hope the bomb fails to go off.  Let's hope the protesters keep away from matches and keep their bras on.  But apart from all that, lets' discuss the bright future ahead under Donald Trump.

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: Trump now wants to persecute non white people and many are flocking to his call but please remember GOD controls this world and he has said in the bible that those who lead into captivity will themselves go into captivity its time to drop this myth of white supremacy and join with the rest of the world as one.

Why don't all them nice peoples that are afflicted by all the Whites and things just go and live in Saudi Arabia or China?  Why do all the people that does be hating white people for all the things their ancestors done still like going to places where white people have big jobs and nice cars, and beer that's cold, and women that dress hot, and entertainment, and music, and films, and plays, and opera, and deep sea fishing, and Disney for the kids, and mountains to climb, and rivers to canoe in, and parks to play in and elections to vote in?

You are saying the non-white people who have lived in the US for centuries should move to china/saudi arabia, rather than engage in political action in their home country? Or are you implying that non-whites have some sort of a choice in the country where they are born and raised?

I'm saying neither.

"Trump wants to persecute non-white people"

Now, since you've commented on it. You be the one to tell me what that means? Does it mean he wants to persecute non-white Americans that have lived in the US for centuries? If you say "yes" then tell me the policies he proposes to persecute non-white perfectly legal US citizens.

Or does it mean that he is irritating illegal immigrants and/or prospective immigrants (btw, not 'undocumented' immigrants - illegal is the word)? Is Trump persecuting those people by telling them that from now on they'll have to fill in forms and be vetted more rigorously if they want to go live in the US?

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Bad man Trump - misogynist basterde - Hitlerian asswipe - .....

Are you really that scared of Isis Fly? They are a tiny, pathetic group who have gone backwards on every single one of their goals in the last 12 months. They are maybe a top 20 danger to the world order, behind, you know dozens of countries. The only thing that increases their power is treating them like soviet union 2. Which Trump has done, and continues to do.

If you think this order is about Trump acting tough on isis, pull another one. Please give the names of every single terrorist who has killed someone on US soil from the list of countries trump banned? Its a short list, shouldn't take long.

I'm not scared of Isis, Wolf.  (Neither would I have them round for tea and biscuits, mind you.)  We're talking about Americans here.  I had no vote.  So whether you or any of us like it or not, a great many of them (Americans) are afraid of Isis.  Let's deal with the facts.  "They shouldn't be", won't work.  "They are" is the fact.

Now, last 12 months Isis have "gone backwards on every single one of their goals" ?  

And who is mostly responsible for that period of putting them back in their box?  Yeah, the evil vote rigging Russians/Soviet Union 2.     It wasn't the lovely gent Barak Obama or his Defence Secretary or his never-off-a-plane Secretary of State.  It was those damn Russians wot did it.  Action before an endless drip of meaningless words.  How embarrassing/annoying for the last American administration - no wonder they tried everything to denigrate Russia before leaving office.  Ruskies got involved in a war some other profiteering folks didn't want ended.  Pesky, meddling Russians.

So do the maths.  Trump comes into office with the same mind as the Russians.  If there is an enemy there that needs to be taken out then simply take it out.  Quit the never-ending diplomatic crap talk.  
Trump is actually saying - for those with ears to listen - that Too Much of a deal has been made about Isis over the years; and indeed, the FEAR factor was actually ramped up over the years by the very media that now have your opinion on them - that they're a small fry group that are no big threat.  
Well, for all the lack of threat, they've certainly being influencing the migratory paths of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe for the last number of years.  Terror works obviously.  They're a big enough threat to cause absolute panic exoduses from the countries in the Middle East most directly affected by them.  So their threat to America is relative but real.  They threaten the stability of the Nations where refugees go to escape their influence.  
Proof?  Well, what are all of you talking about and protesting against for the last year or so?  Division, Populism, Nationalism, Far-Right, Fake News, LGBT fashionistas v rural red neck hicks, Hollywood v Internet Conspiracy Freaks, Anti-Immigration v Open Borders etc, etc.  
Stability threatened.  A world in flux.  Confusion and disbelief and that word again...Fear.  

The concept of Isis had no part to play in all of that?  Who created the concept of Isis and the tension of fear that came with them?  The very media that now pretend they always thought Isis were only a little rebel group that don't threaten nobody.  It's a little late for that shot at 'fake news'.  We all know who pushed the Isis panic from the beginning.

And that knowledge brings us neatly back to those non-Muslim, non-Middle-Eastern types who coldly profit in so many ways from the continued misery of peoples fleeing their own Nations.

Yeah, Isis are harmless.  Ignore them.  Let them have their eternal war there in Syria and Iraq.  None of our business.  Don't affect us. ........  Pull another one.

True, the ability for americans to be terrified of their own shadow is unparalleled, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to fall for the fear mongering. The media does not have a liberal bias (in the "democratic party sense", they do have a classical liberal Millian bias towards free expression, as they should do); but they have an unbelievable sensationalism bias. But again, encouraging people to think deeper about issues, to consider all factors is the answer, not putting in place a group of people who at best have a terrifying amount of ignorance about world affairs.

The current state of isis is where more complex than what you are making out. ISIS has been pushed back from the north by turkey, north east by the kurds and the east by Iraq (finally their troops are fighting hard). Kurds/Turkey/Iraq supported by US special forces. In effect this caused ISIS to redouble their efforts in syria.

The syrian civil war is roughly 3 sides. Asad/Russia, "moderate rebels" and ISIS. The Asad/Russians have decimated the moderates and damaged ISIS but that has added the fourth side of the box that Turkey/Iraq/Kurdistan had already been placing around them. Could the US have done more? (I agree they should have). But russia stronger than the US? On no metric is Russia stronger than the US. Italy has a larger economy than russia. Putin's power is still tied to the global price of oil (draw a chart of the correlation between the declining price of oil and the increase in russian belligerence, you see the distraction game Putin is playing to keep power). That being said, Russia is the number 1 destablizing force in the world today. Romney was right on that in 2012 and Obama (and I at the time) were wrong.

Finally, I believe that the syrian war is an epic, harrowing tragedy, and I have thought long and hard about the potential steps that the US could have taken to reduce the crisis, and come up with no actionable strategy that wouldn't be worse than what is happening now. Russia's aims are to prop up a dictator. Those are limited and easily achieved aims. The US, if they went in, would be Iraq II, a decade of attempted but mostly failed nation building. I am not saying ignore ISIS (a top 20 world threat is not worth ignoring), I am saying treat them as the size of threat they really are. The syrian war (and now, by proxy Russia) is the prime driver of the refugee crisis, not ISIS.

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: Trump now wants to persecute non white people and many are flocking to his call but please remember GOD controls this world and he has said in the bible that those who lead into captivity will themselves go into captivity its time to drop this myth of white supremacy and join with the rest of the world as one.

Why don't all them nice peoples that are afflicted by all the Whites and things just go and live in Saudi Arabia or China?  Why do all the people that does be hating white people for all the things their ancestors done still like going to places where white people have big jobs and nice cars, and beer that's cold, and women that dress hot, and entertainment, and music, and films, and plays, and opera, and deep sea fishing, and Disney for the kids, and mountains to climb, and rivers to canoe in, and parks to play in and elections to vote in?

You are saying the non-white people who have lived in the US for centuries should move to china/saudi arabia, rather than engage in political action in their home country? Or are you implying that non-whites have some sort of a choice in the country where they are born and raised?

I'm saying neither.  

"Trump wants to persecute non-white people"

Now, since you've commented on it.  You be the one to tell me what that means?  Does it mean he wants to persecute non-white Americans that have lived in the US for centuries?  If you say "yes" then tell me the policies he proposes to persecute non-white perfectly legal US citizens.  

Or does it mean that he is irritating illegal immigrants and/or prospective immigrants (btw, not 'undocumented' immigrants - illegal is the word)? Is Trump persecuting those people by telling them that from now on they'll have to fill in forms and be vetted more rigorously if they want to go live in the US?

He is persecuting non-white legal US residents. If you have a green card, you have constitutional protections in the US. His policies in the last week directly affected non-white legal US residents.

He currently has no policy in place to persecute non-white US citizens.

Preventing entry of people fleeing absolute hell,after going through a 2 year visa application process (the average amount of time a syrian refugee needs to gain access to the US) is a disgusting betrayal of america's values and far from "irritating". People will die because of this policy. We will look back on it, like we now look on the way the US turned back Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/)

wolfball wrote:

True, the ability for americans to be terrified of their own shadow is unparalleled, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to fall for the fear mongering. The media does not have a liberal bias (in the "democratic party sense", they do have a classical liberal Millian bias towards free expression, as they should do); but they have an unbelievable sensationalism bias. But again, encouraging people to think deeper about issues, to consider all factors is the answer, not putting in place a group of people who at best have a terrifying amount of ignorance about world affairs.

The current state of isis is where more complex than what you are making out. ISIS has been pushed back from the north by turkey, north east by the kurds and the east by Iraq (finally their troops are fighting hard). Kurds/Turkey/Iraq supported by US special forces. In effect this caused ISIS to redouble their efforts in syria.

The syrian civil war is roughly 3 sides. Asad/Russia, "moderate rebels" and ISIS. The Asad/Russians have decimated the moderates and damaged ISIS but that has added the fourth side of the box that Turkey/Iraq/Kurdistan had already been placing around them. Could the US have done more? (I agree they should have). But russia stronger than the US? On no metric is Russia stronger than the US. Italy has a larger economy than russia. Putin's power is still tied to the global price of oil (draw a chart of the correlation between the declining price of oil and the increase in russian belligerence, you see the distraction game Putin is playing to keep power). That being said, Russia is the number 1 destablizing force in the world today. Romney was right on that in 2012 and Obama (and I at the time) were wrong.

Finally, I believe that the syrian war is an epic, harrowing tragedy, and I have thought long and hard about the potential steps that the US could have taken to reduce the crisis, and come up with no actionable strategy that wouldn't be worse than what is happening now. Russia's aims are to prop up a dictator. Those are limited and easily achieved aims. The US, if they went in, would be Iraq II, a decade of attempted but mostly failed nation building. I am not saying ignore ISIS (a top 20 world threat is not worth ignoring), I am saying treat them as the size of threat they really are. The syrian war (and now, by proxy Russia) is the prime driver of the refugee crisis, not ISIS.

We disagree profoundly on the highlighted bit, Wolf.  Moderate rebels?  The Syrians laugh.  It's good for people in the West to sanctimoniously tag the different strands with different coloured outfits like a cosy cartoon.  
Asad, terrible dictator.  
Moderate Rebels - who don't kill people but only kill soldiers if they have to and they never cut heads off or kill women and children....or indeed, captured prisoners of war.
And then big bad Isis, that the Americans have admitted on more than one occasion to channelled funds to (to help them fight the big bad dictator guy in Syria again).  

You think of this deceitful muck of Western Imperialism rivalry (just the kind of Imperialist chess playing that was happening in advance of WWI) a true fight to help Syrians overcome a bad dictator? I don't believe that script for a second, Wolf.  I don't believe the official script for a second.
Why aren't the Russians and Americans in North Korea if their concern is so great for the afflicted?  Do those people not deserve 'freedom'?  North Korea even has more believable weapons of Mass Destruction than Iraq had.  The Americans love a good 'weapons of mass destruction' excuse to invade.  Why not North Korea?  And once more...what about China?  Totalitarian State Numero Uno on the planet.  I'm sure many millions more of those Chinese people would prefer a more democratic system that gave them the power to speak up for themselves rather than to bow obediently to the flag.

So we disagree - on the details of the Syrian war, on the true causes of the Syrian war and on the presumed best solution for Syria. And we disagree that Russia is the number 1 destabilising force in the world.

wolfball wrote:

He currently has no policy in place to persecute non-white US citizens.

Preventing entry of people fleeing absolute hell,after going through a 2 year visa application process (the average amount of time a syrian refugee needs to gain access to the US) is a disgusting betrayal of america's values and far from "irritating". People will die because of this policy. We will look back on it, like we now look on the way the US turned back Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/)

He has no policy in place to persecute non-white US citizens.

He is going to reframe the conditions of entry to his Nation.  He'll be within his rights to reframe the immigration policy of his Own Nation.  The USA has no obligation to be the home-from-home for the world's oppressed.  And it's a cheek for commentators from other Nations to declare that America should bow to the Global role that outsider theorists have designed for it.    
Neither has America the obligation to offer the hand of peace and assistance to certain people who culturally despise its very existence.  Americans have the right to vet those entering their Nation as robustly as they see fit, to check for which refugee is which refugee - is it one thankful for the refuge given to him/her or is it one coming in with a scowl of hatred for the culture he is about to enter and a determination to infest that culture with his own ideals?  America has the right to decide what kind of migrant it allows in.  The UN isn't the US.  The EU isn't the US.  Nobody has any worldy moral authority to demand compliance to a pseudo worldly code of moral conduct.

So I ask again: why the Urge for the many refugees - who are unable to stay in their own Nations because of a deliberate Imperialist policy amongst many Western Nations to displace the populations (through constant war) and destabilise the Nations they go to - why don't these refugees not naturally want to go to a country like Saudi Arabia - much closer geographically and culturally?  And why, if China is the New Superpower in this new Millennium, why don't they wish to go there?  Have they been invited?  

The Syrian conflict is a design.  It's funded in a big way by Western money, from Western profiteers and it's designed to push the migrants out of their own Nations and into the West.  So the Hell you refer to is a design.  And I say the solution is a quick end to the affected madness in Syria and surrounding territories and the return of people to their own homelands to build prosperous Nations for themselves and their children.  

Everyone talks about the poor refugees - nobody talks about the War Crime of a knowing and designed ethnic cleansing policy, driven by Western concerns and gambling speculators - because that's what's happening in Syria, in some African Nations and in other Nations circling the Mediterranean.

Mental.

superflyweight wrote:Mental.

Looking on the brightside City won 4-0

Trump has gone for Gorsuch which isn't the worse choice possible..

Still think the last judge passed on Obama's watch and it should have been his choice..

Democrats can try to filibuster but we'll see.

superflyweight wrote:Mental.

Keep to your BBC 'Once Upon a Time' stories by all means..... But don't let it interrupt your Eastenders omnibus editions.

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

He currently has no policy in place to persecute non-white US citizens.

Preventing entry of people fleeing absolute hell,after going through a 2 year visa application process (the average amount of time a syrian refugee needs to gain access to the US) is a disgusting betrayal of america's values and far from "irritating". People will die because of this policy. We will look back on it, like we now look on the way the US turned back Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/)

He has no policy in place to persecute non-white US citizens.

He is going to reframe the conditions of entry to his Nation.  He'll be within his rights to reframe the immigration policy of his Own Nation.  The USA has no obligation to be the home-from-home for the world's oppressed.  And it's a cheek for commentators from other Nations to declare that America should bow to the Global role that outsider theorists have designed for it.    
Neither has America the obligation to offer the hand of peace and assistance to certain people who culturally despise its very existence.  Americans have the right to vet those entering their Nation as robustly as they see fit, to check for which refugee is which refugee - is it one thankful for the refuge given to him/her or is it one coming in with a scowl of hatred for the culture he is about to enter and a determination to infest that culture with his own ideals?  America has the right to decide what kind of migrant it allows in.  The UN isn't the US.  The EU isn't the US.  Nobody has any worldy moral authority to demand compliance to a pseudo worldly code of moral conduct.

So I ask again: why the Urge for the many refugees - who are unable to stay in their own Nations because of a deliberate Imperialist policy amongst many Western Nations to displace the populations (through constant war) and destabilise the Nations they go to - why don't these refugees not naturally want to go to a country like Saudi Arabia - much closer geographically and culturally?  And why, if China is the New Superpower in this new Millennium, why don't they wish to go there?  Have they been invited?  

The Syrian conflict is a design.  It's funded in a big way by Western money, from Western profiteers and it's designed to push the migrants out of their own Nations and into the West.  So the Hell you refer to is a design.  And I say the solution is a quick end to the affected madness in Syria and surrounding territories and the return of people to their own homelands to build prosperous Nations for themselves and their children.  

Everyone talks about the poor refugees - nobody talks about the War Crime of a knowing and designed ethnic cleansing policy, driven by Western concerns and gambling speculators - because that's what's happening in Syria, in some African Nations and in other Nations circling the Mediterranean.

Trump, the US, Ireland, everyone has the right to change their immigration policy as they see fit. But, I really don't think you get the self idealized version of america. And it is an idealized version, and was never true, as every immigrant group to settle in the US had to elbow hard for their place at the table, but there is something on the statue of liberty for a reason "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door". No one made the US seek out that role. They sought it out. And if they turn their back on their ideals (again no matter how rubbish they ever were at sticking to them), the world is a darker place. Do you disagree? Do you want a world where refugees live in camps in Lebanon rather than become a builder in ohio?

Besides all that, where are most of the syrian refugees today? Turkey (+2 million), Lebanon (1 million), Jordon (650,000). The US let in 15,000 in 2016. You mention Saudi arabia over and over- you are familiar with the differences in Islam? How dangerous it is for a shia syrian refugee to show up on a Saudi Arabian border? You do know these are mostly women and children fleeing horror? Can you see your wife or children (if you have them, parents if not) in the position? Can you see they are real people?

"The Syrian conflict is a design.  It's funded in a big way by Western money, from Western profiteers and it's designed to push the migrants out of their own Nations and into the West.

Get specific, because this is tin-foil hat territory. Western money from who, which profiteers are you talking about?

" a knowing and designed ethnic cleansing policy"

Again, who is responsible for this policy specifically and which ethnicities are the aim of the cleansing?

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

True, the ability for americans to be terrified of their own shadow is unparalleled, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to fall for the fear mongering. The media does not have a liberal bias (in the "democratic party sense", they do have a classical liberal Millian bias towards free expression, as they should do); but they have an unbelievable sensationalism bias. But again, encouraging people to think deeper about issues, to consider all factors is the answer, not putting in place a group of people who at best have a terrifying amount of ignorance about world affairs.

The current state of isis is where more complex than what you are making out. ISIS has been pushed back from the north by turkey, north east by the kurds and the east by Iraq (finally their troops are fighting hard). Kurds/Turkey/Iraq supported by US special forces. In effect this caused ISIS to redouble their efforts in syria.

The syrian civil war is roughly 3 sides. Asad/Russia, "moderate rebels" and ISIS. The Asad/Russians have decimated the moderates and damaged ISIS but that has added the fourth side of the box that Turkey/Iraq/Kurdistan had already been placing around them. Could the US have done more? (I agree they should have). But russia stronger than the US? On no metric is Russia stronger than the US. Italy has a larger economy than russia. Putin's power is still tied to the global price of oil (draw a chart of the correlation between the declining price of oil and the increase in russian belligerence, you see the distraction game Putin is playing to keep power). That being said, Russia is the number 1 destablizing force in the world today. Romney was right on that in 2012 and Obama (and I at the time) were wrong.

Finally, I believe that the syrian war is an epic, harrowing tragedy, and I have thought long and hard about the potential steps that the US could have taken to reduce the crisis, and come up with no actionable strategy that wouldn't be worse than what is happening now. Russia's aims are to prop up a dictator. Those are limited and easily achieved aims. The US, if they went in, would be Iraq II, a decade of attempted but mostly failed nation building. I am not saying ignore ISIS (a top 20 world threat is not worth ignoring), I am saying treat them as the size of threat they really are. The syrian war (and now, by proxy Russia) is the prime driver of the refugee crisis, not ISIS.

We disagree profoundly on the highlighted bit, Wolf.  Moderate rebels?  The Syrians laugh.  It's good for people in the West to sanctimoniously tag the different strands with different coloured outfits like a cosy cartoon.  
Asad, terrible dictator.  
Moderate Rebels - who don't kill people but only kill soldiers if they have to and they never cut heads off or kill women and children....or indeed, captured prisoners of war.
And then big bad Isis, that the Americans have admitted on more than one occasion to channelled funds to (to help them fight the big bad dictator guy in Syria again).  

You think of this deceitful muck of Western Imperialism rivalry (just the kind of Imperialist chess playing that was happening in advance of WWI) a true fight to help Syrians overcome a bad dictator? I don't believe that script for a second, Wolf.  I don't believe the official script for a second.
Why aren't the Russians and Americans in North Korea if their concern is so great for the afflicted?  Do those people not deserve 'freedom'?  North Korea even has more believable weapons of Mass Destruction than Iraq had.  The Americans love a good 'weapons of mass destruction' excuse to invade.  Why not North Korea?  And once more...what about China?  Totalitarian State Numero Uno on the planet.  I'm sure many millions more of those Chinese people would prefer a more democratic system that gave them the power to speak up for themselves rather than to bow obediently to the flag.

So we disagree - on the details of the Syrian war, on the true causes of the Syrian war and on the presumed best solution for Syria.  And we disagree that Russia is the number 1 destabilising force in the world.

Hence I put "MODERATE REBELS" in quotes....

But when you say the "syrians laugh", which syrians? Because there is no homogenous group of syrians who believe anything, just dozens of factions. What is this script you are talking about? The script is still on the shelf, whatever it is, as the US under Obama did not go into Syria. So you can't have it both ways. You can't cite Obama as weak as he wasn't in syria, and then say, the script is to topple a dictator. There was nearly no attempt to topple a dictator. I believe there should have been, but there hasn't been. There has been no US invasion of Syria, and besides the small, brief, deeply flawed action in libya, none since Iraq.

The potential re-invasion of North Korea has been investigated so many times (a mate did their PHD on it). The losses were calculated at too catostrophic for the North, the South (Seoul completely destroyed within days of invasion through artillery from the north) besides the geopolitical reality that they are allied with nuclear armed china. North korea is a tragedy which makes syria look minor, but there are no easy answers there especially now they have their own nukes.

Just because you cannot solve every single problem does not mean you throw your hands up and say that no intervention, no foreign poloicy, no refugee policy is worthwhile. I mean if I can't play for Leinster, sure I may as well not play rugby at all...

Who is a more destabilising force in the world than Russia and why?

And also, I feel reading back on all this, you had a certain view of Trump as shaking up things you want shaken up. And as he goes further and further, you are caught in the trap of maintaining that position, even when you may feel it coming up against your (classicly) liberal institutions. trust those intuitions...

wolfball wrote:

Trump, the US, Ireland, everyone has the right to change their immigration policy as they see fit. But, I really don't think you get the self idealized version of america. And it is an idealized version, and was never true, as every immigrant group to settle in the US had to elbow hard for their place at the table, but there is something on the statue of liberty for a reason "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door". No one made the US seek out that role. They sought it out. And if they turn their back on their ideals (again no matter how rubbish they ever were at sticking to them), the world is a darker place. Do you disagree? Do you want a world where refugees live in camps in Lebanon rather than become a builder in ohio?  

Besides all that, where are most of the syrian refugees today? Turkey (+2 million), Lebanon (1 million), Jordon (650,000). The US let in 15,000 in 2016. You mention Saudi arabia over and over- you are familiar with the differences in Islam? How dangerous it is for a shia syrian refugee to show up on a Saudi Arabian border? You do know these are mostly women and children fleeing horror? Can you see your wife or children (if you have them, parents if not) in the position? Can you see they are real people?

"The Syrian conflict is a design.  It's funded in a big way by Western money, from Western profiteers and it's designed to push the migrants out of their own Nations and into the West.

Get specific, because this is tin-foil hat territory. Western money from who, which profiteers are you talking about?  

" a knowing and designed ethnic cleansing policy"

Again, who is responsible for this policy specifically and which ethnicities are the aim of the cleansing?

You use emotive words to try to shift the argument back to emotion.  It's not emotion.  It's the right of a Sovereign Nation to decide its own immigration policy - pragmatically - not trying to adhere to a movie script about the Statue of Liberty - the gift from the French, and we all know how they achieved their liberty; by chopping off heads.  

I repeat - you let refugees in that want refuge (as many as your society can take without it destabilising your Nation socially or politically).  But the numbers are your business, not the business of the smug chattering classes of other Nations.
You stop those that you believe would seek to further destabilise your Nation, through networking, agitating, and seeking to promote an ideology that runs counter to your own.  
How do you do that?  You decide.  It's your call as a Nation.  Trump's call is to form a more rigid vetting system that his administration trusts.  His business - his Nation.  

Now you mention Turkey.  Why are they in Turkey?  Because the Nations in Europe couldn't decide on a common policy to take them and are trying to stave off the breakup of the EU itself as a result of the crisis.  So the EU made an agreement with Turkey to hold onto them for 'us' (at a price?).  And smug Europeans attack Donald Trump for his attempts to secure his own borders and have more control on the people entering?   Hypocrisy - Europe does it well, both as Individual States and as that lovely combination of like-minded souls called the EU.

The biblical migration of peoples in the last few years is NOT a sudden natural phenomenon - it is a design.  Many people profit from the industry.  Don't be naïve enough for me to have to point out who.

Wasn't it 10,000 euros at least (more likely 30,000) for the mostly Chinese that walked through Dublin Airport dressed as Aer Lingus staff for the last number of years?  That's only a tiny tale in little old Ireland.  How much millions do you think has been made by the boat provider gangsters in the last number of years as they transported the Africans and the Syrians etc?  And you seriously think that all the boat providers were poor nomad sheep herders from the African and Syrian coasts?  
And when these 'undocumenteds' get into heartland Europe - what happens many of them then?  The habitual traffickers of 'slave' labour and the underground pimps don't feed off that sea of need and vulnerability?  And nobody needs to ask any questions because nobody knows the number of arrivals, names, real-identities and most concerned people, when they actually arrive, don't care any more.  Over to the State to think about them - the emotive stuff is done, on to X-Factor.
And the arms dealers, they're not making a mint on the extended warfare?  
And the investors, they're not making a mint by investing in the arms dealers?  

War is an industry.  It's laughable that in the 21st century with a well educated world population, that read newspapers and have at their hands on a tool that no other human generation could ever imagine having - all the libraries in the world on your lap in the comfort of your own home, - it's quite pathetic that you still have to tell people that War is an Industry.  
It's a Profitable Industry.  It makes many investors extremely wealthy people.  There is no pragmatic reason why an industry that makes massive profits would seek to wilfully commit suicide/fold up/go out of business for the better good of humanity and for peace and prosperity in the Middle East and elsewhere.
You speak of complexity but you argue for the simple explanation.  
Criminal Ethnic Cleansing is happening - the mass migration is an industry.  The people who turn up on the shores of Turkey, Greece or Italy, most of them, they don't want to be where they are - they want to be at home but they've been forced out through terrorism; terrorism not just in the form of Isis and the 'moderates' but the terrorism of streets and blocks that they've lived on being pummelled into dust with Western weapons earning dollars for Western profiteers.

PS - where are the protests in the city streets about Saudi Arabia and the kind of welcome they'd give hungry and needy war-ravage women and children?  The Saudis would understand the protests, they'd get the anger - most of the ruling guys were educated in England or America.

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

Trump, the US, Ireland, everyone has the right to change their immigration policy as they see fit. But, I really don't think you get the self idealized version of america. And it is an idealized version, and was never true, as every immigrant group to settle in the US had to elbow hard for their place at the table, but there is something on the statue of liberty for a reason "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door". No one made the US seek out that role. They sought it out. And if they turn their back on their ideals (again no matter how rubbish they ever were at sticking to them), the world is a darker place. Do you disagree? Do you want a world where refugees live in camps in Lebanon rather than become a builder in ohio?  

Besides all that, where are most of the syrian refugees today? Turkey (+2 million), Lebanon (1 million), Jordon (650,000). The US let in 15,000 in 2016. You mention Saudi arabia over and over- you are familiar with the differences in Islam? How dangerous it is for a shia syrian refugee to show up on a Saudi Arabian border? You do know these are mostly women and children fleeing horror? Can you see your wife or children (if you have them, parents if not) in the position? Can you see they are real people?

"The Syrian conflict is a design.  It's funded in a big way by Western money, from Western profiteers and it's designed to push the migrants out of their own Nations and into the West.

Get specific, because this is tin-foil hat territory. Western money from who, which profiteers are you talking about?  

" a knowing and designed ethnic cleansing policy"

Again, who is responsible for this policy specifically and which ethnicities are the aim of the cleansing?

You use emotive words to try to shift the argument back to emotion.  It's not emotion.  It's the right of a Sovereign Nation to decide its own immigration policy - pragmatically - not trying to adhere to a movie script about the Statue of Liberty - the gift from the French, and we all know how they achieved their liberty; by chopping off heads.    

It was their right to chop off heads. No-one outside of France should have complained. It was Hitler's right to round up and gas the Jews in Germany. We should all have kept quiet - not our concern.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Hero wrote:Erm I think it was quite big news.
Or the reverse where a guy kills six Muslims in a mosque and it's considered a 'and in other news' section, yet if a Muslim killed six Christians in a church...

Indeed I'm still waiting for the far-right/Christian fundamentalist organisations to come out with a statement saying that not all of their supporters/members are terrorists, since they're usually so quick to demand the same from Muslim leaders in the reverse scenario.

Garbage....When Charlie Hebdo happened people were saying we have to be careful not to take the pee out of Islam....Some radicals might be upset......Publications wouldn't print stories or pictures..

Why not???..We take the pee out of Atheists, Catholics and Christians all the time..

All one way.....

We shouldn't be bullied by this lot.....They can have some back..

That's why I take the pee out of spaz's.

I beg your pardon???

I was being ironic. Or sarcastic. Possibly both.
My point is that society has rightly decided (more or less) that taking the pee out of certain groups is generally not acceptable, because it is offensive to them.
Mocking a religion, just for the sake of mocking them, just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean that we have to mock them. Why not just say, hey this offends them, I'm not the sort of person who enjoys offending people for the fun of it, so I'll keep my mouth shut.

Of course, that is different from valid criticism of a religion.

Ta for the clarification - sarcasm doesn't always come across well when written...

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
Don't be daft. Of course defence lawyers know some of their clients are guilty as sin, but their clients and they are entitled to ensure that proper justice is served, whether that be a guilty verdict or, in fact, things aren't what seemed so obvious and their client is actually innocent. Just because a defence barrister thinks their client is guilty, doesn't mean they'll do anything except act entirely properly. Likewise (if you know what I mean) for prosecutors. They all have a job to do and I doubt their own personal politics come in to it very much.

You call it a job to do - I'll agree and say Yes, they are employed to pick through evidence, ignore other evidence, concentrate mostly on certain evidence and anything they can muster to get their guilty clients off or get innocent people convicted.  That's their job.  Correct.  You call that 'Justice' at work and I'll call it legal theatre.  Is it any wonder that lawyers are often considered to make the best politicians?  They can spin a yarn and make it sound real.

But yes, they have a job to do and thus why Democrats are now opposing Trump's 'Noble' nomination because they declare his political views aren't ....well, they don't fit in with theirs.  Surprise, surprise  Back to politics.

We really do need a :yawn: emoticon don't we? This is politicians, not lawyers. Stop conflating different things and generalising to fit your preconceptions.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I find amusing is when Ken Bigley or that kind guy from the North West who was doing charity work got his head removed.....There is hardly a fuss made... even that comedian Billy Connolly did a few Bigley jokes if memory serves and it didn't affect his career..

But waterboard a couple of terrorists or terrorist-hangers on......and it's the end of the World..

Bollox to them....Collateral damage isn't going to be just one way in the war against terror.

Come on Truss. Don't be a d!ckhead; you're much better than that.

I'm making a more concerted effort to fit in !!..

Touché .

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

True, the ability for americans to be terrified of their own shadow is unparalleled, but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to fall for the fear mongering. The media does not have a liberal bias (in the "democratic party sense", they do have a classical liberal Millian bias towards free expression, as they should do); but they have an unbelievable sensationalism bias. But again, encouraging people to think deeper about issues, to consider all factors is the answer, not putting in place a group of people who at best have a terrifying amount of ignorance about world affairs.

The current state of isis is where more complex than what you are making out. ISIS has been pushed back from the north by turkey, north east by the kurds and the east by Iraq (finally their troops are fighting hard). Kurds/Turkey/Iraq supported by US special forces. In effect this caused ISIS to redouble their efforts in syria.

The syrian civil war is roughly 3 sides. Asad/Russia, "moderate rebels" and ISIS. The Asad/Russians have decimated the moderates and damaged ISIS but that has added the fourth side of the box that Turkey/Iraq/Kurdistan had already been placing around them. Could the US have done more? (I agree they should have). But russia stronger than the US? On no metric is Russia stronger than the US. Italy has a larger economy than russia. Putin's power is still tied to the global price of oil (draw a chart of the correlation between the declining price of oil and the increase in russian belligerence, you see the distraction game Putin is playing to keep power). That being said, Russia is the number 1 destablizing force in the world today. Romney was right on that in 2012 and Obama (and I at the time) were wrong.

Finally, I believe that the syrian war is an epic, harrowing tragedy, and I have thought long and hard about the potential steps that the US could have taken to reduce the crisis, and come up with no actionable strategy that wouldn't be worse than what is happening now. Russia's aims are to prop up a dictator. Those are limited and easily achieved aims. The US, if they went in, would be Iraq II, a decade of attempted but mostly failed nation building. I am not saying ignore ISIS (a top 20 world threat is not worth ignoring), I am saying treat them as the size of threat they really are. The syrian war (and now, by proxy Russia) is the prime driver of the refugee crisis, not ISIS.

We disagree profoundly on the highlighted bit, Wolf.  Moderate rebels?  The Syrians laugh.  It's good for people in the West to sanctimoniously tag the different strands with different coloured outfits like a cosy cartoon.  
Asad, terrible dictator.  
Moderate Rebels - who don't kill people but only kill soldiers if they have to and they never cut heads off or kill women and children....or indeed, captured prisoners of war.
And then big bad Isis, that the Americans have admitted on more than one occasion to channelled funds to (to help them fight the big bad dictator guy in Syria again).  

You think of this deceitful muck of Western Imperialism rivalry (just the kind of Imperialist chess playing that was happening in advance of WWI) a true fight to help Syrians overcome a bad dictator? I don't believe that script for a second, Wolf.  I don't believe the official script for a second.
Why aren't the Russians and Americans in North Korea if their concern is so great for the afflicted?  Do those people not deserve 'freedom'?  North Korea even has more believable weapons of Mass Destruction than Iraq had.  The Americans love a good 'weapons of mass destruction' excuse to invade.  Why not North Korea?  And once more...what about China?  Totalitarian State Numero Uno on the planet.  I'm sure many millions more of those Chinese people would prefer a more democratic system that gave them the power to speak up for themselves rather than to bow obediently to the flag.

So we disagree - on the details of the Syrian war, on the true causes of the Syrian war and on the presumed best solution for Syria.  And we disagree that Russia is the number 1 destabilising force in the world.

Hence I put "MODERATE REBELS" in quotes....

But when you say the "syrians laugh", which syrians? Because there is no homogenous group of syrians who believe anything, just dozens of factions. What is this script you are talking about? The script is still on the shelf, whatever it is, as the US under Obama did not go into Syria. So you can't have it both ways. You can't cite Obama as weak as he wasn't in syria, and then say, the script is to topple a dictator. There was nearly no attempt to topple a dictator. I believe there should have been, but there hasn't been. There has been no US invasion of Syria, and besides the small, brief, deeply flawed action in libya, none since Iraq.

The potential re-invasion of North Korea has been investigated so many times (a mate did their PHD on it). The losses were calculated at too catostrophic for the North, the South (Seoul completely destroyed within days of invasion through artillery from the north) besides the geopolitical reality that they are allied with nuclear armed china. North korea is a tragedy which makes syria look minor, but there are no easy answers there especially now they have their own nukes.

Just because you cannot solve every single problem does not mean you throw your hands up and say that no intervention, no foreign poloicy, no refugee policy is worthwhile. I mean if I can't play for Leinster, sure I may as well not play rugby at all...

Who is a more destabilising force in the world than Russia and why?

And also, I feel reading back on all this, you had a certain view of Trump as shaking up things you want shaken up. And as he goes further and further, you are caught in the trap of maintaining that position, even when you may feel it coming up against your (classicly) liberal institutions. trust those intuitions...

Admire the determination and commitment Wolf, but Super is a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist, tin-foil fashionista. Its all an Illuminati conspiracy...

Which of the following kills more Americans each year?
IS, Muslims, Mexicans or other Americans with guns?

Hero wrote:Which of the following kills more Americans each year?
IS, Muslims, Mexicans or other Americans with guns?

Or babies.....or pets....this has been posted already on this thread from memory. We all know it's a sack of sh!t. Unless your Secret or Truss.

Just need to add ISIS to the constitution then Americans would pray to them every morning.

Hero wrote:Which of the following kills more Americans each year?
IS, Muslims, Mexicans or other Americans with guns?

Let's keep it that way...

Scottrf wrote:Just need to add ISIS to the constitution then Americans would pray to them every morning.

Hahaha

My fave is when Americans berate Muslims for living their life by words written in a time not relevant to modern day...and then bang the constitution right to bear arms.

I see team Clinton have moved on from blaming Putin and now it's all Obama's fault.....His turn now !!

"Angry White Men"......."FBI director Comey"..........."Obama"...."Putin"....."Trump lies"...."The media was against her" (even though she had 90% of it on her side)..

New book coming out.....Mooted TV show.......All looking very plausible old Granny Adams is eyeing up 2020.....

When she's dead they'll stuff her and she'll still be running..

Hero wrote:My fave is when Americans berate Muslims for living their life by words written in a time not relevant to modern day...and then bang the constitution right to bear arms.

My favorite is looking at all the millions of people the Welfare State and NHS have saved and knowing it was US money that financed both of those projects...

Huge payout from.....The Marshall plan 1947........lumped on top of the $3billion handout.......Between 45-47....

They gave us all that for free?!!!! Wow.

ShahenshahG wrote:They gave us all that for free?!!!! Wow.

Britain was bankrupt......

Do you stand at attention and do a 21 chopstick salute when you go to a Chinese takeaway?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:They gave us all that for free?!!!! Wow.

Britain was bankrupt......

It was only money you'd saved by happily watching the world burn whilst you sat on your fat @rses doing nothing until the Japs brought you into the fold.

If America had the balls to be world police like little old UK did when countries started invading others maybe the US wouldn't have had so much spare cash and the UK might not have needed it so much.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:They gave us all that for free?!!!! Wow.

Britain was bankrupt......

Partly because we didn't stay out of the war for such a long time.

The Protesters, God be good to them.

The protesters - why the masks on many of them at many of these various protests?

If they have the courage of their convictions, if 'Right' is on their side, if Hollywood Dames are on their side, if they belong to 'popular' movements of one symbolic colour or another, if they are only defending their rights to oppose the policies of the Orange One - then why the masks?  Afraid to fully commit?  

Incidentally, a lot of Black apparel at these events.  Black and white.  The writing is usually white and the background, black.  Hmmm, what other movement is famous for that 'colour' scheme?  Seems the Internet lads that produce the beheading videos have a lot of fans in surprising places.  

Mental.

Yeah, some of them probably are a little mental, super - I agree. But still, they have a right to protest. I stand by their rights.

Lonely is probably more accurate Super.

So why the masks at popular movement rallies?

SecretFly wrote:So why the masks at popular movement rallies?

Not sure, why use pseudonyms on chat sites...?

To make it a tougher w*nk for the perverts sitting at home studying pictures of the protestors.

Those goths are ones to watch as well then with all their black clothes and pale faces.

Why the masks at popular protest events?
They're surrounded by others with no fears about showing their faces.
A Protest is a Protest. Legitimate expres​sion(well, the legitimate bits).
So why the masks for the big boys, usually at the front of these events?

superflyweight wrote:To make it a tougher w*nk for the perverts sitting at home studying pictures of the protestors.

Oh so you know what I'm referring to - the secretively alluring videos from the Isis boys. Yeah, you got a point - you'd have to be a pervert to be dipping in to that crap but of course Call of Duty boys will be boys - they'll be curious, as all boys are. Just one look.....

What the devil are you talking about?

SecretFly wrote:Why the masks at popular protest events?  
They're surrounded by others with no fears about showing their faces.  
A Protest is a Protest.  Legitimate expres​sion(well, the legitimate bits).  
So why the masks for the big boys, usually at the front of these events?  

Possibly for fear of reprisal?
Possibly because events in which there are views held against an establishment then there are individuals that are willing to take matters further than peaceful protest?
Not all lefty liberals are knitting blankets of protest. Anger and hatred of anything can bring out the worst in all sides, not just the right but also the left, as one side beside begins to rise in power in Far Right groups then as Trump states himself people fight fire with fire and there's a counter balance of equal anger rising from the other side.

SecretFly wrote:Hmmm, what other movement is famous for that 'colour' scheme?

The Toon Army.

Hero wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why the masks at popular protest events?  
They're surrounded by others with no fears about showing their faces.  
A Protest is a Protest.  Legitimate expres​sion(well, the legitimate bits).  
So why the masks for the big boys, usually at the front of these events?  

Possibly for fear of reprisal?
Possibly because events in which there are views held against an establishment then there are individuals that are willing to take matters further than peaceful protest?
Not all lefty liberals are knitting blankets of protest. Anger and hatred of anything can bring out the worst in all sides, not just the right but also the left, as one side beside begins to rise in power in Far Right groups then as Trump states himself people fight fire with fire and there's a counter balance of equal anger rising from the other side.

Finally, an answer. Thanks Hero.

So it's a simple age old battle of ideology. The Far-Right want to impose their world view and the Far-Left want to impose their world view. The word 'Impose' is the operative.

So - how to find the middle ground.... that is the question.

Jules TV

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Hmmm, what other movement is famous for that 'colour' scheme?

The Toon Army.

Are they? Hmmm. I'm not at all into football so I'll take your word for it. But no................. that wasn't the 'hmmm' I was thinking of.

ShahenshahG wrote:Jules TV

The one next to my gramophone.

SecretFly wrote:Why the masks at popular protest events?  
They're surrounded by others with no fears about showing their faces.  
A Protest is a Protest.  Legitimate expres​sion(well, the legitimate bits).  
So why the masks for the big boys, usually at the front of these events?  

Because they're tin foil nut jobs like you. Not sure why you're being so harsh and lacking in compassion/understanding of your bretheren.

They, like you, think it's all one big conspiracy. Hence the signs on your picture about militarised police state. If they, like you, think this kind of thing - then why would they have faith in the lawyers and politicians (as you don't) to not go after them??

What do you put the mask on when you're out protesting against the little working type class people, Top?

Do you disguise that hat, the monocle, the cigarette on it ten inch holder or the false moustache?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why the masks at popular protest events?  
They're surrounded by others with no fears about showing their faces.  
A Protest is a Protest.  Legitimate expres​sion(well, the legitimate bits).  
So why the masks for the big boys, usually at the front of these events?  

Because they're tin foil nut jobs like you.  Not sure why you're being so harsh and lacking in compassion/understanding of your bretheren.

They, like you, think it's all one big conspiracy. Hence the signs on your picture about militarised police state. If they, like you, think this kind of thing - then why would they have faith in the lawyers and politicians (as you don't) to not go after them??

?

I know you're livid about Brexit and all that - but please, a bit of decorum please! I may have to pepper spray you to protect my personage.