• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Country's Full - Trump Slams Door on Refugees

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pcgeek11 said:
No, I am not arguing that at all. You just like reading shit into peoples post and the screaming about it. I happen to agree that the refugee's should have a safe area in the middle east set up and maintained by all of the concerned countries until they can return to their homeland.

It is a temporary ban on some countries. I do agree they screwed the pooch on the previously approved green card holders and visa's... I also think it should have included several other countries that are not on the list.

What freedom of yours was assaulted?
Click to expand...

I agree. How about sending them to Israel?
 
pcgeek11 said:
I don't agree that they are as terrorist as some believe. I just think there are better answers than relocating them here.
Click to expand...
Agreed. A good way to explain it to low-IQ demotards is comparing apples to oranges. If you knew there was a definite 1 in 100 chance of dying after eating apples, would you still eat apples? Or would you eat oranges which have a 0.00001% of killing you? Therefore, apples get banned in favor of oranges. Play the percentages.
 
This is why competence matters also why words matter. You can make policy
SP33Demon said:
Agreed. A good way to explain it to low-IQ demotards is comparing apples to oranges. If you knew there was a definite 1 in 100 chance of dying after eating apples, would you still eat apples? Or would you eat oranges which have a 0.00001% of killing you? Therefore, apples get banned in favor of oranges. Play the percentages.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't learn from that skittles example.
 
Eh, the one thing that irks me most about this ban isn't the refugees part, but instead the part where we are turning away people from Iraq especially who assisted the US military. That is simply dishonor right there to hamper them. But generally, Iraq I think is owed something by Americans who did invade them, and so it shouldn't be on this list for this reason.

And like, we turned away an Iranian scientist? That's not something I approve of either. I mean, Giuliani justified keeping Saudi Arabia off that list because they are supposedly rapidly improving. Well, I hope Iran is rapidly improving as well, and I'd prefer to have positive relations with them.
 
desura said:
Eh, the one thing that irks me most about this ban isn't the refugees part, but instead the part where we are turning away people from Iraq especially who assisted the US military. That is simply dishonor right there to hamper them. But generally, Iraq I think is owed something by Americans who did invade them, and so it shouldn't be on this list for this reason.

And like, we turned away an Iranian scientist? That's not something I approve of either. I mean, Giuliani justified keeping Saudi Arabia off that list because they are supposedly rapidly improving. Well, I hope Iran is rapidly improving as well, and I'd prefer to have positive relations with them.
Click to expand...

In general the US treatment of iraqi translators and their families has been a black mark on our military. I've written to all my senators about this. There is no reason they and their families can't all be expediently brought to the US or at least to a place like Guam if "further vetting is felt to be necessary", vetting beyond "dodging bullets and mines alongside US soldiers and saving their lives in the process".
 
SP33Demon said:
Agreed. A good way to explain it to low-IQ demotards is comparing apples to oranges. If you knew there was a definite 1 in 100 chance of dying after eating apples, would you still eat apples? Or would you eat oranges which have a 0.00001% of killing you? Therefore, apples get banned in favor of oranges. Play the percentages.
Click to expand...
And yet you carry guns around.... Hmm....
 
Brainonska511 said:
https://nyti.ms/2jGFuTT



Good job Trump. Pushing forward an utterly heartless policy coupled with a test that violates the spirit of the Constitution (treating one religion as superior to others) and adds fuel to the fire of extremism that it is a religious war between Islam and the west. I guess the words on the Statue of Liberty are meaningless.

Also take note of the countries not on the list (yet were the countries in which actual terrorists who attacked the US came from):
Click to expand...


Funny how the left give a pass to oBama foe banning Iraqi refugees in 2011...
 
Sunburn74 said:
In general the US treatment of iraqi translators and their families has been a black mark on our military. I've written to all my senators about this. There is no reason they and their families can't all be expediently brought to the US or at least to a place like Guam if "further vetting is felt to be necessary", vetting beyond "dodging bullets and mines alongside US soldiers and saving their lives in the process".
Click to expand...

No black mark found on the Military. The decision to allow them or not into the US isn't made by the military.
 
While Trump is bashing the media and everyone else for portraying this as a Muslim ban, Trump's pet, Rudy Guilani, admits that Truimp wanted a Muslim ban and that this was cooked up as a way to make it legal:

OK. I’ll tell you the whole history of it. So when he first announced it he said, “Muslim ban.” He called me up and said, “Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together with Judge Mukasey, with Congressman McCaul, Pete King, a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this. And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis. Not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._a_muslim_ban_asked_for_help_on_doing_it.html
 
desura said:
Because if you look at the profiles of Syed Farook or Omar Mateen, or of the various French-Muslim terrorists, the one factor which most explains how otherwise normal people who are fully functioning and not mentally impaired go out and kill random people is their Islamic nationalism. Absent Islam, there is no violence from these persons.

And it really doesn't say good things about the character of the Muslim community that they can be driven to violence by this mild action.
Click to expand...

I would dispute calling this a "mild action." It's a total immigration ban from 7 countries, which at present is set to last for 90 days but there is nothing stropping Trump from extending it indefinitely, and/or adding additional countries. It also makes exception for non-Muslims from these countries, making it clear that this is a ban of Muslims.

So far as what it says about "the character of the Muslim community," it says nothing of the sort. We have ~3 million Muslim citizens in this country. If 1 in 10,000 decide to kill because of what Trump has done, that is 300 new Muslim terrorists. Yet it remains a vanishingly small percentage of Muslims. But a serious threat nonetheless.

Yet the bottom line is, it doesn't matter what it says about "the character of the Muslim community." What matters is that this policy which is billed as making us more safe may well make us less safe. So why are we doing it?
 
C3XxCD4WYAIiYob.jpg
 
SP33Demon said:
Agreed. A good way to explain it to low-IQ demotards is comparing apples to oranges. If you knew there was a definite 1 in 100 chance of dying after eating apples, would you still eat apples? Or would you eat oranges which have a 0.00001% of killing you? Therefore, apples get banned in favor of oranges. Play the percentages.
Click to expand...

First thing. Just saw a bit by Fareed Zaraka on a Cato Institute analysis of the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack.

They calculated your annual chance at being killed by a refugee at 3.6 Billion to one

Second thing. They aren't Oranges and Apples. They are humans coming from dangerous situations so I would be more than willing to risk having them come here rather than leave them to die or be radicalized.

But then again I understand risk and am not a coward.
 
Paratus said:
First thing. Just saw a bit by Fareed Zaraka on a Cato Institute analysis of the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack.

They calculated your annual chance at being killed by a refugee at 3.6 Billion to one

Second thing. They aren't Oranges and Apples. They are humans coming from dangerous situations so I would be more than willing to risk having them come here rather than leave them to die or be radicalized.

But then again I understand risk and am not a coward.
Click to expand...

But then we have to spend a crapton on security services to keep the death toll so low. I don't like all of this extra spending and bureaucracy, and the real possibility of a truly heinous large scale attack being carried out.

I am indifferent to their plight. The Islamic world lost its goodwill long ago.
 
desura said:
But then we have to spend a crapton on security services to keep the death toll so low. I don't like all of this extra spending and bureaucracy, and the real possibility of a truly heinous large scale attack being carried out.

I am indifferent to their plight. The Islamic world lost its goodwill long ago.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind it's in the interest of Trump/Bannon/lackeys to promote another 9/11 as their Reichstag. They don't seem the sort to let ethical considerations get in their way.

The only question here is whether you plan to join them, but really I think we all know the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top