The terrorist have won. - Muslim migration ban

Liberty and freedom, a port of safety now ended.

The Statue of Liberty needs to be removed from it's pedestal and sent back to Paris in a coffin...

Osama Bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have finally succeeded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aye...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It appears that they have won, but they have not.
Intellectually whatever you say appears very sane and civil way of doing things, but drastic steps are required to curb the menace called terrorism.

Terrorism at such level is almost invariably state sponsored (either continued or in the past till they become hot potatoes) with high level of political backing.

What Trump is doing is bold, appears anti humanity, but what is the solution? These guys are everywhere India, US, France..forget about the hubs where they have the state backings.


I want to state one more aspect.....intellectuals apart, majority of ordinary citizens felt right when Trump announced this pre poll. Take any country which is going for poll, and which has a clear and present threat of terrorism and with employment as a major issue. Declare in your poll speech that you will ban a particular section of race which appears to be related to terrorism (so sad!!) and also put ban on outsourcing the jobs. You win. The question is: Is it immoral to do so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am reminded of this...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The real question is - what is the cost of doing so.

Answer - university students and young adults here in America who happen to be of Middle Eastern descent can no longer go home to visit their families for fear of not being allowed back in at all... and their families, who were saving up for the chance to escape their living hell and come to America are now stuck, unable to leave the fear of death every day.

 

So your worry is execution cost not the decision.

There are always plus and minus for such decisions. I will tell you something, there were certain restrictions by US / Europe on India due to its Nuclear program. What happened? The sky did not fall, the technology was developed.

So, the authorities in these Middle Eastern Countries will act...who knows good universities will come by there, state sponosred / politician supported terrorism will reduce. If you are to throw out 4000 students out of your country to save the life of 4000 other innocents, then I am all for it. Are you aware how many middle eastern people graduated from US universties in last 10 years and how many people died of IXXXXXXC Terrorism in last 10 years?

 

Well here is the problem with your argument; terrorists have killed relatively few Americans. Far more people die every year on our to highways than die from terrorism. Should we then declare war on our roadways?

 

Or incompetent health professionals? Or gun owners?

 

it is non sequitur or at the best it is a loose argument.

And by the way, we are in war with road safety. we are developing safer vehicles, safer roads, trained drivers. That is the solution for this problem. How else we declare war on roadways?

The question is in your opinion:

1. Is the position of Trump immoral on this matter ?
2. What is the right solution?

 

Oh, how so?

What road are you blowing up? In what world is investing in infrastructure and safety considered warfare? Investing in infrastructure isn't warfare. And none of that changes the fact that terrorism isn't as big of a problem as road safety or a host of other issues, because relatively few people die every year as the result of terrorism. Perspective comrade, perspective matters.

Do you advocate declaring war on something every time something irritates you or doesn't go as you wish? Perspective matters. Terrorism shouldn't be an excuse to sacrifice our values. And unfortunately, that's what it has become, and when that happens the terrorists win.

Well for one, torture. How, in your world, is torture moral? Not only is torture morally wrong, it's ineffective. The right solution is to continue what we have done. It's working. Terrorists have been unable to repeat 9/11. Our terrorist policies have worked.

 

Congratulations, here's what you win!

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/isis-pummeled-airstrikes-trump-mattis-take-office/

 

1/ Absolutely
Simply because it fails to support the collectives long term benefit.

2/ Definitely not Trumps.

If you study the historical record of revolution and rebellion you will find it is the building of schools, hospitals and much needed infrastructure that provide a motivation for the population to change it's support of armed insurrection.
Constructively supporting the reformation of local government and law and order ( security) for the people.

"The radical will always find a place in the heart of a fearful insecure person"

Remove the fear and the radical becomes impotent.

( Reminds me of the cost of famous "Let them eat cake" type statements...)

You may also find that terrorism is directly related to poor Governance, the sort of Government Trump, is offering and that whilst he may seek to destroy terrorism he is actually generating it "en masse" at home.

The fact is, terrorism can not be destroyed with violence as violence only increases their resolve.
Religious ideology such as Daesh's Wahhabism (not strictly defined as terrorism) is also unable to be destroyed with violence. Violence only perpetuates the problems. What is happening currently in the Middle east is not the destruction of ISIL (As this is impossible) but the degrading of ISIL's capacity to strike, hold territory, hostages and self fund.

The principle involved is "Quarantine, stabilize then heal"

Trump and his supporters fail to have the nous to know the difference...

Thus one of the problems of "populist" leaders. Their solutions are only as clever as their support base.

 

Is there is cure for male hysteria?

 

Is there a cure for false representation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Shine On

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's get this thing started.​

This isn't actually the "Muslim ban":

President Donald Trump said his plans to temporarily halt the entry of refugees and citizens of several Muslim-majority countries into the U.S. was "not the Muslim ban" he frequently promised on the campaign trail but that he still planned to institute "extreme vetting" against certain nations.

“No, it's not the Muslim ban,” the president told ABC's David Muir during an interview that aired Wednesday night, while reiterating the need to restrict access into the U.S. in some form.

(Politico↱)

†​

President Donald Trump is soon expected to sign an executive order temporarily blocking people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the US with visas. Many view the move as the first step toward realizing the pledge Trump made on the campaign trail to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.

(Vox↱)

†​

The U.S. Justice Department said it has "no comment" on whether its Office of Legal Counsel has reviewed any of President Trump's executive orders, which have met with criticism this week because of vague language and possible conflicts with legal precedents.

(NPR↱)​

Toward that end:

We're not over yet.

(Remember, there exists a really bizarre valence behavioral economy by which certain self-destructive people are actually waiting for the community to make good on its wide-eyed promises and come save them.)​

Remember the idea of winning on a technicality. Donald Trump won according to the rules. That means he won. But where we can usually say more people voted against the president than for him, this time it has especial significance. Meanwhile, President Trump is off in uncharted territory, leaving everyone who has a clue what goes on in government wondering what he actually expects them to do toward this or that. If e'er one has heard of our legendary legal system and its ability to drag things out and grind near to halting, then we Americans might plead that Mr. Trump has yet to meet his archnemeses, Equal Protection and Due Process.

Columbia heaves a sigh, yet stands steadfastly at her guard. "I lift my Lamp," she recites with practiced quiet patience, "beside the Golden Door. And you can have it when you can come up here and fucking take it from me."

And you might be familiar with an old boast, when someone saying this or that about other people would reiterate that they aren't something or other, and kind of like having a [_____] friend, a lot of people point out that they donate to the ACLU.

You know, just for instance.

We have what we need to hold the line. This one falls to the people. We have the numbers, the election tells us that. Some portion of President Trump's vote is now appalled by what they have done. And while this is dangerous for its proximity, I think of Dr. Seuss' hyperpanicked overstatement of the Nazi threat. Yes, Nazis were terrible, and awful, and needed to be stopped; that case seemed easy enough to make. And perhaps time makes it easier to see, but I simply do not believe the Nazis could have held our sea to shining sea.

President Donald Trump can fuck shit up, but the Republic will survive. And Columbia stands her guard. And her children know approximately what they need to do. We can still blow this, for certain, but we are not over, yet.

(I wonder if this becomes the next threshold, to destroy everything just to say we did it?)
____________________

Notes:

Johnson, Carrie. "Key Justice Dept. Office Won't Say If It Approved White House Executive Orders". National Public Radio. 27 January 2017. NPR.org. 27 January 2017. http://n.pr/2jylSDN

Lima, Cristiano. "Trump says immigration block 'not the Muslim ban'". Politico. 25 January 2017. Politico.com. 27 January 2017. http://politi.co/2kD1sv2

Mokalla, Matteen. "Trump's 'Muslim ban' won't help security, but it will marginalize Muslims". Vox. 27 January 2017. Vox.com. 27 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2kvolNK

 

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your post and indeed welcome it to aid in assuaging my ...uhm.... "grief", it must never be forgotten that Trump has rarely kept his word.
When dealing with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated an incredible ability to lie, one can never presume he is telling the truth.

So Trump says this and Trump says that and Trump pulls anything he likes out his a ....

Why people think he is telling the truth when he has repeatedly demonstrated a history to the contrary is bewildering.

However we can rely on actual events and actions he undertakes and that is where we can draw conclusions from.

 

Few years ago I was one of the faculty for a skill developement program for some 20 odd employees of an organization. On the very first day couple of participants started raising issues pertaining to problems at their work place, their argument was to first address those issues before taking up other issues. It was a real tough time for the management to convince them that both the issues were separate. Solutions are different, and they cannot be discussed while this skill development program is on.

So like those participants you are raising issue of road safety, while the thread is related to terrorism. Both require addressing but not connected.

Coming to your second point of torture, I presume you are taling about third degree issue as being discussed keeping in view Trump's implicit consent on this. Are we so naive to think that third degree on such cases require any kind of presidential nod? Are we so naive to think that the third degree is applied only when we have an executive order/consent on this?

Well consider following....

1. Hundresds were killed, hunted and shot dead in Mumbai - india attack. Place of attack..Crowded Railway Platform, Hospital, Hotel, Place of worship. None were spared..not even children, women, patients...all shot dead.

2. Thousands of working innocents were killed in 9/11 attack.

3. 40 children, as young as 10, were killed in an army school in Pakistan.

4. List is too long, just google.

The question is one such perpetrator is caught by the agencies, and you are the key interrogator, what would you do?

1. Write to his country of origin with a civil request to investigate and deport him back?
2. Just give him couple of slaps, and expect that he will sing truthfully?
3. Just chit chat over a cup of coffee, be a civilized host and ask him politely about the guys behindthe attack?
4. Just tighten his balls but have a concern about his pain while feeling guilty about immorality of your act?
5. Make him feel THE PAIN till he sings? What morality?
6. You can add one here.

 

A local unrest can certainly be tackled by infrastructural developments and by generating employment opportunities, but is the threat of terrorism local in present era?

Your approach of isolation....Quarantine etc...also will not work. No country citizen are now confined to the safe walls of their native country. You can find an Indian, American, Chinese, European, Australian all over the world. There are embassies world over, so only effective way is complete forced break down of terror infrastructure. This can only come by if countries who are providing backbone to such groups realise this and abandon them, rather eliminate them.

 

Given what could have happened if left unchecked I feel the world ( in particular the Muslim world) has managed to quarantine and degrade Daesh, it's radical ideology and it's infrastructure quite well...but let us not speak too soon... as I feel the issue is far from being adequately contained yet.

 

I think it is not so much a morality issue but one of whether it can provide useful info due to the obvious lying that takes place. However I may be totally wrong about that...

 

You are obfuscating. The fact remains, very few people die of terrorism every year in the US and most other countries. The worst terrorist event in American history was 9/11 and that killed less than 3,000 people. Yes it was an horrific event. That's kind of the whole point of terrorism. But that doesn't make terrorism and existential threat as you and others would have us believe. You need some perspective here.

Far more people die every year in car accidents. Four out of 5 terrorists events are caused domestic terrorists. Every year in the United States 33,000 people die of gun related deaths. Less than 3,000 people died in America's worst terrorist incident. You have a far better chance of being in a fatal car accident than becoming a victim of terrorism. That's especially true in India which hasn't invested heavily in infrastructure.

The fact is terrorism is over hyped. You have a far better chance of being robbed in your next trip to the store than of becoming a victim of terrorism. Terrorist events are relatively rare, and when they do occur, they haven't killed many people in comparison to other causes of death. Yeah, they make the headlines. That's kind of the point. They want a lot of attention, and they usually get it. But let's keep terrorism in perspective. Terrorism isn't an existential threat to humanity, and we shouldn't sacrifice or surrender our values or our humanity under guise of fighting a terrorism. Would you cut off your arm because a mosquito bit you? We need not and should not become hysterical here.

While terrorism is vile, it isn't an existential threat. The answer to terrorists is to treat them as the common criminals they are and to fight them in places which give them safe harbor. The solution isn't to sacrifice our values and our freedoms.