President Elect Trump watch

Robert said:
Trump aide "misspoke" when she cited a 2011 “massacre” in Kentucky that never happened.
Click to expand...

The real story behind the Bowling Green terrorists

She clarified that she was referring to an incident involving two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky.

In that case, the two Iraqi nationals were indicted on federal terrorism charges accusing them, in part, of providing material support to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The Iraqi nationals were Waad Ramadan Alwan, who was 30 at the time of his indictment in 2011, and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, who was then 23.

The FBI launched its investigation into Alwan in 2009, the year he entered the US. He bragged to an FBI source in 2010 about how he'd "f—ked up" US Hummers in Iraq with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and expressed an interest in providing support to terrorists in Iraq. He eventually recruited his friend Hammadi into his scheme to ship money and weapons (including machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Stinger missiles, and C4 plastic explosives) to terrorists in Iraq.

The operation was a sting operation — the FBI's source convinced Alwan and Hammadi that the money and weapons were actually going to terrorists abroad, but they were not.

Alwan and Hammadi entered the US as refugees. They lied about their terrorism ties.
 
Robert said:
And if that means illegally entering sovereign nations to murder babies and eight year old girls? Hey, don't turn all snowflake now! ;)
Click to expand...

C31FlaQUEAAJxNw.jpg


 
Robert said:
"Muslim ban" unconstitutional
Click to expand...
Neither argument that I saw here has any relevance as far as I can see.
First of all, constitutionality extends to US citizens and extending those rights to non citizens seems specious (else how the hell can the US wage war on anyone ever?)
Religious freedom still pertains as the ban does not extend to all Muslims, just citizens of several majority Mulsim countries, but several on that list I can tell are not exclusively Muslim. Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq have Christian communities, Jewish communities and other smaller (and more obscure) religious groups too. Somalia and Yemen probably are somewhat diverse too. Indonesia is not on the list and neither are countries like Saudi Arabia where it is basically the law to be Muslim.
The due process argument would similarly apply to citizens and not necessarily non-citizens but even there it has already been established under Bush and continued under Obama that "due process" constitutes "the relevant experts had a meeting on it".
While the judges opinion may be morally right (and even then, I can't say for sure) I don't think this sort of revolt would have happened if Obama had made this order.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
the ban does not extend to all Muslims,
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't - that's why I put it in quotes.

Indonesia is not on the list and neither are countries like Saudi Arabia...
Click to expand...

Bingo!
He cites the WTC disaster, where the majority of the terrorists apparently came from Saudi Arabia, as a reason for banning people from several countries, none of which are Saudi Arabia.
Please, explain to me, why do you support such blatantly obvious kiech?
Is it a "long-game" thing, where you think if he screws the entire system up enough, something good might come out the other end, thereby justifying your short-term support for stuff you would normally be repelled by?
Or have you really self-rationalised it to the point where you actually think this behaviour is now a "good thing"?
Or perhaps something else entirely?
I'm genuinely baffled.
 
Robert said:
He cites the WTC disaster, where the majority of the terrorists apparently came from Saudi Arabia, as a reason for banning people from several countries, none of which are Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
But Saudi Arabia is an ally - and it's quite likely that Saudi Intelligence and sectors of US intelligence and factions within the US government were all OK with 911. The Saudis, I expect, can be counted on not to send terrorists to the US without permission. On the other hand most of the named countries are countries that the US has recently been or is in some way currently at war with. There are a lot of Syrians, for example, who might harbor antipathy for the US. many of the regular civilians could probably swallow that for the chance at a nice life in the states, but there are likely to be "fighters" who are possibly upset by the Great Satan's lack of reliability. Those are practical considerations - but there is also the political consideration of sanctioning countries you are hostile with.
Please, explain to me, why do you support such blatantly obvious kiech?
Click to expand...
You seem to think that not condemning is the same as supporting. I just don't see it as particularly different from normal US behaviour. What is funny is that the media, which would likely support this sort of "security" move from any other president is having a conniption now. It's like all the antiwar protesters who carried their banners during the Bush wars but all went home to sit out the Obama wars.
Is it a "long-game" thing, where you think if he screws the entire system up enough, something good might come out the other end, thereby justifying your short-term support for stuff you would normally be repelled by?
Click to expand...
It's normal American behaviour. However, considering what the US has done to the countries on it's list it probably isn't completely unwarranted. In fact, a 6 month suspension is among the least bad things the US has done to middle eastern populations.

Suspension of travel to the US is just not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned. If you actually want to go there then keeping you out is probably a kindness. There are other places to go and, besides, many of the people most able to escape are the kinds of professionals that their home countries need most, unfortunately. The solution isn't opening your doors and letting everyone in (that is a good way to kill a country and part of what has perhaps deliberately destabilised those middle eastern countries). The real solution is to curtail the war making, but it looks like Trump had to take on a lot of oilmen and neocons to make a cabinet. The moves against Iran are much more worrying than the travel ban ... which is why everyone is talking about the travel ban I guess.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
You seem to think that not condemning is the same as supporting.
Click to expand...

I had come come to the conclusion, based upon my interpretation of your posts over the last six moths or so, that you were a Trump supporter. Given what you say now it seems that was unwarranted, in which case I apologise. Either way, thanks for taking the time to give a considered answer. Whilst I might not agree with all of it, it's nice to know you haven't completely lost it. ;)
 
Robert said:
, that you were a Trump supporter. Given what you say now it seems that was unwarranted, in which case I apologise.
Click to expand...
Well, you aren't completely wrong. I supported Trump against Hillary. However, I supported Sanders against Hillary too and think he should have been the Dem candidate and I believe, that had he been the candidate, he would have defeated Trump.
 
Robert said:
Of course it doesn't - that's why I put it in quotes.



Bingo!
He cites the WTC disaster, where the majority of the terrorists apparently came from Saudi Arabia, as a reason for banning people from several countries, none of which are Saudi Arabia.
Please, explain to me, why do you support such blatantly obvious kiech?
Is it a "long-game" thing, where you think if he screws the entire system up enough, something good might come out the other end, thereby justifying your short-term support for stuff you would normally be repelled by?
Or have you really self-rationalised it to the point where you actually think this behaviour is now a "good thing"?
Or perhaps something else entirely?
I'm genuinely baffled.
Click to expand...

Why are you only upset that it is Trump doing this? During Obama's whole presidency this was never discussed here, despite the fact he did the exact same thing from some of the exact same countries. The list and policy was created under Obama, Trump only signed off. That pesky telly told you again to be upset?

-Edit-
Fluffy put it well.

What is funny is that the media, which would likely support this sort of "security" move from any other president is having a conniption now. It's like all the antiwar protesters who carried their banners during the Bush wars but all went home to sit out the Obama wars.
Click to expand...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I supported Sanders against Hillary too and think he should have been the Dem candidate and I believe, that had he been the candidate, he would have defeated Trump.
Click to expand...

As do I.
Perhaps where we diverge is that, from my perspective, this forum has become a bit of a shrine to someone who I see as no less objectionable than the two who came before, both of whom were roundly criticised on here.
Lots of Trump cheerleading but not much in the way of scrutiny, even when he goes beyond what the others were criticised for.
Obama and Bush both had their proponents but both were also strongly criticised, not least by your good self.

I'd agree that the media in general are losing the plot in a way they never did with Obama - I've actually been finding some of the over-reaction quite hilarious - but that doesn't excuse Trump's reprehensible actions, which have already been many and varied.
Luckily this forum isn't the media in general. For example, I imagine every poster on here knows Obama bombed more countries than Bush, dropping more ordinance in the process. He was criticised for that on this forum. They probably know he lied about closing Gitmo. He was criticised for that on here too.
OTOH, with one or two notable exceptions, Trump seems to be getting cheered-on, despite being a demonstrable scum-bag.

-EDIT-
Not that any of this really matters - I doubt there are much more than half a dozen people even reading these pages nowadays. :D
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Trump did say "You have to take out their families".
Click to expand...

FWIW

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: ISIS Children

Children, pulled away from an amusement park, execute ISIS prisoners by shooting and beheading. This is the face of the next generation of jihadis.

ISIS-Kids-Do-Executions-640-320_3.gif


This extremely graphic Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) video titled "He Made Me Alive With His Blood" features children as young as three years old executing ISIS prisoners from Deir Ez-Zor in Syria. The children have been "pulled away from their games" and sent to "do jihad" by "killing agents with their bare hands."
 
Last edited:
Trump's telecoms chief bins broadband subsidies for the poor

Trump-appointed FCC chair Pai reversed a decision made late in the Obama administration to let consumers apply their telecommunications subsidies to broadband services.

The "Lifeline" program provides low-income Americans a US$9.25 credit. Until January, that credit could only be applied to landline or mobile voice services, but former FCC chair Tom Wheeler's decision allowed it to be used to buy Internet access.

In opening Lifeline for Internet services, Wheeler was putting into force a decision voted on in March 2016. The two commissioners that voted against Lifeline then were Pai and O'Reilly.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top