[RexImperator]

Quote:

The precedent already exists for banning the importation of undesirable ideologies, and people who cite the first amendment in protest are missing the point entirely.

Absolutely- and there are some choice quotes from Teddy Roosevelt's 1905 State of the Union address on this matter.

[Ocelot]

(09-20-2016 02:25 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

You can add to Ocelot's idea by referencing, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - and then asking who was fighting over religion so fiercely that the First Amendment needed to be made.

Were Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Zoroastrians arguing over lunch on 1777? Or was it just a bunch of White Christ-worshipping branches trying to dominate each other? Once you establish that it was the latter, Muslims can't cite the First Amendment any more.

I'm actually not so sure about this one. If anything, I think the First Amendment's franchise should be explicitly extended to protect all ideologies, not just religions: it is not the role of the federal government to legislate thoughts and beliefs. Thankfully, numerous Supreme Court rulings have affirmed the notion that laws concern practices, not beliefs.

You're right though, that the "respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the amendment was written to allay the fears of minority Christian sects, not Hindus or Muslims. What's interesting is it was very specifically designed to stop the congress from establishing a state religion. Congress, not the many states. As far as I'm aware, there was never anything stopping individual states from banning certain religions from practicing, or mandating church services until the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights from around the 1920s (that date may be a bit off, it's a while since I read into this stuff).

The main point though: there is an already-existing framework to deal with the pragmatic concern of neutralising the threat of Islam. In fact, I think most people outside of the Cathedral of academia would be able to agree very quickly on a way to treat all immigration:

1. Selectively allow entry to people who are a net benefit to your country.
2. If a certain immigrant demographic is causing problems, stop importing them until the problem can be both understood and fixed.
3. If the problem is likely to be permanent (Islam), then they can stay out permanently. The government's role is to best serve the interests of its people, which means all immigration should be assessed in terms of the benefit immigrants bring to us, not how much better their lives will be in comparison to the third-world shit-holes they came from.
4. Enforce the damn laws that already exist. If someone is staying the country illegally, arrest and deport them. It doesn't matter if they've not committed a crime besides staying illegally and, by extension, tax evasion (the fact that this one isn't taken more seriously by the revenue-vampires on the left is telling). There are no universal ethical principles governing traffic laws either, but we still punish people for driving on the wrong side of the road, because enforcing these laws is necessary to have a functioning society.
5. Citizenship should be determined by the nationality of the parents, not where the child was born. No more anchor babies.

Boom. All immigration problems solved forever.

I've found that whenever I bring up the fact that American citizens can be nazis/communists, but people professing these ideologies are barred from immigrating into the US, the response tends to be a hysterical "are you seriously comparing muslims to nazis?!"

This is actually exactly what you want, because if you can get a tacit acceptance of the fact that it is possible to stop muslims from coming into the US, the frame changes to "but Islam is not as bad as those other ideologies!" - you now only have to demonstrate that Islam is an ideology worth banning. This is trivially easy if you have a functional knowledge of the Qur'an and the Hadith, as Muhammed was a pretty fucking awful human being, and consequently laid down a pretty fucking awful religion.

Muhammed was objectively a paedophile and mass-murderer. He took slaves, raped, tortured and murdered his way through Arabia. Yet the Qur'an holds him up as the most virtuous human who ever lived, to be emulated by all muslims. People who try and draw relativist comparisons between Christianity and Islam don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about, and this isn't tribal affiliation speaking - I'm not religious.

Here are some videos from an excellent channel to give Islam-apologists the cognitive dissonance needed to demoralise or convert them:

Bizarre doctrines and urine obsession, followed by mass torture and murder.

Hilariously messed up sexual voyeurism cloaked as a practice to avoid adultery.

Why muslims keep exploding.

This ain't your grandpa's monotheism.

Honestly, I think the best strategy is trying to educate people about both the legality of banning muslim immigration, and Islam itself. Most people believe the MSM when they say Trump's proposal is unconstitutional, because most people (Americans included) haven't read or bothered to try and understand the Bill of Rights. Most people also simply don't know that much about Islam other than what the MSM and politicians tell them every day. Even if it will be met with hostility, it's worth putting the seeds for these discussions out there wherever you can. Demoralise your enemies, invigorate your allies.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^Never gets old when confronting left wing women

"So you support an ideology founded by Mohammed, who took women as slaves, raped them and told his followers to do same?"

You might get in return, "oh, well the bible has some bad stuff in it too", to which you stay focussed.

"So you support the religion of Islam as founded on female rape and slavery then?"

"Yes or no? Do you support islam, the religion that calls for the rape and slavery of women?"

[komatiite]

Fresh out of the NBC brain trust, we see a new narrative emerge...

Chelsea Bombing Suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami Left Behind 'Rambling' Note

Quote:

When bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami was captured, he was carrying a notebook containing a "rambling" missive that praised a slain al-Qaeda leader and mentioned several deadly terror attacks, law enforcement sources told NBC News Tuesday.

It was "a hodgepodge, a rambling, disconnected, choppy series of references to past events," a law enforcement official said.

Cue the calls to solve the the American "Mental Health Crisis" in 3, 2, 1...

(edit, forgot the source link http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ny-nj-b...te-n651171 )

[weambulance]

(09-20-2016 06:42 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^Never gets old when confronting left wing women

"So you support an ideology founded by Mohammed, who took women as slaves, raped them and told his followers to do same?"

You might get in return, "oh, well the bible has some bad stuff in it too", to which you stay focussed.

"So you support the religion of Islam as founded on female rape and slavery then?"

"Yes or no? Do you support islam, the religion that calls for the rape and slavery of women?"

Not even just left wing women.

The other day a fairly conservative and normally sensible girl tried to play the "well white people have done bad stuff too" card when I said something about the muslim takeover of europe. I probably went overboard blasting her argument to smithereens, since she stopped responding to me. This is someone I've been friends with for years.

When people surprise me with their ignorance I usually end up reacting like an asshole. Doesn't happen very often, once every few months, but I don't know if it helps or hurts my cause to make them feel like a moron.

[Suits]

(09-20-2016 06:46 PM)komatiite Wrote:  

Fresh out of the NBC brain trust, we see a new narrative emerge...

Chelsea Bombing Suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami Left Behind 'Rambling' Note

Quote:

When bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami was captured, he was carrying a notebook containing a "rambling" missive that praised a slain al-Qaeda leader and mentioned several deadly terror attacks, law enforcement sources told NBC News Tuesday.

It was "a hodgepodge, a rambling, disconnected, choppy series of references to past events," a law enforcement official said.

Alex, I'll take Islamic Heroes for 500, please.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

IJR Wrote:

Father of NY & NJ Bombings Suspect Told FBI He Thought His Son Was a Terrorist Two Years Ago

The father of Ahmad Khan Rahami — the man suspected of being behind the New York and New Jersey bombings last week — told the FBI that his son was a terrorist two years ago, but later retracted his statement.

Mohammad Rahami, the New York Times reports, alerted the police his son was a terrorist following a domestic dispute with his brother in 2014. The accusation made its way all the way up to the FBI. According to the Times:

The information was passed to the Joint Terrorism Task Force led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Newark. Officers opened what is known as an assessment, the most basic of F.B.I. investigations, and interviewed the father, who then recanted.

An official, when asked about the inquiry, said the father made the comment out of anger at his son.

http://ijr.com/2016/09/697100-father-of-..._term=prm6

They didn't even bother to discreetly investigate the reported person!

[Ghost Tiger]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I don't know if it helps or hurts my cause to make them feel like a moron.

"If you're going to tell them the truth, make them laugh, or they'll kill you."

- Oscar Wilde

[Sooth]

(09-20-2016 10:15 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

IJR Wrote:

Father of NY & NJ Bombings Suspect Told FBI He Thought His Son Was a Terrorist Two Years Ago

The father of Ahmad Khan Rahami — the man suspected of being behind the New York and New Jersey bombings last week — told the FBI that his son was a terrorist two years ago, but later retracted his statement.

Mohammad Rahami, the New York Times reports, alerted the police his son was a terrorist following a domestic dispute with his brother in 2014. The accusation made its way all the way up to the FBI. According to the Times:

The information was passed to the Joint Terrorism Task Force led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Newark. Officers opened what is known as an assessment, the most basic of F.B.I. investigations, and interviewed the father, who then recanted.

An official, when asked about the inquiry, said the father made the comment out of anger at his son.

http://ijr.com/2016/09/697100-father-of-..._term=prm6

They didn't even bother to discreetly investigate the reported person!

The authorities are probably completely over run with people people they are supposed to be watching.

You would never hear that "we have 50 reports per day from fathers who think their sons are about to go full Jihad, we can't monitor them all".

[Leonard D Neubache]

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

...
When people surprise me with their ignorance I usually end up reacting like an asshole. Doesn't happen very often, once every few months, but I don't know if it helps or hurts my cause to make them feel like a moron.

I have this problem too. I must constantly remind myself to frame the debate in a manner that appeals to their own self interest first, the interest of those they care about second and everything else a distant third.

Better to go with "in islamic countries women are treated like cattle, so you can fully expect that the more muslims we import the more islamic this nation will become, and the more islamic it becomes the more rights you and your (future) daughters will lose."

[Isaac Jordan]

(09-21-2016 12:20 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 07:08 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I don't know if it helps or hurts my cause to make them feel like a moron.

"If you're going to tell them the truth, make them laugh, or they'll kill you."

- Oscar Wilde

Quote:

Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —

- Emily Dickinson

[Huxley Badkin]

Fuck. Me.

Islamic immigration has led to a complete shitshow in the West - we need more of it!

Breitbart: Manhattanistan: London, NYC, Paris Mayors Call for More Immigration in Response to U.S. Terror Attacks

Quote:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — Despite the fact that terrorism has torn New York City, London and especially Paris apart, all three cities’ mayors argued for bringing in more unscreened “refugees” in a joint oped in the New York Times as the United Nations General Assembly meets here this week.

Quote:

Amazingly, as first noted by LifeZette, the three mayors claim that terror-connected “violence” among immigrants and refugees is “vanishingly rare.” They then proceed to attack anyone who questions their globalist agenda as promoting “xenophobic language.”

“Our shared perspective is informed by the sober awareness of the dangers we face. In the aftermath of an explosive device going off in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York last weekend, and other attacks in cities throughout the world, we recognize that the security of all our residents is paramount in large, open, democratic societies,” they wrote. “But it is wrong to characterize immigrant and refugee communities as radical and dangerous; in our experience, militant violence is vanishingly rare. Therefore, we must continue to pursue an inclusive approach to resettlement in order to combat the growing tide of xenophobic language around the globe. Such language will lead only to the increased marginalization of our immigrant communities, and without making us any safer.”

[My emphasis].

The usual narrative: so-called 'hate speech' (the definition of which is ever-broadening) is worse than actual terrorist attacks. And, never mind those injured and mutilated by the latest islamic atrocity, the real victims are those 'marginalized' by 'xenophobia'.

Fucking unreal.

[rotekz]

[iknowexactly]

(09-18-2016 08:56 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Its not just the tin foil hat - yesterday morning between 11 a.m. and 12.30 -

I don't think it's paranoid to think there's cops looking for terrorists, any more than it's paranoid to think there's terrorists out there.

I'm guessing here's at this moment hundreds/low thousands/? of disaffected young musl1ms are thinking/operating in the USA on a spectrum from sympathizing, making gestural inquiries on how-to building b0mbs, actually discussing these things with pissed off friends, buying things like combat knives, guns, b0mb making materials etc, and actually planning things, to actually harassing in public, assaulting, robbing, pointing to at some point making a real mass attack.

I don't think it's an accident there's been no loss in the hundreds of lives in the USA since 9/11 (where the FBI totally fucked up but no one lost their job--see the Minnesota woman agent who tried and tried to warn superiors about the muslim guy in pilot school who didn't want to learn how to land-- she turned out to be right and got PENALIZED) -- despite how they fucked up with 9/11 not all the people working for the agencies monitoring this stuff aren't just sitting on their asses, they are going out and digging in a lot of ways, some of which you or I might not be comfortable with.

For every good lead which leads to a prevented attack, there's probably hundreds that go nowhere, either because they're not specific enough or are just false.

So OF COURSE there's cops sniffing around for this stuff. I for one want them to be as long as they don't turn it into a police state where I as a peaceful citizen am not harassed.

As a classical liberal, I for one think there's a middle ground between banning the majority peaceful members of a whole religion, and blindly allowing all pro-violent rhetoric from the worst members of the religion.
Most of the bombers from all nations for whom I've noticed demographics were:

1. Young Islamic males no further removed from country of origin than one generation.
2. Had arrest or conviction for violent crime in last 5-10 years.
3. Traveled to Islamic country in past.

I speculate there would be other other discernible demographics-- for instance, no 2nd degree Caucasian relatives, no brothers or sisters married to ethnic Americans of three generations or more in the USA.

I think the third factors is critical, because even fanatics seek social approval-- to go where USA/West is seen as demonic is essential to gathering the courage to kill a bunch of people you don't know--because you can remember the accolades of those you DID know saying it was OK.

It may be possible to constitutionally differentiate segments of that religion which are de facto violent and treasonous political movements advocating persecution of other religions and thus are not religions but criminal gangs.

One could argue Islam specifically advocates overthrow of the government, and is therefor as a whole a political and terrorist organization rather than a religion, except for the fact most Muslims aren't actually planning violence.

It a difficult situation requiring something more than manly oversimplification.
It may make sense to preach diversity while investigating the hell out of anyone who fits the above criteria.

"Appear weak when you are strong, strong when you are weak" Sun Tzu.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^It's not difficult at all.

Whether the vast majority of muslims are violent or not is of no relevance. Their importation creates a threat for no discernible gain, and that threat only grows as they themselves multiply.

Meanwhile their own preachers teach jihad because it's in the koran and get away with it because "minority waaaaaaah".

This means you either get to stick a snitch in every mosque or you'll get terrorists. And if you stick a snitch in every mosque you'll get terrorists anyway "because you're oppressing them".

No offence, but liberals are a historically squishy blob that have no place in history. They will always be crushed by those with a greater will to power. So you can toughen up and just admit that shit like Islam cannot be tolerated or they'll simply erode your liberal paradise like the waters of a flood.

[Kona]

(09-21-2016 08:54 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 08:56 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Its not just the tin foil hat - yesterday morning between 11 a.m. and 12.30 -

I don't think it's paranoid to think there's cops looking for terrorists, any more than it's paranoid to think there's terrorists out there.

I always wonder how many serious attacks and whatnot law enforcement and anti terrorism special forces types actually stop?

How many of these things do we just never hear about?

Aloha!

[Leonard D Neubache]

^ If it hadn't leaked on social media we'd have never heard of the NYE Cologne rapes in Germany. The government and all mainstream media colluded to keep that one quiet until it became too ridiculous to hide it any longer.

[Easy_C]

(09-21-2016 09:51 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

No offence, but liberals are a historically squishy blob that have no place in history. They will always be crushed by those with a greater will to power. So you can toughen up and just admit that shit like Islam cannot be tolerated or they'll simply erode your liberal paradise like the waters of a flood.

They're worse than that. Historically they're the useful idiots who are used as raw material by those who actually understand how power works. They also understand that these people will instinctively oppose any established order so the original leftists are always purged once they've fulfilled their purpose.

[The Beast1]

I've always wanted to see if I can get a spook to appear. Tell a friend in person your plan and have both of you discuss ways to "blow up a building" over the phone.

Then order some fertilizer.

Talk some more on the phone about bombing things.

Then download and run Tor on your machine.

Walk around down town and see if anyone is following you.

When I was in Israel, I was pretty sure I had Shinbet watching me the entire time.