What's so bad about what Donald Trump said?

I don't think more enemies bothers them. In fact in terms of recruitment I'm sure they like it.

It may not bother them, but their resources are limited and they have to be careful not to stretch themselves too thin, too many battles fronts is the quickest way to kill a group like ISIL.
 
Ok this is random but since everything is so partisan is it only people on the right who use ISIS and people on the left who use ISIL? Is that how we differentiate ourselves when discussing the group?

Edit: Maybe not.

I use both, but Daesh is more appropriate.
 
Because in America we don't go against our very basic principals, even if its just "..until we figure out what the hell is going on..."

Did Patrick Henry say...

Give me Liberty, after you figure out what's going on, or give me death."

No he said...

"Give me Liberty, or give me death."

And Patrick Henry's words apply here how?

Additionally, was FDR a "fascist" and did he "violate our principles" and "violate the US Constitution" when he halted immigration from Italy, Japan and Germany the day after Pearl Harbor via Executive Order?

I will understand if you won't answer
 
And Patrick Henry's words apply here how?

Additionally, was FDR a "fascist" and did he "violate our principles" and "violate the US Constitution" when he halted immigration from Italy, Japan and Germany the day after Pearl Harbor via Executive Order?

I will understand if you won't answer

No, halting immigration from a COUNTRY you are at war with is a very different thing than banning an entire religious ideology that you are not at war with. If you cant understand that or immediately see that, I simply have no hope of explaining it to you, you have chosen to be ignorant.
 
No, halting immigration from a COUNTRY you are at war with is a very different thing than banning an entire religious ideology that you are not at war with. If you cant understand that or immediately see that, I simply have no hope of explaining it to you, you have chosen to be ignorant.

Let's start with basics shall we?

Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to prevent a repeat of Jihad Jane killing 14 people? Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to keep jihadi's hell bent on killing us out of our country?
 
Let's start with basics shall we?

Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to prevent a repeat of Jihad Jane killing 14 people? Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to keep jihadi's hell bent on killing us out of our country?

I think the Federal Government should do a lot, but there are lines I don't think the Government should cross. So, based on how you worded your question, "ALL IT CAN" I have to answer no.

The Federal Government could, for example, have gone on a mission to confiscate all mechanical weapons from all Americans because She MIGHT use them in an attack. They could have gone door to door and searched all buildings for weapons to confiscate.

They could have insisted on psychological examinations of all people inside the United States and eliminated anyone who illustrated any tendency toward violence.

They could have restricted any and all travel.

They could have inserted listening devices in everyone homes and places of business and set a computer to pick out code words that warned imprisoning those who uttered such words.

There are a lot of things that might have resulted in a reduced likelihood of the California attacks from happening that I would be against the Government attempting.
 
Ok this is random but since everything is so partisan is it only people on the right who use ISIS and people on the left who use ISIL? Is that how we differentiate ourselves when discussing the group?

Edit: Maybe not.

It's not a left-right thing. Billy and I both know that the proper term is ISIL, for example. Billy will even call you a retard for saying ISIS. Of course, now that it's trendy to say Daesh, lots of people on JPP are going to start calling it Desh... :D
 
It's not a left-right thing. Billy and I both know that the proper term is ISIL, for example. Billy will even call you a retard for saying ISIS. Of course, now that it's trendy to say Daesh, lots of people on JPP are going to start calling it Desh... :D

I refuse to grant ISIS the Levant, even by implication. F ISIS and the horse they rode in on.
 
Let's start with basics shall we?

Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to prevent a repeat of Jihad Jane killing 14 people? Do you agree that our federal government should do all it can to keep jihadi's hell bent on killing us out of our country?

See, our hands are tied. There's only so much we can do. We can't dissallow a flood of Syrian refugees/immigrants/terrorists without sacrificing our principles. Same ditto for closing the borders or putting a moratorium on Muslims entering the country till the government gets its act together.

Granted, innocent people may die, but as long as it's limited to a dozen or so nothing will change.
 
I think the Federal Government should do a lot, but there are lines I don't think the Government should cross. So, based on how you worded your question, "ALL IT CAN" I have to answer no.

The Federal Government could, for example, have gone on a mission to confiscate all mechanical weapons from all Americans because She MIGHT use them in an attack. They could have gone door to door and searched all buildings for weapons to confiscate.

They could have insisted on psychological examinations of all people inside the United States and eliminated anyone who illustrated any tendency toward violence.

They could have restricted any and all travel.

They could have inserted listening devices in everyone homes and places of business and set a computer to pick out code words that warned imprisoning those who uttered such words.

There are a lot of things that might have resulted in a reduced likelihood of the California attacks from happening that I would be against the Government attempting.

Once people get into this 'Would you do anything?' mindset, that's when fascism starts to infect the society.
 
I think the Federal Government should do a lot, but there are lines I don't think the Government should cross. So, based on how you worded your question, "ALL IT CAN" I have to answer no.

The Federal Government could, for example, have gone on a mission to confiscate all mechanical weapons from all Americans because She MIGHT use them in an attack. They could have gone door to door and searched all buildings for weapons to confiscate.

They could have insisted on psychological examinations of all people inside the United States and eliminated anyone who illustrated any tendency toward violence.

They could have restricted any and all travel.

They could have inserted listening devices in everyone homes and places of business and set a computer to pick out code words that warned imprisoning those who uttered such words.

There are a lot of things that might have resulted in a reduced likelihood of the California attacks from happening that I would be against the Government attempting.

No one can fabricate prolific strawman arguments better than you.
 
I use both, but Daesh is more appropriate.

ISIS and ISIL are both acronyms for their English translations, I don't really care which one is used (I usually use "ISIS" just because it's more common). Daesh is an Arabic acronym of their Arabic name (think "CCCP" to refer to the USSR) which sounds like a stupid made up word in Arabic because people don't use acronyms in that language. That's why people are promoting it, because it sounds like a bit of an insult, a stupid made up word for a stupid made up country.
 
Back
Top