patrick.net

FP says

I am curious, how many people on this forum think that collective punishment is immoral?

No one is advocating collective punishment. We just want to stop immigration from countries that are very likely to bring in terrorists. That's not punishment, we don't owe them anything.

Collective punishment is what BLM demands be done to whites.

FortWayne says

We just want to stop immigration from countries that are very likely to bring in terrorists. That's not punishment, we don't owe them anything.

I agree with this more or less. However, this is not all that is being advocated here.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

With wives and parents not getting an exception.

Wives and parents who had nothing to do with the terrorist act?

FP says

What I mean by what? You don't know what collective punishment means?

Quit pretending other people are monkeys or too stupid to know what words mean. I listed four specific categories, the latter two exposing the backwards hypocrisy of too many ivory tower trustafarians. If you don't see how certain ivory tower policies punish people today on the basis of ethnicity, then you should look up collective punishment. If you don't see how a particular sect can share responsibility for advocating and committing genocides and other murders, then you should read more about collective action.

George, it was a simple question. Just answer it or shut up.

FP says

Wives and parents who had nothing to do with the terrorist act?

In its 2016 budget, the Palestinian Authority allocated approximately $140 million for payments to incarcerated and released prisoners and $175 million for payments to the families of “martyrs.” All together, these grisly rewards amount to roughly 7 percent of the authority's budget.

In 2014, in a cynical sleight of hand, the Palestinian Authority passed off the official responsibility of allocating these payments to the PLO. The funds, however, still originate from the Palestinian Authority's budget and are designated for the same purpose.

For its part, the United States provides approximately $400 million a year in economic assistance to the Palestinian territories, much of it in the form of grants and contracts for specific projects, such as water and sanitation; a portion is dedicated to directly supporting the Palestinian Authority's annual budget. Those direct payments are surely commingled with salaries to terrorists. But since money is fungible, any support the U.S. provides has the potential to free up funds elsewhere that can be used for this illegal purpose.

So you can see, the families of "Martyrs" get money, which is often superior to wages paid for most kinds of employment. There's a tremendous incentive to commit violence, and demolishing homes of terrorists' families is a great way to negate the benefit.

curious2 says

Just answer it

I did answer, and you don't add anything by calling me names. You don't even seem to realize that I answered, and that suggests cognitive dissonance on your part. You can read more about cognitive dissonance, and the hallucinations it causes, elsewhere.

Terrorists know that they can count on protection for their terror-supporting Islamic families, terror-supporting Islamic mosques, and terror-supporting Islamic communities from the mainstream press and from Western governments, and from their supporting cast of masturbatory self-congratulatory leftist virtue signallers.

Terrorists are perfectly free to kill at random, since they want to die, and the one thing that would stop them (expulsion of their families) is not even considered. Yet.

A British Muslim pointed out that expulsion for families of terrorists is the answer, right after the Manchester attack. He knows what he's talking about.

Belief in Islam (and therefore belief in sharia, the opposite of all Western values) should be a disqualification to even set foot in the civilized world to begin with.

Just FYI: It's perfectly legal to ban people for Ideology. The USG has banned Anarchists and Communists and others, and it has never been ruled unconstitutional.

rando says

A British Muslim pointed out that expulsion for families of terrorists is the answer, right after the Manchester attack. He knows what he's talking about.

Talking about families: Saddam "Dindonuffin" Hussein, for whom so many tears have been shed on this very board, paid sizeable chunks of money to the families of so-called "martyrs". Tens of millions per year in total.

anonymous says

We just want to stop immigration from countries that are very likely to bring in terrorists

No problem - they are already here so we better get a better handle on them and be proactive rather than reactive. When you do stop immigration

from said countries, fear not. Much like the border wall the bad guys will have innovated and done a "work around" converting WASP types for the future wave of assaults.

Maybe we should spend a bit more time on diffusing the ideology. Right now I suspect their resolve to continue despite setbacks is stronger than our resolve to effectively deal with the problem. Follow the money, oil and other tangibles....

The harder it is for them to get here, the less of them will get here. It's like a tax, the harder you make something, the less of it you'll get.

curious2 says

I did answer

No, you did not. I am just going to ignore you from now on.

So nobody here thinks collective punishment is immoral.

How about torture? Anybody here who does not approve of torture?

Hey, that's just like the war on drugs ! The harder they try to make it to get, people innovate and make meth labs. For everything else the price goes up as well as the killings. Win-Win for everyone !

-----------

Not to mention ten times the suffering

FP says

So nobody here thinks....

You don't even read people's answers, and in any event you can't honestly assume what other people think if they don't bother answering you. We aren't your classroom, nor your assistants. You don't know what we think. You're merely being snarky, calling me a monkey again and trying to imply something about anyone whose answers you can't mock or who doesn't take your bait.

rando says

Terrorists know that they can count on protection for their terror-supporting Islamic families, terror-supporting Islamic mosques, and terror-supporting Islamic communities

I don't see anybody here calling for protection of terror-supporting entities.

rando says

A British Muslim pointed out that expulsion for families of terrorists is the answer, right after the Manchester attack. He knows what he's talking about.

Families - how extended? Expulsion where?
Exterminating all muslims will also solve the problem. Doesn't make it right.

rando says

Belief in Islam (and therefore belief in sharia, the opposite of all Western values) should be a disqualification to even set foot in the civilized world to begin with.

But many have already set foot.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

FP says

I am curious, how many people on this forum think that collective punishment is immoral?

If it's the relatives or friends of a terrorist, who knew the person to be radicalized and/or planning an attack, then their homes should be demolished and they should go to prison for "Failure to Report Terrorism". With wives and parents not getting an exception.

This stops the "Palestinian helps his family by gaining cash/payments for them through his 'martyrdom'" problem.

Here's the problem in the U.S., and all the Trumpcucks can learn something here, because y'all claim to want a return to "law & order". Although that seemed to get abandoned as quickly as any of the other promises like getting rid of Obamacare lmao.

The only way to protect our populace here at home is to abandon the Failed Losers War on Drugs. It is so costly and hasn't delivered as promised. Worst still, the State and their on the ground operatives (police, etc) lack the kind of solid information they used to find in abundance, when they were friends of the community, rather than the enemies they sign up to be, nowadays. The Christian Conservatives War on Drugs has caused so much terror domestically, and it's going to cost a lot more lives unnecessarily, if Islam finds its way to the U.S.

anonymous says

Hey, that's just like the war on drugs ! The harder they try to make it to get, people innovate and make meth labs. For everything else the price goes up as well as the killings. Win-Win for everyone !

While were on that tax thing - does that apply to an education as well ? Like in the public schools in - wait for it - wait for it - KANSAS and OKLAHOMA ! Some group of people and a state leader in each case sure made it more difficult - ooopps - that was cutting taxes and it still didn't work. Damn....

War on drugs reduced drugs and addictions by a lot.

And I have no idea about that Kansas thing, I don't live in Kansas nor give a damn about what they do there, not my state.

errc says

The Christian Conservatives War on Drugs has caused so much terror domestically, and it's going to cost a lot more lives unnecessarily, if Islam finds its way to the U.S.

Democrats advocated both policies; the war on drugs escalated during the Clinton administration, but candidate Trump campaigned saying let states decide what to do about cannabis. California voted essentially to legalize, so the problem comes from VP Pence and other establishment Republicans and Democrats. The distinguishing feature in 2016 in this context was the Democrats campaigned on celebrating and empowering and spreading Islam.