Trump's ban on Muslims

[Sterben]

---

I don't mean to high jack the thread, point of view has not been stated yet. His ban on Muslims is a smoke screen. We have bigger problems that is being done behind the scenes of this administration. The internet is under attack again; and I'm scared that we don't have leaders to stop another attack. If we allow the censorship of the very tool we rely for our uncensored news; we won't be able to fight back. How many proxy's and VPN'S do we need to lose before we lose the right to express our self's without fear of repercussions. The reasons why this is crucial is, we need to preserve this tool in order to fight the ban on Muslims, if we allow his plans to remove content that does not favor him. The issues will get worse and it will be much more difficult to fight.

    The people that are experienced in the way of getting around content restrictions will be the ones waging the war. There are so few of us though us though, I remember being a teen and using basic proxy's to bypass content bans in school and on my friends computer. I helped liberate people under a content ban from their parents and schools. But, back then what we did is considered child's play. The process of getting around the locks and blocks are more difficult in today's world.

    His ban on Muslims is a racist law that if allowed will spread will open up more radical measures, cause no one is fighting him. The damage that can done will threaten the way our  society operates. Now, I must admit I'm a bit selfish that I advocate for the internet over peoples rights. My entire life is centered around the internet, and I don't want my way of life threatened in anyway, shape, and or form. If enough people was to move on his ban of Muslims in a similar response to the S.O.P.A or P.I.P.A bills. We could in effect stop them from proceeding further and make anything he wants to do a futile effort.

---

---

Remember how we roasted people in Dresden Germany and Tokyo?  We used flame throwers on enemy soldiers.  If it hadn't been for the nukes (which vaporized people) we would have burned Japan to the ground.   

You can Google the pictures.  The Draft feature isn't working so I can't do multiple links.  

Personally I think it takes someone who enjoys burning people alive to use a flame thrower on someone instead of just shooting him or blowing him up with a grenade.  

Blowing someone up with a high explosive bomb dropped from an airplane is bad but necessary.  However, to willingly drop firebombs on people requires that you like it.  We even did it in Vietnam.

        I would agree to certain extent, napalm was used to help clear the jungles out in The Vietnam war; beyond that it was cruel to use to in war. The flame thrower it self has always been questionable weapon, it had limited use other then for short range purposes. I'm sure some did enjoy dropping napalm, and setting people on fire to get their jolly's. I've seen the pictures and rare footage of burning men, woman, and children in both wars. The flame thrower was also used in the first world war by the Germans. Where i disagree with you is the fact we liked it seeing people on fire. If you set a city or a village on fire your sending a strong message that an invading army is going to burn as many as we can out of a deep rooted hatred.

       Seeing it with your eyes happening right in front of you must been horrifying. Those mental scars will last a life time, I'm also willing to bet that a lot solders regretted having to set another human being on fire. The smell of rotting human flesh must been of been something you got use to though. As long as you masked it behind the thought *I'm doing the right thing for my country.*