Trump: Ban All Muslim Travel to the U.S.

[Tentacruel]

They don't mean Muslims. They mean people who look middle eastern. 

[ihop]

How do you check is someone is a Muslim?

 

something like this -

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Deport Kim Kardashian? 

[Night]

Do you believe in bombing "terrorist" homes?

Yes because people will reproduce and pass on their false beliefs.

 

How ironic.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Leaving this here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-supporters-stand-man-amid-onslaught-vigilant/story?id=35650094

 

I agree in that we have to be vigilant when it comes to terrorism, but is this really the way to do it? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure most of you don't think so either.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Leaving this here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-supporters-stand-man-amid-onslaught-vigilant/story?id=35650094

 

I agree in that we have to be vigilant when it comes to terrorism, but is this really the way to do it? I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure most of you don't think so either.

 

Japaneses Internment WW2

 

The needs of the many outweigh out way the needs of the few

 

Especially when people like the Saudi aren't doing jackshit to fight ISIS. If muslims really hate ISIS, make them show it.

 

Honestly, his resolve to be so unpopular and fight the spineless precedence that Obama has set is making me give him a second look

 

And no, the constitution only applies to people living in the US, keeping mulims from entering would not counter the 1st amendment as they have no right to it

[Aerion Brightflame]

Surely if you are talking about the needs of the many outclassing the few, it's wrong to deny the majority access over the potential actions of the few? 

 

Because that's what it's boiling down to; Irrational fear of an entire cultural group because of a few psycho's. And that's wrong, and that's playing into ISIS's hands. In essence, you are letting them win, in part by being spineless and not standing above them. Since, it's the easy way out to hate, and to fear and to ban them. But to love and embrace them? To treat a few insane individuals as the insane individuals they are takes more strength of character, and more will power as a people. 

 

In essence; if your country actually did this, you'd be taking a big step backwards in terms of societal development. Ironically in the direction of becoming a radicalised nation I'd argue. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Surely if you are talking about the needs of the many outclassing the few, it's wrong to deny the majority access over the potential actions of the few? 

 

Because that's what it's boiling down to; Irrational fear of an entire cultural group because of a few psycho's. And that's wrong, and that's playing into ISIS's hands. In essence, you are letting them win, in part by being spineless and not standing above them. Since, it's the easy way out to hate, and to fear and to ban them. But to love and embrace them? To treat a few insane individuals as the insane individuals they are takes more strength of character, and more will power as a people. 

 

In essence; if your country actually did this, you'd be taking a big step backwards in terms of societal development. Ironically in the direction of becoming a radicalised nation I'd argue. 

I'm not saying send them back to ISIS. Just saying don't allow them onto US soil. There are island and such where we can hold them until the ISIS problem is solved.

 

We have no obligation to give them 1st amendment rights if they're not on American Soil nor of American Nationality

[Aerion Brightflame]

I'm not saying send them back to ISIS. Just saying don't allow them onto US soil. There are island and such where we can hold them until the ISIS problem is solved.

 

We have no obligation to give them 1st amendment rights if they're not on American Soil nor of American Nationality

 

So lock them up over false accusations in essence? 

 

Really embracing the idea of the land of the free there aren't you. A land forged by people who fled there homes to escape persecution based on faith. 

 

I'm not talking about 1st Amendmant rights, I'm just talking about how funking backwards it would be if this happened. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So lock them up over false accusations in essence? 

 

Really embracing the idea of the land of the free there aren't you. A land forged by people who fled there homes to escape persecution based on faith. 

 

I'm not talking about 1st Amendmant rights, I'm just talking about how f***ing backwards it would be if this happened. 

We had to do it during WW2 when the rest of us were threatened, it's not false accusation.

 

The cousin of the Paris Mastermind was an outgoing party girl less than a year ago, if she can turn so quickly what's stopping all these others from turning

 

If you wanna talk backwards, talk "Sharia law: Death to Infidels American Left: Can we meet you half way?"

 

You wanna talk other religions? Sure. My family was largely Hindu or Parsi, so I'll talk about that. Tamil Tigers, predominantly Hindu extremists. We put them down. When the predominantly muslim nations take the front role in putting down ISIS, then I'll believe it's false accusations.

 

American kids are done paying in blood so the Saudis can jerk off

[Aerion Brightflame]

We had to do it during WW2 when the rest of us were threatened, it's not false accusation.

 

You mean when you were in the largest war in human history? You're really trying to compare the two as justification? The 'War on Terror' really is not a good comparison, because you are under significantly less direct threat. And yes, I am serious about this. The odds of a given individual dying on Americain soil as direct result of terrorism is still tiny, you are more likely to die in a car accident. 

 

Like these arguments that letting them in is directly comprimising safety might be true, but it's gonna be increasing it by like a percentage point or less. Which makes such a strong reaction kinda shocking. 

 

Which makes justifying what's probably human right violations harder. 

 

 

The cousin of the Paris Mastermind was an outgoing party girl less than a year ago, if she can turn so quickly what's stopping all these others from turning

 

And there's the paranoia again. Treating this like some kind of disease is not the approach, because if anything it will make it worse. Ironically like confining a bunch of healthy people in with people with an infectious disease. You treat people as less than human, and is it any shock that they might just consider striking back against you? 

 

If you are really that paranoid about, monitor them, don't restrict them. It's a little more humane. 

 

 

If you wanna talk backwards, talk "Sharia law: Death to Infidels American Left: Can we meet you half way?"

 

Yeah some countries have barbaric systems of Sharia law in place. It's a problem, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't change that this kind of action is backwards to modern society, and is a step towards radicalisation, because you are essentially saying 'Oh it's right to fear these people and treat them as less than human because of there religion and religion alone.' and that it's an opinion sanctioned and shared by your bloody goverment. You are promoting ignorance, and fear, which are heavily at the basis of radicalisation. 

 

Do you really not see why that is a backwards thing? 

 

American kids are done paying in blood so the Saudis can jerk off

 

Good. It's about time, given that if America hadn't involved themselves in the Middle East in the first place, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get these radical groups threatening to attack our way of life. Because it's almost like there are people in those nations who'll unite to avenge there people when they are being bombed, and invaded, and having there way of life ruined. 

 

It's just paranoia and ignorance taken to a stupid level, and it's disgusting to see. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The idea that people don't have certain rights for not being American is silly, this country is kinda based on equal rights for all people. Sure we aren't "legally" obliged but that's been the morals of the country for a long time.

 

Also being unafraid to say something "unpopular" isn't a plus exactly. There's good reason the things he says are "unpopular" (the quotes because, as he's doing well in poll, obviously his opinion is, sadly, not entirely unpopular)

 

btw using Japanese internment camps, which was a horrible thing, is not a good example.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem is simply the majority are moderate Muslims are not opposed to ISIS's spread. Until that changes, it's not safe for other people. Hindus put down the Tigers, the KKK has been made irrelevant. It's the Muslim's time to prove it in their case

 

@Cow, IK, that was directed at Trump's disqualification, as technically he's done nothing wrong

 

People comparing Jews:Hitler to Muslims:Trump

 

The Jew's weren't blowing up Germans and flying planes into buildings, nor is Trump saying we should euthanize the Muslim population.

 

Stop funking Strawmaning it to be worse than what he said >_>

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The problem is simply the majority are moderate Muslims are not opposed to ISIS's spread. Until that changes, it's not safe for other people. Hindus put down the Tigers, the KKK has been made irrelevant. It's the Muslim's time to prove it in their case

 

@Cow, IK, that was directed at Trump's disqualification, as technically he's done nothing wrong

Wait are you saying that the majority of Muslims aren't opposed to it? Where do you get this information?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait are you saying that the majority of Muslims aren't opposed to it? Where do you get this information?

How about the fact that the NATO and Russia are the ones really doing damage to ISIS while Saudi just watches in amusement

 

or the fact that instead of shrinking, ISIS is growing. If the majority really hated them, this would not occur. The majority don't care as long as it's american blood that waters the ground

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

How about the fact that the NATO and Russia are the ones really doing damage to ISIS while Saudi just watches in amusement

how about Saudi isnt even the majority of muslims

[Aerion Brightflame]

How about the fact that the NATO and Russia are the ones really doing damage to ISIS while Saudi just watches in amusement

 

Umm... There are a lot of Islamic ground fighters working in combination with the airstrikes to drive IS back? Saudi alligned or not they exist. Especially since Saudi does not represent all Muslims in the first place. 

 

The whole point of the Airstrikes is that they are effective at helping to support ground troops. If ground troops didn't exist, we wouldn't be doing them, and you wouldn't hear stories of IS being driven back to strongholds. 

 

The idea of the airstrikes doing a lot of work is also expected because they are clearing out fortified positions and the like, which ground troops suck at doing. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Umm... There are a lot of Islamic ground fighters working in combination with the airstrikes to drive IS back? Saudi alligned or not they exist. Especially since Saudi does not represent all Muslims in the first place. 

 

The whole point of the Airstrikes is that they are effective at helping to support ground troops. If ground troops didn't exist, we wouldn't be doing them, and you wouldn't hear stories of IS being driven back to strongholds. 

 

The idea of the airstrikes doing a lot of work is also expected because they are clearing out fortified positions and the like, which ground troops suck at doing. 

Kurds are doing most of the fighting last I checked. As long as there are entire thriving countries like Saudi that operate under Sharia I'm really not sure I can get behind the Sunni

 

I would say let the Shia Muslims in though

how about Saudi isnt even the majority of muslims

Fair, I have no fight with the Shia muslims. This is predominantly a Sunni problem 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Kurds are doing most of the fighting last I checked. As long as there are entire thriving countries like Saudi that operate under Sharia I'm really not sure I can get behind the Sunni

 

I would say let the Shia Muslims in though

 

Since when have Kurds not been Muslims? Like you are talking about Muslims not doing anything, and then admit a majority Islamic people are the ones doing most of the fighting. 

 

You realise that even Saudi only picks and chooses certain bits from Sharia law for? No country in the world just uses Sharia law for it's entire legal system. If you ignore the punishments, nothing in Sharia law is especially barbaric, and a lot of it is in place in other legal systems around the globe. 

 

So Sharia law is not an inherant issue either given how it's applied across the world. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Since when have Kurds not been Muslims? Like you are talking about Muslims not doing anything, and then admit a majority Islamic people are the ones doing most of the fighting. 

 

You realise that even Saudi only picks and chooses certain bits from Sharia law for? No country in the world just uses Sharia law for it's entire legal system. If you ignore the punishments, nothing in Sharia law is especially barbaric, and a lot of it is in place in other legal systems around the globe. 

 

So Sharia law is not an inherant issue either given how it's applied across the world. 

I mean I pretty clearly stated that my main problem was with the Sunni muslims.

 

You can't pick and choose when Saudi does implement those punishment. The fact that there's any appeal to Sharia is barbaric in its own regard, which is my larger problem with Islam, but seeing the matters at hand, and a statistically more Sunni favor towards it, targeting the natural enemies of the Sunni in the Kurds and Shia is not profitable

 

It's all a game of chess, and while Trump is playing it well, he needs to lend support to the Shia to help further the animosity between the sects. D&C's barty, oldest trick in the book

 

Anyway, the Islam is the natural enemy of Hinduism, so my former upbring has made me bias. I don't think I can objectively take part in this discussion, so I'm leaving

[Maeriberii Haan]

personally idk, the concept of sharia being ultimately absolute law that should only be the only law feel silly, tbh. It's still interpreted a lot differently by muslims of different places and cultures, and in the end a majority of it is still human interpretation of the source materials, which is still prone to mistakes and multiple interpretations. And in the end it got used a lot to justify barbaric things that outright goes against the principle of the source material itself. Either that, or it's used to make it seem some group are people is the most right in this world and justify them acting prideful ad unaccepting of other thoughts...which goes against the source material too.

 

the branch of islam Saudi and ISIL practices is based on a very outdated view and fatwas of a 13th century imam, and even then, they just quote him liberally and ignore a lot of his other teachings. And while the imam was exceptionally harsh even back then, it makes a lot of sense since he was in an era while his area and the muslim kingdom around him was being harshly conquered by the Mongols. Down the line, his teaching ended up being used to justify sheet like what ISIL did and Saudi's practices.

 

Could go longer but that's the gist of it and i'm unmotivated to go longer.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Wait, just to clarify, did Winter imply that WWII's Japanese internment was a good thing that should be repeated? I feel like I misread something somewhere along the line.