USA Trump on Muslims

[tango]

Trump meant to ban muslims from entering the USA until a way can be found (if this is even possible) to determine who is good and who is bad. That is just common sense. To do otherwise is playing a form of Russian Roulette.

So why single out Muslims for special treatment? Why does "determin(ing) who is good and who is bad" only apply to Muslims rather than to anyone else wanting to come here?

The idea of bringing the refugees into the USA is also something that should not be allowed, especially since there are places abroad that they can be taken to for safety. There are radical muslims who are trying to impersonate these people in order to sneak into our country and begin planning their acts of murder. Don't agree with this? Then, simply put, you are an idiot. And I am NOT calling you names -- I am merely describing you. I am not referring to anyone specifically in this thread, but am speaking in general terms.

Sure there are radical Muslims who want to kill us. There are also Colombian drug lords and Mexican gangsters who want to get here to set up criminal empires. So why single out Muslims rather than having a general policy of checking people out before letting them in?

The common thread weaving both of these issues is that it is impossible to vet most of these people. The record keeping in these other nations is not as complete and efficient as we have here in the USA. The backgrounds of many of those people simply are not on any record that we can examine. That is a major reason why terrorists can use this fact to gain entry into our nation. And yes, people have EVERY right and reason to be afraid of muslims -- simply because there is NO way to tell what is going on inside of them. Most are peace loving people who just want to live in peace. Some are radicals who are planning to kill as many of us as they can reach.

There's no more reason to fear Muslims than there is to fear any other group of people. Which leads on to your next point...

Even muslims (the innocent ones) are afraid of other muslims for the exact same reasons. That is why so many of them fail to speak out about the radicals among their demographics -- because they would also be killed by these radicals. So Ruth, and others, you have no need to apologize for expressing fear, or concern, regarding muslims. It is very much like being around black people. Most of them are fine citizens. But their people do commit most of the violent crime in the USA -- so who is to say whether or not a black person walking toward you on the sidewalk is a good person or a mugger, etc.?

Do you know for a fact that Muslims don't speak out against Muslim terrorism because of fear, or because they just don't associate with it at all? Do you feel the need to endlessly speak out against, say, Westboro Baptist Church or the abomination of child abuse within the church? I can't say I do, I think it goes without saying that I find child abuse to be abhorrent and I really don't feel the need to explicitly state and restate it.

Since you threw black people into the mix why stop there? Why not consider groups like the Orientals (who may or may not be members of a group like the Triads or the Yakuza)? It's not as if white people are innocent either, just look at some of the abominations committed by white people. We could start with someone like, say, Timothy McVeigh?

It is only human nature to feel fear in situations that are potentially harmful to them. And I'm looking forward to reading the replies to this post that try to refute this reality and pretend it is not true. LOL

You're pulling twisted logic there. It's human nature to fear the unknown. If you're used to living in an area that's entirely homogenous it's natural to feel unease when facing someone of a different race. But if you actually spend time among people of different races, religions and cultures you soon realise that there's no reason to fear a black man any more than a white man, no reason to fear a Muslim any more than a Hindu, no reason to fear a man more than a woman, and so on.

Many situations are potentially harmful to us, it's just that we choose to focus on the vanishingly small probability of being killed by terrorists as if it were a near certainty while ignoring far more active risks like getting in our cars. I'm more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident driving to the airport than killed by a terrorist blowing up the plane I'm traveling on, yet the focus is relentlessly on the smaller probability of death by terrorism.

People also forget that the USA discontinued almost all immigration into this country from around 1924 until around 1964. There is no automatic right for any non-American person to enter this country, so we are not violating any foreigner's rights by denying them entry into our country. The safety of ALL American citizens in this country is what must receive top priority.

Sure, so once again why stop at Muslims? I read a recent news report about a young woman gang-raped by five black men in Brooklyn. Perhaps we should stop black men entering the country as well. But wait, what about the white men holed up in their protest in Oregon? Should we stop white men from entering the country? Maybe we should just close the borders and not let anyone in at all. At least we'd be safe then. While we're at it, let's ban motor vehicles to make us a bit safer. We could just go back to the Amish lifestyle - we'd gain some safety along the way.

Or we could accept that the price of a free society is that some people abuse the freedoms they are granted. The question is whether we want to live in a free society anyway, or live in something more like a police state where we can only hope the police don't turn against us some day.

No American citizen can be blamed if they feel unsafe around anyone who appears to be from the middle east. It was not like this before 911. But, since that infamous day, the entire world has changed because the radical muslims will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of killing anyone who does not believe as they do. And anyone who says that people are acting out of hatred, or silliness, are absolute idiots. We've already seen acts of murder committed in this country by radical muslims -- a fact that cannot be refuted.

You're playing fast and loose with logic once again. Nobody is refuting that radical Muslims have committed murder in the US, as well as around the world. But to conclude from those observations that a billion Muslims are dangerous is absurd, it's akin to observing that a few men are rapists and therefore concluding that no woman can be blamed if she feels unsafe around anyone who appears to be a man.

911 didn't change a billion people around the world. The dangerous ones were always dangerous and the innocent ones are still innocent. 911 changed our perception of Muslims, and started an increasingly silly process by which anyone with brown skin and a beard came under suspicion.

And, as long as radicals are out there still planning to kill as many of us as they can, we must practice diligence and try protect ourselves as much as possible.

Sure, but it still keeps coming back to the question of what price we are willing to pay to live in a free society. If we massively rein in the freedoms of one group because a tiny number among them are undesirables we shouldn't then be surprised if we have our own freedoms reined in because of some tenuous link to some other tiny number of people.

 

[tango]

The problems they have caused. Not integrating into society but rather setting up their own and trying to live by Shahira law and want ing to have a seperate legal system for them governed by Shahira law, not to mention the crime

Most people will seek out others who are like them. In many large cities you'll find areas where people from particular cultures have tended to group together. Sometimes a particular culture will become troublesome but it's silly to claim that Muslims have a monopoly on causing trouble.

In London there was a time when Brixton was a very black area and the blacks were associated with a lot of crime. In later years it was the Portuguese who were the troublemakers.

Just out of interest, what is your source of information on the problems the Muslims have apparently caused in the UK? Having lived in London for nearly 20 years, having travelled among Muslims on the London Underground a few days after it was bombed on 7/7/2005 (and daily for several years either side of that day), having lived and worked among Muslims, I've never seen them as being problematic.

 

[tango]

Yes and we see how well that has worked. Ask yourself why they are fleeing to the west rather than to oil rich arab countries. They want to escape fine, twelll the arab states to take care of their own

Why the wealthy Islamic nations won't take Muslim refugees is certainly a question that should be asked. But whatever other nations do doesn't change what we should do. The right thing to do is the right thing to do regardless of whether other nations are doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

 

[Highlander]

Highlander said:
Trump meant to ban muslims from entering the USA until a way can be found (if this is even possible) to determine who is good and who is bad. That is just common sense. To do otherwise is playing a form of Russian Roulette.

tango replied:
So why single out Muslims for special treatment? Why does "determin(ing) who is good and who is bad" only apply to Muslims rather than to anyone else wanting to come here?

I reject the premise of your question because it is waterlogged with liberal inebriation. HINT to sober up your thinking: It is ONLY radical muslims who are murdering innocent people with their acts of terrorism.

However, just to please you, as soon as Roman Catholics & devout Jews join the radical muslims in mass murdering innocent people, while chanting that "God is Great," I promise that we'll single them out for you also.

In the meantime, we will soberly focus on the ONLY demographic that is doing the killing and will NOT include others -- which is what you seem to be wishing for.

 

[psalms 91]

Highlander said:
Trump meant to ban muslims from entering the USA until a way can be found (if this is even possible) to determine who is good and who is bad. That is just common sense. To do otherwise is playing a form of Russian Roulette.

tango replied:
So why single out Muslims for special treatment? Why does "determin(ing) who is good and who is bad" only apply to Muslims rather than to anyone else wanting to come here?

I reject the premise of your question because it is waterlogged with liberal inebriation. HINT to sober up your thinking: It is ONLY radical muslims who are murdering innocent people with their acts of terrorism.

However, just to please you, as soon as Roman Catholics & devout Jews join the radical muslims in mass murdering innocent people, while chanting that "God is Great," I promise that we'll single them out for you also.

In the meantime, we will soberly focus on the ONLY demographic that is doing the killing and will NOT include others -- which is what you seem to be wishing for.

Here here, common sense

 

[tango]

Highlander said:
Trump meant to ban muslims from entering the USA until a way can be found (if this is even possible) to determine who is good and who is bad. That is just common sense. To do otherwise is playing a form of Russian Roulette.

tango replied:
So why single out Muslims for special treatment? Why does "determin(ing) who is good and who is bad" only apply to Muslims rather than to anyone else wanting to come here?

I reject the premise of your question because it is waterlogged with liberal inebriation. HINT to sober up your thinking: It is ONLY radical muslims who are murdering innocent people with their acts of terrorism.

Yawn, more silly posturing rather than addressing the issue. If the points are weak then you could always be radical yourself (in a different sense of the term "radical" of course) and actually address the issue rather than throwing in silly diversions.

Of course radical Muslims are killing people. Nobody is denying that. But unless you want to claim that Muslims are the only murderers out there your point is irrelevant. We need to keep bad people out. Whether they are Muslims or not is irrelevant. A Muslim who wants to kill us all needs to be kept out. A Muslim who wants to visit his family in peace and then go home isn't a threat. A black man who wants to come here to rape people needs to be kept out. A black man who wants to see the sights of Las Vegas in peace and then go home isn't a threat. A white man who wants to come in and sell drugs needs to be kept out. A white man who wants to go shopping on Fifth Avenue in peace and then go home isn't a threat. I'm sure you can see the recurring theme in there somewhere.

However, just to please you, as soon as Roman Catholics & devout Jews join the radical muslims in mass murdering innocent people, while chanting that "God is Great," I promise that we'll single them out for you also.

Is a murder any less serious just because it wasn't committed by a man with brown skin and a beard who chants about God?

In the meantime, we will soberly focus on the ONLY demographic that is doing the killing and will NOT include others -- which is what you seem to be wishing for.

How about focussing on people who are dangerous rather than applying twisted logic at every step? All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.

 

[Highlander]

Tango said, in a most silly way:
Of course radical Muslims are killing people. Nobody is denying that. But unless you want to claim that Muslims are the only murderers out there your point is irrelevant.

Highland replies, in a most rational way:
You went way off the rails, crashed & burned with that particular idiotic statement, Tango. You are essentially claiming that ALL demographics are the terrorists who are beheading people, blowing them up, yelling "Allahu akbar" as they murder more Christians, Jews and whoever else does not share their muslim belief. And this represents your downfall.

You, Tango, are a prime example of how inebriated a human mind can become -- without touching a single drop of alcohol. You are guilty of TUI -- "Thinking Under the Influence" of liberalism.

And, when a human mind becomes that infected, they are seldom salvageable. So, just continue your life with a smile, nice & smug in the illusion that you are the smartest person in any phone booth you walk into.

For there is nothing as bold, articulate, confident & arrogant as the voice of ignorance.

And you are speaking loudly & clearly.

 

[TurtleHare]

I thought the less ignorant would be the ones who don't find the need to mudsling ?

 

[Stravinsk]

People,

This really isn't a question of moderate vs radical Muslims.

Because of some of the things the Quran Teaches and Muhammad practiced as an example, then people calling themselves Muslim have 2 choices:

1) They either admit that their holy book is flawed, not entirely holy and pick and choose what to believe and practice from it. This is not the same as a religion like Christianity, because of some fundamental differences in what is considered inspired, and why. Whereas the Bible has many many authors, the Quran has 1. To disbelieve or not practice what that 1 person taught or follow his example is to be, not a "moderate Muslim" but a Muslim in name only! That is to say - not one at all!

2) They choose to believe that their book is without flaw, believe all of it and practice it.

Those in Category 2 are actually good Muslims in the sense that they are accurately following their religion and it's dictates. Unfortunately, actually following their religion to the letter makes them extremely immoral and barbaric people in quite a few areas.

Those in Category 1 will always be looked at disparagingly and possibly threatened by those in Category 2. In times of trouble and hardship, and especially in times where Western powers violate their most basic of rights, then where will they look? They will seek answers from their religion and become more like the people in Category 2.

The west DOES have a part to play in this. They need to get out of the Middle East and stop meddling in it for economic reasons. The people's of many of those regions have a legitimate gripe against the West, and it is mixed up in their religion which only fuels the hatred.

 

[psalms 91]

People,

This really isn't a question of moderate vs radical Muslims.

Because of some of the things the Quran Teaches and Muhammad practiced as an example, then people calling themselves Muslim have 2 choices:

1) They either admit that their holy book is flawed, not entirely holy and pick and choose what to believe and practice from it. This is not the same as a religion like Christianity, because of some fundamental differences in what is considered inspired, and why. Whereas the Bible has many many authors, the Quran has 1. To disbelieve or not practice what that 1 person taught or follow his example is to be, not a "moderate Muslim" but a Muslim in name only! That is to say - not one at all!

2) They choose to believe that their book is without flaw, believe all of it and practice it.

Those in Category 2 are actually good Muslims in the sense that they are accurately following their religion and it's dictates. Unfortunately, actually following their religion to the letter makes them extremely immoral and barbaric people in quite a few areas.

Those in Category 1 will always be looked at disparagingly and possibly threatened by those in Category 2. In times of trouble and hardship, and especially in times where Western powers violate their most basic of rights, then where will they look? They will seek answers from their religion and become more like the people in Category 2.

The west DOES have a part to play in this. They need to get out of the Middle East and stop meddling in it for economic reasons. The people's of many of those regions have a legitimate gripe against the West, and it is mixed up in their religion which only fuels the hatred.

Getting out will not solve the problem of ISIS, it will only delay the inevitiable as we will fight them either over there or here

 

[Stravinsk]

Getting out will not solve the problem of ISIS, it will only delay the inevitiable as we will fight them either over there or here

The problems we are seeing aren't purely religious. The religion of Islam is part of it, a large part - but it is not, in itself completely to blame. I say that realizing some of it's ideology and horrible teachings and the example set by it's so called prophet.

The people's of some of those regions *have* suffered under Western influence - either through direct war or other means such as the west propping up and giving support to dictators in the region. We, as a collective people do not need to wallow in guilt over these things - and many of us are not directly guilty anyway excepting those who just blindly follow what our current "leaders" tell us.

We need to get out.

As horrible as much of the doctrine of Islam is - people's of the region do turn to it in retaliation for some of the things the West has done. These actions by the west are not, or are often not some sort of religious retaliation - it is economic. The region has resources on which we depend. That dependency can change, but only if we redefine to some extent what it means to live in a 1st world country.

Our dependence on oil needs to change. Not only for energy but for many of the things that are derived from it. There are alternatives that *are* viable. Most people are just not aware of them or believe the propaganda put out by a few major corporations.

 

[psalms 91]

The problems we are seeing aren't purely religious. The religion of Islam is part of it, a large part - but it is not, in itself completely to blame. I say that realizing some of it's ideology and horrible teachings and the example set by it's so called prophet.

The people's of some of those regions *have* suffered under Western influence - either through direct war or other means such as the west propping up and giving support to dictators in the region. We, as a collective people do not need to wallow in guilt over these things - and many of us are not directly guilty anyway excepting those who just blindly follow what our current "leaders" tell us.

We need to get out.

As horrible as much of the doctrine of Islam is - people's of the region do turn to it in retaliation for some of the things the West has done. These actions by the west are not, or are often not some sort of religious retaliation - it is economic. The region has resources on which we depend. That dependency can change, but only if we redefine to some extent what it means to live in a 1st world country.

Our dependence on oil needs to change. Not only for energy but for many of the things that are derived from it. There are alternatives that *are* viable. Most people are just not aware of them or believe the propaganda put out by a few major corporations.

People are suffering over there now under ISIS a lot more than they ever did with us and as far as getting out, never I say. We eradicate them there before they have a chance to come here. They are a malignant growth that needs killed

 

[Stravinsk]

People are suffering over there now under ISIS a lot more than they ever did with us and as far as getting out, never I say. We eradicate them there before they have a chance to come here. They are a malignant growth that needs killed

I disagree Bill, but I will let it be. I hate Islam and I agree with you that it is a malignant growth. It is a religion that needs to be exposed and discredited for many of the claims it makes. However, it's spread as a religion is not isolated from world events nor due to some draw from it's own ideology. It is connected, and people cling to it, partly in retaliation to the misdeeds and exploitation of the west. This is not idol speculation - from the mouths of many Muslims it comes as part of their hatred. They want the West out - stop bombing us....stop exploiting us - and in this they have the moral upper hand, even where their religion fails spectacularly in other areas. Their war is fueled, in part, by Western Corporations exploitation of them and the West's dependence on resources their land holds.

 

[psalms 91]

I disagree Bill, but I will let it be. I hate Islam and I agree with you that it is a malignant growth. It is a religion that needs to be exposed and discredited for many of the claims it makes. However, it's spread as a religion is not isolated from world events nor due to some draw from it's own ideology. It is connected, and people cling to it, partly in retaliation to the misdeeds and exploitation of the west. This is not idol speculation - from the mouths of many Muslims it comes as part of their hatred. They want the West out - stop bombing us....stop exploiting us - and in this they have the moral upper hand, even where their religion fails spectacularly in other areas. Their war is fueled, in part, by Western Corporations exploitation of them and the West's dependence on resources their land holds.

Yup guess that is why gas is so cheap now rather than the US exploiting its own resources. As far as exploiting them in many cases they asked us in for our technology and know how otherwise many of them would not have the oil richs and would still be living in tents

 

[tango]

Tango said, in a most silly way:
Of course radical Muslims are killing people. Nobody is denying that. But unless you want to claim that Muslims are the only murderers out there your point is irrelevant.

Highland replies, in a most rational way:
You went way off the rails, crashed & burned with that particular idiotic statement, Tango. You are essentially claiming that ALL demographics are the terrorists who are beheading people, blowing them up, yelling "Allahu akbar" as they murder more Christians, Jews and whoever else does not share their muslim belief. And this represents your downfall.

You, Tango, are a prime example of how inebriated a human mind can become -- without touching a single drop of alcohol. You are guilty of TUI -- "Thinking Under the Influence" of liberalism.

And, when a human mind becomes that infected, they are seldom salvageable. So, just continue your life with a smile, nice & smug in the illusion that you are the smartest person in any phone booth you walk into.

For there is nothing as bold, articulate, confident & arrogant as the voice of ignorance.

And you are speaking loudly & clearly.

Excellent, more of that winning Highlander reasoning style. Hey, if you can't counter the message you might as well slur the messenger, right?

Would you care to actually address the points I raise rather than making cheap personal digs? I'm still looking forward to seeing some of the political insight you allegedly possess, but so far it seems to be little more than cheap jibes at people and precious little substance.

 

[tango]

People,

This really isn't a question of moderate vs radical Muslims.

Because of some of the things the Quran Teaches and Muhammad practiced as an example, then people calling themselves Muslim have 2 choices:

1) They either admit that their holy book is flawed, not entirely holy and pick and choose what to believe and practice from it. This is not the same as a religion like Christianity, because of some fundamental differences in what is considered inspired, and why. Whereas the Bible has many many authors, the Quran has 1. To disbelieve or not practice what that 1 person taught or follow his example is to be, not a "moderate Muslim" but a Muslim in name only! That is to say - not one at all!

2) They choose to believe that their book is without flaw, believe all of it and practice it.

Those in Category 2 are actually good Muslims in the sense that they are accurately following their religion and it's dictates. Unfortunately, actually following their religion to the letter makes them extremely immoral and barbaric people in quite a few areas.

Those in Category 1 will always be looked at disparagingly and possibly threatened by those in Category 2. In times of trouble and hardship, and especially in times where Western powers violate their most basic of rights, then where will they look? They will seek answers from their religion and become more like the people in Category 2.

The west DOES have a part to play in this. They need to get out of the Middle East and stop meddling in it for economic reasons. The people's of many of those regions have a legitimate gripe against the West, and it is mixed up in their religion which only fuels the hatred.

If you compare the teachings of Mohammed between Mecca and Medina his stance shifted on a lot of things. I forget the full details of it but essentially he went from preaching peace to preaching war. Some Muslims focus on the war, some on the peace. In some ways you could take the arguments you present and use them against Christians, given how the Old Testament talks of executing people for all sorts of offences ranging from homosexual acts to disrespecting their parents.

It's certainly true to say that if we just left things alone we may not be in such a mess. But having gotten involved it may not be as simple as walking away from it and letting the people sort themselves out. In many ways we in the west are guilty of double standards, particularly where civilian losses are concerned.

 

[tango]

People are suffering over there now under ISIS a lot more than they ever did with us and as far as getting out, never I say. We eradicate them there before they have a chance to come here. They are a malignant growth that needs killed

Bill, just out of interest, how would you address a Muslim living in the Middle East whose family was killed by a stray western missile who said that we in the west are a malignant growth that needs killed and his people should eradicate us before we have a chance to do any more damage over there?

 

[tango]

Yup guess that is why gas is so cheap now rather than the US exploiting its own resources. As far as exploiting them in many cases they asked us in for our technology and know how otherwise many of them would not have the oil richs and would still be living in tents

It's not quite as simple as that, the oil exploration industry tends to work on much longer term cycles. Extraction costs are typically very front-loaded so once rights to explore and drill have been paid for, exploration has been done and drills have been set up and operated the marginal cost of each barrel of oil is relatively small. Even at $30/barrel it's worth them getting it out of the ground, but at $30/barrel there may not be much new exploration going on. So when current stocks run down the price may rise sharply before more oil comes online. Of course a lot would depend on whether bodies like OPEC open or close the taps to smooth things out and how well they do it.

 

[JPPT1974]

Really you could not get me to vote for him. Even if he had all the money in the world. I may say off the war things. But that takes the cake about.

 

[Highlander]

It appears that my latest post has been deleted???