Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
H10

Donald Trump should be commended for his Muslim Ban.

Recommended Posts

Americans are in favor of it.

 

Quote

First Muslim Ban Poll Finds Americans Support Trump Order by 7-Point Margin

 

The first poll of American public opinion conducted after the Trump administration issued a ban on immigration and travel from seven majority-Muslim countries finds a plurality of support for the move. From the full results of the Reuters/Ipsos poll:

A Rasmussen poll released Monday found a larger margin of support for a ban, although it was conducted before the order was issued and used generic/Trump-friendly phrasing:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/31/reuters_ipsos_muslim_ban_poll_finds_support_for_order.html

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, segnosaur said:

That is such a vague "plan" to set up a safe zone as to be completely useless.

Will America provide the protection or will they get others to provide troops? And if Americans are directly involved, will it require adding forces or diverting resources from the fight against ISIS? And what type of losses of troops are the Americans willing to accept? What if Syria disagrees with having American troops around?

Nobody is claiming that it's not cheaper to have refugees live near their homeland; the problems in doing so are more political and military than financial.

 

Some countries are on board, and will help finance the safe zones. 

 

 

Quote

 

Gulf Leaders Agree To Trump’s Request To Set Up ‘Safe Zones’


 

 
Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Argus said:

The IRA was never a Christian terrorist group, and narrow focused its attentions on the British military and police, and the members of Protestant militant groups, and it's no longer in operation.. The KKK is already in America and has no international links that I'm aware of, so I don't see why the US would be concerned about them flying in, and the Sons of Odin/Soldiers of Odin is not, as far as I know, a terrorist group. They do sort of vigilante street patrols in Finland because they say Muslims are raping Finnish girls.

So... yeah, you better find more.

Lol at the IRA not being a Christian terrorist group.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Smallc said:

Lol at the IRA not being a Christian terrorist group.

They were a terrorist group who were Christians.  Their goal was a united Ireland under Dublin rule, with total independence from the Brits.  Their religion was not their primary driver, though treatment of Catholics in the north eventually led to their support by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They were a terrorist group who were Christians.  Their goal was a united Ireland under Dublin rule, with total independence from the Brits.  Their religion was not their primary driver, though treatment of Catholics in the north eventually led to their support by them.

A terrorist group who were Christians sounds an awful lot like a Christian terrorist group.  Couldn't ISIS equally be called a terrorist group who call themselves Muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

A terrorist group who were Christians sounds an awful lot like a Christian terrorist group.  Couldn't ISIS equally be called a terrorist group who call themselves Muslim?

If you want, but it wouldn't be accurate.  The IRA never had a worlwide Catholic state as their main goal.

Hitler was a vegetarian, but he didn't invade Russia for the beets.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, betsy said:

Some countries are on board, and will help finance the safe zones. 

...

Go back and read what I wrote. Then go back and look at your reference.

The article you referred to suggests countries like Saudi Arabia may support safe zones and you are suggesting they'd be willing to fund them, but that still doesn't address the major questions that I had brought up in my post:  Who supplies the military forces and from where, what casualty level is acceptable, what territory is used and what to do if Syria does not accept the safe zone. Compared to those issues, the source of funding is a pretty unimportant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you want, but it wouldn't be accurate.  The IRA never had a worlwide Catholic state as their main goal.

Hitler was a vegetarian, but he didn't invade Russia for the beets.

I would call the Lord's Army a Christian terrorist group, and they aren't trying to create a worlwide Christian State, merely a local one.   Well ok, I think I just figured out the difference you are highlighting.  

Also I reject the Lord's Army claim that they are Christian in the same way that I reject ISIS claim that they are Muslim.   Should I also reject the claim to Christianity of individuals who belong to groups such as IRA or KKK?   Hmmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you want, but it wouldn't be accurate.  The IRA never had a worlwide Catholic state as their main goal.

True, but you don't have to be demanding world wide imposition of a religion to say that a conflicts based in religion, and at least part of the motivation for the war in Northern Ireland was due to religious differences (Catholicism vs Anglicanism).

(Personally though, I wouldn't say that the war was overall 'religious' in nature.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dialamah said:

I would call the Lord's Army a Christian terrorist group, and they aren't trying to create a worlwide Christian State, merely a local one.   Well ok, I think I just figured out the difference you are highlighting.  

Also I reject the Lord's Army claim that they are Christian in the same way that I reject ISIS claim that they are Muslim.   Should I also reject the claim to Christianity of individuals who belong to groups such as IRA or KKK?   Hmmmm...

Based on your religious views, why not?  They certainly interpret their religion differently from the way you do.

Me, I take people at their word.  If Bobby Sands had said he blew up the Le Mans restaurant to kill non-catholics, I would believe him.  No more or less disgusting, of course.

If IS are not Muslims, why call themselves IS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, segnosaur said:

True, but you don't have to be demanding world wide imposition of a religion to say that a conflicts based in religion, and at least part of the motivation for the war in Northern Ireland was due to religious differences (Catholicism vs Anglicanism).

(Personally though, I wouldn't say that the war was overall 'religious' in nature.)

That's my point.  That the south was generally RC, and the north generally Protestant, was incidental to the struggle for a united ireland.  Certainly the treatment of the RC minority by the authorities in the north fostered support for the IRA, and the battle lines were drawn by religions, but it was not a religious struggle.

That said, I would never claim that there were none among the Orange Marchers, and those who oppose them, who are driven by religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

STOP CALLING IT A BAN!!!!! :lol:

You're right. Anyone who calls it a 'ban' is clearly an idiot and should be treated as such.

Like this guy, who clearly called it a ban, and probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

Or how about the guy who said "the ban deals with seven countries". Clearly this guy doesn't know what he's talking about either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-spicer-muslim-ban_us_5890ed19e4b0522c7d3da0bd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, betsy said:

First of all, while there are polls that show support the ban, its certainly not overwhelming. (In fact, in the Ipsos poll, while more Americans supported than opposed the ban, they were NOT in the majority.) And those polls were done fairly early; once we start hearing more about people

Secondly, keep in mind that just because something is popular does not make it the right decision, either morally or pragmatically. (I'm pretty sure the Japanese internment had pretty high support during WW2.)

Lastly (and perhaps more importantly), while many Americans may support the ban, only ~1/3 think it will actually improve safety. Others (a majority) think it will have no effect, or will actually end up making people less safe.

So think about that... If you compare the percentage who support the ban vs. those who think it will help, you find that ... roughly 1 in 10 American are supporting the ban even though they think it won't help.

 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/01/only-a-third-of-americans-think-trumps-travel-ban-will-make-the/21704832/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Based on your religious views, why not?  They certainly interpret their religion differently from the way you do.

Probably because I don't want to legitimize violence and cruelty in that way.  Most Christians do not think it is acceptable to murder, kidnap, rape as the Lord's Army does, nor do they support the racist and anti-Semitism of the KKK.  By accepting a member of the KKK or the Lord's Army as a Christian just because they say they are devalues and insults those Christians who live and teach a non-violent and humanistic faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Probably because I don't want to legitimize violence and cruelty in that way.  Most Christians do not think it is acceptable to murder, kidnap, rape as the Lord's Army does, nor do they support the racist and anti-Semitism of the KKK.  By accepting a member of the KKK or the Lord's Army as a Christian just because they say they are devalues and insults those Christians who live and teach a non-violent and humanistic faith.  

It sure does.  That's one of the problems with religion.  Interpretation is everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he shouldn't be commended.  There's nothing wrong in my view with being very careful who you accept and being selfish in doing so despite the talk of post nationalism by the progs, but there is no good reason to ban entire countries or though the back door, some religions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

What can they do if Trump works within the framework of law that enacts his presidential power? Glare at him?

They can do pretty much whatever they want. For example, they can override his presidential orders, refuse to accept his judicial appointments, and refuse to pass any of the legislation he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Smallc said:

Lol at the IRA not being a Christian terrorist group.

LOL at Smallc's failed attempts to twist what I wrote. 

I'm still waiting for that long list of Christian terrorist groups the US needs to screen its borders from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

They were a terrorist group who were Christians.  Their goal was a united Ireland under Dublin rule, with total independence from the Brits.  Their religion was not their primary driver, though treatment of Catholics in the north eventually led to their support by them.

The only reason the IRA were Catholics is because the native Irish were Catholics at the time they were invaded by the Protestant British. The many, many years of violence between them was between colonizer and colonized. None of the people on either side were particularly religious, at least in the last century. The IRA had no support from the Catholic church, and in fact, its leaders were often excommunicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, segnosaur said:

Go back and read what I wrote. Then go back and look at your reference.

The article you referred to suggests countries like Saudi Arabia may support safe zones and you are suggesting they'd be willing to fund them, but that still doesn't address the major questions that I had brought up in my post:  Who supplies the military forces and from where, what casualty level is acceptable, what territory is used and what to do if Syria does not accept the safe zone. Compared to those issues, the source of funding is a pretty unimportant.

 

Well I don't know the answers.  Surely they'll work it out.  But at least....some countries are willing to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Well I don't know the answers. 

And more importantly, neither does Trump. He says a lot of things that sound good, but for which he has no inkling of how to accomplish his stated goal. (Assuming he even wants to accomplish what he promises, and it wasn't just an empty campaign promise/lie... "Drain the Swamp".)

Surely they'll work it out.

Why should we give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Its a difficult problem, and the Trump administration has shown little ability to properly plan things.

 

But at least....some countries are willing to help.

I suspect their "willingness to help" will only go so far as their chance of casualties is minimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

And more importantly, neither does Trump. He says a lot of things that sound good, but for which he has no inkling of how to accomplish his stated goal. (Assuming he even wants to accomplish what he promises, and it wasn't just an empty campaign promise/lie... "Drain the Swamp".)

 

 

Why should we give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Its a difficult problem, and the Trump administration has shown little ability to properly plan things.

 

 

I suspect their "willingness to help" will only go so far as their chance of casualties is minimized.

:rolleyes:

That you say Trump doesn't know the answers - that's just pure speculation.  You talk like you're a fly on the wall and you can listen to all the private meetings.

Why should you give the benefit of the doubt?  Because like me, you don't have the answers either.  

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw this is not the first time certain citizens are banned entry (to be granted visa). In 1981 too during the American hostage crises another idiot peanut brain American became president of the United States and not only his policies led to the downfall of the monarch in Iran but also ban Iranian students from obtaining student Visa. Canada and Australia also imposed this ban. This ban lasted over a year.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Did anyone catch the live Facebook video of three muslims raping a swedish girl?  It didn't get much coverage, but authorities say they even though they know who the perps are, without the actual video, there's not much they can do.

Since the live video was only seen by a couple of hundred people, I expect the answer you will get in here will be no. Additionally it was a closed Facebook group so obviously the membership is limited. Yes the authorities showed up, and arrested two Afghan migrants (one seems to have been in the country for at least 4 years) and one Swede. The two Afghans are the ones accused of rape, and the Swede is accused of failing to report it. The girl has been described as close to unconscious in the video so she might not be a very good witness. Yes, the police are looking for more evidence just like they would do in any proper investigation of rape. There have been some screenshots, and partial video provided.

Just thought posting real facts would be helpful.

18 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

In 1981 too during the American hostage crises another idiot peanut brain American became president of the United States and not only his policies led to the downfall of the monarch in Iran but also ban Iranian students from obtaining student Visa.

Reagan became President in 1981, but the Shah of Iran (monarch) fell in February 1979, about 9 months before the hostage crisis began. I don't know if your 'idiot peanut brain' is a reference to Carter (he was a peanut farmer) but he became president 3 years earlier; while it is a violation of the rules of this forum to use such insults, if it is against Carter it will be let to slide but if it is against Reagan then it will probably be censored.

Edited by ?Impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...