• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens

KLATTU said:
First off- I don't agree with that EO, but I also don't agree with your logic.

The reason they picked those 7 nations is based on the prior administration's decision that those 7 countries are ' countries of concern' .
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

I assume that was based on intel analysis.
It has nothing to with what nations invade other nations.

There's no evidence of any acts of terror being comited by individuals from those countries so I think it's a case of a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the straight answer, and you're likely right as to why they picked those nations. I'm sure it's just a major coincidence that Trump Inc does not do business in those countries, but the simple fact is this EO does not make this country safer at all. Like most political theater, that is an illusion, a claim that cannot be proved.

And the other fact remains is that NO muslim nation has invaded another in recent times, and that the long war between Iraq and Iran was largely supported by Rumsfeld et al, the US government.

I'm just trying to add some perspective is all. Appealing to xenophobia/racism/religious intolerance is the hallmark of demagoguery.
 
zimmer said:
Because Radikal Islam is a serious threat, and after 8-years of our Amateur Hour President, Trump is making sure Americans know where he stands and that he is focused on this evil in the world, and he is letting the vermin know their days are numbered.

His action do have something to do with religion in this way... Those 7 largely Muslim countries, most have no viable government. The other 42 Muslim nations have no temporary ban at the moment.

After Obama, President Trump and his cabinet felt they needed time to put together a vetting program to protect Americans. They put a temporary halt on these countries for 90-days.

A sane thing to do.

Radical Christian Soldiers... Radical Jewish Soldiers... ROTFLOL... are not terrorizing, maiming and killing western civilization on a regular basis.

A difficult concept for you to grasp, and well... doesn't seem like you ever will.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have to spell it with a 'k', then I understand more clearly. ;)

As for the radical Christian soldiers and what terrorizing they do, you should consider examining the group KnowDrones, they're in Google. They are former operators of US drones who are seriously bothered by conscience as to what they've done in their job.

Part of the reason some muslim countries have no viable government is because the US has overthrown what viable and legitimate governments existed there. Think Libya, Yemen and several others.
 
zimmer said:
57% in favor.

33% not.

And Thee Left... with their Blame Scream Media... strike out again.
Click to expand...

Except that all terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US (last 20 years) were not done by anyone from those countries. The real terrorist havens are still allowed to have their citizens come to the US.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I appreciate the straight answer, and you're likely right as to why they picked those nations. I'm sure it's just a major coincidence that Trump Inc does not do business in those countries, but the simple fact is this EO does not make this country safer at all. Like most political theater, that is an illusion, a claim that cannot be proved.

And the other fact remains is that NO muslim nation has invaded another in recent times, and that the long war between Iraq and Iran was largely supported by Rumsfeld et al, the US government.

I'm just trying to add some perspective is all. Appealing to xenophobia/racism/religious intolerance is the hallmark of demagoguery.
Click to expand...

I think what we want to do is make clear separtation betweem Islam and radical Islam.

When people walk into a nightclub and gun down people in the name of Allah, that creates a very justified fear. (that is the whole point of it).The real battle is within Islam-will the progressives win out over the barbarians? Until that is resolved, the US is stuck with dealing with the very real threat of intolerant religious bigots like the ISIS and Al -Qaeda.
 
KLATTU said:
I think what we want to do is make clear separtation betweem Islam and radical Islam.

When people walk into a nightclub and gun down people in the name of Allah, that creates a very justified fear. (that is the whole point of it).The real battle is within Islam-will the progressives win out over the barbarians? Until that is resolved, the US is stuck with dealing with the very real threat of intolerant religious bigots like the ISIS and Al -Qaeda.
Click to expand...

On a national level, if my point is accurate that in modern times no muslim country has invaded another country, and that all significant military aggression has been committed by nominally Christian countries, what is so compelling that we separate radical from non-radical muslims, and how would it be defined?

When US drones kill innocents on a daily or weekly basis, it generates massive amounts of fear and hostility in those parts of the world. I submit that more hostility and fear is generated by 1 drone action than by any number of bars being struck by mysterious individuals shouting slogans.

Is cause and effect a reasonable way to analyze human interactions? Are people really responsible for their actions, individually and collectively?
 
Thoreau72 said:
On a national level, if my point is accurate that in modern times no muslim country has invaded another country, and that all significant military aggression has been committed by nominally Christian countries, what is so compelling that we separate radical from non-radical muslims, and how would it be defined?
ectively?
Click to expand...

Because no action by a 'nominally' Christian nation was ever done in the name of Christianity or against Islam, I reject this point as being irrelevant to this discussion in any way.
 
Thoreau72 said:
On a n
When US drones kill innocents on a daily or weekly basis, it generates massive amounts of fear and hostility in those parts of the world. I submit that more hostility and fear is generated by 1 drone action than by any number of bars being struck by mysterious individuals shouting slogans.

I

vely?
Click to expand...

The first is a fair point. I have no idea about the second( and I doubt you do either unless you have some kind of fear-o-meter.)

The drone program is highly questionable and I suspect the media will be a little more questioning now that there is a Republican in office.
 
Peter King said:
Except that all terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US (last 20 years) were not done by anyone from those countries. The real terrorist havens are still allowed to have their citizens come to the US.
Click to expand...

So... using your logic, these broken Muslim nations, we should first wait until we are attacked by them!!!!!!!!

Phew!!! The logic.

I guess in hindsight back in 2001 and before, we wouldn't care much if guys were learning only to take off in passenger aircraft, because nobody had yet flown airliners into towers.
 
Last edited:
Peter King said:
Except that all terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US (last 20 years) were not done by anyone from those countries. The real terrorist havens are still allowed to have their citizens come to the US.
Click to expand...
"Past performance is not an indicator of future earnings" (or something to that effect) is what we hear when investing. The same warning applies here. While it is basically true that no Muslim terrorist attacks have come from some those countries, we should be focusing on what is likely to happen in the future, not blindly rely on the past. Given the rise of ISIS, it is indeed entirely possible that a future Muslim terrorist attach could originate from some of those countries.
 
KLATTU said:
Because no action by a 'nominally' Christian nation was ever done in the name of Christianity or against Islam, I reject this point as being irrelevant to this discussion in any way.
Click to expand...

And what action was taken by Islam, in recent times, against Christianity, nominal or otherwise? How is the EO going to protect America, from what?

Trump has already had his first blood draw with drones. I have not noticed the media talking about it yet. Maybe tonight on the TV News. I'll let you know tomorrow.

If the EO is not targeting religions or the religious, why are only "radical islamists" the target? Isn't that rather a failure right on the surface? WTF is a radical islamist? Does he wear certain underwear? A certain tattoo?

The EO is intellectually and legally bankrupt, and everybody being honest knows that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And what action was taken by Islam, in recent times, against Christianity, nominal or otherwise? How is the EO going to protect America, from what?

Trump has already had his first blood draw with drones. I have not noticed the media talking about it yet. Maybe tonight on the TV News. I'll let you know tomorrow.

If the EO is not targeting religions or the religious, why are only "radical islamists" the target? Isn't that rather a failure right on the surface? WTF is a radical islamist? Does he wear certain underwear? A certain tattoo?

The EO is intellectually and legally bankrupt, and everybody being honest knows that.
Click to expand...

I think you may have forgotten this post by me.


"First off- I don't agree with that EO, but I also don't agree with your logic.

The reason they picked those 7 nations is based on the prior administration's decision that those 7 countries are ' countries of concern' .
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/...waiver-program

I assume that was based on intel analysis.
It has nothing to with what nations invade other nations.

There's no evidence of any acts of terror being comited by individuals from those countries so I think it's a case of a solution in search of a problem.
 
KLATTU said:
I think you may have forgotten this post by me.


"First off- I don't agree with that EO, but I also don't agree with your logic.

The reason they picked those 7 nations is based on the prior administration's decision that those 7 countries are ' countries of concern' .
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/...waiver-program

I assume that was based on intel analysis.
It has nothing to with what nations invade other nations.

There's no evidence of any acts of terror being comited by individuals from those countries so I think it's a case of a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

FYI, no I did not forget your position, reasonable criticism of the EO. On that we agree.

This EO will "protect America" about as much as the TSA is "protecting America" as it gropes Granny and children in the airline terminal. Both are pure theater in the Global War On Terror, a magnificent hoax on the US taxpayers and citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom