Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S

[Path_Finder]

In the meantime, while some want to question the motives of those not wanting the refugees here unless thoroughly vetted, it has been no problem for the administration to turn away Christians from over there.

And this is from the Hill not Breitbart or something.

No room in America for Christian refugees

America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.

thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

The USA may be about to deport some more Chaldean or Assyrian Christians even if this article is from Jan.

Now, who are the ones discriminating.

Do as I say, not as I do.

And what have the Bishops said about this?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Nearly every part of this post displays a breathtaking lack of insight. I suppose it was especially worded in order to insult

I did not especially word my post to insult anyone, I simply said the truth.

 

[randomuser]

Trump is smart and plain spoken - let’s stop them at the gate!

*“Excuse me, mean-looking guy who may or may not be a terrorist - are you Muslim?”

“No, sir. I’m not a Muslim.”

“Alrighty-then. Welcome to America-!”*

Flawless plan by Trump. Absolutely flawless.

 

[Exiled_Child]

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35059128

 

[Path_Finder]

This was also from the BBC, I have this other article, this one Muslim in England has come out very strongly AGAINST terrorism. There has been a buzz about this.

**
Shaker Aamer: Killing civilians is not allowed in Islam**
#HumanRights

Last UK resident of Guantanamo speaks against extremism in his first interview since being released from prison

The last British resident held at Guantanamo Bay has told extremists to “get the hell out” of the United Kingdom, in his first interview since being released from the US detention facility in Cuba.

Shaker Aamer, 48, who returned to London in October after more than 14 years of detention without charge, told the Mail on Sunday killing civilians is not allowed in Islam.

“Even if there is a war you cannot kill just anybody, you cannot kill kids, you cannot kill chaplains, you cannot just go in the street and get a knife and start stabbing people," he told the Mail on Sunday.

“If you are that angry about this country (the UK), you can get the hell out.”

Shortly after the Americans invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Aamer was captured by bounty hunters and sold to US forces seeking anyone accused of being linked to Al Qaeda.

Aamer was interrogated and allegedly tortured by his American jailers, who accused him of being a recruiter and financier for Al Qaeda. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2002.

He has always denied any links to terrorism, and said he was in Afghanistan working for an Islamic charity. He was never charged or put on trial by the US and was cleared for release in 2007 – but it was not until October this year that he was finally returned home to the UK, where he was reunited with his family and youngest son, who he had never met.

• See more at: middleeasteye.net/news/shaker-aamer-killing-civilians-not-allowed-islam-577737267#sthash.JDlbwdCJ.dpuf

for what he said.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Who has ever said they do not mind illegal aliens killing Americans? This is patently absurd, off-topic, **and **

another straw man. There is nothing notable about being anti-homicide.Yep, you called that correctly!

The error in this argument is the word “fully”. Since nothing can be known 100%, such a moratorium would have to be permanent.

True. Some folks seem to think that our security people wouldn’t do their best.

Its a wise position to take. “Little pigs, little pigs, let me come in!” No, no. no, not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin will we let you in". Lets not be stupid again… Dangerous people with intent to kill as many of us as they can are asking, plotting, frauding documents, sneaking across checkpoints, and pretending to be refugees in flight for their lives. The Islamic terrorists have been so “in your face” doing all of these acts. Perhaps when the zombies are destroyed, the “peaceful Muslims” have exposed the terrorists and declared them to be non-Muslim, and sanity reigns among the people, maybe then invitations will be extended.

There is nothing written in our Consitution that says we have to allow murderous killers to come among us, or we are bigots and “not being who, or what we are about”. That has to be the dumbest, most misleading abuse of charity to fling on our American people. The self inflated, self important journalist, mainstream media, tv and Hollywood, political empty heads will be part of the poparazzi that asks following the next Islamic terrorist attack: “how do you feel, did you see them get shot, were you shot, was it a bomb, were you near those who were killed, etc.” Who profits from these horrific events?

Trump is smart and plain spoken - let’s stop them at the gate!

You seem to be in need of some charity counseling yourself. Trump is way outta line and his polemics are as close to Hitler-style as I’ve ever had the dire misfortune to hear in our country.

*“Excuse me, mean-looking guy who may or may not be a terrorist - are you Muslim?”

“No, sir. I’m not a Muslim.”

“Alrighty-then. Welcome to America-!”*

Flawless plan by Trump. Absolutely flawless. Absolutely correct…and this foolishness would go on indefinitely until (IF) they (whoever “they” are) “figure out what’s going on”

Trump is just a bad idea all the way around and is in no way qualified to be a dogcatcher much less president of the US.

 

[JimmyG88]

I did not especially word my post to insult anyone, I simply said the truth.

‘Mohammedans’. Was especially chosen for its inaccuracy

 

[liturgyluver]

This was also from the BBC, I have this other article, this one Muslim in England has come out very strongly AGAINST terrorism. There has been a buzz about this.

• See more at: middleeasteye.net/news/shaker-aamer-killing-civilians-not-allowed-islam-577737267#sthash.JDlbwdCJ.dpuf

for what he said.

Here are some more Muslims condemning terrorism. Funnily enough these never make front page news!:

ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-british-muslims-condemn-isis-terrorism-through-newspaper-advert-1529388

isisnotinmyname.com/

unilad.co.uk/large/thousands-of-muslims-flooded-london-to-condemn-terrorism-the-media-ignored-it/

dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/british-muslims-condemn-paris-murders/

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

This was also from the BBC, I have this other article, this one Muslim in England has come out very strongly AGAINST terrorism. There has been a buzz about this.

• See more at: middleeasteye.net/news/shaker-aamer-killing-civilians-not-allowed-islam-577737267#sthash.JDlbwdCJ.dpuf

for what he said.

You think this is surprising, or an exception? What bubble do you live in? Is America really so segregated that anyone would give a second thought to meeting someone was was a Muslim?

 

[Tbrightson]

*“Excuse me, mean-looking guy who may or may not be a terrorist - are you Muslim?”

“No, sir. I’m not a Muslim.”

“Alrighty-then. Welcome to America-!”*

Flawless plan by Trump. Absolutely flawless.

Muslims from other lands have muslim names. There is your first clue if someone is lying.

If we cant vet them, then no one gets in. Immigration/visiting is not a right, and it is within the right of the State to to exclude as it sees fit. This in one thing that belongs to Caesar.

I don’t think any Muslim should be allowed in, terrorist or not. Islam is a religious and political ideology incompatible with western civilization.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

There is nothing written in our Consitution that says we have to allow murderous killers to come among us, or we are bigots and “not being who, or what we are about”. That has to be the dumbest, most misleading abuse of charity to fling on our American people.

So you spend an entire paragraph railing against refugees, and putting “peaceful muslims” in quotation marks, then you resent the label “bigot”.

Hmmmmm.

 

[gracepoole]

70,000 Indian Muslim clerics issue fatwa against Isis, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups

 

[Prodigal_40s]

This was also from the BBC, I have this other article, this one Muslim in England has come out very strongly AGAINST terrorism. There has been a buzz about this.

• See more at: middleeasteye.net/news/shaker-aamer-killing-civilians-not-allowed-islam-577737267#sthash.JDlbwdCJ.dpuf

for what he said.

The “buzz” is BBC propaganda. They are the epitome of Globalist Prada and the lies they told during the economic migrant invasion was vile.

It is positive though but I’m not convinced

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Here are some more Muslims condemning terrorism. Funnily enough these never make front page news!:

ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-british-muslims-condemn-isis-terrorism-through-newspaper-advert-1529388

isisnotinmyname.com/

unilad.co.uk/large/thousands-of-muslims-flooded-london-to-condemn-terrorism-the-media-ignored-it/

dearkitty1.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/british-muslims-condemn-paris-murders/

Respect for the Paris terror victims and European safety taking precedence? We can’t have that now can we??? I might be sarcastic btw

 

[philipl]

Even temporarily it wouldn’t work. How can you ban people of a certain religion if you have no way of identifying their religion? How can you tell what religion a person is? Muslims come in all nationalities and from all ethnicities. The notion that you can ban Muslims, even temporarily, from entering the USA is completely ludicrous, it’s nonsense.

Will there be a big notice at passport control saying, “Muslims are not permitted entry to the USA, therefore we would be grateful if all Muslims would identify themselves so that they can be processed for prompt deportation”? That should stop the terrorists in their tracks.

So if he said we should ban anyone from those countries like Syria that would be OK?

 

[Brendan_64]

So if he said we should ban anyone from those countries like Syria that would be OK?

But that is not what he said.There is little point discussing something he could have said (you could make up anything and say that he could have said it) as he didn’t say that.He said that all Muslims should be banned from entering the USA (at least temporarily). That is impossible to implement as there is no way of accurately determining who is and who is not a Muslim when they either apply for a visa or present themselves at passport control. It is simply empty rhetoric, and tough words that are impossible to implement will do absolutely nothing to protect you.

If Donald Trump is an intelligent man, and he probably is, then why did he come out with a statement that he knows would be impossible to implement? And knowing that it would be impossible to implement would mean knowing that such a proposal would do nothing at all to protect the USA. So what are his actual motivations in saying such a thing?

One thing for sure is that ISIS could not care less about American internal domestic political posturing. They won’t care which infidels blow up or which infidel’s head they chop off. I doubt that Donald Trump’s statement is causing ISIS to quake in their boots, they’re probably more likely to laugh at it.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

If Donald Trump is an intelligent man, and he probably is, then why did he come out with a statement that he knows would be impossible to implement? And knowing that it would be impossible to implement would mean knowing that such a proposal would do nothing at all to protect the USA. So what are his actual motivations in saying such a thing?

There are a couple of motivations:

1. Trump’s base of support is, shall we say, not overly concerned with the practicalities or logic of his statement. They want Muslims banned now, dammit! The impossibility of doing so is irrelevant in the face of their paranoia. A Mencken quote is especially germane to this situation: “No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
2. Making outrageous statements keeps Trump in the forefront of the media coverage; in a closely contested primary such as this, free publicity is worth its weight in gold. It effectively chokes off the competition, whilst getting his ideas widely and freely distributed. The viability of his statements are irrelevant; as long as the focus is on Trump, then who cares if his plans are practicable or not?

 

[meltzerboy]

But that is not what he said.There is little point discussing something he could have said (you could make up anything and say that he could have said it) as he didn’t say that.He said that all Muslims should be banned from entering the USA (at least temporarily). That is impossible to implement as there is no way of accurately determining who is and who is not a Muslim when they either apply for a visa or present themselves at passport control. It is simply empty rhetoric, and tough words that are impossible to implement will do absolutely nothing to protect you.

If Donald Trump is an intelligent man, and he probably is, then why did he come out with a statement that he knows would be impossible to implement? And knowing that it would be impossible to implement would mean knowing that such a proposal would do nothing at all to protect the USA. So what are his actual motivations in saying such a thing?

One thing for sure is that ISIS could not care less about American internal domestic political posturing. They won’t care which infidels blow up or which infidel’s head they chop off. I doubt that Donald Trump’s statement is causing ISIS to quake in their boots, they’re probably more likely to laugh at it.

I can only surmise what Donald Trump’s motivations may be for saying what he does. I think either he believes that appealing to the fear, anger, and hatred of his base and perhaps other voters who are hesitant to express out loud what he expresses but nonetheless privately agree with him, will be enough for him to become the G.O.P. nominee and win the general election. Or…exactly the reverse: that is, he may believe that by continuing to make such outlandish statements, the mainstream establishment will bar his G.O.P. candidacy and Republican voters will finally decide that he has gone beyond the pale. That way he can run for President as an Independent, and if he loses as such, which he probably will, he can declare that he put up a good fight and the G.O.P. establishment is the one to blame for his loss by throwing him overboard and, as a result, also losing the general election to Hillary Clinton. He himself can tolerate defeat as an Independent better than as a Republican, particularly when becoming an Independent was not his first choice. This is just speculation on my part since I have no way of getting into Trump’s head, and I am not sure I would want to if I could.

 

[Brendan_64]

only the shia practice Taqiyya, and as about 99% of all jihadists are sunni, I fail to see how this could be a problem

It is not a Shia only doctrine, it is an Islamic doctrine. The Shiites have traditionally used it because of the historical fact that they have been oppressed minorities in many Sunni nations (including Saudi Arabia) and they used Taqiyya to claim to be Sunni to avoid persecution.

Sunni scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels’] evil, may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions. Abu Darda said: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].”

During the Battle of Trench (627AD) Muhammad himself advised a Muslim convert to go into the enemies camp (non-Muslims) and pretend to be one of them, justifying this to the man by saying, “War is deceit”.

Taqiyya is not an exculsively Shia doctrine.

 

[meltzerboy]

There are a couple of motivations:

1. Trump’s base of support is, shall we say, not overly concerned with the practicalities or logic of his statement. They want Muslims banned now, dammit! The impossibility of doing so is irrelevant in the face of their paranoia. A Mencken quote is especially germane to this situation: “No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
2. Making outrageous statements keeps Trump in the forefront of the media coverage; in a closely contested primary such as this, free publicity is worth its weight in gold. It effectively chokes off the competition, whilst getting his ideas widely and freely distributed. The viability of his statements are irrelevant; as long as the focus is on Trump, then who cares if his plans are practicable or not?

I like both of your points. No truer words were ever written.