Refugees detained at US airports after Trump exec order

Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
Me too.

Can’t wait until they impeach Trump – over another issue for which they have very good legal grounds.

Meanwhile, since that will take time, I think the Republicans can with Trump’s help end or grossly reduce Social Security and Medicare, along with all the other “nanny-state” programs.

Maybe they’ll also make abortion illegal, though that will be last on their agenda, after they get rid of all the child-aid programs, so they won’t have to pay for children in need who are born.

So everyone wins !!! Yeah !!! :rolleyes:/QUOTE
How snarky and delusional…
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
If you think “some group” or Republicans are going to impeach Trump, that’s up to you. I don’t share that view.

I don’t want to get off topic massively here, but you think Trump wants to kill Medicare? Based on what?
Click to expand...
Haven’t you heard? Republicans want poor and old people to die. That’s what the democrats have fed us for years to scare people into voting for them. Oh, also that republicans want dirty air and water. What is the most frightening to me is that, apparently, these tactics work on some.
 
Tim_D said:
Haven’t you heard? Republicans want poor and old people to die. That’s what the democrats have fed us for years to scare people into voting for them. Oh, also that republicans want dirty air and water. What is the most frightening to me is that, apparently, these tactics work on some.
Click to expand...
Yes,becaus n the irrational logic of the left,Republicans want their own children to breath dirty air,drink polluted water and while they are at it,they will throw their own grandmother’s over a cliff ,in their wheelchairs.:rolleyes:
 
lynnvinc said:
Actually experts in intelligence & the military are saying that Trump’s ban on Muslims from these 7 countries is playing right into the hands of ISIS (which wanted to create further polarization between the US and Muslims in order to get more recruits) and making our country and Americans living or stationed abroad LESS SAFE.

But who needs expert advice on serious national threat problems when they have Steve Bannon to advise. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard this. I don’t think there is a security expert available here to vouch this. But let me try to understand this “ pretzel logic”. Now it’s being said that ISIS is really going to dislike us? And they will really say mean things about us? So, unless we let in people from Syria they’re going to really hate us? Don’t they already hate us? I can say definitively ISIS has been making the claim that is this an attack on Islam and a religious war since its origination, and Al Qaeda and other groups before them, and various other radical Islamic groups in the Middle East before them. They have been saying for years this is a religious war and we hate Islam. So blame the US and our policies for their distorted views of the United States? We have to let more people in and/or not vet them or we will be hated more by Islamic extremists.

The main recruiting tool of ISIS is the very wretchedness, poverty, and oppression that their own ideology (e.g., the repressive, murderous and corrupt tenets of radicalized islam) reproduces wherever it gains political stroke. The mullahs then blame the misery on the Crusaders, the Jews, and the Great Satan, and voila, jihadis are born. The root problem is not the West or its perceived transgressions. Forgotten in all this is, is the pledge of those who hate us to infiltrate and kill us. Forgotten is their strict interpretation forbids “liking” non-Muslims. It makes no difference to them whether we allow Muslim immigration or not. This whole argument is based on a false premise. Perfect, ISIS is also murdering Muslims and if we don’t let more Muslims in ISIS will hate us more.

The US-led invasion of Iraq will be cited by jihadist groups for the next thousand years as justification for terrorist acts against us, just as the Crusades is still used to this day after a thousand years. This is just an excuse, and we are never going to know peace with people using these justifications.
 
I thought they hated us for our freedom? If this is anti freedom they should like us more.

Personally I think there are two factors here that lead to terrorism. First, hate is engendered by the US imperial military. Second, opposition to Christianity and the West in general is endemic to Islam. We can eliminate the first factor but not the second.
 
Just out of curiosity, do Muslims not believe that the vast majority of terrorist acts are caused by Muslims?

Do moderate Muslims not understand why people want to implement safety protocols?

Why do Muslim migrants who harbor anti-western sentiments move to western/Christian nations?
 
Beautiful said:
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/conten...nt/image.crop.800.500.jpg/49522399.cached.jpg

Here is a pizza angel feeding protesters at JFK.

So many CAF users wondered for years where these people were especially during the historical height of Christian persecution.
Click to expand...
Most of the refugees coming in are Muslims, because the Obama administration had been working with the Muslim Brotherhood to gather refugees.

So I don’t see what that has to do with Christians.

Oh, and BTW, we had a guy in the UK who would publicly preach tolerance but then preach radical views in private.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Most of the refugees coming in are Muslims, because the Obama administration had been working with the Muslim Brotherhood to gather refugees.

So I don’t see what that has to do with Christians.

Oh, and BTW, we had a guy in the UK who would publicly preach tolerance but then preach radical views in private.
Click to expand...
Lol keep your conspiracy theories.
 
EIF5A said:
Just out of curiosity, do Muslims not believe that the vast majority of terrorist acts are caused by Muslims?

Do moderate Muslims not understand why people want to implement safety protocols?

Why do Muslim migrants who harbor anti-western sentiments move to western/Christian nations?
Click to expand...
Because the secret goal they have, along with their secular allies, is to destroy this idea they have of ruling straight, Christian white men.
 
This all seems like ambiguity to not directly address a significant problem.

We do not want sharia. We do not want Islam to gain a foothold to direct social and political policies. Like what’s happening in England.

We do not want Muslim no-go zones where women cannot enter, like in certain places in France.

We do not want Muslims who have no intention of integrating into American society and just want to take advantage of our country and our naivete.

Granted, I’m leery of the complete, blanket halt, but it’s not unreasonable to place more strict screens.
 
Where is the evidence from around the world that more moderate immigration and refugee procedures have hindered Islamic radicalism compared to those countries that have have more strict vetting procedures?

I think that what is being targeted are hotbeds of Islamic extremism that the DHS under President Obama singled out as countries where there have been repeated acts of supporting terrorism. I don’t think this executive order is an ethnic target if you mean racist targetting? Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in understanding your comment.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Where is the evidence from around the world that more moderate immigration and refugee procedures have hindered Islamic radicalism compared to those countries that have have more strict vetting procedures?
Click to expand...
That is a very generous way to characterize "marginalize people or to start enacting policies that target people specifically because of ethnic or national background or other factors in a heavy handed manner."
As for evidence, the evidence is in the contrary position, where enacting the above-mentioned policies have been used to the benefit of Islamic radicalization. Does that count as evidence that not doing these things would deprive them of this benefit and to that extent, hinder them?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That is a very generous way to characterize "marginalize people or to start enacting policies that target people specifically because of ethnic or national background or other factors in a heavy handed manner."
As for evidence, the evidence is in the contrary position, where enacting the above-mentioned policies have been used to the benefit of Islamic radicalization. Does that count as evidence that not doing these things would deprive them of this benefit and to that extent, hinder them?
Click to expand...
You haven’t provided the name of a single country… which country’s policies have benefited Islamic extremism? Which country that has more moderate procedure has hindered Islamic extremism? By the way, the executive order may be a “heavy handed manner” to some, if that is one of the things that (name removed by moderator) was referring to, but to others it is sensible and rational and others will be in the middle. As for the claim of marginalisation, IF the executive order was being referenced in this way, the end goal of the executive order seeks to keep out those that would do harm in America, and the targeted countries are hotbeds of Islamic extremism. I don’t think it seeks to marginalise those genuine refugees who want to assimilate and don’t want to commit terrorism. But obviously, there may be those who do want to do harm but don’t just step forward and say they do, so a review and assessment of vetting procedures for these countries, if it improves the capability to keep out those who would want to do harm, will likely end up protecting and helping those genuine refugees who end up in the USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top