Lindsey Graham "Muslim ban will prevail at the Supreme Court

Post Reply New Topic

I just read online that Iran has nearly 500,000 Christians.

Is this a Christian ban?

I don't think too many refugees were coming from Iran to begin witj

The 7 countries were chosen because they have ongoing civil wars against ISIS or Al Qaeda plus Iran who is directly participating in 3 of those wars.

Middle East Christians have specifically been targeted by genocidal Muslim extremists, this has been going on for more than a decade. The Yazidi too are targeted for extermination as devil worshippers.

During the Obama administration they took a disproportionate amount of Muslim refugees compared Christian refugees which there were essentially none even tho it is a significant population, it can only be seen as intentional for some reason. Islam is a violent conquering religion as practiced by Salafis, they should not be allowed entry into the United States, there cannot be peace between those beliefs and ours. Saudi Arabia is the head of the snake, it will never ever end until Wahhabi regime is ejected from power but of course we know that won't necessarily make things better especially in the short term. We hear about hybrid war with Russia but it has been the Arab Gulf that has waged a hybrid war with ISIS and al-Qaeda as their foot soldiers against the Shia dominated states of Iran, Iraq, and Syria which they fear more than anyone including the Israelis.

ISIS has an unlimited amount of blank passports, the documents from these countries can not be vetted which is why they must develop a new system.

Whether or not you agree with it, it's still legal.

There should be provisions made for "extreme" vetting, and I believe we should take in the Christian refugees you mentioned.

The problem lies in the fact that the ban encompassed many decent people--Muslim, Christian, and otherwise. I have a big problem with banning green card holders.

Thanks Jacoby.

I actually agree with Trump's ban, and think, if anything, it isn't extreme at all.

I was trying to show that Trump will also be banning a few million Christians from entering the country (the total number of Christians across the seven nations will likely amount to a few million), therefore to see the ban as a 'Muslim' ban is simply nonsense.

And even if it were a blanket Muslim ban, justification of it could be made.


Bear attacks are relatively infrequent. But there's even less chance of me being attacked by a grizzly when I go to hang out the washing if there aren't 100 in my back garden in the first place.

Who says I was talking about Nazis just because I mentioned Germans of that era coming to America? I in fact was not, as not all Germans were Nazis, as not all Muslims are terrorists.

There are people for whatever reason fleeing from Iran's Islamic Republic all the time. Some for religious reasons, others political, or even ethnic.

Then why the head the snake is not among the banned countries?

It's not actually a Muslim ban, it's a temporary 120 day travel ban from 6 countries plus Iran who who in a state of civil war with ISIS or Al Qaeda where they have seized control places which produce official documents like passports. We can not properly vet the people leaving these countries and there most definitely are terrorists/terrorist sympathizers among them so a new system is going to have to be put in place.

My feelings on Saudi Arabia are not shared to the same degree by the administration and the US is not walking away from it's relationship from the country, I consider Saudi Arabia responsible before any other country for 9/11 and do not think they are really our friends. We use them and them use us. Foreign mujahideen are perfect example of hybrid war, the Arab Gulf utilizes these fighters to a)achieve their geostrategic goals and b) to keep these extremists busy & out of their countries & not paying attention to them. These Arab countries seem to be quite cowardly about actually fighting wars on their own, I think it's probably because they fear their own people and potential civil war by taking overt military action.

FWIW there two arguments here about the travel ban; whether or not it's legal under the US Constitution and whether or not if it's effective policy. It is most definitely legal for anybody that understands US law, we have activist judges overstepping their authority and attempting to create law. The US isn't under any obligation to take in hundreds of thousands or millions of refugees, I'm not interested in a purely humanitarian immigration policy. I personally don't oppose immigration from Muslim countries for people who meet the right set of conditions, I don't oppose immigration from anywhere for people who meet the right set of conditions but it has to be a good deal for the US & not one that tears at the social fabric or overburdens an already overburden system. I would consider apostates/atheists/whatever most definitely oppressed, religious minorities and homosexuals should be protected, women and young children altho you have to be careful on the last part because that is a foot in the door. I straight up don't want anybody that hates and wants to destroy Western Civilization, it's a privilege not a right to be given entry to this country.

How can Trump undermine and defeat the influence of the Arab Gulf without empowering Iran to takeover the whole region? I just want to get out of that part the world altogether and let somebody else try to bring their sphere of influence over it. It's not a situation that I see fixing itself anytime soon. Soon at least the Muslim Brotherhood will be officially declared a terrorist organization by the US, I think most of the Muslim and Arab countries already consider it to be one.

The hell with banning people from Saudi Arabia sanction them better yet take out the Royal family and all their syncopates that fund the spread of Wahhabism. We argue if Trump is a warmonger but he is not nearly enough of a warmonger in regards to the Saudi Royal Family. We argue if Russia is an enemy or potential partner while ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia is the number one enemy of all who oppose jahidist terrorism. This is probably because we are a client state of Saudi Arabia but like to pretend it is the other way around.

I have more hope for Trump confronting the Saudi royals than the previous complicit administrations, they are not stupid and what it will take to change our relationship is a major realignment which in my estimate can only start with Russia. Utilizing our own domestic energy sources is also key to ensuring our future energy security.

There will be no conflict with the Saudis until the oil starts to run out or they start to play up. They know their place.

Officially they might, but unofficially, member of the royal family and many of their leading political leaders are supporting the Muslim fanatics who want the new world order to be a global Caliphate.

Yes, under US orders. The Saudis, the US, Qatar and Israel are all in it together.

What evidence is there to support that?

FWIF, tRump's executive order doesn't go far enough. He should ban ALL immigration and drop a Lexan curtain around the entire country: no immigrants, no trade, no Nothing. If it can't be manufactured here in the U.S. we don't need it (and this coming from someone who owns Apple products manufactured by Foxconn.)

Start reading? It's not really even disputed and very worrying that you arent already aware of it. The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are all allies. They all have supported and funded the wars across the Middle East as well as giving support to proxy wars to cause conflict in numerous countries. I can point you in the right direction if you want to start learning.