Muslims say; religious freedom for me, but not for thee.

Post Reply New Topic

Because if we don't, it means we are racist, bigoted, Islamophobic, xenophobic, white supremacists.

My main problem is with Islamic doctrine. The Qur'an says a few times a women is worth half a man in testimony and inheritance. There are a few parts saying you can't trust Jews. In the end times even trees will fight, but the sycamore trees will fight for the Jews.

You are ignorant of the situation to say that those 7 countries do not pose a threat, it's a really poor argument against to me by asking why not put a travel ban on the Saudis and Pakistanis because I think the US should go a lot further than a temporary travel ban against the Saudi menace which has spread their ideological filth all across the Muslim world but that makes me one of those 'extremists' that believes in this being a clash of civilizations. Vetting the people who come in this country shouldn't be controversial, if you entering from a war zone it should be expected. ISIS seized the materials and modes of production to create passports in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and probably elsewhere as well so people's words cannot be trusted alone. There is no way to allow in millions of refugees en masse and while stopping hardened militants, we see evidence of this in pictures all the time with ISIS fighters posing on the battlefield and then in Germany or elsewhere.

I do not agree with the sabrerattling with Iran, I wish there was a way to solve our differences peacefully as I have said many times that I think they are a better potential ally than the Gulf Arab dictatorships. Iran is well on it's way to becoming a regional superpower in the Middle East, they actually have an intelligentsia and middle class with at least a limited form of democracy who will only become richer with the relief of sanctions and the potential development of nuclear weapons. They will have effectively gained control of Iraq's oil and gain access to the Mediterranean through Syria, their might be some ulterior economic motives for these Arab kingdoms to be involving themselves. The Turks have their own prerogatives, first and foremost preventing the establishment of an independent Kurdish state but have also aligned themselves with the Sunni militants as Erdogan was close to the Muslim Brotherhood but I think Erdogan is mostly an opportunist/pragmatist as evidence of his immediate rapprochement with Russia after the failed military coup and other actions he's taken in recent months.

The truth of the matter is the Muslim world has to change or else confrontation is inevitable, is Islam destined to conquer the world or will it be stopped once again by Western civilization? I have little faith in Islam reforming itself into something more tolerant, the evidence in Europe is that integration has almost totally failed with succeeding generations feeling less and less connected majority population with an explosion of support for extremist ideology. It's hard for us Americans to comprehend this since it goes completely against the logic we've been taught has been true about immigration in this country with assimilation with succeeding generations. Europe is going to be having a lot of problems in the coming decades, this is something I don't want to see happen here in the US and the only way to do that is going to be thru some unpolitically correct decisions when it comes to immigration. The open door policy has to end, the US should not be held to a standard no other country in the world is held to and our laws have to be upheld. I think immigration would be best metered and to the interests of the American worker and people not some callous faceless multinational corporation. Leftists need to wake up reality, the only way their socialist wet dreams can work on any level is if you control the movement of people. The Scandinavian utopia will crumble under the weight of it's own short sighted decisions, the great cities of Europe will start looking the like the formerly great cities of America in terms of violence and economic stratification

I did, you're just as ignorant as you've always been. It's a waste of time to try to argue with you.

WASHINGTON (AP) — 'Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.
...concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011."
https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866

I'm sorry you wrote so much that is tangent to our discussion which is, is it intolerance if it is done at a national level? You claim that if it is done at a national level, it is intolerance.

Well, the ban in the US against the 7 countries, appears to be meaningless if you refer to the DHS document above.

So, if we are not banning them because they are a danger, then why are we banning them? And why are we not banning those that have proven themselves a danger?

Off topic: I agree about Iran, before the US started to mess with it, it was one of the more progressive and friendly places in the Middle East. Read the book "The Garden of the Brave in War", it is persons experience in Iran before the troubles.

You have lost faith in the ability of Islam to reform itself? Who is this Islam person to which you refer?
That is like saying, I have lost faith in the ability of Christians to change their beliefs. They would not believe those things if they thought there were wrong. In fact if people (particularly authoritarians) believe something, they are more likely to strengthen their belief when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The next thing is that these groups are not a monolithic entity, it is false to apply collective guilt for what is done by a few. Should we hold every trump supporter to blame for the one guy who went into a bar and shot two people of Indian (sub continent) descent because he thought they were Muslim?

You have some interesting beliefs, what if they had shut down immigration in 1492? They would have stopped a lot of bad hombres then.

Citizenship can not be vetted from those countries, 6 of the 7 are in civil war and Iran is directly involved in 3 of them. I think the reaction to the temporary travel ban to been way overblown. It's not a Muslim ban since it's doesn't ban all or most or even close to most Muslims but rather 7 countries that were identified as problems. Unnamed sources from DHS really doesn't mean anything to me, the head of the FBI James Comey said that we cannot vet these people so a new system must be put in place. Regardless if you disagree with it or not, I think it is unquestionably legal and that the 9th circuit exposed itself as a joke by their ruling.

If immigration was shut down in 1492, there'd probably be a few more Indians around. Always such a weird thing to bring up immigration debates since it kind of exactly proves the point about the dangers of open borders.

FWIW I'm not even against taking in a limited amount of refugees but they would be religious minorities and others that were getting persecuted not the people who support the radical Salafi form of Islam who are doing the persecuting.

It is hard to be the lectured about religious tolerance from Muslim countries since almost none of them especially in the Middle East are tolerant at all.

I am reading this on my phone, so if you break it up into small paragraphs it makes it easier to understand.

Three former secretaries of state, along with ex-CIA officials and Obama administration intelligence officials, claim President Donald Trump's travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority nations serves "no national security purpose."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ravel-ban/

Please refer to my point about authoritarians and how evidence to the contrary actually strengthens thier beliefs.

So we are discussing intolerance. You claim that at a national level it is intolerance.

You claim that all muslim countries are intolerant? Do I have that correct?

I would counter that the US is coming close to your definition of intolerance.

As a reader I appreciate these kinds of replies as opposed to the heckling multiple lol emotes variety.

It clearly fits a national security purpose, some people might disagree with it especially the more partisan people are but to repeatedly misrepresent it as a Muslim ban is a total lie. America is very tolerant towards Muslims and has the greatest strongest Muslim community in the world but this did not happen by taking refugees en masse, a merit based system as is the system in most of the world is the way way to go. Nobody need be traveling to those 7 countries and people coming back & fourth between them are of the highest suspicion, there is nothing intolerant about banning travel from warzones. Nobody is getting beheaded or crucified here, lets not compare the intolerance shown in these savage lands to those that want to vigilantly protect us.

I think all we can do is show our intolerance to theirs. Reciprocity is fair play.

It is then to the innocent to reform their religion or get out of it because staying in it reinforces it and hinders reform.

Secular resistance and internal forces is what brought Christianity to heel and made it palatable to our civilization.

If Islam is immune to those and continue to attack the West and kill our people, the West will have little choice but to destroy Islam utterly and completely.

Regards
DL

If people post thing that are incredibly stupid or divorced from reality or both, then I cant help but laugh. If somebody wants to have a logical rational discussion then I wont. I prefer rational.

You might want to revue the meaning of terms before using them incorrectly.

But the simple answer is that you are judged by who you stand with.

If you stand with those who are considered to have certain character traits, then you will be seen as having them or supporting them.

Regards
DL

What is the national security purpose?

Many are quick to throws such epithets around.

Mostly to quell debate and discussion on an immoral creed.

Muslims are always using such names to deflect away from a person showing just how immoral Islam is.

Ever note how they never answer straight questions with straight answers?

Regards
DL

More hate.

You seem to have the time to insult.

But I do understand that you cannot form a decent argument and are frustrated.

Quite pathetic that.

Regards
DL

I would not put much faith in the analysis of U. S. security organizations as they are biased, -- as can be seen from the U.S. being so close and friendly with one of the worst human rights offenders in the world. Saudi Arabia.

Regards
DL