Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,585]

4 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Well if she didnt agree with Sharia she wouldnt be much of a muslim would she?

 

Even on your example though this is a lady, despite her families patriarchy, has attended University. She kind of fits the educated/integrated label.

And that's the problem then. Why we want people that want to implement Sharia Law? 

If they want Sharia Law, go to Iran, Saudia Arabia and the like. 

[kmk108 1,186]

 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad: Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2009. American Citizen

Major Nidal Malik Hasan: Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009. American Citizen

 Tamerlan and Dhozkar Tsarnaev: Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. Soviet/Kyrgyzstan 

Alton Nolen: Moore, Oklahoma, September 24, 2014. American Citizen

Zale Thompson: Queens, New York, October 23, 2014. American Citizen

Ismaayil Brinsley: Brooklyn, New York, December 20, 2014. American Citizen

Garland, Texas, May 3, 2015. All three gunman American Citizens

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez: Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Kuwaiti

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. American and Pakistani

Omar Mateen: Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016. American Citizen

Dahir Ahmed Adan: St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 17, 2016. American Citizen

 Ahmad Khan Rahami: New York City/New Jersey, September 17, 2016. Afghan

 Abdul Razak Ali Artan: Columbus, Ohio, November 28, 2016. Somalian refugee

 

Since 2009, only one terrorist attack has been perpetrated by someone from any of the banned countries. In fact, the overwhelming majority are American citizens.

[Fernando 6,585]

2 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

 Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad: Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2009. American Citizen

Major Nidal Malik Hasan: Fort Hood, Texas, November 5, 2009. American Citizen

 Tamerlan and Dhozkar Tsarnaev: Boston, Massachusetts, April 15, 2013. Soviet/Kyrgyzstan 

Alton Nolen: Moore, Oklahoma, September 24, 2014. American Citizen

Zale Thompson: Queens, New York, October 23, 2014. American Citizen

Ismaayil Brinsley: Brooklyn, New York, December 20, 2014. American Citizen

Garland, Texas, May 3, 2015. All three gunman American Citizens

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez: Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Kuwaiti

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik: San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. American and Pakistani

Omar Mateen: Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016. American Citizen

Dahir Ahmed Adan: St. Cloud, Minnesota, September 17, 2016. American Citizen

 Ahmad Khan Rahami: New York City/New Jersey, September 17, 2016. Afghan

 Abdul Razak Ali Artan: Columbus, Ohio, November 28, 2016. Somalian refugee

 

Since 2009, only one terrorist attack has been perpetrated by someone from any of the banned countries. In fact, the overwhelming majority are American citizens.

They all sound like Muslim name......

The problem is not outside but inside what is being preach by their religion. 

Trump said something about needing to keep an eye on them. Your list says it all. 

So more then likely your list being proof, he will use it to monitor Mosque and what not......

[kmk108 1,186]

Just now, Fernando said:

They all sound like Muslim name......

The problem is not outside but inside what is being preach by their religion. 

Trump said something about needing to keep an eye on them. Your list says it all. 

So more then likely your list being proof, he will use it to monitor Mosque and what not......

American citizens have to have American sounding names?

I don't know how you can convince me the government isn't already monitoring anyone they can possibly monitor. Maybe it's just me being paranoid (though since I don't really care, I don't know if you'd call it paranoia) but I'm pretty firmly planted in the camp that the government, in its numerous agencies, are monitoring more of the US population than we're aware of. If they want to monitor me constantly checking out the same 5 sites, let them 

[Fernando 6,585]

3 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

American citizens have to have American sounding names?

I don't know how you can convince me the government isn't already monitoring anyone they can possibly monitor. Maybe it's just me being paranoid (though since I don't really care, I don't know if you'd call it paranoia) but I'm pretty firmly planted in the camp that the government, in its numerous agencies, are monitoring more of the US population than we're aware of. If they want to monitor me constantly checking out the same 5 sites, let them 

So your okay with being monitored? 

Having video cameras in mosque? And intervening if the message being preach is not in accordance with "American Values"? 

To be honest I see this coming, weather I agree with it that's another story.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

35 minutes ago, Fernando said:

And that's the problem then. Why we want people that want to implement Sharia Law? 

If they want Sharia Law, go to Iran, Saudia Arabia and the like. 

I don't think she wants to implement shariah. She just voiced her support for parts of it.

[Fernando 6,585]

10 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

I don't think she wants to implement shariah. She just voiced her support for parts of it.

And that's going against the constitution. 
Why do we want people like that? 

Shouldn't we want people that love the country, support and defend the constitution? 

[Kieran. 6,317]

32 minutes ago, Fernando said:

They all sound like Muslim name......

The problem is not outside but inside what is being preach by their religion. 

Trump said something about needing to keep an eye on them. Your list says it all. 

So more then likely your list being proof, he will use it to monitor Mosque and what not......

Dude your world views are ass backwards.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

5 minutes ago, Fernando said:

And that's going against the constitution. 
Why do we want people like that? 

Shouldn't we want people that love the country, support and defend the constitution? 

The constitution defends her right to express her belief about not supporting interest(the shariah parts she spoke positive of).  I can accept citizens in the nation who have different viewpoints than mine. We are all American, and her speech doesnt take away any right from me.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 minute ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

The constitution defends her right to express her belief about not supporting interest(the shariah parts she spoke positive of).  I can accept citizens in the nation who have different viewpoints than mine. We are all American, and her speech doesnt take away any right from me.

Okay that's good. I hope you hold that same view for every side. And not become bias if you don't like their speech like say a zionist jew..... 

[Peace. 4,352]

6 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

The difference is the muslims we get in America are educated and well integrated. France's terrible history in the Maghreb makes the former impossible for their populations.

 

If it was about terrorism we'd be banning Saudis, but that nation isnt on the list because $$$. The only other logical explanation is racism. Nobody in the Sudan has ever caused issue over here. In fact, I remember it was US who bombed a medicine factory over there when I was a kid in the 90's because Clinton was trying to get the media's attention away from his affair in the white house. The sudanese refugees we get are persecuted Christians no different than the Christians persecuted in Syria. The only reason they don't get a tweet mention from Trump is because they are dark as night, and the Syrian Christians we get can pass as White in our mixed nation.

 

And what do you believe that the "love story" of these last thirty years or so between the Middle East and the U.S. will create ? It is not like your presidents have invaded muslims countries and bombed the shit out of them continoulsy since... a long time ago... It is probably a pure creation of propaganda made by terrorist groups, isn't it ? France's "terrible history in the Maghreb" will very soon be upon you. Or do you think that the U.S. are better than anyone else and can bomb the shit out of people without them holding any grudge ?

And you seem to link terrorism with uneducated people, but did you ever open in your lifetime one magazine produced by the IS or by Al-Qā'Idah ? If you did you would not hold such arguments because you would have seen that these terrorists, albeit crazy, are very well educated people. And to be honest, the people who are producing this (the contents and the design) are more clever and better educated than most of people on this forum for instance. One could argue that those who blow themselves up in suicide attacks are not the sharpest tools in the box, yet those who are pushing them are very clever people.

Trump is not banning Saudi and what ?! Is it because he is doing a mistake in regards to this country that it should be open door for everyone ? What is this kind of reasoning... And then again, it is too easy to put the blame upon the Saudis. Although the Saudis are major actors in terrorism, the muslim world does not need them to have terrorists.

Nobody from Sudan has caused problem in the U.S... But did the U.S. caused problems in Sudan, YES ! And in case you did not know, Sudan has a soft spot for terrorists — it has for instance hosted bin Laden for a few years in the nineties. And even today, it is a place wherein which live a lot of terrorists. So what, do you really want to take your chance ? Life is not a game.

And it is not like you suffered from a few terrorist attacks in the last few months...

 

And anyway, do you realize that Dahnald Trump wants to go all out against the IS, no ? And do you realize what it does mean ? I will repeat the question : do you have any idea of what attacking the IS implies ? It does mean that the IS too, will go all out against the U.S. The more your country will bomb them in the "Sham" and the more the IS will organize terrorist attacks against your country. So what is your plan to protect your fellow citizens from these foreign threats ?

[Fernando 6,585]

18 minutes ago, Kieran. said:

Dude your world views are ass backwards.

Not backwards but what is going to happen. This Islam problem will lead us into a bigger surveillance state. 

And that's the biggest worry. To have more surveillance at your mosque and to intervene in your messages. 

Consequently it will spread to other religion like Christianity. We will surveillance them and intervene in their messages. 

[kmk108 1,186]

20 minutes ago, Fernando said:

So your okay with being monitored? 

Having video cameras in mosque? And intervening if the message being preach is not in accordance with "American Values"? 

To be honest I see this coming, weather I agree with it that's another story.

Me personally, I couldn't give a damn. I don't do anything that would be of interest to them, and as long as I don't see someone standing outside my window watching me, I'm fine with it.

I understand how others wouldn't want that though. But, like I said earlier, I think the government is monitoring us far more than we're lead to believe anyway. Mosques were monitored after 9/11 and that was found to be constitutional and only ended when a new police chief took over. I don't believe the muslims who were being monitored were even aware of it until an AP article outed the monitoring. You don't have to set up intrusive things like CCTV to monitor people. We're far more technologically advanced than that.

I know that, while I don't have a problem with it personally, I don't agree with it. It may be the Muslims this time around, but what if it were something that I were considered a part of? What if years down the road, Christians are the target of this kind of "crackdown"? US law always looks to the past for precedent and this could set a startling precedent.

[kmk108 1,186]

11 minutes ago, Peace. said:

And what do you believe that the "love story" of these last thirty years or so between the Middle East and the U.S. will create ? It is not like your presidents have invaded muslims countries and bombed the shit out of them continoulsy since... a long time ago... It is probably a pure creation of propaganda made by terrorist groups, isn't it ? France's "terrible history in the Maghreb" will very soon be upon you. Or do you think that the U.S. are better than anyone else and can bomb the shit out of people without them holding any grudge ?

And you seem to link terrorism with uneducated people, but did you ever open in your lifetime one magazine produced by the IS or by Al-Qā'Idah ? If you did you would not hold such arguments because you would have seen that these terrorists, albeit crazy, are very well educated people. And to be honest, the people who are producing this (the contents and the design) are more clever and better educated than most of people on this forum for instance. One could argue that those who blow themselves up in suicide attacks are not the sharpest tools in the box, yet those who are pushing them are very clever people.

Trump is not banning Saudi and what ?! Is it because he is doing a mistake in regards to this country that it should be open door for everyone ? What is this kind of reasoning... And then again, it is too easy to put the blame upon the Saudis. Although the Saudis are major actors in terrorism, the muslim world does not need them to have terrorists.

Nobody from Sudan has caused problem in the U.S... But did the U.S. caused problems in Sudan, YES ! And in case you did not know, Sudan has a soft spot for terrorists — it has for instance hosted bin Laden for a few years in the nineties. And even today, it is a place wherein which live a lot of terrorists. So what, do you really want to take your chance ? Life is not a game.

And it is not like you suffered from a few terrorist attacks in the last few months...

 

And anyway, do you realize that Dahnald Trump wants to go all out against the IS, no ? And do you realize what it does mean ? I will repeat the question : do you have any idea of what attacking the IS implies ? It does mean that the IS too, will go all out against the U.S. The more your country will bomb them in the "Sham" and the more the IS will organize terrorist attacks against your country. So what is your plan to protect your fellow citizens from these foreign threats ?

You say both Saudi Arabia and Sudan have problems with terrorism, but you have no problem with the executive order leaving Saudi Arabia out? What?

[Fernando 6,585]

3 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

Me personally, I couldn't give a damn. I don't do anything that would be of interest to them, and as long as I don't see someone standing outside my window watching me, I'm fine with it.

I understand how others wouldn't want that though. But, like I said earlier, I think the government is monitoring us far more than we're lead to believe anyway. Mosques were monitored after 9/11 and that was found to be constitutional and only ended when a new police chief took over. I don't believe the muslims who were being monitored were even aware of it until an AP article outed the monitoring. You don't have to set up intrusive things like CCTV to monitor people. We're far more technologically advanced than that.

I know that, while I don't have a problem with it personally, I don't agree with it. It may be the Muslims this time around, but what if it were something that I were considered a part of? What if years down the road, Christians are the target of this kind of "crackdown"? US law always looks to the past for precedent and this could set a startling precedent.

And you hit the point my friend. This is what I'm most worried about. This is the beginning of that. 

Granted I don't agree with the Muslim, nor in sharia law, nor in homosexual marriage nor in abortion. 

But this is not the way to go about it. We start like this, and it will go even worse later down the road.