Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Some Jews and Muslims actually defend Donald Trump watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnus Taylor)
    I don't think you understand the principle case in this debate, allow me to enlighten you. When you have a potential president of the US proclaiming his open disapproval of the border with Mexicans, that exacerbates the lack of social cohesion in society. There is already very tight immigration controls, on practice he is legitimising people's racist sentiment on a macro scale. This then results in micro-level hate crimes ACROSS the United States, within such offences- you get racist language thrown at Mexicans, racist attacks, trickling down into the education system where it happens with school children. This is a serious harm.
    Regarding the second point, I know Islam is not a race but a religion. Yet in a world of postcolonialism where the discourse of Orientalism is becoming far more prevalent, most people unfortunately fall under the media stereotyping of them as such. Islam is not a problem in the 21st century, it is radical extremists which are a different issue. It is the same with Christianity, and how you can get christian fundamentalists etc. Trump's ideology is to promote the clash of civilisations between the West and the East, which in turn facilitates an increased volume of Occidentalism. The way to defeat extremism is through education, not through Trump's solutions which are not rational.
    Furthermore, regarding a previous point, these concerns you highlight such as fears over immigration are ALSO felt by intellectual individuals in society, we don't disagree with the problems that exist in society. The arguments differ in emphasis however when it comes to how to solve them, my point on he panders towards emotional sentiment means that it results in absurd propositions being put forward. This prevents more rational strategies being adopted, I.E. if the public choose only to listen to Trump then other measures cannot be implemented.
    Tight immigration controls? Then how is it that the most conservative estimates put the figure at 10 million illegal Mexican immigrants in the US? The border is practically open in some places, it's laughable. Have you ever actually been to the any of the border states?

    If that happens - and I'm not convinced it is - then the issue is the people saying/doing the racist things, not the person trying to control the border.

    I agree, religious extremism of all forms is incredibly dangerous. The difference is, every other religion has modernised. Christian extremism is limited to some backwaters in the southern states of the US and in some pockets of Africa, where Jewish extremism is more or less contained to the West Bank. On the other hand, Islam shows no signs of modernising. We can argue 'till kingdom come (if you'll excuse the pun) about translations of the Qu'ran and Hadith, but there is no disputing some rather reprehensible facts. For instance, most scholars agree that the Qu'ran and Hadiths say that apostates should face the death penalty, as should any takfiri within a wider range of 'crimes'. It also unequivocally endorses the slave trade and sex slave trade, and that is but the tip of an iceberg of things that Sharia Law allows but we consider barbaric in the 21st century Western world.

    More to the point, the nature of Islamic doctrine is that it cannot be modernised. Islam teaches that the Qu'ran and Hadiths are Allah's word, in its purest and most true form. What this means is that no Muslims can contradict their teachings with being guilty of takfir. For instance, no Muslim can say 'slavery is unequivocally wrong', else they would be saying that Allah was wrong.

    WIth regards immigration, that is most certainly not what the elite do. What they instead do is brand you a racist, or a xenophobe, or whatever other buzzword is flavour of the month. Remember that poster that UKIP ran just before the referendum, the 'Breaking Point' one? That was branded racist. And yet, I would challenge anyone to explain how that poster conveys the opinion that arab people are fundamentally inferior to any other race. Because it doesn't. What it does is draw attention to uncontrolled migration from the Middle East, and as a result of doing so it gets accused of racism.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Tight immigration controls? Then how is it that the most conservative estimates put the figure at 10 million illegal Mexican immigrants in the US? The border is practically open in some places, it's laughable. Have you ever actually been to the any of the border states?

    If that happens - and I'm not convinced it is - then the issue is the people saying/doing the racist things, not the person trying to control the border.

    I agree, religious extremism of all forms is incredibly dangerous. The difference is, every other religion has modernised. Christian extremism is limited to some backwaters in the southern states of the US and in some pockets of Africa, where Jewish extremism is more or less contained to the West Bank. On the other hand, Islam shows no signs of modernising. We can argue 'till kingdom come (if you'll excuse the pun) about translations of the Qu'ran and Hadith, but there is no disputing some rather reprehensible facts. For instance, most scholars agree that the Qu'ran and Hadiths say that apostates should face the death penalty, as should any takfiri within a wider range of 'crimes'. It also unequivocally endorses the slave trade and sex slave trade, and that is but the tip of an iceberg of things that Sharia Law allows but we consider barbaric in the 21st century Western world.

    More to the point, the nature of Islamic doctrine is that it cannot be modernised. Islam teaches that the Qu'ran and Hadiths are Allah's word, in its purest and most true form. What this means is that no Muslims can contradict their teachings with being guilty of takfir. For instance, no Muslim can say 'slavery is unequivocally wrong', else they would be saying that Allah was wrong.

    WIth regards immigration, that is most certainly not what the elite do. What they instead do is brand you a racist, or a xenophobe, or whatever other buzzword is flavour of the month. Remember that poster that UKIP ran just before the referendum, the 'Breaking Point' one? That was branded racist. And yet, I would challenge anyone to explain how that poster conveys the opinion that arab people are fundamentally inferior to any other race. Because it doesn't. What it does is draw attention to uncontrolled migration from the Middle East, and as a result of doing so it gets accused of racism.
    No, the argument you've made on religious extremism implies that the entire Muslim community could revert to radical Islam, but they don't. Even if we took your argument at its best, and said that all Muslims cannot change the religious scripture, why is it that you only have a small proportion of the Muslim community practising extremism. Secondly, if it was so binding, why do you have individuals, particularly amongst the youth openly not following religious teachings- we begin to see a trend towards 'Brasian' etc when individuals that are Muslim choose to live a more liberal life. There is no theological justification for extremism based on scripture, instead it is when people like you who blame the religion rather than the fanatics who preach the radicalised version, which causes less intellectually able individuals to espouse the Orientalist discourse unfortunately shared by many in society. In turn this supports terrorists who are trying to demonstrate that fundamentalism is a response to modernity and globalisation, and a form of cultural defence with the West poised to take over religious traditions.
    On the point about the wall, there are far more rational measures that can be taken than the presidential candidate in the US openly proclaiming his own bigot stance on the matter. Illegal immigrants can enter the country not just from Mexico's border + the harm it would have on US's international relations would be severe. Mexico is a rapidly economically developing country, working with that government is a far more effective method.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    People often mistake the American political structure to the European one in assuming that the political debate boils down to a battle between social democracy and soft conservatism. However, the debate in the US is entirely different, as it's turning out to become in Europe as well. Populism is the fastest growing political ideal in the west - whether it be with Trump in the US, the PVV in the Netherlands or the National Front in France - people are turning away from traditional left-wing currents and following radical political extremes because they feel let down by establishment politics and uncontrolled mass immigration. I don't think Donald Trump will win in 2016, but the last thing we should do is dismiss him and label his supporters.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnus Taylor)
    No, the argument you've made on religious extremism implies that the entire Muslim community could revert to radical Islam, but they don't. Even if we took your argument at its best, and said that all Muslims cannot change the religious scripture, why is it that you only have a small proportion of the Muslim community practising extremism. Secondly, if it was so binding, why do you have individuals, particularly amongst the youth openly not following religious teachings- we begin to see a trend towards 'Brasian' etc when individuals that are Muslim choose to live a more liberal life. There is no theological justification for extremism based on scripture, instead it is when people like you who blame the religion rather than the fanatics who preach the radicalised version, which make less intellectually able individuals espouse the Orientalist discourse shared by many in society. In turn this supports terrorists who are trying to demonstrate that fundamentalism is a response to modernity and globalisation, and a form of cultural defence with the West poised to take over religious traditions.
    On the point about the wall, there are far more rational measures that can be taken than the presidential candidate in the US openly proclaiming his own bigot stance on the matter. Illegal immigrants can enter the country not just from Mexico's border + the harm it would have on US's international relations would be severe. Mexico is a rapidly economically developing country, working with that government is a far more effective method.
    Actually, you're conflating two distinct arguments. I am not criticising Muslims, I'm criticising Islam. In much the same way, I am quite happy to criticise Christianity, Judaism and any other ideology which endorses deeply unpleasant views. Criticising the ideology is a world apart from criticising the people who follow that ideology.

    It also seems patently clear at this point that Islam is rather more resilient to modernisation than the other Abrahamic religions, and that is primarily a result of the binding nature of the Qur'an's teachings. You don't think it's telling that 2 in 5 Muslims in the UK support the imposition of Sharia? A legal system which condones stoning of homosexuals and apostates, is supported by 40% of UK muslims, who should be amongst the most liberal Muslims in the world. That's a terrifying prospect. Islam is a toxic ideology, much as Christianity was a couple hundred years ago. The only difference is, Islam is showing rather less desire to change.

    Okay then, suggest an alternative which will reduce illegal immigration from Mexico. Because no one else seems to have come up with one. The Mexican government wants these people to leave, because they are largely the unskilled and unemployed who are a drain on Mexico's economy. I don't see, and apparently no one else sees, any way to reduce the numbers. Hell, the Democrats suggestion to grant an amnesty to all illegal immigrants is only going to increase the numbers!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Many regressive leftists won't understand this because they don't understand thay people can have political views that aren't self-serving
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Ha, the fools will make the same mistake they made with Brexit

    Calling everyone who disagrees with you racist = Lose!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Trump panders towards emotional sentiment which hinders the rationality within the societal discourse. Unequivocally, therefore, people will be attracted to his campaign even from these communities- fear>identity.[/QUOTE]


    Whereas Clinton's pandering to BLM and refusal to condemn their followers calling for police to be shot on the street and her fighting against the "war on women" doesn't mean people will be attracted even from these communities-fear>identity?
    They are two cheeks of the same arse.
    They both play the same game.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:

    One for you....One for you....And....One for you....
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It's almost like we're people with our own views as opposed to thinking the same like leftists try to make out... Who'd of thought?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Of course Jews and Muslims support Trump. It doesn't take a genius to see why an increase in mass muslim immigration would be bad for Jews, hence the amount that have been forced to leave France for Israel in the past few years.

    Plus if you believe not all muslims are violent thugs and goat herders then it shouldn't be hard to understand that the civilised ones want to keep those people out.

    The real racism/bigotry is assuming everyone has to believe and vote for the same thing as everyone else that shares the same race/religion.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Trump or a woman? Trump every time.

    U N S T U M P A B L E
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Of course Jews and Muslims support Trump. It doesn't take a genius to see why an increase in mass muslim immigration would be bad for Jews, hence the amount that have been forced to leave France for Israel in the past few years.

    Plus if you believe not all muslims are violent thugs and goat herders then it shouldn't be hard to understand that the civilised ones want to keep those people out.

    The real racism/bigotry is assuming everyone has to believe and vote for the same thing as everyone else that shares the same race/religion.
    A small minority of them supporting him =/ Jews and Muslims support Trump. Your mentality only reinforces what I was saying earlier about the ignorance of Trump supporters.

    Of course not all of them are going to believe the same thing, but when a candidate is blatantly bigoted towards a certain group, it's hardly rocket science that the majority of them are not going to support him.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    A small minority of them supporting him =/ Jews and Muslims support Trump. Your mentality only reinforces what I was saying earlier about the ignorance of Trump supporters.

    Of course not all of them are going to believe the same thing, but when a candidate is blatantly bigoted towards a certain group, it's hardly rocket science that the majority of them are not going to support him.
    Not everyone shares the view that he is "blatantly bigoted" towards a group. Some are capable of independent thought.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Not everyone shares the view that he is "blatantly bigoted" towards a group. Some are capable of independent thought.
    No, because some share his views. Of course you can't see what's wrong with someone if you are just like him. However, bigotry is not subjective, it has a definition.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    No, because some share his views. Of course you can't see what's wrong with someone if you are just like him. However, bigotry is not subjective, it has a definition.
    The one i found was "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself. "
    Do you have a direct quote from Trump which shows him as such?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    The one i found was "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself. "
    Do you have a direct quote from Trump which shows him as such?
    If wanting to ban people from the USA because they are Muslims and dehumanising Mexicans as "rapists" and "criminals" does not fall under that definition, I don't know what does.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    If wanting to ban people from the USA because they are Muslims and dehumanising Mexicans as "rapists" and "criminals" does not fall under that definition, I don't know what does.
    Labels like bigotry adhere to intention of action rather than the action themselves. The banning of muslims is to curb terrorism and he specifically referred to illegal immigrant Mexicans, not Mexicans as a whole. 80% of Central-American women who cross the border are raped by Mexicans. I think that figure justifies the comment.

    I'll even use no doubt your favourite news outlet to source it for you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5806972.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Labels like bigotry adhere to intention of action rather than the action themselves. The banning of muslims is to curb terrorism and he specifically referred to illegal immigrant Mexicans, not Mexicans as a whole. 80% of Central-American women who cross the border are raped by Mexicans. I think that figure justifies the comment.

    I'll even use no doubt your favourite news outlet to source it for you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5806972.html
    Yeah, the country with one of the biggest problems with gun violence (mostly carried out by White Christian men) is so scared of 2% of it's population, which generally has a low crime rate compared to other within the country. If he was so concerned for America's safety, he would be addressing the issue of gun control. As it is, he is completely against the latter issue and instead focuses on Muslims as the primary cause of danger, wonder why....

    He could have mentioned illegal immigrants and made a clear distinction, why alienate an entire demographic and paint them as criminals?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Yeah, the country with one of the biggest problems with gun violence (mostly carried out by White Christian men) is so scared of 2% of it's population, which generally has a low crime rate compared to other within the country. If he was so concerned for America's safety, he would be addressing the issue of gun control. As it is, he is completely against the latter issue and instead focuses on Muslims as the primary cause of danger, wonder why....

    He could have mentioned illegal immigrants and made a clear distinction, why alienate an entire demographic and paint them as criminals?
    Perhaps you would like to account for differences in population demographics before you smear a whole race. Japanese people for example, murder and rape a near infinite amount more than any other demographic in Japan, because they are the majority. So that doesn't tell you anything about the nature of that group of people.

    A major terrorist attack can be carried out by a very small number of people. It only took 5 for 9/11 to happen. So 2% is not a negligible amount unfortunately as that is still a few million people. I'd like to see a source for your claim that muslims have a low comparative crime rate in usa if you will.

    Let's be honest, it is really easy to get a gun in most western countries regardless of gun laws. Strict gun laws didn't prevent the shooting in the Bataclan and if it did they would just use explosives instead. The hardest part of the situation is not acquiring a weapon, but convincing someone to massacre dozens of people. Furthermore, all oppressive regimes started by disarming the population, even the Nazis did that, and I'm sure most logical people can see that slimeballs like Obama and Clinton are not above oppressing the nation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Perhaps you would like to account for differences in population demographics before you smear a whole race. Japanese people for example, murder and rape a near infinite amount more than any other demographic in Japan, because they are the majority. So that doesn't tell you anything about the nature of that group of people.

    A major terrorist attack can be carried out by a very small number of people. It only took 5 for 9/11 to happen. So 2% is not a negligible amount unfortunately as that is still a few million people. I'd like to see a source for your claim that muslims have a low comparative crime rate in usa if you will.

    Let's be honest, it is really easy to get a gun in most western countries regardless of gun laws. Strict gun laws didn't prevent the shooting in the Bataclan and if it did they would just use explosives instead. The hardest part of the situation is not acquiring a weapon, but convincing someone to massacre dozens of people. Furthermore, all oppressive regimes started by disarming the population, even the Nazis did that, and I'm sure most logical people can see that slimeballs like Obama and Clinton are not above oppressing the nation.
    Well then, hear you go. The stats of terrorist attacks carried out on US soil up until the past decade, according to FBI stats. And before you point out that this was 2005, how many terrorist attacks happened in the US since then which were motivated by Islamic extremism? One?
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mus...merica/5333619

    Not to mention that Muslims in North America have drastically different stats to Muslims in many parts of Europe. To point to them as the biggest threat to national security is ludicrous and suggests that there are other reasons being behind this.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us...misperception/

    What has Obama done to "oppress" the nation? And how many mass shootings have you heard of happening in the UK, as well as shootings of civilians by law enforcement? When a country is supposed to be relatively stable and you still have people going on shooting sprees every other week, obviously there is a massive problem. I'm not talking about a once in a while thing.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.