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

Liberals seem to be incapable of comprehending what the "Muslim Ban" is about Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    6 out of 7 countries on the ban list are active war zones. Which means they have unstable governments, poor infrastructure, and consequently poor documentation of their citizens, undermining any vetting process that might be employed during their immigration to the US.
    Many countries already have this but are not on the list.
    There already is a rigorous vetting process employed by the USA and just so you know, many people do get rejected.
    For the most part, we have no idea who the people coming over from these countries are. Sure, most may be good people fleeing a conflict, but until there is a reliable way to evaluate the background of these individuals, it's anyone's guess.
    "Most" is a wild exaggeration and I'll bet you have no data to support that claim. And as already mentioned, the USA already employs a rigorous vetting process. You can look this up on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security website. Do you really think the vetting begins with Trump? Don't make me laugh bro.

    That's what this ban is about. Temporarily limiting immigration from countries where it is difficult to assess citizens prior to granting them legal entry to the US, until measures have been implemented to do this.
    If it's difficult to assess them they get turned back home or held until further notice. They don't just let them in then go "oops" afterwards

    It has nothing to do with "Muslims". Out of the 10 countries with the highest Muslim populations in the world, only one is on this list.
    This has a lot more to do with Muslims than Liberals :holmes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Zero Americans have been killed by Iraqi citizens? Have you not heard of something called the Iraq war?
    The list counts the number of Americans killed on American soil by people coming from those countries (which, as you will recall, is the point of the ban).

    Not a single American has been killed by an Iraqi in a terror attack on American soil. On the other hand, thousands of Americans were killed by Saudis and yet Saudi Arabia is not included in the ban.

    Bannon has basically admitted that they don't even think it has much point in policy terms, it was a political move to impress their credulous supporters. But they thought it would confuse and break the left-wing whereas in fact the progressive movement blasted the administration with both barrels. It has been a huge galvaniser for the left-wing opposition to Trump, which is going to make the Tea Party look like bipartisanship.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Strange lot the left.

    Trump suggests waterboarding may be effective but will take the advice of the military and intelligence community, total pant wetting SJW tantrum mode.

    Obama has weekly meetings to update his death list, kills hundreds with drone strikes, plenty of "collateral" damage,AKA women and children the left.......Meh, no biggie!

    Rank hypocrisy of the highest order.
    And we're going to win this; Trump is already historically unpopular, only a week into his presidency.

    This is just the start; the American progressive movement is going to make him the first successfully impeached president
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I see.

    My only concern with this plan is that it doesn't tackle the bigger problem of home grown terrorism or Saudi funded radicalisation.
    Saudi funded radicalisation? Explain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    I am no particular fan of Mo Farah. He is almost certainly a drug cheat, and the way he has been used as a poster child for multiculturalism (and of course is still being used for political purposes in this issue) will come back to bite those who have done it, if and when his drug abuse is ever proven.

    But although he is definitely to blame for gaining medals and fame through unfair and illegal means, he is not to blame for the way he has been politicised. Nor is he any kind of terrorist threat.

    But that doesn't mean that UK Muslims entering the US do not constitute a much higher statistical risk of being a terrorist than non Muslims. And that almost all UK Muslims are from the diaspora of Muslim countries.

    So whilst this process is crude and perhaps an ineffective measure. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. You can see the rationale behind it.

    We are not prepared to accept the fact that UK Muslims constitute a terror threat. We don't want to tar the vast majority of innocent people with the guilt of their coreligionists. We prefer to be in denial about it. It is a taboo subject.

    But Trump and his movement have no such taboo.
    You have no evidence to call our greatest athlete a drug cheat. How do you know more about him than the drug testing authorities, hmm? Baseless claims that stink of racism.
    • Offline

      17
      (Original post by YoloBaggins00)
      Saudi funded radicalisation? Explain.
      Saudi Arabia (indirectly) funds the spread of Wahhabism in western countries. In the form of journals, leaflets, DVDs etc mostly in English to probably appeal to younger generations that might not speak Arabic.

      For a more detailed explanation click here
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AlexanderHam)
      The list counts the number of Americans killed on American soil by people coming from those countries (which, as you will recall, is the point of the ban).

      Not a single American has been killed by an Iraqi in a terror attack on American soil. On the other hand, thousands of Americans were killed by Saudis and yet Saudi Arabia is not included in the ban.

      Bannon has basically admitted that they don't even think it has much point in policy terms, it was a political move to impress their credulous supporters. But they thought it would confuse and break the left-wing whereas in fact the progressive movement blasted the administration with both barrels. It has been a huge galvaniser for the left-wing opposition to Trump, which is going to make the Tea Party look like bipartisanship.
      It was actually the Obama administration that created the list of countries. But I agree, the ban is more to please supporters rather than improving safety, but it's a good way of doing that.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AlexanderHam)
      Poor snowflake, you seem to be traumatised by the fact the left-wing thinks you're stupid, low rent, superficial and credulous (which you are). Deep down you crave respectability. You should know you'll never get it; we think you're trash. And we're going to win this; Trump is already historically unpopular, only a week into his presidency.

      This is just the start; the American progressive movement is going to make him the first successfully impeached president
      No answer to the charge of hypocrisy?

      No surprise, may as well stick to childish insults.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      AlexanderHam

      What so you actually believe the unpopularity polls, the same so called expert polls that said brexit and trump would never happen
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by StrawbAri)
      Saudi Arabia (indirectly) funds the spread of Wahhabism in western countries. In the form of journals, leaflets, DVDs etc mostly in English to probably appeal to younger generations that might not speak Arabic.

      For a more detailed explanation click here
      lol wahhabism is not synonymous with terrorism or radicalisation.
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by joe cooley)
        Basically you came up with one leftwing ******* who wanted to kill Trump compared to one Muslim ******* who wanted to kill hundreds on a passenger plane.

        Well done.
        No, I also pointed out the 2 hackers.

        Sorry Joe, but those few hundred lives probably wouldn't make as much difference to US national security as a well placed high level single kill or releasing information from sensitive servers...
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jamie)
        No, I also pointed out the 2 hackers.

        Sorry Joe, but those few hundred lives probably wouldn't make as much difference to US national security as a well placed high level single kill or releasing information from sensitive servers...
        Tell that to the parents of one of the 49 killed in the Pulse nightclub by one of your Islamic chums.
        • Offline

          18
          (Original post by joe cooley)
          Tell that to the parents of one of the 49 killed in the Pulse nightclub by one of your Islamic chums.
          In your effort to simply troll me you have forgotten that the premise of our discussion was whether British muslims or mentally unwell white British were more of a risk to American national security.

          The pulse nightclub massacre was perpetrated by a man born and bred in America. Not a Brit. Furthermore he wasn't in the slightest bit a muslim fundamentalist, but simply a lifelong thug and bully who made up stories about being connected to Al Queda since childhood.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by joe cooley)
          Tell that to the parents of one of the 49 killed in the Pulse nightclub by one of your Islamic chums.
          Omar Mateen was an American born, American citizen. He would not have been affected by the "Muslim Ban".
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by QE2)
          Omar Mateen was an American born, American citizen. He would not have been affected by the "Muslim Ban".
          No, but it would have affected his parents.

          If they had not immigrated to the US, Mateen would not have been born there.

          Its not only first generation Muslim immigrants that turn to terror,Mohammad Sidique Khan born and bred here, still made the decision that the kuffar deserve death.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by joe cooley)
          No, but it would have affected his parents.

          If they had not immigrated to the US, Mateen would not have been born there.

          Its not only first generation Muslim immigrants that turn to terror,Mohammad Sidique Khan born and bred here, still made the decision that the kuffar deserve death.
          So, how far back do you go?
          Timothy McVeigh was several generations American, yet he killed 150 odd in a terrorist attack.
          Should the US ban all people of Irish stock? If not, they are willingly allowing another Oklahoma. Is that what you want?

          And then there's 9/11. Those attacks by Saudi nationals resulted in 3000 odd deaths, yet Saudis are not covered by the ban.

          Something don't add up!
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by QE2)
          So, how far back do you go?
          Timothy McVeigh was several generations American, yet he killed 150 odd in a terrorist attack.
          Should the US ban all people of Irish stock? If not, they are willingly allowing another Oklahoma. Is that what you want?

          And then there's 9/11. Those attacks by Saudi nationals resulted in 3000 odd deaths, yet Saudis are not covered by the ban.

          Something don't add up!
          Close but no cigar.

          If a large minority of Irish people displayed the same animosity toward the West and the US in particular as a very large minority of Muslims, then yes.

          I agree Saudi should be named in the ban too.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          Still curious as to why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Afghanistan and Pakistan or not on the list when most of terrorist attacks on American soil have involved perpetrators from these countries including 9/11. These are also to a degree unstable countries especially Afganistan and Pakistan. İs this ban on citizens of the current seven cou tried for other reasons rather than protecting the US?
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by tomywomy)
          AlexanderHam

          What so you actually believe the unpopularity polls, the same so called expert polls that said brexit and trump would never happen
          1. Brexit and Trump winning were not that far off from the polls. Whereas Trump is by far the most unpopular president within a week.

          2. Asking someone an opinion about a person is very different than asking someone who will you vote for.

          3. Trump made it. There is no more I won't openly say I support Donald, but secretly I do.
          Offline

          20
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by joe cooley)
          Tell that to the parents of one of the 49 killed in the Pulse nightclub by one of your Islamic chums.
          You mean tell the parents that the killer would not have been caught by the ban?

          Because you know, he was American. Born in New York.
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: February 9, 2017
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • 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

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