Donald Trump

[Patrick S]

That's a bit like saying, "I lived with the Amish for three years so I have plenty of anecdotal stuff about Christianity". Anecdotal evidence is, of course, anecdotal - and aren't very useful in a constructive debate.

An open question: what are "good, Christian values"? What are "good, Islamic values"? The answer is, depends on whom you ask. The answer lies in culture, not their respective holy books. For example, many people associate female circumcision with Islam, but that practice is older than Islam. It happens to be a cultural trait which coexists with Islam in some countries, and consequently the practitioners - being Muslim - feel justified in Islam - even though it does not come from Islam.

Saudi Arabia, by the way, is not on Trump's banned list.

As for their immigration laws, I fail to see the relevance. They are not our teachers, surely?

That's absurd. Seeing Amish people riding around in horse drawn buggies is evidence that they don't drive cars. Never seeing an Amish person with a zipper may indicated that they wear button fly pants. Seeing someone beheaded for crimes against Islam is evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Islam may be somewhat more brutal than, say, Buddhism. Seeing a woman stoned to death for (alleged) adultery is evidence that SOME people take what's in the Quran seriously (and can afford to do so because the religions police have no issue with murder, so long as it's condoned by the Quran). And more, liberals are consumed with anecdotal examples of everything! "This poor woman will lose her insurance!" "This guy yells an epithet a Trump rally so Trump supporters are racist!" You only don't like them when they're used against you. So, save the outrage.

[sdreid]

Being against allowing other countries dumping their problems on us has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.

[Sam Flynn]

Being against allowing other countries dumping their problems on us has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.

Even if those problems are arguably a knock-on effect of American (and British) military interventions in those countries? I'm not necessarily against such intervention, but perhaps some of these poor buggers should be cut some slack in the circumstances.

[Svensson]

Trump's ban is to give his supporters what they wanted and what he has promised.

It doesn't matter if it is called a muslim ban or not, it's the red meat to keep his followers sweet. It is also not about security because, as has been pointed out many times, no terrorist attack has occured on US soil by a citizen of these countries since 1980 (or thereabout) but attacks have occurred of citizens of Saudia Arabia, Aghanistan, Egypt and Kyrgysztan. None of these countries are on the list, so the "security" explanation is nothing but a red herring.

The attempt to use Obama's law to identify these countries is also just another example of how Trump operates in that they are trying to shift any blame onto previous administrations, even if completely false. Obama's law was to look more closely at other citizens who have chosen to travel to such warzones, not their citizens and even that was not a complete ban that is not being implemented.

What I have not seen or heard so far (maybe this has been drowned out by all the other daily reports of Trump's lunacy) is what the US is actually doing during those 90 days so that the US' trust in those countries has been restored and the temporary ban can be lifted? Will they implement new measures to screen their VISA applications? Will they actually work with those countries to see what their passport and criminal processes are so that the US can say: OK, we now have a framework again to allow VISA applications from those countries to be looked at again (not necessarily be approved but not rejected outright based on the country of origin).

The way I see it, there are three possible outcomes after 90 days:

- The US will implement new measures that can be applied to VISAs from those countries and the ban is lifted.

- The ban will be lifted without any procedural changes.

- The ban will be extended.

I don't pretend to be able to predict what will happen but I don't think that this administration is competent or willing enough for option number one.

On a broader point and from a European perspective: The reason for this world-wide outcry is that this ban is actually coming from the US. The United States have been the champion of democracy, liberty and fairness for the last seven decades. Yes, this has been with varying success, but the intent has always been there. If Trump is signalling the end of this era of stability, then every nation in the world will have to re-evaluate how it can best protect its interests over the next decade or two and chances are that this not going to end well in the long run.

[jason_c]

Trump's ban is to give his supporters what they wanted and what he has promised.

It doesn't matter if it is called a muslim ban or not, it's the red meat to keep his followers sweet. It is also not about security because, as has been pointed out many times, no terrorist attack has occured on US soil by a citizen of these countries since 1980 (or thereabout) but attacks have occurred of citizens of Saudia Arabia, Aghanistan, Egypt and Kyrgysztan. None of these countries are on the list, so the "security" explanation is nothing but a red herring.

The attempt to use Obama's law to identify these countries is also just another example of how Trump operates in that they are trying to shift any blame onto previous administrations, even if completely false. Obama's law was to look more closely at other citizens who have chosen to travel to such warzones, not their citizens and even that was not a complete ban that is not being implemented.

What I have not seen or heard so far (maybe this has been drowned out by all the other daily reports of Trump's lunacy) is what the US is actually doing during those 90 days so that the US' trust in those countries has been restored and the temporary ban can be lifted? Will they implement new measures to screen their VISA applications? Will they actually work with those countries to see what their passport and criminal processes are so that the US can say: OK, we now have a framework again to allow VISA applications from those countries to be looked at again (not necessarily be approved but not rejected outright based on the country of origin).

The way I see it, there are three possible outcomes after 90 days:

- The US will implement new measures that can be applied to VISAs from those countries and the ban is lifted.

- The ban will be lifted without any procedural changes.

- The ban will be extended.

I don't pretend to be able to predict what will happen but I don't think that this administration is competent or willing enough for option number one.

On a broader point and from a European perspective: The reason for this world-wide outcry is that this ban is actually coming from the US. The United States have been the champion of democracy, liberty and fairness for the last seven decades. Yes, this has been with varying success, but the intent has always been there. If Trump is signalling the end of this era of stability, then every nation in the world will have to re-evaluate how it can best protect its interests over the next decade or two and chances are that this not going to end well in the long run.

The part of your post I emboldened is simply wrong. It is not past attacks this policy is dealing with but future ones. Not one single American has so far died of global warming. Does that mean any money or policy put towards fighting global warming is therefore a red herring? Barely a single American has died as a result of a nuclear bomb. Can we now go merrily skipping into the sunset knowing no American will in future be killed by a nuclear bomb?

Also, I don't know why this sort of argument insists on pointing out the lack of American deaths at the hands of immigrants from these 7 states. I do not believe in American exceptionalism. The American experience largely mirrors the experience of the wider world. IF country X has difficulty in assimilating peacefully immigrants from these countries then country Y shall too.

I personally believe this temporary ban is simply a way of reducing Muslim immigration into the US and reinforcing Trump's base. I really don't know how successful the policy will be in highlighting individual terrorists. However, the lunacy from those opposed to this policy is simply astounding.

[Svensson]

On "extremist Islamist" thing:

I do believe that many of those western "converts" who then carry out attrocities are looking for a cause for their issues with society.

Shootings, mass-killings, etc have always happened. I remember that back in the nineties, such attrocities were associated with underground culture. Band like Wumpscut, KMFDM or Marilyn Manson were idolised and often quoted by the perpetrators of Columbine, The Finish shooter Matti Saari, the German Satanist couple who carried out ritual killings. It was an expression of rejection of mainstream society by society outcasts taken to the ultimate extreme.

"I don't care if your world is ending today,
because I wasn't invited to it anyway"
-(S)Ain't, Marilyn Manson
etc. etc.

Then with 9/11, Islamist Jihad literally exploded onto the world scene and with the West's systematic demonetisation of Islam, what better way for a society reject to further antagonise and potentially punish than converting to Islam getting involved with Jihad? This is the reason why so many petty criminals with no stake in society and probably mental problems get converted and radicalised either online or in prison. So Jihad became the new flavour of the we(a)k.

Yes, Islam is a fertile ground for this because those people who do the recruiting for ISIS and Al-Queda had made a career out of this. They come from a culture where a man with a gun and money can do whatever he wants. Why should they be interested in peace and give up on that? Plus, thy're not the one who have to blow themselves up.

So unless we, the west, are successful in disrupting those mechanisms, not much will change in the short-term. In that respect, Trump's ban is likely to be a propaganda coup for ISIS recruiters and Trump has already failed in his attempt to "eradicate fundamental Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth" simply by his chosen approach.

One other thing I would like to throw out there: We are happy to talk about Muslims killing thousands of civilians but we hardly ever talk about the Christian Church's systematic sexual abuse of young children in their care. Over the years, tens of thousands of lives and been ruined or lost through suicide.

Many commentators are happy to blame an entire religion when a Muslim commits an attrocity but at the same time talk about "some bad apples" when yet another example of Sexual abuse of children in the Christian Church comes to light. Why is this?

[Svensson]

The part of your post I emboldened is simply wrong. It is not past attacks this policy is dealing with but future ones.

Maybe. But this would IMO even more strengthen the argument that France, Belgium and the UK would need to be included in this as some of their nationals have successfully (from their point of view) demonstrated intent as well as capability over the last 18 months.

Not one single American has so far died of global warming. Does that mean any money or policy put towards fighting global warming is therefore a red herring?

Different conversation, but I think we don't know how many Americans have died of global warming which is linked to extreme weather events that are on the rise. Even if no one has actually died yet, damage is done to property, infrastructure (and therefore the economy) and livelihoods.

[jason_c]

Maybe. But this would IMO even more strengthen the argument that France, Belgium and the UK would need to be included in this as some of their nationals have successfully (from their point of view) demonstrated intent as well as capability over the last 18 months.



Different conversation, but I think we don't know how many Americans have died of global warming which is linked to extreme weather events that are on the rise. Even if no one has actually died yet, damage is done to property, infrastructure (and therefore the economy) and livelihoods.

Ok, well why only limit your terrorism argument to US deaths at the hands of immigrants from these countries? Why not widen it to attacks, thwarted attacks, sexual assault or general crime? You chose to highlight US deaths only for petty political point scoring reasons. Suddenly when it comes to global warming property damage is enough to cause genuine concern.

I think we know why France, the UK and Belgium are not included in this list. These countries have a relatively decent history of record keeping on their citizenry. Not perfect, but decent. Plus, people are not emigrating en masse from the UK and France due to warfare or breakdown of the state.

Unless you have missed the media reports the past two years you'll know there is a refugee problem with many of these 7 states. The numbers, economic background, and religious background of immigrants from these states are enough to cause real concern.

I have little doubt this policy from the Trump Admin is a way to legally reduce muslim immigration to the US, and it's being done in a particular way for legal & constitutional niceties. However, the lies the left & right(especially the left) are telling themselves about this policy are quite ridiculous.

[Patrick S]

I have to say this. As someone who has lived in a Muslim nation, I find a lot of what's been posted on this thread extremely naïve, if not flat out foolish. To say that terrorists have 'problems with society' or were just directionless 'rebels without a cause' is flatly ridiculous. Frankly, it reminds me of Lenin's quote, referencing Western liberals refusal to acknowledge the Soviet police state and the ongoing oppression of the Soviet citizens. He called them "useful idiots".

Let me say first that I am not a Christian. I'm nothing. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe that we get one life and we should try to live it as well and as productively as possible. I believe we should treat others well. I believe we should be charitable. I believe we should learn as much as we can while we are here, do good works, help those who need it. I don't believe any of this because I think I'm getting some reward in heaven. I just believe that these things are right. I also don't begrudge anyone their belief in anything. Whatever it takes to make you happy. You only go around once, I say. So long as you're not hurting others, knock yourself out.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around Western liberals willful ignorance when it comes to Islam. Islam is the most UN-liberal thing there can be. In Muslim nations, men treat woman as property. They are segregated from men, they are denied education, basic freedom, basic rights. I have seem women beaten, openly, in public...in many cases by their husbands but, in many cases, as well, by strangers, men who took umbrage with their observance of Islamic doctrine. Homosexuals are denied the right to exist. Plain and simple. I think that we can all agree that the Baptist freaks who protest funerals because "God hates fags" are reprehensible human beings, objectionable in a million ways. They are mere amateurs compared with the how Sharia law is enforced in Saudi and Iran specifically (and in varying degrees across the Arab-Muslim world). Gay men are rounded-up and imprisoned. They are beaten, stoned, hanged, shot, beheaded. Here is a quote, not from the Quran, which some on this thread have argued is not taken seriously by many Muslims, but from a "moderate" Tunisian Imam, circa 2016: "God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it's the Quran."

Of course, we love to respond to information such as this with statements like, "OH! So that means that ALL MUSLIMS are bad people!?" Of course that's not what it means. All people are born with a brain and a will of their own (although, Islam does a great job of indoctrinating kids from the womb, removing their will to see anything outside the prism of Islam). I will go so far as to say that ISLAM is a bad thing. I know someone will respond that religion in general is bad and that may be. But, that's just simply more equivocation. More excuse making for Muslims (who don't want your excuses or your acceptance, they just want you - as the Quran says - to no longer exist: "kill infidels wherever you find them").

I had a lot more that I wanted to write but I'm about out of energy now, owing to the fact that I know none of this will influence anyone's thinking even a tiny bit. I think you really need to spend a lot of time in the Muslim-Arab world to understand how much they hate us, how much they hate you. Observe that they have NO respect for women. They are cattle. I've seen men SUSPECTED of being homosexual repeatedly punched in the face in markets. I saw one man whipped by a complete stranger because he seemed feminine in his manner. No one says a word. They stand and watch. They join in. Worse, is how their children are taught about Jews from the time they can understand:

Consider this infamous dialogue between a 3-year-old and a television presenter:

Presenter: “Do you like Jews?”

3-year-old: “No.”

“Why don’t you like them?”

“Jews are apes and pigs.”

“Who said this?”

“Our God.”

“Where did he say this?”

“In the Koran.”

The presenter responds approvingly: “No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she ... May Allah bless her, her father, and mother.”

This conversation was not caught on hidden camera or taped by propagandists. It was featured on a prominent program called “Muslim Woman Magazine” and broadcast by Iqraa, the popular Saudi-owned satellite channel.

[ChrisGeorge]

Much improved optics and sound from the Trump admin this a.m. with three newly confirmed officials in the foreign policy arena now in place. I was very pleased to hear Secretary of Defense General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley each expressing more traditional, measured approaches to foreign policy than we have heard from Trump and his people in the preceding days. These are the types of newly appointed Trump administration officials, plus the people immediately around Donald Trump, who need to get the new President to stop making rash comments on Twitter or directly by phone to foreign leaders. Fingers crossed. . .

Cheers

Chris



Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

[Svensson]

Let's just hope they don't get fired before the week is out

[Wickerman]

Federal Judge has just lifted Trump's ban on 'Muslims' entering the U.S., nationwide.

Trump will be livid!

[Pcdunn]

Yes, here is a link to a story about the judge's temporary restraining order on Trump's immigration ban from seven Muslim majority countries.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order/ar-AAmAWUk?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[Wickerman]

U.S. Customs are re-instating all cancelled visa's.
They say - "going back to business as usual".

Wait for the "twitter" tirade from the juvenile Trumpster.

[ChrisGeorge]

Cartoon in the New Yorker by Tom Toro