Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Banning muslim immigration

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.
:) nac
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 4:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
A primary justification for this policy is that the US needs time to re-evaluate it's immigration policy and finding out which people are actual refugees.

Despite the fact that the US has one of the longest most in depth vetting processes in the world, it takes an average of at least 18 months before your average refugee is even allowed to hop on a plane let alone settle in the country.

If a terrorist actually wanted to infiltrate the country, they'd have just used a fake visa, hop on a plane and be in any country of choice in mere hours, just like how the vast majority of people travel. What should we do next, ban Muslims from flight?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 5:26:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
We could ban immigration from countries where we're engaged in combat operations, while making immigration exceptions for "persecuted religious minorities".

Even better, let's ban Zionists and pull all our troops out of the middle-east. This would go far in stopping terrorism and in saving money and lives.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 5:28:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I side against banning them, but the arguments for banning are not just for terrorism related things.

Muslims in Europe are probably the worst in assimilating to another culture. The situation in Europe is worsening every year, as muslims begin demanding mosques, sharia law etc... The rise of far-right wing groups is result of this. So, I'm guessing people in America feel the same way.

Let me explain why it wouldn't happen here...

America is not like Europe. There is a strong immigrant influence in society, and the "American" way of life is strongly encouraged. America has done a decent job integrating muslims, and should continue to do so. Muslims simply can't behave like they do in Europe, cause they know they will have sh*tstorm coming at them.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 12:47:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 5:28:50 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I side against banning them, but the arguments for banning are not just for terrorism related things.

Muslims in Europe are probably the worst in assimilating to another culture. The situation in Europe is worsening every year, as muslims begin demanding mosques, sharia law etc... The rise of far-right wing groups is result of this. So, I'm guessing people in America feel the same way.


Let me explain why it wouldn't happen here...

America is not like Europe. There is a strong immigrant influence in society, and the "American" way of life is strongly encouraged. America has done a decent job integrating muslims, and should continue to do so. Muslims simply can't behave like they do in Europe, cause they know they will have sh*tstorm coming at them.

Check out Dearborn Michigan. This will, unfortunately prove your last sentence untrue.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 1:42:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda
No evidence for that

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned.
They are by far the most likely to be radicalized in the US.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional.
No at all. There is such a thing as the plenary power doctrine.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 2:03:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 1:42:28 AM, someloser wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda
No evidence for that

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned.
They are by far the most likely to be radicalized in the US.

http://www.globalresearch.ca...

More Jewish extremists than Muslims, does that mean we should ban Jews? Latino extremism dwarfs Muslims in the US, does that mean we should build a wall?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 3:20:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

There are no radicals. ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammed told them to do. Islam is a brotherhood to itself and the enemy of all nonmuslims according to Allah himself in the Quran. The only way to be a "nonradical" is to completely ignore the Quran, Muhammed, and Allah. Which...would mean you are not a Muslim by definition.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 3:59:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:48:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
A primary justification for this policy is that the US needs time to re-evaluate it's immigration policy and finding out which people are actual refugees.

Despite the fact that the US has one of the longest most in depth vetting processes in the world, it takes an average of at least 18 months before your average refugee is even allowed to hop on a plane let alone settle in the country.

Not until Trump becomes president and makes America's vetting process great again!
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 4:01:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 3:59:21 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:48:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
A primary justification for this policy is that the US needs time to re-evaluate it's immigration policy and finding out which people are actual refugees.

Despite the fact that the US has one of the longest most in depth vetting processes in the world, it takes an average of at least 18 months before your average refugee is even allowed to hop on a plane let alone settle in the country.

Not until Trump becomes president and makes America's vetting process great again!

It's gonna be YUGE
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 4:16:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 4:01:20 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 5/23/2016 3:59:21 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:48:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
A primary justification for this policy is that the US needs time to re-evaluate it's immigration policy and finding out which people are actual refugees.

Despite the fact that the US has one of the longest most in depth vetting processes in the world, it takes an average of at least 18 months before your average refugee is even allowed to hop on a plane let alone settle in the country.

Not until Trump becomes president and makes America's vetting process great again!

It's gonna be YUGE

And we'll make Mexico pay for it!
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 5:28:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 2:03:34 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Nonsense: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

As it turns out, much of the FBI list [where the data from the chart came from] includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy. While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

Even by the FBI"s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills, while non-Muslim attackers racked up 196.

Since 2005, there have been at least six additional deadly attacks that would probably qualify as terrorism in the U.S. even to the FBI. One was the 2012 shooting by a skinhead that resulted in six deaths at a Sikh temple and the other five were by Muslims, which left 19 dead. This means that since 1980, Muslims in the U.S. have been 35 times more likely to commit terror than all other demographics combined.

Additionally...

More Jewish extremists than Muslims, does that mean we should ban Jews?

- the Muslim population in the US grew significantly between 1980 and 2005 (the chart's data range)... refer to the fact that about 70% now are either new arrivals or second-generation immigrants. Meanwhile, the Jewish population hasn't grown significantly. It tells us nothing about per-capita rates of radicalization.

- there are about, or more than, twice as many Jews (1.7 - 2.6%) in the US as there are Muslims (0.9%). Yet Muslims commit a near-equal percentage of terrorist attacks.

Latino extremism dwarfs Muslims in the US, does that mean we should build a wall?
Going by their % of the population in 2005 (42%), Hispanics are only 2.4 more likely to commit acts of terrorism than their population size would imply. Compare to Muslims - using only the limited and sometimes nonsensical data from your chart's source - being over 6 times more likely by the same standard.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 1:29:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 12:47:39 AM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 5/22/2016 5:28:50 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I side against banning them, but the arguments for banning are not just for terrorism related things.

Muslims in Europe are probably the worst in assimilating to another culture. The situation in Europe is worsening every year, as muslims begin demanding mosques, sharia law etc... The rise of far-right wing groups is result of this. So, I'm guessing people in America feel the same way.


Let me explain why it wouldn't happen here...

America is not like Europe. There is a strong immigrant influence in society, and the "American" way of life is strongly encouraged. America has done a decent job integrating muslims, and should continue to do so. Muslims simply can't behave like they do in Europe, cause they know they will have sh*tstorm coming at them.

Check out Dearborn Michigan. This will, unfortunately prove your last sentence untrue.

There's always going to be a few places like that. It's never going to get as bad as Europe. Canada should be next on that list however. It's following Europe's path.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 1:32:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 5:28:01 AM, someloser wrote:
At 5/23/2016 2:03:34 AM, UtherPenguin wrote:
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

Nonsense: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

As it turns out, much of the FBI list [where the data from the chart came from] includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy. While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

Even by the FBI"s curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills, while non-Muslim attackers racked up 196.

Since 2005, there have been at least six additional deadly attacks that would probably qualify as terrorism in the U.S. even to the FBI. One was the 2012 shooting by a skinhead that resulted in six deaths at a Sikh temple and the other five were by Muslims, which left 19 dead. This means that since 1980, Muslims in the U.S. have been 35 times more likely to commit terror than all other demographics combined.

Additionally...

More Jewish extremists than Muslims, does that mean we should ban Jews?

- the Muslim population in the US grew significantly between 1980 and 2005 (the chart's data range)... refer to the fact that about 70% now are either new arrivals or second-generation immigrants. Meanwhile, the Jewish population hasn't grown significantly. It tells us nothing about per-capita rates of radicalization.

- there are about, or more than, twice as many Jews (1.7 - 2.6%) in the US as there are Muslims (0.9%). Yet Muslims commit a near-equal percentage of terrorist attacks.

Latino extremism dwarfs Muslims in the US, does that mean we should build a wall?
Going by their % of the population in 2005 (42%), Hispanics are only 2.4 more likely to commit acts of terrorism than their population size would imply. Compare to Muslims - using only the limited and sometimes nonsensical data from your chart's source - being over 6 times more likely by the same standard.

Good points made, but I'm more concerned over the assimilation argument rather than the terrorism argument. America is still pretty safe (security wise) compared to Europe. I don't think the data should extrapolate perfectly as many may assume.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 8:09:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

It's "Obama speak". As long as I say it eloquently, the ignorant masses will follow...

Trump doesn't decide terrorism. Islam does. These people are doing exactly what Muhammed commanded in the Quran. Cut off heads? Quran. Kill the infidels? Quran. Go to Heaven as a martyr if you kill infidels? Quran. Conquer the world? Quran. Fight us? Quran. Take sex slaves? Quran. Rape little girls? Quran. Ride human faced unicorns hopping through the sky bouncing from mosque to mosque? (Yes it's in there)Quran....
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 8:16:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Al-Buraq is a steed in Islamic mythology, a creature from the heavens that transported the prophets. Most notably Buraq carried the Islamic prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey",

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:28:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 8:09:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
I say it eloquently, the ignorant masses will follow...

Trump doesn't decide terrorism. Islam does. These people are doing exactly what Muhammed commanded in the Quran. Cut off heads? Quran. Kill the infidels? Quran. Go to Heaven as a martyr if you kill infidels? Quran. Conquer the world? Quran. Fight us? Quran. Take sex slaves? Quran. Rape little girls? Quran. Ride human faced unicorns hopping through the sky bouncing from mosque to mosque? (Yes it's in there)Quran....

Now, as far as I know the Quran may as well have all of those things written in it. But I am skeptical that it does, and also curious about the context if those things are in there. I have a hard time believing that a religious text adopted by nearly half the world's population promotes slavery and rape. Nevertheless I have read some crazy stuff in the bible. That in itself is worth mentioning. I can find some pretty terrible things in the bible and look at the evangelist population we have in the U.S.. Wouldn't you have to ask yourself the same question about any religious fanatics?
I could very well compare Islamic terrorism to the military campaigns the US has undertaken over the last 40 odd years in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe. So can you quote the Quran on some of the more unpleasant things you claim the Quran says? And how do you consider US foreign policy to affect our relations with Muslims in general? Certainly you don't believe the US government or the factions of citizens that support war are innocent do you?
I happen to agree with the OP, and not because it is 'Obamaesque', I am a libertarian, it is because banning an entire religion is completely against the principles this country was founded on and potentially dangerous for future relations.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:43:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 1:32:09 PM, tajshar2k wrote:

Good points made, but I'm more concerned over the assimilation argument rather than the terrorism argument. America is still pretty safe (security wise) compared to Europe. I don't think the data should extrapolate perfectly as many may assume.

Hay! That culture of separation of church and state actually has a useful function after all!
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:23:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Trump is simply catering to the public taste. In Europe, the right-wing or the nationalist parties win more support by appealing to anti-immigrant sentiments. The recent terrorist attacks in Europe and the refugee crisis add to the already existing hostility to the Muslims. Yeah, I know it's Europe, not America, but the world has become a global village so why not use what is happening overseas to gain more support? The US was a target of terrorists too so it's not hard to convince people that the Muslims are coming for them. The point is to turn people's fear to your own advantage.

The Muslims are a big problem in Europe, considering the refugee crisis. Though I don't think we can really stop the influx of immigrants by building border fences, the open-door policy of the European Union is silly if not downright suicidal. The recent proposal of the EU commission to force all the EU countries to accept the immigrants under the threat of financial penalties caused outrage in many countries, especially those countries which don't have the immigration problem but might have one due to the despotic decisions of the EU.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
SocialJusticeWarrior
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:37:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I agree, Donald Trump and his gang of supporters really need to cut their bigotry. We can't ban whole groups of people just because a fear of Islam occurs. The reasoning behind it is the same reasoning for sending Japanese people to camps, it's all based on lies and paranoia.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:47:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 9:28:08 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:09:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
I say it eloquently, the ignorant masses will follow...

Trump doesn't decide terrorism. Islam does. These people are doing exactly what Muhammed commanded in the Quran. Cut off heads? Quran. Kill the infidels? Quran. Go to Heaven as a martyr if you kill infidels? Quran. Conquer the world? Quran. Fight us? Quran. Take sex slaves? Quran. Rape little girls? Quran. Ride human faced unicorns hopping through the sky bouncing from mosque to mosque? (Yes it's in there)Quran....

Now, as far as I know the Quran may as well have all of those things written in it. But I am skeptical that it does, and also curious about the context if those things are in there. I have a hard time believing that a religious text adopted by nearly half the world's population promotes slavery and rape. Nevertheless I have read some crazy stuff in the bible. That in itself is worth mentioning. I can find some pretty terrible things in the bible and look at the evangelist population we have in the U.S.. Wouldn't you have to ask yourself the same question about any religious fanatics?
I could very well compare Islamic terrorism to the military campaigns the US has undertaken over the last 40 odd years in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe. So can you quote the Quran on some of the more unpleasant things you claim the Quran says? And how do you consider US foreign policy to affect our relations with Muslims in general? Certainly you don't believe the US government or the factions of citizens that support war are innocent do you?
I happen to agree with the OP, and not because it is 'Obamaesque', I am a libertarian, it is because banning an entire religion is completely against the principles this country was founded on and potentially dangerous for future relations.

Big difference. The regulations of the Old Testament were rejected by Christ such as stoning adulterers, eating only "clean foods", eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. And by comparison Old Testament vs Quran, the Old Testament is a sweet little lamb, while the Quran is Godzilla. And even worse, the New Testament of Christ which rules Christian "virtue" says love your enemy. Pray for your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Et etc. Islam has no Sermon on the Mount, beattitudes, or Jesus character. Instead they have Muhammed who married a 6 year old, "had her", actually claimed his revelation came from a demon, was suicidal, beheaded 800+ Jews, commanded sex slaves, had many, many wives, and commanded death to nonmuslims hundreds of times. Google it.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 2:45:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I think he was really just bringing attention to a major issue. He is giving notice to radical Muslims.
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:09:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:37:03 PM, SocialJusticeWarrior wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Donald Trump"s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States is wrong in both how it affects Muslims and how it affects the rest of society. Why is that? We tell you that his proposal would create more, not fewer, terrorist attacks and also be a burden on Muslims. In addition, the basic premises of his proposal are completely incorrect.

By banning Muslim immigration, we are increasing the likelihood of radicalisation and home-grown Islamic terrorism. Our current threat isn"t that terrorists are coming into the country, but rather that people inside the United States are becoming more radicalised by propaganda from groups like ISIS. For instance, Rizwan Farook from San Bernadino was an American citizen. By banning Muslim immigration, we are agitating Muslims inside the country and making them more likely to buy into ISIS propaganda, which relies on the idea that the United States would do Muslims harm. Thus, Trump would increase terrorism.

In addition, even if banning entire groups of people would stifle terrorism, Muslims shouldn"t be the first group to be banned. For instance, out of all 152 European terrorist attacks in 2013, only 2 were religiously motivated"i.e. terrorism caused by religious extremism"while most of the others were caused by right-wingers who are oddly similar to Donald Trump. In addition, since 2001, only 37 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism. (http://www.thedailybeast.com...) Thus, the notion that Muslims should be the first group to be banned is not a notion rooted in a desire for better security but rather something else"i.e. racism.

At the same time, a ban of Muslim immigration into the United States would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we ban Muslims from immigrating here, then we"d be pressuring Muslims who want to escape from war and immigrate here to deconvert, which the government shouldn"t do.

I agree, Donald Trump and his gang of supporters really need to cut their bigotry. We can't ban whole groups of people just because a fear of Islam occurs. The reasoning behind it is the same reasoning for sending Japanese people to camps, it's all based on lies and paranoia.

Bigotry is common sense
Runn92
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:09:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:48:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
A primary justification for this policy is that the US needs time to re-evaluate it's immigration policy and finding out which people are actual refugees.

Despite the fact that the US has one of the longest most in depth vetting processes in the world, it takes an average of at least 18 months before your average refugee is even allowed to hop on a plane let alone settle in the country.

If a terrorist actually wanted to infiltrate the country, they'd have just used a fake visa, hop on a plane and be in any country of choice in mere hours, just like how the vast majority of people travel. What should we do next, ban Muslims from flight?

ya...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 5:32:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's a terrible and impractical idea, but if Trump is elected President, he probably won't carry it out.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 6:02:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 10:47:04 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/23/2016 9:28:08 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:09:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
I say it eloquently, the ignorant masses will follow...

Trump doesn't decide terrorism. Islam does. These people are doing exactly what Muhammed commanded in the Quran. Cut off heads? Quran. Kill the infidels? Quran. Go to Heaven as a martyr if you kill infidels? Quran. Conquer the world? Quran. Fight us? Quran. Take sex slaves? Quran. Rape little girls? Quran. Ride human faced unicorns hopping through the sky bouncing from mosque to mosque? (Yes it's in there)Quran....

Now, as far as I know the Quran may as well have all of those things written in it. But I am skeptical that it does, and also curious about the context if those things are in there. I have a hard time believing that a religious text adopted by nearly half the world's population promotes slavery and rape. Nevertheless I have read some crazy stuff in the bible. That in itself is worth mentioning. I can find some pretty terrible things in the bible and look at the evangelist population we have in the U.S.. Wouldn't you have to ask yourself the same question about any religious fanatics?
I could very well compare Islamic terrorism to the military campaigns the US has undertaken over the last 40 odd years in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe. So can you quote the Quran on some of the more unpleasant things you claim the Quran says? And how do you consider US foreign policy to affect our relations with Muslims in general? Certainly you don't believe the US government or the factions of citizens that support war are innocent do you?
I happen to agree with the OP, and not because it is 'Obamaesque', I am a libertarian, it is because banning an entire religion is completely against the principles this country was founded on and potentially dangerous for future relations.

Big difference. The regulations of the Old Testament were rejected by Christ such as stoning adulterers, eating only "clean foods", eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. And by comparison Old Testament vs Quran, the Old Testament is a sweet little lamb, while the Quran is Godzilla. And even worse, the New Testament of Christ which rules Christian "virtue" says love your enemy. Pray for your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Et etc. Islam has no Sermon on the Mount, beattitudes, or Jesus character. Instead they have Muhammed who married a 6 year old, "had her", actually claimed his revelation came from a demon, was suicidal, beheaded 800+ Jews, commanded sex slaves, had many, many wives, and commanded death to nonmuslims hundreds of times. Google it.

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com...
It sounds like you're spouting anti Muslim sentiment mostly written by Christians and Jews interested in defacing Islam. Personally I am not religious, I have my own beliefs but the fanaticism is scary to me, no matter whether Christian or Muslim.
I did some research on some of your other claims, and there seems to be a lot of back and forth out there, but again a lot has been written in attempt to discredit Islam for what appears to be the interest of the church. If I am wrong feel free to post actual quotes from the Quran.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 11:38:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/24/2016 6:02:31 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/23/2016 10:47:04 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/23/2016 9:28:08 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:09:43 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/22/2016 3:37:28 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
I say it eloquently, the ignorant masses will follow...

Trump doesn't decide terrorism. Islam does. These people are doing exactly what Muhammed commanded in the Quran. Cut off heads? Quran. Kill the infidels? Quran. Go to Heaven as a martyr if you kill infidels? Quran. Conquer the world? Quran. Fight us? Quran. Take sex slaves? Quran. Rape little girls? Quran. Ride human faced unicorns hopping through the sky bouncing from mosque to mosque? (Yes it's in there)Quran....

Now, as far as I know the Quran may as well have all of those things written in it. But I am skeptical that it does, and also curious about the context if those things are in there. I have a hard time believing that a religious text adopted by nearly half the world's population promotes slavery and rape. Nevertheless I have read some crazy stuff in the bible. That in itself is worth mentioning. I can find some pretty terrible things in the bible and look at the evangelist population we have in the U.S.. Wouldn't you have to ask yourself the same question about any religious fanatics?
I could very well compare Islamic terrorism to the military campaigns the US has undertaken over the last 40 odd years in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe. So can you quote the Quran on some of the more unpleasant things you claim the Quran says? And how do you consider US foreign policy to affect our relations with Muslims in general? Certainly you don't believe the US government or the factions of citizens that support war are innocent do you?
I happen to agree with the OP, and not because it is 'Obamaesque', I am a libertarian, it is because banning an entire religion is completely against the principles this country was founded on and potentially dangerous for future relations.

Big difference. The regulations of the Old Testament were rejected by Christ such as stoning adulterers, eating only "clean foods", eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. And by comparison Old Testament vs Quran, the Old Testament is a sweet little lamb, while the Quran is Godzilla. And even worse, the New Testament of Christ which rules Christian "virtue" says love your enemy. Pray for your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Et etc. Islam has no Sermon on the Mount, beattitudes, or Jesus character. Instead they have Muhammed who married a 6 year old, "had her", actually claimed his revelation came from a demon, was suicidal, beheaded 800+ Jews, commanded sex slaves, had many, many wives, and commanded death to nonmuslims hundreds of times. Google it.

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com...
It sounds like you're spouting anti Muslim sentiment mostly written by Christians and Jews interested in defacing Islam. Personally I am not religious, I have my own beliefs but the fanaticism is scary to me, no matter whether Christian or Muslim.
I did some research on some of your other claims, and there seems to be a lot of back and forth out there, but again a lot has been written in attempt to discredit Islam for what appears to be the interest of the church. If I am wrong feel free to post actual quotes from the Quran.

I was raised in Islam. In the Quran, you are an infidel. Islam is a brotherhood to only itself. There is no turning the other cheek or loving your neighbor. The key components of Islam are:

1)Rule the entire world

2)Strive against anything not Islam.

Here are some quotes from the Quran, not the only book of Islam by the way
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:09:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
47:4 Behead and slaughter the unbelievers; take others captive

"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray."

48:29 Be merciful to believers, not unbelievers

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another."

98:6 Unbelievers are the worst of creatures

"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures."
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2016 12:10:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
2:191-193 Fight and kill unbelievers until "religion is Allah"s," i.e. Islamic law rules all societies

"And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them " such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah"s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers."

3:28 Don"t take unbelievers as friends and allies, unless it is for "fear of them," i.e. deceptively for protection of oneself or of Islam

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers " for whoso does that belongs not to Allah in anything " unless you have a fear of them. Allah warns you that You beware of Him, and unto Allah is the homecoming."

3:151 Allah will cast terror into the unbelievers" hearts

"We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers."

4:34 Beat disobedient women

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah"s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great."

5:33 Crucify or amputate the hands and feet of those who make war against Allah and Muhammad

"This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement."

5:51 Don"t take Jews and Christians as friends and allies

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers."

8:12 Allah will terrorize unbelievers; Muslims should behead them

"When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, "I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers" hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!""

8:39 Fight unbelievers until Islam reigns supreme

"Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah"s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do."

8:60 Make war against enemies of Allah

"Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged."

9:5 Slay the idolaters

"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate."

9:29 Fight and subjugate the Jews and Christians

"Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden " such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book " until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

9:30 Jews and Christians assailed by Allah

"The Jews say, "Ezra is the Son of Allah"; the Christians say, "The Messiah is the Son of Allah." That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. Allah assail them! How they are perverted!"

9:73 Be harsh with unbelievers

"O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them; their refuge is Gehenna " an evil homecoming!"

9:111 Paradise guaranteed to those who kill and are killed for Allah

"Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph."

9:123 Fight the unbelievers, be harsh with them

"O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing."
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...