So this clown issues an immigration ban on 7 Muslims majority countries that have had nothing to do with any of the major terrorist attacks in the US since (and including) 9/11, by that I mean none of the attackers came from any of these countries, while every country the 19 hijackers came from went untouched. And now a federal judge has frozen the ban. I doubt he knew that judges could do this.

Someone must have hidden his phone because he's not spitting feathers on Twitter yet.

Deja vu?

A bit like when them (and us) went to war with Afghanistan and then Iraq, which were two countries where none of the hijackers were from.

I can see Trump being assassinated... perhaps even soon (not that I'm calling for it you understand!)

Try visiting a Muslim country if you are from/have visited Israel

Damo wrote:Try visiting a Muslim country if you are from/have visited Israel

I think you'll find its correct name is "plucky little Israel"

You needed to start your own alternate fact thread, IT?

NRC wrote:You needed to start your own alternate fact thread, IT?

Are you saying his facts are incorrect?
*popcorn*

Damo wrote:Try visiting a Muslim country if you are from/have visited Israel

Does that make it right? Do you really think western countries should aspire to the values of Muslim countries?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Does that make it right? Do you really think western countries should aspire to the values of Muslim countries?

Certainly not. But I think more Muslims should aspire to the values of Western countries. If they want to live/visit them

He's trying to protect his country from terrorism. He's trying to prevent his country from becoming like ours.
Those of you who think "eastenders" is indicative of multicultural Britain need to wake up. The east end of London is like a foreign country. There are other areas too, some of them not too far away from us here in Burnley.

Anyone tried moving to Islamabad/Tehran/Jeddah, build a Christian church and build exclusively Christian communities in the suburbs? Think it could happen?

Everything is one way. People see it. People are concerned about it. People are fed up with it. And people are scared to say anything for fear of being tagged a racist.

Trump campaigned with that wall. He got the job and is going ahead with it. He campaigned on restricting immigration. He got the job, and he's going ahead with it. I understand it may be difficult for some of you to see a politician actually carrying out his pre election promises. We aren't used to it after all.

Damo wrote:Certainly not. But I think more Muslims should aspire to the values of Western countries. If they want to live/visit them

And what better way to demonstrate that you aspire to live by western values than emigrating to a western country?

bobinho wrote:He's trying to protect his country from terrorism. He's trying to prevent his country from becoming like ours.
Those of you who think "eastenders" is indicative of multicultural Britain need to wake up. The east end of London is like a foreign country. There are other areas too, some of them not too far away from us here in Burnley.

Anyone tried moving to Islamabad/Tehran/Jeddah, build a Christian church and build exclusively Christian communities in the suburbs? Think it could happen?

Everything is one way. People see it. People are concerned about it. People are fed up with it. And people are scared to say anything for fear of being tagged a racist.

Trump campaigned with that wall. He got the job and is going ahead with it. He campaigned on restricting immigration. He got the job, and he's going ahead with it. I understand it may be difficult for some of you to see a politician actually carrying out his pre election promises. We aren't used to it after all.

The biggest problem your post has is that it misidentifies what the problems are with his promises. The problem with the wall isn't the wall, it was his ridiculous insistence that Mexico will pay for it. The problem with him restricting immigration isn't that he's restricting immigration, it's that he's discriminating against a religion which is blatantly unconstitutional.

I'm more that willing to pay attention to what you have to say because it's always good to listen to people with whom you disagree, but it's tiresome and frustrating having to explain what it actually is that we're complaining about before any worthwhile discourse can begin.
I'm sure it happens that the left misidentify the right's complaints and i don't notice because i lock horns with the left less often, but it does seem to happen an awful lot when people from the right try to confront opposition from the left.

And by the way, there's **** all wrong with protesting the policies of someone even though those policies got them elected. Especially if more people voted against those policies than for, but even if that wasn't true it would still be perfectly legitimate to protest something you oppose. The UK has only elected pro-EU governments in the last 30 years, does that mean the pro-Brexit campaign was illegitimate? Of course not.

Imploding Turtle wrote:And what better way to demonstrate that you aspire to live by western values than emigrating to a western country?

Even you don't believe that!!

PaintYorkClaretnBlue wrote:Even you don't believe that!!

Are you waying there's a better way to demonstrate that you want to live by western values than being willing to relocate thousands of miles to live by them?

bobinho wrote:He's trying to protect his country from terrorism. He's trying to prevent his country from becoming like ours.
Those of you who think "eastenders" is indicative of multicultural Britain need to wake up. The east end of London is like a foreign country. There are other areas too, some of them not too far away from us here in Burnley.

Anyone tried moving to Islamabad/Tehran/Jeddah, build a Christian church and build exclusively Christian communities in the suburbs? Think it could happen?

Everything is one way. People see it. People are concerned about it. People are fed up with it. And people are scared to say anything for fear of being tagged a racist.

Trump campaigned with that wall. He got the job and is going ahead with it. He campaigned on restricting immigration. He got the job, and he's going ahead with it. I understand it may be difficult for some of you to see a politician actually carrying out his pre election promises. We aren't used to it after all.

yawn

Way more Americans than Brits (per capita) have been killed by terrorists...so shouldn't he want his country to become like ours?

If I want to emigrate to say Japan it doesn't mean I'm embracing all their values. There might be a lucrative job offer or free benefits.

Imploding Turtle wrote: he's discriminating against a religion which is blatantly unconstitutional.

You said what a lot of us already know is true there, Islam is blatantly unconstitutional, but be careful, you will be labelled a 'racist' for saying it. But well done, very brave of you

morpheus2 wrote:You said what a lot of us already know is true there, Islam is blatantly unconstitutional, but be careful, you will be labelled a 'racist' for saying it. But well done, very brave of you

Yes, I missed a comma. Well spotted. Just move one of my other, probably extraneous commas.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yes, I missed a comma. Just move one of my other, probably extraneous commas.

Yeah yeah yeah, Freudian slip, no getting out of it now it's too late - your subconscious can't hide your true feelings. Racist.
There will be Google images of you soon in Nazi attire saluting Herr Trump.

Imploding Turtle wrote:So this clown issues an immigration ban on 7 Muslims majority countries that have had nothing to do with any of the major terrorist attacks in the US since (and including) 9/11, by that I mean none of the attackers came from any of these countries, while every country the 19 hijackers came from went untouched. And now a federal judge has frozen the ban. I doubt he knew that judges could do this.

Someone must have hidden his phone because he's not spitting feathers on Twitter yet.

A judge hasn't frozen the ban at all, but it's a small step in the right direction. The judges have just issued a stay for those people who have valid visas and were already being detained on American soil.

A few stats

my only surprise on the list was that Pakistan was not on it.

Iran
Syria
Iraq
Libya
Yemen
somalia

all bastions of democracy , beyond me why anyone would want to put in extra security for visa entrys from the list above

He won't put countries where he was business interests on his list!

Goalposts wrote:my only surprise on the list was that Pakistan was not on it.

Iran
Syria
Iraq
Libya
Yemen
somalia

all bastions of democracy , beyond me why anyone would want to put in extra security for visa entrys from the list above

It's not extra security. It's a total block.

Claretto wrote:A judge hasn't frozen the ban at all, but it's a small step in the right direction. The judges have just issued a stay for those people who have valid visas and were already being detained on American soil.

You're right. I got carried away.

Spijed wrote:A few stats

The citation (1) claims to be since 11th September 2001? It looks like it starts from the 12th of September 2001 to me. I can see what they are trying to do, but now maybe next time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, the far right can cite the stats from June 18, 2015 - the day after the Dylann Roof attack?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're right. I got carried away.

morpheus2 wrote:The citation (1) claims to be since 11th September 2001? It looks like it starts from the 12th of September 2001 to me. I can see what they are trying to do, but now maybe next time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, the far right can cite the stats from June 18, 2015 - the day after the Dylann Roof attack?

"Since 9/11" is fairly common on both sides of the political divide when talking about terrorism. Major events in history have often been used as a starting point to present facts, or should we start disregarding any sentence that contains "since the second world war", or "since the great depression" or "since the great recession".

morpheus2 wrote:The citation (1) claims to be since 11th September 2001? It looks like it starts from the 12th of September 2001 to me. I can see what they are trying to do, but now maybe next time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, the far right can cite the stats from June 18, 2015 - the day after the Dylann Roof attack?

But surely you must agree that a terrorist attack in America is far less of an issue than the problems caused by guns and the NRA?

Enlightening

Why wasn't Saudi Arabia on the banned list I wonder ?
One word answers only needed .

bobinho wrote:He's trying to protect his country from terrorism. He's trying to prevent his country from becoming like ours.
Those of you who think "eastenders" is indicative of multicultural Britain need to wake up. The east end of London is like a foreign country. There are other areas too, some of them not too far away from us here in Burnley.

Anyone tried moving to Islamabad/Tehran/Jeddah, build a Christian church and build exclusively Christian communities in the suburbs? Think it could happen?

Everything is one way. People see it. People are concerned about it. People are fed up with it. And people are scared to say anything for fear of being tagged a racist.

Trump campaigned with that wall. He got the job and is going ahead with it. He campaigned on restricting immigration. He got the job, and he's going ahead with it. I understand it may be difficult for some of you to see a politician actually carrying out his pre election promises. We aren't used to it after all.

How long have you lived in the east end ?

Spijed wrote:A few stats

By a lawnmower?

I know that yanks can be stupid, but to be killed by a sodding lawnmower?!?!?

Claretto wrote:Enlightening

I'm sceptical about the complete accuracy of that table. Maybe the creator of it means "americans killed in terrorist attacks on American soil".

Imploding Turtle wrote:
"Since 9/11" is fairly common on both sides of the political divide when talking about terrorism. Major events in history have often been used as a starting point to present facts, or should we start disregarding any sentence that contains "since the second world war", or "since the great depression" or "since the great recession".

I suppose it's worth a shout out to Homeland Security for preventing many thousands more deaths on US soil by being vigilant and foiling the many plots by Islamic terrorists. They have done well to keep those annual figures down I think you'll agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... _post-9/11

morpheus2 wrote:I suppose it's worth a shout out to Homeland Security for preventing many thousands more deaths on US soil by being vigilant and foiling the many plots by Islamic terrorists. They have done well to keep those annual figures down I think you'll agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_u ... _post-9/11

And yet absolutely nothing is done to keep loss of life down by the use of guns.

Seems being killed by a terrorist must be stopped yet being shot dead is acceptable as the NRA do nothing to stem the flow of gun sales or who can use them.

Spijed wrote:And yet absolutely nothing is done to keep loss of life down by the use of guns.

Seems being killed by a terrorist must be stopped yet being shot dead is acceptable as the NRA do nothing to stem the flow of gun sales or who can use them.

Worth noting that the NRA is not a federal organisation with legislative powers, as you seem to imply. It's a non-profit organisation.

Guns don't kill people, brown people do.

Spijed wrote:And yet absolutely nothing is done to keep loss of life down by the use of guns.

Seems being killed by a terrorist must be stopped yet being shot dead is acceptable as the NRA do nothing to stem the flow of gun sales or who can use them.

Both should be stopped, but this thread is on the subject of the ban on Muslims and the reasons for the ban and the Judge's alleged overturning of the ban. I get hayfever trying to fight my way through strawmen when it comes to these kind of conversations.
If you go putting another subject in there this thread will become as annoying as the Brady thread.

Rileybobs wrote:Guns don't kill people, brown people do.

I saw that, it was on a documentary on BBC2 I think.

Claretto wrote:Worth noting that the NRA is not a federal organisation with legislative powers, as you seem to imply. It's a non-profit organisation.

Considering republican senators get huge backing from the NRA I'd certainly say they DO have legislative powers.

Hijklllffdchh

Spijed wrote:Considering republican senators get huge backing from the NRA I'd certainly say they DO have legislative powers.

Agree they are very powerful, but just wanted to make that distinction

I think he's trying to do the right thing, for the right reason, just going about it the wrong way.
It's over the top, but to do nothing, which is what previous incumbents in the White House have done, is to ignore your responsibility.

The real hypocrisy here is not adding the likes of Saudi Arabia to that list, despite them being one of the worst culprits for state sponsored terrorism and responsible for the worst terrorist attack on America in living memory. Wouldn't want to upset the oil billionaires though eh?

bobinho wrote:He's trying to protect his country from terrorism. He's trying to prevent his country from becoming like ours.
Those of you who think "eastenders" is indicative of multicultural Britain need to wake up. The east end of London is like a foreign country. There are other areas too, some of them not too far away from us here in Burnley.

Anyone tried moving to Islamabad/Tehran/Jeddah, build a Christian church and build exclusively Christian communities in the suburbs? Think it could happen?

Everything is one way. People see it. People are concerned about it. People are fed up with it. And people are scared to say anything for fear of being tagged a racist.

Trump campaigned with that wall. He got the job and is going ahead with it. He campaigned on restricting immigration. He got the job, and he's going ahead with it. I understand it may be difficult for some of you to see a politician actually carrying out his pre election promises. We aren't used to it after all.

Top post that fella.

No doubt you'll get the usual, anglophobic, lefty luvvies trying to convince you that the best possible approach to immigration was the one adopted by the the self appointed empress of the EU, Merkel!!

And that worked out well

ClaretMoffitt wrote:The real hypocrisy here is not adding the likes of Saudi Arabia to that list, despite them being one of the worst culprits for state sponsored terrorism and responsible for the worst terrorist attack on America in living memory. Wouldn't want to upset the oil billionaires though eh?

He also happens to have no business interests in the 7 affected countries. A coincidence, I'm sure.

As usual anyone who disagrees with the idiot hates his country. Wont be long before we're all called traitors.

Worth mentioning again that Hitler elected by people in a democratic vote.

did any of the lawnmowers come from any of the stated 7 countries i wonder?

You can't ignore the threat of Muslamic lawnmowers