ND starts a thread about banning people entering the US on the basis of the majority religion (Islam) in those countries.

ND doesn't want a debate about religion.

Ok.

Hey ND, try keeping your other beliefs to yourself too <3

@ora

"@JY define many, like in terms of a percentage of muslim scholars."

you force this level of burden of proof on me, while making the same claim with no more evidence? no thanks.

although may I remind you, Hillary Clinton said that "Radical islamists" that Rubio called them was wrong, and SHE used the phrase "jihadists"

so... democrats. the leader of the democrat party was on my side.



"And i did include holy war in the definition of lesser jihad."

'lesser jihad?' alright...


"Second, you are correct, supporting the right of US troops to go into any foreign nation and shoot or drone people is not necessarily based on a might makes right philosophy, it may be pure tribalism; like Chimps, ganging up and killing all the neighbouring chimps. Not much better imho."

and SOMETIMES it's in response to a GENOCIDE, in which between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were SLAUGHTERED, with DEATH CAMPS open using TORTURE up until the day we invaded. 4 mandates on the Geneva convention Saddam violated, which lost them their right to sovereignty: aggressive behavior to neighboring countries, denying UN inspections on potential WMDs, using chemical weapons on your own people, and ... GENOCIDE.

but sure, it's just fucking tribalism. goddamnit man


"And lastly, JY do you support a travel ban which doesn't include the countries where Osama Bin Laden or the Boston Marathon bombers came from?"

I don't support the travel ban because I don't think it's effective, but I can understand the sentiment.



"And what about doing something about all the white males going around murdering people? Would you support a ban on people from European countries? Or maybe just all males, i mean regardless of religion, that is the thing all these 'terrorists' have in common. Whether you drive a car into a peaceful protest in London or France or Charletsville, all the drivers were male! (And toxic masculinity is their culture!)"

ahh what a stupid argument. so beautifully stupid.

having an SRY gene, causing you to be male, does not determine whether or not you will kill people. being a religious fundamentalist, who strictly adheres to the word of some ancient text, often is cause for concern.



"Also, can you distinguish between Islam and Salafi Islam / Wahhabism?"

well the salafi movement really went off the deep end fast, they went hardline sharia, while allowing for things such like alcohol and other sin, after they removed the bida (some ancient practice most sunnis maintained). the combination of those two were dangerous.

Islam's core is the Quran, and Muhammad. from there you get the Shia/sunni (with sulafi within it) split, along with Sufis as smaller minority.



but why are YOU asking me this? It's a far cry from what I was saying, and it seems like you're trying to gain some intellectual high ground on me. How about staying on track?



"The majority of the world's Salafis are from Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia."

Cause specifically targeting a country like Iran, which doesn't have any connection with Jihadis makes no sense, unless this policy us less about security and more about isolating countries which reject US political will, and corporate domination."

or countries that want to get a nuclear bomb

I find it amazingly hypocritical how many on the left scream and cry for nuclear disarmament but are so naive when it comes to threats from the Middle East. side note: MAD doesn't work with martyrs.

The more I think about it, the more I realize Trump doesn’t actually have a foreign policy.

also, nice to see you're upset about US being anti- *theocracy that oppresses millions of women*

I personally don't like those.

Curious comments from some people earlier in this thread. I am not a Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I for one am delighted that we have one on this site both willing to share his views and to do so in a reasonable and civilised fashion. Long may ND continue.

Hey Oct, how do you feel about this travel ban again?

It seems a little odd, but I strongly back the principle that any nation should be able to control immigration as it sees fit.

So it doesn't matter to you that it's directed as Muslims? Also, how is a travel ban the same thing as controlling immigration? Are we expecting everyone going in and out of these countries to immigrate here? What about people who have family in these countries and want to visit/see them? Is it not every country's duty to receive refugees?

My understanding is that the US had taken around 20,000 Syrian refugees, although on balance I dare say that Syria would have preferred no US involvement at all. If the Yank's aim was to keep out Muslims with the travel ban, they've missed out a hell of a lot of the Muslim world. I think it's safe to say that isn't the intention. Regardless, as I say immigration is up to the country. So is whoever they let in for visits. They could close their borders to every single person without a Yank passport tomorrow if they wanted, and I wouldn't be particularly bothered. I'd think they were being a bit daft, but that is their right.

It's not "targeted at Muslims."

@"you force this level of burden of proof on me, while making the same claim with no more evidence? no thanks."

Fair, but still, what do you mean by many, do you think it is a majority? Do you think it varies by country of region? Do you think it is entirely concentrated in Wahbism within Saudi Arabia and Gulf states not included in this travel ban? (And possibly to parts of Africa and Afghanistan, where the Whabiis ideology has spread, i don't know...)

@the entire Iraq war, "but sure, it's just fucking tribalism. goddamnit man"

You can't claim the US cares about genocide and acts to prevent it, when this is clearly not the case; Rwanda, South Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe, loads of places which genocide watch keep track of, and which aren't part of a military alliance which could be expected to resist the US.

Pretend to be the world police all you want, the US just ends up looking like a really bad police man. AND then you get Abu Ghraib, you kjow the saying, 'with friends like you, who needs enemies?'

Saddam was armed by the US to fight Iran, because they dared to oust the CIA backed Shah, and reject US influence over their oil and natural resources. Saddam was your man in the middle east. You can't now pretend al the Us foreign policy in the middle east from 1979 to 2004 was purely in the interest of human rights and keep a straight face.

@"I don't support the travel ban because I don't think it's effective, but I can understand the sentiment."

Understanding the sentiment is one thing, i get it, i just don't see this as a 'muslim ban' because it explicitly excludes allies of the US. Places which have been the source o terrorism, which have sponsored ISIS, which are important oil suppliers, and purchasers of US military hardware.


Do you accept that any of this is being sold as 'protecting america' to the domestic audience, while being a rather odd extension of US foreign policy in the middle east?

@"or countries that want to get a nuclear bomb

I find it amazingly hypocritical how many on the left scream and cry for nuclear disarmament but are so naive when it comes to threats from the Middle East. side note: MAD doesn't work with martyrs."

See this i don't get at all.

How does preventing Iranian citizens entering the US seem like a good part of US foreign policy?

Doesn't it benefit Iran to not suffer from a brain drain as their best and brightest no longer have the option to relocate to you?

And on the security angle, how many martyrs come from Iran? How many terrorist suicide bombers were Iranian?

Sure Iran wants nuclear weapons, because the US is a threat to them and nukes are seen as the best defence. But that is a rational state actor, the kind of decision making which does apply to MAD - and it makes sense after the US paid Iraq to invade Iran, and then invaded and crippled Iraq, that Iran must still be worried about the possibility of war with America.

But your assumption about Martyrs? Iran is heavily westernised, has elections, and strict religous hardliners - similar to your religious conervatives, but with more power... Of all the countries in the region, they feel like the most Americanized.

Haven't yeard of any Iranian martyrs though. Not a single terrorist action that i'm aware of. Lots of state conflict, near fights with the US navy, or troop movements in Iraq/Syria. Am i entirely wrong?

@"but why are YOU asking me this? It's a far cry from what I was saying, and it seems like you're trying to gain some intellectual high ground on me. How about staying on track?"

The whole point is, there are fundamentalists in the middle east, who gave rise to the likes of Osama Bin Laden, and they are not being targeted by this travel ban.

Not all Muslims are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are Jihadists, and not all Jihadists are a threat to the US (some would rather fight China or Russia cause Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region/The Chechen Republic).

But when you read about the specific groups calling for the removal of US troops and/or influence from the holy lands (Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia) it is clear that there is a threat to the US, and it doesn't come from the countries included in the travel ban.

My conclusion is simple. Trump is a racist, and is playing to an audience to win popularity. That this makes no sense as foreign policy, but isn't likely to overly worry th countries targeted (as they stand to benefit). So the only way i can see this making sense is domestically.

Basically a racist President stoking up fears and resentment towards a religious group. This is a great way to get yourself compared to noted racist leaders of the past.

@Jmo: I may, thank you for the sage advice.

@Jamiet: Didn’t say that, said that I didn’t want to discuss my personal beliefs.

@DemonOverlord: Hey DO, try keeping your other beliefs to yourself too <3

@"Regardless, as I say immigration is up to the country. So is whoever they let in for visits."

Wait, no, you have obligations under human rights agreements to take in refugees. I think the US originally championed human right, no?

@President Eden (2971 )

"I am sorry to discover that your desire to ban refugees from entering the country has inhibited your sense of humor."

You seem to be under the impression i have a sense of humour...

@orathaic - I'm gonna break you off on a tangent here, but something you said piqued my curiosity. Wouldn't a brain drain in a region exacerbate extremism? So if we were to fight extremism, preventing a brain drain is one piece of the puzzle.

"You can't claim the US cares about genocide and acts to prevent it, when this is clearly not the case; Rwanda, South Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe, loads of places which genocide watch keep track of, and which aren't part of a military alliance which could be expected to resist the US."

I was actually just studying this in class. This is a far too simplistic view to look at U.S. foreign policy. Firstly, it is not enough to say that the U.S. has screwed up before so they should continue doing so. Past failures should not prevent a country from doing the right thing. We as a nation have screwed up time and time again.
Clinton said his biggest regret as President was that he didn't intervene in Rwanda.
Secondly, we are a constantly changing country. Unlike Russia (with Putin basically in charge for the last 17 years) or similar countries, we have a constant shifting of policy makers, with elections every two years. We don't have a concrete foreign policy. Building on that, we aren't always in the same position. One of the major reasons not to go into Rwanda was public opinion swung against intervention in Africa after the fiasco in Mogadishu.

Basically, the argument that once a nation does something wrong they can never find the high road again is a lazy way to think.

Now, you may debate whether the criteria for humanitarian intervention (which basically doesn't exist) was met in Iraq, and if that was the intention of the United States at that time. But arguing that the U.S. can't intervene because of past performance is incorrect.

@ora

"You can't claim the US cares about genocide and acts to prevent it, when this is clearly not the case; Rwanda, South Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe, loads of places which genocide watch keep track of, and which aren't part of a military alliance which could be expected to resist the US.

Pretend to be the world police all you want, the US just ends up looking like a really bad police man. AND then you get Abu Ghraib, you kjow the saying, 'with friends like you, who needs enemies?'

Saddam was armed by the US to fight Iran, because they dared to oust the CIA backed Shah, and reject US influence over their oil and natural resources. Saddam was your man in the middle east. You can't now pretend al the Us foreign policy in the middle east from 1979 to 2004 was purely in the interest of human rights and keep a straight face."

um... and because we've done bad things, it's bad to correct those mistakes? and yes we need to stop more genocides. genocides = bad. US foreign policy also = bad. two things can be true at once, BECAUSE: James =/= US foreign policy.

honestly, I'm with Tristen. I don't think Trump is smart enough to know what to do, so he's throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what people cheer about.




"See this i don't get at all.

How does preventing Iranian citizens entering the US seem like a good part of US foreign policy?

Doesn't it benefit Iran to not suffer from a brain drain as their best and brightest no longer have the option to relocate to you?

And on the security angle, how many martyrs come from Iran? How many terrorist suicide bombers were Iranian?"

this is the part I don't get either. the travel ban part is stupid. sanctions on Iran, not stupid.




"Sure Iran wants nuclear weapons, because the US is a threat to them and nukes are seen as the best defence."

which is why we need to create missile defense systems and start developing technology that can better neutralize radiation.




"But that is a rational state actor, the kind of decision making which does apply to MAD - and it makes sense after the US paid Iraq to invade Iran, and then invaded and crippled Iraq, that Iran must still be worried about the possibility of war with America."

except the regime is temporary, and state unstable. after Saddam collapsed, private citizens got their hands on WMDs. Operation Avarice in 2005 by the CIA collected something like 400 warheads and ballistic missiles, some of which had chemical weapons from private individuals. that's not even to mention the fact that Obama's formed director of intelligence Clapper said the Syrian gas attacks likely were from old Iraq WMDs. If Iran gets a nuke, that's not the most horrifying prospect, but that 1. incentivizes neighboring states to get nukes and 2. makes uprisings in Iran 1000000X more dangerous.




"But your assumption about Martyrs? Iran is heavily westernised, has elections, and strict religous hardliners - similar to your religious conervatives, but with more power... Of all the countries in the region, they feel like the most Americanized.

Haven't yeard of any Iranian martyrs though. Not a single terrorist action that i'm aware of. Lots of state conflict, near fights with the US navy, or troop movements in Iraq/Syria. Am i entirely wrong?"

ahh, see my comment to your earlier comment, and I mean when radical factions get their hands on this shit.



"The whole point is, there are fundamentalists in the middle east, who gave rise to the likes of Osama Bin Laden, and they are not being targeted by this travel ban."

the extremists HAVE no state, but they still have to use airlines (from countries). the biggest threats to America right now aren't waving flags over land (not anymore ISIS, you silly dead terrorists)



"Not all Muslims are fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are Jihadists, and not all Jihadists are a threat to the US (some would rather fight China or Russia cause Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region/The Chechen Republic)."

no, but also remember well over 500 million muslims (AT LEAST) are theocrats. and I HATE theocracy

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp1-3.png




"But when you read about the specific groups calling for the removal of US troops and/or influence from the holy lands (Mecca and Medina are both in Saudi Arabia) it is clear that there is a threat to the US, and it doesn't come from the countries included in the travel ban."

yeah which is why the travel ban doesn't make sense (as it currently exists)


"My conclusion is simple. Trump is a racist, and is playing to an audience to win popularity."

My conclusion is simpler. Trump is an idiot, and is playing to an audience to win popularity.

His first reaction to the initial *ban all muslims* during the campaign was immediately amended with (well, I'll let my muslim friends in). not racist, just REALLY dumb. I think he has more constituents who hate islam than he does, like Bannon and more of his staff. He personally actually has had quite a bit of business done with wealthy men in the Middle East. I think he's ignorant about other cultures, doesn't like the idea of immigrants, and the stupidity shit show tornado led to the nonsensical travel ban.



"That this makes no sense as foreign policy, but isn't likely to overly worry th countries targeted (as they stand to benefit). So the only way i can see this making sense is domestically.

Basically a racist President stoking up fears and resentment towards a religious group. This is a great way to get yourself compared to noted racist leaders of the past."

If Trump were a career politician: I'd agree with you. But he hosted the Apprentice. He's a rich boy who hangs out with his rich friends. he NEVER in his life has had to seriously weigh moral consequences with just struggling to get by. He has no developed ethical sense, there's no way in hell someone that narcissistic is a super opus-dei devout christian... and he has muslim friends.

all that points is to an unqualified dumpster fire. the travel ban is just more oxygen for said dumpster fire, and was probably propped up more by his contingency than he himself

I mean I think trump is an incompetent puppet who has no political experience, but his populist and brand name appeal has brought together a tight knit constituency of the disillusioned right, and now he's stumbling his way forward, with a lot of people trying to vie for a spot near the top. he's not massively well educated, he doesn't have a coherent ideology, he's never needed to worry about ethics of a situation.

all he really wants to do is play golf guys. that much is obvious. I think he only ran for president because Obama dissed him in a twitter response

That sounds disturbingly like Santa Anna

I could see Trump screaming "remember the Alamo" while charging down the wall between us and Mexico

I'm also hedging on him going senile by as soon as 2019.

current odds at 1/4 taking bets now

I think I lost about a hundred IQ points by reading this thread.

That still leaves you with a higher IQ than Trump.

Trump is a great man and a great President.

...who is currently massively endangering the entire middle east peace process and attracting condemnation and outcries of horror from world leaders around the entire globe.

Oh yeah, the peace process where the Palestinians walked way from the table and nothing has happened in 20 years? Yeah, let's keep the status quo of doing nothing.

OR let's try something new. Got to think outside the box like Trump does.

Thinking outside the box = Just pick one side in the dispute and declare them the winner in violation of previous international agreements and despite worldwide condemnation.

I thought you liked the rule of law?

Nothing has happened in 20 years isn't accurate, but to the extent that it is, that's partly due to Trump's predecessors being too soft on the Israelis.... So his solution is to just kowtow to whatever Israel wants.

Great work.