Petition seeks to ban Donald Trump from the UK
-
War in the Middle East? The refugee problem? Isis?
Have I misunderstood you?
WSS
you did read the article posted by logic I believe, that detailed how Isis was on the U.S payroll when the called themselves the Sons of Iraq....you did read that right?
-
War in the Middle East? The refugee problem? Isis?
Have I misunderstood you?
WSS
you did read the article posted by logic I believe, that detailed how Isis was on the U.S payroll when the called themselves the Sons of Iraq....you did read that right?
you did read the article posted by logic I believe, that detailed how Isis was on the U.S payroll when the called themselves the Sons of Iraq....you did read that right?
Actually I was answering a question from Chris.
It has nothing to do with any article.
WSS
-
Every time you see a sign like this don't be nonchalant toward or poo poo it as silly rhetoric. They mean it.
Of the few Islamic leaders that express outrage, it is most likely disingenuous. It is fake outrage, and you simpletons are buying it.
Lying is permitted in Islam, and Muslims are staunch believers in their faith. Put those two together.
-
By the way, I heard a couple of Muslim leaders of groups... talk about how they
agreed with Trump on that. They said we can't let the threat of violence just
come here along with all those who truly wish to live here..
my paraphrasing....
By the way, I heard a couple of Muslim leaders of groups... talk about how they
agreed with Trump on that. They said we can't let the threat of violence just
come here along with all those who truly wish to live here..
my paraphrasing....
Stuart
I sincerely want this to believe this. But words aren't enough.
The Muslim opposition to terrorism should be as fierce as the proponents of terrorism itself...kinda like Newtons third law of physics:
For every force there is a reaction force that is equal in size and opposite in direction.
-
Saying something offensive can get you banned from a westernized country?
Saying something offensive can get you banned from a westernized country?
Not offensive. Plenty of people say offensive things. It's about specifically inciting hatred based on an 'protected attribute' such as race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. The same things you can't be fired for, basically.
Pamela Geller got barred from entering the UK.
-
It will never happen, what would they do if by some chance Trump won the presidency?
-
I am assuming pamela Geller is Jewish?
WSS
-
Saying something offensive can get you banned from a westernized country?
Not offensive. Plenty of people say offensive things. It's about specifically inciting hatred based on an 'protected attribute' such as race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. The same things you can't be fired for, basically.
Pamela Geller got barred from entering the UK.
Not offensive. Plenty of people say offensive things. It's about specifically inciting hatred based on an 'protected attribute' such as race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. The same things you can't be fired for, basically.
Pamela Geller got barred from entering the UK.
So for being offensive?
-
There a 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.
Choosing just 2% from the data below of Muslims believing that terrorism could be justified often, we come up with 320,000,000 million camel fuckers that believe terrorism is justified often....the population of the U.S.
Did that help you liberal simpletons put things into perspective?
(36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
(30 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(17 vs 83) 83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
In mainly Muslim countries:
(55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(39 vs 61) 61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
(57 vs 43) 43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
(72 vs 28) 28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
(31 vs 69) 69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
(29 vs 71) 71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.
John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more religious than Muslims who do not.[28]
A 2010 Zogby poll reported that 69% of American Muslims supported stronger laws to fight terrorism.[29]
A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.[30][31][32] The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[33] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also, 36%[34] of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so.[35]
-
Saying something offensive can get you banned from a westernized country?
Not offensive. Plenty of people say offensive things. It's about specifically inciting hatred based on an 'protected attribute' such as race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. The same things you can't be fired for, basically.
Pamela Geller got barred from entering the UK.
Not offensive. Plenty of people say offensive things. It's about specifically inciting hatred based on an 'protected attribute' such as race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. The same things you can't be fired for, basically.
Pamela Geller got barred from entering the UK.
So how did Trump incite hatred?
The only hatred I saw come from all this was from leftists and democrat/republican politicians..hatred toward Trump.
-
oth, Carter banned immigration of Iranians back in the day. I think liberals agreed with that.
But let a non-liberal knee jerk about banning the immigration of Muslims, well, that's "offensive".
We can't let the whole world come here to live - there isn't room. Control it, and freaking VET
every single one.
I still say, all this wailing over what Trump said, that was dumb, and that German Christian family
was refused to be allowed to stay in the U.S., and the obamao regime fought and fought
to make them go back to Germany.
I mean, seriously?
oth, Carter banned immigration of Iranians back in the day. I think liberals agreed with that.
But let a non-liberal knee jerk about banning the immigration of Muslims, well, that's "offensive".
Cal there is a difference between banning immigration based on national affiliation vs. religious affiliation.
-
Stuart - 2% of 1.6 billion is 32 million, not 320 million.
-
War in the Middle East? The refugee problem? Isis?
Have I misunderstood you?
WSS
I'm curious, do you believe the US bears no responsibility for any of these things?
I'm curious, do you believe the US bears no responsibility for any of these things?
I'm pretty sure all these problems existed in the middle east hundreds of years before the conquerers set foot in America. But yes, we are embroiled in thousand year old conflicts so to some degree we are responsible but what excuse did muslims use to murder before the west was a thing? The line of succession of Mohammed? Whether ali or Abu Bakr was better?
-
Os - of course there is, but is it any better to say that we should ban
all immigration from all terrorist countries?
Like I mentioned earlier - there is a huge political aspect to too many people
who look to Islam. Terrorists have been proven to have inflitrated the mass immigration
movement. It's beyond banning from a country. What else is there to do?
Put a hold on ALL immigration, just as to not profile Muslims coming from radical countries.
-
-
I'm curious, do you believe the US bears no responsibility for any of these things?
I'm pretty sure all these problems existed in the middle east hundreds of years before the conquerers set foot in America. But yes, we are embroiled in thousand year old conflicts so to some degree we are responsible but what excuse did muslims use to murder before the west was a thing? The line of succession of Mohammed? Whether ali or Abu Bakr was better?
I'm pretty sure all these problems existed in the middle east hundreds of years before the conquerers set foot in America. But yes, we are embroiled in thousand year old conflicts so to some degree we are responsible but what excuse did muslims use to murder before the west was a thing? The line of succession of Mohammed? Whether ali or Abu Bakr was better?
we're definitely stirring the hornets nest of shit though wouldn't you agree? Yes those old conflicts have always been there but at least for some time they were confined and isolated. Now because of brilliant foreign policy strategy we're introducing the whole planet to what a non secular fuckhole the midde east is.
-
Again i'm calling for a military blockade of the middle east. Erect safe zones in places so that military equipment is kept out of them for the most part. That gives a sort of refugee haven where these people can go and have some semblance of safety. In the other places, let them fight. Like the jap dude in Godzila, let htem fight.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login