Here’s a novel idea.
Ban Muslims
1 Like
BTW suicide bombers can amplify the effect of their attacks by contracting an infections disease like hiv first
I appreciate you on this forum, but I have noticed that when I try to explain this to people on here and in the real world they look at me blankly.
They can fly planes in to buildings in nyc and kill thousands of people but we will still give them weaponry, buy their oil and brown nose them for more business.
Here’s an idea, stop creating and funding terrorists like Saudi and ISIS and Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Or stop f%&^ing complaining when those $100bln worth of weaponry you sold them gets in the hands of their proxy terrorist organisations and on to western soil.
2 Likes
Not that we haven’t had this conversation 50 times already, but banning things doesn’t work…
I agree but those groups cannot attack westerners unless they are allowed to migrate to the West or if soldiers go overseas to the middle east.
A brilliant documentary - non-UKers can find a copy that’s not geolocked very easily…
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/isis-the-origins-of-violence
Black Flags by Joby Warrick is a good book on the topic if anyone is interested as well.
Need to ban people who are muslims fom coming.
Not banning islam, it will only become the cool thing to do for idiots in that case.
By the way, what do you think about Trump dancing with the saudis? What a let down lol.
Yeah I’m disappointed along with his constant sucking of jew dick
Setting aside the logistics of how you would even ban Muslims, the point is that a ban, in general, is useless.
We ban numerous drugs, like cocaine, from entering the US. It doesn’t work.
We have tried banning alcohol from entry. It didn’t work.
We “ban” illegal entry into the States. Yet, we have 12 million illegals living here.
A lot of people want to ban guns (here and in other countries) many of the people in favor of a Muslim ban ardently oppose a gun ban and for good reason. The first response when a gun ban is brought up is almost always “Criminals don’t follow the law.” Okay, so law abiding Muslim’s won’t make it to the U.S. or UK, but radicals will.
That literal solves nothing.
2 Likes
The US has never a put much effort in preventing illegal immigration basically since the Reagan administration.
Send the military to guard the border and see what happens
We’ll keep creating and funding terrorist groups but ban muslims, greaaaaaaaaaaaaaat idea.
1 Like
It’s not supposed to be hard to simply not let people from coming from across the sea.
A lot easier than regulating peoplés activities inside the country.
Let freedom of religion inside USA, but that doesn’t mean you are obligated to let people of a certain religion come in.
I’ve come to the belief their objection isn’t based on practicality, it’s that the idea of banning Muslims makes them feel bad.
Spent the whole day talking to people about this today. Not one can face the solution and they all recommend quote “drinking tea” and making daisy chains. Apparently responding to terrorism with open arms is the only solution.
People nowadays would rather see there kids have nails and shrapnel tear through there body than accept the solution.
1 Like
And 241 US Marines with a suicide truck bomb. And 41 US soldiers with another truck bomb. And other UN peacekeepers. And countless others.
And shot at my back when I was protecting their children in Iraq from radical Sunni.
Some do, actually. But the distinction you are attempting to draw has the opposite meaning of what you intend. The mainstream Sunnis are no prize, but they are heretics to ISIS, the Taliban, and the rest. They have an active war in Syria, kind-of-in-Yemen (it’s more of a 5-way fight, including Shia), kind-of-in-Afghanistan, and at home, it’s pure Sunni mainstream v. Sunni radical. It’s simplistic to link the two groups of Sunni together.
The West is tepidly supporting the Sunni mainstream in that fight, as is Israel, and for good reason. The Sunni mainstream are no prize, but they make the radicals look like Mother Theresa.
And yes, the Shia do not have to resort to loosely-organized pockets of terrorists – much — not because Shia Islam is less virulent than radical Sunnis, but because radical terrorist Shia Islam IS Shia Islam, as controlled by the Twelvers in Iran. It’s a top down thing. Radical Shia is mainstream Shia.
Now, there ARE peaceful Shia. But they are no the mainstream. They are the fringe.
In general, the Twelvers that run Shia Islam are an apocalyptical cult that seeks to bring the end of the world. And they run Iran. (And thanks to idiot Bush and dumber Obama, increasingly Iraq.)
So, no, Donald Trump, while I generally view him as an idiot like his two predecessors, is quite correct to support the mainstream Sunni against the radical Sunni and the Shia.
1 Like
There are laws against certain cults and cult practices. And against certain political organizations (e.g., Nazis and communists, back in the day).
These laws, while distasteful to our snowflake sensibilities, are Constitutional, having been tested previously, and can be brought to bear to remove cultists and political terrorist supporters from our soil.
We locked up Nazi sympathizers in WWII. We can lock up radical Islamists in 2017.
How will you identify who is a Muslim?
That’s debatable, at best, based on the current wording of the first amendment.
Uh, no, but it doesn’t surprise me you think that.