President-elect Trump's Muslim Ban

**~~BeerBaron~~** · 12-04-2016, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos

I support atheists, free thinkers, homosexuals, Christians, and moderates in the Muslim world. But fundamentalist Muslims are not welcome in America, because their vision of how the world must be is night and day from what we are used to in modern liberal multicultural pluralistic societies such as Western and Northern Europe and North America. My problem with Islam does not translate to problems with Muslims, unless the problem a particular Muslim manifests is indicated in Islam. Nonetheless, I believe Trump's Muslim ban should be implemented in order to save our lives, our civilization, and our culture. We don't know what percentage of the refugees seeking to visit America and Europe are secret jihadis. But it is almost guaranteed that there will be some amongst them. I find this to be a difficult problem. We don't currently have a reliable way of vetting the moderates from the fundamentalists.

What solutions do you see for the current Muslim refugee crisis?

Do you think it is fair to ban people from entering the US, Canada, and Europe based solely on their religious identity?

The Gulf states should pay to set up safe zones in those countries that the west could set up and guard. All western countries should lock down their borders and deny entry from ALL ME countries. Mulslims determined to be extreme should be deported, no family extensions should be granted for mulims already here. They should never be allowed to obtain citizenship no matter how long they are here.

I would go as far as rounding them all up and shipping them back, regardless of how moderate or extreme they are. Islam is totally incompatible with the west, and the globalists who set up this whole thing know it, and are purposely doing it to destabilize the west and bring about more control.

**Petros Agapetos** · 12-04-2016, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Scarpia

The Gulf states should pay to set up safe zones in those countries that the west could set up and guard. All western countries should lock down their borders and deny entry from ALL ME countries. Mulslims determined to be extreme should be deported, no family extensions should be granted for mulims already here. They should never be allowed to obtain citizenship no matter how long they are here.

I would go as far as rounding them all up and shipping them back, regardless of how moderate or extreme they are. Islam is totally incompatible with the west, and the globalists who set up this whole thing know it, and are purposely doing it to destabilize the west and bring about more control.

I am with you in spirit, but I find the idea of banning a certain religion very problematic ,given that the US has a First Amendment, that guarantees religious expression and the free exercise thereof. I don't think the US government can deny people from becoming US citizens based solely on their religion, though this is the option I prefer, because it is the safest. I think it is reasonable not to let any of these 'Syrian' "refugees" to enter our countries, but this doesn't require a Muslim ban, it only requires that the US not let any person in who has come from a war torn country, where Islamic terrorists are wreaking havoc.

I support the Muslim world fighting against ISIS, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and Iran. If they fight each other, perhaps they'll leave non-Muslims alone for a while, giving us the opportunity to save Christian lives in the Middle East.

**Sockorer** · 12-05-2016, 11:23 PM

By decreeing a new Muslim hunting season: i.e make it legal to hunt down Muslims for sport during certain times of the year.

**Petros Agapetos** · 12-06-2016, 07:35 PM

Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.

This is being greeted with the usual howls of outrage and victimhood. Trump’s a racist. Trump’s a Nazi. Trump’s a bigoted Islamophobe.

I am no fan of Trump, but is what he said here really so outrageous? No one has some natural right to enter the U.S. Trump is suggesting a temporary measure, and in view of the intelligence failures involved in Tashfeen Malik’s passing background checks from both the FBI and DHS, and the stated plan of the Islamic State (ISIS) to embed jihadis among the refugees, and the fact that two of the Paris jihadis were recent arrivals into Europe as refugees, it is prudent to call a halt and try to devise some genuinely effective vetting measures — although that will be impossible as long as Obama’s policy of denying the reality of jihad continues.

Must our commitment to “multiculturalism” and “diversity” override any concern for national security? Are our elected officials so afraid of being charged with “racism” and “bigotry” that they will remain committed to a program that very likely will result in the entry of more jihad killers into the U.S.? How many Americans must be killed before we consider the security aspects of immigration and the refugee crisis?

Trump’s recommendation is unworkable in practice, but unless some reliable way can be discovered to discern jihadis trying to enter the country, the entry of Muslims into the U.S. will continue to provide an opportunity for jihadis to enter. The Islamic State has explicitly instructed its operatives entering the US to appear “moderate” — don’t wear a caftan, don’t carry a Qur’an, don’t wear a beard, don’t go to mosque. Even if there were any sanity in the Administration’s approach to this threat, which there isn’t, the efforts of ISIS members to conceal their allegiances and intentions make vetting well-nigh impossible.

Those who are saying that this is a religious freedom issue are missing the point, probably deliberately. The problem is not with the religious aspects of Islam, but with the political, supremacist and authoritarian aspects of Islamic law. I will never support Trump for President, even were he to knock on my door, get on one knee, and ask for my vote. I could never support a candidate who advocates kowtowing to violent intimidation and submitting to the Islamic supremacist war against the freedom of speech, as he did after the jihad attack on our event in Garland, Texas. But the national security aspects of Muslim immigration should be considered, and those who are calling Trump a Nazi tonight should kindly think of some alternate plan to deal with those aspects.

**Petros Agapetos** · 12-06-2016, 07:37 PM

Trump: Muslim ban ‘just a suggestion’

Trump’s backing off of this, which was quite clearly and definitely a policy proposal when he made it, suggests that he wilts under pressure, as the pressure on him for this has been intense indeed. In fact, this is why the Left has targeted his rallies and committed violence at them. This is why he was nearly banned from Britain, and why London’s Muslim mayor, among so many others, has denounced him.

This proposal is also a chief reason why he has outlasted all the contenders and stands as the man with the best chance to be the Republican nominee. Poll after poll has shown that a huge number of Americans supports a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration — not because huge numbers of Americans are “racist,” as the Left feverishly imagines, but because most Americans know that there is a problem with Islamic terrorism, and most Americans see that the current approaches aren’t working to stop it.

None of Trump’s detractors have ever bothered to offer an alternate plan — how can they, since there is no way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims? And that’s precisely why Trump proposed the ban in the first place. But now it looks as if whether the next President is Hillary or Trump, the denial and willful ignorance regarding the jihad threat, and the resulting policy errors, will continue.