Trump's Muslim ban will make us more secure ?!

I know what the word 'perverse' means. But judges have several tasks and are not called upon to try anyone. They are there to see that things proceed according to Law. They are there to interprete laws which, sometimes, allow discretion.
The Law against Murder (killing someone) allows discretion at to whether it should be Murder, Manslaughter, justifiable homicide etc. A couple of centuries ago the theft of a loaf of bread would have lead to a starving woman with children being transported. Today it would lead to a conviction for theft. Magistrates must then pass punishment - a matter of judgement. Some would pass a fine. Others see the womans predicament, and slap her wrist.

Not everything is black and white as we have seen by the decision of the Supreme Court of the UK deciding by 8-3 that Parliament must have a say in Brexit.

 

What is for Iran ? And Iran does not sponsor any terrorism against the US. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a major state sponsor of terror against the US. Which was the point.

 

Obama was a clown puppet of the establishment ... which is why Saud did not make the list. Trump is continuing down the same path.

 

If it was a ban on all Muslims I would agree with that security would be increased. ... but it is not.

The ban does not include many Muslim countries that are the greatest risk to security.

What part of this do you not understand ?

 

In some ways I agree with you. In this case though Trump has bowed to the establishment by not including Saud on the list - the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. and promoter and exporter of extremist Islamist Salafi ideology.

 

Yeah, and the Shah is in the White House right now,
sharing sherries with Donald.

 

You are not making sense. Are you seriously not aware of Saudi Arabia's support Islamist Extremism ?

 

You obviously have much more faith in the judiciary than I have.

 

Anyone who thinks a Muslim ban will make you safer or more secure is a gullible f##king idiot.
It wouldn't surprise me if many of the people who think like that have never owned a passport.

 

Seeems the right is running out of excuses they have fallen back to "Obama did it"

 

What, you don't think global jihad is headed your way - presuming you're in the US? Well it's now entrenched in Europe so why not the USA?

 

No mate, i'm english - and i don't think a "global jihad" is heading my way because I'm not a gullible tw@t

Entrenched in Europe? WTAF? - Are you quite young> it wouldn't surprise me if you were.

I grew up i the 1970's mate and there were more terrorists and more death by terrorism in Europe in the 70's than there has been since 9/11.

If a few Muslims going mad with guns and lorries is your idea of a "global Jihad" then can i suggest you stop playing so many Xbox games and man up a bit.

Have you always been really easy to frighten?

 

Sorry, you're not my preferred sort of correspondent so I'd rather not answer that load of drivel. Nothing personal! It doesn't surprise me that you're English though.

 

The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

But I don't know yet that King Saud thingy.

 

What would make not just the US but the world safer is if the media would explain to people where this terrorism comes from.

Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Islamic Front, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Muslim Brotherhood (and numerous others) all share the same Saudi inspired black and white version of extremist radical Sunni Salafi Islamist ideology.

This is what separates the terrorists from most other Muslims. A shortened term could be Radical Salafi Islamist or even "Radical Islamist".

Fine if people do not want to use the term "Radical Islam" ... then they should correct the term to Radical Islamist.

An Islamist is someone who wants Strict Sharia to be the law of the land/political system. Someone who is completely intolerant of others (even and especially other Muslims) who do not share these radical beliefs, who hates individual rights and freedoms and who is willing to use violence/wage holy jihad to force religious beliefs on others.

What is nuts, in my mind, is letting people into this country (and others) who do not believe in the basic principles of respect for individual rights and freedoms on which western democracy/society was founded.

Why would we let someone into this country who openly hates individual rights and freedoms (regardless of religious belief) ? Same in Europe but, that is exactly what they did.

YET ... the mainstream media and the leaders of these countries (including Trump so far) stay silent.

Something is really wrong with this picture.

 

anything related to truth is drivel I see

 

The CIA has been involved in much election tampering (why crying about Russia is kind of Ironic) over the years.
In terms of Iran - Reagan was on the side of Iraq during the war against Iran .. That support continued while Saddam was using chemical weapons and this policy continued under Bush Senior.

Saud is a huge supporter of Islamist extremism and they promote their extremist hate ideology all over the world.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...y-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html


Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism
ISIS Atrocities Started With Saudi Support for Salafi Hate
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/...arted-with-saudi-support-for-salafi-hate.html

http://www.meforum.org/535/saudi-arabia-and-the-rise-of-the-wahhabi-threat

 

More precisely,we could cry for both.
I could say that the idealism was used for extremism and intended only for the faithful as to make their belief more stronger. But somehow utilized politically as to counter what they conceived as outside aggression against their faith. Saudi Arabia as I've learned is already made a target of ISIS then are they have to create something that eventually will defy them and is Osama Bin Laden created by the Saud's or he is he actually a self made jihadist?.

 

Dont worry. Some lib Judge who is mentally ill and supports Islam has over turned Trumps travel ban. So you can have your beloved Muslims with their political jihad into your country. You can be just like Germany, France, Sweden, UK. Enjoy your cultural enrichment of child rape and marriage, sexism and rape towards woman, wife beating, gay killing the 9th century way ). Enjoy enjoy. Oh and check out the gang rape in Sweden that the Muslims broadcast live on Face book. The rape only stopped 7 hours later when police finally decided to arrive and stop it...so nice of the police to give the men all that time to culturally enrich that lucky woman!!. .ahh face book such a wonderful tool. Enjoy.

 

The modern incarnation of ISIS - the trained attack dog created by the US, Saud, Turkey and others- got off it's leash (essentially biting it's owner) when it went into Iraq. It then had to be put down.

The reason for arming radical Islamist Salafi Jihadists was to punish Assad in Syria. For a time we had a very strange situation where the aforementioned nation states were Arming/Supporting ISIS in Syria and at the same time fighting them in Iraq (or at least pretending to fight them in Iraq).

For a long time Obama was merely paying lip service to fighting ISIS in Iraq while continuing to support ISIS in Syria.

t.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-gains-result-from-us-support-of-extremists/

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

 

The trick is knowing the difference?

 

You have an agreeable scenario,
but I wish to ask when did the West and KSA was accused of funding AQ?
As I could recollect back, I think that was when Syrian civil was fully blown correct me if I'm wrong,
but such a time BO decided to pull out our troops from conflict countries and minimize US military commitments.
The opposition part of the civil war asked assistance from the US but with BO's policy such a plea was not really totally addressed and they threaten to side with AQ if not assisted and I think the main reason why BO in the end decided to support but limited with supplying rather than committing the US armed forces. To ensure needed support I think the opposing rebel forces already affiliated themselves with AQ prior of the US military aid and thus creating the confusion for at that instance supplying the opposing rebel forces will translate of supplying AQ for they already operating in unity.

For Saudi Arabia why is it that they did not use their dogs the AQ against the Houthis and did use their own military to do the job?

 

Yep. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt: very stable, peaceful places.

 

I definitely agree with you; they should've been included, but I can see Trump's reasoning in not including them in the travel restrictions, because they have strong centralized governments. Terrorism isn't a big problem there, at least opposed to the 7 countries that were included. obama agrees!

 

It's not a Muslim Ban and it's not unconstitutional. It seems that what is really bothering a lot of people is that Saudi Arabia is not on the ban list. When dealing in the Arab world, one has to remember, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I am sure sometime in the near future that the Sunni countries will be our enemy. Personally I wish we would get the hell out of the way and let them kill each other until there is only one to defeat.