Trump Bans Muslim in USA

Discussion in 'World News & Debates' started by stereox, Dec 10, 2015.

  1. Lithary

    Lithary Well-Known Member

    :up:​
    Why would you anti-vote trump?
     
  2. Saved

    Saved Well-Known Member

    Is that a rhetorical question? I don't want him to become president.
     
  3. Lithary

    Lithary Well-Known Member

    :up:​
    A reply made by a true scholar, I see.

    Dude, I mean 'why' as in 'what are the reasons behind you not wanting him to become a president'.
     
  4. Saved

    Saved Well-Known Member

    Just checking if it was a rhetorical question.

    Let's see,
    - he wants to divide the world, starting with his neighbor.
    - he knows nothing about politics and being president
    - he obviously doesn't take it seriously
    - he doesn't seem emotionally mature
    - he doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself and his goals

    In a nutshell, not someone I want being president.

    I honestly don't know very much about him nor am I a political enthusiast, but the more I hear/read about him the less I want him having any kind of political power.
     
  5. Skulls_n_Souls

    Skulls_n_Souls Well-Known Member

    1. The verse prior is: "and fight for the cause of God those who fight you and don't violate for God doesn't love violators." Violate (Arabic: تعتدوا) in Arabic means: "initiation of a hostile action against someone who had done the violator no harm."
    2. Fitnah (Arabic: فتنة) means making people turn against each other, you can look it up. Fitnah happened numerous times, in which there were tries to turn Meccians who immigrated to Madinah against people of Madinah.
    3. The translation is not accurate: it's not "Worship is for God alone," it's "religion is to Allah," (Arabic: يكون الدين لله) and, idk if you know this, but Allah in arabic means God. Arab Christians call their God Allah as well.
    4. It's funny that Az-zalimon (الظالمون) is not translated, it's not an arabic idiom, it's a common word. It comes from Zulm (ظلم) which means injustice/oppression.
    6. Mohammed had a few battles with Meccians, after which they declared a truce. The Meccians, however, broke it by killing one of the Muslims from Al-Madinah, and thus Mohammed invaded Mecca. If you read about the history of invasion, he didn't drive people of Mecca out of it, he told them "whoever enters their home are safe." There wasn't even a battle, the army just entered Mecca with no resistance (only one battalion encountered resistance afaik.) Read further back into history, before Mohammed departed to Madina, and refer to the treatment Muslims received from Meccians.

    1. Again the translation isn't accurate. Right-had possessions isn't for captives, it's for slaves, which was common at that time (look it up if you don't believe: ملك اليمين). That being said, the Quran never incouraged on owning slaves at any site; there were many, many sites in which freeing of slaves (Tahreer Rakaba, as mentioned in Quran) was mentioned in the Quran, which was by buying a slave and then setting them free. And in no where in Quran there was a caption that stated that women in invaded countries are slaves. And if you're refering to stories of Mohammed, you may also want to check on how he treated slaves as well.
    2. Basically, the source from which you bring that quote jumped over all the things mentioned before Right-Hand possessions, and went straight to it, and then misinterpreted it.

    LOL that's what you understood from what I said? Let me break it down:

    "Judging Islam by the actions of ISIS is like judging Christianity by the actions of KKK (at its time.)"

    ...idk how you can misread that. I just pointed out that judging Islam by ISIS is like judging Christianity by KKK, which are both ridiculously absurd ideas.

    In the video, it's funny how he mentions Salafi, then says it's the purist form of Islam. Had he taken a Sufi translation he would've found a few differences.
    He translated inaccurately again. The word he was dwelling on and translating as married is Al-Muhsanat (المحصنات) which means virtuous/chaste. The waiting period isn't to make sure they're not impregnated from their husbands, the waiting period is called "Iddah" which is, in islam, a period during which a woman isn't allowed to be in the same room with a man after divorce or a husband's death. Plus, he failed to mentioned that the book stated that after that period, Mohammed order the men to make the women choose between staying as right-hand possessions, or going back to their homes.

    One of the things I don't like Islam in is that slavery issue. It doesn't say "slavery is forbidden," it simply encourages on decreasing it, as I mentioned before. The reasoning, as Islamic textbooks say, is that at that time slavery was so massive that taking it away all at once couldn't be done, as slaves were the only experienced workers at that time. (Still an absurd idea to me, but I see the point of view.)


    EDIT: the point of this discussion is not prove that Islam is true, it's to prove Muslims aren't monsters, as a lot of people think.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2016
  6. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Humans can go through intense shit if they have to. Going by foot from Greece to Germany sure isn't impossible and not even close to what a desperate human is capable of.

    The camp in Idomeni is just a few thousand in strength and yet Macedonia can't keep them out completly. Just yesterday around 50 people got through the fence.


    I already answered this. Refugees don't want to stay in either of those countries, they are seen as nothing but waypoints and as long as there is a way around, they have little reason to challenge the border.


    Even though Assad fits the description i wasn't referring to him. Guess i should have been more specific.

    People being working as borderline slaves in SA usually come from other countries to send money back home.

    That aside, just because not every country fits into the same schema, doesn't mean we shouldn't help those who seek for help.

    So i guess the war in Somalia must be some kind of hoax.


    There is a difference in receiving free shit and helping those who are persecuted. Eritrea and Somalia are among the worst countries in the world when it comes to human rights.

    Eritrea was one of the countries i was hinting at when i talked about making deals with dictators. The EU is trying to sign treaties to help repressing the civilization so they can't even escape their countries.

    It's pure irony to say our human rights mean nothing to those fleeing exactly because they lack those things in their homes. And it's even more irony talking about it while we are spending money on reducing their own human rights. Do you get it? It's hypocrisy talking about how refugees are a danger for us when we are the ones paying money to increase their misery, because it makes people unconfortable to see a black beggar.


    Do you even read what you write?
    Do you think those people are running away from their countries for 5€ hourly wage?

    How much working dictatorships can you name? Even the best dictatorships throughout history were mostly horrible.


    Actually it has advantages. I can't talk about other countries but germany will face problems with pension in the future because of low birth rates. Taking in refugees can solve this problem.


    The least we could do is stop worsening the conditions in those countries. And nobody here is asking for anyone to be exempt from punishment.

    What is happening right now and what all those people in favor of building walls are doing is trying to fix the symptoms. Nobody cares about the cause. But as long as we don't fix the problems, things will continue to get worse and chances are that there'll be even more terrorists.
     
  7. Lithary

    Lithary Well-Known Member

    Am calling bs on this one.
    Who says he wants to divide the world?
    Also, what is wrong with keeping ILLEGAL immigrants out of the country (they are literal criminals)?

    [citation needed]

    So you would 'anti-vote' him while you admit yourself you are not very informed about subject at hand?
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Isn't this his democratic right?

    There are people voting Trump on the basis of thinking a country works like a company.
     
  9. nocaps001

    nocaps001 Well-Known Member

    i would vote him while i admit i am not very informed about the subject at hand. :cool1:
     
  10. Saved

    Saved Well-Known Member

    Combination of his attitude and ideas. It's impossible to say what he really wants as only he knows that, but it's my guess. It's also the attitude of a lot of his supporters, which in general seems to be the "I am awesomer than you, we are awesomer than them" mentality. It's a bit alienating.

    Trying to keep illegals out of the country is fine, but he's going too far. Undergoing probably the biggest physical construct of the 21st century in order to literally divide the continent. Biggest waste of resources in order to fuel separation, really not what planet earth needs.

    All his efforts seem to be undertaken for the purpose of staying on top, for him and his supporters. He's not thinking about mankind. Someone who cares about the future of humanity does not suggest such things.

    It's impossible to become completely informed, as there is always more to know and people can always surprise you. My opinion, as of now, is that I would anti-vote him if I could. It's a longstanding opinion and each time I read/hear more about him the opinion only gets stronger.
     
  11. r0xo

    r0xo Well-Known Member

    I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting to keep illegals out of the country but I think it is his way of dealing with the subject that makes people oppose the idea. More on that in the second part of the reply.

    And really, you are asking for citations about things that are common knowledge (ok to some). If you really want I can even give some examples.


    Seeing as how I seem to agree with him (maybe not anti-vote but the feeling of really not agreeing with Trump) I think it might be safe to assume that his problem isn't limited to his politics but how he acts as a person? Because that will influence how he acts as a president. But like the above, there are examples of some silly political ideas.
     
  12. Petique

    Petique Well-Known Member

    You can only cross a border so many times until you get caught. Maybe a few people managed to slip from the guards but that doesn't mean that they will be as lucky in the next one, so ultimately you get to the point where the number is so small that it's simply irrelevant. Besides as other people have explained it's not that hard to catch people even if they are already in Germany for example.

    Well yes but the road through Hungary would be shorter and the terrain is also better. It's no coincidence why they tried that path originally. Also considering that Slovenia and Austria have also closed their borders a few months ago they don't really have anywhere to go even if they are lucky enough to cross the Macedonian border.

    Why should we help people who utterly despise us and everything we stand for and who also don't give a rat's ass about our laws?


    So why don't they go to their muslim brothers then? Oh right, because they don't give a shit about them either.

    [Citation needed]

    Black beggars wouldn't be the problem. The problem is that these 'black beggars' rape and sexually molest women, beat people up because they happen to disagree with their primitive religious dogmas, force their cultural habits and beliefs on others, severely damage the country's property or even worse, commit terrorist attacks.


    Libya,Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Singapore, Spain. Should I continue?
    They were working (some still do) and they aren't necessarily horrible.
    You do realize that you are essentially giving up your own culture, economy and standard of living with that method.

    That won't be solved by letting millions of people in. The country won't be magically better by letting them in. The real solution would be to first of all neutralize ISIS, then invest some money into Syria to repair their economy and at the same time transport these people back where they came from.
    What are you even talking about? Putin has already sent soldiers to Syria against ISIS and bombed their main headquarters. Trump aims to do the same while also making an alliance with Russia to finally end the war in Syria and make peace. You won't achieve that with nice talk nor with multiculturalist, leftist propaganda.
     
  13. Ostarion

    Ostarion Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure what your point is. Don't bother because a few will get through anyway? Like someone said, this is defeatist attitude. Better you try and 50 come through, than to say ''fuck it'' and let thousands in.

    Why don't they want to stay though? It's because they won't get free shit. Not because there is an evil dictatorship. Once again, SA is the most hardocre Islamist country. Where you get lashed to death for atheist tweets. And people aren't leaving in droves, because they have an easy life there. A lot of refugees would gladly go to SA if they could. They don't because they realize they will not get free handouts and possibly will get killed if trying to cross ilegally.

    Also, one question. Do you think a guy in the middle of Africa just suddenly thinks to himself: ''This sucks. Time to go ilegally to Germany''?. War or no war.



    We shouldn't help them because they are ruining the places they come to. It has nothing to do with being good or bad. Did you even saw the two videos I posted on the previous page? Also this: http://www.derwesten.de/wp/staedte/...-sind-uebersaet-mit-faekalien-id11746483.html

    Such rich culture, mhm.

    Well, didn't know about that. Still, there are many people fleeing from war free zones, and still there is no obligation for us to help any of them. War or no war.


    Once again. ''Oh their lives are bad, we MUST help them''. You can't help everyone. There are probably billions of people living worse then the average german. Should they all come to Germany? Nobody should get left out, right? It's only fair? You can't help everyone. And it's better not to help anyone if they are agressive and repay your hospitality with gangrapes. What do you think would happen if white christian refugees did a Cologne attack in an Arab country? They would get murdered. Even if they behaved perfectly, they would probably still get harassed. Especially women. Once again. This has nothing to do with good or bad. It's about not ruining your country for the sake of people who won't contribute and hate you.

    And why do you keep refering to the people as the ones who support the wars? First, America is the biggest offender anyway, and they took no refugees. Second, the people of Europe wish no ill upon these countries or wish to bomb them. And speaking of beggars, when was the last time you helped one? When was the last time the government launched any program for beggars? Shouldn't Germans get attention first before non-native people?


    They are running away from their countries because they are shitholes. The last part is just wrong.



    No it won't. It won't solve the problem at all. Unless by solved you mean Germany being a third world country in 50 years.


    I agree. Pull out everything from the ME, let them sort it out themselves. But still this is mostly on USA. Sadly nobody can force them. Meanwhile Europe (Germany and Sweden especially) and Turkey are the only ones dealing with the fallout. Helping actual refugees should be restricted to Africa anyway, and help should be sent there. First priority should always be your own countries and people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016