Officials were NOT allowed to said "radical islamic" under Obama

Why are so many Muslims in the U.S. better educated and commit less crimes than people of Christian denominations then? I mean I guess you could argue there's more Christians in the U.S. therefore more crime, but it doesn't change the fact that Muslims are a non-threat compared to other religious denominations in the U.S.

 

It's intentionality taken out of context, similar to how you understood the promised land is for Jew and ignore the scripture that doesn't fit your narritve

Here some of what you have left out (from the same chapters you copied)

[And indeed, among the People of the Scripture are those who believe in Allah and what was revealed to you and what was revealed to them, [being] humbly submissive to Allah . They do not exchange the verses of Allah for a small price. Those will have their reward with their Lord. Indeed, Allah is swift in account.
3:200
[Paradise is not [obtained] by your wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Scripture. Whoever does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides Allah a protector]
4:124

[Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] - then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.]
8:38

I could keep on and on but you may get the idea by now, but the main point: those were instruction of self defense circumstances, aggressions was never tolerated by any means

 

Refreshing to see military generals across administrations agree that those labels are no productive.

 

The logical flaw is that you only talk about "the fight against ISIS". But ISIS is just a symptom. You did not address the question: What exactly makes ISIS different from Saudi Arabia, ideologically?





Saudi Arabia is the place that holds the holy shrines of Islam, they fund most of the Islamic schools around the world.

And Iran isn't any better. Neither are most predominantly Muslim countries, when it comes to rights of women, homosexuals, freedom of speech, human rights in general.

If "the fight against ISIS" was the only thing we had to worry about...what about Boko Haram? Al Qaeda? Hisbollah? Hamas? Abu Sayyaf? Etc. etc. etc. Even Erdogan!

They are all symptoms. The root cause is the religion itself. And pretending that that is not the case means lying to the people.

Do you seriously think that this struggle is over once ISIS is militarily defeated? Really?

 

The root cause instead might be the culture.

 

Arguing that their religion is to blame for all the problems in the region doesn't help in the struggle and really only makes the problem worse. It's also poor strategy to conflate all the various "bad actors" in the region as all the same enemy that must be dealt with all at once. Again, you don't solve anything that way.

 

Religion and "culture" are totally interwoven there, which is not surprising, because Islam demands to totally control every aspect of everyday life. How would you even try and separate the two?

 

You listen to people more qualified than the national security advisor?

 

Fixing the world ! You want it peacfull & people to be brave too ! In your own simplistic way of understanding of course ! I wonder what give you this inspiration!

 

Culture might drive how the religion is interpreted, right?

Culture over religion might explain why conservative Christians embrace fiercely ant-Christian ideas here in America.

 

First of all, swearing doesn't make your argument any stronger, smarter, or more believable. In fact, it suggests I hit a nerve, that what I posted was very close to the mark.

Second, rather than rant in circles, simply say whether (1) you believe transgenders should be able to use whatever bathroom they feel lines up with their gender. In schools, and in any other public restroom. Since that isn't the case right now, and isn't what Trump and the republican party believes, you can simply say you disagree with them. And since Obama order was to provide federal guidance so that schools would allow transgender students to use the restroom of their choosing (not a closet rigged up to separate them from other students of their gender). So you should disagree with the Trump's new order ending Obama's order.

Anything different or less than this shows you are in favor of discrimination against transgenders, and no better than the "radicals" you want to oppose.

Third, Trump's "law" is intended to discriminate against Muslims. He clearly stated his objective to ban Muslims. His close adviser came clean on Trump's approaching him to get around the illegal aspect of his Muslim ban. And the courts put a stop to his order on this very ground. So again, it is hypocritical to claim that Muslims discriminate when you yourself choose to support trump's Muslim immigration ban. The fact that Trump's own DHS analysis questions the effectiveness of his own order should also factor into this.

 

i do not believe anyone can use any restroom they wish. why, because bathroom segregation is determined by sex not identity. scientifically sex determination is based on chromosome, reproductive systems, etc... so I cannot disagree with science and male sex should use male restrooms and female sex should use female restrooms because that's how restrooms are separated. identity should not be involved. if you disagree with science of sexual identification then you might as well believe in flat earth. now if a private or public space chooses to utilizes unisex restrooms then go for it, i actually prefer those myself.

this post is such bullshit it's a waste of time to d&d with you if you say lies like this. how can you say his objective is to ban muslims when the largest muslim countries in the world were not part of the ban? give me a break.

 

don't be fooled by the media and the full meltdown left. trump is no more dangerous than Clinton would have been or even Obama was. if everyone would calm their t*** they would realize this.

 

So basically, a lot of words to say you do discriminate against transgenders. It would have been simpler for you just admit it. Of course, anything you claim about radical Islam and discrimination they have against LGBT people is hypocrisy. LOL at the attempt to claim science as your justification. Especially as I suspect you also argue against man-made impact on climate change (but that is another argument).

And again, you can argue as much as you want, but he clearly talked about banning Muslims

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

And he did talk with a close adviser about finding a legal way around:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...trump-asked-me-how-to-do-a-muslim-ban-legally

And the courts did challenge his order of the grounds it targeted Muslims (for the above reasons, and his prioritizing non-majority religions (in other words, all religions other than Muslims).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tr...onstitutional-virginia-judge-rules-2017-02-13

 

I don't discriminate at any level. Restrooms are designated by sex not gender or identity. so based on the science of sexual identification, male sex use male restrooms & female sex use female restrooms. no discrimination at all, just science and the fact that restrooms are sex based not gender based. i can't believe you're anti-science. i feel sorry for you. and for the record, i believe in non-man made and man-made climate impact but i don't really care at a global scale. i believe in local environment protection approach first and foremost, that would take care of everything else anyway.

explain to me how a muslim ban does not include the largest muslim countries in the world. your bias refuses to see that it was a temp ban on unstable government, terror-ridden, war-time countries. stable government, non-terror producing, peaceful muslim countries were not included so it can't be a muslim ban. you can't refute that.

 

From a scientific standpoint, it really is more complicated than that - http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/ (before you dismiss everything as "fake science", all sources are linked within the article).

IMO it should be that if you have a penis, you have to use the men's room (regardless of whether or not you were born with it). Just keep it simple.

 

Any white person who actually had this interpretation should probably be deported.

 

So by your cruel and archaic method of forcing people to use bathrooms, a transgender that has already completed sex organ changes can use bathroom of their new gender and those who have not have to use the other bathroom? First, are you intending to have people inspected to see their sex organ change has been completed? Again, your attempt to blame science for your own own prejudices is laughable. Its not unlike past efforts by racists to attempt to use science to prevent interracial marriage.

Again, cursing only shows you know how weak your argument is. A discriminatory law does not have to discriminate against all of a group or population. For example, an LEO who arrests black people without cause does not discriminate not have arrest all black people, but only has to be shown he is targeting (eg profiling) black people without cause.

In this case, Trump has already shown his intent to discriminate against Muslims (his own statement, Giuliani's statement, the order's provision that non-Muslims would be prioritized) and the courts have already spoken on this.

 

Explain how there is a ban on travel from 7 countries that have sent a total of 0 deadly terrorist attackers to the U.S. since 1975.

It's a ban directed at Muslims, but it doesn't include all Muslims. Don't be a goofball. If BLM kills some policemen but doesn't kill ALL policemen, will you say "If they were targeting police, explain how they left so many police not murdered"?

The ban is inconsistent simply because Trump's bad principles are inconsistent. Of course he's a w**** to Saudi Arabia, for example, like every U.S president.

As for your bathroom fetish, explain how the administration can call this a states rights issue and take the exact opposite position on legalized mar1juana.