If you oppose the Muslim Ban, then tell us a BETTER way to stop Islamic terrorism.

Question: if you oppose Trump's Muslim Ban, then please tell us your brilliant alternative idea to stop Muslims from getting to Paradise via Jihad. Eight years of Obama's appeasement to Islam obviously did nothing to end it, so if you advocate Obama-like policies you'll obviously be failing to provide good solutions (as the facts clearly show us.)

We've seen emotional/crying critics of this ban (Chuck Schumer), but we haven't seen alternatives that will actually work.

Me, I think we need to look beyond Obama's policies, and explore more drastic measures, as Trump appears to be doing. But when the vast majority of the world won't condemn the underlying religious texts that advocate Jihad, then I think we're screwed, and world war will be the final result.

Your opinion?

 

What Trump is doing isn't addressing the issue long-term, which is how these issues need to be addressed. A ban won't stop Islamic Terror or Jihad, a lot of the terror happening today is actually homegrown terror. Unless you invent some type of cyber ban, immigration bans are going to do little to solve the issue. Instead, we need to be working with Silicon Valley on developing a mobile, and cloud-driven database that immigrants can be vetted with a fingerprint. This would involve having a coalition of governments coming together obviously, but it is taking on this issue long term, over a short term fix like an immigration ban. When it comes to ISIS communicating through social media, their main avenue of radicalization, this ban of Trump's will do nothing to protect the country.

 

Inviting more of them in and forcing our society to be more Sharia compliant, of course. It's working great in Europe.

 

What isn't working now? What's to be gained with this "extreme vetting" BS? How will it be better than the present system?

 

The present system of simply letting them in and hoping nothing happens? Yes, what could be better than that?

 

My opinion is that one does not have to offer an alternative to be correct in pointing out that a given method is ineffective and counterproductive.

What good will come of Trump's ban?

What do you think the solution to a problem consisting in the existence of a particular religion is?

 

Considering that it is NOT a "Muslim ban", the premise of your question is non existent.

 

See, this is what I'm talking about! He just proved my point. Opponents of the ban can't offer solutions! Their "solution" of burying their heads in the sand for the last 8 years (Hillary would have just continued that), and bashing a guy who is trying to do something about it, is obviously is not a solution.

It's almost as if they don't think that Islam is evil.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't have a solution either, do you. Nice dodge, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes - the Islamic terrorist counter is now over 30,200(!) deadly Islamic terrorist attacks and growing every single day, yet they still don't see a problem with Islam, and with faith. Incredible.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the real underlying "solution" to Islamic terrorism that liberals deep down believe is....."live with it"!!

 

I didn't dodge a damn thing. Simply pointing out that the root of your question is a flat out lie, aka a lib talking point.

Had you perhaps prefaced it with a "this is a hypothetical question" then maybe you'd have yourself a valid thread going.

 

And condemning those like Trump who are trying to do something about it!

 

A ban is pretty weak when all one has to do is either lie about their religion or go to a country which isn't on the ban list and fly over here from there.

 

Funny, liberals scare me much more than any Muslim ever could.

 

I dunno what the democrats in DC would do, except come up with a list of muslim nations that we must watch closely travel to them, back and forth travel. On new muslims coming in, they like the status quo vetting, and insist it works, while we have been told by gov't officials involved in the vettng that some just cannot be vetted, but still come in.

But if you look at these people raising hell about trump's policy, they would just open up the borders and not worry about vetting which shows you the kind of defective brains we are dealing with here, and MSM makes sure you see lots of the anti trump people with the defective brains, lacking anything even resembling rationality, logic, reason, with sufficient factual information with which to operate from. Folks we are talking about village idiots here. We are talking about people who are mentally incompetent to ever make sound judgments and if not for our laws that seek to protect people from their own stupidity, there would be so few of these people walking around.. Our laws that protect the idiots from themselves have yielded what evolution would have thinned out and these idiots breed with one another!!!!

 

You must be afraid of what replies may reveal. Why else would you load your "question" with such posturing and belittlement? You criticize Chuck Schumer's tears? Need I remind you of Boehner the cry baby? Obama's appeasement? Obama's administration did far more and was far more effective about stopping terrorists and deported more illegals than Bush did.

Your bogus bias makes you are very poor candidate for a conversation. And yet the obvious better alternative to #45's ban would be to trust our intelligence and military for guidance.

 

Better than the ban: allowing refugees. Plain and simple. Terrorists are already using the ban for recruitment; the ban feeds ISIS's mission of destroying the grey zone. Allowing people to escape reduces the tax base of groups like ISIS which, along with oil, is the chief source of their dwindling resources. Bleed them dry.

Invite refugees. Take away ISIS's money. Take away ISIS's "Islam and the West are incompatible and the US hates you" rubric. Build up the grey zone.

 

You're 2 for 2 now. I gotta say that I admire your consistency, though.

Perhaps you can research this topic a bit - such as by reading the Qur'an, and then get back to us with a solution to the Jihad holy war that it preaches. Thanks.

 

Islam and the West ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE, so why advance a narrative that's a blatant lie!? Your "solution" is a recipe for disaster. Your solution of taking away their money is admirable, but does absolutely NOTHING to discredit the underlying belief in Mohammad/Allah/Jihad. Nothing.

 

Terrorists were using the refugee program to send their fighters here.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039

But I love the premise of your argument. Moderate Muslims are to be lauded for rejecting the Qur'an's commands to wage war against unbelievers, but if we aren't nice enough to them and let them into our country, then they may invariably choose the radical interpretation of Islam, anyway and become violent terrorists. Almost sounds like blackmail.

 

If the Qur'an is so bad, how do you explain Sufis? And how do you judge the O.T.?

 

It's also incredibly stupid. There are hundreds of millions living in Islamic lands, if not more. If we bring in even 100 million of them to "bleed ISIS dry", there are plenty of others they can go after for tax revenue.

 

Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I have zero issue with what Trump is doing regarding this immigration order. I'm merely pointing out to you that falling for the leftist wording of "Muslim ban" is spreading a lie.

 

What about a strategy of creating disrespect for the underlying theology of Islam/Allah/Jihad?

 

Ah! So it is about religion! The only safe thing to do then is to kill every Muslim and ban Islam from the face of the earth forever...... -if you're right that it's about religion.

 

You'r 3 for 3 now. Maybe you just don't understand the concept of a "solution" - I forgive you if that's the case.

- - - Updated - - -

If you listen to AQ/ISIS/Boko/Hamas/AbuSayaf (i.e. the terrorists themselves) then of course it's about religion. Faith is the driver to their religion. So faith is the enemy.

 

Why? Are you not guilty of a lie when you suggest ISIS is indeed following a religion as the religion was intended? That is what you do when you insist on calling it "radical Islamic terrorism".