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

And your position is that this "faith" faithfully represents the real intent of Islam and the peaceful, rational Muslims are living a lie?

If Islam is so violent and evil, tell me how you think Sufism evolved.

 

Good points.

Also, how could be possibly KNOW which Muslim immigrant (or their offspring years down the road!) will someday decide to follow their prophet's example and become a terrorist in a quest for the ultimate goal of every Muslim - to reach the highest level of Jannah - which is where Jihadists go, according to Mohammad? Unless perhaps we ask probing questions in the vetting process such as "do you condemn Mohammd for saying that Jihadists get to the highest level of Jannah?"

 

How is that a lie? Muhammad was a violent warlord who spread his religion by the sword. He was beheading captive foes almost 1400 years before ISIS started doing the same thing. They make no secrets about their desire to follow the life and example set forth by Muhammad. The only ones trying to convince people otherwise are Western liberals.

 

I guess Sufis said "screw this violent Jihad stuff, let's create a more peaceful version of this stuff", I don't know.

You don't seem to understand that there are 100+ verses in the Qur'an alone that exhort Muslims to wage Jihad against the non-believers, and eternal Paradise is the reward for Jihad. So why not become a Jihadi to assure one's self of getting into Paradise and avoiding being burned with us disgusting Modern Secular Humanists in "hell".

 

Well, we could start with something that actually addresses the issue, instead of this destructive political gimmick, which has done nothing other than make people all over the world angry.

In the last thirty years, the number of terrorist attacks in the United States caused by Muslim refugees is exactly ZERO.

 

Best post of the week!

I'm always frustrated that I can't give you multiple "Likes" on your posts, Brew.

Kode obviously doesn't understand about the bad things that ISIS's #1 role model did, so I don't want to be too hard on him - so let's educate people like you are so rightly doing.

Have a great day.

 

Are refugees not immigrants, in your world? Because obviously your claim is garbage if you acknowledge that refugees are immigrants, right?

 

You seem to think that Islam is a peaceful religion. You also seem to think that this war won't heat up. Let me rectify that - thereligionofpeace.com has a running list of the Islamic attacks (I don't just care about America, by the way), and will educate you as to the real threat the world faces due to Islam.

 

Trump The Tool says that this is not a Muslim ban. You are calling this a Muslim ban. Which of the two entities are not being above board? Trump or thus thread?

 

Ask the "peaceful, rational Muslims" if they condemn Qur'an 5:33 which says to "crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides"...then get back to us, ok. No "peaceful or rational" person could NOT condemn a book that is so barbaric that it TEACHES, ADVOCATES, the most barbaric torture/death invented (crucifixion - which is intended to cause maximum pain, nothing else), and advocates chopping off hands and feet as punishment. Can you condemn Allah/Mohammad/Muslims for approving of this barbarity, or are human rights not a big concern to you, Kode? Please tell us.

Have a great day.

 

I think you know that not answering a question is not proof that one does not have an answer; or is your failure to state any good that will come of his ban proof that no good will come of it? You don't have to answer that. We both know no good will come of it.

The real solution is unacceptable to everyone with a conscience.

 

They don't want to do anything about it. They've long ago weighed out the pros and cons of allowing Islamic immigrants into the West and they've decided that the left-wing political benefit far outweighs the cost of the occasional terrorist attack. To them, a reasonable amount of American deaths are worth keeping Democrats in power indefinitely. Just as long as the left-wing agenda is advanced, the ends justify the means.

 

He's being coy. Of course it's a Muslim ban. But not "officially", no.

Per the OP, PARTIZAN1, you have an alternative solution to Islamic terrorism, right? Right? Please tell us.

Have a great day.

 

President Trump said "temporary", what does that mean to you? To me it means until they can figure out a different/better way to find out who's who.
He said he would make the country safer today not when liberals think it's time.

 

Have you read the O.T. lately?

Is all that factual history that you can document? -or is it just the "glorified" mythical story of a revered "hero" like Moses in the O.T.?

-and the millions of Muslims who oppose ISIS and seek peace.

 

You're "hitting it out of the park", today! Yes, libs are extremists (we see that with their constant marching, even though they lost the election.)

I'm going to call you "Hank Aaron" from now on. [Oh, but you've proudly proclaimed in the past that you are a racist, so maybe I should call you "Babe Ruth", instead??? As a Modern Secular Humanist I'm not a racist.]

 

Yeah, that's what they do. Just let them in. Sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, NOW you believe in science.

 

What drives ISIS is the Islamic texts - so please show us the millions and millions of Muslims who apparently dislike Jihad so much that they have changed/improved their Islamic texts removing the parts that advocate hatred/Jihad against non-believers. We'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

The O.T. is bad? Please elaborate and give us specific examples of that, as most people don't believe you at all (since Jesus approves of the O.T. in Mt 5:17, etc.)
Thanks.

 

They're probably too busy worrying about their own lives, feeding their kids and what jeans to wear to care much about gaining your approval.

 

Stay on the topic of Islam. I know how hard it is for the left to do this, but try.

“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam… Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” - Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda Reader, pg 42.

You mean the ones who say they oppose ISIS and seek peace. Too bad their religion does not promote peaceful coexistence with other religions. And it's especially bad news for atheists. But you go on defending Islam and wanting more Muslims to come to the US. It'll do wonders for women's rights and homosexuals.

 

If you equate liberalism with the regressive left, certainly. That might be a stretch too far though. It's possible to be liberal and not a loony lefty / group-think quasi Marxist.

 

But can we really BLAME Muslims for trying to get to Paradise by following their god's wishes to wage Jihad against non-believers to spread Islamic Law when FAITH is what drives that - and we are a nation of faith (a different Abrahamic faith, but pf course a nation of faith none the less)??

 

That's the thing. He's not doing anything about it but grandstanding. When it falls thru and/or found to be unconstitutional he can throw up his hands and say " I tried " and point to the media and Democrats and say "They are what's wrong" , " They are the problem". And the final solution will start all over.

 

I have already stated what will work. Ban entry from countries that Islamic terrorists have cone from. Those two countries are Russia where the Boston Marathon bombers came from and Saudi Arabia where the 9 11 terrorists and where the SanBernadino terrorist woman came from. She actually came through Saudi Arabia from Pakistan.

Trump's ban is wrong and foolish since no terrorists came from any of thisev7 countries.

 

Hillary Clinton, the person you supported for President over Donald Trump, wanted to allow tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the country, even with the head of the FBI admitting that they had no way of vetting the people who would be admitted. Clinton and her ilk didn't care, so obviously her approach is to simply let them in and hope they don't cause damage.