MUH MUSLIMS
MUH DIVERSITY
MUH FREEDOM OF RELIGION

(05-25-2017 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Wasn't the bomber dude born in the UK?

His Dad was a refugee and a known terrorist in Libya, prior to UK allowing him in. Vetting was what we would call lacking.

Of course...but that has nothing to do with this travel ban, right?

Tom if Obama did an executive order like this, which he did with Iraq and Afghanistan, a temp hold on visas/refugees for vetting purposes leftists would have not gone to court over it. Hillary could have done it and everyone would have been fine with it.

(05-25-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Wasn't the bomber dude born in the UK?

So the US lets a radicalized muslim in now. His son grows up and shoots up a school.

(05-25-2017 01:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So banning guns from places does nothing, but a ban of people traveling from a few certain countries will?

Banning guns from a certain location leaves people in that location defenseless, giving the bad guy the advantage.

TEMPORARILY banning immigration from state sponsors of terrorism and other terrorist hotbeds potentially keeps the bad guy from ever presenting a threat here.

It's a very easy difference to see.

(05-25-2017 01:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Wasn't the bomber dude born in the UK?

His Dad was a refugee and a known terrorist in Libya, prior to UK allowing him in. Vetting was what we would call lacking.

One question: assuming we allow the travel ban to go through, can you guarantee there will never be another terrorist attack in the United States performed by a terrorist who claims to do the act in the name of Islamic ideology?

Quote:The 4th Circuit ruling said it was "unconvinced" that the order "has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the president's proposed Muslim ban."

In other words if Trump never talked about a muslim ban, this would have passed easily. Add Belize and Luxemberg to it and resubmit.

(05-25-2017 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One question: assuming we allow the travel ban to go through, can you guarantee there will never be another terrorist attack in the United States performed by a terrorist who claims to do the act in the name of Islamic ideology?

no, just like taking a picture of my ***** at TSA can not guarantee it either.

(05-25-2017 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One question: assuming we allow the travel ban to go through, can you guarantee there will never be another terrorist attack in the United States performed by a terrorist who claims to do the act in the name of Islamic ideology?

Of course not but you can decrease the chance it does happen. A side benefit is that it would probably make Muslims less likely to immigrate here.

(05-25-2017 01:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  One question: assuming we allow the travel ban to go through, can you guarantee there will never be another terrorist attack in the United States performed by a terrorist who claims to do the act in the name of Islamic ideology?

Of course not. But you can decrease the likelihood of an attack when potential immigrants are more thoroughly vetted.


It's 90 days. Had the original EO not been halted, the ban would have expired 19 days ago.

(05-25-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Of course not but you can decrease the chance it does happen.

I don't think that's right!

(05-25-2017 02:03 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  A side benefit is that it would probably make Muslims less likely to immigrate here.

And I also disagree that such a thing would be any kind of "benefit".

(05-25-2017 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  But you can decrease the likelihood of an attack when potential immigrants are more thoroughly vetted.

Perhaps you can decrease the likelihood of an attack from immigrants, but it does nothing to prevent people who are already here, being galvanized by anti-Islamic behavior and attitudes!

Just a bump in the road on the way to the Supreme Court.

(05-25-2017 02:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  But you can decrease the likelihood of an attack when potential immigrants are more thoroughly vetted.

Perhaps you can decrease the likelihood of an attack from immigrants, but it does nothing to prevent people who are already here, being galvanized by anti-Islamic behavior and attitudes!

Help us all out here with your infinite wisdom and logic. Where in this discussion has anybody discussed so called "homegrown terrorists"?

A travel ban by it's very nature does not prevent someone already here from doing anything, it focuses on, wait for it.... IMMIGRANTS and REFUGEES.

You really do make a habit of conflating two different arguments to try to prove a point. It's tiresome, weak, and shows a basic lack of understanding of the topic at hand.

(05-25-2017 02:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  A travel ban by it's very nature does not prevent someone already here from doing anything

Isn't that a valid argument that a travel ban is a waste of time?

(05-25-2017 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  A travel ban by it's very nature does not prevent someone already here from doing anything

Isn't that a valid argument that a travel ban is a waste of time?

Maybe you should ask the families of those 22 people that were killed in Manchester if the travel ban would have been a waste of time, since the bomber had just come from Libya... a country thats on the travel ban.

(05-25-2017 02:28 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  A travel ban by it's very nature does not prevent someone already here from doing anything

Isn't that a valid argument that a travel ban is a waste of time?

Maybe you should ask the families of those 22 people that were killed in Manchester if the travel ban would have been a waste of time, since the bomber had just come from Libya... a country thats on the travel ban.

Trump's travel ban would not have stopped this person from reentering the country since he is a citizen of England.

(05-25-2017 01:53 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Wasn't the bomber dude born in the UK?

His Dad was a refugee and a known terrorist in Libya, prior to UK allowing him in. Vetting was what we would call lacking.

Of course...but that has nothing to do with this travel ban, right?

Tom if Obama did an executive order like this, which he did with Iraq and Afghanistan, a temp hold on visas/refugees for vetting purposes leftists would have not gone to court over it. Hillary could have done it and everyone would have been fine with it.

Right, because those had zero constitutional issues with them. This all falls on trump. They sold this during the election as a Muslim ban, then just changed the title of it for the EO...but their intent was already known that it was a religious ban. They also did themselves no favors with a poorly crafted first order and total ineptitude from their lawyers trying the case.

I would be totally fine with a trump ban on the visa program. In fact, that's way more the issue than people coming in through airports as far as I'm concerned.

(05-25-2017 01:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Wasn't the bomber dude born in the UK?

His Dad was a refugee and a known terrorist in Libya, prior to UK allowing him in. Vetting was what we would call lacking.

Right...the guy was a UK citizen was he not? UK is not on that ban. He most likely could have traveled here with no issue.

(05-25-2017 02:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:28 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 02:22 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  A travel ban by it's very nature does not prevent someone already here from doing anything

Isn't that a valid argument that a travel ban is a waste of time?

Maybe you should ask the families of those 22 people that were killed in Manchester if the travel ban would have been a waste of time, since the bomber had just come from Libya... a country thats on the travel ban.

Trump's travel ban would not have stopped this person from reentering the country since he is a citizen of England.

I am so glad that my point went way over your head...