90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

Brian?

Mary63 wrote: »

The reason for the order surely though is to carry out detailed surveillance on known domestic terrorists.The authorities can't do this effectively while the front door is open to admit more potential terrorists.Thats why people should calm down, its a temporary cessation of admission of people from know ISIS locations and if it prevents anymore Boston bombings then every American should support it.

We are hearing all about the protests of those against the move but if you look at the numbers protesting they are tiny, couple of thousand people here and there.The Rest of the population are going about their business thankful someone is in charge.

The population of Brussels, Paris, Sweden and Germany are secretly rooting for Donald Trump and wishing their leaders would show some backbone.

How does this ban prevent more Boston bombings exactly?

The 2 perpetrators of the Boston Bombings were Kyrgyz and Russian citizens. Neither country is part of the ban.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not included in the ban.

One of the San Bernadino shooters was born in California.

The Orlando shooter was born in New York.

The problem with this ban is not only that's it's probably illegal, but it'll be completely ineffective. It'll actually be worse than ineffective, it will be used by Islamic terrorist groups to display America's hatred of Muslims. Great job Trump

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

How does this ban prevent more Boston bombings exactly?

The 2 perpetrators of the Boston Bombings were Kyrgyz and Russian citizens. Neither country is part of the ban.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not included in the ban.

One of the San Bernadino shooters was born in California.

The Orlando shooter was born in New York.

The problem with this ban is not only that's it's probably illegal, but it'll be completely ineffective. It'll actually be worse than ineffective, it will be used by Islamic terrorist groups to display America's hatred of Muslims. Great job Trump

Further to this, the perpetrators of the Paris 2015 attacks were mostly French and Belgian citizens.

So Mary, unless you start actively deporting Muslims and stripping them of citizenship a travel ban will achieve nothing. I know you'd love to deport them all, but maybe we could do something different.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

The 2 perpetrators of the Boston Bombings were Kyrgyz and Russian citizens. Neither country is part of the ban.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Not included in the ban.

One of the San Bernadino shooters was born in California.

The Orlando shooter was born in New York.

Brian? wrote: »

Further to this, the perpetrators of the Paris 2015 attacks were mostly French and Belgian citizens.

So Brian, can you think of anything at all, that all these terrorists have in common?

Oh wait, you can...

Brian? wrote: »

unless you start actively deporting Muslims and stripping them of citizenship a travel ban will achieve nothing. I know you'd love to deport them all, but maybe we could do something different.

Well I wouldn't like to go that far, not when they are already US citizens.
But the first rule when you find yourself in a hole, is to stop digging.
So stop importing the kind of people who are likely to form the base population for concealing and producing future terrorism.

Saudi's BTW have no need to emigrate to the USA. Everything is more or less free for Saudi citizens and foreigners do all the work for them. Why would they want to become US citizens?

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

So Brian, can you think of anything at all, that all these terrorists have in common?

One thing they all have in common is that they are Muslim, yes. But you realise I only picked out Muslim terror attacks to illustrate my point about this ban.

I could have included the home grown white supremacist terrorists who committed mass murder. But I'll do that to illustrate a point later.
Oh wait, you can...

Well I wouldn't like to go that far, not when they are already US citizens.
But the first rule when you find yourself in a hole, is to stop digging.
So stop importing the kind of people who are likely to form the base population for concealing and producing future terrorism.

Saudi's BTW have no need to emigrate to the USA. Everything is more or less free for Saudi citizens and foreigners do all the work for them. Why would they want to become US citizens?

So we're agreed rhat home grown terrorists are more likely to commit acts of terror. So what's the point of the ban?

Akrasia

Mary63 wrote: »

The reason for the order surely though is to carry out detailed surveillance on known domestic terrorists.The authorities can't do this effectively while the front door is open to admit more potential terrorists.

Who says the intelligence agencies can't monitor known domestic terrorists while still allowing immigration?
Also, if they're known terrorists, why aren't they in Jail?

The U.S. has been very successful at preventing islamic terrorism since September 11. They have successfully prevented terrorists from entering the U.S.

Trump is responding to nothing but his own trumped up claims that there are terrorists swarming over the border.

Thats why people should calm down, its a temporary cessation of admission of people from know ISIS locations and if it prevents anymore Boston bombings then every American should support it.

Iran is not a known ISIS location, it's the opposite. And it's a 'temporary ban' that is subject to being extended indefinitely and most likely will be extended given that the stated aims of 'until we figure out what is going on' is vague and impossible to achieve in a 90 day timeframe.

We are hearing all about the protests of those against the move but if you look at the numbers protesting they are tiny, couple of thousand people here and there.The Rest of the population are going about their business thankful someone is in charge.

There are protests on the street and at the airports, but there are also protests by administration staff and the Judiciary who have called the Executive order illegal and unconstitutional if it affects the Habeas Corpus of citizens of the United States or others who have a legal right to be there (where children who are citizens of the USA are blocked from travelling because their parents are permanent residents but not full citizens)
https://courthousenews.com/la-judge-puts-brakes-on-trump-travel-ban/

The population of Brussels, Paris, Sweden and Germany are secretly rooting for Donald Trump and wishing their leaders would show some backbone.

How can you possibly know that if it's a secret?

djpbarry

Mary63 wrote: »

I am so sick of this hysterical anti trump stuff, we don't have an impartial press anymore, we have a biased prejudiced media so we are going to have four years of making up news stories about how bad the American president is.

What exactly has been made up? The fact that he’s a xenophobic misogynist who pokes fun at disabled people?

Mary63 wrote: »

The reason for the order surely though is to carry out detailed surveillance on known domestic terrorists.The authorities can't do this effectively while the front door is open to admit more potential terrorists.

And yet the door to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Pakistan, etc. remains open.

Mary63 wrote: »

Thats why people should calm down, its a temporary cessation of admission of people from know ISIS locations and if it prevents anymore Boston bombings then every American should support it.

What did ISIS have to do with the Boston bombings?

djpbarry

dissed doc wrote: »

She never did an assessment and she definitely did *not* prepare any "reasoned legal opinion" as a response...

Nobody had time to do an assessment - Trump didn’t even bother with it.

That’s kind of the point.

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

So stop importing the kind of people who are likely to form the base population for concealing and producing future terrorism.

America should probably stop producing Americans then, because they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the US. Same story in Europe - the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by separatist groups (Spain and France, in particular), not Muslims.

The threat from Islamic extremists is massively exaggerated.

recedite wrote: »

Saudi's BTW have no need to emigrate to the USA.

No need for the CIA/FBI to be concerned about Saudi Arabia? Seriously?

Akrasia

222233 wrote: »

I never once suggested anywhere that in the case of a domestic security risk, the US would be justified in cracking down on everyone identified as part of the same group, where the person responsible for the threat was positioned. You have concocted this "people like you think" scenario in your own mind as I never suggested such, I said:



I referred to whoever meaning the individual not a collective group..

You might personally say that, but Trump is grand standing on the basis that immigrants are a threat to the security and safety of americans. He's compiling a weekly list of all crimes committed by non citizens. Whats the purpose of this if not to have ready made statistics for when he wants to clamp down on these groups of people.
Trump has shown with his executive order that he supports collective punishment. He doesn't care if innocent people are caught up in his net as long as he appears tough. He has also said he wants to deport millions of people, he doesn't care about all of the innocent children whose lives will be ripped apart. Including children born in america, American citizens whose parents might have broken the law.

Answer this honestly. Do you honestly think that many Trumps supporters wouldn't vehemently call for a clamp down on Muslim immigrants if there was a high profile act of islamic terrorism?

Indeed that is the proper response, but is it the proper preventative? After all if an event has already occurred prosecuting those responsible would be too little too late.

Intelligence and surveillance has successfully prevented many terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is a special kind of crime, in that the terrorists are seeking a response from the state. If a lone terrorist blows himself up and the state response is to crack down on immigration or launch counter attacks against a foreign state, then that suicide mission achieved its aims.

I think Islamic extremism is very dangerous, and I think people who engage in islamic extremist activity or propaganda should be very closely monitored by the intelligence community if they're citizens, and they should be denied visas and/or deported if they are not citizens. But that is on the basis of evidence that these people hold these extreme beliefs. Trump is causing a lot of harm to whatever good will there might be towards America in the islamic world.

Akrasia

recedite wrote: »

Saudi's BTW have no need to emigrate to the USA. Everything is more or less free for Saudi citizens and foreigners do all the work for them. Why would they want to become US citizens?

They don't need to emigrate to the USA, The (mostly Saudi) 9/11 hijackers came in on Tourist Visas

The reason everyone keeps banging on about Saudi Arabia, is because that is the Source of the extremist islamic ideology that fuels global jihadi movements.

As long as Saudi Arabia keeps exporting and funding these radical islamic fundamentalists, the problem won't go away.

B_Wayne

recedite wrote: »

So Brian, can you think of anything at all, that all these terrorists have in common?

Oh wait, you can...

Well I wouldn't like to go that far, not when they are already US citizens.
But the first rule when you find yourself in a hole, is to stop digging.
So stop importing the kind of people who are likely to form the base population for concealing and producing future terrorism.

Saudi's BTW have no need to emigrate to the USA. Everything is more or less free for Saudi citizens and foreigners do all the work for them. Why would they want to become US citizens?

The ban is only likely to radicalise people who would not have been otherwise radicalised. Immigrants from the banned countries have not committed acts of terror against the US..... Like the way you try to explain away the omission of Saudi Arabia. For the record, I think no such ban would be beneficial. Nobody seems to have proven otherwise...

dissed doc

djpbarry wrote: »

What exactly has been made up? The fact that he’s a xenophobic misogynist who pokes fun at disabled people?
And yet the door to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Pakistan, etc. remains open.
What did ISIS have to do with the Boston bombings?

The travel warnings in place due to the risk of terrorism isn't based on the governments in place but on the risk that any travel in or out is a risk.

Saudi is often now quoted as a reason to say Trump is basing this on business interests,

yet the reality is:

The border region of 50 miles Saudi Yemen is still restricted due to terrorist contact, says the US dept. of state; in Ireland the distance is 80km. It is a "high alert" warning in Saudi Arabia. The rest of the country: high risk, but travel is not "not advised".

The countries listed are ones where all travel is simply not advised at all. Therefore any travel out as well as in is deemed high risk; i.e., you are also deemed a high risk person if you turn up in Dublin having come from Iraq.

Check the US Dept. of State and Ireland DFA. If your own government doesn't have an explicit travel warning against a destination (and therefore origin country), it isn't on a list of blocked visa countries.

If you are caught within 80km of the SA-Yemen border, you may be a white Irish person and be expected to be arrested on the spot, just as much if you turn up in an airport or port in the US coming from Iraq, despite all travel from there being restricted.

Honestly, it is like explaining addition to children sometimes when dealing with the Clinton-Liberal axis.

Billy86

And that explains Turkey, Egypt and the UAE being exempt how exactly?

recedite

Akrasia wrote: »

They don't need to emigrate to the USA, The (mostly Saudi) 9/11 hijackers came in on Tourist Visas

The reason everyone keeps banging on about Saudi Arabia, is because that is the Source of the extremist islamic ideology that fuels global jihadi movements.

As long as Saudi Arabia keeps exporting and funding these radical islamic fundamentalists, the problem won't go away.

All that is well known, but Saudi exports mostly money and ideology, not people. There are other ways of dealing with those threats. For example, if wealthy salafists in Saudi Arabia were allowed to fund the building of mosques and Islamic schools in the US and EU, they would be delighted to oblige. But those mosques would have to be filled by people from countries such as those on Trump's EO list.

A further nuance to the relationship between the US and Saudi (also Jordan and other monarchies) is that monarchs oppose the Islamic State type radical Islamists. This because IS urges the poorer people in the various arab states to reject monarchy and nationalism, and instead support the global caliphate.
In some respects IS are analagous to the European style communists of old, in the sense that they threaten the "old guard" of the establishment elite.
Hence the Saudi state finds itself making war both on Shia Muslims to the south in Yemen, and also Sunni Muslims to the north who are sympathetic to Islamic State.

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

All that is well known, but Saudi exports mostly money and ideology, not people. There are other ways of dealing with those threats. For example, if wealthy salafists in Saudi Arabia were allowed to fund the building of mosques and Islamic schools in the US and EU, they would be delighted to oblige. But those mosques would have to be filled by people from countries such as those on Trump's EO list.

There are over three million Muslims in the USA currently. That's almost the population of Ireland. I'm sure they'd like new mosques.

recedite wrote: »

A further nuance to the relationship between the US and Saudi (also Jordan and other monarchies) is that monarchs oppose the Islamic State type radical Islamists. This because IS urges the poorer people in the various arab states to reject monarchy and nationalism, and instead support the global caliphate.
In some respects IS are analagous to the European style communists of old, in the sense that they threaten the "old guard" of the establishment elite.
Hence the Saudi state finds itself making war both on Shia Muslims to the south in Yemen, and also Sunni Muslims to the north who are sympathetic to Islamic State.

So all that stuff that came from Wikileaks to discredit Hillary Clinton about the Saudis funding IS was actually wrong?

FatherTed

Brian? wrote: »

One thing they all have in common is that they are Muslim, yes. But you realise I only picked out Muslim terror attacks to illustrate my point about this ban.

I could have included the home grown white supremacist terrorists who committed mass murder. But I'll do that to illustrate a point later.
Oh wait, you can...



So we're agreed rhat home grown terrorists are more likely to commit acts of terror. So what's the point of the ban?

Actually what they have in common is that they were "radicalized muslim terrorists". But trumpet is including ALL muslims from these countries in his ban. And this is the danger here, alienating a whole religion.

You will never hear of trumpet and his flock calling for bans of christians when there is a mass shooting caused by a christian person.

djpbarry

dissed doc wrote: »

The countries listed are ones where all travel is simply not advised at all.

The are numerous other countries which the US Dept. of State advises against traveling to for any reason. Pakistan, for example.

But apparently, Trump is full of praise for Pakistan, if his phone call with Nawaz Sharif is to be believed.

Strange that.

dissed doc wrote: »

Honestly, it is like explaining addition to children sometimes when dealing with the Clinton-Liberal axis.

In this instance, the instructor would appear to be mathematically illiterate.

recedite

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So all that stuff that came from Wikileaks to discredit Hillary Clinton about the Saudis funding IS was actually wrong?

Its true, but when you say "Saudis" that does not adequately differentiate between individuals, and the state itself.
Is this statement true? "The Irish never supported the provisional IRA"

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

Its true, but when you say "Saudis" that does not adequately differentiate between individuals, and the state itself.
Is this statement true? "The Irish never supported the provisional IRA"

That's not what the leaked email says or suggests:

“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isil and other radical Sunni groups in the region,”

Clearly says 'governments'.

recedite

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Clearly says 'governments'.

That's a quote from Crooked Hillary. I wouldn't mind that.

Read the quote from Julian Assange instead;

Mr Assange noted the US government had never acknowledged governments of Middle East nations had financially supported Isis, instead arguing such support was isolated to “some rogue princes using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, although the government disapproves.

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

That's a quote from Crooked Hillary. I wouldn't mind that.

Read the quote from Julian Assange instead;

I read the quote from Assange. It's editorial based on nothing in the email he's referring to.

Why would Clinton ask Podesta to put pressure on the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to stop secretly funding IS if that was provably untrue? Don't you think he and Obama would have known this? Do you think the POTUS wouldn't have access to the same information that Clinton had?

That's just nonsense.

recedite

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's just nonsense.

You are aware that Saudi Arabia is in the coalition bombing IS?

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

You are aware that Saudi Arabia is in the coalition bombing IS?

Yes I am. But we're talking about back when that email was written.

That email came not long before a significant shift in the Saudi approach to IS. Prior to that, as many as 2,500 Saudis joined IS and funding of IS was given the tacit nod by their government who saw it as a primarily Sunni movement.

That email was written in August 2014. By the end of the year, Saudi Arabia were contributing to the fight against IS.

Good job Hillary

222233

Akrasia wrote: »

You might personally say that, but Trump is grand standing on the basis that immigrants are a threat to the security and safety of americans. He's compiling a weekly list of all crimes committed by non citizens. Whats the purpose of this if not to have ready made statistics for when he wants to clamp down on these groups of people.

The purpose would be statistical analysis which is conducted in most countries with regards to crime, we have such statistics available here in Ireland too I believe, I'm pretty sure you can see the proportion of crime committed by non-nationals, non-residents etc. Collecting data would be an ongoing process everywhere, he may have highlighted it in this instance but it would be occurring anyway. Crime statistics are important with regards to recognising where more effort needs to be made in preventing crime and trying to plan for the future, e.g what crimes are on the rise, I don't understand why there has to be a underlying motive for a president collecting statistics? Other than the fact he pointed it out, data would have been gathered anyway.

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump has shown with his executive order that he supports collective punishment. He doesn't care if innocent people are caught up in his net as long as he appears tough. He has also said he wants to deport millions of people, he doesn't care about all of the innocent children whose lives will be ripped apart. Including children born in america, American citizens whose parents might have broken the law.

They might have broken the law or they did break the law? If they might have broken the law than theres probably no issues, there is a big difference. Imagine if breaking the law had no consequences, those who break the law are in a position to be prosecuted, that's how it's always been. Moral of the story don't break the law.

Akrasia wrote: »

Answer this honestly. Do you honestly think that many Trumps supporters wouldn't vehemently call for a clamp down on Muslim immigrants if there was a high profile act of islamic terrorism?
whatever good will there might be towards America in the islamic world.

I don't think people would have to be Trump supporters to feel angry and worried if that was to happen.

Akrasia

222233 wrote: »

The purpose would be statistical analysis which is conducted in most countries with regards to crime, we have such statistics available here in Ireland too I believe, I'm pretty sure you can see the proportion of crime committed by non-nationals, non-residents etc. Collecting data would be an ongoing process everywhere, he may have highlighted it in this instance but it would be occurring anyway. Crime statistics are important with regards to recognising where more effort needs to be made in preventing crime and trying to plan for the future, e.g what crimes are on the rise, I don't understand why there has to be a underlying motive for a president collecting statistics? Other than the fact he pointed it out, data would have been gathered anyway.

Trump isn't just publishing crime statistics, he's publishing a list of crimes committed by a particular group of people. He is deliberately de contextualising the statistics to demonise one group of people.

They might have broken the law or they did break the law? If they might have broken the law than theres probably no issues, there is a big difference. Imagine if breaking the law had no consequences, those who break the law are in a position to be prosecuted, that's how it's always been. Moral of the story don't break the law.

Parents may or may not have broken the law, but children are US citizens and are innocent of any crime. Trump, as president of the USA has a moral obligation to uphold the rights of US citizens, whether they're adults, or children. If he deports every adult non citizen who has a criminal record, he will also be deporting many Children who are innocent of any crime.

I don't think people would have to be Trump supporters to feel angry and worried if that was to happen.

You kinda answered my question without answering it. Trump is stoking up fear and hatred of immigrants and muslims. If there is a terrorist attack, trump supporters are already primed to support a clampdown on this demographic as a whole (not just the individuals involved)

What part of what I said is wrong?

BorneTobyWilde

Ban over turned now,
Trump put in his place by federal judge .

Billy86

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

:pac:

uck51js9zml2yt

Billy86 wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM
Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

:pac:

Must be alternative facts:)

recedite

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Ban over turned now,
Trump put in his place by federal judge .

Congratulations. Liberal western values have been saved.

Americans celebrate in NY city streets, their prayers answered;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xplc6BaemCw

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Congratulations. Liberal western values have been saved.

Americans celebrate in NY city streets, their prayers answered;

Looks like the free exercise of religion and free speech as clearly laid out in the US Bill of Rights.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

222233

Akrasia wrote: »

You kinda answered my question without answering it. Trump is stoking up fear and hatred of immigrants and muslims. If there is a terrorist attack, trump supporters are already primed to support a clampdown on this demographic as a whole (not just the individuals involved)

What part of what I said is wrong?

I don't think Trump is stoking up fear, I think his election established that the fear already exists, Trump isn't to blame for everything. Perhaps we need to consider that maybe Trump has been saying what the people were thinking.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

Congratulations. Liberal western values have been saved.

Americans celebrate in NY city streets, their prayers answered;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xplc6BaemCw

You're unhappy with people praying in public?

What's actually your point here?

oscarBravo

Brian? wrote: »

You're unhappy with people praying in public?

What's actually your point here?

Don't you get it? There are prayers, and there are terrorist cancer prayers.

B_Wayne

recedite wrote: »

Congratulations. Liberal western values have been saved.

Americans celebrate in NY city streets, their prayers answered;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xplc6BaemCw

So a completely peaceful event classified as horrifying now because you hold Muslims in contempt?

Mary63

Not a women in sight, Jesus, it says it all.

I feel really really uncomfortable watching and listening to that.

Brian?

Mary63 wrote: »

Not a women in sight, Jesus, it says it all.

When Jesus prayed in temple, there wouldn't have been a woman in sight either. Quality irony there.

I feel really really uncomfortable watching and listening to that.

You feel uncomfortable because you have horrible preconceptions about Muslims.

Mary63

Why are they so weird, what have they against normal interaction with women, why couldn't they bring their wives out to pray with them.

Absolute awful sight on the streets of New York, very intimidating for women in particular.

Half of the electorate polled agreed with Trumps travel ban, anymore of these huge crowds of male muslims massing will spook the Americans.What if they go on a rampage like they did in Cologne and sexually assault white women, are there armed Policemen on standby.

I certainly as a woman would be making my way out of there.

B_Wayne

Mary63 wrote: »

Why are they so weird, what have they against normal interaction with women, why couldn't they bring their wives out to pray with them.

Absolute awful sight on the streets of New York, very intimidating for women in particular.

Half of the electorate polled agreed with Trumps travel ban, anymore of these huge crowds of male muslims massing will spook the Americans.What if they go on a rampage like they did in Cologne and sexually assault white women, are there armed Policemen on standby.

I certainly as a woman would be making my way out of there.

There is absolutely nothing violent about that crowd. So all you appear to being doing is adding a layer paranoia to what was a completely peaceful demonstration. Btw, there has been marches where both Muslims male and female have joined with other protesters. So yep, I would say there is plenty of unity in opposition to Trump.

Mary63

Hundreds of men gathering anywhere is frightening for women, the chanting is very sinister too, its sounds like something you would hear and see in Iran.

Why have some of them covers their faces and what is the flag they are waving, its not the American flag.

Why didn't hundreds of them to come out and pray when people were murdered in Paris and Berlin, not much vocal protest from them then.

Billy86

You only just got banned from another thread for making unfounded claims and general bigotry towards Muslims, black people, Hungarians, Poles, and Eastern Europeans in general. Do you genuinely have nothing better to be doing with yourself?

B_Wayne

Mary63 wrote: »

Hundreds of men gathering anywhere is frightening for women, the chanting is very sinister too, its sounds like something you would hear and see in Iran.

Why have some of them covers their faces and what is the flag they are waving, its not the American flag.

Why didn't hundreds of them to come out and pray when people were murdered in Paris and Berlin, not much vocal protest from them then.

The flag is the flag of Yemen which makes complete sense in this instance, also plenty of US flags there. Just a few examples of Muslims participating in marches(and vigils) related to Berlin and Paris including condemnation from Islamic. It's as if you've intentionally ignored everything that Muslims do unless it's bad.......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/berlin-attack-muslim-community-germany-message-peace-solidarity-christmas-market-a7488571.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/world/europe/paris-march-against-terror-charlie-hebdo.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/paris-terror-muslim-leaders-around-the-world-condemn-heinous-attacks-a6734711.html

Mary63

I wish they would let their women have a voice and a vote.Let the women come out in protest at the way they are treated.

Funny that the men have no problem with women having no human rights but yet temporarily prevent the men from going where they please and they can organise a protest about that.

Billy86

Mary63 wrote: »

If you haven't anything more intelligent to say Billy86 then say nothing at all.

Do yourself a favour and try taking your own advise.

I have as much right to my opinion as you and you can't shut us all down.You tried that and the result was Brexit and Donald Trump.People will have their say whether you like it or not, its called democracy don't ya know.

Again where were they all when their fellow muslims killed hundreds of people in Europe.

Where were they when a fifteen year old girl was shot in the head for daring to go to school.

Where are they when women are murdered by their fathers and brothers for betraying the family honour.Not a peep out of them.

Where are all their wives today, are they not allowed to join the praying for fear a man not related to them might see their face.

And here we go on another rant to nowhere... where were you when someone who seemed to share some of your views shot 6 Muslims dead a few days ago?

Mary63

Im off to Yemen next week to organise a gay rights and women rights protest march.Im going to dress exactly how I please and I will wrap the American flag around me.Im sure I won't have any problem getting through security at the airport and everyone who wants to come along will be able to get through too.

Its really good to see peaceful protest in action.

ancapailldorcha

Mary63 banned. Again.

Inquitus

Curse the pesky other branches of the Government........

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828343072840900610

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

You're unhappy with people praying in public?

Did I say I was unhappy with it?

B_Wayne wrote: »

So a completely peaceful event classified as horrifying now because you hold Muslims in contempt?

Did I say I was horrified with it?



Be careful what you wish for, that's all I'm saying.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

Did I say I was unhappy with it?
Did I say I was horrified with it?



Be careful what you wish for, that's all I'm saying.

You're being quite obtuse. You're not saying anything.

B_Wayne

recedite wrote: »

Did I say I was unhappy with it?
Did I say I was horrified with it?



Be careful what you wish for, that's all I'm saying.

You're implying that them exercising their religious freedom which is a constitutional right is some ominous sign. They are entitled to do this, it is a right. Christians can do the same if they wish. Ever witness a Christian "procession", been happening throughout Europe for centuries. Imagine that and other religious events like that happen in the US.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

You're being quite obtuse. You're not saying anything.

I've already been reprimanded by the mod for "trolling".
Freedom of Speech is strictly limited around here.