Trump's camp on Muslim Registry and Internment Camps

a reply to: Ohanka

And how about the registry? No comments on a Muslim Registry?

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Gothmog

LOL... Uh oh... someone got triggered. Sorry they can't all be Breitbart endorsed threads.

Who is triggered and who mentioned Breitbart ?

Muslims and islam in the USA is a no go.
Like it or not the US was founded on a christen base.
Just about every one of the founding fathers was indeed a christen.
One nation under God.In god we trust.
islam and a christen society will not work.Just look at Deerborn Michigan.
It is even against the law made in 1957 for an organization such as islam
to exist in the US.

a reply to: grayghost

Wrong on many accounts.

1. The first nation to recognize America's independence was the Islamic and African Kingdom of Morocco. Our treaty with them (The Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship) is also the longest unbroken treaty with the US in our history (HERE).

In 1786 under Sultan Mohammed III Morocco became the first Arab state, the first African state, and the first Muslim state to sign a treaty with the United States.

On 20 December 1777, Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah commissionned the Dutch consul in Salé to write letters to the European merchants and consuls in Tangier, Salé, Larache and Mogador stating that vessels sailing under the American flag could enter Morocco's ports, alongside those of European countries with which Morocco had no diplomatic ties, such as Russia and Prussia, under the same conditions as those enjoyed by the nations that had treaty relations.[3] Information about the Sultan's desire for friendly relations did not reach Benjamin Franklin in Paris before April 1778 at the earliest.[3] The Moroccan Embassy in the United States concludes that Morocco became in 1777 the first nation to recognize the United States.

2. Thomas Jefferson not only had a Qur'an (which Representative Keith Ellison was sworn in with), but Jefferson learned Qur'anic Arabic from it so he could negotiate with Arabic speaking leaders. HERE

3. President John Adams negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 with Muslim leaders, which includes the following in Article 11 (HERE):

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

4. An estimated 30% of all African slaves in America were Muslims, meaning we've literally been here before the United States became a country. HERE

5. And of course, Americans have loved American Muslim celebrities for decades. Muhammad Ali, Bernard Hopkins, and Mike Tyson are all Muslim American boxing champs. The leading scorer in NBA history is also a Muslim (Kareem Abdul Jabbar), with the best player in Houston Rockets history being a Muslim too (Hakeem Olajuwon). And pop culture loves us, ranging from Muslims like T-Pain, several members of the Wu Tang Clan, and the rapper/actor/producer Ice Cube to comedians like Dave Chappelle & weirdo "tv doctors" like Dr. Oz.

It's both funny and ridiculous how people can talk so much about subjects they literally know nothing about.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: FelisOrion
With all the rioting, you think he would actually consider this an option that would go off without reprisals?

His supporters seem quick to label protestors and rioters as terrorists... Might they support that rioters along with Muslims belong in such camps-- for the sake of national security, of course?

We have yet to see the limit of how low Trump supporters will go in supporting their d-bag leader. So far they excuse and support all things despicable by pointing out something else they think is worse... Why not this?

The rioters are terrorists since they are using terror to try and promote a political ideology or achieve a political goal.

This is the actual definition of terrorism.

See what I mean... and if Muslims resisted internment camp... to the point of physical opposition, I suppose you would have your justification.

You might not have caught this... But 'Rioter' and 'muslim' are two different words with two different definitions...

The treaty of Tripoli has been misinterpreted by a lot of people recently. The common take being instructed lately is that this treaty sets the tone is proof that Christianity has no place in America, etc. etc. etc...

Unfortunately the people of today are not in the same mindset no understanding of what the treaty was to accomplish. Article 11 of the treaty is not dissuading or declaring that was have no Christian values, or are not a Christian nation. The statement is to show that we are not a Theocracy style of government. And that Religion it'self will play no part in the U.S. declaring or not declaring war against the Barbary states.

The courtesy is to be returned to the U.S. by the perspective treaty signer... They don't declare war against the U.S. or it's shipping interests based around religious conflict.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Yeah, so we're not supposed to believe it when it literally says "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". LOL

But wasn't Trump the one screaming "Obama won't even call them what are! They are Radical Islamic Terrorists!

If you heard him say it once, you heard it a thousand times.

Now it's "persons from high-risk countries".

Bait and Switch. Thought I would do my good deed for the day and point it out.

But wasn't Trump the one screaming "Obama won't even call them what are! They are Radical Islamic Terrorists!

If you heard him say it once, you heard it a thousand times.

Now it's "persons from high-risk countries".

Bait and Switch. Thought I would do my good deed for the day and point it out.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Yeah, so we're not supposed to believe it when it literally says "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". LOL

The Government was not founded on the Christian Religion, we're a secular government. But you are ignoring the entirety of the article to focus on one sentence. The treaty, is clear as it's written definitively that the point is not to wage war on religious opinions. It's the rest of the article.

, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That's the point of the treaty... Not to declare an abolition of Christianity or to declare it's citizens as religiously androgenous, but that religion would play no part in whether war was declared or shipping interests interrupted.

As the treaty was to protect shipping interests.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I actually linked the entire article in my original post. That's the point in these types of documents being divided into articles & clauses in the first place. Kind of like how Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution is the "Religious Test clause", which strictly forbids religious tests as a requirement for federal positions. The context doesn't nullify its wording.

ETA: Nice edit. Anyway, I didn't say it abolished Christianity so don't put words in my mouth. I pointed out that it was never a Christian nation to begin with. And actually, I was pointing out how wrong a different post was for claiming that Islam and America can't mix by showing that we've been here before the country even was founded and showing that the Founders themselves had good relationships with Muslim nations.

So ironically, for all of your talk about context, you're the one taking my point out of context.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I actually linked the entire article in my original post. That's the point in these types of documents being divided into articles & clauses in the first place. Kind of like how Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution is the "Religious Test clause", which strictly forbids religious tests as a requirement for federal positions. The context doesn't nullify its wording.

Then you should read it...

It's clear... The United States is not a Theocracy, and that religion plays no part in declaring or not declaring war. The other side is to return the courtesy of not using religion as a pretext for war so shipping interests remain uninterrupted.

Which is a far cry from trying to frame it that we have no religious identity period, as the citizens of the United States most certainly do.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Still taking my post out of context? SMH

Reread this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then reread my response to it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You seriously want to talk about context even though you consistently ignore the context of everything I post?

Keep feeding your fears...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Let us know when Islam creates something like America.

Just saying, it is highly unlikely that the world could ever move forwards with religion controlling it.

And it has been at times, those times need to end.

In fact, ALL religions will be annihilated soon, hope you ready, cause nothing gonna stop it.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Let us know when Islam creates something like America.

What do you mean by "creates something like America"? A country founded on the genocide of millions of its Native inhabitants, the enslavement of millions, and the indentured servitude of millions of others? 200+ years on and we still don't have basic things like universal healthcare, an end to homelessness, equal voting rights, etc. I'm sure any religion or non-religion can do that.

Just saying, it is highly unlikely that the world could ever move forwards with religion controlling it.

LOL There has been a vocal minority saying similar things for thousands of years. And yet, the majority of the world's population are still religious and the world continues to advance and move forward. So I think it's safe to say your statement is false.

In fact, ALL religions will be annihilated soon, hope you ready, cause nothing gonna stop it.

Annihilated by who? LOL Skeptics, atheists, anti-theists, and agnostics are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose. But how are any of you going to "annihilate" religion? The most you can do is personally refuse to believe in a religion and try to convince others to do the same. But just like with your example above, people have tried & failed to do that for thousands of years. Unless you're planning something like a global killing spree of all religious people; which in case would make you even worse than the religious people you're whining about. (note: And you'd fail at that, too)