It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OK. Its not a muslim ban

page: 4
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" horrors like THIS ban. "

How Exactly is a Travel Ban of Seven Countries so far who are known to harbor Radical Islamic Terrorists considered to be a Horror ? Don't you want our Government to Prevent Future Acts of Terror on our Shores or Not ?

I like this absolute either/or you present me like if I DON'T agree with this ban that means I automatically want to promote future terrorism on American soil. Would you like to try this again, this time without the logical fallacy?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

" conflating a few anecdotes "

So , I guess you will just Downplay the Deaths of Innocent People who were Killed in Terror Attacks , and just Consider the Loss of their Lives to be Nothing more than " a few anecdotes " I mentioned in making a Point as to the Need of President Trump's Travel Ban from Certain Countries that Harbor such Dispicable People ? I see .........

I will if those events are going to be used to promote horrors like THIS ban.


Oh no! People might have to wait for three months.

Three months in a destabilized country isn't exactly like spending three months at the downtown Marriott you know?


The EO allows for exceptions.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Bet that doesn't apply for the second one! In your world, we need more regulations probably? That's all this is, a regulation of who can enter.a reply to: Krazysh0t


+7 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


Does that mean Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe, Kazakhstan, Uzbekhistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and other countries not listed whoalso have Muslim residents who want to come to the US and who have valid passports and visas are banned from coming here because they are Muslim?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

It's absolutely fixed and true. If the 38% were involved it could be a completely different outcome with neither of those two winning. People are always saying we need a 3rd party (or more) to get away from the 2 party system. By your numbers there is more than enough people to make that happen.

And this is the mud pit.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


here ya go, dated yesterday


In addition, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, told the Associated Press that nothing in the judge's order "in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president's executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect."



The stay will prevent the government from deporting citizens from the affected countries that had already arrived in the U.S.The ACLU estimated that around 200 people would be affected by the ruling. For travelers outside of the U.S. however, even those with valid visas, the ruling will not change the restrictions imposed on them by the order.


Trump Immigration Ban Still In Place Despite Court Ruling, Says DHS

so it seems that no wanna be's can come in.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


Does that mean Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europe, Kazakhstan, Uzbekhistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and other countries not listed whoalso have Muslim residents who want to come to the US and who have valid passports and visas are banned from coming here because they are Muslim?


Give it time.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WUNK22
Bet that doesn't apply for the second one! In your world, we need more regulations probably? That's all this is, a regulation of who can enter.a reply to: Krazysh0t


So I should support this because you've assumed that I want more regulations? I think you need to go look up that old cliche about assuming.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


Only ignorant bigots think everybody from these countries is Muslim.

Syria is 10% Christian. They are temporarily banned as well.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I didn't think it had been.

If it had, they wouldn't still be posting law suits over it today. No need. Instead, there are two separate groups preparing their law suits for two separate judges. That tells me that whatever ruling they got yesterday was not the one they wanted. So they are shopping two more judges today.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

They will be vetted according to the existing laws too.

Some in the past were vetted under "relaxed" enforcement.

The EO is actually setting the standards to where they were originally intended.




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


Only ignorant bigots think everybody from these countries is Muslim.

Syria is 10% Christian. They are temporarily banned as well.


Syria is the only country on the list with an indefinite stay on processing.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: eNumbra

It's absolutely fixed and true. If the 38% were involved it could be a completely different outcome with neither of those two winning. People are always saying we need a 3rd party (or more) to get away from the 2 party system. By your numbers there is more than enough people to make that happen.

And this is the mud pit.


That 38% isn't just people who didnt vote, it includes those who did vote third party. And I'm sure not every single person who didn't vote did it because they were lazy; you could make that assertion if Election Day was a national holiday, but it's not.

And yes, this is in the mud pit, I made a mistake, so I'll re word my request.

Grow up.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


What have Muslims done such that you are certain they have been banned?

Or are you suggesting that Trump threw 100 groups / religions / political outfits / media organisations into a hat and just happen to draw out 'Muslims' as the group to spend taxpayer money destroying?

Is there anything in existence which has warranted this 'ban' you speak of?

Is there anything Muslims, as a global community, can do to assist Trump in eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism so that Muslims are no longer portrayed as members of a deceptive cult?

NB: please power down your deflector shields if you are going to truthful respond to my query



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Hey, I agree. I think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan might be good places to consider.

Wasn't the San Bernardino shooter's wife from either Afghanistan or Pakistan and she lied about her name to conceal her family's radical ties. Then as soon as they come back from the wdding, they start planning to shoot up the holiday party.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Like I said, parts of it have been overturned already but not the whole thing. Looks like the article is saying exactly that.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hangedman13

I think it is or was 21% of Syrians supported ISIS ....just saying



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore


When I said it was based on very little evidence, that's because it is.


The assertion of the EO is clear:

"Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism."

"Convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes" is fairly broad. Though the media seeks to list only successful terrorist attacks, they neglect to include unsuccesful plots and various other terror-related crimes. Trump signed an executive order that these statistics be released in 180 days and every 180 days thereafter.

Rather, the backlash is without evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join