Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

It was actually a response to the refugee crisis. 90% of mass shootings in America are done by non-muslims.

Source

That is your response, not mine. This is your contradictory comment that nulls your argument.

It also has no relevance to the topic of this thread.

I've refuted your argument many times already, just as I've done now.

 

It's a direct quote from Trump's proposal statement, which was issued after the Islamic attack in San Bernardino.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...mp-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Zero relevance.

I directly quoted you.

The topic of this thread is the hatred that is beyond comprehension that Muslims have towards non-believers who won't convert. When a Muslim massacres 50 non-believers who won't convert in the name of Allah, it is directly relevant to the thread about banning Muslims who commit murder against non-believers who won't convert.

You didn't refute anything now, or in the past.

 

Where does the article mention San Bernardino?

Syed Rizwan Farook is a U.S. citizen and his wife is a permanent resident. So how exactly is this a response to the San Bernardino shooting? It's more aligned with the Paris mass shooting.

As you said yourself.

Both would be unaffected by his proposal.

It's actually funny because Donald Trump himself is backpedaling on his stance on the banning of muslims, it was clearly a ploy to gain numbers in the polls last year.

Source

Read your own posts, sir.

He wants to ban Muslims because they are responsible for 10% of mass shootings, right? If he wanted to ban a certain group of people because they commit violence against Americans, it would make sense to target the largest group responsible for mass shootings, which would be Caucasians.

You quoted yourself actually. I didn't say:

You did.

The topic of this thread is Donald Trump's proposal, it's in the title.

Refute - prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

Is that why you keep changing the subject after I respond to you?

 

Both are Muslims. The proposal bans Muslims.

Categorically no. Read Trump's proposal, and the reasons he gave:

This is what I said you said:

Stop dodging the proof that "If there were no planes, planes couldn't crash into buildings" is valid logic, therefore, not a rebuttal to the valid argument I already provided.

That is a direct quote from Donad Trump's proposal...

 

From entering the U.S., they are already in the U.S.

It was a joke. Your explanation for the entry ban is because "Muslims commit violence against Americans". It's funny because the last 2 mass shootings in the U.S. that involved Muslims weren't from Muslim immigrants, they're natives. Also, that is reasoning I'd expect from a 1st grader.

Do you even know what a rebuttal is? That clearly isn't a rebuttal.

You're joking, right?

Topic - a matter dealt with in a text, discourse, or conversation; a subject.

Topic of this thread (subject) is Donald Trump's proposal (subject usually 100% in the title).

Original post of this thread literally discusses Donald Trump's proposal.

 

If you already have cancer, does that mean you should keep smoking? Saying "We already have violent Muslims in the US" is not a reason to be against importing more violent Muslims.

The victims don't care whether or not the Muslims blowing up the airport, crashing planes into buildings, bombing the marathon they're running, or shooting them is a Muslim immigrant, or a native born Muslim.

Saying "We already have violent Muslims in the US" is not a reason to be against importing more violent Muslims.

I know. You clearly didn't rebut my argument.

 

There you go again using poor mental gymnastics.

How would the San Bernardino and Orlando shooters be affected by Trump's proposal?

The proposal bans entry of Muslims. Even if Trump's proposal was effective prior to the mass shootings, what effect would it have? I'm not arguing that Muslims should be allowed to enter the U.S., I'm simply asking, as I've been asking for the past 3-4 pages now, what effect would it have on the Orlando mass shooting?

Then you clearly haven't been reading my posts.

 

Trump has proposed to ban Muslims from immigrating. All Muslims involved in both of those killings were Muslim immigrants or born US citizens as a result of Muslim immigration.

If Muslims were not able to immigrate, all of these violent Islamic killers would be killing people in their violent Islamic countries instead of the United States.

It would have prevented it, because the violent Islamic killers would all be in their violent Islamic countries instead of the United States.

Saying you already rebutted me is not a rebuttal, I see you included no reference to your alleged "previous rebuttal".

 

But you said...

Are you confusing yourself?

Prevented it? How so?

You don't know the definition of rebuttal if you think the quoted post of me using your logic is a rebuttal. It was to illustrate your immature thinking process.

 

We aren't talking about a future Trump ban, we are talking about how the killings would have been prevented if there was Muslim ban PRIOR TO the attacks:

 

You didn't quote that specifically, but I'm talking about preceding the incident, you considering decades prior is not practical for the many reasons I've already detailed in the last 3-4 pages.

You're using your immature logic again.

"If aircrafts weren't created, 9/11 wouldn't happen"

Faulty logic. You don't need aircrafts to commit mass terror and assuming the event wouldn't have happened if an aircraft wasn't used is impractical.

That's like saying if Guns didn't exist, mass murders wouldn't happen on a significant scale. There are other means of killing people in large amounts.

 

Moving the goalposts. You asked how a prior Muslim ban would have stopped these Muslim attacks, and I proved it.

I didn't say this. More refusal to use DIRECT quotes, because strawmanning allows you to never admit you are wrong.

I never claimed that mass murders wouldn't happen if Muslims didn't exist. I only proved to you that the Orlando Islamic massacre wouldn't have occured if Muslims were banned from entering the US.

 

You don't even know the meaning of these fallacies, heck, you don't even know the meaning of the many words you use.

I've already refuted that argument in the last 3 pages. I'll reiterate.

Trump's proposal is a temporary one. If it was effective prior (using any time frame), it doesn't cancel out the possibility of either offenders becoming U.S. citizens. So no, there is no "prevention".

Who said you said that? You did agree to it however.

You agreed that 9/11 wouldn't happen if aircrafts weren't created. Backpedaling again? This wouldn't be the first time.

 

Here's a time frame that it 100% cancels out the possibility of all the Muslim murderers mentioned becoming U.S. citizens: 1960-2016. 100% prevention.

Objectively false strawman. I said this:

 

A temporary proposal extending for half a century isn't practical, nor makes sense.

Strawman how? You said "You are correct". 9/11 doesn't revolve around aircrafts, it revolves around the towers collapsing. You can use other means to collapse the towers. There is the fault in that logic you agreed with.

 

Muslims have been killing infidels for 1400 years. A 50 year ban makes absolutely practical sense.

Which is why I correctly said "If there were no such thing as aircrafts, aircrafts cannot be flown into buildings"

Which is not the same claim as the strawman you quoted falsely:

The claim "If there were no such thing as aircrafts, aircrafts cannot be flown into buildings" is not the same claim as "Muslims are only able to use aircraft to murder thousands of innocent people in buildings"

If you take away the aircraft, 9/11 may still happen, it wasn't the first time the WTC had been attacked by Muslim terrorists.

 

You're ignoring the point that a 50+ year stint isn't "temporary".

"If aircrafts weren't invented, 9/11 wouldn't have happened." is one statement. You agreed to that statement. You are objectively 100% wrong.

Who made that claim? You're pulling crap out of your ass at this point.

 

Trump's proposal does not list a number of years. It's indefinite.

 

What's banning Muslims going to do? Trumps iq is the negative range.

 

Islamic bombing & hotel siege in Mogadishu leaves at least 7 dead.

https://www.rt.com/news/348364-somalia-militants-storm-hotel/

Islam's death count continues to rise above 100 million.