APHIS AG said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Jinx said:

---

Classy as always.

---

Especially Ilhan...

Quote:

---

while the worst "Congressman/woman" in our Country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the U.S.A. illegally in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how "badly" she is treated, when her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of Government, Military, Police, schools, etc.

---

---

This is what makes Trump a non politician when he speaks the truth about the crap hole countries that keep sending us their degenerates.

And this is why he was elected.

---

He's still sending the Taliban $40-80 million per week pallets of straight cash. We're paying stipends to families of dead Taliban fighters.

We hosted a terrorist (Syrian president) in Washington last week.

We're halting visas from Muslim countries. Why were we giving them to begin with?

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Jinx said:

---

Classy as always.

---

Especially Ilhan...

Quote:

---

while the worst "Congressman/woman" in our Country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the U.S.A. illegally in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how "badly" she is treated, when her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of Government, Military, Police, schools, etc.

---

---

This is what makes Trump a non politician when he speaks the truth about the crap hole countries that keep sending us their degenerates.

And this is why he was elected.

---

He's still sending the Taliban $40-80 million per week pallets of straight cash. We're paying stipends to families of dead Taliban fighters.

We hosted a terrorist (Syrian president) in Washington last week.

We're halting visas from Muslim countries. Why were we giving them to begin with?

---

These are all very valid questions. Hosting the Syrian president who is/was 100% al qaeda, really makes me question what the hell is going on.

I did also see that Iran is crying to FIFA because we're denying all their World Cup related visas. Good.

The thing to be mindful of that our leaders other than Trump (on both sides of the Atlantic) misread and overlook is it is precisely the more backwards and fundamentalist minded you do NOT want to admit. Bringing Afghans here was a bad idea, and so is any Salafi. Because the closer and more literal the sect or person adheres to the early takes, the more the violence is permitted by implication, the more jihad becomes conquest, not struggle.

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

---

Thanks for answering. I wouldn't say not abandoning those terms by itself makes one woke. I just do think yes, the abuse has almost robbed them of any significance. But on this specific case it was all the more interesting that you are willing to say these particular "should not have been given asylum" and should have been blocked from coming in, and deported if here. It actually is exactly the right view --- it is the fundamentalist minded, the "return to the violent foundations" of early Islam brands -- that should never come here. And you are right -- if you have someone with the brass (Trump may have it and `3rd world' is close enough here for the sects) to make that necessary arbitrary distinction, than other Muslims established here can be kept clear of being needlessly caught up in it. Many of them learned a whole different variety of it.

I doubt much will come of this. The CIA doesn't want the world to see us turn these guys over to the taliban for public execution. It would make it harder to find recruits in Venezuela, for instance.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Jinx said:

---

Classy as always.

---

Especially Ilhan...

Quote:

---

while the worst "Congressman/woman" in our Country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the U.S.A. illegally in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how "badly" she is treated, when her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of Government, Military, Police, schools, etc.

---

---

This is what makes Trump a non politician when he speaks the truth about the crap hole countries that keep sending us their degenerates.

And this is why he was elected.

---

He's still sending the Taliban $40-80 million per week pallets of straight cash. We're paying stipends to families of dead Taliban fighters.

We hosted a terrorist (Syrian president) in Washington last week.

We're halting visas from Muslim countries. Why were we giving them to begin with?

---

Need some proof of this. When I look it up I can't find any evidence of it. If we are doing this, how in the world is no one saying anything about it?

YouBet said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Jinx said:

---

Classy as always.

---

Especially Ilhan...

Quote:

---

while the worst "Congressman/woman" in our Country, Ilhan Omar, always wrapped in her swaddling hijab, and who probably came into the U.S.A. illegally in that you are not allowed to marry your brother, does nothing but hatefully complain about our Country, its Constitution, and how "badly" she is treated, when her place of origin is a decadent, backward, and crime ridden nation, which is essentially not even a country for lack of Government, Military, Police, schools, etc.

---

---

This is what makes Trump a non politician when he speaks the truth about the crap hole countries that keep sending us their degenerates.

And this is why he was elected.

---

He's still sending the Taliban $40-80 million per week pallets of straight cash. We're paying stipends to families of dead Taliban fighters.

We hosted a terrorist (Syrian president) in Washington last week.

We're halting visas from Muslim countries. Why were we giving them to begin with?

---

Need some proof of this. When I look it up I can't find any evidence of it. If we are doing this, how in the world is no one saying anything about it?

---

Part of that depends on taking the "former" role as "foreever defining". The Syrian President now is more like the issue with Ho Chih Minh --- once a guerilla fighter, terrorist that tends to be in the Mideast, and may be even part of the IS that Brennan & co were aligned with. Don't know, as don't know the particulars of his past terrorism (which is real).

But the point of the comparison is that events in history and diplomacy often require overlooking the past deeds of a ruler once they get to a certain level of power. You just have to deal with them. So all this reading into the visit to the WH is far too black and white because politics over there doesn't that work that way. It was Neocons bringing moralizing and world building into so much since the late 90's that have caused most of these disasters as Ted Cruz has so well outlined. It needs to be about our national interest.

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

---

Thanks for answering. I wouldn't say not abandoning those terms by itself makes one woke. I just do think yes, the abuse has almost robbed them of any significance. But on this specific case it was all the more interesting that you are willing to say these particular "should not have been given asylum" and should have been blocked from coming in, and deported if here. It actually is exactly the right view --- it is the fundamentalist minded, the "return to the violent foundations" of early Islam brands -- that should never come here. And you are right -- if you have someone with the brass (Trump may have it and `3rd world' is close enough here for the sects) to make that necessary arbitrary distinction, than other Muslims established here can be kept clear of being needlessly caught up in it. Many of them learned a whole different variety of it.

---

To be clear, my view relates to this specific case where the subjects have committed acts of terrorism. I don't believe that people who haven't committed acts of terrorism should be denied asylum based on their religious beliefs or country of origin. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion.

I would also point out that the term woke has been just as abused as any of those others in recent years. So I would ask you the same question. What do you consider "woke"?

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

---

Thanks for answering. I wouldn't say not abandoning those terms by itself makes one woke. I just do think yes, the abuse has almost robbed them of any significance. But on this specific case it was all the more interesting that you are willing to say these particular "should not have been given asylum" and should have been blocked from coming in, and deported if here. It actually is exactly the right view --- it is the fundamentalist minded, the "return to the violent foundations" of early Islam brands -- that should never come here. And you are right -- if you have someone with the brass (Trump may have it and `3rd world' is close enough here for the sects) to make that necessary arbitrary distinction, than other Muslims established here can be kept clear of being needlessly caught up in it. Many of them learned a whole different variety of it.

---

To be clear, my view relates to this specific case where the subjects have committed acts of terrorism. I don't believe that people who haven't committed acts of terrorism should be denied asylum based on their religious beliefs or country of origin. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion.

I would also point out that the term woke has been just as abused as any of those others in recent years. So I would ask you the same question. What do you consider "woke"?

---

I think that would derail the thread, as it was yourself saying "if it makes you woke" than so be it, and I specifically said your view DOES NOT make you that. Let's stay on the question of how you define who to bar admittance to and if necessary expel among Muslims here.

(Not to dodge your question outright---it would just way too digress, but the definition would start with the deeply anti-West and anti-capitalism tone, the obvious socialist-Marxist marination -- and the deviant mainstreaming attempt of the gender-bender agenda)

I'm really just talking about us paying the Taliban. There are no direct payments to them and Trump halted aid to Afghanistan in April, so I'm not sure what this claim is based on.

I think it's fake news.

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

---

Thanks for answering. I wouldn't say not abandoning those terms by itself makes one woke. I just do think yes, the abuse has almost robbed them of any significance. But on this specific case it was all the more interesting that you are willing to say these particular "should not have been given asylum" and should have been blocked from coming in, and deported if here. It actually is exactly the right view --- it is the fundamentalist minded, the "return to the violent foundations" of early Islam brands -- that should never come here. And you are right -- if you have someone with the brass (Trump may have it and `3rd world' is close enough here for the sects) to make that necessary arbitrary distinction, than other Muslims established here can be kept clear of being needlessly caught up in it. Many of them learned a whole different variety of it.

---

To be clear, my view relates to this specific case where the subjects have committed acts of terrorism. I don't believe that people who haven't committed acts of terrorism should be denied asylum based on their religious beliefs or country of origin. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion.

I would also point out that the term woke has been just as abused as any of those others in recent years. So I would ask you the same question. What do you consider "woke"?

---

I do believe Muslims should be denied based on Islam, it has offered the world nothing since 600 AD. Once Islam takes over learning stops.

" the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma'moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year""

Agreed. Zero reason to let them in. It's simply risk-reward. There is nothing in the reward column for letting in an inferior culture that contributes nothing to society other than consuming tax dollars. Add in the comparatively high risk of them murdering native Americans because they are commanded to and it's a no brainer to prevent any more from coming here.

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

titan said:

---

esteban said:

---

The media has given people the notion that these guys were just interpreters. Many of them are literal terrorists. The only reason we let them come here is because they committed acts of terrorism on our behalf.

I say this as someone who is ardently pro-immigration and abhors Islamophobia in all its forms: these guys should not have been given asylum. They betrayed and slaughtered their own people. What makes anyone think they won't do the same to us? They should go home and face the music.

---

That's an interesting blend of takes. How do you distinguish will be the trick. What do you consider "Islamophobia" ? In the sense that phobia usually means an unwarranted fear or avoidance of something.

Mind, I am fully aware that there many good Muslims -- and don't mean in the sense of just good households but entire blocks that hold to less radical views and are closer at least religiously to Christians who just take the witness seriously. There have also been civilized Islamic governments (with their share of bad but not outsize) . Even jihad is seen by many as more a defensive thing, and not wanton violence. That all being said, what do you call "Islamophobia"???

---

I would define it as an irrational fear of Muslims, resulting in religious bigotry against them. Blaming all Muslims for the actions of violent jihadists would be islamophobic. Just like blaming all Jews for the actions of violent zionists would be antisemitic.

It's a reasonable question on your part. The media has certainly abused the term in the same way they've abused racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc. But I choose not to abandon those terms, because they are real things and I still believe they are bad. If that makes me woke, then so be it.

---

Thanks for answering. I wouldn't say not abandoning those terms by itself makes one woke. I just do think yes, the abuse has almost robbed them of any significance. But on this specific case it was all the more interesting that you are willing to say these particular "should not have been given asylum" and should have been blocked from coming in, and deported if here. It actually is exactly the right view --- it is the fundamentalist minded, the "return to the violent foundations" of early Islam brands -- that should never come here. And you are right -- if you have someone with the brass (Trump may have it and `3rd world' is close enough here for the sects) to make that necessary arbitrary distinction, than other Muslims established here can be kept clear of being needlessly caught up in it. Many of them learned a whole different variety of it.

---

To be clear, my view relates to this specific case where the subjects have committed acts of terrorism. I don't believe that people who haven't committed acts of terrorism should be denied asylum based on their religious beliefs or country of origin. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians and any other religion.

I would also point out that the term woke has been just as abused as any of those others in recent years. So I would ask you the same question. What do you consider "woke"?

---

I think that would derail the thread, as it was yourself saying "if it makes you woke" than so be it, and I specifically said your view DOES NOT make you that. Let's stay on the question of how you define who to bar admittance to and if necessary expel among Muslims here.

(Not to dodge your question outright---it would just way too digress, but the definition would start with the deeply anti-West and anti-capitalism tone, the obvious socialist-Marxist marination -- and the deviant mainstreaming attempt of the gender-bender agenda)

---

I appreciate it. I have no problems with any of that, so you're more than welcome to call me woke. I take it as a compliment.

you are both woke and ignorant

which "crimes by zionists" have occurred here in the United States?

Birdwatcher said:

---

POTUS really believes in collective punishment based off one bad apple who was likely radicalized by ISIS on the internet. The same internet that right wing school shooters get radicalized on listening to Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. The poor girl who lost her life should have been on Thanksgiving holiday

---

pic.twitter.com/wEHuLUJdaG
This is a Muslim cleric in the United States. Listen carefully to what he says:

“Having sex with a nine-year-old girl, if she can get pregnant, is not considered sexual harassment and is permissible in Islam.”

Read that again.

This isn’t some fringe…

— Yossi BenYakar (@YossiBenYakar) November 27, 2025

Consider that in terms even as we try to get to the bottom of the whole Epstien abuse of girls. This is just summoning more regression to import.