Trump Wants To Ban Muslims Jimmy Carter Banned Muslims (Well Iranians to be truthfull)

[leibowde84]

Arguably, even fewer of the Iranians in Americastan at the time were our enemy.
I knew & still know them....they're here cuz they liked it here & were studying.
Was there even a single instance of an Iranian committing evil?
I don't recall any. If there were, they must've been few & small.
So I believe that Carter's actions were very wrong.
It's especially ironic because we attacked Iran first, & continued during Carter's reign.

I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm just saying that it is common practice to not allow citizens of the enemy to immigrate. Currently, we aren't at war with Islam.

 

[esmith]

I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm just saying that it is common practice to not allow citizens of the enemy to immigrate. Currently, we aren't at war with Islam.

Were we at war with Iran?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm just saying that it is common practice to not allow citizens of the enemy to immigrate. Currently, we aren't at war with Islam.

But Islam does correlate with terrorist attacks here.
I agree that we shouldn't go after all Iranians or Muslims.
To avoid unfair discrimination will have its costs, but I say it's ultimately the better course.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hi, Esmith. I hope you're doing well.

I don't know enough about the context behind Carter's decision to make an informed judgment about it, but do you agree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.? Just so that I'm more clear on things here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Were we at war with Iran?

Oh, boy....do I ever want to answer this.
But I'll let'm do it first.

 

[leibowde84]

But Islam does correlate with terrorist attacks here.
I agree that we shouldn't go after all Iranians or Muslims.
To avoid unfair discrimination will have its costs, but I say it's ultimately the better course.

I think we have to keep in mind that our favorability rating in the Muslim world is pretty freaking low. There are risks associated with actions like this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we have to keep in mind that our favorability rating in the Muslim world is pretty freaking low. There are risks associated with actions like this.

Aye, our behaving better towards Islamic countries is the best self defensive measure we could possibly take.

 

[columbus]

Oh, boy....do I ever want to answer this.
But I'll let'm do it first.

I totally agree.
I think USA/ Iranian recent history is worth it's own thread. It is very convoluted and has a lot to do with the current mess. Most USonian people are woefully ignorant about it.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Oh, boy....do I ever want to answer this.
But I'll let'm do it first.

No more than were then as we are now at war with radical Islamist.

 

[Revoltingest]

No more than were then as we are now at war with radical Islamist.

That's a bit to hard to dispute, since our war against Iran could be viewed as the same thing.
But I'd say they differ in that we aided Iraq (with aid, chem WMDs, & bio WMDs) in killing over 1,000,000 Iranians.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

This is the best analogy
We did have Japanese spies prior to & during WW2.
But were any Iranian students involved in any mischief?

That's irrelevant, you don't lock up an entire group for the actions of a few. In the UK, we should lock up all white, middle asged men because they have, statistically, the largest number of pedophiles but that won't happen and it shouldn't happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's irrelevant....

It's relevant in that there could very well have been benefits from reduced espionage & sabotage.

......you don't lock up an entire group for the actions of a few.

I agree.
Note that I'm not advocating such mass curbing of rights,
just analyzing why people lean towards it.

In the UK, we should lock up all white, middle asged men because they have, statistically, the largest number of pedophiles but that won't happen and it shouldn't happen.

You needn't reductio ad absurdify me, bub....we agree about upholding civil liberties for all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Trump might have some Dem allies.....
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/loretta-sanchez-muslims-caliphate-terrorism-216656

A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.

 

[Sunstone]

Right, just as you think anything the Obama does is constitutional

Esmith, please quit polluting this forum with your lies about me. It does not reflect well on you.

 

[gsa]

That's irrelevant, you don't lock up an entire group for the actions of a few. In the UK, we should lock up all white, middle asged men because they have, statistically, the largest number of pedophiles but that won't happen and it shouldn't happen.

Given the recent Rotherham scandal, to say nothing of the historical practices of certain venerated religious figures in some Abrahamic religions, I'd be careful abut suggesting that white middle aged males account for any disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Given the recent Rotherham scandal, to say nothing of the historical practices of certain venerated religious figures in some Abrahamic religions, I'd be careful abut suggesting that white middle aged males account for any disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases.

Middle aged white men have been locked up in their hundreds and the largest pedophile in the history of Britain is Jimmy Saville, who likely abused over a thousand children, many of them disabled. 6 British men, from Muslim backgrounds does not equate to being the majority. But as I said, all white middle aged men should NOT be locked up because the actions of certain members of their community should not equate to the entire community being blamed.

And I don't need to be careful about "suggesting that white middle aged males account for any disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases", because that's a fact. I'd written a paper on it. Maybe you should do some similar level of research and then come back to me.

Btw, I knew 100% someone would bring up Rotherham lol You must be hanging out with Britain First eh?

 

[gsa]

Middle aged white men have been locked up in their hundreds and the largest pedophile in the history of Britain is Jimmy Saville, who likely abused over a thousand children, many of them disabled.

As though this demonstrates some kind of propensity on the part of white males.

6 British men, from Muslim backgrounds does not equate to being the majority.

Quite clearly, Rotherham did not involve six British men from Muslim backgrounds. In fact what was the conclusion of the final report? Oh right, over a thousand children subjected to child sexual abuse by a very large group of men of Muslim backgrounds, far beyond the low ball 6 number you try to use here.

But as I said, all white middle aged men should NOT be locked up because the actions of certain members of their community should not equate to the entire community being blamed.

Well I agree with you here. I also wouldn't round up Muslims simply because they are predisposed to violent jihad or using illegal marriages as a pretext to have sex with underage children.

And I don't need to be careful about "suggesting that white middle aged males account for any disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases", because that's a fact. I'd written a paper on it. Maybe you should do some similar level of research and then come back to me.

Really? Care to share your research? Because I doubt that is a fact. In the U.S. you would have an argument if you claimed that Caucasians (as defined by the U.S., inclusive of Arabs) were disproportionately responsible for the crime of child pornography, but not if you made a similar claim for child sexual abuse. Somehow, I doubt that the UK is an exception to this statistic.

Btw, I knew 100% someone would bring up Rotherham lol You must be hanging out with Britain First eh?

As though one needed to be a member of the BNP to challenge your racist distortions. No my friend, I am a liberal.

 

[dust1n]

CLAIM: President Jimmy Carter banned Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to Donald Trump's proposal to ban the entry of Muslims.

MIXTURE


WHAT'S TRUE: President Jimmy Carter announced sanctions against Iran in 1980, including the cancellation of visas for Iranian citizens.

WHAT'S FALSE: Carter's sanctions resembled Trump's suggestion to ban Muslims from entering or immigrating to the U.S.


ORIGIN:Following the 2 December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump controversially suggested (temporarily) barring all Muslims from entering the United States. During the ensuing debate over Trump's pronouncement, several web sites said that Trump's suggestion followed a precedent set by President Jimmy Carter barring Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1980...

Stripped of context (and if readers squinted very hard), Carter's remarks bore a passing resemblance to Trump's proposal. However, the announcement's title ("Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions") suggested that the passage was part of a larger foreign policy strategy undertaken in response to a specific crisis, which was clear to those who read the speech in full:

Ever since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women — their safety, their health, and their future — have been our central concern. We've made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.

Carter addressed the then-ongoing Iranian hostage crisis (which lasted for 444 days between 1979 and 1981) in the opening portion of his remarks:

"The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.

In a broader context of an ongoing, direct conflict between Iran and the United States, Carter announced immediate sanctions on Iran, which included a cessation of diplomatic relations, a prohibition on trade, and assessment of previously-frozen Iranian Government assets. Along with several other sanctions, Carter ordered the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas and a moratorium on new visas, with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations. After listing the intended sanctions, Carter explained the United States' impetus for them:

In order to minimize injury to the hostages, the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim's activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.

I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for five months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages."

Clearly, Carter's fourth sanction pertaining to visas for Iranian nationals was in no way a security measure. Sanctions by definition are a tactic short of direct military conflict to elicit cooperation by other nations, issued to achieve compliance through discomfort or inconvenience. Throughout his remarks, Carter emphasized that the sanctions were a result of "patience" on the part of the United States government in securing the hostages' release, sanctions that were imposed only when the U.S. felt certain that the Iranian government was complicit in the detention of several American citizens in "inhumane conditions." The situation was critical, and the sanctions were a last-resort measure.

Carter explicitly outlined the reasons behind the issuance of sanctions (including visa cancellation for Iranian nationals) and underscored his intent to pressure Iran's regime. By contrast, Trump's proposal was markedly different: not a sanction, but a security measure framed as a counterterrorism strategy, and one directed at all adherents of a particular religion (regardless of their nationalities) rather than citizens of a particular country. Moreover, Carter's sanctions occurred during a lengthy period of escalating conflict between Iran and the United States (while U.S. hostages remained in foreign captivity), but Trump's proposal came in response to a mass shooting perpetrated by an American citizen and his immigrant wife.

Finally, Carter's sanctions were applied to Iranian nationals as part of a clear objective to secure the release of the U.S. hostages without military intervention, whereas Trump's suggestion applied to a far broader cross-section of visa applicants, which he described as a measure to prevent terrorist attacks. Historically, Carter's sanctions bore closer resemblance to Kennedy administration-era sanctions on Cuba [PDF, PDF] than Trump's anti-immigration plan.

http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

As though this demonstrates some kind of propensity on the part of white males.



Quite clearly, Rotherham did not involve six British men from Muslim backgrounds. In fact what was the conclusion of the final report? Oh right, over a thousand children subjected to child sexual abuse by a very large group of men of Muslim backgrounds, far beyond the low ball 6 number you try to use here.



Well I agree with you here. I also wouldn't round up Muslims simply because they are predisposed to violent jihad or using illegal marriages as a pretext to have sex with underage children.



Really? Care to share your research? Because I doubt that is a fact. In the U.S. you would have an argument if you claimed that Caucasians (as defined by the U.S., inclusive of Arabs) were disproportionately responsible for the crime of child pornography, but not if you made a similar claim for child sexual abuse. Somehow, I doubt that the UK is an exception to this statistic.





As though one needed to be a member of the BNP to challenge your racist distortions. No my friend, I am a liberal.

Ah that tag of "liberal" your entire post is full of idiocy. I present facts, you present lies but yeah, keep at it you so called "liberal".

Also, get some reading comprehension lessons, as that is the only way you will understand my initial post.