"First of all: Mass immigration by muslims uinto the US? Where? When? All I can see is that Europe has to take the blunt of refugees. Muslims in 2016 made up 0.9 percent of the population of the US. That's nearly five times less than here in Germany."
Yup, Europe has an even bigger problem.
Also even with the 1% of Americans being Muslim, the number used to be much much lower. Ideally there should be 0% Muslim just as there should be 0% Nazis and 0% communists and 0% people who think drinking bleach is good. I'm not saying I want harm upon them, I'm saying I wish they would realize what a deeply flawed and fascist religion it is and join some other religion or become atheists or agnostics. ANYTHING would be a huge improvement. Even if they all joined Westboro Baptist Church and WBC suddenly gained 3 million members it would still be preferable to Islam because at least WBC is all talk, no action.
"Yeah well tough luck trying that. You know that the US has very lucrative deals and a military alliance with Saudi-Arabia?"
Yup and that needs to change. Even if a president couldn't get it done, I would at least appreciate him for the honest effort.
I'd even support a Democrat over a Republican if one worked towards those goals while the Republican was "business as usual" on the topic (let's say if Atheism-Is-Unstoppable, a leftist who's not pro-Islam, ran against Bush or Romney, I'd support AIU just on the Islam issue alone). It is THAT big of a deal. It's not going to happen but who knows, maybe one of these days the Democratic Party will have a wake up call and realize that Islam is a fascist ideology that goes against everything they stand for just as much as the KKK. Anyway, PURELY hypothetical.
"And that there is no way a president can make his country energy independent in 8 years?"
Sure there is, America has plenty of resources that aren't exploited to the max.
"I mean, he tried that by accelerating the developement of alternative energy sources (the US is seriously lacking in that regard) and moving away from oil but he faced serious opposition by the GOP there. Knowing Trump he wants to go back to even stronger relationships with Saudi-Arabia. And putting pressure on a state which has other partners is not really easy."
We'll see about that. His immigration ban should still fix something if he implements it. That is the most important aspect actually. They can't commit terror attacks if they can't even get in the country. Their operations wouldn't fully disappear but their options would be severely limited.
"Ok, this is my opinion only, so be aware: You can't just force a system of government onto the people of another country."
And yet it was done to Germany and Japan since they were the losers of WW2. Yes. You. Can.
"Change jhas to come from within, otherwise all this would lead to would be further bloodshed and chaos."
Ataturk did it in Turkey inspired by western values. So technically from within, but not without outside influence. I'd say he was a least partially successful (at least successful while alive after his death things kinda fell apart and now you have an Islamic supremacist Erdogan turning Turkey into Sharialand).
"Which "secular or atheist" group?"
Well okay there aren't that many, but maybe you'll find a few disgruntled groups. Some youth in Iran are only Muslims in name only but ideologically atheists I heard.
It's either that or a shitty deal or open war. That regime cannot continue to exist.
"The ones appearing under Saddams regime or the ones appearing after the destruction caused by the Iraq war? They don't exist! And actually Sadams was such a regime as well, just a different subset of Islam (I think sunnitic, while the current one is shiitic, but don't quote me on that.)"
Saddam was a Ba'athist tyrant. I doubt he ever cared about Islam sincerely.
"Ok, fair point. It's just that the US isn't the sole decision maker in the NATO, so Obama couldn't just do that."
He didn't try it either or even reprimand Erdogan in any way.
"So nearly every country except parts of the EU, Canada and Australia?"
Not necessarily. Plenty of non-western countries get along with the US.
"And 9/11 had NOTHING to do with immigration (none of the terrorists who kidnapped the airplanes were american citizens as far as I know). And wasn't one of the sacred values of the US that it was built upon immigration?"
Almost all the attackers came from Saudi Arabia, they were NOT Americans. If Trump's ban had been in place, they wouldn't have entered.
"Oh yeah, he will totally do that. You are overestimating the influence of the US on Syria extremely. The main partner of Syria is Russia and as long as they give Assad free reign he will hunt down dissidents as long as he wants to. Obama couldn't have done much about that either."
Yeah maybe if the US didn't antagonize Assad so much it would be easier to work with him.
In any case, the refugee flow must stop.
Ultimately he's a pragmatist, I doubt he cares about Islam or any ideology. Why is it bad for the US or the west if Assad is in power? He hasn't attacked anyone.
"Oh please spare me the myth that Reagan somehow convinced the russians to dissolve the Sowjet Union. It did collapse all on its own. I believe Obama has spoken multiple times about helping moderate muslims and furthering a nonfundamentalist interpretation of the Islam. Beyond that he has no power over whether such changes will happen or not."
Even if we grant that, Islam as a political force hasn't collapsed and yet it's been 1400 years. Don't expect it in your lifetime without action. This problem isn't going away on its own.
"No, no and no. The first amendment doesn't protect them anyway, since it only states that the state can't further a specific religion nor deny it rights the others have. And everything else is covered by other laws. No terrorist or hate speech church/mosque has gotten away because of the first amendment. Changing such a fundementally important amendment could pave the way for a theocracy instead of stopping it (the US has much more problems with the influence of evangelical churches on the government anyway)."
How would an explicitly anti-theocratic amendment pave the way for theocracy? The worst that might happen is secularism being taken too far (i.e. too aggressively), but if the text is written right (there are people who can do that better than I can even imagine), it shouldn't.
But no what you said isn't actually true. Someone once wrote that the "Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization FROM WITHIN" "by their hands" - this is clearly seditious incitement and yet it's perfectly legal because it's not explicitly violent enough. That needs to change. We don't need to tolerate our destruction in the name of liberty.