by Jack
“Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror. It’s wrong, and it’s dangerous.” Hillary Clinton 6/12/16
The above sounds pretty reasonable doesn’t it? Sure, sounds very reasonable, but unfortunately it represents a perception problem…a false perception problem. It’s the part about the vast majority of Muslims loving freedom. It’s just not true, at least by any definition of freedom I know. But, for the liberals, the view through the rose colored glasses is far preferable to harsh truth, which could offend the Muslims they are trying to shield.
The truth is the majority of Muslims believe in Sharia Law and Sharia law undercuts all sorts of civil rights embrace 
. But, please don’t take my word for it and for sure, don’t take Hillary-the-liar’s word for it. Do your own due diligence and see what scientific research polling has to say about what Muslims really believe. I did and some of my research is posted below and in the chart on the right. As you can see in the Pew chart there are many countries where the overwhelming majority of Muslims embrace Sharia Law. Our Bill of Rights and Sharia Law mix about as well as oil and water, but you won’t hear Hillary or Obama say that!
There are 1.62 billion Muslims in the world today and the latest Pew polling shows that 1.1 billion Muslims say Sharia law should be the rule of law. 1.39 billion say the wife should obey the husband and 748 million Muslims think that adultery should be punished by death. 600 million Muslims think those who leave their religion should be put to death. Sharia law includes rules for wife beating, how women must dress in a berka, child exploitation and molestation, and many more things we find abhorrent in a free and enlightened society.
“Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.” These stats could all change quickly, because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muslims are giving birth faster than any other religious counterpart and in many areas of Europe they are becoming a dominant force.
I don’t know about you, but I really don’t people coming to America who believe in the death penalty for changing your religion or honor killings. Granted, that is diversity, but does that kind of diversity make us stronger? You tell me.
In light of the above information doesn’t it disturb you that Hillary would make such a misleading statement? It should, because she is going to craft immigration policy and many other polices around this politically correct lie. This is going to put you and your family at risk and weaken the security of this nation. Obama’s reluctance to challenge Islam’s uncivil and unequal idea of rights has put us years behind our fight against ISLAMIC terrorism. Denial and appeasement won’t win this one. Trump says we should block immigration from radical terrorist laden Islamic countries until we have a handle on who we’re letting in, that’s just common sense, but it’s a lot better than what Hillary-the-liar is saying.
1) I’ve explained at least twice in the last day that sharia law simply means God’s law, and that different Muslims interpret it differently. It is not one particular legal code with specific rules, as you once again falsely claim. Before you could be granted the benefit of the doubt, and claim ignorance. Now you are simply telling a lie.
2) You are once again responding to complaints about inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric…by engaging in inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric. This is hypocritical and whiny. Admit you are anti-Muslim; say it proudly. I will still disagree with you and believe your position is ignorant and hateful, but at least you will no longer have to lie and claim you are not anti-Muslim when you prove that’s exactly what you are with every word you write on the topic.
3) Please back up your claim that 75% of Muslim men beat their wives, or admit you made this statistic up.
What does “anti-Muslim” mean Chris. What do you mean when you say it?
Jack just gave you information about the actual beliefs and practices of Muslims, many of them in nations that either support or are under the authority of people that are anti-American and anti-freedom.
And the only thing you can think of is that his motivation for offering this information is bigotry. Nothing else occurs to you.
What a thinker!
Sure, Tina. Anti-Muslim means believing that we should discriminate against Muslims by banning them from immigrating here on the basis of their religion. It also means making up bogus statistics such as “75% of Muslim men beat their wives.”
If it means nothing else, it means that.
Jack left out the parts of the Pew poll that referred to American Muslims. Those stats show that Muslims who come here are largely no different from other religious Americans. Leaving that out while pointing only to the more negative statistics does strike me as a sign of bigotry. (But then, I doubt Jack was aware of those stats; he almost certainly did not get his info straight from Pew, but from an anti-Muslim blog which only highlighted the negative results.)
“Jack left out the parts of the Pew poll that referred to American Muslims. Those stats show that Muslims who come here are largely no different from other religious Americans.”
Which shows Jack’s not particularly worried about most American Muslims…that should make you happy.
At the same time, 4 out of 4 of the major terror attacks since Obama took office were committed by Muslims living in America who were not properly monitored, thwarted by the “see something say something” guideline, or not properly vetted by our government…and there were big red flags!
Amazingly the only thing this administration and people like you can think to do about it is call for more gun laws. Oh yeah, you’re also fond of making up PC language like “workplace violence,” and deflecting attention from the failures by attacking us as racists and bigots.
Keep it up, Chris…spin spin spin. You look more and more ridiculous all the time.
When the leader of our nation FAILS to lead, makes up silly words to describe horrific events, orders training manuals for those who are supposed to keep us safe SCRUBBED of language that would identify or describe the enemy, the people eventually step forward to supply the obvious!
Obama says he controls his language because he doesn’t want to make them mad. Calling them the JV team doesn’t make them mad? They see his response as a sign of weakness and of their superiority and boy have they shown him (us). The President sends the message that America deserves to be attacked and our people killed. The President sends the message that these terrorists and their religious, political, and social beliefs are superior. The constant drumbeat that half of the American population “hates Muslims” and are “racist” is really a good message too. I’m sure it calms them right down. Is that the message you intend to send with your baseless, inflammatory accusations? m sympathetic?
“Those stats show that Muslims who come here are largely no different from other religious Americans.”
That’s been true but is it still true?
Bush kept us safe for seven years and thwarted a lot of attacks on our soil. He was strong. He stood up to the terrorists, to his critics, to the media, to enemies in the opposition party that worked to undermine everything he was doing. In the end he pretty much stood alone…but Americans were kept safe.
Obama is weak. His careful rhetoric hasn’t brought us together or calmed down the jihadsts, in fact it’s the opposite. The rapid rise and spread of the “jv team,” horrific attacks in America, and the decline in security in the US all point to the fact that what he is doing doesn’t work. Where is the outrage from all of you lefties?
Ah yes…you reserve that for us.
Tina: “Which shows Jack’s not particularly worried about most American Muslims…that should make you happy.”
It does, but it also makes me wonder why Jack is then against more Muslims becoming Americans. We have a proven way of spreading our values to the Muslim community. And he (and you) wish to cut that off because of fear of terror? That’s completely counterproductive.
“At the same time, 4 out of 4 of the major terror attacks since Obama took office were committed by Muslims living in America who were not properly monitored, thwarted by the “see something say something” guideline, or not properly vetted by our government…and there were big red flags!”
I’d be curious as to what you are considering a major terror attack and what you aren’t.
Also, none of those attacks were committed by Muslim immigrants, so I don’t see how a temporary ban on Muslim immigration would prevent future attacks.
“Amazingly the only thing this administration and people like you can think to do about it is call for more gun laws.”
But…you called for more gun laws. You said the Orlando terrorist shouldn’t have been able to buy guns because he was on the terror watch list. That is calling for a new gun law.
I actually have not called for any new gun laws since this event.
“Oh yeah, you’re also fond of making up PC language like “workplace violence,””
One time, Tina. I won’t defend it, and I don’t understand it, but you’re making it sound like this is common when it’s not.
“Obama says he controls his language because he doesn’t want to make them mad.”
No, that’s not even close to what he says. I have to explain this again?
Obama says (and Bush said) that he doesn’t use the phrase “Islamic terror” because it gives the group legitimacy they do not deserve, and alienates potential allies in the fight against ISIS. He also says he doesn’t use it because that is what they want to be called, and saying that they are “not truly Islamic” is an insult to them.
How do you interpret that as “he doesn’t want to make them mad?” Can you rebut his actual reasons for avoiding the phrase “Islamic,” or would you rather stick to rebutting fake reasons because that’s easier?
“The President sends the message that America deserves to be attacked and our people killed. The President sends the message that these terrorists and their religious, political, and social beliefs are superior.”
That’s absurd. There is no such message.
“The constant drumbeat that half of the American population “hates Muslims” and are “racist” is really a good message too.”
Ok, then. So stop sending the message that you hate Muslims. Calling for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration sends the message that you hate Muslims. Making up fake statistics like “75% of Muslim men beat their wives” sends the message that you hate Muslims. It is not Obama’s fault that you and your peers have done those things.
“Bush kept us safe for seven years and thwarted a lot of attacks on our soil.”
…If you ignore 9/11…which you just told us yesterday is wrong to do…so…your arguments are self-contradictory.
“He stood up to the terrorists…”
And he did it without threatening to ban an entire religious group from immigrating to the US. He did it while calling Islam a religion of peace. I don’t like a lot of what Bush did, but at least he knew how to talk about Islam better than conservatives now, and at least he didn’t overtly endorse bigotry like Trump now does.
You take it as a given that it’s Obama’s fault ISIS has grown in strength and ask me why that doesn’t outrage me, but you haven’t proven your premise.
Chris, you say below that the attacks in the US were not committed by immigrants so you don’t see how immigrants relate to the attacks. They relate to the attacks by raising the number of native born 2nd generation muslims, who ARE the ones doing the attacks.
What is your point, Susan? We can’t go back in time and stop the previous generation of Muslims from coming here. Are you suggesting we deport Muslims already here? That would go further than even Trump’s proposals which have already been condemned by the international community.
And the vast majority of 2nd generation Muslims assimilate just like every other American. The notion that we should prevent an entire religious group from immigrating just because a few have committed acts of terror is abhorrent, and totally antithetical to American values. (It is also, according to most terror experts, exactly what ISIS wants and would make our nation less, not more, safe. But no one here cares about that, which is why no one has addressed the arguments of these experts, nor cited experts who support Trump’s plan [there aren’t any].)
http://www.politifact.com/nbc/statements/2016/jun/18/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-theres-no-real-assimilation-us-/
A majority of Muslims around the world want sharia law to be implemented in their countries but are split on how it should be applied, according to a study released Tuesday.
The comprehensive Pew Research Center survey conducted between 2008 and 2012 focused on 38,000 people in 39 countries drawn from a global Muslim community of 2.2 billion people.
A solid majority, notably in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, were in favor of sharia — traditional Islamic law — being adopted as “the law of the land” in their countries, it found.
“But I would also note that support for making sharia law does vary,” said Jim Bell, Pew’s director of international survey research.
From 12 percent in Turkey, support for sharia as official national law stood at 56 percent in Tunisia, 71 percent in Nigeria, 72 percent in Indonesia, 74 percent in Egypt and 99 percent in Afghanistan.
But Princeton University professor Amaney Jamal, a special adviser to the Washington-based Pew Research Center, emphasized there is no one common understanding of sharia among all the world’s Muslims.
“Sharia has different meanings, definitions and understandings, based on the actual experiences of countries with or without sharia,” she said in a conference call with reporters analyzing the findings.
Titled “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” the study also revealed many Muslims favor applying sharia in the private sphere to settle family or property disputes.
However, in most countries surveyed, there was less support for severe punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.
A majority of Muslims are also in favor of freedom of religion, even while backing sharia.
In Pakistan, for example, 84 percent of Muslims want sharia enshrined as official law but 75 percent believe non-Muslims are free to practice their religion.
Around half of Muslims in the survey expressed concerns about religious extremism, particularly in Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia.
In most countries, a majority of Muslims said a wife must obey her husband, although a majority also said a woman should decide whether or not to wear a veil.
Most Muslims said they do not feel tension between their religion and modern life, prefer a democratic regime, and enjoy music or Western movies, even if such pastimes are sometimes regarded as undermining morality.
An overwhelming majority viewed prostitution, homosexuality, suicide or alcohol consumption as immoral but there are sharp differences on issues such as polygamy.
Only four percent polled in Bosnia and Herzegovina considered polygamy morally acceptable, against 87 percent in Niger.
A strong majority surveyed said so-called honor killings could never be justified. The only exceptions came in Afghanistan and Iraq, where majorities condoned executions of women deemed to have shamed their families by engaging in premarital sex or adultery.
Violence carried out in the name of Islam was also widely rejected.
In the United States, 81 percent of Muslims said such violence can “never” be justified — against a global median of 73 percent.
However, substantial minorities in Bangladesh, Egypt, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories said violence was permissible.
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/04/muslims-split-on-interpretation-of-sharia-law-and-religious-extremism/
But please, tell me more about this one law called “sharia” which all Muslims must follow to the letter.
Chris please tell us why this is a good thing: “There are 1.62 billion Muslims in the world today and the latest Pew polling shows that 1.1 billion Muslims say Sharia law should be the rule of law. 1.39 billion say the wife should obey the husband and 748 million Muslims think that adultery should be punished by death. 600 million Muslims think those who leave their religion should be put to death. Sharia law includes rules for wife beating, how women must dress in a berka, child exploitation and molestation, and many more things we find abhorrent in a free and enlightened society.”
“There are 1.62 billion Muslims in the world today and the latest Pew polling shows that 1.1 billion Muslims say Sharia law should be the rule of law.”
This is not a good thing. Who ever said it was? Do you think I approve of theocracies?
What *is* good is that the Pew results shows us that the vast majority of Muslims who say they want to live in a theocracy already do so. Muslims from non-theocratic countries were much less likely to support implementing Sharia law as the law of the land. This is completely unsurprising; they’ve developed the values of their home country.
But we can see from this poll that Muslims in non-theocratic countries are less likely to support sharia-run governments. Pew also notes that a majority of Muslims, even those in Muslim theocracies, say they only want sharia to apply to Muslims, not non-Muslims:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/
The poll does not appear to ask Muslim Americans if they think sharia should be the law of the land. But it does ask other relevant questions of Muslim Americans:
The survey also finds that compared with Muslims elsewhere, Muslim Americans are more supportive of the role of women in society. Virtually all Muslim Americans (90%) agree that women should be able to work outside of the home. Most (68%) also think that there is no difference between men and women political leaders. These are not the prevailing views of Muslims in most predominantly Muslim countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project…
Many Muslim Americans are highly religious: 69% say that religion is very important in their lives, and about half (47%) report at least weekly attendance at a mosque for prayer. Similarly, about half (48%) say they make all five salah prayers daily, and another 18% report making at least some salah daily.
By these measures, Muslims in the U.S. are about as religious as Christians in the United States: 70% of Christians say that religion is very important in their lives and 45% attend services at least weekly according to recent surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
The poll even found growing acceptance of homosexuality among Muslims: 39% say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while 45% say it should be discouraged. That’s still majority negative, but it has shown growth, and it is very different from the view that gays should be executed. I also wonder how these numbers compare to acceptance of gays among evangelical Christians.
So while the worldwide Muslim community does
harbor some horrifying views, our American Muslim community is, by all appearances, pretty accepting of American values.
What is your solution to changing the radical views of Middle Eastern Muslims, Jack? It can’t be to leave them stuck in their theocracies with no way to come to America. The calls to ban Islamic immigration will do nothing to solve the problems posed by radical Islam. It will only cut off the West from Islam, preventing more Muslims from adopting our values. It will only add to the problem. Again, Muslims in non-theocratic countries are far less likely to support barbaric interpretations of Islam.
“1.39 billion say the wife should obey the husband and 748 million Muslims think that adultery should be punished by death. 600 million Muslims think those who leave their religion should be put to death.”
Again, that’s horrible. And again, Muslims in non-theocratic countries were far less likely to support such things. What is your solution? If it’s cutting off Muslim immigration to Western countries, then those views will not change.
“Sharia law includes rules for wife beating, how women must dress in a berka, child exploitation and molestation, and many more things we find abhorrent in a free and enlightened society.”
Again, no. You are describing some interpretations of Sharia law, not “Sharia law” as a whole. While many of these practices are tolerated in some Muslim countries, it is not true of all of them. The burka especially is extremely rare and not mandated in most Islamic countries, so to say it is required by Sharia is ridiculous. Only the most extreme of the extreme interpret Sharia that way.
“The calls to ban Islamic immigration will do nothing to solve the problems posed by radical Islam.”
The purpose of the suggestion, now altered as “a temporary ‘pause’ until we can figure this out,” was NOT to “solve the problems posed by radical Islam. It was to get a handle on our vetting process. I’d add now to get a handle on our entire security establishment.
Why were the red flags not noticed. Why are Americans and our military personnel afraid to “say something” when they “see something?” There are holes in our security AND we can’t point out the Mulsim acting funny or we’ll be tarred and feathered as racist.
Good, bad? How about, it’s none of our business?
Muslims who want to come here know that Sharia is not the law of the land. We have a Constitution that embodies some, but not all, principles of Sharia, and that the government organized by this document prevents a lot of the nastiness they experience back home, which is why they want to come here.
Well, it is our business. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I know that sounds naive, but it’s true.
But the solutions offered by the Trump crowd would only make things worse.
What Chris does not understand is that sharia as practiced worldwide is mostly misogynistic, barbaric, backwards and brutal. Why is Chris so adamant to try and paint it as something it is not? Professional courtesy between progressives and Islam. Islam depends upon fools like Chris to defend it.
Well said, Pie! Couldn’t have said it better.
Ya gotta wonder why the men cling to sharia instead of allowing the women to be treated like humans. Those that defend sharia are no better than those who practice it daily.
Thank you, Jack. I appreciate this very much. You are saying what you really think. No weaseliness. No code. This is good.
And nobody can say you haven’t got a point. Islam has a huge PR problem, because aspects of Sharia are may more explicitly barbarous than anything those old Hebrews come up with, and to have those fundamentalist nut bunnies in Afghanistan lopping off limbs in this day and age … not good.
But, as the Pew reports, you are wrong about the majority of Muslims. And I believe that you are especially wrong about Muslims who want to come live here. There was a project back east somewhere. They set up Sharia courts in immigrant neighborhoods to arbitrate local disputes. You know, they don’t speak the language yet, they’re all at sea, they seem to be a rather contentious lot, their familiar with it, let’s try it. It only ran some months. They learned some English. They learned to navigate the system. Small claims works just as well. They didn’t need it anymore.
We make the rules perfectly clear. No limb lopping, no honor killing, no mutilating, none of that stuff. You wanna do that, you stay where you are. And we have very little trouble with it. Some, but not a lot. And the rest of Sharia: fasting, prayer, modesty, no drinking, and especially telling Visa/MasterCard to put it where the sun don’t shine … this is all good stuff, and will make the nation stronger, not weaker.
I also believe that to exclude an entire group for the transgressions of a few is immoral and violates the nation’s founding principles, and I’m not voting for anybody who thinks its a good idea. Lots of immoral things make common sense; they’re still immoral.
Well said, Libby.
I get the sense that America really has done a better job of integrating its Muslim population than other Western countries. Pew reports that most are middle class. The Muslim ghettos (what many have called “no go zones”) don’t exist here. We are better at assimilation. We’re a melting pot; that’s what makes America great. And yes, America already IS great.
This attack was horrendous, but it remains a rarity. The threat of Islamic terrorism is real. But I am more concerned about the threat to our values, to our nation’s soul. A terrorist can’t change our nation’s character. Not unless we let them.
Why are people following the Media and talking about Muslims while the Billionaires are raiding the USA?
Because we’re easily distracted, Dews. Call me a wishful thinker, but I like to think the Trump/Bern convergence has shaken them a little. This country is a very comfortable place to be revoltingly wealthy. They don’t want to mess that up.
Chris and Libby keep using the term “most Muslims.” Who the heck is worried about “most Muslims. We are, especially since 911, worried about Muslim terrorists. They derive their power and beliefs from the Qur’an and Hadith. Who can deny it and keep a straight face?
If Baptists were waging war on the Middle East in the same manner, Chris and Libby would say they were Christian terrorists. It wouldn’t matter that the Catholics or the Methodists were not involved it would only matter that they were Christian. If Christians were blowing people up, lopping off heads, setting people on fire, bringing down buildings they should be identified. (It would be difficult though since identifying, wearing a cross at work, has been discouraged so as not to “offend”)
Tina: ” Who the heck is worried about “most Muslims.”
Uh…Jack is. In this very article:
“.It’s the part about the vast majority of Muslims loving freedom. It’s just not true, at least by any definition of freedom I know…The truth is the majority of Muslims believe in Sharia Law and Sharia law undercuts all sorts of civil rights embrace…In light of the above information doesn’t it disturb you that Hillary would make such a misleading statement? It should, because she is going to craft immigration policy and many other polices around this politically correct lie. This is going to put you and your family at risk and weaken the security of this nation.”
How can you read this and then argue with a straight face that Jack isn’t worried about most Muslims? That’s the whole point of the article!
“If Baptists were waging war on the Middle East in the same manner, Chris and Libby would say they were Christian terrorists.”
Yes, and I call Muslim terrorists Muslim terrorists. The government doesn’t, for reasons previously described, and probably wouldn’t call Christian terrorists Christian terrorists for the same reasons.
I also doubt anyone would call for a temporary ban on Christian immigration, and if they did, they would rightly be called bigoted.
” (It would be difficult though since identifying, wearing a cross at work, has been discouraged so as not to “offend”)”
What evidence do you have for this?
We are concerned about most Muslims because you propose to treat them like terrorists, and they are not.
“(It would be difficult though since identifying, wearing a cross at work, has been discouraged so as not to “offend”)”
And this is yet another example of something that exists in your head, but no where else.
Jack:
“Trump says we should block immigration from radical terrorist laden Islamic countries until we have a handle on who we’re letting in, that’s just common sense”
Can you cite a single foreign policy or national security expert–from the left or right–that agrees Trump’s proposed ban is “common sense?”
So far neither you or Tina has done that, nor have you rebutted the concerns of the many experts who have spoken out against this plan. You just keep repeating that it’s common sense, over and over again, as if that will magically make the critiques of the plan go away.
Here is what some actual experts say:
What would be really hard for the US secretary of state is that there would be incredible diplomatic blowback on so many fronts. They would impose travel bans in retaliation against us…There would be American business leaders and people who travel [in those countries], people who have family there, cross-national marriages. There would be enormous pushback from several constituencies in the US, as long as you are not picking just on countries that we have no ties to, like North Korea or Yemen. And he’s talking about going much further than that…
Saudi Arabia—the energy situation. It boggles the mind to think of the diplomatic complications that would follow. Put yourself in the shoes of the [Saudi] king. Would it be like, “Oh, of course. We understand, Donald”? No! One of their first moves would be great limits on immigration by Americans. Then limits on business affiliations and any kind of commercial deals.
I don’t know enough about the details of those to know how it would go, but it would be treated as grossly offensive. There would be huge calls within those countries for drastic measures in response. That’s the kind of blowback the State Department would have to deal with.
http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-an-expert-how-trumps-anti-muslim-immigration-policy-would-work
The group’s objective is clear: to try to bait Western societies into an indiscriminate backlash against millions of Muslims living in Europe and the U.S. It is a backlash that, if successfully provoked, would disrupt these Muslims’ bonds with their countries of citizenship and residence and—as is it happened with Iraq’s Sunnis—validate Islamic State’s claim to be their only protector.
“ISIS thrives on polarization,” said Hassan Hassan, an expert on the group at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. “They want people to say—they hate us, and so we hate them. This is the foundation of their success.”
Islamic State itself outlined this strategy this year in its Dabiq magazine. The treatise posited as the group’s goal the “extinction of the gray zone”—otherwise known as peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West. Muslims living in Western countries, Dabiq predicted, “will quickly find themselves between one of two choices”—abandon their faith, or join Islamic State “and thereby escape persecution from crusader governments and citizens.”
This strategy of provoking a societal split and polarization isn’t exactly new. It builds on a 2004 book “Management of Savagery,” which outlines how cleavages in societies can be created and exploited and is among the most influential pieces of recent jihadist literature. And al Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America had a similar goal.
Back then, however, President George W. Bush worked to contain the danger to a great extent. Six days after the twin towers came down, he visited a mosque in Washington to proclaim that “the face of terror is not the true face of Islam.” He also said that women who wear the hijab “must feel comfortable going outside their homes” in America, and that those who take out their anger on ordinary Muslims “represent the worst of humankind.”
The reaction, on both shores of the Atlantic, is different today—even though Islamic State’s attacks in the West, so far, have been orders of magnitude less deadly or disruptive. There have been no retaliatory killings or pogroms. But openly racist language about Muslims, unlike 14 years ago, is no longer confined to the political fringe.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-aims-to-provoke-backlash-against-muslims-in-west-1449743581
It is “common sense” that such a policy would alienate our allies and provoke outrage among the world. It is common sense that banning Muslim immigration plays right into ISIS’ hands by further weakening the “gray zone.” It is common sense it will help with recruiting and strengthen the impression among potential radical Muslims in the ME that ISIS stands for them and the US hates them. This is why almost none of Trump’s fellow Republicans endorse his plan and why you have never cited a single expert who endorses it. It’s why you won’t bother addressing counter-arguments against the plan.
Don’t take ISIS’ bait. Don’t support this stupid plan that would lower America’s standing, lose international support and increase the likelihood of terror attacks.
Or do whatever you want. Trump isn’t going to win anyway.
Chris: “…it also makes me wonder why Jack is then against more Muslims becoming Americans.”
Are you that ignorant about what is going on in the world? Are you so blindly partisan and defensive that you fail to take in the information that clearly shows our immigration policy is not working and in particular the vetting process for potential terrorists? The guy who killed all those people in Orlando was taken off the terror watch list and worked for a security outfit. All of these people had coworkers or neighbors who after the fact reported suspicious speech or activity. Are they afraid to speak up because of the constant lecturing and suggestions that being critical of a Muslim makes you a racist or Islamophobe? Of course they are afraid to speak up!!! The president has created an atmosphere of division and fear. Your party is more animated in your hatred of conservative Americans than your hatred of the Muslims waging war on the world. What is wrong with your thought process? What biases do you unconsciously hold that causes such a distortion of perceptions? Or is it conscious? I hope it’s the former but I have my doubts.
Tina, nothing you just said answers my question. The Orlando attacker was not an immigrant; he was born in the United States. How would keeping Muslim immigrants out of the United States help? Especially since such a ban would alienate our allies and strengthen ISIS?
“Your party is more animated in your hatred of conservative Americans than your hatred of the Muslims waging war on the world.”
Tina … projection … it really is a real thing, and it’s in operation here. The hatred … it’s coming from somewhere else.
Or you’re being hyperbolic again.
Either way, you should knock it off. It is not effective rhetoric, mostly cause it isn’t true. We don’t “hate” either, and neither should you.