Neo-neocon wonders what Hillary really meant:
…in Hillary’s “ISIS uses Trump to recruit” claim, isn’t Clinton really saying that all it takes to turn a significant number of Muslims into murderous barbaric ISIS recruits is the idea that a US presidential candidate might want to bar them from visiting or immigrating to this country? Isn’t that a powerful condemnation of the religion and its adherents—by Hillary? Are they so ready to kill that just a few words indicating they’re not allowed to come here would be enough to ignite them and inspire a lot of people to join the ranks of the murderous terrorists of ISIS?
Seems awfully Islamophobic to me, not to mention bigoted. And furthermore, does that mean she’s saying that we have to make nice to them and welcome them into this country, or more of them will want to kill us?
As I’ve often said, the Left’s unwillingness to grant moral agency to Muslims, saying that they have no self control and everything they do is a reaction to us, is profoundly racist.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: Muslim women say to stop wearing the hijab in solidarity with us. The Left has a profound cognitive dissonance in talking about an imaginary Republican “war on women” while ignoring a very real Muslim one.
does that mean she’s saying that we have to make nice to them and welcome them into this country, or more of them will want to kill us?
Someone (Jim??) needs to explain how that is not exactly what she is saying.
Of course we don’t have to welcome Muslims to the U.S. But if the rationale for keeping them out is to reduce the number of terrorist attacks, it’s worth considering the possibility that such a policy may have precisely the opposite effect.
You realized you just proved the point that Neoneocon was making?
What happens when Muslims find out about things Richard Dawkins and other atheists say about them? If violence is the default to any criticism or disagreement, how can Muslims survive in the USA where about 50% of the people have a jacka** as their party mascot and view being offensive to others as a birthright?
Jim, issues can never sanely be viewed in isolation, so on the topic of Muslim immigration, one can’t sanely think of it only in terms of terrorism. The other glaring issue is culture.
Large scale islamic immigration has profound effects well beyond terrorism, so much so that to me, terrorism is the lessor concern. The islamic areas of Europe are an ideal example; the values your side claims to hold above all others don’t exist there. Gay rights, women’s equality, secularism, etc, etc, are rejected outright by the culture the majority there adhere to, and they often seek to impose those views on others.
Your side has long railed against the American religious right, and IMHO in many cases your reasoning has been sound in that regard (especially regarding those who seek to impose their religious views on others).
My question to you, then, is why do you find muslims, who are on average vastly worse on every one of these issues than the American religious right, acceptable?
To name a case in point, I note that the left is making a practice of targeting christian-owned bakeries and asking them to make gay wedding cakes, in the hope they will refuse and thus break the law. So, why in your view (assuming this is your view; my apologies if not) is it okay to do that to christian bakeries, but not to muslim ones?
Bakeries owned by Muslims have the same obligations under the law as bakeries owned by Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or anyone else. Our laws should not discriminate. Trump’s proposal is to discriminate, to specifically treat Muslims differently, simply because they are Muslims. That sort of discrimination feeds right into the extremists’ notion that the U.S. is prejudiced against Muslims.
That sort of discrimination feeds right into the extremists’ notion that the U.S. is prejudiced against Muslims.
Good lord you’re a broken record. You do realize that every time one of you proggy pinheads brings up that trope another gay-stoner in Raqqa suffers a hernia from laughing too hard right?
But keep in mind, ISIS isn’t using Trump for recruitment, Democrats are, and that Democrats are saying that ISIS would be justified in attacks like Kerry did in France. This is appeasing, sympathyzing, and supporting Islamic terror.
It is also nonsense, you know that ISIS would not go away if Trump wasn’t running for President just like Islamic terror wasn’t because of Bush.
Have you watched any of the videos ISIS uses for recruitment? You should use some primary sources for research. I don’t watch all of the videos but none of the ones I have seen deal in any way with the things Democrats say are the real motivations of ISIS.
For about 3 seconds, Jim. Then sane people remember that plenty of them are already willing to do all sorts of bad things to spread Islam. Remember how the US was having its ships siezed and crews impressed by Muslims only a few years after the founding?
We can consider. But we can also acknowledge the fact that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both prominent in ISIS recruiting videos. In the case of Bill, it even mentions his infidelity. So perhaps Hillary should do more to satisfy her husband, so that he is not used in ISIS recruitment videos. Shouldn’t we consider that value, if we are to consider everyone’s value?
I think she is just saying things to get media attention, just like Trump. She doesn’t care what the attention is, so long as it is not related to emails.
Frankly, the comment about Trump is hardly as insulting as her claims that the parents of people she lost in Benghazi are lying. Or that all women should be believed about rape, except those who claim to be raped by her husband or is accusing on of her clients. A person could write a book just on the depth of her lies and the evidence that clearly shows she is lying.
Attention and deflection to prevent Democrat looking at how the policies of their own party have encouraged and sympathized with Islamic terrorist groups.
We all know that ISIS wants another Democrat president more than anything else.
Hillary flat out lied regarding Trump appearing in ISIS recruiting vids.
However, this is very amusing when one considered the absolute fact that she happens to be married to someone who does. (they call Bill Clinton a fornicator, amongst other things, in their recruiting vid featuring him).
Also, were I Hillary, I’d be rather reluctant to be reminding people of past false claims about videos (Benghazi).