Sarah Haider's thoughts on the new "Muslim ban."

[op2]

I generally agree with Sarah on these issues. The following is from her Facebook page. Sarah Haider, BTW, is the co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America. She came to the US as a child and grew up (I think) in Texas and is now an unbeliever. Unlike so many on these issues, she neither thinks every Muslim is evil nor thinks we should pretend that any concern shown about Islamic fundamentalism is Islamophobia.


At times, doing "something" really is worse than doing nothing at all. The so-called "Muslim ban" is a perfect example of such an act. The worst aspect of fear is its capacity to overshadow our sense of reason at a time when we need it most.

To be clear: fear of Islamist terror is *not* irrational, but that doesn't mean any action taken in response is helpful.

To reiterate:
_____________________________

This ban does NOT:

1) Include the worst exporters/propagators of terror (Saudi Arabia primarily, but also countries like Egypt)

2) Include any countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers

3) Include the countries of origin of the Orlando shooter (U.S citizen, family from Afghanistan), nor of the San Bernardino couple (U.S / Saudi / Pakistan), nor the Boston Bombers (Kyrgyzstan / Soviet Union)

4) Prevent the rise of the "home-grown" terrorist, those who are citizens of the West by birth. An estimated half of British jihadis were born in the UK as children of immigrants, and the number of terrorists radicalized while residing in the West is reportedly rising.

5) Tackle the root of the problem head-on. Islamic terror is an *ideological* struggle, and the only lasting solution will be an intellectual dismantling of its tenets.

This ban WILL:

1) Give Islamists perfect fuel for their "victimhood" narrative, which they use to gain sympathy with Westerners and progressive Muslims alike.

2) Damage efforts to integrate Muslims in the West who can be a boon to the nation and to the fight against terror IF successfully integrated (or a detriment if alienated).

3) Separate families, with some members trapped in extremely unstable environments. This gives rise to feelings of despair and resentment from those who are already here and cannot help their loved ones.

4) Bar the gates to many refugees fleeing ISIS, the group facing the brunt of Islamist violence. While true victims have fewer chances of making a life here, actual terrorists can find other ways to come in.

5) Give us a false sense of security. An unearned feeling of accomplishment can be more dangerous than none at all.

 

[bamaEER]

I generally agree with Sarah on these issues. The following is from her Facebook page.


At times, doing "something" really is worse than doing nothing at all. The so-called "Muslim ban" is a perfect example of such an act. The worst aspect of fear is its capacity to overshadow our sense of reason at a time when we need it most.

To be clear: fear of Islamist terror is *not* irrational, but that doesn't mean any action taken in response is helpful.

To reiterate:
_____________________________

This ban does NOT:

1) Include the worst exporters/propagators of terror (Saudi Arabia primarily, but also countries like Egypt)

2) Include any countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers

3) Include the countries of origin of the Orlando shooter (U.S citizen, family from Afghanistan), nor of the San Bernardino couple (U.S / Saudi / Pakistan), nor the Boston Bombers (Kyrgyzstan / Soviet Union)

4) Prevent the rise of the "home-grown" terrorist, those who are citizens of the West by birth. An estimated half of British jihadis were born in the UK as children of immigrants, and the number of terrorists radicalized while residing in the West is reportedly rising.

5) Tackle the root of the problem head-on. Islamic terror is an *ideological* struggle, and the only lasting solution will be an intellectual dismantling of its tenets.

This ban WILL:

1) Give Islamists perfect fuel for their "victimhood" narrative, which they use to gain sympathy with Westerners and progressive Muslims alike.

2) Damage efforts to integrate Muslims in the West who can be a boon to the nation and to the fight against terror IF successfully integrated (or a detriment if alienated).

3) Separate families, with some members trapped in extremely unstable environments. This gives rise to feelings of despair and resentment from those who are already here and cannot help their loved ones.

4) Bar the gates to many refugees fleeing ISIS, the group facing the brunt of Islamist violence. While true victims have fewer chances of making a life here, actual terrorists can find other ways to come in.

5) Give us a false sense of security. An unearned feeling of accomplishment can be more dangerous than none at all.

#5 says it all really. It's a symbol, nothing more. Just like a wall.

 

[WVPATX]

I generally agree with Sarah on these issues. The following is from her Facebook page. Sarah Haider, BTW, is the co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America. She came to the US as a child and grew up (I think) in Texas and is now an unbeliever. Unlike so many on these issues, she neither thinks every Muslim is evil nor thinks we should pretend that any concern shown about Islamic fundamentalism is Islamophobia.


At times, doing "something" really is worse than doing nothing at all. The so-called "Muslim ban" is a perfect example of such an act. The worst aspect of fear is its capacity to overshadow our sense of reason at a time when we need it most.

To be clear: fear of Islamist terror is *not* irrational, but that doesn't mean any action taken in response is helpful.

To reiterate:
_____________________________

This ban does NOT:

1) Include the worst exporters/propagators of terror (Saudi Arabia primarily, but also countries like Egypt)

2) Include any countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers

3) Include the countries of origin of the Orlando shooter (U.S citizen, family from Afghanistan), nor of the San Bernardino couple (U.S / Saudi / Pakistan), nor the Boston Bombers (Kyrgyzstan / Soviet Union)

4) Prevent the rise of the "home-grown" terrorist, those who are citizens of the West by birth. An estimated half of British jihadis were born in the UK as children of immigrants, and the number of terrorists radicalized while residing in the West is reportedly rising.

5) Tackle the root of the problem head-on. Islamic terror is an *ideological* struggle, and the only lasting solution will be an intellectual dismantling of its tenets.

This ban WILL:

1) Give Islamists perfect fuel for their "victimhood" narrative, which they use to gain sympathy with Westerners and progressive Muslims alike.

2) Damage efforts to integrate Muslims in the West who can be a boon to the nation and to the fight against terror IF successfully integrated (or a detriment if alienated).

3) Separate families, with some members trapped in extremely unstable environments. This gives rise to feelings of despair and resentment from those who are already here and cannot help their loved ones.

4) Bar the gates to many refugees fleeing ISIS, the group facing the brunt of Islamist violence. While true victims have fewer chances of making a life here, actual terrorists can find other ways to come in.

5) Give us a false sense of security. An unearned feeling of accomplishment can be more dangerous than none at all.

You miss the entire reason for the temporary ban (90 days). Vetting. Each of the countries have either no functioning government or are leading exporters of terrorism.

This pause will give us time to assess how we can assess those wanting to come to this country. Since there is no functioning government or a government we can trust, how do we know who these people are? What is their paper trail? What criminal record exists, if any? Is it available? What mosque did they attend? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they on social media? If so, what can we find out? So many questions that we must have answers to.

I'm not sure why trying to protect American lives is so foreign to liberals. Open borders, open immigration, ISIS infiltrating migrant populations, Nice, Paris, London, Belgium, etc. Not logical.

 

[Airport]

I generally agree with Sarah on these issues. The following is from her Facebook page. Sarah Haider, BTW, is the co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America. She came to the US as a child and grew up (I think) in Texas and is now an unbeliever. Unlike so many on these issues, she neither thinks every Muslim is evil nor thinks we should pretend that any concern shown about Islamic fundamentalism is Islamophobia.


At times, doing "something" really is worse than doing nothing at all. The so-called "Muslim ban" is a perfect example of such an act. The worst aspect of fear is its capacity to overshadow our sense of reason at a time when we need it most.

To be clear: fear of Islamist terror is *not* irrational, but that doesn't mean any action taken in response is helpful.

To reiterate:
_____________________________

This ban does NOT:

1) Include the worst exporters/propagators of terror (Saudi Arabia primarily, but also countries like Egypt)

2) Include any countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers

3) Include the countries of origin of the Orlando shooter (U.S citizen, family from Afghanistan), nor of the San Bernardino couple (U.S / Saudi / Pakistan), nor the Boston Bombers (Kyrgyzstan / Soviet Union)

4) Prevent the rise of the "home-grown" terrorist, those who are citizens of the West by birth. An estimated half of British jihadis were born in the UK as children of immigrants, and the number of terrorists radicalized while residing in the West is reportedly rising.

5) Tackle the root of the problem head-on. Islamic terror is an *ideological* struggle, and the only lasting solution will be an intellectual dismantling of its tenets.

This ban WILL:

1) Give Islamists perfect fuel for their "victimhood" narrative, which they use to gain sympathy with Westerners and progressive Muslims alike.

2) Damage efforts to integrate Muslims in the West who can be a boon to the nation and to the fight against terror IF successfully integrated (or a detriment if alienated).

3) Separate families, with some members trapped in extremely unstable environments. This gives rise to feelings of despair and resentment from those who are already here and cannot help their loved ones.

4) Bar the gates to many refugees fleeing ISIS, the group facing the brunt of Islamist violence. While true victims have fewer chances of making a life here, actual terrorists can find other ways to come in.

5) Give us a false sense of security. An unearned feeling of accomplishment can be more dangerous than none at all.

The ban will
1. Completely stupid, they hate the west, 10% of 1.6 billion people beleive in the cause. That's 160 million for people with the latest in math skills.
2.As long as there is high unemployment in Europe and muslim areas have even more, they will never assimilate.
3. Until we kill enough of them, they will not stop.

 

[WVPATX]

Thei ban will
1. Completely stupid, they hate the west, 10% of 1.6 billion people beleive in the cause. That's 160 million for people with the latest in math skills.
2.As long as there is high unemployment in Europe and muslim areas have even more, they will never assimilate.
3. Until we kill enough of them, they will not stop.

Libs getting their panties in a wad over a 90 day ban to figure out how we can possibly vet these people when we have so little paper trail and no one we can trust?

Why risk American lives? We have seen ISIS infiltrate migrant populations. This is a nothing burger. 90 friggin days. And we have very strong evidence of migrant danger with Nice, Paris, Belgium, London, etc.

The only way to defeat ISIS is if the Muslim community begins to take control of its own community and join the modern world accepting equal rights for all, tolerance, acceptance of other's culture, assimilation, etc. The huge challenge is that the Shia and the Sunni are literally at war and hate each other. Iran wants to reestablish the Persian Empire and are off to a good start in Syria and Iraq and the nuclear deal guaranteeing them a nuke. The Saudi's (Sunni) desperately fear Iran and will do whatever they need to do to either destroy Iran's nuclear capability (along with the Israelis) or get their own nukes (probably from Pakistan).

Modernization of Islam is going to be very, very difficult.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I generally agree with Sarah on these issues. The following is from her Facebook page. Sarah Haider, BTW, is the co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America. She came to the US as a child and grew up (I think) in Texas and is now an unbeliever. Unlike so many on these issues, she neither thinks every Muslim is evil nor thinks we should pretend that any concern shown about Islamic fundamentalism is Islamophobia.


At times, doing "something" really is worse than doing nothing at all. The so-called "Muslim ban" is a perfect example of such an act. The worst aspect of fear is its capacity to overshadow our sense of reason at a time when we need it most.

To be clear: fear of Islamist terror is *not* irrational, but that doesn't mean any action taken in response is helpful.

To reiterate:
_____________________________

This ban does NOT:

1) Include the worst exporters/propagators of terror (Saudi Arabia primarily, but also countries like Egypt)

2) Include any countries of origin of the 9/11 hijackers

3) Include the countries of origin of the Orlando shooter (U.S citizen, family from Afghanistan), nor of the San Bernardino couple (U.S / Saudi / Pakistan), nor the Boston Bombers (Kyrgyzstan / Soviet Union)

4) Prevent the rise of the "home-grown" terrorist, those who are citizens of the West by birth. An estimated half of British jihadis were born in the UK as children of immigrants, and the number of terrorists radicalized while residing in the West is reportedly rising.

5) Tackle the root of the problem head-on. Islamic terror is an *ideological* struggle, and the only lasting solution will be an intellectual dismantling of its tenets.

This ban WILL:

1) Give Islamists perfect fuel for their "victimhood" narrative, which they use to gain sympathy with Westerners and progressive Muslims alike.

2) Damage efforts to integrate Muslims in the West who can be a boon to the nation and to the fight against terror IF successfully integrated (or a detriment if alienated).

3) Separate families, with some members trapped in extremely unstable environments. This gives rise to feelings of despair and resentment from those who are already here and cannot help their loved ones.

4) Bar the gates to many refugees fleeing ISIS, the group facing the brunt of Islamist violence. While true victims have fewer chances of making a life here, actual terrorists can find other ways to come in.

5) Give us a false sense of security. An unearned feeling of accomplishment can be more dangerous than none at all.

1-5: Leftist Red Herrings and not based on an understanding of intent and reasoning. It applies emotional rational and false narrative towards motivation.

1-5: The entire Middle East in blood is not worth the life of a single American resident.

 

[op2]

1-5: Leftist Red Herrings and not based on an understanding of intent and reasoning. It applies emotional rational and false narrative towards motivation.

1-5: The entire Middle East in blood is not worth the life of a single American resident.

If people really believed that latter part our history in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, would be completely different.

 

[BoremanSouth]

The largest act of radical islamic terrorism ever on US soil - September 11, 2001. Do you ******* remember it? The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (1), UAE (2) and Lebanon (1). Why are none of those countries listed in the ban? Am I missing something?

I might be able to accept this if it wasn't blatantly obvious that the only reason they aren't on the list of countries banned is because our current President has business dealings with those countries.

It's truly pathetic that there are still people out there dumb enough to support this ********.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

The largest act of radical islamic terrorism ever on US soil - September 11, 2001. Do you ****ing remember it? The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (1), UAE (2) and Lebanon (1). Why are none of those countries listed in the ban? Am I missing something?

I might be able to accept this if it wasn't blatantly obvious that the only reason they aren't on the list of countries banned is because our current President has business dealings with those countries.

It's truly pathetic that there are still people out there dumb enough to support this ********.

Not only that, but Iraq was taken off of this list. The perpetrators of the Bowling Green Massacre were from Iraq.

This opens the doors for attacks at Toledo, Western Michigan, Miami of OH, Akron ... bet our Marshall fans are glad they moved to CUSA. Dodged a bullet there (or suicide bomber as the case may be)

 

[Airport]

Not only that, but Iraq was taken off of this list. The perpetrators of the Bowling Green Massacre were from Iraq.

This opens the doors for attacks at Toledo, Western Michigan, Miami of OH, Akron ... bet our Marshall fans are glad they moved to CUSA. Dodged a bullet there (or suicide bomber as the case may be)

Even muslim terrorist won't go to Huntington, WV

 

[Airport]

The largest act of radical islamic terrorism ever on US soil - September 11, 2001. Do you ****ing remember it? The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (1), UAE (2) and Lebanon (1). Why are none of those countries listed in the ban? Am I missing something?

I might be able to accept this if it wasn't blatantly obvious that the only reason they aren't on the list of countries banned is because our current President has business dealings with those countries.

It's truly pathetic that there are still people out there dumb enough to support this ********.

Because we get oil from those countries and it was that way before Trump go into office. You can criticize the order but it isn't because he has business dealings with them. Those countries also buy a lot of weapons from us too. That's the real reason.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The largest act of radical islamic terrorism ever on US soil - September 11, 2001. Do you ****ing remember it? The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (15), Egypt (1), UAE (2) and Lebanon (1). Why are none of those countries listed in the ban? Am I missing something?

I might be able to accept this if it wasn't blatantly obvious that the only reason they aren't on the list of countries banned is because our current President has business dealings with those countries.

It's truly pathetic that there are still people out there dumb enough to support this ********.

Outside of Lebanon, which I'm not sure of, the others have very robust intel networks and can provide adequate data when needed for personnel from their nation.

The whole "where terrorists come from" argument is a leftist red herring.