The other day Michael Hayden joined the chorus of those who assert that Donald Trump’s anti-Islamic terrorist rhetoric is helping ISIS recruit more jihadis.
“The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative … he’s feeding their recruitment video.”
Hayden joins Tom Friedman of the NY Times and others.
The new Muslim mayor of London also warns that this country must allow Muslims in or they will attack us.
The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.
Trump recently praised Sadiq Khan for winning London’s mayoral race, and said he would be willing to create an exception in his policy restricting Muslim entry into the United States in order to allow Khan to visit. But in a statement Tuesday, Khan dismissed Trump’s invitation, and also denounced his views on Islam as “ignorant,” suggesting Trump’s policies would increase the terrorist threat in both the U.S. and U.K.
This is not a winning argument. If they could attack us for any reason I for one do not want them or that culture here. What Khan sort of forgot to mention was this:
While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.
We’ve been handed these lines repeatedly but there are some questions that burn to be answered. Ever get the feeling that all Muslims are potential powder kegs? Ever get the feeling that the least offense could ignite the powder keg?
We are told to suppress our right to free speech so as not to offend Muslims and boost recruitment of jihadis. What other rights must we subsequently suspend to avoid offending Muslims and not rouse them to jihad? If rhetoric alone is sufficient to radicalize a people it’s a sign of something deeper being wrong. In January the Pakistani issue of the New York Times removed a front page article critical of Islam so as not to offend. Really?
Somewhere in your life when you told you were a failure or told you were stupid did you go out and prove you were a failure or prove you were stupid? Or did you resolve to prove that the accusers were wrong? Muslims who are so easily recruited into jihad actually wind up validating those who have doubts about them and vindicating the opinion of how important it is to refrain from allowing them to immigrate here. Somalis from the Minneapolis area have left the country by the tens to fight for ISIS. If anyone would even entertain such a notion they ought not be here in the first place. And they sure as hell should not be permitted re-entry.
We should restrict our free speech to avoid offending Muslims? I am trying to imagine FDR calling on Americans to avoid inflaming Hitler, or John Kennedy calling on Americans to avoid inflaming the Soviet Union during the missile standoff.
Curiously, no one calls for suspending criticism of the NRA. Despite all the left wing invective hurled at the NRA, its membership never threatens to attack the United State or those who are the most vocal. If anything, the NRA redoubles its efforts to show that it is most supportive of the law. It does not go on to prove the critics right- it goes out to prove them wrong. Perhaps the Muslims teetering in the offended zone could take a lesson from the NRA.