Cause, on 28 January 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:
I actually dislike this point. The two do have resonance and it does look bad but either the law is bad on any day or its not. Trumps law by what I have read is definitely targeting Muslims. I understand it specifically makes provisions to help christian Syrians for example. I actually do believe that Muslims, and Muslim apologists do need to look into why radical Islam is such a growing problem. Why Muslims in Australia or Britain would demand Sharia law etc. That said this law is certainly not the solution, not even close.
"Why Muslims in Australia or Britain would demand Sharia law?"
Well then, "Why do whites in the US demand nazi laws? We need to look into why being white is such a growing problem!"
Oh Wait! "Muslims" is not one single entity. There are 1.5 billion people in the world that identify as Muslim and each one of them - wait for it- can think! If I wanted to punish all men because one man raped a girl would anyone be okay with it? If I was to punish all white people because one white supremacist went on a rampage and killed 76 people would anyone be okay with it? If an addict stabs someone in the street and I decided to kick every single addict out of the city would that be okay? So why is it okay to assign collective responsibility for terrorists' actions to everyone who identifies as Muslim?
Why is it that when it comes to Muslims, my father should bear responsibility for the crap that an idiot does in Syria - for whatever retarded reason they do their shit - despite the fact that he has nothing to do with it? Why is it my father's responsibility to "look into" why some teenager in a Belgian suburb would decide to move to Syria and start beheading people?
He didn't educate the said teenager, he doesn't like ISIS, he has personally done literally nothing against any law, in Iran or in the US or in Canada. But he's supposed to apologize for the actions of an idiot because he calls himself a Muslim? Is that just? Is that reasonable?
Why should the Syrian Muslim who is fleeing war, who never fought in the war, who just wants food and school for her children and a roof over her head in the cold of the winter be held responsible for what murderers of ISIS are doing? Why should the Baha'i who is living in a constant state of persecution in Iran be denied asylum because an idiot decided to crash a plane into a tower? The Baha'i has not broken any law, she hasn't helped the terrorists or even remotely condoned it, she has done nothing wrong but her hopes are crushed because Donald Trump decided that she should be held accountable for what ISIS is doing.
FFS Baha'is don't even consider themselves Muslims ...
Besides, radical Islam is not a fucking growing problem. You know what IS actually a growing problem? Heart disease (700000 people/yr), cancer (550000/year), strokes, and diabetes are real problems. Even driving accidents are bigger problems than terrorism, Islamic or otherwise (on average 100 people die to cars each year in the US for each person that dies to terrorism). Not to speak of climate change ...
https://i1.wp.com/th...and-dollars.jpg
(Article with sources for the numbers:
https://thinkbynumbe...-of-insecurity/)
Terrorism kills on average 300 people a year in the US and they spend 600 billion dollars on it. Cancer kills 700k people and the federal government spends 2 billion on it.
Anyone who says this thing is "to reduce danger to American citizens" is talking bullshit. DJT and his cabinet are a bunch of zenophobic racists that don't want brown people with funny ideas in their country. Anyone who claims that terrorism is a "growing danger" and that the US specifically should go to war/ arm rebels/ get more spying powers over it is talking out of their ass. The US government may want to do these things for other, geopolitical reasons (reasons that don't have good PR); but there is absolutely no need for those actions.
PS. Yeah, I know solving the problems in Syria would be far more effective at providing relief to the refugees. But are you the one whose going to stop the pissing match between Russia and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the US and Israel that's taking place there? let's assume we convinced DJT to pull out of Syria and completely ignore it, do you think it's possible to convince the king of SA and the leader of Iran and Edrogan and Putin to agree to that as well? Do you think if everyone agrees to pull out the rebels will stop fighting? Accepting refugees, especially in the tiny relative numbers that the US is doing is incredibly easy, and it is downright inhuman to stop even that much.
PS. 2. What does Muslim apologist even mean? People who have the outrageous idea that Muslims are human and should be treated as individuals rather than a homogeneous group? People that think hey! my family is Muslim and they had nothing to do with this shit ... why are we being blamed/punished/persecuted for it? Am I a Muslim apologist?