Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Will Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition?
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 20 Comments
The most common attack on proposals to end Muslim migration to the United States is that this policy would somehow interfere with the coalition to fight ISIS.
Lindsey Graham asked, “How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you’re a Muslim you can’t come to America?” “This policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS," Jeb Bush objected.
The White House agreed, “We have an over-60-country coalition fighting with a substantial number of Muslim-majority fighters who are absolutely essential to succeeding in that effort.”
But there are two things wrong with this argument.
First, no Muslim country or faction is fighting ISIS because they like us. They’re not doing us any favors. They’re protecting themselves from the Islamic State.
The insistence of ISIS that it is the supreme authority over all Muslims has even led it into battles with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No one fighting ISIS is doing it because of our immigration policy. Jeb Bush referenced the Kurds. The Kurds want their own homeland. Those who want to come to America don’t want to fight ISIS. Those who want to fight ISIS aren’t looking to move to Dearborn or Jersey City.
Second, Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition have much harsher immigration policies for Christians than anything that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz have proposed for Muslims.
When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.
Saudi Arabia also engages in blatant racial discrimination and denies basic civil rights to women. And yet there are no problems with having Saudi Arabia in the anti-ISIS coalition. Certainly the Saudis don’t worry that we’ll drop out of the coalition because they ban Christianity.
Other Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members include Turkey, whose leader threatened to ethnically cleanse Armenians, Egypt, where discrimination against Christians has led to government persecution, the UAE and Qatar, where churches are not allowed to display crosses, and Somalia, which banned Christmas.
Saudi Arabia’s Islamic justice system is often indistinguishable from ISIS. Turkey and Qatar’s governments have ties to Al Qaeda. Both also have alleged ties to ISIS.
And they are the core of Obama’s Muslim anti-ISIS coalition members.
Why exactly does the United States have to worry about meeting their standards for accommodating Muslims, when they have no interest in meeting our standards for the treatment of Christians?
Muslim coalition countries routinely block citizenship for non-Muslims, some forbid marriages to non-Muslims, yet we’re expected to provide citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many of whom support ISIS, Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, just to maintain this coalition?
What use is an anti-ISIS coalition that not only forbids us to protect our own national security interests, but actually demands that we undermine them to accommodate some larger Islamic agenda?
But despite claims by Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and the White House, the anti-ISIS coalition has no interest in our immigration policy. Its Muslim components are divided into local militias and regional powers. The militias are fighting ISIS for the sake of their own interests and their own survival. All they want from us are guns and they don’t care about our immigration policy. The regional powers want us to overthrow Assad. Their own interests, not our immigration policy, are their priorities.
The majority of the Muslim anti-ISIS coalition hates us. Some members actually sponsor terrorism against us. We will not alienate them with a migration ban because they are not our friends.
The Muslim countries in the coalition against ISIS are absolutely unashamed of putting their own religious and national identities first. Yet Bush, Graham and the White House would have us believe that we will destroy any coalition with them against ISIS if we put ourselves first for once.
We need to stop worrying about offending Muslim countries that deny Christians and Jews basic human rights and start looking out for our interests, our own security and our own welfare.
Not only won’t this weaken the coalition against ISIS, it will make it stronger. Countries can be united by shared values or shared interests. No matter how much presidents from both parties may pretend, we have no values in common with Saudi Arabia. We are not united with it or the rest of the Muslim members of the coalition by shared religious or cultural values. We are occasionally united with them by shared interests. It’s time that we were honest about that with them and ourselves.
Jeb Bush’s pretense that we must have shared values to have shared interests is a common foreign policy fallacy. Instead of trying to build shared interests around shared values such as democracy or interfaith dialogue that we clearly do not share with them, we should just focus on our interests.
Saudi Arabia is a brutal totalitarian monarchy that hates everything that we care about from our religion to our way of life. Picture anything from a 4th of July barbecue to Christmas and the Saudis will have banned everything from the beer to the pork chops to the men and women sitting together.
But we both hate ISIS and that’s all that we really need for a coalition against it.
If we are ever going to have an adult relationship with the Muslim world, it will be based on our interests, not values. It will work because both sides know exactly what they are getting out of it.
The Muslim world wants to know what to expect from us. It hates Obama because of his unreliability. To them, his political ideology resembles some species of mysticism which they do not share. It much prefers an arrangement based on mutual interests over our misguided mystical attempts to discover shared values by pretending that Islam is just Christianity misspelled.
It’s not an immigration ban that poses a threat to the coalition, it’s the insistence that shared values come before shared interests. If we are to have shared values with a Muslim coalition, that requires us to prosecute blasphemy against Islam, provide a special status to Muslims and a lower status to non-Muslims. Such an approach is incompatible with our own values, yet we have begun doing just that. Locking up filmmakers and condemning cartoonists has given us more in common with Saudi Arabia and ISIS. And it would be unfortunate if we had to become an Islamic state to fight the Islamic State.
We can best fight ISIS by being a free nation. There is no use in defeating ISIS just to become ISIS. That will not prevent us from joining coalitions of shared interests with anyone else, but it will stop us from trying to find shared values with Islamic tyrannies of the axe, burka and sword. A ban on Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS and becoming ISIS at home.
Fuck you, hillbilly. You talk like that in public, where real human beings can hear that foul shit?
Maybe you should move to Russia, where they know how to take care of things like this.
That's the ticket! Comerade WaKKKo, Putin's butt buddy. Dosvedanya.
why wouldn't i? if it needed to be said, i'd say it. unlike you, i'm not some doddering old putz who's afraid of his own shadow.
if you were sitting in Enfield's one day eating a pork sammich and some big buck arab came in and said "Death to Infidels! .. death to Jews!" you'd cower under your table.
you don't even have the stones to denounce Obama for being openly hateful of Israel.
and you could do that in this forum without worrying about getting your old saggy face slapped.
Where's the story supporting that claim, you lying piece of shit?
You Trump supporters are all alike. Seriously!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Typical reply for a mindless Trump ZOMBIE.
I merely asked WaKKKo to produce the story connecting the dots between his skinhead gang picture, Finland and Syrian refugees. You spun off into a hysterical schoolyard tantrum.
Your knee jerk freaking out reminds me oddly of a certain Jewish Lawyer, who also claimed to be from Highland Park.
How about you, JL, what does it remind YOU of? Or do we need to ask your mahjong playing wife?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Boy howdy! You folks is dumber than a bag of hammers. I apparently asked a question that none of y'all could answer.
Pussies.
Boom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
How is this Obama's "koolaid", ralpheyboy?
Ignorant fuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Again, this appears to be Sweden's problem. Please indicate how POTUS is responsible. Otherwise, shut the fuck up with your hysterical talking point blather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Engage his critics?
Like you do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Again, the entire line of argument is irrelevant to this post.
But at least you're keeping it civil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Who is Odumbo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
What's your point, SLOBBRIN? That what's happening in Russia between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians is somehow Obama's fault?
You're a fucking coward.
And a certifiable retard.
You should provide proof that you're actually of sound enough mind and body to be allowed to participate in ECCIE discussions.
You must think you're really blastin them 0zombies now!
Ignorant, illiterate dork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Fuck you, hillbilly. You talk like that in public, where real human beings can hear that foul shit?
Maybe you should move to Russia, where they know how to take care of things like this.
That's the ticket! Comerade WaKKKo, Putin's butt buddy. Dosvedanya.
some highlights for the "link impaired" .. you know who you are ..
The atmosphere on Swedish social media is now almost revolutionary. People post videos of themselves accusing the government of murder, of filling Sweden with violent people.
When Alexandra Mezher was murdered, she was alone in the residence with ten asylum seekers. She was stabbed by one of the "children" she cared for.
When National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson appeared on the "Good Morning Sweden" TV show, the day after Mezher's murder, he expressed sympathy for the murderer, but barely mentioned the victim. This sparked frenzied outrage on social media.
The asylum houses are in a state of anarchy. On January 27, police were dispatched to a home for teenagers in Lindås, where a riot had erupted. Policeman Johan Nilsson told the local paper, Barometern:
"One [of the youths] was refused when he tried to buy candy, and got angry with the staff. He gathered some 15 friends, and the staff was forced to lock themselves in while the mob smashed windows and other things. The instigator, supposedly 16 years old, is suspected of having started the riot, and another one is suspected of making unlawful threats and of violent rioting."
What does the Swedish government really think? Does it maintain that the right of asylum is more important than everything else -- even the safety of its own people?
Gatestone Institute called Sofia Häggmark, a non-partisan official at the Department of Justice unit for migration rights. Here is the Q & A:
Should everyone get to seek asylum in Sweden, even if it leads to Sweden's undoing?
"The right of asylum is very strong. We have international rules and EU rules that say that if a person comes to an EU country, that person has a right to seek asylum."
Is it all right to say no if there are groups in your country that are being threatened by the asylum seekers -- minority populations such as Roma, Jews and Sami [Lapp]? Or that Sweden cannot afford it?
"No, if a person has grounds for asylum or risks the death penalty or torture in their home country, you cannot deny them asylum."
Is it not the Swedish government's primary task to protect Sweden and the Swedish people?
"We need to abide by international rules; we are obliged to do that. We can be dragged before the Court of Justice of the European Union if we do not allow people to seek asylum."
Which is more important – Swedish lives, or the risk that you might end up before the Court of Justice of the European Union?
"I cannot answer that question; I can only tell you what the rules are."
So you are saying that if 30 million people come here to kill us, we have no defense, we cannot stop it?
"I can only tell you that the right of asylum gives very strong protection."
But not for the Swedes?
"If a person kills someone here in Sweden, the criminal justice system handles that and tries them. We need to look at every individual asylum case."
Do you think it has ever happened at any time in the history of the world that a country cared more for the citizens of other countries than its own?
"I cannot answer that. But there is no rule that sets a limit for how many [asylum seekers] Sweden can accept."
So there is no plan for what to do when the country is full and the citizens are scared?
"No, there is not."
Do you personally think that feels okay?
"I cannot answer that. That is not my job."
If several millions of Muslims come here and implement Sharia law, then the right of asylum has effectively contributed to abolishing the democracy in our country, replacing the Swedish people and annihilating the whole concept of Sweden. Have none of you pondered these fateful issues?
When the Russian cops showed up, they beat on the jihad mooslamos some more... now that's is my kind of cops!
contrast Putin to Obama and it's clear which one puts his country first. like him or not, Putin is a nationalist. in our country, under the leadership (sic) of Odumbo cops are vilified, prevented from doing their jobs, told to spy on each other for telling "off color" jokes or comments. In Russia's they'd get a citation, at the least.
Russia doesn't fuck around.
Israeli cops don't fuck around either
in the USA, when cops do their job, there's protests over it. calls for "Death to Cops!"
hey Urinal Lips .. YES THIS IS OBAMA's FAULT! GOT IT?
