* The media is as dishonest as the day is long.
Here is another relevant tweet:
JUST IN: Trump: Muslim soldier was a hero but his father "has no right" to criticize me https://t.co/scaCdzKXNO pic.twitter.com/R8DRNac60N
— The Hill (@thehill) July 31, 2016
Compare this with what Trump actually said in his response:
While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.
What honest reporter can describe that statement as Trump saying the man has “‘no right’ to criticize me”? Trump is saying that the man was saying something false about him, and had no right to do so; how is that possibly equivalent to Trump saying that the man in general had no right to criticize him?
These reporters are just disgusting. They lie and distort worse than the politicians.
* Mr. Kahn’s son was killed by Muslims in one of Hillary’s wars. Why is he mad because Trump doesn’t want to let the people who killed his son into the country?
* More Muslims would be alive today if Trump had been President from 2000-2008. I am glad Trump’s not backing down. Mr. Khan’s tribe discovers niceties like the Constitution and secular living only when it is in the minority.
As for the media freakout, Kate Steinle’s parents were invisible to the MSM ponces.
* So you have 14 out of around 6,000 American military combat deaths since 2001 or around 0.23% of American combat deaths vs. around a 0.9% overall Muslim population. So they are underrepresented by a factor of almost 4x. But they are nevertheless the Gold Star parents Hillary chose to bring on stage. Just more Coalition of the Fringes – they live in their own reality and facts and statistics mean nothing to them. And these folks are the posterboys – I can only imagine what some of the others were like. I wish I had the audition tapes where the other 13 sets of parents would get upset and shout Kill Bush or whatever.
* Two US Muslims, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez and Major Nidal Hasan killed more US soldiers (18) than US Muslims soldiers died in the WoT (14).
* Remember Dyan’s advice for guaranteed military victory……always fight Arabs.
* Inviting Muslims into your country is like playing a game of Russian roulette with your country. Yes, most of the chambers are empty but if something does go wrong the consequences are disastrous. The standard leftist drivel is, “Well, most Muslims aren’t terrorists, most Muslims aren’t suicide bombers. ” Would Liberals let their children play Russian roulette knowing that most of the chambers are empty and therefore harmless? No, of course they wouldn’t. So the effect of Muslim immigration is that you are no better off or dead. Cost-benefit analysis says keep Muslims out.
Remember legal Muslim immigration is why we have a huge surveillance state; it is why we have been on a perpetual war footing since 9/11; and why the nations of Western Europe seem to suffer a terrorist attack each week now.
* I’m confused. I thought the Left officially gave up on patriotism. The more patriotic people feel, the less likely they are to vote Dem. And celebrating soldiers of today’s army is patriotic, no matter how weak it has become.
What gives?
* I must have missed this guy at the DNC, what with all the other memorable speakers (transgender, illegal immigrants, little people, mentally handicapped…). Hey, did you know that the white house was built by slaves? Tolerance!
* Will someone, please, help us American voters understand why the DNC didn’t seek out Nidal Hasan’s dear old mama & papa to speak Convention Invective to White Supremacist Power?
* The analysis I’d really like to see is whether a Muslim in the western world is more likely to become a soldier for their host nation or a soldier for ISIS.
* “Global empire would not be so costly if we weren’t actively dispossessing the Palestinans from their homeland.”
Why don’t we get terrorist attacks from Tibetans? After all China is occupying their land and using an ethnic cleansing strategy to displace the native Tibetans with Han Chinese. In addition they have killed over a million Tibetans.
Why don’t we get terrorist attacks from Papuans. After all Indonesia is occupying their land and using an ethnic cleansing strategy known as Transmigrasi to displace the native Papuans with Indonesians. In addition they have killed over half a million Papuans.
To put this in perspective, Israel has killed 22,000 Palestinians since the conflict in 1967 to the present day. China has killed 1 million Tibetans since occupation in 1951 until today. Indonesia has killed 500,000 million Papuans since the occupation began in 1963 until today. China has been occupying Tibet longer and has done 40X the killing Israel has. Indonesia has been occupying Papua longer and has done 20X the killing Israel has.
* The logic is simple: If a single American Muslim dies fighting foreign Muslims, the only solution is more Muslims. If the Arab Spring has shown us anything, it’s that there is a genuine grassroots love of democracy in the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of future patriots in the Middle East, tossing and turning at night as they dream of a shining city on a hill. Many of them are brassy, outspoken feminists like Mrs. Khan.
* I feel sorry for the guy whose son died in the armed services.
However, the father is the one who took his son’s sacrifice and tried to make a political issue out of it. Therefore, he deserves to be treated as someone who turned his son into a political football, not as a grieving parent.
Some Muslim who dies in the armed services doesn’t validate anything. It doesn’t validate open door Muslim immigration, it doesn’t validate Hillary, it doesn’t validate “Religion of Peace”, and it doesn’t validate hating Trump.
It would be no different than if the father of some generic white kid killed by an IED appeared in Cleveland to talk about how all Muslims are evil, or of the mother of one of the cops murdered in Austin showed up and talked about how all blacks are evil. That would rightly be condemned as fomenting racist hatred. In this case, we are promoting a kind of racist virtue.
Both arguments are illogical and should be condemned by anyone who is rational.
* To continue your point, one could argue that more racists have fought and died for the USA than any particular minority group. Racists helped to found this nation and contributed mightily to its founding documents and its war of independence. I am sure they landed on Normandy Beach, helped to liberate the camps and are quietly serving to this day.
Yet you won’t hear the democrats or the republicans making the case that racists should be openly welcomed in society. Rather, anyone accused of being a racist is subject to social shunning and a loss of status and employment.
* Trump could have easily responded by saying:
1. It is sad that this man’s son died in a war Hillary started.
2. It is ghoulish for Hillary to exploit a tragedy she helped bring about.
3. Let’s learn a lesson from this man’s tragedy and stop Hillary from bringing his son’s killers to this country to kill more sons.
Its easy really. You don’t attack a victim, because he’s not the enemy. You attack the perpetrators of the tragedy and show how your policies will help.
* A single anecdote doesn’t prove anything, but large numbers of anecdotes pointing in the same direction does make for a stronger case.
You’re correct- a lone Muslim soldier proves nothing, and certainly doesn’t justify opening the gates and letting in all Muslims.
That being said, thousands of Westerners getting raped or murdered by Muslims, and millions of immigrants biting the hand that feeds them, does make a pretty good case about whether or not we should allow them into our country.
* … there’s difference about being prudent in your conduct because of data reinforced stereotypes about certain groups of people, as opposed to claiming authority because you lost a loved one and/or are a “survivor” of something or other.
But we take it for granted these days that someone who is titularly black, or gay, or what have you has a special insight, a special wisdom, and special authority to lecture the rest of us on what it means to be black. Just as we take it for granted that anyone who is a survivor of sexual assault is automatically an authority on sexual ethics.
To see how ludicrous this is, imagine a white guy or a white woman who is a documented “survivor of black crime” speaking at a convention to lecture everyone about black people. See what I mean? #BlackCrimeSurvivor — yeah, that’s a hashtag with a future.
* Khan kerfuffle blowing up even more. I hate to say it but all the other Republicans really are cucks. My only hope is that the public was really thinking what Trump voiced out loud and is not as fake-insulted as the press and the cucks pretend to be.
* If Trump defends himself from the attacks of this father, and declares that what the father had said about him, Trump, was false, how does that constitute “continuing an attack” on him, or, as you put it, “taking a swipe” at him?
* Why did these people come to America? More importantly, why do we allow people like them to come here? Is our population collapsing? Not that it’s a good idea, but at least it’s possible to understand the misguided justification of allowing immigrants to come from south of the border to do the work Americans won’t do (for extremely low wages). But, why the hell do we need people from halfway around the world?
* In some ways, I just wonder how the public can possibly take these faux outrages seriously, at this point in the election cycle, when the media seems to invent every single day a new thing they can attack him with.
There does come a point at which the daily gotcha just doesn’t do anything anymore, and at which the public starts to lose any remaining respect they had for the media.
The media really doesn’t seem to understand that they can lose this battle themselves by trying way too hard to bring Trump down. They have their own credibility at stake, but don’t seem to realize it.
And they will never bring Trump down if they have no credibility.
* It seems to me this family should be more upset that establishment politicians, not Trump, sent their son to die in a stupid war.
And while the Constitution prohibits treating Muslims as second class citizens, it does not prohibit restricting Muslim immigration.
That said, I’m very sorry for their loss.
* Lots of people were already secretly wondering about why Mrs. Khan just stood there, didn’t even say one word about her son. Why go up to the podium if she wasn’t going to say anything? Just to be seen in a hijab?
I watched it live and thought it was weird. I thought it was bad optics for the Hillary campaign and that the weirdness of it undermined the intended “Muslims are patriotic too” point.
I was glad Trump noted she didn’t speak. No one else in the media said anything about it, although it was legitimately bizarre.
* Impossible for the Republicans to control the media narrative, wikileaks merely confirmed what we all knew already about them taking their orders from the left. They still claim Trump mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled when he was mocking the reporter for lying and confusing the issue around his story after 9/11 of people in NJ celebrating the attack. Flailing his arms around to impersonate confusion and dissembling. The only reason Trump is still going to win is the media is completely distrusted and disliked and that the internet exists.
Of course, that said, Trump should have counter attacked better.
* Khan said to Trump. “I will gladly lend you my copy [of the Constitution]. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’
You will also find references to slavery, which was then legal. The Constitution was not the naive, Kumbaya, “Give me your wretched refuse” style of document we would purport it to be – and as leftists are thrilled to remind us, when they’re talking down about America’s racist past. They also love to talk about the immigration law that restricted naturalization to free white people, passed within a decade of the Constitution’s ratification, and the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed by the generation that freed the slaves.
When they talk about immigration, though, they pretend that racist past didn’t exist, and that of course mass immigration by anyone, from anywhere was exactly what the Founders had in mind.
