Shireen Qudosi On President Trump's EO

[esmith]

I have listened to a couple of Islamic groups that agree that there is a problem and President Trump's EO does make sense. Now I can not find any source on the interweb other that the one posted below; and if you search for any you will not find them unless you use specific words . Example, try searching with this statement "Muslim groups support Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" all you get are the negatives....hmmm As a matter of fact there was only one news source, that I listen to or watch, that had spokespersons from these groups on.
Here is the link:
Shireen Qudosi: Why Muslims back Trump on radical Islam

 

[Underhill]

I have listened to a couple of Islamic groups that agree that there is a problem and President Trump's EO does make sense. Now I can not find any source on the interweb other that the one posted below; and if you search for any you will not find them unless you use specific words . Example, try searching with this statement "Muslim groups support Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" all you get are the negatives....hmmm As a matter of fact there was only one news source, that I listen to or watch, that had spokespersons from these groups on.
Here is the link:
Shireen Qudosi: Why Muslims back Trump on radical Islam

The guy lost me when I saw these as two of his bullet points.

"The big picture is that refugee plight is a vehicle for radical Islamic terrorists who easily infiltrate the stream of hard-to-vet victims of war.

Immigration, until President Trump's executive order, was arguably the largest security blind spot for America to date."

The first is an unproven assertion. The second is extremely misleading.

"easily infiltrate" is a gross exaggeration. By every estimate I have read it takes at least 2 years to go through the refugee program. There are dozens of easier and cheaper, if not legal, ways to get into the country. The refugee program is designed for those looking for a permanent change and as such is difficult and time consuming, but just getting into the US temporarily is not difficult.

And immigration as a 'security blind spot' makes it sound like this is a new problem or one we haven't been dealing with for decades. Our immigration security is better than ever and by a wide margin. But as a country with four thousand miles of coast and even more inland boarders, there is no such thing as complete border security. If terrorist have resources (and most do) they can get here if they really want to. We are deluding ourselves thinking we can 'solve' the problem. And we haven't had a shred of evidence that terrorist are coming in from Mexico or using the refugee program.

Trumps executive order doesn't change much of anything except eliminating a long and tedious point of entry.

 

[idav]

The guy lost me when I saw these as two of his bullet points.

"The big picture is that refugee plight is a vehicle for radical Islamic terrorists who easily infiltrate the stream of hard-to-vet victims of war.

Immigration, until President Trump's executive order, was arguably the largest security blind spot for America to date."

The first is an unproven assertion. The second is extremely misleading.

"easily infiltrate" is a gross exaggeration. By every estimate I have read it takes at least 2 years to go through the refugee program. There are dozens of easier and cheaper, if not legal, ways to get into the country. The refugee program is designed for those looking for a permanent change and as such is difficult and time consuming, but just getting into the US temporarily is not difficult.

And immigration as a 'security blind spot' makes it sound like this is a new problem or one we haven't been dealing with for decades. Our immigration security is better than ever and by a wide margin. But as a country with four thousand miles of coast and even more inland boarders, there is no such thing as complete border security. If terrorist have resources (and most do) they can get here if they really want to. We are deluding ourselves thinking we can 'solve' the problem. And we haven't had a shred of evidence that terrorist are coming in from Mexico or using the refugee program.

Trumps executive order doesn't change much of anything except eliminating a long and tedious point of entry.

I find that interesting that the article says security is better than ever so I find really no need for the extreme Trump is taking it too. Just cause he doesn't trust the current system, as if we haven't been dealing with the issues for decades like the article said.

 

[Augustus]

I have listened to a couple of Islamic groups that agree that there is a problem and President Trump's EO does make sense. Now I can not find any source on the interweb other that the one posted below; and if you search for any you will not find them unless you use specific words . Example, try searching with this statement "Muslim groups support Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" all you get are the negatives....hmmm As a matter of fact there was only one news source, that I listen to or watch, that had spokespersons from these groups on.
Here is the link:
Shireen Qudosi: Why Muslims back Trump on radical Islam

This is important:

Ali says, “We cannot win by making 2 billion Muslims our enemy through broad-brushing radical Islam. Only the extremists within these sub-sects [of Deobandis and Salafis] must be destroyed. We cannot destroy 2 billion Muslims.”

There has to be an attempt made to create a distinction between Islam in general, and the radical political ideologies of certain forms of Islamism.

Many people (me included) have advocated that thinking of Islam as a single religion is wrong and counterproductive, but we lack the terminology and conceptual clarity to create distinctions.

This leads to hostility towards moderate Muslims, and also many well intentioned liberals defending fascist Wahabbi ideologies in the mistaken assumption that they are standing up for oppressed minorities.

Certain extreme Islamist ideologies need to be reclassified as supremacist political ideologies rather than religions and the spreading of these ideologies should be banned.

By redefining the problem towards extreme political ideologies (under the guise of religion), this allows most Muslims to feel that their beliefs are not being targeted and frames the issue in the perception of the rest of society away from simply being 'Muslims are the enemy'.

 

[esmith]

The guy lost me when I saw these as two of his bullet points.

Just to set the record straight @Underhill Shireen Qudosic is a she not a he.

 

[columbus]

Just to set the record straight @Underhill Shireen Qudosic is a she not a he.

Since you are a Trump supporter, it doesn't surprise me that you find that part of Underhill's post the part that needs setting straight.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

Who? More fake news. It's good money these days.

http://counterjihad.com/

 

[Underhill]

Just to set the record straight @Underhill Shireen Qudosic is a she not a he.

Missed that. Sorry.

 

[columbus]

I have listened to a couple of Islamic groups that agree that there is a problem and President Trump's EO does make sense. Now I can not find any source on the interweb other that the one posted below; and if you search for any you will not find them unless you use specific words . Example, try searching with this statement "Muslim groups support Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" all you get are the negatives....hmmm As a matter of fact there was only one news source, that I listen to or watch, that had spokespersons from these groups on.
Here is the link:
Shireen Qudosi: Why Muslims back Trump on radical Islam

Well, Madonna disagrees.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Since you are a Trump supporter, it doesn't surprise me that you find that part of Underhill's post the part that needs setting straight.
Tom

I only presented the opinion expressed by the author of the piece. Whether I agree or disagree with the points in the paper has nothing to do with correcting @Underhill assumption that the author was a male.

 

[tytlyf]

Listening to this person is the same as listening to Bridgette Gabriel for her opinion. Not credible or trustworthy.

 

[esmith]

Missed that. Sorry.

No problem.

 

[esmith]

Listening to this person is the same as listening to Bridgette Gabriel for her opinion. Not credible or trustworthy.

Why do you say that. Isn't everyone entitled to an opinion? Or is it that only peoples opinions that agree with your opinions are credible or trustworthy?
Opinions are just that opinions.
From Definition of OPINION
Definition of opinion

1. 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter <We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.>b : approval, esteem <I have no great opinion of his work.>
   
   
2. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge <a person of rigid opinions>b : a generally held view <news programs that shape public opinion>
   
   
3. 3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert <My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion.>b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based <The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.>
   

 

[tytlyf]

Why do you say that. Isn't everyone entitled to an opinion? Or is it that only peoples opinions that agree with your opinions are credible or trustworthy?
Opinions are just that opinions.
From Definition of OPINION
Definition of opinion

1. 1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter <We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium.>b : approval, esteem <I have no great opinion of his work.>
   
   
2. 2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge <a person of rigid opinions>b : a generally held view <news programs that shape public opinion>
   
   
3. 3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert <My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion.>b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based <The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.>

Correct, it's all opinion. Which is usually what RW media is. Conspiracy theories, panic mongering and opinion. I wouldn't call RW media journalists.

 

[esmith]

Correct, it's all opinion. Which is usually what RW media is. Conspiracy theories, panic mongering and opinion. I wouldn't call RW media journalists.

As usual you didn't answer the question and veered off in another direction.

 

[tytlyf]

As usual you didn't answer the question and veered off in another direction.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't rely on opinion for information. Which is why I don't know why you would make a thread over this?

 

[esmith]

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't rely on opinion for information. Which is why I don't know why you would make a thread over this?

are not all of the ballyhoo over President's EO's nothing but opinions?

 

[tytlyf]

are not all of the ballyhoo over President's EO's nothing but opinions?

Not sure what you mean, give me an example.

 

[esmith]

Not sure what you mean, give me an example.

read the majority of the post on this sight concerning President Trump's EO's. Are they not mostly opinions?

 

[habiru]