@layman,
layman wrote:
Seems that Iran is "insulted" that they can't keep exporting their state-sponsered terrorism to the, US eh?
Quote:"The US decision to restrict travel for Muslims to the US, even if for a temporary period of three months, is an obvious insult to the Islamic world and in particular to the great nation of Iran," Iran's foreign ministry said in a statement Saturday.
Anyone here who wants to head to Iran, for training, then return at will, might have to re-arrange their plans, eh? The poor things.
Just as his critics predicted. Blow-back from the Muslim world! Iran also announced that it planned on placing restrictions on American travelling to Iran..all three of them.
I loved Trump's answer to the question posed during his recent interview:
"Aren't you concerned that this travel ban will anger Muslims?"
In essence he replied just as millions of Americans would:
How can we make them any angrier at us?
This is the truth-telling that his supporters care about, not how big the size of his inaugural audience was or whether it was raining or not when he gave his speech.
It's nonsense, but typical that the left wants
avoiding making Muslims mad at us a cornerstone of our anti-terrorism policies.
Anything we say or do in connection with securing our nation and it's people from Islamists will be used as a recruitment tool! Don't we understand that we are doing just what ISIS wants us to do?!
Now there's not much sense in gratuitously pissing of a billion people, but hundreds of millions of them don't like us to begin with and are already sympathetic to the jihadis.
Muslims like to go on about
ummat al-Islamiyah, or Ummah, the Islamic Community. Who do the jihadis kill with more frequency than the members of all other religions combined? Who is responsible for the conditions that are constantly leading to Muslim refugees? Who is the #1 cause of Syrians fleeing their country?
If there was any real meaning to
ummat al-Islamiyah, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees and the ones forced to flee their homelands wouldn't need to rely on the US and the West to take them in. At the same time, an actual Ummah would exert a much greater influence over and even coercion of the members of their community who violate the principles of their religion of peace and justice: You know the young men who have been welcomed into Sweden and then gang rape a woman and broadcast it live on Facebook, or who roam the streets of German cities on festive nights sexually assaulting German women, or maybe even the ones who storm a nightclub in Paris and systematically execute French men and women or plow a semi through crowds of innocent people enjoying holiday on the streets of Nice and Berlin.
The culture of the Middle-Eastern Muslim world is said to be heavily influenced by the fierce pride of it's men. You know, the sort that leads to young Muslim men striking out with bombs, machine guns and 727s in retaliation for the affronts to their personal and national honor committed by Western nations, or which leads fathers to kill or maim their daughters for failing to honor their demands that they marry some lecherous old fool 30 years their senior.
You would think, wouldn't you, that this remarkable sense of pride and honor that underpins their culture along with the sense of community defined by ummat al-Islamiyah, would result in them doing all they could to take care of Muslim refugees and not only not leaving it to the infidels, but getting angry if the infidels balk in any way.
It's rich isn't it? Your pride and honor is more wounded by the refusal of infidels to meet your obligations, then by the sight of Muslim women and children forced to go begging to to them due to a situation which you are doing nothing to resolve.
