Washingto Post Responses

Washington Post - For Muslims in the U.S. military, a different U.S. than the one they swore to defend  By Thomas Gibbons-Neff

Another attack on Trump based on sympathy, respect for our troops, and with an underlying disregards for facts or human life.

The persons quoted are good people, their service is and should be respected by all, but conflating their actions to those of Trump is simply to sow propaganda rather than understanding.  “He is horrible, we have great Muslims in the army.”  Where is the connection? I responded with the paragraph below.

While we respect your service, and would love to have no suspicions concerning your fellow Muslims, the action of a small minority, and the acceptance of that minority by a much larger minority, have made all Muslims suspect.  It may be unfair, but it is safe.  To put lives in danger because we want to be nice is not a solution. It depends on how much you respect life vs how much you want to be fair to the majority of Muslim's who are not Jihadists.

Some of us choose life.

Washington Post: The slippery slope to Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims - E.J. Dionne Jr

While I agree with Dionne on the mosque near ground zero, it was insensitive, but not illegal, the following statement is both crazy, provocative, and based on nothing:

“Thus, Trump’s embrace of a religious test for entry to our country did not come out of nowhere. On the contrary, it simply brought us to the bottom of a slippery slope created by the ongoing exploitation of anti-Muslim feeling for political purposes.”

If there had been attacks on Muslims, or even incitement to go attack them, I would be as aghast as Mr. Dionne seems. Trump did not embrace a religious test, he defined a group of dangerous individual by the one thing all of them claim, and the one thing most of their supporters (who are not necessarily Jihadists themselves) agree.  This is a religious war against the West, and in particular America and Israel.

We did not refuse to use the term “Communist” to describe our opponents during the cold war, even though, technically speaking they were fascist dictators rather than supporters of Karl Marx. We did not refuse to use the term “Communist” on Mao, even though he was more of a warlord that won than anything else.  So why wouldn’t we call Muslim’s to those who present a danger, and look askance at those who support them, as well, unfortunately, at those of the same faith in their midst?

We have the same problem with modern warfare. How do you prevent collateral damage when your enemies hide among civilians? The same case is to be made for Muslims. How do you determine who the “nice” Muslims are when faced with people who blend in, and plot your murder?