World PoliticsSocial IssuesEconomyMilitaryUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

Angry Writer Misinterprets Trump’s Immigration Ban

Updated on February 4, 2017
Dean Traylor profile image

Dean Traylor is a freelance writer and teacher. He is a former journalist who has worked on various community and college publications.

Photo by UPI
Photo by UPI

Commentary

Nobody should have been fooled. The intentions for the executive order, which placed a temporary ban on immigration to the United States, targeted Muslims. Even its legal jargon couldn’t hide its intentions.

During his candidacy, President Donald J. Trump mentioned he’d do it. And nearly everyone associated with him knew he’d do it. Even his ardent critics knew he was going to sign an anti-immigration ban aimed at refugees, immigrants, and visitors from seven predominately Muslim countries.

Nearly everyone in the country knew what the order meant! Well, almost everyone.

Despite this overwhelming evidence and sentiment, some people have stated that this isn’t a ban based on religious belief. In fact, one writer (on a particular content site) angrily attempted to convince his audience that the executive order wasn’t banning Muslims, at all.

Less than a week after the signing of the order – and after countless protests and detainments of travelers from the seven countries targeted by the order – the angry writer wanted his audience to know that the mandate was being marred by “stupid liberals” that wanted to whine about Trump being president, and really didn’t understand the executive order.

So was he (who will be known as Angry Writer throughout this article) correct? Did he know something that no one else did about the executive order? Or was he just trying in vain to defend the president and his controversial policies? Whatever the reason are, Angry Writer attacked the protesters and detractors through his writing.

Still, how accurate was he? To be succinct, he wasn’t. Instead, his article was a rant against ideological foes and was supported with “alternative facts” about the executive order’s purpose, data, and comparisons with the action of the previous president.

Why Angry?

Source

To start, Angry Writer most likely wanted to present a factual article. That, unfortunately, didn’t happen. His opinions about the dissenters and Trump got in the way. In fact, the writer’s attitude and blind devotion to Trump were apparent from the beginning until the merciful end.

His article was filled with pejorative landmines planted against anyone he felt criticized Trump. In particular, he aimed his anger at “liberals” and the “establishment media.” Every so often, he sprinkled insults, such as “peons” or used the word “liberal” as a derogatory term toward these two.

On top of that, Angry Writer used some deception. It started in the title. Most critics have used the title “Muslim Ban” to succinctly describe the temporary ban on Muslims coming from the seven countries. However, he may have deliberately or unintentionally took that title and turned it into a literal meaning to support his argument. Thus, he seemingly kept hitting his audience over the head with this rhetorical trick to give the impression that the critics were incorrect to call it a Muslim ban.

Reading this was cringe worthy and made the process slow. One had to wonder why he was so angry at these two groups, or if there was a reason, at all. (Ironically, another thing that made this article difficult to read was that it became an opinion piece filled with clichéd talking points and verbiage used by right-leaning pundits and ideologues. Reading stuff like this often becomes too dull and predictable).

The Claims

At the heart of Angry Writer’s article were the claims. And, there were several made in this relatively short article. The main one dealt with the notion that the executive order was not a ban on Muslim. The others claimed President Obama did the same thing, and that data showed that it was not a ban. Do these claim hold muster? Let’s take look at these claims:

Claim #1: The executive order doesn’t mention “Muslim” in it; therefore it was not a Muslim ban.

The Reality: While it was true that the order doesn’t explicitly state it was a ban against Muslim from several countries, there were several references indicating that it was implicitly targeting this group. Angry Writer claimed he read and reread the order and didn’t find any reference to Muslims. He wasn’t looking hard enough.

The authors (since it’s obvious that more than one person wrote it) made veiled references to Muslims throughout it. Some were stereotypes; other reference came through a legal code from another document that was used as reference.

The first reference came in Section 1 of the order:

…In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress American of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

This statement may sound like it’s protecting everyone’s civil liberties, but look closely at it. The terms “honor killings” and “violence against women” was included to the draft.

Honor killings and violence against women are terms often denoted to be a part of Islam (at least in Western cultures). It comes from a stereotype that Muslims justify murdering female members of the family that may (supposedly) dishonor the family in some way -- albeit being raped or engaging in premarital sex. The practice is not limited or exclusive to Islamic societies (and it may be more of a cultural practice done outside of religious beliefs); however, it’s a common stereotype many non-Muslims believe.

The second reference can be found in several sections as a particular legal code. Here’s an example from Section 3(c):

…I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187 (a) (12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and non-immigrant , of such person for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas)...

Section 217 (a) (12) is a legal code that’s part of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It pertains to the restriction of the use of the Visa Waiver Program. Most importantly, it contains the list of the seven countries that will be affected by the ban: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia. All these countries are predominately Muslim nations.

Finally, when looking at the document, one country of the seven was mentioned (Syria).

Anyone, including, Angry Writer, can take the information gathered in this article so far and dismiss it as pure conjecture. What can’t be dismissed however, are interviews and tweets from Trump and those that surround him.

In an interview on Fox TV former New York City mayor and ardent Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani bragged that he helped to write the executive order. He also boasted that he removed all references to Muslim (basically the name, Muslim) in the draft and replaced them with legal terms.

And, of course there are the numerous Tweets (and too many to keep count) in which Trump will state it’s not a ban one minute, then, unintentionally it is a ban (in other words, Trump can’t keep account of his own words/Tweets).

Claim #2: President Obama Did the Same Thing.

Reality: No, he didn’t. Obama’s action slowed down the immigration from Iraq by adding more vetting for the refugees, but it didn’t impose a ban on them. Also, it didn’t discriminate on grounds of religion, either. This claim has been debunked by fact-checking sites such as Politifacts and Snopes.com, as well as several other news outlets on TV, print and Internet.

Source

Claim #3: Angry Writer wrote: “Out of 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, less than 200 million are affected by President Trump's executive order. This translates to eighty-seven percent of the global Muslim population not being inconvenienced whatsoever.”

Reality: The stat was true, but it actually had little to do with the ban. Up to this point, I’ve refrained from pointing out the logical fallacies that litter Angry Writer’s article. Claim#1 can be easily defined as an Ambiguity Fallacy. His personal attacks on liberals and media can be characterized as Ad Hominem arguments. However, in this case, one can’t ignore that this latest claim fits a fallacy known as Lying with Statistics. This particular fallacy is modern one and it plays on people’s ignorance on numbers and percentages. Usually Lying with Statistics is characterized by someone attempting to use true figures or data to “prove” an unrelated claim.

In this case, Angry Writer tried unsuccessfully to use stats representing the total population of Muslims in the world as a way to prove that the executive order wasn’t a ban on Muslim refugees. One can only surmise Angry Writer felt that only a small percentage of the Muslim population would be affected by the executive order; therefore, he argued that the executive order was not a ban on Muslim immigrants.

Final Thought

Angry Writer went off the rail near the end of the article. While the paragraph about the firing of the acting Attorney General Susan Yates for not following the executive order was relevant (despite being misleading – she was fired for adhering to court orders to suspend some of the order’s provisions – in which the Trump administration wanted to defy), he shifted toward warning his audience about Sharia Law, but not really elaborating what it was and the dangers he felt it would bring…except to repeat the verbiage from the executive order (mentioned in this article as Section 1) that mentioned violence against women and honor killings.

This inclusion makes one wonder: did he realize that he mentioned a section in the executive order that actually alluded to Muslim immigrants? Then again, one wonders if he used any common sense – the very thing he claimed that liberals didn’t use in understanding the executive order – when he made that inclusion.

By the time one got to the end, the interest and logic of the article quickly dived into a typical rant that political and ideological articles tend to do. The argument was too fallacious to be followed. In the end, he didn’t prove much, except that he doesn’t like liberal and that makes him angry.

Source

© 2017 Dean Traylor

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      thanks. It's surprisingly easy to do the research because so many people around him (and including him) said it. Unfortunately, the Angry Writer couldn't see the forest for the trees (as we say here in the states).

    • grand old lady profile image

      Mona Sabalones Gonzalez 9 months ago from Philippines

      Well done, and excellently researched:)

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Thanks, Dean. I really can't imagine how the Trump supporters are so blind that they cnnot see the darkness of their hearts and minds. That they admire the maniac that they voted for. Unbelievable.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Austinstar,

      MTP is taking shots at you? The dude needs to take some anger management...as well as a lesson in rhetoric. At least I shut down his enabler friend, Savvy. Of course it helped to flag her. Her BS days are through...

      Oh, Pennies: Remember this:

      "My Two Pennies 10 days ago

      Okay if you insist on going down this road, I would like you to provide the specific place, regardless of wording or language, that puts a religious ban on Muslims or just does so in general. Until now, all you got is the daily unsubstantiated TPs"

      You wanted me to provide proof, and you got it. The truth hurt, doesn't it? Now, if have to prove I lied....kind of hard when you realize that I did a much better job than you to prove my point.

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      MTP - I didn't single you out or call you any names at all, and yet you personally attacked me by calling me a "mindless ideologue".

      You accused me of spreading hate which is also false. I advocate love and acceptance of the entire human race. I feel sorry for you having to live with such a dark heart. Seek professional help, you really need it.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Oh, Pennies, you just love carrying your temper tantrum on for days on weeks. And as usual you've written an unorganized, barely comprehensible rant. So, tell me something: how do you justify calling someone a coward when you don't use your real name and have a separate account to write your sophomoric political rant that sounds like any other sophomoric political rant?

      Also, how do you justify calling me delusional and hypocritical (and a clown) and then get offended when I write a critique of your poorly researched article? And how can you justify your behavior on this hub and other forum? Remember, I made a statement, you made a snide remark and then told me to prove something (which I did).

      Some parting thoughts: I used to be an editor for a newspaper years ago. If your articles came across my desk back then, I would've thrown it back at you and told you to rewrite it and cut out all the adjective, adverbs, and made-up words you like to use. Oh and stop labeling people.

      I have no idea where anti-intellectuals like you come from. I guess you're from some no-coast wingnut community where the grass grows high enough to conceal the cow patties.

      Anyway, as usual, you're jumping around. First off, I'm a registered as an independent. Also, I tend to follow Skeptics rather than political ideologies. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Oh, that's right, you're a follower.

    • My Two Pennies profile image

      My Two Pennies 9 months ago from United States

      You do what you gotta do chief. You're a coward (removing the link after called out) and a leftist tool that clearly doesn't know history (how has the political garbage you are pushing worked out across the globe?). I have nothing more to say to such an uninformed lowlife that attacks other writers in attempts at bullying them out of sharing their ideas (it is the liberal way though... Suppress anything that counters the narrative). Clueless people like you are the reason the Democrats lost historically under the left's false Messiah and will only continue to do so, as normal Americans are tired of having your warped view points shoved down our throats. You keep getting your news from the Daily Show and SNL like all the other uninformed fools, shooting off that oversized mouth of yours all the while, I won't be listening...

      Austinstar, as far as your ranting, I don't know who you think you are labeling or judging anyone on what they can and cannot be (I know you guys on the left love to break everything down by race, economic status, sex, religion, etc - and systematically dividing is the only way you can attempt arguing...). Clearly another mindless ideologue that can't escape identity politics. Keep toeing the party line and whatever CNN and the corrupt elitists tell you... Ironically, you're the one spreading that hate you claim to despise so much.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Must be getting under skin, Savvy. All those accusations, name-calling and platitudes to pretend you're high and mighty. Then along comes me, writing a critique on an article that's nothing more than an confirmation bias love fest, and you think you can "show me the errors of my way."

      Get over yourself. As I mentioned before, comment on the article instead of your perceived notion of me. All you're doing is holding up a mirror to yourself and showing your true self. And it's not pretty, isn't it?

      I can be rude and crude, but I don't hold on to BS because it fits your adherence to the Chump.

      Also, I suggest you write your own hub if you are upset. After all, how many do you have? 22 in five years? And you're trying to talk smack? You don't have much to stand on.

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Anyone that is still a Trump supporter is 1. NOT a "Christian".. 2. Can't differentiate between truth and lies. 3. Has more hate and indecency in their hearts than real humans. 4. Can't see that they are being robbed, lied to, dehumanized, and preyed upon. 5. Do not care that WW3 is right around the corner with Iran/Russia/China/even Australia. 6. Doesn't have an ounce of sympathy for the elderly and sick and poor and ignorant. 7. Doesn't care that their "GodTrump" (an admitted sexual deviant) was elected with help from a foreign communistic government. 8. Doesn't care that he gets his news and foreign policy advice from Alex Jones and Fake New Leader, Bannon.

      Face it. They just don't care about the human race at all. Only their selfish attitudes and desire to ascend to heaven after the Armageddon that they bring upon themselves so they can feel superior to all of the rest of humanity.

      I don't care what "names" they try to call people. They just can't face real problems because they don't have a clue as to how to fix things and won't listen to experts that do know how to fix things.

    • savvydating profile image

      Yves 9 months ago

      Such a charmer. So let's see, I am allowed to refer to your article in which you lied and trashed another hubber, but I am not allowed to reference the comments which refer to the article in which you lied. (See below where I explicitly referred to your article, as your memory has apparently failed you once again)

      What convenient rules for you, Dean. That way, you get to ignore your own insulting articles, comments, narratives, etc., and place the blame for your false narratives directly upon other people. How very clever! Even better, this allows you to take your insults even further because, in your mind, calling people "sheeple" or saying that their "brain is fried" is not insulting because Dean doesn't think so----but if other people use those words about Dean, different conclusion. Wow. You must think you're really smart.

      Your "flinging" is rather uninteresting, Dean. Predictable. Anyway, have a nice life admiring your reflection...;)

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      BTW, Pennies, when I stated "stupid liberals" that was meant as a way to place emphasis around something. Usually, its something written to reflect a typical statement. It's not a direct quote. If you had any inkling of reading and writing you'd realize that. By the HP contacted me....look what they did! In Soapboxie? I'm feeling the pain.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Wow, I have Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber in one spot! So Pennies what other brain drain have you posted these days?

    • My Two Pennies profile image

      My Two Pennies 9 months ago from United States

      That's alright Saavy, Mr. Pompous misquoted me, saying I used the phrase, "stupid liberals" in this article. I can always tell when I'm misquoted by a liberal, as it is lackluster to say the least. He also had my article linked in the first paragraph, until his cowardice got the better of him for shameless libel. He's a poor excuse for a human being that has no business brainwashing kids with the garbage he shovels. Probably why home/charter schools are on the rise.

      Needless to say, he's like any most other classless West Coast leftists, attention starved and not worth arguing with. Look no further than the smug face on that picture (everyone I show just laughs, as the arrogance is palpable).

      I have found that just treating these ignorant fools as irrelevant to the conversation is the best way to proceed. Think of it as loud mouth children interrupting adults. Just ignore such brainless nonsense, as he can provide absolutely no facts to substantiate any of his ramblings and talking points. No critical thought at all and discrediting others with his feelings.... Probably best to not give him further ad traffic.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Savvy,

      You can post all the insult you want, but please, stop with the reverse psychology BS. That's embarrassing. And if you have anything to say, you refer it to the article. Remember, if you want to dish it out, I'll just fling it back at you.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Do you have mommy issues or something or did the desert fry your brain? Why are you posting things when you don't have an argument about the article anyway?

    • savvydating profile image

      Yves 9 months ago

      Lol. Hit a nerve, did I? You stated that I use "derogatory names." You mean like when you just referred to my "sheeples" and said I have a "distorted view of reality" and that I "fling insults" the way you just did toward me & the unnamed writer you chose to target?

      Oh, Dean. Still doing what boy's do?

      "Mommy, he started it."

      "No, Dean, it's not nice to lie and call people names."

      "But, mommy, he started it."

      Sigh...

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Savvydating,

      You ideologist never seize to amaze me with your distorted view of the world. First off, I use "big words" because I know how to use them -- unlike the person you're defending and the rest of your sheeples.

      Secondly, trying to fling insult at me is not a wise way to get your point (if you actually have one) across. All you're going to do is get the very thing you fling at me thrown back into your face.

      I've read your previous posts on other people's hubs or discussion, you have this delusion that you'll win all your arguments by calling everyone derogatory names. Also, I can tell that you can't stand anyone who challenge your distorted view of reality.

      Yeah, you may not like me calling out your buddy for writing something completely inaccurate, but next time you need to read things closely (also, as I've mentioned to him, he drew first blood, I merely finished it).

      From what I can get from your rant, I get the impression that you're a girl in a bubble who sees the rest of the population living in a bubble. That's not a good place to be.

      Finally, I'm not into that liberal/conservative crap. I'm into right and wrong. That L/C crap is for hacks and followers.

    • savvydating profile image

      Yves 9 months ago

      "... I’ve refrained from pointing out the logical fallacies that litter Angry Writer’s article.....defined as an Ambiguity Fallacy. His personal attacks on liberals and media can be characterized as Ad Hominem arguments.....latest claim fits a fallacy known as Lying with Statistics. "

      My, what big words you use, Dean---and all in one paragraph. I can picture your 'students' rolling their eyes every time you walk into a classroom---that is, if you really do teach. At any rate, your clever paragraph describes yourself. Perhaps you were looking in the mirror, as usual, when you wrote it.

      Although accepting reality is not your strong point, you would do well to realize that you, of all people, are in no position to accuse anyone else of using ad hominem attacks 'fallacy' or 'lying' as this is exactly what you have done in this article.

      But, you're a boy in a man's body. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself to spread lies about other people.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      I may stay up and watch the entire 90 minutes of it.

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Next week's SNL host is Alec Baldwin - As Donald Trump! Supposedly, he is playing Trump for the whole show. Maybe just a rumor.

      But Melissa McCarthy as Spicer was PRICELESS! I'm still laughing. I hope they make it a weekly thing.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Sanxuary, I happen to catch portions of SNL. The skit that has some bearing on this hub was Melisa McCarthy as Sean Spicer. In it there was a line about the administration waffling on calling it a ban...then it's not a ban...then a ban again. I haven't watched SNL for years. Now, I'm staying up to watch it on a regular basis.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 9 months ago

      Watching the news I heard the Trump administration call it all those things, in fact I have no idea what they are calling it today. I did pray for Arnold after learning he was so awful on the apprentice. I have never watched that show but if Arnold had only gone to Trump University he would have done much better. You know Saturday Night can not come up with stuff this good, Trump should go on their and pretend he is the President.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Oh and finally, why have a hyperlink when your article already has a link on the side of my hub, along with other ones on the topic? Kind of a moot point. Even that third grade education of yours can comprehend that.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      By the way what you did with the pew poll is called cherry picking or data mining. You seek or manipulate the data to fit your beliefs. In other words you committed confirmation bias.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Yep, you're having a meltdown. Just relax. Take a deep breath...I know it's hard to realize that you can be wrong. But, the truth is the truth. You can throw all the insults you want, but you're the making a fool of yourself. If you can't handle this I will be deleting any further comments. Personally I have better things to do than listen to a constitutional conservative who seems not to be able to grasp what libel/slander laws are.

    • My Two Pennies profile image

      My Two Pennies 9 months ago from United States

      You're an uneducated leftist spreading misinformation and using your title as a "teacher" to fulfill your own self-righteousness. Who are you to slander my hub that has factual data from Pew (you're really going to claim they're conservative leaning or maybe you are that clueless). Logic fail for the stereotypical Californian that can't see beyond his little liberal bubble.

      I did notice that you removed the hyperlink above though. What's wrong, did the bully get scared? Uh oh, maybe his arrogance of being so blatant in personally slandering someone's work has gained the attention of the hosting site. Or perhaps you're just afraid it will because you know that such obvious libel is against Hub Pages terms of use. You can say what you want about me hitting you in the comments section, but I don't write entire hubs personally attacking other users. Who has that much time to waste?

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      Links? Are you sure?

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      I thought you werent going to respond to this hub? Oh well, I guess when you have a meltdown you have a meltdown. BTW, if you bothered to read, you'd realize that Angry Writers article was riddled with logical fallacies, the one about Lying with Statistics....also, I'm an independent who often read Skeptics naterial.

    • My Two Pennies profile image

      My Two Pennies 9 months ago from United States

      Hey Mr pompous liberal, I used data in my article. Where's that in this garbage? We know that I'm the one you're referencing, as you've linked my hub (Hubpages does as well and is reviewing - slander guidelines?). Maybe next time you throw together a factless hit piece, don't be so arrogant as to brag about it to the one whose work you're so condescendingly slamming (and without any factual details or evidence to support...) Like any other uniformed leftist, you use feelings and twist meaning. Since you're such an expert on the subject, where is the word Muslim or Islam even used in the executive order? Instead of deflecting, how about answering that simple question. You love to quote my socratic method reference on my page, but offer absolutely nothing to the conversation or the most basic research...

      You can infer what you want, but it's not a "Muslim Ban," and you look foolish. Probably the same arrogance and why you were scratching your head when Hillary got destroyed & Democrats bled thousands of seats under the false messiah Obama. Try educating yourself and read up on the matter or even the entire order. For a teacher, you're pathetically ill equipped.

    • Dean Traylor profile image
      Author

      Dean Traylor 9 months ago from Southern California

      No Pennies, you're the embarrassment around here. I merely responded to a couple article on the subject and as far as I'm concerned I was responding to Angry Writer...whether that's you or someone else, I don't know...

      As far as it goes, I took a look at your article. It lacks any validity whatsoever. As mentioned, it was nothing more one logical fallacy after another. In short, it's amateurish and it shows. In other words, it's what I would've expected from someone like you. Remember, you tried to draw first blood. I merely returned the favor. Next time, think about what you're going to say to someone, because If I have to school you, again. That will happen.

    • My Two Pennies profile image

      My Two Pennies 9 months ago from United States

      How embarrassing and small for an "educator." Funny you have to write an entire hub ranting about my article, yet still cannot present any evidence in the actual language that it's a "Muslim Ban." Keep taking your highly uneducated and lacking shots at my hub Mr Teacher without a shred of evidence and shooting off that loud mouth with juvenile replies, while I provided actually stats and numbers on mine. What a shameless ideologue, who cannot even begin to defend his arguments with rationale or data.

      This is downright pathetic and I will not be returning to this page, giving you further traffic or promotion. Don't worry Hub Pages has been made aware of your violations with this hub and your promotion of hubs in others comments...

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 9 months ago from Southeastern U.S.

      Anyone has a right to invade anywhere, if attacked or threatened with attack. The victim does not incite the murderer, it's the other way around. Not saying that America has always been right, historically, however. But militant Islam, radical Muslims or insane Buddhists, cannot cry religion-phobia, when they condone murder, rape and finance destruction, if we don't stop drawing caricatures of Muhammad as a baby-lover.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 9 months ago

      Austin

      Your first statement sounds like you disagree with the ban, but the second comment sounds like you agree with the ban. Which is it?

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Provoking a war or two is not what I call protecting America.

      It's much better to respect others than to incite hatred against them.

      I agree everyone should live in their own country and take care of their own people. If these people choose to overthrow and revolt within their own country, then that is their right.

      Americans do not have any right to invade another country. Negotiate peace, not war!

    • jgshorebird profile image

      Jack Shorebird 9 months ago from Southeastern U.S.

      I guess we could just sit around and be reactive. Just wait for another Muslim nut near me -- in Orlando, FL -- to take out some of those 'evil gays.' Or wait until Mexico takes Texas back. Hey, our ancestors did "steal" it. Or wait for 9-11 again. This is all academic. The idea here is to protect Americans and banning, even a religion from countries that videotape severed heads and occasionally "honor kill" as you implied, seems a rather meek response to me.

    • Austinstar profile image

      Lela 9 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

      And the Crusades return in spades. Now with nuclear power to destroy the world.

      Trump's lap dogs are exposed for the inhuman dregs that they are.