Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Some of your comments I agree with, some I don't.
I'm just satisfied that we can have a normal discussion on the merits of Mr. Khan's speech.
Now in response: "We are Muslims" are the words that came out of his mouth. That wasn't speculation. And if you think it is completely irrelevant, then I disagree. His comment wasn't tangential to his point. It WAS his chief point in the speech. So to suggest that unpacking his meaning is not important is not exactly credible. This is the unfortunate rabbit hole of victim politics.
When he says "ban us", he is just simply incorrect. He would never be banned, so there is no "us". I don't think it's a minor point. It was one of the more inflammatory statements in a speech designed to manufacture outrage. They could have chosen to be accurate here, and they did not.
As for the constitutionality issue: that is a technique somewhat unique to Americans. Often implemented by the NRA with the 2nd amendment. I dont think any American would ever suggest that their constitution applies to non-americans elsewhere in the world. It's another inflammatory technique.
|
Trump has made it pretty clear that if you're not white, he's coming for you.
Mexicans: 'bringing drugs, bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people'.
Black people: 'I will restore law and order'. You don't have to be Alan Turing to decode that.
Muslims: He wants to ban all Muslim immigration. Well if he does that and there are still terror attacks in the United States (which there would be, because what he wants to do is impossible), what's his next logical step? Might it be to round up the Muslims already in America 'until we figure out what's going on'?
As to the point of Khan's speech: one doesn't need to be a white man to be considered a "Real American" and Donald Trump is a charlatan fraud. Anything missing?