Fareed Zakaria -vs- Donald Trump Regarding Islam…

I didn’t see this broadcast, but Conservative Treehouse does a good job examining it below:

CNN broadcast a one hour special yesterday called “Why they hate us” discussing why adherents to the most authentic interpretations of Islam hate the United States.

Overall, the broadcasted presentation by Fareed Zakaria was good; actually, very good.  Perhaps one of the best one hour presentations in quite a while.  The content was engaging, the historical references were well presented and well outlined…. until a fatal flaw. The common, disconcerting and uncomfortable fatal flaw.

In what can only be viewed as an effort to downplay the scope of the threat, Fareed Zakaria claims the existence of only 100,000 jihad-minded Islamic followers world-wide.  Fifteen minutes later he presents the 2014 terror victim outcome of 30,000 dead in a single year from Muslim Terrorist Attacks; most victims also Muslim – as if that matters.

Zakaria would have the viewing audience believe that 100k world-wide adherent followers, could inflict 30,00 fatalities.  Common sense, not prone to co-dependency, would refute such an obtuse argument.

Later, in closing, Zakaria claims that isolating (or profiling) the larger Muslim community, because of the behavior of the jihad-minded minority, only leads to greater radicalization.

This too is an argument fraught with intellectual dishonesty.  Why?  Because we’ve been trying the open arm approach for fifteen years and it’s not working.

Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily halt any Muslim immigration is abhorred by Zakaria in his closing statement fraught with political correctness and cultural Marxism:

[…]  How can we bring an end to this?

There’s really only one way: Help the majority of Muslims fight extremists, reform their faith, and modernize their societies. In doing so, we should listen to those on the front lines, many of whom are fighting and dying in the struggle against jihadis. The hundreds of Muslim reformers I’ve spoken to say their task is made much harder when Western politicians and pundits condemn Islam entirely, demean their faith, and speak of all Muslims as backward and suspect.

But here’s another way to think about this. In America, African-Americans make up about 13% of the population, yet they comprise about 50% of homicide offenders, according to a Justice Department study. Now we understand — I hope we understand — that when we see a black man on the street, we cannot and must not treat him as a likely criminal. It would be dehumanizing, unfair and racist. In America, of all places, people should be treated as individuals and not as stereotypes from a racial, ethnic or religious group.

I would propose Donald Trump is correct; his proposal is exactly intended to help Muslims “reform their faith”.  The difference between Donald Trump’s proposition and the preferred liberal approach is entirely a matter of expectation.   Donald Trump forces confrontation to occur on moral terms understandable to modern society.  The progressively minded Zakaria is completely wrong:

(LINK)

After decades of culturally-dominating politically correct drum-beating, sold by a generally leftist mainstream media numbing the average psyche from accepting common sense, it might take a few minutes for the prudent position of Donald Trump to sink-in.

However, once you get beyond the trained instinct of hysteria, and focus on the substantive request, to: “shutdown Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” – it actually makes a great deal of sense.

Such a position is really not the least bit controversial, and that’s exactly what makes it so brilliant on many levels.

Of course, if you are not willing to accept the concept of Islamic Jihad – and/or if you are unwilling to accept that Islamic Terrorists have been specifically targeting America for the past decade – well, in that instance Trump’s position might seem controversial. However, for the rest of us, it makes a great deal of sense.

The really exceptional part of Trump’s proposal is that it is the only consideration that might actually force non-Jihadist U.S. Muslims to confront the problem within their religion/association. That aspect makes Donald Trump’s plan rather unique.

In broad terms Donald Trump is reintroducing the concept of “societal shame” as a tool to combat anti-social behavior.  If that shame creates isolation, so be it – a culture cannot be forced into a melting pot, they must make the decision themselves.

After decades of the progressive left pushing an ideology of shame as a bad thing, mostly because of the leftists severe aversion to the accompanying concept of guilt, Trump is throwing a bucket of ice-cold water on the ‘everyone-gets-a-trophy-crowd’.

Of course there is a commonality behind Islamic Extremists; that commonality is their adherence to authentic Islam – the degrees of separation within Muslim identity.

Conflating authentic Islam -as supported by a larger aggregate community that refuses to confront it- with the Christian extremists within the Westboro Baptist Church is just silly. The Westboro Church isn’t trying to kill non-Christians, and their controversial activity is resoundingly rebuked by the larger Christian community.  There is no moral or intellectual equivalence there.

Neither is Catholic Pope Francis using St. Peter’s Square as a publicity draw for the beheading of non Christians.

Nor is it extremist elements within the Amish community trying to hide terrorist cells within local Amish communities; and Mr. and Mrs Jorgenson are not being willfully blind to Isaac the bomb-maker’s presence inside their church.

If it were the Amish, we’d be having a similar proposal about a prudent pause on Amish immigration – and virtually guaranteed without even one tenth the controversy.

But it isn’t. It’s Islam.

It is the adherent elements within the Muslim community doing this, carrying out Islamic Jihad; and they are specifically capable of carrying out their plan due in part to the “willful blindness” within various U.S. Mosques.  And before anyone takes issue with the use of “Muslim Community” you should probably research the Holy Land Foundation federal trials, there is a significant element of co-dependent jihadism that’s been going on for quite a while.

Cartoons don’t kill people.  Islamic ideologues, who interpret their religion to demand they kill cartoonists, are killing people.

Donald Trump is drawing a very bold line in the sand not because he wants it, but rather because it’s necessary, even urgent.

Perhaps if people would actually watch the un-aired portion of the December 2015 CBS interview with Trump, specifically about terrorism, they’d have a much better idea where he is coming from (See: 05:18 for discussion about “going too far“?)

What you see in that interview is Donald Trump having clear eyes as to the threat. Trump is a master at getting through the BS that is actual political correctness, and directly putting his words on the bottom line.

Previous Examples:

? “Well, someone’s doing the raping, Don” (Don Lemon – link)

? “Human rights violations? ISIS is chopping people’s heads’ off, and drowning them in cages right now Jake, it’s medieval”. (Jake Tapper – link)

Donald Trump’s call to: (1) pause Muslim Immigration; (2) reassess the threat matrix; (3) make some changes to the vetting process; (4) reevaluate the security risk, and (5) “figure out what is going on“, is not only non-controversial – it’s prudent and wise.

We’ve already been told the FBI can’t keep up with the current volume of threat from domestic Islamic Extremists already imported.  Why would we take any additional risk and stretch them out even further? Again, common sense.

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik had been working on their plan to attack San Bernadino for what now appears to be “several years”.  As specific details come out they apparently were in a network of communication with ISIS type Islamists – and their families were certainly aware that “something” was going on.

….It is beyond obtuse to believe otherwise.

Grandma making dinner while a pipe bomb lay on the kitchen table – and the White House wants us to believe there was no familial knowledge; while Zakaria wants Americans to ignore the familial knowledge.  Seriously?

Let’s insert some reasonable common sense here regardless of how uncomfortable it is.

….And while we are discussing common sense, let’s not forget the current administration’s approach toward combating Islamic terrorism post Paris attack:

How did that approach work out?

Perhaps we should ask the people of Brussels.

“We’re being led by stupid, stupid people” ~ Donald Trump

Mr Trump’s right !