Ethics Quote Of The Week: Syrian Refugee Kassem Eid

If only more guests of the President Trump-Resistance enabling broadcast news media would expose the disgraceful journalistic bias like Kassem Eid, a victim of an earlier chemical weapons attack by Assad, now living in Germany.

Asked by CNN/s Brooke Baldwin about his reaction to the US missile response to Assad’s use of  Sarin against Syrian civilians., Kassem said he cried with joy.  “I thanked God…I was overwhelmed,” he said.

Then Baldwin noted, “At the same time, [President Trump] doesn’t want Syrians to come into this country with this refugee ban.”

(so please tell us why you hate him as much as we do, even though this interview is supposedly about yesterday’s news, the missile attack, and not the travel restrictions…)

To help feed the refugees expected anger and outrage, Baldwin then showed a clip of Hillary Clinton condemning the temporary travel ban,  in which she said,  “We cannot speak of protecting Syria’s babies, and in the next breath close America’s doors to them.”

“Quickly Kassem, how do you see that?” Baldwin fished…(and please, spare no emotion in showing your anger and outrage toward our racist, xenophobic and illegitimate President….)

Kassem responded…

“With all due respect, with all due respect,I didn’t see each and every person who was demonstrating after the travel ban… I didn’t see you three days ago when people were gassed to death…I didn’t see you in 2013 when 1,400 people were gassed to death. I didn’t see you raising your voice against President Obama’s inaction in Syria that left us refugees. If you really care about refugees, if you really care about helping us, please — help us stay here in our country. We don’t want to come to the United States. We want to stay in our country. We want to stay in our country. With all due respect, this is hypocrisy. If you really care, if you really care…help us stay in our country. We don’t want to become refugees. We want to stay in our country. Help us establish safe zones…Help us stay safe in our country. And if you’ll just give me a few seconds just to tell President Trump, once again. Please sir, what you did was amazing. What you did was a powerful message of hope for a lot of people inside and outside of Syria. Please don’t stop on this. Please. Help Syrians stay in their country! Please take out Assad’s air forces so they won’t be able to commit more atrocities using traditional weapons. 500,000 people were killed with traditional weapons — just so people can know what we’ve suffered in the past six years.”

Perfect.

Brooke looked like she had eaten a bug.

Good.

38 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Around the World, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Leadership, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President, U.S. Society

38 responses to “Ethics Quote Of The Week: Syrian Refugee Kassem Eid

  1. Mr. Eid’s eloquent statement is what makes me believe there remains a glimmer of hope that all humans may one day discover and embrace our humanity.

  2. ‘With all due respect’ was extra respectful when she was hijacking his hopes of going home with her agenda.

  3. A.M. Golden

    Mr. Eid wants to be a good citizen and take responsibility for helping to rebuild his country. He and others like him just need some help doing it. Good for him.

  4. Steve-O-in-NJ

    She dangled bait and got swallowed by a sea monster. Moral of the story, as all lawyers cross-examining witnesses know: don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to, especially when you are looking to score political points. Hehehe, nothing better than when a smug liberal looks like she just swallowed a turd.

    • Other Bill

      I can’t believe the director didn’t cut Mr. Eid off. Don’t they run their shows on an eight second tape delay or something?

  5. Chris

    I’m not quite following his argument. Shouldn’t we help them stay in their country, *and* take those who cannot survive there? Especially if we’re going to be bombing the place, which will undoubtedly create more refugees.

    • I think his argument was help make his country survivable again. Which reconciles both concerns.

      However complicated and near impossible that roadmap may be at this point is immaterial to his argued vision for the purposes of this post.

      But worthy of digression thread.

      • Chris

        Ok, so we work to make the country survivable again. And in the meantime? He says “we don’t want to become refugees,” which is an obvious point, but what about all the people who already *are* refugees?

        I guess my problem is that I’m seeing people use this to justify Trump’s refugee ban, under the logic “They don’t want to come here anyway!” Which…isn’t true, or we wouldn’t be seeing the refugee problem we have.

        Can we agree it is hypocritical fo Trump to express such sympathy for Syrians, and make moves that could potentially lead to war on the logic that we need to help them, when he has previously denied them help by banning them from our country?

        I’m not even sure I understand why this quote is particularly ethical. I think it was chosen as an “ethics quote” just because it momentarily stunned a liberal reporter. Spite is not ethics.

        • The statement by the refugee had nothing to do with the refugee and immigration halt (not ban.). It only pointed out the naked bias of the question, attempting to turn a positive response toward the President’s action into more Trump bashing. Neither of them discussed the issues in involved in the order: it’s about vetting and terrorism, not refugees themselves. Brooke intentionally framed it as anti-refugee; the refugee said that stopping Asad’s destruction of the country was more pro-refugee than the alleged anti-refugee effects of the halt.

          “Can we agree it is hypocritical fo Trump to express such sympathy for Syrians, and make moves that could potentially lead to war on the logic that we need to help them, when he has previously denied them help by banning them from our country?”

          No, and I’m sorry Chris, but the question betrays intentional simple-mindedness. The US can help Syrian without placing its own citizens in danger by drawing certain red lines—real ones, not like Obama’s. Exposing the public to terrorists and extremists, as well as those unassimilatable Muslims who, as the experience in Europe is showing, think women can be raped at a whim because, as we all know, the Prophet married a 7 year old, is not a responsible trade-off. “Don’t gas Syrian children” and “Don’t let in Syrians who haven’t been thoroughly vetted” are not mutually exclusive positions. Any one who thinks so or says so is the one with the cognition problem, not the President.

          • Chris

            The statement by the refugee had nothing to do with the refugee and immigration halt (not ban.)

            Ridiculous. He specifically references the ban in the first sentence of the statement you quoted. How do you manage to claim a statement which specifically mentions a thing had “nothing to do with” that thing?

            And we’ve been through this before–a “ban” can be temporary, and everyone knows that.

            Brooke intentionally framed it as anti-refugee;

            A ban (or halt, if you prefer; there is no difference) on refugees is an anti-refugee policy. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Whether there are justifications (rationalizations, really) for the policy doesn’t make it any more anti-refugee, any more than the justifications for banning gay marriage made the policy any less anti-gay.

            It is anti-refugee, and it is a ban. You don’t want to use those terms because you are biased in favor of the policy.

            the refugee said that stopping Asad’s destruction of the country was more pro-refugee than the alleged anti-refugee effects of the halt.

            Which is incoherent and baseless. He may believe that Trump is going to be able to stop Assad, but as of now, there is no reason to believe that is going to happen. Again, I am not against the strikes, but in the meantime, blocking Syrians from entering our country (while we are currently bombing their country) is unethical.

            No, and I’m sorry Chris, but the question betrays intentional simple-mindedness. The US can help Syrian without placing its own citizens in danger by drawing certain red lines—real ones, not like Obama’s.

            Given the failure of Trump’s strikes–the base targeted was back up and running within 24 hours–I have no idea why you believe the red line is any more “real” now than it ever was, or why you believe this move helped anyone. Whether future strikes will be helpful remains to be seen.

            Exposing the public to terrorists and extremists, as well as those unassimilatable Muslims who, as the experience in Europe is showing, think women can be raped at a whim because, as we all know, the Prophet married a 7 year old, is not a responsible trade-off.

            More bias. I’ve of course heard the charges that Muslim refugees are causing a rape epidemic in Europe, but I’ve seen no real evidence of this. And please–just say that you’re anti-Muslim refugee at this point. “We have to help the Syrians, who are a bunch of backwards rapists who I don’t want anywhere near me” is not a coherent stance, and is in fact extraordinary hypocritical.

            • 1. Wrong. The statement was prompted by Baldwin’s irrelevant question, so he referenced it, but his statement was about what refugees want and what’s in their interest. He did not address the substance of the order.

              2. It was not a ban, and using that term implies what is not true. Nothing was banned. You can spin all day, it was not a ban. Words have meaning. It is a halt pending security procedures. When restaurant is closed pending meeting health issues, it has not been “banned.” Neutral terminology is always preferable to those interested in being objective.

              3. You’re arguing with the refugee now? He’s not a policy expert: this is how he feels. The attempt by Baldwin was to show that Syrians hate Trump. Who cares why YOU think he should? he said what he said, and he highlighted that way that anti-Trump journalists are trolling for anti-Trump airtime. I get it: so are you. For shame.

              4. Are you really that naive? The missile strike was intended to send messages to Assad and others, and did, correctly so. Nothing “failed.” Prime among the messages is that this President, unlike the last feckless, dithering, incompetent, will in fact make international evil-doers accountable. Warning sent. “Go ahead, make my day.”

              5. Muslims, as a group, do not respect women or their rights. Episodes of Muslim men and teens engaging in sexual assault are documented in many European states. Islam is an anti-woman, anti-gay religion. The lack of progressive denial is not “bias.”

              • Chris

                1. Wrong. The statement was prompted by Baldwin’s irrelevant question, so he referenced it, but his statement was about what refugees want and what’s in their interest. He did not address the substance of the order.

                You’re right, he just baselessly called the opponents of the order hypocrites, to wild applause of right-wingers everywhere.

                Words have meaning.

                Yes, and the meaning of the word “ban” includes temporary bans. The first example on Google is this:

                officially or legally prohibit.
                “he was banned from driving for a year”

                You don’t get to decide the meanings of words for everyone else.

                3. You’re arguing with the refugee now? He’s not a policy expert: this is how he feels.

                Foul. You presented his argument as an “ethics quote;” that makes his argument subject to analysis. This wasn’t just about “feelings.” He not only made statements about opponents of the ban, he presumed to speak for all Syrian refugees while giving policy recommendations for what to do about it. If you don’t think it’s fair to argue his points, why did you present them?

                The attempt by Baldwin was to show that Syrians hate Trump. Who cares why YOU think he should?

                I did not say he should hate Trump. I said his specific defense, and his attack on Trump’s critics, did not make sense to me.

                4. Are you really that naive? The missile strike was intended to send messages to Assad and others, and did, correctly so. Nothing “failed.” Prime among the messages is that this President, unlike the last feckless, dithering, incompetent, will in fact make international evil-doers accountable. Warning sent. “Go ahead, make my day.”

                Yes, and it’s a good message. As I said, whether it will lead to more concrete help or any tangible improvement is yet to be seen. Given that Trump has little interest in helping Syrian refugees, I’m not confident that it will. I don’t begrudge Eid his hope. I just don’t think there’s anything particularly ethical about it.

                5. Muslims, as a group, do not respect women or their rights.

                This is a bigoted generalization.

                • I’m not rehashing all this. I’ll just focus on 1) this favorite recurring dishonesty: Yes, Google says, “he was banned for a year.” Which eliminates the deceit of “banned” without the qualifier. If you want to say “Temporary ban,’ that’s fine. How many people screaming about thee EO think the “ban” is permanent? My guess: most of them. Reason: people on the left who use the term ban, like the term “immigration,” to deceive, for political expediency. Since I know you do not set out to deceive, I can only conclude that you have been gulled into using intentionally misleading terminology.

                  And 2) Do you really want to make the case that The Prophet didn’t marry a child, and the Islam isn’t anti-woman and anti-gay? Go ahead—I’d be enlightened. Again, my statement is true, res ipsa loquitur (the clothing requirements alone settle it) and yours is pure denial.Your advocacy for Muslims would be far more persuasive if you did it using facts rather than wishing them away.

                  That aside, thanks for keeping some discourse going on a dead Sunday. Are THAT many readers absorbed by Palm Sunday?

                  • To be clear my Sundays *are* much slower involving EA because we do make an effort to focus a full day on Church and Family.

                    But I’ll still try to contribute because on “ultimate issues day” or Sabbath or whatever you wanna call it I will peruse the halls of Ethics Alarms when not goofing off with extended family or at the church house.

                    • … I unplugged on purpose, as last Friday I was too cynical to be in polite company (online). However, I generally deal with family and church on weekends as well. Don’t expect too much the next two weekends either! Family reunions and such

                  • Chris

                    How many people screaming about thee EO think the “ban” is permanent? My guess: most of them.

                    At the protest I attended at my local airport, the leader of the protest actually pointed out that the ban was “temporary.” I use quotes around that word because, as she pointed out, a) “until we can figure this whole thing out” is about as vague and noncommittal a timeline as can be, and the text of the order itself was no more forthcoming, at least in regards to Syrian refugees. No specific policies for improving our screening protocols were suggested by the Trump camp prior to, during, or since the ban, so believing Trump when he said the ban was temporary strikes me as impossibly gullible.

                    “Islam isn’t anti-woman and anti-gay?”

                    You didn’t say Islam, you said Muslims. Yes, Islam is anti-woman and anti-gay, as is Christianity, though moreso Islam. How far are you willing to take the principle of screening immigrants based on belief? Should Christian refugees who don’t favor gay marriage also be denied?

                    Every generation has trotted our justifications for why the current wave of immigrants should not be allowed in. Every wave of immigrants has been accused of being “unassimilatable.” Every single one. Somehow, we managed. If you look at the demographics of Muslims in America, we do not have the same problems with Muslims that Europe does. We do not have Muslim ghettoes. We are much better at integrating immigrant populations than other countries. That doesn’t have to change.

                    When you add all this to the fact that no one of import in national security believes the refugee halt (it’s your blog, I’ll use your terms, and we’re not going to agree on this; I’m applying the Julie Principle here, which I never do) will do any good, and many believe it will strengthen ISIS, it makes me view the justifications for the refugee ban as rationalizations. I see the “Do Something” rationalization especially, and I’m beginning to suspect that may apply to the missile strikes as well.

                    • 1. By all means, tell me how you make the statement that “nobody” believes the refugee halt will do any good. If the vetting process is reviewed, and flaws are found, that’s good. It it is reviewed and upon examination provides complete, reasonable faith that it is adequate, THAT’S good. That the current administration does not trust or believe that the last one was sufficiently concerned about this issue is completely reasonable. If by “not doing any good” they believe that vetting is futile and that terrorists will get in no matter how we vet the refugees, then that’s an argument for a permanent halt–a ban—not to lift the halt because its nice to pretend radical Islam doesn’t exist—you know, the Obama approach.

                      2. MUSLIM: Mus·limˈməzləm,ˈmo͝ozləm/ noun
                      noun: Muslim; plural noun: Muslims; noun: Moslem; plural noun: Moslems

                      1.a follower of the religion of Islam.

                      So your position is that Islam is anti-woman and anti-gay, but FOLLOWERS of Islam are not. Got it. (The modern Catholic Church and mainstream Christianity is not anti-woman and anti-gay, and was never either to the extreme extent that Islam is. And there IS no modern Islam.)

                    • Chris

                      “By all means, tell me how you make the statement that “nobody” believes the refugee halt will do any good.”

                      The DOJ has said there’s no reason for it, two former heads of the CIA have said it will strengthen ISIS, and the list goes on. Show me a national security expert who is not Michael Flynn who supports the halt, and I’ll withdraw my statement.

                      Your argument that finding unfixable flaws would justify a permanent ban means that it would also be justified to block all immigration, from everywhere. I don’t find that in the best interests of the United States.

                      The decision not to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” was made under the Bush administration, and for good reasons. Refusing to call ISIS “Islamic” is actually an insult to the group and serves as a deligitimization tactic.

                      The modern Catholic Church is of course anti-gay; homosexuality is regarded as a sin. They are anti-woman in several ways; simply look at the church hierarchy and what the rules are for what gender you have to be to achieve any position of real power.

                      Of course Islam has far more problems with being anti-gay and anti-woman, but you are talking about keeping out refugees who are trying to *escape* the radicals in charge based on lumping them in with the radicals in charge. This makes about as much sense as a country in the 1600s keeping out Puritans because of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

                    • 1. That’s reductio ad absurdam. The issue is the danger of terrorists slipping in with refugees from areas with a high ISIS concentration. Republicans and Democrats agree that thorough vetting is crucial, but it is also impossible, and the claim otherwise is dishonest.

                      2. Trump’s DOJ? You mean Trump’s rogue, partisan unethical acting AG who was fired? A bit of a fib there, CS.

                      3. Again, ISIS was not an issue during the Bush Adminsitration—you can’t hang the Obama denial on Bush.

                      4. Islamic nations KILL homosexuals. The Pope has called for love and compassion. It might be condescending, but you can’t compare murder with disdain.

                      2.

                  • Jack wrote, “That aside, thanks for keeping some discourse going on a dead Sunday. Are THAT many readers absorbed by Palm Sunday?”

                    Palm Sunday has got nothing to do with it for me.

                    Overall; it’s becoming less and less likely for me to post much of anything on weekends, it’s a choice to do more things in the real world and less in the virtual world.

                    • I was just venting. It was one of those periods where I put a lot of thought and effort into posts and followers went down, comment were scarce, and traffic was down—usually Sunday bounces back from Saturday, the weekly low point, and it didn’t–and I was in a “why do I bother?’mood.

                    • Jack, why you do it: because Monday commeth, and replies follow…

                    • Jack,
                      I’ve had that “why do I bother” way too many times to count. A long time ago I was told by a person much wiser than me told me that I do it because I care and when I get that feeling it’s time to look outside of self. It stuck with me. 😉

                • .Words have meaning.

                  “Yes, and the meaning of the word “ban” includes temporary bans. The first example on Google is this:

                  officially or legally prohibit.
                  “he was banned from driving for a year”

                  I believe that you, Chris, and maybe a 5% portion of progressives and liberals might… might actually understand what it is that you’re talking about, but you choose to coach the terms in the most inflammatory and misunderstandable language possible, with the goal of intentionally misleading people. And that HAS to be the goal, quite frankly, because the reality isn’t nearly as big a deal as you would like it to be. It’s NOT a ban on Muslims, Muslims aren’t banned. 83% of Earths’ Muslim population are no more or less able to travel to America than they were two months ago. A Canadian Muslim can still cross the border, American Muslims aren’t being ejected. I’m not saying it’s not a ban because it has a sunset date, I’m saying it’s not a ban because it isn’t, in fact, a ban. But people like you continue to say it is.

                    • This is one of those situations where progressives are empathetically insisting that the sky is purple, and then will be confused when in a couple weeks I’ll have a hard time taking their arguements at face value.

                  • Chris

                    HT, Jack just said that the reason we need the ban is because of the beliefs of Muslims.

                    That, to me, makes the term “Muslim ban” fair.

                    • That’s one of the most insanely stupid things I’ve ever read, and you should be ashamed to have typed it,

                      I don’t care if someone deeply believes their penis is a pogo stick and they try to bounce to Uranus, the fact of the matter is that it isn’t going to get them there. What we’re talking about, it isn’t a bad. Even if the people who put it forward really wanted a ban, even if some people think it’s a ban… Functionally… In reality… It is not a ban, and reality is.

                    • How did you know I believe my penis is a pogo stick????

                    • I wrote that while bashing my forehead into my desk to beat the stupid out, there are typos.

                    • But please, continue telling me how the sky is purple because someone else is saying it is.

                    • When you have time, remind me to explain the difference between “as well as” and “or”. The statement was “Exposing the public to terrorists and extremists, as well as those unassimilatable Muslims who, as the experience in Europe is showing, think women can be raped at a whim because, as we all know, the Prophet married a 7 year old, is not a responsible trade-off.”, and clearly, though you chose to ignore it, relates to nations where sufficient radical Islam influences exist to make all MUslim’s suspect, which are the nations that are the object of the temporary halt.

                      For another post, it is very clear that Islam is the religion that calls into question the limits of Freedom of Religion. It is an anti-human rights death cult, and if it was permissible under the Constitution—and it might be—I would argue that banning all Muslims from immigrating absent a reliable denial of adherence to Jihad and the violent and radical requirements of the “religion” is wise, fair and responsible.

                      As Justice Jackson famously said, the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

                      I believe it was the case in Saudi Arabia last year, where a British woman was raped by two men, and authorities arrested her while letting the rapists leave the country, that began making up my mind on this issue. There are such things as sick and deadly cultures, and the US should not be obligated to infect itself with them.

    • Other Bill

      Come on Chris. You’re smarter than that.

    • Chris,
      Insert afore mentioned paper towel exercise here.

      • bexhrob

        There are plenty of refugees from war-torn countries who do hope to go home again. I used to know a doctor who loved living in America, but also hoped that Iraq would someday be a place she could move back to. Most of her life had been outside Iraq, but she still longed to go back to the Iraq of her childhood. Which is gone. But if it were to settle and be somewhere she could move her family to? Boom- she’d be back. She’s not alone.

  6. Pennagain

    Not to suck any air out of the healthy discussion balloons floating above this but there is a fine connection here with a recent post quoting NAU’s President Cheng. Mr. Eid has just promoted the idea of SAFE SPACES that are worthy of being called a good thing: worth being argued for, pleaded for, fought for … Mr. Eid has expressed one example of a critical need for genuine “safe spaces.” Along with making a concerted effort to turn the campus toddlers’ padded cells back into useful janitors’ closets, the squealing and wingeing and baseless demands of those students need to be countered rigorously by the real need for such places in Syria and elsewhere, physically, mentally, emotionally.
    I am not one of your despised “America-haters” Jack, but I do believe we have a greater proportion of pig-ignorant spoiled brats than any other country on Earth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s