Donald Trump - non American missing the point

[Cloth-Ears]

No. And I despise Trump.

And you don't need stats to talk about what I just said in the earlier post.

But I realise I'm wasting my breath.

 

[MVV]

The "trouble with jam" is that it makes your teeth fall out and you get fat, there is also a link to cancer. In fact a moderate 'jam eater' has considerably more chance of getting pancreatic cancer than a muslim has of being inspired to take part in a terrorist act.

 

[Cloth-Ears]

Perhaps, but theres enough who are to be a problem.

And compare. From what other faiths do we see this happening often ? There are exceptions of course, but often, all over the world ? And in relation to what other faiths do we find egg-shell treading behaviour like we do in relation to Islam, honestly ?

There IS a particular problem with this ideology and I would argue, in how the rest of us deal with it. I think there is both a failure to really oppose the ideology ( which is needed and relevant ) and an over reaction to the minority activity of terror acts - which has hurt the rest of us more than the terrorism. It all has gotten confused.

 

[MVV]

Perhaps, but theres enough who are to be a problem.

And compare. From what other faiths do we see this happening often ? There are exceptions of course, but often, all over the world ?

We haven't spent the last couple of decades indiscriminately killing people of other faiths. No doubt we will get around to it, you can't do everything at once!

 

[Cloth-Ears]

eh ?

 

[Greg]

Perhaps, but theres enough who are to be a problem.

And compare. From what other faiths do we see this happening often ? There are exceptions of course, but often, all over the world ? And in relation to what other faiths do we find egg-shell treading behaviour like we do in relation to Islam, honestly ?

There IS a particular problem with this ideology and I would argue, in how the rest of us deal with it. I think there is both a failure to really oppose the ideology ( which is needed and relevant ) and an over reaction to the minority activity of terror acts - which has hurt the rest of us more than the terrorism. It all has gotten confused.

Hmm, except the truth is the UK and US actually invaded a Muslim country illegally and another legally.

Actually invaded, not some soft-touch "invasion" by reproducing children at a faster rate over 50 years, an actual invasion where hundreds of thousands of people were either killed, injured, arrested and tortured, abused, etc etc.

Western military forces actually doing this stuff to Muslims. Not treading on egg-shells, really is it?

 

[russel]

Hmm, except the truth is the UK and US actually invaded a Muslim country illegally and another legally.

Actually invaded, not some soft-touch "invasion" by reproducing children at a faster rate over 50 years, an actual invasion where hundreds of thousands of people were either killed, injured, arrested and tortured, abused, etc etc.

Western military forces actually doing this stuff to Muslims. Not treading on egg-shells, really is it?

It just so happens that Muslim countries have a lot of oil, if the places that contained oil were populated by people who worshiped the flying spaghetti monster, I doubt the West would have behaved differently and the FSM followers would have responded differently.

 

[foxwelljsly]

I can only speak of my personal experience . 8 years ago I was living in a community of Bengali /Pakistanina/Yemenese Muslims. I was smoking hookah on my porch dressed in lungi considering converting from not believing in anything to pretending to believing in Islam just to marry a divorced daughter of my neighbor . Beautiful Girl probably 20 years younger than myself who married the wrong fellow from the wrong clan and in consequence her future and prospects were over, although she was well educated. I am not saying a single negative comment about those people although they are as far from perfect as any other immigration group and better than some.
For the record I don't see a mild form of Sharia law as a problem at all . As a moderate racist and bigot I'm firmly against modern feminists movements.
Back to trumping Trump

You are Boss Hogg on a stoop in Tower Hamlets and I claim my £5.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Hmm, except the truth is the UK and US actually invaded a Muslim country illegally and another legally.

Actually invaded, not some soft-touch "invasion" by reproducing children at a faster rate over 50 years, an actual invasion where hundreds of thousands of people were either killed, injured, arrested and tortured, abused, etc etc.

Western military forces actually doing this stuff to Muslims. Not treading on egg-shells, really is it?

Yes, but we didn't do any of this because they were Muslim, it just so happened that they were Muslim.

 

[merlin]

Sometimes Twitter seems worthwhile.

 

[Greg]

Yes, but we didn't do any of this because they were Muslim, it just so happened that they were Muslim.

My post was in reply to Cloth-Ears' comment:
"... And in relation to what other faiths do we find egg-shell treading behaviour like we do in relation to Islam

We did it and as per my point - we didn't give them an easier ride because they were Muslims. If anything, the opposite was probably true.

Within the context of the growing fear in Europe of a "Muslim invasion" by way of ideology, fertility rate and immigration - try to imagine (I know it will be difficult) if a Muslim country actually invaded the UK seeking to transact regime change and in the process caused untold suffering and abuse. It would have a deep and lasting legacy on the psychology of the population and people all over Europe would have every right to fear Muslim nations and Muslim people.

The fact we don't have a consistent label to easily describe secular / muti-faith western imperialism doesn't mean it's not a thing and a thing to be feared.

 

[maxflinn]

Yes, but we didn't do any of this because they were Muslim, it just so happened that they were Muslim.

I presume when you say 'we' in this context you mean Britain?

Well, Blair was persuaded to drag Britain along with the US. He said at the time it was because of the threat Saddam posed, links to Al Qaeda, WMD's etc, all lies as we now know, but later he admitted it was 'because of 9/11'.

Either way, he was fooled by Bush and those who were behind the plan: the Neocons, AIPAC, many prominent right-wing Republicans and the top-dogs of the military industrial complex, all of whom convinced George Bush to give the green light, which he probably didn't need much pushing to do, given daddy didn't complete the job.

And a long-term plan it was too. The same people who created and orchestrated it also drew up plans to change the regime in Syria by using Islamic extremists as proxies. They also planned regime change for Libya. All of these goals have been realised, Syria to the letter, though obviously not fully as Assad is still hanging on.

The last part of the plan is Iran, and I don't think anyone needs telling who wants them attacked.

All Muslim countries, yes, but all Muslim countries with leaders who were/are independent of the US, and considered as an obstacle to US/Israeli hegemony, and a threat to Israel.

Saudi Arabia isn't. Egypt isn't. Jordan isn't, and none were targeted even though they are all Muslim countries.

So you're right. It isn't a Muslim thing, it's an obedience thing.

 

[MVV]

I will get a lot of flack for this. However (and it is probably loyalty to the red card in my wallet) while I completely disagree with what Blair did and how he did it I still think his primary motives were good. That is to hang on to Bush and the deranged neo cons and prevent them from doing even more hasty and disastrous things following 9/11. I think It was he doing the persuading (for moderation and I guess he didn't get anywhere near as much of that as he wanted) but politically he can't offer that defence even if, in the end, it turns out to be true.

 

[Joe Hutch]

I will get a lot of flack for this. However (and it is probably loyalty to the red card in my wallet) while I completely disagree with what Blair did and how he did it I still think his primary motives were good. That is to hang on to Bush and the deranged neo cons and prevent them from doing even more hasty and disastrous things following 9/11. I think It was he doing the persuading (for moderation and I guess he didn't get anywhere near as much of that as he wanted) but politically he can't offer that defence even if, in the end, it turns out to be true.

You may be right, but (acknowledging that counterfactual history is pointless), it's arguable that had Blair refused to get the UK involved, Bush would have held back from invading Iraq. But God told him he should, so ....

 

[MOBY DICK]

"If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They love anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific"

- Donald J Trump, People Magazine, 1998

 

[The Far North]

This is a bit OT, but I think it gives a flavour of the Tump response as a bad loser. This is the reply to the UK Supreme Court turning down his appeal against an offshore windfarm.

"History will judge those involved unfavourably and the outcome demonstrates the foolish, small minded and parochial mentality which dominates the current Scottish government's dangerous experiment with wind energy.

"We will evaluate the court's decision and continue to fight this proposal on every possible front."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581

 

[tones]

I will get a lot of flack for this. However (and it is probably loyalty to the red card in my wallet) while I completely disagree with what Blair did and how he did it I still think his primary motives were good. That is to hang on to Bush and the deranged neo cons and prevent them from doing even more hasty and disastrous things following 9/11. I think It was he doing the persuading (for moderation and I guess he didn't get anywhere near as much of that as he wanted) but politically he can't offer that defence even if, in the end, it turns out to be true.

Not any flak at all, but I seriously wonder whether he was less about damage control, more about showing that Britain was still in the big league power-wise. Coming from Northern Ireland, I tend to be positive about Blair for his contributions to bringing about an end to the Troubles there, but I find it hard to believe that he really thought he was going to influence the gung-ho neocons of the Bush Administrations. After all, was he not warned that the US was fitting the intelligence around the case for war? Did he not say that Saddam was a threat, when he must have known that this was totally untrue? 45 minutes, something like that? He gambled on being on the winning side, lost badly and will forever wear it around his neck like a millstone.

 

[Tony L]

Cameron really bashed Trump in response to a question in PMQs: "...divisive, stupid and wrong", which is pretty strong language for a PM. Good on him!

 

[cutting42]

Cameron really bashed Trump in response to a question in PMQs: "...divisive, stupid and wrong", which is pretty strong language for a PM. Good on him!

I like your post a lot. Many on here will not praise someone they dislike even when they do something they should approve of. We are missing this on a lot of threads currently.

I do not take this as you becoming a Cam Fan, Tony ;-)

 

[Barrymagrec]

"If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They love anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific"

- Donald J Trump, People Magazine, 1998

Probabaly an internet myth - though it sounds plausible enough.