I think Sanders (looney left) and Trump (loony right) would be dangerous for the USA and both would wreck the American economy (Sanders immediately, it would take Trump a couple of years) . I get paid in $US so the current strength of the Dollar is good for me. I've had a 15% pay rise in terms of Pounds Stirling juat because of the change in exchange rates. I hope Michael Bloomberg steps in.
...and while I’m ranting... A friend of mine just pointed out, correctly, that the biggest problem with US policy in the middle east is that we don’t have a ****ing clue what is going on there.That would take patience, attention to detail, and intelligence, not to mention a working comprehension of Arabic and other languages, all of which are more or less non-existent in the upper reaches of our foreign policy apparatus. We can’t be bothered to tell our ass from a hole in the ground. But we don’t mind sending soldiers to murder the people who live there, whoever they may happen to be. We like doing that. It makes us feel all warm and fuzzy about our soldiers. The crowning irony is that we ought to ****ing well understand what effect the presence of foreign troops will have on the people we’re fighting. We ought to understand that it will forge a furious and unified resistance which will culminate in the formation of a powerful state that opposes us. We ought to understand because that’s what created US.
Very well said rwaeb and those of us in the UK who blame the U.S. and their foreign policy (and I do) should remember that huge numbers of Americans agree with us and need our support.
Bringing this back to the UK for a moment... Not sure if many of you on here have heard of the 'counter-extremism' think tank the Quilliam Foundation, but they have recently been getting a lot of negative criticism in the media (and rightly so - despicable organisation full of sell-outs and frauds who prioritised money ahead of their families and principles). There's an absolutely devastating exposé of the co-founder of the organisation, Maajid Nawaz, and you can clearly see how he's been fabricating / distorting the facts about his life and why certain events occurred: from his alleged 'Islamophobic' experiences in Essex to leaving his wife and child all the way to his 'deradicalised' phase. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...act-and-fiction-life-counter-terror-celebrity It is very long, so if you don't have time to read it, there's a shorter version here: https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe
Read the second one, which was still long! I agree with a lot of what Nawaz, and his various supporters say, so whether or not there are some inconsistencies in his background are pretty inconsequential. This is obviously a smear piece, and there is dirt to dig up on every public figure. No attempt at making a balance argument, whereas the arguments Nawaz makes do tend to be balanced and logical.
With all due respect, the large majority of what Nawaz says is wrong and is empirically incorrect. His organisation have been subsidised and backed by anti-Muslim, neoconservative and far-right groups in the US with private funding, now that his government funding has all dried up. It's no surprise that he's trying to pursue agendas that cater for the people who will give him money. If there's inconsistencies with his background, that clearly is problematic. Because people see him as the go-to guy on matters of radicalisation and extremism. Yet if he's been dishonest about his life story, that means there is a strong possibly about him being dishonest about his first-hand experiences with extremism. You may see it as a hatchet job, I see it as him being exposed for the fraud that he is. It's about time people look beyond his charisma and eloquence and actually scrutinise the content of what he actually says. The irony of it all is that he is being funded by the type of bigots he claims to be fighting against.
Nobody's going to pay any attention to that when the people that he's up against are so obviously bigoted, though. He got death threats for this tweet and 20,000 people signed a petition to remove him as a candidate: The fact that he upsets so many nutters will always create support for him. All he has to do is list his enemies and people will think that he's alright by comparison.
I agree that the backlash he received was at times ludicrous and death threats are outrageous. But I don't think that there was anything wrong with the request to remove him as the Lib Dem candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn. That being said, people can't let that one incident overshadow the real problems that his organisation have caused, especially the PREVENT legislation. He paid off Tommy Robinson to leave the EDL, yet claims he was 'de-radicalised' even though Tommy still has the same views as he did when he was part of it. You can't say you oppose Islamic extremism whilst then tolerating other forms of extremism. That's exactly what Nawaz has done, as illustrated through his endorsements by Sam Harris and the Gatestone Institute.
You think that it was appropriate to ask for his removal because he didn't think that an utterly tame cartoon was offensive? That's why he gets backed. He can say and do things that are completely inconsequential and he'll get a ton of **** thrown at him. It's ludicrous. The other stuff that's actually noteworthy goes untouched, as he can hide behind that crap. Did he get endorsed by Sam Harris? I thought that they just published a book together, arguing different sides of a debate?
To call Sam Harris an extremist is absurd. He doesn't advocate hatred or violence towards any religious individuals, he merely looks on all religions with contempt.
No, I think he deserved to be de-selected because of all the other things he's done and said which has marginalised Muslims and promoted the agenda of neocons. I didn't really give a crap about the cartoon. Sam Harris confirmed in an interview that he has funded Quilliam. There are quotes on the net, I'll find them later.
Sam Harris said Islam was the mother load of bad ideas and has has supported the expulsion of Islam in the US. He is a right wing nut job and yes is an extremist.
What did he say about expelling Muslims from the US? Saying that a religion is full of bad ideas isn't bigoted, by the way. If someone said it about Scientology, then I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. Well, Tom Cruise might, but other than that.
He would expel all religions from the US as would all anti-theists. His Islam comments make the news because they suit right wing US media, who don't mention his almost equally dismissive views on Christianity. Taken in entirety and not out of context what he says ring true with those of us who are sick of fantasy and superstition getting in the way of progress, peace and truth. With that said this is meant to be a politics thread and I don't want religion to balls this up too, so will move on.
This will be my last post on the matter otherwise this thread will end up taking a turn for the worst if it continues... http://eoinhiggins.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/why-does-sam-harris-get-to-pick-and.html To say Islam is the mother load of bad ideas is quite a blanket statement to make. It also isn't true. At least to anyone that is sane and doesn't pursue an agenda to eradicate religion. He feeds into the stereotypes that people have about Islam which alienates Muslims even further. Of course, but let's be honest. He clearly has a distaste for Islam more than any other faith. If someone doesn't like Islam, then fine. That's their prerogative. But why not have a proper discussion to challenge the preconceived ideas? To date, I can't recall him doing so. This is a straw man. No-one has said that they don't want progress, peace and truth. But if you think Sam Harris promotes these things, I strongly disagree. But that's on your conscience.
If Trump had said these things here he would have been guilty of an offence- racially aggravated offensive behaviour at best, incitement to racial hatred at worst - which just shows how authoritarian we are and intolerant of free speech. Trump is free to say it and in doing so he exposes himself to the millions of voices who can shoot his ill advised and irrational comments down in flames in an instant. That is democracy. And the US are better at it than us.
There's a fine line between allowing freedom of speech and giving free rein to incitement to racial, or any other kind of hatred. No doubt in my mind that the UK has become way too P.C. But, I'm not sure that the Americans have it exactly spot on either. Either way, Trump is an arseaholic buffoon.
I don't see anything in there that even mentions Harris making a claim about Muslims being expelled from the US. Have I missed it? His claims about the ideas of Islam are an opinion. The truth of that opinion is quite subjective. It's not bigoted to say that a religion holds a lot of bad ideas, though. What's bigoted about that statement? You can analyse the tenets of a faith and hold them up to scrutiny. I don't see a problem with that. All ideas should be open to criticism.
With freedom to purchase a firearm, who needs legal restrictions on free speech? A 357 Magnum or semi-automatic pistol says I disagree with you in a way that is hard to argue against.
Very true. Should being the operative word. However, there are those who are working hard to take that freedom away.
