Last Monday night, less than a week after a near-plurality of voters chose Donald Trump as president, a special assistant from the departing administration sat at the basement bar of the Hay-Adams Hotel, in Washington, drinking a glass of wine. It was shortly after 8 o’clock. The people at the bar were arguing about just how bad Trump would be. One man thought he would “paint the White House gold.” Trump would not be so bad, the special assistant assured him. The Bush people had the same fears when faced with the prospect of handing the keys to the kingdom over to Obama.
Outside, Washington had a feeling of quiet anxiety. The transition’s “landing teams” had not yet arrived; many key appointments had not been announced. The deepest fears went unspoken. Not a week before, speakers at panel discussions had laughed off this future as though it were as unlikely as an asteroid strike. This week, they pushed on, sustained by inertia. Some exhibited classic symptoms of denial. Forty minutes into his scheduled interview with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg ventured a question about “recent events.”
“This is normal,” Carter assured Goldberg, affirming the same message as the special assistant at the bar. “This has been going on for two hundred and forty years. … All of our senior leadership have adhered to our tradition to stand apart from the political process. That’s an important principle in this country.”
Monday’s normal did not last. On Thursday night, news broke that President-elect Donald Trump had offered the job of national security adviser to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Thomas Flynn, a career intelligence officer who previously served as head of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency. He retired from the military in 2014, and became one of Trump’s earliest boosters.
The national security adviser demands a calm strategist who can serve as an honest broker among different agencies. “I think he’ll be stretched a bit by this,” former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden said, on Sunday. Flynn’s conspiratorial Twitter account reflect the weaknesses and insecurities of the man who chose him. “I don’t think every single Muslim in the world wants to kill the other seven billion people in the world,” he said, in another interview, when asked about his tweet that “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL.”
The position of national security adviser is not subject to confirmation by the Senate. It is so influential that some have called it the White House’s second chief of staff. (I wrote about its history, and its powers, here.) Should America come under attack — terrorist, nuclear, or otherwise — it won’t be Trump’s phone that rings at 3 in the morning. It will be Flynn’s phone, Flynn’s decision to wake the president up, and Flynn’s voice in the president’s ear.
There have been hawkish national security advisers in the past. Some, like Condoleezza Rice, espoused a die-hard belief in American exceptionalism, defined American rivals as barbarians, and beat the war drums about weapons of mass destruction. Flynn said the same things in his speech at the Republican convention in Cleveland. Twenty minutes in, after Flynn castigated Hillary Clinton for her email practices, the crowd began to chant, “Lock her up!” “Lock her up,” Flynn repeated, tentatively, “Yes, that’s right. Lock her up. You guys are good.” The chants continued. Flynn scanned the crowd. Then, having found his bearings, he broke out in a grin. “Damn right. Exactly right! There’s nothing wrong with that!”
In America, the winners of elections do not use their offices to punish the losers. George Washington said as much in his farewell address, where he warned about “the alternate dominion of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” The difference between an opponent on the ballot and an enemy on the battlefield, a crucial one to the maintenance of American democracy, is lost on Flynn, who called Hillary Clinton “the enemy camp, … somebody who will leave Americans behind on the battlefield.” This was more than campaign rhetoric, and “Lock her up!” was more than a chant. In a post-election interview, Trump declined to say whether he would continue to hound Clinton by appointing a special prosecutor. Reince Priebus, Trump’s new chief of staff, evaded the question again in a Sunday interview with ABC News.
“If I did a tenth of what she did, I would be in jail today,” Flynn said, at the Republican convention, of the candidate he called “Crooked Hillary.” And yet like Clinton, he was once accused of mishandling classified information. He accepted speaking fees from a T.V. network funded by the Russian government and sat next to Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner in Moscow, across the table from Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Flynn’s company took tens of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees from a Turkish client and produced “all-source intelligence support” for other international clients, even as Flynn himself was receiving classified briefings as part of Trump’s national security team. Flynn’s actions are “profoundly troubling and should be disqualifying,” Norm Eisen, a former ambassador and White House ethics advisor told Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
Just six years ago, when Flynn had a smaller, more professional audience, he offered a more nuanced view. In 2010, he published an influential critique of the U.S. approach to intelligence in Afghanistan, arguing that careful study of the needs of the civilian population was just as important as hunting down the Taliban. But on the campaign trail, Flynn seems to have learned the usefulness of anti-Muslim rhetoric in uniting Trump’s base.
Like Trump, Flynn’s worldview is riddled with hyperbole, making it hard to tell where his rhetoric ends and his thinking begins. He has been inconsistent about whether he would re-authorize the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture, whether he would support Trump’s theoretical ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S., and whether he would support the killing of terrorists’ families. “All options are on the table,” Flynn said, in an interview earlier this year with the The Intercept. He praised Trump for “being very unpredictable in the face of a determined enemy.”
In his 2016 book, The Field of Fight, Flynn characterized U.S. counter-terrorism efforts as “a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people.” In a speech earlier this year, he called Islam “a cancer” and “a political ideology. It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion.” On Sunday, Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, was asked to respond to Flynn’s remarks.
“Is he in line with how President-elect Trump views Islam?” asked Martha Raddatz, the interviewer.
“I think so,” Priebus replied. “Clearly there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic. And we know them. We’ve seen it.”
Trump himself has seldom distinguished between Islam and “radical Islam,” which he has called an “ideology of death that must be extinguished.” Those are dangerous words. Flynn’s appointment suggests that Trump intends to follow through on them.
Why do you presume that Islam itself is not problematic? You say that Trump does not distinguish between Islam and “radical Islam”, but what exactly is that distinction that you claim exists? The reason I ask is not because I believe all members of the Muslim faith are bloodthirsty killers. The reason I ask is because a study of Islamic scripture and the practice of the faith since its inception cast serious doubt on this distinction you’re trying to make. It is at least not clear that this distinction truly exists or that a sharp line can be drawn to demarcate one from the other. Where the Quran and other Islamic texts are concerned, there are passages that are explicit in how Muslims ought to treat non-Muslims. Some like to dismiss those passages as figurative and similar to the passages one might find in the Old Testament, but that reveals nothing more than the superficiality of the analysis. The Quran is not to be interpreted in the way that Old Testament is to be interpreted. Second, a religion also needs to be understood in light of its tradition. Islamic tradition has demonstrated the literal force of the scriptures from the very beginning, all the way to the Prophet. Third, the notion that a separation between mosque and state is possible demonstrates the ignorance of Islam among its Western defenders. The mosque is not an institution like the Christian churches (hence church-as-building vs. church-as-institution). A mosque is just a building. Islam does not make the distinction between religious and secular that Christianity makes. In Islam, there is only Islam, and all else is outside of Islam and must be conquered in the name of Islam. Mind you, conquering in the name of Islam need not be violent if such tactics are deemed ineffective. They can take on non-violent forms, but violence is not off the table as a legitimate means if conditions favor it. Some American upper middle class liberals will naturally grasp for anecdotal evidence. They’re say that they have Muslim friends here in the West that dislike so-called radical Islam and the terrorist strains within it and claim that Islam is actually a religion of peace. That is about as sensible as saying that you’ve got pro-choice, pro-contraception Catholic friends who don’t believe in Hell or the virginity of Mary. Just as many self-proclaimed Catholics are ignorant of their faith, so too are many Muslims. Such Muslims, in the eyes of its serious adherents, have fallen away from Islam. Taken together, we have strong grounds to say that Islam as such is very concerning. Many Muslims around the world (hundreds of millions) support what Western progressives call “radical Islam”. This is not a fringe sect a la David Koresh. It is time that Western progressives realize the truth instead of clinging to an ideological position that is perhaps pleasant, but at odds with the facts. Anti-Muslim bigots surely exist, but valid criticism of the dangers within Islam is not “Islamophobic” or bigoted. Denying the facts that require acknowledgement will only make matters worse.
Fear Islam fair pay clean air land and water, Black folks Mexicans and healthcare for all. The stupid in these people is surreal
Last year more Americans were killed by toddlers with handguns than by Jihadist murderers. Wondering if toddlers should be described as like a cancer? Should America start a registry of toddlers too?
Do toddlers almost universally reject the human rights of women?
Do toddlers gruesomely behead thousands of innocent Yazidis, Christians, and Shias in countries where they hold sway?
Your Non sequitur comparison of an isolated statistic is indicative of your narrow focus on a global concern.
While I do not support any kind of Muslim registry, to ignore a political/religious powerhouse that dramatically shifts the culture of any country where it find itself in the majority is naive.
I am sick of hearing that if Hillary is prosecuted it is somehow because she is being “punished” for being the loser in the election. There is a lot of evidence that Hillary has broken laws and she should be tried based upon that evidence. She has not only defrauded a lot of people who donated to charity, she has enriched herself to the detriment of the poor and defenceless that the charity was supposed to help. She has cheated herself to a fortune and prostituted the office of Secretary of State of the United States of America for her own financial gain, possibly participated in a situation where child prostitution and sex slaves were involved, and lied under oath. How anyone can argue that she now should not be prosecuted just because she ran for office blows my mind. She has already got enough “stay out of jail free” cards because of a corrupt administration. If someone in the next administration gives her another one, then the “Trump is not a politician so things will be different” is a bunch of hooey.
I have to laugh when I see a page full of people accusing an entire 1.6 billion-strong religion of hatefulness and evil while they clutch their pearls and Bibles and ignore the sad truth that Christianity is still hundreds of millions of corpses ahead of any other organization (religious or otherwise) in human history in body count, and pulling away fast.
Not even close to accurate.
Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Khmer Rouge? Genghis Khan? Belarusian, Armenian, and Rwandan genocides?
Look up some real numerical comparisons between the people most responsible for death in the last 1000 years and your assertion that Christians are the most to blame falls apart.
No one’s hands are clean.
The sad fact is that people kill people. There are groups of hate in every people group, religion, country, and climate.
Liberals try to demand that we all pretend that all cultures are equal and all are harmless, except that evil white supremacist American culture. Just not going to fly anymore.
I’ve long said that I’m a feminist, not a multiculturalist. I don’t respect cultures that don’t respect women. I’m not afraid to say that western American culture is BETTER than Taliban culture.
I don’t want a family living Taliban culture as my next door neighbors.
I’m an infidel and proud of it. Islam’s teachings have nothing good to say about me.
2000 Arab Muslim men committed mass sexual assault in the streets of Germany on New Year’s Eve. Yeah, a healthy fear of Muslims is rational. I would move away if 10 moved in to the house next door to me. I don’t want to be the victim of Taharrush Gamea, the arab mass sexual assault game.
I voted for Bernie, but I do agree with Trump voters on one thing: I believe in the melting pot, not multiculturalism.
No more silence in the name of political correctness. That brought us to a reality TV clown as president elect.
My good friend, born Muslim in Iran, could not agree more that Islam is like a cancer.
Well Donald yyyooouuu did iiitttt !!
White Supremacists are already having wet dreams about the Swastika flying over the White House.
What’s a “near-plurality of voters”?
Hillary Clinton garnered the plurality of the popular vote (47.8%), but Donald Trump was close behind (46.6%). (The plurality, of course, being the largest group, in cases where a majority does not exist [50.00000000…% or less] )
“In America, the winners of elections do not use their offices to punish the losers. ”
Right – tell that to Obama’s administration, with their scandals of IRS investigations and BATF excesses.
And anyone who knows what Islam is, knows he’s right. It is a cancer.
I know what Islam is but I don’t know that it is a cancer. What part of Islam did I miss? Thanks in advance for enlightening.
“.. Condoleezza Rice, espoused a die-hard belief in American exceptionalism, defined American rivals as barbarians, and beat the war drums about weapons of mass destruction. Flynn said the same things in his speech at the Republican convention in Cleveland.”
So, a Stanford-educated, wine-sipping, classical-music-loving intellectual is on a par with a religious zealot who criticizes the religion of nations she has helped invade. Zero sum.
“(Flynn) accepted speaking fees from a T.V. network funded by the Russian government (RT, which speaks as positively of Russia as CNN does of the USA.) and sat next to Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner in Moscow, across the table from Green Party candidate Jill Stein.”
A plus in the general’s column!
I wanted to know what Michael Flynn’s views really were, and not trust U.S. media on this, translated this Le Monde interview w/ Google Translate. Here are a few points:
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2016/11/18/michael-flynn-un-revanchard-au-conseil-de-securite-national_5033172_3210.html
This is what the neoliberals won’t admit; the whole effort to overthrow Assad is led by Al Qaeda and ISIS, and that’s who the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. have been funneling money and weapons to. So I find this a hopeful point of view from Flynn. But not this bit:
This seems like a lot of nonsense; I don’t believe, based on many reports, that those 2013 chemical weapons attacks were due to Assad. I think it’s far more likely that Gaddafi’s chemical weapons were smuggled into Syria and used by Al Qaeda in those attacks, with CIA complicity, in a failedeffort to create a causus belli for intervention by NATO. Furthermore, when Bahrain crushed its popular uprising with the aid of Saudi tanks, the United States did not complain (certainly Clinton, whose foundation pulled in $32 million from Bahrain, did not complain.) So should the U.S. have intervened in Bahrain on the side of the protesters?
That’s where the American Empire mentality is so obvious among both Democrats and Republicans, isn’t it?
Wow, a very sensible outlook, which everyone should understand to be the real situation. So he’s a mixed bag, all told – seems dedicated to perpetuation of the American presence in the Middle East as part of the “sphere of influence” idea, which is on its way out, but at least understands the problems on the ground.
What he doesn’t say that needs to be said is that the modern notion of separation of Church and State is fundamental for any form of democracy; you have to tolerate all religions, something many Islamic countries refuse to do (as does Israel), different religions have to exist peacefully side-by-side within the same country, and for that, you need that separation. Until that happens, the Middle East will remain stuck in the medieval era.
Another thing: American media has become an absolutely untrustworthy source of information, regardless of whether it’s non-profit or corporate or whatever. PR-mindset prevails. Always look for outside sources for confirmation.
It is worth noting that Flynn has gone on record and stated that the current Administration was more than willing to funnel arms and money to terrorists in Syria, confirming the reporting of Seymour Hersh. By doing so, they broke several federal laws and helped continue in the devastation of Syria. Were I president, I’d cut that ratline, use what we know to target the terrorists and aid the secular, elected government of Syria, and charge any politicians involved with aiding terrorism- and seek significant prison terms for all concerned.
There are plenty of problems with Flynn, but he would end this disastrous policy that helped destroy Libya and threatens to destroy Syria. (At least, as long as the congressional allies of this policy on both sides of the aisle don’t weigh in- though, at least it would mean Congress is fulfilling its role in foreign policy.)
The quote from Washington presumes that A. America would be led by honest people (We haven’t had one since 1980- and I’m being generous to Carter), B. Washington’s comments were intended as neutral advice, and not an attack on Jefferson and the Democrats (See “American Aurora” for a good debunking of many founding myths around Washington and Adams). I see nothing wrong with government looking into high crimes of their predecessors. If they did nothing wrong, then the investigation would go rather quickly (See Eisenhower trying to investigate alleged “secret treaties” by Truman and FDR). Today we’ve got presidents covering up their predecessors (Obama’s “look forward, not backward”, Bush’s refusal to investigate Clinton (leading Republican Dan Burton to call Bush “a dictatorial president”), and Clinton’s refusal to aid Lawrence Walsh’s looking into Iran-Contra.
BTW, it’s interesting how you tried to work in a smear of Jill Stein.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/11/20/flynn-pompeo-paradox-new-nationalism/
…As head of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, chief of the Military Intelligence Board, Assistant DNI, and officer in charge of Intel for the Joint Special Operations Command, Flynn was an innovator much admired by his colleagues. Where he got into trouble was when he a) questioned the rosy scenario painted by the Obama administration about the alleged “success” of our endless “war on terrorism,” and b) when his DIA issued a controversial Intel report that not only predicted the rise of ISIS, but also pinned responsibility for this squarely on the “Sunni turn” taken by the Obama team, and in particular Hillary’s State Department…
…Also quite encouraging is Flynn’s recognition of the key part played by “blowback” in exacerbating the problem of how to deal with radical Islamism…
…“When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.” Amen to that…
Oh, and BTW, or BTFW, for those still advocating similar behavior, The Crusades and The Inquisition are, like, way over… since, like, what, the 1200’s? And the Inquisition was designed to eliminate Protestantism… NeoLiberalism seems to equal Nazism, Neo or no… Nation run by a criminal class, despite any cladding and cloaking, religious or otherwise.
Disclaimer:Agnostic/atheist, first-amendment absolutist here.
There are good and bad people of all religious (or no religious) faiths. There are also religious texts in all religions which make moral claims and codify ethical rules in regard to human action, that are either regarded as the unquestionable word of God or are minimally granted an extraordinary level of authority (based on who wrote them) and sacredness, concepts foreign and anathema to science and logic based epistemological and metaphysical thought systems. That said, not all religious texts make the same or similar ethical claims on how humans ought to live life, interact with non-religious persons, relate to local secular legal regimes, behave with respect to gender roles, how or when violence should be engaged in, etc. The religious texts, when read carefully and obeyed faithfully by religious adherents, have clear discernible effects on the adherents’ world views, thoughts, and behaviors as well effects on third parties both inside and outside the adherent’s society.
Therefore, in order to determine whether a particular religion will pose a risk to the adherents themselves or third parties, the texts have to be examined and analyzed. Since the topic of this article is Islam, we should turn to the Koran, regarded by all Muslims as the direct word of God. There are numerous passages which advocate violence, war crimes, domestic violence, killing of infidels and apostates, polygamy, and child rape. Muhammad was indisputably an illiterate war criminal, polygamist, and pedophile. The fact that there are indisputably millions of Muslims who are peaceful, law abiding, tolerant, good people is a fact in spite of the Koran, not because of it. Buddhism’s Dhammapada, as a counter example to the claim that all religious texts are equally odious or dangerous, poses no such similar passages and predicably and not coincidentally, Buddhists do not have similar history of war making, violence, and mistreatment of women.
So Michael Flynn’s Islamophobia (fear of Islam), has support in the text of the Koran and hundreds of years of history. That’s not to say or imply that Flynn is not a war criminal in his own right (he along with Obama) should certainly be tagged with that label for their role in war making the last several years, but that’s a topic for another day.
You should also read the Bible to get a perspective on Jewish and Christian violence. Mohamed was a big fan of the bible and called Jews, Christians and Muslims ‘people of the Book’.
You could equally say that many Christians and Jews are good people despite the teachings of the odious Old Testament.
What about treatment of Rohingiya in Burma (Myanmar) or does that not count because the persecuted are from the followers of the evidently evil religion which you so eloquently called peacuful not because of their religion but in “spite of it”?
You are one of atheist bigots who hide behind science but are obviously as fallible as those who use religion to foster their hatrate.
If Islam isn’t a violent religion, then why does Saudi Arabia buy a billion dollars worth of American arms every year? Not that I’m being critical; weapons are one of the few industries still dominated by American manufacturers, so obviously violence is good for business. However, according to the Wikipedia article on the world arms industry, India is the world’s largest importer of arms, so it is encouraging to see that Hinduism is a violent religion as well. Of course, exporter nations, most of which are nominally Christian, contribute to violence too. Israel, relative to its size may be the largest arms exporter of all. In other words, all the world’s major religions seem to be in general agreement on the utility of violence, at least in practice, if not necessarily in their religious texts. The fact they are in unanimous agreement does not prove they are right, but at least it represents a common starting point to help them reach a better understanding of one another.
you are close BM:
… in fact, all the world’s major religions are in complete agreement on two things – influence and profit (now why would it be that this makes them sound like organised crime syndicates ??? hmmmm)
as for Flynn, sure he’s no angel – however, i look forward to seeing a list of good men and women who have occupied this position in the last 30 years.
in an interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera, Flynn was probably the most candid and honest i have ever seen from U$ Intel (watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4 ).
to all who think Flynn is a poor choice, perhaps you would like to suggest who you think should be the next National Security Adviser and why they represent less of a threat than Flynn (i’m ambivalent about it – but the reporting here seems to me to be cloudy and suspicious – Matt S – and not really representative of the facts – as noted by Wnt below).
“in fact, all the world’s major religions are in complete agreement on two things – influence and profit (now why would it be that this makes them sound like organised crime syndicates ??? hmmmm)”
That sounds nice and liberal, “all religions and their sacred texts are equally odious and dangerous to their adherents and third parties in their midst” but it’s demonstrably false by engaging in only a cursory examination of the Koran and the Dhammapada and a look at history. Islam and Buddhism (or Jainism) don’t pose anywhere near the same threat to humanity.
False equivalance. The problem is usually exacerbated when religions are incorporated into government and politics (a theocracy), whereas it has been very clear for a very long time that there ought to be a separation of church and state (I believe the Vatican re-emphasized this in a statement released in 2006). Religion itself ought to be kept separated from the corrupting influences of politics, which are absolutely not immune from the most basic of human impulses – in particular, the quest for money, power, influence, and status. This is largely the reason why Islam is looked upon very negatively by many – it just so happens that in many countries in which Islam is the main religion, Shari’a Law is the law of the land; often times, practicing another religion, denouncing Islam, and/or trying to convert a Muslim is punishable by a prison sentence or death. Understandably, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights faced stiff opposition from these countries.
Some very powerful people, particularly billionaires and top state officials, have the egotistical tendency to view themselves as gods incarnate, invincible, or “chosen ones”, and the thought of their own mortality often doesn’t faze them very much – this is not unlike the idea of “divine right”, which prevailed in many monarchies and the like (especially in medieval England). This egotism is enough to convince them that they are above the law (to varying degrees), and they can choose to manipulate or fabricate religious scripture, to their benefit (where applicable). The “Holy Roman Empire”, in particular, was extremely corrupt – members of the clergy were complicit in the commission of countless sins, and the payment of tithes was encouraged as a supposed means of forgiveness or to gain the favor of a powerful authority figure.
While I don’t have a problem with people expressing the view that they are atheist, I feel oftentimes that they choose to do so for the wrong reasons, though I don’t believe that they always do so out of spite or out of the will to be “free of God.” Understanding how religion is negatively portrayed by its politicization is a means of not having one’s faith in their religion compromised – a starting principle for those whose faith is in limbo is to always pursue peace and follow the golden rule, while defending what is right and not acting out of vengeance. When presiding over nations, governments ought to create and enforce laws with universalist ethics as a starting point. In the spirit of the First Amendment, we ought to have the freedom of, and from, religion.
The bottom line is, one should base their faith in a religion based on its message and values, and not on what other practitioners of that religion do. In practice, however, religion ought to respect the natural rights we are endowed with, and not seek to impose on others or instigate violence in its name. This is why radical Islam (Wahhabiism) is such a major issue, as it is often confused with Islam, in general.
I do not have all the answers here, but I try as best as I could to get my view of this across.
Seems to me most Islam is a cancer. Look at any majority Islamic country and how they treat women, homosexuals, Christians and Jews and that will give you the answer. Remember it was only a few yrs ago in Egypt “not traditionally a radical Muslim country” the brotherhood threw gays of rooftops during the so called Arab Spring! Or just visit any sharia neighborhood in France, Belgium or Michigan and that may also give you an indication of the cancer that is Islam. Just a few weeks ago one of my colleagues stopped in one of these neighborhoods in Michigan and was harassed by Muslim men simply because she was putting gas in her car wearing business attire. She was called a white whore and many other names just for getting gas. She told me she truly feared for her life and exited the gas station as fast as possible. Yes this is going on in America. So most really are savages and their moon God Mohammad is a sham. I’ll even go one step further for those I haven’t triggered already and state Islam does not and will never fit into western liberal democracies. Most Muslims have to compromise too much religiously speaking in order to live in such a social contract. I’ve known many Muslims and have lived next to radical students from various Muslim countries and have only met one non radical and he was from Jordan. He told me how ignorant most in Islam are and how much hate revolves around everyday conversations concerning Jews and Christians. Don’t even get me started on how they feel about women. His candor was spoken with much risk but he shared because we were good friends that held common views of peace and goodness of the human spirit that saw past the ugliness and bitterness that Islam brings!
I assume you speak from first hand experience of direct contact with Muslims and experience of these different countries’ Muslims not from having swallowed whole the narrative that our media have fed us?
O/T
Was watching that Dem stenographer and idiot (Joy Reid) on MSNBC this past weekend. Her panel was discussing the conflicts of funds coming into a President Trump’s business and she was whining about this might affect a President’s Trump decision on foreign matters.
Leave it to her to miss the most obvious concern and biggest threat to peace in the world regarding a President Trump’s term in office.
Trump is VERY thin-skinned. I don’t think anyone can deny this. Now, imagine what might happen if one of his hotels meets with an attack such as a bombing.
Trump has properties in Instanbul, Makati Phillippines, Rio De Janeiro and in Uruguay. Not exactly hotbeds of security. Which brings up a secondary question. To what extent will he use USG taxpayer funds to protect his personal properties or to wage an attack if something happens to one or more of them?
Trump also has golf courses in Dubai, UAE. Can anyone guess which middle-east country is about to see an increase in arms sales?
The biggest cancer here is Twitterized news “reporting”. This is just one outtake from a speech, in which he does call Islam a politicized ideology that hides behind religion. What’s left out is that he then makes clear he is talking about people with hatchets and machetes who kill families. He then says “It is like a cancer”. From the context, it is pretty clear that the malignant cancer he is speaking of is violence in the name of Islam. Does he blur the line between political violence and religion? Sure. Then again… so do the Islamists!
We deserve the right to reasoned reactions to WHOLE SPEECHES, not just outtakes and sound bites. We deserve the right to go over the original sources beginning to end, and we expect the people who report the news to us to have done exactly that, for real. And we deserve the right and have the duty to base our judgment on ACTIONS, such as tortures by the DIA, far more than any speeches. There are reasons to criticize Trump and Flynn, but going over sound bites like this does not further the cause, it hurts it, by going for cheap “gotchas” that can only possibly appeal to those already opposing them, while only alienating and disgusting those who have, on their own, decided they liked what they heard when he gave the speech.
Preach it.
Excellent point. Unfortunately, too many here will likely ignore it.
Flynn adds another certifiable psychopath to the list of Trumps gang of fascist megalomaniacs. I only hope I live to see the day his supporters begin to reap that which they sowed. As for jobs…hahahahahahahahaha! Please…spare me. If anything this maggot will bring this country back to the darkest days of the depression. I only have one thing to tell Trump.
The very last Russian Czar, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov , otherwise known as Nikolas ll, left a memo for you. I suggest you read it, schmuck
He’s right though.