Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... not being well coached/integrated/assimilated into the French society. Adding to that, they (temporarily) took in a large number of refugees from the Near Eastern countries. Large numbers of these people, if even legal immigrants or citizens, have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects, and are easy targets to actors who's job it is to recruit and radicalize these people...

Terrorism apologist of the year!

So, "not being well coached/integrated/assimilated...have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects..." are the real causes of terrorism?

Europe is full of Gypsies, who certainly fit the above description pretty well. None of which resorted to terrorism. Europe was full of gastarbeiters  (guest workers) from Greece, Turkey, former Yugoslavia (my grandfather and uncle too), etc., who also could fit the above description, at least in terms of being marginalized and having a low social status. None of them resorted to terrorism.

So how is it that only one particular group of immigrants and refugees is so susceptible to radicalisation? What does that group and its indoctrinators have in common? Where does that indoctrination start and take place? Take the time to study those questions too, and maybe you'll discover the real reason for that particular terrorism.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

How many "baizuo"-s (literally, the "white left") we have in this thread?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-rise-of-white-left-as-chinese-internet-insult

baizuo is [a derogatory term] used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.     

[Alan Klein]

If people like Trump start discriminating based on faith or even country of birth, it will only feed these sentiments of exclusion, a good foundation for radicalization. US judges do not agree with Trump.

  We have a right to defend ourselves as do you.  We are at war with Islamist Jihadi terrorists.  Many countries have terrorists who would immigrate to our country (and yours).    Your argument would have allowed German and Japanese nationals to immigrate to the US during WWII.  A restrictive immigration plan with certain vetting is reasonable.  Most sane countries even do that in peacetime. 

[Alan Klein]

Islamist terrorists were radicalized long before Trump.  The World Trade Center was first bombed by Al Khaida  in 1994, 7 years before the second bombing on 911.   

[Schewe]

A good read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/#

"What Explains the Idiocy of the Liberal Elite"

A good read if you like right wing wingnutz with an English accent...spectator.co.uk (rated as Right-Center Bias)  is "just" to the left of Fox News. I'm sure you would love to watch to him speak James Bartholomew introduces his new book, 'The Welfare of Nations'. and ends his opinions with the claim he coined the term ‘virtue signalling’ in The Spectator (not sure why he thinks he's the first to use it since wikipedia says that Virtue signaling has be been used before James used it and the article says "Bartholomew incorrectly claimed to have invented the phrase") It should be noted that Virtue signaling is a trolling term favored by the alt-right.

James thinks educated people are "silly"...

Why would anyone support Hillary Clinton — a ruthless, charmless Washington insider with socialist tendencies? Why do lawyers, churchmen, the BBC and, indeed, most educated people support the EU — an organisation as saturated with smug self-righteousness as it is with corruption; one which created the euro, which in turn has caused millions of people to be unemployed; an organisation which combines a yawning democratic deficit with incompetence over immigration and economic growth?

The elite are supposed to be educated. So why are they so silly?

Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world.

--snip--

The elite’s fuller education in the key beliefs explains why it was for Remain and Clinton. They voted for Remain because, in doing so, they demonstrated they were not racist but tolerant internationalists. They were not put off by the incompetence of the EU, because they have been taught an irrational respect for government — even EU government. They also perceived the EU as more likely to pursue environmentalism than an elected British government. You could say they were trained to vote for Remain. Clinton, too, ticked every box. Members of the elite could effortlessly show how feminist they were by wanting her to win. She was also the embodiment of the other key tenets: more equality, more government and anti-racism.

So, James sounds like a right ass, voted to leave the EU, hates woman's rights, hates any form of welfare and believes in allowing inequality for all (I won't mention the fact he sounds racist). Sounds like he would fit right in the GOP here in America...doesn't surprise me that James Bartholomew's views fit right in your echo chamber Slobodan...

It might not surprise anybody that I think he's full of shyte.

[Manoli]

The World Trade Center was first bombed by Al Khaida  in 1994

Alan, do a Google search on 'Al Khaida' and see what happens ...

[Schewe]

How many "baizuo"-s (literally, the "white left") we have in this thread?

Yeah, ok...but China isn't uh, a bastion of knowledge and freedom...

From the same article:

Finally, it should to be noted that the internet in China is subject to strict censorship. The Chinese government has been known to hire a large number of ‘internet commentators’ (known as the 50 cent party) to fabricate social media posts. According to a recent research conducted by scholars at Harvard University, 29% of the ‘accused 50 cent posts’ they investigated fall into the category of ‘taunting of foreign countries. It is nonetheless impossible to know whether these accused posts are indeed written by government employees. Similarly, it is hard to tell whether some of the criticisms of baizuo are coming from fabricated commentators-for-hire. However, given the strict censorship regime, criticizing democratic values such as pluralism, tolerance, and solidarity is certainly one of the safest ‘critical’ opinions ordinary citizens can express online. 

So, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in what the "Chinese netizens" have to say about us, ya know?

So, did you see this on Fox with Tucker?

[Schewe]

Enough about the liberal elite, now lets look at "The conservative mind"

The conservative mind has become diseased

By Michael Gerson Opinion writer May 25
To many observers on the left, the initial embrace of Seth Rich conspiracy theories by conservative media figures was merely a confirmation of the right’s deformed soul. But for those of us who remember that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were once relatively mainstream Reaganites, their extended vacation in the fever swamps is even more disturbing. If once you knew better, the indictment is deeper.

The cruel exploitation of the memory of Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead last summer, was horrifying and clarifying. The Hannity right, without evidence, accused Rich rather than the Russians of leaking damaging DNC emails. In doing so, it has proved its willingness to credit anything — no matter how obviously deceptive or toxic — to defend President Trump and harm his opponents. Even if it means becoming a megaphone for Russian influence.

The basic, human questions are simple. How could conservative media figures not have felt — felt in their hearts and bones — the God-awful ickiness of it? How did the genes of generosity and simple humanity get turned off? Is this insensibility the risk of prolonged exposure to our radioactive political culture? If so, all of us should stand back a moment and tend to the health of our revulsion.

But this failure of decency is also politically symbolic. Who is the politician who legitimized conspiracy thinking at the highest level? Who raised the possibility that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Who hinted that Hillary Clinton might have been involved in the death of Vince Foster, or that unnamed liberals might have killed Justice Antonin Scalia? Who not only questioned President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, but raised the prospect of the murder of a Hawaiian state official in a coverup? “How amazing,” Trump tweeted in 2013, “the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.”

We have a president charged with maintaining public health who asserts that the vaccination schedule is a dangerous scam of greedy doctors. We have a president charged with representing all Americans who has falsely accused thousands of Muslims of celebrating in the streets following the 9/11 attacks.

In this mental environment, alleging a Rich-related conspiracy was predictable. This is a concrete example of the mainstreaming of destructive craziness.

Those conservatives who believe that the confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is sufficient justification for the Trump presidency are ignoring Trump’s psychic and moral destruction of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Clinton, with a small number of changed votes, would have defeated Republicans. But Trump is doing a kind of harm beyond anything Clinton could have done. He is changing the party’s most basic moral and political orientations. He is shaping conservatism in his image and ensuring an eventual defeat more complete, and an eventual exile more prolonged, than Democrats could have dreamed.

#MAKEAMERICABATSHITCRAZYAGAIN

[Manoli]

A good read:

It's so full of hyperbole and dumbed-down misrepresentations, that it's not worth a second thought.
Is that the best you can come up with ?

[Farmer]

Are you deliberately shortening my name in a derogatory fashion (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)? Since I believe in free speech, once again, knock yourself out. But if not (deliberate), the proper shortening would be Slobo.

Before I respond to anything else, let me apologise.  No, I wasn't doing that.  Of course I know the term, but it was honestly just a shortening that would typically happen here (Australia).  Actually, Slob, Slobbo, or Dan, would all be pretty normal here.

I'll go with Slobo from now on, and again my sincere apologies.

Let us now resume the discussion.

[Farmer]

As for Saudis, I believe I stated in some other threads that it is a pity we are friends with such a society. But, realistically, given the choice of them or Iran... Besides, it is a good business. Hundred billions is not a small change. It is still better to get it (billions) from them, then to give it (billions) to Iran, as Obama did.

Even though you want to give us 500 years of "experience" in dealing with Muslims?  Business makes it OK to arm a group you consider the most dangerous?  In particular the origin of the most devastating attacks?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...So, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in what the "Chinese netizens" have to say about us, ya know...

Perhaps, but that coincides with what the other half of Americans have to say about you 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It's so full of hyperbole and dumbed-down misrepresentations, that it's not worth a second thought...

As if the vast majority of anti-Trump or simply loony-left articles isn't? Besides, this particular one is pretty "fair and balanced." In my opinion, of course. It is also my opinion that American universities have become Mao Tsedong's "re-education" camps, i.e., indoctrination centers of the extreme left.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Terrorism apologist of the year!

Apologist? Huh?

So, "not being well coached/integrated/assimilated...have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects..." are the real causes of terrorism?

You disappoint me Slobodan. Apparently, your mind is so closed to analysis and solutions, that you prefer to dwell in pointing at, and blaming, others (which has never worked).

Europe is full of Gypsies, who certainly fit the above description pretty well. None of which resorted to terrorism. Europe was full of gastarbeiters  (guest workers) from Greece, Turkey, former Yugoslavia (my grandfather and uncle too), etc., who also could fit the above description, at least in terms of being marginalized and having a low social status. None of them resorted to terrorism.

Thanks for making my point, there were also many Muslims amongst the groups you described.

So how is it that only one particular group of immigrants and refugees is so susceptible to radicalisation? What does that group and its indoctrinators have in common? Where does that indoctrination start and take place? Take the time to study those questions too, and maybe you'll discover the real reason for that particular terrorism.

The crux is that it is not one group of immigrants and refugees that is so susceptible to radicalization! It can happen to anybody, given the 'right' conditions. Your fixation on Muslims make you blind to that fact.

As an example, in the Netherlands we had several terrorist hijackings, e.g. one in 1975 when a train was hijacked (the hijacking lasted for 12 days and three hostages were killed), and one in 1977 (the hijacking lasted for 482 hours (20 days); two hostages and six hijackers were killed). At the same time another group of terrorists took hostages at an elementary school (they took 105 children and five teachers hostage).
Most of the South Molluscan population, where these hijackers came from, adhered to the Calvinist branch of Protestantism, due to the Dutch colonization at that time (not that religion had anything to do with it here either).

Discrimination, e.g. based on religion, can lead to innocent deaths.
Two men stabbed to death on Oregon train trying to stop anti-Muslim rant
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-muslims-portland-idUSKBN18N080

"Christian started shouting ethnic and religious slurs, apparently at the two young women, one of whom wore a Muslim head-covering, the Portland Police Department said in a statement."

Trump's Muslim ban attempts have already had their effect, even without the ban becoming law.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

European allies see the two sides of Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-allies-analysis-idUSKBN18O0BP?il=0

"As Trump headed home, European officials were left with mixed feelings: relief that he had been patient enough to listen to their arguments and unsettled by a Jekyll-and-Hyde figure who is still finding his way on the big policy issues.

"It all fits with his strategic ambiguity approach to life," said Julianne Smith of the Centre for a New American Security. "It may do wonders when dealing with adversaries. But it doesn't work when dealing with allies," she said."

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So, did you see this on Fox with Tucker?

No, as I don't watch TV. At this point I pretty much already know what each TV station, including Fox, is going to say, so why bother.

I get my info generally from three sources: Apple News, Google News, and Bing News. The last one I am particularly fond of, as it's opening page is usually a magnificent photograph of the day. But I digress. All three sources are news aggregators, i.e., contain news and articles from a variety of sources. That way I get info from left to right. CNN, HuffPost, MSNBC, Fox, NYT, WaPo, foreign press, etc. Pretty varied, don't you think?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No, as I don't watch TV. At this point I pretty much already know what each TV station, including Fox, is going to say, so why bother.

I get my info generally from three sources: Apple News, Google News, and Bing News. The last one I am particularly fond of, as it's opening page is usually a magnificent photograph of the day. But I digress. All three sources are news aggregators, i.e., contain news and articles from a variety of sources. That way I get info from left to right. CNN, HuffPost, MSNBC, Fox, NYT, WaPo, foreign press, etc. Pretty varied, don't you think?

You do realize that these search engines partially filter information based on your prior surfing behavior? Also, information positions can be bought or suppressed, as was demonstrated earlier by different people surfing with the same search terms for info about Hillary Clinton's private email server. Maybe not as severe as Facebook and similar which disseminate fake news, but people do tend to get info that keeps them inside their bubble. and surrounds them with advertizing tuned to their profile.

I prefer to first read News agencies that are objectively classified as least biased, like Reuters.com, before looking at more biased sources. Depending on the geography and field of expertise, there are other least biased sources as well.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump tells 'confidants' U.S. will leave Paris climate deal: Axios
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN18O00J?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

"U.S. President Donald Trump has told "confidants," including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave a landmark international agreement on climate change, Axios news outlet reported on Saturday, citing three sources with direct knowledge.

On Saturday, Trump said in a Twitter post he would make a decision on whether to support the Paris climate deal next week.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A source who has been in contact with people involved in the decision told Reuters a couple of meetings were planned with chief executives of energy companies and big corporations and others about the climate agreement ahead of Trump's expected announcement later in the week. It was unclear whether those meetings would still take place."

This can lead to import duties on exported American goods, reduced investments in the USA, and and reduced confidence in a trading partner.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You do realize that these search engines partially filter information based on your prior surfing behavior?...

I knew someone is is going to come back with that. These are not search engines. I do not do search on them. They are news aggregators. When I want to read about something, there is a list of articles to chose from, containing all the diverse sources. So I might check what Fox said and what HuffPost said about the same news.

I prefer to first read News agencies that are objectively classified as least biased, like Reuters.com

Did you just say "objectively classified"!? An oxymoron?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... your mind is so closed to analysis and solutions...

Please enlighten us with your analysis and solutions.

... it is not one group of immigrants and refugees that is so susceptible to radicalization! It can happen to anybody, given the 'right' conditions.

But it didn't.

You constantly fail to see the difference between individual causes and isolated incidents vs. a global reach and unified ideology/religion that transcends centuries and continents.