Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The contrast between "Muslim-friendly" Obama and "anti-Muslim" Trump

Obama: authorizes drone strike that kills 48 out of 50 people in an Afghan wedding party. But happily welcomes the two survivors as "refugees" (fleeing his own policies).

The left: "What a great, pro-diversity guy!"

Trump: wants to stop attacking countries in order to impose our way of life on them, but thinks it might not be wise to let those two survivors of Obama's murderous foreign policy in the country, since they might be a little ticked off.

The left: "Racist! Anti-Muslim!"

14 comments:

  1. I fully concur with your criticism of the leeway given the previous president to be a war monger while painted in such a cool light. But the idea that "Trump wants to stop attacking countries to impose our way of life on them" is absurd from the standpoint of his campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of them" as well as his actions in office thus far which include, ironically enough given the comparison, this:
    http://www.chris-floyd.com/home/articles/bloodsport-trump-carries-on-presidential-tradition-notches-first-child-murder-30012017.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Davidly, I'm calling "dishonest liar" here! You know that "them" here meant ISIS, and not random Muslim countries whose government we disapprove of. So does the "ly" in your name stand for "lyer"?

      Delete
    2. Well, given that "ISIS" is yet another phony construction brought to you by the liars that keep on lying, and that Trump, by his own admission, pointed out that "Clinton created ISIS", by which he meant by toppling regimes and supporting "rebels" who are anything but moderate and, last but certainly not least, funding and arming the Saudis, who, after all, he is continuing to support in this proxy war in Yemen on behalf of more terrorism to fund and fight forever, or as long as there is a buck to be made, he is just as full of it as his predecessor. The contrast, as it were, you rightly alluded to in your title. It is in brand only.

      Delete
    3. A "phony construction" that conquered half of Iraq and Syria... I think I'm due back on planet earth now David. Nice talking to you.

      Delete
    4. A "phony construction" that conquered half of Iraq and Syria... I think I'm due back on planet earth now David. Nice talking to you.

      Yeah, that statement was out there.

      Delete
  2. This would be more persuasive if Trump hadn't just authorized a drone strike that killed a little girl (among others).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josiah, aren't we going to have to see the *overall impact of Trump's policies on the Muslim death rate*, and not draws conclusions from a single incident?
      I am *hoping* Trump kills fewer innocent Muslim non-combatants than his predecessors. I am *sure* the number he kills will continue to be > 0 throughout his presidency. But if that number is < Bush and < Obama, it represents improvement, right?

      Delete
    2. Okay, but you say Trump "wants to stop attacking countries in order to impose our way of life on them." Clearly Trump doesn't want to totally stop attacking other countries, and it's not even clear he will end up doing so less than Obama did.

      Delete
    3. 1) An attack on terrorists inside a country is not an attack on the country they are in!

      AND:

      "in order to impose our way of life on them."

      Did you miss that part, despite quoting it? Notice how you dropped it out in your response? Is that bad reading skills, or...?

      Delete
    4. Gene, the example you picked to contrast Obama with Trump's not wanting to attack other countries was Obama authorizing a drone strike.

      Delete
  3. Afghanistan isn't one of those countries. The ones actual terrorists came from aren't either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately, Trump is trying to stop FUTURE terrorist attacks, not past ones.

      Delete
  4. The drone strike targeting terrorists without imposing our way of life upon the country they're in just resulted in the murder of 48 of 50 wedding guests you mention above. Somehow we are to believe that Trump will find a more precise and effective/efficicient way to eradicate the terrorists without imposing our way of life upon the countries they're in. I suppose arming the Saudi's and using the Russian military will make it look less like we are doing it? I am more than willing to give him his fair shake on this since why the hell not, he has a ways I go before he reaches W Bush level atrocities. But do not try to obfuscate the fact that we are interfering in these countries and this interference in fact led men to grab blades and hijack planes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gene, you strike me as rational on most issues, even those I might disagree with you on, but on foreign policy you sometimes seem unhinged from reality, or at least my perception of reality. You seem to have a Manichaean view where on one side there's the U.S. government controlled by the military-industrial which seeks to make money by killing innocent civilians, and on the other side's there are a brave few who dare to stand up to these demonic forces, and are crushed by the system for doing so.

    Now you said Trump's action was "an attack on terrorists inside a country", not "an attack on the country they're in". But Obama hasn't done much attacking of other countries, he's mostly been attacking terrorists.

    ReplyDelete

Distraction Deterrents in Small Contexts

"distracted from distraction by distraction" - T.S. Eliot I've been reading a little on how Facebook and other social netwo...