Trump campaigned against Muslims, but will preach tolerance in Saudi speech

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
randomuser said:
So Obama then? Obama was president when Congress passed legislation allowing for 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi Arabia. (Trump apparently forgot about 9/11 already.)
Click to expand...
Didn’t congress do that on a veto override?
 
randomuser said:
Ah, so that’s a “yes” then. You do think Obama and Hillary were correct in not calling it “radical Islamic terrorism” like Trump demanded. Got it. 🙂
Click to expand...
If that’s your conclusion I’m afraid a fruitful conversation is beyond our reach
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
If that’s your conclusion I’m afraid a fruitful conversation is beyond our reach
Click to expand...
It’s a yes-or-no question. If you think Obama and Hillary were correct in not calling it “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” which is what Trump demanded, then the answer would be yes, you think they were correct. Conversations are entirely optional with yes-or-no questions. 🙂
 
randomuser said:
It’s a yes-or-no question. If you think Obama and Hillary were correct in not calling it “Radical Islamic Terrorism,” which is what Trump demanded, then the answer would be yes, you think they were correct. Conversations are entirely optional with yes-or-no questions. 🙂
Click to expand...
They were incorrect to never use the term on purpose.
 
dvdjs said:
In fact, this softer posture “on the Mulim ban” was adopted when he was POTUS, and tasked people to craft a ban that might pass judicial review. Druing the campaign he called for a total and complete ban on Muslim immigration.
Click to expand...
Since May 2016, he called the ban temporary. Are only those from the Democrat party are allowed to evolve?
 
randomuser said:
Then why was it so imperative that Obama and Hillary had to use the word “radical”?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the imperative was that they call it “radical”, but rather “radical Islamic”. Trump said that time and time again, that he wanted to affix the connection between terrorism and Islam to the conversation. We can fight about whether he did that to pander to a certain set of people, or, to “call it what it is”. But I’m sure everyone would term any kind of terrorism from any sort of people as radical. Terrorism by nature is radical.
 
Rhubarb said:
I don’t think the imperative was that they call it “radical”, but rather “radical Islamic”. Trump said that time and time again, that he wanted to affix the connection between terrorism and Islam to the conversation. We can fight about whether he did that to pander to a certain set of people, or, to “call it what it is”. But I’m sure everyone would term any kind of terrorism from any sort of people as radical. Terrorism by nature is radical.
Click to expand...
Ah, so another agreement with Obama and Hillary in not calling it “Radical Islamic terrorism” like Trump demanded? Who know their foreign policy would be so agreed-to by so many Trump fans? 🤷
 
7_Sorrows said:
Trump did not campaign against Muslims. He campaigned against Islamic terrorism
and immigration from countries where Islamic terrorism flourishes to prevent terrorists from coming to the U.S.
Click to expand...
But Islamic terrorism has been flourishing in Saudi Arabia, too. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia was not on the Trump administration’s list of banned countries.
 
Thorolfr said:
But Islamic terrorism has been flourishing in Saudi Arabia, too. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia was not on the Trump administration’s list of banned countries.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Thorolfr said:
But Islamic terrorism has been flourishing in Saudi Arabia, too. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia was not on the Trump administration’s list of banned countries.
Click to expand...
The list of seven countries were based on something the Obama administration came up with. Somalia, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq were on the list because they don’t have stable governments they can work with.
But if any President really wanted to fight terror Saudi Arabia would have been on there. In the end, it’s about money. The Saudis have plenty of it and the hedonists in corporate America need that money.
Trump hasn’t shown any real interest in defeating terror. Nor would Clinton. Nor any President. If you can’t stand up to the Saudis, it’s like chasing ones tail.
 
St_Pancake said:
Since May 2016, he called the ban temporary. Are only those from the Democrat party are allowed to evolve?
Click to expand...
I applaud his evolution.

But the simple fact is that during the campaign he called for a total and complete ban on Muslim immigration. His evolution does not change the past and does not erase it. Indeed he only deleted the call from his site less than two weeks ago.

The past did happen. Evolution, even if taken at face value, does not that it didn’t happen or that it has no relevance to the present. Posters criticizing the article implicitly denied the past. The very recent past. That’s more than a little freaky.
 
Thorolfr said:
But Islamic terrorism has been flourishing in Saudi Arabia, too. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia was not on the Trump administration’s list of banned countries.
Click to expand...
On my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia, I was greeted with a startling confession. In the past, when we raised the issue of funding Islamic extremists with the Saudis, all we got were denials. This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.” He explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.
Under their new and unprecedented policy of honesty, the Saudi leadership also explained to me that their support for extremism was a way of resisting the Soviet Union, often in cooperation with the United States, in places like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In this application too, they argued, it proved successful. Later it was deployed against Iranian-supported Shiite movements in the geopolitical competition between the two countries.
Click to expand...
But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”
Click to expand...
politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241

Seems the Saudis are trying to become true partners in the war against Islamic Terrorism, belatedly recognizing the threat to themselves it creates. Working with them and rewarding their positive behavior seems like “smart diplomacy” to me. Much smarter than rewarding Iran, as the previous administration did.
 
ucfengr said:
politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241

Seems the Saudis are trying to become true partners in the war against Islamic Terrorism, belatedly recognizing the threat to themselves it creates. Working with them and rewarding their positive behavior seems like “smart diplomacy” to me. Much smarter than rewarding Iran, as the previous administration did.
Click to expand...
What was that expression again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice… Realistically, it’s like the sixth time but there isn’t an equivalent like two=twice.
 
dvdjs said:
In fact, this softer posture “on the Mulim ban” was adopted when he was POTUS, and tasked people to craft a ban that might pass judicial review. Druing the campaign he called for a total and complete ban on Muslim immigration.
Click to expand...
Right because a successful businessman would have absolutely no concept of asking for more than you want to make sure you get what you actually want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top