Skip navigation

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

“Bows to Assad”?

Totally stupid piece of propaganda.

Assad is the elected president of Syria.

His government is the legitimate government of Syria.

In international affairs, you either comply with the norms or you do not, in which case you become a pariah state.

The norms include complying with legitimate government requests such as this. Passports, indeed, are the property of the issuing governments.

God, it is difficult to believe I am not looking at The News of the World here.

Ignorant and shameful.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SIMON TISDALL IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“Barack Obama’s ‘Asian pivot’ failed. China is in the ascendancy”

Let’s hope that’s right.

What business does the United States have claiming ascendancy ten thousand miles away in Asia?

It’s ridiculous on the face of it, and it is only a possible source for conflict.

And just look at what it is that Obama was “pivoting’ from: the entire Mid East in ruins and strewn with dead.

My God, I am grateful if he cannot repeat the horror.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Hillary is simply laughable.

If she gets her wobbly eye to stay in place and if she doesn’t faint too often and if she doesn’t cough so much no one can understand what she is saying, she will go after Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

And what will she discover then?

A man who was once an American prisoner and is reputed to have received training by American agents.

A man who is known to John McCain, and you may easily find photos of them together at meetings in the Mideast on the Internet.

And a man who, it is whispered in a number of places, is actually an Israeli agent with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being an assumed name.

You go girl.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY SONJA MEYER IN THE GUARDIAN

 

We will ignore the bombs to continue delivering humanitarian aid in Syria

Sorry, but that is a truly a phony headline.

That convoy was torched by the US-affiliated terrorists in the neighborhood through which it was passing and/or Hellfire missiles fired from an American drone. These missies leave no bomb craters, and that is what we see in videos, no bomb craters.

After the Russians released some drone video showing a non-military vehicle with a large-scale mortar going by the trucks and also images of an American Predator drone overhead, the US shut up its phony yapping about Russians or Syrians attacking this convoy.

Motives for this attack included getting the American war crime of bombing Syrian soldiers just days ago off the front page. It worked, and we’ve read little but phony angst and false claims in the press.

When you bomb a country with which you are not at war and kill more than sixty soldiers and injure another hundred, I think we rightly call that a war crime. The bombing enabled ISIS to gain a small initiative.

Then your funded cut throats follow up and destroy a convoy. Nice work, America.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

“Assad unleashes intense attack on Aleppo – with Russian jets in support”

A total misstatement of the situation.

Assad can hardly do what in fact the US has already done, make a wreck of Syria.

Let’s not forget American jets bombed Syrian soldiers just days ago, a complete war crime and one which allowed ISIS to make progress.

Then, shortly after, we saw a convoy destroyed – this time likely by local American-supported terrorists and/or American drone-fired missiles in the area.

The U.S. lied, up and down, about both events until some Russian proof was released.

And the second event, the convoy, was intended to remove the sting and the headlines of the first, killing soldiers with whom you are not even at war.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

Assad’s war on his own country?

I’m sorry but that is simply a lie, and a gross one such as we’d expect from Pravda in 1954.

This war is a total artificial creation by the U.S. and its willing helpers.

They want to get rid of a leader they don’t like and, importantly, Israel doesn’t like.

The US also wants to run a pipeline through Syria which the legitimate government has declined to approve. For those reasons, mayhem has been unleashed and 400,000 have died.

Once you unleash the dogs of war, as America and its helpers have, all kinds of ugly things happen.

The country’s armed forces are fighting gangs of cut throats inserted and armed under American auspices.

With rubbish like this article, The Independent of course joins the ranks of helpers.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

They were indeed.

Some suspect the Pentagon and the Neocons in the State Department did this in a direct challenge to Obama’s even dealing with Russia.

A scary idea, indeed, the military challenging civilian authority, but not unprecedented for the U.S. military.

The second attack, on the UN aid convoy, a bombing as reported, was likely the work of the local terrorist allies of the Pentagon in the area it was passing through.

Those trucks – the UN convoy – were either hit by artillery or burnt. They were not bombed, as is apparent in photos.

This was an attempt – quite successful – to get the American war crime of attacking Syrian soldiers off the front pages.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JILL ABRAMSON IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“The Trump Foundation: what’s known is shocking. We need to know more”

Jill Abramson, this this is pitifully poor stuff.

Basically, you should do some homework before you start typing attacks.

The Clinton Foundation is the most suspect institution of its kind in America, and, while currently protected from investigation by Democrat appointments in the Federal government, it is not protected in the states.

The FBI is working on it right now in New York, and there are reports they believe they have some serious stuff.

We have some very serious observers saying that it is a giant slush fund, money-laundering scheme, and family employment gimmick.

We have all kinds of hints, and believe me, they are indeed shocking.

The pay-out in actual charity as a percentage of the budget for the last year we have data was on the order of five percent. All the rest was administration and expenses for high living officials like Chelsea.

Hillary’s tax return told us she personally gave charitable donations of about $1,040,000 which sounds a tiny bit respectable for the world’s highest-income (rated in a survey) woman politician.

Then we read that a million dollars of that went to the Clinton Foundation.

This immensely wealthy woman gave a trifle to real charity and claimed another million dollar deduction for essentially giving it to herself.

Bill pocketed more than fifteen million in fees as an official of the Foundation’s “university.”

The Foundation’s involvement in charity for Haiti following its catastrophe sounds pretty close to big-time fraud.

Of course, we don’t even have good, clear, complete data on operations. They keep it as vague as possible.

That Foundation is going to bring both crooked Clintons down eventually.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Asking for “truth checks” by the debate moderator ranks as one of Hillary’s shabbiest tricks, and that really is saying something.

It really smacks of something the Stasi might have come up with in order to confuse people.

First, the press simply is not qualified to be granted as a position as arbiter of fairness or authority on facts. It has through its own acts demonstrated this conclusively.

Regardless of whether you like Trump, an objective observer has to admit the mainline press is overwhelmingly, often insanely, biased against Trump.

This true in the United States where a relatively small number of networks and newspaper empires disseminate most of what Americans hear or read about politics. The bias on television and in newspapers has been almost frightening at times.

It is even true in Britain where nobody can have missed the solid wall of opposition and bias and constant innuendo from BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent, among others.

We know that, year-in and year-out, the press is not unbiased and academic standards of journalism rarely are allowed to override the interests of press owners, but in this case – as in, ironically, that of Jeremy Corbyn, a man on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but also an enemy of establishment interests – all attempts at even an appearance of fairness and balance have been trashed.

The raw drives and wishes of owners and their management have been allowed a grossly free run. These are people who completely support the existing establishment and its ugly wars, and they fear Trump’s even slightly altering America’s 15-year history of hyper-aggressive policy, just as they know Hillary is their safe bet for a continuation.

So why would anyone in Trump’s position agree to “fact-checking” by these very people who run the debates? The ploy puts Trump in the position of having to refuse “truth checks” or “fact checks,” thus giving the press even more material to manipulate unfairly, as in “Trump is afraid of truth.” And if he accepts, he will be interrupted with “facts” which may not be facts at all but nuanced attack stuff, and there will be no opportunity to rebut unless the debate gets mired into a shambles of “he said” and “she said.”

But it is impossible to point out even one undisputed truth or fact about, for example, the years-long, hideous war in Syria published or broadcast by anyone in the establishment press. Deception has almost become an unconscious part of the business, as they all act in the daily interests of the ruling establishment. Why would any rational person expect them to behave any differently towards the one political candidate who questions these wars and practices?

Joseph Pulitzer said, “Newspapers should have no friends.” A. J. Liebling said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” These two quotes should always be kept in mind when discussing the press.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN BY BEN HARRIS IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

“George W Bush is one of my biggest political heroes…”

All I can say, Ben Harris, is that anyone who can make that statement does not have a single word worth reading or hearing.

It’s a bit like declaring yourself mentally unfit before getting up to speak

George Bush was likely the most feeble-minded and ethically-empty man ever to be president.

And he launched a totally unnecessary war in Iraq that killed perhaps a million people in total, destroying one of the Mideast’s most prosperous countries.

And his invasion of Afghanistan too was not necessary because the Taleban government had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 9/11.

Yet the US invaded, killed a lot of people, and achieved virtually nothing, leaving the place in a shambles.

What I suspect is actually Mr. Harris’s undeclared agenda here is Trump’s opposition to the Neocon Wars, a hateful 15-year crusade of murder and destruction.

In the US, the group that is most vociferous and even vicious against Trump is the Neocons and the Israel Lobby.

The reason is simple: Israel likes having everyone with any independence of mind around it flattened, and that is what these American wars have done. Also, Israel feels good that a muscular, hyper-aggressive U.S. remains that way in world affairs. It comforts them in their horrible occupied territory in which about 6 million suffer daily.

Most of the world’s people would like to see some peace and constructive engagement in America’s world affairs, and that is Trump’s greatest promise.

Hillary, a pathetic willing helper of the Neocons for years, offers only more war and violence.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

Response to another reader’s comment:

It is not just a simple thing like training, although that is important.

It is stupid hiring practices with no screening process for psychological indicators of unsuitable people.

It is no system of following up on those hired. It works much like teachers with the same poor results. Once hired and in the union, you’re in pretty much for good even though you may give all kinds of signs of unsuitability. Few if any have long-term practices of being evaluated before being made permanent.

Many of these failures come down to costs, and the truth is Americans hate paying taxes in a visceral way, and you very much get what you pay for.

American urban sprawl reflects people constantly shifting out to newer-built suburbs where taxes are lower and where they are expected to be kept low. The higher taxes of older cities and towns are widely viewed with contempt. This sprawl also puts revenue pressure on the governments of the older places being left.

The US has so many “urban-sprawl” towns and communities, tens of thousands of them in places that were cornfields only a brief time ago. In many cases, these simply do not have the resources to do things right. Thus, training or other specialized facilities do not exist.

A prime source of hiring cops for many communities in America is the military. The gigantic armed forces are constantly producing a stream of people leaving. So people leaving the military – where all they’ve learned is obedience and killing and where the average intelligence is not high – are often readily accepted as police.

The problem is also a set of widespread attitudes about how policing should work. The generally accepted model in the U.S. is military.

There is also an undercurrent not spoken of in the press of the need to keep undesirables (with various definitions) away in communities.

In the end, it is the sheer fact that the U.S. is a very violent society, far more so than most British people can fully appreciate.

Again, below is the kind of violence which occurs in just one large U.S. city. The stats are authentic and regularly updated. This kind of stuff sends shivers through everyone as they read about it or see it on television. It is part of the air, if you will, everyone breathes, and it affects everyone with anxieties and fears.

http://heyjackass.com/

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“David Millband claims Corbyn has made Labour ‘unelectable'”

Declaring someone unelectable when there has been no election seems pretty stupid to me.

Perhaps the answer is, Mr Millband, is to just stop holding elections?

Why bother asking the people what it is they want in a government?

We have you to tell us.

John Chuckman

COMMET POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JOHN CURTICE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Jeremy Corbyn is not unpopular – but he is divisive’

A truly absurd claim.

The real situation is that a gang of Tony Blair’s acolytes has not liked Jeremy Corbyn from the first moment of his leadership.

And they have worked ceaselessly and quite unethically to harm his leadership.

This has included the most hateful tactics I can recall in a major party in a major country in modern times.

You really do have to go back to the days of Senator Joe McCarthy in the United States to find something as detestable as the long campaign over non-existent anti-Semitism.

Simply filthy stuff, ugly name-calling and innuendo, dealing with no issues.

We even had stuff as brainless as David Cameron’s arrested-adolescent jokes about Corbyn’s wardrobe.

Everyone involved in that should be ashamed, and that very much includes the editors of The Guardian as well as David Cameron, Tony Blair, and Owen Smith.

_______________________

Let me add a thought or two.

When you admit someone is popular but…, you are attacking the very foundations of democracy, full stop.

When you speak of a popular person being divisive, you are literally saying that you and some associates know better than the people.

I do believe that is the attitude of aristocracy.

That is what this whole ugly matter is about: the establishment is uncomfortable with Corbyn and believes it has the right to attack him relentlessly.

In all of its attacks, there is Tony Blair-style dishonesty in telling people what it is they are really concerned with.

In this sense, Tony Blair’s ugly involvement in a genuine large-scale war crime, the invasion and destruction of Iraq, something he never stopped lying about either before or after the carnage, has produced a lasting, poisonous legacy in British politics.

 

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Oh, thank you, Owen Jones, for your wisdom, but what politician can you name with a “clear, coherent vision”?

Theresa May? Tony Blair? Owen Smith? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Angela Merkel? Francois Hollande?

I can only think of one, an American gentleman, and I know you and your employer dislike him because he is attacked almost as much as Jeremy Corbyn has been.

Actually, the reason Jeremy Corbyn has been so relentlessly assaulted by papers like The Guardian is precisely because his vision is strongly rejected by the establishment, so I have to say there is a sense of insincerity in your statement.

And has anyone ever noticed that the word “must” is Owen Jones’ favorite?

I think he was rather heavily exposed to preachy Sunday School as a boy.

John Chuckman

COMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“Sadiq Khan sets up inquiry into garden bridge project’s use of public money”

More cheap grandstanding by that most disappointing politician, Sadiq Khan.

The fact is that the garden bridge is the best idea to come to London in a couple of decades.

It is an interesting and potentially beautiful concept.

It will be a tourist magnet and provide a stimulus to new businesses associated with it.

The sad fact is that most of the recent and contemporary built structure in London has been appallingly ugly stuff.

The city has literally been “uglified” by much of it.

Let’s get started with doing something right, and the garden bridge is an excellent place to start.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Sadiq Khan has an ego the size of a small planet.

A film of his life?

God, what has he done that anyone would want to make a film about him?

What audience would there even be for such a tedious idea?

And then, for the piece de resistance, this planetary-sized ego thinks George Clooney should play him.

Wow, talk about wet dreams?

I wonder what he has in mind for a title for this fantasy film no one would dream of making or going to see?

“Sadiq: the Movie”? “The Second Greatest Story Ever Told”? “The Ego That Swallowed London”? “Khan’s Flying Circus”?

I could suggest, perhaps most appropriately, “Betrayal.”

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN BY LAURA BATES IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“…misogyny as a hate crime…”

After an unthinking statement like that, there can be nothing worth saying or reading.

Please, misogyny is a state of mind, not a crime.

And this kind of clumsy use of words runs the risk of making a society of laws either hopeless or ridiculous.

“Hate crime” in general is a concept right out of George Orwell.

If you can’t see that, you shouldn’t be writing.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY NICK COHEN IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“Only true liberalism can thwart the demagogues”

Where do you see one genuinely liberal spirit?

I consider myself a liberal, and I can sincerely say I see nothing of what I care about in Clinton.

She’s a war-monger, and nothing can be further from the meaning of “liberal” than that.

And why do you use the word “demagogues” for those you do not like?

Trump is not a demagogue, and when the press keeps repeating that false claim, it only loses what credibility it has left, which, by the way, is not a lot.

Trump is sincere, of that I have no doubt. I believe he is mistaken in a number of matters, but I also know that he is right on some crucially important ones.

The truth is he cannot do any worse than the greatest mass killer on earth, Barack Obama, and I’m convinced he can do a good deal better.

In politics, you don’t get everything you want, but too often, you get nothing, which is very much the case with Obama, a man who has failed to do almost anything worthwhile either at home or abroad.

I really think the views expressed here resemble stale, old crusts of bread being tossed on the walk to feed the pigeons.

 

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHAN FREEDLAND IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Oh, I don’t think so.

But, of course, there you are, Jonathan Freedland, doing just what Tony’s advisers undoubtedly suggested might happen with his gesture, already offering him publicity and planting positive suggestions.

And that’s all it is, a gesture.

This man has made more money than he knows what to do with, and of course a great deal of his fortune involves direct and indirect rewards and emoluments for helping destroy Iraq, helping kill half a million in the process, create floods of refugees, and leave one of the Mideast’s most advanced society pretty much in ruins for years.

The country as a unified has pretty well ceased to exist, and at least another half million died in after-shocks. But Tony sat comfortably in his limo doing nothing of any account but answering phone calls for awards, endowments, and sinecures.

America always takes good care of the creatures who faithfully serve its purposes, and Tony fully realized that with the literal shower of gold he experienced.

Actually, I’m inclined less to believe he is putting away business than the shower of gold has trickled its last for him, and he has a tale to tell in hopes of gaining some bizarre merit of some sort.

In any case, he can be assured that the Jonathan Freedlands of this world stand ready to get out the good word for him.

Then again, maybe he just plans to spend more time with Rupert’s ex?

________________________________

 Response to a comment about Blair’s sinecure at the Quartet:

 Oh, he did such a bang up job.

I recall once when he cancelled going to some meeting out of fear.

He is a true coward, after all.

 

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY DANIEL PATRICK WELCH IN INVESTMENTWATCH

 

“The Elite Don’t Need A President With A Pulse Says Political Analyst”

 

This is true, and we already have experience.

George Bush served for 8 years, but he was in charge of virtually nothing.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld ran the show.

Bush just signed where he was directed to sign and gave the speeches he was asked to give.

The flim-flam was obvious to any good observer. Bush totally lacked effective intelligence and even the ability to articulate clearly. He was a life-long ne’er-do-well and had not a genuine success of any kind on his own in his entire life. He was happy to be propped up and put on display as though he had finally succeeded at something.

Cheney and, to a slightly lesser degree, Rumsfeld were super-driving, ambitious men of considerable intelligence with glandular views of how things should be ordered and performed, both completely untroubled by conscience or ethics. Either of them might comfortably have worked for a Hitler or Stalin, but they were luckier than that in where they landed, in charge in all but name.

John Chuckman

COMMENT TO AN ARTICLE BY JULIAN BORGER IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Yes, but the cuts will likely be technical in nature or in upgrades which are not very cost-effective. After all, the Pentagon is now spending at record levels in an economy which does not even possess the means to pay the bill on its own. Add to that the disappearing trillions discovered years ago in Pentagon accounts and still never explained, you certainly have some little pressure to pause just a bit.

Nevertheless, Obama recently committed to a long-term trillion-dollar (yes, that’s indeed a “t”) program to upgrade and update and further develop many American nuclear weapons.

For instance, the B-61 bomb is having its yield changed and its accuracy in delivery, a concern to many since the view amongst the Pentagon attack dog pack – the Gen Breedlove types – is that this will make the bomb more usable in places like Europe. The older version is just what you have stored at several locations in Europe, including in Turkey.

If we judge leaders by their acts and not their rhetoric, as we must to maintain any sanity for ourselves, Obama is absolutely not a man of peace, although he seems to like styling himself that way and using the language.

Readers should always be aware that one of the greatest speeches for peace ever made, as judged by such an astute observer as writer William Shirer, was made by Adolph Hitler on virtually the eve of WWII.

Obama’s acts include not only record savagery in the Mideast – killing as many as two million and generating world record numbers of refugees, to the point of nearly de-stabilizing Europe – but pushing, completely unnecessarily, into the very teeth of Russia and into a sea of China ten thousand miles from home. And what can you say of a man who runs an organized system of extrajudicial killing complete with “kill lists”?

And what further can you say of a man who is working through a deal for the sale of $115,000,000,000 in arms to Saudi Arabia, a country which is right now savagely killing civilians in Yemen, contributes to the horrors of Syria, and keeps its own people in repression?

And he has just produced a new ten-year deal for Israel to supply it with what is effectively a $40,000,000,000 line of credit for weapons purchases. He does this without a single demand on Israel over its illegal occupation and continued annexation of other people’s land and severe repression of Gaza. After all, the UN agency responsible for such affairs has just declared Israel has the worst human rights record on earth.

It truly is a nasty joke, a bitter sarcasm, to write as though Obama were concerned with nuclear weapons in any but a technical way, suggesting once again, quite tiresomely, that he is a man of peace. He shares none of the spirit of a Jeremy Corbyn. He is, in fact, a direct spiritual relative of blood-drenched Tony Blair.

__________________________________

Response to a comment that The Guardian has gone right wing:

That is so true.

As we’ve seen in so many areas, such as its horrible and shameless treatment of Corbyn.

The current editors, it is painfully obvious, fully embrace America’s New World Order stuff and the associated Neocon Wars. They are comfortable with killer-leaders like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I don’t see how you can get any farther away from truly progressive or liberal.

It publishes a lot of fluffy items about minorities as a way to keep a finger or two dipped into the progressive stream, but the main driving engine of the paper – displayed strongly in editorials, columns, and selection of news stories – is the establishment.

I don’t perceive a hair’s width of difference with the Rupert Murdochs of this world, and that is a shame.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A VIDEO ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

‘I will consider it a personal insult – an insult to my legacy – if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election’

What an amazingly arrogant thing to say.

Just insulting.

“Personal insult”? Who does he think he is, the king?

“Insult to my legacy”? He begins to sound delusional.

This garbage is addressed to black voters from a man who has done absolutely nothing for his own people. Nothing.

He has not even sorted out the problems of the financial collapse. He has done nothing to reform the financial industry or revise taxation. All he has done is print dollar bills.

His “legacy” is about two million dead in the Middle East and millions of desperate refugees trying to find safety.

The man has been a complete failure, except in his own eyes.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“Russia accuses US of bombing Syrian troops and risking ceasefire”

As is quite usual for The Guardian when it comes to Syria or Russia, you are reporting these events incorrectly.

There is no “accusation.”

It is simply a fact that the US bombed Syrian troops. The Russians even have some pictures of the results.

It is direct aggression since the US has no government permission to even be in the country. Syria has asked the UN to act, but the UN is pretty much under America’s thumb.

The US has not been cooperating since the agreement went into effect, and this is along several lines.

It is still protecting some terror groups.

It has not communicated well with the Russians, sometimes declining even to answer the phone.

And it is refusing even to let the agreement be published as the Russians keep requesting.

Were the terms published, we would all be in a better position to determine just where they are failing to be met.

Why does the US refuse this simple, fair-minded request?

You’d have to ask the shady Mr Kerry or the even shadier Mr Obama.

 

Note: Later America did admit the bombing.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

“‘That’s not the America I know’: Obama accuses Trump of stoking hate’

So says the world’s greatest living killer, a man who runs wars and bombings in half a dozen places as well as running an entire system of extrajudicial killing.

A man who destroyed Libya, has worked at destroying Syria for years, still kills in Afghanistan and Iraq, a man who has pushed, with no justification, his military into the very face of Russia and threatens the Chinese in a sea ten thousand miles from his home, a man who supports Saudi slaughter in Yemen, and still other horrors.

And I wonder how many readers are aware of his latest arms deal, the one with Saudi Arabia’s absolute princes for $115,000,000,000? Nice piece of business as reward for supporting blood-drenched tyrants.

I don’t know about you, but for me, killing hundreds of thousands of people, complete strangers, is about as great an expression of hate as is possible.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

Sadiq Khan is arguing over a “straw man.”

Trump is not anti-Muslim.

He’s only reflecting public fears about large-scale Muslim migration.

These fears, which are real, are the children of the American government’s policies for the last fifteen years and the truck-fulls of Islamophobic columns and editorials and bent news reports in the establishment press over that same period.

The US unilaterally decided to rearrange a major portion of the world to its liking, in the process killing a couple of million people, destroying several societies, and creating millions of refugees.

No politician of note and no newspaper or broadcaster is on record having opposed this horror.

Indeed, the press has regularly supported the monstrous effort and reinforced anti-Muslim fears with endless stories of terror.

Yes, there has been some terror, but it is insignificant compared to the mass murder and destruction conducted by America and its allies.

What we call “international terror” and the new record floods of refugees are both the direct product of American policy, which has included the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, a five-year effort to destroy Syria, Saudi Arabia’s atrocities in Yemen, tolerance for Israel’s horrors in Gaza, and an organized system of extrajudicial killing.

The press has only supported policy every step of the way, and in the process has generated waves of Islamophobic feelings.

Trump is the only leader talking about the root cause, the Neocon Wars, and bringing them to an end.

What he is saying is that in the interim, his country needs to be cautious about the waves of Muslim migration. He is not saying, and never has, said that in future there should be no Muslim migration or that all Muslims are undesirable.

His call for a migration pause is only the response to public prejudice virtually created by the press and poor leaders for 15 years.