Can you point to one real lie Trump told, with the exact quote and link?

[Rob Larrikin]

As per the opening post, I require just one alleged lie at a time. If anyone provides a Gish Gallop, I’ll address the first alleged lie on their list. DonaldvoTrumpovich provided another Gish Gallop, and this is the first alleged lie on that list:

DONALD TRUMP
"Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal."
— PolitiFact National on Thursday, October 12th, 2017
False

Here’s the link you couldn’t find.

This Politifake article was written by By John Kruzel on Oct 12, 2017. He was whining about Trump’s Oct 9, 2017 tweet, three days before, which read:

Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal, & that's about it. We need HealthCare, we need Tax Cuts/Reform, we need people that can get the job done!​

Politifake like to waffle about a particular Trump tweet or statement before summing up their decision under the heading “Our ruling”. Here is what they said in “Our ruling” on the above page:

Trump said, "Bob Corker gave us the Iran Deal."

Corker sponsored legislation to enhance Congress’ authority to review the Iran nuclear deal before allowing the president to lift congressionally-imposed sanctions. He also vocally opposed the deal, urged lawmakers to reject the agreement and voted against it.

We don’t see how this could reasonably be construed as Corker giving the United States the Iran deal. Trump’s claim doesn’t make logical sense.

We rate this False.​

CNN’s reporter Jeremy Diamond also accused Trump of lying when he tweeted that it was not true, and it was a false claim.

As Breitbart News pointed out in this article, in fact it is CNN (and Politifake) that are lying. They then explain why:

As Breitbart News noted in April 2015: “[T]he text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve — and would do so by gutting the Senate’s constitutional power over treaties.” Only one Senator, Tom Cotton (R-AR), opposed the Corker bill and its the deceptive mathematics. And its futility was proven when Democrats in the Senate filibustered to prevent the Iran deal from even coming up for a vote on the floor.

Thus did Corker make it easier for Obama to force through the Iran deal. One could argue that Corker subjectively wanted to stop the deal. But Trump’s tweet is not “false,” as alleged by CNN’s Diamond in a dishonest “Facts First” segment that misquoted Trump and failed to mention the Constitution.

Worse, Diamond actually said on the air: “This bill was the bill that gave Congress the ability to actually weigh in on the Iran deal, which otherwise the Obama administration would have gone unilaterally and passed this motion by itself.” It was the Constitution that gave Congress that power, and the Iran deal was indeed unilateral — it was never “passed” by anyone.

Had Corker done his job, he would be on steadier ground in his fight with Trump. And the world would have been safer today.​

So yes, Trump was correct and both Politifake’s John Kruzel and CNN’s Jeremy Diamond were wrong.

No lie. Just more Fake News.

So who are these knuckleheads John Kruzel and Jeremy Diamond? Here they are:

​

John Kruzel studied to be a lawyer, started out as a lawyer but decided instead to work at Left winged ABC News. Now he’s at Politifake as “fact checker” (chortle). He loves a beer. He loves his tattooed wife. He loves letting his hair down. He hates Trump like all left winged millennials, and that qualifies him well as far as Politifake is concerned. Kruzel may be a klutz, but he’s a cool klutz with hipster glasses.

Jeremy Diamond is Episcopalian. He speaks fluent French and a little Spanish. He went to a Washington government university and got a bachelor’s degree, worked in some New York radio stations and interned at CNN. He’s a bit of a ladies man. He likes a beer. He likes his hipster beard. And he likes to be a Trump hating millennial. So what else is new?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

All False statements involving Donald Trump

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

​

 

[CharacterAssassin]

​

Odd how much you like other peoples' boots in your rectum.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

John Kruzel studied to be a lawyer, started out as a lawyer but decided instead to work at Left winged ABC News. Now he’s at Politifake as “fact checker” (chortle). He loves a beer. He loves his tattooed wife. He loves letting his hair down. He hates Trump like all left winged millennials, and that qualifies him well as far as Politifake is concerned. Kruzel may be a klutz, but he’s a cool klutz with hipster glasses.

Jeremy Diamond is Episcopalian. He speaks fluent French and a little Spanish. He went to a Washington government university and got a bachelor’s degree, worked in some New York radio stations and interned at CNN. He’s a bit of a ladies man. He likes a beer. He likes his hipster beard. And he likes to be a Trump hating millennial.

Nice try attempting to discredit the writers to make your point. You label them as left winged millenials and beer drinkers (Beer drinkers? Oh, the humanity). You must be really intimidated by them. I can see why since they're light years smarter than you. Too bad you have to take this approach but most people can see right through your radicalized extremism, not unlike the radicalized muslims. Hey, you have something in common with terrorists. You must feel so good about yourself being a staunch Trump foot soldier. Must be because he "loves the poorly educated".

 

[Joe Capitalist]

​

How does it feel supporting and defending a douche bag that says this:

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump said. “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…. ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

A grown man bragging about peeking into a girl's dressing room on national radio. This is the fucking pervert you support and defend. I hope you're proud. Birds of a feather...

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Odd how much you like other peoples' boots in your rectum.

​

 

[CharacterAssassin]

​

Please stop crying, ma'am.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Nice try attempting to discredit the writers to make your point.

Thanks, but really the credit belongs to them. They spend their time trying to discredit the President and the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, so it’s the least I can do (as an ally). My arsehole has more loyalty to the U.S. than you, troll breath.

You label them as left winged millennials

“Called” is the word you’re looking for. Left winged millennials come with pre-packaged labels.

and beer drinkers

Hey, if you have a problem with beer drinking, take it up with your priest, Pedro.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

How does it feel supporting and defending a douche bag that says this:

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed,” Trump said. “No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…. ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

Misquote. Fake News. First, let’s strip out the editing in the above paragraph to make it only Trump’s words, and then we’ll see how accurate it is.

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…. ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

Here’s the actual comment, without all the mischievous editing. Bold black is where it’s been changed, and the red parts are parts you took out:

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed, and ready, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. You know, I’m inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ and you see these incredible looking women. And so, I sort of get away with things like that.”

The script can be verified in the following video. Also, you’ll note it was comedy. Listen to the entire tape (only two minutes) to see that Trump, Stern and two others were engaged in humorous fun banter, and it is not to be taken seriously. Fake News did their best to make it into a huge nothingburger, but Americans see straight through that snowflake poutrage.

A grown man

Are there any other kind?

bragging about peeking into a girl's dressing room on national radio.

Lies one and two.

A) He wasn’t peeking. He went in, all pageant owners do, and nobody until this has ever objected. The complaints were obviously politically based.

B) He wasn’t bragging – he was joking. Like the song – not drowning, waving. Learn the difference, dopey.

This is the fucking pervert you support and defend. I hope you're proud. Birds of a feather...

The only pervert here is you. You love sniffing Trump’s underwear and scratching through his garbage for anything you can accuse him of. When are you going to leave your mom's basement and get a job?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Please stop crying, ma'am.

​

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Misquote. Fake News. First, let’s strip out the editing in the above paragraph to make it only Trump’s words, and then we’ll see how accurate it is.

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…. ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

Here’s the actual comment, without all the mischievous editing. Bold black is where it’s been changed, and the red parts are parts you took out:

“I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed, and ready, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. You know, I’m inspecting, I want to make sure that everything is good. ‘Is everyone okay?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’ and you see these incredible looking women. And so, I sort of get away with things like that.”

The script can be verified in the following video. Also, you’ll note it was comedy. Listen to the entire tape (only two minutes) to see that Trump, Stern and two others were engaged in humorous fun banter, and it is not to be taken seriously. Fake News did their best to make it into a huge nothingburger, but Americans see straight through that snowflake poutrage.

Are there any other kind?

Lies one and two.

A) He wasn’t peeking. He went in, all pageant owners do, and nobody until this has ever objected. The complaints were obviously politically based.

B) He wasn’t bragging – he was joking. Like the song – not drowning, waving. Learn the difference, dopey.

The only pervert here is you. You love sniffing Trump’s underwear and scratching through his garbage for anything you can accuse him of. When are you going to leave your mom's basement and get a job?

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

So you think that video helps your argument? Man, you are really in the tank for your boy Trump. I bet you hate having to come up with excuses, reasons, edits to defend your little douche bag. I can imagine the seizures you'd have if President Obama was caught on tape saying the exact same thing.
You're just a Trump sycophant. A Trump bootlicker. You suck his dick every day on this forum.
Keep trying to defend your little red haired, red faced douche bag. I especially like your "He wasn't peeking, all pageant owners do it, He wasn't bragging".
What a crock of steaming pile of Bull Shit. You really think anybody's going to believe your bullshit? I don't. It might help you sleep better at night believing all that BS but nobody else is going to believe it.

But don't stop defending the red haired turd. We need more humor on this forum and you're out biggest Court Jester.
We laugh at you. And you don't even realize it. So continue to support and defend your steaming pile of miasma. Ever heard the saying "Birds of a Feather..."?

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Thanks, but really the credit belongs to them. They spend their time trying to discredit the President and the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, so it’s the least I can do (as an ally). My arsehole has more loyalty to the U.S. than you, troll breath.

“Called” is the word you’re looking for. Left winged millennials come with pre-packaged labels.

Hey, if you have a problem with beer drinking, take it up with your priest, Pedro.

No, the word I'm looking for is IGNORE. You really add zero value to a forum discussion. You make shit up. You don't follow the facts. Your responses are filled with inconsistencies, untruths, profanities, lies, erratic unstable thoughts. You're depraved, perverse, aberrant and probably a Russian Troll. Thank God I've been lucky enough to make a good living and can live in an upscale neighborhood so I can avoid interacting with dirtbags like yourself. Don't bother to respond to any more of my posts. I won't respond to them.
Taa taa, you freaking little backwoods hillbilly.

 

[bhaktajan]

London Muslims “Celebrate” 9/11
Jihadist mullahs urge 1,000 followers to learn the murderous lessons of the WTC attack.
Farrukh Dhondy
Autumn 2002

An obscene spectacle took place in North London on September 11, 2002. A thousand Muslims gathered at the Finsbury Park mosque to “celebrate” the bombing of the World Trade Center. The Metropolitan Police deployed a force 500-strong to protect the meeting, called “A Towering Day in History,” from disruption. A dozen or so menacing-looking men with kaffiyehs over their faces stood on the mosque’s steps to prevent unfriendly journalists from entering.


The “celebration” began promptly at 1 pm, so that participants could applaud the action of the WTC bombers at exactly 1:46 London time—the exact time, a year earlier, when the first plane hit its target in New York. Chairing the meeting was Abu Hamza, an Egyptian-born engineer turned Muslim mullah, who presides over the notorious Finsbury Park mosque, where several of the detainees in Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, captured fighting for the Taliban and al-Qaida, received their theological training. Hamza also reportedly recruited to the jihad Richard Reid, the would-be shoe-bomber who failed to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001. The good imam is implicated as well in the training and instigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, under arrest on suspicion of conspiring with the 19 murderers of September 11.


The FBI has applied for Hamza’s extradition from the U.K. for questioning in the U.S. (the mullah has been a British subject since 1985), but he is still at large in London, free not only to address his congregation but to “celebrate” the events of 9/11. He told the press that Saudi Muslims financed the “celebration” in the hope that from it will arise an organization that represents “the real views of Muslims in Britain.”


Scotland Yard’s information office refuses to answer questions as to why Abu Hamza isn’t under arrest. Several leaders of the Muslim community in Britain allege that he is working for the British Secret Services—in particular, MI5—as an agent provocateur, but the more likely explanation is that he is more useful to the surveillance services as a free agent than he would be in detention. The police outside the “celebration” had a dozen or so photographers videotaping or taking snapshots of everyone coming into or out of the mosque.


Hamza and his mosque act as a focus for young men who have taken the first step of embracing jihad Islam. They have been known to “pass through” the Finsbury Park mosque and then branch out into clandestine training facilities and programs in Britain and abroad. At last count, the British Foreign Office reported that at least 4,000 British Muslims had received training from al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated terror groups. Many of these came from Hamza’s congregation, which acts as a point of contact with networks abroad.


Hamza is in every way a sinister character. He is blind in one eye, and his left hand has been blown off and replaced by a metal claw. He claims in interviews that he lost his hand and eye when fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, and he uses these injuries as his warrior credentials. The claim is a lie. A British documentary producer, Alu Jamal, interviewed him on camera in Pakistan for a BBC film a year after the Russians left Afghanistan. The footage shows Hamza with his eye and hand intact. His injuries probably result from mishandling explosives.


Hamza is also wanted on criminal charges in Yemen in connection with an incident in 1998, when six young British Muslims, all of whom had at some point been under his tutelage, were arrested in that country on suspicion of terrorism. They were caught with weapons, explosives, plans, and maps—all of which they intended to use to attack British diplomats, their families, homes, offices, and church. When the men were captured and tried, they and their families in Britain instantly applied to these same diplomats whose families they had come to murder to represent them—as they were British citizens—and to secure their release from Yemeni justice. One of the young men ultimately convicted was Abu Hamza’s adopted son.


The trail of the terrorists led back to Hamza. Far from denying—as their families insisted on doing, despite the evidence—that these men were on a terrorist mission, Hamza said he was in favor of armed struggle against all agencies of the British state that supported corrupt regimes, and if these men, including his son, were found guilty and executed, they would be martyrs to the cause of Islam.


If this isn’t sedition, what is?


It was pure chaos outside the mosque. A handful of neo-fascists from the British National Party demonstrated under the banner “Keep Britain Out of Foreign Wars, Keep Foreign Wars Out of Britain.” Joining them on the street were a few hundred stalwarts of the Anti-Nazi League—there to protest not the evil “celebration” going on in the mosque but the presence of the British National Party!


The assembly adjourned twice for prayers, and the crowds flowed out into the courtyard, led by the muezzin. The star of the meeting was Omar Bakri, a cleric of Syrian origin who heads the sinister cult Al Mahajiroun, which draws its recruits mainly from the colleges and universities of Britain. Al Mahajiroun seeks to make Britain an Islamic state. Bakri told his rapt audience that they must learn the “lessons” of September 11—the murderous lessons, presumably.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/london-muslims-“celebrate”-911-12387.html

 

[bhaktajan]

Why would the then living ISIS & Talaban & Hamas NOT CELEBRATE ??????????????

Why would the then living ISIS & Talaban & Hamas NOT plan to copy cat them ??????????????

Why would the Muslim Brotherhood contributers NOT CELEBRATE ??????????????

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I knew Muslims who celebrated 9/11 – 15 years on, they know how naive they were
In 2001, many of our communities in the West still relied on Muslim-majority countries to provide imported Imams with no way of rationalising complex global events

Muddassar Ahmed
Monday 12 September 2016

I'm ashamed to admit that many Muslims I know certainly felt that way – albeit inexcusably – as they watched the events of 9/11 unfold. And 15 years later, many observers – just as unfathomably – feel that Muslims’ own chickens have now come home to roost, in the form of Islamphobia, hate crime and bans on the burkini, teaching my community a few harsh lessons.

In the last 15 years, things have moved on. Many of those Muslims who celebrated on 9/11 have learned that we can’t fixate on Muslim civilian casualties at the hands of non-Muslims and look the other way when people of our faith, and in the name of our religion, kill innocents. They have also learned that we can’t flirt with anti-Semitism (indulging in conspiracy theories such as ‘Israel knew about 9/11’) and then complain about the effects of Islamophobia. We can’t always be the victims of society – even if, all too often, we still are.

The response of some Muslims to 9/11 didn’t emerge from a vacuum. Genuine concern about Western intervention in the Middle East had at that time been hijacked by elements of the hard left, many of whom viewed Muslims as useful idiots to be used to shake the foundations of capitalism. Charismatic and incendiary figures from the far left sometimes went as far as to support the Ayatollahs’ Iranian revolution – even after it became clearly undemocratic and a supporter of global terror.

But this is not enough to explain why I detected a celebratory tone from some Muslims 15 years ago.

Historically there has been a lack of modern scholarship in and on Islam, particularly within Muslim communities in Europe and the US. Self-appointed “community leaders” did not always address this quickly enough, perhaps fearing what a new generation of contemporary Islamic scholars would say or do. But this left devout young Muslims without a modern language, and with no option but to use outdated concepts like dar al harb – the “land of war”, or the non-Muslim world.

In 2001, many of our communities in the West still relied on Muslim-majority countries to provide imported Imams. These scholars came from countries that lacked a fully developed civil society, and had no way of rationalising complex global events except by either gloating or blaming Israel.

If it sounds like I'm making excuses, let me assure you: I am not. These problems show that western Muslims are sometimes more concerned with material gains, arrogantly protecting their ethno-religious territory and projecting their insecurities onto others, than they are with genuine spirituality. But the more spiritual a Muslim is, the more likely he or she is to say repeatedly that Isis has “nothing to do with Islam”.

Since 2001, many Muslims have developed the discipline of self-criticism that has long been expected of other faith communities. This newfound self-awareness isn’t just polite interfaith pleasantry, it goes right to the top. Sheikh Adel Kalbani, the former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca (the closest thing to a Sunni Muslim Pope) acknowledged recently that Isis takes inspiration, albeit pervertedly, from much of the Islamic teachings in the Arab world.

Kalbani’s message is vital because the silent majority can no longer afford to be silent; if you can march against Salman Rushdie or Israeli collateral damage in Gaza, then you can march against extremism too.

Because when we say Isis has “nothing to do with Islam” we must qualify this: they have nothing to do with our Islam, the Islam practiced by the vast majority of Muslims today. But what have we done to educate wider society and our own youth about our Islam? Can traditional after-school madrassahs compete with Isis’s slick embrace of web 2.0 and the social media buzz?

The Prophet Muhammad instructed his followers that there would be constant “Mujaddids” – renewers or reformers – for his religion. Many people of faith, American evangelicals or London’s Orthodox Jews for example, are going through the same process. We should – we must – continue on our journey with them.

If we nurture our “Mujaddids” we can ultimately show how Islam can complement the Judeo-Christian tradition that is so central to Western identity.

We’ve come a long way in the last 15 years, but now this must remain our top priority, so that we can give all our communities – Muslim and non-Muslim – something actually worth celebrating.

Muddassar Ahmed is managing partner of Unitas Communications, a cross-cultural communications agency, and a former adviser to the UK Government

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ew-muslims-who-celebrated-naive-a7238081.html

 

[bhaktajan]

READ ALL ABOUT IT !!!!!!!!!!
GET YOUR U.S. News & World Report HERE!!!!!!!!!

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Why Did So Many Muslims Seem to Celebrate 9/11?
The seeds of hatred.

By Jay Tolson, Staff Writer April 7, 2008

FROM THE MOMENT Americans learned that the 19 aerial assassins of September 11 were Muslim Arabs, they began to wonder: What did Islam have to do with it? The answers were plentiful and quick to come but often contradictory and confusing. Heads of Muslim nations and leaders of Islamic organizations emphasized that Islam was incompatible with terrorism and intolerance. And the spirit of the oft-quoted line from the Koran, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," seemed to reassure most of America's religious, civic, and political leaders. "The face of terror," President Bush confidently announced, "is not the true faith of Islam."

But if all that were true, why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim "street," stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden's henchmen had accomplished? For that matter, why were certain Islamic jurists in Pakistan issuing fatwas directing Muslims to fight American infidels if they attacked Afghanistan? And why do firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world continue to issue equally inflammatory decrees? Most disturbing, some of those same voices of moderation had occasionally expressed their approval of Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that engage in terrorism.

In the years since 9/11, scholars and experts have done little to resolve the contradictions. Often, they have merely taken them to a higher level. On one side, broadly speaking, are those sympathetic to the views of Princeton historian Bernard Lewis. The British-born scholar and author sees the events of 9/11 as the tragic consequence of a long conflict between the Islamic world and the West, a conflict largely dominated by the former until a little over 300 years ago, when the Ottomans failed in their second attempt to take Vienna. Crediting bin Laden with a strong (if not altogether accurate) sense of history, Lewis argues that the al Qaeda leader gave expression to the "resentment and rage" of people throughout the Islamic world.

Strongly rejecting this reading of the problem are the experts associated with the late Columbia literature Prof. Edward Said, author of the influential book Orientalism. The Palestinian-American scholar charged that Lewis is one of those western "orientalists" whose oversimplification of eastern civilizations has helped to justify European imperalism. Said insisted that Islam is no "monolithic whole" but a divided body of competing "interpretations." It should be treated the same way Christianity and Judaism are, Said urged, "as vast complexities that are neither all-inclusive nor completely deterministic in how they affect their adherents." On such disagreements turns an even larger question: Was September 11 the outgrowth of a "clash of civilizations," in the words of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington? Or was it the product of a struggle within a civilization?

Bewildering as all this has been, Americans might have found it easier to negotiate if they had paid as much attention to the Arab side of the terrorists' identity as they did to the Muslim side. The friction between Lewis and Said loses some of its heat, for example, when 9/11, bin Laden, and al Qaeda are seen as key elements of a struggle that is taking place primarily within the Arab core of the Middle East. At the heart of this struggle is the political failure of the various Arab regimes that emerged after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the end of European colonialism. Those regimes—whether kingdoms, parliamentary democracies, or single-party socialist states—were all roughly designed after western models, with elements of western law. But all quickly devolved into despotic states, corrupt and generally incompetent in meeting the basic needs of their citizens. Not coincidentally, leaders of some of those states—notably, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq—for a time paid lip service, and perhaps something more, to a largely secular vision of pan-Arab political unity. A humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israelis in 1967 largely dashed that dream.

Quickly emerging in its stead was a highly politicized version of Islam—what scholars have come to call Islamism. Its leading ideologues, such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (hanged in 1966 for allegedly plotting to assassinate President Gamal Abdel Nasser), advocated the rejection of all western political models and the creation of "pure" Islamic states run according to sharia, or religious law.

To some extent, this notion was as old as Islam itself, which in its classical form brooked no division of the political and religious spheres. But in practice, as Islam spread, divisions occurred. And religious law, far from being a simple set of prescriptive rules, was interpreted and elaborated by hundreds of schools of law and fur-ther tempered by local traditions and customs.

Throughout the history of Islam, however, there have been puritans who demanded a return to the purity of the earliest caliphates, no matter how mythical this pristine condition was. But no puritan reformer has been more influential than the 18th-century Arab firebrand Muhammad ibn al Wahhab (1703-92). Critical of mainstream Sunni legalism, Sufi mysticism and philosophy, and anything smacking of "innovation," he forged a crucial alliance with the Saud clan, then engaged in a struggle with the Ottoman overlords.

The critics of Wahhabism, including many prominent Sunni jurists, saw it as a crude attempt to re-Bedouinize the religion by elevating the customs and practices of the desert Arabs (such as attitudes about the covering of women) into bedrock principles of the faith. Crude as it was, however, Wahhabism endured because of its ties with the Saud clan, which only strengthened over time through mutual support and intermarriage. In 1932, when the clan was established as the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the narrow, intolerant Wahhabi strain of Islam effectively became the established religion of the kingdom. And soon, with the Saudis' growing oil wealth, the Wahhabi religious establishment became one of the most richly funded and aggressive pros-elytizing bodies in the world, spreading an intolerant version of the faith that began to compete with other more tolerant and locally inflected varieties of Islam.

But if Islamism and Wahhabism emerged in the Arab core of the Muslim world, one of the ironic turns of recent history is that political Islam fared better beyond the Arab core than in it. An Islamic republic, albeit Shiite rather than Sunni, arose in Iran in 1979, and in both Turkey and Algeria, Islamist parties became important political players (at least until the one in Algeria proved too successful and was suppressed by the military). In nations of the Arab core, by contrast, Islamists have been tolerated—and often modestly encouraged—to the extent that they posed no direct threat to the political regimes. Those individuals who take Islamist notions too seriously, including bin Laden (whose unhappiness about the Saudi kingdom's close ties with the infidel Americans is now well known), have faced exile or worse. But, as the world has learned, those outcast Islamists have learned to operate quite effectively in strange lands, whether in Afghanistan or Europe or even the United States.

Is Islamism, then, a clear and present danger—to the United States and to the world in general, including its 1.2 billion Muslims? The answer might seem obvious in light of the havoc wreaked by a band of Islamist zealots on September 11. To the extent that it nourishes and encourages fanatical hatred, it clearly is a danger. And as Johns Hopkins University international security specialist Michael Vlahos argues in his cogent study "Terror's Mask: Insurgency Within Islam," Americans must be forthright in naming their foe. It is not some nameless "terrorism," Vlahos writes, but a dangerous movement within Islam.

This Islamist insurgency is certainly not all of Islam. And in his book Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, the French scholar Gilles Kepel makes the persuasive case that Islamism itself has split into moderate and extreme elements, with the former championing various notions of Muslim democracy and the latter resorting to violence and terrorism to bring about totalitarian theocracies. Indeed, Kepel argues that September 11 was a last-ditch effort on the part of Islamist extremists to revive their waning movement. "In spite of what many hasty commentators concluded in its aftermath," Kepel writes, "the attack on the United States was a desperate symbol of the isolation, fragmentation, and decline of the Islamist movement, not a sign of its strength and irrepressible might."

Perhaps. But even if true, Kepel's analysis offers little comfort to the victims of this desperate insurgency within Islam. And even if extremist Islamists are only a minority within Islam, no one should forget the lesson of the Russian Bolsheviks: Determined minorities sometimes win.
https://www.usnews.com/news/religio...why-did-so-many-muslims-seem-to-celebrate-911

 

[rjhenn]

Big lie, eh? Well, let’s hope you’re right. It appears the fuss is all about Trump’s tweet, here.

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!​

I’m looking…

Nope. Can’t see any lies. Is that it?

I’m not sure why anyone would think an ex-KGB communist would want to support Trump. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had much more in common with the socialist Democrats than a conservative capitalist like Trump.

It's quite clear that you're an avid conspiracy wacko, who worships Trump. and I do mean "worships", as in God-Emperor Trump. You probably think, as Trump appears to, that Alex Jones is the ultimate investigative reporter, and that Infowars is the premier legitimate news source. Putin supports Trump because he believes that Trump wiil end up seriously weakening America and create a world political and economic climate that will allow Russia to increase its power and influence. Putin is also clearly anything but a communist.

 

[rjhenn]

Hmm. Quibbler. “Noun. To argue or find fault over trivial matters or minor concerns.”

Mate, I laughed so hard – coffee – nose… It’s 8.08 AM over here. Go easy on the humor. Fake News work very hard to find any trivial or minor fault of Trump’s they can make into a mountain of nothingburgers. If you don’t know that by now there’s little hope for you.



Adolf Hitler was a National Socialist. Trump is a capitalist, the opposite of socialists. Adolf would have hated Trump as much as the socialist Democratic Party does today. Like them, he also hated Jews. Most socialists do. Learn some history and stop reading Fake News.



Which is why you know it’s true. Trump doesn’t lie, as this thread shows.



I did more than that. I wrote post #439, explaining how Fake News bury stories like this, and why. You haven’t responded to those points. You ignored them. I also provided a link to this article in the New York Post, which quotes retired Jersey City police Capt. Peter Gallagher, who responded to the scene after numerous 911 calls from outraged residents. Quote [emphasis mine]:

Some Muslims in New Jersey did celebrate the 9/11 terror attacks during rooftop and street parties until they were broken up by the cops, a new report said Monday.

There were at least two celebrations and likely more, with men shouting “Allahu Akbar” and women chanting in Arabic, NJ.com reported.

“Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,” said retired Jersey City police Capt. Peter Gallagher, who responded to the scene after numerous 911 calls from outraged residents.

“The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion. They were told to go back to their apartments since a crowd of non-Muslims was gathering on the sidewalk below and we feared for their safety.”

Gallagher said he cleared a rooftop celebration of up to 30 people at 6 Tonnele Ave., a four-story apartment building with a view of Lower Manhattan, after the second tower fell.

Another witness said he saw a celebration on John F. Kennedy Boulevard, a main thoroughfare in the city.

“When I saw they were happy, I was pissed,” said Ron Knight, 56, who also heard cheers of “Allahu Akbar” — “God is great” — from a crowd of about 20 people that morning.

Residents also placed numerous 911 calls complaining about Muslims partying on a rooftop at a third location, three cops told the website.
….
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, one of many politicians who blasted Trump after the remarks, still denied that celebrations took place despite the eyewitness accounts.​

Then I provided a link to an article in The Independent, written by Muddassar Ahmed, and the headline reads “I knew Muslims who celebrated 9/11 – 15 years on, they know how naive they were”

I placed the following videos up to view – they have a gap after the “https:” since there is a limit of one vid per post. Place each address in a browser and delete the gap to view:

A video showing Palestinians celebrating the fall of the twin towers on 911.

https: //youtu.be/KrM0dAFsZ8k

American Muslims Celebrating 9/11 - Howard Stern Callers between 9/11/2001 and 9/13/2001:

https: //youtu.be/JCtiwBrWHUc

Another clearer version of four of the callers to Howard Stern with additional info (see description).

https: //youtu.be/1ErS12XaSDE

Muslims Celebrating 9/11 in Europe

https: //youtu.be/q-9JpRytCx0

“Another flick of Muslims celebrating 9/11. And no, it isn't faked. It is well documented the celebrations that occured in Egypt, Detroit, Montreal, Lebanon and Palestine to name a few of Muslim reaction to 9/11.”

Witness: American Muslims Celebrating 9/11

https: //youtu.be/t62Bgtjrs6I
​

That’s a poor description. You have no idea how many Muslims were celebrating in that place, above, behind, to the sides and deeper in the distance from the camera. You have no idea how many other Muslims across the country did exactly the same thing, and across the Middle East. The vid is an example of what was going on. Only a fool would think it was the ONLY group. Millions of Muslims were ecstatic about 9-11. You know it, I know it, Osama bin Laden knew it and Fake News knows it.



You check it out. I know what I heard on the tape – I don’t need you to tell me. And anyone who likes can hear it for themselves.

You’re probably right. We should amend that to tens of thousands. Thousands and thousands doesn’t do it justice. There were millions of Muslims around the world celebrating and we all know it, despite Fake News' best efforts to cover it up.

And all you've got evidence for is perhaps a few dozen. But you'll still deny that your God lied about "thousands and thousands" in Jersey City. And you're abysmally ignorant about National Socialism, no surprise there. You probably would have been an ardent Nazi.

 

[rjhenn]

A manager in Amazon authorizes a check. The owner, Jeff Bezos, playing golf two thousand miles away, has no idea about it. Technically, Bezos authorized the check because he gave the manager permission. In reality though, he has no idea. If asked by a reporter, "Did you know about that payment?" Bezos quite rightfully says no.

If Trump met you and admired your purple hair, you would immediately go out and dye it purple.

 

[rjhenn]

This is the Fake News we've been hearing since WWII.

Boring.

Hitler and the National Socialists were Socialists, and that's as clear as can be.

Boring because it's not what you want to believe.

 

[rjhenn]

As per the opening post, I require just one alleged lie at a time. If anyone provides a Gish Gallop, I’ll address the first alleged lie on their list. DonaldvoTrumpovich provided a Gish Gallop, and this is the first alleged lie on that list:



Here’s Politifake link you couldn’t find.

This Politifake article was written by “Louis Jacobson”. Politifake like to waffle about a particular Trump statement before summing up their decision under the heading “Our ruling”. Here is what they said in “Our ruling” on the above page:

Trump said, "When I was campaigning, I was talking about 18 and 20 years (when) wages effectively went down. Now, for the first time in a long time, they're starting to go up for people."

Wage growth during the two-decade period Trump is referencing was modest, even sluggish, but wages didn’t go down over that period, even accounting for inflation. As for wages finally going up now, they rose for almost three years before Trump took office, so it’s not credible for him to imply that he deserves credit.

We rate the statement False.​

So let’s see how they faked this up. Trump held a cabinet meeting at the White House, March 8, 2018. The YouTube is at the bottom of this page. View the video from 00:00:42 - 00:03:00 for the following transcript. Red shows the part Politifake used. Bold red shows the words they ignored. Bold black shows the important parts they left out:

I'm pleased to report that our very massive tax cuts are continuing to show tremendous results. Ninety percent of American workers are already seeing bigger paychecks, and that number's actually going to go up. Almost 4.6 million people have received tax-cut bonuses. Wages are rising at the fastest pace in more than a decade, something that people have been waiting for, as you know,when I was campaigning, I was talking about 18 and 20 years, and wages effectively went down. Now, for the first time in a long time, they're starting to go up for people.We've created almost 3 million new jobs since the election. And unemployment claims are at the lowest level in 49 years. Think of that. Unemployment at the lowest level in 49 years. That's a beautiful statistic… And I'm very pleased to announce that the unemployment rate for women in our workforce is at an 18-year low, lowest it's been in 18 years. And we're very close to the all-time record...​

As you can see, they didn’t talk about “fastest pace” or “effectively” or “they’re starting”. They cut the words, “Wages are rising at the fastest pace in more than a decade, something that people have been waiting for, as you know…” from the sentence, used a capital ‘W’ to make a new sentence, and replaced ‘and’ with ‘when’. They didn’t mention any of the other points made in that paragraph, thus taking the bit they used out of context. Here’s how the reporter, Louis Jacobson, mischievously edited the piece:

​

Conclusion: Mischievous reporting, misinformation. Fake News.

No lie.​

So who is this Louis Jacobson, the guy that works for Politifake cooking up Fake News all day?

​

He’s a freelance arts reviewer for washingtoncitypaper dot com, though they don’t list him as staff. He is a “fact checker” for Politifake. He likes his art, his food, and his Obama cardboard cut-out. But most of all he hates Trump. Yippee!

View video from 00:00:42 - 00:03:00

So, basically, Trump lied and you're desperately trying to blame someone for pointing out the facts.