I’m Arab and Many of Us Are Glad That Trump Won

49 comments on “I’m Arab and Many of Us Are Glad That Trump Won ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Guerilla Surgeon 1

   13 November 2016 at 12:54 pm

   Legitimise the racism, legitimise the arrogance, legitimise the lies and the brutalities.

   FTFY.

   ‘Face yourselves, see yourselves, and then maybe, maybe, things will change…’

   People aren’t very good at facing themselves. So nothing will change until they get a president who frowns on that sort of thing. And it becomes socially unacceptable again.
   • shorts 1.1

     14 November 2016 at 9:36 am

     either the US sorts itself out… which we all know won’t happen, if anything they will only get worse… or the rest of the world holds the USA and allies accountable for their crimes – crimes we sit back and excuse (if not outright support)
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   13 November 2016 at 1:09 pm

   That’s pretty much the way I see it.

   The US Empire is the present hegemon and it’s doing what all empires throughout history have done. Kept the people at home happy while exploiting and impoverishing those that they’ve conquered. They’ve just been doing while telling people how great that they are when in reality the US is rotten to the core.

   Unfortunately, that rot has spread to the nations that kowtow to the hegemon – NZ included.
3. weka 3

   13 November 2016 at 1:12 pm

   I think it’s obvious by now that we’re in the death throes of binary politics and the safety of that old world. And I think that articles like this are useful where they serve to help people step up out of the mire of the battlefield into something better. I hope that we can soon get to working on that, but it’s likely that for a while we will have to bear the sight of people gleefully jumping up and down on the corpse while others are standing around in shock and distress unable to move and not knowing what the fuck is going on, and look, over there, it’s the people who have always been active who are now helping some of those people climb up out of the bombsite. How we respond to all that is going to determine our worth as humans, and it’s also going to determine what happens next.

   I think this applies to all of us. We’re all invested in the enemy and thus the binary, and we will all have to undo our socialisations around that.

   so yes, “Lay bare the racism, lay bare the arrogance, lay bare the lies and the brutalities. Face yourselves, see yourselves, and then maybe, maybe, things will change…”, and if we want this to go down a good path we need to start helping people not just shoving more shit in their faces.
4. marty mars 4

   13 November 2016 at 1:30 pm

   I don’t agree with that analysis. It is simplistic and wrong to blame Clinton in the way the writer does. It is the end product of disinformation campaigns. Also trump is not going to stop killing alledged terrorists with drone strikes he’s going to increase the strikes to take out MORE families, more passerbys. Really I fail to get the blindspot people have with this. Trump is the pointy bit of the spear as Clinton, Obama, Bush etc were. The spear is much more than the point.
   • Morrissey 4.1

     13 November 2016 at 1:44 pm

     Marty, you seem for some reason to harbor a benign view of these illegal assassinations/terror strikes. I warmly commend you to read some American journalists that actually do their job and do not merely parrot State Department propaganda….

     https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
     • weka 4.1.1

       13 November 2016 at 1:50 pm

       Really? Because I thought marty just said that Trump is going to be as bad as any other US president albeit in a different way, not that US presidential actions are benign.
       • Morrissey 4.1.1.1

         13 November 2016 at 1:55 pm

         Yes I realize Marty is one of the good guys, but I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable for anyone to minimize the great death and destruction that has been wrought by U.S. drones or U.S. proxies over the last eight years in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the Occupied West Bank, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan…

         Trump has been responsible for none of that.
         • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1

           13 November 2016 at 2:12 pm

           Yeah capitalists and neocons just happily benefited. And I am not minimising the atrocities just saying ONE person didn’t do it.
         • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.2

           13 November 2016 at 6:27 pm

           …I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable for anyone to minimize the great death and destruction that has been wrought by U.S. drones…

           Really? How about people who minimise the great death and destruction wrought by indiscriminate Syrian and Russian bombing of city suburbs?

           Trump has been responsible for none of that.

           Come January he’s responsible for all of it. And will most likely do more of it.
     • Wayne 4.1.2

       14 November 2016 at 8:48 am

       Most current drone strikes will be against ISIS targets. They are not going to stop until SIS is defeated.

       In fact any US President who failed to deal with known terrorists would face enormous criticism in the US.

       So I agree with marty mars, it would not matter who was the US president, they are going to deal with terrorists, and drone strikes is one of the ways they will do so.

       And to pick up on Psycho Milt’s point, those tens of thousands of Pakistanis were probably also supporters of Al Qaeda, or at least indifferent to Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan.

       From what I can see Pakistan seems to have a huge amount of internal terrorism that has little to do with the US. Pakistan has many of the attributes of a failed state, though I guess relative to its size the various bombings do not affect that many people. Nevertheless Pakistan is declining relative to India, and that has its own dangers.
       • Morrissey 4.1.2.1

         14 November 2016 at 9:46 am

         Our well connected friend Wayne doesn’t actually tell us anything interesting about ISIS, but he does tell us, inadvertently, a lot about himself and the kind of mentality it takes to operate as a cabinet minister….

         1.) Most current drone strikes will be against ISIS targets. They are not going to stop until SIS [sic] is defeated.

         Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have supported, and still support, ISIS and its affiliates in Syria, that is a breathtaking statement for anyone to make. You are not in Cabinet now, Mr Mapp; you do realize, I presume, that the accepted convention once an official retires from office and is free from the omerta convention known as “collective cabinet responsibility”, is for him or her to start speaking truthfully. You are a civilian now, Mr Mapp, and I warmly commend you to start telling the truth rather than its precise opposite.

         2.) In fact any US President who failed to deal with known terrorists would face enormous criticism in the US.

         Again, an absurd and insulting statement. As Mr Mapp knows perfectly well, the United States regime is the wellspring of most terror attacks in the world.

         3.) So I agree with marty mars, it would not matter who was the US president, they are going to deal with terrorists, and drone strikes is one of the ways they will do so.

         Most—the vast majority—of the victims of these terror drone strikes have been, and are, civilians.

         4.) And to pick up on Psycho Milt’s point, those tens of thousands of Pakistanis were probably also supporters of Al Qaeda, or at least indifferent to Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan.

         That is the most chilling statement I can recall Mr Mapp making on this noticeboard, and I’ve monitored him closely for several years now. I expect him to lie and distort, as he has in points 1, 2 and 3 above. However, here he moves far beyond merely lying or spinning the facts. Here he casually excuses the killing of “those tens of thousands of Pakistanis” because, according to him, they “were probably also supporters of Al Qaeda, or at least indifferent to Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan.”

         That is a precise echo and counterpart of the reasoning of someone else who was once a staunch and effective agent of U.S. violence and terror…..

         https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

         5.) From what I can see Pakistan seems to have a huge amount of internal terrorism that has little to do with the US. Pakistan has many of the attributes of a failed state, though I guess relative to its size the various bombings do not affect that many people. Nevertheless Pakistan is declining relative to India, and that has its own dangers.

         That is nothing but sententious blather and does not merit a response.
         • Psycho Milt 4.1.2.1.1

           14 November 2016 at 10:00 am

           Our well connected friend Wayne doesn’t actually tell us anything interesting about ISIS, but he does tell us, inadvertently, a lot about himself…

           The rest of your comment makes that initial statement unintentionally ironic.
         • Wayne 4.1.2.1.2

           14 November 2016 at 1:37 pm

           Morrissey,

           Point 4; I think you must have misinterpreted my statement about the “tens of thousands.”

           I was not suggesting tens of thousands of people should be killed by drone strikes. Rather I was taking about the beliefs of many of the Pakistani people who say they hate the United States, and in particular those who hate Clinton. Many of the most vociferous of this group think Al Qaeda is correct, but that does not mean they are legitimate targets. People believe all sorts of things, and provided that does not translate to planned terroist violence, then people can believe what they want.

           You would have to be an actual terrorist, actively planning global terrorist attacks to be a legitimate target.

           The number killed in drone strikes in Pakistan is actually a very small number.

           As for points 1, 2, 3 and 5, well, we have different views. Even if the Iraq invasion created the conditions for ISIS to emerge that does not give ISIS carte blanche to act as they have.

           As I have said many times if ISIS had simply established their caliphate, without the international terrorism, and the gross abuse of human rights (killing thousands of unarmed prisoners) they would have been basically left alone.
           • Wayne 4.1.2.1.2.1

             14 November 2016 at 2:06 pm

             By “actively planning” I mean a specific attack and carrying out such actions that make it imminent. Such as a bomber making actual terrorist bombs, a suicide bomber going to carry out an attack, a person who has previously carried out terrorist attacks and is organising future attacks.
       • xanthe 4.1.2.2

         14 November 2016 at 12:23 pm

         yes yes drone strikes until the SIS is defeated. best go after the GCSB at the same time eh (hey all you spooks that was satire !!… OK ? ?? )
   • weka 4.2

     13 November 2016 at 1:48 pm

     I took it that the writer got all that, and was saying there is no lesser evil here and that the US needs to face up to the fact that both sides of the coin are evil.
     • marty mars 4.2.1

       13 November 2016 at 2:37 pm

       Yeah maybe I misinterpreted. To get them to admit to the both sides bit is not likely with trump there. Perhaps Clinton would have been a token like apparently Obama was but I just don’t agree with it. Joe put an awesome link on the post day 2 election post – worth a look if you can find it. Im on phone and too hard to do it sorry.
5. Stephanie Rodgers 5

   13 November 2016 at 5:37 pm

   We watched as even people like John Oliver and the entire cast of Saturday Night Live attacked Trump viciously and tried to pave the way to a Clinton victory. Oliver even took it upon himself to attack and ridicule minor candidates like Stein & Johnson, but not Clinton.

   This is a great example of people seeing what they want to see. John Oliver absolutely savaged Clinton over the email scandal, and SNL’s portrayal of Clinton frequently mocked her refusal to answer direct questions and her exploitation of Trump’s personal attacks on her.

   A lot of people who didn’t like Clinton (we had plenty of examples here at TS) were very keen to portray literally everyone who defended Clinton as a blind, mindless shill who loved drone strikes. In the same way, a lot of people who didn’t like Trump were very keen to portray literally every Trump supporter as an idiot redneck.

   If we want to talk about moving past the politics of black-and-white, we probably need to start by not turning anyone we disagree with into a caricature.
   • weka 5.1

     13 November 2016 at 6:41 pm

     +1000
   • Bob 5.2

     14 November 2016 at 11:02 am

     “This is a great example of people seeing what they want to see”
     Completely agree, the same thing happens in NZ.
     I see NZ media as overall slightly left leaning with a couple of Right Wing tools in prime time slots to balance it out, because for some reason they get good ratings (I haven’t met anyone who has actually said they enjoy watching or listening to Hosking, how are his ratings so high on radio and TV! I understand the Paul Henry appeal). However, I constantly see people on this site saying NZ MSM is a Right Wing propaganda tool. We see what we want to see.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1

       14 November 2016 at 11:13 am

       I see NZ media as overall slightly left leaning with a couple of Right Wing tools in prime time slots to balance it out,

       That would be you seeing what you want to see. Actual research shows that it’s hard-right. And when I was doing Pol-sci at Otago I read other analysis showing the same thing.
       • Bob 5.2.1.1

         14 November 2016 at 1:29 pm

         “Dr Robinson assessed every image of John Key and Phil Goff published during the election campaign in the four big papers. Mr Key featured 138 times while Mr Goff featured 80 times. Mr Key also dominated the column centimetres, at an almost two to one ratio.
         Both Mr Key and Mr Goff received much more positive and neutral coverage than negative coverage from all four papers, but the Herald and Herald on Sunday were generally more positive in their treatment of Mr Key, whilst the Dominion Post and Sunday Star-Times were kinder to Mr Goff.”

         So they are biased because they published more photo’s of the incumbent PM than the leader of one of the dozens of parties trying to get into parliament? Perhaps this is just another example of people “seeing what they want to see”…certainly far from “hard-right” as you suggest.

         EDIT: Let’s not forget that Labour didn’t even use Phil Goff’s photo’s on their billboards during that campaign.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1

           14 November 2016 at 1:42 pm

           All the analysis that’s been done shows the same thing – that the MSM is biased in favour of National.

           What you’re now doing is denying those findings because you don’t like them.
           • Bob 5.2.1.1.1.1

             14 November 2016 at 4:14 pm

             The analysis shows that the MSM show more pictures of the incumbent PM during an election campaign than pictures of any one of the opposition MP’s, other than that “the Herald and Herald on Sunday were generally more positive in their treatment of Mr Key, whilst the Dominion Post and Sunday Star-Times were kinder to Mr Goff”, hardly massive media bias is it?
             • Draco T Bastard …

               15 November 2016 at 9:36 am

               1. It’s still a bias and
               2. It’s a bias that’s completely the opposite of what you stated.

               And, considering its consistency and how hard-right National is I consider it to be a hard-right bias.
     • Henry Filth 5.2.2

       15 November 2016 at 6:57 am

       “I understand the Paul Henry appeal”

       Please share!
6. Psycho Milt 6

   13 November 2016 at 6:22 pm

   To tens of thousands of Pakistanis though, Obama is nothing but a cold blooded murderer.

   “Pakistan sucks,” to quote Salman Rushdie. American drones are the least of its problems, it being fully loaded with nutcase religious fundamentalists for whom murder is the response of first resort to perceived offences against their shithouse superstition. I expect lots of Pakistanis are keen to hate Obama, but that’s more about refusal to face up to why their country sucks than about anything Obama’s done.
   • shorts 6.1

     14 November 2016 at 10:09 am

     ” fully loaded with nutcase religious fundamentalists for whom murder is the response of first resort to perceived offences against their shithouse superstition. ”

     you’ve just described the USA too
     • Psycho Milt 6.1.1

       14 November 2016 at 10:19 am

       The usual false equivalence. Can an American get a neighbour they dislike killed by accusing them of blasphemy? Once that starts happening on a regular basis, then you can talk shit.
7. McFlock 7

   13 November 2016 at 11:46 pm

   Heh.

   It’s a nice thought, but it’s a very liberal thought: if the circumstances get bad enough, then most people will turn their backs on that entire direction.

   Nah. Because the jerks who were resigned to simply shutting up because their bigotry wasn’t mainstream will now be trying to get a hand on the wheel and keep at least the current direction.
   • Bill 7.1

     14 November 2016 at 12:47 pm

     Was that his thought? Read to me like he was over the hypocrisy – the facade of civility that some liberals present to the world as they visit seven shades of hell on it.

     And now that the facade has dropped, the actions will be much the same, but (he hopes) North Americans will confront themselves, instead of seeking blind comfort behind the manufactured notion that their nation is essentially driven by some over-arching sense of benevolence.

     And McFlock (if ‘m picking you up right). Not all of the people who voted for Trump are bigots. Some just wanted change – any change from these past 40 years (and sure, I’m picking most of those will have occasion to regret getting what they wished for). Others will be just simply naive and will have voted believing that Trump will ‘make america great again’ while refusing to take on board, or having a blind spot to, any of the downsides of his campaign rhetoric.

     And as Johnathan Pie states – telling people they’re simply (paraphrasing) “bags of shit” even as you try to convince them to change how they view stuff…ain’t gonna work. Never has. Never will. It only entrenches division and antipathy.
     • McFlock 7.1.1

       14 November 2016 at 1:19 pm

       If that was his thought, that people would be forced to recognise their own bigotry and imperfection with no hope that this will lead to improvement, then that’s even worse.

       Because saying that someone who pledged to officially expand the drone murder program to include friends and relatives of “suspected” terrorists means that many more people will die than under a “business as usual” president. Does it mean that those in the west will suddenly feel bad about it? Nope, because the folks who are inclined to feel bad about it have an out: they can blame the kkk, or whomever they feel superior to. But it does mean that more people will die. So it might be a statistic to us, but it’s the end of the world for more people.

       As for who voted for trump, I wasn’t really thinking about them. Just that there’ll be no lurch back to liberalism and tolerance, because (whether they had the gumption to vote for trump or not) a chunk of any population are bigots who trump has now empowered and represents, people who will try to keep america and the world on the path of intolerance and stupidity.

       A racist bag of shit will always be a racist bag of shit. What proportion of trump voters are racist bags of shit, as opposed to naive or simply so desperate for change that they latched onto a fascist, I neither know nor care. At this stage it’s all navel-gazing, and we’ve yet to see how much of his agenda trump can be persuaded (by pence and co) to drop. And even then, things like family planning and basic sciences are in deep shit.
       • Bill 7.1.1.1

         14 November 2016 at 1:34 pm

         Apart from the first para, I’d more or less agree. If people face up to the fact that their country doesn’t enact policy off the back of some innate benevolence, then there is hope. (Maybe they stop with their complacent and careless (carefree) lives behind curtains of comfortable illusions)

         The other bit I disagree with is when you discount, dismiss and (seemingly) condemn all Trump voters whether or not they’re racists…that locks huge numbers of people in (or out) and just promotes a kind of stale-mate comprised of bigotry and ignorance and antipathy.

         But like you’ve indicated – you don’t care. It’s all just navel staring, right?
         • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1

           14 November 2016 at 2:09 pm

           Well, regarding the first paragraph, just because things get worse it doesn’t mean that people will suddenly see themselves and their attitudes clearly. Those who face up to the fact will not necessarily care, or cease leading care-free lives. Human history says that not many people will give a shit.

           I’m not condemning or discounting all trump voters. The racist ones will always be racist, and that’s about it. But the fact is that the election is done and dusted now. Maybe navel gazing will get us better polls in 2020.

           The situation facing us now can go in two directions: either trump tries to enact every policy and pronouncement he made, or the government in the next four years becomes a hodge-podge of radical republican conservatism and random trumpoid impulsiveness. Regrets (or lack thereof) from 2016 trump voters are neither here nor there. They change nothing. As far as I’m concerned, they fucked up, it doesn’t matter why. However, now bigots have their man in charge, and are more likely to speak up and act out.
           • Bill 7.1.1.1.1.1

             14 November 2016 at 2:20 pm

             Regrets (or lack thereof) from 2016 trump voters are neither here nor there. They change nothing.

             On their own, those regrets change nothing – true. But if they galvanise people to join a growing number of other people who are already organising and agitating against the government, then those regrets can make a huge impact.

             As far as I’m aware, no substantive gains have ever been made by any people any where they just sat back awaiting the next electoral cycle. Change comes from people organising and applying pressure to government with the aim being to ‘help’ the government understand that it stands to lose much more by ignoring peoples’ demands than it will by acceding to them.

             From union rights to civil rights and on across all manner of positive changes, it’s always been that way.

             It had to happen if Clinton won and I think a lot more people understand the need with Trump being President.
             • McFlock …

               14 November 2016 at 2:33 pm

               I agree with that.

               I guess my basic point is that, while more people might understand the need to keep pushing towards tolerance, he’s encouraged a whole bunch of other people to start pushing in the other direction, and given them momentum.

               I suspect that the “galvanised” activists tend to cancel each other out under trump.
8. Cinny 8

   14 November 2016 at 7:35 am

   There is an interesting opinion piece on Al Jazeera by Malak Chabkoun, an independent Middle East researcher and writer based in the US.

   This quote stood out for me..

   “Honestly, the arrogance of Americans who are threatening to flee is breathtaking.
   They assume that the world will now welcome them with open arms because in a few months, they will be ruled by a less-than-desirable leader.
   One which, the world will be quick to mention, was actually chosen by Americans and not imposed on them by occupation or intervention.”

   http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/spoiled-americans-flee-created-161110075835725.html
   • Morrissey 8.1

     14 November 2016 at 9:58 am

     Hillary Clinton was personally involved in the brutal coup in Honduras.
     • Cinny 8.1.1

       14 November 2016 at 10:04 am

       Dang, another reason to be glad she didn’t get in
   • Psycho Milt 8.2

     14 November 2016 at 10:05 am

     From the linked article:

     These reactions make one pause and wonder how long these same people would last under the Arab and African dictatorships and occupiers the US has propped up and maintained positive ties with over the years.

     Not very well, I expect. However, the fact that she thinks those places are run by dictatorships because America speaks to a serious lack of insight or judgement. I didn’t bother with the rest of it.
     • Cinny 8.2.1

       14 November 2016 at 12:07 pm

       That’s a shame, over 300 comments on the article, which make for interesting reading as well.
   • save nz 8.3

     14 November 2016 at 12:40 pm

     +1 Cinny
9. Cinny 9

   14 November 2016 at 12:20 pm

   Maybe some of them won’t be so proud now… sounds like Agent Orange is about to send 3 million people out of the USA.

   http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/trump-deport-million-immigrants-161113202224929.html

   “US President-elect Donald Trump said he planned to immediately deport or jail as many as three million undocumented immigrants, as he set out his priorities in the first television interview since his election.”

   The interview with US television CBS’s “60 Minutes” is to be broadcast on Sunday (that’s our today/Monday) wonder if there is a stream.
   • Richard McGrath 9.1

     16 November 2016 at 10:05 am

     “US President-elect Donald Trump said he planned to immediately deport or jail as many as three million undocumented immigrants…”

     Probably all Democrat voters… there’s method in his madness!
10. Cemetery Jones 10

    14 November 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Looking at some of their other materials on the blog, the author appears to enjoy selling the pretence that Morsi wasn’t an asset of the Muslim Brotherhood and Tahrir Square wasn’t an MB operation. LOL.
    • Bill 10.1

      14 November 2016 at 1:13 pm

      Really?

      His post ‘Le Morte d’Egypt’ (very much worth the read after the long ‘Camelot’ intro)

      Egypt has endured 61 years of military rule, interrupted only by 1 year in which, ostensibly, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’, was president. Sixty one years in which Might ruled, with little or no qualms. It is those 61 years which have brought Egypt to what we see before us today.

      And from wiki page on Tahrir Square

      After the revolution against Mubarak and a period of rule by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt through a series of popular elections, with Egyptians electing Islamist Mohamed Morsi to the presidency in June 2012.[43] However, Morsi’s government encountered fierce opposition from secularists and members of the military, and mass protests broke out against his rule in June 2013. On 3 July 2013, Morsi was deposed by a coup d’état led by the minister of defense, General Abdel Fattah El-Sisi,[44] who became Egypt’s de facto strongman and was eventually elected president himself in a 2014 election.[45]

      And now Morsi
11. Richard McGrath 11

    16 November 2016 at 10:03 am

    So JFK lifted the arms embargo on Israel (as well as pushing through massive tax cuts)? Maybe he wasn’t so bad after all.
12. Richard McGrath 12

    16 November 2016 at 10:29 am

    “Bill Clinton was the same, all charm and smiles while he signed off on the use of military force against Americans on American soil (in Waco), and pushed the Palestinians through Oslo, and then later, in his impeachment hearings, pretended the word ‘is’ was ambiguous. The Bill Clinton I remember was an arrogant liar and a murderer, not a charming man at all.”

    Bill’s (?half-) brother Roger allegedly described him (Bill) as a ‘vacuum cleaner’ due the volumes of cocaine going up his nose. Perhaps that explains Bill’s rather frail appearance in comparison with Trump who is the same age. Under Clinton’s watch, the FBI broadcast recordings of animals being tortured around the clock through loudspeakers to the inhabitants at the Waco compound… lovely people.

    “The latest in this series of supposed good guys is Obama, proudly black, but closer to what Malcolm X referred to as a ‘house nigger’. Obama did not stop the war machine, and did not close down Guantanamo. Drone usage during Obama’s time has gone up exponentially, but…he performs beautifully; he cries when school shootings take place, he laughs at himself with an anger translating sketch, he dances and raps to your pleasure, he seems cool and laid back, a great dad, a fun guy.”

    Ouch! I have often reflected on Obama’s promises which almost all came to nothing. He is, as others have suggested, President Zero, with nothing to show for eight years in office apart from the deeply flawed (and soon to be reformed) Obamacare.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS