lostboy

Let me get this straight... Attack after attack, nobody can hear a peep from the "moderate muslims" condemning terror attacks.

But when a western presidential candidate says some words, all of a sudden, we can hear the "moderates" laud and clear

They do all the time:

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism

Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS – Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Indian Muslim Leaders Condemn ISIS, : 1.5M Muslims Sign Fatwa Against Islamic State, Al Qaeda And Taliban

Thousands of Indian Muslim scholars have issued a fatwa condemning ISIS-style extremism.

http://www.ibtimes.com/indian-muslim-leaders-condemn-isis-trump-15m-muslims-sign-fatwa-against-islamic-state-2217715

Islamic Institutions that have condemned ISIS:

• The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation: The Islamic State Has “Nothing To Do With Islam,” Has Committed Crimes “That Cannot Be Tolerated.”

• Al-Azhar: Islamic State Is Corrupt And “A Danger To Islam.”

• Arab League: “Strongly Denounced” The “Crimes Against Humanity” Carried Out By The Islamic State.

• Turkey’s Top Cleric: Islamic State’s Threats Are “Hugely Damaging,” “Truly Awful.”

• Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR Repeatedly Condemned The Islamic State As “Un-Islamic And Morally Repugnant.”

• The Muslim Council Of Great Britain: “Violence Has No Place In Religion.”

• The Islamic Society of North America: The Islamic State’s Actions “Are To Be Denounced And Are In No Way Representative Of What Islam Actually Teaches.

• 100 Sunni And Shiite U.K. Imams: The Islamic State Is An “Illegitimate, Vicious Group.”

• Saudi Arabia’s Highest Religious Authority: Terrorists Like The Islamic State Is The “Number One Enemy Of Islam.”

• Muslim Public Affairs Council: Condemned The Islamic State And Called For “Stand Against Extremism.”

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

You probably have to turn off Trump and Fox to find it though.

The one quote from the Saudi religious authority is quite ironic.

But a big part of the reason non muslims defend muslims in the first place is not based on inclusion. It is based on the hate of Jedau Christianity. For the atheist left wing political persuasion, Jedau Christianity is their number one enemy. And they see this as just another issue to disagree with conservative leaning people on.

This is also why these people use such vicious language against Russians and Putin. Because Russia is a white Jedau Christian society. No respect for the Russian race, society or culture.

I am an atheist. I am also socially liberal. I have never in my life heard of Jedau Christianity. So I googled it. After dismissing the Star Wars references and the Jedai Knights, I see that you are referring to Judeo-Christianity. Problem is that Judeo-Christianity is not a thing so it cannot be my enemy. Judea-Christianity is a set of principles, not a religion. If you had said Evangelical Christianity or Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism, then I can answer you that yes, these particular hypotheses are a threat to humanist civilisation. But I can't say that to your thesis since in fact the principles of Judeo-Christianity underpin all modern western liberal democracies.

Your foray off into Russia is bizarre. I have studied a little of the history of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. I have also been able to visit St Basil's in Red Square. Your simplification of western liberals' position on Russia is a little too reductionist to make much sense.

And still miss the point. Not my problem if you can't articulate sufficiently for comprehension. You and your fellow fan boys become more marginalised from the mainstream every day that your Deified Fetish opens his ridiculous mouth.

"Mainstream". You far out left wingers think you are the "mainstream". You are the ones on the margin and people, even in European countries are beginning to look to the right to right (pardon) the ship. Even they are sick of being told that this "inclusiveness" is good for them.

When Her Royal Thighness^TM Hitlary Hillary loses the presidential election because she got the smaller percentage of votes, will she still be mainstream?

When Trump becomes the next POTUS because he resonates with a majority of of the people, will he still be "on the fringe"?

Time to go. Your spaceship awaits you.

Cheers.

Thank you for this perspective of the lunar right from your Oregon spread. At least it gave me the chance to reflect on all my friends in the North West of that state who are all gun carrying, right wing loons. But I like them anyway.

Since the main race has not yet begun, all you can give us is supposition, unsupported by any quantifiable data and backed by juvenile name calling. Thing is, the mainstream to which I refer is called mainstream for a reason. It comprises those who are not living in gated communities because of their fear of Mexicans. It comprises those who do not earn more than $100K a year mainly from low taxed financial investments inherited from their parents. It comprises those who refer to themselves as middle class but realise this aspiration is beyond them because of the colour of their skin and the status of their employment and the way the right wing keeps convincing people to vote against their economic interests in favour of increased income inequality. It comprises those who have no engagement on issues of geo-politics and national security but who are the ones who send their kids to die in crappy places to serve the interests of certain Americans. It comprises those who live among a range of ethnicities in urban environments who believe in a better life and who will elect leaders who will represent their beliefs, interests and values.

Please, continue to use Leftist in an attempt to insult me. You may call me liberal and progressive as much as you want. These words are empowering. The fact that they scare the lunatic right in fear of losing their guns and of muslim or Mexican invasions and of redistributive economic policies and social justice programs. The world is too complex for a mono-dimensional caricature like Trump. You may have a few more months to wander around your dusty Oregon range, I assume you are in Eastern Oregon, before your bubble is burst.

Where did I even hint at denying anyone their right to express an opinion on any forum? Only an irrational hothead would make such a determination. Unlike the people ruling the UK and many parts of Europe, I am a believer in free speech, including TVF. But the FACT remains that only I and other American citizens will have a vote to determine Trump's nomination and election. It doesn't matter how much outsiders rave, they cannot vote. Many, if not most, of the people venting against Trump simply will not have a say in the matter. And, in fact, the more outsiders complain, the stronger Trump will get within the American electorate.

You obfuscate and back pedal. What was the purpose in you posting an observation that non Americans cannot vote in the American election? A fact that would be known to practicably everyone. You desired to put people in their place. This is not a free speech argument. Someone pulls you up on your arrogance, so you pull back on your spiel.

Anyone here can post their thoughts irrespective if they have voting rights or not. Being a registered voter in the US election is not among the criteria and rules for posting on TVF. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Your affectation of the obvious is a base move totally to be expected of the Trump demographic.

You miss the point. You are welcome to rant all you want. You just don't get to vote and your opinion has no affect on American voters so you are blowing in the wind.

I don't think that too many Americans read the European press or TVF, either.

Trump has risen in the polls since he made this statement about stopping Muslims from immigrating. Risen. He keeps rising.

The two things that are always the most important to American voters are national security and the economy. When they decide who to vote for, it will boil down to that.

Trump is perceived in polls as being the one best able to handle both - national security and the economy. No other candidate comes close. This cycle immigration is seen as a national security issue. This is both illegal immigration by Hispanics and any immigration by Muslims. Trump is pushing those buttons. He does this while wearing his "Make America Great Again" cap and dissing China and free trade with them, saying they are ripping the US off.

If you want to know why Trump will probably be the next POTUS, compare how he handles those issues in his campaign to others who are in the race.

It's no contest.

Cheers.

No. I miss your point, not the point. I am confronting a bully and braggart who is relying on a coward's defence.

For someone who want to be paid for providing tuition on the US Constitution, you surprisingly take no account of the small detail that the Republican nominating process is not actually the general election. When the clown car emerges from the bubble, whoever is elected as Chief Clown will face the rest of the country, also called the majority of voters. These are the people whose intelligence is insulted that this very caricature of a buffon presumes to think that he can be their leader. I absolutely agree with you about the entire line up of the goon show that is what passes for the Republican candidates.

When the time comes, the majority of Americans will vote for someone who is Presidential. No amount of make up and hair spray can cover this fundamental deficiency in the idea of Trump. He does not pass the laugh test. It will certainly not be any contest when it comes to the real race.

You obfuscate and back pedal. What was the purpose in you posting an observation that non Americans cannot vote in the American election? A fact that would be known to practicably everyone. You desired to put people in their place. This is not a free speech argument. Someone pulls you up on your arrogance, so you pull back on your spiel.

Anyone here can post their thoughts irrespective if they have voting rights or not. Being a registered voter in the US election is not among the criteria and rules for posting on TVF. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Your affectation of the obvious is a base move totally to be expected of the Trump demographic.

You're putting us on, aren't you? Nobody really talks or writes the way you do, unless they're trying to parody something.

And in the end that is all you've got. Childish, puerile sneers at someone's writing style. True Trump devotee. Someone calls you out after some buffoonery and you've got nothing but a smart mouth retort.

I'll bet you're just the life of the party, aren't you. Get many invitations for Christmas and New Year's, do you? Didn't think so, especially after the San Bernardino shooting. BTW, exactly what do you want readers of your rants to engage with? You don't say anything. All that is in your posts are incoherent ramblings damning Trump and anybody who supports him. Make a point. Maybe someone will respond.

Anything to say on topic?

Anything at all?

Still nothing. Your insults get more childish as you go on. There is enough substance in what I have posted on this topic to satisfy anyone who had more than just hot air. Perhaps you should consider why the points that I and countless other make in response to your silly, mindless boosting of the Global Laughingstock keep eluding you, then perhaps a discussion may result. I won't hold my breath on that.

Care to make any point at all on topic?

You keep trotting out that coward's argument. It is more amusing that you and the others will be wasting your vote on a phantasm. I would not be surprised that most of you will not be able to deal with it. When you have some authority to deny anyone the opportunity to express their view on this platform, please let us know. Deal with that.

Where did I even hint at denying anyone their right to express an opinion on any forum? Only an irrational hothead would make such a determination. Unlike the people ruling the UK and many parts of Europe, I am a believer in free speech, including TVF. But the FACT remains that only I and other American citizens will have a vote to determine Trump's nomination and election. It doesn't matter how much outsiders rave, they cannot vote. Many, if not most, of the people venting against Trump simply will not have a say in the matter. And, in fact, the more outsiders complain, the stronger Trump will get within the American electorate.

You obfuscate and back pedal. What was the purpose in you posting an observation that non Americans cannot vote in the American election? A fact that would be known to practicably everyone. You desired to put people in their place. This is not a free speech argument. Someone pulls you up on your arrogance, so you pull back on your spiel.

Anyone here can post their thoughts irrespective if they have voting rights or not. Being a registered voter in the US election is not among the criteria and rules for posting on TVF. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Your affectation of the obvious is a base move totally to be expected of the Trump demographic.

You're putting us on, aren't you? Nobody really talks or writes the way you do, unless they're trying to parody something.

And in the end that is all you've got. Childish, puerile sneers at someone's writing style. True Trump devotee. Someone calls you out after some buffoonery and you've got nothing but a smart mouth retort.

There is a wonderful realization in reading all these anti-Trump rants from moslems and non-Americans. And it's this: none of you will have a say in whether he is nominated or elected. That is the business of American citizens, not some daffy moslem in Jakarta or some irrelevant Englishman in the UK. Deal with it.

You keep trotting out that coward's argument. It is more amusing that you and the others will be wasting your vote on a phantasm. I would not be surprised that most of you will not be able to deal with it. When you have some authority to deny anyone the opportunity to express their view on this platform, please let us know. Deal with that.

Where did I even hint at denying anyone their right to express an opinion on any forum? Only an irrational hothead would make such a determination. Unlike the people ruling the UK and many parts of Europe, I am a believer in free speech, including TVF. But the FACT remains that only I and other American citizens will have a vote to determine Trump's nomination and election. It doesn't matter how much outsiders rave, they cannot vote. Many, if not most, of the people venting against Trump simply will not have a say in the matter. And, in fact, the more outsiders complain, the stronger Trump will get within the American electorate.

You obfuscate and back pedal. What was the purpose in you posting an observation that non Americans cannot vote in the American election? A fact that would be known to practicably everyone. You desired to put people in their place. This is not a free speech argument. Someone pulls you up on your arrogance, so you pull back on your spiel.

Anyone here can post their thoughts irrespective if they have voting rights or not. Being a registered voter in the US election is not among the criteria and rules for posting on TVF. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. Your affectation of the obvious is a base move totally to be expected of the Trump demographic.

lostboy, on 10 Dec 2015 - 16:39, said:

You don't mean Americans. You mean your type of Americans. The ignorant, low information, hysterical ones. The ones who were involved in my graduate and post graduate instructions were certainly not the anti-intellectual, arrogant bourgeois cretins whose inferiority complex manifests in obnoxious ranting against rational discourse. Again, stereotypical Trump supporters. Own it. It will be all you have left after this circus collapses under the weight of its own ignorance and bigotry. The wonderful thing about Hemingway is that he can be read in Grade School, so poseurs who wish to appear literary can have something to reference. You think you are a straight talker. You think you are a Hemingway. No, your Trump fandom is buffoonery. You disgrace the idea of Hemingway.

Ignorance and bigotry.

This you posted on another thread.

Those of us who do not require the regular and temporary permissions to extend their non-immigrant, immigrant status have protections under Thai law. Our status, earned by justifying what we have contributed and will contribute to the country, is not easily removed.

For those people who are clearly here to exploit the country and its citizens, their presence or absence is entirely meaningless to the people who count. Take what you will and depart when you will. It's just a pity we have to suffer the noise they make while residing here. Eugene Birdick and William Lederer's 1958 book no longer applies just to US officials.

You must be right up there with Buddha

This boy actually is pretty funny. You see this sort of thing in people with a little more educational certification on paper than their intellect can carry. Somehow, I think his "graduate and post graduate instructions" (itself an unwieldy phrase if there ever was one), must have taken place at Crackpot Polytechnic.

Still waiting for anything on topic? Got the cojones for it or are you just happy staying in the sand pit with the rest of your buddies? Make us believe that you are not a global laughing stock like you dream boy. Make us believe that you are someone who contributes to Thailand and are not here just to exploit it in the same way generations of your compatriots have done in the developing world. Make us believe that there is something of substance behind your dream boys foolish gaffes on walls and bans and guns and Mexicans and everyone else that he has dismissed. Make us believe that American society still believes in equality of opportunity instead of the preservation of the status and privileges of a certain class and certain race.

As a stereotypical Trump supporter you will have nothing to offer in response to any of this. You can only attack, insult and sneer just like your hero. How many posts and what do you have to offer except your blind lust for this cretin.

Anything?

Anything at all?

lostboy, on 10 Dec 2015 - 17:01, said:

Thank you for your compliment. I guess you are trying to insult me but this is so obtuse that it is beyond comprehension. So I appreciate your support by reposting my thoughts for more people to read.

It truly is an amazing phenomenon that the so called educated are so arrogant that they cannot see their own failings.

That is for the lesser folk to point out. If you find this truly amazing, then you have led a very sheltered life. I am ready to defend what I wrote and continue to write but no-one seems to have the ability to make any coherent statements in rebuttal. Just snide, juvenile nonsense from some and stupefying vagueness from others.

lostboy, on 10 Dec 2015 - 16:39, said:

You don't mean Americans. You mean your type of Americans. The ignorant, low information, hysterical ones. The ones who were involved in my graduate and post graduate instructions were certainly not the anti-intellectual, arrogant bourgeois cretins whose inferiority complex manifests in obnoxious ranting against rational discourse. Again, stereotypical Trump supporters. Own it. It will be all you have left after this circus collapses under the weight of its own ignorance and bigotry. The wonderful thing about Hemingway is that he can be read in Grade School, so poseurs who wish to appear literary can have something to reference. You think you are a straight talker. You think you are a Hemingway. No, your Trump fandom is buffoonery. You disgrace the idea of Hemingway.

Ignorance and bigotry.

This you posted on another thread.

Those of us who do not require the regular and temporary permissions to extend their non-immigrant, immigrant status have protections under Thai law. Our status, earned by justifying what we have contributed and will contribute to the country, is not easily removed.

For those people who are clearly here to exploit the country and its citizens, their presence or absence is entirely meaningless to the people who count. Take what you will and depart when you will. It's just a pity we have to suffer the noise they make while residing here. Eugene Birdick and William Lederer's 1958 book no longer applies just to US officials.

You must be right up there with Buddha

Thank you for your compliment. I guess you are trying to insult me but this is so obtuse that it is beyond comprehension. So I appreciate your support by reposting my thoughts for more people to read.

You don't mean Americans. You mean your type of Americans. The ignorant, low information, hysterical ones. The ones who were involved in my graduate and post graduate instructions were certainly not the anti-intellectual, arrogant bourgeois cretins who inferiority complex manifests in obnoxious ranting against rational discourse. Again, stereotypical Trump supporters. Own it. It will be all you have left after this circus collapses under the weight of its own ignorance and bigotry.

You really should try to calm down. You're going to have a stroke. Did you throw these type temper tantrums in your "graduate and post graduate instructions?"

That is me being calm. Blood pressure continuing to remain exactly normal as usual. Challenging ignorance and bigotry is not throwing a tantrum. It is the duty of an educated, rational and aware person.

Still waiting for anything from you that is remotely related to the topic and not a personal hissy fit or some blind, besotted drivel about your current political fetish.

I enjoyed my studies in American institutions. Do not apologise for that at all. Can you muster anything more than a sneer to anyone here who doesn't accept your brand of bs? I just keep repeating it - stereotypical Trump supporters.

And still miss the point. Not my problem if you can't articulate sufficiently for comprehension. You and your fellow fan boys become more marginalised from the mainstream every day that your Deified Fetish opens his ridiculous mouth.

Cliched empty-headed Euro rant.

Perpetuating the stereotype of the Trump Boofheads whether domestic or international policy. I have substance to my rants. Yours and your fellow Trumpettes are empty shirts, no backbone, no substance. Thank you for assuming I am European. I fully support their efforts to prevent any infestation of Trump inspired yokels.

American's don't spell "marginalize" with an "s." And, like Hemingway, we tend to devalue a bloated, self-important writing style.

You don't mean Americans. You mean your type of Americans. The ignorant, low information, hysterical ones. The ones who were involved in my graduate and post graduate instructions were certainly not the anti-intellectual, arrogant bourgeois cretins whose inferiority complex manifests in obnoxious ranting against rational discourse. Again, stereotypical Trump supporters. Own it. It will be all you have left after this circus collapses under the weight of its own ignorance and bigotry. The wonderful thing about Hemingway is that he can be read in Grade School, so poseurs who wish to appear literary can have something to reference. You think you are a straight talker. You think you are a Hemingway. No, your Trump fandom is buffoonery. You disgrace the idea of Hemingway.

There is a wonderful realization in reading all these anti-Trump rants from moslems and non-Americans. And it's this: none of you will have a say in whether he is nominated or elected. That is the business of American citizens, not some daffy moslem in Jakarta or some irrelevant Englishman in the UK. Deal with it.

You keep trotting out that coward's argument. It is more amusing that you and the others will be wasting your vote on a phantasm. I would not be surprised that most of you will not be able to deal with it. When you have some authority to deny anyone the opportunity to express their view on this platform, please let us know. Deal with that.

And still miss the point. Not my problem if you can't articulate sufficiently for comprehension. You and your fellow fan boys become more marginalised from the mainstream every day that your Deified Fetish opens his ridiculous mouth.

Cliched empty-headed Euro rant.

Perpetuating the stereotype of the Trump Boofheads whether domestic or international policy. I have substance to my rants. Yours and your fellow Trumpettes are empty shirts, no backbone, no substance. Thank you for assuming I am European. I fully support their efforts to prevent any infestation of Trump inspired yokels.

Racially, most of the peoples of that region, including the Arab people are semites. The term Arab anti-semitism is a propaganda device to propagate hatred in the Israel/Palestine conflict. "Arab Racism" is a far more complex issue than the proponents of a certain agenda are willing to admit. It begs the question of why you have started this line of racially motivated attacks supported by historically and ethnographically inaccurate claims. This is not the action of a person interested in engagement, only division.

The UK preventing a right wing 'shock jock' from entering the country to violate its hate speech laws in order to sell more of his lunatic books is perfectly justified.

Now your agenda is clear, you have marginalised anything you might have to say in the future.

The term Arab anti-semitism is a propaganda device to propagate hatred in the Israel/Palestine conflict. --

Of course, because all through history, the practitioners of anti-Semitism, and coiners of the very word, were referring to Arabs, not Jews, all this time.

No, anti-semiticism is not the name ascribed to the practice 'all throughout history'. This practice has been straight out anti-jewishness. The Edicts of Expulsion by Edward I in 13th C England and similar in 15th C Spain as part of the inquisition process was purely motivated by religious and economic fear of the Jewish people. You may describe these actions as anti-semitic but the actual term is a construct of a 19th C German Nationalist, a proto-facist who used the term as a substitute for Jew Hater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism. It has subsequently become the currency of the polarised debate on the Israel/Palestine issue.

I do not deny anti-semitism against Jewish people throughout history. I do object, however, to the introduction of this racially motivated attack in the issue of the 'Muslim Problem'. It is retrograde. It is base. And quite despicable. The UK immigration policies are not anti-semitic. To say otherwise is scurrilous hate speech. It diminishes the real discrimination experienced by the Jewish diaspora throughout history in favour of cheap rhetoric.

Do not mischaracterize my statements, boy. I wrote about the "practitioners of anti-Semitism," not the "practice" of "anti-jewishness."

And still miss the point. Not my problem if you can't articulate sufficiently for comprehension. You and your fellow fan boys become more marginalised from the mainstream every day that your Deified Fetish opens his ridiculous mouth.

Well it seems that it will reach half a million the way things going...

The UK showed its true colors when it banned a Jewish radio show host from the US a few years ago. Micheal savage.

Just goes to show that most if this Islam acceptance is routed in Antisemitism

Racially, most of the peoples of that region, including the Arab people are semites. The term Arab anti-semitism is a propaganda device to propagate hatred in the Israel/Palestine conflict. "Arab Racism" is a far more complex issue than the proponents of a certain agenda are willing to admit. It begs the question of why you have started this line of racially motivated attacks supported by historically and ethnographically inaccurate claims. This is not the action of a person interested in engagement, only division.

The UK preventing a right wing 'shock jock' from entering the country to violate its hate speech laws in order to sell more of his lunatic books is perfectly justified.

Now your agenda is clear, you have marginalised anything you might have to say in the future.

The term Arab anti-semitism is a propaganda device to propagate hatred in the Israel/Palestine conflict. --

Of course, because all through history, the practitioners of anti-Semitism, and coiners of the very word, were referring to Arabs, not Jews, all this time.

No, anti-semiticism is not the name ascribed to the practice 'all throughout history'. This practice has been straight out anti-jewishness. The Edicts of Expulsion by Edward I in 13th C England and similar in 15th C Spain as part of the inquisition process was purely motivated by religious and economic fear of the Jewish people. You may describe these actions as anti-semitic but the actual term is a construct of a 19th C German Nationalist, a proto-facist who used the term as a substitute for Jew Hater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism. It has subsequently become the currency of the polarised debate on the Israel/Palestine issue.

I do not deny anti-semitism against Jewish people throughout history. I do object, however, to the introduction of this racially motivated attack in the issue of the 'Muslim Problem'. It is retrograde. It is base. And quite despicable. The UK immigration policies are not anti-semitic. To say otherwise is scurrilous hate speech. It diminishes the real discrimination experienced by the Jewish diaspora throughout history in favour of cheap rhetoric.

Well it seems that it will reach half a million the way things going...

The UK showed its true colors when it banned a Jewish radio show host from the US a few years ago. Micheal savage.

Just goes to show that most if this Islam acceptance is routed in Antisemitism

Racially, most of the peoples of that region, including the Arab people are semites. The term Arab anti-semitism is a propaganda device to propagate hatred in the Israel/Palestine conflict. "Arab Racism" is a far more complex issue than the proponents of a certain agenda are willing to admit. It begs the question of why you have started this line of racially motivated attacks supported by historically and ethnographically inaccurate claims. This is not the action of a person interested in engagement, only division.

The UK preventing a right wing 'shock jock' from entering the country to violate its hate speech laws in order to sell more of his lunatic books is perfectly justified.

Now your agenda is clear, you have marginalised anything you might have to say in the future.

The Us constitution covers all Americans everywhere, and residents of the United States, Countries can limit who comes into their country. There was a time when Chinese were excluded from the United States. However, it has been proven through the years that these policies are discriminatory and it is impossible to exclude people based upon religion. It would be challenged in court and never affirmed. America's current immigration policy is quite fair. Those people from countries that have unfetered terorism are not going to have an easy time coming into America. It is Europe that has the problem. Too many refugees in a limited space. If you are a citizen or resident of a country and you go abroad to fight against that very country, you have forfeited your citizenship and residency. Laws can and will be amended. This is a far cry from brandishing all Muslims as terrorists or putting people in concentration camps. This is madness people and can only lead to disaster.

The US Constitution does NOT cover Americans while they are in other countries. Those countries' laws and constitutions do. If you are operating under the assumption that the US Constitution protects you while you're in Thailand, you are soon to be in for a big surprise.

Laws enacted under the framework of the US Constitution apply to US Citizens no matter their location in the same way that laws of other countries apply to their nationals. In particular, US taxation law, laws on foreign corrupt practices for individuals and corporations and laws on human trafficking and child sexual abuse most certainly apply to US citizens abroad. In fact the zeal for the application of US laws extends to military bases where Status of Forces Agreements often allow primacy of US law over local laws as some rape victims in Japan and Korea have discovered.

Of course, this is entirely irrelevant. The Trump fanboys whose mental state is easily swayed by superficiality and glamour are merely diverting the issue to a meaningless legal point to stop people from discussing the real and underlying horror and hideousness of what Trump has blurted through his pie hole this time. Where next does he and his growing army of crazies proceed in terms of the 'Muslim Problem'. Do you think the final solution that these nuts come up with will be any less inhuman than what earlier generation of white, scared, xenophobes have come up with?

Oh well, I really feel for these blowhards who will be suffering huge depression when they finally realise that the majority of the people who actually matter know what this moron's feet are made from.

I do not agree with you but it is refreshing to read someone offering a strong argument for their position. I would caution out of fairness that not everyone who supports Trump supports all he says, intends, or even the man himself. Many just oppose the current status quo so vehemently that nothing short of a great plural uprising could turn the tide of the liberal slide into relativism and decay that defines America now; agree or not this is the worldview of Trump's unprecedented rise- the support is engendered by something wrong in the Republic. Trump is, I suspect, the best of a number of bad choices- to many. And yea, many couch their love for him with actual antipathy and hatred for others. This is equally true on the left where toleration is daily defined as toleration for proscribed points of view only- to wit college campuses, the White House, the UN, climate talks, etc. Just like the assertion that one can lead by fiat because of congressional gridlock progressives now universally call for removing from the discourse those with opposing points of view on a number of topics. This is what Trump's popularity reflects- disgust with relativism and social engineering.

Its actually meaningless for the White House to assert what does and does not disqualify one from office in that much of the current state of affairs is directly tied to the executive's leading from behind strategy which seeks to create a bipolar sunni/shia world in the Middle East, the refusal to define islamic jihad which only serves to alienate the larger muslim population in the eyes of the many, the excising of all things "islamic" from Justice Department and Homeland Security documents, the avowed support for the Muslim Brotherhood when in fact the larger of the two primary Egyptian demonstrations was to throw Morisi out, whom the White House asserted was a legitimate leader, ad infinitum. The actions of this executive set up much of the degraded environment that enables islamic jihad, loans it legitimacy, permits it to hold land as a State, and equivocates on "red lines" revealing moral bankruptcy.

The White House has no legitimacy to note disqualifications of presidency. A great number of actions under Obama, under cross examination, could easily rise to probably cause for high crimes and misdemeanor, certainly moral turpitude. 7 years ago opponents imagined a what the the nation would look like following "fundamental transformation;" now we know.

My issue was the silliness of this legalistic spat over the powers to stop Muslims from entering the US. You have responding by arguing the fall of Western civilisation. You also don't endorse Trump but you rationalise the motivations of many of his followers. Rather than take on the whole anti-PC, anti-climate change, clash of civilisations argument, I think the main issue I have with your wide ranging post is the idea that liberalism is leading or has led to the collapse of American society. I vaguely recall some quotations from my Classics lessons and in trying to find the references, I came across http://mentalfloss.com/article/52209/15-historical-complaints-about-young-people-ruining-everything Isn't this what this is all about. Stick in the muds lamenting over everything going to pot. This happens with every generation. Often the triggers are different but the sentiments are the same.

Why is this so? Why can't people face the unknown with confidence? Particularly American and similar western countries. These countries are strong. They have institutions that have met challengers and solved problems. Courts, political processes, government agencies, education programs - all based on the principles of Western Liberal thought as defined by the 18th Century Rationalists and expanded as universal suffrage was adopted until current times.

The Muslim scare. The Illegal Immigrant Scare. The Black Crime Scare. The Home Invasion Scare. All of these fears and anxieties created for what? Perhaps it is a conspiracy by Big Pharma to sell more Xanax or whatever.

In any case, I don't think a defence of Western Liberalism is wanted here. I think the anti-Trump people on TVF just want an outlet to express their rage that this demagogue is enabling a significant demographic in their chauvinism and that history demonstrates that the can be extremely dangerous.

What has been Obama's fundamental transformation? Non Americans laugh at the charges laid against Obama of being a socialist. I do believe that under Obama's watch, the US has taken a sharp and beneficial step to the left. In saner moments, when I can appreciate the core elements of the traditional Republican ideology, I still have always thought that Republicans don't do social justice very well. It is a very harsh ideology. If you can't keep up then you are left behind. Don't complain. It's your own fault. The Baby Boomer generation started a process of liberalism but it is really the Millenials who are taking this to a logical conclusion and demanding that their government deal with social justice issues. Obama has had the fortune and good sense to listen to this and so the US has the Affordable Care Act, marriage equality, decriminalisation of drugs, attention given to the number of people incarcerated etc etc.

I find it interesting that you assume a 'great plural uprising'. I find nothing of any plurality in the demographic that has come under the Trump thrall. It is entirely one dimensional. A nastier bunch of people I have never encountered. Their arrogance, narrow mindedness and selfishness is antithetical to all of my values. What do these people care of the under-class in their corporatist utopia under Trump? What do they care of differing social and cultural views when they have the view that it is "their way or the highway". What thought will they give to the non combatants of countries where they will direct the US Military to impose a self-centred world view on the 'bad' guys. How will they be defining 'bad guys'? I think most of us have some inkling.

I understand perfectly your rationale for why we should understand Trumps attraction. That is not the issue. The issue is a fundamental difference in the way some of us think people should behave to each other and governments should behave towards their citizens.

Democracy is always a threat to those in charge for the moment.

Are you talking about the US? The US isn't a democracy.

Cheers.

Really? You need a First Amendment and a Bill of Rights. In some European countries, slander/libel are criminal offenses and can incur prison time. (Italy and Sweden, maybe more, but I know these two have that.) In Italy, if the prosecutor doesn't like a not-guilty verdict, they just try the defendant again until they get the guilty verdict they want.

The US has a First Amendment that makes it difficult to sue anybody for defamation, in addition to enshrining freedom of speech, protects the public FROM religion in addition to guaranteeing freedom OF religion. British pundits have said they need a 1st Amendment. There is more. By the way, contrary to Commonwealth people's stereotype, Obama was elected in 2008 from grass-roots small donations raised over the internet (not corporate America).

You shouldn't lecture Americans with education on American democracy. Cheers.

Isn't the US democracy a bit non linear?

Some votes in some states more valuable than others.

Maybe for some county's / districts also.

Complex.

You guys may not be familiar with this trope. There is a certain group of far out, right wing nut jobs i.e. the Trump demographic prophetically labelled by McCain a while ago, who are the 2nd Amendment types, chauvinistic, old men who have lost their power or never had it to begin with who cling to the idea that the US is not a democracy because it is a republic. There is a whole body of knowledge, actually anti-knowledge of pseudo academic interpretations of the Constitution, Federalist Papers and other documents that argues that the already deified Founding Fathers (note the capitalisation) did not what a democracy because the uneducated and poor mob will vote for entitlements for themselves. So these enlightened FF's, inspired of course by Jesus, had the prescience to know of a political structure based on universal suffrage influenced by a welfare mentality that was a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution and writers like Karl Marx, a hundred years before this happened. These nitwits, and you know who they are on TVF, refuse to accept the generally accepted definitions in all dictionaries that the US is a republican form of democracy.

My own theory is that these fools are indoctrinated so heavily by their ideology that they cannot accept the word democracy because it is similar to the word democrat and that means liberals. It means progressives. It means the end of civilisation. it means Obama. So it unacceptable.

Their foolishness gets boring when displayed in public like on TVF but if you are interested just google and you will see all these nuts pictured in front of US flags, wearing their US flag pins, screaming about the 2nd Amendment and so scared that a black guy is President that they are all running, lemming-like, after Trump. Do buy into the US is not a democracy bs. It just diverts attention and energy away from the need to keep actual fascists out of power.

A country has the right to protect its borders, however, the protection must be based upon rational thinking and long term national interest/ How would you all feel if Thailand decided that it is changing its Visa policy and limit the number of Westerners granted retirement and marriage Visas. They use the rationale that the Western lifestyle is subverting Thai culture and they need to limit the numbers to avoid any further contamination. Would you support this? What you are advocating is very similar to this.

Maybe you haven`t noticed, but Thailand already limits the numbers of Westerners granted retirement and marriage Visas. We have to fulfill a criteria to stay here. None of us could emerge on Thailand`s shores or borders claiming political asylum. I suggest you try it and see how far you`ll get.

How would the Thais feel if millions of Farlang refugees with possible terrorist links started heading for the country and the neighbouring countries? No contest, no comparison.

The immigration policies of all countries impose requirements that have to be met to be approved. Implementing requirements is not limiting the numbers of a certain group of people allowed to qualify. Since clearly your world view in this country is limited to westerners, perhaps you might not be aware that immigrants of neighbouring countries are able to get work permits and have a defined path to citizenship irrespective of their immigration status. These people number in the hundreds of thousands. But of course this is nothing compared to the handful of pasty faced white old men living in their ghettoes and kidding themselves that they are not immigrants but expats.

It is really illuminating when our less culturally aware bigots start comparing the Thai system with another country. The level of ignorance and lack of understanding is palpable. From the moronic transliteration of Thai words into English characters providing an indication of the class of Thai that they are associated with to the assumptions about Thai policy makers and their motivations and actions.

I look forward to reading the self-published opus on Thai culture that you are no doubt working on.

A country has the right to protect its borders, however, the protection must be based upon rational thinking and long term national interest/ How would you all feel if Thailand decided that it is changing its Visa policy and limit the number of Westerners granted retirement and marriage Visas. They use the rationale that the Western lifestyle is subverting Thai culture and they need to limit the numbers to avoid any further contamination. Would you support this? What you are advocating is very similar to this.

If Thailand did such a thing, it would be entirely up to them to do so. I wouldn't have any say at all in the matter. Although the comparison you make is an erroneous one. Trump is talking about banning muslims from entering the US, which is within the president's and congress' legal authority, not about kicking out people already resident, which is what you're saying Thailand might do. But again if Thailand wants that, it's their choice. And I hope that all of us who are here are prepared for such an eventuality. It could happen. I know I'm prepared. How about you, Thaidream?

Those of us who do not require the regular and temporary permissions to extend their non-immigrant, immigrant status have protections under Thai law. Our status, earned by justifying what we have contributed and will contribute to the country, is not easily removed.

For those people who are clearly here to exploit the country and its citizens, their presence or absence is entirely meaningless to the people who count. Take what you will and depart when you will. It's just a pity we have to suffer the noise they make while residing here. Eugene Birdick and William Lederer's 1958 book no longer applies just to US officials.

The Us constitution covers all Americans everywhere, and residents of the United States, Countries can limit who comes into their country. There was a time when Chinese were excluded from the United States. However, it has been proven through the years that these policies are discriminatory and it is impossible to exclude people based upon religion. It would be challenged in court and never affirmed. America's current immigration policy is quite fair. Those people from countries that have unfetered terorism are not going to have an easy time coming into America. It is Europe that has the problem. Too many refugees in a limited space. If you are a citizen or resident of a country and you go abroad to fight against that very country, you have forfeited your citizenship and residency. Laws can and will be amended. This is a far cry from brandishing all Muslims as terrorists or putting people in concentration camps. This is madness people and can only lead to disaster.

The US Constitution does NOT cover Americans while they are in other countries. Those countries' laws and constitutions do. If you are operating under the assumption that the US Constitution protects you while you're in Thailand, you are soon to be in for a big surprise.

Laws enacted under the framework of the US Constitution apply to US Citizens no matter their location in the same way that laws of other countries apply to their nationals. In particular, US taxation law, laws on foreign corrupt practices for individuals and corporations and laws on human trafficking and child sexual abuse most certainly apply to US citizens abroad. In fact the zeal for the application of US laws extends to military bases where Status of Forces Agreements often allow primacy of US law over local laws as some rape victims in Japan and Korea have discovered.

Of course, this is entirely irrelevant. The Trump fanboys whose mental state is easily swayed by superficiality and glamour are merely diverting the issue to a meaningless legal point to stop people from discussing the real and underlying horror and hideousness of what Trump has blurted through his pie hole this time. Where next does he and his growing army of crazies proceed in terms of the 'Muslim Problem'. Do you think the final solution that these nuts come up with will be any less inhuman than what earlier generation of white, scared, xenophobes have come up with?

Oh well, I really feel for these blowhards who will be suffering huge depression when they finally realise that the majority of the people who actually matter know what this moron's feet are made from.

It would be untrue that I press a point of view blindly and make assumptions willfully. Sometimes I make mistakes. I should not have said you "like." Agree with what you said or not, it was not presented so badly but I invested "like" into it, where there was no suggestion. I was wrong to do that. I am not a dishonest man. Sometimes I do the same things I indict others for. I sure as hell hope when I am called on it I don't stop seeing when I make mistakes. Otherwise I become exactly what I like least- people who insinuate. Sorry.

I believe you completely and absolutely no need for apologies.

I was not offended. I was more curious about what I saw as a logical flaw, which if intentional would have been intellectually dishonest (it happens on TVF) but your clarification explains everything quite satisfactorily. It is much more fun to ague with an honest broker than someone in a rage. Those with their hypocrisy on their sleeves are too easy to knock down.

Anyway, please keep on posting. Often your posts inspire me to respond. I wasted 2 hours tonight on TVF when I should have been preparing for an early morning conference call. Damn.

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Not the first cab off the rank on this one. Did we seep in this morning?

"They should condemn it unequivocally..."

Why?

In all the posts by the anti-muslim brigade, I have never seen unequivocal, unreserved, unhesitating condemnation of Jewish terrorists. From all those posters, I have never seen calls against religious hate speech against women's reproductive rights and how it inspires Christian terrorists to murder health care workers in the name of their ideology. I certainly never heard that brigade condemning religiously inspired hated against LGBT people during the many debates on marriage equality.

Muslim people live their lives like we do. They have the same aspirations, hopes and dreams. Most of them, however, do not have the benefits of living in liberal democracies with legal recognition of human rights and sound economic policies that create wealth and opportunity.

You want condemnation of radical, ideologically inspired terrorism? You get them all the time. Religious leaders in the UK, Australia, Europe, American and elsewhere continually condemn terrorist attacks. Bigots, however, ignore these because it doesn't suit their world view and mission to spread their hatred and nastiness around unchecked.

Its positively untrue that those who condemn muslim terrorism condone "Jewish terrorists." Though it may be for some, you did not make this point. The inability to distinguish "anti-muslim" from anti-muslim terrorist is the same fallacy of reasoning that has Obama et al still averring there is no connection to the underlying ideology/texts, in spite of the muslim's world's inability to repudiate this fact and the terrorists' sura and verse citations. This fallacy of policy is what has the multitudes having to create their own narrative of exactly what is going on. It is self evident where islamic terrorism comes from, yet the continued denial forces the narrative to be constructed without guidance or facts by countless millions.

Actually, the world wants condemnation of religiously inspired terrorism not the sterilized "ideological[ly]," this is after all the singular obvious connection and the one that is stubbornly ignored. That you cant even lock into that in your diatribe suggests how unprepared you are to offer your thoughts.

The article clearly suggests "muslim struggle with how they should condemn terrorism" yet you suggest this is a false narrative- the muslim world "continually condemn terrorist attacks." For the oddest reason the majority of planet earth actually do not find that true, including, clearly, the author of this article. Indeed, even in CAIR's pronouncement they indicted the victims for sharing responsibility. In fact, when you dissect the condemnations you refer to, while some are genuine, most never... never rebuke the koranic citations and authority. In fact, in contemporary times, there has only been one studious rebuttal to IS or AQ koranic inspiration and that regarded the burning of a Jordanian pilot. Even on this issue, islamic jurisprudence was equivocal.

Because you don't like those who oppose islamic jihad and cant muster a dispassionate sensible rebuttal does not then invite pejoratives. With such posts you actually harm those you try to defend. The gig is up, in the absence of strength pejorative does not isolate and silence people any longer.

That the moderate muslim world struggles to offer a message defined the problem exactly: scripturally, the extremists are properly cited. It is the moderates who are actually unorthodox. How then to wish to remain islamic and have it defined in the modern age in a way that is meaningful and fraternal with others? This is the very situation islam envisioned long ago and labored to prevent- having islam change with location and times. The fact they have confusion about this and cannot universally decry islamic terrorism suggests how very clearly morals are not universal. It evidenced why islamic jihad finds passive or active solace within muslim communities throughout the world.

Often in your attempts to press your ideological view, you make assumptions that are patently incorrect. How do you assume that I do not like those who oppose terrorists? I have issues with the labelling of terrorists as Islamic, Jewish or Christian but that by no means should be interpreted as support for terrorists or hatred of those who are against terrorists. It would seem that to elaborate your ideological point of view, you must demonise and make use of the kinds of pejoratives that you argue against. If you read my statements that those who condemn muslim terrorists condone Jewish terrorists, then there is either something wrong with my word usage or you are getting a little enthusiastic in your rhetoric (something of a common occurrence in your posts I find). I do not understand how you made that interpretation and believe that you deliberately mis-interpret my statements to fit your rebuttal. I won't get into an argument with you again about intellectual dishonesty, but I think you get my point.

The core of my argument is that it is not up to non Muslims to define what Muslims should do to condemn terrorists. What will satisfy the blood lust of the right wing, anti immigrant, anti PC crowd? The howling masses are like the Shylock demanding his pound of flesh. Isn't it time for a Portia to make the appeal "The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven" Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice Act 4 Scene 1.

Enough of making muslim jump through hoops directed by non muslims. Let them develop solutions to their challenges. Western societies need to strengthen their law enforcement strategies to deal with terrorism. Terrorism is a criminal act. It is not a military action. It is stopped by police action followed by the presentation of evidence in an open court of law with an unbiased verdict based on that evidence and not other other factors. Just how society has dealt with undesirable acts for centuries.

I believe John Kerry was correct when he said in 2004 that "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but there a nuisance"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/kerrys-undeclared-war.html?_r=0

But of course the right went wild over this use of the word 'nuisance' but he is correct. Statistically, it is a nuisance and can and should be cleared up by police action. Just like the UK bank robbers of th 50's. Just like the New York racketeers of the 80's and 90's. Why do western liberal democracies doubt the very institutions that have made western liberal democracies so successful in providing a structure for people to develop, create wealth, engage in free transactions with others and lead fulfilling lives. One reason is mob chauvinism, unreasoned bigotry and plain old fear (sorry that's three reasons).

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Not the first cab off the rank on this one. Did we seep in this morning?

"They should condemn it unequivocally..."

Why?

In all the posts by the anti-muslim brigade, I have never seen unequivocal, unreserved, unhesitating condemnation of Jewish terrorists. From all those posters, I have never seen calls against religious hate speech against women's reproductive rights and how it inspires Christian terrorists to murder health care workers in the name of their ideology. I certainly never heard that brigade condemning religiously inspired hated against LGBT people during the many debates on marriage equality.

Muslim people live their lives like we do. They have the same aspirations, hopes and dreams. Most of them, however, do not have the benefits of living in liberal democracies with legal recognition of human rights and sound economic policies that create wealth and opportunity.

You want condemnation of radical, ideologically inspired terrorism? You get them all the time. Religious leaders in the UK, Australia, Europe, American and elsewhere continually condemn terrorist attacks. Bigots, however, ignore these because it doesn't suit their world view and mission to spread their hatred and nastiness around unchecked.

I do not believe you are following the Australian press closely - the reported criticism by religious leaders of the Islamic faith is not exactly edifying and varies between unconvincing and inadequate. Equally the press I have followed elsewhere ( as in this referred article from the USA ) but including Europe does not inspire the idea they intend to integrate into their 'host nations' anytime soon. Indeed if you peruse the Koran you have the answer you may not wish to see.

The other faiths do have their own idiots and murderers but I have seen condemnation in the strongest terms. Still a work in progress on many issues I will grant you, a lot more work on child abuse is needed. The benefits of living in a liberal democracy are not achieved without a struggle, but for most folk of Muslim persuasion, the enticement of the western welfare is perhaps understandable but fails to change status quo in their homelands. What I think most westerners ( your ref 'anti-Muslim brigade' ) have a problem with is their failure to appreciate the differences in their 'new' home and pointing out the weakness of their hosts in observing human rights and mostly equality between the sexes.

A Muslim colleague once told me that " Islam is the best religion with Muslims being the worst followers " - all of course borrowed from George Bernard Shaw but uttered by a educated and enlightened Muslim.

As I posted previously, don't expect the Leaders on whom you lay all these expectations of condemnation to follow your agenda. After condemning murderous, terrorist attacks, they may say other things that you might find unpalatable and difficult to hear. I have an intellectual interest in religions in their socio-cultural and historical context but am utterly immune to the tenets of any faith however I have undertaken training in anti-racism and anti-sexism as part of official duties quite some time ago. Confronting one's own racism is a cathartic starting point. Same with religious bigotry.

Your main problem seems to be the 'integration' issue i.e. not a fan of multiculturalism. That debate is quite boring to me. It's an old man's debate that is fueled by alcohol and entirely meaningless because new generations have resulted in history passing such old men by. Most Australians alive since World War II will have experienced the cycles of immigration of different ethnicities (and all the complaining about their lack of integration) and all have seen how the 2nd generation integrates but at the same time how Australian culture has adapted and changed in positive ways. The same thing will happen with the 2nd generation Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis etc.

Long live complaining immigrants! Let these fresh eyes point out the deficiencies in Australian culture. Without them we would never have thought of drinking coffee on the sidewalk or learning Bahasa Indonesian language and culture and a whole host of evolutions in Australian society.

I jus spent the last part of November working in Afghanistan. Had a bunch of professional meetings with Directors-General, Deputy Ministers, Embassy Counsellors etc but spent most of my time stuck in Kabul traffic with my driver, who couldn't speak English and I can barely count to three in Dari. Showed me pictures of his 2 young daughters. We are now on Facebook. He was able to take advantage of working with me to seek a position with an international multilateral agency at twice the monthly salary. He didn't wear the mushroom hat but I saw pictures of him in traditional clothes for religious and ceremonial purposes. HIs hopes in life are the same as mine even though we are from entirely different cultures. I had the good fortune to benefit from a western liberal democracy (and be a white male) with free access to education and health care. The biggest problem for implementing the development assistance projects that I was contracted to design in Afghanistan is the flight of capital and human resources. Afghanistan is the 2nd largest nationality in the current flood of refugees to Europe. Local bankers estimate that $120 billion dollars has gone to people smugglers. The operational budget for the Government of Afghanistan this year is $8 billion. People are not flooding to the West to destroy it. They are trying to find a better life.

How do Muslim immigrants or what some people inappropriately call 'moderate' muslims condemn extremism? I don't know. It is not up to non Muslims to tell them how. If they do, then this is just pandering and is meaningless. Muslim immigrants and the societies in which they live should be focussing on how to engage in positive ways with each other. They do not carry the sins of the criminals and terrorists. They are seeking better lives.

I would suggest the so called moderates find true moderates to represent them instead of letting self-appointed suit and tie Jihaddists, such as CAIR do so. As it stands from the outside looking in scores of people are murdered by Islamic terrorists on a frequent basis. But we get fears of backlash, whining about Islamophobia plus a set menu of complaints, alleged victimization etc.

I would suggest Zudhi Jasser may fit the bill, but he is regarded as an Uncle Tom by just about every practicing Muslim, whilst those who are secular or not religious would rather get on with their own lives rather than be stalked by the radicals let into the Country with scarcely a worthwhile background check.

One of your more thoughtful and less egregious posts I think. You are on the right track about Leadership. These sort of leaders are not really ordained by outsiders but must emerge. They set their own agenda, which is probably not the same one you have so be careful what you wish for.