Trump renews criticism of London Mayor Khan over attack

[Ramen087]

Just now, simple1 said:

Like it or nor we live in a democracy, not an oppressive dictatorship without access to legally enacted rights. As has likely been stated many times the guy was a human rights lawyer consulting to the defence team. Khan has made it very clear he does not sympathise with Islamist terrorism. 

 

As is constantly mentioned by security forces representatives, it is essential our societies keep a focus on pushing back against those who seek to create division. The likes of Khan in his prior and current role are fighting against propaganda methods utilised by extremist ideologues.

 

I never claimed Miranda right should be denied. You inferred that. Legal representation as provided by law when a defendant cannot afford one is OK with me. 

I stand by my response/opinion of the question as asked. 

[Naam]

On 6/6/2017 at 7:33 AM, Jingthing said:

What did Americans do to deserve this? Oh, never mind, they sort of voted him in.

kinda

[Ramen087]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Focusing on today's flavor of terrorist or string of terrorist acts misses the bigger picture.

 

What Human Rights Law defends are the values that make the modern West what it is. And, in my view at least, it is these values that make the modern West superior to other jurisdictions. Some of the best and most sublime and progressive minds in these other jurisdictions aspire for their countries to emulate the modern West in precisely these human rights values. They join protests, risk imprisonment and even death to fight for these values.

 

In this crucial regard, Khan, the brown-skinned Muslim, is more Western than his white-skinned "Christian" critics. He is more suited to be a Western leader than the torture-loving Trump.

 

You are changing the subject with your seeing the bigger picture response... more off topic than on... see my previous post...

 

I find your response regarding Khan's skin color and it's relationship to his ancestry as the comparison to light skinned Christians stereotypical and offensive, especially while invoking a comparison to Mr. Trump...

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

I never claimed Miranda right should be denied. You inferred that. Legal representation as provided by law when a defendant cannot afford one is OK with me. 

I stand by my response/opinion of the question as asked. 

Nope absolutely no relevance to Miranda rights. Under current UK law a defence team has every right to utilise access to specialist human rights adviser/s.

[Ramen087]

In the US you can get that too.  There are attorneys who routinely take such cases pro bono.  

They coordinate with court appointed public defenders very well, by the way. 

Miranda rights tell you you're entitled to an attorney if you cannot afford one and that anything

you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 

 

Hope you understand my post better now; sorry for the lack of clarity. 

[Thakkar]

32 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

 

You are changing the subject with your seeing the bigger picture response... more off topic than on... see my previous post...

 

I find your response regarding Khan's skin color and it's relationship to his ancestry as the comparison to light skinned Christians stereotypical and offensive, especially while invoking a comparison to Mr. Trump...

 

Not off topic at all. I was responding directly to your contention that defending alleged terrorists is not fighting extremism. 

 

Extremist *ideas* is partly what gives birth to terrorism, gives it fake moral cover. Defending the human rights, even of alleged terrorists, strips the fake moral veneer from the terrorists instigator.

 

Killing terrorist doesn't not by itself defeat terrorism. Killing the ideas behind those acts is what will ultimately defeat this brand of terrorism. What better idea to defeat extremist ideas than with the idea of universal human rights, especially when practiced on the terrorists themselves—recognizing, in the best Western tradition, their human rights *despite* their heinous acts?

 

Trump and Khan represent two ways of fighting terrorism. Khan's way is the more Western and superior way.

 

I didn't just invoke Khan's skin color. I also invoked his religion. Here's why: we all know that, were it not for forum rules, the two main objections to Khan would be made explicit—that he is brown and Muslim. And further discussion along those lines is what would really be off topic. 

[Ramen087]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

 

Not off topic at all. I was responding directly to your contention that defending alleged terrorists is not fighting extremism. 

 

Extremist *ideas* is partly what gives birth to terrorism, gives it fake moral cover. Defending the human rights, even of alleged terrorists, strips the fake moral veneer from the terrorists instigator.

 

Killing terrorist doesn't not by itself defeat terrorism. Killing the ideas behind those acts is what will ultimately defeat this brand of terrorism. What better idea to defeat extremist ideas than with the idea of universal human rights, especially when practiced on the terrorists themselves—recognizing, in the best Western tradition, their human rights *despite* their heinous acts?

 

Trump and Khan represent two ways of fighting terrorism. Khan's way is the more Western and superior way.

 

I didn't just invoke Khan's skin color. I also invoked his religion. Here's why: we all know that, were it not for forum rules, the two main objections to Khan would be made explicit—that he is brown and Muslim. And further discussion along those lines is what would really be off topic. 

Get over it with this simple fact: If you need to post a manifesto on your feelings about Khan and His Soldiering against extremism, and anything else peripherally related, I do not care.

[Thakkar]

2 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Get over it with this simple fact: If you need to post a manifesto on your feelings about Khan and His Soldiering against extremism, and anything else peripherally related, I do not care.

If you don't care, then stop responding.

[Ramen087]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

If you don't care, then stop responding.

Go Away and...

[Thakkar]

Just now, Ramen087 said:

Go Away and...

Oh yeah? Well YOU have a nice day first.

 

?

[Jingthing]

On 6/7/2017 at 11:11 AM, Khon Kaen Dave said:

...
Firstly you do not have a class system. Your class system is gauged by education and finances.Oh course, a family whose offspring graduates Harvard, or UCLA, looks down upon a family whose child only ever graduated high school.That's part of the extent of the American Class system.He who drives a Maserati compared to he who drives a Doge Aries. A white college boy looks down on a black bus boy.
...

Refuting the commonly held myth (among Americans and others) that there is no class system in the USA.

There is. 

It's different than the British class system but it's still there and it's still very, very powerful.

 

Quote

...
So imagine my horror at discovering that the United States is more calcified by class than Britain, especially toward the top. The big difference is that most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system. ...
...
For Americans to solve the problem of their deepening class divisions, we will have to start by admitting their existence and our complicity in maintaining them. We need to raise our consciousness about class. And yes, I am looking at you.
 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/opinion/sunday/stop-pretending-youre-not-rich.html?_r=0

Edited June 12, 2017 by Jingthing