Poirot,

Perhaps you should educate yourself, I never claimed that Iraq was not fertile ground for ISIS, I disputed your claim that "invading Iraq - giving rise to the dreaded ISIS" from which you seem to running away from.

Witnesses (more than one witness) said the shopping centre gunman screamed 'I'm German' and 'Allahu Akbar' before shooting

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3703705/Major-police-investigation-way-shots-fired-shopping-centre-Munich.html#ixzz4FHmgV7WY

That's a slam dunk.

Armchair Critic,

I'd be more of a Bernie supporter.

I think Hillary is somewhat dodgy - and yes, I've read about her involvement in Libya....however she's up against an unbalanced narcissist and fascist loon in Trump.

He's a very dangerous character....that view being pronounced now far and wide.

I believe the Republican Party (as we know it) is on its last legs...that view also being widely shared.

We live in interesting times.

Poirot , anyone at all is preferable to Trump.
I agree he is beginning to get on the nose with many in his own party. Can you imagine himself and the little wife on the world stage, meeting other world leaders?
It is all just too awful to contemplate. It would be worse than Abbott!

Well off topic but I'd read as interesting piece earlier that is relevant to Suseonline and to some extent Poirot's previous posts.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

I'm not familiar with the leanings of the politicalcompass site but the article over all gives me the impression of being left leaning.

I also get the impression some on Republicans are thinking they would be better off with Hillary in further damaging the Democrat brand rather than Trump in and finishing off what's left of the Republican brand.

Interesting times where it seems some on both sides may be convinced that the lesser of two evils may not be the better option if that particular evil is a little to close to home.

R0bert

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've just come across an article on the web that in
my opinion makes a good case regarding issues surrounding
freedom of speech.

We're told that: If we look at our newspapers and current affairs
programs, we only talk about the need for freedom of speech and
our "right" to make unfettered comments about Muslims, asylum seekers,
Indigenous people, transgender and same sex attracted people, et
cetera. We need to examine that.

The article states that this is not really about freedom of speech.
What it is about is a particular desire to say awful things about
groups of specific people while at the same time refusing to
allow them to respond. We're told that this says a great deal about
the lack of maturity in this debate when those with power and
influence, can demand the
right to say what they like but at the same time demand that no
one answers back. We need only look to peopele like
Andrew Bolt, Pauline
Hanson, and others who constantly complain they are victims of free
speech laws and political correctness.

We know that empathy is not a skill shared by everybody. Learning to
be considerate is far more achievable.
Put simply - the article tells us that to be considerate requires
only one thing: don't be a dick.

We're told that - you don't have to imagine yourself in another
person's shoes. You don't have to imagine yourself to be a Muslim,
or in a detention centre, or in love with a person of the same sex
as you. The article simple asks that we think - "Is there a way
of putting my point across that does not involve severely insulting
or hurting another person?" We're advised that if there is not,
then don't say anything at all.

We're told this is not a denial of your freedom of speech. It's
called being a grown-up. And, if we all grew up
maybe we would make meaningful headway on
becoming the country we want to be.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/a-helpful-guide-to-free-speech/7175442

<Free Speech and Islam — The Left Betrays the Most Vulnerable
http://richarddawkins.net/2016/05/free-speech-and-islam-the-left-betrays-the-most-vulnerable/

When surveying the ill-informed, shoddy work that at times passes as in-depth journalism regarding Islam these days, a rationalist may well be tempted to slip into a secular simulacrum of John Bunyan’s Slough of Despond. In reputable press outlets, articles regularly appear in which the author proceeds from an erroneous premise through a fallacious argument to a fatuous conclusion..

.. Those who deploy the “stupid term” (see Christopher Hitchens) “Islamophobia” to silence critics of the faith hold, in essence, that Muslims deserve to be approached as a race apart, and not as equals, not as individual adults capable of rational choice, but as lifelong members of an immutable, sacrosanct community, whose (often highly illiberal) views must not be questioned, whose traditions (including the veiling of women) must not be challenged, whose scripturally inspired violence must be explained away as the inevitable outcome of Western interventionism in the Middle East or racism and “marginalization” in Western countries.

Fail to exhibit due respect for Islam — not Muslims as people,Islam — and you risk being excoriated, by certain progressives, as an “Islamophobe,” as a fomenter of hatred for an underprivileged minority, as an abettor of Donald Trump and his bigoted policy proposals, and, most illogically, as a racist.
..
Also, remember that Islam claims jurisdiction not just over its followers, but over us all, with a message directed to humanity as a whole. Which means Islam should be susceptible to critique by all. ..

The misguided progressives who denounce “Islamophobia” and turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of, say, women, gays, and adherents of other religions in Muslim communities or in Islamic countries constitute what Maajid Nawaz has dubbed the “regressive left.” Regressive leftists are not genuine progressives at all, of course, but deeply confused de facto apologists for the most illiberal notion conceivable: namely, that one group of humans has, on account of its religion, an inalienable right to dominate and abuse other humans — and to do so unmolested by criticism.>