During the latest debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton decided to attack Republican anti-Muslim extremist and potential opposition candidate Donald Trump. While she might have felt frustrated by his views for their lack of veracity, her own statement fell well south of the truth marker too. She appears to have fabricated her allegation from mere speculation.
“We also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don’t fall on receptive ears… He is becoming ISIS’s best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.” (Hillary Clinton).
Politifact.com reports that they found, “[n]o evidence” of Clinton’s claim. While there is the “notion that ISIS could be making recruiting videos, or will do so, they do not support Clinton’s contention — offered in the present tense — that they are currently doing so… it seems that Clinton has turned speculative left-of-center rhetoric into fact.”
More troubling than Clinton’s unsubstantiated claim is what it reveals about Clinton’s character. Implicit in her argument is her belief that Muslims are so irrational that they would hear the bigoted rhetoric of someone seeking the Presidency and become so incensed that huge numbers of Muslims would give up their families, careers, and morality to join up with an organization promoting and employing abject violence.
That’s absurd and offensive. If a Christian heard anti-Christian rhetoric, would they do the equivalent? No. Sure, Trump is spitting some hateful venom, but at least he’s up front about it. Hillary’s blind to her own bigotry.
So what then is driving ISIS recruitment? What would possibly drive someone into the arms of such chaos and madness? That’s difficult to say. If I had to speculate, I’d say if a person’s house were burnt down and family was murdered, that might do it.
A staggering 89% of those killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan could not be identifiable as militants. Yeah, with those numbers I’d be quiet too.
“…Jack Serle and the team at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, who maintain a database of all known strikes—based on fieldwork, media reports, and leaked documents—which provides a clearer picture of the scale and impact of the US drone program than the episodic reporting provided by corporate media.
According to Bureau data, al-Qaeda members comprise only 4 percent of the total 2,379 people killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan as of October 2014, just over ten years after the first such strikes. Of the total killed, about 30 percent could be identified and 11 percent were defined as militants. Little is known about the remaining 1,675 unnamed victims. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported these numbers after conducting a yearlong investigation that compiled information from various sources to provide an overview of drone strike casualties.”
Project Censored’s Top 25 censored stories of 2014-2015 ranks the suppression of U.S. Drone strike data as #3 on their list. (http://www.projectcensored.org/3-89-percent-of-pakistani-drone-victims-not-identifiable-as-militants/)
In during Barack Obama’s tenure in the Whitehouse, an “estimated 2,464 people have been killed by drone strikes targeted outside of the United States’ declared war zones; this figure was posted in February 2015.” (Ibid.) Now we know that scores of people were killed who weren’t on a “kill list” (which is controversial at the outset).
Get real news from independent citizens or trustworthy noncorporate organizations – then think about the implications yourself. Do your own research. Don’t let yourself be distracted by the circus of coverage by the corporate mass media. As my friend is fond of saying, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.”