Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[BrooklynBaby]

This is both seriously pathetic and typical Republican. You have the audacity to to complain about this being a skeptics forum then poop out this ****. Do you have a clue? Do you know that what you posted is 100% not relevant to the issue? Do you? Why is this crap being posted? Simple, Mr. Skeptic, it's a childish and pathetic attempt to change the topic. Hey Mr. Skeptic, guess what logical fallacy that is? Your man crapped all over the parents of a dead American soldier and you post this ****** Your team has no class, no integrity.

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, who is clearly an American hero.

 

[Tony Stark]

Are you as equally worried about Chief Justice John Roberts?

Don't be silly. It's OK if you're a Republican.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, who is clearly an American hero.

Yeah, right. Then open a new thread and don't pollute this one with this diversion.

 

[varwoche]

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, who is clearly an American hero.

I'm not taking the word of the right wing echo chamber that he "deleted" his site. Given the extraordinary attention he's received, other possible explanations come to mind. For instance, maybe the site was hacked and they took it down temporarily, or something along those lines.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, who is clearly an American hero.

Yeah, keep on attacking a Gold Star family. It is working fantastically for your idiot Fuhrer.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Yeah, right. Then open a new thread and don't pollute this one with this diversion.

Don't be silly. His name is in the thread title. Is Trump off-topic here, too?

 

[Stacko]

I'm not taking the word of the right wing echo chamber that he "deleted" his site. Given the extraordinary attention he's received, other possible explanations come to mind. For instance, maybe the site was hacked and they took it down temporarily, or something along those lines.

It had contact information for his office. Removing the website is probably to guard against harassing phone calls and emails from the alt-right white supremacist wing of Donald supporters.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So right wingers have decided that attacking Khan is the way to go:
http://politicalcult.com/blue-star-mom-responds-muslim-attack-brutal/

Pretty much a "you're a Muslim so your people are part of the problem" and "Behghazi!!!"

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, hwho is clearly an American hero.

You don't get to bitch about other people's "skepticism" anymore in this thread.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm speculating why Khan deleted his website. I didn't say anything about his son, who is clearly an American hero.

What you're actually doing is demonizing with innuendo. Sort of what the Italians did to Amanda Knox. Why did she do this or why didn't she do that? Every question wasn't about a search for the truth, but a tool to cast aspersions.

There is no reason to speculate why he removed the website unless you're looking for a way to attack him.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

What you're actually doing is demonizing with innuendo. Sort of what the Italians did to Amanda Knox. Why did she do this or why didn't she do that? Every question wasn't about a search for the truth, but a tool to cast aspersions.

There is no reason to speculate why he removed the website unless you're looking for a way to attack him.

Here's some more on Khan and Sharia:

"Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

 

[Tony Stark]

Here's some more on Khan and Sharia:

"Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Nobody cares.

 

[Bob001]

All of these comments make it quite plausible that the diagnosis was fake, though I would have preferred something a little more decisive before I said the diagnosis was fake.

There's no way to prove a 50-year-old "fake" diagnosis. Even two doctors looking at the same xray might honestly disagree. What is most likely is that, after a little coaching, Trump told a compliant doc "My foot hurts right here when I walk," and the doc said, "That looks like heel spurs. No 'Nam for you." If you are old enough, you might remember that there were workshops about how to get out of the draft, and there were doctors who considered it their professional duty to keep their patients from getting killed. The key fact is that Trump's "condition" didn't inhibit participation in multiple demanding sports or working in his dad's even more demanding construction and real estate businesses. The real test would have been if Trump had reported for a draft physical (or tried to enlist -- fat chance!) and been rejected by an Army doc; but he made sure that could never happen.

 

[varwoche]

It had contact information for his office. Removing the website is probably to guard against harassing phone calls and emails from the alt-right white supremacist wing of Donald supporters.

Yes that's my point, and I suspect it's worse than that. I bet that anyone thrust into the national spotlight in a highly controversial way is going to be hacked with vigor by entities near and far.

 

[A'isha]

Here's some more on Khan and Sharia:

"Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Which is a pack of lies that would be laughable if it weren't so hideous, since the sources quoted are his aforementioned overview of the history and elements of fiqh and a *********** book review published in the Texas International Law Journal thirty-three years ago.

I also liked how his insidious Saudi connections are that he worked for a giant international law firm with offices worldwide, that the Republican Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court also worked for, which Saudi nationals occasionally use because one of those offices is in Riyadh. If that's a "direct connection", it's certainly a rather novel use of the term.

This is pathetic.

 

[acbytesla]

Here's some more on Khan and Sharia:

"Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

So you are looking to attack him. And Breitbart is not a reputable source.

 

[Stacko]

This is pathetic.

That's some high praise for Breitbart!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes that's my point, and I suspect it's worse than that. I bet that anyone thrust into the national spotlight in a highly controversial way is going to be hacked with vigor by entities near and far.

I speculate IPs have a form letter, automatic email that generates: YOUVE GONE VIRAL! and tells the person they exceed their data limit for the month in 27 minutes, and various security protocols have been set off to protect the client and IP until it blows over, and some way to get important emails off the server.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's some more on Khan and Sharia:

"Khan defers to an early Islamic jurist who ruled: “For every issue concerning a Muslim, either there is a binding text (of the Shariah) that rules it, or there is a guidance that may indicate the way to truth. If there is a text, then the Muslim has to follow it.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/02/khizr-khan-constitution-sharia/

Umm..a 33 year old paper written when he was a student? In Saudi Arabia?

In 1983 I was a Christian. I might have written something very similar. It's nuts to say that this is even relevant to his current beliefs.


But, even if it turns out that the guy is a full fledged sleeper Jihadi plotting the overthrow of the US government by keeping his fellow Muslim, Barack Obama, in the White House, that would still miss the point of why Trump blew it so badly, and why this is compounding the error. The point is that Donald Trump compared his own "sacrifice" to that of Mr. Khan.

And now his supporters are doubling down on the stupid by continuing to attack him.

The guy lost his son. That's a big deal. Trump........put in some late hours and made lots of money?


The slanders against Mr. Khan will probably soften the blow somewhat for Trump. His hard core supporters will probably see in Mr. Khan's views, assuming he still holds conservative Muslim views, some sort of justification for the attacks, while the rest of the country rolls their eyes in disbelief.

 

[Fudbucker]

Khan's beliefs about Muslim ideology have nothing to do with the salient points: his son died defending this country and Trump personally attacked Mr. Khan, his wife, and tried to make a moral equivalence between a parent losing their child and the "sacrifices" of a businessman. Trump is a POS.

Dana Perino was so mad about this on The Five yesterday I was surprised she didn't flip the table over. She said (and I'm almost quoting exactly): "Trump took a big crap on a gold star family."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/...ontroversy-hes-wrecking-ball-his-own-campaign