$137,411 has traded on "Will Trump praise Allah again by April 15?" as of April 7, 2026. View real-time odds or trade on The World's Largest Prediction Marke...
It is sarcasm making fun of their religion. Iranians think their faith in Allah will save them, but Trump bombing will demonstrate that Allah will not save them. Demonstrating (according to Trump) that Islam is a fake religion, unlike Christianity.
Thank you. At least I understand it but its a shame that he cant be a better person. What is the point of fighting evil if you are going to be equally evil yourself?
“Fighting evil” what on earth are you talking about?
It’s oil. Money. It’s material resources and power. It’s always been that.
Why did the CIA go around the world deposing democratically elected leaders, including Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who was replaced by a literal monarch? Do you think they genuinely believed the people they were overthrowing were “evil” and the dictators they installed were not? When they invaded Vietnam and funded Pol Pot, was that about “fighting evil?”
Of course not. Democratically elected leaders are more likely to respond to the public will and thereby assert control over their own country’s resources. Tin pot dictators can easily be bought off as long as you cut them in on the exploitation. US foreign policy has never been driven by any high-minded “morality.”
Right now, we are giving weapons to the Saudi royal family so they can continue murdering gays and journalists. If such things are so horrible that our “morality” drives us to forcible invade other countries that do that in the name of “liberation,” then why don’t we start by not actively supporting the Saudis? I’ll tell you why: because the Saudis keep the damn oil flowing! That’s all the US cares about and all it’s ever cared about.
Traditionally, America has seen itself as standing for goodness, morality, doing the right thing, Democracy, etc… Most of the voters have, at least.
Trump does not think that. Look at Venezuela: It is open and blatant colonialism, resource extraction. Trump has just come out and said that he doesn’t care if the Venezuelan people have freedom and democracy - Trump only cares about profiting from resource extraction. Now maybe America has sometimes acted like this in the past, but Trump openly stating it is new.
This open disregard for doing doing what is morally right is a new thing. Which Trump can do without consequences from Republican voter, apparently - Trump still had ~90% approval among them, last I checked.
So in conclusion, asking “What is the point of fighting evil” is a non sequitur - Trump is not claiming to be the good side fighting evil. Trump represents this as “being strong” (=fascism…). And Republicans are cheering.
As another example, look at Ukraine. Rarely have I seen a more black-and-white, good-vs-evil conflict. A fascist dictator is invading a budding democracy, with the openly stated purpose of annexation, without even pretending to have a casus belli. With Putin openly doing warcrimes left and right, torturing and executing prisoners of war, threatening nukes, and sending his own soldiers on suicide “meat assaults”. And yet, Republicans and Trump seems more sympathetic to Putin than Ukraine.
Traditionally, America has seen itself as standing for goodness, morality, doing the right thing, Democracy, etc… Most of the voters have, at least.
That’s extremely debatable. If anything, it’s the politicians who pretend to see it that way moreso than the voters. That’s why Trump became a thing.
Now maybe America has sometimes acted like this in the past, but Trump openly stating it is new.
Sometimes??
If you want to talk about “traditionally” and “new,” that depends on what time scale you’re talking about. Like, I suppose when the US was colonizing the Philippines it was nominally in the name of “democracy” (but of course those savages aren’t ready for democracy yet, so we’ll just manage things for a bit, while we take their resources and put in a naval base), but Trump is also nominally talking about “liberating” Iran. WWII was explicitly justified in terms of protecting the national interest, rather than humanitarianism.
In the post-WWII era, some people recognized the importance of soft power in maintaining the global empire we’d acquired, and for countering Soviet narratives, so extra effort was put into these pretences. Sure, we’d still go around invading poor countries like Vietnam, committing mass slaughter and bombing them back to the stone age, but it was in the name of “democracy.” While that was happening, the CIA was also overthrowing democratically elected leaders around the world and propping up dictators who could more easily be bribed to keep the resources flowing, and we didn’t have to worry about justifying any of that because the government could just lie about it.
The problem with all this propaganda is that it kind of worked too well. People thought that committing mass slaughter of the Vietnamese and dropping Agent Orange on them and propping up a puppet dictator was all done for their benefit. And when it failed spectacularly and got a ton of people killed, a lot of people took the lesson of “we need to stop helping anyone ever again.”
That’s why when Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, he was so insistent that “this is not a nation-building exercise.” All of the early rhetoric was quite emphatic that we were not going there to help anyone or build democracy, it was just about “finding the killers.”
Low and behold, despite what the American public wanted, it did turn into a nation-building exercise. And low and behold, just like Vietnam, people didn’t appreciate us slaughtering them and bombing weddings and stealing their resources, so it was yet another failure in the “helping people” category.
As public dissatisfaction grew and grew, as the bodies stacked higher and higher, the establishment of both parties refused to bend. Trump seized on that dissisfaction and promised an alternative and received so much popular support that the Republican establishment couldn’t stop him.
Of course, Trump was merely seizing on that dissatisfaction for his own benefit as an opportunist, and the only real difference he offers is peeling away the ridiculous pretences that other politicians have paid lip service to, while doing the same shit of starting wars everywhere.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were delighted at this development because they believed there was a large contingent of center-right people who still believed in and valued these silly pretences. They were proven wrong twice. That Vietnam-Afghanistan “nation building” “spreading democracy” bullshit has clearly become discredited in the public consciousness. This is not something that’s Trump created or that will go away once he’s gone.
Yeah. You are right about Trump. American presidents used to at least make up lies about why they were invading middle eastern countries. Trump is honest because he doesnt care what anyone thinks.
It did feel better to live in a world where American presidents acted like they were the good guys.
If America, Russia, and China is going to be evil, then Europe is also going evil for sure.
Like, it was not all a lie. E.g. the 1991 Gulf War was perfectly morally defensible, while at the same time being in the US economic interest. But there is no inherent problem with defending your economic interest. And the US deserves unqualified praise for the 1999 Serbia intervention to prevent a genocide in Kosovo.
What the US is doing in Venezuela is (at least Trump thinks so) in the US economic interest. But completely amoral at the same time.
If America, Russia, and China is going to be evil, then Europe is also going evil for sure.
I don’t see why Europe would necessarily turn evil.
Because it also has a dark elite, with people wanting power. Its not going to stand alone and fight evil on all fronts. Even if they tried, they would lose.
Yeah sure. But there is some support from USA at this moment, right? They supplied a lot of the weapons to Ukraine. I just meant without that, it may be a different story.
I read the context but did not get an answer to why Trump said that.
Is it my reading skills?
It is sarcasm making fun of their religion. Iranians think their faith in Allah will save them, but Trump bombing will demonstrate that Allah will not save them. Demonstrating (according to Trump) that Islam is a fake religion, unlike Christianity.
Thank you. At least I understand it but its a shame that he cant be a better person. What is the point of fighting evil if you are going to be equally evil yourself?
“Fighting evil” what on earth are you talking about?
It’s oil. Money. It’s material resources and power. It’s always been that.
Why did the CIA go around the world deposing democratically elected leaders, including Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who was replaced by a literal monarch? Do you think they genuinely believed the people they were overthrowing were “evil” and the dictators they installed were not? When they invaded Vietnam and funded Pol Pot, was that about “fighting evil?”
Of course not. Democratically elected leaders are more likely to respond to the public will and thereby assert control over their own country’s resources. Tin pot dictators can easily be bought off as long as you cut them in on the exploitation. US foreign policy has never been driven by any high-minded “morality.”
Right now, we are giving weapons to the Saudi royal family so they can continue murdering gays and journalists. If such things are so horrible that our “morality” drives us to forcible invade other countries that do that in the name of “liberation,” then why don’t we start by not actively supporting the Saudis? I’ll tell you why: because the Saudis keep the damn oil flowing! That’s all the US cares about and all it’s ever cared about.
Angron gets it!
Trump has never cared about fighting evil. The attack on Iran has absolutely nothing to do with it either.
Yeah I know.
Traditionally, America has seen itself as standing for goodness, morality, doing the right thing, Democracy, etc… Most of the voters have, at least.
Trump does not think that. Look at Venezuela: It is open and blatant colonialism, resource extraction. Trump has just come out and said that he doesn’t care if the Venezuelan people have freedom and democracy - Trump only cares about profiting from resource extraction. Now maybe America has sometimes acted like this in the past, but Trump openly stating it is new.
This open disregard for doing doing what is morally right is a new thing. Which Trump can do without consequences from Republican voter, apparently - Trump still had ~90% approval among them, last I checked.
So in conclusion, asking “What is the point of fighting evil” is a non sequitur - Trump is not claiming to be the good side fighting evil. Trump represents this as “being strong” (=fascism…). And Republicans are cheering.
As another example, look at Ukraine. Rarely have I seen a more black-and-white, good-vs-evil conflict. A fascist dictator is invading a budding democracy, with the openly stated purpose of annexation, without even pretending to have a casus belli. With Putin openly doing warcrimes left and right, torturing and executing prisoners of war, threatening nukes, and sending his own soldiers on suicide “meat assaults”. And yet, Republicans and Trump seems more sympathetic to Putin than Ukraine.
That’s extremely debatable. If anything, it’s the politicians who pretend to see it that way moreso than the voters. That’s why Trump became a thing.
Sometimes??
If you want to talk about “traditionally” and “new,” that depends on what time scale you’re talking about. Like, I suppose when the US was colonizing the Philippines it was nominally in the name of “democracy” (but of course those savages aren’t ready for democracy yet, so we’ll just manage things for a bit, while we take their resources and put in a naval base), but Trump is also nominally talking about “liberating” Iran. WWII was explicitly justified in terms of protecting the national interest, rather than humanitarianism.
In the post-WWII era, some people recognized the importance of soft power in maintaining the global empire we’d acquired, and for countering Soviet narratives, so extra effort was put into these pretences. Sure, we’d still go around invading poor countries like Vietnam, committing mass slaughter and bombing them back to the stone age, but it was in the name of “democracy.” While that was happening, the CIA was also overthrowing democratically elected leaders around the world and propping up dictators who could more easily be bribed to keep the resources flowing, and we didn’t have to worry about justifying any of that because the government could just lie about it.
The problem with all this propaganda is that it kind of worked too well. People thought that committing mass slaughter of the Vietnamese and dropping Agent Orange on them and propping up a puppet dictator was all done for their benefit. And when it failed spectacularly and got a ton of people killed, a lot of people took the lesson of “we need to stop helping anyone ever again.”
That’s why when Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, he was so insistent that “this is not a nation-building exercise.” All of the early rhetoric was quite emphatic that we were not going there to help anyone or build democracy, it was just about “finding the killers.”
Low and behold, despite what the American public wanted, it did turn into a nation-building exercise. And low and behold, just like Vietnam, people didn’t appreciate us slaughtering them and bombing weddings and stealing their resources, so it was yet another failure in the “helping people” category.
As public dissatisfaction grew and grew, as the bodies stacked higher and higher, the establishment of both parties refused to bend. Trump seized on that dissisfaction and promised an alternative and received so much popular support that the Republican establishment couldn’t stop him.
Of course, Trump was merely seizing on that dissatisfaction for his own benefit as an opportunist, and the only real difference he offers is peeling away the ridiculous pretences that other politicians have paid lip service to, while doing the same shit of starting wars everywhere.
Meanwhile, the Democrats were delighted at this development because they believed there was a large contingent of center-right people who still believed in and valued these silly pretences. They were proven wrong twice. That Vietnam-Afghanistan “nation building” “spreading democracy” bullshit has clearly become discredited in the public consciousness. This is not something that’s Trump created or that will go away once he’s gone.
Yeah. You are right about Trump. American presidents used to at least make up lies about why they were invading middle eastern countries. Trump is honest because he doesnt care what anyone thinks.
It did feel better to live in a world where American presidents acted like they were the good guys.
If America, Russia, and China is going to be evil, then Europe is also going evil for sure.
Like, it was not all a lie. E.g. the 1991 Gulf War was perfectly morally defensible, while at the same time being in the US economic interest. But there is no inherent problem with defending your economic interest. And the US deserves unqualified praise for the 1999 Serbia intervention to prevent a genocide in Kosovo.
What the US is doing in Venezuela is (at least Trump thinks so) in the US economic interest. But completely amoral at the same time.
I don’t see why Europe would necessarily turn evil.
Because it also has a dark elite, with people wanting power. Its not going to stand alone and fight evil on all fronts. Even if they tried, they would lose.
Europe seems perfectly happy to fight Putin alone, right now. Europe might lose, but Europe still tries to do what is right there.
Yeah sure. But there is some support from USA at this moment, right? They supplied a lot of the weapons to Ukraine. I just meant without that, it may be a different story.