Are you actually going to claim that Mr. Trump is "sensible"?

You may want to check on your sources, Trump repeatedly has said that he will do exactly that, for example here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-new-radio-ad/

The USA created the Islamic State. They are Obama's "moderate rebels" in Syria, which is why he doesn't want Russia to bomb them. Obama is not interested in fighting terrorism, he just wants to overthrow Assad.

You've got the whole situation upside down. Obama is the evil warlord bombing other states to steal their natural resources and undermine the enemies of Israel. It's the current American government that needs to be stopped, not Putin, Assad or Trump.

Also see: Putin on Trump

No, I'm not ready to call the President of the United States "an evil warlord." (To me, that's a sweeping generalization ... a "straw bogie-man.") The actual situation is a lot more subtle than that. The American system of power does not allow power to be concentrated in the hands of one a*shole ... it takes "more than one a*shole." And, the USA is certainly not the only one with its hands in the cookie jar.

It has been known for centuries that this region, inhospitable though it is, is rich in natural resources. It's also central to many trade routes, even today. It has been ruled by some of the wealthiest kings in human history, for these same reasons. They were strong and brutal. Europeans sailed around Africa to avoid having to go through Arabia.

Underlying all of World War I was: a "grab" for resources in light of the waning power of the Ottoman Empire. All of the parties were doing it, including Britain, which was still flush from its also-waning empire (that was mostly paid-for by "opium bearing Queen Victoria's official seal").

(World War II was largely a matter of "unfinished business.")

Those "power grabs" are still going on today. The invasions that immediately followed 9/11 ... which quite clearly was a very technically-complex feat that most likely had nothing to do with Al Quaeda ... were also part of that "grab." (It is known that Haliburton had been given the contract to build an oil pipeline north from Afghanistan, in order to bypass the Russian control of known reserves surrounding the Caspian Sea. And, so on.)

It is true that many citizens in a country do not know or want to know. And, Hermann Goering said it best when he observed that "all you have to do is to tell them that they are under attack." (It really is "the same in any country.")

Therefore, if the USA is "a warlord," it's certainly not the only one. When you want someone else's resources, you basically have two options: invade and occupy, or find some other means of "control." Either way, at least some people in the region will understand what you're up to, and they will fight back. That's where wars come from, and that's why they will never end.

How did you get from me saying that your information is wrong to "Obama is the evil guy, you get it all upside down"?
Anyways, I am certainly not a fan of the current US foreign policy (and FWIW, the German foreign policy), but saying that ISIS are Obama's moderate rebels is factually wrong.

You linked to an article about Trump wanting to bomb ISIS. That's fine, they should be bombed. But the current administration is not doing that.

Who are the moderate terrorists that are figthing Assad alongside ISIS then?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ru...ria-546790757?

Eh... I don't think Obama wanted ISIS to attack Iraq.

Obama was bombing ISIS for six months before even asking the congress for permission. What I find a bit weird, at first you tell us that Trump doesn't want to bomb ISIS (which is factually wrong) and think that is good, now you tell us that they should be bombed and that Obama is wrong for not doing that (which is also factually wrong). As I said before, you really might check the sources for your information.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5806386.html
Of course Russia will not recognize them, when you think about that Syria is the only place in the middle east where they have military base for decades.

I've a rough idea where you're coming from regarding immigration and the issues it brings with it but this type of post does seem a little paranoid.
Assuming, as your location suggests, you reside in Sweden I am surprised it has escaped your notice that Sweden has been pretty much free of terrorist attacks and, generally, Scandinavia has been also (baring the anti-islamic nutter).
I've not, yet, visited Sweden beyond a quick cut-price shopping trip but I got hte impression it's a tolerant and, therefore, well-respected and safe country?

"Bush claims that we hate freedom. If that were true, let him explain to us why we do not attack Sweden."

-- Osama Bin Laden

No, I said he will not attack other states because the Israel lobby wants him to.

It was before the mass immigration to Sweden. Now there are "no go" zones that the police will not enter (they will not help you if you stroll into such an area no matter what). Rioting, rapes, robberies, abductions and murders are very common nowadays. If I were you I would not travel to Sweden anymore. It's not safe. Go to Finland or Iceland instead.

We are very tolerant though but look where that got us. Maybe you shouldn't tolerate everything.

Yes, Al-Qaeda attacked the USA because of their foreign policy, which brings us back to why Donald Trump is better.

It sounds like the issues in Oslo with immigration also. I don't think you can draw parallels with the US though and it has little to do with religion or terrorism. As I pointed out Scandinavia hasn't had terrorist attacks s the US, France and the UK have had and I suspect part of the reason is that there would be no justification for it.
Swedes may be safer with tougher immigration laws but I don't think that means that banning a specific religion from the US would do anything to prevent terrorism or crime there.

all political power is permanent conspiracy.-French president, Jean Casimir-Perrier

An attempt at a little enlightenment here, please:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/...-al-qaeda-cia/

The way I look at the flow of arguments, some of them are not helpful.
Ad hominim argument is more of an escaping from the issue.

US, France and UK suffer attacks because of the bad habit of undue intervention to other countries.
It is misleading to use the term "terrorist" attacks; in truth they are retaliations from people whose political agenda in their
own countries suffer because of foreign intervention; agenda whether right or wrong is for their own people to judge, none of
foreigners' business.

If US, France and UK leaders learn to behave as matured and respect other people's sovereignty the way Scandinavian countries
do then no attacks can happen. I think Mr. Trump is beginning to realize this is the right policy.