politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump says the US can beat ISIS terrorists – but 'you have to take out their families'
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... -ISIS-terrorists-families.html
Published: Dec 2, 2015
Author: Nikki Schwab, U.s. Political Reporter Fo
Post Date: 2015-12-02 18:23:05 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 10384
Comments: 72
Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' and he has a ruthless plan to do so. 'You have to take out their families,' The Donald said this morning on Fox and Friends. 'When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families.' Trump's reasoning was that the fighters 'care about their lives, don't kid yourselves,' he continued. The billionaire's comments fit neatly in with other proclamations he's made on how to take out the growing terrorist group including 'bomb[ing] the hell out of them' and 'attack[ing] the oil.' Scroll down for video Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' by going after relatives of the terrorist fighters because ISIS members 'care about their [family members'] lives' Donald Trump also said he would try to prevent civilian deaths, but it's a difficult prospect because ISIS fighters are 'using them as shields' 'I would knock the hell out of ISIS,' Trump said this morning to host Brian Kilmeade. 'I would hit them, Brian, so hard, like they've never been hit before.' While taking out ISIS members and their families, Trump said he would try his 'absolute best' to avoid civilian casualties in ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq. 'One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we're so ineffective is they are using them as shields,' Trump said of civilians. 'It's a horrible thing, but we're fighting a very politically correct war.' The GOP frontrunner was critical of President Obama's ISIS strategy saying the president was sending too few troops and revealing his hand a little too much. 'Every time he sends troops over even if it's a small number ... he announced 50 last week, he has a press conference to inform everybody he's sending troops and it's like they have a target on their back,' Trump said. 'If you do your job, do your job,' Trump continued. 'Don't talk about it – too much talk.' Donald Trump help up a Breitbart News article headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11' during a Periscope Q&A this afternoon < Trump also again defended his comments about American Muslims celebrating 9/11 during a Q&A he hosted on the Twitter-app Periscope this afternoon. The billionaire held up a print-out of an article by Breitbart News headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11.' 'I knew I saw it. I heard about it. Hundreds of people have called in telling me I was right,' Trump said. 'They live in New Jersey.' The Breitbart article pointed to a report coming out of the local CBS News affiliate in New York in which reporter Pablo Guzmán talked about a New Jersey apartment building 'swarming with suspects – suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center.' 'Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building,' Guzmán continued. The Breitbart article made a lot of the 'swarming' claim, suggesting that this means that Trump is vindicated. Breitbart writer John Nolte wrote, 'The fact that a certain number were brought into custody does not change the fact that there was a “swarm."' CBS, putting out its own story, pointed to the clip and said it only raises more questions. For one, there's no video footage of any 'swarms' celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers, which has been central in Trump's story. Guzmán, the original reporter, eventually took to Twitter to straighten things out. Guzmán said his source was a New Jersey and also a Port Authority police officer and 'they were told eight people seen.' 'Far from thousands,' Guzmán said, which is another aspect of the Trump claim. 'Still it disturbed folks.' ![Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' by going after relatives of the terrorist fighters because ISIS members 'care about their [family members'] lives'](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/20/2EFFDB2900000578-3343277-image-a-2_1449087144274.jpg)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
The difficult thing with Trump is this strategy is not wrong but his delivery is callous and he portrays america as mad. He fails to realise that while his remarks are for local consumption he is reported all over the world Trump has also mixed reports of the palestinians celebrating 9/11 in his mind with local reports, yes, thousands celebrated in the muslim world but not in the US. Noone doubts the possibility of a muslim fifth column in western countries and this is even more evident in Europe, however they have a muslim population of millions concentrated in major cities, a somewhat different situation to what Trump apparently envisages. It is time for the west to push back against the muslim invasion and this has begun. It can be done with sensitivity by restoring their homelands to places where it is desirable for them to live. The west has responsibility for the present situation. The problems we have are the result of invasion of muslim lands. The reasons, the justifications, are not the issues from the muslim perspective
Maybe, maybe not. Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11 There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
I become afraid of people when they sale war and protectionist mumbo jumbo.
Trump's delivery is callous. I like callous. It's war. Trump has the content - everything he says turns out to be right. And all of his opponents in the Establishment, the "Seven Dwarves" up there? They talk smoothly. Of course, that's all any of them has ever done. None of them has a single accomplishment, other than giving speeches. The world doesn't get to elect the American President. Americans do. If he sounds mad to the world, so what? The US and the EU don't like Putin much, but he still plows forward, effective and powerful, and popular in his own country. Donald Trump says it like it is, and I like that. The others with their oily tongues say it like it isn't, are very smooth, and accomplish nothing other than collect a paycheck presiding over defeat and decline. Give me Trump any day.
I thought you hated War. :-/
And that's all any of them will ever do. They talk smoothly and look nice.
Trump is the biggest a-hole out there. He's in a league with A K A Stone.
So am I: Trump, Stone and the Vicomte13, united in common cause. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows, but only a fool fights in a burning house.
I do. And we are at war, whether we would be or no, because our enemies have attacked us, continue to attack us, and will make no peace. They will make no peace because they are intoxicated by the Devil. We fight or we are conquered. They die or we die. I prefer they die. I hate war and so I want it over. That means winning. Prolonging war prolongs the agony, extends the killings, makes it worse and worse and worse. The way to end this war swiftly is to throw our support behind Russia and France, and assist them in obliterating ISIS. That means that Assad survives and we lose our argument in Syria. So be it. ISIS will be destroyed and the war will be over. And that will save lives. Faced with a Hitler, you either fight him or you surrender to him: he's not going to go away. And if you surrender to him, he might kill you anyway. So the only real choice is to do the thing you hate and fight a war. When you fight, you go right for the eyes and the jugular. You crush him - and that means killing a lot of people. There is no other way. You do what you have to do to defeat him, and you ask God to forgive you later. He will. Your other choice is to apologize for your sins and let the bad guys kill you. God will accept you then also. Either way, God will accept you. Therefore, if forced to it, you do what you have to do to win here, and then you apologize for what you did and get to Heaven anyway. Win here and then win there. It's a better solution to my eyes than lose here and die screaming, and having basically the same result on the other side. I don't want to kill anybody, because God said not to. But if people come for me in war, then I kill. And if that means killing people through collateral damage in order to get at them, well, I am truly sorry for that, but that's the way the world is, and I do not intend to lose the fight. God will forgive me, just as he promised to. God forgives everything if you ask him to and you are forgiving. Once my enemy is dead and my people are no longer threatened with death, I will forgive my enemy, and I will forgive his survivors. But until then, he started the war, and I intend to kill him and everybody who stands with him, until the survivors kneel in submission, or fertilize the ground. They will do no different to me. It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war.
You think you're an asshole? Fixed and opinionated - maybe, but not really a JERK.
I guess that is acceptable. A lot of people will be wary of your words and look at it wrong though. The earth is a messy business. But you did complain about the military not valuing God, so is us fighting back since He told us not to kill. So what makes that different from this?
The world may not elect the american president but it has a stake in his actions. We are living with the results of the actions of one delusional president. Trump and Putin are very alike, men of action, but we have yet to see whether Putin's actions win a war or escalate it, and adding Trump would be a volitile mix becuase it is very likely he would have to deal with Putin in Ukraine. Trump is not diplomatic in his speech and that doesn't bode well for foriegn affairs, Sometimes you are unable to be as direct as he is
Precisely. He fails to realise that while his remarks are for local consumption he is reported all over the world No,he just doesn't care. He is a sociopath and cares nothing about anyone but himself. It is time for the west to push back against the muslim invasion and this has begun. It can be done with sensitivity by restoring their homelands to places where it is desirable for them to live. The west has responsibility for the present situation. The problems we have are the result of invasion of muslim lands. The reasons, the justifications, are not the issues from the muslim perspective Pure,unadulterated HorseHillary. Their cesspool homelands are cesspools because these backwards superstitious religious lunatics made them that way. We in the west are not responsible in ANY WAY for the character flaws that make ragheads ragheads. ALL they do when they leave ragheeadland is to try to make their new homes carbon copies of the dungheaps they left behind. What we SHOULD do,but won't,is deport them all back to the Muddle East,and they surround the whole area and create a total embargo. Nothing and no one going it,and nothing and no one coming out until after the dust settles and the survivors are willing to give up the brainfart they call Islam and become civilized peoples. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Yeah,but you are longing for another Holy Crusade. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Well stated Vic !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” - George S. Patton
The difference is elementary, my dear ebony. Everything I said about war was predicated on remembering that in the end one wants to go to Heaven when one dies. Therefore, one cannot love war. One fights wars when one has to, recognizing that the bloodshed is bad, being sorry for the evil one commits, and trusting God when he says he forgives. Remember King David, God's anointed. Because he was waist deep in blood from war after war, God did not let him build the Temple. That task was left to his son. God didn't un-anoint David, and David did what he had to do - but war is STILL sinful, all the killing, even if you have to do it. You do it to survive. Just like stealing if you are starving. Does the fact you are starving make it not stealing? No, it's still stealing. But you have to do it because the alternative, dying, is worse. Or lying, in war, to hide innocent people from getting killed. Or becoming a prostitute and fornicating for hire in the ancient world because the alternative in a world without welfare was starvation and death for you and your children. Stealing, lying, harlotry and killing in war are all sins EVEN IF they are done out of necessity. And God will forgive all of them to the man or woman who is sorry for having to do them, who recognizes God and who admits the sin and asks for forgiveness. But the man who refuses to recognize God - not because he has to hide his faith to keep from getting killed, but as one of the authorities enforcing a rule of his own devising? - he has no excuse, and he has nowhere to turn to be forgiven, because he denies God. That is the difference. Likewise in war, there is a very great difference between being the attacker who starts the war and fires the first shots, makes the first attack, and the defender who shoots back in response. It's the same difference as between the robber who points a gun at a store clerk and threatens death, and the store clerk who points one back. The robber has no right to rob. But the clerk DOES have the right to stop BEING robbed, or worse, by using the identical threat and weapon as the robber. It's the same difference as the difference between the murderer who shoots people on a rampage, and the cop or executioner who kills the murderer in response. This does not mean that cops can just shoot people on their own without very good reason. When they do that, they are the murderers. It is simple and straightforward. If the military is fighting and killing to defend a nation from an attacker, when the battle stops and the smoke clears the defending victor can ask God for forgiveness for what he has had to do. But if the military, for no reason other than bad ideology, actively suppresses expressions about God, then that military is suppressing the truth, and to whom can they then turn when they fight and kill, even in defense? Nobody. They die unatoned in their sins of killing.
I'm not longing for a Holy Crusade. Rather, I recognize that the enemy is not "youths", it's youths, and middle aged men and women, fired up by a religion. We are forced to fight because of the religion. And the nature of their religion is such that no Muslim can be trusted: on its own terms the religion calls them to perpetual war - violent physical war, not spiritual war - against everybody else until they conquer the world. And their religion explicitly allows any one of them to lie at any time to anybody who isn't part of their religion, because deceit is a necessary aspect of war. Those are facts. That is what the Muslim religion IS: forever war against the rest of the world, in the name of God, with deceit always a legitimate tactic. As long as a man or woman is a Muslim, that man or woman cannot be fully trusted, BECAUSE HIS GOD SAYS HE CAN LIE TO ANYBODY, BECAUSE his God says that he is always at war with non-Muslims. He can be peaceful, when it suits him, and he can suddenly attack, when it suits him. Because Allah gives him the right to kill every non-Muslim who won't submit, and allows him to lie in any manner, when he feels it advantageous. That's Islam. It's not Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or, for that matter, Communism, Socialism or even Naziism. The Nazis never pretended that any God gave them the universal right to slaughter any non-Nazis and to lie in treaties and break contracts at will, simply because they were Nazis. But Allah of Islam DOES. Which means that the problem is ISLAM. Not "religion". Islam is the only religion that combines those particular elements of a license to kill, perpetual war AND a universal individual Muslim license to lie, at any time, to any non-Muslim, because of forever war. We SEE Muslims doing just this too. Living peacefully for decades, then suddenly cooking off and killing their neighbors, BECAUSE Allah authorizes that and promises them heaven for it. Christians and Jews and Hindus CAN'T do that. Islam is uniquely evil in this regard. It is attacking us, and always has been. Now it's worse because immigration and modern weaponry mean Muslims are everywhere, and can do damage everywhere. AND THEY DO. It's not a call for a Holy Crusade to recognize that the problem is Islam, and that you have to fight Islam AS ISLAM - you have to fight the religion ITSELF, AS a religion, because IT is the source of the psycopathy. But you can't fight an evil god with no god. You can fend off a Muslim attack, but you cannot rip up the religion by the roots unless you have a comprehensive belief system to replace it in the hearts and minds of the people you have defeated. Otherwise, you sit there, like Soviets (or Americans) in Afghanistan, and they sit there and wait for you to run out of patience, money and blood. And they keep attacking you at the margins, making you bleed. And without your own God as an alternative, their god wins in the end. So WHEN you finally go fight Islam, you MUST do it with a theology as well as weapons. Otherwise you lose. Killing off the Christianity in your own ranks means that you have a weak political force facing fanatics. You lose a lot of people that way. Christians recognize that they are fighting Satan when they are fighting Islam. Muzzling the Christians to pretend that the fighting force is just one big secular happy fighting for abstract principles, or against the principle of religion in general, simply means that you're cutting off your own trigger finger. You can defeat the Muslims in a battle. The only way to END the war is to take the Muslim lands you occupy and CONVERT them to new beliefs. Otherwise, the same old noxious weeds of God- inflamed fanaticism will rise again, as has happened continuously since the mid-600s AD. You cannot fight troops without troops. And you cannot fight ideas without ideas. You call the conversion part a "Holy Crusade". I would call it winning the war. But yes, you do have to bring in your religion, your ideology and persuade many of them to leave theirs. I suppose that is a Crusade in a sense: fighting a war against his religion, to replace it with yours. You don't do that to Hindus, or even to Communists. They can STAY atheist if they want to. But when fighting Islam, you HAVE to replace their god, or you will never stop them. You can beat them in the field 99 times, but they come back for the 100th, and if they lie and catch you by surprise, you lose.
With Trump, it's probably just bluster. Besides, once Øbama is gone, the other two co-equal branches of government will magically reappear, assert their authority with various checks and balances and stop any efforts to roll back what Øbama started. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Just the opposite. His remarks were intended for worldwide radical muslims. He fails to realize that those remarks cause some in the U.S. to cringe.
I have to disagree with you on this one. Islam is not really a religion as much as it is a political system of government. Saying "Islam is a religion" is akin to saying "Nazism is a religion". We are forced to fight because of the religion. We are forced to fight because we are being attacked,and they will NOT quit attacking us until they win,or we play "whack a mole" every time one rears his head until there are no more heads to pop up. THEIR rules,not ours. We in the west are willing to make peace with them,but you can NOT make people with people unwilling to make peace with you. The Nazis never pretended that any God gave them the universal right to slaughter any non-Nazis and to lie in treaties and break contracts at will, simply because they were Nazis. Of course they did. They were the Master Race. God created them to rule the world. Or so they claimed. Which means that the problem is ISLAM. Not "religion". We are basically saying the same thing here,but from different POV. So WHEN you finally go fight Islam, you MUST do it with a theology as well as weapons. Otherwise you lose. And here is where your train leaves the track. The only way to defeat them is to kill everyone you find until they quit popping up in front of you. You are not going to convert them to Catholicism at the point of a gun any more than they are going to convert you to Islam at the point of a gun. The purpose of a war is to defeat and kill your enemies,not adopt them as pets to be house trained. All you are suggesting is swapping one insane fantasy for another. WAIT! I take that back. What you are suggesting is Catholic Jihad. You ARE their mirror image and wish to wage Holy War. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Nazis did have some concept of divinity, beside trying to restore pagan Germanic religion, they believed in the God of Nature, that blesses the strong and brave. They looked at Islam quite sympathetically as a religion of warriors. So sneaky Pete was right when he wrote: "Of course they did. They were the Master Race. God created them to rule the world. Or so they claimed. "
Fair enough. Naziism was a religion.
I see. Muslims are growing and their belief is growing stronger while Christians are becoming weaker and becoming more secularized or less serious in their religion. It seems to be who's going to have a stronger advantage in the War, a few people on the internet who do not represent the majority aside. Something strong is brewing, and has been at it for quite a while now, it will release and pop everyone from their safety technological bubble.
What do you think of the Planned Parenthood incident? People say it's on the same terms with what just happened.
Besides, once Øbama is gone, the other two co-equal branches of government will magically reappear, assert their authority with various checks and balances and stop any efforts to roll back what Øbama started. Am wishing site had a thumbs up or like button. Spot on.
Or to get angry, the only people in the US cringing from his remarks are his fellow republicans. Trump is an old style politician, any publicity is good publicity, it keeps him in front and his opposition off the front page. The only thing Trump is concerned about is having the attention of voters, in this phase he can say anything, it is all hot air, once he eliminates a few opponents he can use a less scattergun approach
Perhaps we have to be more precise Islam is ultimate nazism or religious nazism. It has the same premise, one race taking precedence over all others, one race to rule the world. To become a member of that race you have to mindlessly repeat a few words and do what you are told. Nazism was a religion, it was a death cult. It's God was the Furher. Nazism used black garbed soldiers; SS, to enforce its edicts and its thought police; the Gestapo, Islam has its shock troops, black garbed Daesh, and of course, the thought police; the Taliban. The government of both is totalitarian one head; the Furher, or the Caliph. For Christianity to defeat this it has to understand what true christianity is, the antithesis of this. You are right catholicism will not defeat it because catholicism is the reason it arose in the first place. The secularisation of christianity by the roman state created the vacuum that allowed Islam to arise
They will make no peace because they are intoxicated by the Devil. We fight or we are conquered. They die or we die. I prefer they die. I hate war and so I want it over. That means winning. Prolonging war prolongs the agony, extends the killings, makes it worse and worse and worse. The way to end this war swiftly is to throw our support behind Russia and France, and assist them in obliterating ISIS. That means that Assad survives and we lose our argument in Syria. So be it. Quite a huge shift for you. Before the Paris attacks just serving in the Military was 'evil and serving Satan.' I digress. You know I am no longer Catholic, but I did not throw the 'baby out with the bathwater.' There is justification for Western Nations to engage ISIS but not in way you and Trump want to do it which would ensure massive deaths of innocent blood (non-combatants). Such targeting of civilians would be pre- meditated murder and I'm sure some Bishop who supports Trump will sit down with him this weekend and show him over a 1,000 years of scholarly works which will hopefully set his ship straight. You are Catholic so you should know the following. And I believe Western nations have justification to fight ISIS: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302- 2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism. Just War (2307-17) All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, "once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4] As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution. In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met: "1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3. there must be serious prospects of success; 4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309]. The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war. The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include: - attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners; - genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities; - indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants. Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against. In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war. Sounds very antinomian to me. Would not suggest following your own advice. You should listen to your Church on this one. They have it right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water...I did not. You guys got a lot of things right.
Muslims are growing stronger because they are growing more NUMEROUS. THEY are having babies. The whites are not. Offsetting the rise of the Muslims is the rise of the Africans and Hispanics. They're both more and more Christian, and that offsets the rise of Islam. The dying White West is becoming more and more Muslim through immigration, but Black Africa is more and more Christian, and Latin America is burgeoning and taking over White North America. Christian civilizations are more civilized, organized and, over time, have a better rule of law than Muslim countries. Africa was left a mess by colonization and decolonization, but Christian Africa is growing steadily now that the immediate post-colonial strongmen have mostly passed. So there is hope. The Hindus are not getting weaker and are not ceding ground to the Muslims. And Communist China MAY evolve into Christianity (just as South Korea has), but it certainly won't become Muslim. The Chinese are not going to give up beer, and they CAN'T give up pork without mass starvation ensuing.
Well, see, here's the problem. Every day the Japanese were in China, about 10,000 people died as a result, many thousands of them quite brutally. Those Chinese people dying were civilians, completely innocent. By using the atomic bomb, especially with hindsight, I will IMMEDIATELY break the back of the Japanese Empire, forcing them to surrender in 26 days. That's 260,000 Chinese dead. I have incinerated about 140,000 people, on two days, and on those same two days, the sons and fathers of those people killed 20,000 Chinese. The war ended in 26 days because I dropped the bomb. Now suppose I hadn't. Was Japan going to surrender in 26 days WITHOUT the atomic bomb? No. Not even close. Would the war have gone on for two weeks longer than it did? Yes. Most certainly. For every 14 days the war continued, another 140,000 Chinese died at Japanese hands - the equivalent of what we killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the Chinese were completely innocent: the Japanese invaded their country. The Japanese were guilty. The ones abroad were conquerors. The ones at home were helping them conquer. And this is just the Chinese. The Japanese were also in Burma, in Korea, holding Western prisoners in the most horrible of conditions. Why should thousands and thousands more completely innocent Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Americans and Brits and Laotians die, all to spare the lives of Japanese? There is no reason. The analysis of the Catholic Church is simple, but it is too simple, because it presumes to value the lives of the attacker the same as the lives of the defenders, and because it completely ignores the lives of the people the attackers are killing every day. By slaughtering 140,000 people who were cogs in a war machine, we saved millions. It would have been immoral to not drop the atomic bomb and end the war. The Catholic Church and I disagree, and the Catholic Church is wrong on this.
You didn't digress. You are trying to make a point. Serving in OUR military, NOW, under THIS regime, with ITS purposes, with what IT does, and what THIS country does NOW - all of the babykilling, and aggressive warmaking with no willingness to actually WIN - yeah that's serving Satan. Doesn't have to be, but it is. That doesn't mean that the evil abroad and at home cannot be fought, though. The Third Reich prosecuted regular murderers along with Jews. Just because the police were still prosecuting murderers didn't make them "good" - they were still slaughtering Jews.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate,but I sure can't argue with the direction it leans. Nazi's had a huge racial element,and Muslims hump goats and just don't care. Choosing which one is the worse is a lot like trying to decide if you want the gas chamber or the electric chair. IMNSHO,true believers in both serve their highest purpose as food for maggots and worms. It has the same premise, one race taking precedence over all others, one race to rule the world. To become a member of that race you have to mindlessly repeat a few words and do what you are told. There is where you are mistaken. Islam really and truly don't give a damn what race you are,as long as you are willing to enslave yourself to their leaders,you are good to go. Hell,they don't even care if you are lying when you claim to convert to Muslim. All they care about is you are willing to say the right words and pretend to be Muslim,and to make yourself their slave. They care nothing about your "soul" (whatever the hell THAT is),they want to own your ass. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I think you could say that about both Nazism and Islam. Islamics do care what race you are, they share a hatred of jews with nazi. Thing is that the presense of these islamics is giving an excuse for the rise of nazism again in Europe and we could see that elsewhere as an ultra right response to muslim behaviour, certainly the attitudes Trump espouses have nazi overtones
Trump espouses the same thing I do. He and I look right down the same sight line. If you want to address Trumpiish attitudes and Trumpism, feel free to address me. There is nothing remotely Nazi about what Trump or I say. Let's be clear about what the Nazis were and where they came from. They were bitter-ender nationalists whose belief in the mystic nature of the German people was so high, that they could not accept that Germany had been defeated in World War I. They could not accept it, and therefore they could learn nothing from the defeat. Instead of acknowledging that their militarism had laid them low, the Nazis sought a scapegoat: Surely true Germans could never have been defeated...so they must have been BETRAYED! By WHOM? Well, obviously by the Jewish moneylenders, the stealing gypsies, the morally debased homosexuals. The untermenschen had conspired to betray great Germany, but VEE vill make it all right. VEE vill hunt zem out und make zen PAY for vat they have done! The morning vill come ven der world ist mein, Tomorrow belongs to me! There is nothing of that in Trump and me. Nothing. There's no scapegoat responsible for our decline. No, it has been our own leadership. The problem with illegal immigrants is not that they're Hispanic. It's that they're ILLEGAL. The nation cannot afford to bear them, and won't continue to. Wall. Deportation. The writ of American law, duly passed by Congress, will once again run in America. This is not Naziism. It's not even a cousin of Naziism. There's no xenophobia here. Trump has been married to foreign women and has international children. It's not a matter of "hating the other", or hating anybody. It's a matter of re-establishing the rule of law concerning the border and employment and social support in America. Legal immigrants have the right to be here, the right to work and, if they fall on hard times, to be supported by the American taxpayer for a time while they get back on their feet. Illegal immigrants don't have the right to even BE here, let alone work and obtain social benefits. We cannot afford it. We have 22 million illegals in America...and a 16% underemployment rate, The American workforce is about 150 million people. What is 16% of 150 million? That's why we have massive underemployment: jobs that Americans and legal immigrants should fill are filled by illegals. Ignoring the problem does not work: the damage is ongoing. Trump is saying that it's time to stop it, and he has said how he will. It doesn't involve concentration camps and gas chambers. It involves a Border Wall, incentives to leave, and disincentives for Americans to hire. That's all. And that's not Naziism. Not even a little bit.
What you just outlined is the principle of proportionality. In order to justify the means to an end you would need to know 140,000 Chinese were dying. We know that now but not then I'm sure.
I thought it was the opposite? Subsaharan Africa becoming more Muslim? How's North Africa's Islamic stride doing? Oh, here's news. "Dozens Of Kyrgyz Villagers Leave For Syria" Wow. ISIS has very good silver tongues, I suppose?
Creating more jobs than Obolo.
Apples and oranges really. Spent some time on another forum on this subject. To be an obedient Muslim you must follow the example of Muhammad and Quran. Problem is there were two Muhammads. The Mecca Muhammad was tolerant of Christians and Jews. He needed their support he was not in power. Once he conquered Medina he became the Medina Muhammad. He had power and a growing army. He dropped the tolerance and replaced it with conquest and submission. That's the Muhammad of Medina, of the Qur'an Muslims must follow to be truly obedient. Exact opposite for Christians. Christ did not command conquest. When a supposed Christian goes on a shooting rampage they are being disobedient.
I agree. Most Mecca Muslims are gradually becoming Medina Muslims, and they are turning more radicalized each day. Here's some (unrelated) news, they want to get rid of federal planning for Planned Parenthood and Obama wants to veto it! REALLY? He's going to ignore terrorism but put his cape on women's rights to spread their legs open and abort their "mistakes"? disgusting.
That's something that has been worrying me,also. There is a law of nature that says for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction,and this could very easily get ugly on a Biblical scale None of us like to admit or even think about it,but we all have a hidden monster lurking inside of us,just looking for the justification to burst loose. And it really does seem like Islam is foolishly trying to get that monster to come out and play. Which proves they are insane because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who is going to win big and who is going to lose big in a contest because one group of people that dream of dying for THEIR God,and another group of people who dream of killing for THEIR God. Especially in this day of automatic weapons,helicopter gun ship,cluster bombs,etc,etc,etc. IF the Mullahs get their way,I predict that within 10 years the only place you will see a Muslim is on old news reels. There might be a few left,but they will be quiet about it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Okay maybe not Most but a significant minority.
Yes. To be an obedient and good Muslim you must emulate Muhammad. If you are living outside an Islamic nation under infidel laws you are allowed by Qur'an to be a Meccan Muslim. You are allowed Taqiyya, to lie and hide your faith or subdue it. You are to resist infidels to the best of your ability. Lie low until conquest comes. The ultimate goal is the goal of Muhammad to be a Medina Muslim.
Seculars and even most Christians try to define Muslims as 'good' or bad based on obedience to secular laws. Most Muslims mow their lawn, pay taxes and are law abiding citizens. The Majority in fact are model citizens. That makes them good citizens. Not really good Muslims or obedient Muslims. So the ones shooting and killing in the name of Allah are actually being obedient Muslims.
If I were the leader, I would not be seeking to "justify" the action. I would be seeking to win the war, as swiftly as possible, to end the killing of my people and my allies. A side effect of the end of the war is that the killing of the enemy people also ends, and that's fine once they stop fighting. If I started the war in the first place, and went out and killed to conquer, then I'm a monster. But if my side did not start it, but decided - so that we would never have to go through the hell again - to utterly vanquish the enemy, to not stop at a point where the enemy would, but to press on and destroy the enemy's government, one might say that was "disproportional". But I say that permanently eliminating the threat means a permanent peace on that vector, and that suits my ethics. Ending a war NOW, with superweapons that kill and destroy the enemy but that look to shorten the war and save MY people's lives: I do it. Indeed, I am relying on the utter disproporationality of nuclear fire to cause an otherwise fanatical enemy to wilt and give up their country. Merely proportional would mean stopping short, and the war going on, and more of my own people dying at the hands of the enemy. If I face the choice of losing 100,000 of my own men in order to save 1 million enemy civilians, or killing 1 million enemy civilians to save 100,000 of my own men, my men live, and the enemy civilians die. The Catholic Church says no. I understand their logic, and I reject it. Once I have been riled to war, the enemy's lives are worth nothing to me, and I will kill a city to save one of my own soldiers. The Turks and ISIS should hope that Putin and Hollande are less bloodyminded in such matters. I do not shed first blood, but if you shed mine and my people's, then my concept of proportionality is that you die, and everyhody who supported you dies, and the people who won't quit die, and the death is so calamitous and destruction so complete, that when your survivors surrender, they will never, ever again attack me, because they will be left in a position in which they can never do it again. I treasure my own life, the lives of my families, and the lives of my people. They are worth more to me than all of the lives of the enemy, and if I could save my own people by wiping an enemy country from the face of the earth completely, I would do it. Which is why it's a good thing I'm not in charge if you're an enemy bent on bloodshed, or if you're squeamish about killing. I say peace, peace, and I mean it. Because once you start killing my people, then you must die, and everybhody who stands in ranks with you must die. And everybody who feeds, houses and cloithes you must die, until the survivors hand over their own leaders - to be executed by me and my side - as the price of retaining their own lives. Once you shed the lives of my people, you must bow and surrender and renounce your old allegiances, and your old gods, or I will send you to them and rid the earth of you, so that me and mine never have to face any threat from you again. That was why our war on Japan and Germany, was so effective. We were completely innocent of starting the war. We were attacked. And having been attacked and lost so much, we forced the enemy to hand over their own leaders to us, for death, and to renounce their religions (worship of their fatherland and worship of their emperor). And because they slaughtered so many people so cruelly, we bombed them with fire from the air until nothing was left of several cities, and the terrified survivors, traumatized for life, with not one family escaping the loss of a father or a son, got down on their knees and begged for mercy. The price of life was to CHANGE THEIR RELIGION. And it worked. Germany and Japan were converted by the sword. The DIFFERENCE between this and the Islamic Jihad is that the Germans and Japanese attacked first. I have no right to attack first. But once you attack me, I will force you to convert, or I will slaughter you, and that is my right, because you are the devil's soldiers, and error has no rights.
Did the Islamic jihadists attack us first?
First the deniel Let's just examine outcomes. Yes the illegals have broken the law, need to be dealt with with due process but mass rounding up? How quickly do you round up and try millions? where do you hold them while awaiting trial? In camps, the nazi moved millions out of Germany into camps see any similarity in the approach? So how do you get them to go back without creating a massive problem? next question, Who is going to do the jobs they are doing now? Americans don't want these jobs otherwise they would have been filled. The wages are too low. There is a whole disconnect in the thinking about this problem and noone denies there is a problem or more than one problem. Some sensible changes to the laws are needed but without a debate that won't happen You have to get rid of the pull factors and the push factors so these people have an incentive to stay in their own countries. just building a barrier, however necessary, isn't the answer
Most Americans are obsessed with social media and technology and prefer to discuss what color underwear a celebrity is wearing and what's their favorite hip hop album. Meanwhile MENA (and parts of subsaharan Africa, Central Asia, Europe, and.. pretty much everywhere really) are growing in Islam fanaticism and becoming bigger everyday.. yet most of our countrymen can't stop talking about Rihanna's new album or posting stupid memes. Yeah, I'm extremely cynical. Our system/culture and people are quite weak. If not we get replaced by religious Hispanics, who are poor and uneducated anyway. Not looking good IMO. Most people don't think like you and me.
Employing the strategy of the Battle of Algiers?
Islam has been at war with everyone else since Muhammad conquered Medina. There was unrelenting war against Europe for 400 years before the West responded in kind with the First Crusade. MUSLIM CRUSADES Started Four Centuries Before the Western Crusades
The wages will rise. The wages are depressed BECAUSE the American businessmen can get the cheap exploitable foreign labor. The jobs done by that labor are necessary for the functioning of the companies that hire them. If they can't GET the cheap Mexican labor, wages will be forced upward until they reach a level that Americans will take the job. It's supply and demand. The disconnect is in YOUR thinking. You think it's fine to leave 16% of Americans unemployed SO THAT employers can make bigger profit margins. Think of your own people. That means smaller profit margins because more money has to be paid to employees. But then think further. Full employment of Americans at proper wages means that Americans will have more money to spend on goods and services. It's much like Ford's $5 day. By paying enough to ensure that the workers could buy the products they were building, Ford ended up getting a great deal of that extra pay BACK in the form of sales proceeds.
It depends on who you define as "us". Christians and Christendom? Yes. Starting in the 600s and continuing forward until the 19th Century, yes. If by "us" you mean modern Western states, no. The West colonized Islamic nations. What is happening now is the blowback from that. But if by "us" you mean Americans, then yes. We didn't attack the Islamists. they attacked us.
Rather, the Battle of Germany and the Battle of Japan in 1945.
On a smaller scale, after WW2 the French squashed an Algerian Muslim uprising. They were swift, brutal and effective. But lost the peace years later. The Battle of Algiers is known well by Army officers. It is one of the "small wars" we study at General Staff college.
If you knew me you would know I advocate a living minimum wage not the farce that exists in the US, but you don't have a government that is committed to doing anything like that, the thought is too radical. No unfortunately if you raise wages they will just export more jobs, they will even find a way to export the agricultural jobs and you will have to put up with what the rest of us put up with, cheap asian produced food. Ford lived in the day of expanding markets and saw the potential of his product when noone had one
The French won battles and lost wars. The Algerian war was also fought in France so the french have a long history of dealing with terrorism but it didn't prevent Paris on either occasion and there is a lesson to take away from that.
'thousands upon thousands' ,becomes a 'swarm' on a roof ,becomes 'eight men celebrating'. Yeah ,that's vindication !!!!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
good summary of the Just War doctrine . Given Trump's penchant for hyperbole ,and trying to read into what he actually meant ,I'm guessing he was referring to the times when we know where a jihadist leader is burrowed .But ,we hesitate to do the Coup de grâce because he is in a building with his family or other people being used as human shields . There were times before 9-11-01 when OBL was located and there was a clear kill opportunity ;but Bubba passed on it because he was concerned about the collateral damage. Presumably Trump would order the kill. If that is what he means ,then I can't argue with that. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The difference between the Battle of Algiers and the Battles of Germany and Japan is that in Germany and Japan, to win the peace forever, permanently, we understood that we had to change those nations' religions.
Yes I can see that. The religion of Nazism and the religion of Emperor worship and Tojo Bushido.
I agree with you on living wage. But I think that the government has inevitably moved left precisely BECAUSE the population has been so resistant over time to actually structuring things civilly, which simply means that things have gotten worse and worse, until more and more people suffer and are moved by their OWN deteriorating situation and suffering of friends and family members to move more and more leftward. The Democratic party is not larger than the Republican because of tricks. It is larger because there are more struggling people than well-off people. And our national stubbornness about living wages and proper civil conditions has allowed things to drift towards dilapidation...which merely excacerbates the need, and the drive, leftward. The net result is that today we have Obamacare, where that was not possible 20 years ago. And it is no longer possible for a standard issue Republican such as McCain, or Romney, or any of the Seven Dwarves of the GOP Establishment currently running on the Republic Ticket alongside Trump, to win the Presidency. The problem isn't just the LEADERSHIP of the Republican Right (and they're pretty bad), the problem is that their IDEAS are bankrupt. They don't work. They've led the country into ruin, and the old population is suffering even while the new population is moving in. And much of the old and most of the new are just no longer buying that old crappy soap that the right is trying to peddle. Now, truth is, on a website like this, the average age of the participating members is probably north of 60, and everybody over a certain age is conservative by nature. The setpoint of people is the age in which they grew up. And conservative people in America all grew up in and come out of that Anglo-Saxon economic system. So, there is a mass, here, that still hasn't accepted the necessity of Social Security, and that still views FDR as the devil incarnate. But even the right wing average has moved on. All sensible people recognize that Social Security is necessary, Medicare is necessary, universal public education is necessary, poverty relief is necessary. A growing majority of Americans recognize that universal health insurance is necessary. And through experience, if not because they were ever persuaded by reason, more and more, and more, Americans are coming to realize that better wages are necessary for the working class. The mass immigration into the country, legal or otherwise, only heightens this tendency, because the immigrants didn't start from an Anglo-Saxon base in the first place. So I don't think that your final prognosis - that there will be no minimum wage, that people will continue to live in squalor, and that any effort to change any of this will just lead to "them" exporting more jobs...so really nothing can be done but wait for the cheap Asian food - is far too pessimistic. I think that that the "they" who currently control things, through money, are losing their grip. The Democrats are pushing for better and better universal health insurance, and they will succeed, because most people want it. Likewise higher minimum wages. The demographic trends will not allow the right to hold the line on any of these basic things. It's just a matter of watching it develop over time.
Trump also talked about right after 9/11, when Osama Bin Laden's and other prominent Saudi families were rushed onto airplanes and allowed to leave the country. Trump would not have let any of them out. The borders were closed. He would have gathered up the Saudis, taken then into custody, and then triaged them right here in America. Also, he would have grabbed their assets all over the world. Bin Laden's family would never have been allowed to leave until the war was over. Neither would the other rich Saudis or Arabs. Without calling it that, Trump would have taken the rich elite of Saudi Arabia hostage to force the Saudis to hand over everybody we wanted, or to kill them. It's war, and in war, you imprison EVERY enemy citizen on your territory and intern them. And you impound their assets. And if they don't cooperate, you TAKE their assets and use them directly for your war effort. Because if they are enemy citizens, their property is forfeit. Nolu Chan will say that some this violates the law of war. Perhaps it does. And that will be decided 50 years later. Sort of like the Japanese internment in World War II. If the US government wants to pay something, $20,000 or so for each survivor 50 years after the fact. Fine. Whatever. You commit whatever war crimes you have to commit to cut the testicles off your enemy and make them scream in fear of losses they cannot stand. They surrender and you make sure to KILL the leadership - it is very important to actually KILL the leaders who fought you - we hanged the Japanese and German generals and admirals. The leaders MUST BE KILLED, because that sends the right message: if you fight us, THE LEADERS WILL DIE. We may lead the people alone, but once we have won, we are going to find the prominent people, strip them of their money, and kill them all as war criminals. Your grandchildren can wring their hands during their century of peace. They can say how bad you were. They can pay some token to the survivors. But when you are in the toils, you do WHATEVER YOU THINK IS NECESSARY to kill the enemy, right now. That usually means a lot of collateral damage and terror and destruction of property. On 9/11, it SHOULD HAVE MEANT preventing any Muslim from leaving the country. You imprison them. Then you sort them out. And if they are rich, you take them hostage and trade them. If they are on your "terrorist watch list", you kill them.
Because they let Islam live. The Spanish, when they retook southern Spain, did NOT let Islam live. They rooted it out, destroyed the mosques, and forced Muslims to covert, flee or die. And they didn't let them take their property with them if they fled. Same with the Jews, who were the Muslim's allies. The Spanish Inquisition was brutally effective: It cleansed Spain of Islam entirely. Once you're at war with Islam, you have to tear it up by the roots and destroy it utterly - outlaw it, raze its mosques and kill its clerics who try to teach it clandestinely. You have to treat it just exactly as we treated the Nazis and their leaders: it is a criminal philosophy that is your enemy. You kill it. And you kill everybody who fights for it. And you provide them an alternative. The French in the 1950s were already secular. They never had a chance of victory over the Islamists. Not a chance. In the 1940s, the West and the USSR WERE able to wipe out the Nazis and Japanese militarists because, although they were religions, we didn't mentally put them in that category. We simply called them enemies, defined them all as war criminals, and forced them to covert or die. And we killed their leaders anyway: no repentence for General Tojo. No repentence for Hermann Goering. You command the forces that bomb London, and when the war is over and you are a POW, you shall die, as a criminal. Geneva Convention be damned.
So what you are saying is you suspend your constitution and all your international treaties, which don't mean anything anyway, and you accuse without due process everyone who looks a little different, who afterall are guilty until "proven" innocent. I know you like the idea of the spanish inquisition, you have alrady said so, and you like the idea of ethnic cleansing, you have already said so, so I have a question for you. In what way are you different to Daesh? to any islamic fundamentalist?, to any psychotic killer? I too am suspicious of muslims I know they have greater loyalty to their religion than to the country but it is illogical to accuse those who did not take part with complicity. The thing that sets me apart from muslim jihadists aside from not being muslim is that I am a rational person capable of independent thought and I must allow others at least the benefit of the doubt otherwise I become a savage, a barbarian
And the Western worlds answer should be "Grow up and become civilized or be eradicated"... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
The Democratic party is not larger than the Republican because of tricks. It is larger because there are more irresponsible people than responsible people. There fixed it for you... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Sounds very antinomian to me. Would not suggest following your own advice. You should listen to your Church on this one. They have it right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water...I did not. You guys got a lot of things right. Red, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. An invasion of Japan would have cost us over one million deaths. The best and most humane way to end a war is too bring the necessary force needed to end hostiles at the earliest possible date. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I know you like the idea of the spanish inquisition, you have alrady said so, and you like the idea of ethnic cleansing, you have already said so, so I have a question for you. In what way are you different to Daesh? to any islamic fundamentalist?, to any psychotic killer? What sets me apart from them is that my God doesn't let me attack. My God requires me to put up with insult after insult and not retaliate to violence with insult. And my God requires me to seek peace, where peace can be had. It doesn't allow me to initiate the use of force. This is all in the Scriptures that my God dictated. The Muslim's god tells every Muslim that he is at war with every non-Muslim, that he may conquer us through violence, that he is to compel us Christians to submit and to pay a submission tax, or to die. If I am not a Christian or Jew, his God commands him to slaughter me without mercy, unless I convert. Also, his God tells him that he is perpetually at war, and that deception is a legitimate tactic of war. This means that the Muslim can never be trusted, because he ALWAYS has the right to suddenly turn and stab me in the back, no matter what he has said - he is always an enemy agent, of his God, and he always has the right to use deception. This is all in his Koran. This means that the best that can be hoped for, where he and I have to live together, is a cold peace. But the Muslim has devotedly followed his god in his Koran for 1400 years, since the 600s. Since then, the Muslim has been relentlessly attacking West, East, North and South. Now, certainly Christian people committed acts of imperialism. But this was contrary to the word of God. God never authorized English people to go kill Zulus and Cherokee because the English were covetous of their land. God DID command Christians to defend themselves, however, and my God sees all ages as an evening gone. My God ALSO says that the sins of the fathers are not to be visited on the sons. SO, even though every past generation of Muslims has been an aggressive terror, in the very image of the Muslim warrior extolled by Allah in his Koran, I have to see the Muslim as himself, and not as the bearer of the sins of his Father. That means I cannot launch aggressive war on him because of "what Muslims have done". I have to wait for him to attack me. But attack me he will, and attack me he has, because his god commands it. So, here we are, in a world in which the Muslim, following the commandments of his god in his Koran, is threatening me and killing my people all over the world. And here we are in this world, and our God, in our Bible, commands us to defend ourselves, and to defend others. I am not authorized to attack the Muslim just because he is Muslim, but once the Muslim attacks me, as he has, and once the Muslim kills, I am authorized by God to defend myself, and to kill him as a killer, as one who has shed man's blood. The same was true in dealing with Nazis and with Japanese Imperialists, and with slavers in the Civil War. They all attacked us. They did it in the service of evil. I have the right to kill them because they have killed, and because they are trying to kill me. God gives this mandate directly. No Constitution or Treaty can override the express command of God. And it is idolatry to suggest that any mere human law supersedes the commandments of God. In this, the Muslim and I understand each other better than you understand either of us. The difference between him and me is that my God is God, and his god is Satan. He believes the same thing about me and mine. We understand each other. There can be a cold peace between me and him: if HE doesn't attack, driven along by his demon Allah's command to conquer the world, I won't attack him. But once he does attack, and he has, then I am authorized - indeed commanded - to bring him fully to justice. And since he has killed, the only justice for killing a man is to execute him. There can be no peace until he is dead - and I will not willingly make peace with him until he is dead, and everybody who kills alongside him is dead, and his little mosques to his devil god are razed, and the clerics spewing his satan's hate are silenced. The only way to rid the world of his evil is to rid the world of him and those who teach his evil. Evil men have rights - but once they kill, they MUST be killed in turn. Laws and treaties that seek to prevent the just killing of the killers are themselves unjust, and void. Human treaties cannot bind the commanded justice of God. Indeed, treaties that seek to give murderers a sanctuary ANYWHERE are THEMSELVES evil artifices and must be cast aside. Once the Muslim (or anybody else) attacks of his own will and kills, he must be hunted to end of the world and killed. That is justice. And whoever seeks to protect the murderer is himself abetting the murder. There is no sanctuary for murderers, and that means going country by country to root them out, because Muslim countries all believe in their demon god, and all protect killers, and all protect Taqiyya. I would not have gone to war. I am at war because I was attacked. Treaties did not stop HIM, in HIS evil. They must not be superimposed to try and stop ME, in executing him and his allies, for the evil THEY inflicted. He is killing me and mine because he worships a demon. I am killing his and him because he is a murderer. There is a fundamental difference between the two of his. His is a murderer, as his father was before, because they worship Satan, and Satan was a murderer from the beginning. But I cannot kill him because of his father. I must wait until HE kills. But he will kill. He cannot help it. He is a Muslim, and his god COMPELS it, in the written Koran, just as absolutely as my God PROHIBITS it, in the written Bible, except in defense, or to execute a murderer. He is compelled to attack the innocent, because of his God. And in turn I am compelled to hunt him down and execute him, as a murderer, because of mine. Treaties and laws that try to stop the execution of God's justice are simply artifices of the Devil, to let the murderer escape, so that he can encourage the other murderers, so that he can get away with. All such treaties and constitutions are illegal. God trumps. Ethnic cleansing? Never. There is neither Greek now Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. I will not attack the Muslim for being Muslim. The Hindu is Hindu, and the Bhuddist, Bhuddist, and the Communist, atheist. They are in all colors and shapes. The Jew is a Jew. They are different, and their gods are not real, or they catch a glimpse of God that is incomplete. But they do not attack me, and my God forbids me to go out and kill for my own gain, or because somebody is a heretic or worships the wrong God. However, he does command me to execute killers. And the problem with the Muslim who follows his god, specifically the Muslim, is that his god specifically commands him, in his scripture, to kill me, and to kill everybody, because we are not Muslims. He has the license to conquer and to lie, and to enslave. That is his god. That is his Koran. As long as he is a bad Muslim - meaning that he doesn't obey the commandments of his god, remains peaceful, ignores the Koran, perhaps just simply honors the traditions of his fathers by pretending to be a Muslim, then I will never attack him. But once he activates and becomes a real Muslim, doing what his god commands and permits, he starts killing people. And then he must be executed as a murderer. If the constitution or treaties get in the way of doing that, of executing him and his allies as the murderers they are, then yes absolutely we disregard those laws, constitutions, treaties, and we follow the commandments of OUR God, and we hunt down the murderers in their warrens and execute them. It has nothing whatever to do with what people look like. Christians look like everything. Zoroastrians look like Persians, Arab Christians look like Arab Muslims, Pakistanis look like Hindus. You do not kill people because of the way they look. You: do not persist in trying to make this about race. It is not. I have told you why. God rejects all of that, and I am a follower of God. The problem is not what people LOOK like. It is what they DO. And what they DO is based on what they BELIEVE. Of course the Muslim, who unwittingly worships Satan, kills and maims and enslaves and lies: his god tells him he must and he may in his very holy book. God gives no such power even to his own. Guilty until proven innocent? The Nazi is guilty of anti-Semitism. There is nothing to prove. The fact of being a Nazi MEANS that he is an anti- Semite. Allah spoke in the Koran. He commanded conquest and slaughter and enslavement of the world by Muslims. He commanded and authorized deceit to achieve that, whenever useful. The Muslim believes in the Koran and he believes in that. Please do not be a childish fool and refer to the book of Joshua now. Yes, in Joshua God, the real God, did indeed command the Hebrews - a specific tribe in a specific time - to go into a specific place - the Land of Canaan - and slaughter a particular people who were there: the various Canaanite tribes. If they fled, the Hebrews were not to pursue them out of Canaan. God said why: the sins of those tribes, their false gods and worship (which, incidentally, involved child sacrifice in every village, and involved the reduction of teenagers to male and female cult prostitutes - their RITUALS were the slaughter of children and mass rape of teenagers - that was their religion, all through the land. God commanded they be driven out for their sins, which stunk to heaven, and he commanded that every Canaanite who resisted and stayed in the land: every man, woman and child, be slaughtered. It was a specific commandment, for a specific people, in a specific time, and place, for a specific reason. God kills all of us, and he had his reasons. And what God commanded for the Hebrew in Canaan 3800 years ago has nothing to do with his general commandment to the world, and through Christ. The general commandment is don't kill, but execute killers. So if you invoke Joshua and the Canaanite war, have a care that you are not writing fiction. You've written a great deal of fiction concerning me. These are lies to please yourself, that you are just and I am an evil bigot. In fact, I am an agent of God, and you are lying to yourself and trying to provide protection and sanctuary for murderers, which the Muslims are BY COMMANDMENT OF THEIR GOD, and by ACTIONS in the real world today. I am looking to end their terror, and you are making up stories about me. Have a care for your own soul. You are siding with the Nazis of our day, and the murderers and enslavers of every day, because of a wild and false set of lies you have told yourself about people like me - probably because you don't like the feeling of guilt for your own lack of control and personal unchastity. The Spanish Inquisition was effective. Muslims waged relentless war on the Christians of Spain. The Christians of Spain slowly defeated them in the field over time. Defeated, the Muslims resorted to Taqiyya, to hiding their religion, to pretending to be Christians in order to be in place, with their property, for the inevitable Muslim revanche. Muslims never stop. The Christians were hardened and scarred by seven centuries of Muslim abuse and oppression. They knew their enemies well, and they did not let the Taqiyya work. They rooted out the Muslims and drove them out, so that they could no longer trouble the Spanish people. That is what happened. Given seven hundred years of Muslim horror and oppression, the Spanish were wise to do so. There were excesses, of course, but the fact is that the Muslims and Jews of Spain were the bitter, mortal enemies of the Christians, and that Spain was wholly Christian for four and a half centuries before the Muslims showed up to try to conquer it. Spain remained mostly Christian despite the Muslim oppression. And when the back of Muslim power was broken and the Devil was on the run, there was no reason whatever, in logic or in the law of God, to let the Devil continue to keep a foothold in Spain, whence it could continue to torment the Spanish forever. Muslims had no right to live in Spain. They were invaders. They were driven out. The Inquisition rooted them out. The Jews had sided with the Muslims for centuries. They were enemies. The allies of defeated invaders have no right to continue to live among you either. They were also driven out. And it was just. Ridding a cell block of gang members is not "ethnic cleansing". You analogy is nonsense. In what way, then, am I different from Daesh? In the way that the Sikh is different from the Muslim in India. Indian was Hindu. The Muslims, who were not Indian, rode in from the West and began slaughtering Hindus. The Muslims were invaders. They had no right to be there at all. They had no right to draw breath there. They had no right to breathe there, to conquer, to kill, to steal, to impose taxes, to enslave. They did so under the command of their god, and they did tremendous damage. Hinduism is a religion of peaceful (if very indifferent) coexistence. Hindus did not (and do not) expand out from India, conquering. They lived in their lands peacefully, occasionally scrapping with each other. The Muslims came in, commanded by their Satan "Allah" to slaughter pagans, and they did. Eventually, the Sikhs, a warrior caste of Hindu, rose up. The Sikhs were as brutal as the Muslims. Their sworn duty to their gods was to protect their Hindu people, to fight and kill the Muslim invaders, and they did, viciously, and so effectively that the Muslims were hurled back with great slaughter from parts of India. The Muslims were stopped and rolled back by the Sikhs. The Sikhs had the right to brutally slaughter the Muslims, because THEY were the ones were ATTACKED, THEIR people were being killed. The MUSLIMS were the invaders, the initiators of violence, the murderers. Every human being in the world has the right to slay a known murderer - that right is given by God - it is justice. And every Muslim in India, by the fact that he was THERE, was a murdering invader. The Sikhs did not EXIST until the Muslims came in, with their characteristic slaughter, slavery and oppression, all as spelled out so cleanly and programmatically in the Koran. The Christians, too, were not warriors. They were slaves, lower class people, victims of Rome. The Muslims attacked them. And attacked and attacked. It's what Muslims do, because of the psychotic murderous nature of their religion as written at length in their Koran, commandments of God. The Christians BECAME warriors to protect themselves against Islam. I would be well content to not have to arm anybody or anything. But after one thousand three hundred and seventy years of unrelenting terror from Muslims, and after the current manifestation of it: in New York, in Washington, in Paris, and Kuta, and London, and Madrid, and Istanbul, and Buenos Aires, and San Bernadino, and the Kashmir, and Sinkiang, and the Philippines, I am obliged not to be stupid, not to be a Neville Chamberlain and close my eyes to the reality of an evil that exists, that will not go away and that is on the attack again. There are rattlesnakes in my yard. I have children. The rattlesnakes must die so that the children can live. Peaceful coexistence is not possible because of the very NATURE of rattlesnakes. Muslims are like that, because of what Satan dictated they must always do, and be. Daesh kills children. They attack. I defend. Defending means rooting them all out and killing them, wherever they may be. And to have the peace last, it means forcing them to stop worship Satan by crushing Islam itself, razing the mosques, silencing the mullahs of Satan, not letting religious Nazism contaminate another generation, and cut off the clitorises of another 100 million girls in service to a murderous demon god. The difference between me and a psychotic killer is that I don't want to do this. I don't want to kill rattlesnakes either. Or mosquitos. But they all attack me, and for my children to live in the peace which is our birthright, the mass psychosis that is Islam must die. It must be rooted up like Naziism and cast from the earth. It's a fundamental difference. And here is how it matters to you. I would never kill you. You do not believe in my God, but that is between you and him. But the Muslims, if they can get their hands on you, will slit your throat as you scream, because you will not acknowledge their god. Now, you won't do anything about it once they do. But I will go hunt them down and kill them, and anybody who protects them (for those who protect them are also accessories to murder), so they cannot ever do it again. You make up stories about me and call me evil for saying it. And I call you a blind fool for refusing to see what is right in front of your face. I also call you a liar for adding in all of the racism and petty accusations against me. I am trying to save your life, and the life of your mother, and girlfriend and children. The Muslims will kill all of them if they can. Sure, there are BAD Muslims who don't OBEY their God, just as there are bad Christians who don't obey theirs. And they are not the problem, are they? But the more committed to Islam, the more violent, because Allah said what he said, and no amount of making up fantasies about me, turning me into a racist bigot psychotic, can change the fact that Allah IS a bigoted psychotic killers. The more devoted to Christianity, the more moral and peaceful. The more devoted to Allah, the bloodier. THOSE are the differences. Don't ask again, because this was very clear.
No, you took what I wrote, which was true, and you made it false.
Really, then why are there so many people on handouts (probably close to 80%) that should be out working??? Could it be because they are irresponsible in who they vote for or are they just irresponsible in general??? Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
CZ82 is correct Vic is incorrect.
My wife tells me all the time I have no empathy... :)
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Was mainly responding to the kill boldly and ask for forgiveness later.
'I would knock the hell out of ISIS,'
#2. To: paraclete (#1)
Trump has also mixed reports of the palestinians celebrating 9/11 in his mind with local reports, yes, thousands celebrated in the muslim world but not in the US.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: paraclete (#1)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
(Edited)
And all of his opponents in the Establishment, the "Seven Dwarves" up there? They talk smoothly. Of course, that's all any of them has ever done
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Trump has the content - everything he says turns out to be right.
#8. To: Fred Mertz (#7)
Trump is the biggest a-hole out there. He's in a league with A K A Stone.
#9. To: ebonytwix (#5)
I thought you hated War. :-/
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
I like callous. It's war.
#13. To: paraclete (#1)
The difficult thing with Trump is this strategy is not wrong but his delivery is callous and he portrays america as mad.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Trump's delivery is callous. I like callous. It's war.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#16. To: ebonytwix (#11)
ut you did complain about the military not valuing God, so is us fighting back since He told us not to kill. So what makes that different from this?
#17. To: sneakypete (#14)
#18. To: buckeroo (#3)
I become afraid of people when they sale war and protectionist mumbo jumbo.
#19. To: paraclete (#1)
"He fails to realise that while his remarks are for local consumption he is reported all over the world"
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
I'm not longing for a Holy Crusade. Rather, I recognize that the enemy is not "youths", it's youths, and middle aged men and women, fired up by a religion.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
The Nazis never pretended that any God gave them the universal right to slaughter any non-Nazis and to lie in treaties and break contracts at will, simply because they were Nazis. But Allah of Islam DOES.
#22. To: A Pole (#21)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
#25. To: cranky (#18)
#26. To: misterwhite (#19)
He fails to realize that those remarks cause some in the U.S. to cringe.
#27. To: sneakypete (#20)
Islam is not really a religion as much as it is a political system of government. Saying "Islam is a religion" is akin to saying "Nazism is a religion".
#28. To: Vicomte13, tomder55, CZ82, GarySpFc, TooConservative, *Islamic caliphate expansion* (#9)
And we are at war, whether we would be or no, because our enemies have attacked us, continue to attack us, and will make no peace.
#29. To: ebonytwix (#23)
#30. To: redleghunter (#28)
(Edited)
Sounds very antinomian to me. Would not suggest following your own advice. You should listen to your Church on this one. They have it right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water...I did not. You guys got a lot of things right.
#31. To: redleghunter (#28)
Before the Paris attacks just serving in the Military was 'evil and serving Satan.' I digress.
#32. To: paraclete (#27)
Perhaps we have to be more precise Islam is ultimate nazism or religious nazism.
#33. To: sneakypete (#32)
They care nothing about your "soul" (whatever the hell THAT is),they want to own your ass.
#34. To: paraclete (#33)
certainly the attitudes Trump espouses have nazi overtones
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
#37. To: ebonytwix (#36)
Dozens Of Kyrgyz Villagers Leave For Syria" Wow. ISIS has very good silver tongues, I suppose?
#38. To: ebonytwix (#24)
(Edited)
What do you think of the Planned Parenthood incident? People say it's on the same terms with what just happened.
#39. To: redleghunter (#38)
#40. To: paraclete (#33)
Thing is that the presense of these islamics is giving an excuse for the rise of nazism again in Europe and we could see that elsewhere as an ultra right response to muslim behaviour, certainly the attitudes Trump espouses have nazi overtones
#41. To: All (#39)
#42. To: ebonytwix (#39)
#43. To: ebonytwix (#41)
#44. To: redleghunter (#35)
In order to justify the means to an end you would need to know 140,000 Chinese were dying. We know that now but not then I'm sure.
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
(Edited)
There is nothing remotely Nazi about what Trump or I say.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#49. To: ebonytwix (#45)
#50. To: paraclete (#46)
#51. To: ebonytwix (#45)
Did the Islamic jihadists attack us first?
#52. To: redleghunter (#48)
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
You think it's fine to leave 16% of Americans unemployed SO THAT employers can make bigger profit margins.
#55. To: redleghunter (#53)
They were swift, brutal and effective
#56. To: cranky (#0)
#57. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, tomder55, CZ82, GarySpFc, TooConservative, (#28)
#58. To: redleghunter (#53)
On a smaller scale, after WW2 the French squashed an Algerian Muslim uprising. They were swift, brutal and effective. But lost the peace years later.
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
#60. To: paraclete (#54)
If you knew me you would know I advocate a living minimum wage not the farce that exists in the US, but you don't have a government that is committed to doing anything like that, the thought is too radical. No unfortunately if you raise wages they will just export more jobs, they will even find a way to export the agricultural jobs and you will have to put up with what the rest of us put up with, cheap asian produced food.
#61. To: tomder55 (#57)
(Edited)
#62. To: paraclete (#55)
The French won battles and lost wars. The Algerian war was also fought in France so the french have a long history of dealing with terrorism but it didn't prevent Paris on either occasion and there is a lesson to take away from that.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
(Edited)
If they are on your "terrorist watch list", you kill them.
#64. To: redleghunter (#49)
Islam’s message: Submit or Be Conquered.
#65. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, tomder55 (#60)
The Democratic party is not larger than the Republican because of tricks. It is larger because there are more struggling people than well-off people.
#66. To: redleghunter (#28)
It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war.
#67. To: paraclete (#63)
(Edited)
So what you are saying is you suspend your constitution and all your international treaties, which don't mean anything anyway, and you accuse without due process everyone who looks a little different, who afterall are guilty until "proven" innocent.
#68. To: CZ82 (#65)
There fixed it for you...
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
No, you took what I wrote, which was true, and you made it false.
#70. To: Vicomte13, cz82 (#68)
There fixed it for you... No, you took what I wrote, which was true, and you made it false.
#71. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#70)
#72. To: GarySpFC (#66)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]