Trump's Plan To Kill ISIS Families Is 'Exactly What God Commands'

[The_Herban_Legend]

How a future Republican goes down a slide.

http://i.imgur.com/YqyoR15.gifv

 

[Rob Roy]

How many Japanese civilians were killed before they finally surrendered? The only way to win a war without innocent casualties is to not fight at all. When shit escalates to a certain point, people need to decide it's either them or us. Not out of fear, but reality. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." You don't have to like it. You don't have to believe it's the right thing to do. You just have to accept it to survive,.. or you die

Killing innocent people is murder, if you or I do it. What magic occurs to make it "not murder" when it's done by a government?

The only way to win a war is to not have it. The only way to end violence on the scale of war is to get rid of the thing which enables war...

 

[Not GOP]

Killing innocent people is murder, if you or I do it. What magic occurs to make it "not murder" when it's done by a government?

war

The only way to win a war is to not have it.

Say that to yourself 3 times and then let me know if it still makes sense to you

 

[Rob Roy]

war

So if a person declares war on another person and you happen to get shot dead, because you were in the way, it's okay?


Say that to yourself 3 times and then let me know if it still makes sense to you

Damn you!! I clicked my heels three times while I said it and now I think I'm in Kansas!

 

[Not GOP]

Damn you!! I clicked my heels three times while I said it and now I think I'm in Kansas!

It's because you had your ruby slippers on. Poof! Just like that Dorothy, you had "magic"

What if I told you that wars can be won by fighting? Would you say I'm wrong?

 

[Rob Roy]

It's because you had your ruby slippers on. Poof! Just like that Dorothy, you had "magic"

What if I told you that wars can be won by fighting? Would you say I'm wrong?

Not wrong, just viewing the circumstances different than me.
Clearly a stronger force can subdue another one, but by murdering innocent people, what do you "win"?

I'd say that as an individual you have the right to defend yourself, but if in the course of defending yourself you strike a person that isn't involved in any conflict with you, you would be in the wrong and would have created a victim.

I bet you'd even agree with me, if we were talking about actions concerning you or I.

So how come it's magically different if the scale of violence is much higher and government is involved and the name changes to "war"? Why do people shrug that kind of violence off as an acceptable occurrence?

Logic tells me that the if we want to eliminate the scale of violence that war is, we should eliminate the things that create it.

 

[Not GOP]

Not wrong, just viewing the circumstances different than me.
Clearly a stronger force can subdue another one, but by murdering innocent people, what do you "win"?

I'd say that as an individual you have the right to defend yourself, but if in the course of defending yourself you strike a person that isn't involved in any conflict with you, you would be in the wrong and would have created a victim.

I bet you'd even agree with me, if we were talking about actions concerning you or I.

So how come it's magically different if the scale of violence is much higher and government is involved and the name changes to "war"? Why do people shrug that kind of violence off as an acceptable occurrence?

Logic tells me that the if we want to eliminate the scale of violence that war is, we should eliminate the things that create it.

That is what the enemy wants right? It's how they recruit new Jihadists. So why give it to them? I've heard the liberal argument many times before. Believe me, I've contemplated it. And as you said, taking innocent life is wrong. But I've already made my point in the first post you responded to.

Let me ask you a question. Would you do about evil scum that use human shields because they know it's your weakness? Would you confirm their stradegy is working, or would you bomb the shit out of them a few times to let the enemy know it doesn't work? In othe words, " better not try it again "

 

[Rob Roy]

That is what the enemy wants right? It's how they recruit new Jihadists. So why give it to them? I've heard the liberal argument many times before. Believe me, I've contemplated it. And as you said, taking innocent life is wrong. But I've already made my point in the first post you responded to.

Let me ask you a question. Would you do about evil scum that use human shields because they know it's your weakness? Would you confirm their stradegy is working, or would you bomb the shit out of them a few times to let the enemy know it doesn't work? In othe words, " better not try it again "

How can an individual person that YOU don't even know possibly have become YOUR enemy ? Who told you they were your enemy and why would you believe that?


Evil scum ? Do you mean the people that create the wars and send people that have been duped into being soldiers used as their human shields?



Also, I'm not making a "liberal argument". I'm saying that in order to have something not occur, like a war, you need to disallow the things that cause it to occur. Which things allow violence to occur on the scale of war?

 

[pnwmystery]

That is what the enemy wants right? It's how they recruit new Jihadists. So why give it to them? I've heard the liberal argument many times before. Believe me, I've contemplated it. And as you said, taking innocent life is wrong. But I've already made my point in the first post you responded to.

Let me ask you a question. Would you do about evil scum that use human shields because they know it's your weakness? Would you confirm their stradegy is working, or would you bomb the shit out of them a few times to let the enemy know it doesn't work? In othe words, " better not try it again "

You should read up on Operation Deliberate Force, kind of interesting. It was a big point of research for me so I can actually see both sides of your and Rob Roy's argument. I think there's a balancing act that comes into place, especially with the "human shields," argument. Although, one thing that I thought Rob Roy meant was that his argument stemmed from that saying "In war there are no winners."

 

[Rob Roy]

You should read up on Operation Deliberate Force, kind of interesting. It was a big point of research for me so I can actually see both sides of your and Rob Roy's argument. I think there's a balancing act that comes into place, especially with the "human shields," argument. Although, one thing that I thought Rob Roy meant was that his argument stemmed from that saying "In war there are no winners."

Yes, thank you, that was one of my points. In war there are no winners.

The other point was just how obedient people are and the extent of their cognitive dissonance. People who would be horrified at the thought of themselves going across the street and kicking in a neighbors door who they don't even know and have no personal conflict with, will put on a uniform / magic costume and will kill people they don't even know and have no personal conflict with.

What makes that happen? Isn't it wrong in both instances, always?

 

[Not GOP]

You should read up on Operation Deliberate Force, kind of interesting. It was a big point of research for me so I can actually see both sides of your and Rob Roy's argument. I think there's a balancing act that comes into place, especially with the "human shields," argument. Although, one thing that I thought Rob Roy meant was that his argument stemmed from that saying "In war there are no winners."

He either misunderstood my post, or is bringing up straw man arguments, or both. I think it's both.

"in war there are no winners"
In order to believe that, I would have to assume war is always an option. i.e: A decision made at the dinner table by people who have been sheltered and protected their entire lives.

 

[pnwmystery]

He either misunderstood my post, or is bringing up straw man arguments, or both. I think it's both.

"in war there are no winners"
In order to believe that, I would have to assume war is always an option. i.e: A decision made at the dinner table by people who have been sheltered and protected their entire lives.

Not necessarily, because if war is the last option on the table then wouldn't be going to war be a loss? But even then, no one really does win in war. Lots of innocent people are hurt, maybe not physically but emotionally and mentally. It's just my opinion though, that warfare isn't always the best course of action. Like I said, I certainly do see your side of the argument as well.

 

[Rob Roy]

He either misunderstood my post, or is bringing up straw man arguments, or both. I think it's both.

"in war there are no winners"
In order to believe that, I would have to assume war is always an option. i.e: A decision made at the dinner table by people who have been sheltered and protected their entire lives.

No, I was asking you questions about how something can be wrong for individuals to do it and then magically become acceptable if it is done on a larger scale and blessed by 'authorities"..

You mentioned bombing the shit out of people was a good strategy. Obviously many of the people doing the bombing and getting bombed / murdered have no quarrel with the other person....so why does it happen? What makes it so and how can violence be prevented on that scale?

Those were the things I was pointing out or asking you to consider.

Dinner table? I had chicken nuggets for dinner at some truck stop here in Kansas and this little yippy dog keeps following me around like he knows me.

 

[Not GOP]

Not necessarily, because if war is the last option on the table then wouldn't be going to war be a loss? But even then, no one really does win in war. Lots of innocent people are hurt, maybe not physically but emotionally and mentally. It's just my opinion though, that warfare isn't always the best course of action. Like I said, I certainly do see your side of the argument as well.

I absolutely agree that war is not always the best course of action. But that's not the point I was making.

"if war is the last option on the table then wouldn't be going to war be a loss?"
No. It would be unfortunate indeed, but not a "loss" You only lose by assuming war is a one way street, or that you have a choice. In Obama's case, he denies that radical Islam even exists; which is the equivalent of ignoring Jihad. imo

 

[hondagrower420]

Radical Islam= Muslims that want to kill all Christians

How about radical Christian = Christians that want to kill all Muslims.


By the definition of "radical" wouldn't Donald trump be a radical christian?

 

[pnwmystery]

I absolutely agree that war is not always the best course of action. But that's not the point I was making.

"if war is the last option on the table then wouldn't be going to war be a loss?"
No. It would be unfortunate indeed, but not a "loss" You only lose by assuming war is a one way street, or that you have a choice. In Obama's case, he denies that radical Islam even exists; which is the equivalent of ignoring Jihad. imo

Ah, okay.

I think saying that he denies that radical Islam even exists is quite a stretch, since he's mentioned it several times.

Seriously though, I think you'd find the entire story/background/actions of Operation Deliberate Force pretty interesting.

 

[Harrekin]

Radical Islam= Muslims that want to kill all Christians

How about radical Christian = Christians that want to kill all Muslims.


By the definition of "radical" wouldn't Donald trump be a radical christian?

All devout religious people are radicals to varying degrees.

Just some religions were founded on and endorse violence as a means of proliferation.

 

[OddBall1st]

Killing innocent people is murder, if you or I do it. What magic occurs to make it "not murder" when it's done by a government?

The only way to win a war is to not have it. The only way to end violence on the scale of war is to get rid of the thing which enables war...

You know dude, the magic occurs when you do nothing about someone using their force against you, and they are sworn to keep it away from you. Presto, instant war, just add violence.

You gonna tell me that if a guy came up to your wife and punched her in the face, you would ask him nicely to stop, you wouldn`t jump on the guy and lay down the mash on him ?

Fallujah Iraq was overcome by violent Army that entered and killed at will those who would not convert or obey. A cry went out to help them get rid of the uninvited guests. Anything those that arrive to help do is not murder or uninvited violence. In fact its the opposite, you see, those guys are gonna punch that man back, not once but many times to show that they better never do anything like that again or they face the same deal.

A city with too many radicals is waging land grabs by killing, also sending out hundreds of undercover violent thugs designed to pop up and catch you off guard and kill you because they can`t kill you as easy when you are on guard. This city is attacked to get rid of the too many radicals in charge giving the orders to do the violence.

You could do nothing and be labeled or do something and be labeled,...but the label don`t mean a thing, the reason for the label does.

Fratricide is not murder. it`s not even arguable to those seeking the help. War is your first option, conducted last if needed.

 

[Rob Roy]

You know dude, the magic occurs when you do nothing about someone using their force against you, and they are sworn to keep it away from you. Presto, instant war, just add violence.

You gonna tell me that if a guy came up to your wife and punched her in the face, you would ask him nicely to stop, you wouldn`t jump on the guy and lay down the mash on him ?

Fallujah Iraq was overcome by violent Army that entered and killed at will those who would not convert or obey. A cry went out to help them get rid of the uninvited guests. Anything those that arrive to help do is not murder or uninvited violence. In fact its the opposite, you see, those guys are gonna punch that man back, not once but many times to show that they better never do anything like that again or they face the same deal.

A city with too many radicals is waging land grabs by killing, also sending out hundreds of undercover violent thugs designed to pop up and catch you off guard and kill you because they can`t kill you as easy when you are on guard. This city is attacked to get rid of the too many radicals in charge giving the orders to do the violence.

You could do nothing and be labeled or do something and be labeled,...but the label don`t mean a thing, the reason for the label does.

Fratricide is not murder. it`s not even arguable to those seeking the help. War is your first option, conducted last if needed.

You conflated the argument. Self defense and war are usually two separate things. One action is a DEFENSIVE act, the other is an OFFENSIVE act, but often portrayed as a defensive act, by the "authorities".


We agree here - If an individual person attacks me and I haven't done anything to them personally, meaning THEY initiated aggression, yes I most certainly have the right to use DEFENSIVE force. Clearly that person has INITIATED AGGRESSION and I have the right to defend myself.

However...
If an individual person is living their life somewhere out in the world and I don the uniform of which ever tax plantation I live on and somebody ("an authority", boss, senator, president, commander, sargeant etc. ) tells me that I have the moral right to go kill that person(s) that I don't even know, the "authority" is fucked in the head. The "authority" is trying to say that an OFFENSIVE use of force against a person that has never done anything to me is now morally acceptable.

If it's morally impermissible for me to go and kill a person in the next town over from me, that I don't even know and have had no interactions with, what makes it morally acceptable for me to go half way around the world and kill somebody I don't even know and have had no interactions with? Could you address that question directly please?

 

[hondagrower420]

In this question, radicalism is a noun that means political orientation of those favoring revolutionary change. In political science, the term radicalism is the belief that society needs to be changed, and that these changes are only possible through revolutionary means