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

[schuylaar]

So you heard Trump say "Kill Families"? Or did you hear other people say, Killing families ?

'Take them out' were his words.

Do you think he was referring to Chinese food?

 

[Not GOP]

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.

Obama claims that "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful". Which is a crock. Obama will not say "radical Islam" He repeatedly goes out of his way to reject the term entirely.

It's not just human shields. Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because of environmental damage. And if it wasn't that, he would have another reason to take it easy on ISIS. Then he expects us to believe he's getting tough, as if all that somehow translates into victory.

 

[hondagrower420]

Obama doesn't want to attack Isis because that would be playing into what they want.

Isis needs to vindicate itself by going aftar a power player (usa).

Example:
Wet fish fresh in the pen. Goes after biggest scariest inmate. Lets everyone know wet fish is tough and not to be messed with.

Obama is keeping Isis out of the major league.

We go to war. Isis now plays in our league.

 

[Harrekin]

Obama claims that "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful". Which is a crock. Obama will not say "radical Islam" He repeatedly goes out of his way to reject the term entirely.

It's not just human shields. Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because of environmental damage. And if it wasn't that, he would have another reason to take it easy on ISIS. Then he expects us to believe he's getting tough, as if all that somehow translates into victory.

Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because they're good gun customers.

That's it, period, he's not a secret Muslim, he's not a terrorist sympathiser, he just wants repeat business.

 

[hondagrower420]

Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because they're good gun customers.

That's it, period, he's not a secret Muslim, he's not a terrorist sympathiser, he just wants repeat business.

It should say the powers that be, not Obama. But simpletons won't understand Obama is just one man.

 

[Not GOP]

Obama doesn't want to attack Isis because that would be playing into what they want.

Isis needs to vindicate itself by going aftar a power player (usa).

Example:
Wet fish fresh in the pen. Goes after biggest scariest inmate. Lets everyone know wet fish is tough and not to be messed with.

Obama is keeping Isis out of the major league.

We go to war. Isis now plays in our league.

WTF?

Why can't Obama say what he really thinks? Which is that ISIS is a victim of global warming. In large part due to America burning fossil fuels and increasing carbon emissions. Then we would at least start to see a consistency in arguments.

 

[Harrekin]

It should say the powers that be, not Obama. But simpletons won't understand Obama is just one man.

I was merely using "Obama" in reference to "the Obama Administration", apologies for any confusion caused.

 

[Rob Roy]

'Take them out' were his words.

Do you think he was referring to Chinese food?

Obama claims that "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful". Which is a crock. Obama will not say "radical Islam" He repeatedly goes out of his way to reject the term entirely.

It's not just human shields. Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because of environmental damage. And if it wasn't that, he would have another reason to take it easy on ISIS. Then he expects us to believe he's getting tough, as if all that somehow translates into victory.

The point of these wars is not to gain "victory". The point is to maintain a never ending war which can be used as a reason to continue the warfare / welfare state and continue with the wealth extraction.

 

[hondagrower420]

What Obama thought prolly doesn't reflect what actually needs to be done.

It's called diplomacy.

Remember when your mom said "don't sink to their level" that statement echoes throughout.

We can not sink to their level. Securing our border and stepping up homeland security protects us from foreign threats.

No ground war needed.

When Isis takes control of enough territory then it's go time.

How many countries did the Nazi take before we engaged?

 

[schuylaar]

Obama claims that "99.9% of Muslims are peaceful". Which is a crock. Obama will not say "radical Islam" He repeatedly goes out of his way to reject the term entirely.

It's not just human shields. Obama doesn't want to attack ISIS because of environmental damage. And if it wasn't that, he would have another reason to take it easy on ISIS. Then he expects us to believe he's getting tough, as if all that somehow translates into victory.

What's fair is fair..ever heard him use the term 'radical Christianity'?

There's plenty of that too..planned parenthood, church and school terrorism not to mention bible based hate groups over minorities and lgbt.

 

[hondagrower420]

We will fight Isis.

Only when and IF they can manage to actually seize power.

 

[Harrekin]

We will fight Isis.

Only when and IF they can manage to actually seize power.

They control territory larger than the UK...

 

[hondagrower420]

We(USA) cannot chase rabbits down holes.

Run rabbit run, run rabbit run.

 

[hondagrower420]

They control territory larger than the UK...

No , the might be dug in but the have not captured a country.

 

[hondagrower420]

To control the area means that they are the government.

The middle east is in a civil war. The war for control is happening now.

If Isis wins the struggle we will have to fight.

 

[Rob Roy]

To control the area means that they are the government.

The middle east is in a civil war. The war for control is happening now.

If Isis wins the struggle we will have to fight.

That's a good point. The main criteria of being "a government" is to hold a forcible monopoly on the use of violence and control the wealth extraction in a given geographical area.


Isis is being used to continue the civil war to provide the excuse for continued colonial occupation and control.

 

[hondagrower420]

I'm a war monger. Nothing better than the warrior spirit. I would love to die for what I believe in.

Do you believe as I do? No

But just like I said, ones personal pov isn't what is needed.

Diplomacy is what's need or the collateral damage on both sides will be to great and a loss for the human race.

 

[hondagrower420]

That's a good point. The main criteria of being "a government" is to hold a forcible monopoly on the use of violence and control the wealth extraction in a given geographical area.


Isis is being used to continue the civil war to provide the excuse for continued colonial occupation and control.

I'm sure there is a lot going on behind close doors.

Without a transparent govsrnmsnt and the media will would prolly know. But I'm not educated on the subject matter enough.

People put to much on the president.

President is basically a fall guy. He is held responsible for action s that he can't control.

I think battle time should be required by our president .

It's easy to call in an airstike.

Harder to understand the consequences when you have never been there.

Air raids are fucking scary. Death from above. And bombs don't discriminate either.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm sure there is a lot going on behind close doors.

Without a transparent govsrnmsnt and the media will would prolly know. But I'm not educated on the subject matter enough.

People put to much on the president.

President is basically a fall guy. He is held responsible for action s that he can't control.

I think battle time should be required by our president .

It's easy to call in an airstike.

Harder to understand the consequences when you have never been there.

Air raids are fucking scary. Death from above. And bombs don't discriminate either.

I think before anyone can claim to be your leader your personal voluntary agreement is required or the claim of being your leader is really a claim of being your owner / master.

 

[OddBall1st]

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?

That`s OK, he doesn`t know you either. But ordered your eventual death. Sit and wait is only one option to consider.

If you`re fearing the Draft, get arrested for drugs.