(A) Ban all Muslims
(B) Kill the families of terrorists
(C) Steal oil from Iraq
(D) Asked supporters to beat up peaceful protesters
Trump did not ask supporters to "beat up peace protesters." Quit listening to the media.
And "kill the families of terrorists" was one of the best ideas I have ever heard in my life.
Speaking of fascists - FDR interned Japanese Americans.
Not only did he explicitly on video say that peaceful protests should be beaten up, he said that he will reimburse the legal fees if anyone does it. That is all on video. Come out of your conspiracy theory world.
Also your support of killing the family of terrorists is fascist. If you had a brother who was radicalized by ISIS or something less, should that mean your parents, sisters, you deserve to get killed?
This is flat out retarded. Why on earth should innocent people get kill? Tomorrow if you become a terrorist, should your 3 year old boy who has no idea about the world get killed?
I mean this is ridiculous, retarded, fascist,undemocratic & inhumane. This is going to the medieval ages where you will have a ruler & he would rape as money women as possible.
As it turned out, the turmoil at Trump protests was caused by Democratic operatives recruiting folks who had varying degrees of mental instability attend these rallies to deliberately incite folks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html?mcubz=0As for ISIS, and other Jihadist terrorists who are not dissuaded from their murderous actions by reasonable, liberal, and humane arguments, what are we to do? Be bigger than them and let more of our troops and more of our citizens die and be killed, or take action to convince them (in terms they understand and will respond favorably toward) to cease and desist their terrorist acts? You tell me?
I would also ask you what YOU are going to do? Are you going to actively pray for peace? I mean actively pray to God in the spirit of 2 Chronicles 7:14:
"If My people, who are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways, the I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."; is this your plan? Or are you going to pick up a weapon, stand a post, and defend America and its people from the Jihadist Barbarians who seek to infiltrate us, terrorize us, and destroy us?
One of the above two (2) courses of action will make Americans safer. Name-calling directed at Trump accomplishes nothing except to entrench the "Racist" and "Fascist" untruths that folks perpetuate solely for their own political agendas. And let's not forget that it's the President's job to ensure the safety of the AMERICAN people. Trump isn't seeking a "fair fight"; he's seeking VICTORY! Bravo for that. And shame on folks with sympathy for those in the world who would kill us.
As to the question: "Should a 3 year old boy who has no idea of the world get killed?", I would respond thusly:
I certainly don't advocate war crimes, trashing the Geneva Convention, etc. I'm not real thrilled about holding "enemy combatants" forever at Gitmo. And I certainly don't want to see a 3 year old boy get killed, period. But a reality of life is this: KIDS PAY FOR ADULT STUPIDITY! That's the way of the world.
In my professional life, I have attended a number of sentencing hearings for criminal offenders. I have seen many criminal defendants, male and female, bring their children to court, begging the court for mercy, pointing out that they have children and pleading to the court things like "My children shouldn't have to suffer for what I do!". This logical fallacy is one that seeks those rendering judgment to overlook that in this case, the wrongdoer is using their child as a shield to deflect legitimate punishment for their acts and to prevent justice from being done. There was no thought of "My Children!" when the acts were committed; indeed, there was often no thought of the idea that the act they were committing was morally wrong. If someone broke into your Mom's house while she was there, burglarized it, stole something of value, terrorized her when she discovered the perpetrator in the home, should that person not be incarcerated because they are the father or mother of small children?
I agree that this is not a perfect analogy to that of civilian casualties in war. But in many cases, families of terrorists are complicit with the terror. Maybe not the 3 year old children, but spouses, parents, and teenage/young adult children are often complicit with the terrorist. They are aiding those who would kill us. And the choice these folks have made is the choice to martyr their own 3 year old children; to hide behind children as their propaganda shield in the event of military retaliation. This is what is happening. Remember the song 'Russians" by Sting in the 1980s, asking us to oonder if Russians love their kids as Americans do, suggesting that this was a reason to hope for peaceful solutions to conflict? There is real reason to believe that Jihadist Terrorists do not love their children in that manner; if they did, they would not do as they do. Ponder that for a moment; love of children is not something that folks just naturally gravitate to. It's something they learn, or don't learn, in the course of human development.
Our President, whomever he/she may be, had a duty to protect Americans from attack. That duty is primary. A President who fails to pull out all the stops to protect Americans in the face of attack is a President who failed in their PRIMARY function.
