So according to your boy, trump, these guys are all traitors?

 

Uh...sure

---

Uh...sure

Why are you rolling your eyes? That's what's being implied here, right?


That's why trump was calling Obama an Isis sympathizer, right?


This is your candidate that is flying off the rails. I'm not sure why all of a sudden when I point out the stupidity of this thread and your idiot candidate's bogus accusation, all you can do is roll your eyes...


Is that all you got?

---

Why are you rolling your eyes? That's what's being implied here, right?


That's why trump was calling Obama an Isis sympathizer, right?


This is your candidate that is flying off the rails. I'm not sure why all of a sudden when I point out the stupidity of this thread and your idiot candidate's bogus accusation, all you can do is roll your eyes...


Is that all you got?

 

Wow, tell us how you really feel. Did Trump pee in your cheerios? He probably should have.

 

You just implied Trump considered certain members of the senate traitors because they voted against arming Syrian rebels, just to be clear. Wouldn't it be the opposite if what you were saying true? That arming Syrian rebels (ie Muslims) IS the traitorous act? Trump is against arming Syrian rebels, by the way. You didn't think this out very well, methinks.

 

Also, Obama does sympathize with Muslim extremists. Otherwise he wouldn't be ordering the military to allow terrorists to escape before bombing them. Sort of treasonous if you ask me. :thumbsup:

---

Wow, tell us how you really feel. Did Trump pee in your cheerios? He probably should have.

 

You just implied Trump considered certain members of the senate traitors because they voted against arming Syrian rebels, just to be clear. Wouldn't it be the opposite if what you were saying true? That arming Syrian rebels (ie Muslims) IS the traitorous act? Trump is against arming Syrian rebels, by the way. You didn't think this out very well, methinks.

 

Also, Obama does sympathize with Muslim extremists. Otherwise he wouldn't be ordering the military to allow terrorists to escape before bombing them. Sort of treasonous if you ask me. :thumbsup:

OK, aside from all the other stuff, just wanted to get some info here about the whole allowing them to escape part. Not sure what you are talking about here. A little help?

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

OK, aside from all the other stuff, just wanted to get some info here about the whole allowing them to escape part. Not sure what you are talking about here. A little help?

 

Sure, it was a big deal for awhile. You been living under a rock?

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...y-war.html

---

Sure, it was a big deal for awhile. You been living under a rock?

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/...y-war.html

Wow, OK. I guess we see things differently. First, this is off of a 20 second read, and I will look at it more later today, but --- First, I think it is both a way to minimize casualties to those that might not be direct combatants and second, a clever bit of psy-ops. I will review later to confirm. But really, you took from the article that it was allowing terrorists to go free? I thought it was allowing truck drivers to go free,but maybe you have better intel,

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Wow, tell us how you really feel. Did Trump pee in your cheerios? He probably should have.


You just implied Trump considered certain members of the senate traitors because they voted against arming Syrian rebels, just to be clear. Wouldn't it be the opposite if what you were saying true? That arming Syrian rebels (ie Muslims) IS the traitorous act? Trump is against arming Syrian rebels, by the way. You didn't think this out very well, methinks.


Also, Obama does sympathize with Muslim extremists. Otherwise he wouldn't be ordering the military to allow terrorists to escape before bombing them. Sort of treasonous if you ask me. :thumbsup:

I think trump is an idiot, I've made that clear in previous discussions. :-)


As for your second paragraph, your logic fails... either way you look at it, if you defend the moron you have as a gop candidate, the majority of the Senate are traitors and Isis sympathizers based on trump's rhetoric.


You do see that right? Obama and many republicans agreed that they has to support the rebels against Assad... do you admit to that truth?

---

Also, Obama does sympathize with Muslim extremists. Otherwise he wouldn't be ordering the military to allow terrorists to escape before bombing them. Sort of treasonous if you ask me. :thumbsup:

The US spent days dropping pamphlets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki before nuking them, and dropped pamphlets on cities that were to be firebombed. Was that sympathizing with enemy combatants on the part of the military and executive branches, or just basic humanity coming into play?

---

Wow, OK. I guess we see things differently. First, this is off of a 20 second read, and I will look at it more later today, but --- First, I think it is both a way to minimize casualties to those that might not be direct combatants and second, a clever bit of psy-ops. I will review later to confirm. But really, you took from the article that it was allowing terrorists to go free? I thought it was allowing truck drivers to go free,but maybe you have better intel,

 

How do you know those truck drivers aren't terrorist? Do you have better intel? They are certainly working for terrorist. Maybe they aren't jihadis, but maybe they are. Can't take those risks in war. This isn't a hospital or a church or anything. It is a supply line. You destroy supply lines, drivers included.

---

How do you know those truck drivers aren't terrorist? Do you have better intel? They are certainly working for terrorist. Maybe they aren't jihadis, but maybe they are. Can't take those risks in war. This isn't a hospital or a church or anything. It is a supply line. You destroy supply lines, drivers included.

Just curious, if the UPS driver is dropping off a bomb component to a terrorist in the US, are you saying we should target the UPS driver?

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

I think trump is an idiot, I've made that clear in previous discussions. :-)


As for your second paragraph, your logic fails... either way you look at it, if you defend the moron you have as a gop candidate, the majority of the Senate are traitors and Isis sympathizers based on trump's rhetoric.


You do see that right? Obama and many republicans agreed that they has to support the rebels against Assad... do you admit to that truth?

 

There was no logic failure. You made a subjective and emotional response while incorrectly categorized Donald Trump. I corrected you. You hold a belief that anyone who opposes Donald Trump is viewed as a "traitor" by him. It is very childish and immature thought, and he has never implied such a thing, but I can't convince you otherwise.

 

As for Republicans supporting rebels against Assad, of course it was true. You can look at the voting records. You can also look at the Democrats who also overwhelmingly supported it. There were prominent conservatives that didn't support it, like Cruz and Sessions as well as prominent progressives who didn't, like Sanders and Warren. Arming the Syrian rebels had bipartisan support for and against. In this case, Donald Trump more closely aligned with Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders.

---

Just curious, if the UPS driver is dropping off a bomb component to a terrorist in the US, are you saying we should target the UPS driver?

 

Wow. Why do liberals always do this? This is the worst fallacy I have ever seen posted on this board. I will humor it with a response, though.

 

No, I would not target the UPS driver, working for UPS, unknowingly delivering a bomb component to a terrorist.

 

I would target the ISIS truck driver, working for ISIS, knowingly (or unknowingly) delivering oil to Turkey.

 

UPS != ISIS

---

The US spent days dropping pamphlets on Hiroshima and Nagasaki before nuking them, and dropped pamphlets on cities that were to be firebombed. Was that sympathizing with enemy combatants on the part of the military and executive branches, or just basic humanity coming into play?

 

Thanks for reminding me how launching Maverick ATS missiles at ISIS supply lines is totes equivalent to dropping nuclear weapons on civilian cities.

---

Wow. Why do liberals always do this? This is the worst fallacy I have ever seen posted on this board. I will humor it with a response, though.

 

No, I would not target the UPS driver, working for UPS, unknowingly delivering a bomb component to a terrorist.

 

I would target the ISIS truck driver, working for ISIS, knowingly delivering oil to Turkey.

OK, I guess I missed the part that he was an ISIS truck driver, working for ISIS. I will reread the article. Like I said, I only glanced at it for 20 seconds.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

There was no logic failure. You made a subjective and emotional response while incorrectly categorized Donald Trump. I corrected you. You hold a belief that anyone who opposes Donald Trump is viewed as a "traitor" by him. It is very childish and immature thought, and he has never implied such a thing, but I can't convince you otherwise.


As for Republicans supporting rebels against Assad, of course it was true. You can look at the voting records. You can also look at the Democrats who also overwhelmingly supported it. There were prominent conservatives that didn't support it, like Cruz and Sessions as well as prominent progressives who didn't, like Sanders and Warren. Arming the Syrian rebels had bipartisan support for and against. In this case, Donald Trump more closely aligned with Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders.

Help me out here, anyone...


Am I correct in saying that trump, based on the linked news article, believes Obama is an Isis sympathizer, and thus a traitor?


Was not the article, in reality merely the fact that the USA armed the rebels fighting against Syria and Assad?


Was not this policy decision something that the majority of the Senate, which includes republicans and democrats, signed off on?


Have I missed something?


If not, than trump is calling the Senate Isis sympathisers and traitors along with obama.

---

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...-for-isis/

 

Yes. I know it's from Breitbart and that will probably turn some people away from this, but Trump referenced this on both Twitter and Facebook yesterday. Do you think that there's any credibility to this story?

 

It's kind of misleading actually.  Yes a portion of it might be true, but there is no evidence of "direct support" of ISIS.  Without knowing what the redacted parts of the report contain, it's really tough to make a conclusion.

 

By the way here is an interesting fact.  The Obama administration was supporting the same side of the conflict in Syria that the Bush Administration also supported.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Help me out here, anyone...


Am I correct in saying that trump, based on the linked news article, believes Obama is an Isis sympathizer, and thus a traitor?

 

Well, it's certainly implied given the headline of the article.  However, when one does a bit of research it's pretty clear that Trump is wrong in his claim.



Was not the article, in reality merely the fact that the USA armed the rebels fighting against Syria and Assad?

 

Not really.  The article (from the OP) is trying to imply that Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) was sent a memo detailing how the current administration was supposedly "supporting ISIS".  That is factually incorrect.



Was not this policy decision something that the majority of the Senate, which includes republicans and democrats, signed off on?

 

Yes it was the policy of not only Congress during President Obama's term, but also during President Bush's term.



Have I missed something?


If not, than trump is calling the Senate Isis sympathisers and traitors along with obama.

 

Sigh... 

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Help me out here, anyone...


Am I correct in saying that trump, based on the linked news article, believes Obama is an Isis sympathizer, and thus a traitor?


Was not the article, in reality merely the fact that the USA armed the rebels fighting against Syria and Assad?


Was not this policy decision something that the majority of the Senate, which includes republicans and democrats, signed off on?


Have I missed something?


If not, than trump is calling the Senate Isis sympathisers and traitors along with obama.

Technically, I think you are only partially correct. From a huffpo article:

 

“[Obama] doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands,” Trump said of the president’s response to the nightclub shooting. “It’s one or the other. And either one is unacceptable.”

 

So Trump is saying Obama doesn't understand what he is doing or is an ISIS sympathizer, or otherwise aware of harm that might occur, and wants it to happen. At least that is the way I understood it. I am curious as to what all of those who support Trump think he meant by that 'gets it better than anybody understands" part. 

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Sigh...

Lol, thanks. I'm on my phone, so I can't write as much as I'd prefer, but I'm in agreement with all your clarifications.

---

What a moronic thread. Yeah, sure sounds like he's on "their side"


"Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy [IS] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.

I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."

If you define Obama by what he says you will never conclude he is a Muslim.

---