For standing up in the name of humanely killing people. I’m sure the people of Syria are so thankful that they will not be slaughtered in an inhumane fashion. No, DJT stood proudly in defense of killing people in the proper way: being crushed by bombed out buildings collapsing onto them, being vaporized by kindly bombs and missles, having body parts torn from their bodies by bullets. We are so lucky to have a president who stands tall in defending the humane way of killing. We should give him a round of applause for practicing “the American Way” so publically in our name!
Proud of My President
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Oh, I sincerely hope not. I hope he practices the humane way of murdering his own people. You know, the old fashioned, correct way, using bombs and bullets. Lying in a pool of your innards as you watch yourself bleed out is vastly preferable, don’t you agree?
Of course he could also follow the appropriate protocol of rounding them up, putting them in internment camps and occasionally torturing them. That is another accepted tactic practiced by humane societies such as ours.
Last edited:
Where is the eye roll emoji? Asking for a friend.
Above the posting area, tap the smiley face icon. Several different ones to choose from.
Are you suggesting you approve of gassing your own people? I thought you were a Trumpster. Get with the program!
I view this as not only a message to Assad/Russia/other-Axis-powers-that-be to stop using such atrocity on its own, but also a preventive measure to ensure said weapons might not be be used against our troops in the future...or perhaps Israel and other Allied powers too.
Of course, if Assad were stupid enough to gas US troops...well...the entire 6th fleet’s missile arsenal would rain down fire on every military installation in Syria, and then we’d hunt down Assad himself.
Of course, if Assad were stupid enough to gas US troops...well...the entire 6th fleet’s missile arsenal would rain down fire on every military installation in Syria, and then we’d hunt down Assad himself.
Wonder how come we didn’t bomb Myanmar when they were killing people?
Yes, yes! Gassing people with chemicals is completely uncivilized! A civilized society practices mayhem in a totally different way. There is a right way to cause mayhem and a wrong way. We all hope this will be a wake up call to Assad, Russia and the rest of the world that we won’t tolerate unsanctioned mass murder! I agree with you! If you’re gonna kill people you must do in on the approved way!
John Bolton didn’t have the President’s ear at that time. Patience, my friend! Bolton will have the US into full blown world wide bombing and killing in no time.
Drama is my middle name! The wife has claimed my time for the remainder of the afternoon for honey-do chores. The rest of you discuss!
so you’re saying this world is full of hypocrisy
who knew???
you wanna hear all the bad shit going on right here in okc???
i guess we we should simply turn a blind eye and call it a day
This is probably your most insightful post ever.
All great points. Had lunch and 2 libs kind of halfway convinced me you draw a red line at these chemical weapons because it's dangerous for US when maniacs are making, handing around, using that stuff. Gets too easy. Next crazy johnny has some shipped in for bedlam. I'll stick with my rebuttable presumption that killing people and getting into fights are bad.
My advice would be for you to personally hop on a plane and go over there and straighten out all those misdeeds. Please be my guest! Right those wrongs! Just leave my son-in-law out of your plans, OK?
Is it fair to say that Trump’s (Bolton’s) logic is unerring? We will punish Assad for killing dozens of his own citizens via chemical attack by humanely killing dozens of his own citizens by means of missle strike. Absolutely faultless reasoning! Our murdering of civilians is humane! Assad is a monster! Who could argue? Trump has logic on his side!
I do not think sending Assad milk and cookies would reslove this. War is horrible by definition, my Uncle was killed in WW2 and my dad fought in the Philippines and it impacted him greatly all of his life. As long as evil people exist we hopefully have brave people to stop them. Not certain how many civilian lives it cost to stop Hitler, but for humanity it was worth it and hopefully people appreciate the sacrifice. Friendly fire kills many as well. When milk and cookies work, I am all for it. Anyone that has a proven answer for resolving the death that people like Assad and Hitler have dealt peacefully need to STFU on this board and go to Washington and show us all how to have world peace and hold hands.
While my sentiment is decidedly anti-war, you are missing the point of this thread. Trump’s pretext for his recent missle strike was the use of chemical weapons was inhumane and intolerable, suggesting that murdering people in another way (bombs and bullets) is perfectly civilized. And so he has now murdered people in a humane fashion. If you agree with his “logic” please be so kind as to explain how murdering people with bombs and bullets is humane. Why is it humane when our government kills people in such a way, but a hideous action when a nut job goes into a school and does the same thing? I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain it to me.
As regards your comment that those people who are against war should either STFU or hold hands, I assure you that we will never STFU, but I personally will go to Washington and hold hands if you personally will take up arms and go to Syria to participate in the conflict for which you are so enamored. Your dad and uncle did it. If you are so convinced of the correctness of the cause I suggest you follow in their footsteps. Do we have a deal? I’ll hold hands while you shoot people and get shot at. Let me know when you’re over there and I’ll head up to Washington to hold hands. Maybe I’ll send you a care package of milk and cookies. What do you prefer, chocolate chip?
the suggesting
that “murdering” people in another way via bombs and bullets
is not trumps
it’s yours and yours alone
You may be right. I may be jumping to conclusions. But what other conclusion can one come to? Trump says the use of chemical weapons is inhumane. In that he is correct. He says he will rectify the inhumaneness by dropping bombs on the users of the chemical weapons, which, as collateral damage, will murder some innocent civilians. At what conclusion can one arrive except that Trump considers his method as humane?
Come on. I don't know where to come down on this, but you marginalize yourself when you ignore the pretty obvious context of 1) preventing use of chemical weapons on other people and ourself, 2) the moral context of preventing thousands dying from gas by killing the perpetrator vs killing someone that is innocent, and 3) That stuff has amazing lethality and it's indiscriminate when deployed. An indiscriminately deployed gun can kill dozens. An indiscriminately employed vx cannister can kill thousands.
I think most people intuitively understand these are issues that color the military action.
Where are you reading this? Many news reports out civilian casualties at zero. Russian news reports says civilian and military casualties were zero.
It wasn’t like this was a surprise attack on their chemical installations. Trump tweeted a non- exiled warning to Russia to get out of the way.
Big, and easily understandable difference, between lobbing chemical bombs specifically at people and ....dropping bombs to destroy chemical factories and storage facilities so such atrocities can not occur.
I beg of you to explain the moral inhumanity of using chemical weapons to murder people vs the moral humanity of using missles for the same purpose.
I am not now - nor have I ever - nor will I ever - defend the use of chemical weapons as tools of war. But I would like you to explain the morality, the humaneness of high explosives. All I’m asking of anyone is that’s they understand the use of high explosives is NOT HUMANE. ALL methods of mass murder are inhumane and uncivilized. All war is inhumane and uncivilized. Sometimes I get the impression some of you don’t understand that simple point.
You may have a different attitude if you ever sit in a bunker as you listen to rounds drop all around you and shudder to think of what will become of your body if one drops on or near you. You may not understand the kill range of some missles. Nuclear weapons - which our government has used - have a pretty lethal kill radius of their own, wouldn’t you agree?
You think Trump’s missle strike has prevented future use of chemical weapons? Even our military says it has not put an end to Syria’s chemical weapon capability; it just put a dent in Syria’s capability.
So what was the point beyond rousing the bloodlust of our more conservative friends?
I think your issue is you are not seeing the reason behind the US/UK/France coalition bombing. It was to STOP or slow down the killing and harming of Syrian residents by their own government.
The Syrian attack was against people. The US/UK/France attack was against building that housed and/or made those weapons. Certainly you can see the massive difference between these two actions.
Is there a solution? If we use conventional weapons to kill Syrian citizens will that solve the Assad/Russian dilemma? We don’t even know it was Assad that used the damned chemical weapons! And sure as hell didn’t wait to find out. Why do you suppose that is?
