LF: Trump says the US can beat ISIS terrorists – but 'you have to take out their families'

Title: Trump says the US can beat ISIS terrorists – but 'you have to take out their families'
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... -ISIS-terrorists-families.html
Published: Dec 2, 2015
Author: Nikki Schwab, U.s. Political Reporter Fo
Post Date: 2015-12-02 18:23:05 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13195
Comments: 72

Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' and he has a ruthless plan to do so.

'You have to take out their families,' The Donald said this morning on Fox and Friends. 'When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families.'

Trump's reasoning was that the fighters 'care about their lives, don't kid yourselves,' he continued.

The billionaire's comments fit neatly in with other proclamations he's made on how to take out the growing terrorist group including 'bomb[ing] the hell out of them' and 'attack[ing] the oil.'

Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' by going after relatives of the terrorist fighters because ISIS members 'care about their [family members'] lives'

Donald Trump also said he would try to prevent civilian deaths, but it's a difficult prospect because ISIS fighters are 'using them as shields'

'I would knock the hell out of ISIS,' Trump said this morning to host Brian Kilmeade. 'I would hit them, Brian, so hard, like they've never been hit before.'

While taking out ISIS members and their families, Trump said he would try his 'absolute best' to avoid civilian casualties in ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

'One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we're so ineffective is they are using them as shields,' Trump said of civilians. 'It's a horrible thing, but we're fighting a very politically correct war.'

The GOP frontrunner was critical of President Obama's ISIS strategy saying the president was sending too few troops and revealing his hand a little too much.

'Every time he sends troops over even if it's a small number ... he announced 50 last week, he has a press conference to inform everybody he's sending troops and it's like they have a target on their back,' Trump said.

'If you do your job, do your job,' Trump continued. 'Don't talk about it – too much talk.'

Donald Trump help up a Breitbart News article headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11' during a Periscope Q&A this afternoon <

Trump also again defended his comments about American Muslims celebrating 9/11 during a Q&A he hosted on the Twitter-app Periscope this afternoon.

The billionaire held up a print-out of an article by Breitbart News headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11.'

'I knew I saw it. I heard about it. Hundreds of people have called in telling me I was right,' Trump said. 'They live in New Jersey.'

The Breitbart article pointed to a report coming out of the local CBS News affiliate in New York in which reporter Pablo Guzmán talked about a New Jersey apartment building 'swarming with suspects – suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center.'

'Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building,' Guzmán continued.

The Breitbart article made a lot of the 'swarming' claim, suggesting that this means that Trump is vindicated.

Breitbart writer John Nolte wrote, 'The fact that a certain number were brought into custody does not change the fact that there was a “swarm."'

CBS, putting out its own story, pointed to the clip and said it only raises more questions.

For one, there's no video footage of any 'swarms' celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers, which has been central in Trump's story.

Guzmán, the original reporter, eventually took to Twitter to straighten things out.

Guzmán said his source was a New Jersey and also a Port Authority police officer and 'they were told eight people seen.'

'Far from thousands,' Guzmán said, which is another aspect of the Trump claim. 'Still it disturbed folks.'

The difficult thing with Trump is this strategy is not wrong but his delivery is callous and he portrays america as mad. He fails to realise that while his remarks are for local consumption he is reported all over the world

Trump has also mixed reports of the palestinians celebrating 9/11 in his mind with local reports, yes, thousands celebrated in the muslim world but not in the US.

Noone doubts the possibility of a muslim fifth column in western countries and this is even more evident in Europe, however they have a muslim population of millions concentrated in major cities, a somewhat different situation to what Trump apparently envisages.

It is time for the west to push back against the muslim invasion and this has begun. It can be done with sensitivity by restoring their homelands to places where it is desirable for them to live. The west has responsibility for the present situation. The problems we have are the result of invasion of muslim lands. The reasons, the justifications, are not the issues from the muslim perspective

And all of his opponents in the Establishment, the "Seven Dwarves" up there? They talk smoothly. Of course, that's all any of them has ever done. None of them has a single accomplishment, other than giving speeches.

The world doesn't get to elect the American President. Americans do. If he sounds mad to the world, so what? The US and the EU don't like Putin much, but he still plows forward, effective and powerful, and popular in his own country.

The others with their oily tongues say it like it isn't, are very smooth, and accomplish nothing other than collect a paycheck presiding over defeat and decline.

And we are at war, whether we would be or no, because our enemies have attacked us, continue to attack us, and will make no peace.

I hate war and so I want it over. That means winning. Prolonging war prolongs the agony, extends the killings, makes it worse and worse and worse.

The way to end this war swiftly is to throw our support behind Russia and France, and assist them in obliterating ISIS. That means that Assad survives and we lose our argument in Syria. So be it.

Faced with a Hitler, you either fight him or you surrender to him: he's not going to go away. And if you surrender to him, he might kill you anyway. So the only real choice is to do the thing you hate and fight a war.

When you fight, you go right for the eyes and the jugular. You crush him - and that means killing a lot of people. There is no other way. You do what you have to do to defeat him, and you ask God to forgive you later. He will. Your other choice is to apologize for your sins and let the bad guys kill you. God will accept you then also. Either way, God will accept you.

Therefore, if forced to it, you do what you have to do to win here, and then you apologize for what you did and get to Heaven anyway.

Win here and then win there. It's a better solution to my eyes than lose here and die screaming, and having basically the same result on the other side.

I don't want to kill anybody, because God said not to. But if people come for me in war, then I kill. And if that means killing people through collateral damage in order to get at them, well, I am truly sorry for that, but that's the way the world is, and I do not intend to lose the fight.

God will forgive me, just as he promised to. God forgives everything if you ask him to and you are forgiving. Once my enemy is dead and my people are no longer threatened with death, I will forgive my enemy, and I will forgive his survivors. But until then, he started the war, and I intend to kill him and everybody who stands with him, until the survivors kneel in submission, or fertilize the ground. They will do no different to me.

It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war.

I guess that is acceptable. A lot of people will be wary of your words and look at it wrong though. The earth is a messy business.

But you did complain about the military not valuing God, so is us fighting back since He told us not to kill. So what makes that different from this?

Everything I said about war was predicated on remembering that in the end one wants to go to Heaven when one dies. Therefore, one cannot love war. One fights wars when one has to, recognizing that the bloodshed is bad, being sorry for the evil one commits, and trusting God when he says he forgives. Remember King David, God's anointed. Because he was waist deep in blood from war after war, God did not let him build the Temple. That task was left to his son. God didn't un-anoint David, and David did what he had to do - but war is STILL sinful, all the killing, even if you have to do it.

You do it to survive. Just like stealing if you are starving. Does the fact you are starving make it not stealing? No, it's still stealing. But you have to do it because the alternative, dying, is worse. Or lying, in war, to hide innocent people from getting killed. Or becoming a prostitute and fornicating for hire in the ancient world because the alternative in a world without welfare was starvation and death for you and your children. Stealing, lying, harlotry and killing in war are all sins EVEN IF they are done out of necessity. And God will forgive all of them to the man or woman who is sorry for having to do them, who recognizes God and who admits the sin and asks for forgiveness.

But the man who refuses to recognize God - not because he has to hide his faith to keep from getting killed, but as one of the authorities enforcing a rule of his own devising? - he has no excuse, and he has nowhere to turn to be forgiven, because he denies God.

Likewise in war, there is a very great difference between being the attacker who starts the war and fires the first shots, makes the first attack, and the defender who shoots back in response. It's the same difference as between the robber who points a gun at a store clerk and threatens death, and the store clerk who points one back. The robber has no right to rob. But the clerk DOES have the right to stop BEING robbed, or worse, by using the identical threat and weapon as the robber.

It's the same difference as the difference between the murderer who shoots people on a rampage, and the cop or executioner who kills the murderer in response.

This does not mean that cops can just shoot people on their own without very good reason. When they do that, they are the murderers.

If the military is fighting and killing to defend a nation from an attacker, when the battle stops and the smoke clears the defending victor can ask God for forgiveness for what he has had to do.

But if the military, for no reason other than bad ideology, actively suppresses expressions about God, then that military is suppressing the truth, and to whom can they then turn when they fight and kill, even in defense? Nobody. They die unatoned in their sins of killing.