Trump praises Duterte's deadly drug war in leaked transcript

I'm so sorry you're offended by the genocide analogy. It is what it is, genocide is genocide.

Maybe Uruguayan and Paraguayan courts forgot to do that.

Yeah one was a Nazi and the other an American President, that makes a huge difference. One genocide is excusable, the other isn't.

Well let's see, in the US we have no court at all willing to prosecute war crimes unless one is a Muslim, then it's true "justice" because those Muslims "confessed" to committing war crimes after being renditioned and mercilessly tortured ... until they "confessed". And those courts are willing to allow torture testimony but that's not a kangaroo court because it's an American court and American courts are exceptional, the best courts money can buy.

So even if the Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture determines war crimes were committed, no American court will prosecute. Fascinating.

http://www.btlonline.org/2013/seg/130510cf-btl-pradhan.html
http://detaineetaskforce.org/

 

So no link. Thanks anyway.

 

My saying your confused was no different than you me. And I wasn't insulted. You expressed your feelings without name calling etc. Your telling me I'm insulting you when I'm clearly not attacking you personally is either your trying to demonize me or more likely your misunderstanding of what constitutes healthy debate and assertive communication. Perhaps I should have said I think you are confused so forgive me for taking a shortcut on a political forum.

You ARE confused about what constitutes a war crime. Now if you're espousing some other definition of what a war crime is as in any killing is wrong therefore any killing in a war is criminal then say so.

You're entitled to your opinion about not killing anyone. You wouldn't be the first CO in this world. I point out to you that your ability to adamantly oppose killing is provided to you buy those who will kill in defense of our country with the same caveat that all wars are not justifiable as I said before. Yes, I will kill to defend myself, family, loved ones and those who need protection against naked aggression. Any police officer is willing to kill to protect the innocent if it comes to it. Your self righteous condemnation of any who would shows your inability to logically see the adverse consequences if all Americans felt that way. There would be no one to protect you and the like. The same applies to being a soldier.

I applaud your conviction but you might consider better understanding the nature of the world. Not everyone is interested in being nice.

And you're wrong about WWII being the last war necessary to protect freedom. The Korean War was necessary to stop an invading NK backed by China and Russia. Russia's walking out of the UN allowed that peace keeping mission where many many countries united to stop the slaughter of the SK people.

The US and UN stopped ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. There are other conflicts which have similar attributes. I won't defend Vietnam even though serving nor Iraq or Afghanistan which blur the lines of traditional nation on nation war. There are justifiable reasons to still be in Afganistan but I'm not debating the overall picture there as I'm not privy to enough information.

I agree with you that there has always been profiteering from war. And the cost of military goods is absurd. But to classify everyone who sees the world in grey with many facets to consider is problematic.

The world is not the simple place you think it is. And people who disagree with you even in part are not necessarily ignorant. You'll notice I didn't take that personally either.

 

You're not sorry at all. You're just being absurd again. Go ahead and compare Eichmann and the Holocaust to your examples. I know of no US President who has engaged in genocide and if you're truly saying that you're in an extreme minority. You're on the fringe of the fringe.

You have a nice day.

 

TDS is strong in this one.

Dude, you don't know what is happening in the Philippines. They are a wonderful people in a beautiful country, but drugs and muzzies and poverty are killing them.

 

Hillary isn't the President, didn't you know that? ....wow, everybody else knows we're discussing the President, why don't you?

By bringing up Clinton are you saying that Donny doing the same thing is a good thing or a bad thing ?

 

Of course she's not president. But if Trump had lost (which seems to be the lamentations presented by the OP's fallacious reasoning) we would still have a president who plays politics with brutal dictators (which is what Trump is doing with Duterte). Or if we had Sanders, or Stein... Thats how the world works. We cant just hen-peck the world leaders who dont follow our values. We have to *work with* them, even when they're bad people doing bad things, because we need their help with *worse* people doing *worse* things.
Im saying that as SoS, Hillary was obviously trying to keep a rapport with Mubarak to keep open, cooperative relations with that country *just as* Trump is obviously trying to do with Duterte as PotUS. They're both trying to keep the channels of political cooperation open, which is a good thing... with distasteful but necessary methods.

Now, since I've answered your question, will you answer mine?

Is Hillary a 'cold blooded mass murder' supporter for doing the same thing as Donny?

 

I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.. Its been around since late 2002 or early 2003.

 

The Philippines are 86% Christian.

 

I don't think neither you nor Donny the Dope will ever , ever know the difference it makes in what words are used and to whom they're said and when they're said....

covfete .... is not a word ... and can never be used....

 

Maybe Trump meant to write "coverage"????

 

But he didn't......Was he drunk? Senile? One hand too busy ?

 

Trump is unable to learn from his mistakes. A rational man would stop tweeting late at night if he had committed as many gaffes as Trump has.

 

So as to the question- 'is Hillary a 'cold blooded mass murder' supporter for doing the same thing as Trump in OP?' shall I count you as unwilling or unable to answer? For posterity, of course.

 

I answered the question, you didn't like the answer,.


I don't think neither you nor Donny the Dope will ever , ever know the difference it makes in what words are used and to whom they're said and when they're said....


Clinton and trump used very different words....and your concern for Clinton is touching but I wonder why you don't have the same concern for what Trump says....he is (unfortunately ) the President now....didn't you know that?

 

I didn't see it.

Are you still looking for excuses to justify murder?

 

Its a yes or no question. The difference in wording is immaterial- they both offered praise instead of critique regarding the heads of oppressive, muderous regimes, with obvious intent of political sensitivity and pandor.
If you think that Trump and Clinton did not 'do the same thing' you should explain how. Simply accusing that there is no way I would ever 'know the difference' or understand, coupled with the deflection of rediculously insinuating that I dont know Trump is president, sounds more like an inability on your part to even try to describe such a difference.
But if that isnt the case... well Im all ears.

 

Well said post. Benghazi was a mistake and Hillary should not have let it happen but maybe she wanted it to happen. I don't know.

 

I have no idea what question you asked.

 

for context:

Assuming you're basing Trump being a 'murderous thug' and his (or 'our') support of 'mass murder' on his praises of the Duterte (an extra-judicial killer), would you agree that Jill Stein (who praised Fidel Castro, an extra-judicial killer), Bernie Sanders (who also praised Fidel Castro) and Hillary Clinton (who praised Hosni Mubarak, an extra-judicial killer) are also murderous thugs who support mass murder? If not, why not?

*note- i do understand that these people are not president, and while that isnt part of question, they were all contenders, and Hillary and Bernie (and maybe Jill) both held offices of leadership at the time of their 'praises.' I only mention it because several of the people here that support your position have already deflected this question with 'they arent president' (I guess, insinuating that it only matters whether or not a president supports murder and no one else...)

Ill edit the exact quotes in here in a bit (i have to paste them from previous pages of this thread)

Jill Steins tweet: "Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire. Presente!" taking into consideration the 1253 extrajudicial killings officially attributed to the Castro regime.
http://www.babalublog.com/fidel-cas...d-crimes/fidel-castros-firing-squads-in-cuba/

In 1985 Bernie said:
"In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world,' he said.

'All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.

'You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect - they are certainly not - but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same." ?

Bernie refused to dissavow these comments during the presidential campaign, btw.

And Hillary said in 2009:
"We look forward to President Mubarak coming [to the White House] as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see them often here in Egypt and in the United States."

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/03/mubarak.png

from HuffPost on Mubarak:
"It’s well documented that the Egyptian government engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights abuses against perceived opponents of the regime, including massive detentions without due process, torture on an administrative basis and extrajudicial killings."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/815132

 

Is Hillary a supporter of mass murder?

You seem to agree (correct me if im wrong) that Trump supports mass murder based on his praises of Duterte because Duterte heads a regime that kills people extra-judicially. Hillary similarly praised Mubarak, who also headed a regime that killed people extra-judicially.

So. Is Hillary a supporter of mass murder like Trump?

If not- why not?

 

Hillary has never praised mass murderers.. What are you talking about?

 

Hillary said in 2009:
"We look forward to President Mubarak coming [to the White House] as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see them often here in Egypt and in the United States."

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/03/mubarak.png

from HuffPost on Mubarak:
"It’s well documented that the Egyptian government engages in a pattern of gross and systematic human rights abuses against perceived opponents of the regime, including massive detentions without due process, torture on an administrative basis and extrajudicial killings."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/815132

 

Nobody wanted a shake up in Egypt or Libya...

Duterte has recently killed 7,000 dclaring open season on addicts, trafickers and their families.

 

Are you implying that Hillary's lack of criticsm and public fondness of Hosni Mubarak, the head of a murderous regime, was politically responsible in the interest of protecting relations with Egypt at the time?