TRUMP 2020!

[Lachlan]

If someone told you,
"you know, I don't think Hitler should have killed all those jews, BUT maybe he had a reason for it" or "You know, it's not so black and white what Hitler did to the jews" Wouldn't YOU think that based on their words they seem to be defending Hitler's actions?

Because when you come and say you don't approve of him blowing up a restaurant and killing innocent folks, then in the same bloody paragraph say "he must have had a reason," or "it's not black and white" it makes it sound like you're trying to defend his actions, while trying to claim to be moral.

It's like talking to someone who says "Now, I'm not racist but asians are bad drivers." or I'm not sexist, but women shouldn't vote". Yeah, sorry but just because you say you aren't X, or Y when you go and say "but maybe Z" you don't help your case.

Hell, you even said that YOU Would hit the restaurant yourself if it was a high target like Osama's 2nd in command. You are LITERALLY saying it's justified if the target is dangerous enough!

Edit- your quote Kim right below.

However if it was a high value target like Osama Bin Ladens 2nd in command I would hit him even if it meant a few dead people because that person could kill much more than a few people if not killed.

Your words right there. Literally saying you'd blow up innocent people if the target was high enough

If it was a high value target such as Osama Bin Ladens second that person would kill far more innocent people than a single drone strike. Under certain conditions this would be acceptable most of the time it would not which is what I said. I'm not justifying killing people for the sake of killing them.

[Meliva]

Wanna know what would be better and make a lot more sense? Use a drone strike when a target ISN'T in a public place, regardless of how dangerous they are. Hell, Trump took out Soleimani without any civilian deaths, and a lot of folks got prissy about that, meanwhile Obama literally blows up children, American citizens and other innocents, and folks like you say crap like "well he must have had a reason, maybe it was a high class target".

You might not be justifying killing for the sake of killing, but you are justifying killing innocent people if it means you take out a high value target. Innocent people from literal children to elders. Innocent people should be spared whenever possible. People in power need to try to keep innocent lives being killed to as close to 0 as possible, and NOT just bomb whatever place you want so long as you hit your target.

You can try to justify it all you want, but you need to realize you are justify killing children and innocent people rather then try to find alternatives that don't end with them being blown to bits.

[Lachlan]

Wanna know what would be better and make a lot more sense? Use a drone strike when a target ISN'T in a public place, regardless of how dangerous they are. Hell, Trump took out Soleimani without any civilian deaths, and a lot of folks got prissy about that, meanwhile Obama literally blows up children, American citizens and other innocents, and folks like you say crap like "well he must have had a reason, maybe it was a high class target".

You might not be justifying killing for the sake of killing, but you are justifying killing innocent people if it means you take out a high value target. Innocent people from literal children to elders. Innocent people should be spared whenever possible. People in power need to try to keep innocent lives being killed to as close to 0 as possible, and NOT just bomb whatever place you want so long as you hit your target.

You can try to justify it all you want, but you need to realize you are justify killing children and innocent people rather then try to find alternatives that don't end with them being blown to bits.

I said if there was another way then do it that way but if there isn't and you will loose that opportunity to kill that terrorist. I'm saying it would be acceptable if say Osama Bin Laden resurfaced out of hiding after a year of not being detected and he is walking in a public place. He will only be walking there for say another 35 minutes and then he will disappear again. Your drone only has fuel for another say 40 minutes before you have to go back and there are no other drones jets or army bases close enough to get there in under an hour. I would not wait for another time to kill him I would kill him then and there even if it meant killing a child or something because people like that can kill hundreds of innocent people in their lifetime. If you had been listening I said I have little knowledge of this and I thought it was a one off thing so that is why I said that but you say it was many, many times and I get that now and said it's not okay. I'm not justifying innocent people and children being killed and I think YOU need to realize that. I would want as little people to die as possible and I already said that

[Meliva]

yet despite admitting to having little knowledge, you still decided to try to defend and justify the strikes. You stated that Obama must have had a reason. Why do you think he must have had a reason? For all you know, maybe Obama get's off on blowing people up, and the more the better, targeting a terrorist is just an excuse. Maybe he was presented a list of targets, and picked the one he dislike the look of the most.

I highly doubt that every target of his was an Osama level target, with a super limited window of opportunity to take the guy out. How often exactly do you see your scenario being the case? Where it's a high level threat, with super rare sightings, and with drones and other methods being super limited in the rare encounter?

Don't try to justify or defend the horrid actions of someone else when you have little knowledge of it. And yes, you were defending and justifying his actions, maybe that wasn't your intent, but when you try to say that someone "must have had a reason" or that "it's a grey area" when someone does something bad, then you are literally trying to rationalize and justify what they did.

Again, if someone told you that "hitler probably had a reason why he was killing jews" Wouldn't you think that person was either crazy, an idiot, or misguided in saying that? Because it makes it sound like that person is trying to justify what Hitler did.

[Lachlan]

yet despite admitting to having little knowledge, you still decided to try to defend and justify the strikes. You stated that Obama must have had a reason. Why do you think he must have had a reason? For all you know, maybe Obama get's off on blowing people up, and the more the better, targeting a terrorist is just an excuse. Maybe he was presented a list of targets, and picked the one he dislike the look of the most.

I highly doubt that every target of his was an Osama level target, with a super limited window of opportunity to take the guy out. How often exactly do you see your scenario being the case? Where it's a high level threat, with super rare sightings, and with drones and other methods being super limited in the rare encounter?

Don't try to justify or defend the horrid actions of someone else when you have little knowledge of it. And yes, you were defending and justifying his actions, maybe that wasn't your intent, but when you try to say that someone "must have had a reason" or that "it's a grey area" when someone does something bad, then you are literally trying to rationalize and justify what they did.

Again, if someone told you that "hitler probably had a reason why he was killing jews" Wouldn't you think that person was either crazy, an idiot, or misguided in saying that? Because it makes it sound like that person is trying to justify what Hitler did.

I didn't 'try to defend him' I said surely he must have had a reason admitting I knew little of the subject inviting you to explain and your response is Lachlan is defending Obama killing innocent people. Then you do explain it but then say I condone the killing of innocent people and when I try to explain hang on that is not what I said at all your response is in essence bullshit Lachlan you are justifying his actions. I tried to explain in my limited knowledge why to defend myself against your accusation. All I said was there could be a reason. I didn't say there was a reason. I said there could be a reason.

[Meliva]

Mate. You just literally contradicted yourself in that post. Read your first line, then read your last.
"I said surely he must have had a reason"
"I didn't say there was a reason, I said there could be a reason".

Saying he surely must have a reason implies that you think he does in fact have a reason. Then you contradict yourself and say "he could have a reason, didn't say there was one" Despite you saying he surely must have one.

Again, you might not intend to come across the way that you do, but the way you are speaking really makes it sound bad.

Again, wouldn't you think that if someone told you that Hitler must have had a reason to kill the jews, that just sounds wrong?

[Lachlan]

Mate. You just literally contradicted yourself in that post. Read your first line, then read your last.
"I said surely he must have had a reason"
"I didn't say there was a reason, I said there could be a reason".

Saying he surely must have a reason implies that you think he does in fact have a reason. Then you contradict yourself and say "he could have a reason, didn't say there was one" Despite you saying he surely must have one.

Again, you might not intend to come across the way that you do, but the way you are speaking really makes it sound bad.

Again, wouldn't you think that if someone told you that Hitler must have had a reason to kill the jews, that just sounds wrong?

oops did not read it again before I sent, well second one is what I mean. I can't be bothered changing the first bit but if you want me to I will to clar up confusion. Also Meliva it is a given that Hitler must have had a reason to kill the jews is wrong, I did not respond to that since I thought that was a rhetorical question. I'm not saying that it is okay to kill innocent people and I've said so but it seems you don't get that because it seems like you half think I do.

[Mack]

In 2018, a total of 2,839,205 In 2012, a total of 2,543,279 deaths

what I'm noticing is there is no steady number it jumps up and down dramatically Through The Years every year this does not seem abnormal to me this year is a little on the high side but not dramatically High

still digging thats a lot of numbers and not enough free time

well it only at 2.1 mil so far this year so.... and that wasnt super easy to find

now its at 2.3 and way easier to find now

lol how does he have no clue you just said before 21 million

ha didnt notice that.... but what i did notice you guys never have anything to say about the facts i throw out there just my grammar mistakes


In 2018, a total of 2,839,205 In 2012, a total of 2,543,279 deaths

what I'm noticing is there is no steady number it jumps up and down dramatically Through The Years every year this does not seem abnormal to me this year is a little on the high side but not dramatically High

still digging thats a lot of numbers and not enough free time


well it only at 2.1 mil so far this year so.... and that wasnt super easy to find



now its at 2.3 and way easier to find now

whatever folks, it the total death count as it says der

it does not say covid deaths does it? no it says total deaths.

I was hoping you guys care enough about the fact you would look it up on your own also but obviously not you just going to take what the media says and run with it

[Most Lee Harmless]

Look up what figures where?

59,456,324

There, explain why that figure ends in a 4.

That is the level of your cited figure. Don't assume we have read your research or even know what you researched or where you found it.

But back to that figure for total deaths. Yep, it changes. As I posted way back, the base population changes, demographic factors change. There are many factors at work. A spell of unreasonably hot weather, or bitterly cold weather, will impact upon the final death rate.

That is all in the mix. Current figures show around 300,000 excess mortalities in the USA. That is 300,000 more than should be expected allowing for all the known factors at play.

If they are not related to the current covid pandemic then enlighten us as to the real cause. Saying the numbers go up and down means squat. They go up and down for known reasons. You suggest an unknown reason. A reason none of the institutions devoted to gathering such data and analysing it have discovered. So, enough waffling, if it is not covid-related : then what is killing 300,000 more people than the known factors indicate should be expected to have died?

[Lachlan]

maybe nobody has looked it up because nobody knows what you are talking about? Can't search for information if your not sure what to search