Donald Trump praises Saddam Hussein's ability to commit crimes against humanity - Polidicks

[quote]"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? ... But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good," Trump told a campaign rally Tuesday night in Raleigh, North Carolina. "They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk. They were a terrorist, it was over."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/06/republican-donald-trump-lauds-saddam-hussein-vs-terrorists.html[/url] I want off this ride :sick:

at this point, trump saying something disgusting shouldn't even be regarded as news

You do realize the whole point of him bringing this up was because the media claimed he praised America's enemies right Saddam killed terrorists, and he was good at it. Its stating the facts, its not praise.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661841]You do realize the whole point of him bringing this up was because the media claimed he praised America's enemies right Saddam killed terrorists, and he was good at it. Its stating the facts, its not praise.[/QUOTE] You don't fix Terrorism with even more war crimes

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;50661853]You don't fix Terrorism with even more war crimes[/QUOTE] He's not proposing that you should fix terrorism by executing terrorists. He said that Iraq had minimal issues with terrorists because Saddam straight up killed them. The reason he is bringing this up is that Saddam and his brutal practices in hindsight would have been better for the security of the US than what we have now with the rise of ISIS.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661841]You do realize the whole point of him bringing this up was because the media claimed he praised America's enemies right Saddam killed terrorists, and he was good at it. Its stating the facts, its not praise.[/QUOTE] Well he's praising his ability to kill terrorists. Which means he is praising the barbaric and inhumane methods he used to kill terrorists. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661879]He's not proposing that you should fix terrorism by executing terrorists. He said that Iraq had minimal issues with terrorists because Saddam straight up killed them. The reason he is bringing this up is that Saddam and his brutal practices in hindsight would have been better for the security of the US than what we have now with the rise of ISIS.[/QUOTE] "Ice Cream is great, but I don't think Ice Cream is good." "Saddam's methods of killing terrorists was great, but I don't think Saddam's methods of killing terrorists is a good idea."

[QUOTE=Zyler;50661882]Well he's praising his ability to kill terrorists. Which means he his praising the barbaric and inhumane methods he used to kill terrorists.[/QUOTE] I am excited for the continuation of his mental gymnastics

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661879]He's not proposing that you should fix terrorism by executing terrorists.[/QUOTE] You're absolutely right. He proposed doing it by killing their families. Sheesh people, get it right!

Why would he even begin with "[I]Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? ... [B]But[/B][/I] you know what he did well?.."

I'm just waiting for Trump to inevitably say the words "Hitler did nothing wrong".

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661879]He's not proposing that you should fix terrorism by executing terrorists. He said that Iraq had minimal issues with terrorists because Saddam straight up killed them. The reason he is bringing this up is that Saddam and his brutal practices in hindsight would have been better for the security of the US than what we have now with the rise of ISIS.[/QUOTE] in the grand scheme of things, terrorism is not a threat to the US. definitely not enough to "straight up kill" people. You said it yourself, "Saddam and his brutal practices"

[QUOTE=Zyler;50661882]Well he's praising his ability to kill terrorists. Which means he his praising the barbaric and inhumane methods he used to kill terrorists. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] "Ice Cream is great, but I don't think Ice Cream is good."[/QUOTE] Call it what you want, he is stating the facts. If I said Hitler was good at killing Jews, its a well known fact known as the Holocaust. If you think I am praising Hitler then you read too far into my statement. Stalin was good at starving his own people. Kim Jong Un is currently doing great with starving his people. Trump is very good at garnering media attention. These are stated as facts, not praise.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661942]Call it what you want, he is stating the facts. If I said Hitler was good at killing Jews, its a well known fact known as the Holocaust. If you think I am praising Hitler then you read too far into my statement. Stalin was good at starving his own people. Kim Jong Un is currently doing great with starving his people. Trump is very good at garnering media attention. These are stated as facts, not praise.[/QUOTE] Not sure if English is your first language or not, but the word "good" denotes positive reinforcement and so in this context it literally is praise.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? [B]True, he was an awful person.[/B] But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. [B]True, he killed terrorists very well.[/B] More eyeroll-worthy media outrage. May or may not be just as stupid as the whole Star of David debacle.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661942]Call it what you want, he is stating the facts. If I said Hitler was good at killing Jews, its a well known fact known as the Holocaust. If you think I am praising Hitler then you read too far into my statement. Stalin was good at starving his own people. Kim Jong Un is currently doing great with starving his people. Trump is very good at garnering media attention. These are stated as facts, not praise.[/QUOTE] [quote]Trump has previously said the world would be "100 percent better" if dictators like Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50661914]I'm just waiting for Trump to inevitably say the words "Hitler did nothing wrong".[/QUOTE] "Hitler was a bad guy, but at least he killed Hitler!"

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50661963]Not sure if English is your first language or not, but the word "good" denotes positive reinforcement and so in this context it literally is praise.[/QUOTE] If you want to get technical with the word good then [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good"]pick whatever definition of the word good best suits your argument[/URL] and I'll do the same. Saddam was good at killing terrorists, with good meaning "better than the United States", out of sheer numbers. The U.S. upholds more human rights than Iraq so our numbers our lower since we put terrorists in court, or at least pretend to anyway. I don't see this as praise or criticism, I see it as nothing more than a comparison. [QUOTE=code_gs;50661994]Trump has previously said the world would be "100 percent better" if dictators like Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.[/QUOTE] It would be better [I][B]for international security[/B][/I] if they were still in power because rather than having ISIS blowing up airports in Brussels and shooting up concerns in Paris you would have another dictator violating human rights in their own country. We made a trade off of bringing liberty to Iraq at the cost of security.

I'm not praising Hussein or Trump here, I condemn their views, but I do recall reading a BBC report a while back where people in Iraq did state that they preferred the repressive days of order under Saddam Hussein than the constant terror of ISIS nowadays. It really makes us think: are crimes against humanity and stability a worthy price to pay for a supposedly "stable" society? Were the toppling of governments and the installation of totalitarian/authoritatian regimes inevitable in these developing countries? [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265"]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265[/URL] [QUOTE]"Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now," he says. "It wasn't like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn't like him, but he was better than those people."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MyBumBum;50662061]I'm not praising Hussein or Trump here, I condemn their views, but I do recall reading a BBC report a while back where people in Iraq did state that they preferred the repressive days of order under Saddam Hussein than the constant terror of ISIS nowadays. It really makes us think: are crimes against humanity and stability a worthy price to pay for a supposedly "stable" society? Were the toppling of governments and the installation of totalitarian/authoritatian regimes inevitable in these developing countries? [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265[/URL][/QUOTE] You see similar trends in other repressive regimes. Soviet occupation of Afghanistan comes to mind, as does the end of apartheid in South Africa. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gQloPIi.png[/IMG] South Africa's crime rates have [URL="http://www.frontline.org.za/Files/PDF/murder_southafrica (5).pdf"]dramatically increased[/URL] since the end of the apartheid, and its still not good today. What I am getting at, is that violent crimes are low in countries that have oppressive regimes, often at the cost of civil and human rights like due process or free speech or freedom of assembly. [B]This is not praising oppressive regimes, it is an observation based on historical data.[/B]

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50662175]You see similar trends in other repressive regimes. Soviet occupation of Afghanistan comes to mind, as does the end of apartheid in South Africa. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/gQloPIi.png[/IMG] South Africa's crime rates have [URL="http://www.frontline.org.za/Files/PDF/murder_southafrica (5).pdf"]dramatically increased[/URL] since the end of the apartheid, and its still not good today. What I am getting at, is that violent crimes are low in countries that have oppressive regimes, often at the cost of civil and human rights like due process or free speech or freedom of assembly. [B]This is not praising oppressive regimes, it is an observation based on historical data.[/B][/QUOTE] Exactly. Trump just conveyed this observation, but the dishonest media portrayed it as if he's praising Saddam Hussein.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50662027]If you want to get technical with the word good then [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good"]pick whatever definition of the word good best suits your argument[/URL] and I'll do the same. Saddam was good at killing terrorists, with good meaning "better than the United States", out of sheer numbers. The U.S. upholds more human rights than Iraq so our numbers our lower since we put terrorists in court, or at least pretend to anyway. I don't see this as praise or criticism, I see it as nothing more than a comparison. It would be better [I][B]for international security[/B][/I] if they were still in power because rather than having ISIS blowing up airports in Brussels and shooting up concerns in Paris you would have another dictator violating human rights in their own country. We made a trade off of bringing liberty to Iraq at the cost of security.[/QUOTE] Eh, yeah, this seems really overblown, but the way he phrased it really wasn't clear. He didn't say "Saddam Hussein was [I]good at[/I] killing terrorists," he said "He killed terrorists. He did that so good." The way he phrased it, by following it with "They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk," sorta implies that not reading them their rights was "good." Because Saddam killed them "so good." I can see how people interpret it both ways. Still pretty ambiguous, because either interpretation makes sense.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50662248]Exactly. Trump just conveyed this observation, but the dishonest media portrayed it as if he's praising Saddam Hussein.[/QUOTE] lol and why do you think he made this "observation" it's not like he's teaching a history lesson at a rally

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50661914]I'm just waiting for Trump to inevitably say the words "Hitler did nothing wrong".[/QUOTE] "I mean Hitler did help the Germans bounce back so"

[QUOTE=MyBumBum;50662061]I'm not praising Hussein or Trump here, I condemn their views, but I do recall reading a BBC report a while back where people in Iraq did state that they preferred the repressive days of order under Saddam Hussein than the constant terror of ISIS nowadays. It really makes us think: are crimes against humanity and stability a worthy price to pay for a supposedly "stable" society? Were the toppling of governments and the installation of totalitarian/authoritatian regimes inevitable in these developing countries? [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265"]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265[/URL][/QUOTE] personally, I'd take freedom over security any day

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;50662393]lol and why do you think he made this "observation" it's not like he's teaching a history lesson at a rally[/QUOTE] He was one of the first and most vocal opposer to the 2003 Iraq invasion. He always said that it would destabilize the middle east, and make thing worse in the long run, even way back.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661879]He's not proposing that you should fix terrorism by executing terrorists. He said that Iraq had minimal issues with terrorists because Saddam straight up killed them. The reason he is bringing this up is that Saddam and his brutal practices in hindsight would have been better for the security of the US than what we have now with the rise of ISIS.[/QUOTE] I'm not seeing much of a line between condoning Hussein's methods, and saying that said methods were effective and would've been beneficial.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661942]Call it what you want, he is stating the facts. If I said Hitler was good at killing Jews, its a well known fact known as the Holocaust. If you think I am praising Hitler then you read too far into my statement. Stalin was good at starving his own people. Kim Jong Un is currently doing great with starving his people. Trump is very good at garnering media attention. These are stated as facts, not praise.[/QUOTE] It would be scandalous just as well if Trump were to say that "Adolf Hitler was a bad guy, right? ... But you know what he did well? He killed jews. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk. They were a jew, it was over." The mere fact that he's stating it can't be construed as other than viewing it positively. And even still the method he's praising is executing people without due process. Of course it's "effective" to execute people without due process, but why the hell would he bring it up in the first place?

Saddam was good at killing terrorists kinda in the same way that Agent Orange is at killing weeds.

biased title you got there

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50661841]You do realize the whole point of him bringing this up was because the media claimed he praised America's enemies right Saddam killed terrorists, and he was good at it. Its stating the facts, its not praise.[/QUOTE] 'terrorists' as in...those people over there that don't 100% agree with us. That's the same shit that started the Syrian war, just because one country calls them terrorists does not mean they are the same as AQ or any of the other groups, it's historically been used as a blanket term for enemies of the state before it meant Muslims with bombs [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=orgornot;50662248]Exactly. Trump just conveyed this observation, but the dishonest media portrayed it as if he's praising Saddam Hussein.[/QUOTE] But he did praise him by equating that low crime rate to being a good leader instead of.. like a genocidal monster..... [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] It's basically a dumber version of "sure Hitler was bad but at least the trains ran on time"