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

[QUOTE=Michael haxz;50661853]You don't fix Terrorism with even more war crimes[/QUOTE] true, but irrelevant to the conversation... all trump did was state facts to piss off the media as a direct response to the media taking everything he says out of context in the most extreme way possible and they took the bait like a good little lamb. [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] And lets be honest... outright executing terrorists (even if there are some false positives and normal political opponents in there) is better then whatever ISIS is doing right now to basically everyone in an industrial style not seen since WW2 nazi germany.

Eradicate terrorism by becoming a terrorist yourself. Nice going.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;50663691]Eradicate terrorism by becoming a terrorist yourself. Nice going.[/QUOTE] Fight fire by making more fire technically once everything is burned to the ground the fire will be gone

[QUOTE=Sableye;50663571]'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] 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"[/QUOTE] How did Trump allude to Saddam being a "good leader" because the man killed terrorists efficiently? He stated a fact - that's it. As an above poster said, there are people in Iraq who miss the days of the Saddam regime (in a sick way) because that government wasn't as bad as [I]ISIS[/I]. It's sad but in the end it looks like Saddam was the lesser evil. I think people are reaching hard to make this about Trump admiring Saddam. As much as I don't like the guy. Also that quote was about Mussolini.

At this rate (and with the current state of Rio), they should just cancel the Olympics this year and have the first ever year of the Mental Olympics, because we have some serious gold medalist gymnasts in every one of these threads. My favourite part is that he raises the bar every single time, yet you still get people desperately rationalising what he says. "I'm not saying dictators are good but hey they sure are good [I]at killing who they don't like[/I]" "You don't like terrorists huh so why don't you sacrifice more of your freedom for my brand of security. Also what do you mean comparing myself to Saddam Hussein is unflattering, that's just the media bias"

The problem isn't that Trump praised one aspect of Saddam Hussein's regime, it's that he doesn't see any nuance in the War on Terror. Even terrorists are individuals with individual stories, and if we buy into a "kill em all" mentality, we'll probably never understand the circumstances that led them to be radicalized in the first place. And lest we forget, today's terrorists are tomorrow's heroes of liberation. So it seems a bit disingenuous for a politician to pass judgment on the human worth of individuals they've never even met.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50663891]At this rate (and with the current state of Rio), they should just cancel the Olympics this year and have the first ever year of the Mental Olympics, because we have some serious gold medalist gymnasts in every one of these threads. My favourite part is that he raises the bar every single time, yet you still get people desperately rationalising what he says. "I'm not saying dictators are good but hey they sure are good [I]at killing who they don't like[/I]" "You don't like terrorists huh so why don't you sacrifice more of your freedom for my brand of security. Also what do you mean comparing myself to Saddam Hussein is unflattering, that's just the media bias"[/QUOTE] He didn't say the dictators were good, but it certainly meant less terrorists in that region / for us to deal with. Seems like the region was much more stable back then compared to now. And where did Trump compare himself to Saddam? I don't like the guy either, but I don't see where you'd come to that conclusion.

how much time do we need to realize that the entirety of the middle east is an arms trade market with oil sprinkled on top the terrorists and rebels dont fucking matter people kill eachother so that the west gets rich things like isis dont spawn unfinanced, neither does the al-qaeda, or the mujahideen or whatever is in at the moment this is just the continued demagog garbage that I honestly dont understand how americans have managed to eat for so long

[QUOTE=Falstad007;50663913]He didn't say the dictators were good, but it certainly meant less terrorists in that region / for us to deal with. Seems like the region was much more stable back then compared to now. And where did Trump compare himself to Saddam? I don't like the guy either, but I don't see where you'd come to that conclusion.[/QUOTE] He's not just pointing out that Saddam was efficient at killing terrorists, which is the conclusion people are coming to by ignoring the context. He's praising the policies that Saddam enforced at a Trump rally to garner support for his presidential campaign. By doing this he's certainly implying that he either admires those policies, or thinks them useful enough to implement should he gain office. Both of those things are bad, and should be dealbreakers to be honest. Also the comparison is implied. He didn't actually say "I'm like Saddam Hussein, vote for me!", but his words show support for his methods. It's like if Clinton said, "I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but he has certainly made a lot of progress over his terms, legalising gay marriage was a particular victory". She's not saying she's Obama 2.0, but if she said it at a rally she's certainly implying that she will be similar. Yes it's not the same thing, but it was the closest example to mind.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50662308]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] you can see how the cherry picked quote out of an entire diatribe about saddam makes sense that it could be implied if and but and and... Do me a massive favour. Listen to a youtube video about the saddam talk he did that this quote comes from and look at it as a whole. then come back here and post your thoughts.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50662027]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] Yeah, fuck due process. We should just execute people if we suspect them being a terrorist. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[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] He might be right. ISIS wouldn't exist in Iraq + Libya due to government repression and the immigration crisis wouldn't have happened.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50663985]He's not just pointing out that Saddam was efficient at killing terrorists, which is the conclusion people are coming to by ignoring the context. He's praising the policies that Saddam enforced at a Trump rally to garner support for his presidential campaign. By doing this he's certainly implying that he either admires those policies, or thinks them useful enough to implement should he gain office. Both of those things are bad, and should be dealbreakers to be honest. Also the comparison is implied. He didn't actually say "I'm like Saddam Hussein, vote for me!", but his words show support for his methods. It's like if Clinton said, "I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but he has certainly made a lot of progress over his terms, legalising gay marriage was a particular victory". She's not saying she's Obama 2.0, but if she said it at a rally she's certainly implying that she will be similar. Yes it's not the same thing, but it was the closest example to mind.[/QUOTE] It's a real reach to think that Trump alluded himself to being like Saddam (wink wink, nudge nudge) to a base that was for the Iraq war and [I]despised[/I] the despot. His comments were in support of a stable region where terrorists were dealt with harshly instead of groups like ISIS and AQ being able to run roughshod over the region. Saddam was an awful man, but the evil that replaced him is not only more vile, but has spread much further than Iraq.

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;50663691]Eradicate terrorism by becoming a terrorist yourself. Nice going.[/QUOTE] No, fight terrorism by using a dictator's fear of being deposed or losing power. He also isnt saying it is a good solution, just that it to him was a better situation then isis Saddam WAS a better situation then ISIS... there is no denying that... Iraq was amongst the top 50 highest countries in education in the world. And above the US in national health. Thats like unthinkable for Iraq in its current state, let alone the state at its peak after the second invasion, before ISIS took over.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50664009]Yeah, fuck due process. We should just execute people if we suspect them being a terrorist. Nothing could possibly go wrong.[/QUOTE] He's not saying [I]we[/I] should adopt those methods, rather that it was convenient we had an element in the region that kept terrorists at bay. Doesn't mean it was good, but better than the alternative (what due process does ISIS offer)?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50664009]Yeah, fuck due process. We should just execute people if we suspect them being a terrorist. Nothing could possibly go wrong.[/QUOTE] did you even read what he typed? he was making an objective comparison and making it clear that it is just an objective comparison and you inject your personal dogmatic thinking on it? This attitude being non-constructive is the reason he posted that post... and it just flew straight over your head.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50664009]Yeah, fuck due process. We should just execute people if we suspect them being a terrorist. Nothing could possibly go wrong.[/QUOTE] I made an observation, not an argument... [QUOTE=Falstad007;50664037]He's not saying [I]we[/I] should adopt those methods, rather that it was convenient we had an element in the region that kept terrorists at bay. Doesn't mean it was good, but better than the alternative (what due process does ISIS offer)?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50664039]did you even read what he typed? he was making an objective comparison and making it clear that it is just an objective comparison and you inject your personal dogmatic thinking on it? This attitude being non-constructive is the reason he posted that post... and it just flew straight over your head.[/QUOTE] These guys get it

Please stop trying to defend Trump's remarks as an "objective comparison." He clearly takes pleasure in the idea of killing terrorists. That much is evident from previous remarks alone. As a general rule, no one should take pleasure in killing [I]anyone[/I]. Especially not in a lopsided conflict such as the War on Terror. If the soul of an ISIS fighter is beyond redemption, so be it. Let's wipe them out and be done with it. But if we're going to fight with monsters, let's take care not to become monsters ourselves.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50664039]did you even read what he typed? he was making an objective comparison and making it clear that it is just an objective comparison and you inject your personal dogmatic thinking on it? This attitude being non-constructive is the reason he posted that post... and it just flew straight over your head.[/QUOTE] The reason we "execute fewer terrorists" is because we have a thing called human rights. He even said so in his post.

I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have crimes against humanity apologists here on FP

[QUOTE=mcharest;50664125]Please stop trying to defend Trump's remarks as an "objective comparison." He clearly takes pleasure in the idea of killing terrorists. That much is evident from previous remarks alone. As a general rule, no one should take pleasure in killing [I]anyone[/I]. Especially not in a lopsided conflict such as the War on Terror. If the soul of an ISIS fighter is beyond redemption, so be it. Let's wipe them out and be done with it. But if we're going to fight with monsters, let's take care not to become monsters ourselves.[/QUOTE] "Wanting to kill terrorists is bad" "Let's just wipe out ISIS and be done with it". What? And I've been following Trump in the election since he first jumped in, and my conclusion is that he's not a warmongering idiot like people make him out to be. If anything he's adamant about coming up with a solution to a terror issue. Not in the best way, but that's all he's trying to do. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50664181]I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have crimes against humanity apologists here on FP[/QUOTE] What's worse? A repressive dictatorial regime in one country, or a sprawling guerrilla insurgency hell bent on beading, burning, drowning, or throwing off roofs those who they disagree with? Sad reality is in the end, those were the two choices. Some people think we made the wrong choice - we settled for the greater evil. That is [I]not[/I] being an apologist.

[QUOTE=mcharest;50664125]Please stop trying to defend Trump's remarks as an "objective comparison." He clearly takes pleasure in the idea of killing terrorists. That much is evident from previous remarks alone. As a general rule, no one should take pleasure in killing [I]anyone[/I]. Especially not in a lopsided conflict such as the War on Terror. If the soul of an ISIS fighter is beyond redemption, so be it. Let's wipe them out and be done with it. But if we're going to fight with monsters, let's take care not to become monsters ourselves.[/QUOTE] Saddam was a monster but we sure as hell did not create it... ISIS however.... through inaction and wiping out all the opposition to isis... there IS an argument possible there.. THAT is what trump is saying... not to somehow make saddam in charge of killing terrorists because he is good at it, but to acknowledge that we fucked up and made things worse we are the monster by removing the monster and allowing a bigger monster to replace him on our watch. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] Dont get me wrong trump is a baffoon... but he is right on this single issue, IRAQ was better before the second invasion, heck the world is better off with saddam then with isis. FACT

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50664193]Saddam was a monster but we sure as hell did not create it... ISIS however.... through inaction and wiping out all the opposition to isis... there IS an argument possible there.. THAT is what trump is saying... not to somehow make saddam in charge of killing terrorists because he is good at it, but to acknowledge that we fucked up and made things worse we are the monster by removing the monster and allowing a bigger monster to replace him on our watch. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] Dont get me wrong trump is a baffoon... but he is right on this single issue, IRAQ was better before the second invasion, heck the world is better off with saddam then with isis. FACT[/QUOTE] Here's a fact for you: The original organization that would eventually become ISIS was formed in 1999 - in Iraq, under Saddam's nose. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Falstad007;50664182] What's worse? A repressive dictatorial regime in one country, or a sprawling guerrilla insurgency hell bent on beading, burning, drowning, or throwing off roofs those who they disagree with? Sad reality is in the end, those were the two choices. Some people think we made the wrong choice - we settled for the greater evil. That is [I]not[/I] being an apologist.[/QUOTE] There is a third option: Neither. Yes, it's feasible. But because people are too lazy to take the long time to make it work, it won't happen. Because there's people like you, saying there's only two options, death today or death later today.

He didn't just "state a fact," he stated the fact as if Hussein's war crimes were a model we should be following in the fight against extremists. You'd have to be completely deluded to ignore the obvious implication.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50664202]Here's a fact for you: The original organization that would eventually become ISIS was formed in 1999 - in Iraq, under Saddam's nose. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] There is a third option: Neither. Yes, it's feasible. But because people are too lazy to take the long time to make it work, it won't happen. Because there's people like you, saying there's only two options, death today or death later today.[/QUOTE] If that third option was indeed viable it would require extensive efforts on behalf of the US and it's NATO allies to stabilize the region. Funny how people are okay with the US playing world police when it suits them... Especially funny for a guy with a Gary Johnson avatar. And so what if "ISIS" formed in 1999? They weren't a problem until after post-Saddam, were they?

[QUOTE=mcharest;50664125]Please stop trying to defend Trump's remarks as an "objective comparison." He clearly takes pleasure in the idea of killing terrorists. That much is evident from previous remarks alone. As a general rule, no one should take pleasure in killing [I]anyone[/I]. Especially not in a lopsided conflict such as the War on Terror. If the soul of an ISIS fighter is beyond redemption, so be it. Let's wipe them out and be done with it. But if we're going to fight with monsters, let's take care not to become monsters ourselves.[/QUOTE] Trump shooting a terrorist dead himself and cackling maniacally as he does it on camera would be convincing evidence that he enjoys killing people. His remarks are not. And with war, there is no good or evil, winner or loser, only who is left. There are no ethics in a real war. You get the idea of "wipe them out" but the longer you beat around the bush with basing your strategic decisions on human rights and sympathy for the enemy in a war situation the more of your people will be killed by your opponent who has no rules. The whole issue here is where is the security vs. humanity. War is hell because a proper war strips the humanity out of people for the sake of security. Either take your human rights and accept the security risks or wipe the enemy off the face of the earth and sleep with peace at mind. The soldiers of the war bear the burden of guilt and horrors of war for the rest of us, which is why we need to take care of our veterans. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50664181]I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have crimes against humanity apologists here on FP[/QUOTE] Labeling people and putting words in others' mouths detracts from the actual issues and ruins any productive discussion.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50664229]Trump shooting a terrorist dead himself and cackling maniacally as he does it on camera would be convincing evidence that he enjoys killing people. His remarks are not. And with war, there is no good or evil, winner or loser, only who is left. There are no ethics in a real war. You get the idea of "wipe them out" but the longer you beat around the bush with basing your strategic decisions on human rights and sympathy for the enemy in a war situation the more of your people will be killed by your opponent who has no rules. The whole issue here is where is the security vs. humanity. War is hell because a proper war strips the humanity out of people for the sake of security. Either take your human rights and accept the security risks or wipe the enemy off the face of the earth and sleep with peace at mind. The soldiers of the war bear the burden of guilt and horrors of war for the rest of us, which is why we need to take care of our veterans.[/QUOTE] So, the ends justify the means in your opinion? Using chemical weapons against civilian populations to kill the dissenters among them, one of he ways in which Hussein "killed terrorists so good," is an acceptable course of action so long as it deals a blow to military strength?

[QUOTE=Falstad007;50664182]"Wanting to kill terrorists is bad" "Let's just wipe out ISIS and be done with it". What?[/quote] Taking part in necessary violence is one thing; enjoying it is another. See the difference? [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50664193]Saddam was a monster but we sure as hell did not create it... ISIS however.... through inaction and wiping out all the opposition to isis... there IS an argument possible there.. THAT is what trump is saying... not to somehow make saddam in charge of killing terrorists because he is good at it, but to acknowledge that we fucked up and made things worse we are the monster by removing the monster and allowing a bigger monster to replace him on our watch. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] Dont get me wrong trump is a baffoon... but he is right on this single issue, IRAQ was better before the second invasion, heck the world is better off with saddam then with isis. FACT[/QUOTE] Strangely enough, Bernie Sanders also criticized the ousting of Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the destabilization that followed, and he managed to do it without tacitly approving human rights abuses or advocating torture. Sanders' comments were motivated by empathy; Trump's are fueled by belligerent, reactionary ignorance.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50664254]So, the ends justify the means in your opinion? Using chemical weapons against civilian populations to kill the dissenters among them, one of he ways in which Hussein "killed terrorists so good," is an acceptable course of action so long as it deals a blow to military strength?[/QUOTE] The end was a lower terrorist / ISIS influence in the Middle-East and the means was a Saddam regime. Are you saying we had a moral obligation to invade Iraq and topple Saddam? (Genuine question, not trying to be a jerk). Appreciating the fact that we had a more secure Middle-East is not an endorsement. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mcharest;50664258]Taking part in necessary violence is one thing; enjoying it is another. See the difference? Strangely enough, Bernie Sanders also criticized the ousting of Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the destabilization that followed, and he managed to do it without tacitly approving human rights abuses or advocating torture. Sanders' comments were motivated by empathy; Trump's are fueled by belligerent, reactionary ignorance.[/QUOTE] How would Trump "enjoy" it? I'm not even going to get into the "engaging ISIS directly is necessary violence" can of worms either.

Haven't even read past the early posts where some idiot claims Saddam 'killed terrorists and was good at it' which is blatantly false. Whilst his links with Al Qaeda are controversial and shaky, his links with other terror groups absolutely are not. [url]https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/donald-trump-is-wrong-again-saddam-hussein-supported-terrorism/[/url] In summary: He supported the Abu Nidal Organisation and sheltered Abu Nidal (before eventually killing him on his orders, but only decades later). He attempted to assassinate former President G.H.W Bush in Kuwait using an obscure terror group called Wali al-Ghazali to try and make it plausibly deniable. He supported a terror/rebel group that rebelled against Assad in 1976, and sheltered many of them, including a man convicted of helping plan and finance 9/11 later. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was heavily involved in the first WTC bombing flew to Baghdad after being let go by the police by mistake and was sheltered there by Saddam. He had relations with the Taliban through his hosting of 'Popular Islamic Conferences', as well as strong relations with the non-terrorist but Islamist (think 'non-violent' religious fascist) movement Muslim Brotherhood. After Arafat reconciled with the West a little at Oslo, Saddam began supporting various more extreme groups during the Second Intifada, going as far as paying up to $25,000 to families of dead terrorists involved in the violence. Saddam Hussein's personal bodyguard/militia, the Fedayeen, planned to smuggle 50 of their own men into various countries with anti-Baathist exiles, including Britain, to conduct terrorist attacks both against the exiles and the governments that sheltered them. And so on. The Al Qaeda link is discussed but is controversial, but what isn't controversial is that Saddam was a consistent sponsor of terrorism throughout his rule, but particularly during the 1980s until the early 1990s.