Trump Has Killed More Civilians with Illegal Drone Strikes in 9 Months Than Obama Did in 8 Yea

[dannno]

Uh, I'm citing RP institute and The Free Thought Project, you're the one who injected Soros.

No, you're citing data that came funded from George Soros, so did they, and they should probably reconsider whether this data is accurate as well.

It doesn't change the message much from a principled non-interventionist standpoint - bring the troops home - pretty simple - but when you say things like Trump killed more civilians in 9 months than Obama did in 8 years and it turns out 95% of the figures may be falsified, then that's not very good if we end up with somebody even worse as President in 2020.... who WON'T listen to Rand at all, and will end up getting us into more quagmires.

 

[nikcers]

Uhhhh, you're citing George Soros...

What I'm saying is I don't know, and I don't pretend to know.

Really Plato??

I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.

 

[Origanalist]

No, you're citing data that came funded from George Soros, so did they, and they should probably reconsider whether this data is accurate as well.

This is hardly a new revelation, it been known for a while now Trump's been on a pace to leave Obama in the dust as related to civilian deaths. Your protestations just make you seem foolish.

 

[dannno]

This is hardly a new revelation, it been known for a while now Trump's been on a pace to leave Obama in the dust as related to civilian deaths. Your protestations just make you seem foolish.

WTF are you talking about?? If 95% of the civilian casualties are in fact non-credible, then he was NEVER on pace to leave Obama in the dust..

 

[dannno]

Really Plato??

Yes, Socrates...

 

[CCTelander]

Uh, I'm citing RP institute and The Free Thought Project, you're the one who injected Soros.

Obviously purveyors of Soros propaganda. Clearly Ron Paul is no longer to be trusted. Screw that decades long g record of accuracy and trustworthyness.

This is pathetic. No wonder so many good posters have disappeared from this place never to be heard from again. Place has become a sick parody of what it once was.

 

[dannno]

Obviously purveyors of Soros propaganda. Clearly Ron Paul is no longer to be trusted. Screw that decades long g record of accuracy and trustworthyness.

This is pathetic. No wonder so many good posters have disappeared from this place never to be heard from again. Place has become a sick parody of what it once was.

Ron Paul is right that we should bring the troops home, that's the important thing to trust him on. It is unfortunate that he may or may not be caught up in presenting falsified data regarding civilian casualties from George Soros.

 

[angelatc]

Dannno, maybe this will cheer you up: Via Justin Rainmondo:

One year into the Trump administration and we have, on the foreign policy front, one major development: unlike practically every US President in modern times – excepting Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and (I think) Ford — Trump hasn’t started any major new wars. That might seem like some pretty thin gruel to feast on, and yet it does represent a not insignificant change in the pattern of presidential behavior. He campaigned as an “isolationist” whose “first instinct” would not be to call out the troops, and it’s fair to say he’s stuck to the spirit if not the strict letter of his “America First” doctrine.

 

[angelatc]

Ron Paul is right that we should bring the troops home, that's the important thing to trust him on. It is unfortunate that he may or may not be caught up in presenting falsified data regarding civilian casualties from George Soros.

FFS. Either present some data that indicates the data is flawed or STFU about it being false. For pete's sake, he RAN on a platform of bombing the literal life out of ISIS.

 

[dannno]

FFS. Either present some data that indicates the data is flawed or STFU about it being false. For pete's sake, he RAN on a platform of bombing the literal life out of ISIS.

I already did, one study indicated that 95% of the civilian casualties were non-verifiable.

 

[dannno]

For pete's sake, he RAN on a platform of bombing the literal life out of ISIS.

So it would be better to have a President who funded and funneled weapons to ISIS like Obama? How many civilians did ISIS kill? Shouldn't we add those to Obama's figures since they were essentially an arm of our military?

 

[dannno]

For pete's sake, he RAN on a platform of bombing the literal life out of ISIS.

So it would be better to have a President who funded and funneled weapons to ISIS like Obama? How many civilians did ISIS kill? Shouldn't we add those to Obama's figures since they were essentially an arm of our military?

40,000 feared dead in battle to take back city from Isis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-fighting-forces-islamic-state-a7848781.html



Shouldn't these be added to Obama's numbers too since Obama funded and funneled weapons to ISIS?

That's just one battle..

 

[Origanalist]

So it would be better to have a President who funded and funneled weapons to ISIS like Obama? How many civilians did ISIS kill? Shouldn't we add those to Obama's figures since they were essentially an arm of our military?

Have we stopped funneling weapons to the terrorists of our choice? When did this happen?

 

[Influenza]

Have we stopped funneling weapons to the terrorists of our choice? When did this happen?

never

 

[shakey1]

Gotta be the best at something.

 

[Ender]

Have we stopped funneling weapons to the terrorists of our choice? When did this happen?

It hasn't- it has increased.

 

[Anti Federalist]

F- on this issue.

Morally reprehensible and counterproductive.

All you do is make more "terrorists".

 

[dannno]

Have we stopped funneling weapons to the terrorists of our choice? When did this happen?

Pretty sure we have largely stopped funneling weapons to ISIS, some of it is incidental but it was a bit more overt a while ago.. ISIS no longer holds much power as far as geographic territory like they used to from what I've heard.

I think we are going to have a much better outcome foreign policy wise than a lot of people here think when his first term nears end, I think at some point we will start winding a lot of this stuff down and I'm pretty sure we will find out that a lot of these civilian casualty numbers have been exaggerated.

 

[dannno]

F- on this issue.

Morally reprehensible and counterproductive.

All you do is make more "terrorists".

Well you probably haven't gotten to the part of the thread where I posted the article that claims 95% of these civilian casualties are non-verifiable and is coming straight from George Soros propaganda - it's not even a question that is where it is coming from. How accurate they are, or are not, I'm not certain.. but I'm not going to take them at face value.

That doesn't mean I support what Trump is doing either, but here's the deal..

I read Ron Paul's book, A Foreign Policy For Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship a long time ago.

Do you remember what it is about? It is essentially about how our country goes out and funds both sides of a conflict. For decades Ron Paul detailed how we were funding both sides of the conflicts we were fighting in.

That is what Obama did, he funded and funneled weapons to ISIS and I posted an article about one battle between ISIS where 40,000 people died.

Residents of the besieged city were killed by Iraqi ground forces attempting to force out militants, as well as by air strikes and Isis fighters, according to Kurdish intelligence services.

You can't tell me that isn't Obama and Bush's fault, and in fact if anything Trump going after ISIS is cleaning up the mess we made - STILL NOT MY PREFERENCE in how it should be handled - but going after ISIS is far better than funding ISIS and attacking Syria and creating a whole new mess over there like what Obama did.

So why aren't we adding those civilian casualties to Obama's totals if he is the one who created and funded ISIS? And find out if these numbers we are getting are actually legit?

At the end of the day I don't mind giving Trump a D- or an F for foreign policy, for now, but Obama deserves a worse grade than Trump, so he can get the F- for funding militant extremists and I believe the effects will be far more destructive than what Trump does during his term, but we will see.

 

[asurfaholic]

What the $#@! are you talking about??

No, I don't believe any of our foreign policy is "ok"..

But am I going to ruin our chances at letting Rand have influence over the President and his policies because of some fake made up data, just so we can go back to some neo-con puppet like Hillary and cause even more damage and destruction and death and socialism?? No, that's $#@!ing stupid...

The denial is what I’m talking about.

Fake made up data? Who cares if they hyper inflate the numbers (unlikely)

What’s more likely is that they didn’t accurately report civilian deaths from the previous administration. But even that is kinda iffy- there plenty of reports to verify civilian deaths and blatant lies would be exposed.

There are no reports to the contrary.

But even still- my position is that even one death is murder and that one murder would put most of us in prison. For the life of me, I can’t understand what makes you think Rand has any influence other than phony tweets from your god man himself. Trump will do what he wants. He tells a grand story but his god is money.