Ben Carson: Bungling Surgeon

You always know you're dealing with an expert when they refer to the "Geneva Convention".

Is our enemy a signature to the "Convention"?

You're afforded the protections of such, when your are a signature, and fight within the constraints.

 

"To (sic) often" sounds like a generalized complaint about our military actions and not just a complaint in this instance.

 

So, America's ideals must have gone by the wayside after WWII, never to be seen again.

We interred citizens, and targeted civilians.

I guess we've been a "pariah nation" ever since.

If you want to tell me how our current program is distinct from one that targets civilians, I'd be happy to hear the argument.

I don't have a problem with the enemy thinking we might be capable of anything in order to defeat them. And, I think we all know Trump wouldn't nuke Raqqa. But the better he sells the idea that he might, and that he might kill the families of terrorists, the more they have to fear.

 

In this particular battle, the enemy - radical Islamic terrorism - targets civilians to advance their political goals.

Donald Trump wants to do the same.

You at least want ISIS to know it's on the table.

Again: What the hell are we fighting for? Seems like we're all one big happy, family-killin' family.

 

Trump is telling ISIS he's not going to show up for a gun fight with a knife.

Now, in any real way, do you think that, in the event he's elected President, he would target civilians to any greater extent than we do currently?

 

Now, is that AFTER he fucks their women, or what? I need a timeline.

 

He better. That's the Chicago Way!

 

That's fine. That's also not what Trump was proposing. He said we "have to take out their families." Period. No qualifiers. We're "supposed" to be better than that. But it's evident now that we're not.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo all contained legit military targets, or at least what were widely thought to be legit at the time. It's apples to oranges.

And, his asinine "they can kill us, but we can't kill them?" shtick was embarrassing. As was his not knowing what the "nuclear triad" is.

 

One other great thing about last night: Carson complaining that he wasn't getting enough speaking time, then almost immediately declining to weigh in on the Cruz-Rubio immigration debate.

 

Signatory. Your grammatical mishaps are becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

And we're not necessarily talking about the enemy here. But rather mere family members of specific individuals believed to be terrorists. Family members that may bear no personal guilt and presumably are legally citizens of a signatory nation-state.

 

I think a lot of people don't get this. Many of the terrorist groups purposely place their weapons and headquarters in neighborhoods, schools and hospitals -- remember the U.N. catching Hamas with rockets in a school in Gaza? -- then cry "injustice" when someone takes out those neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and the civilians in them. The deal is, if you set up your military targets among "human shield" civilians and they get killed, it's you who killed them, not the attackers.

 

Again, that's not what Trump said. He didn't equivocate at all. We need to take out the terrorists' families. Why? Because terrorists love their families. Period.