Featured Trump's Statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day Omits Mentioning Jews or Anti-Semitism

Did muzzlumms not viciously attack America that day?

 

It would be unnecessarily inflammatory and would increase the risk to US national security.

I have no love for Islam. I think it's a horrendous religion that inherently leads to violence. Because I know this, I prefer not to throw gasoline on the fire.

 

Does the truth hurt?

 

Sometimes it's better not to say things that are true than to increase risk for no reason.

 

Then will Holocaust Remembrance Day increase the risk for nazis to commit violence or vandalism?

 

The risk for that is minimal. Nazis are gonna Nazi.

But there ARE some Muslims and Muslim nations that aren't trying to kill us at the moment. I don't want to risk alienating any more foreign governments without a darn good reason.

 

Ain't that dangerous thinking?

So we deal with foreign governments according to the majority religion of the countries? That's just a second way of prejudging them.

 

These countries lack freedom of religion, and that's how we can make predictions based on their religious laws. Officially Muslim nations can reliably be expected to be Muslim. Regardless, it's just common sense based on past diplomatic interactions to be cautious if possible.

 

Actually no; nowadays very few acknowledge what it was.

It was one the many fulfillments, down through the last two millennia, of the curses laid out in Lev 26 and Dt 28 and summarily articulated in Re 17:16:

'And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire.'

 

In that case, is the Executive Order to detain travelers from certain muzzlimm countries "common sense?" If not, how many American lives blasted or blooded to death do you consider a fair number to keep up that American image of taking in anybody?

 

Apples and oranges. One is an active measure that directly impacts a significant number of people. We don't know how effective or ineffective it will be. (The executive order)

The other (a statement) won't stop a single attack, so it makes no sense to unnecessarily increase risk by making it.

It's the same reason I don't get up in arms over Turkey's failure to admit to the Armenian genocide and the American refusal to call it officially a genocide. We all know it was a genocide, but saying words about the dead that will only risk the lives of the living isn't worth the trouble.

 

As I said, nowadays very few acknowledge what it was.

 

Maybe Jesus didn't have to offend the Pharisees and tell stories which painted them as wicked men, but he did it. So did his disciples. Meanwhile, old Joe Kennedy pandering to the nazis to keep the USA out of the war-- and, of course, his sons alive and well to bask in privilege and screw starlets, et al -- didn't accomplish much.

 

Sure if you intentionally want to tick off our enemies, why not issue even more inflammatory statements?

Blowback is real.

 

I've always like how Col. Travis answered Santa Anna's messenger who presented the ultimatum of either surrendering the Alamo or being stormed with no quarters-- a cannon shot.

 

For a combat scenario, sure.

But that's there difference between tactics and strategy.

 

That's putting it lightly, don't you think?:

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. Jn 8

 

Alt Right strikes again!