Ron Paul: “I Wouldn’t Have Risked American Lives” To End The Holocaust…
Yikes.
Via Big Government:
On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.
I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.
I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”
And the Congressman answered:
“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”
Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.
When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.
Posted by ZIP on Tuesday, December 27, 2011, at 11:14 am | 
Tweet
No wonder the Democrats like him so much – he`s one of them.
What a sick and twisted POS Ron Paul really is.
Ron Paul is a disgraceful piece of subhuman shit.
Comments and feelings like that are why that bozo will never be president.
“…Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students…”
=============================
nothing more than a cult
Like Iran, he would have sat on his hands and allowed the Nazis to develop the A-bomb first. Smooth move there Ex-lax!
And there is no God is there Ron…because you can’t see him. The evil isn’t in your backyard so it doesn’t exist. You are a poor excuse for a human being.
Reminds me of Jim Jones’ cult. scary.
Paul’s non-interventionism seems consistent to with the views of the Founding Fathers, particularly with respect to European wars.
Are the people here who are upset with his answer also upset the U.S. didn’t send troops to the Ukraine in the 30′s, Cambodia in the 70′s and are upset Obama hasn’t yet sent troops to Somalia or Sudan?
R2P is a very contentious issue, to slam Ron Paul for his beliefs, while claiming the Holocaust alone was reason to send troops to Europe, but not support interventions elsewhere is ridiculous.
A good discussion on R2P can be found here: http://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Humanitarian-Intervention
“…..but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S……”
———-
I have a problem with this wording!
I don’t believe that this set of circumstances could exist. Anyone capable of treated another human being that way is a danger to everyone.
Fuck Ron Paul and all those who think like him
I can’t imagine him having any of the Jewish vote after this………….. However you’de think that Obummer wouldn’t either after his constant throwing Israel under the bus but………….
Can someone either Jewish or who supports Israel (two different things?) tell my why you would support OBama?
Ron Paul is Noam Chomsky for people who tote around “Atlas Shrugged.”
Before you go all knee jerk reactionary on this, why is ok that we didn’t help the starving millions in the Ukraine? Or the millions in Cambodia dying under Pol Pot? Or the many killed in ethnic cleansing in Africa? Where does it end?
Why does it fall on Americans to spend our lives and capital to save the entire world?
I am not a Paul supporter, but his view is held by many past and present leaders. FDR did nothing until Europe was lost and he was forced into WWII. The world did nothing while Stalin and Mao murdered 100′s of millions, making Hitler look like a piker. Middle East/African Christians are being murdered today at the hands of Muslims; obama is golfing. Clinton intervened in Serbia on behalf of Muslims, causing annihilation of the legitimate government and many Christians.
Hindsight is easy, but we need a real leader who can pick the right battles. Paul probably isn’t it; obama certainly isn’t it; none of the others have been tested before.
There comes a time when being human, compels us to action.
I wonder would RP walk by a woman being raped and murdered? It is after all none of his business……
How does Paul answer the more realistic question: Do we want a president who will send American troops (drafted or volunteer) to the middle east to fight a regional/religious wars?
Paul says going to war would be up to congress, based on whether it was in the best interests of the United States. He says it wouldn’t be his decision to make.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196334/cnn-released-unedited-interview-ron-paul-did-not-storm-out-it-was-a-creative-editing-hit-job
Call me anti-war, but I have kids and I don’t want them drafted into an unwinnable war in the middle east. I want a president who thinks long and hard about every conceivable unintended consequence of sending our kids into wars that are not ours.
Israel can defend themselves just fine…
Look, when we went to war with Germany it was NOT to save Jews. We became involved in WWII because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war on them, and Germany, as an ally of Japan, declared war on us.
I dislike these hypotheticals, esp the tired stormfront B.S. that WWII was a “Jewish War.” FDR certainly had little interest in “saving Jews.”
That being said, Ron Paul is an unelectable p.o.s.
Remember GWB’s bullhorn moment at the WTC site after 9-11?
Where he said that the people who did this will hear from all of us soon?
Imagine if at that time we had president Ron Paul. He would have went to that site, grabbed a bullhorn and said,
“See people, this is what I’m talking about. We shouldn’t have interfered in the mid-east. this serves us right and I hope we’ve learned a lesson here. The people who did this can rest assured that we got the message and will never again step on your toes. You have our humblest apologies”
Ron, please move to Guyana and break ground for Paultown.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WWII wasn’t about preventing the assassination of the Jews. It was about taking over Europe, at which Germany largely succeeded, and taking over Asia, at which Japan succeeded. Most of Europe was pretty much okay with what Germany did to the Jews (see France).
Only Jooz, right goofy?
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
― John Stuart Mill
gastorgrab is right on.
The proper presidential response would be to say that the question involves an impossibility, that the Nazis were no threat to the US. A genocidal supremist state can’t help but be a threat to the rest of the world (as Islam is now).
Ron Paul is not as creepy as his followers. Ron Paul is a crank who should be in a nursing home some where.
Lyndon LaRouche must be jealous of all the attention the Cult of Ron Paul is getting these days.
I don’t believe the US has the political will to win a war today. You have to make the cost of war too great for the enemy to continue. With our Political Correctness and Rules of Engagement, we are just losing soldiers while the enemy is running out the clock.
The Stormfront candidate.
REAL Neoconservatism/neonazis hiding in plain sight.
Libertarian masquerading as a conservative.
Lord Humungus says:
December 27, 2011 at 11:56 am
Before you go all knee jerk reactionary on this, why is ok that we didn’t help the starving millions in the Ukraine? Or the millions in Cambodia dying under Pol Pot? Or the many killed in ethnic cleansing in Africa? Where does it end?
Why does it fall on Americans to spend our lives and capital to save the entire world?
———–
Don’t forget about East Timor, Rwanda, Chile, etc. What do you expect from hypocritical neocons??
The millions in Cambodia dying under Pol Pot wouldn’t have been if we had fought the Vietnam war to win.
BHL—One EMP nuke could mangle our infrastructure…it’s not just about the Jews or Israel.
I agree, we shouldn’t be nation nuilding those savages, but nation destroying is much less problematic…and, incidentally, no one is bringing back the Draft. NO ONE.
Sorry—”Nation building.”
“When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.”
You guys and gals are really buying this story? Ok, you sheep who are being hoodwinked…yet again!
At least he’s honest people.
I’m with Lord Humungus on this. We can’t be everything to everyone. If you we being honest about opposing his answer you’d have thousands of our men and women in Somalia, right now taking fire from God knows who.
If Ron Paul isn’t President, he can try to be United Nations Ambassador.
Well, Obama should appoint him if re-elected.
The more we meddle in the world, the more it bites us in the ass. We should never occupy any nation again. Period. All that does is put us further in debt. Any war should only be about killing people and breaking things, so that people know better than to mess with us.
I like many of Paul’s ideas but this comment puts him too far out for me. WWII was one of our better hours for which all Americans should be proud. Of course, both of the Obamas had indicated that they were never proud of America. Rev. Wright taught them well.
Ron Paul for president! The media and all of Washington D.C.’s liars can’t fool me anymore. Go on and eat their sh*t cakes and wash it down with some KoolAid aproved by Jim Jones & Berry Soetoro. Enjoy!
The only time the U.S Government should intervene militarily is when the U.S. is in direct threat from an outside entity or if it serves a tactical, military purpose.
So, you will rush in to save the Jews but not the Libyans? How about the Syrians? Darfur? Cambodia? Where does it stop? Right now some group of people are being rounded up for slaughter. Why hasn’t our past interventionism stopped this behavior? It can’t, it won’t and there is no need to send someone’s child “over there” to die to stop it.
Nothing against the Jews or anyone else for that matter, but if we continue down this path the logical outcome is the U.S. Government intervening in your life for your own “safety”. You will need to be saved from yourselves because someone else in the Government “knows better” on your behalf. You need to eat better, spend better, watch what you say. Don’t emit too much Carbon Dioxide either (you know it is still coming) Oh, and don’t be a “terrorist” or you will find a Hellfire missile coming through your front window even though you are a U.S. Citizen. If it doesn’t kill you then you can stay at Club Gitmo indefinitely until the undeclared “War on Terror” is over. Here is clue, we are still fighting the War on Drugs, Poverty, Obesity, etc. It will NEVER end.
It is being “Gray” that has gotten us into the problems we are in now. That is what happens when you vote a guy in thinking he is absolute in a position only to find out he needed to say that to get elected. Why? Because the problem now requires a much more “nuanced” answer. Sound familiar??
IF he said this then I applaud him for having the courage to stick to his beliefs even though the subject matter is “taboo”. People die on earth all the time for various reasons, I am not saying that is a good or bad thing, just a fact.
Consider the security apparatus pre 9/11 (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc) think about where it is now, what its’ capabilities are via Patriot ACT and other subversions of the Constitution. Now ask yourself, “Is it necessary??” I say no. But now we are giving up or freedoms to protect our freedoms. We are still killing people in other countries as part of the WOT. What crime did these people commit against us? Why the unspeakable crime of us wanting to leave their country and stop killing their people. SHOCKER.
Non-interventionism (from a foreign policy standpoint) would mean focusing ALL of our time, energy, brain power and capital to FIXING this country FIRST. We can no longer afford a Global empire that is being run by Corporate-statists. The game of the constant diversion of “look here”, no, “look here”, “fix this”, “intervene there”, needs to end so we can focus on the erosion of our freedoms in the name of “BEING SAVED” from “something”.
It isn’t about the Jews, it is about something much bigger. POWER NEEDS BOUNDARIES.
What in the hell is so bat-shit crazy about that??
Occam’s Tool: So we should engage in a pre-emptive war with Iran because they are trying to build a bomb and are threatening Israel? Why not just bomb every Islamic country, like Pakistan… they have a bomb…
One nuke on or above US soil and I can guarantee a draft will be in place before the bodies are counted. http://chartsbin.com/view/1887
Bottom line is he is a mean nasty old man, racist Jew hater creep.
Even if he is right on a few things and that damn quiz said he was my candidate.
I refute that finding. I maintain the quiz was rigged.
@TR930 if you would just take enough time to read the Quran and not buy the BS that CAIR and other MB front groups are feeding you, you’d realize that we are not being attacked as a result of our occupation of foreign soils; we are being attacked as inhabitants of dar-ul-harb.
Before someone tries to argue that Muslims will only wage defensive wars or are doing nothing more than removing the infidels from dar-ul-Islam, lets take a moment to recognize that (a) all lands formerly occupied by or at one time ruled by Muslims are, by their own faith, owed to them forevermore, and (b) that efforts to counter or resist the spread of Islam are considered aggression an as such an acceptable reason to engage in warfare.
So, unless we cede all lands historically claimed by Muslims to the Ummah at large, and unless we willingly accept submission to Muslims as Dhimmis, we are in a position of enmity with dar-ul-Islam.
I agree with a select few of Ron Paul’s policies, but his ignorance (willful or unintentional) of the threat that Islam poses to free society everywhere is impossible to ignore and, as stated by Dr. Steven Coughlin, “to our great detriment”.
I’m Jewish. I understand what Paul is saying and I don’t think it means he’s anti-semitic or evil.
The question is whether America should intervene to prevent atrocities when it can. It seems like a simple question, but it really isn’t. There are many factors that would go into the decision. The hypothetical posed to him, which is a question in a vacuum, was unfair.
Yikes!
Whatever agreements I had with Paul about fiscal matters are thrown out the window with that statement by Paul, if it is indeed true.
Yikes!
TR930, good post. Power must be limited. War in any form always results in loss of individual freedom as it always is utilized to further cntralize the power of the state. One of the best books regarding this is , “The costs of war: America’s pyrrhic victories”, edited by John V. Denson.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0MJCDZBbxJcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
If you change the wording to “willing to risk their OWN life and the lives of their OWN family” a lot of zippers would suddenly be supportive of paul’s statements.
It is so easy to send others to do the fighting and dying for our principles.
To all those who posted saying how come we didn’t oppose Stalin, Mao, Pol POt etc.
Newsflash!!! We did we fought the cold war in many places around the globe. Don’t revisit history, study it…
@ Impassive Sentinel
Amen…
What Impassive Sentinel said (if I may restate) put another way:
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.
– Winston Churchill
One more….
War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts.
– George S. Patton, Jr.
I ditto CapnAngus with an “Amen”.
Considering the fact that the Nazis had their sights set on *global domination* we had every reason to get involved.
@ImpassiveSentinel: You and your kin can fight them overseas if you want, but that’s a war that cannot be won. What do you propose? Wiping out the entire religion? Make Muslims the Dhimmis and subjugated people? Send our kids into battle to protect our “freedom” ??
The only policy that makes sense to me “tit-for-tat”. Which is: be on guard for aggression and if used or attempted, smack em back hard.. then leave them alone and keep unfriendlies out of the country. As far as I can tell, that is pretty much the strategy of Israel. Anything else will eventually lead to all out annihilation.
It isn’t our job to nation build, or engage in warfare with countries that within their own borders do stupid things.
Because someone said it on the internet it’s true? There’s a reason no other media outlet would run such a story, and it’s not because libs love conservatives. It’s hear-say, no evidence, no corroboration. But that doesn’t stop so-called “conservative” blogs from regurgitating it.
That mindset works well for college age kids… there is a huge Anti-Semetic push in our Universities…and most kids in college or who have graduated the last few years…view Israel and Jews as the problem with the world.
You could poll University professors, and you probably would fing 70 % or more to hold very hateful opinions of Israel and Just love the so called invented people of Palestine.
The Axis powers were determined to dominate the world. In the case of WWII we would have eventually had to fight on every border or Ron & Rand would now be speaking Japanese and/or German.
Why didn’t we interfere in Ukraine? Ask Roosevelt (D). Cambodia? Ask Carter (D). Rwanda? Ask Clinton (D). Maybe this nutcase should think again about which party he belongs to…
Sentinel,
I call B/S. I am sure that there are some Muslims that interpret the Quran as you have described. However, I would bet that the vast majority just want to live their lives, live in peace and raise their children as I do.
Islam, as far as I can tell has always been Islam. It is never going away no matter what some within the religion believe are its’ true “intentions” or stated goals.
If we are to take Islam on its’ face as a direct threat (as you suggest) to the West, the U.S. Constitution or even Christianity then let us destroy it. COMPLETELY. Otherwise what the hell are we doing “over there”? What does it accomplish? Wasn’t Islam the same in 1900 as it was in 2000? Were there new chapters added or something? Were we at war with Islam or “Radical” muslims in 1900?? No? Why? What happened?? Oh yes, we decided to surround Russia and China (see Korea and Vietnam) after WWII and occupy those Muslims lands that were “Friendly” to the U.S. (i.e. protect us and we will supply your oil, oh and priced in dollars too) So, they got pissed about that huh? Geez, does that sound unreasonable?
So what if some Muslims believe this or that, WHO CARES?? They are 8,000 miles away in a cave preaching one thing and watching Internet porn in the next room. The die hards are busy cutting off people’s heads or stoning them to death for violations of Sharia Law, SO BE IT. We don’t need to start a war because 30 guys in a cave want to dominate the world. So what if that number was 3,000 or 30,000 or 300,000?? Guess what, we keep this up and it will be 3,000,000 before long. This “strategy” is not a deterrence to them, when do we admit that to ourselves?
The U.S. Government failed in 9/11, we can debate all day whether it was intentional or not, but we will probably never know the real truth. We spend more on security forces, military and intelligence than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. 19 guys got through. Fix the holes, repair the system and let’s go about our business. But no, what was the answer we gave?? Invade.
Do people ever watch the “War Porn” videos on this site? Honestly, I watch nearly every one of them and my reactions are getting increasingly negative towards them. Blowing people to bits, or watching them get torn to pieces by cannon fire or flying through the air to their deaths really has a “Colosseum” feel to it. People cheer as the man who took up arms to expel a foreign invader is nearly killed by an air-strike and then struggles to crawl to safety only to be finished off in a clinical “follow up”. What is so great about watching a soldier in a helicopter miles away slaughter people?? They “Deserve” it??
When are the people on this site going to realize that may be you someday??? You see the stories about the laws they are changing, what they can do to us, deny you due process because THEY DEFINE “WHO” YOU ARE.
Think about the day Martial law is declared and you take out your rifle and start patrolling your yard or area near your house, unknown to you you are being watched and it has been noted that you are armed. You are, after all, in violation of the curfew. A quick check of the NSA database by the Apache pilot reveals you have “anti-government” writings or sentiments. Facebook has recorded all of your exchanges with friends and family. Google has recorded all the websites you have visited and has noted a particular pattern in your searches. A quick check of your personal purchases reveals you have bought survival gear, water, weapons and ammunition in large quantities recently. Ah, you have anti-establishment bias in your voting record, and you home school your kids rather than send them to the Government “education centers”. Now, the thermal imaging goes up in the cockpit and the cross hairs are squarely on YOU. Guess what, YOU represent a THREAT and must be eliminated. Perhaps you weren’t aware, but it was ALL Legal to look into your life and the military has the discretion to act upon ANYTHING it feels is a “threat”.
Don’t worry, you will be remembered by millions as they cheer your death on the internet as the clip goes viral. Perhaps you will die instantly, but if WE are lucky, you will be severely wounded and we get a few more moments to enjoy the last moments of your “treacherous” life. BOOM! There it is, a quick burst of the cannon for “justice” and “freedom” and the “rule of law”.
Now, the muslim in the videos, how much do you think they had on him? All they know is if he is armed or not. “But, he was a threat to our troops!”
Well, we can fix that by removing the troops can’t we???
Funny, if we consider the painful truth that if Sentinel is indeed correct, then we must destroy an ENTIRE religion and ALL of its’ followers in order to have “peace”.
Now then the question to the Russian Presidential Candidate or the Chinese one in the future can be; “If you were President of Russia during World War III, and as President you knew what we now know about the Islamic Purge, but the U.S. presented no threat to Russia., would you have sent Russian troops to the Middle East purely as a moral imperative to save the Muslims?”
Russian or Chinese candidate? As if!
As for Cambodia, we probably would have intervened had we stayed in Vietnam. But, it was decided that we should get out, and there was no more political will to do anything more in the far East. I assume the Leftists are happy with the results?
I don’t think the Korea and Vietnam actions were to “surround Russia and China”, but to hold back their influence/takeover of the rest of the East. I suppose one could argue that that’s their neighborhood and they’re welcome to do so, but the fact that South Korea has turned out so well makes me think maybe it wasn’t so cold (just us vs. them with implied equality of the different systems of government) as some would present it.
In defense of Ron Paul, I probably would have called the original question implausible, as I don’t see how we could have fought Japan but justified not fighting Germany. As someone else mentioned, they seemed bent on world domination. Or would he have called a truce? Some Europeans blame the US for being late to the war as it was, so we tried to be “isolationist” for as long as reasonable. If it weren’t for Japan, perhaps we would have been much later entering the war? Maybe Germany would have been happy with only taking over Europe? Although, as Russia found out, a deal to not be invaded was not kept. Could the US have trusted Germany? Seems unlikely. I think there were multiple reasons to fight Germany. But taken at face-value, I’m not comfortable with Ron Paul’s response to that question.
As for Iran vs. Pakistan, at least we have some contact with Pakistan, if uneasy. Iran could do more to build trust.
@TR930
….8,000 Miles away in a cave….
Pull your head out of the sand and look around once in a while. The call for prayer sings out across the air in Detroit, just like it did in the first toe-hold established in Europe by the “peaceful Islamists” who now demand Sharia be the law of the land as they burn and riot. Oooooh, 8,000 miles you say, as LAST WEEK they won the right to wear their head-covering in all schools with JROTC classes in America instead of the uniform I was required to wear.
They are not 8,000 miles away. They are HERE, not to assimilate, but to DOMINATE. And they will with people like you who refuse to see the truth.
Let me tell you something peacenik, I’ve been there more than once, more than twice….and seen how they live, made my own war porn. The only -ONLY- thing the fundamental Islamist understands is strength. You can’t reason, you can’t appease, you can’t ignore. They believe they are called to spread Islam to every land on the planet by any means possible.
The most chosen name for a boy in London today is Mohammed. If that’s ok with you, move there. As for me, resist we much.
@ BHL
First of all, I’m not volunteering to send my kids or anyone else’s kids overseas. We are and will be a volunteer military. Yes, I said “we” because I am one of those souls who recognize that some things are worth fighting for and dying for; I am a veteran and current service member with a bit more perspective than you’d like to give me credit for.
As for what I propose, domestic and international policy are separate but interconnected issues. There are definitely Quranic rules to engaging in warfare, and one of them is never undertaking a battle unless in a position of strategic advantage were the outcome will most likely be in favor of Muslims. Look at the criticism from the Muslim world that came out after any major terrorist attack and you’ll find it lies in either (a) timing 0r (b) targeting of “innocents”. And if you think the “innocents” includes you, think again. You’ve rejected the Quran and follow a different doctrine; the only “innocents” are Muslims as far as Islam is concerned.
So, back to the topic at hand; how to combat the theopolitical monstrosity that is Islam. Honestly, I’ve yet to think of the perfect plan, but I will tell you having US troops stationed far and wide with the ability to project power where need be is certainly a deterrent, as is ensuring we remain militarily better trained and equipped than our enemies.
Stateside, when dealing with the enemy next door, it becomes a process which is often referred to as “lawfare”. That is, putting in place legislation that prevents (a) Islamic law from superseding US law, (b) abandoning political correctness, studying our self-described enemy’s self-described doctrine, and identifying threats for what they are, and (c) preventing the Islamic definition of “slander” from ever becoming a reality in the US. For the record, in case you’d not done the research, the Islamic definition of “slander” is anything that doesn’t benefit a Muslim. What does that mean? Truth, if not beneficial, not comfortable, or not convenient to a Muslim becomes slander, and under OIC legislation which is being pushed for the UN to adopt, it becomes a crime.
If you’d like a preview of life in subjugation, try practicing your free speech and criticizing Islam in Dearborn, Michigan and tell me how it goes.
@TR930, call BS all you want, but unfortunately it’s the truth. It’s black and white, and everything I’ve said has been validated by leading Islamic scholars who had reached ijma (scholarly consensus) thus making their viewpoints binding and impossible to recant or rewrite.
That said, I have to agree war is an ugly thing; I’ve experienced firsthand things that will stay with me for a lifetime. But, even having “been there, done that”, I still rejoice every time I get to see visible evidence of some awful creature being removed from the gene pool.
Take it or leave it, Muslims have already accepted that they will be at war with us until the end of the world or until Islam reigns supreme. There will be no peace between dar-ul harb and dar-ul Islam, and denial or ignorance of Islamic doctrine is foolishness.
@TR930 (Cont’d)
As for the information we have on the individuals you see getting wiped from the face of the earth, you give far too little credit to the target identification/selection process. It’s more intricate than you’ll ever know, and as someone outside looking in, be sure you are able to acknowledge your ignorance in the matter vice displaying it like you just did.