|
Aylee -> RE: Video - Trump Patriots Clash With Soros Hate Mob (4/17/2017 7:24:33 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
FromWiki- which as we know is not the 100% best source for everything, but he himself or his followers would have corrected this if it were in error:
"In the past, Reynolds has called for the assassination of Iranian scientists and clerics,[6] and advocated the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea "if they start anything."
And also this:
"In 2016, on his Twitter account, Reynolds suggested running over protesters objecting to the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina. In his tweet he wrote, 'run them down' next to a link to a news story about the protests."
So he is also an advocate for acts of domestic terrorism.
I used to read lots of crazy stuff too, and I would not wish to deter anyone from their own learning experience, but it's hard for me to not advise council to be a bit more careful about it in today's world.
nice misrepresentation there.
by "starting anything" in reference to north korea, Reynolds was talking about their invading south korea and he furthered clarified that in an email exchange with a former military personnel whose job it would have been to respond to such an event:
quote:
quote:
It would be far better if the North Koreans overthrow their government than if we bomb them back into the Stone Age. The best case is for all those North Koreans manning the cannons across the Han estuary from Seoul is to lose faith in their mission and to simply walk away from their guns.
I agree, but that doesn’t help if they’re invading across the border, which is what I was talking about.
Without looking at the reference from salon.com concerning his “assassinate Iranian scientists” position-- as a half dozen or so have indeed been killed, he’s not alone in that position. Which is the better, waiting for an aggressive enemy country to have a nuclear weapon and then dealing with them or dealing now with the people responsible for making the weapon? You don’t have to agree with the latter to understand the reasoning behind it or to accept that such a position doesn’t make someone an extremist or a nutcase.
in terms of his "run them over" tweet--here's his explanation of that:
quote:
Wednesday night one of my 580,000 tweets blew up. I didn’t live up to my own standards, and I didn’t meet USA TODAY’s standards. For that I apologize, to USA TODAY readers and to my followers on social media. ... Those words can easily be taken to advocate drivers going out of their way to run down protesters. I meant no such thing, and I'm sorry it seemed I did. What I meant is that drivers who feel their lives are in danger from a violent mob should not stop their vehicles. I remember Reginald Denny, a truck driver who was beaten nearly to death by a mob during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
"domestic terrorism??" hardly.
I saw no reason to reply to anything he got off Wiki. Wiki is good at some stuff, but at politics and current people, not so much. I dislike lines being taken out of context.
As far as the Norks and nuclear weapons. . . Well, we don't have bugs. President Nixon ended that. We don't have gas, we signed the treaty and began destroying what we had. Which should be all gone by 2023.
So imagine the following conversation, somewhere on the Korean Peninsula, in the not too distant future:
“Damn, the North Koreans just drenched 1st of the 9th with a mix of VX, GB, and high explosive. There’s now a three mile-wide gap in our defense. The Norks are pouring through en masse.”
“Wow; bad day for the Manchus. Hmmm…what to do, what to do? We don’t have any bio to hit back with, and it would be too slow anyway. Chemical…anything left on Johnson Island?”
“Not a drop. And Blue Grass Army Depot says the little bit it has left isn’t reliable enough to trust firing it from a cannon.”
“Nukes? Nah, don’t bother answering; that would be first use which we’ve renounced. How about we just bomb them more?”
“We’re already bombing them at max capability. The planes simply can’t do anymore and neither can the pilots. It’s not like we were slacking, after all…”
You may, gentle reader, begin to see the problem with renouncing first use of nukes when we have nothing – and I cannot emphasize this enough – NOTHINGNOTAFUCKINGTHINGZIPZILCHNADA besides nukes to use on either a conventional threat too strong to defeat or in retaliation for the use of non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction on us: “Hey world, let us have it!”
|
|
|
|
