Trump calls Iraq "Harvard for terrorism"

Trump praises for Saddam Hussein's efficient killing of 'terrorists,'

>"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," Trump said.

edition.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/index.html?sr=fbcnni070616donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism0401AMVODtopLink&linkId=26253126

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq
thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/20/393290/poll-iraq-war-iran/
youtube.com/watch?v=pV7aM32Jur8
iamcorrect.com
hillaryclinton.com/feed/how-much-would-hillary-clintons-debt-free-college-plan-save-you-even-if-youve-already-graduated/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20160706feed_collegeplan
isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm
youtube.com/watch?v=GbK_1doj_Yo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>the only world leader to ever use Sarin gas

yeah we should total Praise that guy

He is right though

Trumpdrones are literally defending Saddam Hussein

What a world

Assad did it too.

Idiot
Trump said he was a bad guy

I'd say Afghanistan is the Harvard of terrorism since all those important lads like Bin Laden, al-Zarqawi and Azzam radicalised there.

Iraq is like the Yale at best.

well some people praise their country for using nukes on civilians so theres that

>I know words. I have the best words.
Is trump able to speak in sentences more than 3 words or is that too complicated for him?

Why does Donald Trump speak in grammatically incorrect sentence fragments?

telling an Iraqi you like Saddam is like telling a German you like Hitler
he's really a genocidal maniac, bush not having good intentions doesn't make him a saint

I think he's trying to be as colloquial as possible. It makes him easier to understand and easier to quote.

Says more about his audience than him.

Kek, you should see some of the Facebook comments from "Iraqis" on the Chilcot enquiry.
>When Sadaam was the ruler the country was more or less in peace
>Free water
>Free healthcare
>Cheap petrol
>People living in peace
>Going to school college uni.
>No one shooting each other
>No one bombing each other...

lmao
well if those people approve of peace through exterminating anyone who isnt of his sect/ideology then hes not bad

But he's always like this though? Listen or read his meeting with the Washington Posts editorial board. It's really something.

Ouch.

>only

You are forgetting about a lot.

Trump is correct though.

Did he do that?
I thought he killed less people than the dudes now.

on that note:

Was Gadhafi better than how it is currently?

>He kept fugees fromdrowning at least...

rumsfeld sez 'its chill'

t. "Libya is totally better now that it's in civil war" shill

Pew Polls showed that the vast majority of Iraqis preferred Saddam to now. It also showed the same for Libyans and Gaddafi.

Why was Saddam a bad guy and various dictators funded by US not? How would a Harvard proffessor answer such question?

>Saddam exterminated shias

It's a negotiating technique I think. I can't remember it's name but he's basically trying to create a kind of false familiarity by talking in a colloquial manner.

yeah he did
>was Gaddafi better
we're recovering from a bloody civil war so its shittier than under gaddafi slightly but im happy with current Libya
link me the polls, srsly i hate polfags
>he hates dictators
>hes a shill
go suck a dick gawad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

this
USA aren't saints either
but cuz USA are shit doesn't mean the dictators they took down are saints , either

based baath knew how to deal with k*rd menace.

>yeah he did

Source?

>I prefer civil war
Okay.

>link me the polls
You do it yourself.

They are a google search away.

>wikipedia
Could I have a better source for genocide of shias? Because every source I see is saying that there were massacres but not a genocide.

>Source?
I just sourced it
>Okay.
I prefer not having to bribe a banker to get my paycheck
>You do it yourself.
I just googled and found nothing
im 100% you just made that shit up
>Could I have a better source for genocide of shias? Because every source I see is saying that there were massacres but not a genocide.
what?

Wikipedia is not a source.
That is a link.

Holy shit you're so retarded go back to your containment board

you seriously need to get a gun and shoot yourself

Wikipedia cites sources. Don't be lazy, user.

thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/20/393290/poll-iraq-war-iran/

Are you using LibyanGoogle search??

Ya know, every time people talk about the US as shits in foreign policy I am reminded of this song.
youtube.com/watch?v=pV7aM32Jur8

We prefer to fuck you over gently compared to most other assholes.

Here's a source proving I'm correct.

iamcorrect.com

Your people do that well enough already.

I know. But he posted a link. Not a source.

>Iraqi views can again be described as conflicted: 22% saying they are happy; 35% saying they are worried; and 30% saying they feel both emotions.
where does it say they love Saddam?

So shouldn't the Libyan link the sources?

I could post links to StormFront websites that assert Egyptians were Nordic.
But that's not a source.

>But he posted a link. Not a source.
>Secondary sources are not sources
Did you finish high school?

forgot to say
the question asked in the pol is what they feel about USA leaving Iraq

Where did I state "Iraqis love Saddam"?

I call you a shill because you never address the argument or provide sources. You always try using your own anecdotes or link wikipedia.

That's literally what Sup Forums does in arguments.

Wikipedia is not a secondary source you retard.

Which connects directly to them removing Saddam...
We wouldn't be there if we didn't remove Saddam. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

He gave you a link to a source. Are you really too lazy to scroll to the bottom of the page and find the source for yourself? Think you're just being a contrarian, shit-stirring mong tbqh.

>Where did I state "Iraqis love Saddam"?
>Pew Polls showed that the vast majority of Iraqis preferred Saddam to now. It also showed the same for Libyans and Gaddafi
>I call you a shill because you never address the argument or provide sources. You always try using your own anecdotes or link wikipedia.
>That's literally what Sup Forums does in arguments.
sooo wikipedia is not a valid source?
are you trolling? i'm pretty sure you're trolling

Oh, does he mean the Kurds that Saddam bombed indiscriminately and that we promised to protect? What a fucking retard. He keeps on saying the stupidest shit, it's like he's trying to sink his own campaign. The only thing holding him afloat is the power of retards to believe in him no matter what he says.

>a link to a source

No he did not. That's a link to a website. Not a source.

At least fucking greentext the area that talks about Shia genocide. Linking a website is not linking a source.

HILLARY OFFERS FREE COLLEGE TUITION

Lmfao, Trumpfags are so screwed

hillaryclinton.com/feed/how-much-would-hillary-clintons-debt-free-college-plan-save-you-even-if-youve-already-graduated/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20160706feed_collegeplan

Wikipedia itself is the link to the source. Are you merely pretending?

No he isn't
Watch some of his older interviews

>In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
Thats literally what Wikipedia, a history book or a dictionary does super autismo man

So you were incapable of showing where I stated "Iraqis loved Saddam."

Looks like that case is closed.

isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

No but doesn't make the good things any worse
The good things we should also do

>wikipedia is a link to a source

He linked www.wikipedia.org

Not sources from wikipedia.

So again, you're just too lazy to scroll to the bottom and find the source yourself. Playing semantics isn't making you look like any less of an idiot.

The thing is, sandniggers can't handle democracy.
You need an average IQ of 90+ in your population for a democracy to work. They don't have that.
Sand niggers need a brutal dictator to keep the barbarians in check otherwise they start allahu akbarring each other.

You seem to have trouble reading your own dictionary.

Secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. Not interpretations of secondary sources.

Wikipedia is not a source. It's a repository for links to sources.

I did. There was FUCKING NOTHING on Shia genocide by Saddam.

>good things
such as?
pic related

>Proven wrong with sources at the bottom
>Instead of using the sources to show what's wrong, spergs out "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A VALID INTERNET DEBATE SOURCE WE4RE IN HARVARD HERE EVERYONE MUST SPEND HOURS TO DO HIS RESEARCHES"

You have failed miserably and therefore resort to ad hominems.

Pathetic.

I used Harvard to prove Wikipedia is not a valid source.
You were incapable of showing where I supposedly claimed "Iraqis loved Saddam."
You were incapable of providing a valid source for your claims of Shia genocide by Saddam.

Pic related will soon be you.

Saddam? What Trump said

I have no idea how we got here
I'm sorry user i love Gaddafi i'm gonna hang a green flag on my house
forgive me I have learned my mistakes

Well then link the valid source and not Wikipedia, fuckwit

Nice strawman after losing the argument.

1. Wikipedia is not a valid source.

2. Nowhere in the fucking entire Wikipedia page was there anything to do with his claimed "Shia genocide by Saddam."

3. Stop being autistic.

>I KILL YOU BCUZ YOU SANDNIGGER DURR DURR HURR BUT DONT YOU DARE CALLING ME A TROLL

>you in this thread

Im not trying to prove anything are you unable to understand human communications?
Im just mocking the retard you are

Where did I claim Gaddafi was good? I only mentioned him once in the post about polling.

>I'll kill you

Nope. That's the work of ISIS with Libyan militias.
Stop being autistic.

>Trump says something that is pretty obvious
>"OMG what a monster!"

Oh yes surely this postwasn't trying to attack my character.

What a completely pointless discussion with a bunch of autists.

Huh, you are actually correct. Here's a source showing genocide of Shias:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm
You're a pretty disgusting human being.

That's called mockery inbred redneck

lol she gon do it 4 sure

15$ minimum wage too

she wouldn't lie

Cry me a fucking river
And go back to tumblr or whatever your preferred sjw site is

wait a second hating dictators is sjw stuff now?
only sjws hate genocide?
what happened to this world?

>saying genocide is bad is now tumblr-tier
What a time to be alive.

No, he said that the murikan was a disgusting human being, and for what?

For mocking someone from a country in severe political turmoil, posting pictures of the recently deceased and implying that said person should join them.

Exactly.
Shit that happens here every day
If that makes you feel disgusted, sick and triggered, then please, fuck off back to tumblr

youtube.com/watch?v=GbK_1doj_Yo

>bad things happen all the time so bad things are ok
You've let too much apathy into your mind, user.

This is a place for "bad things"
If you don't like it, go somewhere else

No it isn't, it's a place for (relatively) unmoderated discussion. People here choose to be vile, it is not enforced.

And people on tumblr choose to get offended by everything, like you do, so why don't you go and be with your kin?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

last i checked the description for the board was
>a board for international discussion and culture

So we all agree that its better to keep a dictator in charge of a country instead of removing him and thus creating a power vacuum which will be filled with unchecked extremists?

Your obsession with tumblr aside, words can hurt people, only the mentally ill are never hurt by what others say.

Meant Sup Forums in general
And it's completely normal to get upset about something an anonymous American said about some anonymous libyan?

I know empathy isn't very cool or edgy but it does actually exist.

Internet isn't all serious business lad

Phone's dying lads

A lot of it is though. Are you trying to imply that the post in question was some kind of joke?

Well I'm implying that you shouldn't take it too seriously either
And my point was and still is that if that kind of posts disgusts you maybe this isn't the right place for you

I've had many interesting discussions here; I'm not going to leave just because some professional apathists want to make everyone feel as miserable and hollow as they are.

Hook it to the charger lad

You know you can hide posts that make you upset?

I do know that.

>"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," Trump said.

My god, that speech
Is Trump a 10 years old ?

You know
You can speak differently to make a different effect on the listeners
For instance, our retarded ex-pm always listed three things no matter what the subject was