Attack at Bangladesh cafe popular with foreigners

[Anonymous]

I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

Not PP but I would like to see this approach given a chance. I don't think all the work we've done with our drone bombs and our arming of "moderates" has been super effective thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Please explain further..do you mean groups like the Saudis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

Not PP but I would like to see this approach given a chance. I don't think all the work we've done with our drone bombs and our arming of "moderates" has been super effective thus far.

o please, the United States has problems that can’t/should not be isolated, only confronted. Given their global support, money and access to weapons it could take longer than WW2 took.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

Not PP but I would like to see this approach given a chance. I don't think all the work we've done with our drone bombs and our arming of "moderates" has been super effective thus far.

o please, the United States has problems that can’t/should not be isolated, only confronted. Given their global support, money and access to weapons it could take longer than WW2 took.

It could take longer than WW2?!? You don't say. Buddy, we've been "confronting" them (Bush-Obama style) for many years longer than the entire duration of WW2.

[Anonymous]

This has been America's longest war, but as today's post says President Obama has made it pretty much invisible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

[Anonymous]

These are the three students that were killed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2-georgia-college-students-killed-bangladesh-terror-attack-article-1.2696899

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Please explain further..do you mean groups like the Saudis?

Don't get into bed with bad people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from a news article. The assailants asked them to recite the Quran and if they could they were spared. A Hindu priest was also attacked yesterday in Bangladesh and killed.

The commons denominator in all of these terrorist attacks whether him the US, Turkey, Africa, and now Bangladesh ia that the assailants are Muslims and they themselves are saying they are killing in the name of Islam.

"One hostage who was rescued told his father the attackers didn’t kill anyone who could recite verses from the Quran. "The gunmen asked everyone inside to recite from the Quran. Those who recited were spared. The gunmen even gave them meals last night," the father of a Bangladeshi businessman who was rescued told the Associated Press."

Yes, this is similar to the attack in Nigeria.

Those that were not Muslims were tortured before they were killed. The terrorists were not poor, slighted, underprivileged. They were well educated, went to top private schools and came from wealthy families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

Meaning she's on the take. It's not a slam on Jews. I'm a Jew - trust me, I know a slam. I see them on DCUM all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a quote from a news article. The assailants asked them to recite the Quran and if they could they were spared. A Hindu priest was also attacked yesterday in Bangladesh and killed.

The commons denominator in all of these terrorist attacks whether him the US, Turkey, Africa, and now Bangladesh ia that the assailants are Muslims and they themselves are saying they are killing in the name of Islam.

"One hostage who was rescued told his father the attackers didn’t kill anyone who could recite verses from the Quran. "The gunmen asked everyone inside to recite from the Quran. Those who recited were spared. The gunmen even gave them meals last night," the father of a Bangladeshi businessman who was rescued told the Associated Press."

Yes, this is similar to the attack in Nigeria.

Those that were not Muslims were tortured before they were killed. The terrorists were not poor, slighted, underprivileged. They were well educated, went to top private schools and came from wealthy families.

My daughter said the guy who went to Emory was actually freed but refused to leave his friends there. They all died.