Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

That's what I quoted. Nobody bothered to read it?

You obviously mjsunderstood what I've said, or you are outright lying, though I won't say I believe you are, when you say I ever accepted your interpretation of the "rapists" remark. Sorry, you're wrong.And what's with this "illegal persons" nonsense? Just another underhanded accusation I guess. I've never said anything other than "illegal immigrants."

Seems nobody wants Christian law any more, Sharia sounds better to you.In any case I believe whatever God says is worthy of death is worthy of death, and there are plenty of sins that describes, sins most of us have committed. Haven't we already discussed this? We don't put people to death for anything but murder any more.

"Most?" You're an accuser like all the rest here. Not a shred of benefit of the doubt.,

All the opinion about this madeup incident is coming from current PC leftists who have an amazing inability to distinguish terrorists from innocents. It would be more convincing if we had some information about the legal matters involved from the time of Pershing.

Sad to keep discovering that leftists really do have some sort of mental problem that makes it impossible for them to follow the topic.The fact that the story is probably fiction has been acknowledged by me I don't know how many times in this thread so far and yet you all keep talking as if that's what we're talking about. Well, I'm not and haven't been, except to try to stitch up the mental problem, which hasn't been working.No, the subject is the heinous nature of executing Muslims caught in the act of mass murder -- THAT is what it would be interesting to know the legality of in Pershing's time, even if the story is fiction. Because that is Trump's supposed moral failing, fiction or not.Perhaps if you all have a good vitamin-protein drink before you post on the subject again?

Gosh, jar, get a good night's sleep and have a heavy-duty vitamin drink and strong coffee when you get up before you try again.The assessment of "proper behavior" on this thread has been given according to current leftist PC, as I said, which is what prompted me to wonder what the assessment of proper behavior might have been in Pershing's time. Fiction or not the question of proper behavior relates to his time and not ours. A couple dozen or more posts have been wasted on irrelevancies since then. But I'd still like to know the answer.Make that a really bracing cup of coffee. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remarkable. Endless excuses for missing the point.Yes I don't want to do the research myself. And I don't even really care if nobody else does either, it's just that I know there are much better researchers here than I'll ever be and research tires me out. But it would be nice if the task were at least understood.But alas the ways that can be found for evading the topic are legion.You want a real scenario but all we have is a fictional one, but there is no lack of detail from which to construct a putative reality that could be assessed by the real standards of Pershing's time. Except that for some reason you prefer to evade the task and keep on producing endless irrelevant posts.Oh well. I guess I can keep up the game too if I have to. For a while anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is enough information to go on of course in the scenario you claim is not detailed enough.Anyway: This is a hard subject to research as I expected. I want to know how laws dealing with enemies may be different since Pershing's time. Googling various aspects of the issue gets one into the Geneva Conventions and their applicability to various situations. Such as:The Heritage Foundation | The Heritage FoundationIt defines what a POW is in such a way as to suggest there are captured enemies who aren't considered POWs, but pinning it down eludes me so far. Military trials are the rule, certainly NOT trial by US civilian courts. And there are some hostile entities who are not entitled to its protections: So I have no idea whether IF Pershing did execute some Muslims on the spot where they murdered a whole village that would have been a violation of anything having to do with the Geneva convention or general humane rules of combat. For a recent example, seems to me a lot of Muslim killings don't fit the conditions listed above. What that means about how they are to be treated would take a lot more study -- I should say how they WERE to be treated in Pershing's time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Are you talking about me? If so you'd better come up with some evidence because that's a big fat lie you just told.

Thank you for the information. I generally avoid Snopes because I know it has a liberal slant. However, that was a very thorough discussion of relevant facts. So thanks.What it succeeds in proving at least is that the pigs blood story Trump told has a lot of history behind it and was not made up by Trump or made up recently at all, even if they were unable to track down reports of an incident sufficiently like the one Trump reported to support his claim.But what is reported nevertheless gives quite a bit of support to what he said, which flies in the face of all the claims here that he just made it up or there was nothing to the story at all.It also does suggest that it is or was not unheard of for hostile entities to be executed without trial, and apparently legally. The different situations mentioned include one of Muslims / Moros being executed without trial, though Pershing regretted it -- not on legal grounds apparently but just because he sincerely wanted to avoid killings if possible.

Yes, we'd certainly like to be freed of the prohibition on political speech, but Trump did deal us a low blow on another front when he said he wouldn't support Israel.

...unless the church wants to keep its tax-exempt status. Did I really have to add that?

You do know that churches always used to be tax-exempt just because they were churches, right? And since preaching on the culture, including preaching on politics, is standard Christian work, there was never any legal problem until the 501c3 government intrusion into the business of the church was laid on it. Personally I'm with those who think the church should reject anything the government imposes on it that makes it answerable to the government in any way at all, so in this brave new pagan world that wants us to disappear I think we should just give it up completely. However, if Trump gets the Presidency and wants to remove that restriction, terrific.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trump has been married too many times but I'm not aware that he's cheated on his wife as Clinton did, but then I don't claim to be up on it all, so please show me how this cartoon is justified.