My counter to that would be that we accept that sometimes war is necessary and can be the lesser of two evils, while judging every Muslim by the actions of a few should never be necessary.
Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.
Trump has said he wants to completely ban everyone who shares a religion with the most prominent terrorists of the moment.
The two, in my eyes, are very, very different. One is a decision made in the understanding that we have to make difficult choices, one is a naive, dangerous blanket policy as a knee-jerk response that will cause more harm than good.
It's easy to say 'killing vs banning' and make it sound the way you did, but when it's 'carefully directed killing to try and reduce overall killing vs overreaching banning that will be ineffective and punish innocent people'...
It's easy to call it 'carefully directed killing' when many people called out that sort of activity in general, and those specific actions (syria, libya) and even constructively suggested alternatives that would avoid bloodshed and blowback - and those alternatives have been repeatedly ignored.
I'm not saying I agree completely with the actions taken - but they still hold up far better under the 'who do I want making the decisions' test - the person who at least tried to make a good call, or the person who wants to make a clearly terrible one.
Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.
Trump has said he wants to completely ban everyone who shares a religion with the most prominent terrorists of the moment.
The two, in my eyes, are very, very different. One is a decision made in the understanding that we have to make difficult choices, one is a naive, dangerous blanket policy as a knee-jerk response that will cause more harm than good.
It's easy to say 'killing vs banning' and make it sound the way you did, but when it's 'carefully directed killing to try and reduce overall killing vs overreaching banning that will be ineffective and punish innocent people'...