Hillary Clinton: "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Updates

+1 y

What are your thoughts?

Updates

+1 y

Thanks for the answers.

[Phoenix98]

O yeah because it's not like men are the ones risking their lives, watching their brothers in arms being shot to pieces or blown to bits or losing their limbs and coming home only to have the VA not give them the medical care they need and have illegal immigrants get to see doctors ahead of them and receive better care then them. Did you know that thousands upon thousands of veterans die just waiting to get the medical that they should be getting before everyone else.

But yeah sure women are the primary victims of war *rolls eyes*

Lets not forget Hillary helped start the war in Libya , helped destabilize Syria and helped leave the middle east in complete chaos. Which led to the creation of ISIS which has now spread to like 30 countries all of which has left hundreds of thousands dead, injured or displaced.

So yeah obviously Hillary has the right person to "talk" about victims of war, because she would know right? she helped create them.

[lightbulb27]

they are victims for sure in more ways than that.
In the civil war an old woman laying in bed in her house was one of the first victims as a shell came in and blew her leg off. Women are people and they suffer and children probably suffer even more since they take on the fear and loss.

Um... but men suffer horribly. don't believe me, go visit some of the veterans in your cities homeless camps. still there living in the jungles of vietnam in their minds. I've met several. Men suffer horribly... ordered to risk their lives, the only thing they have, for often petty reasons... like "take a hill at all costs"... and that hill isn't really worth it.

A womans view, because women often arent' the ones on the front lines being killed. Ask the men who saw their friends die and suffer what their view is... they are the ones who should answer.

[SarahsSummer]

I think the primary victims are the ones getting shot at and blown up. Secondary victims are who she describes.

[Rocket_Queen]

So ridiculous. Men lose... ya know... their lives, but then again... what does she care about lives?

[starliteyes]

I guess if you think that that's worse than having to kill and die a violent death.. yeah.. sure

[Cryostatic]

Well, y'know... UN Security Council agrees, but thanks for parroting.

Clinton just didn't take it far enough. Men lose their lives in combat, and women may lose those men, but women and children are often direct victims of that same combat, being slaughtered even though they're not armed combatants, to say nothing of sexual violence in war zones.

www.cfr.org/.../p23041

"... civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict, including as refugees and internally displaced persons, and increasingly are targeted by combatants and armed elements..."

[Bandit74]

Eh, I don't know.

Well, in my viewpoint, when someone dies they dont exist anymore and therfore can't feel pain. This would mean that the women would suffer for much longer while their sons and husbands would have been freed from the pains of this world. So I guess it comes down to what you think is worse, dying in combat or living and losing the people who you cared about the most.

I guess it also depends on how much the husbands and sons suffered and went through before they died.

My viewpoint is that the primary victim is the one who suffers the most.

[TadCurious]

As with many other things, Queen Hillary is just wrong about this. From a historical perspective, it was men who primarily fought and died in wars. So the primary victims of war have been male soldiers who were killed or wounded. Now, having cleared that up, it's true that women and children have always been secondary victims of war.

[Eugene]

pics.onsizzle.com/...tims-of-war-women-3396734.png

[Harpesian]

Dayum that reverse logic. ^^

[Eugene]

@Harpesian works perfectly against libtards, since they're not used to combat their own insane troll logic.

[Harpesian]

As with any -tard.

[Eugene]

@Harpesian I do wonder where's the outrage to my post :(
Libtards, leftards, feminists, please? Anyone? I'm starving ;(

[Harpesian]

I guess you're just not attracting enough -tards. :/
(BTW, I'm left-leaning but (I'd like to think) I'm not a -tard so I know what she said is absolute bunnyschnuzzle.)

[Eugene]

@Harpesian hopefully sooner or later (hopefully sooner) you're be leaning towards proper, adequate, pragmatic and realistic centre-right wing.

[Harpesian]

Hey, I don't have to share your political views. :P

[Eugene]

@Harpesian I'm not saying that you should. It's up to you to decide to whether lean towards the side that inevitably leads to degradation (left) or not.
I said that I hope that sooner or later you'll be leaning towards proper, adequate, pragmatic and realistic centre-right wing views.

[Harpesian]

Well, you're not necessarily right in implying that any views leaning left are going to be improper, inadequate or unrealistic. :/

[Eugene]

@Harpesian
Out of experience (not that I wanna play "age card", but I doubt you've met that many folks with strong affiliation *IRL*, not online) I can safely state the following:
Leaning towards left is similar to a snowball. It all begins with leaning towards left, and over the time your views get more and more similar to specific sorts of leftists that are known as libtards, apologists, feminists and hidden communists (publicly calling themselves socialists). There's no stopping, unless you'll get a taste of your own very medicine (like left-wing woman getting raped by an immigrant she fought so hard to get into the country). Also, they're detached from pragmatism completely, as otherwise it would break their logic and actions.

Centre-wing is really hard to balance between the sides, therefore their actions may often contradict with some other actions.

Right-wing are somewhat irrational, while far-right are basically neo-nazis.

[Eugene]

@Harpesian
While centre-right is the most perfect spot, which (unlike leftists), are able to prevent themselves from snowballing into right/far-right due to heavy accent on pragmatism & even can calm down right/far-right with proper arguments, again thanks to pragmatism. Pragmatism is the best approach in politics.

When you'll have time, think about it. Not necessarily now, but some time later.

[Harpesian]

"It all begins with leaning towards left, and over the time your views get more and more similar to specific sorts of leftists that are known as libtards, apologists, feminists and hidden communists (publicly calling themselves socialists). There's no stopping, unless you'll get a taste of your own very medicine (like left-wing woman getting raped by an immigrant she fought so hard to get into the country). Also, they're detached from pragmatism completely, as otherwise it would break their logic and actions."

Yeah right, that's never going to happen to me. XDDD

[Eugene]

@Harpesian that's what they all say in the beginning.
Anyway, your life, your choice, your country.

[Harpesian]

Yup. ^^

[Frisky]

No disrespect to women because for them it's a terrible loss however they can get remarried and live happy successful lives. Kind of hard to do if you're dead.

[Anonymous]

One of the most tone deaf things she's ever said and representative of the kind of 'men are disposable only female or child victims matter' mentality that exists (and always has) that many feminists, rather than dismantling, propagate and further entrench.

[ThisDudeHere]

img1.joyreactor.com/.../auto-9gag-1617879.jpeg

[slatyb]

I think it was an poor way to state that in war there are many victims besides the military combatants. At least in modern warfare, the civilian casualties far outnumber the military casualties.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

It's been a while since she said that but obviously it's pretty fkn retarded. It's funny how it still makes waves. I wonder if she immediately started freaking out on the inside when she said that, like oh fuck did I just say that? Shiiiit.

[Rissyanne]

Kinda like the way she called black men super predators?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Rissyanne I never heard that one.

[Rissyanne]

Goggle it everyone knows about that. It's on you tube. She says now she regrets saying it

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Rissyanne Haha, I bet.

[ShortCircuit]

WTF, those husbands, fathers, and sons are the ones DYING.

[Righttobeararms83]

Just more of the that Washington DC bullshit speak looking for a memorable and historical comment that will be quoted for years to come but unfortunately for her it was an epic fail.

[ShaeNielson]

Yea but the husbands, the fathers and the sons lose their life, so that also gotta give them some victim credit.

[anonman32]

what is she gonna do? send women in to their deaths in war instead of men? is this going to make women not victims anymore? this entire feminist victim mentality must end, it is a social disease.

[Saoirse_Nua]

I wouldn't have said primary maybe something about long term impact for the families

[OfDeath]

I would've though the primary victims are the ones who get killed but...

[iCroissant]

Let me tell you something about Hillary...
She's not very smart :/

[Yanoa_Yanza]

I don't know, I guess it's how you look at it. They get to live, and the fathers, brothers, uncles had to go to war

[PT1911]

She is a criminal.

Why is she allowed to run for president?

[Anonymous]

She said that a long time ago.

She doesn't understand the concept of primary and secondary effects.

[nog6422]

That's like saying when you go to someone's funeral, you are the victim, not them.