Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sister of slain Muslim student challenges Donald Trump after 'pig blood' comments Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The sister of a Muslim student killed in North Carolina last year has challenged Donald Trump to meet with her after the Republican presidential candidate made admiring comments about executing Islamic terrorists with "bullets coated in pig blood".

    Suzanne Barakat, 28, is the sister of Deah Barakat, who was fatally shot alongside his wife, Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, a little more than a year ago. The couple had been married two months earlier and both were students at the school of dentistry at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Razan was a second-year student at North Carolina State University.

    Their neighbour, Craig Hicks, turned himself in to police later that day and has been charged with three counts of murder. Investigators are determining whether it was a hate crime, though his wife has said that the attack began over a parking dispute.

    Suzanne Barakat ‎@sbarakat210
    .@realDonaldTrump Meet me in person and tell me my brother, Yusor & Razan were deserving of the bullets. #SCPrimary #OurThreeWinners
    Campaigning ahead of the South Carolina primary last Saturday, Mr Trump illustrated his belief in the importance of being tough on terror with a war story about Gen John Pershing. In his recounting, which has not been historically verified, Pershing once captured 50 militants and had his soldiers kill 49 of them with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood.

    This is something you can read in the history books,
    Mr. Trump said.
    Not a lot of history books, because they don’t like teaching it.
    After hearing his comments, Ms Barakat issued her invitation on Twitter on Sunday night. She asked Mr Trump to “meet me in person and tell me my brother, Yusor & Razan were deserving of the bullets.”

    Trump speaks as if he is the authority on American Muslims,
    she told the New York Times.
    Well, if you mean it then call me up and meet with me and let’s have a chat.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6889756.html
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    So.....do I interpret this as her admitting her relatives were terrorists? Since Trumps comment seems to apply to terrorists and not regular citizens? Not that I want to support Trump most of the time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    So.....do I interpret this as her admitting her relatives were terrorists? Since Trumps comment seems to apply to terrorists and not regular citizens? Not that I want to support Trump most of the time.
    Read the OP carefully, they weren't terrorists.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    Read the OP carefully, they weren't terrorists.
    Read my reply lol?

    My point is Trumps comment applied to terrorists, saying we should execute Islamic terrorists with pig blood dipped bullets (for some BS reason).

    So the bullets wouldn't be meant for her family anyway, unless as I said, she's trying to say her brother was a terrorist. If he wasn't as I assume is the case, Trumps comment does not apply to him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Read my reply lol?

    My point is Trumps comment applied to terrorists, saying we should execute Islamic terrorists with pig blood dipped bullets (for some BS reason).

    So the bullets wouldn't be meant for her family anyway, unless as I said, she's trying to say her brother was a terrorist. If he wasn't as I assume is the case, Trumps comment does not apply to him.
    if you knew they were not terrorists then why on earth did you write that first reply?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    if you knew they were not terrorists then why on earth did you write that first reply?
    The woman's challenge only makes sense if they were terrorists.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by george-90)
    The woman's challenge only makes sense if they were terrorists.
    This is a more concise version lol.


    I mean I guess he could meet her and say "I never said normal Muslims should be shot by bacon bullets, my view on the execution of terrorists is my own." and they can both go on with their lives. Might be easier to call though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by george-90)
    The woman's challenge only makes sense if they were terrorists.
    The point is, they were not. The woman can challenge Trump on anything, its not dependent on just one factor (whether her relatives were terrorists or not - which as I already said, they were not).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    The point is, they were not. The woman can challenge Trump on anything, its not dependent on just one factor (whether her relatives were terrorists or not - which as I already said, they were not).
    But why would Trump believe that they were deserving of any bullets at all if they were not terrorists? Trump hasn't proposed a genocide of Muslims. You can't challenge someone on beliefs that they do not hold or propositions that they have not made or implied. Why would you ask someone if your relatives deserved to die by some obscure execution method unless you had good reason to suspect that they would believe such a thing?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Although it's sad, the woman's point is irrelevant. Her problem has nothing to do with the pig-soaked bullet issue and more to do with her brother's apparent innocence, why is this Trump's problem?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Amazing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    if you knew they were not terrorists then why on earth did you write that first reply?
    So why did she bring up the point? What people are saying in this thread is so obvious, why aren't you getting it?

    Please, just get it. It's not difficult. I can't fathom how this is flying over your head

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ok I get what you are trying to say about what the woman may be implying...... but at the end of the day its called freedom of speech, she is allowed to challenge anyone. I guess what she might be saying is why on earth would you use that kind of method, secondly if Trump is so desperate to punish terrorist, then why not all terrorists, why specifically islamists?
    What she might be saying is her relatives got murdered and so did many others as part of a mass shooting, so why is the killer not considered a terrorists? and why should such people be except from this kind of punishment? at the end of the day the law should apply to everyone, no matter what religious or ethnic, racial etc background.
    btw im in no way advocating this punishment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    Read the OP carefully, they weren't terrorists.
    Of course they weren't. Donald Trump didn't say they were terrorists so what's her problem?
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    if you knew they were not terrorists then why on earth did you write that first reply?
    He is trying to highlight the stupidity of her tweet. Donald Trump's comments were aimed at terrorists, not her brother and for some reason she feels provoked. Why would someone feel offended over Trump's comment which wasn't aimed at them or their relatives unless they are terrorists themselves? See how pointless her tweet is.
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    The point is, they were not. The woman can challenge Trump on anything, its not dependent on just one factor (whether her relatives were terrorists or not - which as I already said, they were not).
    Of course she can challenge Trump but it's unnecessary and nothing will be achieved from it.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    but at the end of the day its called freedom of speech, she is allowed to challenge anyone
    Why does everyone always appeal to 'freedom of speech', whether or not it has anything to do with the argument whatsoever? :shakecane:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    ok I get what you are trying to say about what the woman may be implying...... but at the end of the day its called freedom of speech, she is allowed to challenge anyone. I guess what she might be saying is why on earth would you use that kind of method, secondly if Trump is so desperate to punish terrorist, then why not all terrorists, why specifically islamists?
    What she might be saying is her relatives got murdered and so did many others as part of a mass shooting, so why is the killer not considered a terrorists? and why should such people be except from this kind of punishment? at the end of the day the law should apply to everyone, no matter what religious or ethnic, racial etc background.
    btw im in no way advocating this punishment.
    I'm going to break this down for you, make it nice and simple.

    Islamist terrorists are not the biggest threat in the US, however they are deemed the biggest threat by the public. This makes it good topic to bring up when trying to win presidency because it is what the people want to hear, you are tackling their fears. See 9/11 for why the US are so worried about Islamists.

    The reason he brought up Islamists with this punishment is because as I understand it if a Muslim consumes or has pig in their body they will not go to Heaven (or whatever they call it).

    Her relatives were not part of a mass killing, in fact her relatives were the only ones to be killed in the incident by Craig Hicks. The shooting was allegedly triggered by a parking dispute, where the siblings kept taking Mr Hicks car parking space. For this to be a terrorist incident it would need to be religiously or politically motivated, not parking motivated.

    Does that clear things up for you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    The point is, they were not. The woman can challenge Trump on anything, its not dependent on just one factor (whether her relatives were terrorists or not - which as I already said, they were not).
    Are you ok? You seem to not be understanding a word the poster was saying
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well Trump never said they should be killed I do feel sorry for her though
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    ok I get what you are trying to say about what the woman may be implying...... but at the end of the day its called freedom of speech, she is allowed to challenge anyone.
    Not really the point though, is it. She's weakening her claim and argument by making false accusations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is she saying her brother and his wife would have been affected by this?

    I don't get her argument at all
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 26, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.