You are so wrong I can't even describe it. Your reductive arguments are child like. Trump has said he will bomb harder. What more do you want me to say?
It's ridiculous to say that words are worse than bombs. No sane person can possibly make that statement, let alone write a long diatribe on it. The article you posted doesnt even advance that same position. It says inflammatory rhetoric can antagonize muslims. No shit, we all know that. But it never says words are worse then bombs, probably one of the most asinine things i ever read. Obama bombing the shit out of muslims in the ME, a policy which Hillary has already said will continue and intensify when she wins, causes far more harm than Trump talking on a subject.
Words cause bombs. Inflammation in a large public group causes terrorism. If you don't see that then you weren't an educated adult for the last 20 years.
Pissing off any large group in the world gets people killed. Bombs don't drop without words. Shit doesn't happen if nobody talks about it. These are first year polisci and first year Philo arguments. It is rare that a group jumps to deadly action unless they are antagonized. You act like antagonizing a 1+ billion group of people is just fine and no big deal. That is insane, not me saying that words can cause more harm than bombs. You can't look at things holistically, instead you cherry pick and ignore what you can't argue.
You call me insane while ignoring a significant portion of my arguments. Broad strokes or concise thinking? I wonder which is better? Actually I don't. I know which is better.
The article I posted says exactly what I'm saying. Trumps rhetoric helps them not us. Read it again simpleton.
If this was econ you are thinking micro about macro. It doesn't work.
No wonder you like Trump.
Also. I said sometimes words are worse. Not always. Words from people in power hold more weight than words from you or me. Listen to what is said. You knee jerk so hard MY knees hurt.