GOP front-runner proposes committing war crimes to fight ISIS

[TLK Valentine]

.All's fair in love and war. It is high time to throw the rules out the window.

Starting with the Bible?

 

[jenniTexan]

This is a horrible statement that should be universally condemned, from both a practical and moral standpoint. From a moral standpoint, the targeting of civilians who may not have been involved is wrong, plain and simple.

From a practical standpoint, this will only hurt America's standing in the world even more and provide greater propaganda for radical Islamists.

 

[NolanJ]

War crimes is an oxymoron term recently invented by liberals. All's fair in love and war. We intentionally killed civilians in Hiroshima and no one called it a war crime. The only way to rid the earth of ISIS is to bomb the hell out of Raqqa and wherever they are found, and if their women and children are with them (and they almost always are because ISIS thinks we wont bomb them if women and children are present) they will have to die too. It is high time to throw the rules out the window.

True. If America doesn't want to put boots on the ground allowing more bombing within that city is needed. None of our bombings in previous wars were called war crimes. There is no negotiating with this enemy. Don't think we have seen this kind of savagery since the Japanese troops in China during WWII and the Waffen SS. In Kerry speak, this stuff is about on the same level as Genghis Kahn. In the long run killing these people as quickly as possible will save lives. Really miss the Cold War. Despite the fact the weapons were much more terrible and awful to say the least. We had a rational enemy that didn't want to die so likely they wouldn't shoot first.

 

[jenniTexan]

True. If America doesn't want to put boots on the ground allowing more bombing within that city is needed. None of our bombings in previous wars were called war crimes. There is no negotiating with this enemy. Don't think we have seen this kind of savagery since the Japanese troops in China during WWII and the Waffen SS. In Kerry speak, this stuff is about on the same level as Genghis Kahn. In the long run killing these people as quickly as possible will save lives. Really miss the Cold War. Despite the fact the weapons were much more terrible and awful to say the least. We had a rational enemy that didn't want to die so likely they wouldn't shoot first.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance, thus creating an unfortunate grey area. Hitting civilian targets with the intention of hitting civilian targets that have no proven military significance is unquestionably a war crime.

 

[NolanJ]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military significance, thus creating an unfortunate grey area. Hitting civilian targets with the intention of hitting civilian targets that have no proven military significance is unquestionably a war crime.

Technically Raqqa has military significance as well as it is the captial of ISIS. I am not saying carpet bombing. But the US is not hitting targets within confines of the city itself because it "might miss" even with the guided bombs we have. Mostly hitting targets on the outskirts. US pilots should be able to start hitting targets within the city itself as long as they have reason to believe it is a valid military or Isis governmental target. ISIS fighters aren't dumb and mostly are staying within the city itself.

 

[jenniTexan]

Technically Raqqa has military significance as well as it is the captial of ISIS. I am not saying carpet bombing. But the US is not hitting targets within confines of the city itself because it "might miss" even with the guided bombs we have. Mostly hitting targets on the outskirts. US pilots should be able to start hitting targets within the city itself as long as they have reason to believe it is a valid military or Isis governmental target. ISIS fighters aren't dumb and mostly are staying within the city itself.

Maybe I misread what you were saying earlier, and if so, I apologize. My statement was referring to the separation between bombing a military target that might have civilians near, creating the grey area, and the intentional bombing of family members simply through guilt by association.

 

[NolanJ]

Maybe I misread what you were saying earlier, and if so, I apologize. My statement was referring to the separation between bombing a military target that might have civilians near, creating the grey area, and the intentional bombing of family members simply through guilt by association.

No family members. The President's goal is 0 civilain casualties according to sources and that is just not practical with this kind on enemy that hide within the population. I am sure we know where valid military targets are within the city itself. Pilots are not allowed to go into there yet.

 

[jenniTexan]

No family members. The President's goal is 0 civilain casualties according to sources and that is just not practical with this kind on enemy that hide within the population. I am sure we know where valid military targets are within the city itself. Pilots are not allowed to go into there yet.

I agree that 0 civilian casualties is unrealistic, which is why we've already failed (Doctor's Without Borders being one example). However, Trump's statement goes the other way.

 

[morningstar2651]

True. If America doesn't want to put boots on the ground allowing more bombing within that city is needed. None of our bombings in previous wars were called war crimes. There is no negotiating with this enemy. Don't think we have seen this kind of savagery since the Japanese troops in China during WWII and the Waffen SS. In Kerry speak, this stuff is about on the same level as Genghis Kahn. In the long run killing these people as quickly as possible will save lives. Really miss the Cold War. Despite the fact the weapons were much more terrible and awful to say the least. We had a rational enemy that didn't want to die so likely they wouldn't shoot first.

Do you believe we should intentionally target the wives and children of enemy soldiers for extermination? If Trump is elected president, he will give the order to "take out their families".

 

[lupusFati]

Sorry you missed the answer I already ga-

Actually. you missed the point I was making. But I kind of expected that, tbh.

 

[NolanJ]

Do you believe we should intentionally target the wives and children of enemy soldiers for extermination? If Trump is elected president, he will give the order to "take out their families".

No that is crazy honestly. But I do think there should be some consequences if any of the adults within the family knew about an attack and did nothing to report it or stop it.

 

[jenniTexan]

No that is crazy honestly. But I do think there should be some consequences if any of the adults within the family knew about an attack and did nothing to report it or stop it.

The problem is proving that.

 

[Albion]

The testimony of the father of the male shooter would seem to be sufficient proof.

 

[NolanJ]

The problem is proving that.

I was just going to edit my post. I know it would be hard to prove, but I think potentially the threat of prosecution itself may cause family members to report things if the potential punishment is bad enough. Maybe 10 years in the pen as a minimum. The family members may not know what the FBI knows and the unknown is always scary. Another option could be to use the carrot. If someone turns someone in that is plotting an attack and it checks out they should be given a reward.

 

[interpreter]

Well clearly he doesn't, as he order his followers to kill his enemies.

He interferes about once every 2000 years or so, like when Jesus was sent to earth and started a new religion and commanded us to kill His enemies.

 

[JustOneWay]

The testimony of the father of the male shooter would seem to be sufficient proof.

Specifically, what did the father say which you consider proof?

 

[Albion]

He interferes about once every 2000 years or so, like when Jesus was sent to earth and started a new religion and commanded us to kill His enemies.

Jesus commanded us to kill his enemies?

This is the man who acted to prevent his top assistant from trying to kill the man who had come to arrest Jesus on false charges.

 

[JustOneWay]

He interferes about once every 2000 years or so, like when Jesus was sent to earth and started a new religion and commanded us to kill His enemies.

Not provable, and insufficient as any retort which anybody can take as serious or even likely.

Keep saying Jesus commanded us to kill his enemies, and you will eventually be able to compare Christianity to Islam, and not in a good way.

 

[AionPhanes]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/donald-trump-dodges-questions-terrorist-families/
Trump suggested Wednesday morning on Fox News that as president he would order the killing of terrorists' families.

"You have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said Wednesday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility.[1]Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, wantonly destroying property, taking hostages,perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.[2]

Does he plan to round up Robert Dears family and kill them? Looks like Dear has two children Trump could go after.

 

[Albion]

According to the CNN article, he didn't say he wanted to kill relatives. He said:

"wipe out their homes" and "where they came from."