Donald Trump “take out their families”

[VoiceofReason]

Well now that a presidential candidate has said it, I suppose I can say it openly.
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/12/98693 ... -news-isis I have been saying this to friends and relatives for years but because it sounds so bad I would not say it openly.

Terrorists depend on us being more “civilized” than they are. When terrorists strike us, we are wrong by going to war with an entire country. This just makes us even more enemies.

What we should do is find out who every terrorist is that took part in an attack, then send a team to wipe out his/her entire family including pets. We need to do this so it can’t be proven the U.S. did it, but do it every time, quietly and without fail.

This is the only way we will ever stop terrorism.

[Beiruty]

No you are wrong. Such statement is not only radical and uncalled for. It is by US definition: Terrorism. Moreover, it is the best gift for ISIS to have more recruits.

[Richbirdhunter]

No you are wrong. Such statement is not only radical and uncalled for. It is by US definition: Terrorism. Moreover, it is the best gift for ISIS to have more recruits.

So if we leave Islamic terrorist alone we get attacked and if we fight back we get attacked?

I say we fight

[nightmare69]

Maybe one day our leaders will understand that ISIS doesn't play by our rules.

[VoiceofReason]

Just saw the news on TV. The whole country knows it was a terrorist attack except our “president” and the government.

I am voting for Trump.

[jason812]

While "take out their families" may seem extreme, who is the ones always involved in these things? That's right, their family members. How many of terrorists commit their deeds with their brothers, cousins, or uncles? Now it seems like they are getting their old ladies involved as well. If we don't do anything, it helps the extremist recruit new members. If we have some collateral damage, it helps the extremist recruit new members. No matter what, they are going to try to recruit. There is no right answer.

[VoiceofReason]

No you are wrong. Such statement is not only radical and uncalled for. It is by US definition: Terrorism. Moreover, it is the best gift for ISIS to have more recruits.

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

[Papa_Tiger]

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

The very thought of that is repugnant to me and frankly, I could not support any government that did that. That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my mind there is NO way to justify murder, which is exactly what you are calling for.

[Vol Texan]

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

The very thought of that is repugnant to me and frankly, I could not support any government that did that. That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my mind there is NO way to justify murder, which is exactly what you are calling for.

Yes, I agree that targeting an individual family for the actions of a family member sounds bad. That is one end of the extreme. But then again, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, targeting hundreds of thousands of families for the actions of the country's leadership.

And it was murder, just the same.

And it worked.

And I'd be willing to guess that many people (yourself included) believe that President Truman made the right decision in doing so. A targeted assassination (or two) of a couple hundred thousand innocent people (children included) caused the bad guys to rethink their life decisions.

I'm not advocating the targeted assassination of a single family, but we should not forget that war is war. As long as we continue to fight with kid gloves, by western rules, we'll continue to lose.

War is a terrible thing, but the only way to win is to fight. America used to do that. Now, we put so many rules of engagement on our troops that we could never win.

Soldiers are likely to be just as afraid of our REMF lawyers as they are of the terrorists that they're fighting. They are effectively fighting a two-front battle with two distinctive enemies. But one of those two enemies is an American, watching over their shoulder, waiting for them to (a) attack the wrong target, or (b) kill the wrong person, or (c) kill too many people, or (d) utter a disparaging comment about a protected subgroup of society, or (e) anything else...you name it.

[VoiceofReason]

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

The very thought of that is repugnant to me and frankly, I could not support any government that did that. That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my mind there is NO way to justify murder, which is exactly what you are calling for.

Yes, I agree that targeting an individual family for the actions of a family member sounds bad. That is one end of the extreme. But then again, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, targeting hundreds of thousands of families for the actions of the country's leadership.

And it was murder, just the same.

And it worked.

And I'd be willing to guess that many people (yourself included) believe that President Truman made the right decision in doing so. A targeted assassination (or two) of a couple hundred thousand innocent people (children included) caused the bad guys to rethink their life decisions.

I'm not advocating the targeted assassination of a single family, but we should not forget that war is war. As long as we continue to fight with kid gloves, by western rules, we'll continue to lose.

War is a terrible thing, but the only way to win is to fight. America used to do that. Now, we put so many rules of engagement on our troops that we could never win.

Soldiers are likely to be just as afraid of our REMF lawyers as they are of the terrorists that they're fighting. They are effectively fighting a two-front battle with two distinctive enemies. But one of those two enemies is an American, watching over their shoulder, waiting for them to (a) attack the wrong target, or (b) kill the wrong person, or (c) kill too many people, or (d) utter a disparaging comment about a protected subgroup of society, or (e) anything else...you name it.

You make some very good points, and what is your opinion on how to keep terrorists from gaining control of this country? They will if we don’t stop them. It will get to the point that if our government doesn’t do what they say, they will launch terrorist attacks at a school, church, or other event.

[Beiruty]

The moment US and the people shy away from paying the ultimate price of fighting war, the moment the enemy won. Be it ISIS or otherwise.
US is home of brave, not cowards. If US is not willing to send a division or two to neutralize ISIS. Then, we failed to be on good footing for a better future.
Sadam was not a threat to US or the world and got booted. Why US is shying away from ISIS?
Answer: Politics.
Targeting civilians is not the answer, the answer is enabling the civilians to not tolerate ISIS or their ilk.
BTW, does anyone think that the civilians under ISIS are the family of the terrorists? Most came from Europe and some form US and Australia. Locals are not supporters of ISIS just a little reminder for all.

[Javier730]

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

The very thought of that is repugnant to me and frankly, I could not support any government that did that. That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my mind there is NO way to justify murder, which is exactly what you are calling for.

Yes, I agree that targeting an individual family for the actions of a family member sounds bad. That is one end of the extreme. But then again, we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, targeting hundreds of thousands of families for the actions of the country's leadership.

And it was murder, just the same.

And it worked.

And I'd be willing to guess that many people (yourself included) believe that President Truman made the right decision in doing so. A targeted assassination (or two) of a couple hundred thousand innocent people (children included) caused the bad guys to rethink their life decisions.

I'm not advocating the targeted assassination of a single family, but we should not forget that war is war. As long as we continue to fight with kid gloves, by western rules, we'll continue to lose.

War is a terrible thing, but the only way to win is to fight. America used to do that. Now, we put so many rules of engagement on our troops that we could never win.

Soldiers are likely to be just as afraid of our REMF lawyers as they are of the terrorists that they're fighting. They are effectively fighting a two-front battle with two distinctive enemies. But one of those two enemies is an American, watching over their shoulder, waiting for them to (a) attack the wrong target, or (b) kill the wrong person, or (c) kill too many people, or (d) utter a disparaging comment about a protected subgroup of society, or (e) anything else...you name it.

Very tough issue.

[VoiceofReason]

Beiruty I will accept the term “radical”. I have no problem with that. When we are dealing with radicals we may be forced to use radical means.

I am not talking about dropping bombs, firing missiles and killing or wounding hundreds or thousands. I am talking about sending a team with no ID on them and dressed as locals to shoot the terrorist’s wife, children, mother, father, siblings, in-laws and pets.

The terrorist may not mind dying but if this is done every time, it might cause the suicide bomber to think a little before putting on an explosive vest. I am sure it would encourage someone in the family to turn the terrorist in if they learn of his/her plans.

I know it is a terrible thing to have to do but we are dealing with people that want to kill our families.

The very thought of that is repugnant to me and frankly, I could not support any government that did that. That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In my mind there is NO way to justify murder, which is exactly what you are calling for.

Papa_Tiger

I don’t know what happened to my reply. It just went “poof”.

I agree with your opinion and please believe me when I say the idea is also repugnant to me.

Please tell me how you believe we should handle terrorism.

[chuck j]

Americans should not kill innocent men, women and children . Talking about killing pets is stupid , these are the things the one's do that we have the problem with . We are better than that .

[Vol Texan]

Americans should not kill innocent men, women and children . Talking about killing pets is stupid , these are the things the one's do that we have the problem with . We are better than that .

But we did...in Hiroshima, and in Nagasaki.

And it worked.

And a large number of Americans look back on that blip of history and say, "It saved lives."

Again, I'm not advocating small assassination squads targeting the families of known terrorists, but to make the blanket statement that we won't kill innocent people, ever, for any reason, is...suicide, if you ask me.

No, I don't have an answer for the best way to combat terrorism. I don't know what will work best for us. But, as a wise man once said, "Absolute statements are always wrong."

In my mind, I won't absolutely rule out the loss of life of non-combatants. It's a tragedy when it happens, and I wish it were never needed, but it has happened throughout history, and will continue to happen, whether we like it or not.

As said by Gen. William T. Sherman, "War_is_hell"". To fight it as if it were not so, is to give up the fight prematurely.