Donald Trump “take out their families”

[VoiceofReason]

I liken the situation to being the second person to know you are in a gunfight.

This country has yet to realize we are at war and if we aren’t willing to do what is necessary to win it now, then we can expect more and bigger battles on our own soil in the future.

I don’t like the idea of those tactics myself but I don’t want to see large numbers of women and children dying in this country on a monthly or weekly basis. I think it is time we start considering any way we can to stop these attacks.

Criticizing is easy. Coming up with a solution is difficult. I am more than willing to change my mind if someone comes up with a solution that produces less collateral death and destruction.

[TVegas]

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.

That's exactly what Trump was hoping for. Don't give up your humanity just because you like the inflammatory rhetoric.

By the way, I don't like trump but he has the courage (or stupidity) to say what a lot of people are thinking but don’t have the guts to say.

You don't like him, but you're going to vote for him because he says things that you want to hear? That's exactly his motivation for saying all the ridiculous and inflammatory things he says. He is no different than the rest of the politicians, he's just louder and has no political experience.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's my take on Trump... He doesn't want to be President, it's all just narcissism and self-promotion. So, he's just ratcheting up the rhetoric until his bubble bursts and enjoying every moment of it. If he happens to get the nomination, I think it will be as big a surprise to him as it will be to me. And, it would be despite his best efforts to be a big enough donkey to get himself knocked out.

Murdering the families of terrorists is so far outside the moral code (what's left of it) of this country as to be intentionally absurd. Perfect for TV.

[TVegas]

Sure, we could take out their families for being related to a terrorist, but then we might as well start taking out people related to criminals too.

This is America. We don't commit genocide or eugenics, and we don't kill people without just cause.

and your suggestion for dealing with terrorism?

I don't claim to have a solution, but my first suggestion would be that we stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (including Isreal). I don't mean to act like I have the solution, but what you're advocating would create more terrorism and generate more enemies to the US.

[rotor]

Every family and I mean every family has a "black sheep" member to it. Criminal, crazy, drug addict, etc. We can not and should not hold the family responsible for the acts of an individual. If family members are involved that is a different story but destroying innocent people because the have a relationship to the bad guy is crazy. We have parents that are reporting their own children. Are we going to destroy the parents? Crazy talk.

[Beiruty]

Here's my take on Trump... He doesn't want to be President, it's all just narcissism and self-promotion. So, he's just ratcheting up the rhetoric until his bubble bursts and enjoying every moment of it. If he happens to get the nomination, I think it will be as big a surprise to him as it will be to me. And, it would be despite his best efforts to be a big enough donkey to get himself knocked out.

Murdering the families of terrorists is so far outside the moral code (what's left of it) of this country as to be intentionally absurd. Perfect for TV.

DT if nominated as GOP nominee, he would be the ticket for Hilary to the next President of US.
DT, should I call him Donald Duck's Uncle Scrooge:

[DocV]

Reprisals against civilians are on very shaky ground and are generally prohibited. There are a number of conditions where civilians may lose protected status and immunity to attack. Those radicalized imbeciles in California did not care about their own baby. Why would other terrorists care about other family members?

[John Galt]

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

Oh he knows it, but won't admit it.

[JALLEN]

"Corruption of blood" has gone out of favor in recent centuries, except perhaps in the most barbaric cultures.

In WWII, bombing was done by all sides, with civilian casualties not uncommon. In fact, concerns over civilian casualties is a relatively recent phenomena. That was the last declared war, at least by the US. The level of suffering in Europe could not be imagined today. The nuclear bombing in Japan was deemed essential to avoid the even greater death and destruction that an invasion would cause.

Those of us whose fathers served in the US military in the Pacific ought to be particularly grateful to Truman. I was already conceived at the time, but my brothers and sisters and many of my friends might not have been born.

In the old days, armies would surround a walled city, starve the inhabitants into submission, eventually storm the place, rape, loot, burn, plunder and kill as they chose. The civilians would be killed, or sold into slavery, as the victors deemed best.

We haven't really had a "war" in terms of an all-out infliction of extreme violence designed to eliminate an enemies' will and ability to resist. Modern thought seems to lean towards serving bad actors with subpoenas, hauling them into court, run through the legal wringer, far more horrible than any mere war, and serves 'em right!

[Dreamer42]

In regards to dropping the A bombs on Japan, we must remember a few things. One. the war was dragging on well into 1945. Many at the top of US Defense saw it ending maybe in Summer of 1946. Two. The number of US casualties if mainland Japan were invaded would exceed 125,000. Japanese civilian and military deaths reaching into the millions. The argument could be said that lives were saved by dropping those bombs. So, if we look at real numbers, should we consider that if we act in powerful way now, might it actually save innocent lives down the road? I am not in favor of using nukes. We just need to keep everything on the table for the sake of opening up other possibilities. I would recommend reading the book "American War Criminal". The author, whom I met and spoke to, was a flight engineer on a B29 Super. He was shot down over Japan on his 5th mission at only 23 years of age in May of '45. He told of being transported from a small Kempeitai jail to a prison, and when possible looking outside of the canvas sides of the truck. He saw countless civilian homes that had been destroyed. In these homes was heavy factory machinery. Imperial Japan was using homes in place of real factories to take advantage of the US restricting bombing to industrial centers. When the war was over he was living off a ball of rice and cup of water a day, and to the point of giving himself until February of living. Maybe. How far is the civilized world willing to go to end this?

[Javier730]

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.

Let's become terrorists to encourage other terrorists families to turn those terrorists in.

Voice of Reason, what you said there does not match what I think someone with your user name would say.

Better idea? Let's hear it.

Better ideas. Ill quote some other posts.

What we need to stop doing is "playing around the edges" as we have been for the past 7 years. We need to find the combatants and leaders & hit them hard, fast, and continuously until they are no more. Then we dig through the rubble to identify the next battleground and do it all over again.

The "shock and awe" needs to be continuous and relentless until the war is won, but the one thing we must NEVER do is to compromise our ideals.

Personally I think we should tell our military - "sic' em !" and turn them loose without any lawyers and let them get the job done.

Killing the terrorists families will make us no better than them. What if the terrorists start raping children? What would you suggest we do then? What we dont do is drop down to their level. Get rid of the threat with minimum collateral.

[Vol Texan]

Killing the terrorists families will make us no better than them. What if the terrorists start raping children? What would you suggest we do then? What we dont do is drop down to their level. Get rid of the threat with minimum collateral.

Reductio ad absurdum

Nobody is suggesting we lower ourselves to the level of depravity. But an absolute prohibition on any collateral damage in wartime is like entering the boxing match with kid gloves on. We have to accept that in wartime, bad things happen. But we're not at war...they are, and that's the problem.

[Javier730]

Nobody is suggesting we lower ourselves to the level of depravity.

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.

Is this not lowering ourselves to the level of depravity?

But an absolute prohibition on any collateral damage in wartime is like entering the boxing match with kid gloves on.

Get rid of the threat with minimum collateral.

[MeMelYup]

If the family members know an incident is going down and refuse to do something about it, that is condoning the action. By condoning the action the family becomes part of the problem.

Look at the riots in Ferguson, Misouri because people refused to believe what actually happened. Look at the Zimmerman case in Florida, and people refusing to believe the evidence. In both cases people felt justified in their actions. In Ferguson people felt justified in rioting and looting. Look at the lies the parents told in both cases.

[chuck j]

The discussion here purely a is moot exercise , using straw debate (no end to it with no conclusion) or even better we could use statistical data . DANG ! I can grub you up a pie chart to prove my point anytime I feel like it and you can do likewise . We are expressing who we are , morals , patriotism , our faith or belief in the one true living GOD , our ethics , priority's , personal values of human life , how much we love our neighbor as Christs second great commandment .

Terrorists , child rapists , or killers/murderers for fun , politics , money , sick inclination ............drag hang em down main street but leave their family , acquaintances , pets alone . Place the blame and guilt where it belongs . I'll not shoulder the blood of innocents . This is common sense .