Donald Trump: 'Take Out Their Families'

a reply to: criticalhit

So let's save the kiddie book stuff for kids,

So leave the fairy tales for kids so they can sleep better while Parents do what parents will do when necessary.

So your answer is to kill civilians? That's the "adult" thing to do?

On the bright side, you've definitely convinced me of one thing. You're just as sick as they are.

originally posted by: criticalhit
I don't like Donald.

But.... I'm with him on this actually.

Basic common sense, don't start a fight unless you intend to win, don't shoot or bomb anyone at all ever unless it comes to that and you're left with no choice.

But then if you do, don't be a Mary about it. Bombing the living crud out of a place "doesn't create more terrorists" Bombing their homes and buildings and infrastructure then leaving the people around in piles of rubble to be pissed about it sure does though, not killing civilians leaves angry children, not actually ever "beating" your enemy is what creates more enemies... America has been fighting less and less of anything you could call a war since WW2 on each round... We Bombed cities, the Germans and Japanese are sort of pals at least today, they lost, actually "lost" the war.

It sounds Horrific and Trump obviously has a way of trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of thinking because that's who votes, lol.

None the less, he's sort of right. Who in the hell in the History of the world ever fought so many wars, didn't bother to finish them, then left this many enemies around for later to bite them in the arse? Sooooo we "made up" rules after WW2 then in following them decided that was "The American way" Really? Before WW2 for the whole rest of our History as "America" was beating the living crap out of everybody, From the Natives to Japan who actually ever "came back" and messed with us? Now what we get with our "new" manner of thinking is North Korea and ISIS when we fight.

Rule # 1 Never Start a War

Rule # 2 If you have to fight, finish them.

Sorry but no one out there but us as Global cop gives a damn about rules, outside of the West our "rules of engagement" should be expected to be utterly ignored, which is exactly what happens in every "hot spot" we have created by fighting these pseudo wars/police actions.

I mean for Pete's sake, what effect would it have on any of you to be in scenarios where someone phones in bomb strikes and you get warning to flee then your house blows up? You'd be a Terrorist in 3 seconds, this IS actually all moronic, or "only kill combatants" because you know... no one will be showing up at the door to tell the 7 kids that Dad was killed by YOU and they wont grow up to fight? it's an awful thing, it really is but that goes away when you bomb cities, people A: "don't live to do it back to you 10 years later and B: Are too damn jumpy from bombs going off if they do live to ever fight again.

Do I believe that Trump if elected will not just "start more wars" for no good reason? HELL NO, he's a nut case.

But, the basic premise is real if you're going to fight, fight. Just don't fight unless you HAVE to is the point guys like him miss.

I honestly think America is screwed from this trend of "halfway" fighting wars... we left enemies all of the world now, real ones, not political or economic ones. Several of those enemies have or are gaining access to Nukes. Even if we caused this, this isn't the time to turn back, no one will forgive us, we can wax to a completely socialist benevolent State now and North Korea will still try and launch a sub based Nuke at us at some point and take back SK if they can, The Middle East will never relent on conversion of the West etc, etc... Now honestly it IS down to us or them in many places.

Never should have been involved, but, too late now. On a level Trump is right, one way or another we will have to fight for real sooner or later and if you don't kill people there wont be a "West" in our lifetime.

When your fighting over belief systems and religion the war wont end until one side is utterly eliminated. As long as Islam exists in its current form, we will have terrorist trying to fulfill its prophecies.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You've lived a very sheltered life haven't you? Terrorist have threatened the families of US Service personnel. It's well documented in US. News, (You look it up). You don't always wage war, with kindness, as is "Politically Correct" now days. Sometimes you have to get mean. Real mean. Did you know? Some forest fires are actually fought with fire? Sometimes you have to terrorize, terrorist? If you can't understand what Trump said, why would you post something you don't understand? I know. Because it makes you "feel" good.

a reply to: criticalhit

listening to this sort of preachy trendy kind of lies that everyone likes to hear but in the end is such a level of fairy tail it's laughable.

The "terrorists" do what they do to defend their "way of life" and children and families, they believe in what they do, wont give it up nor will their children.

Same goes for us.

Now who's being naive?

Do you imagine that the rest of the world would simply sit by idly as we deliberately targeted the families of terrorists? Of course not. Not our allies, not our enemies and certainly not their neighbors. Setting aside the profound moral bankruptcy of this approach and looking at it from a purely practical standpoint — at best we'd only be creating more terrorists and at worst, we'd kick off a world war.

Actually Donald Trump is no idiot. He is playing to the fear, uncertainty and doubt (F.U.D) of a certain segment of the US electorate. Even if a group of individuals have few things in common with respect to beliefs and ideologies, it is possible to unite them around a common hatred. Big business is all about manipulation. And the Donald is a very successful Big Businessman.

Now, having said that, I'm afraid Donald Trump may be right. I think war should always be the absolute last option. The US war waged against Saddam Hussein was possibly on of the biggest mistakes in the history of human civilization. I believe that the sequence of events that have occurred since the various Middle-East strongmen have been deposed will eventually lead to catastrophic consequences that we can't even imagine right now.

Yes war should be the absolute last option. However, there are times when it becomes necessary to let slip the dogs of war. And, when that happens, I would suggest that "you should avert your gaze if you do not wish to witness the bloody carnage that will ensue."

The only valid rule of engagement is that there are no rules of engagement.

-dex

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Civilians? "Civilians" make bombs, amunition, Jeeps, trucks, tanks, Band Aids©,,..give aid a.d comfort, moral support....WW2 would not have been won, could not have been won. Without dead "civilians"...there's nothing "adult" or educated about your question.

I can't believe ANYONE would try to defend this type of viewpoint - it is literal madness. Who do you want to do the deed? Are you willing to go and slit the throats of innocent unarmed women and children? I doubt it... How about our armed forces? The Nazis tried that, but found the psychological damage too heavy on their troops, so they created Death Camps. I guess we could always do the same thing - indiscriminately round up anyone of Arabic decent and gas them all humanely - you know, in the name of freedom and democracy and such things.

a reply to: Syyth007

You read way to far into his statement. But your bigotry and phobia, blinds you. I personally didn't see, with your interpretation. The "Viewpoint" stands on its own. It needs no defense.

a reply to: Xeven

When your fighting over belief systems and religion the war wont end until one side is utterly eliminated. As long as Islam exists in its current form, we will have terrorist trying to fulfill its prophecies.

A few of you are proving a point I've been trying to make for a while; there is a disturbing eliminationist ideology overtaking American conservatism.

I don't know if anyone has used the term before but it's what I'm going to start using to describe it: neocrusaderism.

Not only is it immoral, it's got to be among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard so many smugly self-deluded people passionately defend. How about this, instead of repeating empty truisms, why don't any of you actually explain how you'd expect this strategy to work?

You're the one supporting the murder of unarmed civilians that may not even hold extremist views, and I'm a bigot?? I don't believe you know the definition of the words you are using... And the only phobia I have is the phobia of people murdering innocent civilians and trying to hold the moral high ground.

There was a case of an American female not of arabic decent who tried to join ISIS and was arrested - Would you support the murder of her entire family, who are White Christians? Or would you maybe make an exception in that case?

a reply to: murphy22

Terrorist have threatened the families of US Service personnel.

So they threatened the people who invaded their nations and murdered their loved ones? What a shock.

You don't always wage war, with kindness, as is "Politically Correct" now days. Sometimes you have to get mean. Real mean.

There are laws to warfare and seeing how we are supposed to be the good guys we have to follow them. So killing innocent people are off limits. If your family were killed by these terrorist would you just say that's war for you.

Sometimes you have to terrorize, terrorist?

Bombs falling out of the sky and exploding artillery shells don't terrorize?

If you can't understand what Trump said, why would you post something you don't understand?

Trump simply said murdering innocent people is ok do you really want someone like that to have the nuke codes? What if one of these terrorist is an American would you be ok with their family being lined up on the streets and shot? Or if he sees an American town like Dearborn as a threat and then nuked?

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: theantediluvian

You've lived a very sheltered life haven't you? Terrorist have threatened the families of US Service personnel. It's well documented in US. News, (You look it up). You don't always wage war, with kindness, as is "Politically Correct" now days. Sometimes you have to get mean. Real mean. Did you know? Some forest fires are actually fought with fire? Sometimes you have to terrorize, terrorist? If you can't understand what Trump said, why would you post something you don't understand? I know. Because it makes you "feel" good.

I'd say you've lived a life sheltered from both reason and morality and that you're supporting genocide because repeating the rhetoric makes you feel tough.

As I said to another poster, if you think you've got this all figured out, why don't you do something that Trump can't do, explain how this "strategy" would work instead of just spewing nonsense because you think it makes you sound like a badass realist (despite being wholly unrealistic)?

How do you all define "moral highground?"

Both sides of any conflict believe they are holding that esteemed position.

In the case of the so-called jihadist, they believe they are doing the work of Allah. At least that's what the useful idiots believe. I don't pretend to understand what their leadership believes. They say the "crusaders" are invading their land, and the immoral Great Satan must be destroyed. In their view, this is a perfectly "moral" position for them to have.

The West believes they are more moral than the so-called terrorists because they say "they only go after the combatants, not innocent citizens." "We won't destroy your holy places because we're the good guys." And, "they started it and we're just defending ourselves." Sounds pretty "moral" to me.

When the Western combatants must follow these rules of engagement, the Jihadists believe that Allah has intervened and given them an advantage. And they exploit this advantage, much to the chagrin of the West. As long as they possess this advantage, then the war is unwinnable. In their view, I'm sure it's perfectly "moral" for them to make use of these advantages to fight a much stronger and well-equipped adversary.

In pursuit of their "moral" obligations, the Jihadists can die with honor, certain in their belief that their deity has condoned their actions.

While we make ourselves feel good about pursuing our "moral" obligations, we will die with honor as well. And as we breath our last, we too can be comforted by the fact that we didn't stoop to the evil methods of our enemy.

Sorry, but when I'm watching my life's blood ooze from my body, I won't find that thought to be comforting at all.

-dex

Godwin be damned again. I'm saying it. He's Hitler reincarnate. Or the antichrist.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well at least we know who is driving the clown car. Cant wait til he makes carson his running mate. Then Pahlin can be secretary of state.

a reply to: criticalhit

This guys right. Instead of ham-handedly bombing hospitals & drone striking wedding parties, maybe accept the fact that innocents will die by your actions and be selective. Whack the terrorists whole family. Once they know this will happen, this crap won't be so popular anymore. Read up on Muhammed Atta's relationship with his mom. If he knew he would be taking her along, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. It won't take many, and I'll bet it would mean less innocents than the current strategy, where we have daesh contained to the planet Earth with no end in sight.

a reply to: theantediluvian
Though your reply wasn't necessarily directed at me, I thought I'd take a stab at addressing some of your points.

explain how this "strategy" would work

With respect to Trump's suggestion about going after the families of the Jihadists, I think that target is too specific. We would have to commit far too many intelligence resources to determine all those links, as well as the specific locations of the targets in question. I think a more realistic interpretation is that we should not be as skittish as we are about collateral damage.

Allow me to use a medical metaphor. In treating a cancer, it is a known fact that healthy tissue must be excised along with the malignancy. It is unfortunate, but it is the only way to successfully treat the disease. And just as in this type of surgery, our attempts at killing the enemy should try to limit the amount of healthy tissue that is removed.

Also in treating this disease, the doctors will use every tool they have. They will try to fight this malady by using overwhelming force. They will employ surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, diet, exercise, psychology, and anything else they can think of that might provide some positive impact. And that is the way this terrorism must be addressed: with overwhelming force.

If you do not fight a war to win, then you will lose. But quite frankly this is a war that we shouldn't be fighting to begin with. Unfortunately this is where we find ourselves. We can continue to pussyfoot around and this "war" will last for generations. Or, we can commit ourselves to doing what is necessary to eradicate this cancer and provide on-going supporting therapy in the form of re-education of the descendants of the, now deceased, enemy combatants.

despite being wholly unrealistic

Yes, this approach is completely unrealistic. Given our self-deluded and self-professed "enlightenment" we'll never do what's necessary to win this war. Trump is basically just preaching to his Choir to get their votes.


-dex

That damned Trump! He's just as bad as those terrorists that struck in San Bernadino today, killing innocents...


Kill them all. Some one will sort them out...

Trump is a fascist.

I'm not saying that light-heartedly. He's a straight up fascist in every way imaginable. Some people are all for him because they're fascists too, they hide behind their nationalism and think that because they're American's they're somehow incapable of following that pattern.

a reply to: criticalhit

In order to save the village we had to burn the village.

Or in Trumps case..

We had to burn the world, in order to save the world.

I'll flat out call this man evil. In much the same fashion Mussolini was evil. Or Mao. Stalin. Hitler. Pol Pot.

Supposedly there are ideals even in war. You don't kill innocents, when it can be avoided.

Mr. Trump, no.