Donald Trump: 'Take Out Their Families'

originally posted by: DexterRiley
Well, they are certainly fighting us successfully by defeating us economically and spreading their ideology locally. Unfortunately I don't see us hurting them economically. And our attempts at spreading our ideology of democracy seems to have failed miserably as well.

So, what's plan B?

-dex

To stop making their attacks successful. Every time they attack a location with a precision low budget strike we have to defend 10,000 locations in response each for the next 20+ years. For their $50,000 attack we spend $1 billion in defense. Going about our lives without demanding absolute security from a group that can only kill a handful of people is the way to fight them. Like an annoying child, ignore them or laugh at them but don't give them the negative attention they're seeking.

Let the Middle East naturally stabilize, stop propping up regimes, cease bombing everyone, stop trying to be 100% secure all of the time. If there was anything W was right about in his presidency, it's when he said the US needed to respond to 9/11 by going out, shopping, and living their lives without fear overshadowing them.

Wars against ideology aren't about indiscriminate violence, if you're going to use it, it needs to be with precision strikes. Assassinate the leaders, and only do so if they're more competent than the #2. Otherwise, win them over economically. Stop bombing Syria, let them get some stability. If the people in Syria can earn a living again we can actually sell them things that make them happier and less likely to go on a rampage. Same in ISIS territory, same goes for Iraq, and the same is happening right now in Iran.

They're trying to fight through fear, you counter that with mindless consumerism that gives people a more comfortable life.

originally posted by: Syyth007
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.

Sane people don't, then again two weeks ago here there was a huge thread where several members were calling for an outright genocide of all 2 billion Muslims on the planet as the only way to ensure peace.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
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.

Let me tell you about my childhood friend, his name was Manaf. We went to school together from 1st-8th grade. His family was over here as his dad was pursuing a degree working as a scientist. They were from Iraq. Even during the Gulf War they were allowed to stay here. Eventually his dad finished his schooling and went back to Iraq, that was the last time I saw Manaf. I still kept in touch via letter though. Until we declared war on Iraq again. This time, my friend who loved America was killed by an American soldier as collateral damage, so were his parents.

Indiscriminate bombing is not the way to fight this war. If you bomb the streets and the shops then no trading can take place. That destroys the income of all normal citizens and forces them to join up with ISIS in order to not starve. If you bomb the people you piss them off, once someone in their own country sees their friend and family killed by a foreign invader, they're going to strike back.

It's not bombs and bullets that can win this fight. Terrorism like all ideas can't be fought through physical supremacy. The only thing that has worked so far in deradicalizing countries (sidenote: it also won the Cold War) is economics. Give people something to live for so that they have an alternative to fighting ISIS. Help them have a stable country by not killing their leaders. Then move our corporations in there and take advantage of the markets. It works.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
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.

So you respond with the exact same response as the first time?

But you wont address "the real", just pretend your better or they are demons.

But if the scenario was real, (I said from post one Trump is way over the top in regards to any threat in America) but if your homes were being bombed or in the reverse ours (don't know where you are from) let's say your American and there were Tens of Thousands of Terrorists loose and your family, your children were in imminent danger....

You wouldn't do whatever you had to? Even if it meant killing their families to stop it?

You'd either be a liar or... just doomed to defeat.

America has not actually won a war since WW2, your fast to call names, make assumptions. But why not deal with the facts? The modern rules of engagement simply have not worked, we have people that want to kill us now in the Middle East, North Korea, Central America, Africa....

I was very clear "we should NEVER go to war unless we have to" I am AGAINST war, I do NOT propose War but if it comes how do you expect to win? By endlessly allowing those coming for you to reproduce and train more soldiers?

Your.... Very Naive, I think.

I agree with not one Military action my country has taken in recent history, please don't get me wrong here... But we all know the maintenance of a Trillion dollar War Machine yearly is sinking the USA and it's there solely at this point to keep at bay... a literal growing horde of angry survivors of wars we simply did not finish

2 guys with Automatic weapons in California today, 4 with a smuggled Nuclear device tomorrow... It doesn't matter, because of past events at some point we will have to defend our lives now. I don't defend what actions we have taken and can't even judge if there was ever really a threat. I do know there is one now from many quarters because of past events and there is no taking those actions back or just saying "sorry"

Police Actions and Smart Bombs do not work....

If they did we wouldn't be sitting here with Kim UN building sub launch able Nukes, Isis beheading people all over the place and even our larger competitors like Russia and China who for all intents and purposes prepping up to maybe "deal" with us.

We never should have gone into these forays... to pretend they will stop now without drastic action is a consequence of living in an artificial world under a Nuclear Umbrella for 3/4ths of a Century in which warfare is unknown to the majority of the public nor is it's consequences. Westerners of this generation have no idea what War is really like, to even believe we are getting out of what has transpired without real bloodshed is almost laughable and those who are angered have no worries about the lives of our children.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Simply not true...

Look at the Russian casualty tolls, they have always been brutal when they fight, civilians are dying left and right and no one is going to do a damn thing.

We'd like to believe in the West everyone shares our thoughts. They don't, people bleed their hearts on FB and then... go to work as if nothing happened, War to us in the West has for too long been something we watch on TV and score points and get Stars in forums by saying really Humane sounding things people want to hear about how wrong and awful it is... then do nothing about.

Shall we pretend when you see Syria's rubble America has nothing to do with that? That Al Queda and ISIS both aren't our partial step children? That we didn't roll over Iraq or that the plan to wipe 7 nations in the Middle East isn't real?

What "world" is coming for us if we fight to win?

Sure the Russians and the Chinese are opposing us... but not because Putin as example gives a damn about a single person in the Middle East or Atheist loving China cares about the religious lol (that's practically a joke)

No... they oppose us because we don't cue them in line for the spoils and because spreading ourselves thin might open a chance to take us down and be in charge. If we promised Syria to Putin he wouldn't blink in regards to throwing Assad to the dogs, heck China literally funded our forays of the last Decade to a degree. The oppose only American Monopoly of the subject, nothing more.

originally posted by: Lysergic
He's like the Energizer Bunny of stupid.

That's a pretty funny image.

DT made a very naive statement here. He's endangered his people in the process. Many of the cultures that he looks down upon are very much tit-for-tat. Not to say that higher culture is any better....

originally posted by: seagull
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.

Seagull...

Very clear from the outset that I can't stand Trump...

And yeah he's a lunatic, these thoughts from him are first strike options he's from another planet.

I am just saying there ABSOLUTELY is a real pint here and as I said from the start... You don't start Wars and then not expect to have to win them, I don't even know if the majority of Americans or our politicians even know what War amounts to any more. They think you can bomb out a country's infra structure like Iraq and leave the people intact in some BS show of fake humanitarianism and not have it come back to haunt you...

What we have been doing is insane.

I'll repeat from my first post

Rule no 1: Never go to war.

Rule no 2: If you absolutely have to, you fight to win.

I am NOT war mongering or supporting Trump, I just think there seriously is a point in regards to how ridiculous what we are doing is in regards to fighting in the manner we do, it's for profit and political gain, we act like when we bomb cities warning the people to get out is going to make them Thank Us lol... Who the hell spends 17 Billions per missiles to destroy buildings and leave a bunch of pissed off enemies lying around so they can out in Mc Donalds and get cheap oil? It's an insane strategy that was bound to leave us with real enemies who really don't give a damn if they kill civilians...

Now... we probably will find ourselves in a situation where we actually have to defeat and enemy and yeah, the word "defeat" implies some very awful things. I'm just being a realist, it wasn't a good idea to do the things we have done and if we were going to do them we should have seriously gone to war... This doesn't "go away" now it's not going to go away until the West is defeated or we defeat the people we screwed in the first place. People don't forget.

a reply to: buster2010

Never underestimate the ignorance of the American public.

Nor those who underestimate them.

originally posted by: crazyewok
When you didn't think trump would get any stupider......

At this point, I'm beyond believing that Trump can't get any dumber. I believe his hair piece is secretly covering up a black hole of stupidity where all intelligence is sucked in never to escape again.

a reply to: criticalhit

LOL You know what's the most ironic part here? I'm a pacifist Muslim. I actually believe in diplomacy; as in, settling our differences through dialogue, deals, truces, and negotiations. I only believe in violence when defending myself or my loved ones, and even then, I prefer to talk my way out of it. I don't care about this conversation enough to give real life examples of where I've had to prove that.

Anyway, let's look at our little "debate" for a second. You're trying to convince a pacifist Muslim that killing civilians is acceptable & that the families of opponents is fair game. Really? Did you think that through? Do you really want me to agree with you here? Do you really want me to "come around" to your way of thinking? LOL If I suddenly decide that your position is correct, does this mean that YOU radicalized me? Are you and the other people in this thread going to take responsibility for convincing a pacifist Muslim that killing civilians is ok?

And what about the other people who may read this thread? Do you really want to convince people who have legit mental health issues, people who may harbor grudges, people in abusive relationships, people who've been in & out of jail, and other "at risk" people that it's acceptable to kill civilians & the families of their opponents? Words have consequences.

That's why I said you're just as sick as the other extremists; because you sound just like their recruiters.

a reply to: criticalhit

We'd like to believe in the West everyone shares our thoughts. They don't, people bleed their hearts on FB and then... go to work as if nothing happened, War to us in the West has for too long been something we watch on TV and score points and get Stars in forums by saying really Humane sounding things people want to hear about how wrong and awful it is... then do nothing about.

Shall we pretend when you see Syria's rubble America has nothing to do with that? That Al Queda and ISIS both aren't our partial step children? That we didn't roll over Iraq or that the plan to wipe 7 nations in the Middle East isn't real?

a reply to: criticalhit

Now... we probably will find ourselves in a situation where we actually have to defeat and enemy and yeah, the word "defeat" implies some very awful things. I'm just being a realist, it wasn't a good idea to do the things we have done and if we were going to do them we should have seriously gone to war... This doesn't "go away" now it's not going to go away until the West is defeated or we defeat the people we screwed in the first place. People don't forget.

This thread is specifically about the following quote from Donald Trump:

"And the other thing is with the terrorists, 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. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families"

That wasn't a statement about collateral damage (that statement actually preceded this one). Yes, war is hell and innocent bystanders will be killed in any large scale military engagement but that's not what I was addressing in the OP. What Trump was saying is that we have to target and murder the families of our enemies to prevent them from retaliating against us and he was also implying that this is a sound strategy for defeating the extremist ideology of groups like ISIS.

What he's essentially prescribing is genocide. You know, that thing about which most of the world has agreed is so horrible that we've signed treaties to prevent from happening? The sort of depravity that we pointed our fingers at the likes of Hussein and Assad for committing? Why is this even a debate? The guy is talking about a new holocaust — "The Final Solution" to what he and his rabid supporters see as "The Muslim Question."

Why am I even indulging you? You've walked your position back a bit but let me remind you of what you originally said:

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.

You and Trump have ISIS Panic and in your minds, you've built them up to the level of Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. They kill a couple hundred civilians in the west, your solution is to kill a few hundred thousand people? Come on.

I don't actually think what you or I are as individuals is relevant to the conversation. I'm with you 100 percent in regards to what you said above about violence. Avoidance at all cost, definitely apply it in real life across the board. Not even going to say it's all reasons of morality and try to ride some high horse, the law scary just like war is scary.

So again please stop the nonsense, "i'm a Pacifist Muslim" and the rest of the personal stuff, it's irrelevant. You admitted it flat out, like myself and every other "sane" human being, most of whom don't feel the need to call themselves "pacifist" btw, you don't believe in violence, don't start trouble and even if you had to defend your family and loved ones you would try to find a way to avoid it...

Congrats, welcome to the club.

But left with no choice you would right? Right. You'd do what you have to at a point.

There is no point in this I have said we should have been in any conflicts in this region, I have been more than specific and this is for theantediluvian too... and anyone else reading from post no 1 "Don't go to war" EVER unless you have to.

I have 1 point.

Going to War is NOT a situation where you can play "nice" every very real scenario the USA is threatened with is a direct result of places we have "intervened". It would be hard for anyone to argue against that truth. Once you kick down a Hornets nest you have to run and hide and be prepared to wait a long time for them to settle down and likely they will rebuild in the same spot OR destroy it, It's a simple statement of .... "we can't make what we did go away" Likely there are groupings of people in this world now who will NOT stop until America is ruined even if that's a generation or two from now. America will not have a "Choice" in cleaning up the mess it made because it will keep coming back and eventually force the situation. If not. that Choice will be made by exactly the manner you suggest as last resort for your home one day maybe a long time from now, maybe even after you are gone your kids will be the ones in that position.

North Korea sitting on Nukes is a perfect example of why I say this. Even IF the crazy Kim family Never manages to succeed in an attack how many North Koreans will be killed and have been over time? It adds up, what will the destruction be if one of those Nukes hits only Seoul? Millions dead, a global economy that suffers a horrible disaster? How many poor people would die in a global depression? Maybe, just maybe they could cause WW3 with such an action?

So which is worse? Find out the towns and locations where they live and breath in regards to Isis and Carpet bomb them like the old days and yeah Antediluvian, kill a few Hundred Thousand people... OR... Let them purge and create some crazy Nation State from pieces of Syria and Iraq so like NK in 20 years or 30 the news can be talking about "Their Nukes" which in this particular case are as likely to be pointed at places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia as anywhere else?

Are Hundreds of Thousands = Millions

Does it happen this way? Yeah, sometimes... North Korea has Probably purged several Million people over the last 4-5 Decades and has the potential now to do a lot worse, a lot, a lot worse.

The larger problem with that is those purged are innocents, the people Isis is killing a lot of them are totally innocent people, the families of Isis members aren't necessarily so entirely, that Dad IS surely teaching his kids things as young as 4-5-6 that mean Isis will live on right? Ma doesn't talk against Dad much in that circle I think...

Can Isis existing ever mean peace in General in the region? What is the long term cost in lives?

As per the Thread topic, Yeah Trump is a nut case, but if a sane human being handled it, It could save a lot of lives, innocent ones. We aren't even talking about things like bombing campaigns of the past and @ Antediluvian as well... enough with Genocide talk...

Not a lot of Places Harbor Isis, Not a lot of people in the region "Like" Isis.... There are limited locations and towns with populations where they stem from and limited regions they are trying to form a State in, nobody wants to see the people in towns they took over die, but try not to forget, they ARE being killed or pushed to join Isis anyway, I gather for the most part when Isis controls your town over the coming years you will follow their rules exactly join up or die... so alternative no 2 to bombing is letting those people die anyway, slowly or to transform themselves into more Isis.

To be totally honest

If I was in that situation and my Town here in the States of 70,000 people was rules by 10,000 fanatics that were insisting I practice religion a specific way, drafting my Male sons to fight, ditto for my daughter for other purposes and my punishment for even a mild infraction or disloyalty was Death... I'd want the bombs to drop

I can try to Hide from Bombs, definitely couldn't go years without either joining Isis turning my kids over etc or being singled out and killed could I?

My odds would be much better for Isis to be bombed out of my area as a civilian under such occupation in regards to my and my families lives and survival then them forming a caliphate and having to live in it. And it would be very fast. Not a prolonged hell at least.

I don't know where a term like Genocide enters the picture either... Isis controls some lands between Syria and Northern Iraq, Isis isn't a "Race" it's not a "Nationality" it just wants to be and to do so by killing others... It's a handful of controlled Towns

(I don't disagree that trump could be a person who would take if further) But i'm pretty specific. And Isis doesn't occupy that many places and no one really likes them as a group, most of the Middle East would like to see them gone.

January 31, 2017

Great news. SEAN SPICER (President Trump's Press Secretary) says that the President wouldn't rule out "striking" terrorists families.

The only thing most terrorists care about, beyond killing and maiming as many people as possible, are their families. You want a REAL deterrent? Let would-be terrorists know: Whoever it is on this planet that you love, will be killed, if you attack and kill Americans.

originally posted by: carewemust
January 31, 2017

Great news. SEAN SPICER (President Trump's Press Secretary) says that the President wouldn't rule out "striking" terrorists families.

The only thing most terrorists care about, beyond killing and maiming as many people as possible, are their families. You want a REAL deterrent? Let would-be terrorists know: Whoever it is on this planet that you love, will be killed, if you attack and kill Americans.

Question: If China invaded the US and adopted a policy to stop terrorist attacks of killing suspected terrorists families do you think there would be more or less?

What if your child becomes a terrorist? Do you agree with the US taking you out in retaliation?

a reply to: Aazadan

Not to mention, these are usually just alleged terrorists. They haven't been convicted of anything, so there's no guarantee that any of the people designated as terrorists actually are terrorists. Remember Pres Obama's policy of labeling any male of adult age a terrorist if he's in the vicinity of a drone target?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: carewemust
January 31, 2017

Great news. SEAN SPICER (President Trump's Press Secretary) says that the President wouldn't rule out "striking" terrorists families.

The only thing most terrorists care about, beyond killing and maiming as many people as possible, are their families. You want a REAL deterrent? Let would-be terrorists know: Whoever it is on this planet that you love, will be killed, if you attack and kill Americans.

Question: If China invaded the US and adopted a policy to stop terrorist attacks of killing suspected terrorists families do you think there would be more or less?

What if your child becomes a terrorist? Do you agree with the US taking you out in retaliation?

The only response I have is this.. I love my children more than I love myself. If I thought that they would be killed, due to my terrorist action, I would not commit that terrorist action.

This threat will not dissuade all would-be terrorists. Some don't have loved-ones. But if 9 Americans will live to a ripe old age, because Fariq valued his parents, more than his hate, mission accomplished.

a reply to: carewemust

So you would instead do nothing while a hostile power invades and oppresses them?