Should the POTUS be able to kill the families of terrorists?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, no, don't dodge that question. I am asking you how you fight that war.

a reply to: ketsuko

I thought it was already clear what my stance on this whole thing was? Ignore the Middle East and worry about our more pressing domestic problems since Muslim terrorism is next to a non-threat to the US mainland.

Why should we fight a war we don't have to fight?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: UnBreakable

In war, things happen.

Are you saying that if you knew that the head of ISIS was right there and you could remove him in a campaign that you wouldn't ... because he happened to move around with his family? What if he moved around with his family entirely because he knew you wouldn't order his removal because of their presence?

I am sorry, but if I'm fighting a war, then I am taking out military targets. One of them is the opposing side's leader. If I get the chance, I will take him out no matter whom he has by his side. As an opposing leader myself, I should be aware that my enemy is likely planning the same and if I love my family, I am doing what I can to protect them.

This is all deflection, this wasnt the question.

The question was should families of Terrorists be targeted.

By definition when they labeled the Oregon protesters as Terrorists, then their families should have been targeted, right?

a reply to: matafuchs

No one should be able to kill the families of terrorists without just cause.

That said, if the family is knowingly in harms way intentionally to protect said terrorists, then IMO, that opens them up to being accessories and appropriate targets.

And with that said, we need to get out of the ME and quit meddling in its affairs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah, but the question is about how you fight that kind of war.

Let me be honest, rules of combat like the Geneva Conventions only work if both sides mostly adhere to them or try.

What happens when you have one side following a set of rules and the other side that could care less if there are rules or not? Generally, it turns out badly for the side imposing rules on itself.

So if one side wants to follow rules and the other side actively strategizes against that ... how would you win that war as the side following rules? Please explain.

a reply to: CrazyWater

Were their families with them? For some people in this discussion, they are talking about just killing the families wherever they are, but for others, we are talking about family in close proximity when the time for attack comes. Someone has already said Reagan shouldn't have bombed Ghadaffi's palace because it endangered family. I say, in that scenario, if you are at war then the leader is a target. A leader should know this and take steps to safeguard family. Enemies like ISIS count on us being overly upset over collateral damage and use family like human shields. In that instance, we have to understand that war is hell.

a reply to: ketsuko

I actually have no problem with it. If collateral damage occurs during the elimination of a high value target as part of war, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, we're at war with all of ISIS. If any their family members perish as the result of being associated with ISIS, so be it. Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ah, but the question is about how you fight that kind of war.

You don't. Terrorism works by paying attention to it. If you ignore it, then it doesn't work anymore. It's like arguing with a troll on the internet. The only way to win is to not engage him in the first place.

Let me be honest, rules of combat like the Geneva Conventions only work if both sides mostly adhere to them or try.

What happens when you have one side following a set of rules and the other side that could care less if there are rules or not? Generally, it turns out badly for the side imposing rules on itself.

So if one side wants to follow rules and the other side actively strategizes against that ... how would you win that war as the side following rules? Please explain.

So we should start gasing terrorists with mustard gas then too?

As an 'outsider', it's fascinating, yet frightening, watching the descent into fascism and barbarity. People are expressing themselves in such a way that they are exhibiting their sickness.

What sort of question is that, OP?

The instant answer is, and should be a loud and resounding "No".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Why is this even a discussion?

Amen.

Though, maybe it's been enough decades since the rules were written that society really needs a reminder of why they were written in the first place.

This should be fun.

a reply to: matafuchs

So you're defending Trump and the ability to murder families?

How disgusting and what a step backwards.

I think the difference between Trump's remarks and encumbent President's decisions about targeting enemies where there were innocents killed, (the 'appealing' colateral damage syndrome) is not quite that fine a distinction, Trump just says kill the families, presumably as well as any target, so in that sense not a hypocrite...just kill them all.
Is that what people want, just make it all go away?
As for those Presidents who did kill family members, and that does include Obama, you have only the option to ask them why it happened, so you can believe them or not.
In that respect, it's a hearts and mind thing, and to my mind and heart it's wrong, it's the sacrificial Lamb for the surmised better good.
I think we are losing it when we need to discuss a child being blown to bits in what is really a discussion of a potential President of a country, who's stated intention is to do just that as a matter of course.
That's as big an evil as those terrorists who would put bombs on children.

Should the POTUS be able to kill the families of terrorists?

NO! NO!, and NO!

We don't defeat our enemies by becoming them. What is accomplished, exactly, by targeting the families of terrorists?

Instilling fear in the hearts of the enemy? Or adding resolve...? Seems the latter, given that terrorism still exists.

We, the United States, are signatories of the Geneva Conventions. All of them. Not just the ones that are convenient for us.

I don't give a rats ass whether the terrorists follow the Geneva conventions or not. We must, or we're no better than them...and we are, aren't we? Aren't we?

We shouldn't even be using drones. They are far too imprecise. If we're going to kill terrorists, it needs to be done by hand, if you will. Up close with a knife, garrote, and a silenced pistol/smg. That is why we have Special Forces, isn't it?

One collateral death/injury where none could have been is too many. This is a dirty, dirty war, and we need to start fighting it the right way, or get the *bleep* out of it.

Go after the families? No, never.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see, so you want to ignore the nice people who want to simply blow up random buses and pizza parlors, shoot venues full of people who are intending to take in concerts or office holiday parties?

It is acceptable for us to simply sacrifice our civilian population endlessly to appease their desire to do murder and mayhem.

But we better not move against them so long as they hide behind human shields?

So in other words, the life of a terrorists wife or child is worth more than any of our civilians and we better just accept that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly. How would intentionally killing the families of our enemies make us any better than Saddam, the Shah, or any other despot?

One of the major things I've been fighting is the moral double standards we have in this country. We mourn then attack because of the innocents killed in terrorist attacks; but shrug or cheer when it comes to the innocents we kill as "collateral damage".

So intentionally targeting possibly innocent family members is simply repulsive to me. "Guilt by association" is literally the same rationalization that terrorists make when they attack civilian targets. And many years ago, Bin Laden literally advised his minions that it was ok to kill Western Muslims like myself because our taxes go towards our military. Thus, we were directly or indirectly aiding their enemies which made us fair targets.

Seeing people right here advocating or rationalizing the same stuff is actually pretty sad. I keep wanting to think that people have evolved past this crap but apparently not.

Sorry I think it's a stupid f'n question, sounds about right if you are North Korea..kill the family too..WTF.

a reply to: Swills

Where do I say it is ok to murder families?I was making the point about Libya, Reagan and the GOP attacking at the last debate about this. I was curious to see how people felt.

There have been some very good answers.

a reply to: aorAki

Have you not noticed the folks who are indeed answering the question with resounding "NO"'s?

a reply to: Edumakated

Interesting to combat terrorism one method has indeed proven to be effective. Mossad has been known to actually kidnap family members of terrorists holding histages. And has gotten many released unlike US policy which usually ends with dead Americans. The Soviets first shown this policy in the 80s. In sept 30 1986 four Russian diplomats were taken by Muslim extremists.Western news agencies received individual photos of the four men that same night, each with an automatic pistol pressed against his head.
The photos were accompanied by a note from a group calling itself the Islamic Liberation Organization. The message said that the four Soviet captives would be executed unless Moscow pressured pro- Syrian militiamen to cease shelling positions held by the pro-Iranian fundamentalist militia in Lebanon's northern port city of Tripoli.
Although the Soviets attempted to open some dialog with the kidnapers shelling continued. One of their diplomats bodies was found in a dumpster near the soviet embasy .So at this point Negotiations failed so the soviets turned it over to the KGB.

There solution the KBG determined the kidnapping to be the work of the Shiite Muslim group known as Hezbollah. This was the same group holding amaricans from a TWA flight and was going on for months. Once the KGB determined who took them they kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.


In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately. The remaining 3 diplomats were released a couple of blocks away from the Russian embassy unharmed.

Moussad have been known to use similar tactics as well if this is truly a war like we hear you need to be willing to do what you need to to protect your people. If your not willing to then you need to shut your borders and get out of the area. You either fight or lock the door. As long as your enemies know uuu our limitations its just a weakness. As Patton would say you take the fight to them. And don't think the Obama administration isn't sending a message with drone strikes they are letting them know they can't hide and we could strike anytime when they are with anyone. This policy was very effective his first term. Later rules were applied after it broke in the press and became useless for prevention.

a reply to: dragonridr

I like it!

Look how fast they gave it up.

Gotta make them think we are crazier than they are.

One has to ask Trump what he meant by "going after their families" because he can mean something else besides murdering them in their beds, like one member has said in different threads.

Let them think what they want, looking over their shoulder and moving their families away from where they are.