Donald Trump “take out their families”

[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 .

But we did...in Hiroshima, and 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 heck". To fight it as if it were not so, is to give up the fight prematurely.

Then why not just nuke em all . Total genocide , a cleansing , kill em all ?

[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.

[TVegas]

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.

A lot of people would argue that it was an atrocity to drop those bombs on relatively innocent people. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's important to remember that we essentially committed a crime against humanity. I don't know where I stand on that, however I do know that it saved American lives at the expense of the lives of Japanese civilians.

Just pointing that out.

[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.

[Pawpaw]

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

No, they do not. Playing by our rules is one of the things that defines us. If we sink to their level, then we have rendered ourselves no better than they are.

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.

[chuck j]

I agree .

[Javier730]

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

No, they do not. Playing by our rules is one of the things that defines us. If we sink to their level, then we have rendered ourselves no better than they are.

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.

[Javier730]

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 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 heck". To fight it as if it were not so, is to give up the fight prematurely.

Then why not just nuke em all . Total genocide , a cleansing , kill em all ?

Darn good point.

[VoiceofReason]

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?

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Pariah3j]

I haven't seen this mentioned, so I thought I'd bring it up. I believe the reason Trump made the statement was in regards to the story that the supposed reason Terrorist don't kidnap Russian citizens anymore is because the last time it did happened, Russia's response was to send them body parts of their family as a response.

Killing the Terrorist families won't work if they've already 'martyr'-ed themselves. But it might be an interesting tactic to start using on future Osama Bin Ladens of the world. Because if the family members of the high ranking officials knew they were a target because of them, you better believe they wouldn't stay in hiding very long. The ethics of this can be debated, but just remember our country was founded by guerrilla warfare type tactics. We didn't target women and children, but the things our side did do, were considered heinous at that time. We targeted the officers and did hit and run tactics instead of lining up on a battlefield like 'gentlemen'. With each generation and each type of new threat, a new tactic must be developed to combat the new type of threat. What will ours be ?

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

[Papa_Tiger]

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.

You don't "handle terrorism" by becoming a terrorist. Indiscriminately making the family of "terrorists" pay for their kin's actions is exactly the way you create more terrorism. To me that seems like a pretty significant escalation of retaliation and revenge, which already is prevalent in the Middle East today. There was a reason why God instituted the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" limiting the revenge of an aggrieved party. It cooled wrath and prevented things from spiraling out of control creating family feuds that extended for generations.

There is no good way to handle terrorism. The fight against terrorism is a fight against an ideology held by people committed to do harm to you for the mere reason that they hate you or what you stand for. There are no rules. There is no reason. The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate either all who hate you (genocide in this case) or to change hearts and minds which is no small task.

[VoiceofReason]

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.

You don't "handle terrorism" by becoming a terrorist. Indiscriminately making the family of "terrorists" pay for their kin's actions is exactly the way you create more terrorism. To me that seems like a pretty significant escalation of retaliation and revenge, which already is prevalent in the Middle East today. There was a reason why God instituted the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" limiting the revenge of an aggrieved party. It cooled wrath and prevented things from spiraling out of control creating family feuds that extended for generations.

There is no good way to handle terrorism. The fight against terrorism is a fight against an ideology held by people committed to do harm to you for the mere reason that they hate you or what you stand for. There are no rules. There is no reason. The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate either all who hate you (genocide in this case) or to change hearts and minds which is no small task.

I know you are not advocating genocide, so how would you suggest changing “hearts and minds” of a people locked in the 17th century still running around cutting people’s heads off?