Posted on 03/04/2016 9:25:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a former Air Force pilot who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said on Thursday that Donald Trump is openly advocating war crimes that would cause the soldiers who obeyed his orders to be jailed.
“If you’re a private in the field and your major or your colonel orders you to do something that is a war crime, you actually bear responsibility, you can’t say that the colonel made me do it,” said Kinzinger, who is supporting Marco Rubio. “What Donald Trump, as wanting to be president of the United States is advocating, is a war crime that would force every soldier that did, i.e. killed the relatives of terrorists, tortured regardless of whether it not it works, the things that he’s advocating would force all of these people in jail.”
Speaking on the Steve Cochran Show on Chicago radio, Kinzinger argued that Trump was either “all bluster” or comparable to Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.
“Now, you have to do one of two things,” he said. “You either believe that Donald trump is all bluster which most people do but for some reason they like that, or you take him at his word in which case he is advocating, like what Benito Mussolini did, war crimes.”
Kinzinger also said that what Trump was calling for “makes me sick.”
“For the leading Republican presidential candidate to advocate war crimes, which he does openly, just advocates war crimes, doesn’t matter, makes me sick really,” he said. “Especially as somebody that’s defended the country. It’s just terrible.”
Later in the interview, Kinzinger said, “I can’t see myself supporting Donald Trump. I never say definitively because who knows in the future. But I have no intention of supporting Donald Trump.”
As for his preferred candidate, Rubio, Kinzinger said he felt “pretty good” about the Florida senator’s chances of winning his home state’s primary, but that “I’d definitely rather be in Trump’s position politically.”
That’s not the point. Is what he is saying true?
He’s a war hero.
Is he telling the truth?
Do you have his quote where he was specific?
You can shave it any way you like. Singling out noncombatant personnel is always something you do not deliberately do. If you kill twenty people in a wedding party knowing that the target you want to kill is in that wedding party, you've deliberately targeted civilian noncombatants. If you return fire you're not only not always aware that others are present you're also not doing your duty to protect your people if you don't try and suppress and destroy the source of the fire because you're afraid Granny may be home.
Consider a building you know they're reloading brass in, full of bullets and powder along with the makings for IEDs. Now consider that the people doing part of the work are women and children. Target vehicles and armed personnel leaving only ? Or take out the sight and the components therein?
People making sweeping statements one way or another are trying to apply one standard to a multitude of situations.
He posts several times per week usually with misquotes and all ways a hit against Trump. When challenged, he whines and says don't attack the messenger.
Not without a fight cultist - we conservative don’t give in that easy. So what did dear Leader ask on you today? Did you say your daily Trump prayers? Be careful, he is watch you cultist...
yep sure is as you demonstrate daily
If you can't comprehend the moral and legal difference between causing collateral damage from an attack on legitimate military targets, and deliberately targeting civilian non-combatants simply because they are related to an enemy, then you really are no better than the terrorists themselves.
Scratch an OCD Cruzberger and you find the beating heart of a Trotskyite Cultural Marxist. You guys are as bad as the PLP and other splinter parties that used to operate in New York and immolate themselves and each other over ideological purity. At times it's also positively LaRoucheoid. Your a scary pack of totalitarian retards for sure.
I assume its a mutual understanding - they kill, torture, main or hold for ransom; we should do the same. ROE in a war you want to win -— there are none, right?
Liberals only fight until they have an assured victory in the polls at home, then they sign a worthless paper which is nothing more than a deal to continue the war later or by other means.
The Russians seem to have been doing a good job until lately when Assad threw a wrench in their plans. However, two more shipments of T-90s have arrived for the SAA.
That’s because I don’t disagree with his point. It was brought up again about families, and his illustration was which families he meant. Some people simply don’t interpret correctly what he’s saying.
Like this rectum posing as a congressit, and those who post these daily hit articles against trump.
There are lots of libs in today’s military
I do not support ROE's that enable enemy combatants to shelter themselves among civilians. I do not think there is anything wrong with bombing a house in which non-combatants are present if it is also hosting a meeting of important bad guys.
That is different from the deliberate targeting of family members simply to intimidate terrorists, which was the point Trump made.
To put it differently, you can return fire from that hootch. You can't line up granny, the kids, and execute them after clearing the hootch.
You can read through this tread and find people who actually think there is nothing wrong with that, and have taken Trump's comments that way. One poster advocated killing all the wives and children because they'd probably just give births to more terrorists anyway.
I'm sure that Freeper is pretty impressed with her own toughness.
Scratch an OCD Trumpette and you find the beating heart of a Trotskyite Cultural Marxist. You guys are as bad as the PLP and other splinter parties that used to operate in New York and immolate themselves and each other over ideological purity. At times it’s also positively LaRoucheoid. Your a scary pack of totalitarian retards for sure.
See, much better fit...
Except ONE side is using their interpretation to make a poltical attack while the other is pointing out the contrary facts.
Hate to let the source of this article know this but if he dropped bombs in Afghanistan he almost certainly has killed non combatants. The terrorist deliberately hide among the civilian population since they believe it will stop us from attacking. Is he a war criminal?
Terrorist target you and your family, its time to target their families and homes.
Waterboarding? Or like the Canadian Hockey announcer said to the question of using “hard interrogating tactics” on Muzzies, “If hooking a Camel shagger’s nuts up to a car battery will save one Canadian’s life, remember, Red is Positive and Black is Negative and make sure his nuts are wet!”
Huh? What am I missing here? Is waterboarding now considered a war crime? So they can burn people alive, behead people, fly planes into buildings, shoot 20 kids for watching a soccer game, stone women to death, throw gays off buildings, drown people in a cage but we can’t splash water in their face? THAT is a war crime?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.