Trump clearly spelled out the case of a family that had knowledge and aided those terrorists.
Anyone aiding is a fair target by Congressional resolution of Sep 14, 2001.
“the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons”
So, if families help, then families can be targeted.
“So, if families help, then families can be targeted.”
But that’s not what he said. He said he’d target and kill their families. Period. He didn’t say all that other stuff.
You last sentence completely encapsulates the entire point being made!!! Don’t think it hasn’t already been done however like Trump does all the time is make blanket statements....
“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 them. You have to take out their families,”
Many of said terrorists have kids have wives and roam off for years never returning home. While some do aid many do not. So the actions of said terrorists who have no knowledge of their day to day operations is somehow culpable and should be targeted for execution? The blanket statement above can encapsulate that interpretation
Can you find that quote? The quote I posted didn't mention that at all. It specifically advocated targeting them because terrorist care about their families. He mentioned nothing about them aiding and abetting.
I do recall him making other comments in line with what you're saying, but his argument even there was, essentially, that the families always know what's going on. That's essentially a justification for open season on families.
He has had multiple opportunities to walk this statement back and has not done so. In this case, I again think it is something that he does not really mean, but knows that it excites some of his supporters and so says it to impress them. And you can read this thread and see that there are folks perfectly fine with doing that. Those of us who don't agree are, apparently, wimps/cowards.
I have no doubt that, at some point after he wins the nomination, he'll walk his statements back and claim he was misunderstood.
Do you have his quote where he was specific?