Posted on 03/04/2016 10:51:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
Leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday he wouldn't order the U.S. military to break international laws, addressing criticism from military and legal experts that his policies regarding torture and killing the family members of terrorists would violate the Geneva Convention.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
So obviously you have an English/Trump, Trump/English dictionary that I haven't seen. Can you give me some clues as to when we should take him seriously and when we should not?
Immoral Goon’s that drop Atomic Weapons on non-military Japanese targets? That kind of immoral goon?
Count me in!
I think that's what the U.S. is trying to do and Trump is criticizing Obama on that. He's a "carpet bomb them and let Allah sort them out" kind of guy.
That isn't what Trump said. He said we should intentionally target women and children, and "take them out".
US military personnel will not follow orders by President Trump to kill women and children because they're related to terrorists, and he will learn that one way or another.
That’s how I feel about all political candidates and those in office: “trust but verify” because to me, electing a politician is a lot like a treaty with a country that could turn on us at any time.
As I said earlier, the US military isn't going to start targeting and murdering specific families simply because of who they're related to because President Trump tells them to.
Right, but we should never make blanket statements about killing innocent civilians or the families of our enemies. There will always be exceptions. I happen to agree that Hiroshima was necessary to actually save lives because the crazy Japanese were going to keep fighting to the death.
“War is hell” and sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
“Making someone very uncomfortable is not. AND it works as fast as actual torture”
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data on that?
You have a point. When we capture 100 terrorist in Iraq that are from Turkey, we should first give them a ride back home to Turkey before bombing Turkey. Makes perfect sense to me.
Nobody is talking about terrorists on this point. Trump said that we’re going to start taking out families, and I can only assume that the equivocators here don’t have a problem with that, much less violating the Geneva Convention.
So you think that all the Japanese had to do to win WW2 was wear masks?
?
My logic?
I think they are entitled to nothing. They are pirates and savages who need to be exterminated and I really don’t care how its done as long as they are eliminated.
Is he channeling his inner Adolph when he livens up his speeches with hate and the audience responds in kind?
The last person to do that was Barack Obama.
ha!!!!
You used the word “hate”.
Do you need a safe space?
You are wasting your breath on these nicompoops. They have a brick between their ears for brains. Now, I’m still waiting for Cruz to disavow Glenn Beck. (crickets).
OK, so if in order to make a terrorist stop terrorizing, we have to get US Marines to go find the terrorist's children, nieces, and nephews, put them up against a wall and machine gun them to death, you're fine with that?
Although it may appear that is what Obama is doing, I don’t think he really is. America’s best interests seem to be the furthest from his socialist mind so he can hide behind “moral” reasons for not going after ISIS with possible collateral damage. The result, as usual with the Left in charge is more people die than would otherwise and the world is a much less safer place. Obama SHOULD be criticized for that.
I don’t agree with reckless and wanton killing but we need to have the resolve to win. We should seek the alternative of least mortality and injury, but within that framework, we need to do do whatever it takes to win.
I think once Trump is in there, he’ll do just that - much like Reagan. Once he fixes our intelligence community (the reason 9-11 got pulled off was an utter failure of verification and use of sound intelligence), I think he’ll use intelligence the way its supposed to be used, the way Reagan used it, to remain aware of imminent threats to America and maybe try to help freedom fighters in totalitarian countries. And if a deadly imminent threat or cause of American deaths are found, then deal with it decisively. Not necessarily an invasion (Bush’s lame Bush Doctrine” after Iraq was DOA - that is not the American way). Reagan would use surgical strikes like what he did with Quadaffy in Libya. Boom. After hitting Quadaffy’s compound with two air-to-ground missiles, we didn’t hear from Quadaffy for awhile.
It depends on the situation. It takes IMO wisdom and prayer to know what to do. That’s what Lincoln did, Eisenhower did, Reagan did, and it’s what Trump’s going to have to do. We should be praying for him.
So, help me out here... gunning them down, or gassing them to death, or any other method of assassinating them, would be okay? Or are you suggesting that Trump is talking about a completely non-violent way of "taking them out"? The context would make such an idea hard to believe.
If these are civilians, investigate and follow up via appropriate enforcement channels. If they are found on battlefield, address them as such.
Okay... but that doesn't sound at all like what Trump was saying. Trump didn't say, "With family members of terrorists, check methodically to find out whether they're civilians or not... and, after thorough investigation... [then what? THEN shoot them?]" He said "take out their families", and you seem to be trying to spin that into a more reasonable-sounding (but very different) idea. Trump's implication was pretty clear: he said that, for people who are willing to be martyrs (i.e. threatening THEM would do no good), we should "take out their families (for whom they'd presumably have more concern)". That's a monstrous idea for anyone with an ounce of moral sense.
Known dedicated public enemies on a nomadic warpath can be sniped/hellfired/etc. Israel does it already.
Where did Trump specify that such family members would have to be "known dedicated public enemies"? That's just silly; if such family members were public enemies (i.e. just like the original target) in their own rights, then why speak of them as "family members" AT ALL? Why not just list them on the "licenced to kill" list as enemy combatants (even if one were to be indiscriminate in killing enemies)? That doesn't pass the smell test, I'm afraid.
Sorry, but the data clearly indicated that Trump meant what he said: that family members of terrorists were to be targetted because of their coercion value, not because they were murderers, etc., themselves.
“Negotiating Stance” remember?
He doesn’t have any principles, just negotiating stances and all of them are for sale or trade.
Yes, that. You don’t defeat a suicide-bombing, fanatical cult any other way. Shutting down the terrorist mentality before it can be expressed means instilling sufficient fear of consequences.
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.