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 ...
No.
But if they get in the way of us machine-gunning terrorists out to kill OUR women and children, tough. Collateral damage.
War is ugly. That is a fact jack and the only valid legitimate rules of engagement are find the enemy and kill the enemy because that is exactly what they will be doing to us.
typical Trump Moron? FU.
On the question of finding terrorists' children, nieces, and nephews, and having Marines machine gun them to death against a wall outside their homes in the name of fighting terrorism, Trump supporter ZULU says No, Trump-supporter sparklite2 says Yes.
I'm glad the Republican party is disintegrating. Maybe Trump is the symptom, not the problem. If we can't agree on whether intentionally murdering innocent children by firing squad is illegal, immoral, and wrong, then that party has no core, and neither does whatever the hell FreeRepublic stands for (or used to).
It turns out the Republican base (and the Trump base specifically) isn't all that conservative after all, just as long as the right strongman is murdering the people who deserve to be murdered.
So let me get this straight.. repeating what TRUMP says makes me a liar? hmmmmm sounds like you have had far too much kool-aid.
Everyone does.
The only ones who never change their minds or opinion are those which forever remain children.
We are our experience and our learning and judgment.
When those change as we mature, opinions change correspondingly.
"Flip flop" is a term used by the limited in vocabulary and not too keen on critical thinking.
You’re trying to nitpick apart the obvious... in fact it sounds like you are arguing with your own fears.
Somewhere between that and inviting them to the White House, there should be a sweet spot.
Now all we need to do is determine just where that is.
I think just letting them know there is going to be many many eyes on them, will dampen down the motive to be wantonly jihadist.
I’d get the Etch A Sketch out but some of the diehard Trump supporters might have an issue with that.
Apples and oranges. Too faulty a comparison to comment further.
Trump was referring to terrorist leaders and other high ranking lieutenants who drag their wives and children wherever they go as insurance against having a 500-pounder dropped down their throats.
Their choice, their decision, their responsibilities.
Morons or phonies choose to interpret Trump's statements to mean seek out the terrorist's families specifically and kill them.
Mind you, not that I have a problem with that!
I.e. if they knew that being a terrorist family would vastly heighten their own odds of being caught in any attempted terrorist acts themselves, that would put a damper on it all.
This isn’t an infrequent case in Islamoterrorism.
The lesson is: keep a low profile or Donald is going to be watching you. It’s possible to “take out” a risk with sufficient scrutiny.
Your way is another plausible way to take it... we can’t be playing footsie with their own families treated as human shields.
My way was that they would come under intensified surveillance, dampening down the desire to make terrorism into dynasties.
And neither one is that Donald is going to avenge it on their families just because they are their families.
It's irritating.
I have no need to subscribe to the Wall street journal, nor do I need to impress anyone.
I feel sorry for your emotional inferences.
I know that was not what he meant.
You bet!
When the ones to pay the price for abysmal ignorance are additional American servicemen dead, it is beyond evil, actually aiding and abetting the enemy.
Not apples and oranges at all. It is about collateral damage.
Sorry to see trump back off his stronger statement— especially in the context of illegal combatants as another freeper pointed out.
And yes, I disagree with the 2006 Supreme Court ruling.
And if you really cared, the Geneva Convention, and your interpretation, also would NOT have allowed the assassination of bin Laden and his wives. I didn't hear you raising an issue then.
Rosen, cited in your points, says, "assuming the family members are not combatants themselves..." They ARE combatants both by commission and omission.
Or have an awareness beyond one's emotional "safe place."
Certainly, letting ISIS have its wish to become a country (the only non Geneva signatory) would also give it its wish to die for Allah with a minimum of muss and fuss.
I would expect to see a lot of bail-outs from ISIS very shortly after that happens.
One can always choose God Himself as a safe place, and then you’re firm as a rock.
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.