General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP debate audience excited by prospect of killing noncombatants and innocents
Link to full article at KosNo surprise here, Trump doubled down: "I would be very very firm with families. And frankly, that will make people think. Because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their family's lives."
And ... you guessed it: the audience broke into applause.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)this outrageous bs. This is sickening.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)No unintended consequences could happen - right?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)former9thward
(32,030 posts)They bombed non-military civilian areas of Germany and Japan to demoralize the German and Japanese militaries who wee losing their families in those bombs.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)In Europe, Britain went with the de-housing philosophy and indiscriminate bombing of targets in Germany/German occupied territories, while the US favored precision daylight bombing of industrial and military targets. However, by late in the war, when we were bombing Japan, we went more wholeheartedly after civilian populations. I'd add that Germany engaged in indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations as well, and Japan tried to start random mayhem in the US with incendiary balloons that failed miserably.
However, what Trump is talking about is having intelligence agents do the kind of things that drug cartels do -- determine the identities of individuals in ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever we call it this week; determining who the loved ones of those individuals are, and targeting them directly with death or torture.
former9thward
(32,030 posts)That was the American, UK, German and Japanese philosophy in WW II. I don't favor any intervention in the Middle East, ISIS or otherwise, but if someone wants to kill U.S. familes then I have no problem killing theirs.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)Let me establish at the outset: you and I are in 100% agreement re: "any intervention in the Middle East, ISIS or otherwise"
Since Gulf War I, we have not fought any war with clear-cut territorial conquest objectives. We've taken sides in civil wars -- some of which we instigated, others not (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan). We accomplished regime change in Iraq, botched the occupation, and ended up with Civil War.
In a certain sense, I agree with you. In war, nothing is off limits. However, the object has to be for one side to impose its will over the other. Would engaging in gangsterism accomplish that? Possibly, but what I think it really accomplishes it guaranteeing more terrorism. The way to fight ISIS, IMO, is to cut them off from their sources of funding. That means driving them out of the oil and antiquities business; that means cutting off "donations" from wealthy citizens of erstwhile allies; and -- if it comes to it -- it means scorching the earth in their occupied territories.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)... is copyright infringement.
Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)Trump is an absolute douchebag.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What sets them apart from ISIS?
Very good question.
I don't want to think that people really feel like that.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Were present tonight and the sickest ones were on stage...