Is Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers a good plan?

[OKTexas]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

If they don't care about themselves, maybe, they'll care about their family. Of course the threat isn't enough, you have to follow through.

Kill innocent children on a maybe?

Republicans cry about the fetus, but see no problem with killing little children.

Suicide bombers don't operate in a vacuum, even if they don't advocate their children follow in their footsteps, we have a pretty good idea what they're being taught. It ain't tolerance.

 

[Coyote]

When people start advocating killing innocent people for the crimes of another, then they're no different than the terrorists.

 

[rdean]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

If they don't care about themselves, maybe, they'll care about their family. Of course the threat isn't enough, you have to follow through.

Kill innocent children on a maybe?

Republicans cry about the fetus, but see no problem with killing little children.

Suicide bombers don't operate in a vacuum, even if they don't advocate their children follow in their footsteps, we have a pretty good idea what they're being taught. It ain't tolerance.

So you are saying killing children is a good idea?

 

[OKTexas]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

If they don't care about themselves, maybe, they'll care about their family. Of course the threat isn't enough, you have to follow through.

Kill innocent children on a maybe?

Republicans cry about the fetus, but see no problem with killing little children.

Suicide bombers don't operate in a vacuum, even if they don't advocate their children follow in their footsteps, we have a pretty good idea what they're being taught. It ain't tolerance.

So you are saying killing children is a good idea?

Using who's definition, ours or theirs? Keep in mind they put children as young as 8 in military training and use babies to disguise bombs. Innocents, maybe, non-lethal, hardly.

 

[rdean]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

If they don't care about themselves, maybe, they'll care about their family. Of course the threat isn't enough, you have to follow through.

Kill innocent children on a maybe?

Republicans cry about the fetus, but see no problem with killing little children.

Suicide bombers don't operate in a vacuum, even if they don't advocate their children follow in their footsteps, we have a pretty good idea what they're being taught. It ain't tolerance.

So you are saying killing children is a good idea?

Using who's definition, ours or theirs? Keep in mind they put children as young as 8 in military training and use babies to disguise bombs. Innocents, maybe, non-lethal, hardly.

So you are advocating the murder of children.

 

[OKTexas]

If they don't care about themselves, maybe, they'll care about their family. Of course the threat isn't enough, you have to follow through.

Kill innocent children on a maybe?

Republicans cry about the fetus, but see no problem with killing little children.

Suicide bombers don't operate in a vacuum, even if they don't advocate their children follow in their footsteps, we have a pretty good idea what they're being taught. It ain't tolerance.

So you are saying killing children is a good idea?

Using who's definition, ours or theirs? Keep in mind they put children as young as 8 in military training and use babies to disguise bombs. Innocents, maybe, non-lethal, hardly.

So you are advocating the murder of children.

Call it what ever you want, I don't give a shit. I advocate killing terrorist, no matter the age.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Dear Fair&Balanced
1. if those family members are convicted of being Accomplices or Abetting terrorist acts considered war against a nation, that could be treasonous and subject to the death penalty. I would make a distinction between whether they assisted and participated or not.

2. What if they were threatened with death or torture if they went to authorities? What if they didn't participate but just failed to report out of fear of being killed?

Aren't there different degrees of this? Why couldn't people be deported or sentenced to serve in prison or labor camps for life, instead of getting the death penalty.

If people are going to die anyway, whether they simply fail to report or they go along with the terrorist activities, what motivation is there for deterrence?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Dear Fair&Balanced
1. if those family members are convicted of being Accomplices or Abetting terrorist acts considered war against a nation, that could be treasonous and subject to the death penalty. I would make a distinction between whether they assisted and participated or not.

2. What if they were threatened with death or torture if they went to authorities? What if they didn't participate but just failed to report out of fear of being killed?

Aren't there different degrees of this? Why couldn't people be deported or sentenced to serve in prison or labor camps for life, instead of getting the death penalty.

If people are going to die anyway, whether they simply fail to report or they go along with the terrorist activities, what motivation is there for deterrence?

Are you talking about civilians in a war zone, or US citizens in this country?

 

[rdean]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Dear Fair&Balanced
1. if those family members are convicted of being Accomplices or Abetting terrorist acts considered war against a nation, that could be treasonous and subject to the death penalty. I would make a distinction between whether they assisted and participated or not.

2. What if they were threatened with death or torture if they went to authorities? What if they didn't participate but just failed to report out of fear of being killed?

Aren't there different degrees of this? Why couldn't people be deported or sentenced to serve in prison or labor camps for life, instead of getting the death penalty.

If people are going to die anyway, whether they simply fail to report or they go along with the terrorist activities, what motivation is there for deterrence?

What if they just didn't know?

 

[rdean]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Why would you say something so ignorant:

• 1927 The bomb in Leningrad Communist University; 1 killed, 26 wounded; done by white emigrants terroristic organization Russian Common-Military Union
• 1934 Kirov's murder
• 1942 Stalin assasination attempt (actually killer shoot at Mikoyan's car by mistake)
• 1947 Bombing house in Lvov; 10 killed; done by Ukrainian nationalist, member of Ukrainian Socialist-Radical Party
• 1967 Bombing attempt in the Red Square (no reliable info on victims)
• 1968 Shooting in Kursk; 13 killed, 11 wounded
• 1969 Brezhnev assasination attempt
• 1971 Bombing bus in Krasnodar; 10 killed; done by psycho due to "misanthropy"
• 1973 bomb explosion near Lenin mausoleum; 3 killed (including suicide bomber), 4 wounded; terrorist was not identified
• 1977 the series of three bombings in Moscow (incl. Moscow subway); 29 killed; done by armenian nationalists
• 1990 Gorbachev assasination attempt

Also numerous (more than 15) taking hostages and plane hijackings, mostly non-politically motivated, including 1973 Tu-104 plane crash due to terrorist's bomb detonation (all 81 died).

The list goes on and on.

Right wingers never seem to know anything. They point things out as fact. Things easily disproved. Does that stop them? Never.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Why would you say something so ignorant:

• 1927 The bomb in Leningrad Communist University; 1 killed, 26 wounded; done by white emigrants terroristic organization Russian Common-Military Union
• 1934 Kirov's murder
• 1942 Stalin assasination attempt (actually killer shoot at Mikoyan's car by mistake)
• 1947 Bombing house in Lvov; 10 killed; done by Ukrainian nationalist, member of Ukrainian Socialist-Radical Party
• 1967 Bombing attempt in the Red Square (no reliable info on victims)
• 1968 Shooting in Kursk; 13 killed, 11 wounded
• 1969 Brezhnev assasination attempt
• 1971 Bombing bus in Krasnodar; 10 killed; done by psycho due to "misanthropy"
• 1973 bomb explosion near Lenin mausoleum; 3 killed (including suicide bomber), 4 wounded; terrorist was not identified
• 1977 the series of three bombings in Moscow (incl. Moscow subway); 29 killed; done by armenian nationalists
• 1990 Gorbachev assasination attempt

Also numerous (more than 15) taking hostages and plane hijackings, mostly non-politically motivated, including 1973 Tu-104 plane crash due to terrorist's bomb detonation (all 81 died).

The list goes on and on.

Right wingers never seem to know anything. They point things out as fact. Things easily disproved. Does that stop them? Never.

LOL Rdean points out like 20 exceptions over a 100 year period and acts like that disproves my point. what a moron.

 

[emilynghiem]

By now, everyone is aware of Trump's plan of killing the families of suicide bombers.

Do Republicans think that's a "great plan"?

Do they think the rest of the world would find that a "great plan"?

How far would it go? Cousins? Or just the immediate family? You know, parents, brothers, sisters, wives and children?

actually, yes it is a good plan. You notice that terrorists never fucked with the USSR. Why? Because as much as they hated the Soviets, they feared them even more, Kill a Soviet citizen and they would send in the Red Army and wipe out your entire village.

However, we will never do that in this country. That simply isn't who we are. And that wasn't what Trump was saying anyway. He was saying that the family members will pick up a gun and kill you as well, so to defeat them you will need to kill the entire family. And that is 100% correct. Having been over there NUMEROUS times I can tell you that a 6 year old CAN point and fire an AK47.

But , you're a dumbfuck desperate to spin the conversation away from Hillary, so facts don't matter to you at all.

Dear Fair&Balanced
1. if those family members are convicted of being Accomplices or Abetting terrorist acts considered war against a nation, that could be treasonous and subject to the death penalty. I would make a distinction between whether they assisted and participated or not.

2. What if they were threatened with death or torture if they went to authorities? What if they didn't participate but just failed to report out of fear of being killed?

Aren't there different degrees of this? Why couldn't people be deported or sentenced to serve in prison or labor camps for life, instead of getting the death penalty.

If people are going to die anyway, whether they simply fail to report or they go along with the terrorist activities, what motivation is there for deterrence?

What if they just didn't know?

Yes rdean we need to respect due process.
That's what makes our govt and country a Constitutional one. The biggest difference with Jihadist/terrorist jurisdiction is they act as Judge/Jury/Executioner with no separation of powers, no due process, no public trials or defense.

If you look at people yelling about corporate corruption of the govt and political process, also about the media and party politics, you'll find the same issue of bypassing due process and condemning people without proof, without defense.

We already have problems keeping politics from corrupting democratic/due process as is. We don't need to keep adding more threats to make it worse! Thanks rdean

 

[HenryBHough]

Next time you see a rat in your house try killing ONLY the rat you saw.

Just for the fun you'll have in days to come.

 

[emilynghiem]

Next time you see a rat in your house try killing ONLY the rat you saw.

Just for the fun you'll have in days to come.

Dear HenryBHough
We have war, and rules of engagement for war that include collective punishment and warfare.

However, we don't go around declaring "war" on civil society, or isn't that the problem with Jihadists -- not distinguishing the wartime rules on the battleground from the peacetime rules in society.

 

[HenryBHough]

We have war, and rules of engagement for war that include collective punishment and warfare.

However, we don't go around declaring "war" on civil society, or isn't that the problem with Jihadists -- not distinguishing the wartime rules on the battleground from the peacetime rules in society.

Wars fought exclusively by rules are wars lost. Roosevelt tried that; it took Truman to figure out that wars are for winning. But you liberals would crucify him today...indeed I'm surprised your storm troopers haven't dug up his grave and torn what might remains apart to feed to your attack dogs.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have war, and rules of engagement for war that include collective punishment and warfare.

However, we don't go around declaring "war" on civil society, or isn't that the problem with Jihadists -- not distinguishing the wartime rules on the battleground from the peacetime rules in society.

Wars fought exclusively by rules are wars lost. Roosevelt tried that; it took Truman to figure out that wars are for winning. But you liberals would crucify him today...indeed I'm surprised your storm troopers haven't dug up his grave and torn what might remains apart to feed to your attack dogs.

Dear HenryBHough
I'm all for leaders like Lt. Col Allen West, firing a shot past someone's head to get the job done. He saved lives and none was lost.

He may have bent or broken rules, but he didn't kill any innocent people. Get the difference?

As for my beliefs about war, once our nation declares war, you back the military so there is unified support.

Where diplomacy and prevention can take place is in advance. I agree that terrorists should be answered using their own tactics, but within reason. You still have to keep the higher moral ground if you expect to win.

 

[HenryBHough]

The "high moral ground" suggests feeding the sweet little orphaned baby rats with nary a thought to what they'll grow into.

Hint: Ain't no such thing as a grateful rat.

 

[emilynghiem]

The "high moral ground" suggests feeding the sweet little orphaned baby rats with nary a thought to what they'll grow into.

Hint: Ain't no such thing as a grateful rat.

No, because the same resources and labor are needed to feed people. If rats carry diseases they need to be removed and reduced, so they don't destroy food supplies or sicken people when there aren't enough medical resources to cover the demand as is.

However, if volunteers want to come in and rescue rats, that's fine, but on their own time and costs, and not at the risk or expense to other people.

HenryBHough