Do you support targeting families?

[DA60]

The drone program does not intentionally target family members.

Bull****.

Drones kill rescuers in 'double tap', say activists

Drones kill rescuers in 'double tap', say activists - BBC News


The deliberate killing of innocent, first responders for no other reason then to discourage future first responders from helping is murdering.

Don't bother answering as whatever you say will probably seem a complete waste of time to me.

 

[Thrilla]

In other words you support the terrorists’ methods, you just disagree with their motives?

I dunno... did we support the terrorists methods while were fighting WW2?

 

[DA60]

No, I realize that targeting includes a lot of options, including non-lethal (a vaguery that Trump has left unfilled). I also recognize that, though morally abhorrent to us, lethal targeting of family members could indeed be effective in the Middle East.

All you seem to do is dance around this issue.

Are you for the deliberate killing of family members of terrorists (like women, children/babies, elderly)?

Yes or no?

 

[cpwill]

All you seem to do is dance around this issue.

Are you for the deliberate killing of family members of terrorists (like women, children/babies, elderly)?

Yes or no?

Me? I'm absolutely opposed to deliberate lethal targeting of people for the crimes of their relatives, and, as a targeter, if ordered, would refuse an take the consequences. My job isn't worth my soul. That doesn't change anything else that I said.

 

[JANFU]

I dunno... did we support the terrorists methods while were fighting WW2?

It is not that war we are fighting.

 

[DA60]

Me? I'm absolutely opposed to deliberate lethal targeting of people for the crimes of their relatives, and, as a targeter, if ordered, would refuse an take the consequences. My job isn't worth my soul. That doesn't change anything else that I said.

Fair enough.

I apologize.

 

[cpwill]

Fair enough.

I apologize.

No worries - I'm fine with clarifying

 

[JANFU]

Hmmm. Was it a mere coincidence Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed within a two week period from Anwar al-Awlaki?

Obama said it is okay to do drone stokes on United States citizens in the US without a trial or due process. That is completely unconstitutional.

If US troops were on the ground, targeting whomever, and he was killed, would that be unconstitutional?

 

[Thrilla]

It is not that war we are fighting.

that's true, it's not.

I was simply explaining a scenario in which I would be supportive of targeting families....

I understand terrorist have no problem targeting the innocent... and i understand we'd like to believe we can fight an honorable war, filled with virtue and high minded principles( that stuff is for the spectators, warriors don't have the luxury of such considerations)... personally, it feels immoral to target innocents, even though I know martial efforts would be much more effective if we weren't hindered by such things.
this is one of the ways in which i consider myself to be tying our hands behind our backs.<shrugs>

 

[JANFU]

that's true, it's not.

I was simply explaining a scenario in which I would be supportive of targeting families....

I understand terrorist have no problem targeting the innocent... and i understand we'd like to believe we can fight an honorable war, filled with virtue and high minded principles( that stuff is for the spectators, warriors don't have the luxury of such considerations)... personally, it feels immoral to target innocents, even though I know martial efforts would be much more effective if we weren't hindered by such things.
this is one of the ways in which i consider myself to be tying our hands behind our backs.<shrugs>

Facts are we now kill more civilians than is reported. Fighting that type as described, creates even more terrorists. Look at Gulf War 2, the deaths are immense in number.

 

[Thrilla]

Facts are we now kill more civilians than is reported. Fighting that type as described, creates even more terrorists. Look at Gulf War 2, the deaths are immense in number.

yes, we kill lots of civilians..... then again, most of the folks we're fighting are civilian combatants..... and yes their family might get mad and join the battle after we killed their relatives.

there's no way around killing lots of civilians when you're actually at war with civilians, other than to not combat them, and terrorism in general, at all.

 

[JANFU]

yes, we kill lots of civilians..... then again, most of the folks we're fighting are civilian combatants..... and yes their family might get mad and join the battle after we killed their relatives.

there's no way around killing lots of civilians when you're actually at war with civilians, other than to not combat them, and terrorism in general, at all.

For the sake of discussion those that are fighting we can call them terrorists as ISIL indeed is a terror org. Easier to differentiate.

 

[jamesrage]

Trump came out with the idea recently. Do you believe the families of combatants are a valid target in a war?

Nope. We do not punish people for the actions of their family and friends.Maybe we should investigate to see if they knew something but didn't tell anyone.But we shouldn't bomb someone just because their relative did something.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If the goal is to create even more blowback and have something even worse than ISIS another generation down the road, then sure.

 

[Pollycy]

Couldn't vote "yes" or "no", because the matter of going after a terrorist's family can depend on a number of different factors and should be approached on a case-by-case approach.

If some murderous Muslim commits a crime, we should certainly investigate family members, but not just automatically go after them and take them out.

 

[spud_meister]

Absolutely. War is cruel. War is hell.

As Trump suggested, how about families that know what their maggot family members are doing, support their actions, feed them, perhaps even help sharpen their decapitation knives, build explosives, and otherwise knowingly participate in the puke laden lives of their single celled spawn? You know, the family members Trump was talking about?

So if the families of combatants support their family member, they're legitimate targets? Does that also include the family of US soldiers, US generals, or the family of the Commander in Chief?

 

[TurtleDude]

Trump came out with the idea recently. Do you believe the families of combatants are a valid target in a war?

Its an interesting question from both a moral and a strategic perspective. The Late colonel David Hackworth, perhaps the most decorated member of the US Military from the Nam was an expert on unconventional or "limited" warfare and said the only way to beat terrorists is to "out terror them" He noted that family and friends of terrorists are often far more worried about dying then the actual terrorists themselves. and thus targeting those who support and nourish terrorists might be an effective strategy to whittle down on terrorist numbers.


it also depends what sort of war and what side you are talking. In some wars the defending side cannot beat the aggressor in a conventional war such as destroying its military and occupying its land. rather, the defending force's only real hope of causing the aggression to stop is to cause the aggressor force more pain than the aggressor believes it is worth to attack and oppress the defending force. in that case, an attacked entity might well target such families to increase the cost factor for those attacking it.

SO my answer is neither yes nor no since it depends on the type of conflict and the context.

 

[Riveroaks]

Couldn't vote "yes" or "no", because the matter of going after a terrorist's family can depend on a number of different factors and should be approached on a case-by-case approach.

If some murderous Muslim commits a crime, we should certainly investigate family members, but not just automatically go after them and take them out.

Machiavelli explains all this.

There must be a will to strength and power in order to govern.

 

[ocean515]

So if the families of combatants support their family member, they're legitimate targets? Does that also include the family of US soldiers, US generals, or the family of the Commander in Chief?

If they are providing shelter and actively assisting in the daily efforts of their family members, of course. I don't think Stateside family members of US Soldiers, Generals, or the Commander in Chief are doing that.

If they were to move in to some forward base, or to some town where attacks were planned and staged, and were helping to feed, support, arm, and otherwise assist that US Soldier, they would be legitimate targets.

Of course, I would assume you don't want to accept this is what Trump was referring to.

 

[bubbabgone]

Trump came out with the idea recently. Do you believe the families of combatants are a valid target in a war?

To me, if we had a chance to go after al-Baghdadi again, for example, it shouldn't really be of much concern who's hanging around him at the time.
I suspect what Trump said clumsily, or intentionally, was to get attention and was a reaction to the news that the military was under orders not to hit convoy vehicles if there were civilians behind the wheel.

But another, yet related, matter is what Obama, team members everywhere, and someone in this thread used as a line we've been hearing a lot.
It's used to explain why we, as a Country, aren't being as broadly aggressive as you'd normally expect.
That line is ..."Because that's what ISIS wants us to do".
Do we not all realize what a load of crap that is?