• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support targeting families?

Are families a valid target?


  • Total voters
    37
That's not what he said, or at least not what I've heard him say a number of times. He has not suggested revenge killings, nothing even close. He has said that if we go get the families of these terrorists we can use them as leverage to get the terrorists to stop attacking, because even though these terrorists don't care about their life, they do care about their family. That's what I've heard him say.
He hasn't said either, that I've seen. He has said we should "go after" them or that he would "be very tough" on them, or something else deliberately vague to the point where the action remains undefined. That way people can project what they want it to mean, but he isn't responsible for defending an actual COA.

Liberals want that to mean "kill" because it makes the suggestion horrific, (the other GOP candidates are willing to assume it means "kill" for the same reason), but he hasn't actually said that.
 
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?

People really will defend anything. :lol:
 
Hell no, that's a vile act of terrorism that could only backfire.
Well, no. This being (largely) Middle Eastern culture, targeting families could indeed be effective. For an example, Google up what happened when Hezbollah kidnapped some Russians back in the 80s. Or take a look at the methods used by those dictators that everyone now says "at least brought stability".

That doesn't mean we should do it, mind you. But we do have a credibility gap when it comes to violence in the Middle East that needs to be addressed.
 
Well, no. This being (largely) Middle Eastern culture, targeting families could indeed be effective. For an example, Google up what happened when Hezbollah kidnapped some Russians back in the 80s. Or take a look at the methods used by those dictators that everyone now says "at least brought stability".

That doesn't mean we should do it, mind you. But we do have a credibility gap when it comes to violence in the Middle East that needs to be addressed.
targeting families could indeed be effective.
Absolutely laughable. If you want to help radicalize, be my guest.
 
One of the most disgusting things I've ever heard, so absolutely no surprise coming from that sociopath. Intentionally targeting civilians to cause fear is terrorism. We don't have to turn ourselves into monsters to fight monsters.



There's a difference between collateral damage and intentional killing. Trump says we should actively hunt out their family members, like the mother and father of the San Bernardino shooters in order to get revenge and show who's boss. Apples and ****ing oranges.
It's nice you feel that way. When Bush was in charged many were counting collateral killings like we were doing it on purpose; the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians kept coming up like a political sledgehammer.
 
Absolutely laughable. If you want to help radicalize, be my guest.
:shrug: sadly, it isn't. We react so strongly to the idea because we in the west are individualistic. Mirror imaging that assumption to the Middle East is a poor analysis.
 
So you're defending your position to not got after enemies trying to kill us? Yes, I guess people really will defend anything.

I defend not going after families that may or may not be involved.
 
Trump came out with the idea recently. Do you believe the families of combatants are a valid target in a war?

According to Obama, they are...so why not Trump going along with his ideas?
 
...you realize your link only speaks to the Geneva Conventions as pertains to lethal targeting, and doesn't speak to effectiveness?

You realize that intentionally targeting innocent families doesn't work in the ME and only helps radicalize people?
 
Last edited:
You realize that intentionally targeting families is laughable and only helps radicalize people?
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.
 
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.

Trump is quite obviously referring to lethal targeting. How, exactly, would it be effective? We'd simply cause more people to be radicalized and give extremists more propaganda material.
 
Trump is quite obviously referring to lethal targeting.

No, that is an assumption, and one without substantiation. Personally I think it is probable that Trump hasn't even thought specifics yet - he doesn't really strike me as a "policy details" kind of guy.

How, exactly, would it be effective? We'd simply cause more people to be radicalized and give extremists more propaganda material.

That too, is an assumption, but that is one where the available evidence actually runs counter. That tactic has been used to great effect within this culture. It's just something that we should be unwilling to do, as things like individual human rights are part of our culture, and part of what makes our culture superior.
 
**** with the Mafia and they will kill your family members, one by one, in front of you. Then, kill you last.

Prison gangs with members on the outside will kill your family members just because they can.

Our military should never stoop so low.
 
I believe in targeting terrorists. If they are surrounded by those who support their activities, then they all share responsibility. I don't believe in targeting family members, as this would imply they are being targeted regardless of whether or not they are in proximity, but I must say that I get tired of propagandists using the term "innocent civilians" to refer to known terrorists and those who are aiding and abetting them.
 
That's not what he said, or at least not what I've heard him say a number of times. He has not suggested revenge killings, nothing even close. He has said that if we go get the families of these terrorists we can use them as leverage to get the terrorists to stop attacking, because even though these terrorists don't care about their life, they do care about their family. That's what I've heard him say.

Wtf...? So we just kidnap their families and threaten to kill their families if they don't stop terrorizing? What happens when someone calls our bluff?
 
If you want to create a LOT more terrorists, this is the perfect strategy.
 
Back
Top Bottom