Should we avoid killing their families?

[SassyIrishLass]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

You must have been one lousy sailor....if indeed you were even one.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Sieg Heil!

Perhaps Skank can even write the "final solution" for Trump after he is elected. Although after elected he will dump the trailer trash and never put his effete foot back into fly-over country.

 

[ABikerSailor]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

Oh, really???

Then why did FDR bomb German cities???

Or why did Truman NUKE two Japanese cities???

Seems you Democrats have short memories!!!

Why did FDR bomb German cities? Why did Truman nuke 2 Japanese cities? Simple, those acts happened BEFORE the Geneva Conventions. The first ones weren't enacted until after WWII in 1949, with modifications that happened in 1959.

Seems that you Republicans have no grasp of history, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up those 2 woefully inept (and wrong) examples. It was because of things like that happening in WWII that the countries got together and signed them. Might wanna read up on them sometime. Almost every military man understands them and why they are there.

 

[Obiwan]

The Constitution states that treaties which the US has ratified are the law of the land, just like laws passed by congress.

The US has ratified the Hague Convention, which specifically forbids collective punishment. Going after the families of terrorists is a clear example of collective punishment, and thus it is forbidden by the Constitution.

Whether ISIS ratified the Hague Convention is irrelevant. We have ratified it. That's all that matters.

Hence, all the Trump fans on this thread are proudly declaring that they're Constitution-shredding traitors, not to mention wannabee war criminals and genocidal monsters who are out to make both Hitler and Stalin look like amateurs.

Given that all Trump fans are such proud traitors, should it be considered a crime to be a Trump fan?

It also allows for collateral damage during wartime (declared or undeclared)... You just can't DELIBERATELY target civilians when there are no legitimate military targets in the area!!!

Apparently, the Liberals neglect to read the parts that don't fit their agenda...

After all, wasn't that Bill Clinton's excuse for passing up a kill shot on Bin Laden???

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

Keyboard kowboys and kowgirls are a dime a dozen on the internet, as we can plainly see. Let's see if DuhTex and Skank sign up to go fight on the ground or if they are content to just watch the war from the safety of Windows 7, Comcast and Fox.

 

[ABikerSailor]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

You must have been one lousy sailor....if indeed you were even one.

Nope, because my eval average each time was 3.7 or on occasion, a 4.0, on a scale of 1.0 to 4.0. I also managed to land 2 back to back independent duty assignments for the last 2 tours that I had. Things like that don't happen if you're a crappy sailor. And yeah.............I think that I was a sailor at one time, at least that is what the government thinks, they send me a retirement check once every month, and have since 2002.

 

[deltex1]

The Constitution states that treaties which the US has ratified are the law of the land, just like laws passed by congress.

The US has ratified the Hague Convention, which specifically forbids collective punishment. Going after the families of terrorists is a clear example of collective punishment, and thus it is forbidden by the Constitution.

Whether ISIS ratified the Hague Convention is irrelevant. We have ratified it. That's all that matters.

Hence, all the Trump fans on this thread are proudly declaring that they're Constitution-shredding traitors, not to mention wannabee war criminals and genocidal monsters who are out to make both Hitler and Stalin look like amateurs.

Given that all Trump fans are such proud traitors, should it be considered a crime to be a Trump fan?

You stupid ass...we are not "going after the families". But we are not allowing families to prevent us from bringing justice to our enemies..as is Obama's habit. Wake the fuck up.

 

[Vigilante]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

Oh, really???

Then why did FDR bomb German cities???

Or why did Truman NUKE two Japanese cities???

Seems you Democrats have short memories!!!

Why did FDR bomb German cities? Why did Truman nuke 2 Japanese cities? Simple, those acts happened BEFORE the Geneva Conventions. The first ones weren't enacted until after WWII in 1949, with modifications that happened in 1959.

Seems that you Republicans have no grasp of history, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up those 2 woefully inept (and wrong) examples. It was because of things like that happening in WWII that the countries got together and signed them. Might wanna read up on them sometime. Almost every military man understands them and why they are there.

BOMBED HANOI...wasn't that AFTER Geneva...dumbass!

 

[deltex1]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

Keyboard kowboys and kowgirls are a dime a dozen on the internet, as we can plainly see. Let's see if DuhTex and Skank sign up to go fight on the ground or if they are content to just watch the war from the safety of Windows 7, Comcast and Fox.

Now that we let fags in you can sign up also.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

My bottom line is....if the Taliban leader who ordered the suicide bombing lives in a village with his family and the family of the bomber, should we take him out regardless...to include his goat....or should we follow Obama's ROE?

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

You must have been one lousy sailor....if indeed you were even one.

Nope, because my eval average each time was 3.7 or on occasion, a 4.0, on a scale of 1.0 to 4.0. I also managed to land 2 back to back independent duty assignments for the last 2 tours that I had. Things like that don't happen if you're a crappy sailor. And yeah.............I think that I was a sailor at one time, at least that is what the government thinks, they send me a retirement check once every month, and have since 2002.

I suppose, I guess I'm used to real good sailors....being raised by a MCPO and all. Have a good one.

 

[Pop23]

or should we bomb the shit out of them. Donald wants to know.

Suicide Attack Kills 6 American Service Members

Yes

As soon as they quit targeting ours. Until then it may be the only way to stop an attacker that is bent on suicide.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, it's not Obama's ROE that dictates we don't take out non combatants, it's the Geneva Conventions that do. Too bad the war hawks on here have never served and don't know that the American military has to abide by them.

ISIS signed the Geneva convention?... unless both side are signers it's UNENFORCEABLE!

Both you and BitchyIrishAss need to read up on the Conventions and why they are there, and that yeah, even though the terrorists didn't sign (they're not a country, just a loose coalition of individuals and groups), the US still has to abide by them.

It's not negotiable. EVERY president since they were enacted has had to follow them, even in Viet Nam when the North Vietnamese didn't abide by them.

Oh, really???

Then why did FDR bomb German cities???

Or why did Truman NUKE two Japanese cities???

Seems you Democrats have short memories!!!

Why did FDR bomb German cities? Why did Truman nuke 2 Japanese cities? Simple, those acts happened BEFORE the Geneva Conventions. The first ones weren't enacted until after WWII in 1949, with modifications that happened in 1959.

Seems that you Republicans have no grasp of history, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up those 2 woefully inept (and wrong) examples. It was because of things like that happening in WWII that the countries got together and signed them. Might wanna read up on them sometime. Almost every military man understands them and why they are there.

BOMBED HANOI...wasn't that AFTER Geneva...dumbass!

You're talking about Operation Linebacker, an operation ordered by Nixon (a Republican), to take out strategic targets like railroads and enemy positions. And, there are those that say it was because of Operation Linebacker that the Viet Nam war ended a month later. Did it kill some civilians? Yes. Was it against the Geneva Conventions? No. Otherwise lots of people would have rose up against Nixon because of it.

Dumbass!

 

[mamooth]

It also allows for collateral damage during wartime (declared or undeclared)... You just can't DELIBERATELY target civilians when there are no legitimate military targets in the area!!!

That's nice. But my point is that Trump is specifically calling for the families of terrorists to be targeted, and that the Trump fans are all supporting that.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” – Donald Trump

Apparently, the Liberals neglect to read the parts that don't fit their agenda...

Do you support Trump's wish to specifically target the families of terrorists, in violation of the US Constitution?

 

[Lakhota]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Yeah, just like whitey did with Injuns - kill 'em all including babies.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Yeah, just like whitey did with Injuns - kill 'em all including babies.

Apples and oranges, fake injun. You sort of outed yourself badly the other day, your credibility is shot to hell

 

[Pop23]

It also allows for collateral damage during wartime (declared or undeclared)... You just can't DELIBERATELY target civilians when there are no legitimate military targets in the area!!!

That's nice. But my point is that Trump is specifically calling for the families of terrorists to be targeted, and that the Trump fans are all supporting that.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” – Donald Trump

Apparently, the Liberals neglect to read the parts that don't fit their agenda...

Do you support Trump's wish to specifically target the families of terrorists, in violation of the US Constitution?

ISIS is unlike fighting a countries army. They send suicidal bombers/gunners specifically after civilians.

This is a different kind of enemy. The tactics of the past simply will not phase them.

 

[Staidhup]

War is hell, unless you are willing to accept collateral damage don't wage war! Do you really believe that ISIS gives a shit about collateral damage? How does one reconcile between the feudalistic and modern day form of combat when one side hides behind woman, children, place of worship, healing, and wears a mask?

 

[Lakhota]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Yeah, just like whitey did with Injuns - kill 'em all including babies.

Apples and oranges, fake injun. You sort of outed yourself badly the other day, your credibility is shot to hell

Yeah, sure I did...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Yeah, just like whitey did with Injuns - kill 'em all including babies.

Apples and oranges, fake injun. You sort of outed yourself badly the other day, your credibility is shot to hell

Yeah, sure I did...

Yeah you did, badly. Go back through your comments, I caught it right away. Now run along, I'm done with you

 

[Lakhota]

Kill them, kill their families and if anyone objects? Kill them

Yeah, just like whitey did with Injuns - kill 'em all including babies.

Apples and oranges, fake injun. You sort of outed yourself badly the other day, your credibility is shot to hell

Yeah, sure I did...

Yeah you did, badly. Go back through your comments, I caught it right away. Now run along, I'm done with you

Yeah, you're so smart - about making shit up.