LF: Trump says the US can beat ISIS terrorists – but 'you have to take out their families'

Title: Trump says the US can beat ISIS terrorists – but 'you have to take out their families'
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... -ISIS-terrorists-families.html
Published: Dec 2, 2015
Author: Nikki Schwab, U.s. Political Reporter Fo
Post Date: 2015-12-02 18:23:05 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 11874
Comments: 72

Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' and he has a ruthless plan to do so.

'You have to take out their families,' The Donald said this morning on Fox and Friends. 'When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families.'

Trump's reasoning was that the fighters 'care about their lives, don't kid yourselves,' he continued.

The billionaire's comments fit neatly in with other proclamations he's made on how to take out the growing terrorist group including 'bomb[ing] the hell out of them' and 'attack[ing] the oil.'

Donald Trump said he would 'knock the hell out of ISIS' by going after relatives of the terrorist fighters because ISIS members 'care about their [family members'] lives'

Donald Trump also said he would try to prevent civilian deaths, but it's a difficult prospect because ISIS fighters are 'using them as shields'

'I would knock the hell out of ISIS,' Trump said this morning to host Brian Kilmeade. 'I would hit them, Brian, so hard, like they've never been hit before.'

While taking out ISIS members and their families, Trump said he would try his 'absolute best' to avoid civilian casualties in ISIS strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

'One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we're so ineffective is they are using them as shields,' Trump said of civilians. 'It's a horrible thing, but we're fighting a very politically correct war.'

The GOP frontrunner was critical of President Obama's ISIS strategy saying the president was sending too few troops and revealing his hand a little too much.

'Every time he sends troops over even if it's a small number ... he announced 50 last week, he has a press conference to inform everybody he's sending troops and it's like they have a target on their back,' Trump said.

'If you do your job, do your job,' Trump continued. 'Don't talk about it – too much talk.'

Donald Trump help up a Breitbart News article headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11' during a Periscope Q&A this afternoon <

Trump also again defended his comments about American Muslims celebrating 9/11 during a Q&A he hosted on the Twitter-app Periscope this afternoon.

The billionaire held up a print-out of an article by Breitbart News headlined, 'Trump 100% Vindicated: CBS Reports ‘Swarm’ On Rooftops Celebrating 9/11.'

'I knew I saw it. I heard about it. Hundreds of people have called in telling me I was right,' Trump said. 'They live in New Jersey.'

The Breitbart article pointed to a report coming out of the local CBS News affiliate in New York in which reporter Pablo Guzmán talked about a New Jersey apartment building 'swarming with suspects – suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center.'

'Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building,' Guzmán continued.

The Breitbart article made a lot of the 'swarming' claim, suggesting that this means that Trump is vindicated.

Breitbart writer John Nolte wrote, 'The fact that a certain number were brought into custody does not change the fact that there was a “swarm."'

CBS, putting out its own story, pointed to the clip and said it only raises more questions.

For one, there's no video footage of any 'swarms' celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers, which has been central in Trump's story.

Guzmán, the original reporter, eventually took to Twitter to straighten things out.

Guzmán said his source was a New Jersey and also a Port Authority police officer and 'they were told eight people seen.'

'Far from thousands,' Guzmán said, which is another aspect of the Trump claim. 'Still it disturbed folks.'

The difficult thing with Trump is this strategy is not wrong but his delivery is callous and he portrays america as mad. He fails to realise that while his remarks are for local consumption he is reported all over the world

Trump has also mixed reports of the palestinians celebrating 9/11 in his mind with local reports, yes, thousands celebrated in the muslim world but not in the US.

Noone doubts the possibility of a muslim fifth column in western countries and this is even more evident in Europe, however they have a muslim population of millions concentrated in major cities, a somewhat different situation to what Trump apparently envisages.

It is time for the west to push back against the muslim invasion and this has begun. It can be done with sensitivity by restoring their homelands to places where it is desirable for them to live. The west has responsibility for the present situation. The problems we have are the result of invasion of muslim lands. The reasons, the justifications, are not the issues from the muslim perspective

And all of his opponents in the Establishment, the "Seven Dwarves" up there? They talk smoothly. Of course, that's all any of them has ever done. None of them has a single accomplishment, other than giving speeches.

The world doesn't get to elect the American President. Americans do. If he sounds mad to the world, so what? The US and the EU don't like Putin much, but he still plows forward, effective and powerful, and popular in his own country.

The others with their oily tongues say it like it isn't, are very smooth, and accomplish nothing other than collect a paycheck presiding over defeat and decline.

And we are at war, whether we would be or no, because our enemies have attacked us, continue to attack us, and will make no peace.

I hate war and so I want it over. That means winning. Prolonging war prolongs the agony, extends the killings, makes it worse and worse and worse.

The way to end this war swiftly is to throw our support behind Russia and France, and assist them in obliterating ISIS. That means that Assad survives and we lose our argument in Syria. So be it.

Faced with a Hitler, you either fight him or you surrender to him: he's not going to go away. And if you surrender to him, he might kill you anyway. So the only real choice is to do the thing you hate and fight a war.

When you fight, you go right for the eyes and the jugular. You crush him - and that means killing a lot of people. There is no other way. You do what you have to do to defeat him, and you ask God to forgive you later. He will. Your other choice is to apologize for your sins and let the bad guys kill you. God will accept you then also. Either way, God will accept you.

Therefore, if forced to it, you do what you have to do to win here, and then you apologize for what you did and get to Heaven anyway.

Win here and then win there. It's a better solution to my eyes than lose here and die screaming, and having basically the same result on the other side.

I don't want to kill anybody, because God said not to. But if people come for me in war, then I kill. And if that means killing people through collateral damage in order to get at them, well, I am truly sorry for that, but that's the way the world is, and I do not intend to lose the fight.

God will forgive me, just as he promised to. God forgives everything if you ask him to and you are forgiving. Once my enemy is dead and my people are no longer threatened with death, I will forgive my enemy, and I will forgive his survivors. But until then, he started the war, and I intend to kill him and everybody who stands with him, until the survivors kneel in submission, or fertilize the ground. They will do no different to me.

It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war.

Quite a huge shift for you. Before the Paris attacks just serving in the Military was 'evil and serving Satan.' I digress.

You know I am no longer Catholic, but I did not throw the 'baby out with the bathwater.' There is justification for Western Nations to engage ISIS but not in way you and Trump want to do it which would ensure massive deaths of innocent blood (non-combatants). Such targeting of civilians would be pre- meditated murder and I'm sure some Bishop who supports Trump will sit down with him this weekend and show him over a 1,000 years of scholarly works which will hopefully set his ship straight.

You are Catholic so you should know the following. And I believe Western nations have justification to fight ISIS:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302- 2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism.

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, "once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

It's 1945. I have the bomb and 20/20 hindsight. I'm Harry Truman. I drop it, just like he did. With hindsight. Because you can atone for your sins once you've won the war.

Sounds very antinomian to me. Would not suggest following your own advice. You should listen to your Church on this one. They have it right. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water...I did not. You guys got a lot of things right.

Well, see, here's the problem. Every day the Japanese were in China, about 10,000 people died as a result, many thousands of them quite brutally. Those Chinese people dying were civilians, completely innocent.

By using the atomic bomb, especially with hindsight, I will IMMEDIATELY break the back of the Japanese Empire, forcing them to surrender in 26 days. That's 260,000 Chinese dead.

I have incinerated about 140,000 people, on two days, and on those same two days, the sons and fathers of those people killed 20,000 Chinese.

Now suppose I hadn't. Was Japan going to surrender in 26 days WITHOUT the atomic bomb? No. Not even close. Would the war have gone on for two weeks longer than it did? Yes. Most certainly.

For every 14 days the war continued, another 140,000 Chinese died at Japanese hands - the equivalent of what we killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But the Chinese were completely innocent: the Japanese invaded their country. The Japanese were guilty. The ones abroad were conquerors. The ones at home were helping them conquer.

And this is just the Chinese. The Japanese were also in Burma, in Korea, holding Western prisoners in the most horrible of conditions.

Why should thousands and thousands more completely innocent Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Americans and Brits and Laotians die, all to spare the lives of Japanese?

The analysis of the Catholic Church is simple, but it is too simple, because it presumes to value the lives of the attacker the same as the lives of the defenders, and because it completely ignores the lives of the people the attackers are killing every day.

By slaughtering 140,000 people who were cogs in a war machine, we saved millions. It would have been immoral to not drop the atomic bomb and end the war.

In order to justify the means to an end you would need to know 140,000 Chinese were dying. We know that now but not then I'm sure.

If I were the leader, I would not be seeking to "justify" the action. I would be seeking to win the war, as swiftly as possible, to end the killing of my people and my allies. A side effect of the end of the war is that the killing of the enemy people also ends, and that's fine once they stop fighting.

If I started the war in the first place, and went out and killed to conquer, then I'm a monster. But if my side did not start it, but decided - so that we would never have to go through the hell again - to utterly vanquish the enemy, to not stop at a point where the enemy would, but to press on and destroy the enemy's government, one might say that was "disproportional". But I say that permanently eliminating the threat means a permanent peace on that vector, and that suits my ethics.

Ending a war NOW, with superweapons that kill and destroy the enemy but that look to shorten the war and save MY people's lives: I do it. Indeed, I am relying on the utter disproporationality of nuclear fire to cause an otherwise fanatical enemy to wilt and give up their country. Merely proportional would mean stopping short, and the war going on, and more of my own people dying at the hands of the enemy.

If I face the choice of losing 100,000 of my own men in order to save 1 million enemy civilians, or killing 1 million enemy civilians to save 100,000 of my own men, my men live, and the enemy civilians die.

The Catholic Church says no. I understand their logic, and I reject it. Once I have been riled to war, the enemy's lives are worth nothing to me, and I will kill a city to save one of my own soldiers.

The Turks and ISIS should hope that Putin and Hollande are less bloodyminded in such matters. I do not shed first blood, but if you shed mine and my people's, then my concept of proportionality is that you die, and everyhody who supported you dies, and the people who won't quit die, and the death is so calamitous and destruction so complete, that when your survivors surrender, they will never, ever again attack me, because they will be left in a position in which they can never do it again.

I treasure my own life, the lives of my families, and the lives of my people. They are worth more to me than all of the lives of the enemy, and if I could save my own people by wiping an enemy country from the face of the earth completely, I would do it.

Which is why it's a good thing I'm not in charge if you're an enemy bent on bloodshed, or if you're squeamish about killing.

I say peace, peace, and I mean it. Because once you start killing my people, then you must die, and everybhody who stands in ranks with you must die. And everybody who feeds, houses and cloithes you must die, until the survivors hand over their own leaders - to be executed by me and my side - as the price of retaining their own lives.

Once you shed the lives of my people, you must bow and surrender and renounce your old allegiances, and your old gods, or I will send you to them and rid the earth of you, so that me and mine never have to face any threat from you again.

That was why our war on Japan and Germany, was so effective. We were completely innocent of starting the war. We were attacked. And having been attacked and lost so much, we forced the enemy to hand over their own leaders to us, for death, and to renounce their religions (worship of their fatherland and worship of their emperor). And because they slaughtered so many people so cruelly, we bombed them with fire from the air until nothing was left of several cities, and the terrified survivors, traumatized for life, with not one family escaping the loss of a father or a son, got down on their knees and begged for mercy.

The DIFFERENCE between this and the Islamic Jihad is that the Germans and Japanese attacked first. I have no right to attack first. But once you attack me, I will force you to convert, or I will slaughter you, and that is my right, because you are the devil's soldiers, and error has no rights.

There was unrelenting war against Europe for 400 years before the West responded in kind with the First Crusade.

Christians and Christendom? Yes. Starting in the 600s and continuing forward until the 19th Century, yes.

If by "us" you mean modern Western states, no. The West colonized Islamic nations. What is happening now is the blowback from that.

But if by "us" you mean Americans, then yes. We didn't attack the Islamists. they attacked us.