Trump suggests murdering the families of terrorists in revenge

[Enros]

In a Fox News debate two days ago, Donald Trump argued that the correct way to deter terrorists is to murder their families. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families”. He says that terrorists will be too afraid for their families to commit attacks. “They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself”. An Isreali counter-terrorism consultant has branded the idea "immoral and ineffective".

This tactic is actually common and somewhat successful. In 1985 Hezbollah were holding three Soviet diplomats hostage. The Soviet special forces murdered one hostage taker's brother, put his testicles in his mouth and sent his body to the militants. They quickly surrendered. For 21 years after this incident no Soviet or Russian citizen was taken hostage again. Lots of security forces in the developing world, from Nigeria to Sri Lanka, still use similar tactics.

What do you think of this idea? It's probably telling that all of the countries who do this are poor, backward and violent. Also, murdering random innocent people is a good way to get yourself assassinated if you are the POTUS.

[HunterKYA]

Don't take this verbatim, but to me, Trump has been, and will be, willing to say anything to rally people to his side. Sadly, this means many people of whom share his xenophobic, Islamophobic attitudes, and it wouldn't be a fluke, that if elected President, Trump's narrow-minded views would upset a large portion of the world. What this kind of attitude would do, is take a terrorist organization who already loathes the United States for their involvement in the Middle East, and escalate a tenuous situation to the point where there'd be no stepping back from it.

Let's face it, Trump's never been known as a diplomat. He operates with the mind of a shrewd businessman, not a keen politician.

[DimeBagHo]

In a Fox News debate two days ago, Donald Trump argued that the correct way to deter terrorists is to murder their families. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families”. He says that terrorists will be too afraid for their families to commit attacks. “They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself”. An Isreali counter-terrorism consultant has branded the idea "immoral and ineffective".

This tactic is actually common and somewhat successful. In 1985 Hezbollah were holding three Soviet diplomats hostage. The Soviet special forces murdered one hostage taker's brother, put his testicles in his mouth and sent his body to the militants. They quickly surrendered. For 21 years after this incident no Soviet or Russian citizen was taken hostage again. Lots of security forces in the developing world, from Nigeria to Sri Lanka, still use similar tactics.

What do you think of this idea? It's probably telling that all of the countries who do this are poor, backward and violent. Also, murdering random innocent people is a good way to get yourself assassinated if you are the POTUS.

A few points. (1) The idea is definitely not to murder random people. The idea is to identify people that the terrorists really care about and to coerce the terrorists by inflicting harm on those specific people. (2) Does it work? I've heard the anecdote about the Soviets before, and of course it is easy to imagine how it might work in specific cases, but that doesn't mean it would work as a policy for dealing with our problems. If your problem is a small group of people, and you know who they care about with a high degree of certainty, then the chances of this working are better. If your problem is more dispersed then you run increasing risks of targeting the wrong people and motivating people on the fringes of the problem to join the core. (4) The question of morality is difficult to separate from the question of efficacy. If the policy is effective then most people will agree to it if the stakes are high enough. The difference between us and the "poor, backward and violent" places you mentioned is that for us the stakes still seem quite low.

Incidentally Sri Lanka provides anecdotal evidence against policies like assassination, torture, and targeting family members. Sri Lanka tried all of that stuff and got nowhere. What finally worked in Sri Lanka was total war; bombarding enemy combatants and non-combatants alike until their will and ability to fight were completely broken.

[athanaric]

Although a fun idea, I don't think it's reconcilable with any Western country's laws. A more legally valid way would be to make the perpetrators' families financially liable for the damages. This would mean that that the family of any suicide bomber or other terrorist would be sued into permanent bankruptcy by the state, regardless if they're poor people or billionaires (if they reside in a foreign country, there should be some kind of international cooperation on this). It should provide some incentive to applying "internal" pressure to violent individuals or groups.

To be honest though, I'm becoming more and more certain that Trump's true goal is to make Hillary inevitable as President.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Isn't something like this already happening?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ikes-kill-1147

[Caligula's_Horse]

We actually have this sort of policy in Israel, albeit a much less extreme version of it, involving the demolition of terrorist's homes (or their parent's home if they're young). There's still some debate over whether it works as a deterrent or not, though the general consensus is that it's dodgy at best, and creates more terrorists in the long run at worst. It does make for really bad PR though.
We're mostly still doing it because our right wing coalitions are screaming for blood and this is the closest they can get to actually having it, so its important for the prime minister to keep doing it unless he wants them to walk out of the coalition government. Its more about political BS then actual effectiveness (just like Trump, come of think of it); the politicians might like it, but the actual security forces never thought much of the practice.

This sort of thing might work against more nationalistic terrorists, or profit driven kidnappers, but the religious variety is much harder to deter. They see themselves and possibly their families being killed in the fight against the heathens as a good thing. In fact, terror groups have been known to deliberately recruit the mentally disturbed for precisely this reason, so that they don't suddenly have a rational thought at the last moment and change their minds about the whole "suicidal attack" thing.

[alhoon]

We actually have this sort of policy in Israel, albeit a much less extreme version of it, involving the demolition of terrorist's homes (or their parent's home if they're young).

Does your country targets murders of different motives the same? I.e. if a Jew kills a person to steal his wallet... does his family suddenly become homeless?
Let me guess: No.

And what's the due process to make sure someone is a terrorist before you kick out of their property his or her innocent family members? Cause OK, perhaps his parents are to blame, but his baby sister is not.

[snuggans]

Isn't something like this already happening?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ikes-kill-1147

it's one thing to surround yourself with civilians, some of whom could be somebody else's family, to avoid drone strikes. it's another thing to hunt down the families of terrorists when they are not even in the premises.

[RubiconDecision]

Any time you bomb civilians, you're essentially killing likely innocents instead of legitimate military targets. Period. How many civilians have terrorists AND the USA killed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history in absolute terms of total dead.^[1] Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).^[2] The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.^[3] The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilians killed totalled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine. Total military dead: from 21 to 25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...tio#Korean_War

Korean War

The median total estimated Korean civilian deaths in the Korean War is 2,730,000. The total estimated North Korean military deaths is 215,000 and the estimated Chinese military deaths is over 400,000. In addition to this the Republic of Korea military deaths is around 138,000 dead and the military deaths for the United Nations side is around 40,000. The estimated Korean war military dead is around 793,000 deaths. The civilian-combatant death ratio in the war is approximately 2:1 or 67%. One source estimates that 20% of the total population of North Korea perished in the war.^[16]
Vietnam War

The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million — estimates which approximate those of a number of other sources.^[17] This would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 2:1, or 67%. These figures do not include civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos. However, the lowest estimate of 411,000^[18] civilians killed during the war (including civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos) would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 1:3, or 37%. Using the lowest estimate of Vietnamese military deaths, 400,000, the ratio is about 1:1.
Chechen wars

During the First Chechen War, 4,000 separatist fighters and 40,000 civilians are estimated to have died, giving a civilian-combatant ratio of 10:1. The numbers for the Second Chechen War are 3,000 fighters and 13,000 civilians, for a ratio of 43:10. The combined ratio for both wars is 76:10. Casualty numbers for the conflict are notoriously unreliable. The estimates of the civilian casualties during the First Chechen war range from 20,000 to 100,000, with remaining numbers being similarly unreliable.^[19] The tactics employed by Russian forces in both wars were heavily criticized by human rights groups, which accused them of indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas and other crimes.^[20][21]
NATO in Yugoslavia

See also: Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force
In 1999, NATO intervened in the Kosovo War with a bombing campaign against Yugoslav forces, who were alleged to be conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing. The bombing lasted about 2½ months, until forcing the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army from Kosovo.
Estimates for the number of casualties caused by the bombing vary widely depending on the source. NATO unofficially claimed a toll of 5,000 enemy combatants killed by the bombardment; the Yugoslav government, on the other hand, gave a figure of 638 of its security forces killed in Kosovo.^[22] Estimates for the civilian toll are similarly disparate. Human Rights Watch counted approximately 500 civilians killed by the bombing; the Yugoslav government estimated between 1,200 and 5,000.^[23]
If the NATO figures are to be believed, the bombings achieved a civilian to combatant kill ratio of about 1:10, on the Yugoslav government's figures, conversely, the ratio would be between 4:1 and 10:1. If the most conservative estimates from the sources cited above are used, the ratio was around 1:1.
According to military historian and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, for every Serbian soldier killed by NATO in 1999 (the period in which Operation Allied Force took place), four civilians died, a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 4:1. Oren cites this figure as evidence that "even the most moral army can make mistakes, especially in dense urban warfare".^[24]
Iraq War

See also: Casualties of the Iraq War
According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, a United Kingdom-based organization, American and Coalition forces had killed at least 28,736 combatants as well as 13,807 civilians in the Iraq War, indicating a civilian to combatant casualty ratio inflicted by coalition forces of 1:2.^[25] However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%.^[26]
US drone strikes in Pakistan

Main article: Drone attacks in Pakistan § Civilian casualties
The civilian casualty ratio for U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan is notoriously difficult to quantify. The U.S. itself puts the number of civilians killed from drone strikes in the last two years at no more than 20 to 30, a total that is far too low according to a spokesman for the NGO CIVIC.^[27] At the other extreme, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution suggests that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. Byman argues that civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from America.^[28] An ongoing study by the New America Foundation finds non-militant casualty rates started high but have declined steeply over time, from about 60% (3 out of 5) in 2004-2007 to less than 2% (1 out of 50) in 2012. The study puts the overall non-militant casualty rate since 2004 at 15-16%, or a 1:5 ratio, out of a total of between 1,908 and 3,225 people killed in Pakistan by drone strikes since 2004.^[29] Research published by Reprieve in 2014 suggested that U.S. drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan have had an unknown person to target casualty ratio of 28:1 with one attack in the study having a ratio of 128:1 with 13 children being killed.^[30]

The numbers are even worse taking into account infrastructure related civilian deaths from lack of water and sanitation killing huge numbers due to aerial bombardment.

Killing the families of terrorists is happening now and creating new terrorists merely who witness this in the West and they join the Jihadist heretical struggle.

[justicar5]

it's one thing to surround yourself with civilians, some of whom could be somebody else's family, to avoid drone strikes. it's another thing to hunt down the families of terrorists when they are not even in the premises.

So do you regard national guardsmen as 'surrounding themselves with civilians' when they are on the reserve list. If not why not? Or FBI and CIA officers as 'surrounding themselves with civilians' when they go home at night? If not what makes them special?

[snuggans]

when has al-qaeda flown a 747 into a national guard compound?

[RubiconDecision]

Religion thrives under stress. Every drone strike swells the number of Muslim converts. If the goal is to demonstrate the barbarity and immorality of the West, and portray Muslims as the downtrodden, then these monstrous military actions are self-sabotage and catalyze extremism and empower Wahhabis.

How would you expect antitheism bigots to cope with Islam and Muslims? The actions of the faithless and the military are directly creating wounds on Jesus' body. They are being tools of Satan. It is nearly impossible for an American soldier to serve the antichrist that Obama represents.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. Matthew 6:24

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. II Corinthians 11:13-15

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:21

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. I Peter 5:8

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

[sumskilz]

Does your country targets murders of different motives the same? I.e. if a Jew kills a person to steal his wallet... does his family suddenly become homeless?
Let me guess: No.

And what's the due process to make sure someone is a terrorist before you kick out of their property his or her innocent family members? Cause OK, perhaps his parents are to blame, but his baby sister is not.

Some more information:

The High Court of Justice has approved the demolition of five houses, among them those of the Palestinians who killed the couple Naama and Eitam Henkin toward the start of the current wave of terror attacks.

The court ruled against the demolition of one house, belonging to a member of the cell that killed Malachi Rosenfeld in a terror attack, on the grounds that the house was rented, not owned by the man’s family.

The court rejected a petition for another hearing on the policy of house demolitions, saying it had rejected the motion last year. In Thursday's hearing, the three-member bench reiterated the position of dozens of previous rulings.

“House demolitions are indeed a harsh and difficult step, especially because of harm to the members of the terrorist’s family who often did not assist him and did not know of his plans,” the court said.

“But given the deterrent power of the use of this regulation, sometimes there is no choice but to use it. When the actions attributed to the suspect are very serious, use of the extraordinary sanction of demolishing a house might be justified for reasons of deterrence.”

Regarding the effectiveness of house demolitions, Justice Miriam Naor said she had received documents from the state indicating that militants who planned attacks did not follow through because of the implications for their family and home.

Justice Noam Sohlberg addressed the argument by some petitioners of discrimination in house demolitions. The petitioners cited the case of the Jewish killers of the teen Mohammed Abu Khdeir last year; in that case, there were no house demolitions.

“The Jewish public in general ... resists incitement,” Sohlberg said, adding that all segments of the Jewish community denounced Abu Khdeir’s murder and that of the Dawabsheh family earlier this year. Such across-the-board condemnation “is not the case on the opposite side,” Sohlberg said.

Regarding the petition granted against the demolition of the house of one of Rosenfeld’s killers, the court conditioned cancellation of the demolition order on the landlord evicting the family by Tuesday.

The court also granted petitions on procedural issues. Among them, Naor said more time should be given to families to petition against demolitions.

She said a summary of the evidence against a suspect should be appended to a demolition order. But a key petition was denied — that an expert opinion by an engineer be required.

Also discussed was the matter of compensation for nearby apartment dwellers if these homes are damaged during a demolition. The state said it was not obligated to provide such compensation but agreed to go beyond the letter of the law and provide compensation under certain conditions.

The state submitted a list of 10 house demolitions since 2013, and the time periods between the court’s issuing of the order and the demolition.

Justice Hanan Melcer said he wanted to see the list because some politicians “say the courts are the ones delaying the demolitions, and if the state is delaying them we want to know why.”

The list showed that half the demolitions were carried out within less than a week after the verdict was handed down, but in other cases months passed between court approval and the demolition, and in one case the house was not demolished for operational reasons.

Last month, Justice Uzi Vogelman’s order delaying demolitions until petitions could be heard, and requiring the state to respond within five days, was greeted with harsh criticism on the right.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.685819

And a study on the topic:

Abstract: This article examines whether house demolitions are an effective counter terrorism tactic against suicide terrorism. We link original longitudinal micro level data on houses demolished by the Israeli Defense Forces with data on the universe of suicide attacks against Israeli targets. By exploiting spatial and time variation in house demolitions and suicide attacks during the second Palestinian uprising, we show that punitive house demolitions (those targeting Palestinian suicide terrorists and terror operatives) cause an immediate, significant decrease in the number of suicide attacks. In contrast, Palestinian fatalities do not have a consistent effect on suicide terror attacks, while curfews and precautionary house demolitions (demolitions justified by the location of the house but unrelated to the identity of the house’s owner) cause a significant increase in the number of suicide attacks. The results support the view that selective violence is an effective tool to combat terrorist groups and that indiscriminate violence backfires.

Full text: http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~eklor/HD.pdf

I'm not making an argument, judge it for yourself. It differs in degree from what Trump is talking about, in that if it's effective, it's destroying property of people who have committed no act of terrorism in order to save lives rather than killing someone who has committed no act of terrorism in order to save lives. Of course the argument can be made that it's unethical regardless of how many lives it saves; that's simply a matter of perspective. Although when governments impose fines or seize assets they also similarly harm the well-being of family members.

[RubiconDecision]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antichrist

noun, Theology. 1.a particular personage or power, variously identified or explained, who is conceived of as appearing in the world as the principal antagonist of Christ.

2.(sometimes lowercase) an opponent of Christ; a person or power antagonistic to Christ.

3.(often lowercase) a disbeliever in Christ.

4.(often lowercase) a false Christ.

Obama the Commander in Chief is an antichrist. He's not the only antichrist.

Drone strikes and civilian bombings are anti-Christian tactics. There is an eternal cost for such actions.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Revelation 21:8

Are you a soldier killing soldiers...or are you a murderer of civilians? Is your "patriotism" worth losing your soul and serving Lucifer?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-in-afghani/

Ryan Devereaux, a journalist with the website, reported that “During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.” Nevertheless, the U.S. government considers many of these casualties to be enemy combatants, according to the the source, despite the strikes more often than not ending in the deaths of women, children and other civilians who become collateral damage of targeted attacks and are subsequently written off as adversaries killed during war, regardless of status.

“In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse,” Mr. Devereaux wrote.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, condemned the revelations: “The Obama administration’s lethal program desperately needs transparency and accountability because it is undermining the right to life and national security.”

“These eye-opening disclosures make a mockery of U.S. government claims that its lethal force operations are based on reliable intelligence and limited to lawful targets. In fact, the government often claims successes that are really tragic losses,” Ms. Shamsi added.

[Abdülmecid I]

Not even Trumps believes that. Cheap rhetoric with the goal to make him popular among the politically illiterate and create a cult of personality that will help him win the elections. It's pretty obvious that the state becoming a terrorist organisation is not the appropriate method to counter... terrorism.

[Your Lame Sister]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antichrist

Obama the Commander in Chief is an antichrist. He's not the only antichrist.

Drone strikes and civilian bombings are anti-Christian tactics. There is an eternal cost for such actions.

Are you a soldier killing soldiers...are a murderer of civilians?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-in-afghani/

Obama has a lot of flaws, but calling him "an anti-christ" isn't really helping your case.

Anyway, putting aside the fact that Trump is just a crowd-pleasing idiot, his statement is, at heart, about a basic moral question. Is it OK to hurt innocent people to save the lives of (presumably) more numerous innocent people? It's a very complicated question, but in this specific case, I'd say that it is not the correct solution. The effectiveness of this tactic is highly controversial, and even if it does work, it will only help weaken the symptoms of the problem, because it absolutely cannot solve the problem itself. It is, essentially, a highly immoral band-aid.

[RubiconDecision]

Obama has a lot of flaws, but calling him "an anti-christ" isn't really helping your case.

Anyway, putting aside the fact that Trump is just a crowd-pleasing idiot, his statement is, at heart, about a basic moral question. Is it OK to hurt innocent people to save the lives of (presumably) more numerous innocent people? It's a very complicated question, but in this specific case, I'd say that it is not the correct solution. The effectiveness of this tactic is highly controversial, and even if it does work, it will only helps weaken the symptoms of the problem, it absolutely cannot solve the problem itself. It is, essentially, a highly immoral band-aid.

Obama meets the dictionary and Biblical definition of an antichrist.

[Your Lame Sister]

Obama meets the dictionary and Biblical definition of an antichrist.

I don't doubt that. I'm just saying that using religious arguments in a political debate will only convince people who share your religion, and not anyone else. We're all people, we all have things in common, let's use those things when we debate.

[daelin4]

If anything, families of terrorists are probably more likely to be repulsed by their kin's actions and be willing to help fight to stop them. The dumbest thing to do in response of that, is to assume the father of some terrorist must have the same sentiments and must be killed/ detained// disenfranchised.

Think of it this way: if your sibling for whatever reason decided to join ISIS, then your life, as well as many others, are legally forfeit. That makes absolutely no sense...especially if you would be willing to participate in stopping terrorism. If my relatives join ISIS I would opt to assist in their capture...but I sure wouldn't think that way if the default government response is to aim for my head.

Assuming Trump is actually serious about this method being practical, then it only shows he's interested more in profits, popularity and power, than peace.

It is not a capital crime to be related to someone that, unilaterally, decided to commit illegal activities. It is a crime if you actively assist, but that is not the same as having kinship.

Punishment needs to fit the crime...being related to criminals is not a crime.

[Roma_Victrix]

Not even Trumps believes that. Cheap rhetoric with the goal to make him popular among the politically illiterate and create a cult of personality that will help him win the elections. It's pretty obvious that the state becoming a terrorist organisation is not the appropriate method to counter... terrorism.

Yeah, that certainly falls under the definition of terrorism, to go after groups of innocent civilians and deliberately aim at them and kill them to make a political point and intimidate others into following your political agenda. The deliberate and intentional nature of this removes it from the definition of collateral damage, naturally.