Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Donald Trump advocating a war crime

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:05:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:48:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Normally I can understand republicans opinions, but this I just don't get.

Just that "saying it like it is" until it is just "tough talk" till it is "negotiating" till it is a f**king reality that the f**king US of A is targeting non-combatants.

Yea, the guy is a dangerous idiot
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
"We need to take out their families"

Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:34:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Got to be tough with these guys you know.
jdmorgan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:56:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:48:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Normally I can understand republicans opinions, but this I just don't get. : :

The terrorists of ISIS do not care if they kill families so Donald Trump is saying that these terrorists have families too. Trump believes in the biblical "eye for an eye".

Most people don't know that American soldiers killed thousands of family members in Iraq because their enemies were hiding among them. This is why the U.S. military did not allow U.S. reporters go into the field to report it.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:35:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last war crime the US commits. International law only really carries weight when their is actual consequences for those who break it. If a nation breaks international law in some fashion, the International Court of justice will pass down judgement and the Security Council will enforce that judgement. That same Security Council that the US is a permanent member of ... with the power to veto.

Anyone starting to see the problem with this system yet? If Trump actually became president and followed through with this policy, the worst that will happen to the US is losing some face.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:36:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:36:16 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This is old news.

Didn't say it was news.
Meh!
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:23:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:35:32 AM, 58539672 wrote:
Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last war crime the US commits. International law only really carries weight when their is actual consequences for those who break it. If a nation breaks international law in some fashion, the International Court of justice will pass down judgement and the Security Council will enforce that judgement. That same Security Council that the US is a permanent member of ... with the power to veto.

Anyone starting to see the problem with this system yet? If Trump actually became president and followed through with this policy, the worst that will happen to the US is losing some face.

Not true. All this would do is increase the hate of America, therefore increasing the numbers of ISIS, and we would lose all support from all allies, European and Middle East. This policy is not only evil, it is incredibly stupid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:39:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

That's what the CIA is for, to circumvent Geneva.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:44:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 6:39:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

That's what the CIA is for, to circumvent Geneva.

^^^
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 9:12:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 6:39:06 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

That's what the CIA is for, to circumvent Geneva.

Lol
Touche
58539672
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 11:53:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 1:23:17 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:35:32 AM, 58539672 wrote:
Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last war crime the US commits. International law only really carries weight when their is actual consequences for those who break it. If a nation breaks international law in some fashion, the International Court of justice will pass down judgement and the Security Council will enforce that judgement. That same Security Council that the US is a permanent member of ... with the power to veto.

Anyone starting to see the problem with this system yet? If Trump actually became president and followed through with this policy, the worst that will happen to the US is losing some face.

Not true. All this would do is increase the hate of America, therefore increasing the numbers of ISIS, and we would lose all support from all allies, European and Middle East. This policy is not only evil, it is incredibly stupid

Its completely true. Nothing you just brought up as a repercussion is in any way, shape or form, a legal punishment brought down on the US by the international community. Their will be no sanctions, no reparations, no military action, or any other form of punishment taken against the US. If our allies choose to not support us in our wars, thats fine, most of them have already stop doing so long ago. But none of them will sever their bilateral ties with the US. They are benefiting more from those agreements than we are. And the increase in hate toward the US and such is categorized under the broad political term of "losing face".

And if you want proof of any of this, then look no further than the other recent war crime we have committed... our use of torture in the War on Terror. Everyone condemned us for it, no one did anything about it.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Trump echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Trump's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 12:35:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 11:53:46 PM, 58539672 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:23:17 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:35:32 AM, 58539672 wrote:
Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last war crime the US commits. International law only really carries weight when their is actual consequences for those who break it. If a nation breaks international law in some fashion, the International Court of justice will pass down judgement and the Security Council will enforce that judgement. That same Security Council that the US is a permanent member of ... with the power to veto.

Anyone starting to see the problem with this system yet? If Trump actually became president and followed through with this policy, the worst that will happen to the US is losing some face.

Not true. All this would do is increase the hate of America, therefore increasing the numbers of ISIS, and we would lose all support from all allies, European and Middle East. This policy is not only evil, it is incredibly stupid

Its completely true. Nothing you just brought up as a repercussion is in any way, shape or form, a legal punishment brought down on the US by the international community. Their will be no sanctions, no reparations, no military action, or any other form of punishment taken against the US. If our allies choose to not support us in our wars, thats fine, most of them have already stop doing so long ago. But none of them will sever their bilateral ties with the US. They are benefiting more from those agreements than we are. And the increase in hate toward the US and such is categorized under the broad political term of "losing face".

And if you want proof of any of this, then look no further than the other recent war crime we have committed... our use of torture in the War on Terror. Everyone condemned us for it, no one did anything about it.

You have failed to notice the tremendous difference between necessary torture interrogation of a terrorist, and the slaughtering of innocent families. There would be huge repercussions internationally, and any general/officer and most soldiers in the military would resist such horrid measures. And this time, the terrorists will be right when they says we are monsters killing innocents.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 12:38:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Trump echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.
Investigation has not concluded that the airstrike was on purpose, and analyzing the facts and history, many knowledgeable doubt any intent on bombing hospitals. Exaggerations don't count in this argument-

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.
True

Trump's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.
There is huge moral difference between unconstitutional actions and the threatening of slaughtering innocent thousands yes
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 12:39:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:48:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Normally I can understand republicans opinions, but this I just don't get.

Well, if you say a bunch of outrageous, stupid, retarded things, you will win the Presidency.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 3:54:33 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Drumpf echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Drumpf's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.

+1
Hear, hear
Amen
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 4:40:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 3:54:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Drumpf echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Drumpf's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.

+1
Hear, hear
Amen

Too bad it will take electing a republican to put a spot light on American war crimes.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 5:34:35 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 4:40:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 3:54:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Drumpf echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Drumpf's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.

+1
Hear, hear
Amen

Too bad it will take electing a republican to put a spot light on American war crimes.

Wikileaks did do a good job with collateral murder though
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 3:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 5:34:35 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 4:40:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 3:54:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Drumpf echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Drumpf's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.

+1
Hear, hear
Amen

Too bad it will take electing a republican to put a spot light on American war crimes.

Wikileaks did do a good job with collateral murder though

Wikileaks?

This is about war crimes. Those that advocate and those that order.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 3:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/10/2016 3:21:18 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 5:34:35 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 4:40:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 3:54:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/10/2016 12:08:02 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

The current targeting and killing of civilians should be stopped.

Drumpf echoed current US actions. Obama's military deliberately attacked a hospital in Kunduz, and Obama's drone war that targets any man of military age are two examples.

Additionally, the US fighting ISIS is an unconstitutional war. The US congress never authorized fighting in Syria or re-engagement in Iraq.

Drumpf's words appear to anger more people than Obama's actions.

+1
Hear, hear
Amen

Too bad it will take electing a republican to put a spot light on American war crimes.

Wikileaks did do a good job with collateral murder though

Wikileaks?

This is about war crimes. Those that advocate and those that order.

Exposing it I meant
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 4:14:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:48:51 AM, Axonly wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Normally I can understand republicans opinions, but this I just don't get.

Inter arma enim silent leges.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2016 5:47:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:06:33 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 1:10:20 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
"We need to take out their families"


Ya know, typical war crime international treaty breaking criminal stuff

Geneva convention prohibits the targeting of civillians

A few things on this, and sorry for responding just to you when it addresses a lot more:

Military actions against what the US deems as a terrorist organization is authorized by a 2001 resolution, and is being applied liberally as the US engages in anti-terrorist actions abroad. In as much as said terrorist organizations are very rarely recognized on the world stage (ISIS, ISIL, Taliban, etc), going to 'war' with them doesn't happen, so all the US really does is allocate forces and funds. War declaration is not required.

Second, the Geneva conventions do not apply to armed insurgencies. There are provisions for what protections an "unlawful combatant" is allowed once captured (which is another topic, I feel), however engaging them in open field simply not something governed by those 4 treaties.

Collateral damage sucks. Lets get this out of the way. However, by their nature, the unlawful combatants (which we are dubbing terrorists, and given their treatment of even their own kinsman, I think can be an appropriate name), they actively attempt to hide in civilian ranks. That is the point: to play the righteous victim when their human shields get shot. Whats worse, it appears to be working. The fault of an incredible spanse of collateral damage comes from the actions of these "freedom fighters" and how they choose to conduct themselves. Preying upon the innocent is the only card they have. Such is after all their stock and trade.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...