[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Damien

Where is that in the constitution? I assume it's a recent amendment.



Well they do have an issue with it. America and Britain have pretty strict rules of engagement when conducting military operations in civilian areas.

There is a a big difference between civilians dying in military operations targeting an enemy and civilians being intentionally targeted. If you have evidence of the Americans intentionally setting out to kill civilians, i.e not as a result of a botched operation, then that's different. However if the Americans wanted to kill civilians they could do so easily and level whole cities in moments.

Trump has suggested intentionally killing them. It's a huge difference and it's a measure of how screwed up this situation has become that instead of it automatically disqualifying him we're debating if the constitution allows it.

I don't think there's just laws inside the US stopping him, what does the Geneva Convention offer?

As for evidence the US targets civilians, there isn't any in that sense, I'm just saying they know they will kill civilians. If they launch a hellfire missile into a street then there's just no way you're not going to cause collateral damage. That in a sense is knowing? Example being, although this was completely botched and they ended up killing 80 odd civilians and no suspects, coalition aircraft hitting a cluster of houses in the village of Tokkhar, Syria. They leveled the entire place and there's just no way they didn't know it housed civilians. It's a great success when you take down a lunatic terrorist but it doesn't feel that right when you've wiped out a village to do so. Kunduz Hospital incident is a similar situation, they knowingly fired upon a building inhabited with Civilians under the pretense the Taliban had raided the place and had human shields and hostages, Their solution to a situation like that was to accept Afghan calls for a bombing run.

Guess the point I'm getting at is, whether it's via the accidental methods or via trump deliberately doing it, the outcomes are the same, countless people die for no reason and it's my opinion that neither are acceptable. I get Trump as a person saying it is worse and insane. Just think the loss of life should be more important.

But yes, I accept Trump's version would undoubtedly set that death toll higher and allow him to target at will.

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

many people took that position after Obama won, and as I recall Obama was very very slow to produce evidence. It was a stupid position to take, but he wasn't a politician at the time nor was he running for president, he has since retracted the allegation.

I don't know if it was 'suspected' terrorists but his point was that terrorists don't care about themselves, but if they thought their actions might have repercussions upon their family they may think twice about it. Also in many cases the families of terrorists know or suspect that something may be going on but do nothing. A fair point, poorly executed. But when it comes to terrorism nothing should be off the table.


Obviously not all but there are many illegal immigrants in the US that commit felonies in the US, are deported, and then come back to commit more crime, the Kate Steinle case, being the example of the moment.



Not smart, good job that nobody in politics or the media have taken the **** out if him and his appearance though isn't it.

no defence for that one. He immediately retracted it, he just not skilful or experienced enough to check his own wondering mind.

The debates are going to be really interesting. He could very possibly self destruct. It will be very interesting to see what a seasoned politician like Clinton can do. She should by rights take him to the cleaners.



She's not left of Obama. You get 4 more years of Obama with Clinton. Which is not very exciting. Obama has been a very mediocre president. He's done very little to better the lives of African Americans.



Does " go after" mean kill?

I don't think he'll do too much but he has stated that he'll declare war on ISIS, which would be interesting.

IIRC he changed his tone on that 'Kill' thing too, downright denied it at one point.

Here: Changes from kill to go after: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b065e2e3d4d82d

Here is the direct quote from December though

"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," Trump said.

Do any of us assume 'Take out' means anything other than kill?

South Park weighed in on this with their returning episode for season 20. The character Mr Garrison is blatantly being portrayed as Trump, it's an interesting watch, suggesting now he's actually up head to head he has no clue what to do if he wins.

Quote Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/po...ists-families/

So it's evident people do actually consider this could have been a massive backfire in Trump not actually expecting to be this far into it.

That quote though, Politicians playbook isn't it? Said it but didn't say it 6 months later.