Last night, Donald Trump repeated his call to target not just terrorists, but their families too. It was not an off hand remark; it was the subject of an entire question. Trump was asked if he still supports the idea of attacking the families of terrorists, and he said that he does.
This morning, I expected that there would be a lot said about Trump's "kill the families" proposal. There isn't. It was apparently discussed by Bill O'Reilly on his post debate show during a segment with Charles Krauthammer. O'Reilly actually said that Trump didn't mean what he was saying but was using the line to make an emotional connection with the voters and get more votes. Now O'Reilly often says some really dumb things, but even for him, this is amazing. A major presidential candidate calls for killing family members of our enemy and O'Reilly thinks it's just a ploy. No, it's a call for America to intentionally commit war crimes. O'Reilly isn't alone in his willingness to give Trump a pass for the statement. Most of the media glossed over Trump's answer in order to focus on the "fight" between Trump and Jeb Bush or the disputes between Cruz and Rubio.
Why should Trump get such a pass? This is not Trump insulting someone (McCain, Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, etc.). This is not Trump not knowing something that he can learn (like what the nuclear triad is). This is not Trump using hyperbole to show his intent (like claiming that he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall.) This is the frontrunner advocating murdering innocent civilians. It would be one thing if Trump were to call for relaxation of the silly and overly strict rules of engagement put in place by president Obama. Obama will not allow an attack on ISIS if it might injure a civilian. As a result, we went for a year and a half without attacking the oil tanker trucks that transport ISIS's oil; the drivers were considered civilians. It makes sense to attack military targets and realize that there might be civilian casualties that cannot be avoided. For example, if ISIS were to put anti-aircraft missiles in a school and use it as a base from which to attack American planes, we can destroy that military site whether or not it is a school. What Trump is advocating, however, is that we hit sites that do not contain military targets; he just wants to go after the families of the ISIS fighters.
The idea of killing the families of the enemy is not a new one. The Romans used it (although they more often took the families of their enemies to be sold as slaves.) It was also used not so long ago by the Germans during World War II. Are they to be our role models? I sure hope not.
What Trump said is an outrage, even for Trump. He does not deserve a free pass. He should be held accountable for his words. Clearly, he knows better.
This morning, I expected that there would be a lot said about Trump's "kill the families" proposal. There isn't. It was apparently discussed by Bill O'Reilly on his post debate show during a segment with Charles Krauthammer. O'Reilly actually said that Trump didn't mean what he was saying but was using the line to make an emotional connection with the voters and get more votes. Now O'Reilly often says some really dumb things, but even for him, this is amazing. A major presidential candidate calls for killing family members of our enemy and O'Reilly thinks it's just a ploy. No, it's a call for America to intentionally commit war crimes. O'Reilly isn't alone in his willingness to give Trump a pass for the statement. Most of the media glossed over Trump's answer in order to focus on the "fight" between Trump and Jeb Bush or the disputes between Cruz and Rubio.
Why should Trump get such a pass? This is not Trump insulting someone (McCain, Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, etc.). This is not Trump not knowing something that he can learn (like what the nuclear triad is). This is not Trump using hyperbole to show his intent (like claiming that he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall.) This is the frontrunner advocating murdering innocent civilians. It would be one thing if Trump were to call for relaxation of the silly and overly strict rules of engagement put in place by president Obama. Obama will not allow an attack on ISIS if it might injure a civilian. As a result, we went for a year and a half without attacking the oil tanker trucks that transport ISIS's oil; the drivers were considered civilians. It makes sense to attack military targets and realize that there might be civilian casualties that cannot be avoided. For example, if ISIS were to put anti-aircraft missiles in a school and use it as a base from which to attack American planes, we can destroy that military site whether or not it is a school. What Trump is advocating, however, is that we hit sites that do not contain military targets; he just wants to go after the families of the ISIS fighters.
The idea of killing the families of the enemy is not a new one. The Romans used it (although they more often took the families of their enemies to be sold as slaves.) It was also used not so long ago by the Germans during World War II. Are they to be our role models? I sure hope not.
What Trump said is an outrage, even for Trump. He does not deserve a free pass. He should be held accountable for his words. Clearly, he knows better.
No comments:
Post a Comment