I didn't say we were lily white.  We targeted their economies and industries and that involved killing civilians. We didn't target civilians.

In any case, the WW 2 strategic bombing campaig is utterly irrelevant to Trump's stated intent to "take out" terrorists families.  The WW 2 equivalent of the latter would be my tongue-in-cheek example of to "take out" Rommel's family.  Can you cite any evidence that we ever had a policy of doing that kind of thing?

OK, if you want to believe the national objective of the United States in WW 2 was to kill civilians, fine.  It's totally irrelevant to Trump's stated intent to kill the families of terrorists.  The WW 2 equivalent to the latter isn't the strategic bombing campaign, it's my tongue-in-cheek example of Rommel's family.  Can you cite any evidence that killing the families of specific individuals was ever US policy?

first and second posters are slipping

I sure don't know where you are getting that idea about me. But I was just pointing out a

fact about what we did and we did kill a bunch of them with fire, especially in Japan.  



 

Just like Clintons did in the 90's.

Dresden was also a rail and communications center.

HMMMM?






What is the airspeed of a laden swallow?






 

Project much, ya evil bitch.

I am quite aware that we killed a bunch of them by a variety of means.  Now, got any historical support for Trump's plan to assassinate the families of terrorists, quite a part from killing the terrorists themselves, I mean?  

You are wrong. Bomber Harris and Curtiss Lemay absolutely purposefully targeted civilian populations. There is no ambiguity to that fact. Again, to maximize damage and casualties, Lemay devised a specific plan for bombing Tokyo...

"On the night of 9–10 March ("Operation Meetinghouse"),[12] 334 B-29s took off to raid with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of bombs on Tokyo. The bombs were mostly the 500-pound (230 kg) E-46 cluster bomb which released 38 napalm-carrying M-69 incendiary bomblets at an altitude of 2,000–2,500 ft (610–760 m). The M-69s punched through thin roofing material or landed on the ground; in either case they ignited 3–5 seconds later, throwing out a jet of flaming napalm globs. A lesser number of M-47 incendiaries was also dropped: the M-47 was a 100-pound (45 kg) jelled-gasoline and white phosphorus bomb which ignited upon impact. In the first two hours of the raid, 226 of the attacking aircraft unloaded their bombs to overwhelm the city's fire defenses.[13] The first B-29s to arrive dropped bombs in a large X pattern centered in Tokyo's densely populated working class district near the docks in both Koto and Chuo city wards on the water; later aircraft simply aimed near this flaming X. The individual fires caused by the bombs joined to create a general conflagration, which would have been classified as a firestorm but for prevailing winds gusting at 17 to 28 mph (27 to 45 km/h).[14] Approximately 15.8 square miles (4,090 ha) of the city was destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died.[15][16] A grand total of 282 of the 339 B-29s launched for "Meetinghouse" made it to the target, 27 of which failed to return due to enemy action, mechanical failure, or being caught in updrafts caused by the massive fires.[17]"

To believe we didn't target civilians in order to destroy the will of the enemy to continue the fight is naïve. In fact the two nukes dropped were specifically used to break the will of Japan once and for all...

Again, I have no qualms with any of it....you want to wage a war against us, pay the price.

Same with terrorists. If you want to think about it, the families of terrorists are their war industry, cranking out new terrorists...so it could be considered strategic bombing of enemy infrastructure.

Of course the Butcher of Benghazi knows that it appears hypocritical to warn her constituents that their political opposition might use their same illegal tactics against them.

What she is merely doing is reminding her base that only HER regime should control the levers of power in order to utilize every effective, illegal means to destroy their enemies. She plans to commit more totalitarian persecution, and her hordes expect her to.

Her indirect message is "The IRS is no problem, people. We own the media/entertainment/education complex, too. And we have controlled the FBI and ATF for decades. I can crush my adversaries and your adversaries, but don't forget to vote, just to make the election appear legit anyway."

Still whining, huh

And you believe there is no military value to destroying a belligerent nation's capital city over and above the number of civilian casualties inflicted?  Terrorists' families are no more a war industry than are American families, yet it is the act of attacking American families that causes us to label them terrorists.  I think maybe you might want to stop looking into the abyss.

I'll ask you again: can you cite any U.S. historical precedent for asassinating terrorists families, apart from killing the terrorists themselves.

Fuck that cunt

Still peddling the idea that your turd is inerrant, huh

You said we did not target civilians. I pointed out you are mistaken.

Targeting the families of terrorists is another question. Wars change, tactics change. Typically you cannot win a war using the tactics of the previous war(s). The Civil War proved fighting using the tactics of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 did not work. Fighting WWI using Civil War tactics did not work.

Tactics and enemies evolve. Maybe your tactics need to also.

The war being waged by terrorists is different than any war we have fought. Thinking outside the box may be necessary....

You win wars by destroying the will of your enemy to fight. Japan and its people, and its leader were willing to arm every man, woman and child and let them fight the invaders as they landed. With pikes.

Dropping the nuclear bomb, twice, broke that will completely. There was no need to invade and face them on the beaches of their home islands.

If you are a terrorist, and you don't care about throwing your life into the fires of jihad and claiming your 72 Virgins in exchange to taking the lives of infidels, perhaps you might think twice if you knew your actions would rain fire upon your family and home town.

Perhaps not. Then it becomes a matter of who runs out of targets first. But perhaps that is the only true endgame to this war.

Dude, the only people Progressives will fuck over faster than a Conservative is a fellow Progressive who isn't deemed "Progressive enough"...  

Zealots are always much harsher on dissidents their own ranks than on their enemy.

"Now we're talkin'...."

Hillery's SCARED!!!!

Trump is gonna ROLL her...

Fuck you, bitch.



Stroke the fuck out already, end this fucking shit show.

Look-

No one is stopping you from voting for Hillery!

We did not target civilians.  We targeted military value the civilians represented, and then only rarely.

The nuclear bombs didn't break the will of the Japanese people to fight.  Most of the Japanese people weren't even aware of them and the Japanese government wasn't responsive to the people anyway.  Three things prompted the Japanese government to surrender: the bombs, the entry of Russia into the war, and an understanding that the Emporor would not be tried as a war criminal.

I will ask you again: can you cite a U.S. historical precedent for asassinating the families of terrorists as a means of waging war, apart from killing the terrorists themselves?

It isn't even funny anymore.  It's bad enough that they are dirty as hell, get caught, and nothing EVER comes of it.  Now they are insinuating that we can't trust their political opponents because they *might* do the very same things.  And these people are running our country.  They keep getting elected and keep amassing more and more power.  You can't make this shit up.

I'll grant you that's pretty funny, but it's also irrelevant.  

So things won't really change if Trump is elected?

No one but Hillary, though, God knows, you're doing your best to change my mind.

I will ask you, can you cite a precedent of combatants taking over airliners and crashing them into buildings?

Who cares if there is a historical precedent...evolution means things change.

There is plenty of historical precedent of the efficacy of the Infantry Square, but its probably not a great tactic to use against terrorists....

So your continuous query about assassinating the families of terrorists as a means of waging war is meaningless. Do you think Truman and his advisors worried that there was no historical precedent for dropping A-Bombs on your enemy?

Because there is no "historical precendent" to any particular tactic, does that mean it can't be a valid tactic? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying...mind you I am not asking if its a morally acceptable tactic, but your argument seems to be since there is no precedent for it, it should not be considered? Seems like limiting your tactical response is ensuring your ultimate defeat.

No, I am not.  America traditionally does not wage war on non-combatants who have no military value.

No, they just happened to do it after two nuclear bombs, the entry of Russia into the war, some kind of murky assurance that the Emperor would not be tried as a war criminal.

A simple "no" would have sufficed, but thank you.

Hmm, you didn't answer my question....

So we agree, Jane states that if there is no historical precedent for a certain tactic, it shall never be used....let the record show.

And we have targeted civilians. So there. I understand you want to stick with the old "we were targeting their houses, its not our fault they happened to be in them" wink, wink, nudge, nudge chestnut.

Very good.

Good

Trump will bankrupt American like he did with his companies -HRC
Trump will use the IRS to go after his critics -HRC

You just cannot make this stuff up because she supports the very same policies
as Obama, but with even more free stuff and that got us a nearly doubling of the national debt in just 8 years.

The Clinton's used the IRS to go after enemies and critics.

No need to get all pissy. The point is: absent even arguable military value, the deliberate asassination of non-combatants is a war crime, and is, as national policy, without precedent in American history.  In other words, Shermanesque fantasies notwithstanding, Trump's stated intentions to "take out" terrorists' families ain't happening.  And all TOT accomplished by saying that stupid shit was to hand Clinton a club with which to beat him.

I am reconciled to debasing myself by voting for the turd in order to help prevent a Clinton presidency.  It doesn't seem unreasonable for me to expect that he make some minimal effort to ensure my sacrifice is not in vain.

Sorta relevant, because of the "CNN Effect."  The USA is no longer willing to engage in total war because politicians fear the 24-hour newscycle's capability to control the narrative.  The American public today has little tolerance for video of stacks of bodybags or caskets filled with dead American youth, or of gruesome remains of innocent human shields surrounding a vital military target that we hit.  And our enemies (both foreign nations and non-state actors) know this and exploit it effectively at the tactical and strategic levels.  So, our ROE tries to limit collateral damage to zero, tries to limit fratricide to zero, and ultimately makes us strategically ineffective.

Lemay understood total war at the strategic level, as did Sherman (I don't like what he did to the South, but I have to admit that he was ahead of his time).  The German Blitzkreig tactics as used in Poland and France understood the spirit of total war (albeit not in that context) at the tactical and operational levels: Why engage the mass of your forces in a head-to-head fight with the mass of the enemy forces when instead you can concentrate on blowing a hole through a weak part of the enemy's front line, pour in a bunch of rapidly-moving armored all-terrain vehicles (with 3-5 days of fuel, ammo, and other basic sustainment needs riding alongside them) with the specific mission to bypass strongpoints and capture or destroy things like commo clusters, headquarters units, fuel depots, etc. that are vital to the effectiveness of the enemy forces?

Put another way, which makes more sense:  (a) Tell Mike Tyson you are going to beat his ass with your bare fists unless he gives you $100, or (b) hold a gun to his mother's head and tell him you will blow her brains out, then his next of kin, so on down the line, unless he gives you $100?  Much honor in COA (a); much more effectiveness in COA (b).

I appreciate you taking your time to share your thoughts with me.  Please scroll up and read my last post to K98guy.  I'm too tired to go thru all this again.

WWCLD

Oh, you mean like what Obama did?

1. I don't think donald's gonna try to do anything domestically with the military.
2. Even if he does, the military is sworn to defend the constitution, not the President. So he's kinda limited when it comes to that.

Democrats always accuse their opposition with things they are or want to do. Without exception.

Just delete your emails, and act confused when you are investigated. Your comrades and the press will cover for you.

BWAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"We have concluded that Lois Lerner did nothing criminal"...............DOJ

"We have lost track of over 2,000 semi auto rifles sold to Mexican drug cartel members by failing to follow them and notify the Mexican authorities of this happening.  But this had nothing to do with a political desire by this Administration to gut the Second Amendment"..........ATF

Now what the fuck were you lying or camouflaging about this time Hillary/Satan/Al Capone?

As if she wouldn't, given the opportunity...  power hungry hag.