[QUOTE=BigT]
You don’t think killing terrorists’ families and violating either habeas corpus (if inside the US) or the Geneva convention (if outside) would have long lasting implications?
[/QUOTE]
So, octopus, you’re basically advocating violating both the Constitution and the Geneva Convention (which, btw, the US has signed on to)?
I don’t remember saying anyone was making things up out of thin air. I was looking to paraphrase what Johnny L.A. was saying. “My religion says to ignore that part of the Bible, Muslims are told to follow it, thus they are terrorists.” Your post suggests that you agree with the text in quotes.
Isn’t the Geneva Convention binding only in conflicts between consignees?
Would you say this Muslim looks “Middle Eastern”? How about this one? Or these Swedish ones?
If you’re going to limit immigration from countries with “people having an outsized amount of crazy views”, this place should be one of your prime candidates.
My tongue in cheek answer to this is that if Trump did that it would cost us trillions of dollars, not just billions 
This digression started when someone mentioned that Islam “requires that blasphemers or fornicators be stoned to death” and Johnny L.A. replied that “Christianity requires this too.” As someone pointed out, only the Old Testament mentions blasphemers and fornicators being stoned to death. As I pointed out, while apparently in the early church there were some factions who thought Christians needed to follow the Old Testament law, the early church settled this before the New Testament was even written, deciding that Christians did not in fact have to follow the Old Testament law. This decision was then written into the scripture of Christianity itself. Thus, it’s simply false to say that Christianity requires that blasphemers or fornicators be stoned to death.
If your beef is with the Old Testament law, I guess you should attack Orthodox Jews for their raging hypocrisy in not stoning blasphemers or fornicators.
My beef is with people who do evil things in the name of their religion. I look askance at those who view other religions as inferior.
You can read better than you let on I hope. Did I advocate that position? No. I said it was one of The Donald’s proposals that wouldn’t have long term negative consequences. And I also said that terrorists aren’t signatories to the Geneva conventions. Are we bound to a treaty none can enforce against us when fighting an adversary that doesn’t follow that treaty themselves?
And if you think taking out a few terrorists families would have long term negative consequences for this country I’d recommend reading some war histories. We nuked Japan. Twice. Now they are faithful allies. The world is a rough place and a strong pimp hand is respected.
I wouldn’t advocate that position because I feel deliberately killing innocents, even fetuses, should only be done when absolutely necessary to win. I don’t think it’s necessary. Anyways read more carefully and stop making silly assumptions.
Some religions are inferior. What makes all religions equally worthy of respect? You wouldn’t apply that same fallacious reasoning to a political ideology and what is a religion but an ideology with a few chants, silly costumes, and archaic prescriptions and prohibitions?
They’re pretty much all magic fairy tales to me. Of them all, I’d prefer Taoism, because its followers don’t typically go around hating others for being different.
I have not stated that all religions are equally worthy of respect. I do believe the idea that “My religion is better than yours” is at best childish and at worst massively destructive. ISIS is not evil because of Islam. ISIS is evil and uses Islam as a tool to accomplish evil. Jim Jones was not evil because of Christianity. Jim Jones was evil and used Christianity as a tool to accomplish evil. Just because there are more ISIS than People’s Temples doesn’t prove Islam is more evil than Christianity.
Believe it or not, that’s not a justification for us to violate it. And yes, as a matter of fact, we ARE bound to it.
Come now. If you seriously believe you can compare imperial Japan to a whole series of noncentralized, religious extremist groups, you’ve got another think coming. And you’re saying sometime in the next century, we’ll all be chummy with jihadists? Give me a break.
Nor is bombing their families going to do anything but make their opposition to us even more intransigent. You’re not going to reduce the field of potential recruits; as long as there is Islamic fundamentalism and poverty there will always be fertile fields for jihadist recruits. And compromise the ethics that our nation was based upon. Sorry, that’s a nonstarter.
So abortion is verboten but deliberately targeting noncombatants isn’t? That’s some tortuous (and torturous) logic. It’s not my assumptions that are silly.
You read very poorly.
And your tactic of framing an inaccurate accusation as a question is transparent? C’mon now step up your game. Do you still beat your wife is ancient tactic. Lol.
And with regards to your opinions on so-called Geneva Convention and terrorists you might want to do some research. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=facpubs
Hey, if we really want to get to them maybe we can get a few commandos to hijack some Iranian airplanes or something and fly them into a bunch of innocent Muslims homes. That’ll teach 'em, huh?
Maybe yours, but my question is legitimate. You claim in one breath to be against abortion and then say it’s alright to target families of terrorists. In other words, they’re guilty by association? If the terrorist is an enemy, so must their families be.
Hey, it’s war, right?
Sorry I thought it was clear when I put “rational defenses” in quotes.
I do not agree with these defenses, but I’ve heard others state them.
Ah and here we have a justification of the legal argument that the Bush administration used to support a whole series of violations. So what? You want to extend the definition to the families of terrorists. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Even the Bush administration did all it could to ensure that the bin Laden family left the country to avoid a backlash against them. Nice try, but it doesn’t wash. I will say it one more time, and you have absolutely no justification to contradict it:
Families of terrorists are NOT combatants.
There may be relatives of terrorists who ARE terrorists, but you simply cannot extend the definition of terrorist to anyone who has the poor luck to share in his blood.
So are the Ten Commandments, and I can point you to a ton (literally) of Christian Ministers who hold them to be current theological law. There is no clear renunciation of the OT law in the NT. (Jesus played fast and loose with OT law…but he also said that it was still in force; he claimed to “fulfill” it.)
ETA: Anyway, the Jews still follow the OT…and we don’t see them killing sons and daughters for cursing their parents. In the same way, we don’t see any but the craziest of Muslims stoning people for blasphemy.
One law for the ox and one for the ass is tyranny.
