Trump asked CIA official why drone strike didn’t also kill target’s family: report

[bcking 3,157]

Mango said it best 

 

This topic is about intentions. Trump supposedly made his intentions/desires crystal clear.

 

That link to the Yemen attack says nothing about what our intentions or goals were. Was Obama asking to target a wedding? Were they intending something different but their Intel was flawed? We don't know, and Obama had the good sense to never say openly (that I know if) that he wants our drones targeting civilians.

 

Good sense is something Trump lacks.

[Dashinka 24,502]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

Mango said it best 

 

This topic is about intentions. Trump supposedly made his intentions/desires crystal clear.

 

That link to the Yemen attack says nothing about what our intentions or goals were. Was Obama asking to target a wedding? Were they intending something different but their Intel was flawed? We don't know, and Obama had the good sense to never say openly (that I know if) that he wants our drones targeting civilians.

 

Good sense is something Trump lacks.

I love how we prosecute someone for asking a question? 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I love how we prosecute someone for asking a question? 

Who is prosecuting? We are just saying we don't like our President thinking that way.

 

What if his question was "but, could we target more Jews?"

 

It's just a question! Intent isn't what matters, just actions...

 

I get it. Trump is learning on the job because he was unprepared. We should reward him for asking questions because it shows he is trying to learn. But even a random person plucked off the street and made President would know that it isn't appropriate to ask to kill innocent civilians...

Edited April 9, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,502]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

Who is prosecuting? We are just saying we don't like our President thinking that way.

 

What if his question was "but, could we target more Jews?"

 

It's just a question! Intent isn't what matters, just actions...

 

I get it. Trump is learning on the job because he was unprepared. We should reward him for asking questions because it shows he is trying to learn. But even a random person plucked off the street and made President would know that it isn't appropriate to ask to kill innocent civilians...

I guess I don't get hung up on thoughts of any leader when we are dealing with terrorists.  Btw, your comparison to "Jews" is a false equivalency since they are not recognized as terrorists. 

[jg121783 3,915]

10 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

This article does not even delve into the intent of the attack asked by BC

"

Do you have any evidence that Obama himself sanctioned intentionally striking a whole wedding?

"

 

Intent is irrelevant. Obama is 100% responsible as commander in chief. If this type of stuff was done without his knowledge (highly doubtful) that shows a severe lack of leadership and incompetence. Either way with or without intent if it is a war crime to strike civilians as some here (clears throat) have implied Obama is then a war criminal.

Edited April 9, 2018 by jg121783

[bcking 3,157]

55 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Intent is irrelevant. Obama is 100% responsible as commander in chief. If this type of stuff was done without his knowledge (highly doubtful) that shows a severe lack of leadership and incompetence. Either way with or without intent if it is a war crime to strike civilians as some here (clears throat) have implied Obama is then a war criminal.

Intent is 100% relevant.

 

The war crime is deliberately targeting civilians. Not accidentally targeting them.

 

Civilian deaths are a sad horrible factor in war. But it generally isn't considered a war crime unless you were intentionally going after them.

Edited April 9, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

12 minutes ago, bcking said:

Intent is 100% relevant.

 

The war crime is deliberately targeting civilians. Not accidentally targeting them.

 

Civilian deaths are a sad horrible factor in war. But it generally isn't considered a war crime unless you were intentionally going after them.

Thanks,

To build upon that every time there is accidental casualties of civilians, our enmies can point to public statements by the President and say " as he predicted, they are targeting civilians"

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess I don't get hung up on thoughts of any leader when we are dealing with terrorists.  Btw, your comparison to "Jews" is a false equivalency since they are not recognized as terrorists. 

Those pesky false equivalences are popping up all over the place!

[bcking 3,157]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess I don't get hung up on thoughts of any leader when we are dealing with terrorists.  Btw, your comparison to "Jews" is a false equivalency since they are not recognized as terrorists. 

I wasn't using the comment about jews as an equivalence, I wasn't claiming they were the same thing. I was giving another example of a possible "thought" that the President may express openly and wondering if you had a problem with it.

 

If he "openly" asked "Can we bomb the caravan moving through Mexico and kill all of them before they get to the border?" would you be okay with him asking that question? He was asking if we could kill civilians...that seems like a no brainer question that doesn't need to be asked.