Republicans Will Kill Innocents to get to ISIS?

[Blackleaf]

So I watched the Republican debate last night. How many is that now? Seven? Ten? Well, I tuned in just enough to hear Cruz say that he would kill innocent people to get to ISIS. While that isn't exactly what he said, Cruz evaded the question of "would you kill innocent civilians in the war against ISIS" with "I believe we should combat ISIS where they are." He basically said yes, but he didn't want to focus on the innocent people he'd be killing.

Then Trump confirmed something he said earlier, that he would target and kill the families of ISIS members, not just the members themselves, justifying it with, "They may not care about their own lives, but believe it or not, they care about their families." In response to the boos coming from the audience, Trump had this to say: "They can kill us, but we can't kill them?"

What the actual Hell is going on? Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, and Trump all think that killing innocent people to get to ISIS is a good idea. The only ones I remember objecting to this are Paul and Fiorina, and maybe Bush if memory serves me. What ever happened to being the better man? These people want to match terrorist violence with more terrorist violence? If we're going to knowingly kill innocent people, or even target innocent people specifically, how are we any better than ISIS?

[stromboli]

I don't care about Trump, Carson or Huckabee because the odds of them getting the nomination decreases over time. The two that scare me are Rubio and Cruz. They have sufficient funding and a base that could make them a significant candidate for election, and that is scary.

[TomFoolery]

What the actual Hell is going on? Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, and Trump all think that killing innocent people to get to ISIS is a good idea. The only ones I remember objecting to this are Paul and Fiorina, and maybe Bush if memory serves me. What ever happened to being the better man? These people want to match terrorist violence with more terrorist violence? If we're going to knowingly kill innocent people, or even target innocent people specifically, how are we any better than ISIS?

I think the "politically correct" Republican response would have been something more along the lines of "I would never intentionally target innocent civilians but it's a sad fact in war that sometimes the wrong people get hurt. ISIS is hurting their own people: we want to be above that, and should remain committed to brining and end to that by most means necessary."

Public relations dodge for the win.

Politics is about pirouetting around questions in a graceful enough way to make people think you answered them when you really just delivered some beautiful rhetoric, not body slamming them with a literal, "no bullshit" answer. People say they like straight answers, but they don't: straight answers hurt feelings and offend sensibilities.

[Baruch]

Human beings are the same everywhere ... so at that level, we are no better than ISIS.  Different human groups have different agendas ... our agenda is of course better than the ISIS agenda ... because, USA! ... USA!

The purpose of the US is warfare.  The effect of warfare is to kill people ... and take their stuff.  The innocence of the people involved is secondary to ... getting their stuff.  This is your brain ... this is your brain on American idolatry!

Politicians are getting more barbaric in their public persona ... some voters would love for someone to show up dressed as Conan, with shrunken human heads banging from his belt.  Maybe not many people ... yet.

[Unbeliever]

[Shiranu]

Radicals will be radical... regardless their ideology. And we have reached a point where radicals like this have a place in the public light and in our government.

[Valigarmander]

Our country has already been doing this for a long time. The only difference now is that candidates are openly supporting it instead of surreptitiously.

See also: torture.