Trump v. Clinton matchup has Catholic leaders scrambling

[Thorolfr]

Trump was against the Iraq War, while Clinton was for it. Trump was against the war against Libya, while Clinton was the architect of it. So you think Trump is the more likely to foment conflict?

And what makes you think he wants to kill anybody? What has he done to make you think that?

Billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump said Tuesday that the United States should kill the family members of ISIS terrorists in order to defeat the jihadist group, a tactic that would likely be considered a war crime.

In an interview with Fox and Friends, the Republican frontrunner said he would “knock the hell out” of ISIS with an aggressive military strategy if elected president. That strategy, he said, would include using deadly force on people who are related to ISIS members.

“We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” he said in response to a question about avoiding civilian causalities. “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/03/3727303/donald-trump-kill-isis-family-members/

 

[estesbob]

My bishop will, I’m sure, form his own opinions without (name removed by moderator)ut from me. And that’s what he ought to do. It’s not a matter of diocesan vote.

Actually, the USCCB letter does support Cdl Burke’s view. The Catholic Church claims to have teaching authority on faith and morals, so it isn’t a matter of some tangential thing like diet and exercise, about which people may (and always do) differ, and about which they can morally differ because it is fact-dependent and one can disagree on the facts.

The USCCB says supporting abortion is a grave and intrinsic evil which we must always oppose EXCEPT when there is an equally grave or greater intrinsic evil to be opposed in doing so. Cdl Burke says the same thing. He just more practically applied it in the last previous election.

There is no fact issue in elective abortion. It’s binary. The child lives or dies. There is no disagreement about what 'dead" is.

That is what is so funny about the constant invoking of Faithful Citiznship and the Kicanis interview-they both affirm what Burke, Chaput, Garda, Benedict XVI. John Paull II et al say.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If anything he sounds like a foreign policy isolationist - at times, at least.

Well, maybe. perhaps more to the reality of it is that his main concern is the American economy and American safety, with foreign intervention being a secondary concern. But he’s pretty clear that if we do intervene somewhere militarily, it should be full-bore and without political correctness determining objectives and methods.

 

[Crossbones]

Pretty weak stuff. What he apparently said was that he wasn’t against it in principle so much as he was in the way it was carried out.

Well, I’m pretty sure every single American except for George W Bush and Dick Cheney had issues with how the Iraq War was carried out, no matter what their view on the war initially was.

 

[estesbob]

thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/03/3727303/donald-trump-kill-isis-family-members/

Of course this is already being done. Of did you think when Obama ordered drone strikes(some on US citizens) there was no collateral damage. So tell me why is this an issue with Trump but is not an issue with Obama? And has Hillary disavowed drone strikes?

Basically Trump endorses what has being going on for at least 8 years and is condemned for it

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I’m pretty sure every single American except for George W Bush and Dick Cheney had issues with how the Iraq War was carried out, no matter what their view on the war initially was.

I think it depends on when you’re talking about. Initially, most supported it. Seemingly, Rumsfeld did not dedicate sufficient resources to it, reflecting a lack of understanding of two of the forces involved; the Sunni tribal leaders and the Al Sadr Shia under Iranian influence.

The surge was popular when it ended the conflict, not so much during it.

 

[estesbob]

I think it depends on when you’re talking about. Initially, most supported it. Seemingly, Rumsfeld did not dedicate sufficient resources to it, reflecting a lack of understanding of two of the forces involved; the Sunni tribal leaders and the Al Sadr Shia under Iranian influence.

The surge was popular when it ended the conflict, not so much during it.

And ,of course, the biggest problem was Obama prematurely pulling out the troops plunging the region into chaos.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is what is so funny about the constant invoking of Faithful Citiznship and the Kicanis interview-they both affirm what Burke, Chaput, Garda, Benedict XVI. John Paull II et al say.

It’s an attempt to impose moral relativism on what the USCCB and Kicanis said. It doesn’t work because they’re Catholics, not moral relativists. You’re right, from a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction among them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And ,of course, the biggest problem was Obama prematurely pulling out the troops plunging the region into chaos.

No question about that. He was warned by the Sunni tribal leaders, the Sistani Shia, the Kurds, the Iraqi government, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA against a pullout. But he did, and declared “victory” for himself. Then, what all predicted happened, and here we are with the Obama/Clinton Middle East; a charnel house. And not only that, Obama/Clinton spread the chaos to North Africa as well.

 

[Crossbones]

It’s an attempt to impose moral relativism on what the USCCB and Kicanis said. It doesn’t work because they’re Catholics, not moral relativists. You’re right, from a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction among them.

I would look at it more as a reasoned attempt for Catholics with well-formed consciences to read the appropriate documentation and determine how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretation of those on this site.

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course this is already being done. Of did you think when Obama ordered drone strikes(some on US citizens) there was no collateral damage. So tell me why is this an issue with Trump but is not an issue with Obama? And has Hillary disavowed drone strikes?

Basically Trump endorses what has being going on for at least 8 years and is condemned for it

Intentionally deciding to “take out” the families of terrorists is not collateral damage since collateral damage, by definition, involves “injury inflicted on something other than an intended target.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collateral%20damage

Intentionally “taking out” the noncombatant families of terrorists would probably be considered a war crime in international law.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Intentionally deciding to “take out” the families of terrorists is not collateral damage since collateral damage, by definition, involves “injury inflicted on something other than an intended target.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collateral%20damage

Intentionally “taking out” the noncombatant families of terrorists would probably be considered a war crime in international law.

Becomes hard to define as Obama will testify to.

ips-dc.org/the-real-meaning-of-collateral-damage/

That said if you have a cancer tumor you may need to radiate the surrounding unaffected area to save the person. So I think the intent could easily cause a not so intended consequence. Which of course is all on the table for talk, but we do have just war with for example Isis, the question becomes how to justly kill them? And them only, easier said than done.

 

[Crossbones]

Becomes hard to define as Obama will testify to.

ips-dc.org/the-real-meaning-of-collateral-damage/

That said if you have a cancer tumor you may need to radiate the surrounding unaffected area to save the person. So I think the intent could easily cause a not so intended consequence. Which of course is all on the table for talk, but we do have just war with for example Isis, the question becomes how to justly kill them? And them only, easier said than done.

Can you point me to where Obama said that he would target noncombatants for ‘retribution’ and to ‘make them suffer’ as Trump did?

 

[estesbob]

Intentionally deciding to “take out” the families of terrorists is not collateral damage since collateral damage, by definition, involves “injury inflicted on something other than an intended target.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collateral%20damage

Intentionally “taking out” the noncombatant families of terrorists would probably be considered a war crime in international law.

Of course we dont know whether Obama is targeting families or not , do we? We know non-combatants are killed but we really dont know whether its deliberate not. Funny how after 7 years of this activity Obama supporters are suddenly concerned about this. Of course during the Bush years they opposed drone strikes but have become silent since Obama took office.

.Since Hillary supporters are now concerned about killing non-combatants are they going to demand that Hillary stop the drone strikes? Or are they going to claim its OK to kill families as long as you really, really didnt mean to(or are assured that is the case)

Trumps problem is he doesn’t know how to lie as proficiently as his opponents do. If he wants to go after families he should do so quietly-as may well be the case with the current administration. Then if we blow up a hospital or two he can always claim it was a “mistake”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Can you point me to where Obama said that he would target noncombatants for ‘retribution’ and to ‘make them suffer’ as Trump did?

I can point you right above where Obama killed as you say innocent people in fact and remind you how Trumps meandering in coming to terms with how to handle a difficult situation hasn’t killed anyone. I don’t see any solutions nor Obamas we can safely conclude

I can also point out to you as I did how Obama by imposed socialism has good people enslaved to Obamacare thus compromised religious freedom as I have. And the same example of cancer above would do, I imagine good people cooperate against their well informed conscience when a million dollars of treatment and life and death is in play. Not hard to see. Still it makes Obama wrong is both cases of socialism/socialized meds and collateral damage imho of formed conscience. According to his fairy tale he ended two wars and bought peace to Syria while americans still die weekly too.

I think everyone ought to get off the state fed liberal media narrative, imho

 

[Crossbones]

I can point you right above where Obama killed as you say innocent people in fact and remind you how Trumps meandering in coming to terms with how to handle a difficult situation hasn’t killed anyone. I don’t see any solutions nor Obamas we can safely conclude

I can also point out to you as I did how Obama by imposed socialism has good people enslaved to Obamacare thus compromised religious freedom as I have. And the same example of cancer above would do, I imagine good people cooperate against their well informed conscience when a million dollars of treatment and life and death is in play. Not hard to see. Still it makes Obama wrong is both cases of socialism/socialized meds and collateral damage imho of formed conscience. According to his fairy tale he ended two wars and bought peace to Syria while americans still die weekly too.

I think everyone ought to get off the state fed liberal media narrative, imho

So, you can’t point to Obama saying that he will target noncombatants for ‘retribution’ and ‘to make them suffer’ and would rather change the subject.

 

[Thorolfr]

Funny how after 7 years of this activity Obama supporters are suddenly concerned about this. Of course during the Bush years they opposed drone strikes but have become silent since Obama took office.

What makes you think that all the people who support Obama are not concerned about drone strikes? I’m certainly concerned about them and have talked to people whose families were killed in drone strikes.

 

[Crossbones]

What makes you think that all the people who support Obama are not concerned about drone strikes? I’m certainly concerned about them and have talked to people whose families were killed in drone strikes.

In my opinion, it is the biggest black mark of Obama’s Presidency.

 

[estesbob]

What makes you think that all the people who support Obama are not concerned about drone strikes? I’m certainly concerned about them and have talked to people whose families were killed in drone strikes.

Has Hillary disavowed them?

There has been no pressure whatsoever from Obama supporters to end the drone strikes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would look at it more as a reasoned attempt for Catholics with well-formed consciences to read the appropriate documentation and determine how to vote instead of depending on the personal interpretation of those on this site.

It would be well if Catholics did read all of the sources listed by Estesbob, or at least became acquainted with them in order to have “well-formed consciences”. Having a “well-formed conscience” is not satisfied by reading a limited interpretation of only a part of two of them, which the Clinton supporters are sometimes wont to do.

If Catholics did that, there is no possibility whatever that they could feel morally free to vote for Hillary Clinton, or to fail to oppose her candidacy.