What about the 9/11 terrorists’ families?
I wanted to call attention to something I discussed in the comments section yesterday.
In all the brouhaha about what Donald Trump said about “targeting” terrorists’ families, it hasn’t been much emphasized that he made a blatant factual error during the debate. First, let’s look at the March 3 debate transcript:
BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.
They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?
…I have no problem with it.
Trump’s statement about 9/11 and the 9/11 terrorists’ wives is nonsense. Note that his statement during the debate about this was actually a repeat of something he had said back in December. It is either a lie or an error. Either Trump has no idea what he’s talking about on this subject, or he does know and assumes his supporters don’t know and he’s saying what they want to hear. Plus, this was all researched and pointed out for him back in early December, so he either didn’t see the correction or doesn’t care:
There is no support for Trump’s claims, as the report states that virtually all of the hijackers were unmarried.
“None of the 9/11 terrorists could have ”˜sent their wives home’ before the attacks because, as you suggest, none of them brought female companions to the United States,” said Philip D. Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 Commission (and who is not affiliated with any campaign). “All, or nearly all, of the hijackers were unmarried, as far as we know. We did elaborate a bit about the story of one Lebanese hijacker, Ziad Jarrah [who was on United 93], and his German girlfriend.”
The report makes a distinction between the “muscle hijackers,” who were to restrain or overcome crew members or others, and hijackers who trained to pilot the aircraft. Regarding the muscle hijackers, the report says: “The muscle hijackers came from a variety of educational and societal backgrounds. All were between 20 and 28 years old; most were unemployed with no more than a high school education and were unmarried.” (Page 231 of the report.)
Only one of the muscle hijackers ”” Abdul Aziz al-Omari ”” is listed as being married: “Omari had graduated with honors from high school, had attained a degree from the Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University [in Saudi Arabia], was married, and had a daughter.” But there is no indication the wife ever traveled to the United States. (Page 232.)
Among the pilot hijackers, Marwan al-Shehhi (who piloted United Flight 175) was married: “When Shehhi, while still in the UAE in January 2000, held a belated wedding celebration (he actually had been married in 1999), a friend of his was surprised to see that he had shaved off his beard and was acting like his old self again.” But again, there is no indication that his wife ever traveled to the United States.
…What could account for Trump’s strange notion that the hijackers were married and shipped their wives home just before the attacks? Perhaps he is conflating reports of Saudi nationals leaving the United States after the attacks.
Here’s the story on the Saudi nationals. By the way, Bin Laden had a huge family, and most had long ago disavowed him.
Trump has a sloppy memory… that’s fer sure.
He conflated the mass celebrations in the West Bank with New Jersey’s ‘block party.’
Indeed, there were Muslim celebrations all around Greater New York — according to police records.
Every celebration was a mosque by mosque affair — I should think.
Imams lead Muslims around by the nose. That’s the level of indoctrination achieved by five-times a day ‘prayer.’
Muslim so-called prayers basically consist of curses against the kafir and pledges of subservience to Allah.
They really are unique.
No other philosophy has so ritualized curses.
&&&&
I can’t help but note that EVERY publication or web page ramping Trump is MORE interested in destroying the GOPe — and NEVER addresses the silent majority of Republicans that reject Donald Trump.
If that’s not enough, my Brother thinks Trump’s a winner.
He’s a life long Colonel Klink in every big decision he’s ever made.
You would make a fortune going against his bets.
The man is uncanny.
&&&&&&
In my old stock broking days, when I found a Colonel Klink investor — I knew I had it made.
Ironically they were ALWAYS well above average in intelligence.
What they could never comprehend is how high up high can get — IQ wise — information wise — time advantage wise — on Wall Street.
Typical Colonel Klinks on Wall Street:
Dentists
Airline pilots
College professors — now you know why they are Socialists.
And to a lesser extent…
Doctors — see college professors. ^^^^
Any doctor that invests or speculates well in the market is certain to be a lousy doctor. He’s got his head in the wrong place.
Scott Adams has conflated comic success with true insight — judgment.
This is seen in all winning streaks.
Trump makes Bernie look well prepared to be POTUS.
Parker,
Maybe that’s the objective.
Jus’ sayin’
KRB
Even taken as a mere fumble of speech, and even when as here quickly corrected to “a man”, the phrase “when a family flies into the World Trade Center” is a doozy of a picture. A family, like a mafia family, say. Or a family, like a flock of pigeons family. God only knows what the man’s internal dialogue resembles.
I’m sure Trump has never been subject to having his every word scrutinized which I think is a political skill. Being the boss in his own companies means he could change his mind every other minute and not be called on it. Haven’t we all seen that before?
I don’t think the mistakes are getting the right type of press. My SO is 100% pro-Trump (and we’ll cancel each other out with me being pro-Cruz), and any criticism of Trump in the media is not even listened to due to the anti-Trump drumbeat from the Rs. He thinks it’s just people ‘hating on’ Trump – my words though, not his.
Once the GOPe started going after him bare-fisted, it made any critique come off like another pile-on.
I can’t wait until the primaries are over. I intend on early voting tomorrow.
I remembered a similar news account to what Trump was talking about. Just looked it up. It was Osama Bin Laden’s family who flew home just days after the terrorist attacks. So he was correct in that regard: terrorist family members allowed to leave the U.S. Big mistake. They should’ve rounded them up…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/
So he may have remembered incorrectly, but I knew that there was some truth to what he was talking about.
K-E,
I remembered that, and I am not someone who has advisors and speech writers to correct incorrect memories. I know, Trump doesn’t have such advisors either, but he is running for president and I’m not.
Besides, as Neo said, OBL ‘s family is huge and they don’t get along. He was something like 38 out of 60 kids by who knows how many mothers.
What I took from his comment about terrorist family was less about the specifics of 911 and more about the general relationship between terrorists and their family.
With the exception of a few, perhaps westerners turning to terrorism, terrorists arising from the Middle East come from families that may not only be aware of the terrorist ideological leaning, but may have supported them or even engendered such radicalism. If this is the case then shouldn’t the family bear some responsibility for the acts of terrorism?
No I am not suggesting the sons suffer the sin of their father, but the other regarding the father/mother (spouse?) suffering the sin of their creation.
Huan:
The foundation of our entire of law is the idea of personal responsibility, not group responsibility. To hold parents responsible for the actions of grown adult children would be against that strong and proud tradition.
It would also be profoundly unfair. If you are a parent, particularly a parent of adult children, you ought to be aware that parents can try very hard to raise their children right and yet the children can go astray, and vice versa (raise them wrong and the children are fine).
Some families, of course, praise their terrorist children for their terrorist acts. But of what are the parents guilty? Our system of law is not only based on the judging of the individual, but of actions and behavior rather than thoughts and beliefs. Of course, in war (for example, with aerial bombing), an entire population is (or used to be) fair game, but not in the sense of being targeted, but supposedly in the sense of being collateral damage to other strategic targets. That’s an entire different thing that what you’re suggesting.
But isn’t terrorism an act of war?
We may also be looking at this too abstractly as well. For instance, we raise our children to to become independent thinker with a set of moral code to act with justice and benificence. But if some raise their children differently, to hate another nation/ethnicity and set them on a path of murder and mayhem as the only way to be, shouldn’t they bear some responsibility (or even take pride) in their creation? Especially when their whole village feels the same hate?
Here in the west even when you are born and raised in the slums you still know that murder is wrong, though sometime you are compelled to do so. In some part of the world to kill infidel is simply the right thing to do. This is simply your culture, as taught by your parents, extended family, kin, and neighbor.
Clearly using one set of belief in judgement of another is wrong when harm is leavied against another set of belief. But is it better to use one set of belief in judgment of another to absolve responsibility for an intended act of harm any better?
I am not a proponent of cultural relativism. I believe there are right and wrong and false belief and bad cultures. I believe in not just individual responsibility but also group responsibility.
Within reason ofcourse.
Are we using legal standards and maneuvers against terrorist acts of war?
Huan:
I think you missed a section of my answer.
By legal standards AND by war standards, we do not purposely target families of perpetrators. In war, families are considered collateral damage seconding to military and strategic targets.
No I got that part. Bringing it back to trump, he consider family of terrorist viable targets, not just collateral damage.
After thinking about it, I am ok with that.
Huan:
How casually you advocate war crimes.
@Neo
I am not sure how you so casually jumped to that conclusion, especially after implying family of terrorists are acceptable collateral damages.
We both seem to agree that acts of terrorism are acts of war. The intensity of this war is limited to mass killing though not (yet) escalated to employment of wmd. (If the terrorists can, I do believe they would escalate). Thus killing is an acceptable act. Who are legitimate targets? Certainly the terrorists, would be terrorists, terrorist leaders and trainers, i.e. creators of terrorists. Thus I believe some parents and spouses, being creators and active supporters of terrorists, are acceptable targets; though the offsprings should not be considered acceptable targets. Does this mean the targets should always be killed? No. Acceptable actions include restriction of movements, shame, dishonor, humiliation, financial ruin, as well as death. How does this equate with war crimes?
Neo:(a small shot across your bow 🙂
How casually you advocate “ignorance is bliss”.
In WWII on Iwo Jima the Marines started out trying to help wounded enemy combatants in the normal American Way. After several Medics and others were killed by wounded/faking soldiers setting off hand grenades, that niceness stopped. If you approached enemy bodies, you fired off another round to make sure you/your medic didn’t pay the full price for following the rules. I guess those soldiers were guilty of war crimes.
When we have rules of engagement for our troops that prevent them from being pro-active in their defense and put them at great risk, something is wrong.
Here is an account of how things were done in 1904 to quell the Muslims in the Philippines.
1904 Scientific America account of Moros and Pig’s Blood
Scientific America ^ | Jan 2, 1904
Posted on 2/29/2016, 1:56:33 PM by 11th_VA
… He succeeded in getting into the the city of Jolo where he seized a member of the 17th United States
Infantry, and promptly disemboweled him. The murderer was caught by a sentry on guard …
It was decided to make an example of the Juramentado. Accordingly, a grave was dug without the walls of the city. Into this the murderer was unceremoniously dropped. A pig was then suspended above the grave by his hind legs, and the throat of the animal cut. Soon the body lay immersed in gore, the direst calamity that could happen to a Moro, his religion teaching him that contact with pig’s blood means exclusion from heaven.
I guess they were also guilty of war crimes.
Yes I agree when humans go to war it coarsens them and desensitizes them. But I would never fault them for trying to bring things to an end as quickly as possible or if there is a question on rules of engagement for them to error on their safety.
It is just like today as far as our air sorties go, if there are women and children present, the planes come back. Looks good on paper, we wouldn’t want to commit any war crimes. But the rest of the story is this: The enemy combatants bring their wives and children along to insure their safety.
I always find it interesting how most arm-chair generals are quick with their condemnation of others while those who have been in combat and seen their friends be wounded/killed are less empathetic towards the enemy.
How many of our leaders today would tolerate what was done in 1904? And yet back then it solved the problem as the Muslim terrorists moved to areas where they were more civilized.
I go back to a quote that sums it up for me:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
― Golda Meir
When the Muslims love their children more than they hate us, then perhaps we can return to a more civilized war.
But until that mindset is there, whatever it takes to keep our soldiers and country safe is on the table.
Just my 2 cents worth. And for the record, I wonder if we would still be fighting this war had we simply sent the B52’s over and let the military do what they are tasked to do- break things and kill things. World opinion be damned!
MikeII:
Your arguments are irrelevant to what is being proposed by Trump and Huan.
I have discussed the sort of thing you’re talking about many times, with active terrorists or a combat situation. Trump is advocating something very very different—“targeting” the families of terrorists in peacetime, when troops are not being the least bit threatened by those families, families who have in many cases no connection whatsoever to the terrorists and even might disapprove of them. Sometimes they haven’t seen the terrorists for years. Most of them are not even in this country; they are living in Muslim countries, often minding their own business. They would be targeted because they are relatives, and only for that. It is nothing like the situations you posit, which are not under discussion here and which represent much grayer areas.
I have written many times about situations more like the one you describe, here.