You capture when feasible, but you don’t endanger your people to do so. Anyone missing Zarkawi after he got turned into tomato bisque? I’m sure he had plenty of intel.
kill. next question.
Wrong context, “assassination” is for political leadership, output of War is for killing enemies.
It’s almost a circular question. The only reason one would keep a terrorist alive is to get more info out of him (or her) to get the chance to kill a bigger terrorist. But the ultimate objective is killing terrorists, big and small. I have no problem with capturing terrorists, using “disagreeable” methods to get info out of them, then uh “dispatching” them.
I vote for kill: Is this a trick question?
BUMP!
Western civilization needs to pre-empt any and all by unleashing asymmetric warriors/warfare.
Terrorize the terrorists, their enablers, their wannabees.
KILL..that was easy..
If civil war comes to America those of us on and in the right will be labeled terrorists and Obama and the other left nuts who bemoan the death of every muslim would have no problem giving the order to kill us.
Is that a serious question? I don’t think so. A terrorist by definition is someone who has given up their humanity. They are bugs. Would you spare that cockroach? Why? That black widow spider? Why? They are vermin. Exterminate them. Period.
The largest deep pocketed group opposed to surgical removal with extreme prejudice is the Defense Industry. Ironic Huh ? :)
It could also be argued that killing a terrorist is a defensive act, as dead terrorists cease being threats.
Right after the 9/11 attacks, I remember listening to some lawmakers who were standing on the steps of the Capitol remarking on that terrible day. I recall then-Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia saying something to the effect that “these people (the terrorists) want to eradicate us. We need to eradicate them FIRST!”
That’s about all that needs saying, in my book. Kill them before they kill us.
IMHO this argument has run round Robin’s barn. An individual can lawfully kill another person for two reasons. One you may kill in self defense. Two you may kill a person to prevent that person from killing another innocent person.
A terrorist is trying to kill whoever gets in his or her way. Therefore the terrorist has just put a bullseye right between hils or her eyes. Any person is authorized to shoot to kill because of their stated intention.
They may be captured for intelligence purposes prior to an execution.
If fact, I think bounties should be paid on terrorists by all legit governments.
Never take a terrorist alive.
We have to think about this?
With respect to Lord Rees-Mog, he misses the point. Muslim terrorists recognize no law outside sharia, and that includes so-called international law and the laws of any other nation. They have, by their own choice, placed themselves outside of our laws.
The correct characterization of terrorists is found in old English common law. They are OUTLAWS, and as such can be killed on sight, wherever and whenever they may be found. This designation is both appropriate and logical. We should adopt this classification and treat them accordingly.
The only real difference between Israel hitting al-Mabhouh in Dubai and our hitting al Queda in Pakistan is the method used to kill them.
Kill them before they kill us.
Kill em twice, why ask