Is killing Terrorists wrong?

[Fat Freddie]

We have soldiers currently striking known Taliban and other terrorist organizations safe houses and killing them. If that's not illegal, why would killing Muslims in Canada who are planning the death of North Americans be illegal? Is it because murder is simply wrong on Canadian soil, or is it because we don't dirty Canadian soil with that of animals and cowards? I won't discuss the legal issue here, but only the moral issue. I only ask this because I know some of you can be clear on your reasonings and not just reply with dribble. Last night I heard a guy in the bar say that if he ever heard of someone local killing a Canadian he'd take care of it himself because its his duty as a Christian to do so by the word of God. of course I wasn't foolish enough to question this obviously insane person.

[ScottSA]

I think, as a not particularly Christian nominal Christian, that it won't be long before folks are forced by facts to start acknowledging this thing as a religious war, whether 'secular vs Islam' or 'Christian vs Islam'. Given that both mainstream Sunni and Shia Islam are quite clear about the need to protect other Muslims, that makes a huge swath of mainstream Muslims as "insane" as the fellow you overheard. Once a successful large attack, either nuclear or biological, by "extremists" takes place on North American soil resulting in lots and lots of casualties, this deliberate use of euphemism and happytalk will end. Obviously Islam is already circling the wagons via CAIR, CAIR-Can and numerous other Islamic groups, and sooner or later the other side will too. Nothing like 1000s of deaths to shock a society into a realization of the immediacy of war. It's wonderful to be able to sit back and pontificate on high ideals and the niceties of social justice when it's only a couple of casualties 'over there', but when the guts splatter over your own front steps, it brings things into better focus.

[Army Guy]

Fat Freddie:

We have soldiers currently striking known Taliban and other terrorist organizations safe houses and killing them.

These guys are legal targets " meaning they are known terrorist that it has been proven they are guilty of terrorism".... and can be engaged with military force as per the genva convention, and Canadian law within the confines of the operations area, meaning Afgan. That being said they are given every oportunity to surrender with out incident. if they do not then deadly force is used. our soldiers do not wantonly kill taliban suspects every shooting or killing is investagated.

Those terrorist in Canada can be engaged by RCMP or military anti terror pers, however under Canadian laws. And like any other arrest of any criminal , that is made in Canada if they choose to fight with deadly force then there is a good chance they will die.

Again they don't wontonly kill any terrorist muslim or other wise. deadly force is always a last resort.

[Rue]

Isn't it obvious? When you live in a world where you take it for granted and simply assume living in freedom without war and terror is normal and a given, you ask such questions.

If you lived in a country or witnessed an incident where someone blew up from a bomb or was beheaded or tortured or if you lived in a country where you are killed or tortured or mutilated when you disaggere with someone's version of a religion or political system, you wouldn't ponder such questions.

Let me give you a hint. A terrorist is someone who believes it is legitimate to kill indiscriminately, to kill innocent people, to kill people who can't fight back or defend themselves, to use mass murder to scare people.

Terrorists are not legal entities. Terrorists are not people who want to debate with you, have tea with you or engage you in an exercise of speculating on what is right and wrong. Their purpose is to kill you and your family and do it in a way to scare and humiliate and traumatize as many people as is possible.

A terrorist is someone who believes and will use violence and murder and slow torture to coerce others into doing what he/she wants.

So your question-should we kill terrorists, is like saying, gee when I get a tumour, is it o.k. to take chemotherapy or should I let it just spread and kill me?

Get out of your sheltered soft world and try use some common sense.

Taliban are not boy scouts. Hamas and Hezbolah are not boy scouts. In an ideal sheltered safe cozy Canadian shopping mall world, we can arrest them. We send police men in white cars and arrest them and then hire Eddy Greenspan to represent them and we argue that society victimized them and they committed crimes because they are victims of society.

Uh hello-its NOT Canada. This is not your cozy world of good and bad, charter of rights, inalienable rights, 3 meals a day, a toilet that works, and being released in less then 6 months after you rape someone.

This is a world where the people you deal with think you are evil demon scum. They want you dead but they want you to die slowly. They truly believe you are evil and sub human and it is religiously their duty to

pull the limbs off you slowly. You are infidel. You are disease. You are vermin. You are nothing more then a disease carrying rat.

O.k.? No hugs. No kisses. No group encounters where you sit with these people and talk about your feelings...its not Canada.

Its the real world. It is a world where civilians and soldiers a liek blow up into millions of fleshy pieces.

It is a world where if you don't shoot to kill these people they will simply kill you. Sorry to burst your bubble but no the Canadian soldiers can't say. "psst Mr. Taliban, could you stop making that bomb, I want to sit and talk with you and find a way for us to love one another".

In the real world, its not all hugs and kisses or quoting what you think are Christian virtues.

[Black Dog]

I won't discuss the legal issue here, but only the moral issue.

But you are:

We have soldiers currently striking known Taliban and other terrorist organizations safe houses and killing them. If that's not illegal, why would killing Muslims in Canada who are planning the death of North Americans be illegal?

Anyway, if you can't tell the difference between combat operations and domestic criminal cases, you've got problems.

It's wonderful to be able to sit back and pontificate on high ideals and the niceties of social justice when it's only a couple of casualties 'over there', but when the guts splatter over your own front steps, it brings things into better focus.

Hilarious.

[ScottSA]

Isn't it obvious? When you live in a world where you take it for granted and simply assume living in freedom without war and terror is normal and a given, you ask such questions.

If you lived in a country or witnessed an incident where someone blew up from a bomb or was beheaded or tortured or if you lived in a country where you are killed or tortured or mutilated when you disaggere with someone's version of a religion or political system, you wouldn't ponder such questions.

Let me give you a hint. A terrorist is someone who believes it is legitimate to kill indiscriminately, to kill innocent people, to kill people who can't fight back or defend themselves, to use mass murder to scare people.

Terrorists are not legal entities. Terrorists are not people who want to debate with you, have tea with you or engage you in an exercise of speculating on what is right and wrong. Their purpose is to kill you and your family and do it in a way to scare and humiliate and traumatize as many people as is possible.

A terrorist is someone who believes and will use violence and murder and slow torture to coerce others into doing what he/she wants.

So your question-should we kill terrorists, is like saying, gee when I get a tumour, is it o.k. to take chemotherapy or should I let it just spread and kill me?

Get out of your sheltered soft world and try use some common sense.

Taliban are not boy scouts. Hamas and Hezbolah are not boy scouts. In an ideal sheltered safe cozy Canadian shopping mall world, we can arrest them. We send police men in white cars and arrest them and then hire Eddy Greenspan to represent them and we argue that society victimized them and they committed crimes because they are victims of society.

Uh hello-its NOT Canada. This is not your cozy world of good and bad, charter of rights, inalienable rights, 3 meals a day, a toilet that works, and being released in less then 6 months after you rape someone.

This is a world where the people you deal with think you are evil demon scum. They want you dead but they want you to die slowly. They truly believe you are evil and sub human and it is religiously their duty to

pull the limbs off you slowly. You are infidel. You are disease. You are vermin. You are nothing more then a disease carrying rat.

O.k.? No hugs. No kisses. No group encounters where you sit with these people and talk about your feelings...its not Canada.

Its the real world. It is a world where civilians and soldiers a liek blow up into millions of fleshy pieces.

It is a world where if you don't shoot to kill these people they will simply kill you. Sorry to burst your bubble but no the Canadian soldiers can't say. "psst Mr. Taliban, could you stop making that bomb, I want to sit and talk with you and find a way for us to love one another".

In the real world, its not all hugs and kisses or quoting what you think are Christian virtues.

Excellent post.

[Guthrie]

...These guys are legal targets " meaning they are known terrorist that it has been proven they are guilty of terrorism"....

I missed the part where these houses were judged guilty of terrorism. Where are such judgements place in public records?

[Black Dog]

So your question-should we kill terrorists, is like saying, gee when I get a tumour, is it o.k. to take chemotherapy or should I let it just spread and kill me?

That wasn't his question, Rue. His question is: "if we can kill terrorists in Afghanistan, why can't we kill terrorists here in Canada?"

There's some obvious problems with that. In Afghanistan, "terrorists" are the guys planting IEDs and shooting at Canadians. In Canada, well, that's not so much of a problem (at least not where I'm from: things could be different in places like the blood-and-entrails soaked warzone of Vernon, BC), so it's a bit harder to identify these "terrorists". In Canada, we have the luxury of a stable government and the rule of law, something Afghanistan does not. Now, my understanding of the whole Afghan operation is that we're trying to turn Afghanistan into something a little more like Canada and not, as the O.P. implies, the other way around...

[ScottSA]

I missed the part where these houses were judged guilty of terrorism. Where are such judgements place in public records?

Short of tattooing it on your forehead it's pointless to tell you because you'll just forget, but I'll help out anyway. Here are some hints:

1 ) Houses are not tried in courts of law anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan.

2 ) Courts of law are not precursors to target identification in freefire zones.

[Remiel]

When did you get so bitter, Rue?

Killing of any sort is generally " wrong " but under some circumstances is held to be both acceptable and necessary. So, in the strictest sense killing " terrorists " is " wrong " but it is usually the necessary thing to do.

I am not sure of the right way to say this, but I suspect that " terrorist " is really a meaningless distinction in a combat zone. There are only legal targets and illegal targets. Whether you are fighting a terrorist or an insurgent is probably not the foremost thing on your mind when they are shooting at you. Terrorists do not get killed because they are terrorists, they get killed because they are legal targets. I kind of doubt that it is standard operating procedure when having cornered a terrorist unarmed is to shoot him. Maybe I am wrong though.

[Army Guy]

I am not sure of the right way to say this, but I suspect that " terrorist " is really a meaningless distinction in a combat zone. There are only legal targets and illegal targets. Whether you are fighting a terrorist or an insurgent is probably not the foremost thing on your mind when they are shooting at you. Terrorists do not get killed because they are terrorists, they get killed because they are legal targets. I kind of doubt that it is standard operating procedure when having cornered a terrorist unarmed is to shoot him. Maybe I am wrong though

Close , with one exception, a terrorist can be killed because he is a known terrorist, with a proven record of terrorist activites...for example a head of a large cell or group can be targeted and killed, if deemed for the greater good, or he's to hard to get at, or a military operation would prove to costly...example of this is recently a US UAV fired a hellfire missle at a known Taliban leader inside Pakistan... or a sniper team killing suspect taliban pers carring a heavy machine gun through the mountains...those type of targets are not given a warning just killed...

Anyone including taliban or some purple guy with warts on his dick that surrenders or is taken into custody is treated according to the convention and our ROE's. that means it's illegal to shoot them.

[Guthrie]

again, how do they determine a guy is a, "known terrorist, with a proven record of terrorist activites" -- and, moreover, there has never been a hellfire missile fired with any certain knowledge of anything - except, 'missile away'

[ScottSA]

again, how do they determine a guy is a, "known terrorist, with a proven record of terrorist activites" -- and, moreover, there has never been a hellfire missile fired with any certain knowledge of anything - except, 'missile away'

They hold a "battlefield trial" Woody. A bunch of noncoms put on wigs and robes and consult the Book of Social Justice and Motorcycle Maintenance, flip a coin and then fire ordnance at the nearest house that looks like it might have bad guys in it. Grab a brain.

[Higgly]

I missed the part where these houses were judged guilty of terrorism. Where are such judgements place in public records?

Exactamundo. Who decided these people were terrorists? Was it you, Rue? Are you ready to take a life? What is your criterion? Do you understand the dichotomy between the police and the judiciary?

[ScottSA]

I missed the part where these houses were judged guilty of terrorism. Where are such judgements place in public records?

Exactamundo. Who decided these people were terrorists? Was it you, Rue? Are you ready to take a life? What is your criterion? Do you understand the dichotomy between the police and the judiciary?

Do you understand the difference between a war zone and a courthouse?

[jbg]

I missed the part where these houses were judged guilty of terrorism. Where are such judgements place in public records?

Exactamundo. Who decided these people were terrorists? Was it you, Rue? Are you ready to take a life? What is your criterion? Do you understand the dichotomy between the police and the judiciary?

Do you understand the difference between a war zone and a courthouse?

I doubt he does.

[jbg]

Taliban are not boy scouts. Hamas and Hezbolah are not boy scouts. In an ideal sheltered safe cozy Canadian shopping mall world, we can arrest them. We send police men in white cars and arrest them and then hire Eddy Greenspan to represent them and we argue that society victimized them and they committed crimes because they are victims of society.

Uh hello-its NOT Canada. This is not your cozy world of good and bad, charter of rights, inalienable rights, 3 meals a day, a toilet that works, and being released in less then 6 months after you rape someone.

This is a world where the people you deal with think you are evil demon scum. They want you dead but they want you to die slowly. They truly believe you are evil and sub human and it is religiously their duty to

pull the limbs off you slowly. You are infidel. You are disease. You are vermin. You are nothing more then a disease carrying rat.

O.k.? No hugs. No kisses. No group encounters where you sit with these people and talk about your feelings...its not Canada.

You are hitting the nail on the head. Too bad people also don't realize what Israelis are dealing with.

[kuzadd]

so what terrorists are we killing?

who get's to be the decider?

The Nicarauguans? Haitians? ElSalvadorans?

what terrorists would they kill?

overall what a foolish and pointless question, stir the pot, create hatred and fear, right, as intended.

[Black Dog]

This thread is remarkable only as an exhibition of the stunning lack of reading comprehension skills of many posters.

[Army Guy]

again, how do they determine a guy is a, "known terrorist, with a proven record of terrorist activites" -- and, moreover, there has never been a hellfire missile fired with any certain knowledge of anything - except, 'missile away'

These guys are very vocal about thier expliots, and they are very teritorial about where they operate, records are kept, intel gathered, evidence collected , i'm not talking about the small frys here i'm talking about warlords, area commanders, etc....as for the hellfire a lazer guided wpn, most likly being guided by boots on the ground, whom have had eyes on the target , lite the target up with the lazer...and it's almost certain that it will hit the target 99 % of the time...thats pretty certain....I've been within 80 meters of 2 hellfires hitting a 2 floor mud building, and can say with 100 % certainity the target was destroyed, along with my hearing for 2 days...

As for the others they are called targets of oportunity, like 3 guys carrying a heavy machine gun, or RPG's although these wpns can be used to hunt, it's pretty certain they are hunting NATO soldiers, (although pretty meaty not very tasty)and are engaged without warning.

[ScottSA]

Perhaps the introduction of gun laws in Afghanistan would help. If everyone, for instance, was required to register their weapons, why, we'd know exactly who shot who. The restriction of such weapons as RPGs, 50 cal machineguns and hand grenades is probably a good idea too, as well as restrictions on when hunting can take place. If it works in Canada, who is to say it won't work in Afghanistan too? Canadian forces can set an example by unilaterally disarming and parking their beastly armour out of sight of the masses. Out of sight out of mind, as the saying goes, and then the Canadian contingent can go back to doing what it ought to be doing...building stuff and handing out candy and things. I mean really, if Canadian forces were patrolling in the streets here with Coyotes and Leopards and large nasty looking guns, why, I might take potshots at them too. But if they were walking around unarmed, and if my guns were registered, then I probably wouldn't. Everyone wants peace, right?

[jbg]

I remember when the Supreme Court legalized Kirpans in school I suggested a National Kirpan Registry.

[M.Dancer]

I remember when the Supreme Court legalized Kirpans in school I suggested a National Kirpan Registry.

I have a Skein Dhu that can flay a rabbit in seconds....I have never had a problem wearing in school, tucked nicely in its sheathstuck in my garter....Now mind you, I never went to the trouble of the Sikh lads wrapping the bugger up in layers of layer and tucking it away somewhere safe like, but on the otherhand, with me in my kilt and sporran too, it was hardly a concealed weapon.

[Remiel]

In that sense though, M.Dancer, does it really matter if a kirpan is concealed if you can assume that every traditional Sikh has one?

[M.Dancer]

In that sense though, M.Dancer, does it really matter if a kirpan is concealed if you can assume that every traditional Sikh has one?

Sure, and if someone wants to wait 5 minutes for him to get at it....meanwhile the non traditional sikh or whatever has picked up a chair.....

Some cultures demand blood if the blade is drawn,highlanders being one of them. If I'm at a black tie function there is always one person who reeeaalllly wants to know if the blade is sharp....so i tell them yes, it is very sharp, do not unsheath it.....and there is always one who does...you can usually find them sucking on a finger with that..."I wonder if I should go get a bigger band aid..." look.