Where did all of that come from? I wasn't disputing any of that. Anyway, end of debate.

I. Far too complex an issue to answer, for me. Give me a gun, and I would drop it, not in defence of terrorist, but in defence of my right not to shoot - or, more importantly, not to shoot someone whose culture I am alien to, whose political belief I cannot even begin to comprehend.

II. If a terrorist is caught in the act of terrorism, he or she should be prevented from carrying out the act further. If that means incapacitation equals a bullet in the head, then so be it, I wouldn't be against that at all.

In life, I believe in, before anything else, The Individual. I hate people who eat and talk in the cinema, not because I don't eat and talk in the cinema, but because in exercising their right to do so, they are intruding upon my right to watch the film without distraction. People's rights should never intrude upon those of others. And I think acts of terrorism intrude upon people's rights to live in a beneficially adapted society.

I don't, however, think terrorists are any worse than some guy who, as an individual with a right to do so (lawful boundaries notwithstanding), makes the conscious decision to smash a bottle against a table in some nightclub and then stab it in another guy's neck. Make of that what you will.

I'll answer pt2 of you're question.
or

Ok, so, we can go off and kill all of our enemies on the basis that we don't agree with them or their ideas... But then doesn't that, by definition, make us terrorists?

I was answering DC's pt2 question:

And I was questioning that response.

If we were to kill off an entire grouping of people, kill their families, friends, and anyone who will associate with them, IE killing them only for their beliefs and affiliations... Aren't we doing EXACTLY what they're doing?

If you honestly think we should go about the problem by just killing anyone who dare oppose us, then you're no better.

We're at war; make no mistake about that. When you're at war you fight to win.... fuck playing nicely.

I'm not suggesting we kill anybody that opposes us. Thats plain ridiculous. I say we kill those who terrorize us through these cowardly acts. BIG difference.

If you really feel murder is the way to go about the problem, at least kill them with some dignity.

The entire idea of war is fucked, stupid, ridiculous, asinine, and contradicting, though.

LLC - You've managed to inject your feelings in response to what some others have posted, which is fine.

However, you've avoided giving a direct answer two the 2 questions that I've presented.

Would you care to give us an answer to those questions by sharing with us how YOU think global terrorism should be dealt with and what YOU think should be done when a terrorist is caught on site, commiting an act of terrorism?

maybe we should blow ourselves up to kill them

I really hope that dignity part was a joke and you forgot the wink at the end.

DMC -

How do you propose that we handle both scenerios that I presented in my post above?

Are you for real?? Why should we show these inhumane animals any dignity? Do they show any of they're victims the slightest ounce of dignity? Hell no they don't. Eye for an eye buddy

No I agree with LLC here. We should be honored when we blow away a terrorist. It's a noble thing to eradicate a terrorist. When we kill a terrorist it shows poise and self respect. The killing of a terrorist elevates our character. It's good for our self esteem. It would be beneath us to let them live.

I believe in an eye for an eye.But i also do take into account,that they are brainwashed by extremists muslims.They think they're doing Gods will also.Its horrible and it is inhumane.I feel lucky that my country hasn't had to go through the pain your countries have.But all im saying is remember that they THINK there doing there gods work.As for shooting them on the spot,when caught in the act,i disagree.Lock them up for life!!!They want to be killed during their missions so they can die as martyrs!!!So by locking them up for the rest of their lives, i believe that would be torture for them.

The only problem with locking them up is you run the chance of a liberal judge looking to make a name for himself and let this *&^% out of prison. Like I said before this is a sad scary world.

I don't think a "liberal" judge would release a terrorist from prison to "make a name for himself." People would be outraged, and he'd have to have a pretty damn good reason for doing it.

I agree, locking them up for life is the answer.

Or you could always just give the "animals" what they want.

Life in prison is a much better deterrant than the death penalty.

I mean, they want to be martyred. Fuck them, why give them what they want?

Not that it is necessarily the same, but we've had "judges" let pedophiles go scot-free despite being previously convicted of molestation, and more than likely to do it again.

And the same goes for those "judges" who let people with four or five DUI/DWI's go forth and drive.

Or they get out on a technicality.

Shoot 'em or put 'em in jail they will get there's when they meet the God I worship.

So, basically, because the judicial system is inadequate, we should act outside it?

It seems the said system, if terrorists can slip through it once they have been caught, is in much need of revision, if our only solution is to become outlaws.

Note: I am not necessarily against become outlaws.

Common sense rules.

I'm trying Don A, I'm trying.

I already answered that, way back on page one. You arrest them, put them on trial--and if they are indeed caught in the act, they will most definitely be found guilty--and sentence them to life. Murder will do nothing but encourage them all the more to despise us; in fact, it is stupid theories and ideas such as your whole murder spiel that cause America to rub people the wrong way.

Now, unless there are two other questions I'm missing (I skipped out on alot of page 3, because I know for the most part, it'll be post after post of violent nonsense), I think that should answer what you've posed.

I think some of these brown looking fellows just need a good cuddle.

Come on! I'm in page three! How can it be violent?

Oh, and who wants a cuddle?

But you'll blow up on impact once you hug them

Then at least I'd die a humane fellow.

Or terrorist sympathiser.

Yes Capo, I agree. Give these brown Muslim fellows a cuddle and some heterosexual sex with a clean, hairless female, and they just may want to live less violent lives.

If nothing else, I forgot to put a rolling-eye icon at the end.

What gives them the right to kill?

What gives us the right to kill?

We're all human beings, no one is better than anyone else, and the sooner people start to comprehend that, the sooner we can REALLY begin to take care of the "issue" of terrorism. It's a self-prolonged issue. It all stems from a whole bunch of rubbish pertaining to elitism. Of course, we'd never actually admit that it is elitism... but that is indeed what it is. We prefer to call it "patriotism" or "nationalism," but it's all a bunch of elitism, nativist, almost fascist, bullshit that can be summed up amongst the likes of "fuck you, I'm better than you." That's the ideology behind a terrorist, and apparently, that's the ideology behind a "counter-terrorist."

"Counter-Terrorist"... There's and interesting term that I've yet to really dissect, but let's have a go at it, shall we? Terrorist, as in terrorism, and counter, as in counteract. It would seem we are counteracting with terrorism, by committing our own acts of terrorism against the terror-originators. It's a fine line, isn't it? If terrorism is immoral, does that make counter-terrorism moral? Can morality even become a relevant concept in war?



Who jurisdicts who is and is not an "animal" ? You? I? So, let's assume they are indeed "animals." Do we stoop to their level, and therefore become "animals."

If they are animals, and we go about murdering at site, then we've become a pack of dumb beasts.



That is the biggest crock of elitist, fascist bullshit I've ever heard. We should be honored? No one should feel honor when they take another life. If you are telling me that you would feel honored in putting a gun to the temple of another lifeform, friend or foe, and feel honor when you pull the trigger and take its life, you are very damaged. Men should never honored when they have to employ murder to settle their differences, but unfortunately, as long as there are dense minds in the world, we're going to continue to rely on violence and murder.

For gods sake, this is supposed to be "the land of the free" not the fucking Planet of the Apes.



I spent minute after minute trying to find "*&^%" in the dictionary, but I keep pulling a blank. So, I'm going to respond to the body of text surrounding it...

I don't think liberal judges, as you put it, are out there going around freeing terrorists. Can you please find a case that follows the criteria we are discussing, in which any terrorists have been set free?

Please find documentary evidence of a case that follows the following criteria:

-Terrorists caught in the act of committing terrorism
-Leftist or liberal judge
-Suspects equitted of all charges

Then we'll talk.



Did you just compare flying an aircraft into a building or driving a flaming truck into an occupied terminal to having sex with boys and driving drunk?

Oh, Big J, you clever linguist! You're a pile of thematic gold!

You've been known to incorporate some blows into our cuddle sessions.

You've also been known to incorporate some hitting.






Oooooooooooooooooh!!!! Oral sex jokes!!!!