Paris Shootout Leaves Police Officer and Gunman Dead

I disagree. Some have shown themselves too dangerous to be worth trying to take alive. I see no reason to put our police or soldiers at extreme risk to apprehend an individual who has killed multiple times especially if he is willing to die rather than be apprehended and will try and take those who try to apprehend him with them. In a declared war you can identify the opposition by their uniforms it's a bit harder with terrorist and criminals thus the need to resolve it down to individuals.

 

I don't see it so. How does killing a known and admitted terrorist in say Afghanistan constitute lack of "due process"?

 

Not to my understanding. I never saw or interpreted the conversation as being restricted to the US. However there is certainly historical precident for it i.e. there is very little difference between "shoot on sight" and "wanted dead or alive". The latter was well accepted for quite a few years although it seems to have gone out of fashion now.

 

I read them. Indeed I just went back and reviewed them and some of the posts you were responding to. I didn't see anything that restricted them to US soil. Not say I didn't miss something because I didn't reread the entire thread.

 

This thread began following a shoot out in France, this never was about terrorists on US soil or terrorists in Afghanistan.

A terrorist is a terrorist no matter where they are, some are known to security forces some are not. Once identified we have applied "due process" and shoot on sight keeps everyone safer than letting them walk the streets to kill their targets. Before long we will no doubt have to endure the argument that we are infringing their human rights. It is not the reds under the bed we need to fear but the Liberals

 

And some just stand by and like Nero fiddle whilst Rome burns. Putting your head under the blanket will not make them go away. At least we can sleep easy whilst Trump has his finger on the button

 

Yes, yes they are...
Flip side of the coin:
Deh Bala wedding party airstrike - Wikipedia
Granai airstrike - Wikipedia
2010 Sangin airstrike - Wikipedia
Uruzgan helicopter attack - Wikipedia
Or don't you mean those terrorists?

Food for thought.

 

Evolution has provided us with fear...I'm no doctor, but fear may be a tipoff from the brain to body saying "Danger Will Robinson".
Ignoring fear may cause one to join the military.
Living in fear 24/7 like a beaten Chihuahua, is another thing.

Ah, it's good to be back. If only for a little while.

 

Yes and Yes

Indeed, so if you have shoot on sight make sure you have sight and shoot straight.

 

Unfortunately, they had "sight" and "shot straight"...

At unarmed civilians.

 

Airstrike cannot clearly identify an individual so no they did not. That apart there will always be innocent casualties in war. The incidents you quote are in no way comparable to the terrorist attacks we are seeing across the world where the purpose of the attack is to clearly kill innocent civilians. As this is a WW2 site I would have thought all those participating would understand the dangers to civilians of any attack but the need to do so to evil back in its box. I wonder if we had the outlook and approach brokered by some today back in 1939 just where we would be now.

 

I've read a dozen or so WWII biographies of the men who saw death all around them and what seemed to trouble them the most was seeing a civilian corpse. My dad said his saddest experience was in the mountains of Italy when he hit a civilian while driving in the rain at night.He put the guy in the bed of his truck and he drowned on the way to the field hospital.

 

Im sorta scared of terrorists..."the greatest coward hurts the most ferociously" - cowards by definition are hard to find, let alone fight.
Theres one in North Korea at the moment...

 

That's shitty alright...I wouldn't like that in my memory, I feel for your father.
Did the bloke drown in his own blood or the rain??