Is it right to kill a terrorist in cold blood?

I don't know the full story but it seems that half a dozen or so soldiers have been arrested for killing a terrorist in cold blood.

It seems that someone filmed a terrorist (Afghan insurgent) being caught when clearly up to no good and the soldiers put an end to his mischief - permanently!

Nobody knew about this until someone put the film on his laptop, then sometime later took it in to be repaired and the film was spotted and passed on to the police.

I know all the moral arguments - the one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that but it seems this man went out to kill in cold blood but instead got himself killed - in cold blood.

To me you reap what you sow - if he hadn't had gone out with murderous intent he'd still be alive today.

Might seem rough justice to some but an intended killer had been killed by one of those he set out to kill - seems fair enough to me.

Am I right to think that way or do you disagree?

I'd have to know more about the story tbh. And they seem keen to keep it under wraps.

If we're talking them going to his house and just blowing him away i think it's a bit grim. But if this was a confrontation, in a war, well you can imagine why it happened.

but do the rules change in war? Interesting topic.

One less to worry about.

Sluffy wrote:I don't know the full story but it seems that half a dozen or so soldiers have been arrested for killing a terrorist in cold blood.

It seems that someone filmed a terrorist (Afghan insurgent) being caught when clearly up to no good and the soldiers put an end to his mischief - permanently!

Nobody knew about this until someone put the film on his laptop, then sometime later took it in to be repaired and the film was spotted and passed on to the police.

I know all the moral arguments - the one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that but it seems this man went out to kill in cold blood but instead got himself killed - in cold blood.

To me you reap what you sow - if he hadn't had gone out with murderous intent he'd still be alive today.

Might seem rough justice to some but an intended killer had been killed by one of those he set out to kill - seems fair enough to me.

Am I right to think that way or do you disagree?

I agree with the extermination of terrorists even if they were asleep in their beds at the time.

yes kill them all

The killing doesn't worry me, but what pissed me off was that the shop repairing the pc took it to the Police, probably without even letting the guy know. Makes you wonder what else they do with what they find on your computer.

Need to know more about this particular incident but to answer the original question: yes if it is certain that he was a terrorist. I also assume by terrorist we mean someone who intended to kill innocent people.

Yes ...

Don't forget that one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or in todays's world change man for Prime Minister or President.



Just think how today's world would be different if:-

1. Nelson Mandela had been executed for terrorism charges, instead of being imprisoned - In 1962 he was arrested and convicted of sabotage and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment

2. If the US and UK had not given arms to Saddam Hussein - In 1979, Saddam Hussein took power as Iraqi President after overthrowing his close friend and the leader of his party (Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr) and killing or arresting his leadership rivals.

3. Or if the US and UK had not given arms to Gaddafi seized power in a bloodless military coup from King Idris in 1969 and served as the country's head of state until 1977 - served as leader of the African Union (AU) from 2 February 2009 to 31 January 2010

4. or what about Gerry Adams and Martin MacGuinness who were high in the IRA but are now, classed by some, as highly rated politicians (not by me, though!!!)

5. Could Fidel Castro be classed as a terrorist just because he favours communism over the US capitalism? Or what about his brother Raul who is now the leader of Cuba, and yet the US still classifies the country as an "axis of evil"???



As I say, we just have to be careful as a terrorist today could be a well receieved and popular world leader tomorrow.

No


After winning a just war, we are aiming to show that our way is the better way, that the rule of law is superior.

(Adams and the other fella are still murdering cunts)

bwfc71 wrote:Don't forget that one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or in todays's world change man for Prime Minister or President.



Just think how today's world would be different if:-

1. Nelson Mandela had been executed for terrorism charges, instead of being imprisoned - In 1962 he was arrested and convicted of sabotage and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment

2. If the US and UK had not given arms to Saddam Hussein - In 1979, Saddam Hussein took power as Iraqi President after overthrowing his close friend and the leader of his party (Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr) and killing or arresting his leadership rivals.

3. Or if the US and UK had not given arms to Gaddafi seized power in a bloodless military coup from King Idris in 1969 and served as the country's head of state until 1977 - served as leader of the African Union (AU) from 2 February 2009 to 31 January 2010

4. or what about Gerry Adams and Martin MacGuinness who were high in the IRA but are now, classed by some, as highly rated politicians (not by me, though!!!)

5. Could Fidel Castro be classed as a terrorist just because he favours communism over the US capitalism? Or what about his brother Raul who is now the leader of Cuba, and yet the US still classifies the country as an "axis of evil"???



As I say, we just have to be careful as a terrorist today could be a well receieved and popular world leader tomorrow.

Yes politics is a nasty business. Yesterday's terrorist is often seen as a statesman subsequently. To your list I would add Archbishop Makarios and Yitzhak Shamir.

bwfc71 wrote:Don't forget that one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or in todays's world change man for Prime Minister or President.



Just think how today's world would be different if:-

1. Nelson Mandela had been executed for terrorism charges, instead of being imprisoned - In 1962 he was arrested and convicted of sabotage and other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment

2. If the US and UK had not given arms to Saddam Hussein - In 1979, Saddam Hussein took power as Iraqi President after overthrowing his close friend and the leader of his party (Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr) and killing or arresting his leadership rivals.

3. Or if the US and UK had not given arms to Gaddafi seized power in a bloodless military coup from King Idris in 1969 and served as the country's head of state until 1977 - served as leader of the African Union (AU) from 2 February 2009 to 31 January 2010

4. or what about Gerry Adams and Martin MacGuinness who were high in the IRA but are now, classed by some, as highly rated politicians (not by me, though!!!)

5. Could Fidel Castro be classed as a terrorist just because he favours communism over the US capitalism? Or what about his brother Raul who is now the leader of Cuba, and yet the US still classifies the country as an "axis of evil"???



As I say, we just have to be careful as a terrorist today could be a well receieved and popular world leader tomorrow.

what a pitty the IRA give in before 9/11 or them 2 cunts would be the first two go

gloswhite wrote:The killing doesn't worry me, but what pissed me off was that the shop repairing the pc took it to the Police, probably without even letting the guy know. Makes you wonder what else they do with what they find on your computer.

Ask Gary Glitter! I wonder if Jimmy Saville had one?

The Yanks could have taken Bin Laden alive but they wanted him dead as soon as possible without a lengthy trial and God knows how many protests that would have followed with his supporters throughout the world.

Modern day warfare is a cruel business but sometimes the ends do actually justify the means. I can understand someone being killed in open warfare but once they have been captured and in our custody there really can be no excuse for killing them in cold blood. Best to let the courts decide.

If Stephen Oakes was alive today he might have a different viewpoint and his killer Kamel Bourgass would not be a burden on the taxpayer.

It's easy to debate these issues from the comfort of our computer but when you are on the front line and you have seen a colleague lose limbs by stepping on an IAD, I would reckon you adopt a different mindset.

Well said RT, spot on