# Scenario: Capture or kill



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

It is a quiet and peaceful Easter Sunday morning as folks all over the nation head to church for Easter morning services to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And then the unthinkable happens. A large service held for several churches at a convention hall, as is the normal practice in the area, is rocked by eight terrorists in teams of two, assigned different tasks to maximize casualties on this the holiest day on the Christian calendar.

Explosions, semi-auto and automatic small arms fire create havoc and death in the hundreds. After their evil deeds are done, the terrorists take off in their two-man teams, on foot in four different directions. One team is ambushed and captured, to be held for interrogation. The other three teams manage to elude police and armed citizens for the better part of half an hour and then are spotted as the chase closes in on them.

Question. Do you kill them or do you attempt to capture and arrest them.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

OK, first of all, it's "elude," not "allude."
"Elude" = _evade_, _escape_, and so on.
(Sorry: I can't help it. I have a Black Belt in English grammar.)

Second, your allusion (proper usage) to the Japs in WW2 isn't exactly correct.
Both the US Army and the Marines wanted very much to capture a few Japs for questioning, but the Japs had been trained to sacrifice their lives in futile suicide attacks, rather than ever surrender.
So although the US attackers made every effort to persuade the Japs that they would do very well to surrender, and treated very well the few who did, hardly any of them gave up while alive.

Now, about those Islamic terrorists...
While I believe that a live terrorist could prove to be of great value, I would do everything within my power to make sure that the terrorist(s) I capture would already be in a world of pain, maybe missing essential body parts, and sure to die within a few days. Stomach and intestinal wounds would be the way to go, I think, possibly also including bone-shattering peripheral hits.
And why am I so bloodthirsty? Simply because the terrorists have already proven themselves to be asocial, amoral animals who are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. So why should anyone cut them any slack?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> OK, first of all, it's "elude," not "allude."
> "Elude" = _evade_, _escape_, and so on.
> (Sorry: I can't help it. I have a Black Belt in English grammar.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the "elude" correction. I also tend to take a measure of care in my writing but clearly missed that one.

My reference to the Marines was in the way of a general example. Attempts to capture prisoners for the purpose of gaining valuable information was done in both theaters of the war. However, the primary task of the Marines was to rout out and destroy the enemy, which they did most handsomely.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

"Islamic terrorists " ?


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

If capture make them completely hairless naked pig farmers on a live internet feed as an example for others the rest make sure they can't reach Allah. We refuse to learn from history about how to deal with these vermin.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Philco said:


> "Islamic terrorists " ?


Sorry: An unwarranted, politically-incorrect assumption.
They might be Cathars, or rampaging Buddhists, or even Zoroastrians.

May I stop self-flagillating now?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Sorry: An unwarranted, politically-incorrect assumption.
> They might be Cathars, or rampaging Buddhists, or even Zoroastrians.
> 
> May I stop self-flagillating now?


I think in some states, that is thought of as a sexually-based offense and considered to be a felony.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> OK, first of all, it's "elude," not "allude."
> "Elude" = _evade_, _escape_, and so on.
> (Sorry: I can't help it. I have a Black Belt in English grammar.)


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

:anim_lol: :anim_lol: :anim_lol: :smt033

Both comments are *two*, *to*, *too* funny!


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> who are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants.


Actually, they are capable/culpable of distinguishing, but they/thay just don't care/caire/cayer.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

This thread ended up being funny, even if it's original intent wasn't. :anim_lol:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> This thread ended up being funny, even if it's original intent wasn't. :anim_lol:


It has gone a might off topic. I was hoping to get some serious input as I have my own opinions in this subject area.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

My fault. Sorry.

Stay tuned-in, folks: We now return you to the original thread, already in progress...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> My fault. Sorry.
> 
> Stay tuned-in, folks: *We now return you to the original thread, already in progress*...


Naw, it's fine. I really liked this (bolded).

For what it's worth (I know, I could have used an omgie), I'll add my two cents to this going nowhere thread.

Recall for years we have been told that we are at war with terrorists... a war on terrorism. In war, an enemy which is retreating is fair game for killing. A retreating enemy is not surrendering so engaging with extreme prejudice is expected. Does anyone think that when the Marines managed to rout Japanese out of their holes, they thought that they should capture or arrest them? No, they killed them and they did this in the tens of thousands. The goal in war is to kill as many of the enemy as quickly as possible and to break as many of their things as fast as possible in order to end hostilities as soon as possible and save as many lives of your own people as possible.

So the answer to this scenario is that you kill the escaping terrorist teams on the spot and you do it quickly. You don't capture or arrest them and you certainly don't read them their rights and assign an attorney to their case. You kill them. They are the enemy and as such they have no U.S. constitutional rights, anyway.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Aw come on, threads get hi-jacked on a daily basis. It's not the end of the world. Lord knows I've hi-jacked my fair share, but in the same breath, if I start a thread and it happens to mine, I will still sleep fine that night. 

It's a rare thing indeed, if a thread doesn't get "jacked" to some degree or another.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Aw come on, threads get hi-jacked on a daily basis. It's not the end of the world. Lord knows I've hi-jacked my fair share, but in the same breath, if I start a thread and it happens to mine, I will still sleep fine that night.
> 
> It's a rare thing indeed, if a thread doesn't get "jacked" to some degree or another.


Who said anything about hi-jacking this thread? Everyone injects a little lightness from time to time. It doesn't bother me.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Who said anything about hi-jacking this thread? Everyone injects a little lightness from time to time. It doesn't bother me.


Cool! I thought you might take offense and hold it against me.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

...And if you happen to have a pneumatic 18-year-old blonde, would you hold her against me? Please?

Oh, oh. Here we go again...

Later: "Pneumatic" is meant here in the sense of its use in Huxley's _Brave New World_. It is a metaphor for a concept not permitted in conversations on this forum.
see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pneumatic


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...And if you happen to have a pneumatic 18-year-old blonde, would you hold her against me? Please?
> 
> Oh, oh. Here we go again...


Ummm.....if you want a blow-up blonde, you're gonna have to go to the trouble and hold her against you yourself.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Kill them , keep the blonde.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Cool! I thought you might take offense and hold it against me.


No sir, we're good.


----------

