There is an argument that the current way is the best possible, as there is no better alternative;
You argued that capturing the guy is an alternative, and brought up GITMO as an example of this;
I thought your argument was that, since we have GITMO, and since we have captured terrorists in the past, we should be able to do so in this case;
I then argued that not all enemies can be captured, that we have done so in the past is not indication that it can be done here. Which is perfectly reasonable and logical;
You seem to think that I thought you want all enemies to be captured, which is where the misunderstanding arose.
Back on topic:
Telchar wrote:We have declared an equally bizarre and nebulous "War on Drugs". Should the police be allowed to just shoot dealers on sight if a dealer is armed? Again you are trying to justify killing someone because capturing them is too hard. Okay, but then you have to be consistent about it.
Why yes, if he doesn't surrender, it's perfectly reasonable to shoot him right there. In fact, I do believe that's the standard practice.
Telchar wrote:It's almost like we aren't fighting a traditional war here. I think there's a name for it.... Orangutan warfare? No.....Ape Warfare? Not it....if only there was a word for this particular brand of nontraditional warfare that emphasizes exactly what I'm talking about...
Why do you choose to draw the line at gorilla warfare? Is there a justification for this?