He isn't a combatant.But whether you want to call him a combatant or an unlawful combatant, he's still a combatant and thus fair game.
Guilty of a crime =/= terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.Ooops. But isn't he encouraging combatism by wanting a 'brave Muslim' to murder 300,000 Americans? It seems in common law those who aid, abet and encourage criminal behaviour, especially on such a grand scale (even if it is just Americans) are also equally guilty of a crime. Have you not heard of this?
Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is a goal realted to an ideology.Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is an ideology?
No problem.Oh, Thanks. I'll have to follow that more closely.
We can negate the effectiveness of his rhetoric by incorporating counter-measures. As far as catching terrorists prior to an attack happening, there is ample evidence to suggest this is possible.So we let him continue his search for a brave Muslims and then hope to discover who it might be before he/she kills 300,000 Americans. Is that your plan? You want to catch him/her in the act? I hope they don't think to hide it under a burka or we'll never catch them.
It seems as though you think killing the professor in will magically prevent anyone form carrying out such an attack. I don't think that there is any reason to assume this is true. Even if this professor is dead, the things I'm talking about must occur to try and prevent such an attack because there is the video of the speech that we are discussing. Him being dead cannot possibly prevent anything.I find this a little risky for some reason. For example, what if we don't catch him with the anthrax and 300,000 Americans die? What's your follow-up plan?
What's very risky, IMO is assuming that killing him would magically prevent someone from carrying out the type of attacks he described. It's veryrisky to treat killing him as though it is a preventative measure because it lets the guard down after such a fruitless action is engaged in.
It isn't going to be any easier with him dead.If we find him, or her. Do you think that will be easy?
I'm not making them up. And the reason they are called "unlawful"combatants is pretty much because they don't follow the same types of rules.You seems to be making up some very strict rules for the Americans that the unlawful combatants don't have to follow at all.
What could fairness possibly have to do with it?Is that fair?
No. they don't even have to get it. The attempt to get anthrax at any quantity alone is enough.But you want to wait until a combatant has enough anthrax to kill 300,000 Americans and then they should make their move, right?
You haven't outlined any flaws at all. You've comitted quite a few, though.I think I've sufficiently outlined the flaws in this plan.
No need to thank me for stating that which is obvious.Thanks
Quite sure.Are you sure you're responding to the right post??
Words mean what they are defined to mean. Perhaps the fact that you think you can have them mean whatever you would like them to mean is why your argumetns have so many equivocations.No, of course not. Words can mean exactly what you want them to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.