The personal thoughts and comments of Gene, "The Aggie."

Use any information found here at your own risk. I am not responsible for the consequences of your use, misuse or abuse, of this information. I do not advocate or condone violence except for lawful protection of life, liberty and, in very limited cases, property. Nothing included in this site is to be taken as legal advice.


NOTE:
"The Aggie" neither controls or
endorses the sites that Google displays in this ad bar.

'Gun-Free Zones' are only gun-free, until somebody brings a gun. - Unknown

Monday, December 22, 2008

Who Should Kill a Terrorist?

H/T: Police.com

Keith R. Lavery, Security Strategies Contributor, has some good things to say about stopping terrorists wherever they may be found. Considering his focus, his target audience and such, I can't disagree with him. However, I believe he misses one major component of the soultion.

Mr. Lavery ignores the contributions CCW / CHL holders have made to the solution. And while I'm at it, I do not forget or disregard the dis-armed population that has acted when confronted with evil.

Putting It All Together
So, who best to handle a terrorist cell? Depends on the type of cell and what stage of operations they are in. Basically, everyone plays a role. Those terrorists serving in a support (logistics) role who secure financing through illicit means, or intelligence, should be the focus of the police and private security. Operational cell members rapidly approaching their execution phase of an attack must meet preemptive neutralization by our armed forces who are not overly concerned with preserving the life of a terrorist for judicial prosecution.

I think he's absolutely correct. OTOH, where do the "victims" come in. Is it our part of the script to roll over and play dead for the terrorists while we wait for SWAT? Or can the sheeple grow teeth and protect themselves and their loved ones?

I think you know my answer!

God Bless Ya'll !

III
Click Here for More Information

No comments:

Popular Posts