Warning: Graphic & Disturbing Content

from JoeUser Forums
Recent developments in the war on terror-- i.e., the clamor over the plan to incarcerate select terrorists for life, and the capture of several of Zarkawi's top lieutenants- prompted posting the following link.

Warning: The link shows the beheading of Nick Berg, an American citizen abducted while on business in Iraq. This is the due process that these dirty rotten SOBs afforded to Nick Berg.

We can't continue to use the kid gloves of a choir boy to fight this war on terror. I say, untie the hands that want to help - not every one is afraid to get their hands dirty- and permit certain parties to get medieval and down right brutal.

http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/twr20v18.htm

Link

Once there, scroll down the page ...
politics
34,036 views 64 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes. The first thing we need to do is create yet another organisation that will eventually use its training in terrorism against us. It's good to see you've got the answers.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Tuesday, January 04, 2005Yes. The first thing we need to do is create yet another organisation that will eventually use its training in terrorism against us. It's good to see you've got the answers.


Anwers: No.
Suggestions: Yes.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts that you might have on the subject
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: hitparadePosted: Tuesday, January 04, 2005Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Tuesday, January 04, 2005Yes. The first thing we need to do is create yet another organisation that will eventually use its training in terrorism against us. It's good to see you've got the answers.Anwers: No.Suggestions: Yes. I would be interested to hear any thoughts that you might have on the subject


yer kidding right??/ cacto does not answere only complains.

I did not look at the beaheadings any of them, but you right about one thing we should not allow the bleeding hearts to make the us "play fair"
while these monsters break every rule of "civilized" warfare there is.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look Moderateman, I understand you despise me, but really I would much prefer it if you kept your ill will to yourself. There's nothing more demeaning than a childish spat over God only knows what.

hitparade - Basically I see attempts to wield the tools of the madman as futile unless you are yourself a madman. After all, it takes a certain amount of inventiveness to be a good torturer; whilst the School of the Americas was a good starting place, it took the inventiveness of the South Americans to perfect the art. To expect the US Army, an organisation mired in morality and concepts of God and justice, to be capable of being sufficiently demonic to frighten potential terrorists would be a great task, and one at which I feel it would surely fail.

Even were it possible the side effects of such a mission would be dangerous to the nation as a whole. How long could public order be maintained if 100,000 trained torturers and war criminals are released onto the streets, complete with the neuroses and psychological conditions that hound ordinary men forced to do the unthinkable? Vietnam alone required a vast increase in the efficiency of law enforcement, and reports of war crimes from that dirty little conflict were few and far between.

So what is the alternative? My first suggestion would be to smother target nations in aid-based corruption. Sponsor every side in a conflict, and bring about civil war wherever possible if stability is the goal. Or simply allow a hostile, popular government to gain power and then use drug-funded rebels and time to crush an entire nation's hopes and dreams, a la Nicaragua or possibly even Cuba in future years. Then once the period of hostility is over, simply buy the country up with economic power a la modern-day Vietnam.

Certainly you will have a brief period of terrorism and anarchists. But in time they shall pass, and 10 years is hardly any time at all in order to crush an entire nation. The Luddites who dream of freedom and peace are no match for the soul-destroying grey mundanity of pragmatism and neglect. They have no power, and all they can do is draw attention to themselves. If they are allowed to win and then their system is undermined, noone will believe in that system any longer. The US has a long and successful history of destroying popular movements through covert means. Neglecting such tactics in the war on Terror seems a waste to me.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: cactoblasta - 1/4/2005 10:21:55 AM
Look Moderateman, I understand you despise me, but really I would much prefer it if you kept your ill will to yourself. There's nothing more demeaning than a childish spat over God only knows what.


I neither despise you nor like you.......... I have yet to see one solution put forth by you, just complaints..
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what is the alternative? My first suggestion would be to smother target nations in aid-based corruption. Sponsor every side in a conflict, and bring about civil war wherever possible if stability is the goal. Or simply allow a hostile, popular government to gain power and then use drug-funded rebels and time to crush an entire nation's hopes and dreams, a la Nicaragua or possibly even Cuba in future years. Then once the period of hostility is over, simply buy the country up with economic power a la modern-day Vietnam.

Certainly you will have a brief period of terrorism and anarchists. But in time they shall pass, and 10 years is hardly any time at all in order to crush an entire nation. The Luddites who dream of freedom and peace are no match for the soul-destroying grey mundanity of pragmatism and neglect. They have no power, and all they can do is draw attention to themselves. If they are allowed to win and then their system is undermined, noone will believe in that system any longer. The US has a long and successful history of destroying popular movements through covert means. Neglecting such tactics in the war on Terror seems a waste to me.


Truly, this was a great way to summarize such conflicts.

Moderateman and Hitparade, I can definitely appreciate your frustrations, but I fail to see sinking to the level of these extremists as sound intervention. Yes, let us bring them to global justice, but let us not take away the kind of justice that God may have saved for them. You could just as well have a video of a woman being raped in New Orleans or an elderly man being beaten to death in Harlem, but finding a few gang bangers and tourturing them is not going to stop these attrocities from happening. The people who commit these haneous crimes don't make a rational cost benefit analysis. We might feel better about it, but what you propose is not really a solution at all.

-Suspeckted
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, cacto's bias is clear, even when he offers a "solution."

Suspeckted -

We shouldn't simply treat the terror problem the way we treat domestic rape and murder - that's a very bad and very wrong analogy. It is true that the rapist and the thug who beats an old man to death in Harlem have failed to make a rational cost/benefit analysis (within our value system) and that torturing them is unlikely to prevent future rapes or murders. However, the terrorist has made a very careful, willful cost/benefit analysis and chosen a thoughtfully premeditated plan of action which is completely rational within his/her value system. A different approach to dealing with them is essential. I don't advocate descending to their level of torture, whether secret or public, because that only further demonizes the target of terror in the minds of these sickos, but clearly aggressive tactics to thwart & defeat them, including killing them, are called for. The only things they "respect" are strength & force. How else can you deal with a group which revels & delights in beheading innocents and abusing their corpses?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #4 By: cactoblasta - 1/4/2005 10:21:55 AM
Look Moderateman, I understand you despise me, but really I would much prefer it if you kept your ill will to yourself. There's nothing more demeaning than a childish spat over God only knows what.

hitparade - Basically I see attempts to wield the tools of the madman as futile unless you are yourself a madman. After all, it takes a certain amount of inventiveness to be a good torturer; whilst the School of the Americas was a good starting place, it took the inventiveness of the South Americans to perfect the art. To expect the US Army, an organisation mired in morality and concepts of God and justice, to be capable of being sufficiently demonic to frighten potential terrorists would be a great task, and one at which I feel it would surely fail.


This only shows your ignorance of our military. Try the Special Forces(Green Berets), Force Recon, Delta and Seals for starters..They *already* have the knowledge and the required willpower to be effective. I say turn em loose.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always thought that it was only in bad telemovies that the Special Forces were bloodthirsty savages bent on eating babies in front of their mothers and slaughtering whole families just to drink their blood (I seriously doubt anything less than horror movie barbarity would be frightening to your average terrorist). The US situation must be worse than I thought. Are they kept in cages or are they allowed to roam free on the streets? I guess it's just another good reason to stay away from American military bases.

Well, cacto's bias is clear, even when he offers a "solution."


uhm, thanks? I like to think I lay all my cards on the table.

The only things they "respect" are strength & force.


What makes you think this? If anything I would have thought the failures of the American 'shock and awe' campaign proved that in fact the terrorists don't respect strength and force, because there's nothing strength and force can do to them that they care about. Death is only the beginning after all. They respect their religious leaders, and they respect each other. I think that's about the limit.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
We can't continue to use the kid gloves of a choir boy to fight this war on terror. I say, untie the hands that want to help - not every one is afraid to get their hands dirty- and permit certain parties to get medieval and down right brutal.


First, I want to say that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary as a counter-attack to Osama and his allies. But...

Part of the problem is politicians. They are too worried about telling the truth, so they hide behind sound bites and The Bright Shining Lie (especially one whose name includes the letters Geor*e W. Bu*h). Both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of coming up with a rational plan that stands a chance of working, that doesn't include making the Middle East uninhabitable for millions of years, they give meaningless sound bites like "I will kill the terrorists" or "we will win the war" and people cheer, asnd go vote for him, because that is what passes for tough on terror. The worst is the classic "We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so they don't hit us here." That is a powerfully, overwhelmingly, DUMB way of fighting the war on terror. What they fail to realize is that for each house you blow up (accidentaly or otherwise), for each Iraqi you kill (accidentaly or otherwise), for each person you torture (innocent or otherwise), you are creating another terrorist, maybe a brother or a cousin or a friend, willing to die to free his country from the occupiers. The Iraq war was a total blunder of epic proportions, which if anything, detracts from the war on terror. First, the politicians have to stop underestimating (or misunderestimating ) the terrorists. Does 9/11 look like the work of a common thug or criminal? Second, they have to ask the question "what is their motivation?" And no, the answer is not "they hate our freedom." That is another distracting sound bite that stupid politicians use to make themselves look tough on terror. Show me a politician who is willing to seriously ask this question and offer constructive criticism to American foreign policy, and I'll show you a politician who lost an election. First, Bush's lack of intelligent foreign policy is one of the terrorists greatest recruiting tools. Again, Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions, which has probably created more terrorist's than it killed. Second, Israel. The only way to achieve peace in Israel (and probably reduce terror levels drastically in the process) is to have either a whole bunch of great leaders like Anwar Sadat emerge all at once across in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. seeking peace (Mahmoud Abbas might help, he says that the Palestinians should seek their goals only through non-violent means), or to use the D-word that is missing from Bush's dictionary. There is a cycle of violence in Israel, where a suicide bomber kills some Israelis, and then the Israelis retaliate, and accidentally kill a couple Palestinian children, which is responded to by another suicide bombing. What is needed is first, a cease-fire, then progress can be made to prevent more actions that are viewed as "land-grabs," and attempt to share the land, something that hasn't been done so far. A land without a people for a people without a land? That is only half right. It was a land with a people. And it doesn’t look good to the Muslims that some of the holiest land in their culture was taken from them and is being occupied. And torture is unreliable evidence because it will make even the innocent confess and blurt out any false information to make it stop, and demonizes America, which just creates more terrorists. So take the gloves off and prepare yourselves for pain, because the war on terror will be unwinnable until these politicians “get it.”
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: latour999 - 1/4/2005 9:51:46 PM
We can't continue to use the kid gloves of a choir boy to fight this war on terror. I say, untie the hands that want to help - not every one is afraid to get their hands dirty- and permit certain parties to get medieval and down right brutal.


First, I want to say that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary as a counter-attack to Osama and his allies. But...

Part of the problem is politicians. They are too worried about telling the truth, so they hide behind sound bites and The Bright Shining Lie (especially one whose name includes the letters Geor*e W. Bu*h). Both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of coming up with a rational plan that stands a chance of working, that doesn't include making the Middle East uninhabitable for millions of years, they give meaningless sound bites like "I will kill the terrorists" or "we will win the war" and people cheer, asnd go vote for him, because that is what passes for tough on terror. The worst is the classic "We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so they don't hit us here." That is a powerfully, overwhelmingly, DUMB way of fighting the war on terror. What they fail to realize is that for each house you blow up (accidentaly or otherwise), for each Iraqi you kill (accidentaly or otherwise), for each person you torture (innocent or otherwise), you are creating another terrorist, maybe a brother or a cousin or a friend, willing to die to free his country from the occupiers. The Iraq war was a total blunder of epic proportions, which if anything, detracts from the war on terror. First, the politicians have to stop underestimating (or misunderestimating ) the terrorists. Does 9/11 look like the work of a common thug or criminal? Second, they have to ask the question "what is their motivation?" And no, the answer is not "they hate our freedom." That is another distracting sound bite that stupid politicians use to make themselves look tough on terror. Show me a politician who is willing to seriously ask this question and offer constructive criticism to American foreign policy, and I'll show you a politician who lost an election. First, Bush's lack of intelligent foreign policy is one of the terrorists greatest recruiting tools. Again, Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions, which has probably created more terrorist's than it killed. Second, Israel. The only way to achieve peace in Israel (and probably reduce terror levels drastically in the process) is to have either a whole bunch of great leaders like Anwar Sadat emerge all at once across in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc. seeking peace (Mahmoud Abbas might help, he says that the Palestinians should seek their goals only through non-violent means), or to use the D-word that is missing from Bush's dictionary. There is a cycle of violence in Israel, where a suicide bomber kills some Israelis, and then the Israelis retaliate, and accidentally kill a couple Palestinian children, which is responded to by another suicide bombing. What is needed is first, a cease-fire, then progress can be made to prevent more actions that are viewed as "land-grabs," and attempt to share the land, something that hasn't been done so far. A land without a people for a people without a land? That is only half right. It was a land with a people. And it doesn’t look good to the Muslims that some of the holiest land in their culture was taken from them and is being occupied. And torture is unreliable evidence because it will make even the innocent confess and blurt out any false information to make it stop, and demonizes America, which just creates more terrorists. So take the gloves off and prepare yourselves for pain, because the war on terror will be unwinnable until these politicians “get it.”


You know, your intiteled to your opinion and entitled to voice the same. However I don't come on here and bad mouth your PM, so don't you come on here and bad mouth my president!
There will be no pain for us in the sense your talking.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I seriously doubt anything less than horror movie barbarity would be frightening to your average terrorist


We don't have to frighten them, we simply have to kill them before they kill us. I'm all for it. We could find other ways to do this. If I thought for one minute that we could bring down Bin Laden by putting a mafia contract out on him, for example, I'd be the first to chip in some money.

Sometimes, in order to defeat the monster, it is necessary, if undesirable, to become a monster.

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would do my best to find something good to say about the Devil."---Winston Churchill
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
We don't have to frighten them, we simply have to kill them before they kill us.


Yes, but the very act of killing a terrorist/freedom fighter creates new advocates for the cause because others can see that the terrorist's foe is brutal, violent and must be stopped. Or at least that's how the demagogues can swing it. So it is necessary to dissuade others from pursuing the same career regardless of the injustices that they see happening all around them. And that requires some very specific conditioning - either overwhelming fear or overwhelming complacency.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top

Rightwinger is correct on everything he said about what should be done with terrorism. To the person who said a horror movie would frighten our average terrorist makes me wonder what world they live in. Obviously cutting off a person's head does not even faze those people. What makes you thing some fictional horror movie would scare them. They are fearless and will do anything such as strapping bombs to themselves and killing everyone around them. So you think a horror film would scare a person who would blow them self up, cut someone's head off, put a bomb on a bus, fly a plain into a building, and things in that line would scare them?!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This only shows your ignorance of our military. Try the Special Forces(Green Berets), Force Recon, Delta and Seals for starters..They *already* have the knowledge and the required willpower to be effective. I say turn em loose.


December 21, 2004

SAN DIEGO — A Navy SEAL has been acquitted of charges of beating a handcuffed and hooded terrorist suspect who died a short while later at the Abu Ghraib prison, while a second commando received probation for assaulting another prisoner suspected of supplying weapons to terrorists, attorneys for both men said Monday.
(Full Story)

Back to top


class54



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 1

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:04 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAR NAVY TIMES, THE STORY ABOUT THE SEALS ABUSING PRISONERS MAKES ME 1ST. ) LAUGH OUT LOUD AT THE ABSURD CHICKEN SHIT ! ..THESE BOOGER EATERS WERE TRYING TO KILL THE MEN WHO CAPTURED THEM. HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THEM IF THEY JUST MISSSED KILLING YOU OR A CLOSE FRIEND ?
2ND.) IT MAKES ME VERY ANGRY THAT OUR TROOPS ARE TREATED THIS WAY....THEY ARE HEROES ....TREAT THEM AS SUCH.
3RD ) WAR IS NOT CLEAN AND NEAT ! IT IS DIRTY,,,THERE ARE NO RULES....SEALS ARE TRAINED TO " DEFEAT THE ENEMY ...ANYWAY THEY CAN ".THESE PRISONERS WERE TREATED BETTER THAN ANY AMERICAN EVER CAPTURED IN ANY WAR. WE SURE AS HELL DIDN'T TREAT THEM LIKE NICE GUYS WHEN WE GOT A HOLD OF THEM IN VIETNAM. OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY.
PK BARNES
USN ( SEAL TEAM ONE ) RETIRED

Back to top


rduke



Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 1

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: Isn't anybody paying attention?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is going on? These seals need our support. Just as the Marine who shot a BAD GUY needs( now more then ever)!!!! The Seal teams should all get an award for what thay are excepted to do for our county. As should any Man or woman risking there life, for our freedom.... I can't beleave what I'm reading or seeing on the news anymore. What the USA turning into? I wish I could take ( seal teams) out for a beer! Thank you for all you do for us.

Father of a NAvy Serviceman!

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Hitler invaded Hell, I would do my best to find something good to say about the Devil."---Winston Churchill


Churchill was indeed a man's man.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman and Hitparade, I can definitely appreciate your frustrations, but I fail to see sinking to the level of these extremists as sound intervention. Yes, let us bring them to global justice, but let us not take away the kind of justice that God may have saved for them. You could just as well have a video of a woman being raped in New Orleans or an elderly man being beaten to death in Harlem, but finding a few gang bangers and tourturing them is not going to stop these attrocities from happening. The people who commit these haneous crimes don't make a rational cost benefit analysis. We might feel better about it, but what you propose is not really a solution at all.-Suspeckted


The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
To the person who said a horror movie would frighten our average terrorist makes me wonder what world they live in


I feel that perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills before you make a foolish post like that. I was using the horror movie as a form of analogy - brutality on that level and far beyond would be necessary to intimidate something. Rivers of blood might be successful; mountains of skulls might be; but having their entire family for three generations stalked by bloodthirsty savages and then slowly tortured to death over the period of several days is almost certain to make a potential terrorist think twice. That's what I mean by horror movie-style violence. Not forcing them to watch movies.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

You know, your intiteled to your opinion and entitled to voice the same. However I don't come on here and bad mouth your PM, so don't you come on here and bad mouth my president!
There will be no pain for us in the sense your talking.


First, Paul Martin is a corrupt do-nothing with his hands in the taxpayers cookie jar, and I did not vote for him and have no intention to. But he looks good when you put him next to Stephen Harper, who would set us back at least 20 years if elected. I much prefer Jack Layton. Second, I didn't realize that criticizing an inept President was not politically correct, but I will do it anyway, because it is necessary. Third, I criticized politicians on both sides, but focused on Bush because he seems to be one of the worst and the most prominent. Fourth, by pain I meant more terrorist attacks against troops in the Middle East and possibly at home if sound bites continue to pass for fighting the war on terror in an intelligent manner.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: hitparade - 1/5/2005 10:03:29 AM
Moderateman and Hitparade, I can definitely appreciate your frustrations, but I fail to see sinking to the level of these extremists as sound intervention. Yes, let us bring them to global justice, but let us not take away the kind of justice that God may have saved for them. You could just as well have a video of a woman being raped in New Orleans or an elderly man being beaten to death in Harlem, but finding a few gang bangers and tourturing them is not going to stop these attrocities from happening. The people who commit these haneous crimes don't make a rational cost benefit analysis. We might feel better about it, but what you propose is not really a solution at all.-Suspeckted


The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?


I rip him limb from limb very slowly!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #20 By: latour999 - 1/5/2005 12:58:51 PM

You know, your intiteled to your opinion and entitled to voice the same. However I don't come on here and bad mouth your PM, so don't you come on here and bad mouth my president!
There will be no pain for us in the sense your talking.


First, Paul Martin is a corrupt do-nothing with his hands in the taxpayers cookie jar, and I did not vote for him and have no intention to. But he looks good when you put him next to Stephen Harper, who would set us back at least 20 years if elected. I much prefer Jack Layton. Second, I didn't realize that criticizing an inept President was not politically correct, but I will do it anyway, because it is necessary. Third, I criticized politicians on both sides, but focused on Bush because he seems to be one of the worst and the most prominent. Fourth, by pain I meant more terrorist attacks against troops in the Middle East and possibly at home if sound bites continue to pass for fighting the war on terror in an intelligent manner.


Like playing with semantics do ya? You didn't just criticize. What you said can be called an outright personal attack! *The Big Shining Lie* I believe is what you used. You want to criticize go for it. But maybe you should find out just what the word means first. Other than that, shut your piehole bud.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The following moral question, while not new, seems fitting for this discussion: You know that by the year 1945, Adolf Hitler is responsible for the murder of millions, and you somehow find yourself in a position to kill him in the year 1915, what do you do?
--hitparade

If you want to get technical, there's nothing you could do....you couldn't go back in time with an avowed purpose to alter history.
Let's go back even farther....let's say you went back to the year 1887 or '88 and killed his parents before he was born, thereby preventing his existence altogether. All the years would pass, the decades would turn, and none of the horrors he produced would have happened. WW2 as we know it would not have happened; the Holocaust, in all probability, would not have occurred. Now, the decades continue to turn, bringing us to the present, January 2005, with you making your decision to go back and kill Hitler.
If none of the terrible things that made you decide to go back and prevent him from ever even existing happened, what reason would you have to go back at all? Why would you need to go into the past and kill a man who never existed? See the paradox?
I once wrote a time travel story, and did a lot of research on time travel theory and things of that nature. It's weird stuff; hard to wrap your brain around.

But, just to play the game, of course I would kill him....but then, there would be 20 or more million more people in the world, for good or bad. They would then reproduce, bringing us that much closer to overpopulation. Who knows, maybe someone killed during the war would have been, or would have sired someone, even worse than Hitler, given time. Things happen for a reason, I believe, including wars, and not just the short-term reasons we can see.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

You DO realize that even if we DID "get medieval" on these folks, we'd still be engaging in a form of warfare far more modern and civilized than what is being used against us?


Just a point to be made (glibly).

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
freedom fighter
---cactoblasta

This is one of those PC terms that really urks me.....what "freedom" are they fighting for? To take the territory of those who have the greater claim to it? The Hebrews were there long before anyone else.
How about the Freedom to degrade and enslave women? The freedom to lop off the hands of a starving beggar who steals a piece of bread? To kidnap and behead the unarmed women and old men who have only come to help them? To arrest the social, intellectual, technological and political development of their peoples?
Why do the more "compassionate" (read: liberals) of the world continue to view these savages as noble soldiers raging against the machine? They commit acts that the "sensitive" Left would protest as horrible acts of brutality hailing the decline of Western Civilization in their own nations. It seems to support them when committed by "freedom fighters", however.

They're terrorists. They're cowards who posture so threateningly with their machine guns while at the same time hiding their faces behind scarves as they thumb their noses at those who seek to stop them. They kill the innocent noncombatant with as much nonchalance as they kill the combatant.
They're nothing but savages and murderers deserving of a quick, bloody and most satisfyingly brutal death, just like they'd give to any of us.

Gee, do I sound bitter?