Personally I do not have a problem about the CIA using these drones, or for that matter, any other piece of technology or machinery at their disposal to counter the threat of terrorism.

You have got to remember that these people are a threat not only to the security of the US but to Europe and the wider world at large. If it were the case that you could sit down and work things out peacfully with these people, I'm sure we would be doing just that - BUT that ain't the case is it?

So war it is, and death is the cold, hard truth of war; we [the people in the West] didn't ask for this war, it's a war we wanted to avoid but the need for war is sometimes required to counter the threat of a much greater war [a war with use of nuclear weapons] that today can be prevented from happening tomorrow.

My thoughts are that, taking into account British troops are dying out there, is that it is better to deal with the problem now, when and whilst we can, rather than leave it to fester and have a bigger, wider problem to deal with in 3, 5 or 7 years down the line.

I would rather that we lose a few thousand innocent people in this war, than lose a few million innocent people at some point in the future - WHICH is what would be the case if these terrorists were left to get on with what they want to do.

So do I care? Of course I do, but considering the consequences of what could happen if we do nothing, there is just no comparison, so please get behind our governments and support this war, as we are fighting for our freedom, our way of life and for the greater good of humanity.

And if anyone out there believes that the threat from a nuclear armed Taliban is far fetched, then what world are you living on? Because that is just what you would have if it were not for this war, as Pakistan as it stands today is barely able to control the threat they face themselves from these terrorists.

God bless America and her allies.

The fact is that this is not a war, it's an invasion + occupation.

That is not in fact the case, as this is a war as described by the online dictionary found at www.dictionary.com; see for yourself:

"...a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air."

Reading other comments, why would we want to introduce the legal process into what is a military matter?

That is just bullshit, as that place in Cuba set up by Bush was clearly a facility to detain known terrorists, or those who were [to whatever degree] associated with terrorists and their activities - a perfectly and legitimate use in my view.

But then again, I ain't "soft" nor left wing, nor am I politically correct either, but on the other hand, I'm not right wing either, calling for us to carpet bomb the Taliban with nuclear weapons...

Some people in the UK are [now] asking, "why not?"

I really wonder where you guys get your trust in the "system"? Why do you believe we have a justice system and not military tribunals for everything? And what the hell does killing the wife of a terrorist do to protect us? Do you think this is actually discouraging at all to these guys? I mean I already have a hard time believing that killing terrorist leaders will increase anyones protection, because it seems there are plenty of others willing to fill in the gap, because the root cause - lack of education - is still not solved.

But what exactly do you think will happen when the wife of a terrorist is killed? Will that terrorist decide that its suddenly too risky to be in the "terrorist business"? Or that he needs to stop killing people and go out more to be able to pick up women that he can then potentially marry? Or do you think others will not get into the "terrorist business" because that would put their wife in danger? Or do you think wife's of terrorist will be able to discourage their men from being terrorists?

I am sure that there are plenty of terrorists that at the heart are mostly interested in the power, but I simply do not see evidence that killings outside of the legal framework will discourage terrorists. All I do see evidence for is that these kinds of killings move normal people towards the extreme, because we make it clear that we do not believe in our own justice system. That we are unwilling to be role models because we prefer to drop bombs instead of addressing the root causes.

I understand your way of thinking that killing a terrorist leader will not deter others from taking up the post, as you are quite right however the purpose of going after the terrorist leaders, regardless of the opportunity allowed is to a) prevent further attacks brought about by the plans the leadership have, b) to the detriment of the terrorist organisation as a whole and c) as a lesson to those who would canvass such actions.

On the subject of legal frameworks, I have to ponder on your thoughts about the legal framework of the country; so in my view what you are really saying is that we should not attack these terrorist leaders because they are not in a war zone (although technically the whole region is a war zone), because under UN or NATO law they are civillians?

That is bullshit, as despite the fact they reside in a residential area at the time of the attack, or not as the case may be, they are still viable targets as they are known terrorists against the state - ie, they are breaking the laws of the country they reside in.

The fact they happen to be attacked in a residential area isn't here nor there, now... How many people died in this attack?

Now ask yourself just how many people will be saved because this terrorist leader is (now) dead and we may have prevented how many planned suicide bombings?

How many? 50? 100? Sure the bombings will continue but that isn't the real debate is it? The real debate is finding a solution to this problem and you ain't going to do that by pussy footing about.

We are at war for Christ sake, do you understand that? We are fighting for the future of cilvillisation, do you understand that? So who is going to lose sleep over the death of a terrorist leader and his family?

You have got to weigh up the finer points of what we have saved against what we have lost, regardless of the circumstances, we are better off now.

And as for protecting the people on the streets of America, you are now better protected as this leader for all I know, could have been grooming and training young muslims to come to America and cause an act of terror...

That is how 9/11 came about, didn't you know? What? You want another one? Yes?

The point is, in war we relax our rules and you can disagree with that. But outside of warzones we HAVE to stick to the law. And the law says that you cannot assassinate criminals. Lethal force is only legitimate if you are unable to apprehend them. But you have to actually make a real effort to do this. So I can see people making the argument that these people are well aware of the fact that they are being searched. But he level of collateral damage that is deemed acceptable in these attacks is beyond any reason.

But all of this is a non issue compared to assassinating family members of these criminals. There is simply no stretching of any laws, including laws of war, to justify this within our legal system. None!

Once you have reached this point, you are not longer "fighting for the future of civilisation". You have already given up on civilisation. All you can claim is that you hope to somehow be able to return to civilisation onces you have killed everybody who is deemed dangerous. In the process you will however cause to much injustice to bring every one who has to live in these regions to the point where they will fear for their own lives enough that they will also take up weapons to protect themselves and their families because we have shown them we do not care to take the burden of doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is always harder but you cannot claim to be just if you are willing to be unjust whenever you are unable to rise to the challenge. Once you do that, you can no longer claim to be just, at that point you have blood on your hands.

I believe that something like 9/11 cannot be prevented without going to a full out police state. All you can do is try and make sure that there are as little people who are fucked up enough to believe that this will get them anything. And the best chance to do that while maintaining our freedom is education.

Again the fundamental disagreement is that you think these killings actually make us more secure and I think they make things less secure. We are also in disagreement over the fact that you believe that basic laws can be disabled when facing a new type of threat, which I find unacceptable. You cannot give up freedom to protect freedom. Once you give that away, you may never get it back.

I guess this famous saying puts it in a concise graphic message:
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

Well I would have been shocked about the news that terrorists where threatened that their family would be attacked, but its not a threat anymore .. its reality.