If they want to sit and not cooperate, shoot `em.

Thank you for insight.

Shooting prisoners is NOT generally considered a "good" thing to do.

Shooting civilians is NOT generally considered a "good" thing to do.

That's perfectly fair, so long as the consequences of their various options are explained in advance.

"Fair" to you.

But it's already been established that you have trouble with the concept of "enemies" being "human".

If they've had the gall to believe differently than YOU, then they deserve to die.

And we might as well get some use out of them before they die, right?

Don't shed any tears for them. They're the ones that made all this trouble. I'd rather shed tears for the human beings they've been killing.

Ah, once again, the assumption of guilt.

Well, that's understandable. After all, they ARE the enemy. They do NOT believe as you do.

With that thought process, if YOU had been born a Palestinian, you'd have been dancing in the streets after the WTC attack.

Or if you had been born in Afghanistan.

Or Saudi Arabia.

It is the thought process that is the problem.

Not the nationality or religion or ethnicity of the person.

The belief that the "others" are less than human and deserving of anything you can do to them.

So we don't get their help in finding the bombs. Fine. That's no loss. That's a breakeven.

The same "logic" of the suicide bomber.

You really should leave this logic stuff to those of us who know our way around it.

Executing prisoners because they will not risk their lives for their captors?

Now, where have I seen that policy before?

Chairman Mao?

Stalin?

Yes, I see who you mean by "us who know our way around it".

Although I do find it strange that you claim to be so pro-US, but advocate the exact same activities that we regard as "evil" in our enemies.

And "death wish" does not apply when you are taking the one option that might result in you NOT getting killed.

But "definitions" are as incomprehensible to you as "logic" is.