Drones & Islamic Terrorism

Many persons. in and out of government object to the use of drones to attack and kill terrorists in the Middle East on the basis of claims that: Military action is inferior to addressing the underlying causes of terrorism (Economic, political, etc.); Or, because of the killing or maiming of children and others in such attacks.

They should attend to the following facts:
1. The primary cause of terrorism in today's world are the teachings and mandates of the criminal-terrorist ideology known as Islam.
2. Even the second chief source of terrorism, the illegal drug trade, is marked by the primary production of opium in Muslim run nations.
3. True believing Muslims who shelter or otherwise assist terrorists are morally responsible for their own injuries and deaths ----And that of the children behind whom they hide.
4. True believing Muslims hold that death, as a result of Jihad, is a great reward as it insures entry into Paradise and have no reservations about such activities as training children to be homicide bombers.
5, True believing Muslims have been responsible for the killing of many children in their own lands and other (eg On "9/11"; Random rocket attacks against Israel) places.
6. Aggressive Islam has never responded to any political/social/moral conversations; But, only to the use of military force.
7. It is better to combat that ideology far from the USA.
8. It is hard to state: But, it is better that the children of those who shelter and aid terrorists be killed that the USA's children be murdered or that the same fate be randomly applied to the Jewish, Christian, Druze and Muslim children of Israel.
9. As some have claimed that "boots on the ground" are able to gather useful intelligence not available through drone use, the use of those drones appear to have saved the lives of many of our and our allies troops.  i AGREE!!!!!
10. We might consider the use of armed drones against armed invaders crossing our Southern border or against the mountain-top observers for drug smugglers, both of whom seem immune to normal police actions.
=======================================================================
Any American citizen, outside of the physical borders of our nation,  who takes shelter with terrorists or, in such places, aids them in their inter-nationally illegal attacks on others is either a terrorists or an "enemy combatant" or both. As such s/he is subject to deadly military attacks and that without arrest and trial. Such persons have, by their actions, have surrendered their rights under the Constitution.

What then is a "terrorist"?   I offer the following definition:  Any person who is not a member of the armed forces (Including some police units) of a recognized government who attacks the Armed Forces of a recognized government or its allies or the civilians under their protection OR is such a member, but conducts such attacks in violation of his own nation's armed forces but conducts such attacks against the laws of his nation or the well set "laws of war" including being lawfully clad in the uniform of his nation. Persons who shelter such terrorists or provide them with weapons, food and other aid might well be also considered a terrorist and be subject to the same military, without-warning and deadly  attacks by military forces.

When does a revolutionary or an insurgent or, even, a "terrorist" become a patriot? Probably after they win their war with what then becomes State terrorism.  However, some "terrorists" do combat tyranny. Those in Libya, having now won, are seen as "patriots", Soviet partisans fighting out-of-uniform and behind NAZI lines and our political ancestors of 1775 were such.. The matter of Syrian combatants is "still up in the air".

Our present Administration's massive arming of civilian agencies makes some wonder about its motives. Perhaps they remember that America's first revolution was sparked into a full war when a overbearing and despotic government attempted to seize then modern military arms from the People and are taking measures to enable civilian (Not military personnel who, except for some generals, support the Constitution) goons to enable such seizures. 

.