Should France continue to assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries?

No, I am on side on peace. I support Greece but this will lead to war. Adress instead govermant of that country that country to imprission them in own country and give Greeece apology.

No, adreess govermant of that country to imprission them in own country and other govermant need Greeece apology. If that happan.

No, ask govermant of that country to imprission them in own country. Other side need Greece apology.

No, adress that govermant to imprission them in their own country. I am on side on Greece but that we leed to war. Other side need to give apology Greece.

No, but ask that govermant to imprission them in their own country. I am on side of Greece, but I am for peace. That lead to war.

No, adrees govermant of that country to imprission them in own country I am on side on Greece but that lead to war. I am for peace. Other country need to apology Greece.

No, adress that goverment that imprission them in his own country. I support Greek side, but that lead to war. Other side need to apologise to Greece.

Only if the victims are Christians

No but if we have Reason to believe someone is a terrorist in another country we should tell the country involved and perhaps work with them if the would like that so we capture them and give them a trial

Yes, if they are planning an attack on our country, if they have committed an attack on our country, or if the are planning or have committed an attack on allied and politically, culturally, religiously and historically similar and friendly countries!

No, fair trial and death penalty

No, but only if they get captured interrogated and imprisoned instead

Only if it's undeniable evidence they have commited attack towards our country and then been given a fair trial and they laws about that type of crimes should be stricter.

Only those that have killed/attacked our nation.

Yes because I view that as a military operation therefore due process would not apply. However there must be some compelling evidence

Only for those who have or were about to attack our nation.

Not unless they pose a real threat

it is not the job of the us to deal with terrorism problems in other countrys

No, our country should stay out of other countries' businesses. Abolish foreign policy.

why do we care? if they're in other countries then we should just make sure they don't come here

The United States should not, but her citizens may.

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country or have committed an attack against it

No, because it could be someone innocent, maybe ask them questions and report but don't kill them on sight that would only make a bigger mess.

No, foreign affairs involvement that does not directly work in the interests of the American people is not a responsibility of the United States government.

Yes, but the option of capturat

Only if it a true enemy to the United States and U.S civilians are in danger.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on our nation.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on us.

No; this is simply unnecessary interventionism, but seek approval from the nation's government before launching any missile or drone strike.

Depends on what crimes they’ve committed

They should be proven first.

Yes, if they have attacked us first.

Each situation is different, and I cannot give a blanket answer on this question.

Only if they have or are actively planning an attack on us.

Only God can determine that. but if the goverment decides to do it than so be it. but I will not judge.

Yes, but only with absolute proof that they have or are planning an attack on us.

Yes, but only if they have or are planning an attack on our country.

only if the are a threat

Only if there is VERY good reason and we are sure we can deal with the consequences.

yes, only after they've been captured, imprisoned, and interrogated. after that, if there is undeniable evidence that they have committed an attack against the country, they should be given the death penalty.

We shouldn't interfere in other countries' business.

It depends on the situation but yes because for example like 9/11 they should of killed the nine men to save the thousands of people that died but I also think that if you can just capture them put them on trial and imprison them until they aren’t gulity.

If Congress declares war all enemy combatants are valid targets.

They should not be assassinated without undeniable evidence that they did attack our country. However, if there is evidence that indicates the suspects are planning an attack, then they should be given a fair trial with due process.

Only if they have attacked or are planning an attack on our country.

No, the United States should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they have/are planning to attack our nation. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

No, we should not assassinate any "suspected" terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

No, we should not assassinate any suspected terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.

yes, but only if it is too dangerous to capture and "interrogate" them.

No in theory, but if capturing them safely puts people at risk, then assassination attempts should be valid.

Yes, only with the cooperation and support of said country.

No captured and interrogated and decided punishment based on what they have done

yes, only because you done know if they will attack us or not and if they do we need to be ready

Yes, but only by means of private contractors

Only if they have or are planning an attack on us.

If they have or are planning an attack on our country.

Yes, only if they know he is a terrorist

Yes, but only if they have or are planning on attacking the United States.

Not assassinate but if there is evidence then yes

i mean it depends

Only if they have attacked our nation first.

What personal experiences have shaped your views on the ethical implications of state-sponsored actions outside their borders?

Only if they have or are planning to attack us.

Yes, if they have or are planning an attack on us.

How would the world look to you if nations openly shared their security actions with each other?

No; this is simply unnecessary interventionism, but always seek approval from the nation's government before launching any missile or drone strike within their territory.

How does the idea of a nation prioritizing its own citizens' safety over international laws resonate with you?

Imagine discovering a hidden side of your country's actions abroad; how would that change your perception of your government?

If there was an international platform for discussing covert operations before they happened, how do you think that would affect global relations?

When, if ever, do you think it's acceptable for a country to intervene in the affairs of another nation to protect its own interests?

How do you reconcile the need for secrecy in certain government operations with the demand for transparency in a democracy?

In what situations, if any, would you support your country engaging in secret operations overseas to prevent a potential threat?

Reflecting on historical events, how do you think secret governmental actions have shaped our current global society?

No, I think that they should be captured and interrogated. I do not think that you should take someone's life without an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are planning a terrorist attack.

Yes, if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country, and if diplomatic options are not available, and if it is necessary to benefit, further and secure our interests

No, the government has absolutely no right to intervene in foreign conflicts.

Yes, But only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning or have committed an attack against our country

They have to have eve dance

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are a threat to the world; global threat.

Depends on if they have attacked, or if we just have pure evidence that they will

No, you can't kill on suspicion

No, they should be obtained, interrogated, and if found guilty then punish them with a prison sentence. Only however, if there is suffice evidence to obtain them and against them.

if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our country or have committed an attack against our country

I don't have an opinion on the issue. It depends.

Yes, if there is undeniable evidence that they have committed or are planning to commit an attack against our country.

If there is undeniable evidence that they're planning an attack or have already attacked our country, then yes. However, we should take them as prisoners as much as possible and give them a fair trial.

With enough evidence provided, yes.

Yes, but only if they’re a threat to multiple countries.

No, they should be instead captured, (humanly) interrogated, given a fair trial, and imprisoned instead because assassinating suspected terrorists can pose a real Public Relations problem for us, whether they are guilty OR NOT.

yes but they should arrest them when possible

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they have either attacked or are planning to attack our country.

Yes, but only if there is evidence they are planning a attack and/or have committed a attack on our country

i dont understand the question so my response is idk

No. They should be imprisoned if there is undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our country.

yes only if they are authorized as some against and a risk to the USA

No, Suspects should only be assassinated if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack the country, and it should be the last resort if they can't be captured or given a fair trial.

Only if they have attacked us

If there is undeniable evidence we should interrogate them and then imprison them if they truly are a terrorist.

No, we should not assassinate any "suspected" terrorist without concrete, undeniable evidence that they are planning to attack our nation. Also, once such evidence were to manifest itself then we should obtain both Congressional approval along with approval from that sovereign state to enter their country to capture and give them a fair trial instead.