barbarians.

Wow. That girl is an inspiration. Truly. And I agree with you. I wish there was a way to just explode them all off the earth in one shot without hurting innocent people.

Obama would never go for it…. he’s got to much invested in trying to appease the Arab world.

Right Bill. Our soldiers must be first shot at before they can return fire. If they can’t see a weapon, they can’t fire. If an enemy who shot at them (maybe killed someone) throws his gun away, they must stop firing. They are not allowed to interrogate an enemy in the field.
Even if their lives are at stake, they can’t “pressure” an enemy combatant. They must risk their lives and approach an enemy in a none-threatening (weapons not at ready) mode. Wounded enemies are to be allowed to be cared for and/or evacuated by enemy fighters (even if they hold weapons in hand)…. I guess so they can fight another day. There are a few more new restrictions but can’t recall what they are.
Can you imagine American prisoners in Taliban/al-Qaeda hands being treated no worst than the Gitmo inmates? Imagine bin-Laden screaming at his field officers “don’t water board them, and make Bibles available for them to read.” LOL

Check the quote in my sig.

eurodan49 said:

Right Bill. Our soldiers must be first shot at before they can return fire. If they can’t see a weapon, they can’t fire. If an enemy who shot at them (maybe killed someone) throws his gun away, they must stop firing. They are not allowed to interrogate an enemy in the field.
Even if their lives are at stake, they can’t “pressure” an enemy combatant. They must risk their lives and approach an enemy in a none-threatening (weapons not at ready) mode. Wounded enemies are to be allowed to be cared for and/or evacuated by enemy fighters (even if they hold weapons in hand)…. I guess so they can fight another day. There are a few more new restrictions but can’t recall what they are.
Can you imagine American prisoners in Taliban/al-Qaeda hands being treated no worst than the Gitmo inmates? Imagine bin-Laden screaming at his field officers “don’t water board them, and make Bibles available for them to read.” LOL

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that we can kill these fuckers without becoming them.

eurodan49 said:

Right Bill. Our soldiers must be first shot at before they can return fire.

Click to expand...

That's a tautology. You can't return fire at someone who hasn't fired at you

If they can’t see a weapon, they can’t fire.

Click to expand...

Or, to put it another way, if you're in a village, you can't just shoot people randomly, not knowing if they're civilians or combatents because they're possibly a threat

If an enemy who shot at them (maybe killed someone) throws his gun away, they must stop firing.

Click to expand...

Hmm. If an soldier soldier surrenders you're not allowed to execute them? Sounds like that pesky Geneva Convention again. You know, the one that says if an enemy soldier surrenders you can't execute him on the spot?

But as a practical matter, I'm sure it would be much better to make it clear to the enemy that if they lay down their arms they'll be instantly killed. A great incentive to surrender instead of fighting to the death.

I think your beef is not so much with Obama as it is with the professional military we have.

I'm even more radical than Haskins on this issue. I consider many brands of Islam inimical to Western culture and am no fan of freedom-of-religion where Sharia is concerned. But I also have no desire to fund our military to hang out overseas. I don't feel eliminating the Taliban would be effective, even if we could succeed, which I doubt.

SPMiller said:

I'm even more radical than Haskins on this issue. I consider Islam inimical to Western culture and am no fan of freedom-of-religion where Sharia is concerned.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether the Taliban are evil. The question is how do we keep them from regaining power and influence.

It's becoming problematical that we can do it by military strength alone, or that increased military operations or a harsher military policy will produce that result.

It's not as easy as "just kill 'em all," unfortunately.

Some things you stated aren't as clear cut as you present (I suspct this is a reslt of your training as a policeman which is different from war.

rugcat said:

That's a tautology. You can't return fire at someone who hasn't fired at you

Click to expand...

This is true, though you don't always have to wait for a person to actually fire at you to know he is about to.

rugcat said:

Or, to put it another way, if you're in a village, you can't just shoot people randomly, not knowing if they're civilians or combatents because they're possibly a threat.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. In the scenario you described, yes (though, you can't always be sure that what you are seeing is an actual weapon). What about an area that was defined off limits? What about a wanted combatant on the run (I am pretty sure those Predators are not required to discern a weapon when they go after one of the leaders)?
What about spotters? Recon for your enemy? People gathering ammunition?

rugcat said:

Hmm. If an soldier soldier surrenders you're not allowed to execute them? Sounds like that pesky Geneva Convention again. You know, the one that says if an enemy soldier surrenders you can't execute him on the spot?

Click to expand...

If he surrenders. What about case where he just shot at you, ran out of bullets or decided to drop his gun, and runs away? Should a person be actively engaged in fighting in the very moment when you shoot him?

It's not even religion anymore, it's just blatant inhumanity as demonstrated by despots in every part of the world. Can you help but wonder what motivates someone to mutilate the face of a child,,, and for what purpose other than sadistic pleasure do they derive such from such an act.

There was a Muslim defector from Saudi Arabia a few years ago who said this when questioned about the radical aspects of Islam: " to end the terror, you need to end the world." At the time I thought he was bit dramatic, I must admit that I now understand his underlying message.

dmytryp said:

Some things you stated aren't as clear cut as you present

Click to expand...

Nothing in war is clear cut. The military provides rules of engagement that cover situations the best they can.

Are you suggesting there should be no rules -- that any actions taken while fighting an enemy are acceptable?

rugcat said:

Nothing in war is clear cut. The military provides rules of engagement that cover situations the best they can.

Are you suggesting there should be no rules -- that any actions taken while fighting an enemy are acceptable?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Every army has ROF. But ROF for a combat situation are not the same as ROF for a guard duty in barracks, or a patrol in civilian areas. I am not familiar enough with american ROF to make any case either way.

EDIT: For example, let's take the case with the person that drops his weapon. If he is surrendering, there shouldn't be any question (though what do you do if you are a small patrol in the middle of ene,y territory is also a tough question. There is a story from our War of Independance that is taught every soldier of the IDF as a "cleanness of weapons" case, but that's a derail). If you are guarding a base and there is a single or even a small group of fighters that fires at you, then drops their weapons and runs away, you probably should let them go. If the same thing happens in an intense battle situation, and the chances are that you will see that person in five seconds with a new weapon, I'd say not so much.

rugcat said:

...Sounds like that pesky Geneva Convention again. You know, the one that says if an enemy soldier surrenders you can't execute him on the spot?

Click to expand...

The Geneva Convention never has applied to the taliban or aq...

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.

The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pictet_6-0">
</sup>
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it.

Click to expand...

Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda are sovereign nations and neither group is (or can be) signatory to the convention.
(Bold/italics mine)

Perhaps if we began using the Taliban's and AQ's "rules of war", their attitudes might change.

In any event, I'm with William and SP. I see nothing wrong with a war of attrition. Get enough of these pukes out of the gene pool, and their ability to recruit and intimidate others in the ME will decline.

The actual logistics of the act are horrifying. I'm sorry if this pisses anybody off but torturing an innocent is not equal to torturing a criminal. If you're a criminal, it's probably in the back of your mind that at some point you'll have to pay the piper, but not if you're a child. This girl deserves to be pampered for a very, very long time, and to see her abusers punished.

How can this be stopped? Seriously, what the hell can be done?

Gretad08 said:

The actual logistics of the act are horrifying. I'm sorry if this pisses anybody off but torturing an innocent is not equal to torturing a criminal. If you're a criminal, it's probably in the back of your mind that at some point you'll have to pay the piper, but not if you're a child. This girl deserves to be pampered for a very, very long time, and to see her abusers punished.

How can this be stopped? Seriously, what the hell can be done?

Click to expand...

Get to the moderates. Not through war, not through force but by the will of their people, and especially their most trampled members. Get more of these tortured souls out in the open and speaking against it.

I've said it before and I still believe it applies. Terrorism and these horrible acts are part of a sub culture. Only through grassroots within those communities will they become unacceptable and moved to the past. Until the majority of the people and the leaders that lead them say absolutely not, these things will happen often with no retribution to those who did the horrible act. Given that women are still regarded as posessions in many parts of that world, it's going to take a total cultural shift. It's not going to be easy and it's not going to be fast, but I think we're starting to see blips of it.

William Haskins said:

since my last response to this little gem was deleted, i'll try again, this time conforming to some unstated standard about what can and cannot be said about a sig quote.

the presumption that being angered by evil is tantamount to being evil oneself is asinine (can i say that?)

i suppose the jews who were angered by the holocaust were as evil as the nazis who perpetuated it? that's idiotic (can i say that?)

finally, to casually toss out that quote as if it has some real gravity in a thread about a child who had her nose and ears sliced off and was left for dead by fanatic animals shows a level of callousness (can i say that?) itself that would rival anything mean old me could write.

Click to expand...

You did call for total extermination, remember. I've heard those words elsewhere - and not from you.


Often, in my humblest opinion, it's not about what we can say, but what we can hear that really counts.



AMC

I also wanted to ask,

what about home-grown terrorists? will we turn our rifles to US citizens as well?


(as if we haven't done that before)



AMC

POPASMOKE said:

Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda are sovereign nations and neither group is (or can be) signatory to the convention.
(Bold/italics mine)[

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with the Dick Cheney interpretation that allows for the use of torture, among other things.

Perhaps if we began using the Taliban's and AQ's "rules of war", their attitudes might change.

Click to expand...

Really? Are you suggesting we post taped beheadings of captured taliban on youtube? You really think that would be a good idea?

In any event, I'm with William and SP. I see nothing wrong with a war of attrition. Get enough of these pukes out of the gene pool, and their ability to recruit and intimidate others in the ME will decline.

Click to expand...

That's the standard right wing belief. I do not share it.

The problem with the belief is that it's "in the gene pool" which as about as idiotic (imo) as hanging a bag of cat shit to your rear view mirror.


...


Because, as IceRose mentioned, and I feel bears repeating, It's a cultural phenomenon! As such, I think that's how it needs to be addressed.

Otherwise, it just sounds like we need an "other" to use for a punching bag or a rallying cry. I hesitate saying that because I don't want to call anyone a hawk for having the opinion we should kill every last Taliban man. May I be excluded from that sad chorus without being labeled a softy or a coward?


AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

I also wanted to ask,

what about home-grown terrorists? will we turn our rifles to US citizens as well?


(as if we haven't done that before)



AMC

Click to expand...

Same thing we did with the Unibomber, the DC sniper, and the Oklahoma city Bomber. We catch them, we try them in a court of law, and lock them up for the rest of their natural lives or until the death penalty kicks in.

It's not like we haven't faced them before.