|
|
Post by MARIO on May 7, 2006 13:07:40 GMT -8
Haha, what the fuck is going on on this thread??
First off, the Geneva Conventions DO NOT and SHOULD NOT apply to terrorists.
I've been saying for the last several that we should not be taking all of these fucking prisoners. Our troops should not be in the business of taking prisoners. They should be in the business of killing the enemy and destroying their capacity to resist.
How the hell some could argue against that notion is beyond my comprehension.
If we keep fighting wars in this manner, God help us. Things will only get worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 15:03:44 GMT -8
"I've been saying for the last several that we should not be taking all of these fucking prisoners. Our troops should not be in the business of taking prisoners. They should be in the business of killing the enemy and destroying their capacity to resist."
Lemme try to clarify what I'm getting at:
1) Kill every terrorist we can find in combat/hostile situations.
2) Terrorists who are in the process of surrendering should not be killed.
3) Terrorists who have been arrested should not be killed, mainly because America should outlaw the death penalty.
But if one more person questions my loyalty to the War on Terrorism (the whole reason I joined the USAF), I'm gonna explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 7, 2006 16:25:08 GMT -8
"America should outlaw the death penalty."
No, they shouldn't.
They should exercise it more frequently.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on May 7, 2006 17:40:04 GMT -8
1) Kill every terrorist we can find in combat/hostile situations.
Agreed.
2) Terrorists who are in the process of surrendering should not be killed.
That's a burden I refuse to place on the shoulders of our troops. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. They should do their duty with that simple credo in mind.
Every one of those fucks should be killed, NOT CAPTURED.
We already know the mindset of these killers. We already know the tactics they've employed in battle. If they're holding weapons, kill them. If they're weapons aren't actually pointed at our troops, kill them anyway. It's a war.
3) Terrorists who have been arrested should not be killed, mainly because America should outlaw the death penalty.
That's your problem right there, James. You unequivocally assert that the US should jsut eliminate the death penalty. You know you can't go into combat with this sort of mindset. It may end up getting you killed. And for what? Trying to "appear" merciful or some other bullshit.
Come on, man. Get with the program.
Bob is right. We need more George Patton's in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 17:59:59 GMT -8
"Every one of those fucks should be killed, NOT CAPTURED."
Do you know what the single greatest achievement in the WoT has been? The CAPTURE of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Although I would agree that a dead terrorist is better than one who is running around, the ideal situation would be for them to be captured. Terrorists are no good to us when they're dead.
"If they're weapons aren't actually pointed at our troops, kill them anyway. It's a war."
If they're known terrorists - sure. Like the car that we blew up in Yemen a few years ago. That's fine with me. But if they're in the process of surrendering or already captured, you cannot kill them. Unless they have a trial and are sentenced to death. Killing POWs is just something that we do not do here in America....
"You unequivocally assert that the US should jsut eliminate the death penalty. You know you can't go into combat with this sort of mindset. It may end up getting you killed. And for what? Trying to "appear" merciful or some other bullshit."
I fail to see the connection between combat and the death penalty. In fact, there is none. How does my opposition to the death penalty affect my ability to kill terrorists who are trying to kill me? It doesn't.
"Bob is right. We need more George Patton's in this country."
Everyone loves Patton but they refuse to acknowledge what happened to him. He was a great general and a patriot but he also ended up his career disgraced and kicked out of the Army. There is a reason for that. The only reason he was ever put in charge of the Third Army is because we needed him. If there was anyone else, Patton would have been replaced. Also, if not for his close personal relationship with Eisenhower, he probably would have been court-martialed during World War II.
|
|
Codi
Junior Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by Codi on May 7, 2006 18:50:03 GMT -8
Do you know what the single greatest achievement in the WoT has been? The CAPTURE of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Although I would agree that a dead terrorist is better than one who is running around, the ideal situation would be for them to be captured. Terrorists are no good to us when they're dead. You are taliking about the terrorists like they have the same mindset as we do. They do not. Do not assign your own values to the Muslim terrorists. Terrorists are no good to anyone (alive). What do you mean by "known terrorists" ? If they are armed and aiming for us, they ARE terrorists. Have you not heard... They raise the white flag, walk up and blow themselves up, along with as many Americans as possible. Bottom line... He helped us to win the war. You are making assumptions here. Your use of the word "probably" shows that, clearly. At least you acknowledge that the reason he was put in charge of the Thid Army was because WE NEEDED HIM. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on May 7, 2006 18:56:38 GMT -8
He damn sure helped us kill Germans. Patton sounds like another American hero you would probably disdain as well, Billy Mitchell. He was court martialed too, yet it was his ideas that fathered the USAF. AND, btw, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor back in the 40s.
That's the only reason ANYONE is ever PUT ANYWHERE in case you were confused about that.
Hypothetical bullshit. Too bad Michael Kinsley wasn't around then, huh?
More hypothetical bullshit!
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 19:01:12 GMT -8
It's funny, because Billy Mitchell is a hero of mine. A crusader against ineffective, outdated and stupid ideas/laws. Kinda reminds me of myself....
Funny that you should bring up a man who had nothing but contempt for ancient traditions.
There is a reason why Patton wasn't given command of an army until Monty completely screwed up the breakout from Normandy. If not for Monty's incompetence, there was no plan for Patton to be used ever again.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 7, 2006 19:01:55 GMT -8
Patton certainly was NOT kicked out of the Army.
He was on active duty in postwar Germany when he died of injuries received in an auto crash outside Mannheim.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on May 7, 2006 19:03:20 GMT -8
Mario:
Well, either him or worse the guy next to him.
The good news is he'll more than likely be a REMF. In the USAF, the fighter pilots are really the ones in combat. Everyone else is doing some kind of REMF duty.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 19:04:48 GMT -8
Yea....those Combat Controllers rarely see combat...
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on May 7, 2006 19:06:11 GMT -8
What he had contempt for was politics and bullshit.
Same as Patton.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 19:06:29 GMT -8
Patton certainly was NOT kicked out of the Army. He was on active duty in postwar Germany when he died of injuries received in an auto crash outside Mannheim. "After the close of World War II, Patton became occupation commander of Bavaria, and made arrangements for saving the world-famous Lippizanner stallions of Vienna. However, he was relieved of duty after making comments that the Nazis were nothing more than a normal political party, and ordering former SS units to begin drilling in attempt to gain some respectability. Eisenhower at last had had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States. When Patton openly accused Eisenhower of caring more about a political career than his military duties, the friendship between the two effectively came to an end." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_PattonTechnically he was still in the Army. But that would have ended soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on May 7, 2006 19:07:30 GMT -8
Yea....those Combat Controllers rarely see combat... I had a couple of fighter pilot buddies that had to go do that. There aren't too many of them. However, I think you need to do something OTHER THAN call in airstrikes. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2006 19:14:55 GMT -8
Fair enough Codi. But then you should not assign the values of Muslim terrorists to our soldiers. As I've tried to say many times, there is a good reason why our soldiers do not act like terrorists. Yes, the terrorists are fighting no-holds barred. They are fighting with the gloves off and are taking no chances.
But then again, they behead civilians and blow up babies. Do you want us to start acting like that? We could "win" in Iraq within a few minutes if we acted like them. But then who would be the "winner"?
It's not always that easy. The Brits have killed several Irish civilians in the past who they believed were members of the IRA but were not. The WoT isn't always conducted face-to-face with the enemy. When you start killing people from 30.000 feet away, there is no guarantee that what you're killing is a terrorist.
The car we blew up in Yemen had confirmed terrorists in it. But don't think that we only kill terrorists when they are face-to-face with our soldiers.
Even still, the fact that we needed him did not guarantee his saftey in the military. As I said earlier, if not for his personal relationship with Eisenhower, he probably would have been court-martialed earlier.
I use probably because I'm no fortune teller. I have no idea what would have actually happened.
|
|
