British Soldiers Targeted At Home

[Husar]

If you would treat ANY government or even person by the worst it/ he has done, there would be very little love in the world.

And you think that is fine or why do you always rate the USA by the worst they have done?

[Subotan]

I too think it's ridiculous that they keep stamping about yelling about how Obama is bringing terrorists to the US. It's civilian court, it should be fine. If there's not enough evidence to convict the detainees then by all means release them back to their country of origin. It's what should have been done from the get go, I don't understand how anyone can believe the sensationalists that make it sound like Obama is buying them a house in your local suburbs.

Well, that's just politics. Had the Bush Administration been made up of people with basic understandings of liberty, and attempted to do what Obama was doing now, the Republicans would be as silent as a mouse. And, to be fair, the Democrats would be going crazy, although probably not to the same extremes as what the GOP is doing now. And IIRC, the prison that's tipped to be used to store the inmates is a max security prison that's, uh, empty. The locals want the terrorists to come, as it will create jobs in the area.

[HoreTore]

I am deeply sorry Obama didn't live up to your expectation and I am sorry for not pointing it out sooner that he wouldn't :shame:

I have never, ever seen Obama as anything but the lesser of two evils. He's far away from where my own stance on most things, I have no reason to support him.


I'm pretty sure that leaders from all over the world, not just western ones demonize their enemies. I've yet to see the President go and call the Taliban Satan or little Satan. Of course some Taliban are undoubtedly intelligent people that feel they are fighting for a just cause the Taliban organization as a whole is unabashedly cruel against all that it puts within is sphere of influence.

I still will never understand why you believe that soldiers are as bad as Taliban fighters. Yes, both of them kill, and yes, both of them kill civilians. However, the former tries to avoid it while the later uses it to set an example and establish control.
Horetore, you served a short time in the Norwegian Army, right? Were you trained to kill every human you can, was the topic avoided? Where do you get the idea that soldiers still operate like the SS did during WWII? Surely the few outrages done by western soldiers hasn't convinced you that it's standard operating procedure.

They may not operate like the SS, but some of them certainly have the attitude of the SS, like one guy in my platoon who consistently referred to anything browner than norwegian white as "monkeys". And still he was sent to Afghanistan on my tax dollars. I don't have any reason at all to believe that man will try to avoid civilian casualties.

As for the Taliban(even though my comment was aimed at "terrorists", which means a lot more than the taliban), they are of course a diverse group. Most of their recruits now are probably in it just for the money, as the Taliban pays much better than the Afghan army. Do I support them when they attack civilians? No, of course not. But when they attack our soldiers, it's fair game. After all, it's just what the soldiers signed up for.

And no, it's not just western leaders who demonize their enemies. But they are the only ones who doesn't have a need to demonize them. Of course the Taliban, Iranians or Chinese have the demonize their enemies, as they're complete :daisy: holes themselves. But Brown, Merkel, Sarkozy and Obama doesn't have that need, so they should be more sober in their statements.

Oh, and Bush did his little "Axis of Evil"-thingy, that's equivalent to calling someone "satan", isn't it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I too think it's ridiculous that they keep stamping about yelling about how Obama is bringing terrorists to the US. It's civilian court, it should be fine. If there's not enough evidence to convict the detainees then by all means release them back to their country of origin. It's what should have been done from the get go, I don't understand how anyone can believe the sensationalists that make it sound like Obama is buying them a house in your local suburbs.

They're angry because any detainees on U.S. soil would, traditionally, be accorded the full rights and treatment given to U.S. Citizens (absent a declaration of war by their country of origin against the USA such as pertained to the German combatants/saboteurs apprehended in WW2). As such, in a civil trial, their defense attorneys will argue that torture/unauthorized/un-mirandized interrogation was used as a source for some/all of the information brought before the caught and attempt to have it thrown out as "fruit of the poisoned tree." These detainees, in most cases, are individuals whose return to their countries of origin has been denied by those countries themselves. If their cases are thrown out of court, they cannot be returned and could not legally be detained, so they would need to be released into the civilian population.


I'm pretty sure that leaders from all over the world, not just western ones demonize their enemies. I've yet to see the President go and call the Taliban Satan or little Satan. Of course some Taliban are undoubtedly intelligent people that feel they are fighting for a just cause the Taliban organization as a whole is unabashedly cruel against all that it puts within is sphere of influence.

I still will never understand why you believe that soldiers are as bad as Taliban fighters. Yes, both of them kill, and yes, both of them kill civilians. However, the former tries to avoid it while the later uses it to set an example and establish control.
Horetore, you served a short time in the Norwegian Army, right? Were you trained to kill every human you can, was the topic avoided? Where do you get the idea that soldiers still operate like the SS did during WWII? Surely the few outrages done by western soldiers hasn't convinced you that it's standard operating procedure.

I find the distinction you draw to be significant. To me, there is a great deal of difference between accidentally killing civilians despite efforts to minimized this (SOP for NATO), killing civilians while failing to take appropriate precautions (negligent and prosecutable) and specifically targeting civilians in order to make a nice "splash" (bog-SOP for terrorists).

On the other hand, some ethicists would argue that ANY attempt to minimize the horrors of war or delineate between civilians and armed opponents is moot, and that only by maximizing the damage you do to the opponent are you acting "ethically." In other words, all war must be conducted as total war.

[Subotan]

Most of their recruits now are probably in it just for the money, as the Taliban pays much better than the Afghan army.

Sauce?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They may not operate like the SS, but some of them certainly have the attitude of the SS, like one guy in my platoon who consistently referred to anything browner than norwegian white as "monkeys". And still he was sent to Afghanistan on my tax dollars. I don't have any reason at all to believe that man will try to avoid civilian casualties.

One guy in your platoon was a racist, so all soldiers are bastards? It's a bit of a leap, and given that most soldiers are not bastards, he will probably be restrained.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I find it amusing that HoreTore is more "understanding" of the Taliban than the army constructed to defend him. :laugh4:

After all, one man in the army means that they are a terrible, quasi-SS organization which will kill civilians without remorse. But the Taliban aren't bad, because they're just poor people who need the money.

The moral relativism in this thread just crossed the line beyond the line of irrationality.

:dizzy2:

[HoreTore]

One guy in your platoon was a racist, so all soldiers are bastards? It's a bit of a leap, and given that most soldiers are not bastards, he will probably be restrained.


I find it amusing that HoreTore is more "understanding" of the Taliban than the army constructed to defend him. :laugh4:

After all, one man in the army means that they are a terrible, quasi-SS organization which will kill civilians without remorse. But the Taliban aren't bad, because they're just poor people who need the money.

The moral relativism in this thread just crossed the line beyond the line of irrationality.

:dizzy2:

Please re-read my post before you unleash fanaticism. You may find some interesting words in it, like "some of them".

EDIT: And cut the strawman crap.


I find the distinction you draw to be significant. To me, there is a great deal of difference between accidentally killing civilians despite efforts to minimized this (SOP for NATO), killing civilians while failing to take appropriate precautions (negligent and prosecutable) and specifically targeting civilians in order to make a nice "splash" (bog-SOP for terrorists).

On the other hand, some ethicists would argue that ANY attempt to minimize the horrors of war or delineate between civilians and armed opponents is moot, and that only by maximizing the damage you do to the opponent are you acting "ethically." In other words, all war must be conducted as total war.

Like your new Afghan commander has figured out; if NATO is to win this war, they will have to change their SOP. NATO soldiers need to take more risk and stop calling in air strikes all the time, or in other words, stop killing the innocent civilians.

And I have to say that I agree with his assessment. You don't consider the man who bombed your family your friend. Even though it may be hard to understand for some people.

[Husar]

They could start by stopping to confuse me with seemingly new and confusing terms, buzzwords and abbreviations. What the heck is SOP? SOUP? I know ROE (rules of engagement) and it seems to be what you are talking about, but SOP? strategy of persuasion? shattered old plumpudding? :shrug:

edit: Oh waaaait, standard operating procedure? :inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please re-read my post before you unleash fanaticism. You may find some interesting words in it, like "some of them".

We're extrapolating from your posting history, remember when you said soldiers were more worthless than drug addicts?

[Furunculus]

They could start by stopping to confuse me with seemingly new and confusing terms, buzzwords and abbreviations. What the heck is SOP? SOUP? I know ROE (rules of engagement) and it seems to be what you are talking about, but SOP? strategy of persuasion? shattered old plumpudding? :shrug:

edit: Oh waaaait, standard operating procedure? :inquisitive:

roflmao! :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

We're extrapolating from your posting history, remember when you said soldiers were more worthless than drug addicts?

I remember saying they were as useful to me as junkies, yup.

EDIT: Still above the level of the average marketing guy though....