Soldier survives attack; captures, medically treats sniper (Video) (merge)

[Taurus 66]

I also find it *extremely* offensive to watch you flame people who are doing their jobs as anti-american.

So?

I'm behind the soldiers 100%, and if they want to interrogate the enemy in the way you speak of, and it's the military's decision to do so, then I support it. They know what's what. I just don't want politicians, especially senators like Durbin (D-IL) (who knows nothing about combat) playing "arm chair general", influencing key military objectives, and placing hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of American troops in harm's way.

they did not just walk into that office and sit down, they were elected by a sufficient margin of people to put them there and have to answer to those people.

Hmmm ...

they were elected by a sufficient margin of people to put them there and have to answer to those people.

I feel much the same way about YOUR beliefs, as you do about Islam, but I have enough respect an tolerance to accept that each person practices a belief differently

Is this religious tolerance you refer to? Just how much religious tolerance do you suppose Osama Bin Laden, Muhammad Atta, Abdurahman M. Alamoudi, Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have for christianity or catholicism? I don't need to be 'forced' into 'respecting' head scarfs, the koran, mosques, or Rama Domma Ding Dong, like this is some diversity lecture you may have fallen for once upon a time. I won't fall for it! If you want to show tolerance, be my guest, but don't force that stuff about tolerance upon me.

I'm now going to drop this issue. It causes too much drifting.

 

[Khaotic]

If you want to show tolerance, be my guest, but don't force that stuff about tolerance upon me.

I'm now going to drop this issue. It causes too much drifting.

I'll drop it too, with one caveat - if you do not want your belief system ridiculed or mocked, don't go mocking those of others, you cannot demand respect if you do not offer it.

-K

 

[GunGoBoom]

I'm just confused about which words' use is offensive to Don?

Also curious as to what kind of body armor stopped a 762x54 - must have been trauma plates.

 

[AK-74me]

I'm just confused about which words' use is offensive to Don?

I don't know maybe them saying "god is great" after just shooting one of our guys.

 

[RevDisk]

But if you shoot all of them, what needs to be said?

The war would be over.

Genocide, murder and violating ROE's are all crimes under US Law. If the US Army was committing genocide, the war would only be started.

I remember my oath rather clearly. Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Violating Constitionally ok laws would not be in agreement with my oath. In addition, my oath requires me to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies. If the US Army wanted to conduct systematic genocide, murder and other violations of US law, all soldiers would be required by their oath to refuse such orders on the basis that they are illegal.

While not a politically correct thought, all soldiers would be required to not only disobey illegal orders, but stop others from committing such illegal orders.

Oh yea. We're supposed to be 'liberating' Iraq. I think you lost track of that point.

I won't tell anyone if you don't. Nevertheless, peepings will leak back to "Turban" Durban, Hillary "Dillary", "Shroomer" Schumer and alike sicko anti-American, anti-American victory in war politicians ... so your grillin' tactics may be on the backburner for a wee bit longer.

Just a minor thing, but I don't believe subtle advocations of murder are exactly in the spirit of THR. Interestingly, all of those politicians were elected according to American rules regarding elections. If they are supposedly "anti-American" as you so claim, that is solely because the people elected them to be so.

Why not convince their voters not to vote for them? Obviously, if said politicians were elected and re-elected, a significant percentage of the voting population agrees with their views.

I'm behind the soldiers 100%, and if they want to interrogate the enemy in the way you speak of, and it's the military's decision to do so, then I support it. They know what's what. I just don't want politicians, especially senators like Durbin (D-IL) (who knows nothing about combat) playing "arm chair general", influencing key military objectives, and placing hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of American troops in harm's way.

If you wish to support the military, that's fine. If the military wishes to violate various laws passes by Congress, that's not fine. It violates the "military obeys civilian leadership" principle. Any member of the military violating an order by Congress would and should go to prison.

Torture and interrogation are often thought to be the same thing. They are not. Torture is the intentional act of inflicting pain or physical harm. It exists independently of any desire to obtain information. Interrogation is an attempt to extracting information.

Read ANY technical manual from any type of military intelligence, or any book written by anyone versed in interrogation. Torture is much more likely to get you the wrong information than the correct information. Torture makes the tortured say anything that they believe will stop the pain. Read accounts of the Salem witch trials or any other detailed account of the Inquisition. The tortured would agree to ANYTHING in order to stop the pain.

The point of torture is to get the accused to admit to wrongdoing regardless of any question of guilt or innocence. In other words, there is no point of obtaining information, just 'confirmation' of pre-conceived accusations. Torturers themselves usually commit torture for rather obvious reasons. More often than not, they simply enjoy it. They need no information, they merely wish to justify their sick behavior.

So... if politican puts soldiers "in harms way" for reasons you agree with, it's justified. If a politician puts soldiers "in harms way" for reasons you disagree with, it's bad? Obviously accuracy of accusations play no part in your scorn. Bush was either proven incorrect or evidence was inconclusive on the many of the accusations he made. Durbin was also was incorrect or evidence was inconclusive on many of the accusations he made. So... What's the difference?

I don't need to be 'forced' into 'respecting' head scarfs, the koran, mosques, or Rama Domma Ding Dong, like this is some diversity lecture you may have fallen for once upon a time. I won't fall for it! If you want to show tolerance, be my guest, but don't force that stuff about tolerance upon me.

No, you don't need to be forced into respecting anything. Then again, no one can be forced to respect you either. It's a two way street. If you show no respect, why should anyone bother to respect your opinions?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I find it ironic that the method the enemy sniper was using was EXACTLY the same as the DC Beltway snipers (shooting from a parked vehicle through a small hole). Still think terrorism had nothing to do with the beltway murders?

Well Boofus, the answer is quite simple. You see, the beltway snipers were not shooting any any sort of political, social, or religious agenda in mind. Terrorism consists of acts of violence or threats of violence, usually against non-combatant civilian populations with the intent of causing mental distress such as terror so that said population will pressure their leaders (social, political, or religious) to make some sort of changes in behavior.

The beltway snipers were simply serial murderers, nothing more. Just because they used the same tactic as the sniper in the video is not relevant. It also happens to be a very similar tactic used by many snipers around the world to do their job. Just becasue they use the same tactic does not mean they are terrorists any more than it means they are professional military snipers or homemakers. It is just a tactic.

FYI, the US has been engaged in terroristic activities for a long period of time, only we don't see it that way. We wholesale bombed major cities in various wars with the hopes of demoralizing local populations, hoping that such acts would eventually result in so much stress and complaints that the political powers would give in to the suffering of their people and surrender. The killing of noncombatants in order to bring about social, political, or religious change is terrorism.

Plus, if you take the time to listen to what those opposed to the US in Iraq feel about the situation, they are not engaged in terrorism. They are engaged in an underground battle against an occupying force much like the French in WWII. It all comes down to perspective.

I am just guessing here, but if we were occupied by a Muslim army or any other army from a foreign power, I would have no doubt we would engage in the very same activities and not one of us call ourselves a terrorist.