The Kill Team

[P.K.]

But while I would not engage in war by the same token I would not condemn the actions taken by people who do in order to protect me and allow me to live as a Christian. There is such a thing as a just war. Very few, but such things do exist.

I don't disagree. Which ones are those?

 

Those are the ones the good guys get to write about...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Do you actually understand what Taliban means and what the Taliban are members actually are? Maybe if you did you would begin to understand a bit better what is taking place.

I understand what their politics are and their behaviour. But it is not one of posing a thread to the West, unlike Al Qaeda. Their religion, but more importantly their political interests are quite dissimilar.

 

Close but not close enough. There is a Jihad against those of us who are not Muslims. There has been for over a millennium. From time to time it flares up. History doesn't seem to be a strong point of your education.

Perpetrated by whom? I agree if you talk of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. But it's gets somewhat tricky in discussing the Taliban, who are were far more interested in consolidating their former government over Afghanistan and in recapturing it today.

Can you give examples of this Jihadist history that I am missing please? And exactly who poses a threat?

 

Not emphasised, simply publicised to the same extent. However if such was to happen then our newspapers would need to be many times the size they are in order to present the atrocities giving equal column inch to each atrocity if all the dreadful acts perpetrated by our enemies.

But as I have said, there is no point doing so. And there is no comparison that should be made between their acts and the acts of American service personnel.

 

Does it really need explanation? It includes logistics, provision of comfort for the actual protagonists, support, harbouring, clothing and feeding, encouragement, fund raising, and even putting oneself in harms way either as shield or as a propaganda tool to be used by the terrorist group to change the perception of what is taking place in order to gain undeserved kudos in the outside world.

It did need an explanation! I didn't know what you meant by machinery.

 

What sort of kudos is being won?

 

You could call this machinery. But I would find the word 'support' to be adequate.

 

I believe that I do, but why don't you let us know why YOU think it's being done?

Because they would be the weaker side in any conventionally fought battle. Therefore, they choose unconventional tactics to afford defence and open opportunities to attack.

 

When confronting a military force under military discipline and who are further constrained in their action by rules of engagement as well as conventions of warfare there is everything wrong with it. It is the conduct of cowards.

That's simply idiotic. You honestly expect that when a country is invaded or attacked that they MUST therefore engage their attacker using tactics and strategy they know would make them lose?

It is understandable to use tactics and strategy that offer a chance of stalemate or victory.

Now the methods might be wrong, in the sense of using civilians. I don't agree with it. But I understand why it happens.

But as for leaving roadside bombs, the choice of people to blow themselves up, and all manner of non-conventional tactics - it's simply the nature of warfare when the strong attack the weak.

And uniforms would make it very, very easy to eliminate the Taliban, if they wore won.

 

Of course, it is worth reminding that terrorism is purely those acts which are committed against civilians, which in the case of the Taliban would mark them as terrorists. But using unconventional tactics against an invading force and supporting that is not terrorism.

[midnight]

Just googled the definition of terrorism as u somtimes cant believe a lot of stuff you read on here, theres quite a bit of non-sense posted!

 

The wikipedia definition includes -

 

“Some definitions of terrorism also include acts of unlawful violence and war.”

 

To sugest that terrorists are only members of non governmental groups and regimes and are acts made only towards civilians is a mistake !

 

By definition, ANY invading force or group, no matter who they are or represent ect, and that includes governments from ANY nation, and no matter who they are murdering via unlawful acts of war, makes them a terrorist!

 

What does that tell you about the USA and the UK when they invaded iraq based on the reasons (lies) they gave at the time?

They have the excuse now were they try to fool and blind us with “ we got our reasons wrong, sorry about that , we made a mistake, but iraq is better off without saddam hiesien so the war was justifed anyways”

 

The removal of saddam hieusein was NOT the original excuse for invading iraq therefore that invasion was an unlawful act of war.

 

Theres to much hypocrisy of blaming others for terrorism and not looking at oneself!

 

They are you and you are them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dont go to war against anyone else and they wont go to wars against you! !

 

The rose thorn only protects its petals and harms only those who try to steal from it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gazza]

To be honest i seen a part of this kill team video, and all it showed was 2 people getting gunned down,

 

now i dont know the details of this just like the rest of you, who knows if this team had been given orders to kill the 2 men etc.

we never know because such things like this are never released.

 

Just because theres a video of some killing does not mean its not legal killing in the sense.

Nobbod ever said war was easy or nice and noboody died

[midnight]

To be honest i seen a part of this kill team video, and all it showed was 2 people getting gunned down,

 

now i dont know the details of this just like the rest of you, who knows if this team had been given orders to kill the 2 men etc.

we never know because such things like this are never released.

 

Just because theres a video of some killing does not mean its not legal killing in the sense.

Nobbod ever said war was easy or nice and noboody died

 

Did u also notice gazza within the report , were it showed a photo of a soldier posing with a little child.,accompanyied by the sinister paragraph -

 

At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets.

 

Im not sure what u think but I dont consider this to be "normal" actions of war, of cousre war is not easy or nice ect but these are the evil thoughts of murdering innocent children, it has nothing watsoever to do with war !!!

[gazza]

 

 

At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets.

 

 

 

There you, It was a THOUGHT it diden happin, wow just because they said it does not mean they did it,

im sure you could arrested half a pub of people with things they said they could do, but dont.

[Pragmatopian]

At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets.

 

There you, It was a THOUGHT it diden happin, wow just because they said it does not mean they did it,

im sure you could arrested half a pub of people with things they said they could do, but dont.

 

I can't imagine many contexts in which it would not be incredibly disturbing for professional soldiers to be talking about luring innocent children with sweets and then gunning them down. A 'wait and see' approach probably isn't appropriate in those circumstances: that soldiers would openly express such thoughts with their colleagues is an indicator of something fundamentally wrong.

[spook]

Just googled the definition of terrorism as u somtimes cant believe a lot of stuff you read on here, theres quite a bit of non-sense posted!

 

The wikipedia definition includes -

 

Some definitions of terrorism also include acts of unlawful violence and war.

 

To sugest that terrorists are only members of non governmental groups and regimes and are acts made only towards civilians is a mistake !

 

By definition, ANY invading force or group, no matter who they are or represent ect, and that includes governments from ANY nation, and no matter who they are murdering via unlawful acts of war, makes them a terrorist!

 

What does that tell you about the USA and the UK when they invaded iraq based on the reasons (lies) they gave at the time?

They have the excuse now were they try to fool and blind us with we got our reasons wrong, sorry about that , we made a mistake, but iraq is better off without saddam hiesien so the war was justifed anyways

 

The removal of saddam hieusein was NOT the original excuse for invading iraq therefore that invasion was an unlawful act of war.

 

Theres to much hypocrisy of blaming others for terrorism and not looking at oneself!

 

They are you and you are them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dont go to war against anyone else and they wont go to wars against you! !

 

The rose thorn only protects its petals and harms only those who try to steal from it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Terrorism is quite simply the instilling in a civilian population raw fear in the hope or expectation that they will influence their government to act in a way that the terrorists desire.

 

It is precisely why the Geneva and many of the Hague conventions proscribe the deliberate targeting of civilian populations during armed conflict and why the Western powers severely punish members of our armed services if they do deliberately target civilians unlike our mutual enemies who laud the attacking of civilians.

 

If a member of a Western armed force attacks civilians he or she is not a terrorist they are a criminal and if so proven are severely punished.

 

As for they are you and you are them that is simply untrue. There are cases, one in particular, where the ideologies that each side hold to are so incompatible that there is no common ground to have anything built upon it other than a very secure wall.

 

As for don't go to war against anyone and they won't go to war against you that is garbage. There are things in this world that simply must be confronted.

 

Jesus taught us that when confronted by an enemy the right way is to turn the other cheek (though he didn't mention what to do if you got a clout on that one as well!) and so many Christian people believe that is the only option when confronted by an enemy.

 

There was however one case where Jesus taught us that such is not the right thing to do. It is when facing raw evil. In Luke 4:5 8 when tempted by the evil one Jesus does not offer the other cheek but instead confronts and rejects the common enemy.

 

War can be conducted in many ways other than by means of armed attack, and with many objectives in mind and evil comes in many forms. We should indeed remember to know the tree by its fruit. We ignore evil at our peril, Burke was spot on when he said All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[johnpdrummond]

I would of blown up Tynwald if i had the chance by now.......................

[P.K.]

If a member of a Western armed force attacks civilians he or she is not a terrorist they are a criminal and if so proven are severely punished.

 

Fire a round and your weapon is given up for forensic tests.

 

 

As for “don't go to war against anyone and they won't go to war against you” that is garbage. There are things in this world that simply must be confronted.

 

The only way to end wars is to have them...

 

 

We ignore evil at our peril, Burke was spot on when he said “ All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

 

Ahhhh but who are the good men?

 

The Taliban commit atrocities allegedly driven by their faith. Sound familiar does it spook?

[Keith]

To condemn the Americans because a foe is repaid coin with coin is utter hypocrisy, and as for atrocities conducted against civilians, that's a thing that takes place on all sides but sadly in this case only the very few by our enemies ever sees the light of publicity let alone the light of day.

 

What is worth note is not what is done, instead it is the reaction by the upper echelons wherein on the Western side of conflicts misbehaviour is rigorously investigated, and anyone found to have acted in what is viewed as an inappropriate manner is severely punished. This is especially worth note when what is done by the “other” side is actually lauded by their leaders.

 

I think you are missing the point, the authorities tried to cover this up. It only got acted upon after it became public. If it had been kept quiet... it would have been kept quiet.

 

 

If that was all it would be bad enough but it isn't. Using ones own kids as suicide bombers is infinitely worse than the admittedly rotten (if true) case of what must have been at least an isolated, or very nearly so, example of abuse by allied armed forces.

 

American soldiers murdering children is infinitely more acceptable than Afghan terrorists murdering their own children? That's odd, because in my skewed logic, both result in a dead child. Can't see either being infinitely 'better' than the other.

 

There is a story here, but it's not a story about men doing a rotten job against rotten people. It's that war is hell and unless you don't get down and dirty against your enemy then he will see you off by getting down and dirty against you.

What is also sure is that the basic cowardice of terrorists will result in them being at least demotivated out of raw fear of knowing what fate awaits them, and that terrorists don't wear uniforms. There's a bitter “joke” that still does the rounds. “How do you change a murdering scum terrorist into a civilian? Kill him.

 

Just wondering then, should the British government have sent helicopter gunships down the Falls Road, blasting every house away after any IRA bombs? If British soldiers had murdered Catholic children, that would have been acceptable because the enemy used terror tactics? And if it wouldn't have been a reasonable response, is that because they are Christian rather than Muslim or because they are European children?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Terrorism is quite simply the instilling in a civilian population raw fear in the hope or expectation that they will influence their government to act in a way that the terrorists desire.

That's purely referring to terrorism of individuals. Terrorism simply means the threat or use of violence against civilians for political or religious purposes. It can be conducted by governments or by individuals.

 

why the Western powers severely punish members of our armed services if they do deliberately target civilians unlike our mutual enemies who laud the attacking of civilians.

I think you are overlooking the very fact that the methods employed by western power constitute terrorism because of the certainty of civilian death, injury, and the threat of violence of civilians. There may be a desire to limit the terrorism that comes with such use of armed forces, but it is almost inevitable.

The aerial bombings of Kosovo and Afghanistan were terrorist actions.

 

There are cases, one in particular, where the ideologies that each side hold to are so incompatible that there is no common ground to have anything built upon it other than a very secure wall.

You think a secure wall should be built? What sort of wall?

 

As for “don't go to war against anyone and they won't go to war against you” that is garbage. There are things in this world that simply must be confronted.

But the question is what must be confronted and how should it be confronted. Even if I agreed that the USA and Britain had a legitimate right to remove the Taliban, it is another matter as to how they attempt to do this.

 

 

What are the characteristics that you class as being those of pure evil, which you believe require action to be taken?

[Keith]

I've just finished reading WAR by Sebastian Junger.

 

For your next book, I'd recommend "Don't Shoot the Clowns-Taking a Circus to the Children if Iraq" by Jo Wilding.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Shoot-Clowns-Taking-Circus/dp/1904456480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301790488&sr=8-1#reader_1904456480

 

Incredible, brave, funny, heart-warming and at times, more than just a little bit bonkers.

 

Obviously a different war to the one in this thread, but when people suggest that the US soldiers deliberately fire upon ambulances, it becomes a bit more real when you read a first hand account of an English woman who happened to be in an ambulance that was repeatedly hit. If "we" are going to take the moral high ground, "we" need to occupy it with dignity. Repeatedly and routinely shooting ambulances? I think that counts as terrorism.

[spook]

 

The Taliban commit atrocities allegedly driven by their faith. Sound familiar does it spook?[/font]

Muslim activists of which the Taliban are but one form do what they do BECAUSE of what they are told in Muhammeds Qur'an, People professing to be Christians do what they do IN SPITE of what they are told by Christ.

[Chinahand]

Spook - no doubt there is pacifism in Jesus's teachings, but passages such as Luke 19:26 have been used as excuses for violence throughout Christianity's bloody history. People can twist the bible as they like, and have done since time immemorial.

 

Luke 19:26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’

 

Can you really say its not possible for some people to interpret this as direct request for Jesus's servants to kill those who don't accept Him? Who can say they understand what these verses (and others) really mean?

 

All you are left with are claims about true Christians being able to disentangle the real meaning of Christ's contradictions - and of course there is evidence for that too, which doesn't end well for those who are not so choosen ...

 

Matthew 22:8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

 

11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.

 

13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”