NationStates Jolt Archive

It was legal to shoot prisoners then - why didn't we just shoot the Taliban prisoners when captured - then we wouldn't have any Guantanamo stories to hear.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/EDBF5388C785066F86257011005B951D?OpenDocument

SS killed 7 just after war’s end
By Paul Hampel
Of the Post-Dispatch
05/30/2005

On the day that the nation mourns its war dead, Bill Oettle's memories return to seven fellow soldiers shot to death one day after World War II ended in Europe.

Oettle, 79, a retired schoolteacher from rural Monroe County, knows firsthand that warfare does not always end when the war does.

In 1945, he was a driver in an M-18 tank destroyer pursuing retreating German troops across northern Italy.

He was 18 at the time, the minimum age for a front-line soldier. Just a few months earlier, he had been playing Indian ball in his hometown of Hardin, Ill.

Now, he was slogging across an Italian countryside transformed into a landscape of the surreal: a pass in the Apennine mountains lined with dead mules; a German officer in the Po Valley, muttering and walking in circles with half his head blown off; a quaint stone cottage near Bologna with a hole in the roof where a mortar fell through, its open door revealing two dead American soldiers who were twin brothers.

Oettle survived close calls. One time, near Bologna, a mortar round hit the top of a stone archway where he had sought cover. The shrapnel wounded soldiers hundreds of feet away. Oettle was closest to the blast but didn't get a scratch.

"I wasn't so brave, don't get me wrong," he said. "Most guys aren't natural born soldiers. They're just taught to do the right thing at the right time."

On the afternoon of May 8, Oettle's company neared the town of Borgo, near the Austrian border.

A German staff car approached with a white flag fluttering on the hood.

"The German officers in the car told us the war had ended," Oettle said.

It was news to Oettle's company. For weeks, they had been traveling so fast and so far ahead of their lines that they were attacked by American fighter planes mistaking them for fleeing Germans.

In fact, at 1:41 a.m. May 7, Germany had signed an unconditional surrender.

The American troops, part of the 85th Infantry Division, moved cautiously forward. Excitement that the war indeed might be over mingled with dread that the next step could trigger a land mine, or that a mortar could come whistling in.

Surrendering German troops were passing in droves, heading for the rear.

And then came shots from a culvert up the road.

Oettle's crew buckled up inside their armor. But the infantrymen walking in the field beside them could only hit the dirt.

Two officers of the German SS - Hitler's most fanatical soldiers - began picking off the American GIs.

Armed with rifles equipped with scopes, the SS officers killed seven men and wounded numerous others before they were captured.

"A second lieutenant marched the SS snipers right in front of our tank destroyer," Oettle said.

"He took their pistols away. We already had their rifles.

"He stood them in front of a foxhole that the Germans had dug and shot both of them in their bellies.

"They hollered something and fell back." Oettle recalls the exact time: 4:23 p.m. May 8, 1945. The war had ended more than 37 hours earlier.

Sporadic fighting would continue for a few more days in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Croatia and other regions. Most of it involved German troops trying to force their way through Russian lines to surrender to American forces.

But that wasn't the case in Borgo.

"Those SS troops had no business killing seven of our guys when they knew the war was over. They just wanted to kill as many of us as they could," Oettle said. "That was just disgraceful. Seven men dying a day late."

Reporter Paul Hampel

The Nazi SS are like the Taliban. The fanatics, til death.
A war isn't over because you've overrun their nation.

It was legal to shoot prisoners then - why didn't we just shoot the Taliban prisoners when captured - then we wouldn't have any Guantanamo stories to hear.


Legal? Ever heard of Nuremburg?

Legal? Ever heard of Nuremburg?
It *IS* legal to shoot them - unless you accept their surrender.

Historically and legally, this has been the case for a long, long time.

The lieutenant in question could easily argue that he is not equipped to handle prisoners, and no MPs are available to pick them up - and he can't leave such hostile people to resume fighting.

We were taught this MANY times in the Army - by lawyers from JAG. Put your hand on them - accept their surrender verbally - and you can't harm them.

But if you don't accept the surrender, you can shoot them on the spot.

You will also note that none of the men involved in this incident were even investigated for their actions - nor were investigations called for later, or even today. The reason? Because it was and is legal.

Maybe because you shouldn't shoot unarmed prisoners/captives that cannot defend themselves? Honour, a thing that is sadly rare nowadays.

Maybe because you shouldn't shoot unarmed prisoners/captives that cannot defend themselves? Honour, a thing that is sadly rare nowadays.

Combat rarely has anything to do with honor. And it's traditional to shoot people who were up until recently shooting at you, if you choose not to accept their surrender.

Nothing in the book says you MUST accept their surrender. Nothing.

It's interesting talking about prisoner treatment.
During WWII, you'd have trouble finding Japanese POWs because the Americans shot all the people who surrendered.

It's interesting talking about prisoner treatment.
During WWII, you'd have trouble finding Japanese POWs because the Americans shot all the people who surrendered.

You will also recall that the elder George Bush (the one who served as a pilot in WW II) strafed survivors of a sunken ship who were trying to get away in a small boat. He also shot at Japanese pilots who were parachuting out of stricken aircraft.

It was policy. It was legal, and it still is legal.

You will also recall that the elder George Bush (the one who served as a pilot in WW II) strafed survivors of a sunken ship who were trying to get away in a small boat. He also shot at Japanese pilots who were parachuting out of stricken aircraft.

It was policy. It was legal, and it still is legal.

Legality doesn't make it morally right. The only excuse for killing another human being is that of defence- be it the defence of your own or someone elses life. I find killing in defence of an ideal or political standpoint abhorent, as I would hope most people do.

Legality doesn't make it morally right. The only excuse for killing another human being is that of defence- be it the defence of your own or someone elses life. I find killing in defence of an ideal or political standpoint abhorent, as I would hope most people do.

Ok, I'll bite.

We shot them because we were on the move, and had no resources to detain men who were obviously so violent that they could be expected to return to combat and kill more Americans if they were not detained.

I would be OK with this. Better they're dead and in a hole in the ground than either I or my friends getting killed later because we didn't "take care".

Maybe because you shouldn't shoot unarmed prisoners/captives that cannot defend themselves?
That's why I think we should take everyone from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, give them an AK-47 and one clip of ammo and drop them off in the middle of Baghdad...and suspend orders of taking any prisoners or accepting surrenders. They get a chance to either fight/die or rethink their involvement with terrorism and disappear...their choice.

Either way, it empties out AG and GB (so we don't have to hear any more shit from the bleeding hearts out there) and gives the troops the chance to take care of the bastards once and for all.

That's why I think we should take everyone from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, give them an AK-47 and one clip of ammo and drop them off in the middle of Baghdad...and suspend orders of taking any prisoners or accepting surrenders. They get a chance to either fight/die or rethink their involvement with terrorism and disappear...their choice.

Either way, it empties out AG and GB (so we don't have to hear any more shit from the bleeding hearts out there) and gives the troops the chance to take care of the bastards once and for all.

Its attitudes like this that fuel extremists. We brits made the same mistakes in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s. Going in as hard as possible just fuels resentment and means more people flock to your enemies cause. Creating a free for all for US troops to fire on anyone holding a gun wouldn't exactly do wonders for your image with a people whom your trying to convince are your friends (the local Iraqi people).

Its attitudes like this that fuel extremists. We brits made the same mistakes in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s. Going in as hard as possible just fuels resentment and means more people flock to your enemies cause. Creating a free for all for US troops to fire on anyone holding a gun wouldn't exactly do wonders for your image with a people whom your trying to convince are your friends (the local Iraqi people).

It's one thing to convince the Iraqi people.

It's quite another to even have the discussion with a Salafist (the people who are in Guantanamo).

There is no negotiating with a Salafist or his supporters. As far as they are concerned, we are already dead. Perhaps you should meet one in person, and find out that they are NOTHING like anything we encounter in modern society.

It's interesting talking about prisoner treatment.
During WWII, you'd have trouble finding Japanese POWs because the Americans shot all the people who surrendered.

More a case that it was incredibly hard to drive a Japanese soldier to surrender - most would rather stand their ground and be killed ratehr than submit. Despite this thousands were taken prisoner by the Allies.

This is not to say that during the island-hopping campaign the US forces didn't have a tendency to mistrust and hate their opponents which lead to refusal of some surrenders.

My whole point here is to try and explain what the conflicts are about and how your conuct in war should be shaped by that. Take the war in Iraq as an example. Coalition troops are trying to stop a bunch of extremist terrorists from killing and executing not just coalition troops but foreign workers and visitors and the local population. By lowering yourself to their level (torture, executions etc), now matter how little you may go down the slippery slope, just gives these people an excuse to continue their despicable ways. The means never justifies the ends.

It's one thing to convince the Iraqi people.

It's quite another to even have the discussion with a Salafist (the people who are in Guantanamo).

There is no negotiating with a Salafist or his supporters. As far as they are concerned, we are already dead. Perhaps you should meet one in person, and find out that they are NOTHING like anything we encounter in modern society.

I have never met a Salafist. I make no judgement as to whether they deserve any rights or recognitions - considering some of the atrocities that some of them may be guilty of, I would say there is a strong argument that they deserve none. However, we deserve the right not to become like them ourselves.

I served five years in the French Foreign Legion fighting tribal insurrections in Djibouti. Atrocities were commenplace - our Corporal always told us "the only way to defeat the barbarian is to ensure that you do not become like him".

I was taught that, for instance, if you're on a patrol at night, and don't have the ability to detain prisoners and continue with the patrol, you shoot them.

I think the point would be better taken by them if we didn't accidentally kill civilians who weren't involved in the fight. And if we most certainly, and without any further ado, killed everyone who participated in the fight.

Think about this. Here is how the United States Government handles prisoners in the conflict:

The USG, courtesy of the military and OGAs, plucks them up, puts them in a tropical location, and treats them in accordance with Geneva Conventions, actually better, since they aren't soldiers (since spies can be shot). Now it seems droves of attorneys are heading to GITMO and filing lawsuits on behalf of the Al Qaida and Taliban, because, even as foreign nationals at war agains the US, for some reason we have to afford them protections under our Constitution. We allow this to happen.

Conversely, Al Q, the terrorists, and anti-Western folks pluck prisoners, put them on the internet, and cut their heads off. There is no due process, (even the prisoners at GITMO will get due process) no mercy. No constitution or even anything in the Koran seems to be followed by the captors.

And, for some reason, we're just as bad as Al Q is, despite all the mass graves, carbombings, IEDs, beheadings, planes flying into buildings, and a ton of other shit the terrorists try and pull off on us every day, but by the grace of GOD and some good folks, prevent them from being successful.

Unfortunately, there's always going to be people who need killing. And, there's always going to be people who don't believe in killing, no matter how much they get fucked up themselves.

I was taught that, for instance, if you're on a patrol at night, and don't have the ability to detain prisoners and continue with the patrol, you shoot them.

I think the point would be better taken by them if we didn't accidentally kill civilians who weren't involved in the fight. And if we most certainly, and without any further ado, killed everyone who participated in the fight.

Accidents always happen in combat, you can never be one hundred percent sure that the guy with a club running towrads you isn't really carrying a pistol, or that the kid with a duffle bag climbing the fence into your base hasn't got it full of hand grenades. Accidents happen. The problem nowadays is that we have "televised warfare" and these accidents are more highly publicised than before.

EDIT - That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to prevent such accidents, just that they will always happen no matter how careful you are.

I was also taught to shoot prisoners if you were unable to hold them. Thankfully it never came to that. In modern warfare with modern technology and modern technology and communications, these types of scenario should be VERY few and far between.

I've heard that the more common variant (at least in Afghanistan) is when you make contact, you suppress them (probably killing some of them), and then you call in an AC-130.

There are NO survivors after that. It's usually impossible to get an accurate body count, as most of the people you were fighting are reduced to parts.

They don't seem to be taking prisoners unless they're ordered to now.

Ok, my turn to bite.

Think about this. Here is how the United States Government handles prisoners in the conflict:

1 The USG, courtesy of the military and OGAs, plucks them up, puts them in a tropical location, and treats them in accordance with Geneva Conventions, actually better, since they aren't soldiers (since spies can be shot). Now it seems droves of attorneys are heading to GITMO and filing lawsuits on behalf of the Al Qaida and Taliban, because, even as 2 foreign nationals at war agains the US, for some reason we have to afford them protections under our Constitution. We allow this to happen.
Conversely, Al Q, the terrorists, and anti-Western folks pluck prisoners, put them on the internet, and cut their heads off. There is no due process, 3 (even the prisoners at GITMO will get due process) no mercy. No constitution or even anything in the Koran seems to be followed by the captors.

And, for some reason, we're just as bad as Al Q is, despite all the mass graves, carbombings, IEDs, beheadings, planes flying into buildings, and a ton of other shit the terrorists try and pull off on us every day, but by the grace of GOD and some good folks, prevent them from being successful.

4 Unfortunately, there's always going to be people who need killing. And, there's always going to be people who don't believe in killing, no matter how much they get fucked up themselves.

1 - I'm not going to pretend that I know the full ins and outs of the Geneva Convention but considering the reports coming out of that place thats a pretty wild claim. Being moved about whilst blindfolded and interrorgated using sensory deprivation techniques isn't anywhere near good treatment. They probably don't deserve good treatment, so why pretend that thats what your giving them? Be honest. Oh, and by the way, don't even try telling us the guys at AG were treated fairly.

2 - Like I've tried to say before, you have to practice what you preach.

3 - When? They have been there a long time, with no sign of any sort of trial or hearing, either civil or military. As far as I know, they should go to the international court at the Hague.

4 - That is a real sad view of the world. I was once flying from London to Paris and we were told that because of a possible IRA bomb threat we had to VOLUNTEER to board the plane (this was the late 70s before lawsuits became popular). Several of us did, including myself - Why? Because I refuse to beaten by this type of Barbarism. Conversely, I refuse to treat these Barbarians the way they treat us, at any level. To do so brings me to their level. If that happens, then we have already let them win.

All of the detainees have had at least one, and in some cases, more than one military tribunal to determine their status.

Ever wonder why some have been released whose only tale to the press is that "I never did anything"?

The ones who are left must have credible evidence linking them to al-Q.

As for AG, that is, and was punished, as an aberration.

As for unsupported allegations about conduct at Guantanamo, they remain just that. Blindfolding prisoners is acceptable treatment while in transit. Don't tell me you never blindfolded a prisoner.

All of the detainees have had at least one, and in some cases, more than one military tribunal to determine their status.

Ever wonder why some have been released whose only tale to the press is that "I never did anything"?

The ones who are left must have credible evidence linking them to al-Q.

As for AG, that is, and was punished, as an aberration.

As for unsupported allegations about conduct at Guantanamo, they remain just that. Blindfolding prisoners is acceptable treatment while in transit. Don't tell me you never blindfolded a prisoner.

No, I never blindfolded a prisoner. There was no need. they all knew the location of the local prisons and knew exactly where they were going. What would be the point?

No, I never blindfolded a prisoner. There was no need. they all knew the location of the local prisons and knew exactly where they were going. What would be the point?

I *always* blindfolded prisoners. And that was in the first Gulf War.

I think the policy has changed now. In Afghanistan, they don't seem to be taking prisoners at all unless ordered to. There's always a call for something heavy like an AC-130 to pound the target and any individuals who run away in the dark - it's not possible to escape an AC-130 day or night.

these discussions are very interesting. gut shooting germans after the war is over probably should have gotten them some kind of punishment if it had come to the attention of the authorities. if it was a matter of not being able to take prisoners they could have been shot in the head eh?

we have prisoners at guantanamo bay not because we are soft and gentle. we have them there because we wanted them there. we needed the information they carried in their heads. they arent there because we want to toture them, they arent there because we are too weak to kill them. they are there to be interrogated.

it is well past the time when they should either be tried or released. it has become uncomfortably like the situation with POWs in north vietnam with US as ho chi min.

Think about this. Here is how the United States Government handles prisoners in the conflict:

The USG, courtesy of the military and OGAs, plucks them up, puts them in a tropical location, and treats them in accordance with Geneva Conventions, actually better, since they aren't soldiers (since spies can be shot). Now it seems droves of attorneys are heading to GITMO and filing lawsuits on behalf of the Al Qaida and Taliban, because, even as foreign nationals at war agains the US, for some reason we have to afford them protections under our Constitution. We allow this to happen.

Conversely, Al Q, the terrorists, and anti-Western folks pluck prisoners, put them on the internet, and cut their heads off. There is no due process, (even the prisoners at GITMO will get due process) no mercy. No constitution or even anything in the Koran seems to be followed by the captors.

And, for some reason, we're just as bad as Al Q is, despite all the mass graves, carbombings, IEDs, beheadings, planes flying into buildings, and a ton of other shit the terrorists try and pull off on us every day, but by the grace of GOD and some good folks, prevent them from being successful.

Unfortunately, there's always going to be people who need killing. And, there's always going to be people who don't believe in killing, no matter how much they get fucked up themselves.

My main beef while in the military was:

We had it drilled into us how important the Geneva Convention is, That we are to treat POW's as humainly as possible. But it seems that the only ones who abide by the convention are the allied nations of NATO. Every body else can do what they please and if a soldier in the allied forces kills a POW he is under the scrutiny of a court martial. It's seemingly OK for them but not for us, we are to hold ourselves to a higher standard and the world will thank us for it.

The world can piss on, burn, spit on, our flag, our soldiers, our bible, murder our people who are trying to help out, and we take it, but let one of our people do it to them all hell breaks loose.

The double standard is sickening. :mad:

My main beef while in the military was:

We had it drilled into us how important the Geneva Convention is, That we are to treat POW's as humainly as possible. But it seems that the only ones who abide by the convention are the allied nations of NATO. Every body else can do what they please and if a soldier in the allied forces kills a POW he is under the scrutiny of a court martial. It's seemingly OK for them but not for us, we are to hold ourselves to a higher standard and the world will thank us for it.

The world can piss on, burn, spit on, our flag, our soldiers, our bible, murder our people who are trying to help out, and we take it, but let one of our people do it to them all hell breaks loose.

The double standard is sickening. :mad:

I haven't heard a single European on this forum condemn the actions of the terrorists who cut people's throats on al-Jazeera.

Even when they killed Margaret Hassan, a woman who had spent her life helping the Iraqi poor. I didn't hear anyone speak up and say that the men who did that should be "dragged before the Hague".

My main beef while in the military was:

We had it drilled into us how important the Geneva Convention is, That we are to treat POW's as humainly as possible. But it seems that the only ones who abide by the convention are the allied nations of NATO. Every body else can do what they please and if a soldier in the allied forces kills a POW he is under the scrutiny of a court martial. It's seemingly OK for them but not for us, we are to hold ourselves to a higher standard and the world will thank us for it.

The world can piss on, burn, spit on, our flag, our soldiers, our bible, murder our people who are trying to help out, and we take it, but let one of our people do it to them all hell breaks loose.

The double standard is sickening. :mad:


We treated Japanese prisoners in WW2 properly even though they treated ours horribly. I don't know about the Americans though, from the sounds of what WL is saying, they just shot them. We did it because it was right.

It *IS* legal to shoot them - unless you accept their surrender.

Historically and legally, this has been the case for a long, long time.

The lieutenant in question could easily argue that he is not equipped to handle prisoners, and no MPs are available to pick them up - and he can't leave such hostile people to resume fighting.

We were taught this MANY times in the Army - by lawyers from JAG. Put your hand on them - accept their surrender verbally - and you can't harm them.

But if you don't accept the surrender, you can shoot them on the spot.

You will also note that none of the men involved in this incident were even investigated for their actions - nor were investigations called for later, or even today. The reason? Because it was and is legal.

Well then, there goes another rung on my respect for the military.

No longer huns, I think Mongols is more appropriate. No one who participates in crimes like that is valerous. They are little more than a band of maurauding mongols with M-16's and close air support. Hitler and Jenghis Khan would be proud.

I don't care how right you think you are, or how evil you percieve your enemy, you are a barbarian if you kill people who have surrendered. Whether you accept the surrender or not, I don't really care. By laying down their arms they agreed to end conflict and pose no more threat to you or your men. If you shoot them, you become murderers, and the SS men become victims, plain and simple. Barbarians.

And I didn't hear any of this self-righteous justification when Nazi soldiers killed American POWs they had no desire to handle. The Hypocrisy detector just melted down.

I haven't heard a single European on this forum condemn the actions of the terrorists who cut people's throats on al-Jazeera.

Even when they killed Margaret Hassan, a woman who had spent her life helping the Iraqi poor. I didn't hear anyone speak up and say that the men who did that should be "dragged before the Hague".

I'm a European (well, British, but don't get me started on that!) and I would wholeheartedley condemn these people and their actions, as I have already stated. They deserve to be hunted down and brought before an Iraqi court at the very least.

I haven't heard a single European on this forum condemn the actions of the terrorists who cut people's throats on al-Jazeera.

Even when they killed Margaret Hassan, a woman who had spent her life helping the Iraqi poor. I didn't hear anyone speak up and say that the men who did that should be "dragged before the Hague".

That's because that kind of behaviour is so obviously wrong that it goes without saying. It's like saying, you know, I think that the actions of people who rape and murder wrong, and I feel the need to announce this to the whole forum, because otherwise they might think Europeans condone rape and murder.

If it'll really make you happy, I'll say it. I condemn the actions of kidnappers who cut their victims throats (whether they do it on al-Jazeera or not). I think the muder of Margaret Hassan was a disgusting act.

There. You've heard it now.

That's because that kind of behaviour is so obviously wrong that it goes without saying. It's like saying, you know, I think that the actions of people who rape and murder wrong, and I feel the need to announce this to the whole forum, because otherwise they might think Europeans condone rape and murder.

If it'll really make you happy, I'll say it. I condemn the actions of kidnappers who cut their victims throats (whether they do it on al-Jazeera or not). I think the muder of Margaret Hassan was a disgusting act.

There. You've heard it now.

I don't think the statement was intended to bash anyone, but rather get somebody from the European side of the world to speak up.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we, (Europeans, Americans, Asians, whatever... outside of the mideast), tend to think rationally and expect the rest of the world to do likewise.

BUT...when we're confronted with the actions of al Q and other terrorist organizations we are at a loss as to what to do next. That is when we return to the idea of "an eye for an eye". Which is how terrorists work anyway, (gangs also), so trying to "reason" with them doesn't work.

Personally, My feeling is that we need to capture as many of these individuals as possible, get any information we need from them, then perform an expedited trial and execution. Preferably on live TV for the whole world to see.

I know there are holes in this concept, as I said this is how I feel.

So your argument then boils down to, if they get to act like animals WE get to act like animals. So if they're going around and raping, pilaging, car bombing, cutting off parts, and other fun afternoon entertainment, we should be allowed the same leway?

I could state about how childish that argument sounds, but I won't, because I think you might be right. Indeed, let lose the dogs of war and damn the conventions and rules, and set forth the sword as much as you please.

But I don't want to hear a damn word from you then when they act like animals to our guys as well. No outrage please when car bombs go off and turn Americans into red messes. No how dare they when another is beheaded on live TV. And no expression of distaste if another plan is flown into a building.

That is why we're supposed to be acting honorbly. Now you can state, and I'm sure you will, that they started it first and that they do not and will not follow the same laws. But if you want to be outraged over what they do and see it as the sick and terrible acts that they are, you cannot then calmly state that it is ok for US to do so.

That whole equality thing's a bitch isn't?

So your argument then boils down to, if they get to act like animals WE get to act like animals. So if they're going around and raping, pilaging, car bombing, cutting off parts, and other fun afternoon entertainment, we should be allowed the same leway?

I could state about how childish that argument sounds, but I won't, because I think you might be right. Indeed, let lose the dogs of war and damn the conventions and rules, and set forth the sword as much as you please.

But I don't want to hear a damn word from you then when they act like animals to our guys as well. No outrage please when car bombs go off and turn Americans into red messes. No how dare they when another is beheaded on live TV. And no expression of distaste if another plan is flown into a building.

That is why we're supposed to be acting honorbly. Now you can state, and I'm sure you will, that they started it first and that they do not and will not follow the same laws. But if you want to be outraged over what they do and see it as the sick and terrible acts that they are, you cannot then calmly state that it is ok for US to do so.

That whole equality thing's a bitch isn't?

They already act like animals to our guys.
At what point do we stop continuing to turn the other cheek?

The point I was making was that they are not rational individuals. They will continue to do what they do regardless of how "Honorable" we are. Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire.

I'm saying that I am tired of the US being the one that obeys the rules and we still get kicked in the teeth for it. It may be that there is no solution, but why should we continue to put up with it. Because we are bigger than they are? It ain't working so far...

I'm saying that I am tired of the US being the one that obeys the rules and we still get kicked in the teeth for it. It may be that there is no solution, but why should we continue to put up with it. Because we are bigger than they are? It ain't working so far...
1. We made the rules, don't you think that means we should follow them?
2. We claim moral high ground, so we got to stick there.
3. We claim outrage over terrorist acts, so why perpertrait them?
4. We claim equality before the law and the rule of law, which means we can't change just because we're pissed off.
5. We demand that other nations and groups follow all rules when dealing with American service personal/citizens, so we have to do the same.

Pretty much, if we're talking the talk, we better damn well be walking that walk. If we're not, then the terrorists are right, America IS nothing more than a big bully for all our nice rhetoric. Forget freedom, we become that which we're fighting.

I don't want to live in such a nation and history has shown very well what happens to such nations as well.

That's why.

It's interesting talking about prisoner treatment.
During WWII, you'd have trouble finding Japanese POWs because the Americans shot all the people who surrendered.
Umm frst of all, most of the Japanese didnt surrender, they charged to the death. IN fact sometimes they would hold grenades under their arms and pretend to surrender. When an American would get close, BLAM! So screw them, machine gun them all became the policy. ANd lets not forget nice events like the batan death march to make you feel nice and cuddly towards the enemy. MAn it sure sucks when America gives back a little of what it gets dont it?

[QUOTE=NERVUN]So your argument then boils down to, if they get to act like animals WE get to act like animals. So if they're going around and raping, pilaging, car bombing, cutting off parts, and other fun afternoon entertainment, we should be allowed the same leway?

Yes, except for the raping. Your social niceties, dont translate to war, which is a whole different playing field.



But I don't want to hear a damn word from you then when they act like animals to our guys as well. No outrage please when car bombs go off and turn Americans into red messes. No how dare they when another is beheaded on live TV. And no expression of distaste if another plan is flown into a building.

And none from you when western forces retaliate in the same way, indeed the only way to peace is to go just as far as your enemy does and further.


That whole equality thing's a bitch isn't?

Which is why you should equally have no problem with prisoners being tortured at Guatemalo.
War is too serious for the squeamish and silly left to be involved in anyway.

[QUOTE]
indeed the only way to peace is to go just as far as your enemy does and further.


Totally untrue. If you become your enemy then you have already lost the war.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Totally untrue. If you become your enemy then you have already lost the war.
Yeah, thats nice and Idealistic. Screw that, hit the enemy hard, kill him and move on. Hell get rid of all the news agencies for 3 months and tell us Marines "Game Fucken on". At the end of those 3 months, there would only be flag waving friendly American allies in Iraq and a pile of dead enemies at our feet.

[QUOTE=Ollieland]
Yeah, thats nice and Idealistic. Screw that, hit the enemy hard, kill him and move on. Hell get rid of all the news agencies for 3 months and tell us Marines "Game Fucken on". At the end of those 3 months, there would only be flag waving friendly American allies in Iraq and a pile of dead enemies at our feet.Riiiiiiiiiiight. Sure there would be. But I wonder, which pile would be higher, the Iraqis or the Americans?

Oh, and Chewy? Go back and re-read my post, you obviously didn't get it.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Totally untrue. If you become your enemy then you have already lost the war.
Thats a load of high minded pointless shit!
You only loose a war if simply the enemy beats you.
Leave the high minded pointless philosophy out of it, it has no place in war, or even relevance.
What do you think your guys did to the Germans and Japs in WW2 to win?
If they had adopted your saintly attitude you would be speaking JapoKraut now!
War forces men to do things they would never dream of.

Oh, and Chewy? Go back and re-read my post, you obviously didn't get it.

Oh I got it alright. You like many others want to live in a dream land of your army fighting a clean sanitised war, so it supposedly doesnt stoop to their enemies levels.
Got news for you mate, war is war, theres nothing clean or sanitised about it. If you dont scare your enemy with brutality that matches theirs or even surpasses it, you could loose the war from your enemy taking heart at your weakness, and your own troops morale falling.
Once you fall to war, there is no turning back and the rules are simple, they kill and burn a hundred of your men, you go and kill and burn 200 of theirs.
War is a horrible thing, and your dumb little theorys about making it conditional and nicer and still winning, hold little water in practice.

Oh I got it alright. You like many others want to live in a dream land of your army fighting a clean sanitised war, so it supposedly doesnt stoop to their enemies levels.
Got news for you mate, war is war, theres nothing clean or sanitised about it. If you dont scare your enemy with brutality that matches theirs or even surpasses it, you could loose the war from your enemy taking heart at your weakness, and your own troops morale falling.
Once you fall to war, there is no turning back and the rules are simple, they kill and burn a hundred of your men, you go and kill and burn 200 of theirs.
War is a horrible thing, and your dumb little theorys about making it conditional and nicer and still winning, hold little water in practice.
Nope, you didn't. I mentioned if you want that level of brutality, go for it. But don't act so God damned shocked when 9/11 happens again. Nor call them animals because we are them as well. And get rid of this stupid excuse that we're fighting for some sort of freedom because then we ain't. And don't call it terrorism because then it becomes a millitary attack.

You want to become a monster, go for it, but call yourself a monster, don't talk about sacrifice and honor, and everything else that's sprayed on to make it pretty. You WANT those titles though, act like it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[QUOTE=NERVUN]Nope, you didn't. I mentioned if you want that level of brutality, go for it. But don't act so God damned shocked when 9/11 happens again. Nor call them animals because we are them as well. And get rid of this stupid excuse that we're fighting for some sort of freedom because then we ain't. And don't call it terrorism because then it becomes a millitary attack.

Well if it happens again then so be it, thats war mate.
Like I said they hit you you hit them back twice as hard, always use all your strength, if you want to win.
How many times will a 9/11 happen if you keep giving it back to them harder? Not many if you believe in simple logistics.


You want to become a monster, go for it, but call yourself a monster, don't talk about sacrifice and honor, and everything else that's sprayed on to make it pretty. You WANT those titles though, act like it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I never even mentioned sacrifice and honour.
To win a war you have to become as you put it a monster, like I said earlier war isnt pretty.
What right have you got to critise soldiers who have been through experiences and shit you could'nt even imagine?
Do you blame soldiers for holding any honour and sacrifice close to their hearts after going through such a nightmarish experience?
You'd crap your pants mate if you ever got into a war, as I probably would.

Maybe because you shouldn't shoot unarmed prisoners/captives that cannot defend themselves? Honour, a thing that is sadly rare nowadays.


Hmm...ever pick up a gun for your country, saddle an 80 pound pack on your back, crawl through mud, blood, and/or raw sewage for your country? Ever get involved in a fight where, in the fading twilight, amidst the dense smoke from burning tanks, houses, and bodies, it becomes nearly impossible to tell the front from the rear, the friend from the enemy? Ever stand a post in the desert at three o'clock in the morning under a new moon, when it's so dark you can't make out your hand in front of your face, and have to worry about whether that scurrying sound behind you is just a restless snake, or if it's a raghead sneaking up to slip a knife between your third and fourth ribs? Ever watch your best friend lose right arm and half of his face to an improvised antipersonnel mine? Ever lose a son to an insurgent? Have you ever heard of Nicholas Berg? Ever tried to squeeze the trigger on another human being, knowing that if you don't, he will? And when I say try, I don't mean safely behind your keyboard playing HALO 2. I mean, adrenaline pumping, life or death, fight or flight, I'm-dirt-and-stinky-'cuz-I-been-in-the-field-for-2-weeks-straight-and-haven't-had-a-shower-since-I-left-base-camp real. If not, I suggest you visit your nearest friendly neighborhood Marine recruiter and sign up. Make sure you ask for one of the illustrious 03 options. He'll know what it means.

Until you've done that, you can take your "honor" and cram it. There is absolutely nothing honorable about war. Trust me. :sniper:

Note to Renshasi- Hell, yeah. Screw the media. When we flew into Kosovo, the f**kers from CNN were already there at the LZ. So much for stealth, eh?

Semper Fi, kill the other guy.

I *always* blindfolded prisoners. And that was in the first Gulf War.

I think the policy has changed now. In Afghanistan, they don't seem to be taking prisoners at all unless ordered to. There's always a call for something heavy like an AC-130 to pound the target and any individuals who run away in the dark - it's not possible to escape an AC-130 day or night.


The policy has not changed. I believe it's the 5 S's, when dealing with Enemy Prisoners of War (and now, enemy non-combatants).

Segregate the prisoner from his other prisoners. Handcuffs and blindfolds fall under this category, as when on a raid or other fast-moving op, it's nearly impossible to segregate prisoners as far apart as you would ideally desire.

Silence the prisoner. PRevent him from speaking with other prisoners and possibly coordinating an escape attempt. Gags are permissible.

Search the prisoner. Confiscate dangerous items and intelligence, the rest of their personal belongings stay with them.

Safeguard the prisoner in accordance with the Geneva Convention and U.S. Policy.

Speed the prisoner to the rear.

I take it your've served Bumwaddle? If so you have my deepest respect.

The policy has not changed. I believe it's the 5 S's, when dealing with Enemy Prisoners of War (and now, enemy non-combatants).

Segregate the prisoner from his other prisoners. Handcuffs and blindfolds fall under this category, as when on a raid or other fast-moving op, it's nearly impossible to segregate prisoners as far apart as you would ideally desire.

Silence the prisoner. PRevent him from speaking with other prisoners and possibly coordinating an escape attempt. Gags are permissible.

Search the prisoner. Confiscate dangerous items and intelligence, the rest of their personal belongings stay with them.

Safeguard the prisoner in accordance with the Geneva Convention and U.S. Policy.

Speed the prisoner to the rear.

Using the 5 S procedure assumes that you have accepted someone's surrender in the first place. You are under no obligation to do so. Here's a recent posting by someone who is in Astan.

Our battalion scouts were on a mission about a hundred kilometers from our fob, looking for reported cache. The mounted scout team was hit by PK, RPG, and recoiless rifle fire. One truck was disabled and the other was unable to manuever out of the immediate kill zone. The scout team leader managed to keep the enemy engaged and while he called for the QRF. The ACM tangos thought they would just be dealing with a small element and came out of the wood work to get the team.

My company air assaulted two platoons into the valley. Both Lzs were hot but no casualties were sustained on insertion. The ACM made the mistake of leaving the high ground and letting themselves get fixed in a Almond tree orchard. WHile one platoon cut of escape routes and ratlines my paltoon cleared through the orchard. One six man squad with the PL and rto ran into an enemy posistion that had three Pks, three Rpgs, and a total of fourteen enemy pax. The psg moved from the CCP with a one man machine gun crew and layed down suppressive fires while the squad assaulted pretty much straight through the OBJ. They rolled up the acm with zero casualties although my PL did take two(!) ak rounds to the MICH. Other than upsetting his RTO my pl was fine.

We continued to clear the orchard untill night fall and then the AC-130s came to do their part.
In the morning we 39 dead bad guys. This doesn't include the pieces of bad guy that the Air Force left for us. They claim to have added another twelve to the count.

We later discovered that the Orchard held a sort of R-R center for Jihadi's. The enemy dead consisted of Afghani's, Paki's, and some Chechnians. One Chechnian epw was taken. We captured four PKs, eleven RPG launchers with close to forty rockets, around thirty aks and two recoiless rifles.

Friendly casualties were six American wounded. We had no KIAs but one team leader lost his foot to a booby trap. My grenadier took a small piece of RPG shrapnell to his left middle finger which he has been enjoying showing to any one hwo asks about it, esspicially officers

I like to believe that the bad guys learned a valuable lesson in that when paratropers have to leave the chow hall to pull a QRF mission, somebody is going to get their ass handed to them!

You'll note that they only captured one person - and killed at least 39, and there's no way to count the ones who were blown up by the AC-130. All a firefight against a very small number of men trapped in a small bit of woods.

You would have thought that the "humanitarians" among our posters on the forum would have called out for them to surrender, and then walked in with fruit baskets and bottles of Evian.

As it is, it looks like the US troops called in the maximum firepower available, and reduced the enemy to hamburger. I would bet that the one EPW they captured was not in any condition to do much more than breathe, if that much.

To reiterate my point, when you become like your enemy then you have lost the war. Whats the point of fighting against ideals or methods if you are using the same methods?

My main beef with some of the posters within this thread is the attitudes they seem to show towards military service and killing in general (and I'm not talking about you, Whispering Legs).

Firstly, many of the criticisms of the military have come from people who have no military experience, let alone combat experience. It might sound like an old cliche, but you really, really, really have no idea what it is like to be in that situation unless you have been there. Not even a remote clue. I don't wish to sound high handed, but please don't criticise others reactions in a situation which you have never faced, and hopefully will never to.

Secondly, to all the hawks out there, I would be an idiot if I didn't think that war is hell, not a place for the fainthearted or weak kneed. I know, I've been there. Gruesome and questionable things have to be done sometimes, and nine times out of ten it really is a case of kill or be killed. But you seem to have absolutely no reservations or qualms about what is being done. After my service in Djibouti I lost count of the number of rebels we had killed, but I do know I did two up close and personal. At the time you think nothing of it, your training kicks in and you go on autopilot - if you did hesitate you wouldn't be a very good soldier. But afterwards, in the cold light of day, of course I felt guilty. So, they might have killed me, and I was perfectly right to put a bullet in their heads, but I still took another life.

Next time on patrol, these feelings disappear and I get on with the job. But they return. And thats the difference between human soldiers and killing machines.

Well, I never thought about politics in combat. It just didn't seem relevant.

I'm not talking about ploitics, I'm talking about morals. To actively WANT to go out and kill someone is just plain wrong. And if thats your attitude , "I joined up to kill!" then you don't deserve to be in the military.

I'm not talking about ploitics, I'm talking about morals. To actively WANT to go out and kill someone is just plain wrong. And if thats your attitude , "I joined up to kill!" then you don't deserve to be in the military.

There isn't another explanation for anyone who chooses something like the infantry.

I am reminded of the time when I was in a Pershing II launch control van, and the officers were congratulating each other on a fine exercise.

The exercises always consisted of practice launches in the field (the missile would do everything except take off).

When I pointed out that the exercise wasn't over until the missiles got there, they looked stunned. They didn't want to be reminded that the sole purpose of their job was to nuke people out of existence.

I joined up to kill - but not to kill indiscriminately, or kill without reason. I didn't join to kill people in such a way as to make them suffer greatly. But I did join up in order to do it by the rules and by the book - under lawful orders.

It's not appropriate to classify that as merely "I joined up to kill!".

Other than dig holes and carry 120 pounds of crap on your back for miles, the typical infantryman's tasks don't involve anything else other than killing people and blowing things up. (my favorite line from Mr. White, one of my instructors at the MTU at Ft. Campbell).

Thats not my point at all. There seems to be a number of people on this thread who seem to find some sort of glory on taking human life. There is no glory in killing another person, and it is those people who my rant was directed at. I hope you understand me a bit clearer now.

(Got to go to town to pay my bills, I'll continue this in an hour or two.)

Thats not my point at all. There seems to be a number of people on this thread who seem to find some sort of glory on taking human life. There is no glory in killing another person, and it is those people who my rant was directed at. I hope you understand me a bit clearer now.

(Got to go to town to pay my bills, I'll continue this in an hour or two.)

I think there may be a few glorious instances. The person who finds Bin Laden, and saves the world the trouble of a trial by tossing a frag in his lap, would count as a glory kill in my book.

Also, if you kill (and especially die while doing it) in order to save a helpless person, that counts as glory.

Most of the time, not glorious. Necessary sometimes, but not glorious.

Glad to reach some sort of agreement with you. Back soon.

I think there may be a few glorious instances. The person who finds Bin Laden, and saves the world the trouble of a trial by tossing a frag in his lap, would count as a glory kill in my book.

Also, if you kill (and especially die while doing it) in order to save a helpless person, that counts as glory.

Most of the time, not glorious. Necessary sometimes, but not glorious.


I thought they decided that having Bin Ladin sitting on his hands in a cave was better than killing him and having a bunch of other people try and step up to take his place (by blowing the crap out of something) ? Or at least that was one US army guys opinion.

I thought they decided that having Bin Ladin sitting on his hands in a cave was better than killing him and having a bunch of other people try and step up to take his place (by blowing the crap out of something) ? Or at least that was one US army guys opinion.

That may have been the plan, but I think Bin Laden is alive and well in West Palm Beach. It's the last place on Earth they would look for him.

That may have been the plan, but I think Bin Laden is alive and well in West Palm Beach. It's the last place on Earth they would look for him.

I heard he was working in a kebab shop on the Old kent Road in London ;)

I thought he was at McDonalds, working beside some old guy claiming he was a musician.