Kill Or Capture?

[mudwhistle]

President Obama has decided to give our enemies rights they don't deserve in my opinion.

He's reading them their rights and giving them a chance at a lawyer so that their civil rights aren't stepped on....rights that they don't really have because I'm afraid Mr. President they aren't US citizens after all.

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

This means a loss of actionable intelligence but it does eliminate a threat as well as save us the trouble of taking care of these bad guys if they end up being shipped to GITMO.

Strange how a policy that on the surface which seems humane only ends up killing more of the enemy then Bush's so-called brutal cowboy policies in the past.

So...what do you guys say? Kill or Capture.

What do you think?

 

[Si modo]

Been saying it for some time, now. Kill. The troops have enough to worry about without this crap. It's war. The enemy dies.




I wonder why we hear of so few captures, lately?

 

[mudwhistle]

Been saying it for some time, now. Kill. The troops have enough to worry about without this crap. It's war. The enemy dies.




I wonder why we hear of so few captures, lately?

You're not hearing much of anything because of the mess the war's in.

 

[Jaaaman]

Obama is clueless when it comes to the art of war and foreign policy. His poor understanding of history and foreign relations are being shown in all of their true colors. He is totally inept and has no business being the front man for the USA.

 

[mudwhistle]

Personally....I would kill first dependent on the situation because the last thing I want is one of these folks eventually getting back to the Muslim street so they can kill again.

 

[Munin]

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

It s a budget policy: they want to cut costs. Now we know the secret plan "how to close gitmo"

 

[strollingbones]

yall do realize the military had rules of engagement under bush....right?

what a bunch of fucking idiots...this is not new...

read...."lone survivor" for a detailed look at what happens with roe's in war....

 

[mudwhistle]

yall do realize the military had rules of engagement under bush....right?

what a bunch of fucking idiots...this is not new...

read...."lone survivor" for a detailed look at what happens with roe's in war....

All of us who've been there know that.

Problem is the guys going to the sandbox these days say it's next to impossible for them to defend themselves because of "New" ROEs the Obama administration has ushered in.....so can it.

 

[strollingbones]

not according to these guys and that video just released

t r u t h o u t | Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

but then again...you can get anyone to say anything now days..but we have had roe for a while now...sillie ones....and they were crippling in the past and are crippling now....

are you against any roe?

 

[mudwhistle]

not according to these guys and that video just released

t r u t h o u t | Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

but then again...you can get anyone to say anything now days..but we have had roe for a while now...sillie ones....and they were crippling in the past and are crippling now....

are you against any roe?

I tend to believe my friends more then anything I see on the internet. Especially by some Arab asshole named Dahar Jamail.

There should be rules but not something that intentionally ties one hand behind your back and shows more concern for the enemy then your own troops.

 

[strollingbones]

soo i tryed to find out...who started roe's....etc...not much on that...i would be curious as to who said...o yea abou these fuckers we are trying to kill..we need to have some rules about that...you cant avoid civilian deaths ....even if you dress it up and call it something esle..

as for who should die....i go with patton on that...let the other guy die for his country

 

[SFC Ollie]

soo i tryed to find out...who started roe's....etc...not much on that...i would be curious as to who said...o yea abou these fuckers we are trying to kill..we need to have some rules about that...you cant avoid civilian deaths ....even if you dress it up and call it something esle..

as for who should die....i go with patton on that...let the other guy die for his country

I know they go all the way back to Nam, and probably long before that. Sometimes smart sometimes pretty damned dumb.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I say "Kill them all and let God sort them out." Heard it first in the 1960's and it still seems fitting today.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nuke em till they glow and shoot em in the dark.

 

[Gunny]

President Obama has decided to give our enemies rights they don't deserve in my opinion.

He's reading them their rights and giving them a chance at a lawyer so that their civil rights aren't stepped on....rights that they don't really have because I'm afraid Mr. President they aren't US citizens after all.

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

This means a loss of actionable intelligence but it does eliminate a threat as well as save us the trouble of taking care of these bad guys if they end up being shipped to GITMO.

Strange how a policy that on the surface which seems humane only ends up killing more of the enemy then Bush's so-called brutal cowboy policies in the past.

So...what do you guys say? Kill or Capture.

What do you think?

I predicted this result back in 03-04. It is the logical route when troops are forced to defend themselves against every baseless accusation that comes down the pike.

The correct answer is it is against the law for US troops to mistreat or harm captured enemy combatants in any way.

 

[Douger]

President Obama has decided to give our enemies rights they don't deserve in my opinion.

He's reading them their rights and giving them a chance at a lawyer so that their civil rights aren't stepped on....rights that they don't really have because I'm afraid Mr. President they aren't US citizens after all.

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

This means a loss of actionable intelligence but it does eliminate a threat as well as save us the trouble of taking care of these bad guys if they end up being shipped to GITMO.

Strange how a policy that on the surface which seems humane only ends up killing more of the enemy then Bush's so-called brutal cowboy policies in the past.

So...what do you guys say? Kill or Capture.

What do you think?

What do I think ?
Haul your ignorant ass to Thailand, Chile or Singapore.If you get half drunk at a restaurant and they put your stupid ass in a cage.............repeat the question//////////// OK?
Fuck the empire. It needs to be " off the map"? Just like IsNtReal.

 

[Gunny]

President Obama has decided to give our enemies rights they don't deserve in my opinion.

He's reading them their rights and giving them a chance at a lawyer so that their civil rights aren't stepped on....rights that they don't really have because I'm afraid Mr. President they aren't US citizens after all.

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

This means a loss of actionable intelligence but it does eliminate a threat as well as save us the trouble of taking care of these bad guys if they end up being shipped to GITMO.

Strange how a policy that on the surface which seems humane only ends up killing more of the enemy then Bush's so-called brutal cowboy policies in the past.

So...what do you guys say? Kill or Capture.

What do you think?

What do I think ?
Haul your ignorant ass to Thailand, Chile or Singapore.If you get half drunk at a restaurant and they put your stupid ass in a cage.............repeat the question//////////// OK?
Fuck the empire. It needs to be " off the map"? Just like IsNtReal.

Try fighting a war with one hand behind your back. Oh, and I've been all those places, junior. Have you?

 

[mudwhistle]

President Obama has decided to give our enemies rights they don't deserve in my opinion.

He's reading them their rights and giving them a chance at a lawyer so that their civil rights aren't stepped on....rights that they don't really have because I'm afraid Mr. President they aren't US citizens after all.

So the result is more enemies are being killed instead of captured.

This means a loss of actionable intelligence but it does eliminate a threat as well as save us the trouble of taking care of these bad guys if they end up being shipped to GITMO.

Strange how a policy that on the surface which seems humane only ends up killing more of the enemy then Bush's so-called brutal cowboy policies in the past.

So...what do you guys say? Kill or Capture.

What do you think?

What do I think ?
Haul your ignorant ass to Thailand, Chile or Singapore.If you get half drunk at a restaurant and they put your stupid ass in a cage.............repeat the question//////////// OK?
Fuck the empire. It needs to be " off the map"? Just like IsNtReal.

Try fighting a war with one hand behind your back. Oh, and I've been all those places, junior. Have you?

Try living in Kenya...where Obama's family is. Where his cousin...to which he gave a million dollars to help get elected to his Prime-minister position....they murder folks that are in opposition to them there.

I've never been to Chile but I've been to those other countries.

I'm trying to figure out what his point was? Maybe that I'm ignorant and haven't seen other countries and he has?

Sorry...but his point is lost.

 

[Toome]

Sorry, but I have to raise the bullshit flag on this nonsense.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR COMBAT TROOPS TO MIRANDIZE ENEMY COMBATANTS ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

The FBI had read the Miranda Warning to detainees captured in Afghanistan in one isolated case. Big deal. This doesn't make it a blanket policy.

As for the question itself, no offense to the OP, but that's a pretty stupid question. There is no kill or wound issue. Troops are trained to shoot the center of mass. If the target still presents itself as a threat, troops will shoot at the center of mass again. If the target no longer presents itself as a threat, troops will stop shooting at him. If the wounded enemy combatant survives the firefight, US troops will provide first aid and safely evacuate the combatant for further processing, which includes interrogation.

 

[Kalam]

Here's a better idea: leave. Usama bin Ladin is long gone. Both invasions have turned into financial black holes and the United States has next to nothing to show for it.