ReillyT
Senior Member
Sorry. I realize even my last response to you was snippy. I must just be in a bad mood. Anyway, I think we agree about the US RoE.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you keeping track of the thread at all? Who ever said that the US RoE allowed for killing innocents where there are no military targets?
The US RoE (if the initial link is correct) prohibit killing innocents, even if their continued existence might jeopardize the mission (excluding bombings, that is). I agree with such rules. You were the one to bring in AQ and OBL, in posts 4 and 8. [Note where I point out this is random in post 5]. I don't see why they have anything to do with the question.
Yes, our rules of warfare are different than AQs. I am glad that we both agree this should be the case.
Since we are talking about the US RoE vis-a vis non-combatants, I really don't think reminding everyone what the enemies' RoE is is really all that random. How do you feel about Al-Qaeda's RoE anyway because their choice of terrorist tactics is at the very heart of this war.
Of course I disagree with AQ's tactics vis-a-vis civilians. To the extent that their tactics are at the heart of the war, this only serves to emphasize why our tactics must remain different.
I'm constantly amazed that we are going to examine every bullet fired by an American yet watch the enemy massacre civilians daily without batting an eyelash. I would think even the staunchest liberal would be able to muster up a " hey you assholes--stop it".
Maybe it is just me, but I am squarely against murdering innocents when it can be avoided.
Were the goatherds innocent? Was it not they who willingly informed the Taliban where the Americans were, resulting in the death of all but one of the Seals? I would say that, by their actions, they participated in war against the Americans.
The article makes it clear these Navy seals were carrying out a mission behind enemy lines. They knew if they let the goatherds live, they would be putting their own lives in great danger, not to mention their mission. There was a war going on, and the goatherds chose to side with the Taliban and alert them to the whereabouts of the Americans. Innocent? I would say not.
There is a reason that the US was attacked.... It would behoove us to consider why it was us and not others.
Was it not they who willingly informed the Taliban where the Americans were, resulting in the death of all but one of the Seals? I would say that, by their actions, they participated in war against the Americans.
If you can believe what the terrorists say, it is because America is the Great Satan, a powerful infidel nation affecting the whole world with its evil culture, that believes otherwise than they do that Israel has a right to exist.
Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.
Subsequent events do not change that fact.
I beg to differ. The actions by the goatherds in informing the Taliban tell a different story than what you present. The Seals were right in their assumptions about them.
Well, analyzing it to that extent won't yield all that much. Let's say we dig a little deeper.
You don't murder people on relatively thinly grounded suspicion.
If you can believe what the terrorists say, it is because America is the Great Satan, a powerful infidel nation affecting the whole world with its evil culture, that believes otherwise than they do that Israel has a right to exist.
O.K., Reilly, just disregard what the terrorists themselves say. Give us the complex spiel that the libs have come up with as to why radical Islam is after the U.S. And be sure to enlighten us with something that we haven't heard a million times over these past six/seven years in the MSM. I myself prefer to listen to what the terrorists have to say and base my judgments based on that, but to each his own.
Under ordinary circumstances, you are quite right about that. But did you forget that there was a war going on?
And I would challenge your description as a "relatively thinly grounded suspicion."
Did not the Seals think that if they let these goatherds go, they would be committing suicide? Seems to me like they had summed the situation up accurately before it ever happened.
I'll keep working with you because I think you can grasp this stuff.
That is so very thoughtful and kind of you! I will look forward with great anticipation to being tutored by one of the "intellectual elites".
Well, actually, at the time the soldiers met the goatherds, they only suspected that they might tell the Taliban. Certainly, the illiterate goatherders hadn't done anything at that time. So yes, at that time, they were innocent civilians. To kill them at that point would have been to murder them unprovoked.
Subsequent events do not change that fact.
Actually, we don't know that they informed anyone. We merely suspect. But what if one of them was the informer, and two were not. Then you, even analyzing after the fact, you have murdered two innocents.
Also, don't pretend that three illiterate Afghan goatherders are America's enemies. Even if they did inform, it wasn't part of a great Afghan conspiracy to kill Americans. Perhaps some Taliban bigwig capable of killing your family has politely asked you to let him know if you see any strangers in town. What do you? Do you protect America (which you know almost nothing about) at the expense of your family?