The Insanity of the U.S. Military's Rules of Engagement

[ReillyT]

Attempt to rationalize the intentional killing of civilians is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing that makes this behavior tolerable.

Who is saying that what happened on 9/11 is tolerable? I know that I didn't say it, and I haven't seen anyone else here say it either. Why the hell do you even write such drivel?

Attempting to find explanations for behaviors so that we identify root causes for them is not the same thing as rationalizing the behavior. Attaining a greater understanding of the problem is not something you should be afraid of.

 

[dilloduck]

Who is saying that what happened on 9/11 is tolerable? I know that I didn't say it, and I haven't seen anyone else here say it either. Why the hell do you even write such drivel?

Attempting to find explanations for behaviors so that we identify root causes for them is not the same thing as rationalizing the behavior. Attaining a greater understanding of the problem is not something you should be afraid of.

Ward Churchill for one. If we are going to speak of the US military rules for engagement I think it's quite appropriate and significant to include Al qaedas'.

 

[ReillyT]

Ward Churchill for one. If we are going to speak of the US military rules for engagement I think it's quite appropriate and significant to include Al qaedas'.

My god, without people like you the man could never have hoped for so much press. He is one of a few nut cases. Get over it. You find them on all sides.

If we are now going back to the discussion of RoE, I don't think we should concern ourselves with AQ's methods. That is why we are different than AQ. Because AQ murders innocents, you think that we should feel free to as well? Other than the side you are on, what exactly is separating you from them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Who is saying that what happened on 9/11 is tolerable? I know that I didn't say it, and I haven't seen anyone else here say it either. Why the hell do you even write such drivel?

Attempting to find explanations for behaviors so that we identify root causes for them is not the same thing as rationalizing the behavior. Attaining a greater understanding of the problem is not something you should be afraid of.

The root cause is Islam. And will continue to be Islam until such time as they have a reformation and step away from the belief it is ok to murder in the name of Allah, that it is acceptable to forcably convert people to Islam, That the destiny of the religion is to rule by either murder or forced conversion of all people on this planet.

Using your definitions and excuses President FDR was directly responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor in 1941 and the resultant world war we ended up in. I mean it WAS his policy to not sell oil and scrap iron to Japan after all and THAT is one of the reasons they needed to conquer all the oil sites in the Southern Resource Area. Further he convinced other nations like Britain not to sell to Japan.

We already KNOW the "root" cause of the Islamic terrorism.

 

[Larkinn]

Attempt to rationalize the intentional killing of civilians is nonsense. There is absolutely nothing that makes this behavior tolerable.

Curious...do you feel the same way about so called "collateral damage" when the US intentionally kills civilians in Iraq?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Curious...do you feel the same way about so called "collateral damage" when the US intentionally kills civilians in Iraq?

Intentional? You are aware that this war has had the least "collateral" damage of any war previous? That we risk our troops with restrictive RoE to keep "collateral" damage down?

 

[Larkinn]

The root cause is Islam. And will continue to be Islam until such time as they have a reformation and step away from the belief it is ok to murder in the name of Allah, that it is acceptable to forcably convert people to Islam, That the destiny of the religion is to rule by either murder or forced conversion of all people on this planet.

So the "root cause" of terrorism is something that 99.999999% of the time does NOT lead to any terrorist actions? Seems a bit strange, don't you think?

 

[Larkinn]

Intentional? You are aware that this war has had the least "collateral" damage of any war previous? That we risk our troops with restrictive RoE to keep "collateral" damage down?

Do either of those actions not make it intentional? We have done actions in Iraq knowing civilians would die. That is intentional killing of civilians to accomplish a goal. I've heard many people justify those actions...and I am curious to know what dillo thinks about them since he seems to have condemned them.

 

[dilloduck]

My god, without people like you the man could never have hoped for so much press. He is one of a few nut cases. Get over it. You find them on all sides.

If we are now going back to the discussion of RoE, I don't think we should concern ourselves with AQ's methods. That is why we are different than AQ. Because AQ murders innocents, you think that we should feel free to as well? Other than the side you are on, what exactly is separating you from them?

Then perhaps you shouldnt make posts like this.

Who is saying that what happened on 9/11 is tolerable? I know that I didn't say it, and I haven't seen anyone else here say it either. Why the hell do you even write such drivel?

What separates me from them is that I don't think intentional mass killings of innocents is an appropriate way to make a political statement. It is THE ONLY way they make political statements. They have NO intentions of discussing the matter like civilized people. They intend to continue to commit mass murder until they get their way.

 

[ReillyT]

The root cause is Islam. And will continue to be Islam until such time as they have a reformation and step away from the belief it is ok to murder in the name of Allah, that it is acceptable to forcably convert people to Islam, That the destiny of the religion is to rule by either murder or forced conversion of all people on this planet.

Well, without getting into the fact that Islam is in fact practiced in different ways by different people, I accept that some of the tenents of one version of Islam faith is a root cause of Islamic extremism. However, if you think that this alone explains the attitudes towards the US, you are a moron. There is a reason that the US was attacked, and not China, or Brazil, or South Africa. It would behoove us to consider why it was us and not others.

Using your definitions and excuses President FDR was directly responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor in 1941 and the resultant world war we ended up in. I mean it WAS his policy to not sell oil and scrap iron to Japan after all and THAT is one of the reasons they needed to conquer all the oil sites in the Southern Resource Area. Further he convinced other nations like Britain not to sell to Japan..

Did I ever use the phrase "directly responsible?" Hmmm.. no I didn't. Why did you? Ah... that's right, it is because the only way you can hold up your end of the discussion is by pretending others are making claims they are not in fact making.

I am not sure what "definition" you are referring to, but it is clear that FDR's oil embargo was part of the reason that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. That is pretty well undisputed historically. Does it mean FDR was wrong? No, it just means that our actions have consequences, some of which we intend, and some of which we don't intend. I thought you Republicans were all about taking responsibility?

 

[ReillyT]

Then perhaps you shouldnt make posts like this.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are referring to here. Could you be more clear?

What separates me from them is that I don't think intentional mass killings of innocents is an appropriate way to make a political statement. It is THE ONLY way they make political statements. They have NO intentions of discussing the matter like civilized people. They intend to continue to commit mass murder until they get their way.

Actually, they also publish manifestos and sometimes release videos, but that is neither here nor there.

They don't consider it to be merely a political statement. The consider it part of their greater war. So, they are willing to murder innocents as part of their greater war. Do you think we should murder innocents as part of our war against them? [If you can answer this question, we might move quite a bit further along in discussing this issue.]

By the way, I am talking about murder here, such as would have been the case in the initial article with the soldiers in Afghanistan, had they committed it, which thankfully, they did not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the "root cause" of terrorism is something that 99.999999% of the time does NOT lead to any terrorist actions? Seems a bit strange, don't you think?

You have made a direct claim, now provide evidence it is true. There are a whole lot more than .000001% of the Muslim world that directly and indirectly support terrorism. As for how it is practiced , it is a fact that the "holy" writings of Mohammad demand the forced conversion or death of ALL non believers and that the world be run by and populated by Muslims alone. It is further true that the "scriptures" justify killing non believers and those that do not believe "properly" as a matter of principle.

As a matter of fact, if we assume 1 billion Muslims in the world your statement is proven false simply by looking at Iraq, there are more than 1000 Muslim terrorists in that country ( and I do not mean Iraqis) Do try again.

 

[ReillyT]

You have made a direct claim, now provide evidence it is true. There are a whole lot more than .000001% of the Muslim world that directly and indirectly support terrorism. As for how it is practiced , it is a fact that the "holy" writings of Mohammad demand the forced conversion or death of ALL non believers and that the world be run by and populated by Muslims alone. It is further true that the "scriptures" justify killing non believers and those that do not believe "properly" as a matter of principle.

As a matter of fact, if we assume 1 billion Muslims in the world your statement is proven false simply by looking at Iraq, there are more than 1000 Muslim terrorists in that country ( and I do not mean Iraqis) Do try again.

My lord, you are a fucking moron. He wasn't being literal you twit. He was conveying that the relative number is small.

 

[ReillyT]

You have made a direct claim, now provide evidence it is true. There are a whole lot more than .000001% of the Muslim world that directly and indirectly support terrorism. As for how it is practiced , it is a fact that the "holy" writings of Mohammad demand the forced conversion or death of ALL non believers and that the world be run by and populated by Muslims alone. It is further true that the "scriptures" justify killing non believers and those that do not believe "properly" as a matter of principle.

As a matter of fact, if we assume 1 billion Muslims in the world your statement is proven false simply by looking at Iraq, there are more than 1000 Muslim terrorists in that country ( and I do not mean Iraqis) Do try again.

You must have actually counted the number of 9s that he typed to even figure it out in the manner that you did. I find you laughable, so thank you for brightening my day.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My lord, you are a fucking moron. He wasn't being literal you twit. He was conveying that the relative number is small.

And there in lies the problem, the number is not that small. Active bombers and shooters are no where near in short supply, Money pours into their coffers from regular Muslims and nations alike.

The other claim I love is that ignorance and lack of money fuel the movement. Remind me again about all those uneducated poor British Doctors and such that attacked London. And do remind how dirt poor Osama Bin Laden is again?

 

[ReillyT]

And there in lies the problem, the number is not that small. Active bombers and shooters are no where near in short supply, Money pours into their coffers from regular Muslims and nations alike.

The other claim I love is that ignorance and lack of money fuel the movement. Remind me again about all those uneducated poor British Doctors and such that attacked London. And do remind how dirt poor Osama Bin Laden is again?

I agree that the number is larger than we would wish, but I still think it is relatively small overall. I don't know how one would find the answer to this particular question though.

I never said that it is only the poor or uneducated who engage in this type of activity. It is clear that the movement has found support in many segments of society. However, I do think that on a larger scale, the high number of uneducated and unemployed young men in Muslim countries does contribute to the recruiting efforts of terrorist organizations.

 

[Larkinn]

And there in lies the problem, the number is not that small. Active bombers and shooters are no where near in short supply, Money pours into their coffers from regular Muslims and nations alike.

Yes, actually the number IS that small. Yes, I was using an exaggeration, obviously, but I could as easily not have exaggerated so much and said 99.9%. Unless you are going to claim that there are 13 million Muslim terrorists out there, than the claim is obviously correct.

The other claim I love is that ignorance and lack of money fuel the movement. Remind me again about all those uneducated poor British Doctors and such that attacked London. And do remind how dirt poor Osama Bin Laden is again?

Ignorance certainly seems to fuel your beliefs, but yet I doubt there is a lack of money there. But as Reilly pointed out, nobody has advanced this claim so why are you addressing it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, actually the number IS that small. Yes, I was using an exaggeration, obviously, but I could as easily not have exaggerated so much and said 99.9%. Unless you are going to claim that there are 13 million Muslim terrorists out there, than the claim is obviously correct.



Ignorance certainly seems to fuel your beliefs, but yet I doubt there is a lack of money there. But as Reilly pointed out, nobody has advanced this claim so why are you addressing it?

The claim ignorance has fueled it was JUST advanced in this thread, not to mention several others on this board over the last several weeks. But since you believe in proving the negative, prove me wrong Larkinn.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, I really don't understand what you are referring to here. Could you be more clear?



Actually, they also publish manifestos and sometimes release videos, but that is neither here nor there.

They don't consider it to be merely a political statement. The consider it part of their greater war. So, they are willing to murder innocents as part of their greater war. Do you think we should murder innocents as part of our war against them? [If you can answer this question, we might move quite a bit further along in discussing this issue.]

By the way, I am talking about murder here, such as would have been the case in the initial article with the soldiers in Afghanistan, had they committed it, which thankfully, they did not.

They publish manifestos and release videos encouraging slaughter. Committing slaughter SOLEY AND INTENTIONALLY on innocents is wrong in my book but that is exactly how they fight and the tactics that they use. Any comparison between US' RoE and Bin ladens' RoE is such a stretch that it's absurd. Show me one place in Iraq that the US attacked knowing full well that there were ZERO military targets. Al Qaeda et al could care less if their target is military and don't even bother to pretend they were trying to blow up something of military value.

 

[ReillyT]

They publish manifestos and release videos encouraging slaughter. Committing slaughter SOLEY AND INTENTIONALLY on innocents is wrong in my book but that is exactly how they fight and the tactics that they use. Any comparison between US' RoE and Bin ladens' RoE is such a stretch that it's absurd. Show me one place in Iraq that the US attacked knowing full well that there were ZERO military targets. Al Qaeda et al could care less if their target is military and don't even bother to pretend they were trying to blow up something of military value.

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.