Confederate Yankee, in this post about the barbaric killings of two US Soldiers at the hands of Islamofascist savages, posits the following:
But these killings will not be received favorably by the U.S. military in Iraq, which will likely step up operations to hunt down and destroy terror and insurgent cells operating in this part of Iraq. Though official orders will not be given, perhaps U.S. forces will not be so inclined to take prisoners after this incident. Insurgents and their al Qaeda allies set the tone of giving U.S. forces no quarter when they took prisoners.
I hope he’s right.
If there are no live prisoners to ship off to Gitmo, there can’t be any whining from anti-war activists that these detainees are being “tortured” in by their barbaric American captors. And there won’t be any more enemy combatants who are freed from our custody, only to return to killing American Soldiers in the name of Allah.
These animals are not entitled to or covered by Geneva Conventions protections. And our hands shouldn’t be tied by them either. We should have a policy of no prisoners taken alive. All enemy combatants should be shot dead at the first opportunity. The only way to win the war on terror is to kill all terrorists. Putting them in comfy cells with three squares and all of their religious privliges is simply proloning victory.




Sweet. Suggesting that our soldiers are war criminals, and cheering the possibility. Sick, sick, sick. I’m glad our military is composed of far better people than the Keyboard Kommandoes.
I did no such thing, Dan.
But as a man who’s served in combat speaking to one who obviously hasn’t: you have no idea what you’re talking about.
First of all, I haven’t suggested that our troops have done any of the things I hope they were allowed to do. And secondly, shooting dead a an enemy combatant on the battle field rather attempting to capture him does not one a war criminal make. Also, opting not to treat or go to heroic efforts to save and then imprison an enemy combatant whom was injured on the battlefield is not a war crime.
I’ve noticed a pattern developing in regards to the brutal torture and beheading of two American Soldiers. There are those of us who are angry, but with a greater resolve to destroy our enemy. And there are those who would rather capitulate to that same enemy.
I’m of the former group. You appear to be of the later.
Wrong again, Robbie. i just expect to prevail while remaining human, while you would commit a war crime. Refusing to take prisoners is a war crime.
I ask the question, do the terrorists take our soldiers prisoner and feed them three squares a day? NO They would behead babies in the name of Allah. Humanity means nothing to them.
I ask the question, do we want our troops to be war criminals?
No, we just want you to stfu with your kneejerk leftwad comments.
Anonymous:
You can’t always get what you want. And if being against war crimes is a kneejerk leftwad position, then you might be surprised to learn that our military is full of kneejerk leftwads.
it is sickening to find out that the two soldiers were killed by their Iraq counterparts. here is the article from cnn. Read it and weep.
Where is the outrage?
My thoughts exactly.
…then you might be surprised to learn that our military is full of kneejerk leftwads.
What an ignorant statement.
I’ve served, and I work with full-time Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines everyday. And I can tell you with actual experience (and not just leftard wishful thinking), that while there are certainly some kneejerk leftards serving in the military, the military is by no means “full” of them.
The statistically insignificant kneejerk leftards who so happen to serve, don’t do so for long. You don’t find many if any “kneejerk leftards” who make a career out of serving their nation in the military.
Robbie – I think you missed the context of my statement. I agree that the military tends to lean right, but the commenter I was responding too thinks that anyone who is not in favor of war crimes is a kneejerk leftard. I know the military, and I know that most of its members are, by that definition, kneejerk leftards.
Bullshit. My comment was directed at people like you. Two of our soldiers are tortured and murdered and all you can do is rail about our imaginary war crimes.
Anonymous – It was the original post that suggested war crimes as an approporiate response to the awful circumstance. I defended our military from the accusation. And I’ll continue to do so, because the anti-war crime “kneejerk leftards” in the military don’t need anonymous bedwetters acting like they are going to lose their professionalism as quickly as the Keyboard Kommandoes do.
Dan — you seem to think that I suggested US troops “commit war crimes”. I did no such thing. I simply stated that I’d like to see a policy of killing ALL combatants on the field of battle rather than make the effort to capture and detain them.
I know your military training is extensive — after all you considered the ROTC while in college (before realizing that the oath of service was way too much of a burden for you to bear). But shooting an enemy combatant on the field of battle is not a war crime. Just because you think it should be does not make it so.
Refusing to take prisoners is a war crime. I hope you learned that much in your training. And that is exactly what you were approving of in your post.
And you obivously have no idea at all what is entailed in the taking of prisoners during battle. Or the lenghts that our enemy will go to kill even one Soldier.
Like rigging their own bodies with explosives, and then “surrendering” in the hopes of blowing themselves up along with the Soldier who is “capturing” them.
Once the enemy is identified and engaged, they should be terminated. There should be no opportunity for escape, no opportunity for surrender.
You can continue to argue in favor of preserving the life of Muslim terrorists. I will continue to argue in favor of killing them.
Failure to give quarter is a war crime. You can continue to argue in favor of our troops becoming war criminals. I will continue to argue in favor of their ethics and professionalism.