Ralph Peters: Kill Terrorists, Do not Capture Them

[Durandal]

Peters' new book came out: Never Quit the Fight....just an FYI.

Thoughts on the article below?

KILL, DON'T CAPTURE

HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

July 10, 2006 -- THE British military defines experience as the
ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that
standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured
terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in
the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious
intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of
them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or
even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no
historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others,
but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing
uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers
honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those
who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence
are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill
legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity,
not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds
at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the
rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted
freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while
crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an
IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then
demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as
his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his
grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of
ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents
tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous
transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal.
It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living
vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve
the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more
Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With
our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage
have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight
for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to
win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've
been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what
must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We
must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill
them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the
stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere
to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies
that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the
laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing
should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot
or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a
legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or
detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the
spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional
conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've
talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American
soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness.
Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about
"winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds
of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of
foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless
fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to
terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may
appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the
longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has
only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the
terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good
intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to
kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists
in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies.
In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been
dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to
play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our
troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing
and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not
Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by
anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so,
we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who
commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

[WarriorMonk]

Problem is, how do you make sure whoever you're whacking isn't just the "suspect terrorist" but the real deal?

Okay, you can probably happen upon a bunch of guys burying an IED, and whack them right then and there, but I guess, that doesn't happen every day...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I suppose it comes down to the circumstances in which the terrorist 'enemy' is encountered.

If it's an out and out firefight in Iraq or A'stan and an enemy who was shooting one minute and then puts his hands up the next when he's overrun then I don't think many people would be too bothered if he ended up dead. I'm sure that has happened a lot in all wars whether the enemy is uniformed or not.

If it's a case of raiding a house where a suspect is believed to be staying whether it's in Iraq or A'stan, or whether it's in a 'law enforcement' situation in say Europe, then killing anyone on the premises or neighbours who come out to see what's going is probably not a great idea.

[Vinny_alphacharlie]

Rules of engagement are very clear, do no shoot unless you are either 1) shot at by the enemy, or 2) suspect presents a serious threat to you or others, or 3) doesn't comply to your demands (however, these people don't seem to understand english, so it could result in a few deaths from trigger happy people).

[Bert]

As Putin said, you don't bring bin Laden to Brussels or New York to negotiate.
You shoot that **** and then you shoot him again to make he sure he won't breathe again. I can't say his compadres are worth much more.

The way they've been catching these idiots in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc is silly. They ought to be doing this:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=218872
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/05/1036308311314.html?oneclick=true

..all the time. Except, of course, when there's an arrest on a suspect in a crowded city. But when you have Mr. Jihadi and his cousins trucking along with a couple of bombs in the back, I see no reason NOT to serve them the Hellfire meal.

Negotiation and interrogation doesn't work on religious fanatics.

[socom6]

I dont know... I believe if a so called terrorist happens to be in a firefight and see that the is game up and willingly surrenders then I say take him prisoner and get what intel u can from him. For the others who insist on being death cultists then they are on their own and deserve what they get... death.

[ElHombre]

Problem is, how do you make sure whoever you're whacking isn't just the "suspect terrorist" but the real deal?

i doubt we're going to see an answer to that wise question.

[WarriorMonk]

i doubt we're going to see an answer to that wise question.

that's because we don't have the tech to scan people's brains...:P

which leads up to the fact that there's going to be a lot of grey areas in this whole fight...areas which SOME people aren't willing to accept or deal with.

[Bert]

There's gray areas in every conflict, and just because the enemy prefers the shahada to the swastika doesn't mean we need to treat him with silk gloves.

[Saranof]

Does this also apply to white terrorists, or is it only ok to kill muslims ( i.e potential terrorists, we all know white people in the west never blow stuff up) like this?

[Clarsachier]

[QUOTE]Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. QUOTE]

Using this logic, you'll only get the stupidest ones ; those dumb enough to confront an advanced military on it's terms.

Yeah, this seems to be the strategy in force. Unfortunately.

[Laworkerbee]

I've been saying this for a while, terrorists in prison only cause their comrades to raid schools and hospitals to free their comrades.

Capture them, hold them in secret for interrogation, and kill them.

We have much to learn from the French IMHO

Thanks for the post Durandal

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Does this also apply to white terrorists, or is it only ok to kill muslims ( i.e potential terrorists, we all know white people in the west never blow stuff up) like this?

No, sorry, exactly like the article says, this only applies to those filthy dark-skinned people.










:cantbeli:

[panzermk4]

I've been saying this for a while, terrorists in prison only cause their comrades to raid schools and hospitals to free their comrades.

Capture them, hold them in secret for interrogation, and kill them.

We have much to learn from the French IMHO

Thanks for the post Durandal

amen! It's not like these animals can be rehabilitated. Put em all down , and put em down hard. They endanger too many people. As much as i'd prefer a war with uniforms and maybe a shred of honor thats not what were fight and we need to adapt.

I think this stance should be taken with all terrorists. Not just muslims. That's almost a joke though considering how many non-muslim related cells are dead. Even the IRA is pretty much dormant. So I think it only applies to muslims/islamic jihadis, mainly because their the only ones terrorizing people at the moment.

[ibstolidude]

Does this also apply to white terrorists, or is it only ok to kill muslims ( i.e potential terrorists, we all know white people in the west never blow stuff up) like this?
What does this have to do with the topic? Why would you interject your OWN prejudice about other people's prejudice into the conversation?

[Firetxmi]

What does this have to do with the topic? Why would you interject your OWN prejudice about other people's prejudice into the conversation?

I think its a fair question. Are we prepaired to kill potential terrorists in our own streets? Timothy McVeigh, etc.

[Laworkerbee]

I think its a fair question. Are we prepaired to kill potential terrorists in our own streets? Timothy McVeigh, etc.

Timothy McVeigh wasn't captured on a battlefiled with a warm AK in his hands by a military unit he was captured by good old police work.

and that dirtbag was still executed unlike those at Guantanamo Bay, the fact that John Walker Lindh is still breathing amazes me.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/JohnWalkerLindh.jpg

[Firetxmi]

Timothy McVeigh wasn't captured on a battlefiled with a warm AK in his hands by a military unit he was captured by good old police work.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/JohnWalkerLindh.jpg

I imagine that many captured terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are not necessarily captured on the battlefield, but in their homes, or on the street, days or even weeks after the fact.

[Royal]

I certainly don't want to play Judge Dredd - it's way off where my moral compass points. I'll do what it takes in a fair (or unfair) fight but that leads down the road of the Einzatzgruppen.

[HOLLiS]

I imagine that many captured terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are not necessarily captured on the battlefield, but in their homes, or on the street, days or even weeks after the fact.

WOW don't y aknow they were at a Love-In peace ralley dude..........................:bash:

[Firetxmi]

WOW don't y aknow they were at a Love-In peace ralley dude..........................:bash:

Reread my post then think real hard. Never said they were innocent even, just described the location of their capture and how it could be similar to a situation here in the U.S.

[Laworkerbee]

I imagine that many captured terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are not necessarily captured on the battlefield, but in their homes, or on the street, days or even weeks after the fact.

Yes the ethics are troubling. John Walker Lindh is the typical example of what I consider as someone who should\could have been shot without trail as a terrorist.

[dangerclose]

Does this also apply to white terrorists, or is it only ok to kill muslims ( i.e potential terrorists, we all know white people in the west never blow stuff up) like this?

Don't you know the supposed war on terror is just an excuse for whites to kill non-whites?

[HOLLiS]

Reread my post then think real hard. Never said they were innocent even, just described the location of their capture and how it could be similar to a situation here in the U.S.

Golly gee, maybe you suj read ya post real hard too, "but in their homes, or on the street, days or even weeks after the fact."

Hell maybe weeks later they were at a knitting convention.

[Firetxmi]

Golly gee, maybe you suj read ya post real hard too, "but in their homes, or on the street, days or even weeks after the fact."

Hell maybe weeks later they were at a knitting convention.

So if they were caught weeks after the fact they are then pacifists? I am confused by your criticism.

[HOLLiS]

So if they were caught weeks after the fact they are then pacifists? I am confused by your criticism.

Ok, "weeks after the fact", how would the coalition know one Abu from another Abu.

The detainees are TAGGED as Combatants, (hint... they were in combat) either direct or support at the time. Weeks later they would have faded into the land scape as a regular Abu.

[Firetxmi]

So let me get this straight, all the people in Gitmo were caught ON the batllefield with a weapon IN THEIR HANDS and/or were actively fighting at the time of capture?

[akd]

Ok, "weeks after the fact", how would the coalition know one Abu from another Abu.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe by using information from the other Abus, the ones that we didn't line up and shoot in the base of the skull as per Mr. Peters deep insights.

The detainees are TAGGED as Combatants, (hint... they were in combat) either direct or support at the time. Weeks later they would have faded into the land scape as a regular Abu.

No, they were not all captured on the battlefield.

[Excabus]

Well I was gonna reply with what I think would help stem the inssurgents but it was all cruel, heartless and unusauly so I will refrain... Why dont we just create another austrailia? Ship all the captured inssurgents and the such to australia with like a barrel of food and some coats and tell em to fend for themselves?

[welsh58]

Why dont we just create another austrailia? Ship all the captured inssurgents and the such to australia with like a barrel of food and some coats and tell em to fend for themselves?


Simple soulution......"Mag to Grid, you get rid"

[deagle]

FINALLY !!
THE BLUNT TRUTH !!!

the bad guys know about geneva convention, and find and use loop-holes, while those loop-holes have'nt been patched up. Send 'em to allah i say !

[Paracaidista]

Would they rub the bullets with pig fat before?

I heard some grease on helps preventing jams p-) .

[Excabus]

lol, sorry guys, I have a problem where I mix up my thoughts, I meant ship em to antartica, not australia, I like aussies to much to do that to their country ;D

[titget]

I've been saying this for a while, terrorists in prison only cause their comrades to raid schools and hospitals to free their comrades.

Capture them, hold them in secret for interrogation, and kill them.

We have much to learn from the French IMHO

Thanks for the post Durandal

yes....I like the way you think Laworkerbee

[California Joe]

I honestly wish Tane was here to comment on this. And like Royal said, he and the rest of us are not Judge Dredd. At what point during a firefight/surrender is it OK to be like the rumored Lt. Spears and give them a cigarette and then pull the trigger on your Thompson.....Seriously, we are indoctrinated nearly from birth that murder is wrong. That doesn't chang because you are a soldier. In a war that line becomes blurred. Better to kill them now than fight them later. Right? How do you figure out when to shoot a guy with his hands in the air, even if you seriously, and I mean seriously, think he needs killing. What does that do to you as a human being? Do you become the kind of guy that rationalizes everything because you can't live with the fact that you shot a bunch of combatants that had surrendered because you felt they were too dangerous to be left alive...

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Well, I used to have some measure of respect for Mr Peters. I've read most of his novels and a good many of his articles.

Now I think he's just another ****in media idiot mouthpiece irrespective of his prior service.

So, the prevailing attitude amongst many on this site seems to agree with Mr Peters. Terrorists/insurgents should be executed out of hand, on the spot, wherever and whenever they are found.

Why? Apparently because they do it to 'us', therefore that means we should do it to 'them'.

Wow, incredibly detailed deductive reasoning at work there...:cantbeli:

I am a professional soldier. I have been for sixteen years. I have spent all of that time in what we refer to as 'teeth arm corps'. They're the guys who actually pull the trigger, etc, as opposed from those who sit behind desks collecting medals for promotional purposes.

I have never believed that it is acceptable to stoop to the standards of those I have fought when their behaviour has not adhered to the Laws of Armed Conflict and I've fought some real ****bags in my time.

I have never met another professional soldier from any country who disagreed with me.

To many on this site and a few on this thread that will no doubt come as quite a shock.

Why would someone who willingly and continuously puts themselves in harms way not use every means possible to wage war against his opponent?

Why wouldn't he 'fight fire with fire'?

Why indeed.

Is he weak?

Is he soft?

Is he 'mentally wrecked'?

Is he indeed.



The fact is I know I'm better than the men and women I stand against. I am morally superior and personally, I always will be.

Nobody is going to take that away from me. Even if in the future the laws are changed to make acting like the terrorists we fight legal. I still won't do it.

Our society and respective cultures teach us to act better than that. That is why we will eventually prevail. Not because we became what we most despised.


But apparently some of you think otherwise,

bridget
Laworkerbee
deagle

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to exactly how YOU would do it? Bullet to the back of the neck? Or do you consider that too humane? Maybe a blunt, rusty knife to the throat?

C'mon tough c***s, tell us how you would do it. Or aren't you prepared to cover your hands in blood?

Why don't you give up those nice comfortable day jobs and get out there with the rest of us, show us how its done?


HOLLiS

You're pathetic old man. You just don't have a ****en clue do you?

Did you execute prisoners in South Vietnam during your tour? If its okay to do it now it must have been acceptable then.

Stupid old fool, get back on the medication before you lose it completely.




No matter how much I despise terrorists, and I really do, at least they have the guts to do what they believe and for that I will respect them.

You cowardly ****bags however disgust me. Not only do you preach the same abhorent drivel as terrorists, you wouldn't have the courage, such as it is, to do the deed yourselves.

****en pathetic.

[Laworkerbee]

Ngati Tumatuenga

whilst I consider your post harsh I do consider it a good reality check, I like the style in which CJ posed the question more.

But to answer simply after digesting everything Firetxmi posed to me, I can say no I would not want our men and women serving overseas put in a position where they are judge, jury, and executioner and have murder on their conscience.

[Firetxmi]

But to answer simply after digesting everything Firetxmi posed to me, I can say no I would not want our men and women serving overseas put in a position where they are judge, jury, and executioner and have murder on their conscience.

Good to hear!
:D

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Ngati Tumatuenga

whilst I consider your post harsh

That's good. It was intended to be harsh in line with the subject matter.

I do consider it a good reality check,

That's even better.

I like the style in which CJ posed the question more.

Most people would prefer an attitude adjustment from CJ rather from me I would imagine. Of course if you don't say anything I consider stupid then you won't have to feel my wrath.

If that reads as arrogance, I could care less. If you were standing in my shoes you would feel EXACTLY the same.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Well, I used to have some measure of respect for Mr Peters. I've read most of his novels and a good many of his articles.

Now I think he's just another ****in media idiot mouthpiece irrespective of his prior service.

So, the prevailing attitude amongst many on this site seems to agree with Mr Peters. Terrorists/insurgents should be executed out of hand, on the spot, wherever and whenever they are found.

Why? Apparently because they do it to 'us', therefore that means we should do it to 'them'.

Wow, incredibly detailed deductive reasoning at work there...:cantbeli:

I am a professional soldier. I have been for sixteen years. I have spent all of that time in what we refer to as 'teeth arm corps'. They're the guys who actually pull the trigger, etc, as opposed from those who sit behind desks collecting medals for promotional purposes.

I have never believed that it is acceptable to stoop to the standards of those I have fought when their behaviour has not adhered to the Laws of Armed Conflict and I've fought some real ****bags in my time.

I have never met another professional soldier from any country who disagreed with me.

To many on this site and a few on this thread that will no doubt come as quite a shock.

Why would someone who willingly and continuously puts themselves in harms way not use every means possible to wage war against his opponent?

Why wouldn't he 'fight fire with fire'?

Why indeed.

Is he weak?

Is he soft?

Is he 'mentally wrecked'?

Is he indeed.



The fact is I know I'm better than the men and women I stand against. I am morally superior and personally, I always will be.

Nobody is going to take that away from me. Even if in the future the laws are changed to make acting like the terrorists we fight legal. I still won't do it.

Our society and respective cultures teach us to act better than that. That is why we will eventually prevail. Not because we became what we most despised.


But apparently some of you think otherwise,

bridget
Laworkerbee
deagle

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to exactly how YOU would do it? Bullet to the back of the neck? Or do you consider that too humane? Maybe a blunt, rusty knife to the throat?

C'mon tough c***s, tell us how you would do it. Or aren't you prepared to cover your hands in blood?

Why don't you give up those nice comfortable day jobs and get out there with the rest of us, show us how its done?


HOLLiS

You're pathetic old man. You just don't have a ****en clue do you?

Did you execute prisoners in South Vietnam during your tour? If its okay to do it now it must have been acceptable then.

Stupid old fool, get back on the medication before you lose it completely.




No matter how much I despise terrorists, and I really do, at least they have the guts to do what they believe and for that I will respect them.

You cowardly ****bags however disgust me. Not only do you preach the same abhorent drivel as terrorists, you wouldn't have the courage, such as it is, to do the deed yourselves.

****en pathetic.

Reasoned, sensible and to the point after reading so much of the rubbish posted by our armchair warriors.

To a large majority of our membership ... ... ... Take note of what this guy says before spitting any more venom from your comforatable homes - this guy has been there and done it, have you? I for one have not and can only imagine what the front line is like. Remember what guys like Ngati have to say.

Take a reality check guys - wise up!

I salute you Sir!

[Tamir]

I don't think a terrorist/ illegal combatant should be given in any chance to surrender in an actual firefight, and that's why every chance to verify a kill should be taken. However, if he has manged to surrender, or in cases where they are caught unarmed in an non-combat situation, we can not stoop to field executions.

No matter how much I despise terrorists, and I really do, at least they have the guts to do what they believe and for that I will respect them. You respect their "guts" to purposely kill civilians... good job:roll:

[Royal]

I don't think a terrorist/ illegal combatant should be given in any chance to surrender in an actual firefight, and that's why every chance to verify a kill should be taken.

It's a good job that we don't have to fight alongside you, but just defend your right to spout murderous drivel in the internet instead then isn't it?

However, if he has manged to surrender, or in cases where they are caught unarmed in an non-combat situation, we can not stoop to field executions.

How very big of you to pay at least that lip service to the laws of war. Thank you so much.

You respect their "guts" to purposely kill civilians... good job:roll:

No dickhead - he respects their "guts" to get off their arrses and fight for what they believe in rather than playing armchair commando.

[Tamir]

It's a good job that we don't have to fight alongside you, but just defend your right to spout murderous drivel in the internet instead then isn't it?



How very big of you to pay at least that lip service to the laws of war. Thank you so much.



No dickhead - he respects their "guts" to get off their arrses and fight for what they believe in rather than playing armchair commando. Ilegal combatant are not defended by the rules of war.
I don't have an armchair.
It doesn't take guts to go kill civilians, anyone who thinks like that ...

ps. Sure is nice that mods are allowed to curse people on this board, but if it's vice-versa they just ban them.

[Royal]

Ilegal combatant are not defended by the rules of war..

'Illegal combatant' is not a term even recognised by the LOAC's.

I don't have an armchair.

That I find very hard to believe.

It doesn't take guts to go kill civilians, anyone who thinks like that ...

It takes either psycopathy or guts to kill anyone.

ps. nice a mods are allowed to curse people on this board, but if it's vice-versa they just ban them.

C'est la vie...

[Chops]

Ngati- one of the best posts I've ever read here. Accurate, articulate and with a little trademark bite- well done sir.

Tamir- shut your hole

C

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I don't think a terrorist/ illegal combatant should be given in any chance to surrender in an actual firefight,

Hey, that's a great idea!

That way they'll fight even harder in every battle because they know there is no way out and that will cost even more casualties than it ordinarily would.

Obviously you're not a soldier, otherwise you would have thought of that.

Dickhead.

You respect their "guts" to purposely kill civilians... good job:roll:

I knew a certain amount of idiots would take that the wrong way and here we have the first one.

Complete and utter dickhead.

[Tamir]

Hey, that's a great idea!

That way they'll fight even harder in every battle because they know there is no way out and that will cost even more casualties than it ordinarily would.

Obviously you're not a soldier, otherwise you would have thought of that.

Dickhead.



I knew a certain amount of idiots would take that the wrong way and here we have the first one.

Complete and utter dickhead.
You obviously haven't met Islamist radical militants in battle, nor do you have good reading comprehension. I said they shouldn't get the chance to surrender, I didn't say that their surrendering should be ignored.

I guess you went to the same etiquette school as your friend.

[Chops]

You obviously haven't met Islamist radical militants in battle, nor do you have good reading comprehension. I said they shouldn't get the chance to surrender, I didn't say that their surrendering should be ignored.

I guess you went to the same etiquette school as your friend.

Hey you're not so good on reading comprehension yourself are you? Re-read my last and then read the forum rules- particularly number 1.

[Tamir]

When you don't have a valid point - curse,bully and ban. Way to go.

[Chops]

Valid point? WTF? You're a goose pal. And seriously dude- read the rules. This isn't a democracy.

[Durandal]

Ok, now I'll step in...

I posted the article because 9 times out of 10 I enjoy Peter's stuff.

I admit I am torn about this and I think this question is not necessarily a military one either. Those of you that think that because you are fighting the fight right now have some sort of special insight or "right" to make those decisions are wrong.

Like it or not, you are tools, designed to make the political will of this (or your) nation happen if armed violence or the threat of it is necessary.

Its a crappy way of looking at it, bit its true.

You have my respect for doing it, but you are a tool wielded "by the people" (or at least that's the way its supposed to happen).

I do not like the idea of just "killing all the bad guys" because a lot of times we do not know who the bad guys are. God knows we have caught a lot of "bad guys" and dent them to a deep dark hole with no intent to see justice, a court, a REAL judge, or fair treatment only to find they are innocent. I'd rather have 100 guilty go free so one innocent may live.

But that is a criminal court type thinking...maybe its not that simple here.

I think Peters is also right to some degree. Simply put, taking NONE of the KNOWN combatants prisoner does simplify the problem of prisoner treatment. No one can argue that logically.

And no, I do think we are coming to their level. We are simply killing each one, not capturing them and torturing them, or beheading them, or raping them.

Maybe there are times that regardless of moral platform you need to fight as hard as you can with all the tools you have available.

I have spent the time since 9/11 thinking that we should have hunted down every person involved in 9/11, the families of the hijackers, the me that handled the money, and any politicos that were involved and kill them...hand down justice for planning it, taking blood money, showing any would be terrorist that we won't start a war, we won't kill innocent people, but that we would do harm in ways most foul to ANYTHING they hold near and dear.

Which do you think is more human and honorable? Taking a fight to two nations and in the process killing, even if by accident, men women and children by the THOUSANDS.

or...

Selectively slaying those that have or would do you and those that are guilty by association?

I think that suggesting some moral equivalency between the two acts..."legal" war and deliberate exception of enemies in an attempt to stop violence is well...not a very strong argument.

We'll cluster bomb a village in an attempt to get to leaders, accepting the collateral damage (though we hate the fact it happened) but we'll blanche at the idea of executing our enemies rather than capturing because it is MORE wrong?

Not to get all Colonel Kurtz, but the hypocrisy is amazing...

[DeltaWhisky58]

When you don't have a valid point - curse,bully and ban. Way to go.

And what is more, continue with your current arrogant stance and you'll be the next one to be cursed, bullied and banned!

Final Warning!

[Royal]

I admit I am torn about this and I think this question is not necessarily a military one either. Those of you that think that because you are fighting the fight right now have some sort of special insight or "right" to make those decisions are wrong.

Like it or not, you are tools, designed to make the political will of this (or your) nation happen if armed violence or the threat of it is necessary.

Its a crappy way of looking at it, bit its true.

A valid point certainly, and better argued than most here.

Nagti's first point is the most important.

I have never believed that it is acceptable to stoop to the standards of those I have fought when their behaviour has not adhered to the Laws of Armed Conflict and I've fought some real ****bags in my time.

I have never met another professional soldier from any country who disagreed with me.

And no, I do think we are coming to their level. We are simply killing each one, not capturing them and torturing them, or beheading them, or raping them.

Murder is murder is murder. We will kill them in combat, we will not be society's paid murderers - if that is what you want, then you as a society need to recruit a new military.

Maybe there are times that regardless of moral platform you need to fight as hard as you can with all the tools you have available.

As I said earlier - that kind of thinking leads down the road of the Einsaztgruppen, or for that matter Abu Grahib. I for one am not prepared to lower myself to their level. I have a conscience and I have to live with what I have done already - that's quite enough as it is.

we should have hunted down every person involved in 9/11, the families of the hijackers, the me that handled the money, and any politicos that were involved and kill them

we won't kill innocent people, but that we would do harm in ways most foul to ANYTHING they hold near and dear.

How in Gods name are the families anything other than innocent people?

Which do you think is more human and honorable? Taking a fight to two nations and in the process killing, even if by accident, men women and children by the THOUSANDS.

or...

Selectively slaying those that have or would do you and those that are guilty by association?

I think that suggesting some moral equivalency between the two acts..."legal" war and deliberate exception of enemies in an attempt to stop violence is well...not a very strong argument.

We'll cluster bomb a village in an attempt to get to leaders, accepting the collateral damage (though we hate the fact it happened) but we'll blanche at the idea of executing our enemies rather than capturing because it is MORE wrong?

Here you make a valuable and valid point. IMHO neither is human and honourable. When we do bomb a village as you describe we not only demean ourseleves and our cause we also (perhaps more importantly) perpetuate the reasons for the fight against us.

[Chops]

Beautifully put Royal- we need to win the moral war as much as the shooting war. As much as I personally detest the quasi Christian spin H John Poole places on the moral war- I agree with his conclusions.

[Durandal]

If our goal is to win the moral war then we should not be fighting.

Period, end of discussion.

We should:

• Show them what America is, the people.
• Not buy oil from the middle east (thus forcing the regions leaders to find a better economic alternative and change social structure.
• Embargo the entire region
• Deal ONLY with free and democratic societies
• Never try to buy a region either through arms, cash, or economic incentives
• Celebrate and reward people that demand freedom, take it, and run a free society

Except we do not do that. We claim we fight the war with some sort of "standard" as if that somehow, in its microcosm makes the other things better. Its not the same as living a moral life, or an ethical life independent of conflict.

I mean, using this rationale, proposed in several posts above, we should not be fighting at all.

You either fight or you do not. You either view everything this nation does as moral or you do not.

Ralph Peters did not suggest taking bombs into crowded markets and setting them off, arbitrarily killing innocent people. He did not suggest engaging in a war of terror against an innocent population. He said "kill the bad guys".

If the only way to survive, for Iraq and Afghanistan and any other population under threat from these villains, these criminals, is to lay them low (and I think it might be...unless you do the alternative I proposed, pull in the horns and do it right) the you kill them.

One could argue that killing such people is in fact the moral high ground because of the cost ini the end for letting them live.

We shed no tears for the pedophile murdered in a prison, yet, we find killing, with purpose, in defense of humanity, the very people that want to strip it from us distasteful?

What a weird world we live in.

[Mastermind]

Good post...thank's Durandal. And...good comment ^

I would add this...it is estimated there are about a billion Muslims....the vast majority of whom are peaceful and mean no one else harm in any way. However, it is also estimated by one article I read that about 2% of the Muslims are militant and live by fundamentalist doctrines that incude murdering folks who are not Muslim...they either directly are active in this endeavor or support it in some way. That means killing about 2 million folks.MM

[Durandal]

Well, I am done packing for Bulletfest. So this will be my last post for the weekend.

First, thanks Royal and MM for the comments and replies to the post.

The whole damn thing drives me nuts.

I see a who lot of questions in our future with little answers. As things are beginning to get hotter in Israel I wonder if anything is going to work. Part of me wants to find some alternative fuel source just so we have absolutely NO NEED to be in that region and wash our hands and go home.

I often wondering, having been born DURING Vietnam and after the Cuban missile crisis if this is what the previous generation was thinking.

I want answers to problems like everyone else, they may not be the answers I want to hear...then again...they might be.

Lately I have been very frustrated with the whole thing...this world in general that part of me simply wants to curl up on my farm and do that, grow things, build things, sell at markets, meet and hang with the local community and not ever again venture out into the world physically or electronically because none of it makes sense and often times shames me...

The joys I have found lay in the community and family...and friends and the world simply tires me as of late.

There are times though, that a murderous rage would like to see that 2% of muslims, those that would divide the world and do everyone harm simple erased.

I am sure that I am not the only one that feels this way nor am I person who would want to participate in such an act...

I simply cannot see fighting a war and not doing everything within your power to win it and I have to be honest, I do not see us doing that. We need to pick up go home and kick the crap out of anyone that comes close to the United States and rethink where we want to be in another 100 years.

[Chops]

[quote=Durandal]If our goal is to win the moral war then we should not be fighting.

Period, end of discussion.

You get no argument from me in relation to Iraq. However we ARE fighting there and for the duration I believe we need (read as CF/MNF) to strive to keep the "moral upper hand". This does not necessarily equate to your list of topics below. I am arguing Poole's point which is one of battlefield moral high ground. Not always fighting fire with fire. Showing restraint. Showing respect. This is what I meant by my use of the term 'moral'.

We should:

• Show them what America is, the people.
• Not buy oil from the middle east (thus forcing the regions leaders to find a better economic alternative and change social structure.
• Embargo the entire region
• Deal ONLY with free and democratic societies
• Never try to buy a region either through arms, cash, or economic incentives
• Celebrate and reward people that demand freedom, take it, and run a free society

Except we do not do that. We claim we fight the war with some sort of "standard" as if that somehow, in its microcosm makes the other things better. Its not the same as living a moral life, or an ethical life independent of conflict.

We do generally conduct ourselves to a reasonably high standard and yes I believe it does make a difference. As Royal and others have rightly to my mind pointed out- every civ killed feeds the insurgency. We need to conduct ourselves to a much higher standard- ethically, morally, humanely- as possible. This 'war' will be won by perceptions- not triggerpullers.

I mean, using this rationale, proposed in several posts above, we should not be fighting at all.

You either fight or you do not. You either view everything this nation does as moral or you do not.

Ralph Peters did not suggest taking bombs into crowded markets and setting them off, arbitrarily killing innocent people. He did not suggest engaging in a war of terror against an innocent population. He said "kill the bad guys".

If the only way to survive, for Iraq and Afghanistan and any other population under threat from these villains, these criminals, is to lay them low (and I think it might be...unless you do the alternative I proposed, pull in the horns and do it right) the you kill them.

I believe a magical brew of civil affairs and COIN can win the day. Not sexy and not high speed but given time and resources there are other ways to win wars. It really is "hearts and minds" except on a global stage. Oh and solving the Palestinian 'issue' (and perhaps finally placing Israel at arm's length) would go a long way toward "winning" the war.


One could argue that killing such people is in fact the moral high ground because of the cost ini the end for letting them live.

We shed no tears for the pedophile murdered in a prison, yet, we find killing, with purpose, in defense of humanity, the very people that want to strip it from us distasteful?

What a weird world we live in.

Yes, yes it is mate.

[California Joe]

Wait a minute, I have a semi lucid "just some thoughts" Tane kinda moment and suddenly I'm the "Good Cop"?

Bastards.

There was an article posted here a while ago written by an Army Colonel I believe about the PTSD now being experienced by our troops and they found that it wasn't the effects of seeing their buddies killed or wounded that caused the majority of the problems for returning combat vets it was the act of killing itself. Especially in a conflict like this where it is usually up close and personal. They attributed it to our ingrained values and religious upbringing that killing is wrong. The act of killing, even as a soldier in war was still damaging to the psyche because it runs counter to everything we are taught in our society. And that is against armed foes in a combat situation, not guys that surrendered but we still consider them a danger so we shoot them in the head. Think about the long lasting psychological effects of that one......Because rage and anger pass and then all you are left with is the knowledge that you committed murder.....

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

You obviously haven't met Islamist radical militants in battle,

You obviously haven't served as a soldier...

nor do you have good reading comprehension.

Nor can you employ simple communication skills, like basic writing.

I said they shouldn't get the chance to surrender, I didn't say that their surrendering should be ignored.

LMAO!

Right, so tell us, how do you not give them the chance to surrender without ignoring them when they do surrender?rofl

I guess you went to the same etiquette school as your friend.

I guess you learnt all your tactics from playstation/Xbox/nintendo etc.

rofl

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Those of you that think that because you are fighting the fight right now have some sort of special insight or "right" to make those decisions are wrong.

On the contrary D, it does give us special insight.

Why? because we are the ones 'you the people' would expect to carry out these decisions.

Why? Read California Joe's posts. Pretty soon you'll end up with a military of loaded with people suffering from acute mental illnesses. This could take a whole new thread to explain but CJ has hit it on the head.

What gets me is that people, who for the majority, have never, will never, serve in the 'front line' in their countries military sit here and talk it up about executing the enemy, when they themselves will never be called upon to pull the trigger.

If you look at this thread the majority of people disagreeing with the idea of executing insurgents/terrorists out of hand are current or former soldiers.

Doesn't that fact make you wonder?

Like it or not, you are tools, designed to make the political will of this (or your) nation happen if armed violence or the threat of it is necessary.

Its a crappy way of looking at it, bit its true.

You have my respect for doing it, but you are a tool wielded "by the people" (or at least that's the way its supposed to happen).

I understand who I am and who I work for. I also understand what my society and culture expects from me. If the two suddenly end up at cross purposes then who decides which path to follow?

You seem to think a soldier is a robot who must follow orders to the letter, ignoring any ambiguity. That's not the case in this day and age.

I do not like the idea of just "killing all the bad guys" because a lot of times we do not know who the bad guys are. God knows we have caught a lot of "bad guys" and dent them to a deep dark hole with no intent to see justice, a court, a REAL judge, or fair treatment only to find they are innocent. I'd rather have 100 guilty go free so one innocent may live.

But that is a criminal court type thinking...maybe its not that simple here.

Don't you think that smacks of hypocracy? If insurgent/terrorists aren't soldiers then they must be criminals musn't they? Or is there a third category i've missed?


I have spent the time since 9/11 thinking that we should have hunted down every person involved in 9/11, the families of the hijackers, the me that handled the money, and any politicos that were involved and kill them...hand down justice for planning it, taking blood money, showing any would be terrorist that we won't start a war, we won't kill innocent people, but that we would do harm in ways most foul to ANYTHING they hold near and dear.

See, this is the point I'm getting at. Familys? What crime have they committed?

Is it justice you want or revenge? Do they have the same rights if one of their family members is wrongfully killed?

Who gets to decide who is directly guilty and who's guilty by association?

I think that suggesting some moral equivalency between the two acts..."legal" war and deliberate exception of enemies in an attempt to stop violence is well...not a very strong argument.

Well, that's an interesting view point. I really don't know how to comment on that.

We'll cluster bomb a village in an attempt to get to leaders, accepting the collateral damage (though we hate the fact it happened) but we'll blanche at the idea of executing our enemies rather than capturing because it is MORE wrong?

I don't agree with that either. I spent some time a few months ago arguing with some idiot who thought the village of Damidola on the Paki/AF border got what it deserved for 'harbouring' terrorists when it was bombed. "The kids were just going to grow up and become terrorists anyway" was his view.





Have you got kids Durandal? Are you prepared to teach them to execute their countries sworn enemies out of hand? Because you'll have to teach and train them from this point forward, absolving them of any moral resonsibilities toward their fellow man in order for them to effectively carry out their duties. Otherwise they're going to have allsorts of conflicting teachings ricocheting around their heads when it comes time to do the deed.

Are you comfortable with that?

Are you comfortable teaching them to pull the trigger on a fellow human being in that situation? You could start at the next bulletfest or whatever.

How about you yourself? Are you going to partake in this idea?

Get off the range and away from those paper and metal targets?

Or are you somehow above the messy business of despatching our enemies with a bullet to the back of the head, or a bayonet across the throat.

Is that a job for us "tools"?...




If our goal is to win the moral war then we should not be fighting.

Period, end of discussion.

If our goal is to win the war regardless of the detremental effect it has on our respective societies and cultures and the people within them due to the way in which we wage it then we should not be fighting.

Period, end of discussion.

[Paracaidista]

All I can say is history has shown that the most ruthless side would probably win (or make the other surrender). The moral high ground is mostly fodder of the media of the most vulnerable band of the conflict.

This 'clash of civilizations' must be fought not only in the battlefield, that's why my comment of rubbing the bullets with 'pig fat'. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, although doing it may work for some.

[Royal]

All I can say is history has shown that the most ruthless side would probably win (or make the other surrender). The moral high ground is mostly fodder of the media of the most vulnerable band of the conflict.

Well that would explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan won World War Two wouldn't it, then of course there's the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Shall I go on?

[KingerARW]

Well that would explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan won World War Two wouldn't it, then of course there's the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Shall I go on?

Touche........

[Atlantic Friend]

Well that would explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan won World War Two wouldn't it, then of course there's the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Shall I go on?

Spot on IMVHO.

Democracies didn't have to become Nazi dictatorships to defeat Nazism. Democracies never needed to become Stalinist to face Stalinism. I don't see how these terrorist thugs are suddenly so powerful that we cannot defeat them without emulating them ?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Spot on IMVHO.

Democracies didn't have to become Nazi dictatorships to defeat Nazism. Democracies never needed to become Stalinist to face Stalinism. I don't see how these terrorist thugs are suddenly so powerful that we cannot defeat them without emulating them ?
I agree and we also need to be constantly vigilant that our own governments do not start trading our freedom for 'notional' security. There is nothing that the likes of UBL would like more than to see Western democracies becoming more and more authoritarian towards their own populations.

[Macs.]

So, is there any good reason to kill a enemy/terrorist "on the battlefield" although he is no danger ?

We must kill our enemies with discrimination.

Sorry ?

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing
should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot
or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a
legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or
detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the
spot.


I just wonder how he is gonna implement that system on the "Battlefield". That may sound nice for some, but obviously it isn't practical at all.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies.

How are we gonna know that they are all hardcore terrorist, without a (puplic) trail, especially if there are even people getting released from Guantanamo who obviously were innocent ?

[Mastermind]

Some really good philosophy espoused in here.

1) Per Joe's post on the psych effect of killing in war...killing does have a very profound effect....one the soldier does not readily realize. Afterall, it is why he is there. But, you get over it. It becomes a job and for the most part (speaking from personal experience) everyone you kill on the battle filed are killed in self defense. So, the soldier has that going for him. However, the killing that most profoundly affects a soldier is when his comrads are killed next to him and some die in his arms. I think one good example of this is the story of what happened to Major Reno at the battle of the Little Big Horn. I can not imagine the mental effects of mass killing of innocent people, though...that, to me, would leave major mental scars.

2) Durandal's frustration at seeing these things going down and we seem to be scratching around with it...not really engaged the way we should be is a frustration I think most western folks feel about it. Durandal is saying he thinks civilization is actually on the line here. And I think he is right. But, so is AF...civilization does not have to become uncivilized to win over these thugs...afterall, we are trying to preserve civilization, aren't we? Excellent point that we didn't have to submerge our civilization to defeat japan and Nazi Germany. Though, I have to wonder about the civility of fire bombing whole cities and dropping nukes on unsuspecting civilians. (don't get overly excited...it really seems to have been necessry...that's for an entirely 'nuther thread, though)

BUT! What are we to do as this problem escalates? Where is it really headed? We now seem to have whole nations being lead by guys who are advocating the utter destruction of all of us...all that is not Islam...or all that is not North Korean...That demands a pretty severe response if we are to protect our way of life. Is this thing headed for some sort of solution on a Biblical scale? Are we actually going to come to a "mass killing" mentality? How far will that attitude go if it ever get's loose?

It has been noted that there is nothing more ruthless, more devastating, more murderous than the Western European Civilization (I include Russia in this envelope due to much of her ancestry)...they have killed and murdered on a scale never matched by any other race in the history of humanity. That Western European is the guy the Jihadist Muslims are messing with and he now has weapons of unimaginable capability. Are the Jihadist Muslims nuts? I think so.

I don't know what is going to happen...but In my opinion, I think we are headed for something that no one on any side wants to happen. When it does happen, we are going to realise that life as we once knew it is over forever. MM

[California Joe]

That was one of the reasons I remember that article, it was probably posted by CAG or Jedburgh or Hist...They seem to post a lot of thought provoking, interesting articles...I logically assumed, having not been in combat myself, that the loss of ones comrades in the manner that Mastermind just related would drive one over the edge. They were finding that that issue had become secondary on the list in most of their cases to the act of killing another human being. That caused more trauma to their patients psyche than any of the other horrible things they saw or experienced. I should probably try and search and find the bloody article because it wasn't written by an armchair type psychologist but an Army of Navy officer that has seen combat and is currently treating these cases....

[Firetxmi]

That was one of the reasons I remember that article, it was probably posted by CAG or Jedburgh or Hist...They seem to post a lot of thought provoking, interesting articles...I logically assumed, having not been in combat myself, that the loss of ones comrades in the manner that Mastermind just related would drive one over the edge. They were finding that that issue had become secondary on the list in most of their cases to the act of killing another human being. That caused more trauma to their patients psyche than any of the other horrible things they saw or experienced. I should probably try and search and find the bloody article because it wasn't written by an armchair type psychologist but an Army of Navy officer that has seen combat and is currently treating these cases....

I'd be extremely interested to see this article. Sounds very thought provoking.....

[Paracaidista]

Well that would explain why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan won World War Two wouldn't it, then of course there's the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Shall I go on?

Do not confuse totalitarism with ruthlessness. In order to defeat these former powers, the allies had to become more ruthless at least on the battlefield. As Mastermind mentioned, Western civilization has been the most ruthless of all during wars (of not only the XX century).

Remember Patton's speech (the real one, not the movie)? The soldier's reaction to killing answer lies somewhere in between. As soon one side's army become 'soft' the other side will exploit it as a vulnerability somehow. The limit is when an army become too soft to even conduct combat operations (killing), then that army is doomed to defeat.

The moral 'high ground' can be controlled by the media of either side up to a point. It was worse in the past, now with global communications that is more difficult, at least for zones with the same language.