 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / April 2004'How an Italian Died'
'How an Italian Died' "Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen has an interesting theory about why Al-Jazeera did not air the tape of terrorists in Iraq murdering an Italian hostage: "The terrorists present the world with an endless supply of lies, which generally take the form of accusing us of what they do (and we don't). Many of their actions are staged precisely for the benefit of reporters (like the horror scene of the four dead American contractors a couple of weeks ago). They brought in the television cameras the other day to film the execution of an Italian hostage, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, but something went wrong. After forcing him to dig his own grave, they put a hood over his head and ordered him to kneel so he could be killed. He wouldn't go for it. He tried to remove the hood, and defiantly yelled at them "I will show you how an Italian dies." The scene was a propaganda disaster for them, and good old al Jazeera, the modern mother of lies, announced that they had the tape but wouldn't release it because it was too terrible to witness. It was terrible, but not in the way al Jazeera wanted us to think. It showed Western bravery, not Arab domination, so they couldn't show it." James Taranto The WSJ ----------------- D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > 'How an Italian Died' > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > James Taranto > The WSJ God bless that guy. Verdi would be proud. So would the Romans. > ----------------- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Vires et Honor >> 'How an Italian Died' >> >> "Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen has an interesting >> theory about why Al-Jazeera did not air the tape of terrorists in Iraq >> murdering an Italian hostage: It was gross and in poor taste to show on tv ? Whatever the reason, off topic as here. Bruce ----------------------------------------------------------------------- It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be. I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo. > > 'How an Italian Died' > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > God bless that guy. Verdi would be proud. So would the Romans. Absolutely. How tragic. My heart goes out to his family. >>>'How an Italian Died' >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>wouldn't go for it. He tried to remove the hood, and defiantly yelled >>>at them "I will show you how an Italian dies." Excellent, but when they gave him a shovel with which to dig his own grave, he should have driven it point first into one of the terrorists' knees or bodies. (What could they have done to him that was worse than what they did to him?) The former would at least have crippled one of his executioners for life and the latter might have taken one of them with him. (Per Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," World War I soldiers considered their short entrenching shovels more effective than bayoneted rifles at close quarters). >>God bless that guy. Verdi would be proud. So would the Romans. > > Absolutely. How tragic. My heart goes out to his family. I hope his compatriots find his killers and, when they attempt to surrender, shoot them dead and tell them to give their (Italians') regards to their dead friend. It is time for Western armies to show the terrorists just how horrible war can be when all restraints are removed from it. This means not bothering to take prisoners, and possibly using gas or hollowpoint bullets. The protections of the Hague and Geneva Conventions are for uniformed soldiers who conduct their operations in accordance with the laws of war, and not for terrorist filth. I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A pistol cartridge costs less than half a dollar, whereas medical supplies are expensive and they should be reserved for use on human beings. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ "Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@N . > I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that > first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.omdurman.org/ Waste not, want not. Works for me. Jim E >It is time for Western armies to show the terrorists just how horrible >war can be when all restraints are removed from it. This means not >bothering to take prisoners, and possibly using gas or hollowpoint >bullets. The protections of the Hague and Geneva Conventions are for >uniformed soldiers who conduct their operations in accordance with the >laws of war, and not for terrorist filth. Sorry, I like my soul. >I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that >first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A >pistol cartridge costs less than half a dollar, whereas medical supplies >are expensive and they should be reserved for use on human beings. Very difficult to interrogate a corpse. Medium is not a US Army MOS.  SignatureJohn M. Atkinson "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." --Robert A. Heinlein >>It is time for Western armies to show the terrorists just how horrible >>war can be when all restraints are removed from it. This means not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sorry, I like my soul. When terrorists go out of their way to murder civilians, or prisoners (like the Italian hostage), they forfeit their status as human beings or even animals. Anything one does to them is OK as far as I am concerned. >>I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that >>first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A >>pistol cartridge costs less than half a dollar, whereas medical supplies >>are expensive and they should be reserved for use on human beings. > > Very difficult to interrogate a corpse. Medium is not a US Army MOS. If the terrorists are treated as prisoners of war (a status to which they are not entitled), you can't interrogate them either. All a POW has to tell you is his name, rank, and serial number. If the terrorists were treated as they deserve, we could certainly work them over with steel-cored rubber hoses (drugs may actually be more effective) to extract information that can be used to kill other terrorists. The problem is that the Left would bleat and squeal about how inhumane we are. So, as they are no use alive, we should just kill them. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >If the terrorists were treated as they deserve, we could certainly work >them over with steel-cored rubber hoses (drugs may actually be more >effective) to extract information that can be used to kill other >terrorists. The problem is that the Left would bleat and squeal about >how inhumane we are. So, as they are no use alive, we should just kill them. The main trouble with steel-cored rubber hoses is that you most often get told what you want to hear instead of what is really going on. As an interrogation tool, it stinks. So, if we want to beat on them fine (I think there is an eye-for-an-eye stanza or two in the Koran). But just don't try to make it more than it is by pretending there is a higher calling here. -------------------------------------------------------- "Writers even write the silences" -J. Michael Straczynski >> Sorry, I like my soul. > >When terrorists go out of their way to murder civilians, or prisoners >(like the Italian hostage), they forfeit their status as human beings or >even animals. Anything one does to them is OK as far as I am concerned. Alright, let me be more specific. I see you're reading this crossposted to soc.culture.jewish, right? Then you don't know me. I've been back from Iraq for just over a month now. I will tell you it is rough enough psychologically speaking to serve a year in combat in a guerilla war knowing you did your absolute best to act with honor and decency regardless of what circumstances you were placed in. To act as you suggest would result in, in my case at least, enough psychological damage that it would be a bad idea for me interact with normal people for a long time. >>>I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that >>>first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >they are not entitled), you can't interrogate them either. All a POW has >to tell you is his name, rank, and serial number. True--but the REALITY is that a good interrogator can get anything out of them while not breaking the guidelines. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." --Robert A. Heinlein >>>Sorry, I like my soul. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > least, enough psychological damage that it would be a bad idea for me > interact with normal people for a long time. I agree. I would not want to be a torturer myself, or watch torture (e.g. as an interrogator). I would not want to have to participate in an execution (e.g. of a spy) either, no matter what the perpetrator had done to deserve it. The problem with that sort of thing is that it is bad for the person who has to do it. On the other hand, if I was an Italian whose buddy was murdered by his captors... well, I wouldn't do it without orders or at least a wink and nod from above but I could envision myself shooting those particular individuals dead even if they asked for quarter. Another reason why these terrorists enrage me to the point where I would suggest not applying the laws of war to them is the fact that they are murdering American and allied soldiers. (Someone who kills an opposing soldier while disguising himself as a noncombatant commits murder and not an act of war.) I admire our Army for acting with amazing restraint and humanity but I think our people have the right to be safe from murder and assassination. Those who do murder or try to murder our people should, in my opinion, be executed as spies-- which, as far as I know, would be quite within our side's rights. >>>>I recall saying more than twenty years ago (in a college newspaper) that >>>>first aid for wounded terrorists should consist of the coup de grace. A [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > True--but the REALITY is that a good interrogator can get anything out > of them while not breaking the guidelines. I believe that; a lot of people like to talk just to hear themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if some very humane and decent armies supplied their captives with plenty of liquor and very polite listeners on various occasions. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >I agree. I would not want to be a torturer myself, or watch torture >(e.g. as an interrogator). I would not want to have to participate in an >execution (e.g. of a spy) either, no matter what the perpetrator had >done to deserve it. The problem with that sort of thing is that it is >bad for the person who has to do it. Then don't advocate such. It offends those of us who would have to carry out such bloodthirsty adolescent fantasies. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." --Robert A. Heinlein >>I agree. I would not want to be a torturer myself, or watch torture >>(e.g. as an interrogator). I would not want to have to participate in an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then don't advocate such. It offends those of us who would have to > carry out such bloodthirsty adolescent fantasies. I am advocating it (not torture but rather execution of "insurgents" who disguise themselves as civilians, or who themselves murder hostages like the Italian), not as a "bloodthirsty adolescent fantasy," but because I think it is necessary for the safety of American and allied soldiers, and also for Iraqis. We had the same problem in Vietnam, with combatants who disguised themselves as civilians murdering our GIs. If every single one of them had been tried and shot as a spy upon capture, I think it would have stopped pretty quickly. This was our practice during the Second World War. There was a case in which Germans dressed in American uniforms to misdirect our troops; the practice stopped pretty quickly when our side executed every German who was caught in a U.S. uniform. When you were in Iraq, how did you feel about the possibility that any Iraqi you saw might be planning to shoot you or throw a bomb at you even if he was dressed as a civilian? Was this a safe situation for you or for genuine Iraqi noncombatants? Our soldiers and those of our allies have a right to feel safe when they see an Iraqi in civilian clothing. Iraqi civilians have a right to be safe, and the presence of armed combatants who also are dressed as civilians exposes them (innocent Iraqis) to "collateral damage." Exacting less than the ultimate penalty from "insurgents" who disguise themselves as civilians and murder hostages is inconsistent with these principles. --Bill >I am advocating it (not torture but rather execution of "insurgents" who >disguise themselves as civilians, or who themselves murder hostages like >the Italian), not as a "bloodthirsty adolescent fantasy," but because I >think it is necessary for the safety of American and allied soldiers, >and also for Iraqis. And your qualifications to comment on same is? >When you were in Iraq, how did you feel about the possibility that any >Iraqi you saw might be planning to shoot you or throw a bomb at you even >if he was dressed as a civilian? Was this a safe situation for you or >for genuine Iraqi noncombatants? I didn't particularly "feel" one way or the other. It was a fact of life, and I dealt with it. Ask the convoy commanders operating in our sector of Highway 1 (Samarra bypass to FOB Omaha) how well we did so. >Our soldiers and those of our allies have a right to feel safe when they Not hardly. A "right to feel safe" is the last thing you have in a combat zone. >Exacting less than the ultimate penalty from "insurgents" who disguise >themselves as civilians and murder hostages is inconsistent with these >principles. Again, how many people have you shot in cold blood and what are your qualifications to suggest doing so? SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman > >I am advocating it (not torture but rather execution of "insurgents" who > >disguise themselves as civilians, or who themselves murder hostages like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And your qualifications to comment on same is? He's angry, that's all. So were we all I think, but since we can't directly do anything about it, we feel impotent and frustration sets in. I have never faced such a situation luckily for me (as a victim, a soldier or an executioner), and how I would actually feel were I there I don't know? Sickened and appalled (which I feel anyway), furious I suppose... I expect I would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but I don't know that for sure. That however would be in 'hot blood' - relatively easy. Were someone dragged before me, pleading for his life hysterically, and I was told it was my duty to shoot him as he had done whatever a few months ago, I think I would have a serious problem pulling the trigger. It's one thing blowing off steam on Usenet, another facing them in real life. > >When you were in Iraq, how did you feel about the possibility that any > >Iraqi you saw might be planning to shoot you or throw a bomb at you even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > life, and I dealt with it. Ask the convoy commanders operating in our > sector of Highway 1 (Samarra bypass to FOB Omaha) how well we did so. I presume it wouldn't be insulting to say 'nervous', 'tense' and 'extremely wary'? The thing is, few people these days have experienced combat situations or life threatening danger. I have, but only for brief moments on a few occasions, then I was back to safety again. Facing it day in, day out for months and even years is entirely another matter. I imagine it must be exhausting, stressful and fatiguing in the extreme, both mentally and physically. Waiting for 'something to happen' is the worst thing of all, something the majority of us wouldn't be able to cope with (including me). I greatly appreciate and respect your courage and effort John - just manning a check point for a few hours, where I might be faced by suicide bombers or who knows what, would soon shatter my nerves. > >Our soldiers and those of our allies have a right to feel safe when they > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Again, how many people have you shot in cold blood and what are your > qualifications to suggest doing so? I expect many of us (brought up on a diet of war and action films) might possibly manage to be 'heroes' for a few minutes, but don't appreciate that war is almost all waiting and worrying. Bill probably doesn't appreciate that, he wants 'revenge' (I can see why) All I can say is that I expect the bastards will get their come-uppance soon enough - he'll just have to be satisfied with that. I'm very glad that I won't have to deliver it to them - not because of the danger, not because I wouldn't, but because I don't ever want to have to kill anyone for any reason. Hopefully I'll never have to and never will, but most of all, I'd never expect, tell or order anyone else to do it for me. I'm sure most soldiers feel the same in their hearts. Cheers Martin >>>I am advocating it (not torture but rather execution of "insurgents" who >>>disguise themselves as civilians, or who themselves murder hostages like [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > serious problem pulling the trigger. It's one thing blowing off steam on > Usenet, another facing them in real life. I agree. If Osama bin Laden was strapped to a gurney for a lethal injection (as he deserves) I would not particularly want to be the one who had to push the button to start the execution. I would, however, want the button to be pushed. I suppose this is where one needs a professional like Albert Pierrepoint, the famous British hangman who took pride in dispatching his "clients" painlessly, without botching the job. If I was an Italian soldier whose buddy had been "executed" by his terrorist captors, however, I don't think I'd have trouble gunning them down even if they dropped their weapons and put their hands in the air. I wouldn't do it against orders but, given a wink and nod from my superiors, I wouldn't have a problem with it. >>>When you were in Iraq, how did you feel about the possibility that any >>>Iraqi you saw might be planning to shoot you or throw a bomb at you even [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > check point for a few hours, where I might be faced by suicide bombers or who > knows what, would soon shatter my nerves. I agree, and it's why I don't cry and moan when an Iraqi or Afghan civilian is killed through an honest mistake (e.g. looked like he had a bomb, or fired an AK-47 into the air when U.S. aircraft were around). I remember how we lost a couple of hundred Marines in Beirut because the sentries apparently weren't given the orders my father had in World War II: if someone refuses your order to halt, or tries to blow past your post, you shot him and no questions were asked. Actually, Dad said what happened was that the sentry was "tried" for the shooting, found guilty, and fined a dollar which was returned through his post exchange account. I suspect that the purpose of this exercise was to prevent a civilian court from ever questioning the sentry's actions (double jeopardy). He never had to shoot anyone himself but he scared the hell out of some people when he chambered a round after they ignored his instructions to stop. There is a story that a sentry fired a warning shot at General Patton when he failed to stop as required. Patton allegedly came back, tore the stripes off the man's uniform, and said, "That's for missing!" Mickey Marcus, who was perhaps Israel's greatest hero (1948 war) WAS shot dead by an Israeli sentry when he didn't understand the sentry's order to stop. This sort of thing sounds pretty harsh but, given recent events (terrorists disguised as civilians and carrying bombs with which they plan to blow up a checkpoint and its guards) it is easy to see why it is necessary to shoot someone who disobeys (or perhaps doesn't hear) an order to stop and keep his distance. >>>Our soldiers and those of our allies have a right to feel safe when they >> >>Not hardly. A "right to feel safe" is the last thing you have in a >>combat zone. Of course soldiers don't have the right to feel safe from enemy soldiers but they are entitled, under international law, to feel safe from civilians or anyone who looks like a civilian. There is a very good reason for this; consider the Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were killed by accident as described above. If Americans have to worry about every Iraqi being a disguised combatants, more accidents like this are going to happen. (I'd call it "justifiable homicide," noting that the Americans were in "reasonable fear" for their lives.) >>>Exacting less than the ultimate penalty from "insurgents" who disguise >>>themselves as civilians and murder hostages is inconsistent with these >>>principles. >> >>Again, how many people have you shot in cold blood and what are your >>qualifications to suggest doing so? I don't shoot people in cold blood and I have no desire to do so. On the other hand, suppose terrorists are, by disguising themselves as civilians, murdering* American and allied troops and also getting genuine noncombatants killed. Then my decision (e.g. as a national leader) to NOT order the terrorists to be either killed on the spot or tried by court-martial and executed promptly makes me morally guilty of allowing the murder of innocent people. * A combatant who kills while dressed as a civilian commits murder and not a legal act of war. > I expect many of us (brought up on a diet of war and action films) might > possibly manage to be 'heroes' for a few minutes, but don't appreciate that > war is almost all waiting and worrying. Bill probably doesn't appreciate that, > he wants 'revenge' (I can see why) Not revenge but rather appropriate punishment to put a stop to practices like executing hostages and disguising combatants as civilians. During the 19th and even well through the 20th century, combatants who dressed as civilians would have been executed as spies and this would have been taken for granted by the media. Even enemy soldiers who abused symbols like the Red Cross or a white flag would have been killed, and again no one would have lifted a voice in protest. > All I can say is that I expect the bastards will get their come-uppance soon > enough - he'll just have to be satisfied with that. I'm very glad that I won't > have to deliver it to them - not because of the danger, not because I > wouldn't, but because I don't ever want to have to kill anyone for any reason. > Hopefully I'll never have to and never will, but most of all, I'd never > expect, tell or order anyone else to do it for me. I agree-- but if I was President of the United States and I had ordered men and women to risk their lives, I would consider it my obligation to do everything I could to assure their safety. This includes not only providing the best equipment with which to face enemy soldiers, but also inflicting very harsh consequences on enemy combatants who murder American soldiers. This is also necessary for the protection of Iraqi civilians. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >I agree. If Osama bin Laden was strapped to a gurney for a lethal >injection (as he deserves) I would not particularly want to be the one >who had to push the button to start the execution. I would, however, You sir, are a hypocrite. Do not advocate an action you will not perform yourself, assuming it is one you are capable of physically. >I agree, and it's why I don't cry and moan when an Iraqi or Afghan >civilian is killed through an honest mistake (e.g. looked like he had a That is not what you are advocating. You advocated murder of prisioners. That is a different story. >>>Again, how many people have you shot in cold blood and what are your >>>qualifications to suggest doing so? > >I don't shoot people in cold blood and I have no desire to do so. On the Then don't howl for me and mine to do so. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman >>I agree. If Osama bin Laden was strapped to a gurney for a lethal >>injection (as he deserves) I would not particularly want to be the one >>who had to push the button to start the execution. I would, however, > > You sir, are a hypocrite. Do not advocate an action you will not > perform yourself, assuming it is one you are capable of physically. No, that does not make me a hypocrite. Most people agree that war criminals (let's consider the worst ones like the Nazis who were condemned at Nuremberg) deserve to be executed. Very few normal people would, however, volunteer to perform the execution. It is not something people want to do. There are a few exceptions, like the famous British hangman Albert Pierrepoint, who took pride in dispatching his "clients" painlessly. (I think they put Pierrepoint in for the American hangman because the American was botching the executions.) Consider the "insurgents" who recently forced an Italian prisoner to dig his own grave and then murdered him. If they were captured, would you agree that they should be sentenced to death upon conviction? I think they should. Would you raise your hand and volunteer to be in the firing squad? I doubt it; I know I would not. That is why they usually have to order soldiers to participate, and sometimes draw lots to see who has to do it. >>I agree, and it's why I don't cry and moan when an Iraqi or Afghan >>civilian is killed through an honest mistake (e.g. looked like he had a > > That is not what you are advocating. You advocated murder of > prisioners. That is a different story. Germans who were found in American uniforms got short shrift, as described here. "Executed on the spot" sounds like they didn't even bother with a court-martial. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/wwII.htm (Dec. 16, 1944 - Jan. 25, 1945) "A special Nazi unit (under Col. Otto Skorzeny) disguised as Americans penetrated the rear, disrupting communications and transportation. They spoke perfect english and once caught they were to say that thousands of German SS soldiers had infiltrated dressed as American soldiers in a special mission. This slowed American movement because now every soldier was stopped at checkpoints and asked American questions to see if he was a real American. Thousands were arrested because they did not know the height of the Empire State building for example. However, under the Geneva Convention, German soldiers in American uniforms were not protected and thus any caught was executed on the spot. The Germans were forced to abandon this successful mission because of the American executions." In practice, there should be due process of law to determine the status of a combatant who is captured while wearing civilian clothing. Maybe he is really a civilian. But if he just shot at American soldiers, or threw a bomb, not very much "due process" is required to determine what he is. --Bill >> You sir, are a hypocrite. Do not advocate an action you will not >> perform yourself, assuming it is one you are capable of physically. > >No, that does not make me a hypocrite. Indeed it does. >Most people agree that war criminals (let's consider the worst ones like the Nazis who were >condemned at Nuremberg) deserve to be executed. Very few normal people Most people would. I would. >would, however, volunteer to perform the execution. It is not something Perhaps. Widespread hypocricy does not make it less reprehensible. I, on the other hand, consider myself to have integrity. I put my money where my mouth is. >Consider the "insurgents" who recently forced an Italian prisoner to dig >his own grave and then murdered him. If they were captured, would you >agree that they should be sentenced to death upon conviction? I think Absolutely. >they should. Would you raise your hand and volunteer to be in the firing >squad? I doubt it; I know I would not. That is why they usually have to >order soldiers to participate, and sometimes draw lots to see who has to >do it. They wouldn't have to order me. But I couldn't do it in the field in cold blood. >> That is not what you are advocating. You advocated murder of >> prisioners. That is a different story. > >Germans who were found in American uniforms got short shrift, as >described here. "Executed on the spot" sounds like they didn't even >bother with a court-martial. Yes, and that war also saw indiscriminate firebombing of residential areas. Both those are questionable legally, and certaintly morally IF there is any other alternative at all. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman >>>You sir, are a hypocrite. Do not advocate an action you will not >>>perform yourself, assuming it is one you are capable of physically. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > They wouldn't have to order me. But I couldn't do it in the field in > cold blood. I would not volunteer but I would follow an order to do so, or I would do it if lots were drawn and I was the loser. >>>That is not what you are advocating. You advocated murder of >>>prisioners. That is a different story. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > areas. Both those are questionable legally, and certaintly morally IF > there is any other alternative at all. D. Patterson posted part of an Army field manual that discusses reprisals, which might be justified if they are necessary to get the enemy to desist from violating the rules of war. I'm not sure who started the bombing of cities in World War II (it's generally assumed to be the Germans) but, once that door was opened, both sides did it and it was hard to say who was to blame any more. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >> They wouldn't have to order me. But I couldn't do it in the field in >> cold blood. > >I would not volunteer but I would follow an order to do so, or I would >do it if lots were drawn and I was the loser. But you would blow someone away in cold blood in the field after they surrendered. That's a bit backwards. You are too squeamish to shoot anyone legally, but you claim you would do so illegally. God, you are stupid. Please stop typing. >D. Patterson posted part of an Army field manual that discusses >reprisals, which might be justified if they are necessary to get the >enemy to desist from violating the rules of war. I'm not sure who And it is specifically forbidden to use No Quarter declarations (which is what you are proposing, shooting people who want to surrender) as a reprisal, a.shole. RT WHOLE FM. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman >>>They wouldn't have to order me. But I couldn't do it in the field in >>>cold blood. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anyone legally, but you claim you would do so illegally. God, you are > stupid. Please stop typing. No, I said it might be desirable to refuse to accept their surrender. (As opposed to promising them safety and then killing them.) >>D. Patterson posted part of an Army field manual that discusses >>reprisals, which might be justified if they are necessary to get the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is what you are proposing, shooting people who want to surrender) as a > reprisal, a.shole. RT WHOLE FM. The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering prisoners). I'm not a military lawyer, though, so I can't claim to have a professional opinion. Consider a gang of terrorists holding hostages and threatening to kill one every hour until their demands are met. I'm not sure why an appropriate reprisal could not consist of the rescuse team's commander stating that the terrorists will be captured alive if no hostages are harmed (or even allowed to leave peacefully if they free the hostages) but that, if a hostage is executed, all the terrorists will be massacred without quarter. That threat (and its execution if necessary) could even be construed as "reasonable and necessary force" to protect the hostages. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ > Consider a gang of terrorists holding hostages and threatening to kill > one every hour until their demands are met. I'm not sure why an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but that, if a hostage is executed, all the terrorists will be massacred > without quarter. In support of this as a tactical position, could you cite any examples of a terrorist, not "ordinary decent criminal", hostage-taking where this caused a surrender? I think the data suggests that most serious terrorists would simply accept they will die, and be even more determined to kill more hostages for the media shock value. >>Consider a gang of terrorists holding hostages and threatening to kill >>one every hour until their demands are met. I'm not sure why an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > terrorists would simply accept they will die, and be even more > determined to kill more hostages for the media shock value. I've never heard of the threat being used but the Russians apparently massacred all the hostage-takers in an incident in Chechnya a couple of years ago. The problem was that they used a gas that killed a lot of hostages as well. The fact that the hostages who did not die outright survived and that none of the terrorists survived, however, suggests that medical attention was given only to the hostages and that the terrorists were allowed to die, or that the terrorists were "helped along" via the coup de grace. I'm not saying I agree with the Russians' approach (they did kill the wrong people) but I don't have a problem with the fact that none of the perpetrators survived the experience. While terrorists talk about how they want to die for their cause (and the perpetrators of 9/11 did), they also know full well that Europe and Israel do not have capital punishment and, even in the U.S., it takes years to put a murderer to death. If they are going to kill hostages, they will do it whether they face prison or death on the spot. There might be an argument for inflicting the latter consequence, preferably in front of cameras, "pour encourager les autres"-- to discourage all but the most hard-core from perpetrating similar acts in the future. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No >Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering >prisoners). I'm not a military lawyer, though, so I can't claim to have >a professional opinion. Whatever, Bill. You are very angry and very frightened. You also realistically, in your heart of hearts realize that you are utterly impotent. This tends to, in my experience, be a combination that produces much 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. I put my a.s on the line every day for almost a year. I did so with professionalism and honor, and tried my level best to act in accordance with the moral principles of my Service and my God. I did not live up to those standards 100% of the time. That is my reality. On 8 FEB 04 I reenlisted for an additional term of 4 years in the Regular Army. I did this with the full knowledge that I would return to Iraq at least once during this term. I am not angry. There is no point to it for me anymore. I am not frightened--my fear circuit burned out a long time ago. I am certaintly not impotent. I have the training and equipment to do something about the situation around me. I do not need juvenile frothing at the mouth about how hard-core I am to make up for a self-percieved lack of manhood. And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. I am no longer going to respond to any post on this topic. Have a nice day. If I might be allowed a nosy personal suggestion, seek counselling to deal with your anger issues. It is not good for you physically, mentally, or spiritually. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman Well Spoken.... And we who are NOT on the front line need to make sure the Nation stays behind you and gives you what you need to fight the War -- all the resources requisite to winning and the thanks of a Grateful Nation. President George Walker Bush, Yale '68. has promised to do just that and has bet his reputation on it -- as well as his Presidency. As long as he is in office we will be supporting you. If he loses, it will be Katy bar the door. The Democrats, for all their prattling about "more troops" NOW ---- will want to cut the Defense Budget -- "get rid of all those useless tanks and guns and things" ---- and "just let the Special Forces handle it" -- because they don't BELIEVE in the War On Terrorism. They are "uncomfortable with that terminology" -- as both Kerry and Gans have said ---- Poor Babies. They see it primarily as a matter of LAW ENFORCEMENT -- catching criminals -- "because we can't be at war with a loosely organized gang of bad guys" ---- "only with a Nation." "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." George Orwell ---- _Notes on Nationalism_, May, 1945 'Nuff Said.... D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor | >The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No | >Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] | And saved the sum of things for pay. | --A.E. Houseman >Well Spoken.... > >And we who are NOT on the front line need to make sure the Nation stays >behind you and gives you what you need to fight the War -- all the >resources requisite to winning and the thanks of a Grateful Nation. ... Excuse me for saying this, but I find people who sprinkle capitals in that way and mean it extremely creepy. Do you think in capitals too? ... > >The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No > >Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > frothing at the mouth about how hard-core I am to make up for a > self-percieved lack of manhood. But you do need to make up stuff about other people to whom you wish to condescend *&* parade your "credentials" all over Usenet. Oh, & if you don't feel fear anymore, you are a danger to yourself & others. Susan > And gentlemen in England now-a-bed > Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > counselling to deal with your anger issues. It is not good for you > physically, mentally, or spiritually. > But you do need to make up stuff about other people to whom you wish to > condescend *&* parade your "credentials" all over Usenet. > > Oh, & if you don't feel fear anymore, you are a danger to yourself & > others. Are you suggesting credentials are irrelevant? :> But you do need to make up stuff about other people to whom you wish to :> condescend *&* parade your "credentials" all over Usenet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : :Are you suggesting credentials are irrelevant? Of course she is. John isn't Jewish, after all, and that's how Susan's mind works. You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? SignatureYou are What you do When it counts. > :> But you do need to make up stuff about other people to whom you wish to > :> condescend *&* parade your "credentials" all over Usenet. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have > learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? Y'know, if John said, accurately, he's Orthodox, I'll bet she would make certain incorrect assumptions... > :> But you do need to make up stuff about other people to whom you wish to > :> condescend *&* parade your "credentials" all over Usenet. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Of course she is. John isn't Jewish, after all, and that's how > Susan's mind works. Well, Fred, now we see how your mind works. "John isn't Jewish..." At first I just didn't agree with you but now I think I actually dislike you. If Mr. Atkinson is serving in our Armed Forces, I am behind him 100 percent and without reservation whether or not I agree with his position on how war criminals should be handled. Maybe you wouldn't mind having him murdered by a Saddam holdover who dresses as a civilian but I sure would, and that is why I think these illegal combatants should get short shrift. > You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have > learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? Garbage. If you don't understand the difference between putting a Jewish doctor, musician, or shopkeeper in a gas chamber for being Jewish, and killing a terrorist for waging war while dressed as a civilian or for murdering prisoners like the Italian, you are either stupid or you are being deliberately obtuse. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ >> You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have >> learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? >Garbage. If you don't understand the difference between putting a Jewish >doctor, musician, or shopkeeper in a gas chamber for being Jewish, and >killing a terrorist for waging war while dressed as a civilian or for >murdering prisoners like the Italian, you are either stupid or you are >being deliberately obtuse. I think you've got it wrong. I think he's stupid and he's being deliberately obtuse. Maybe it's time to start ignoring him. Followup-To set properly... Bobbi --- Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent) > >> You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have > >> learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bobbi While I agree that Mr. McCall stepped over the line there, I find it a tad odd that the people mad that he responded to the thread were the self same ones crossposting it into our newsgroup. Plus Mr. McCall has proven a good poster in many other places on the NG you are probing into, so simply flaming him across the board and setting followups to divert any response isn't going to get it done. Followups set in case anyone wants to discuss this one. If not, do take it elsewhere. Mr. Atkinson may have had the right idea regarding this. As much as some might say "See those people dancing in the street? Drop one on them." That isn't how things are being done, and the people close to that scene representing the alliance on the ground probably have a reason for it. Oh, and to restate the original point of the thread, the Italian in question was a brave man. I suppose with that agreed upon, threads could move to other matters in their respective groups. DEP > --- > Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead > Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent) >>>> You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have >>>> learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? >> >Garbage. If you don't understand the difference between putting a Jewish >> >doctor, musician, or shopkeeper in a gas chamber for being Jewish, and >> >killing a terrorist for waging war while dressed as a civilian or for >> >murdering prisoners like the Italian, you are either stupid or you are >> >being deliberately obtuse. >> I think you've got it wrong. I think he's stupid and he's >> being deliberately obtuse. Maybe it's time to start ignoring him. >While I agree that Mr. McCall stepped over the line there, I find it a tad >odd that the people mad that he responded to the thread were the self same >ones crossposting it into our newsgroup. No one is "mad." You'll note that I set the Followup-To so that continued responses do not cause unwanted noise in newsgroups where this thread is being crossposted to and has no place. Is that too difficult for you to understand? >Plus Mr. McCall has proven a good >poster in many other places on the NG you are probing into, so simply >flaming him across the board and setting followups to divert any response >isn't going to get it done. McCall and everyone else knew I set the Followup-To line, because I told everyone. If they want to continue the discussion, no one is twisting their arms and forcing them not to subscribe to those newsgroups or setting the Newsgroups back to the original setting. Judging from his response on this matter, he's a crybaby. Judging from your response, you seem to believe that he's unable to fight his own battles. >Followups set in case anyone wants to discuss this one. If not, do take it >elsewhere. Mr. Atkinson may have had the right idea regarding this. You didn't set the Followup-To line, you reset the Newsgroups line. Followup-To line set properly, again... Bobbi --- Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent) : Followup-To line set properly, again... If you don't want to post here, why don't you just stop posting here, you stupid bitch? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > >>>> You'd think that a people subjected to the Holocaust would have > >>>> learned better than to want to emulate its attitudes, wouldn't you? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thread is being crossposted to and has no place. Is that too difficult > for you to understand? Not at all. You set it so responses to your posts would be redirected out of the NG that the thread had been crossposted to, while ripping one of the posters dragged in from that NG, denying him the chance to argue before his peers. No misunderstanding as well. As for followup, what I did obviously worked to put the post in the right places, so that point is a question of semantics. > >Plus Mr. McCall has proven a good > >poster in many other places on the NG you are probing into, so simply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > those newsgroups or setting the Newsgroups back to the original > setting. As I said, what I did obviously worked. The semantics of it do not concern me. What does is the manner in which you slammed him and redirected the followups of the post that did away from the group he posts to, where he would probably most want to defend his character, should he wish to exercise the option. > Judging from his response on this matter, he's a crybaby. > Judging from your response, you seem to believe that he's unable to > fight his own battles. Judging from your response, you were flaming him and setting followups so he could not argue before the people who know him, who he might want a chance to argue his case before after you slammed him. I am not a fan of that kind of move. As for his fighting his own battles, I can only say you must be new to the newsgroup in question. > >Followups set in case anyone wants to discuss this one. If not, do take it > >elsewhere. Mr. Atkinson may have had the right idea regarding this. > > You didn't set the Followup-To line, you reset the Newsgroups > line. As I said, whatever I did worked, so it is fine with me. You tried this again, so I fixed it again. (Shrug) If you don't want the discussion here that is fine by me, just don't keep posting here and jimmying the followups. Just keep things off this NG that you do not wish discussed here. DEP (In abtc) >>The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No >>Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Regular Army. I did this with the full knowledge that I would return > to Iraq at least once during this term. This is why I respect your posts even if I do not agree with you 100 percent. It is also why I support some unpalateable measures to make sure our guys on the front line (including you) are safe from war crimes such as attacks from persons who dress as civilians. Some of history's most prominent and respected military commanders, people who have "been there" just like you and whose countries entrusted them with some very high positions, have taken some of these actions for the safety of the troops under their command and also for that of the innocent civilians around them. I recall citing Moltke as one example, and I've seen statements that Pershing took some very harsh measures against "Muslim" guerrillas in the Philippines. I'm quite familiar with Henry V's St. Crispin's Day speech (I cite it very frequently) and here is another, which could easily apply to "illegal combatants" and terrorists instead of traitors (the individuals in question had been bribed by France to murder their own king): KING HENRY V God quit you in his mercy! Hear your sentence. You have conspired against our royal person, Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers Received the golden earnest of our death; Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter, His princes and his peers to servitude, His subjects to oppression and contempt And his whole kingdom into desolation. Touching our person seek we no revenge; But we our kingdom's safety must so tender, Whose ruin you have sought, that to her laws We do deliver you. Get you therefore hence, Poor miserable wretches, to your death: The taste whereof, God of his mercy give You patience to endure, and true repentance Of all your dear offences! Bear them hence. "Touching our person seek we no revenge," i.e. Henry is perhaps willing to grant mercy regarding a crime that was directed against his own person but "we our kingdom's safety must so tender" compels him to sentence the traitors to execution. I think our President and Congress must take the same approach regarding the safety of our soldiers and take the same measures toward terrorists and illegal combatants. I hope you stay safe and, whether I agree with you or not, I am behind you 100 percent and unconditionally. --Bill On 4/25/04 6:15 PM, in article 408c44bb.1114272@news-server.hot.rr.com, >> The definition of a reprisal is NORMALLY unacceptable behavior (like "No >> Quarter" declarations) in retaliation for an atrocity (e.g. murdering [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This tends to, in my experience, be a combination that produces much > 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'. . . . > And gentlemen in England now-a-bed > Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > counselling to deal with your anger issues. It is not good for you > physically, mentally, or spiritually. And Shakespeare's lines that immediately precede what John quoted are equally telling: But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: A lot of posters here, even some of the Americans, seem not to be our soldiers' brothers these days. Grey Satterfield > On 4/25/04 6:15 PM, in article 408c44bb.1114272@news-server.hot.rr.com, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Grey Satterfield This is all I have to say to them (the cartoonist put it better than I can): http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/mystery/showpics.cgi?root_for_us (U.S. Soldier): "How about rooting for our side for a change, you liberal moron?" Even if they're against the war they should be for our troops. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ On 4/26/04 7:47 PM, in article N4ijc.3842$g31.3225@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote: >> On 4/25/04 6:15 PM, in article 408c44bb.1114272@news-server.hot.rr.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Soldier): > "How about rooting for our side for a change, you liberal moron?" Indeed, these negative, antagonistic twits remind me of something Jean Kirkpatrick said about Democrats twenty years ago: "When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats did not blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first. "When Marxists dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats do not blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of one hundred years ago. But then, they always blame America first. "The American people know better." Indeed the American people do know better. Kirkpatrick added: "The American people also know that it is dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems we did not cause." Grey Satterfield >He's angry, that's all. So were we all I think, but since we can't directly do >anything about it, we feel impotent and frustration sets in. I have never >faced such a situation luckily for me (as a victim, a soldier or an >executioner), and how I would actually feel were I there I don't know? I have been in a situation where I could have done so and gotten away with it. Fortunately for my own peace of mind, I have too much discipline to do what he suggests. And I really, really don't think he could handle it either. Which is why I consider his blathering to be damned offensive. >> I didn't particularly "feel" one way or the other. It was a fact of >> life, and I dealt with it. Ask the convoy commanders operating in our >> sector of Highway 1 (Samarra bypass to FOB Omaha) how well we did so. > >I presume it wouldn't be insulting to say 'nervous', 'tense' and 'extremely >wary'? The thing is, few people these days have experienced combat situations Extremely wary is correct--but that is normal in a combat zone. Not nervous--you get over that quickly. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman >>He's angry, that's all. So were we all I think, but since we can't directly do >>anything about it, we feel impotent and frustration sets in. I have never [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Extremely wary is correct--but that is normal in a combat zone. Not > nervous--you get over that quickly. I'm sure that having to worry about being shot at by an apparent "civilian" does not make matters any more pleasant (or, more to the point, safer for you or for genuine civilians). The "insurgents" who go around dressed as civilians are guilty of murder whenever they kill a GI, and they also cause collateral damage to genuine civilians when they draw return fire. Let me ask you: how do you think it should be handled? I would certainly agree with bringing the "insurgents" in for trial by court-martial. If they are found guilty of waging war while dressed as civilians, what do you think should be done with them? If the murderers of the Italian hostage are captured, what should be done with them? --Bill >> Extremely wary is correct--but that is normal in a combat zone. Not >> nervous--you get over that quickly. > >I'm sure that having to worry about being shot at by an apparent >"civilian" does not make matters any more pleasant (or, more to the >point, safer for you or for genuine civilians). Let's just say that it took me about a month back to start to deal well with crowds, OK? >Let me ask you: how do you think it should be handled? I would certainly >agree with bringing the "insurgents" in for trial by court-martial. If >they are found guilty of waging war while dressed as civilians, what do >you think should be done with them? If the murderers of the Italian >hostage are captured, what should be done with them? Let me tell you how it IS handled. When we capture fedayeen, we turn them over to Brigade who puts them in POW cages, and interrogates them. They get sorted out as to exactally what they got picked up for, and either released or sent up the chain for long-term storage. AFAIK. And that is precisely what should be done. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman :> >I am advocating it (not torture but rather execution of "insurgents" who :> >disguise themselves as civilians, or who themselves murder hostages like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : :He's angry, that's all. And he's gutless enough to want others to do the killing for him. I'm with John. Mr Levinson would have a lot more credibility once he has seen the elephant. :So were we all I think, but since we can't directly do :anything about it, we feel impotent and frustration sets in. I have never [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but :I don't know that for sure. I'd bet against that. When it comes down to it, most people can't do it even then. :That however would be in 'hot blood' - relatively easy. Were someone dragged :before me, pleading for his life hysterically, and I was told it was my duty :to shoot him as he had done whatever a few months ago, I think I would have a :serious problem pulling the trigger. Both before and after. :It's one thing blowing off steam on :Usenet, another facing them in real life. No sh.t. :I expect many of us (brought up on a diet of war and action films) might :possibly manage to be 'heroes' for a few minutes, I'd bet against it. Just watch how people act in dangerous situations. Anyone who hasn't been there is pretty much all blow and no go. :but don't appreciate that :war is almost all waiting and worrying. Bill probably doesn't appreciate that, :he wants 'revenge' (I can see why) And he wants someone else to deliver it to him and pay the price. : All I can say is that I expect the bastards will get their come-uppance soon :enough - he'll just have to be satisfied with that. I'm very glad that I won't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :expect, tell or order anyone else to do it for me. I'm sure most soldiers feel :the same in their hearts. Well, what at least some of us tell ourselves is that it needed doing and we did it because we could, so that other folks wouldn't have to. Sometimes the loudmouths on all sides make sustaining that as a rationale rather more difficult than not. Signature"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot worse. Because that's the memory that haunts." -- Senator Bob Kerrey > And he's gutless enough to want others to do the killing for him. I'm > with John. Mr Levinson would have a lot more credibility once he has > seen the elephant. Do you eat meat or wear leather? Who kills it, if you do? You or some packing-plant employee? Hell, yes, we want others to do our killing for us. Don't kid yourself. Believing that someone should be killed does not obligate anyone to do the killing themselves. Believing that Timothy McVeigh should be killed for his crimes doesn't mean I have to inject the poison into his veins myself. It's OK for me to want the Federal government to kill him for me. That doesn't take away from anyone's credibility. > :I expect I > :would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but > :I don't know that for sure. > > I'd bet against that. When it comes down to it, most people can't do > it even then. A surprising number of trained soldiers can't aim and fire at enemy soldiers shooting at them. > :It's one thing blowing off steam on > :Usenet, another facing them in real life. > > No sh.t. Talk's cheap. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >Do you eat meat or wear leather? Who kills it, if you do? You or >some packing-plant employee? I've killed my share of animals. >> I'd bet against that. When it comes down to it, most people can't do >> it even then. > >A surprising number of trained soldiers can't aim and fire at enemy >soldiers shooting at them. Wrong war. That was true in 1944. Considerably less so in 2004. It's all about the training methods. SignatureJohn M. Atkinson Their shoulders held the sky suspended, They stood and Earth's foundation stay, What God abandoned, these defended And saved the sum of things for pay. --A.E. Houseman :> And he's gutless enough to want others to do the killing for him. I'm :> with John. Mr Levinson would have a lot more credibility once he has :> seen the elephant. : :Do you eat meat or wear leather? Who kills it, if you do? You or :some packing-plant employee? Both. And I'm not unwilling to do either myself, should it prove necessary. This is the difference between my position and that of Bill Levinson, who wants terrorists shot out of hand but has explicitly said he will not or can not do it himself. Given that, he's got no business asking others to do it for him. :Hell, yes, we want others to do our killing for us. Don't kid :yourself. Believing that someone should be killed does not obligate :anyone to do the killing themselves. Believing that Timothy McVeigh :should be killed for his crimes doesn't mean I have to inject the :poison into his veins myself. It's OK for me to want the Federal :government to kill him for me. Yes, it's OK to want someone else to do it for you. But what's not 'ok' is to want it done and say you are totally unwilling to do it yourself. That's just hypocrisy. :That doesn't take away from anyone's credibility. It does with me. If you say Timothy McVeigh should die and are absolutely adamant that you would refuse to be the one to do it, then what are you saying, really? :> :I expect I :> :would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :A surprising number of trained soldiers can't aim and fire at enemy :soldiers shooting at them. This has improved A LOT in the last half century or so. :> :It's one thing blowing off steam on :> :Usenet, another facing them in real life. :> :> No sh.t. : :Talk's cheap. Yeah, it is. That's the point. Signature"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot worse. Because that's the memory that haunts." -- Senator Bob Kerrey > :> And he's gutless enough to want others to do the killing for him. I'm > :> with John. Mr Levinson would have a lot more credibility once he has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bill Levinson, who wants terrorists shot out of hand but has > explicitly said he will not or can not do it himself. If I was in an army and I was ordered to do it, I would obey the order. I would not volunteer and I would not think highly of someone who did. OTOH, if my superiors told me that a specific batch of terrorists that had murdered an American (the way the terrorists murdered the Italian) and were therefore not entitled to quarter, I could envision myself shooting them in hot blood but probably not after they were tied up or otherwise subdued. That doesn't mean I would want them to be let off, though. The book "On Killing" describes the experiences of a Canadian soldier whose unit caught two enemies in the act of torturing a nun (they had murdered and mutilated another, along with a man). The soldier surprisingly gave the enemies several chances to surrender, and he shot them only when they went for their rifles. He was trying to be extra-professional. On the other hand, there was a very unfortunate incident in World War I where Britons massacred Germans who had just surrendered. What happened was that other Germans in the same building, who had not surrendered (and did not know that their comrades had), fired on the Britons. The Britons thought treachery had been committed and they reacted accordingly. > Given that, he's got no business asking others to do it for him. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > absolutely adamant that you would refuse to be the one to do it, then > what are you saying, really? If you're a prison guard on Death Row, your job description may say you are required to execute someone. There was a time when countries employed professional executioners (England's Marwood, Berry, and Pierrepoint, for example) who were actually quite decent men who took pride in dispatching their "clients" as painlessly as possible. Very few people were willing to take this kind of job but those who did were generally not sadists. > :> :I expect I > :> :would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > This has improved A LOT in the last half century or so. They did change the training methods after World War II (see John's comments). It's described in the book "On Killing," which discusses what makes people willing or unwilling to kill an enemy. --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ :OTOH, if my superiors told me that a specific batch of terrorists that :had murdered an American (the way the terrorists murdered the Italian) :and were therefore not entitled to quarter, I could envision myself :shooting them in hot blood but probably not after they were tied up or :otherwise subdued. That doesn't mean I would want them to be let off, :though. And both you and your superiors would (rightly) draw a military court and be subject to penalties up to and including death by hanging. :The book "On Killing" describes the experiences of a Canadian soldier :whose unit caught two enemies in the act of torturing a nun (they had :murdered and mutilated another, along with a man). The soldier :surprisingly gave the enemies several chances to surrender, and he shot :them only when they went for their rifles. He was trying to be :extra-professional. No, he was trying to be professional. What you describe (essentially shooting them out of hand) is not professional. Not even a little bit. :On the other hand, there was a very unfortunate incident in World War I :where Britons massacred Germans who had just surrendered. What happened :was that other Germans in the same building, who had not surrendered :(and did not know that their comrades had), fired on the Britons. The :Britons thought treachery had been committed and they reacted accordingly. And under current rules would have found themselves facing a court, and rightly so. :> Given that, he's got no business asking others to do it for him. :> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :If you're a prison guard on Death Row, your job description may say you :are required to execute someone. Well, no. There are guards and there are executioners. They are not the same thing (although someone may have both jobs, it has nothing to do with being a guard). :> :> :I expect I :> :> :would gun down the perpertrators without a second thought given a chance, but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :comments). It's described in the book "On Killing," which discusses what :makes people willing or unwilling to kill an enemy. If all you know about it is from books, you don't know anything about it. Signature"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot worse. Because that's the memory that haunts." -- Senator Bob Kerrey > :They did change the training methods after World War II (see John's > :comments). It's described in the book "On Killing," which discusses what > :makes people willing or unwilling to kill an enemy. > > If all you know about it is from books, you don't know anything about > it. Distinguish, Fred, between what Levinson is quoting and the research in Grossman's _On Killing_. There is real content there. I think you will also find that many physicians may only have become aware of some obscure syndrome from their reading. They still have to deal with the reality. > :OTOH, if my superiors told me that a specific batch of terrorists that > :had murdered an American (the way the terrorists murdered the Italian) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And both you and your superiors would (rightly) draw a military court > and be subject to penalties up to and including death by hanging. There is a story that, during the Second World War, General Patton acquiesced to the massacre of concentration camp guards by American troops. (Actually, since this action was not necessary to deter further German atrocities, it was probably not a legitimate reprisal.) http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/SoldiersKilled.html http://www.bvalphaserver.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=261811 "As a result of the investigation, the American soldiers who were involved in the execution at Dachau were court-martialed, including Lt. Col. Felix Sparks, Col. Howard A. Buechner and 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead. General George S. Patton, commander of the US Third Army, had just been appointed the military governor of Bavaria and when he learned of the incident, he ordered all the reports and documentation of this war crime to be brought to his office. He tore up all the papers, dumped them into a metal waste can and then personally set it on fire." > :The book "On Killing" describes the experiences of a Canadian soldier > :whose unit caught two enemies in the act of torturing a nun (they had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shooting them out of hand) is not professional. Not even a little > bit. Neither enemy had yet offered to surrender. Both men were panicking and deciding whether to go for their rifles, which was a hopeless proposition. Both did, in fact, decide to try to reach their weapons. As far as I know, an enemy who has not put up his hands or otherwise indicated his surrender is a fair target. Whereas I would be very much in favor of trying to talk a barracks of surprised enemy troops into not doing anything stupid (I'd far prefer to have them go home to their families unharmed after the war is over), I'm not sure why such consideration should be extended to two men who had put aside their weapons and clothing for the purpose of raping and torturing a nun. > :On the other hand, there was a very unfortunate incident in World War I > :where Britons massacred Germans who had just surrendered. What happened [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > If all you know about it is from books, you don't know anything about > it. :> :OTOH, if my superiors told me that a specific batch of terrorists that :> :had murdered an American (the way the terrorists murdered the Italian) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :to be brought to his office. He tore up all the papers, dumped them into :a metal waste can and then personally set it on fire." And he was wrong. :> :The book "On Killing" describes the experiences of a Canadian soldier :> :whose unit caught two enemies in the act of torturing a nun (they had [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :deciding whether to go for their rifles, which was a hopeless :proposition. Both did, in fact, decide to try to reach their weapons. And that's when you shoot them. :As far as I know, an enemy who has not put up his hands or otherwise :indicated his surrender is a fair target. Whereas I would be very much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :consideration should be extended to two men who had put aside their :weapons and clothing for the purpose of raping and torturing a nun. Because that's what professionals do. They follow the rules, even when they don't want to. It's why you're just a loudmouthed wannabe with a taste for blood, so long as it is other people who are spilling it for you. [Cut key, this is Mr Levinson. Mr Levinson, this is the cut key. It is used to remove text you are not replying to, like the entire second half of the article that you left here to clutter things up.] SignatureYou are What you do When it counts. > :> :OTOH, if my superiors told me that a specific batch of terrorists that > :> :had murdered an American (the way the terrorists murdered the Italian) [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > And that's when you shoot them. It would have been 100 percent within the laws of war, as far as I know, to shoot them anyway, as they had not put their hands in the air and their weapons were at hand. A police officer in a civilian law enforcement situation may have a duty to warn a suspect not to lunge for a dropped gun. I'm not sure a soldier in a combat situation does. > :As far as I know, an enemy who has not put up his hands or otherwise > :indicated his surrender is a fair target. Whereas I would be very much [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's why you're just a loudmouthed wannabe with a taste for blood, so > long as it is other people who are spilling it for you. The rules allow professionals to shoot any enemy combatant who has not indicated a desire or intention to surrender. I have no taste for the blood of any decent person who is serving his country, even if it's the enemy's country. World War I was an excercise in mindless violence that should have been stopped as soon as British and German troops began playing soccer in No-Man's Land together. If the country's leaders had had any brains and decency, they should have asked "How the hell did we get into this idiocy???" World War II was another matter, of course, but I would not have wanted any ordinary German treated badly as a prisoner. On the other hand, if terrorists kill an Italian hostage, I see no reason why those terrorists should even be treated as human beings. > [Cut key, this is Mr Levinson. Mr Levinson, this is the cut key. It > is used to remove text you are not replying to, like the entire second > half of the article that you left here to clutter things up.] I use the "delete" key but you're right, I forgot. :-) --Bill http://www.omdurman.org/ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message