boyfriday Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 How long for and were? most of this lot complaining about this shooting were also complaining about prisoners being detained in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. You're confusing two different things-people complained about detainees at Guantanamo because they were held without charge or any evidence that they'd been involved in illegal activities, I don't think anyone would complain about captured soldiers being held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 You're more and more sounding like the Islamists you detest, never was the saying 'two sides of the same coin' more appropriate. So you can't answer the question, or would you have also let him rejoin the fight and once again pose a threat to out troops? He's was the enemy and now he isn't, he can't plant IED's and he can't shoot at our troops, and killing him was the most humans thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 I wouldn't expect his superiors to charge him with murder and lock him up. That's a complete about face of your previous view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 So what would you have done with him? Lol, so you really do believe that are only two choices. Nice one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 You're unfamiliar with the term 'prisoner of war'? For how long and where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 So you can't answer the question, or would you have also let him rejoin the fight and once again pose a threat to out troops? He's was the enemy and now he isn't, he can't plant IED's and he can't shoot at our troops, and killing him was the most humans thing to do. It was murder. ---------- Post added 01-01-2014 at 20:20 ---------- For how long and where? 6 weeks, Butlin's Skeggy. It's like trying to engage a marshmallow in conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 You're confusing two different things-people complained about detainees at Guantanamo because they were held without charge or any evidence that they'd been involved in illegal activities, I don't think anyone would complain about captured soldiers being held. What would you have charged this insurgent with, what evidence would their have been that he broke the law. ---------- Post added 01-01-2014 at 20:21 ---------- That's a complete about face of your previous view. No it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 For how long and where? For as long as we're engaged in conflict with them in a location already used for prisoners of war...you are aware that allied forces already take prisoners and don't dish out summary justice when they come across injured enemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Lol, so you really do believe that are only two choices. Nice one. No. I think we could have detained him indefinitely at great expense, but that would be inhumane and would also put our troops at greater risk. ---------- Post added 01-01-2014 at 20:24 ---------- It was murder.. Its wasn't premeditated so couldn't have been murder. ---------- Post added 01-01-2014 at 20:27 ---------- For as long as we're engaged in conflict with them in a location already used for prisoners of war...you are aware that allied forces already take prisoners and don't dish out summary justice when they come across injured enemy? Unlike the previous wars, this war will never end, he could never have been allowed out of prison, because he would rejoin the Taliban and inflict great suffering on innocent people. In July 2005, Omar al-Faruq, the highest-ranked prisoner at the base and one of the highest-ranked al-Qaeda officers ever captured, escaped along with Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, Saudi Muhammad Jafar Jamal al-Kahtani and Syrian Abdullah Al-Shami. I wonder how many they went on to kill. How often do armed forces personnel kill the enemy they capture? Anyone who has studied warfare will know that it has happened all too often in the past. In fact, there was a time when it was relatively rare to see mercy on the battlefield. The norm was for the victor to wreak vengeance on the enemy, even after they surrendered. It was a sign of the times, when armies thought little about what to do with those who were captured. The greater fear was that if lives were spared, they might fight another day. Attempts to follow international rules of war may have put in place a moral code for treating prisoners humanely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 What would you have charged this insurgent with, what evidence would their have been that he broke the law. So rather than take him prisoner you would have executed him in the absence of any evidence he'd 'broken the law'? No it isn't. I didn't propose punishment for anyone, its a war and people kill other people, its to be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.