Wednesday, November 17, 2004

More War and Close Combat Experts Emerge

Along with celebrity war/combat experts Madonna and Sean Penn we now have other obviously credible and combat experienced individuals and groups who are unquestionably unbiased (ya right) weighing in on the shooting in a mosque in Falluja the other day. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International along with top U.N. human rights officials (who have the utmost credibility, see here, here, here) are calling for an investigation. The folks at Amnesty international who I'm sure are ex-military combat fighters with tons of combat and close fighting experience including booby trapped bodies and fake surrender tactics had this to say: "The deliberate shooting of unarmed and wounded fighters who pose no immediate threat is a war crime under international law and there is therefore an obligation on the U.S. authorities to investigate all such reports and to hold perpetrators of such crimes accountable before the law"

And you expect no less from Al-Jazeera who apparently has been playing the shooting of this person in Falluja over and over and they are others in the region call it an "execution". Oh, SO THEY ARE AGAINST EXECUTIONS????? Man we should be using more MOAB's over there!!!!! FYI, now Al-Jazeera says it has a video tape of a women being shot in the head which is assumed to be Margaret Hassan the CARE director in Iraq who was abducted.

Care to guess how many of groups and individuals who are so outspoken about this most likely justified shooting in the mosque in Falluja will have something negative to say about the killing of Margaret Hassan?


Ockhamsrazor said...

But if you're a democrat and you commit war crimes you get to run for president!

Ockhamsrazor said...

Great article by Thomas Sowell on this, here's part of it:

Chris Matthews on Hardball spoke of "what may be the illegal killing of a wounded, unarmed insurgent" -- the politically correct media term for a terrorist -- and asked: "Is there ever a justification for shooting an unarmed enemy?"

The unreality of this question is breath-taking, both logically and historically. How do you know that someone is unarmed, when finding out can cost you your life? A hand grenade is easily concealed and can kill you just as dead as if you were shot by a machine gun or hit by a nuclear missile.

American troops in Iraq have already been killed by booby-trapped bodies. During World War II, wounded Japanese soldiers sometimes waited for an American medical corpsman to come over to help them and then exploded a hand grenade, killing them both.

Assuming that somehow you are certain that an enemy is unarmed, perhaps because you have already searched him or disarmed him, is it ever justified to kill him anyway? That question was answered more than half a century ago, when German troops wearing American uniforms and speaking English infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge.

Those German troops, when captured, were lined up against a wall and shot dead. And nobody wrung his hands about it.

The rules of war, the Geneva Convention, do not protect soldiers who are not wearing their own country's uniforms. To get the protection of rules, you have to play by the rules.

Terrorists are not enemy soldiers covered by the rules of war. Nor should they be. They observe no rules.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations can all talk about "the Geneva Convention." But that agreement on the rules of war has never applied to combatants not wearing the uniform of any country that is a party to the Geneva Convention.

Terrorists wear no uniform and show no mercy, as they have repeatedly demonstrated by beheading innocent civilians, including women.

Why any such terrorists should be captured alive in the first place is a real question. Maybe they have information that could be useful. But every terrorist our troops try to capture alive increases the risk of death for American combat troops.

Scott said...

Hey Ockham you must of voted for Kerry with all the flip flopping you do!

It is time for this President to step up to the microphone and state very simply "ANY INSURGENT (TERRORIST) CAUGHT TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WILL BE KILLED." If we do not put the fear of GOD into these murdering crazed fanatics our soilders will continue to die. No mercy no exceptions.

It is also time for this President to outlaw Al-Jazeera broadcasts within this country. Screw the idiots that scream about freedom of the press. The only thing Al-Jeezra is accomplishing is giving those bastards of civilization a reason to keep doing what they do.

Ockhamsrazor said...

Axme---well there's a story behind all that flip-flopping. If you really want to know it you can email me at

Hazim Hal Ukabarara said...

I hate when Marines only do 50% of the job.

He did 50% with one bullet to the head of the terrorist.
He should have completed the job with a bullet to the head of the journalist!

Of course, the bullet may not have been able to penetrate the skull of the thick headed whiner.

Oh Allah, what type of world do we live in when the media can sit and criticize soldiers?

Gee, Kerry shot a wounded kid in the back (hard to be threatening when you are running away) and Teddy couldn't liberate a woman from a car and is responsible for the direct death of millions of brain cells.