Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

The Soldiers Death Sentence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 yabbadoo

yabbadoo

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:31 AM

Posted 22 September 2013 - 04:49 PM

A primary killer of our brave military personnel sent in to face  injury and death at the mere whim of some Government, is not the bullets, bombs and all kinds of other dangers, but a simple set of impractical rules compiled by desk Generals in their own Governments.
 
It is covered by the simple words - "Rules of Engagement" and is lethal to every person engaged in a combat situation.
 
The more positive method of survival is "Who shoots first, wins"
 
In all my extensive knowledge of military history ever since WW1, it seems that only the Western Powers play war games with a rule book. All the other nations do not, they simply go out to win. Germany, Russia, China and Japan in WW2 certainly never had any "Rules of Engagement".
 
Oddly enough, the brainless people who compile such a restriction on a soldiers capacity to do his duty, have completely forgotten that no referee exists in combat to wave yellow and red cards about for infringing the "rules".

Edited by Queen-Evie, 23 September 2013 - 01:14 PM.
moved from General Chat because this topic is more suited for Speak Easy.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 cryptodan

cryptodan

    Bleepin Madman


  • Members
  • 21,868 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Catonsville, Md
  • Local time:03:31 AM

Posted 22 September 2013 - 06:07 PM

The enemies know that we play by the rules, so they are switching their operations from bunkers to city crowded streets where if we do attack we kill women and children which is a violation of the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention.



#3 Infections

Infections

  • Members
  • 153 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 22 September 2013 - 06:44 PM

I don't think this is fair at all. The ones who make the rules aren't the ones who are out there being shot at and risking their lives. It's hard to tell friend from foe, and I can bet the enemy will disguise themselves to get the upper hand. I can understand the logic behind it, so we don't end up killing innocents, but are our soldiers lives really worth maintaining a good image?


The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.


- Albert Einstein


#4 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:31 AM

Posted 22 September 2013 - 07:16 PM

The enemies know that we play by the rules, so they are switching their operations from bunkers to city crowded streets where if we do attack we kill women and children which is a violation of the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention.

 

I cannot remember any fascination with the Geneva Convention in WW2 where the Germans killed over 90,000 British civilians with their Blitz, after which we decimated all their major towns and cities with round-the-clock strategic bombing and killed 400,000- 500,000 German civilians and rendered 7.5 million homeless.

 

In WW2 a total of 93,000 British civilians were killed, 780,000 German civilians, 5.7 Polish civilians, 7 million Russian civilians, 350,000 French civilians (mostly by Allied bombing) and 672,000 Japanese civilians were all killed, just for starters. What is this "you must not kill civilians"  crap ?

 

Then as icing on the cake to the Geneva Convention, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized by atomic bombs and more civilians went POP !

 

So much for rule books and paper Conventions. The Geneva Convention is a relic of history, when chivalry was considered to be the done thing - "old boy - eh what ?"

 

Quite honestly, nobody gives a fig about rule books when the going gets tough in a real war. But our poor boys in Iraq and Afghanistan die and are maimed daily by being made to conform to some idiotic gentleman's rule book, which is more aligned to a game of Cricket than combat.


Edited by yabbadoo, 22 September 2013 - 09:09 PM.


#5 Orange Blossom

Orange Blossom

    OBleepin Investigator


  • Moderator
  • 36,942 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bloomington, IN
  • Local time:11:31 PM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:20 AM

The Geneva Convention as it now stands was not drafted until AFTER WWII - 1949 in fact.  The initial Geneva Convention, which was informal, is what resulted in the formation of the Red Cross.  It started because someone was appalled at seeing wounded and dying soldiers lying on the ground with no one to help them.  Civilians were not even mentioned in the Geneva Conventions until the 4th Geneva Convention ratified in 1949.

 

For more information read here: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

 

and here: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm

 

Orange Blossom :cherry:


Help us help you. If HelpBot replies, you MUST follow step 1 in its reply so we know you need help.

Orange Blossom

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol Plus, ESET Smart Security, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, NoScript Firefox ext., Norton noscript

#6 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:31 AM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 05:59 AM

The Geneva Convention as it now stands was not drafted until AFTER WWII - 1949 in fact.  The initial Geneva Convention, which was informal, is what resulted in the formation of the Red Cross.  It started because someone was appalled at seeing wounded and dying soldiers lying on the ground with no one to help them.  Civilians were not even mentioned in the Geneva Conventions until the 4th Geneva Convention ratified in 1949.

 

For more information read here: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

 

and here: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm

 

Orange Blossom :cherry:

Rubbish ! The Geneva Convention was drafted in 1864, 1906, 1929 and was quoted often in WW1 and particularly WW2, mainly by the Allies  who signed it as a protection for their POW`s. The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the updated modern agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War(1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. 

 

This thread is not about irrelevant paperwork convened around a  desk that many countries do not even sign, it is about the impossible "Rules of Engagement" that leads to our soldiers being killed and maimed by having to engage an enemy that cannot even read English let alone understand the paperwork agreements of gullible nations and place no value on human life.

 

Let me tell you straight - in modern war or combat, there are NO rules  except the will to  win, no matter what the cost or what methods are used. The lives of our soldiers are paramount and nothing else is relevant in terms of destroying the enemy. It is NOT a game of Cricket.

 

If you go into battle with a rule book instead of a very destructive weapon, one thing is for sure, you`re going to get hurt and you`re going to lose.. Do the terrorists, insurgents or  barbaric rioters have a rule book ? Of  course not ! So you dispense with the Western book of Sunday school Granny`s etiquette and fight them on their own terms. Dog eat dog and may the best man win.

 

Hell ! How often have we seen an Al Queda  spotter  standing in full view on a Mosque directing fire onto American soldiers and WE cannot blow the Mosque to smithereens because of our "Rules of Engagement" ? It is a sick joke that the families of our dead soldiers do not appreciate.


Edited by yabbadoo, 23 September 2013 - 06:41 AM.


#7 g.k.

g.k.

  • Members
  • 415 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Istanbul, Turkey
  • Local time:06:31 AM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:59 PM

--In all my extensive knowledge of military history ever since WW1, it seems that only the Western Powers play war games with a rule book. All the other nations do not, they simply go out to win.

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_lai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_war_crimes_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War#Targeting_of_civilian_targets_by_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Lead#White_phosphorus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Vinh_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawagede_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead

You probably don't know your history well. I can provide more examples. Some might be more infamous than others, but there's pretty much no country that hasn't committed war crimes, unfortunately.

War is a horrible thing, and even 1 civillian casualty is 1 too much. It might be easy for you, in your comfortable life, to ramble on about "our soldiers". Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent people die daily because of military action. Think about it.
 
--Hell ! How often have we seen an Al Queda spotter standing in full view on a Mosque directing fire onto American soldiers and WE cannot blow the Mosque to smithereens because of our "Rules of Engagement" ? It is a sick joke that the families of our dead soldiers do not appreciate.

Really? Because if you think blowing up a mosque and probably killing dozens of civillians is an approppiate thing to do just to kill a terrorist, I don't have much to say here.

EDIT: I can't quote posts for some reason, I get an error saying "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text". Why is that?


Edited by g.k., 23 September 2013 - 01:27 PM.


#8 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,068 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 01:23 PM

For the record. Quotes in replies you see prior to my reply here now, were made while this topic was in the General Chat forum. Due to the nature of discussion it has been moved to it's proper location. This forum has the quote feature disabled so you will need to manually quote content if you wish to do so.

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#9 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:31 AM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 02:15 PM

@ g.k.

 

Excerpt from your post :-

"-Hell ! How often have we seen an Al Queda spotter standing in full view on a Mosque directing fire onto American soldiers and WE cannot blow the Mosque to smithereens because of our "Rules of Engagement" ? It is a sick joke that the families of our dead soldiers do not appreciate.

Really? Because if you think blowing up a mosque and probably killing dozens of civillians is an approppiate thing to do just to kill a terrorist, I don't have much to say here."

 

The first bit is mine - totally agree.

The second bit is yours and my answer is :-

If it saves the lives of my soldiers  then it is VERY appropriate to use the mighty 120 mm. M1 Abrams big gun to blast the Mosque tower to bits. Hopefully the building below would not suffer too much damage.

 

You missed my point. I said a spotter on top of the Mosque, not just a terrorist. A single spotter directing fire, could easily decimate a foot patrol in minutes. So I am afraid pal  that the Mosque tower would have to go, complete with contents.

 

If the enemy use religious buildings, hospitals and civilians as shields for their activities, then these become reluctant but essential legitimate targets. These people have no problems killing our civilians (remember 9/11 ?)


Edited by yabbadoo, 23 September 2013 - 02:24 PM.


#10 cryptodan

cryptodan

    Bleepin Madman


  • Members
  • 21,868 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Catonsville, Md
  • Local time:03:31 AM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 05:12 PM

Also do you not think that the enemies have translators too read our rules of engagement to exploit the weaknesses that lie with in?  For instance, the use of children as a means to suicide bomb the security gates?  No one will suspect a child being used as a weapon, and no one will shoot to kill a child.  Some families in the middle east have received compensation from terrorists for their children.  Its not much but some have sold their children off to become tools of terrorism for mere thousands.  

 

We study past war doctrines from the Chinese and early Europeans and pulled out what we thought was best for our rules of engagement.  

 

Here is a good movie that depicts a mans struggle to be found innocent of wrong doings: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160797/

 - Rules of Engagement

 

Take it from a US Sailor, if I saw a child with a bomb heading towards me I would not hesitate to shoot on site, because at time the child is not a child they are a tool of destruction and saving my life and the lives of my team trump his youth.  



#11 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:31 AM

Posted 23 September 2013 - 07:08 PM

@ cryptodan

 

You are certainly NOT a Bleepin Madman, you are a Bleepin Goodman with more common sense in your keyboard fingers than an awful  lot of weak minded people have in their head.

 

Your comment :-

"Take it from a US Sailor, if I saw a child with a bomb heading towards me I would not hesitate to shoot on site, because at time the child is not a child they are a tool of destruction and saving my life and the lives of my team trump his youth."

 

Marks the first rule of a good soldier in perfect clarity. It is not the age or gender of the person holding the gun or pin-less grenade that matters a fig, it is the threat you have to eliminate immediately without delay.

 

The entire purpose of this thread is to point out that you simply cannot go into a combat zone armed with a piece of useless paper. OK for toilets, but no use in combat.

 

These "Rules of Engagement" were hatched up by desk-bound Generals in the Pentagon and approved by desk-bound politicians in the White House, all of whom are in no danger from bombs, bullets and suicide fanatics.

 

As a Platoon leader in combat, I would never place my soldiers in harms way because of a piece of paper written by some insensitive individual perhaps 8,000 miles away. Combat is not a nice game and you don`t say PLEASE. The old fable of waiting until the other guy shoots first is pure Hollywood. You do that and you are dead before you hit the ground.

 

I would regard my soldiers lives as being paramount and take whatever action is necessary, at whatever cost  to secure that objective.  There is no way I would have my soldiers sent home in body bags or missing limbs etc by observing a piece of paper above my military judgement. They would return home as they left, or I would die trying..

 

 



#12 TheHippie

TheHippie

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 24 September 2013 - 06:33 AM

I thought the art of war was written in Asia not the west

#13 Queen-Evie

Queen-Evie

    Official Bleepin' G.R.I.T.S. (and proud of it)


  • Staff Emeritus
  • 16,485 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:My own little corner of the universe (somewhere in Alabama). It's OK, they know me here
  • Local time:10:31 PM

Posted 01 October 2013 - 08:42 AM

Since the OP can no longer contribute to this topic it is now closed.         






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users