Posted on 09/28/2007 4:56:37 AM PDT by Paige
If your read anything from the Associated Press written by a reported named Katrina Kratovac disregard her information. She can not get an interview from any reliable sources on our story and is taking everything 2nd, 3rd, 4th, hand or who the hell knows. So pass it on.
Will do.
Thanks for the heads up, Red. Just trying to catch up with all the latest.
xzins, the letter from Hensley’s parents is heart-wrenching. I can’t imagine what any of these families go through not knowing, hearing the worst.
The Dimmycraps will be so disappointed!
This would make a great bumper sticker.
Not only do the Dems put a halt to things that work, they substitute a "Rube Goldberg" system that doesn't work.
And the millimeter wave RF weapon that makes the target *feel* as if they are burning alive, will be deemed "cruel and unusual" and banned... for US use that is.
One little problem with such high morals is that the other side does not share them. They *never* wear uniforms, so *always* are indistinguishable from civilians. In fact they hide among civilians, using them as human shields. They usually don't even shoot at our troops when the troops can see them, instead they plant roadside bombs and detonate them from "civilian" houses and shops, all the while having no visible weapons and appearing quite "non-threatening".
So just how do you propose to deal with such enemy tactics. Let 'em kill your buddies before you can go after them, and then only if you catch 'em in the act?
This particular case is just crazy, if Sgt. Sandoval was not guilty of murder in the shooting, does that not imply that the shooting was justified under the ROE? Which in turn implies that the targets were insurgents, or acting sufficiently like them in a war zone to justify shooting them. So the Sandoval is guilty not of a cover up of murder, since he was justified in shooting them, but of trying to avoid the very thing which indeed happened, being accused of killing them without justification. The real justification not being something obvious to an after the fact investigation.
Moments earlier, the man, according to testimony and court documents, had been fleeing an attack on U.S. soldiers and was holding the sickle to masquerade as a farmer
Thus the man was an insurgent, a valid target within anyone's ROE. That the sniper team felt the need to guild the lily says volumes about the effect of earlier prosecutions on our troops.
Not to mention the effect of having mere accusations of wrong doing trumpeted in the halls of Congress *and* in reelection campaign headquarters and elsewhere, including the Sunday morning TV talk shows, by the likes of Murtha, Kerry and Kennedy.
Horsefeathers. Unless one means that they have ever shown hostile intent, or conducted actual hostile actions sometime in the past or are currently showing such intent, rather than just the latter, which is what the statement sounds like.
When we finally locate Osama's cave, he probably won't be showing any hostile intent either, but I'd hope someone would drop a thermobaric bomb into the entrance of that cave.
They aren't supposed to lie according to the Koran.
To other Muslims that is. Lying to Infidels is encourgaged to advance the Jihad and/or for the greater glory of Allah.
Agreed. And what’s good for Osama, is good for his followers.
Bro’s at JFK, will be home tomorrow.
FReepmail coming.
Another falsely accused soldier.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
“One little problem with such high morals is that the other side does not share them.”
Oh, okay. Let’s stoop to their level and share their disregard for human life. Sickening.
Nah, let's just take statements out of context. Like those bashing Rush over the "Phoney Soldier" hoohah.
The thrust of my statement was that one make take into account the tactics of the enemy when evaluating the outcome of clashes and the actions of our uniformed military members.
If the enemy never wears a uniform, and even hides among civilians, then civilians *are* going to be killed. Either that or whole bunches of our soldiers are.. and probably some of each, because our soldiers *are* reluctant to fire at what appear to be civilians, until they demonstrate otherwise. In fact they are civilians, but they are also illegal combatants with pretty much the same status as pirates, which is to say, they are fair game for any military force of any nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.