In his response to me he quotes from the Navy’s Law of Naval Operations. He concedes our raghead [my word] enemy is not in uniform and understands his legal source is intended for uniformed soldiers representing an identifiable country.
Neither the Geneva Convention or the Uniform Code of Military Justice covers terrorists in mufti with no national affiliation. He probably also thinks interrogation should be limited to the Red Cross offering donuts in exchange for info. He probably also agrees with the absurd ROE prohibiting our soldiers from defending themselves when attacked by terrorists using human shields (including men, women and children).
We are in a fight for the survival of Christianity and Judaism. Our enemy has stated openly and repeatedly he intends to convert, enslave and/or murder us. I wonder what part of that Henrickson doesn’t get? Our enemy recognizes no rules and gives no quarter. The only truth our enemy understands is brute force (emphasis on brute). If Henrickson doesn’t like that it is his right. Meanwhile, it would be helpful if he had the courtesy to remain silent while others take the fight to the enemy.
Also, Henrickson seems to forget that America has taken the fight to civilian populations in the past. Examples: The fire bombings of cities like Dresden in both Germany and Japan. This was in response to the German bombings of British cities and Japan’s atrocities—Nanking, Bataan and many others. But we didn’t just pee on these people. We burned them to death. Result(among other things, off course): The Allies won WWII.
Moving along, it is amazing to me that it is over 10 years since 09-11-01 and this war is still going on. Vietnam all over again. Should have been over in 2 years at most. Once again our pols—and people like Henrickson—do not have the guts to do what is necessary to defeat this bunch of 17th Century zealots. They’re only strengths are IEDs and a willingness to do anything and kill anybody to prevail. Moreover, this travesty is supported by the overarcing Muslim population—by what it does and what it does not do.
The fact is, if we had won this war 8 years ago far fewer people would be dead or maimed today. We had, and still have, the military might to finish this stupid war. What we don’t have is the political will to finish it.
You do a lot of assuming about what I believe or think. And generally, you are wrong. I am all for killing the enemy. I believe militant Islam is the #1 threat to all civilized nation s in the world. I have no sympathy for the muzzies. And so on.
Also, the issue is not about me, personally. It is about proper military conduct.
Furthermore, this is not about how evil the muzzies are. They are very evil, and if they take up arms against us, they should die.
But this IS about how good WE are and to what standard we hold OUR conduct. And that means, we don't desecrate the bodies of the enemy dead, no matter how evil they are. This is not some new idea or some wimpy liberal idea. This is a traditional standard of honorable conduct, and we expect our men to adhere to it.
Now I understand the emotional satisfaction aspect. And I wouldn't be too hard on the guys who did this. But it should not be defended.
And in any case, it was very STUPID to record this and put it out for the world to see. There is no gain in UNNECESSARILY giving "ammo" to the enemy to whip up their people.