True.
If we trained our military to ask questions and then shoot (if you have permission and bullets), we would not last very long.
So, instead, we're supposed to train them to abduct random civilians, kill them, and plant an AK-47 and a shovel to make it look as if the civilian was planing an IED.
I'm not quite following you. What is the benefit of doing all that?
There are probably not only a few instances where instinctive actions had undesireable consequences.
I wasn't aware that abducting random civilians, killing them, and planting an AK-47 and a shovel to make it look as if the civilian was setting an IED was "instinctive."
I frankly do not believe that our soldiers believe that it is okay to grab civilians, kill them and then plant evidence.
They don't, which is why these guys are going to go to trial as opposed to being awarded a medal.
So to CYA, especially with the Murtha's of the world in position to take over, we have a lack of intestional fortitude in connection with marginal action by our enlisted men.
You're saying that abducting random civilians, killing them, and planting an AK-47 and a shovel to make it look as if the civilian was setting an IED is a "marginal action?"
Your moral compass needs some heavy-duty recalibration.
You're saying that abducting random civilians, killing them, and planting an AK-47 and a shovel to make it look as if the civilian was setting an IED is a "marginal action?"
Should you not state that they are charged with, or accused of, rather than saying or implying that they are guilty?!!! Are you suggesting that is our policy? The only (other) person who is saying that they are guilty of cold blooded murder is Congressman Murtha!