America will take no prisoners

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 11/20/2001 | IAN COBAIN AND DAMIAN WHITWORTH

[Southack]

Sweet.

[Pharmboy]

These sorry sumb*tch Islamonazis have given up their right to walk among us. Ice 'em.

[LibKill]

Waste 'em. There is no point in arresting them so the ACLU can file a billion motions on their behalf.

No prisoners.

[Hagrid]

This is HIGHLY misleading. When asked if this meant that surrendering Taliban should be shot, he seemed surprised (and perhaps horrified) and said something like, "Of course not." He meant that the NA would have to take any prisoners, not the US.

He was firm on whether Taliban should just be let go. He said NO--they should be killed or captured.

[lodwick]

Nice! Way to go Rummy! bttt

[Dallas]

Don't surrender Omar,.....Allah is calling you to paradise.

Do the jihad thingy....

[lodwick]

Correct, and the NA is not very well known for "taking prisoners." These are rabid dogs, and must be dealt with accordingly.

[Clinton's a rapist]

OMAR: Do you expect me to talk?

DUBYA: No, Mullah Omar, I expect you to die!

[IronJack]

Mr Rumsfeld’s words will strain fragile relations between the US and the Northern Alliance, the coalition’s nominal allies in Afghanistan, at a time when growing divisions are emerging between Washington and London over the role of British troops.

Does this drumbeat ever cease? "Strained relations" blah blah blah "friction building within fragile coalition" yammer yammer yammer "bloody tribal warfare" yap yap yap. I could read the future better by consulting a Mattell Magic 8-Ball.

Defence sources in London said the deployment of thousands of British forces to Afghanistan was being delayed because Washington was more concerned with hunting bin Laden than with establishing a peace-support force.

Uh, first of all, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, that IS the reason we're there, no? If we were putting our efforts into establishing an interim government, these same clowns would be hollering about our "imperialism" and "nation building."

Although the Northern Alliance had objected to the deployment of a large “foreign” force, the sources said that the impasse “had more to do with Washington than Kabul”.

Funny, the Alliance didn't seem to be objecting to deployment of a large foreign air force over the last couple of months. Maybe they should shut their yaps and move on over.

[deport]

What Sec. Rumsfeld said.......Transcript

(begin snip)

QUESTION: You said last week that some Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been captured. Have they been interrogated and are you getting information from them?

RUMSFELD:Anyone who has been -- we are not capturing people -- the United States.

QUESTION: Opposition forces.

RUMSFELD:Opposition forces, right. And I assume that opposition forces who capture people are talking to them and seeing if they can find information that might be helpful to them in figuring out how they can get others to surrender, particularly in a place like Kunduz, which is a static situation, where there's a fierce battle going on. And to the extent that there are senior people, I'm sure we're having an opportunity to talk to them, as well.
.......skip.....

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you had mentioned earlier that the U.S. is not inclined to negotiate nor to accept prisoners. Could you just elaborate what you meant by "nor to accept prisoners"?

RUMSFELD:We have only handfuls of people there. We don't have jails, we don't have g

guards, we don't have people who -- we're not in the position to have people surrender to us.

If people try to, we are declining. That is not what we're there to do, is to begin accepting prisoners and impounding them in some way or making judgments. That's for the Northern Alliance, and that's for the tribes in the south to make their own judgments on that.

 

QUESTION: So they would be taking -- you're not suggesting they would be shot, in other words?

RUMSFELD:Oh, my goodness, no. You sound like Charlie.
(end snip)

[Cicero]

Well, I still read this as just a polite way of saying, "Take no prisoners!" He's just not going to TELL the Northern Alliance publicly and offically to shoot them.

[goldstategop]

Give no quarter. They gave none to 6,000 plus Americans and should expect the same fate. Too bad we can't string em all up on gallows over there. What a sight that would be.

[xkaydet65]

The Brits are reliving their Great Game where men and money were spent in the wastes of Afghanistan in a less than meaningful contest with Russia. About the only good thing to come out of that were some poems, short stories and the novel Kim by Kipling. I guess Tony Blair sees himself as Disraeli.

I'm all for letting the Brits play their game AFTER we sew bin Laden, Omar, and the rest of the obscenities into the hides of Arkansas Razorbacks.

[agrace]

...Washington was more concerned with hunting bin Laden than with establishing a peace-support force.

Duh.

[Hillary 666]

America will take no prisoners

Glad to hear it. Let's put these pieces of garbage away permanently.

[Hillary 666]

Yep. There's no reason to slow-roll our legal system with the Taliban trash. It's time to put them away right now where they won't ever bother anybody again.

[nimc]

"We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village, army after army.

(Colonel Kurtz)

[JAWs]

<GOOD!