Psych war at its best, American soldier dipping bullets with pig juice.

Originally posted by deltaboy
You guys treat this like this is even worse than the insurgents' method of cutting off someone's head.

All this guy was doing was dipping a couple of bullets in SPAM or something and you guys are like "this guy crossed the line." "O yeah he's in big trouble."

[edit on 9-2-2007 by deltaboy]

Its the same ****. Why stop at spam? What will be next? If this guy goes to spam, what will the next guy think of? For that matter, what will some terrorist think of to better this guys video with? Maybe they will videotape some poor soldier getting an upside down cross shoved down his throat or some other sick crap. Thats all it is. Its sick. Support it if thats what you are into but whenever there is a record to be broken you know someone will try to top it. Guinness Book is full of them. When this video spreads around some lets see if this soldier (If he is a soldier) continues doing what hes doing and if this doesn't put America in an even more embarrassing position internationally.

Originally posted by deltaboy
You guys treat this like this is even worse than the insurgents' method of cutting off someone's head.

Yes, I do treat this as worse because I like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like to think we don't go around murdering and torturing people or using their beliefs as a weapon against them. I like to think that we stand for fairness and democracy, not bigotry and hatred.

It's getting harder to think that.

fairness have no place in eliminating a threat. Infact some SF groups even say if the fight was fair you didn't plan or execute it right. Neither do morals. Threats are threats. there is no diference between a rampaging human and a rampaging bear, or shark, or any other animal, always the answer to dealing with this problem is to eliminte the threat as quickly as possible to prevent harm to your self.

As for the suicide bombers. Well all is fair in warfare. They understand that we don't. I don't hold it against them that they use those tactics, but not using the proper tactics to fight back is stupid. In this instance we need to fight fire with fire. Like I said give them an alternative that is so bad that knocking off the shenanigans is the best option for them.

Want to attack a tiger, fine, this tiger (USA) is a paper tiger cause it doesn't hit back hard enough for the circumstances.
Imagin if you kept proding a tiger with a stick and all you got back was a whimpering tiger, well thats what they see. The tiger should hit back so hard that the guy with the stick is dispatched immediatly, and all of his friends go-"damnnnn! I ain't never messing with that tiger."

As for armchair generals-hey i'm just repeating what other accomplished soldiers are saying. I'll take their perspective of war since they've been there over someone who hasn't.

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Yes, I do treat this as worse because I like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like to think we don't go around murdering and torturing people or using their beliefs as a weapon against them. I like to think that we stand for fairness and democracy, not bigotry and hatred.

It's getting harder to think that.

Higher standard? What you expect them to do? Give them a teddy bear? Whats the purpose of the beheading people in insurgents' videos? What is the purpose? What is the insurgents' agenda?

Whats our purpose in psychological operations against the enemy? Their beliefs, their strengths, weaknesses, dislikes, likes, etc.

To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Thus what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy-Sun Tzu

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
fairness have no place in eliminating a threat. Infact some SF groups even say if the fight was fair you didn't plan or execute it right. Neither do morals. Threats are threats. there is no diference between a rampaging human and a rampaging bear, or shark, or any other animal, always the answer to dealing with this problem is to eliminte the threat as quickly as possible to prevent harm to your self.

If that is your point of view then that is fair enough, i'm not here to try and convince you otherwise. Just know that the other side is thinking in the same terms which in their minds legitimises torture, beheadings, mutilations and attacks against civilians. Obviously these are legitimate methods in your way of thinking as these are the quickest ways to 'eliminate the threat'.

As for the suicide bombers. Well all is fair in warfare. They understand that we don't. I don't hold it against them that they use those tactics, but not using the proper tactics to fight back is stupid. In this instance we need to fight fire with fire. Like I said give them an alternative that is so bad that knocking off the shenanigans is the best option for them.

I salute your honesty even if I don't agree with your sentiments.

There are many ways we could do this in Iraq. One way would be, as you suggest, to descend to the level of street thugs and brutalise the population to the extent that their fear would ensure their co-operation. This might work in the short term but the resentment would foster and find a release.

Another way would be to take a professional view of the situation. This would involve keeping the high standards for which the west (apparently) stands. Upholding law and order, helping the country get back on it's feet, putting in place a political framework backed by military power and leaving in good order.

The problem with 'giving them an alternative that is so bad that knocking off the shenanigans is the best option for them' is that the 'alternative' is pretty much mass murder,

originally posted by deltaboy
Higher standard? What you expect them to do? Give them a teddy bear?

No, I expect them to maintain the standards for which we (apparently) went to war

Originally posted by deltaboy

Whats our purpose in psychological operations against the enemy? Their beliefs, their strengths, weaknesses, dislikes, likes, etc.

To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. Thus what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy-Sun Tzu

In as much as I know some here would like this to be a religious war. I somehow do not think this is legitimate under certain laws.


I believe that persecution for ones religion has been covered before back in the 1930's and 40's

Nuremberg Rules, in Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:



(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:



(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. .

Source

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

In as much as I know some here would like this to be a religious war. I somehow do not think this is legitimate under certain laws.


I believe that persecution for ones religion has been covered before back in the 1930's and 40's

Nuremberg Rules, in Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.


The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. .

Thats funny, check what this says that you posted. You missed something thats bolded I put on.

Well, since we are visiting this topic ( of fighting terrorism with terrorism), lets take it to it's logical conclusion:

George W. Bush [Press conference that pre-emps prime time]:
My fellow americans,
The Islamic fundamentalists we are at war with have been operating with impunity in Iraq and other areas of the world, killing thousands of innocents, targeted innocents, in wanton acts of destruction. They intend to hold us all hostage to fear. Hostage to thier will. In the name of their religion. The same way they have held other hostages and beheaded them because they were jewish, in the example of Daniel Pearl, or blew their heads off if they refused to convert to Islam, in other circumstances.

Our armed forces have tried valiantly to make a difference. Because our country is divided, they have not been successful. It's time to turn the tables on the terrorists and use thier own tactics against them.

Some damn me for my actions in trying to protect the citizens of this country. Please. You are too kind. I intend to make Black Jack Pershing look like a choirboy, if that is what is neccessary for victory. To that end, the United States shall henceforth hold as its foreign policy as authorized to me by the power of the constitution:

Should any Islamic force attack American citizens, American military personnel, or any American property, on US soil or abroad, the United States will retaliate by detonating a thermonuclear bomb on Mecca with the explosive force equal to the 4 jumbo jet planes and all properties they destroyed on 9/11. Your actions will speak your response. If you intend to hold us hostage, we in turn, will hold Mecca hostage, until such time as you come to your senses. Let it be known, the saying DON'T TREAD ON ME still stands in the 21st century.
[end press conference]

Now, I for one, would never advocate the use of nuclear weapons. However, if we are talking about going as stir crazy as they are, and that war means WAR, not just prancing around in the freakin pansies talking about the moral high ground (like some of us are), then this is what we are talking about. What do you think they muslims would do, faced with the possibility of not being able to complete one of their lifes tasks, making the journey to Mecca? Compare that to the ability of those in the twin towers, and their ability to complete THEIR lifetime goals.

I am interested in your responses.
G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

By the way, I wrote an essay entitled "There Was A Time," comparing our current war on terrorism with World War II. Should you be interested in reading it, it can be found at houtchblog.blogspot.com.... It contains some interesting ideas that I dont have time to devote myself to here.

G.Houtchens
armchair coach
amateur historian

Originally posted by DJMessiah


Right. By the way, who was the one who dropped "Little Boy" and killed thousands of people in Hiroshima?

[edit on 9-2-2007 by DJMessiah]

Since you bring that up, lets do a little analyzing of how ignorant and irrelevant that argument is, shall we?

We, the United States, was in a declared war with Japan, who attacked us in the first place.

The Japanese refused to surrender after having all but lost the war, the only thing left to do was to invade japan which would of cost 1,000s of american lives. They tell truman that they have this new weapon that could force the japanese to surrender, truman authorized it, the bomb was droped, and the japanese surrendered. How is that "Terrorism?" or is that just the new lefty definition of it? Terrorism would of been to continue bombing the japanese even after the war was over. Sound familiar? hamas, hezbollah, and Israel? Ring any bells in the gelatinous kool-aid filled head of yours? I recommend you stop getting your historical info second hand from marxist wannabe bloggers and actually go read about the subject.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by DJMessiah


Right. By the way, who was the one who dropped "Little Boy" and killed thousands of people in Hiroshima?
[edit on 9-2-2007 by DJMessiah]

Since you bring that up, lets do a little analyzing of how ignorant and irrelevant that argument is, shall we?
We, the United States, was in a declared war with Japan, who attacked us in the first place.
The Japanese refused to surrender after having all but lost the war, the only thing left to do was to invade japan which would of cost 1,000s of american lives. They tell truman that they have this new weapon that could force the japanese to surrender, truman authorized it, the bomb was droped, and the japanese surrendered. How is that "Terrorism?" or is that just the new lefty definition of it? Terrorism would of been to continue bombing the japanese even after the war was over. Sound familiar? hamas, hezbollah, and Israel? Ring any bells in the gelatinous kool-aid filled head of yours? I recommend you stop getting your historical info second hand from marxist wannabe bloggers and actually go read about the subject.

Truman actually wasnt thrilled about it, where his generals were.
and after coming to power, and learning his previous president was pretty cretain in using it, he held a committee to debate the finer points of 'right or 'wrong'

Thankfully, dropping the bomb was the correct thing to do.

BUT, I agree previously, that the USA is meant to be the one representing the good of the west, we are meant to have higher standards and show the world the 'proper' way to wage a war.

We shoot the enemy, kill them, then respect them in their death.

It might be simply a verbal/mental threat of the whole pig blood,

but im sure it deeply offends muslims around the wrold, wether they are FIGHTING us or not.

That is why it is wrong.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Thats funny, check what this says that you posted. You missed something thats bolded I put on.

No I didn't miss it. Its an urban war. Innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis by both sides. Unless you are saying you can guarantee the accuracy of this mans aim.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Truman actually wasnt thrilled about it, where his generals were.
and after coming to power, and learning his previous president was pretty cretain in using it, he held a committee to debate the finer points of 'right or 'wrong'

Thankfully, dropping the bomb was the correct thing to do.

Well, actually I think it was the secretary of state and not the generals, although they werent against using it, who motivated truman with a hypothetical impeachment scenario. heh, typical politician. Anyway, I hardly think dropping 2 atom bombs on a nation that were in a declared war with is terrorism. Although one could argue that it was used to intimidate the japanese into surrendering. But what could you do? The Japanese were 10x as fanatical as the muslims were. remember, they believed the emperor was a living god.

while dropping 2x bombs i believe does have the tone of being an experiment, indeed it was nessecary.
sending in 10,000's of troops into a war where the enemy believes death of victory is the only option wasnt a good idea.
Especially when the US economy was on the verge of breaking point.

Id hate to imagine how many wars/deaths would of occured had the US NOT dropped the bomb at that stage...
It set the tone during many conflicts there after, where no one dared escelate anything to some drastic measure, BECAUSE the US had shown how devestating they could be, if provoked.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

No I didn't miss it. Its an urban war. Innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis by both sides. Unless you are saying you can guarantee the accuracy of this mans aim.

O I think you did miss it, otherwise you wouldn't change the subject about the rules of warfare. Going straight to the words "its an urban war." I can't guaranteed his ability to hit the insurgents and terrorists, but I guaranteed that his target are the terrorists which he hopes to put some pig juice into them.

www.liveleak.com...

I'm certain these guys knew who they were shooting at.

Originally posted by deltaboy

O I think you did miss it, otherwise you wouldn't change the subject about the rules of warfare. Going straight to the words "its an urban war." I can't guaranteed his ability to hit the insurgents and terrorists, but I guaranteed that his target are the terrorists which he hopes to put some pig juice into them.

www.liveleak.com...

I'm certain these guys knew who they were shooting at.

I never changed the subject. In my previous post in this thread a concern of mine that came up was in fact regarding innocent civilians. Like I said wait for this video to snake its way around, just like those soldiers singing about the muslim girl and the pictures of those soldiers with the skulls, its going to attract attention. Maybe I am wrong but I guess we will soon see.

frayed
Besides it's not a totally new idea, some general/comander did this years ago, in some previous conflict. (Pershing comes to mind, but I can't say for sure.)

Yep, here's a link

Did you notice that its an urban legend????

Pershing did not bury rebels in pig skins.

Infact, he did NOT use heavy handed approaches with them. He integrated himself with them, respected them, tried to understand them, and won.

www.liveleak.com...

That soldier is a fracking idiot, he should be pulled out of iraq and dishonourable discharged.

(it is pretty damned funny though. Bullet, Pork. OI OI OI OI in the background unclean, and dies, goes to hell )


The whole thing is stupid though. They're not going to beleive that you go to hell because a bullet had pig peices on it, being made a martyr would pretty well make you instantly clean (indeed, thats the claim already ANYWAY, thats even what they remarked when the media showed Zarqawi after he was killed, be cleaned up for the photo, 'his face is shinning like the quran says a matryrs would be).

This really accomplishes nothing to deter anyone that is already angry enough to kill people, and, as we can see from historical precedent, it can be the sort of thing that tips otherwise loyal people over the edge into rebellion.

This nitwit might've just gotten a few thousand more GIs killed.

Originally posted by Regensturm
That soldier is no better than an Al Qaeda militant ranting against Christians and Jews before killing them.

Huh?

Is he specifically targeting and murdering thousands of civilians??? NO.

Agit8dChop
We b1tch and moan at their tactics, but then do something that effects them dearly due to their religion.

They're ripping people's heads off. We've got a handful of meaty bullets.

Tom Bedlam
The British, having seen how well the concept worked, spread the word that the grease on the wheels was also lard and cow fat, and that everyone who had done this was now roasting in whatever version of Hell they believed. The suicides stopped instantly.

The tactics probably stopped because they had burned through their cache of stupid suicidal lunatics.
Hindus do not beleive that you will go to hell if you have 'cow' on you. Hindus revere cows, they dont' think that they are unclean.

As far as the cartridges, it was really just a rumour that was spread, the muslims thought that the grease was pig, the hindus that it was cows. The muslims thought it was unclean, the hindus that it was disrespectful.

Rasobasi420
"I hate Jesus, go Yankees" on dead American's chests.

But all good american soldiers DO like the yankees.

Lets not bring up the redsox Yankees rivalry, its more intense than the american-insurgent rivalry.

thematrix
For the rest, the vast majority, are disgruntled Iraqi citizens who have taken up arms against either the other factions in Iraq or against the US.

Their motivations are irrelevant, if they are killing our troops, then we should kill them, and if they are murdering civilians, which they are, then it doesn't matter if they think the civilians are evil, its still wrong and they're still terrorists.

Also, while I completely disagree that this soldier is 'like a terrorist', its pretty clear that there is some logic in the claim; he is hoping to intimidate and deter people from attacking, ripping people's heads off after having an islamic trial is also trying to deter people.

Of course, I'd much rather have people greasing bullets with animal fat than ripping people's heads off.

There is no logic in his act of ignorance. It's simply rational relative to his own knowledge of pyschological war far and Islamic theology. It's a far from rational choice to endanger your own sanity in public and that of the U.S Army which is trying to win the hearts and minds of millions in this war in Iraq. Dipping bullets into pig meat and then intending to shoot them at Muslim 'enemies' is simply dumb and will only consequent more negativitey.

Muslims ripping peoples head off is a consequent of what exactly again? This was not a act of randomness.

Luxifero

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Luxifero]