Not sure where I missed that comment. To be honest, I, and most of my friends, would rather have died than allow ourselves to be captured. There are many reasons for this, foremost the FACT that other countries do not follow the rules of land warfare. As a soldier you expect, if captured, to be tortured, and possibly executed. Additionally I think people in specialty units, such as Airborne, Ranger and SF units, have a creed, a pride, that who hold them back from surrender in many cases.
I know it may sound like hoaah hooaah BS, but you would be amazed at power of pride, and also peer pressure. I would never want to see my friends again if I were captured. Tim -----Original Message----- From: William Wheatley [mailto:bill@;ediets.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 8:48 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Robotic assassinations. > Somebody who fights a war should expect to become a POW if captured and > be exchanged for other POW's as soon as the conflict ends. Jochem i think you are dipping a little too much into your personal stash :) Any who fights a war should be prepared to DIE when if you go into combat. I mean i'm sure you expect to win but you have to realize there is the chance you get killed by any of the hundreds of different things that could happen. I am sure there are plenty who wouldn't want to be a POW its probably not the best thing to be. Maybe tim has some thought on it as well ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:34 AM Subject: Re: Robotic assassinations. > Michael Ross wrote: > > > Didn't they try to capture him for prosecution? That failed and more > > loss of life occurred. Even if they did capture him what might have > > happened? Terrorists hijack something and demand his release? He > > continues to control his operations in Jail through persons who > > sympathize. What good does that do. > > They tried to captue him, they failed. Then you do the in absence trial. > And in the case of terrorism, it is either death penalty or innocent. I > don't see a middle road there. > > > I don't think you can look at terrorists with the same logic as a > > criminal in our countries. When someone here commits a murder they > > know its murder, and try to cover it up hoping they don't get caught. > > Those types of people can be put on trial. > > I don't see why you can't handle terrorists the same way. If you are so > damn sure they are guilty, prove it. > > > However someone who believe's they are fighting a war should expect to > > be killed not put on trial. > > > > Thats why I have always had a hard time understanding being put on > > trial for war crimes..... > > I don't. If you capture somebody and suspect he is a war criminal you > put him on trial and prove it. If you can't prove it, he is innocent. If > he is guilty, you execute the verdict. > > > Your almost sounding like a conspiracy theorist. However there were > > more than just US forces making this decision. > > The point is that I don't think this decision should be made anywhere in > an executive branch. Not in the US, not somewhere else. > > Jochem > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
