Comments on: U.S. Threatens Afghans Over Kidnapped GI

[andouzy]

Very pathetic to US forces threating afgans after being tied hands in the back by Obama admnistration!!!
US forces would adopt enemies tactics if the enemy kill or kidnap one soldier , US forces kill or kidnap 100 ennemies.If kidnapping take place in a village US forces arrest every one in the village without exception!!!
Preventing villagers to live quietly will help to get more informations about bad guys.Villagers must realise that US forces are largely stronger than taliban and they can destroy both taliban and viallagers and US can protect Villagers much better than taliban.this is taht little differences that US must make taliban villagers to understand and chose theier side
Till afgan villagers do not see than Coaltion forces are largely stronger than talibans, they will continue to collaborate with talibans and the fisco will soon arrive

[speakinup22]

Ordflyer - I believe the message is clear. If you helped in the kidnapping, you are in danger. Those that did not help in the kidnapping need not worry.

And the proof of this warning will be in how the village is treated over the next few months, isn't it ?

Why don't you see what happens before making snide remarks like, "Why don't they use bribery and treachery? It will work better..."


o_the_pontus - you think this leaflet caused the taliban to move the kidnapped soldier ?

They did that LONG before the leaflet hit the ground. You are a day late and a dollar short in the brains department, O. Then again, that would also apply to your idol's experience.

[BobStreb]

In this world it takes only a psycho to kill a village, and
no one can put those little children and their mothers
back together again.

[pdchapin]

He appears to be a legitimate POW. Perhaps a simple prisoner exchange would be the simplest solution. Perfectly reasonable by both law and tradition and would motivate the Taliban not to simply kill prisoners like they usually do.

I don't think whether the word is "hunted" or "targeted" is as important as who the "you" is. Since the message asked for the prisoner release, then "you" would appear to be the Taliban. We're hunting them now.

[erb0087]

"the geneva conventions only apply to nations, and their governments, that ratify the conventions."
by jgg00000008 July 16, 2009 1:23 PM EDT
=============================

A common misconception.

It applies to the behavior of the United States military, no matter whom we're fighting, since we signed Geneva Accords and agreed to abide by those rules in warfare.

Even if we're fighting invaders from Mars.

Don't believe me ?

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not bound by it. By 1949, the treaty was becoming viewed less as a reciprocal contract and more as an agreement on fundamental humanitarian principles. Ratifying the treaty binds the nation to uphold these principles regardless of the behavior of the opposing nation."

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Geneva_conventions-1949.html

[dencal26]

So now Obama is threatening innocent civilians? I remember the Nazis used to kill entire villages if one German was killed nearby. And by the way where is the Obama " Exit Plan" for Afghanistan? Suddenly we don't hear that term since Bush left. Or demands to photograph soldiers caskets at Dover AFB? Where are those photos now?>

[jwesel1]

It was the US that attacked Afghanistan, not the other way.

[BobStreb]

Obama has not proven his American citizenship.
He is not qualified to be commander-in-chief, therefore his orders are moot, and any oath taken to honor him as commander-in-chief is also moot.

Troops- there will be a fight, and there will be consequences, but you can now legitimately say no to your deployment orders. Obama has not proven his citizenship to date. We have no legitimate president. We have no commander-in-chief.

Check the 7/15/09 headlines. One soldier's claim as such was honored without trial or big media press.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

[BobStreb]

Obama has not proven his American citizenship.
He is not qualified to be commander-in-chief, therefore his orders are moot, and any oath taken to honor him a commander-in-chief is also moot.

Troops- there will be a fight, and there will be consequences, but you can now legitimately say no to your deployment orders. Obama has not proven his citizenship to date. We have no legitimate president. We have no commander-in-chief.

Check the 7/14/09 headlines. One soldier's claim as such was honored without trial or big media press.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

[BobStreb]

callingoutthestupidity,
BTW: word has it around the world that the world would be better off without America making a bigger mess than we are worth.
I said you response was trite, but I forgot rote. I read the same rant five years ago as the fine points of the law were not sidestepped or redefined by the last lot of international war criminals dressed up as American leaders.
And don't fret a bit- Obama will not disappoint you.
But thank you for dragging out the old neocon Geneva Convention rants that still belie the gravity of the USA war crimes committed. You are iconic of the 21st Century New American moral and spiritual wasteland.
Your kind are not only archaic, but are the greatest threat to the nation.
We no longer kiss the military's butt. We've turned from rescuers to conquerors, and our expertly trained military commits war crimes with expertise.
For you, if America is the New Reich, then all is well. War crimes are as American as apple pie.
All is well...Don't worry, be happy!