TCUnation
social network for conservatives
OBAMA WILL ALLOW TERRORISTS TO USE HUMAN SHIELDS
© May 18, 2010
If you have any doubt about President Barack Hussein Obama’s commitment to win the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in the Afghanistan theatre then you need awareness Mr. Appeasement has changed the rules of engagement (at Karzai’s insistence). The BHO change will allow the Taliban and al Qaeda to use human shields that will place U.S. military personal in life threatening dangerous situations.
It sounds ever so altruistic to keep civilians out of harm’s way. That is the new rule: don’t harm the civilians when engaging Islamic terrorists. The thing is that it is a war that our boys in Afghanistan are fighting. Will the Islamic terrorists utilize innocent civilians as human shields? I have no doubt of the possibility. Are civilian Muslims in the AfPak area so innocent? Undoubtedly the hang-outs of Islamic terrorists are in radical Muslim friendly areas.
Using human shields is a common tactic of Islamic terrorists of Judea, Samaria (so-called West Bank) and Gaza. It is a perfected practice to gain a strategic advantage over the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). An Israeli nation that has had to live with Islamic terrorism since the nation’s modern inception has learned to be a bit calloused over the Islamic terrorist strategy of human shields. To show who has the higher moral ground in Israel other solutions are examined before a strike happens among human shields; however when it is obvious that key leadership or key weapons stocks of Islamic terrorists can be destroyed the imperative of winning rather than collateral damage leads to the best solution. Undoubtedly this is why Western Leftists and Islamic propandists use the deaths of human shields as an example of so-called war crimes of Israel.
BHO is setting up American troops for the same moral dilemma as the IDF. It should be noted that staged atrocities have already been accused of the U.S. military (e.g. Haditha Marines and Navy SEALS). The Haditha Marines have been exonerated. Three Navy SEALS have been exonerated of utilizing excessive force against an Islamic terrorist who was involved torturing, burning, dragging and hanging the corpses of American Blackwater security guards.
With Leftists hot to find a scapegoat of a war crime in the GWOT, I am certain BHO’s new Rules of Engagement will lead to more prosecutions of soldiers doing their job to track down Islamic terrorists and kill them, force surrender and win the war.
Part of BHO’s appeasement agenda is to actually create a Medal for soldiers who use heroic restraint in saving Muslim civilians rather than attacking the enemy. Does anyone believe Islamic terrorists will use heroic restraint in their guerilla and terrorist attacks against American troops or American civilians?
I should note though some Leftists still find President Barack Hussein is still doing too much in relation to Islamic terrorists. I found at Soda Head that a paid advertisement in the NY Review of Books accuses BHO of war crimes for – get this – authorizing Islamic terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to be killed. The reality is al-Awlaki who is an American citizen has a dead or alive price on his head. It may be easier to kill him than to capture him. Perhaps the stronger stand to kill Islamic terrorists in foreign lands is a political maneuver to get Conservatives off the rules of engagement that allows Islamic terrorists (perhaps like al-Awlaki) to hide behind human shields..
Below is the Move America Forward (MAF) email that I read about BHO’s new Rules of Engagement. Now the MAF email also serves a purpose of soliciting for donations to provide care packages for our troops fighting the GWOT. The soliciting is interspersed throughout the email. I am editing the email to provide links and information for care packages at the end. I encourage one and all to participate in the care package service MAF is providing.
If you have any doubt about President Barack Hussein Obama’s commitment to win the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in the Afghanistan theatre then you need awareness Mr. Appeasement has changed the rules of engagement (at Karzai’s insistence). The BHO change will allow the Taliban and al Qaeda to use human shields that will place U.S. military personal in life threatening dangerous situations.
It sounds ever so altruistic to keep civilians out of harm’s way. That is the new rule: don’t harm the civilians when engaging Islamic terrorists. The thing is that it is a war that our boys in Afghanistan are fighting. Will the Islamic terrorists utilize innocent civilians as human shields? I have no doubt of the possibility. Are civilian Muslims in the AfPak area so innocent? Undoubtedly the hang-outs of Islamic terrorists are in radical Muslim friendly areas.
Using human shields is a common tactic of Islamic terrorists of Judea, Samaria (so-called West Bank) and Gaza. It is a perfected practice to gain a strategic advantage over the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). An Israeli nation that has had to live with Islamic terrorism since the nation’s modern inception has learned to be a bit calloused over the Islamic terrorist strategy of human shields. To show who has the higher moral ground in Israel other solutions are examined before a strike happens among human shields; however when it is obvious that key leadership or key weapons stocks of Islamic terrorists can be destroyed the imperative of winning rather than collateral damage leads to the best solution. Undoubtedly this is why Western Leftists and Islamic propandists use the deaths of human shields as an example of so-called war crimes of Israel.
BHO is setting up American troops for the same moral dilemma as the IDF. It should be noted that staged atrocities have already been accused of the U.S. military (e.g. Haditha Marines and Navy SEALS). The Haditha Marines have been exonerated. Three Navy SEALS have been exonerated of utilizing excessive force against an Islamic terrorist who was involved torturing, burning, dragging and hanging the corpses of American Blackwater security guards.
With Leftists hot to find a scapegoat of a war crime in the GWOT, I am certain BHO’s new Rules of Engagement will lead to more prosecutions of soldiers doing their job to track down Islamic terrorists and kill them, force surrender and win the war.
Part of BHO’s appeasement agenda is to actually create a Medal for soldiers who use heroic restraint in saving Muslim civilians rather than attacking the enemy. Does anyone believe Islamic terrorists will use heroic restraint in their guerilla and terrorist attacks against American troops or American civilians?
I should note though some Leftists still find President Barack Hussein is still doing too much in relation to Islamic terrorists. I found at Soda Head that a paid advertisement in the NY Review of Books accuses BHO of war crimes for – get this – authorizing Islamic terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to be killed. The reality is al-Awlaki who is an American citizen has a dead or alive price on his head. It may be easier to kill him than to capture him. Perhaps the stronger stand to kill Islamic terrorists in foreign lands is a political maneuver to get Conservatives off the rules of engagement that allows Islamic terrorists (perhaps like al-Awlaki) to hide behind human shields..
Below is the Move America Forward (MAF) email that I read about BHO’s new Rules of Engagement. Now the MAF email also serves a purpose of soliciting for donations to provide care packages for our troops fighting the GWOT. The soliciting is interspersed throughout the email. I am editing the email to provide links and information for care packages at the end. I encourage one and all to participate in the care package service MAF is providing.
Tags: Al-Qaeda, Islam, Obama, Taliban, human, shields, terror, war
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by DaveG on -
I wonder if perhaps much of McChrystal's dissatisfaction with Obama's strategy over this war was his overly cautious attempt to keep from killing innocent civilians (Other Muslims in this case). Don't take that wrong, I'm in no way in favor of killing innocent civilians, but when we know that the enemy is using them as human shields, to NOT get the bad guys simply because there might be civilian casualties, though a tough call, sometimes has to be made.
From what I read, McChrystal was mainly enforcing Obama's policies regarding limiting civilian deaths at all cost, even if it meant making operations much more dangerous for our own men/women in combat situations. I doubt McChrystal agreed with that in many of the scenarios he was witnessing.
Your thoughts?
(and maybe we can find a link on that email address you mentioned, Mike). -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on -
The problem I have with McChrystal was that he accepted less than what he asked for and accepted the rules of engagement. At that level you either accept it, salute, and execute or you resign. General McChrystal agreed that he could do the job with what was provided and he should have tried to do his job and, if he thought he could not, then that was between him and the President. I hate it when I find myself agreeing with Obama.
I have a hunch ... only a hunch but no knowledge ... was that McChrystal calculated his troop strength request knowing troop levels he would need to remain among the population in order to protect them (there are formulas for this in the military handbooks). Once the troops are embedded then it will become possible to separate the war fighters from the civilians. I expect that Gen Petraeus will ask for more troops after he reviews the situation there. In short my sense is that you can't minimize collateral damage with the level of force we have in the region.
We shall see. But if Gen Petraeus does ask for more forces then Obama should give them to him right away. He articulated his strategy again today; now that Petraues has the job there he is within his rights to ask for what he needs. Obama should not wring his hands for months and try to negotiate Petraeus downward from that. -
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
