Ryanh1801 said:Just more Bull**** to fuel the liberal media. They came under attack, one of their vehicle's was destroyed. What are they suppose to do sit there and do nothing? Its pretty bad when people have to worry about defending them selfs. Pretty easy for the enemy to remove guns from the dead and call them "civilians". I really hope nothing more comes of this, but im sure people in this country will be calling them baby killers and want them to be put in jail for the rest of their lives.
EdWort said:ib4tl.
Yeah, we can thank the liberal media for the rules of engagement that got most of Seal Team 10 killed in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are worried about traitorous press correspondents writing skewed perspectives where after they are brought up on charges. This causes second thoughts, hesitation, and death...for our Troops.
The liberal press kills our troops without having to fire a shot. The enemy in which they are complicit does that for them.
I hear what you're saying, but they are all there illegally in the first place. Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.Ryanh1801 said:Just more Bull**** to fuel the liberal media. They came under attack, one of their vehicle's was destroyed. What are they suppose to do sit there and do nothing? Its pretty bad when people have to worry about defending them selfs. Pretty easy for the enemy to remove guns from the dead and call them "civilians". I really hope nothing more comes of this, but im sure people in this country will be calling them baby killers and want them to be put in jail for the rest of their lives.
homebrewer_99 said:I hear what you're saying, but they are all there illeagally in the first place. Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.
I'm a civilian weapons expert for the Army and was only authorized a pistol when I was deployed.
Blackwater, in this case, are true mercenaries and illegal IAW US Law of War...therefore, if captured or killed the US can't (won't) do anything about it.
JohnBarleycorn said:Is that All press correspondents ? I need to be on the lookout for those murdering bastards
kornkob said:I, for instance, know full well that by keeping a firearm and standing willing to defend my family with deadly force that I may find myself the subject of a serious investigation, particularly if it turns out that the 'weapon' the home invader had was not a gun but a screwdriver or a wallet.
The Fox Network.EdWort said:Nope, just the traitorous ones who have an agenda to make news rather than report it.
McKBrew said:This is the biggest problem with military cutbacks. Now we have civilians doing the job that soldiers used to do (Granted they are highly trained and many Blackwater employees are ex-military). But, by putting non-military people in a war zone, who have to abide by different rules of engagement we are opening ourselves up to more of these situations.
It has to do with range. You are protecting yourself at close range (self-preservation). If you have a weapon that reaches out to touch somebody then you are part of an offensive and therefore, a combatant.Ryanh1801 said:How does one classify a Rifle as an offensive weapon and a pistol as a defensive weapon? Just wondering I have never heard that before. I mean carrying a pistol for protection in a war zone, is like taking a knife to a gun fight, you are not going to do much of any thing.
homebrewer_99 said:Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.
Cheesefood said:Ib4tl
Gonna be soon!!!
Yeah, I know what you mean about the legends, but in the end if you carry a weapon you are a combatant and a legal target for the enemy.kornkob said:I've never heard that before but typically I've foudn that most of the 'rules' attributed to the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, urban legends.
See: Can't shoot paratroopers, can't use hollow points and can't use a .50 on a human. All things attributed to the Geneva Convention that are, in fact, not found there at all.
I'd like to see the specifics of the Genereva convention regs that state that non-military are not allowed to carry rifles.
homebrewer_99 said:Yeah, I know what you mean about the legends, but in the end if you carry a weapon you are a combatant and a legal target for the enemy.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut the Webster's definition is different from the Gov'ts.kornkob said:True. But the geneva conventions don't specify what kinds of weapons near as I can tell and that's the thing that I'm curious about.
Given the quote (presumably accurate) on the term Mercenary, that makes me curious as well-- I wonder how armed but uninvolved persons are supposed to be treated. I imagine that the writers never took that into consideration, assuming instead that anyone armed nearby woudl either take sides or vacate.
kornkob said:I've never heard that before but typically I've foudn that most of the 'rules' attributed to the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, urban legends.
See: Can't shoot paratroopers, can't use hollow points and can't use a .50 on a human. All things attributed to the Geneva Convention that are, in fact, not found there at all.
I'd like to see the specifics of the Genereva convention regs that state that non-military are not allowed to carry rifles.
homebrewer_99 said:I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut the Webster's definition is different from the Gov'ts.
Enter your email address to join: