Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I again bow to your ability to see the terrorists' point-of-view skunk. You do yourself proud.
|
What do you mean? I'm just calling a spade a spade. If a non-uniformed non-member of the military is paid to perform military duties, then he is a mercenary/member of a private army.
Likewise, it is Washington's OWN DEFINITION, that those who engage in military style exercises in a war zone who do not wear military uniforms nor display military insignia are to be defined as illegal combatents. I didn't come up with this definition, your own administration did.
How exactly is Washington's own view the 'terrorist point of view'? Because if the definition has changed, then the 600 'Security Consultants' locked up in GM Bay need to be released immediately. [/QUOTE]I find myself in agreement with you here Skunk, If these men were security personel then that's part of the job. If they were contractors doing what would be considered civil duties/non combat/non security then that is a different story. I got no problem using private security, these guys are big boys and should know what they are getting into. Arm them to the teeth and if they get shot at let them return fire without the silly constrictions of rules, when you're in a Knife fight it's silly to say you can't stab somebody here or there, sorry only approved knifes can be used.
[ 04-12-2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]