Thread: New Wikileaks

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

And if they are innocent, lock them up in Gitmo for a long period of time with no legal recourse? Yeah, that's smart.

I never said leaving an innocent person in jail is a good idea. All i said is your blind justice of they are innocent and someone should pay is wrong.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Again, you're making two points here:

1. The members of the revolutionary army who lacked uniforms never did it to blend in.

2. Our enemies in Afghanistan who lack uniforms do it for purpose of blending in.

Please provide some evidence to back up these claims.

Check their history.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Home soil.

I find it funny that our uniforms are Camo......to blend in.....tehehe.

The difference is we are trying to blend into the trees not the population.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Typical Death. Let's argue the meaing of what is, is.

So how many soldiers trying to blend in is it before it becomes a cowardly act? You decide, oh oracle of all things military.

You obviously think special forces units primary function is to fight their way in and out of an environment. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The whole idea of our guys in disguise is to get in and out with out a problem. If bullets start flying around the mission has failed.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Actually, this doesn't really even matter. The claim wasn't that, if you do it for X reason, you're a coward, the claim was, if you don't wear a uniform, you're a coward.(<-- period). So even if you do actually back up these statements, they're kind of irrelevant to the claim.

If your purpose is to always blend in with the crowd then yes. Special forces however do not do that.

I didn't say having more funds didn't hurt. I asked if he thought they weren't well funded and you responded with as much as we are. Its a stupid question that deserved much less of an answer then i gave it.

It's a perfectly appropriate question. The funding, training and size of your troops are really only relevant when considered with respect to that of your enemy. An army of 100 is large against an army of 10, but not against an army of 10,000.

How does that change them being well funded?

It generally changes an army's tactics, as I said. It makes guerrilla tactics more effective.

By the way, the red quote within the quote thing makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond to your statements.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Its completely relivant. Farmers took up arms at a moments notice to fight. By doing it at the pace they did is what earned them the title minute men. These were not soldiers after all. They were poorly trained farms meant to serve a purpose of over welming the british.

What we do today is completely different then what they do. If you cant see that then the arguement is pointless.

Wrong. Minutemen were members of militias, not just random farmers who took up arms. You're right that they weren't as highly trained or equipped as their enemies (though I thought that that didn't matter...), but they weren't spontaneously formed at the outbreak of the war, and they certainly had enough organization to whip up some targeting bandanas, as has been suggested the Taliban should do.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

So? As has been pointed out, they could have worn bandanas to let the British know who to shoot at. Minutemen weren't a spontaneously generated group, they were local civilian militias.

Times have changed if you haven't noticed. The british also dont go to war wearing bright red coats and the now longer stand in lines to get shot at. Trying to compair wars from them to wars from now is assinine. If this is your best arguement you might as well put it to bed.

Even better go read the geneva convention for your explaination of what a legal and illegal combatant are.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

If your purpose is to always blend in with the crowd then yes. Special forces however do not do that.

The original statement made made no claims about the reason for eschewing a uniform:

Originally Posted by ***COMMANDER***

The uniform is a distinction between a soldier and a civilian, unlike the cowardly terrorist, that wear civilian clothes.

By this statement, many of our first soldiers were cowards.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Times have changed if you haven't noticed. The british also dont go to war wearing bright red coats and the now longer stand in lines to get shot at. Trying to compair wars from them to wars from now is assinine. If this is your best arguement you might as well put it to bed.

Even better go read the geneva convention for your explaination of what a legal and illegal combatant are.

Again with this hand-wavy "times have changed" excuse. Did the Taliban sign the Geneva convention? Do we always follow the Geneva convention with non-signatories?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

It's a perfectly appropriate question. The funding, training and size of your troops are really only relevant when considered with respect to that of your enemy. An army of 100 is large against an army of 10, but not against an army of 10,000.



It generally changes an army's tactics, as I said. It makes guerrilla tactics more effective.

By the way, the red quote within the quote thing makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond to your statements.



Wrong. Minutemen were members of militias, not just random farmers who took up arms. You're right that they weren't as highly trained or equipped as their enemies (though I thought that that didn't matter...), but they weren't spontaneously formed at the outbreak of the war, and they certainly had enough organization to whip up some targeting bandanas, as has been suggested the Taliban should do.

No actually they were farmer that were poorly trained and active a few weeks at a time as militia. Lets not try to make it sound like they were full time soldiers.