Do we feel sorry for this guy?

[Pickle2]

I hope they have let him get to a fax machine so at least he can still invoice his 3k a day whilst he is banged up. Its just like a 9 month extension.

[51st State]

What about those guys in Great Escape, they also got unlucky and you would have been okay not to exchange them (if such option was available)?

You're talking shi7e! All of your examples and thinking are based on the Vienna Convention for warfare. These f**** ragheads aren't fighting a war - they're cowards and terrorists and should be treated as such. Full stop.

We should wipe the scum off the face of the planet, and take Afghanistan with 'em. No cheap Afghan drugs = co cheap chav ragheads terrorising the world.

p.s. Have a nice day y'all.

[AtW]

He was a civilian, he is not a member of the military, doesn't have any military knowledge and is totally useless to the kidnappers.

He was a tech with 4 bodyguards who are formally not military staff, however they are used extensively in Iraq to support occupational force, in effect they are part of the occupational force.

The guerillas also want non-military staff of their own - so this makes exchange definately fair so long as number of exchanged people is even and they are of similar rank. These should be the rules of engagement in such cases - leaving your POWs to die from beheading is not a wise long term strategy.

This was kidnapping AtW, not a military force that surrendered and was captured as a result. If it was a military force captured then I would probably think an exchange was fair, but in this instance we would be bowing down to kidnappers and encouraging everybody else in the country to grab some foreigners to get what they want.

I think any person working in any capacity in Iraq to support occupational force should be afforded same priviledges as the military when it comes to their capture. This is common sense really - otherwise prices of civilian force will only go up every time they get captured and beheaded. The only important thing is that the exchange should be fair - man for man is a fine trade, it was the case for centuries.

[dude69]

You're talking shi7e! All of your examples and thinking are based on the Vienna Convention for warfare. These f**** ragheads aren't fighting a war - they're cowards and terrorists and should be treated as such. Full stop.

We should wipe the scum off the face of the planet, and take Afghanistan with 'em. No cheap Afghan drugs = co cheap chav ragheads terrorising the world.

p.s. Have a nice day y'all.

I'm not sure 'raghead' is in the approved list of politically correct epithets.

HTH

[51st State]

I'm not sure 'raghead' is in the approved list of politically correct epithets.

HTH

Hmmm .... perhaps a little strong. Any suggested replacements???

[AtW]

You're talking shi7e! All of your examples and thinking are based on the Vienna Convention for warfare. These f**** ragheads aren't fighting a war - they're cowards and terrorists and should be treated as such. Full stop.

I don't think they are cowards - by "they" I mean those who attack military targets, not using suicide bombers to blow up civilians on markets, those are certainly scum and cowards.

You might have heard of partisan movement in USSR during WW2? Do you think those guerillas that were fighting in forests against nazies were also cowards? Do you really they should have given up fight because they are not military? That's rubbish.

Let's for a second assume that Operation Sea Lion was successfully done in 1940 and this country was occupied just like France. Most of the nazi military forces would then be moved to the Eastern front in 1941, what would you do:

1) be like the French and accept occupation
2) fight occupational forces with any means available - which in this case means guerilla warfare

I choose 2).

If the occupational force does not like it then guess what, they should not have occupied the place in the first place!

It's simple, innit, just don't invade foreign country and then you won't have local uprising in form of guerilla movement.

[Ardesco]

He was a tech with 4 bodyguards who are formally not military staff, however they are used extensively in Iraq to support occupational force, in effect they are part of the occupational force.

The guerillas also want non-military staff of their own - so this makes exchange definately fair so long as number of exchanged people is even and they are of similar rank. These should be the rules of engagement in such cases - leaving your POWs to die from beheading is not a wise long term strategy.

They are not an occupational force, they are there at the request of the current elected government. The current government killed the only person who had a legal recourse to try and get rid of them so the Iraqi people are now stuck with them.

With this in mind he was working for the Iraqi government by proxy.

I think any person working in any capacity in Iraq to support occupational force should be afforded same priviledges as the military when it comes to their capture. This is common sense really - otherwise prices of civilian force will only go up every time they get captured and beheaded. The only important thing is that the exchange should be fair - man for man is a fine trade, it was the case for centuries.

No refusing to trade civilians means that the bad guys eventually get it through their head that there is no point in grabbing civilians, only military. If you trade civilians you encourage the bad guys to grab lots of easy targets to use as bargaining chips.

[AtW]

They are not an occupational force, they are there at the request of the current elected government. The current government killed the only person who had a legal recourse to try and get rid of them so the Iraqi people are now stuck with them.

Oh yes they are part of the occupational force, which is the official term for UK/US troops there!

With this in mind he was working for the Iraqi government by proxy.

And were Germans working for "French government" by proxy after France was occupied? I think not.

Legitimacy of any new Government created after occupation while occupational forces are still present is under huge question.

Say, was Afganistan new Communist Government installed after USSR invaded it legitimate? I think not.

No refusing to trade civilians means that the bad guys eventually get it through their head that there is no point in grabbing civilians, only military. If you trade civilians you encourage the bad guys to grab lots of easy targets to use as bargaining chips.

The deal for trade should be simple: one man for the other. If they refuse then no trade.

It is a no brainer exchange (under those fair terms) - occupational force in Iraq has got many more captured members of militia than militia will ever be able to achieve. So if you screw up with security and POWs are taken from you then you do the exchange.

[shaunbhoy]

2) fight occupational forces with any means available - which in this case means guerilla warfare

I choose 2).

Unless of course your asthma was playing you up and you were thus able to dodge any conflict. Then you could have stayed at home with your Babooshka gallantly knitting wooly scarves for the rebel forces eh alexei?

[BoredBloke]

Now would be a good time to invoke his substitution clause