On the siege in Algeria...

If the recent siege in Algeria has taught us anything, it should be that as long as there are ‘islamic militants’ held behind bars, someone will attempt to free them by holding others hostage. The solution to this is of course a simple one. There should be no jail anywhere that houses ‘islamic militants’. For one, there is no such thing. They are not ‘militants’, they are terrorists. And the only good terrorist, is a dead one. They cannot be educated, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be converted to our way of thinking, they cannot even be taught tolerance towards others. They are ‘defective’ in every possible way there is. They should not be captured, or detained, or ‘held over for trial’. They should be shot out of hand, wherever they are found.




It is a profound insult that these mad dogs should be housed and fed at the expense of the very societies which they seek to destroy. Western societies seem blinded by this misguided ethos of wanting to assume ‘the moral high ground’. Or at least to be seen as treading such. “If we behave as they do, then we are no better”, some might quip. Horeseshit…!!! If you let your mortal enemies live, they will NOT suddenly develop a conscience or a moral compass. Or understanding, or humanity. They will simply regroup to attack you again… and again… and again… It boggles the mind that our fearless leaders of the West have not caught on to this salient fact yet. Maybe it’s high time that we wrap our heads around the fact that if we are not at least as ruthless as these psychos are, we will forever be at the losing end. This is no place for applying the ‘Marquess of Queensbury’ rules. This is no civilized session of fisticuffs we’re talking about here. This is all and out war.



As with the situation in Mali, it is no victory if an assault on a town results in the terrorists simply running away. If allowed to survive, they will be back. You can count on it. Sufficient resources must be made available by all the world’s developed countries, so that these lunatics can be pursued and hunted down like the infected vermin they are. These fuckers should and must be terminated with extreme prejudice. Every single last one of them…



The conduct of these individuals runs contrary to not only the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but also the Articles of War, where such prisoners upon being captured should be treated as spies, and falls under the section dealing with Treachery and Perfidy:



********************************************



Treachery and Perfidy





“Misuse of the Red Cross



Misuse of a Flag of Truce



Misuse of enemy uniforms, flags, nation emblems or insignia



Misuse of cultural property



Pretending to be a civilian



Pretending to surrender



Pretending to be wounded



Pretending to be a United Nations Peacekeeper.



Misuse of Red Cross, Red Crescent and Cultural Property Symbols





Use of these symbols is restricted to facilities or transport exclusively engaged in medical duties or recognized cultural property.



Law of War provides that wounded and sick, hospitals, medical vehicles, and in some cases, medical aircraft be respected and protected.



Feigning Surrender



Feigning surrender or intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.



A white flag is an indication of a desire to negotiate only and its holder has the burden to come forward.



(Remember the Falklands War scenario.)



Use of Enemy Property



Combatants may wear enemy uniforms (for example, to infiltrate) but cannot fight in them.



Military personnel not wearing their uniform lose their PW status if captured and risk being treated as spies.”



*****************************************************



There is a school of thought which pooh-poohs the idea of treating these so-called militants as ‘unlawful conbatants’. In their minds, they should be treated as ‘civilians’, so as to be afforded the protection offered by the Fourth Section of the Geneva Convention.



Truth is, if you are not wearing a uniform which distinguishes you from civilians, you are not a combatant. So why should they be granted the protection of the Third Convention reserved for enemy combatants? The very nature of their acts precludes them from being considered civilians.



The same people who reject these terrorists being designated as ‘unlawful combatants’ (a term coined by then U.S. President George W. Bush), are fearful of the notion that our ‘civilized society’ would cast these individuals into a ‘legal vacuum’. Let’s face it, when you operate outside of the laws of every established country in the World, you are flaunting your disdain and contempt for these selfsame ‘laws’. You are de facto rejecting them. Therefore they should not apply to the perpetrators. I love how people who install themselves as ‘legal watchdogs’ find the gall to preach to those who must confront the end results of their shortsighted decisions. Like most watchdogs, these people seem to be blissfully unaware of the world outside the range of their chain. The story would likely be a far different one should any of their precious loved ones be dispatched by these savages.



I somehow think I am not the only person in the West who believes this…