[Reader-list] SAS soldier talks about training Afghan soldiers

Menso Heus menso at r4k.net
Tue Oct 2 18:06:58 IST 2001

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:56:55PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Menso Heus wrote:
> > > > > > SAS soldier speaks up on training the Afghans: apparently these guys 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > The lucky ones died instantly. The unlucky ones were chopped to 
> > > > > > pieces in the aftermath. In the Hindu Kush, don't expect to 
> > > > > > appeal to the Geneva convention."
> ...
> Menso,
> > The way you compare doesn't seem to be correct to me. I doubt if you
> > have read the entire article, most of the people who did and whom I've
> > discussed this with took the line in the exact same way.
> It's true I didn't read the full article - my apologies. My comments
> were based on what you quoted.
> > you know it I'm suddenly pro-war, anti-humanrights and many more things
> > which I am not. 
> Well, now I know you're not any of that, so let's see if we can
> understand each other. (BTW, thanks for the report on the Amsterdam
> demo.)
> OK, the full article to me seems anti-war (showing how ineffective a
> war against Afghanistan would be), and the question of the Geneva
> conventions is a secondary point, not the main point of your original
> post. Am I following you better this time?
> Given that we got into a "secondary" point, it seems to me it is
> still worth trying to understand our different arguments.
> My guess is that there are two main viewpoints here:
> (1) A war, at least in this case (USA vs Afghan), is absurd.  So, to
> put pressure on the USA to follow the Geneva conventions and other
> international human rights law is a diversion from trying to stop the
> war totally.
> (2) For tactical reasons, e.g. due to historical belief in the need
> for war and to the propaganda barrage in the USA, independently of
> trying to put pressure on the USA not to start a war, it is an
> efficient action to insist that the USA go through the Security
> Council, follow the Geneva conventions, etc. Hence, it is not a good
> idea to suggest that the Geneva conventions can be ignored.
> I think you were trying to argue for (1). Is this right?

I wans't trying to argue for anything, actually :)

Good to see your reaction though, thanks. 

Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip 
of sticky tape across his mouth.   -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery

More information about the reader-list mailing list