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

Menso Heus menso at r4k.net
Thu Sep 27 02:20:41 IST 2001

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:28:42PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Menso Heus wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:55:51PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 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."
> > > 
> > > Well, it could be true (I don't see why Afghans should be less
> > > competent at killing than people in other societies), but the
> > > conclusion is ambiguous, and risks leading to absurd implications!
> > 
> > The way I take the line about the Geneva convention is the soldiers
> > view (could be any soldier) saying "This is all nice, all these 
> > conventions, but when you're actually out there, don't think anybody
> > actually cares about them."
> We're supposed to be polite and not flame here. I'll try. After
> all, the equivalent of the Geneva convention applies in mailing lists. ;-)
> All you do here is provide an "artistic" method of proof by assertion.
> Here's an example of the assertion that 
> ** Pink elephants live in the clouds. **
> The way I take the line about the pink elephants is the pilot's view
> (could be any pilot) saying "This is all nice, all these claims that
> clouds are just made of water vapour, but when you're actually out
> there facing the pink elephants, don't think anybody actually cares
> about these water vapour theories."
> Convinced?


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.

If you think this line was meant differently, it is your right to do
so and that's fine with me. The rest of you message was too ridiculous
for words and had the taint of Pocockism on them: you assume strange
things, then continue assuming on your previous assumptions and before
you know it I'm suddenly pro-war, anti-humanrights and many more things
which I am not. 


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