Moms Demand siding with the Taliban and the Criminals.

Moms Demand Action (©2014 MAIG) is reposting its latest “fauxrage”:

Moms Demand ROE

And the sad part is that they are somewhat right.

But it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes.
“In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,” said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
“It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,” Mr. Simmons said. “The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”
Shades of Vietnam: Spike in U.S. troop deaths tied to stricter rules of engagement.

Yes, they would like pretty much the application of Ask Questions First, Shoot Later (If you are alive by then) to Civilians while is clearly a stupid thing to do and being proven deadly in the battlefield.

Similarly no Taliban terrorist can be fired upon unless the one directing the fire is also willing to certify that no civilian will be harmed during the action. This is nonsense. The result is that it is not unusual for units in contact with the enemy to have to wait for hours for an airstrike to clear bureaucratic authorization hurdles and be launched.
The changing combat rules of engagement: What is one American life worth?

It is a sad thing when both the Administration and the Gun Control groups think the life of scum, terrorist and criminals are worth more than yours or your family. Imagine that, Shannon Watts on the side of the Taliban.

11 Replies to “Moms Demand siding with the Taliban and the Criminals.”

  1. I just have to ask, where can I get that cool James Bond 007 “License to Kill” of which they speak?

    I’m pretty sure if I shot someone without ample justification, I’d spend many years in a prison cell. These people are truly stupid and evil for their accusations that people like me are the problem.

    Regarding the 200% increase, they’re so ignorant about statistics that a large percentage increase is just because the numbers are so small. For example, if we had one SYG shooting last year and now three SYG shootings this year, then we have what they are talking about.

    They just cherry picked the scariest number they could find.




    0



    0
  2. Civilians have greater leeway to shoot and kill than American soldiers operating in a war zone.

    No Shiite Mom?!

    It sure would be nice if cops were held to the same (or higher) rules of engagement as our soldiers. But it is perfectly acceptable for cops to blow someone away because they thought the ‘suspect’ was merely holding what could be used as a weapon (be it a cell phone, wallet, or an empty hand with no pointy fingers).




    0



    0
  3. The 200% rise IS due to SYG. For the simple reason that it keeps PROSECUTORS from charging people who did NOT violate the law. I bet very few non-gunnies will pick up on the category she mentions of “justified”. It’s no coincidence that this group of nags is run by a PR hack.




    0



    0
  4. As pointed out above, the 200% “increase” is due to SYG laws. They fail (intentionally?) to mention the corresponding decrease in improper charges against and imprisonment of law-abiding defenders. “Justifiable homicide” is still justifiable.

    As to RoE in a war zone, it will sound cold, but here’s my take: Guaranteeing (reasonably) zero civilian/non-combatant casualties should be a non-starter. I feel bad for the innocents in a war, but the responsibility for their deaths properly fall on those who choose to wage war among them. In this case, the insurgents. There’s a difference between carpet-bombing an entire district and shooting back even though an attacker has a (sometimes willing) human shield.

    Self-defense is self-defense. ALL responsibility falls on the party who necessitated defensive actions: the attacker. This holds true in a war zone or on a city street.




    0



    0
  5. I live in Florida, and I’m glad we have SYG. I am a disabled person and i carry. Last summer A big, drunken, violent convicted felon attacked me. He go a 9mm in his face. Lucky for him he backed down. He likes to attack smaller guys.In fact, that is what he went to prison for. He nearly beat someone to death.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .