Um.. Soldiers are CAPTURED....not kidnapped

Am I the only one who's insanely irritated to constantly hear about the "kidnapped" soldier (ours and israel's)..

When WE take custody of 'enemy' soldiers, we have CAPTURED, CAUGHT, NABBED, "GOT 'IM", etc, but when one of ours ends up in enemy hands, the poor little darnlin's been KIDNAPPED...

a SOLDIER is a combatant who is supposedly trained in evasion techniques, and would "kidnap" someone from the other side, if given a chance..

a child is kidnapped, an unsuspecting woman walking alone is kidnapped, a person at an atm is kidnapped...

SOLDIERS are captured...not kidnapped

This is so reminiscent of the "homicide bombers" schtick...


...and the whole issue harkens back to the attack on the NYT.. Media is ALLOWING the administration to frame the definition of news itself..

I cannot believe that people in charge of media are so ignorant that they have not picked up on this mis-definition, and insisted that it be called what it is...capture.

than captured.

"capturing" a soldier implies certain things, such as long-term detainment as a POW or what have you.

If you're only going to take the soldier away and torture him half to death before finally beheading him, "capturing" may not be the right term.

It's not ignorance. It's complictity.

PB

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"You also are kidnapped is there is no open declaration of conflict or war between entities that are themselves being represented again by uniformed members of the military."

You said nothing about "leaders" being exempt from this definition.

:-)

pull it out of your ass?

Thank you for any light you might be able to shine on this issue.

:crazy:

a breath mint :)

entities" murder? :shrug:

They didn't have fancy uniforms like the redcoats.

The British were pretty pissed that we didn't follow the rules of war too. They called us barbarians for hiding behind trees and sniping at them.

I know why you are here and you know what? You should be in Iraq:

www.goarmy.com

Will they never learn they're out of their league on here. The league of Truth is the worst league they could ever even dream of chancing their arm in.

of this information? Not just a link either.

Jay

definitions of parties and uniforms.

The U.S. hasn't even officially declared war -- does that mean that it has kidnapped a country?

Give me a fucking break.

:eyes:

they are Iraqi nationals fighting to get rid of the country that invaded them and occupies them on serial pretexts.

...that's why we send them out there with all of those guns, and shiny helmets."

Maybe he was distracted by his lusting after Ann Coulter that night. He does that you know.

his misogynistic history.

eye on them.

see, we're at war, but we're not at war, and we're fighting an enemy, but it's not really an enemy, it's an 'enemy-combatant' so those pesky things like the Geneva Conventions don't apply, and when these people, who are not the enemy, but who are 'enemy combatants' capture troops, it's an act of terror, because we're speading democracy, but we're at war.

got it? :crazy:

I think it's something more culpable.

concerned about which term is used...

Had they captured him they would not be making demands for his return. A prisoner of war / geneva convention may well (I am not sure myself) have a more clear definition of pow/hostage.

If we do the same - ie, grab an iraqi and promise to release said iraqi if a few demands are met, that would be kidnapping as well.

I think you ARE correct though in media biases and wording. When is something murder versus manslaughter , when is someone captured versus kidnapped, when is it a war versus a conflict, and so on.

Do I think we/israel has kidnapped folks from the other side? Yep. But I don't let that stop me from calling out others when they are wrong in their actions (same with beheadings, et al - wrong is wrong trying to lessen how it looks on either side is crappy imho.)

was the custom for the officers of European armies on either side to capture their enemy counterparts and demand a ransom.

The only ones who "took/captured no prisoners", officers or otherwise, were the Swiss, who were actually a fearsome lot in that epoch. Where did you get the idea that a demand for a ransom negated the concept of the capture of an enemy soldier?

I don't see this much in modern times - except when it might come in relation to a swap (ala spy for spy). In which case I would say if you capture someone like a soldier it is akin to a cop catching a bad guy. What do you do with them? You lock them up. If you take someone to get something else back in return they are not as much a prisoner as a bargaining chip in a bigger scheme - hence they were taken for a reason other than the normal reasons. Which to me would be kidnapping/abduction.

If you shoot an enemy in a battle, it is not murder. If you capture them to keep them from killing you and others in war time that is to be expected. If you take someone who is not threatining you directly for the sole purpose of exchanging them that is kidnapping. IMHO of course.

reasons. Which to me would be kidnapping/abduction."

Holding prisoners until the cessation of combat seems to have been a part of conventional wars, and more particularly in recent times of the Geneva Convention, but a) this is anything but a conventional war, and b) it would totally impracticable for the enemy we continue to provoke and attack, to keep prisoners on the conventional basis.

Moreover, since we treat even their women and children, aka civilians, like vermin, why should we exect them even to wish to do so in principle? Chivalry has never been a possibility in this war. Having brown skin and possessing a human body was always a great no-no to this war's leaders, who - let us not forget - number among their luminaries, creatures who like writing books on bestiality and forcing their wife to have sex with strangers in public. They were never going to ponder how they came to have brown skins, or why it should preclude their being human beings.

infections. Today we use antibiotics. In the middle ages Scots didn't bathe and lived with their animals. Today, oh nevermind...

Or did you mean they used whips on themselves? I'd never heard of the former.

Alas, the poor Scots! They must surely have been unique among the nations in their toilet habits and living arrangements at that time.

well maybe not with the Scots...

But seriously, you need to be able to distinguish between a flagellant and a whip to be taken even half-seriously on here ... Oh, I forgot to welcome you!

themselves in the belief that their penitence would ward off the plague and yes, cat's are much worse than livestock.

greatest. But otherwise he's the best. He even usually turns up to listen to the psalms and starts his singing. Which is more than you godless nerds would!

into improved sanitary habits. I've read that the weapon was developed by Highlanders in the early sixteenth century as a tool to help domesticate cats.

When an American guest at the hotel belonging to my in-laws threatened to stab my father-in-law's dog, "Rudy", with the "sgian Dubh" in his sock (he was wearing the full regalia), he said if he did, he'd stab him; which was very comical, because although he was still knocking out troublesome, young men in his eighties, he was the archetypal old English gentleman. It was all about Rudy attacking his dog, which he'd been told to keep out of the way until Rudy could be stowed away somewhere.

But, as for cats, they are impossible to train, aren't they? They're so tough that a good clip is useless, the only way to impress them would be to injure them, which of course is out of the question.

However, they sense anger and might respond to that. Unfortunately, the corollary is that they also sense false anger, put on for disciplinary purposes, and consequently aren't greatly impressed, however fiercely you berate them.

As regards this thread header, while I was tickled at the observation when I read it, on further reflection, for once, for ONCE, I suspect their use of words - here, "abduct" - might not have been primarily for propaganda purposes, as I think "capture" is normally used when prisoners are taken in a conventional battle, to be released and returned after the hostilities are over.

It may of course be that, in time, since asymmetrical warfare is clearly the way forward for Davids attacked by Goliaths, the word "capture" may sound right in connection with the simple abductions by resistance fighters for hostage purposes, as well.

When you say things like "the poor little darnlin's been KIDNAPPED..." it sounds horrible.

Some of us have relatives over there.

I am from a military family, so i see nothing disrespectful in what I said. The PRESS constantly plays up the youth of the soldiers killed/captured.. "the NINETEEN-yr old kidnapped boy"... When the military routinely inducts these extremely young men/women into their ranks, it's disrespectful of THEM to then promote the young ages of the soldiers when they are missing and or killed.

If it's horrbile to have them kidnapped/captured/killed, etc, then perhaps the militaries should re-think their use of these very young soldiers in forward positions..

They are too young to drink, barely old enough to vote, but the military considers it perfectly ok to use them as bait for terrorists or to put them into extrememly dangerous situations..

If they are used as "sympathy grabbers" when something bad happens to them, that tells me that the blame for their circumstances lies at a much higher level.

terrorists are what they are.. they have no regard for youth, gender, position...they kill at will... when we (and Israel or any nation) puts forth a fighting force, we need to steel ourselves for what will come.. We cannot claim exemption for the youth of our combatants when our military fully accepts "kids" into their ranks.

We don't recognize anything but our own perverse "ethics" when conducting warfare. Notice how all of our enemies have been labeled terrorist from the guy on the street with a pipe bomb to world leaders such as Kim Jong Il. The US only recognizes it's own legitimacy as a global empirical ruler.

I'm not sure if I agree with your statements or not. As I understand it, they are being held for a reason, but a body we are not technically at war with, so I can see kidnapping being used. However, well, they're soldiers. And soldiers get captured, especially when things go to shit. And if we can used captured for their forces, well, the same should apply. Heck I don't know. But good on you to see this impact of language.

when our side does it - > CAPTURED/DETAINED
when their side does it - > KIDNAPPED/ABDUCTED

now, back to the pyramids!