Another yahoo cowboy who doesn't understand he's supposed to start a "dialog," not act up like a dirty harry john wayne:
The six-vehicle convoy, was passing through the city of Kandahar about 9 a.m. near the provincial governor's mansion when Cote, the observation officer in the fifth vehicle, saw a black pickup truck emerging from a back lane, driving aggressively.
"Nobody's supposed to pass us," said Cote. "This one came too fast. I thought something was going on."
Cote told his gunner to swivel the turret and point the cannon of his armoured vehicle at the truck. With the cannon of the Coyote aimed at him, the driver swerved to the side.
"When we started to turn the turret, that's when he waved off. It happened really fast. He waved off, then he turned back toward us, and that's when he exploded."
The suicide bomber was little more than a metre away from Cote's Coyote when he detonated.
When will they learn to behave like proper Alan Aldas??
Posts
8 comments:
who talked about handing diplomacy over to soldiers ?
More apropos, who suggested soldiers should be bound, in war, to the protocols and niceties of diplomacy??
Good to see you're back online, AA. My resolve was starting to flag, after so much flak from out in left field.
Aye, AI, having come upon the battlefield, after the long hiatus, it is clear that Le Pew was thinking Napoleonic thoughts.
It is good to be back.
>>More apropos, who suggested soldiers should be bound, in war, to the protocols and niceties of diplomacy??
this is a twist on my argument that diplomacy with AQ is in order.
Diplomacy is understood traditionally as being a dialogue between nation states. How would one conduct diplomacy with the likes of Binnie or Zarky? You wanna volunteer for the trip there, see if the hacking knife waits?
war is also understood as being among sovereign states. if it is appropriate to declare war on all things evil, i do not see diplomacy with obl as more of a stretch really.
Look, all I am arguing is it would be useful to understand what it is that pisses these people off so much that they are willing to blow themselves up just to annoy y'all. I haven't heard any satisfactory explanation so far and hearing it from the horse's mouth is the reasonable approach.
Again, the bloodthirsty evildoer theory really doesn't cut it for me and I don't think you're buying it either.
And this dialog with Al Qaeda should be based on what? Vichy sois?
Post a Comment