Remember the Southpark episode where Butter tells Cartman, “I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to say ‘f–k Jesus’”?
You don’t want to threaten Chesty Puller.
Fool of a Took!
I was threatening you and Rick, obviously. Well, threatening to threaten. The point is that I didn’t feel like typing Fool of a Took!
I see.
We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.
If they’re just going to kill you when you try to surrender, then surrendering is stupid. If you think the death of your unit is the only thing that will stop the fighting, and your death is inevitable, then you do like the Japanese did when faced with the inevitable. Fix bayonets, scream “10,000 years!”, and charge.
What is the significance of 10,000 years? It is in a Jefferson Starship song.
[Modifying the punch line of an old joke] St. Peter: “Oh that is God, he just thinks he’s Chesty Puller”
If you know you will die by surrendering, what is the point of surrendering? At that point, it is as Oaky said, it is Horatio at the bridge.
But the civilians you say. Right, and you believe the enemy because? You know that they are going to kill you, what makes you think that they will stop there?
Because they are honorable? Right.
Because they said so? Right.
I am guessing that the hijackers on 9/11 did not tell the passengers that they were going to crash into buildings.
If I know for a fact that they are going to kill me if I surrender ( a violation of the Geneva convention) I have zero reason to believe that they would spare the lives of the civilians, and zero reason to surrender.
So speaking for myself, it would be
Sound the horn and call the cry,
How many of them can we make die
I refuse to be a willing victim.
Take as many of the MFs with me as I can.
And if the Marines surrender, those very same civilians could be just as dead when used as hostages AND having the Marines fail their mission. Hostages are only useful to hostage-takers if those who oppose the hostage-takers believe that the hostage-takers will not hesitate to kill a hostage. The most efficient method of demonstrating this, particularly in a wartime situation where people are already dying, would be for the enemy to kill one or more hostages right off the bat.
Basically, the Marines should only surrender if their tactical situation (heavy casualties, cut off with little chance of escape, presumably no comms to radio in air/arty support) leaves the only other option to die with little to no gain.
I never said that the sergeant’s knowledge came from the enemy. And, if you think about it, obviously it couldn’t. Nobody who is going to kill the Marines and take the captives alive if possible is going to admit that during a negotiation. The sergeant’s knowledge must come from intel.
I’m not sure if I understand this dilemma correctly. As I’m reading it, the Marines expect to be killed if they surrender. If they do not surrender, there is small chance that they will survive and accomplish their mission.
From the civilian side, if the Marines surrender, the people will be taken hostage. If the Marines do not surrender, the people have a small chance of survival.
So surrender means total mission failure because the civilians will not be evacuated and the Marines will be killed. Fighting means probable death for everyone, with a small chance of survival for anyone.
If I am understanding the scenario correctly, surrender does not seem like a valid option at all.
Based on the World War II Japanese soldier battle cry, “May the Emperor live for 10,000 years,” or something like that.
The Marines and their charges are in a position–say a house they’d been using for refuge–in which they can tell that the enemy is approaching. There’s only three Marines left, with the appropriate gear; the enemy force is much larger. All lines of retreat have been cut off. There’s no reasonable hope of rescue by air or land.
The sergeant believes, presumably because of intel, that the enemy will kill any American servicemen they encounter, but will take civilians captive. (My thought was that they’d be hostages for ransom, but someone observed upthread they might be used as human shields.) But while the enemy won’t target the civilians for killing (as they have other uses for them), they won’t try to spare them if it comes to a firefight.
The Marines are apt to get nice neat lead injections in the head if they surrender. But if the sergeant makes a fight of it, the bad guys are apt to say, “Fuck this shit. Let’s try out these RPGs. I’ve never killed anybody with one of these before.” And thus the civilians get wiped out too.
May I suggest that you visit this site www.OathKeepers.org
This organization was designed to help enlisted and police personell to understand the implications of the oaths they take in relation to the US constitution.
I am an Oath Keeper. and come hell or high water my first allegiance is to our constitution.
From your link:
*
-
We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
-
We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
-
We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
-
We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
-
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
-
We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
-
We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
-
We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
-
We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.*
This isn’t going to end well for you.
The answer is simple Camrone!
How is this in any way a relevant response to the thread?
Sounds like a judgment call. I don’t think we could find ethical fault with the Marines whatever the decision that is made.
I sure hope there are no TSA or Customs agents who are Oathkeepers. Shoot, I question the sanity of cops who, on principle, would not execute a Terry stop.
No more confiscating bombs from Americans at airports. Gotcha.
Ravenman, I wish had not quoted as you did in your last post; it makes it look as if I am espousing the Oathkeepers’ doctrines. Please do not encourage Arrowwind’s hijack.
TWEEEET!
I have no idea what relevance Arrowwind believed his post was to the discussion; he is free to explain it IF it is relevant.
However, until such relevance is explained, that is not a topic of this thread and everyone else may (read “will”) ignore it rather than hijacking this thread.
Anyone who wishes to take issue with the Oathkeepers needs to open a new thread on the topic.
[ /Moderating ]
Okay, assuming I’m the Marine SSgt in the scenario…
How many civilians are currently in the charge of myself and my two comrades? Is there a chance to use subterfuge to remove ourselves (or at least the civvies) to a more tenable position or an evacuation route? Are the civilians Americans? (It’s more than a little jingoistic, but I’ll admit, I’m going to fight harder for my countrymen.)
If there’s a chance to get the civilians out in any way, I think myself and my two Marines have a duty to buy them the time effect their escape. And if we’re fighting irregular forces with no hope of proper treatment as prisoners of war, then we’re damn well going to hoist a black flag and start collecting our escort to Hell.