Taliban Capture U.S. War Dog

[DicedT]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/02/06/taliban-show-video-of-captured-u-s-war-dog/

[BanzaiCat]

Though to be fair to the Taliban, they have little reason to feel affection toward animals that are frequently employed by U.S. and other troops to sniff out buried IEDs and narcotics

Oh goodness yes, let's be fair to the Taliban. How dare we use dogs to try to save lives?   ::)

[DicedT]

I know you're a cat, Banzai, but let's drop our feline chauvinism. Dogs are being used to sniff out IEDs. It wouldn't be illogical for the Taliban to want to destroy an electronic mine detector.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, dogs are legally treated as property or weapons like an electronic mine detector. Therefore the Taliban can kill the dog without violating the Laws of War.

Michael

[BanzaiCat]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was being sarcastic. I didn't like the author's use of "To be fair to the Taliban..." I get the laws of war and the inference of property. That's not the problem I have.

The problem I have is the inference I saw with giving credit to the Taliban for hating something that finds the IEDs that they plant to kill people with, as if the reader should have some kind of empathy with the Taliban for planting the weapons in the first place.

[DicedT]

I'm the author. And how anyone could decide that I'm encouraging sympathy for the Taliban is beyond me.

What I was trying to do was point out that while Americans may see the dog as a cuddly pet, the Taliban may view him as a weapon or even as a four-legged enemy combatant. Though he might actually get better treatment than one of their human captives.

Michael

[BanzaiCat]

Okay, I see what you're saying now. I apologize, I misunderstood the comment completely, and didn't mean anything by it.

I can appreciate the sentiment when it comes to the Taliban wanting to treat the dog better than a human captive. I did find your comment about their perception of themselves being important enough to them to not harm the dog, which is a good point given how people often will go batsh*t crazy over a mistreated dog, but a mistreated person, you hear a collective "meh."

I'm genuinely curious, is that some kind of shift in their perception insofar as how the world perceives them, as opposed to a previous stance? Do you have any info on what they're saying in the video about the dog?

[DicedT]

No offense taken. My wife didn't like "to be fair", so I changed it. She's the critic with the last word.

If you look at the Taliban announcement (http://justpaste.it/dwo0 - "6 U.S. Invaders Killed..."), their language lumps the dog with captured weapons.

But if they're savvy enough to maintain Twitter accounts and have spokesmen, they're unlikely to harm the dog. At least until the foreign troops leave.

Michael

[Steelgrave]

Good article, Michael. I also liked your blog on the Iranian Air Force vs. the UFO. Cool beans.

[Boggit]

At least they haven't yet tried on video to force an apology out of the dog, then behead him. :o Who knows? Perhaps the Taliban will try and convert him to their (B'ida (innovation) - i.e. the relatively recent Salafi/Wahabi) version of Islam, whereupon he will bark disdain upon the decadent West. ;)