The Rules of Engagement
by Tom Buchanan
August 2, 2006

Just what the rules of engagement are when fighting terrorists? Article 2 of Part I, General provisions of the four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949 states the following: Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

It is quite obvious to the common man that there are two sets of rules regarding warfare. One side must abide by the rules or deemed vile, cruel and inhumane. The rules for the other side are that there are no rules; anything goes. Is that any way to fight a war?

Right after September 11, 2001 Ann Coulter made the following statement, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

The media went into feeding frenzy about her supposedly radical, hateful statement. Rather than being radical I see it as more of a 'fight fire with fire' statement.

Islamic fundamentalists or radical Islamists preach that they should kill anyone who does not convert to Islam. Why does the main stream media not react to those that would destroy our civilization as we know it with the same vigor that they attack Ann?

The evidence of Muslims practicing what they preach is clearly obvious. Why is it ignored? Why do they get to say they want to convert or kill the civilized world and get a pass?

Hezbollah launches over 100 rockets a day into Israel, not caring where or whom they hit. Other terrorists groups strap explosives to their children to kill innocent civilians. Yet if Israel harms one innocent victim no matter how hard they try not to or how the enemy uses women and children as human shields they are wrong in the world's eye for defending themselves. How does a civilized nation defend itself from an enemy that does not value human life or abide by any code of conduct?

We can hang on to our high and mighty pride and remain loyal to the rules of engagement set forth by the Geneva Conventions. This will eventually lead to the complete annihilation of our civilization. The other choice is to recognize that there is an enemy that adheres to no code of conduct that wants to destroy us and fight them on their terms. We cannot live in denial and pretend they will fight by the rules of a civilized society.

If there is a pack of vicious, rabid dogs in your neighborhood killing your children and feasting on their bodies, should you wait until all of the children have been devoured before killing the dogs? Or should you eliminate the threat so that your children may live in peace? The answer is quite obvious to most people and oblivious to others. It is time to fight fire with fire and meet the enemy where he lives.

Email Tom