Afghan Taliban 'capture US military dog'

hnmisty

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 March 2013
Messages
2,561
Location
Sheffield
The Taliban caught an army sniffer dog a few years back and tortured it. I think they then released it. A very dirty card to play. I hope this one is released without harm. I feel very sorry for that dog's handler, they must be having a pretty horrible time right now :(
 

catembi

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 March 2005
Messages
11,705
Location
N Beds
I saw this in the paper & it really upset me. Poor doggy. Another one who wishes they could save him. He looked so hopeless.

T x
 

Elsiecat

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 July 2012
Messages
3,975
Get the dog back and bomb each and every single one of them. Evil takes a whole new level when you involve animals into your sick little games.
 

jellybean55

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 December 2010
Messages
329
Think it turned out this dog was actually an SAS dog, poor thing. My fella said the locals in Afghanistan do not like dogs, can only imagine how this poor thing was treated by the taliban
 

Alec Swan

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
21,082
Location
Norfolk.
Aren't they pathetic when they have to stoop to that.
No, not really. When we see the innocents mutilated, permanently, and by a monstrous war machine, then suddenly one soldier, in this case a dog, pays the final price and then one dog isn't actually that important.

It would be better if it hadn't happened, but it has, and the truth is that it's only a dog.

Alec.
 

ILuvCowparsely

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 April 2010
Messages
13,522
It would be better if it hadn't happened, but it has, and the truth is that it's only a dog.

Alec.
And we all know your opinion who has more of a right to live / more iportant.

The fact is ITS life, that dog is a solider whether he is dressed up in trousers or a harness he is still life. Still a valuable part of the team, you only have to see programs from soldiers who brought their dog soldiers back to their country to see what they mean to them. Also how their forces treat them live or dead get a hero's welcome or a hero's funeral with their human companion.
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
Should 'we' be exposing innocents to danger in this way? What right have we to make animals accessories in our human wars? These are questions I come back to periodically. My standard view would be that it is fine as long as we can pretty much guarantee that the animal won't suffer unnecessarily - exactly the same standard as I would apply to our other uses of animals, such as raising them to supply us with food. Obviously we still do not meet that standard wrt food animals even in this day and age, and there is plenty of room for improvement. I certainly disagree with sending animals to their deaths in war (e.g. in suicide missions). Using them for other non-lethal purposes is a grey area for me.

I think the "hero" thing is pure anthropomorphism - entirely understandable and maybe even justifiable, although one has to wonder how it actually helps the animal.
 

Dry Rot

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 May 2010
Messages
5,847
Location
Scotland
Dogs have served us very well in any number of conflicts and in any number of roles.

From the extreme of starved dogs trained to find food under a tank carrying packs of explosives that can be exploded remotely to dogs trained to work with small one/two man units behind enemy lines in WWII trained to warn of enemy hidden in thick jungle ahead of the patrol. These dogs dramatically cut human losses. The list of usefulness is endless. We lose our working dogs at our peril and from where I am standing, they are disappearing like snow off a dyke!

Much though I applaud the bravery of our soldiers who are simply doing what they are told to do, I am not sure about the policy of dropping bombs on people in their own country to persuade them to like us! We don't seem to like it when they do it to us!
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
So dog doesn't have feelings. What about the dog who died not long after his handler was killed by an ID?
It is obvious (to me anyway) that dogs have feelings. It is one reason why I think we should treat them with consideration. However, I'm not sure how that is incompatible with what Alec wrote. "Only a dog" means it's not human, and is considered by most humans (for better or worse) to be of lesser value when compared to humans - not that it has negligible value.
 

CorvusCorax

Become unbutterable
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
51,958
Location
Button Moon
Agree with Dry Rot and Alec (that doesn't always happen).

No one is denying the bond that exists between dog and handler or the huge role that dogs have played in warfare over many years.
However dogs are there to make humans' lives easier, look at detection dogs, they go out ahead of their handler to find a bomb before a human stands on top of it. They're not beside the handler, they are many metres in front.
The dogs don't think 'I'm finding a bomb' the dogs think 'I'm going to get my tennis ball'.
To me there is nothing better than seeing a dog doing a job, and it must be especially tough on those dogs when you consider all the stress that must come with doing a job in those conditions and temperatures so far away from home.
If we stop utilising dogs and stop breeding them for purpose, then we will lose so much of what makes those breeds and types of dogs great and why we first paid any attention to them in the first place. It has happened in so many breeds. These are good, strong dogs, not quiet, sedentary family pets, but sadly they are getting thinner on the ground as Dry Rot says.
I for one hope to see dogs utilised as much as they can be in all walks of life, combat being one of them.

If a platoon goes in to try and save this dog, and there are lives lost, what then?
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
I for one hope to see dogs utilised as much as they can be in all walks of life, combat being one of them.
I love to see dogs working. For some, it is clear to see that work is part of their soul and what makes life worth living. However, involving them in war and combat does not sit easily with me if there is a significant chance of them being harmed as a result.
 

CorvusCorax

Become unbutterable
Joined
15 January 2008
Messages
51,958
Location
Button Moon
What sort of work would you have dogs with that sort of drive, do instead? Even in dog sports of any type, dogs suffer unfortunate, accidental injuries.
Even pet dogs can be damaged mentally by being kept or treated in certain ways.
Indeed, preventing working type dogs from doing the work that they are genetically motivated to do, can be harmful to them mentally.
We cannot protect active animals and that includes horses, from all harm. I'd rather that than certain breeds and types of dogs be relegated to couch potatoes. JMO.
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
How many dogs are used for military purposes where they are exposed to potential injury or death from munitions-related causes? A pretty small proportion, I'd have thought (though I don't know).
 

fburton

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
11,764
Location
Glasgow
I'm just not sure if, overall, it would do more harm to dogs not to employ them in a war zone.

I will look at the blog you mentioned though - thanks for the pointer!
 
Top