It's just like I said.

I didn't really expect anyone to come out and say the things I thought they were thinking, but then I saw "Shooting enjoyment". It's like I read his mind. It flat out says, "I am getting so sick of people wanting us to be civilized in the face of barbarism." It goes on to speak badly of the Geneva Convention. Compare to "What is and is not torture?" where I say:

Is it more important to survive the attack of the uncivilized or to remain civilized even during conflict? I think the proponents of the former are saying, "I'll be anyone I need to be to stay alive." Proponents of the latter are saying, "I'd rather be dead than a monster."

Compare also to "Torture is legal, after all." in which I characterize one view of the Geneva Convention as "it sucks."

My favorite part of the article is actually this:

What's next: "shoot to wound" orders?

I'm no army man, but it seems obvious to me that wounding the enemy is far preferable to killing. A wounded soldier is often out of the fight just like a dead one. The difference is his three friends who are also out of the fight while they carry him off the field of battle and the resources the enemy uses to patch him up.

I'm not advocating a "shoot to wound" order, understand, but I don't think it would be ridiculous for soldiers to aim in that direction, so to speak.