|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:27 Southlight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have. Let's change the name then: On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote:
What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter? We can use Puosu. On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote:
What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van? We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire." On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote:
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. We can use Mystlord. On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote:
From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD. Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
|
|
|
United States44073 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:46 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:43 maxor wrote:
This is war, this is why its impossiable to purpretrate an urban war.You cant just a little bit of war in the right places as nony says this is not outrageous at all this is war.
Although sad and unfair as it is you cant have individual soliders accountable when follow standing orders in war or your forces will be paralised while they check every action against there own moral sense.
If you go to war in the modern world im sorry but you have to know that horriable things will happen the answer is to give the u.n some teeth and support and use sanctions or the natural end to modern war is rwander and no one wants that. By that logic, SS soldiers and officers are not responsible for the deaths of 6+ million jews?
lol
Knew it was going to be you.
|
On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
|
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:27 Southlight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have. Let's change the name then: On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote:
What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter? We can use Puosu. On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote:
What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van? We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire." On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote:
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. We can use Mystlord. On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote:
From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD. Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too. Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/). Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
Yes i also agree with their decision to engage. Also agree with hearing those words come out of their mouths is very disturbing but not surprising. My brother got bombed every single day when he was on tour. When you have this happen to you, you change your whole mentality about another race.
|
Some guys had AKs and they killed them. OKAY.
But what about the van?
Did you guys see AKs and RPGs hanging out of the windows? Did you guys see anyone inside the van with weaponary? Was the van so downright dangerous that ground troops could not have handled it?
And some of you agree with the comments that "oh, well!" children were shot? Its OKAY in some way because its collateral damage?
|
United States44073 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote:
If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
|
On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
|
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Of course you shoot civillians carrying AK-47's. In case you aren't aware, this is a war against civillians carrying AK-47's. The enemy combatants are civillians. I'm pretty sure almost everyone knows that if you're walking around in public carrying an AK-47 you will probably get shot by the U.S. military. It's not even legal for most of us to do that here in our home countries, let alone in a war zone. I highly doubt any journalist would be retarded enough to hire a private citizen to walk with him carrying an AK-47. That would be Darwin award worthy.
P.S. if you just watch the video it's extremely clear that the military has clearance to engage anyone carrying a weapon. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to live in Iraq and think it's okay to go out into public waving an AK-47 and not know you will be killed on sight. I mean really..
|
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote:
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
For instance, in that video, they may have been a group of soldiers that had a number of people die to a landmine on a vehicle patrol, then gotten raided on at night for a month. Finally, they caught and let loose that day, slaughtering the enemy in a one-sided affair which, to no real surprise, would pump them with adrenaline. Then they see a truck, with four people, two of which possibly have weapons that may or may not be AK47s (or crudely modified/constructed versions of) and even an RPG that would take down their critical air support. Faced with a month's worth of venom, pumping adrenaline, and fear for their lives, they continue their gleeful streak for vengeance.
We don't know. I don't, you don't, the only thing we can do is conjecture, but I think it's absolutely retarded to try to gauge their mental well-being etc. off of a video of soldiers on a freakin' battlefield.
|
United States44073 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
lol
Okay. So I've had to sit through a Rules of Engagement lecture with the British Army and know full well about orders not to return fire, orders to retreat on contact and fire only as a last resort and orders to fire if fired upon. Whereas you have a picture in your head.
Come on. You can't just say this is routine and not back it up. I'm saying there is a lot of paperwork and briefing regarding Rules of Engagement and supporting it with my personal experience within the army. You're saying they shoot at kids and women routinely and backing it up with....
|
On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
There was a target, the guys with the guns. If it turned out that they didn't actually have guns, it doesn't change the fact that at the time, the soldiers thought they did and therefore treated them as a target.
|
Exactly Blackjack said this before.
|
On April 06 2010 03:53 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets. Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets. I don't have the patience to argue with people with little or no experience on the matter, so I'll just say watch The Hurt Locker to see why mistakes like that happen.
The movie is actually more lenient than the actual RoEs and it still shows you why war is a big, ugly, hairy mess. Throwing out terms like "evil" and "murderer" might accomplish your deep seeded goal of getting attention, but it does nothing to advance the debate or correct mistakes. You're flat out wrong if you don't think soldiers are making difficult decisions and don't have serious, life long regrets when they do make mistakes.
|
United States44073 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Of course you shoot civillians carrying AK-47's. In case you aren't aware, this is a war against civillians carrying AK-47's. The enemy combatants are civillians. I'm pretty sure almost everyone knows that if you're walking around in public carrying an AK-47 you will probably get shot by the U.S. military. It's not even legal for most of us to do that here in our home countries, let alone in a war zone. I highly doubt any journalist would be retarded enough to hire a private citizen to walk with him carrying an AK-47. That would be Darwin award worthy. P.S. if you just watch the video it's extremely clear that the military has clearance to engage anyone carrying a weapon. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to live in Iraq and think it's okay to go out into public waving an AK-47 and not know you will be killed on sight. I mean really..
In Afghanistan part of the problem is that the average farmer will be carrying an AK and will fire it into the air for a lot of mundane reasons. Makes it very difficult to judge but they're certainly not fired upon simply for carrying weapons.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:56 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:53 lightrise wrote:On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets. Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument. Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc). You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:51 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote:On April 06 2010 03:27 Southlight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have. Let's change the name then: On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote:
What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter? We can use Puosu. On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote:
What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van? We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire." On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote:
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. We can use Mystlord. On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote:
From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD. Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too. Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/). Edit: Spoilered down the long quote Yes i also agree with their decision to engage. Also agree with hearing those words come out of their mouths is very disturbing but not surprising. My brother got bombed every single day when he was on tour. When you have this happen to you, you change your whole mentality about another race.
Perhaps I have a semi-romanticized view of war, but I believe that soldiers would rather get enraged rather than take a perverse pleasure in killing. However, I suppose it is inevitable to have such feelings on the battlefield. I guess that it then falls to a level headed leader to stop rage killings from creating another My Lai or something of the sort.
|
On April 06 2010 03:53 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:51 reit wrote:On April 06 2010 03:46 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote:
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers? Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of. This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat. Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt. "the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous." Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets. Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses.
"you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours
so shut the fuck up.
dumbass
|
Iraq is like highschool run by highly insecure and ignorant staff, only instead of detention, you and your friends get killed.
From day one till now, this war has been a mistake.
From the dawn of time until now, war has only set us back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
