|
United States42691 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).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad.
Then we pointed out that everyone knows this.
Then you said they shouldn't be allowed.
Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken.
Then you said it doesn't work.
Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
|
On April 06 2010 03:59 -fj. wrote:
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.
and this kind of comment is just stupid and fueling another fucking long ass discussion
just add your opinion to the discussion dont bring another in.
|
On April 06 2010 03:56 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
|
United States42691 Posts
On April 06 2010 03:59 DreaM)XeRO 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. 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
I saw more curses in what you said than what he said. In fact what you said didn't make any sense. reit didn't put any evidence in what he said lol.
|
Oh no!
Well I sure am glad that war isn´t compeletely retarded and disgusting in the first place.
Funny how similar the US and Russia seem nowadays...
|
On April 06 2010 03:59 DreaM)XeRO 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. 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
lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
|
On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:56 Southlight wrote: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. Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
i agree with this statement. while we consider ourselves and the war of terror "good" and the terrorists "bad" it really isnt.
Its more of a battle of ideologies. Ours fueled by revenge, theirs fueled by religion and hate. There is no "good" and "bad". Just two sides clashing over differing ideas
|
Imagine if your city was occupied and omnipresent helicopters would kill you for carrying a guitar case, or even a camera?
I can't believe anyone could be anything but outraged at this, and the war or a war in gereral.
|
Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
|
United States42691 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:56 Southlight wrote: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. Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it.
US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
|
On April 06 2010 04:02 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:59 DreaM)XeRO wrote: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. 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 lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
oooo fair enough.
sorry
|
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
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
|
On April 06 2010 04:02 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:59 DreaM)XeRO wrote: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. 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 lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
While I'm not agreeing with him swearing at you, you do realise it's possible for people to read the thread and not agree with you? You said earlier I hadn't read your post like it would miraculously change all my opinions. Stop telling people to 'read the thread' when they disagree with you.
|
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote:
Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
|
On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote:
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
What're you trying to say? My point was and still is that people complaining about the supposed "immorality" of the soldiers are stupid. Everyone on the battlefield is probably crazy up their in the noggin. Regardless of which side they're on/what they feel of the war/etc. etc. because none of that is relevant. I don't understand what the background for the "terrorists" (I don't consider the Iraqi forces terrorists, by the way) has to do with anything.
|
On April 06 2010 04:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:56 reit wrote: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). So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution? The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Ah, come now. Hearts and Minds?
That's Bush rhetoric.
The US went to Iraq for OIL.
Too bad China and Iran got it, that's why we're leaving now.
|
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote:
"Well, maybe those aren't guns?"
That is a very important question to ask when you see someone carrying something that doesn't look like a gun.
|
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?
When did TL stop banning for stupidity?
Some of the comments made by the soldiers were in somewhat bad taste but nothing to rage about.
|
On April 06 2010 03:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
|
United States42691 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:07 Rev0lution wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:00 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 03:56 reit wrote: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). So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution? The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US. Ah, come now. Hearts and Minds? That's Bush rhetoric. The US went to Iraq for OIL. Too bad China and Iran got it, that's why we're leaving now.
Obviously we're there for oil. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the key to keeping a long term stable relationship is winning hearts and minds and I don't care if Bush said it before me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
