|
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?
.. a bleeding heart liberal perhaps?
So let me see. You expect these men, who've been at war for months on end in a hostile territory, who've watched their buddies die to.. what. remain complacent when an unmarked van that could possibly hostile approaches?
|
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.
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
|
United States43356 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:09 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:52 KwarK wrote: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.
It only sounds radical because you're suggesting killing innocent people over your beliefs.
|
United States43356 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit 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. Pro tip: Army =/= Police. You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
That didn't even make sense. Tadaaaaa!
|
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote:
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
edit: not that I think your statement is wrong; I do agree that they are not the right people for the job. but that was not at all what the discussion was about.
|
On April 06 2010 03:58 Jibba 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). You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are.
I do. But they're not always followed. That is bound to happen in a war. Soldiers are trained to kill, and sending soldiers to do police work equals to mass murder/genocide.
That's why you don't send soldiers to do police work. That's why you don't illegally invade countries that have done nothing at all against you, based on the fact that they're allegedly trying to obtain nukes. Your country has them, who the fuck gives you the godly right to decide who else can have them?
Go eff yourself, America.
|
United States43356 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:15 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote:
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa! wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
And send in the police?
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:06 starfries 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 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.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:07 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's a good idea. Shias are the majority, Sunnis are not and it was a coalition between Kurdish and Shias that put Maliki's government in power.
The leading vote getters in the most recent Parliamentary elections (this March) was the Iraqi Nationalist Party, which is made up of both Sunnis and Shias. So yeah...
|
United States43356 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:16 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 03:58 Jibba 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). You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are. I do. But they're not always followed. That is bound to happen in a war. Soldiers are trained to kill, and sending soldiers to do police work equals to mass murder/genocide. That's why you don't send soldiers to do police work. That's why you don't illegally invade countries that have done nothing at all against you, based on the fact that they're allegedly trying to obtain nukes. Your country has them, who the fuck gives you the godly right to decide who else can have them? Go eff yourself, America.
No, it doesn't equal genocide. I explained genocide to you very carefully earlier. You still haven't taken it upon. Millions dead in Iraq still won't be genocide unless there's a racial, ethnic, religious or cultural link between them.
|
On April 06 2010 04:15 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote:
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa! wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
You don't drop a wolf in the middle of a group of sheep and then wonder why some sheep have been killed.
No, you don't do nation building. It never worked, never will. Especially not through the barrel of an American weapon.
There's not a better way for the army to conduct themselves. They're soldiers. Trained to kill. KILL. Not POLICE or SECURE URBAN AREAS or COUNTER-TERRORISM.
|
On April 06 2010 04:16 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:06 starfries wrote: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 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. See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache... Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
See Rape of Nanking. But romanticized war only occurs in history books I'm afraid. =)
|
On April 06 2010 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: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. Pro tip: Army =/= Police. You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa! That didn't even make sense. Tadaaaaa!
lol true.
reit stop jumping around with one moral point after another that aren't connected except in the loosest terms to what we're talking about. Or better yet stop posting in this thread. This is just becoming entertainment now.
|
On April 06 2010 04:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:07 KissBlade wrote: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. That's a good idea. Shias are the majority, Sunnis are not and it was a coalition between Kurdish and Shias that put Maliki's government in power. The leading vote getters in the most recent Parliamentary elections (this March) was the Iraqi Nationalist Party, which is made up of both Sunnis and Shias. So yeah...
You're right. I apologize and withdraw my statement.
|
On April 06 2010 04:18 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:15 starfries wrote:On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote:
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa! wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army? You don't drop a wolf in the middle of a group of sheep and then wonder why some sheep have been killed. No, you don't do nation building. It never worked, never will. Especially not through the barrel of an American weapon. There's not a better way for the army to conduct themselves. They're soldiers. Trained to kill. KILL. Not POLICE or SECURE URBAN AREAS or COUNTER-TERRORISM.
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.
so all of a sudden you agree with this post now?
|
On April 06 2010 04:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote: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.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
|
On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:05 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote: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. So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
ignorance is the opiate of the masses
|
On April 06 2010 04:16 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:06 starfries wrote: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 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. See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache... Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
We have come a long way, though. Before, when an army invaded a city, it was all pillaging and raping and the gleeful slaughter of citizens. I think soldiers today are very "professional" in comparison. Don't worry though, soon wars will be conducted with robots and this issue won't ever come up again 
|
United States43356 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:05 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote: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. So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I actually quite like the western world the way it is. The system works. I think killing innocent civilians because you want to change the world is a bad thing and not doing it doesn't make me a pussy.
|
On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:05 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote: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. So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
Jesus stop with this diatribe. Get a soap box man. Take this to the local far left community meeting. It's boring listening to you endlessly give the same opinion like it's related to the topic. IT'S NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
