|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:25 DreaM)XeRO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote: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 adfgasfafdasfasdfafafafa
Misquoting a misinterpreted platitude?
|
On April 06 2010 04:16 KwarK 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? And send in the police?
Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS).
But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on.
You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country.
|
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.
but of course said "wars" wouldn't start if the base ideologies of the world were similar. The foundations of this war are in my opinion religion. Said "terrorists" believing that our lifestyle is destructive tried to destroy us. Our nation saught revenge. (under the shroud of "oil" and "nukes")
|
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.
I agree with you. These men in their helicopter are in a position of power unlike foot soldiers. I don't care if they are traumatized by war or whatever, cheering on a badly wounded man to pick up a weapon so they can shoot him is not acceptable behaviour.
One more reason why civilized countries should go to war only as a last resort. This is the 21.century after all.
|
On April 06 2010 02:13 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote:On April 06 2010 01:48 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 01:42 Railz wrote:On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
Unless I'm missing something I really don't see what the outrage is. Am I supposed to be pissed that troops got authorization to open fire on what they thought were targets? You can't tell those are cameras that they are carrying from a couple hundred feet away The problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light. The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs. From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here. They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective On April 06 2010 01:48 Mystlord wrote:
Ugh. Even with all of our modern technology we can't differentiate a mic and a video camera from an AK-47 and a RPG? That's messed up.
Either that or those soldiers can't differentiate between the two. At the very least I can't. Video's too blurry. Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire. I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. However, your point about the RPG does stand. However, I wouldn't say the Apache was in imminent danger, simply because it seemed like it was really, really far away from the "targets", and RPGs aren't exactly the most reliable weapons at long range... Another problem occurs when you realize that this is merely a video of one incident of many. If other incidents like these are caused by soldiers with the same mentality, then we have a pretty big problem. How is trigger happiness an issue if they're following protocol?? Most normal civies couldn't be put in that situation, and I think finding a solider who isn't trigger happy is simply impossible, given the circumstances. These dudes face IEDs, ambushes and the like on a daily basis. Someone who isn't attentive and ready to shoot an enemy at a moment's notice is a liability to an entire unit, platoon or whatever. I agree, the apache was not necessarily in immediate, shoot without question danger. Still, it was certainly within range that a lucky random shot could kill them. Plus, there was American groundtroops in the area. I don't know the exact protocol, but I'm sure the military doesn't want enemies it believes to be armed just floating around openly with weapons. at any rate, thank you for being one of the few people who watched the vid and responded rationally. It's really apparent most people didn't watch, because you can't tell what they're carrying, or that people are just letting their emotions and strong opinions about the war make their judgement...
being trigger happy doesn't mean you shoot well when your suppose to. its that you dont hesitate to open fire or have bad judgement when your not suppose to open fire on an area or on targets.
i.e. you see a vague figure down the street moving in an area with many combatants and non-combatants...you dont hesitate and just open fire.
|
On April 06 2010 04:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote: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.
This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves.
|
On April 06 2010 04:16 Mystlord wrote:
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
haha, you must have only seen the for-tv, romanticized stories of WWII. While very interesting, vets from then certainly weren't PC or remorseful at all. Shit, I'd say they were even worse than our modern soldiers. The only difference is that there are a fuckload more ways to see what the guys are up to now—thus, more exposure.
|
On April 06 2010 04:28 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:16 KwarK wrote: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? And send in the police? Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS). But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on. You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country.
Year later, when the evil corporate government is but a bad memory and people live in peace and are happy, people will look back to this day, to this website and say "It started here. That's the guy, the one from team-liquid who showed us the way".
|
|
|
On April 06 2010 04:30 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:26 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote: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. This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves.
that's capitalism. we thought it would work and what do you know. it does
it keeps the majority happy doesnt it?
|
On April 06 2010 04:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:09 reit wrote: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.
In a democracy, no one is innocent. With freedom comes responsibility.
|
United States44236 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:32 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:12 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:09 reit wrote: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. In a democracy, no one is innocent. With freedom comes responsibility.
You're the one insisting we're slaves. Slaves bear no responsibility. If you're going to babble insanity at least be consistent. Either we're all powerful individuals in a working democracy and complicit in the war in Iraq and you want to murder us all or we're slaves at the whim of the corporate overmind and blameless over Iraq. You're arguing both.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:30 reit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:26 KwarK wrote:On April 06 2010 04:23 reit wrote: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. This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves. So is it the bankers or the corporations or the Jews? Or the fucking Illuminati. I hate those guys.
Stonecutters, maybe?
|
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
and it's war
Calling the slaugher of Iraq a war is so fucking lame in my opinion :/
|
On April 06 2010 04:30 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:28 reit wrote:On April 06 2010 04:16 KwarK wrote: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? And send in the police? Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS). But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on. You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country. Year later, when the evil corporate government is but a bad memory and people live in peace and are happy, people will look back to this day, to this website and say "It started here. That's the guy, the one from team-liquid who showed us the way".
.... So anyone standing up for their beliefs is just an attention whore who wants to be remembered? I'm sorry, I'm such a fucking self-promoting egoistic attention craving radical for wishing for a more equal (no, not a commie system) society.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On April 06 2010 04:18 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:16 Mystlord wrote: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. =)
Perhaps I should have clarified: Western recounts 
Aside from that, I don't remember coming across any accounts from the Japanese soldiers who took part in it. I don't think any would exist for obvious reasons, but do you know of any?
|
On April 06 2010 02:36 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 02:07 wishbones wrote:
edited, seriously kill those guys involved imo, americans are real stupid. All you cock suckers that say you want to kill American soldiers and their families, please please come pay me a visit you fucking pile of shit. Ill throw you right off a bridge. They didn't make the decision to move in there, US government did. They are just doing their job, and it so happens to be during a war.
I think u need to go to the war to see what its like, you have no right speaking on a "friends" behalf due to they're exposure to it. The fact is the standard has clearly become shoot first, ask questions later, otherwise you may actually be dead. Shitty as it may be this is how it has to be handled. But, after seeing this I just finalize it with human beings suck ass.
|
Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
|
On April 06 2010 04:36 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:18 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 04:16 Mystlord wrote: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. =) Perhaps I should have clarified: Western recounts Aside from that, I don't remember coming across any accounts from the Japanese soldiers who took part in it. I don't think any would exist for obvious reasons, but do you know of any?
Actually the one who really compiled what was going on in China during that time was the Germans, oddly enough (and who fittingly enough for your point, did it because he thought it fell out of place of the stand "conduct of war"). But yeah, as you mentioned for obvious reasons, the Japanese are silent lips on the matter.
|
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote:
Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
i am ashamed of our government, not for our soldiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
