Remember guys, the military deserves respect! They protect our God given rights to kill foreigners.
Kill 24 people, Get three months in Jail. God Bless America.
- Thread starter Darth_Dude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is war. Despite what many people want to believe war has no rules, it is the very embodiment of might is right. So often when soldiers invade a country in modern times these "terrorists" hide behind civilians and modern western morality prevents simply mowing them down. Though I disagree with America's right to go and invade anyone they don't like I do feel they have been remarkably constrained in not simply leveling cities and wiping out the population that sheltered their foes as was the go-to method for the majority of human existence.
In this specific incident they were under attack, in a hostile environment. Anyone can carry a weapon. The attitude of shooting anyone in the area who doesn't have an American uniform, which seemed to prevail in this case, is not particularly nice, but it is realistic. Perhaps if they could have relied upon the civilians not to be sheltering a combatant it would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, it was common for civilians to shelter combatants and the American soldiers knew it.
In this specific incident they were under attack, in a hostile environment. Anyone can carry a weapon. The attitude of shooting anyone in the area who doesn't have an American uniform, which seemed to prevail in this case, is not particularly nice, but it is realistic. Perhaps if they could have relied upon the civilians not to be sheltering a combatant it would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, it was common for civilians to shelter combatants and the American soldiers knew it.
"DO YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS?!
DO YOU?
YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING HIM IF YOU PUT HIM IN JAIL!"
in all seriousness, what does the public think of this?
I can not imagine this going over very smoothly, PR-wise.
DO YOU?
YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING HIM IF YOU PUT HIM IN JAIL!"
in all seriousness, what does the public think of this?
I can not imagine this going over very smoothly, PR-wise.
Yeah, pleading guilty should have reduced his sentence by a few years, maybe down to 15 or so not to three months. This was murder, this was a massacre, and even if he had pleaded guilty, he should have gotten a lot longer than he did. And this wasn't a court of law, this was a court of military law, where the most depraved of acts gets you kicked out at worst.Mr.Mattress said:
Reminds me of the My Lai Massacre. The people there were mercilessly butchered and only one soldier got 3 1/2 years of house arrest as 'punishment'.*
And no, 'war being hell' or 'their mates got shot' is NOT an excuse to murder innocent civilians.
*Great job there Nixon, you bastard.
And no, 'war being hell' or 'their mates got shot' is NOT an excuse to murder innocent civilians.
*Great job there Nixon, you bastard.
Demonizing is core requirement of war, or rather dehumanizing is. The less your troops view the enemy as another human being, the less resistance there will be to killing them. I agree there is little difference between 9/11 and any other city bombing in history, but the American government had to demonize their attackers and start referring to them as terrorists.Skin said:
You made me have a flashback to the Pianist, where Adrian Brody starts smuggling handguns.Muspelheim said:
OT: If the information about the massacre is accurate, a more appropriate punishment would be to discharge those men in the most dishonorable fashion possible, strip them of that year's salary fully, and give them life, maximum security with no bail option. Gunning down innocent women and children is never justifiable.
And yet even after Hiroshima, when that Tsunami hit and the Japanese reactor went critical, you had American people all over Facebook shouting "that's God's revenge for Pearl Harbor!"Cananatra said:
Bringing the innocents into warfare like that is never right. Especially for what's been professed as a liberation war.
Edit: War has no rules? The Geneva Convention begs to differ, mate.
The US military is beyond fucked up, as is their general attitude. I think we all remember that wonderful video Wikileaks published where a helicopter mowed down a Reuter reporter and several civilians.
Or the G'Bay prison incidents.
Or the report that a US base was playing obnoxiously loud music.
And so many other fuck-ups.
Or the G'Bay prison incidents.
Or the report that a US base was playing obnoxiously loud music.
And so many other fuck-ups.
And what backs the Geneva convention? A collection of the largest military's on the planet.Binnsyboy said:
Aside from that, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions and simply a set of "gentleman's rules" to war. The only true enforcement possible of them is war.
Not defending the actions of murder by any means, but I feel as if this has to be said on a "human condition" sort of level....
- We weren't there. We aren't the men who pulled the triggers.
- The troops are fighting against those who use a guerrilla warfare method in fighting. (No, I am obviously not justifying the damn killings, I simply stating the fact that anyone can be a combatant at any point)
- They are stressed out to hell and back. Once again, guerrilla warfare.
- That one man's death meant something to them to retaliate in such a way. Think of how it feels for second, to know your country wishes to do good for an entire nation, then to have one of your own taken from your over the fact that local populations view you as the "hostile invader".
- Insert a few psychological answers here.
I don't have the right to judge when it's in war. Plain and simple.
Everyone rushes to condemn the accused, but rarely do people have the human level of love and tolerance to attempt to see things from their viewpoint. Wrong? Yes. Unjustified? People snap and have it rough over there.
- We weren't there. We aren't the men who pulled the triggers.
- The troops are fighting against those who use a guerrilla warfare method in fighting. (No, I am obviously not justifying the damn killings, I simply stating the fact that anyone can be a combatant at any point)
- They are stressed out to hell and back. Once again, guerrilla warfare.
- That one man's death meant something to them to retaliate in such a way. Think of how it feels for second, to know your country wishes to do good for an entire nation, then to have one of your own taken from your over the fact that local populations view you as the "hostile invader".
- Insert a few psychological answers here.
I don't have the right to judge when it's in war. Plain and simple.
Everyone rushes to condemn the accused, but rarely do people have the human level of love and tolerance to attempt to see things from their viewpoint. Wrong? Yes. Unjustified? People snap and have it rough over there.
Matthew 26:52. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.
Regardless of your religion this should be a truth. There is no shame in being a soldior, there is great shame in being a soldior and not being prepared to be killed. For me that is the distinction between a soldior and a murderer.
The death of on of their own is not an acceptable reason to kill civiliance.
These man (for the lack of a better word) are not soldiors. Therefor the American government shouldn't be charging them, they ought to be surrendred to the Iraq authorities. How they mandle the matter is their bussiness.
Regardless of your religion this should be a truth. There is no shame in being a soldior, there is great shame in being a soldior and not being prepared to be killed. For me that is the distinction between a soldior and a murderer.
The death of on of their own is not an acceptable reason to kill civiliance.
These man (for the lack of a better word) are not soldiors. Therefor the American government shouldn't be charging them, they ought to be surrendred to the Iraq authorities. How they mandle the matter is their bussiness.