If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
American troops at it again.....
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1309431/YouTube-video-US-soldiers-pranking-Iraqi-planting-LIVE-grenade-car.html
I know it's from the Fail, sorry about that. But seriously, are these guys just fucking idiots or what?
I know it's from the Fail, sorry about that. But seriously, are these guys just fucking idiots or what?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There are a lot of fucked up people out there.
Do go on...
Yeah, please explain.
What I see is someone playing a prank on someone. The context is pretty poor but no-one was injured or truly inconvenienced. If anything it shows a developing relationship where humour can be shared rather than just intimidation...
Maybe that's bad of me, maybe I'm just used to shitty news or maybe it's just the case that the only people who really care are the journalists trying to create a shit storm.
For starters how there is more to this story than an asshole acting like an asshole. Then, how ones nationality effects this perspective.
The Iraqi chap didn't look all that amused to be honest. His face was that of relief and realisation that he just shit himself when they shoved a gun in his face.
I've got a great relationship with the public I work for. I don't play pranks on them though.
Why you think an American would have a different view to anyone else in the world.
Like I said it was an idiot playing a prank, not out of intimidation but because he thought that the relationship had developed to a position where it was possible.
Whether he was right in that assumption is debatable.
Because excessive American patriotism is so indoctrinated in to them from a young age they tend to view any criticism of their country (and vicariously their soldiers) as a personal insult. Yes that's a generalisation but from experience it's the sort of view that is held by a great many of them.
Now if they'd kept him their another five minutes whilst speaking into radios and making throat cutting gestures that would have been funny...:d
Still waiting on you to explain how there is more to this story that I and other Americans might have missed.
Sure I'll do that when you show me where I've said "there's more to this story".
So I ask again, what else is there to the story?
You even replied to it :yeees:
One of your soldiers is up to mischief but to you it's a non-story, as would anything probably be if it showed your troops in a negative light.
No, it's a non-story because the actions of this one particular soldier are not reflective of the U.S. military strategy in Iraq nor are they reflective of the rules regulating how soldiers should interact with Iraqi civilians. Therefore, the story starts with a single individual violating those rules and (hopefully) ends with him being punished appropriately.
As we have never met I imagine you would have no idea how I react to news stories about inappropriate activity on the part of U.S. troops.
Sticking up for your nation's troops? There's a good little american
I'll be the first to admit I'm only scratching the surface but I have never met, spoken to or read about online an american who does not rabidly defend his or her nation's good name in the face of what they perceive to be a verbal anti-american attack.
Don’t be patronizing. This isn’t an issue of supporting U.S. troops or not. The article is clearly about a small number of American troops who were acting inappropriately. By refuting my statement that this is a non-story with the comment you have alleged that there is more to this story but have refused to elaborate opting instead to accuse me of being blinded by knee-jerk patriotism, an accusation which is completely ridiculous since I am not the only person who has asked you to elaborate. So is there more to this story or not? Yes or no?
Due #z5 deeply-indoctrined patriotism you are convinced I've said or suggested something that I simply have not done. Only you have deduced that I've suggested "there's more to this than meets the eye" which indicates to me you have in your mind a particular something you think I'm trying to say. To save us both time and hassle, how about you let us know what it is you think I'm saying just so I can have an idea?
You don't get to rewrite the history we can all clearly see on the first page of this thread:
AARG: Yes he is an idiot. Beyond that there is little to this story.
GQ: Maybe to an American.
You made the inference, so it's for you to explain.
I've explained why I said "Maybe to an american" here, here, and here.
If you can't see it then I really can't be bothered to explain it a 4th time.
All you've done here is reiterated your non sequiter: AARG said he thought it was a non-story, you say 'maybe to an American', he asks what's that meant to mean, and you start blathering on about Americans being super-indoctrinated to not hear a bad word about the military. The inference is that you think there is more to the story, but that he can't see it because he's conditioned not to. All you've done is attempt to explain why he can't see there's more to the story, and not explained why you think there is more to the story.
Unless you've been misleading and don't in fact think there is more to the story, then your argument becomes an absurd nonsense of 'well there isn't more to the story, but if there was you wouldn't be able to see it'.