Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

US Army at it again

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    What you observe is an obviously shoddy edited sound-bite into an obvious propaganda piece. The camera uses a telephoto lense, which compresses the image of distance. Your "20 meters"? Is likely much further. :rolleyes:

    Any idea of the functionality of those IED's? Drop parcel, then run for cover to detonate from remote device. Are you certain that your NON-UNIFORMED COMBATANT was not still moving toward that detonator? With the so obviously chopped up bit of video, how can you be certain of ANYTHING??? Other than its intended use as heavy handed propoganda?
    As I had imagined, Thanatos attempts to justify the unjustifiable. If you were a member of Al Qaida you'd be here today arguing that the 911 hijackers didn't really mean to crash the planes and that the controls got stuck. :rolleyes:
    Ever laugh from nervousness after surviving a potentially deadly moment? Many do. These young men - kids, really, many of them - have not yet been hardened by long exposure to reality. They have not yet gained the emotional armor to terminate the enemy, and feel nothing. That comes with experience... something which the bulk of you have absolutely ZERO.
    You really are getting desperate in defending the indefensible aren't you? Nervous laugh my arse. More like high-fives-and-cheers-after-getting-a-blowjob-in-a-bar kind of laugh. With "awesome" thrown in for good measure.

    I didn't know if your delusion has reach such absurd limits.
    Ever been in combat? Ever witness it up close and personal? Ever had your best friends shot up, all around you? Ever been shot, yourself? Perhaps multiple times? I have... and have continued fighting after having been shot. I have witnessed Marines who have been shot twice - and even three times - remain in the fight, and continue to kill the enemy. I have cut a bullet from myself, wrapped it with dressings taken from a dead corpsman, and gotten back into the fight to lead my company to defeat a vastly overwhelming enemy. I have witnessed one who was shot 19 times, continue to kill the enemy. You speculate from ignorance. I observe from experience. Wounded does not infer "out of action", except to the ignorant.
    The evil Iraqi soldiers who dropped the gas on the Kurds or who executed tens of thousands had also been in terrible combat and seen and done horrifying things. Does that justify cold blooded murder and war crimes? No it doesn't. And right now the soldier who shot and the comrades who cheered are the same kind of scum as Saddam's henchmen.

    But do continue. You demonstrate your support of terrorist tactics.
    And by the by... Your ever so precious "international law" supports the summary execution of non-uniformed combatants. You cognizant of what SUMMARY means? :rolleyes: Or do you require the English language to be explained to you? While still armed, and engaged? The non-uniformed combatant is a bullet magnet for all in the area.
    Oh yeah?
    "Freedom fighter"? If - by some delusional brainfart - the US were invaded by a conquering force, and I carried a weapon to "defend my defeated nation"? My expectation would be the exact same fate as met THIS non-uniformed terrorist.
    But you wouldn't call yourself terrorist would you? Oh no you wouldn't. Like all the paramilitary trailer park militiamen who own a mini-arsenal and form groups and who are convinced one day they will have to fight either the commies or the evil federal government. They're freedom fighters too. In fact, it seems that everyone is a freedom fighter (including the Taleban and Al Qaida) so long as they're fighting on freedom-loving America's side. The second they fight against them, well... evil terrorists from hell who can be killed as if they were no humans.
    You children may continue to masturbate yourselves within your circle jerk as befits you. Perhaps someday, some one of you might grow up, and view the world from a perspective of reality, rather than distorting and perverting it through delusion of what you wish it were. You wank yourselves on, never suspecting the ignorance you demonstrate.
    Perhaps one day you will wake up from the dreamworld the horrors of war seem to have immersed your brain in, and realise that you have been living in a world of hypocrisy, unjustified murder and violence that has no place in the world.

    As usual I could count on your supreme hypocrisy, double standards and delusion. Regular as they come you are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go back to mil.com and see what else you can cut and paste boy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You demonstrate your support of terrorist tactics

    As you continue to demonstrate convenient re-defining of terms to suit your blatantly militant and self aggrandizing posture.

    Fact is, you arent talking to children you are discussing with adults whose views on what constitutes reality is not predicated on the need for engaging our forces in contrived wars of aggression justified by myopic politicans to suit their corporate interests and lust for domination and control.

    But of course you willingly signed on as an unquestioning lacky years ago, so undoubtedly would cause a significant crisis of conscious for you to realise that war is not the end all and be all of reality, merely a tool employed by those who wish to force the establishment or maintenance of their particular set of self interests as the status quo.

    Reality itself is far more encompassing than such "events" and includes the perspectives and ideals of those of us who wish to put an end to the purveyors and beneficiaries of unmitigated warmongering and the propaganda used to justify it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do so love your ongoing refusal to act your age and refer to me by my screenname. Only underscores who it is here who operates on the level of adolescent schoolyard labelling.

    But so be it, I'm the summation of all evil and the bane of our national mindset that seeks to stop the murderous aggresivistic zombies of war from wreaking further unjust suffering upon the world in the name of the long desecrated principles of "freedom" and "democracy".

    Yes, how evil of me to believe in peaceful means of conflict resolution and the adherence to the rule of law your bogus federal junta preaches but refuses to be accountable to themselves.

    For Brutus is an honourable man;
    So are they all, all honourable men-- :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog
    Its not as though im some screaming lefty...Im pretty right wing but the things that are going on over there are making me very uncomfortable...and more importantly, they are making dead american soldiers.

    I know, and I agree. There are something which make me uncomfortable too.

    But I'll be buggered if I am going to stand back and let some people present only a one-sided account of things as if they are F.A.C.T. when quite plainly they aren't. I am happy to open my mind to other possibilities, but sadly some people seem to think that there can only be one "truth" and that is that the American Soldiers were in the wrong.

    Had the tables been turned, the suggestion would be that the reason that the US soldier was killed in such a fashion was because of US imperialism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    If you were a member of Al Qaida you'd be here today arguing that the 911 hijackers didn't really mean to crash the planes and that the controls got stuck. :rolleyes:

    and if all you had seen was footage of people jumping from the WTC, you would have been asking yourself "why?".

    Fact is that you can see planes hitting the buildings and the buildings being on fire. That gives you an understanding of the rest of the footage. A bigger picture.

    You do not have that in this instance.

    As I have said, I cannot condone the soldiers actions if I base my opinion solely on what I have seen. But unlike you, I am willing to accept that there may be a shit load more to the story than the video shows.

    The camera lies. For both sides.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For you, MoK...
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent

    As I have said, I cannot condone the soldiers actions if I base my opinion solely on what I have seen. But unlike you, I am willing to accept that there may be a shit load more to the story than the video shows.

    The camera lies. For both sides.

    And a response, "cut and pasted (intact, without editing)", from one who does this for a living:
    Originally posted by axewizard:
    I want to add to this thread. Look guys, I'm not a shrink, combat vet, or a know-it-all, but I AM an A/V producer, editor, and shooter. I'm not going to throw my politics into these comments, but think about what I have to say for a second:

    When you look at the first half of the clip, you'll notice the wounded Iraqi is on his back looking up. As the camera cuts to the second shot of the first half of the clip, it is at a slightly different angle of view and the wounded Iraqi is on his side facing away from the troops. There is a problem here. The problem is that I believe he could have been reaching for something like a detonator or weapon in a last ditch effort to fight. Also, notice how quickly the camera pans to one of the troops who appears to still have a bead on the downed Iraqi. I also thought I saw various objects close to his body.

    Now, something for everyone to consider. Keep in mind that I'm not a combat vet, but it sure as hell looks like this Iraqi was in a good position to provide cover and concealment. Also, it looks to me like he was a pretty good distance away from the road where the troops were postitioned. If this Iraqi was in the middle of the road and shot at point-blank range, then I would have a problem with it.

    Now let's move onto the next half of the clip. The Marine that is being interviewed is displaying TWO different emotions here. Before the edit point (which was pi$$-poor IMHO)he appears to be "decompressing" from a huge adrenalin high. His eyes dart around from spot to spot and he appears to be somewhat out of breath. AFTER the edit point, he's focused, pumped, motivated, and "ready to do it again". Also, the camera is slightly off angle and slightly zoomed in on the Marine. Uh...I've got a huge problem with this piece.

    Whenever I shoot interviews, and all of my stuff is studio work, never field work, I'll set up one camera on a fixed point, and roll the tape. Afterwards, I'll dump it into the editor, chop it up, do the cutaways and that's that...but there is something to remember about this. In an interview setting that has a good flow and groove to it, I want to keep the same level of emotion going so that it provides continuity to the interview and doesn't look like it's put together in sections. It just doesn't look professional when tempo, pace, emotion and flow don't blend.

    IMHO, I think that there is SO MUCH MORE to the interview portion that CNN does not want us to see. I also don't believe that the Marine was talking about the same thing in the two cuts that were "slapped" together.

    The whole clip is nothing but poor workmanship and a vain attempt to portray our soldiers as nothing but savages. That's just my opinion.

    The simple truth? NO ONE can know what actually happened in the moment portrayed, which is but a bite of a program upon PTSD... but... some prefer to twist it within their chosen prejudice into whatever they choose it to be, rather than question what it might actually present, prior to the hatchet-editing job.

    I do not "educate" this man according to audio/video editing.
    I do not "educate" ManOfKent as to issues of the medical world.

    But...

    Seems MOST here wish to "educate" me as to the reality of combat, something of which they have ZERO experience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Cut and paste" from another Marine...

    ... with more time in combat than myself:
    Originally posted by goldenwings:
    I am going to say this and some of you may be offended, but I don't really care. As someone who has particpated in combat several time and also having been wounded, i believe I can sasy this without someone saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

    The video shows an Iaqi down on the ground. The voice say he is lying there wounded, but do we know he is wounded or just lying down trying not to get hit?
    Second, we cannot see one side of his body which is the side he raises. We cannot see around that little building and do not know what is behind that. Third, the firing that killed him came from his front and not from where the camera was, so the shooters had a good view of him from the front.

    We were not shown what happened before the video that led up to it not what happened right after. I'm sure the Marines went down and checked the body out and the evidence of what he was doing would have been there.

    So, we don't know crap in which to say anything about. I do know that wounded does not mean out of the fight. Wounded have killed many times.

    As to the cheering, is that normal? Sometimes it is. If you haven't ever been under fire before and have never taken out that source of fire before it kills you, then there is no way for you to understand the feeling those guys were feeling. Me trying to explain it to you would be useless. You want to know the feeling, go down to the recruiting office and volunteer for some sort of combat arms in the Army or Marines and volunteer for Iraq. I'm sure you will then get to experience the feelings!

    Now, those who don't like the fact that the Marines were cheering, STFU until you have walked in their shoes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent



    BTW I don't condone what has happened on that video, but I do feel there needs to be a sense of proportion on these boards. We can have one side of a story, and we'll end up with the "daisy chain" principle or someone can look at the other side and post that too. Which would you prefer?

    Anyone who possesses the testicular requisites to venture outside of the safety of the "daisy-chain", here? Feel free to come to another place, where you are not the majority, and have your perspective handed back to you... :naughty:

    http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=8251967786

    ManOfKent has demonstrated the requisites.
    MorrocanRoll has demonstrated the requisites.
    Even BeckyBoo has demonstrated the requisites, greater than a few of the mainstays of the daisy-chain. :lol:

    Or do you stick your head up ONLY where it is safe? :lol:

    p.s. ~ If you are feeling "contentious", remember to bring along with you a sufficient quantity of KY jelly, to make the experience less painful... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Theres really no need for that attitude is there, you make good points but you seem to have to peper them with references to buggery in this case and just a plain arsey attitute in others.

    I've said from the start that I didnt know what happened and I wasnt going to judge on the killing itself, my problem and what upset me was the attitude of the soldiers to anothers death.

    I havent been in combat, so I dont know what its like, but the idea of taking pleasure in someone elses death seems horrid to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and have your perspective handed back to you...

    With your own cadre's form of "daiy chain" reactionism? Gee how thought provoking that has proven to be upon repeat inspection.

    No, Thanatos, mil.com is just another safe haven but for those who would prefer to call any dissenting perspective "trolling" or bombard any such poster with overtly militant invective like "traitor" or "anti-American" or "terrorist". lol.

    One need not waste one's breath in such fora, such limited perspectives can be witnessed on any CNN or other corporate news program daily from your political mouthpieces in the Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute. Or of course any host of Fox News pundits which seem to live up to your stilted aggressivistic ideology.

    You go right ahead and enjoy your bastion of self-gratifying and unquestioning militancy, those of us who see no value in cheering the illegal commitment of our soldiers' lives in wars for corporate hegemony will direct our efforts at those capabale of demonstrating legitimate capacity for critical reasoning.

    Having to so continuously threaten grievous bodily injury is about all the endorsement one needs to guage the clibre of any anticipated response toward any who don't pat you on the head and condone the characteristic beligerence of the current administration. Addressing that would, clearly, force too many to consider how aggregiously they'd been lied to and used to secure another prize for grasping men in Washington.

    So go right on fighting the contrived demons of your taskmasters and do not by any means remain consistent in holding our elected leaders accountable. We realise you aren't prepared to exercise such civic duty unless there's a Democrat in office.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    p.s. ~ If you are feeling "contentious", remember to bring along with you a sufficient quantity of KY jelly, to make the experience less painful... ;)
    Your affinity for arseholes is noted, Thanny. Like calling to like?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Easier to simply damn the Americans, than search for truth, isn't it? Or... more convenient?
    By PAUL WATSON Los Angeles Times
    December 11, 2003

    U.S. troops were not responsible for the deaths of six children killed in an attack on a suspected Taliban hide-out, an Afghan official said Wednesday.

    The children and two adults were crushed to death Friday night during a mission against a large arms cache in Paktia province controlled by local Taliban commander Mullah Jalani, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bryan Hilferty told reporters Wednesday.



    It was the second time in as many days that children died in U.S. assaults. Fifteen Afghan children have been killed, embarrassing interim President Hamid Karzai as he tries to build support on the eve of a crucial meeting to decide the country's new constitution.

    In Friday's incident, U.S. ground forces and warplanes attacked the site and the wall of a house collapsed, crushing six children and two adults to death, Hilferty said. The bodies were discovered the next day during a search, he added.

    "We don't know what caused the wall to collapse because, although we fired on the compound, there were secondary and tertiary explosions," said Hilferty.

    Afghan officials said U.S. troops were blameless.

    "I think this incident happened because of the explosives that were kept in that house and I think there were many other weapons in that house," Faiz Mohammed Zalan, foreign affairs spokesman for Paktia's governor, said in an interview.

    Zalan said U.S. warplanes attacked the compound in the village of Kosween, in Paktia's Sayed Karam district northwest of Gardez, but not the house where the children died.

    "This house was not bombed by U.S. planes because the U.S. planes targeted another house where the Taliban were supposed to be. But they had already left that house," Zalan said by satellite phone from Gardez, the provincial capital.

    Three boys and three girls died in the accident, which occurred during a raid that began around 2 a.m. local time, Zalan added.

    "Secondary explosions" indicate that what was sought? Was found... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah yes and of course you unquestioningly believe the oft referred to "Military Spokesman" wouldn't you? Gee the Pentagon has NO history of lying and propagandising! :rolleyes:

    And then of course how interesting to see unnamed "Afghan Officials" taken as the a fully authoritative source. lol.

    Hmmm.. Afghan officials working for our installed US puppet Karzai no doubt? Gee they wouldn't have any interest in averting all blame from Washington now would they?

    Truly astounding the extent to which you simply question nothing so long as we're making war and giving them hell, eh ol boy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine


    And then of course how interesting to see unnamed "Afghan Officials" taken as the a fully authoritative source. lol.?
    Faiz Mohammed Zalan, foreign affairs spokesman for Paktia's governor, said in an interview.

    It would seem that Faiz Mohammed Zalan is rather named :rolleyes: , but do not allow reality to get in the way of your rant...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man of Kent
    and if all you had seen was footage of people jumping from the WTC, you would have been asking yourself "why?".

    Fact is that you can see planes hitting the buildings and the buildings being on fire. That gives you an understanding of the rest of the footage. A bigger picture.

    You do not have that in this instance.

    As I have said, I cannot condone the soldiers actions if I base my opinion solely on what I have seen. But unlike you, I am willing to accept that there may be a shit load more to the story than the video shows.

    The camera lies. For both sides.
    Well I suppose it is possible that just out of sight from the footage there was a briefcase with the launch codes for the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, and that the Iraqi was trying to crawl to it and launch all of Russia's missiles on the world and start World War III, and that the American soldier who shot him dead in fact saved us all from doom and we should be eternally grateful to him for saving the Earth.

    I also know how probable that is.

    The bottom line is this: I don't know what the man had done prior to the footage. He could be an evil butcher who deserved to die- but then "good guys" who "love freedom and civilisation" don't usually execute wounded people as they lay on the ground. What the footage shows is a man seriously wounded who posed at that time no danger whatsoever (you hear me Thanatos? NO DANGER WHATSOEVER) to the US Soldiers sitting cosily 25 yards away behind a wall. Yet the soldier took aim and shot repeatedly at the wounded man, who could barely raise an arm let alone travel any distance, until he was dead.

    That is cold-blooded murder and a war crime. There is no way about it. No justification. It is only too typical that the bushbots and military apologists will go to any lengths and paint impossible scenarios in an attempt to justify murder.

    As for the cheering and laughing... I don't know if that in itself constitutes a crime. I suspect it does, but what it also does is to show both the utter and unspeakable cruelty and lack of humanity of the soldiers involved as well as the endless hypocrisy of those who attempt to pass it off as a "nervous laugh".

    One day I might well join the joyful mil.com Thanatos. I suspect I will banned after a couple of posts though, as I will put what I believe is the truth forward: regardless of the illegality of the whole operation in Iraq, I will state that the US army today seems to be plagued by murderers, cowboys and racists. From the officer who tells the media that the Arab mind only understands force to the Marine who shoots a wounded man dead in cold blood to the cheering comrades who think murdering wounded men is "awesome", to the many, many fellow soldiers and sympathisers who attempt to justify such action, to the systematic torture and racial abuse that has been going on in Guantanamo for the last two years.

    But what would be the point? Can I really attempt to engage in conversation with people who in their majority see nothing wrong with policemen beating a man to death and then protest at any possible charges? Nice lot you’ve got breeding there...

    I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers will be turning in their graves at the sight of some of the people who are part of the US Army today, and of the US government that allows it all to happen and is happy to let cold blooded murder and torture go unpunished, while lecturing the rest of the world about human rights and freedom.

    The delusion and hypocrisy reach boiling point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Afghan officials said U.S. troops were blameless.

    Gee Thanatos, not only selective in your scrutiny of government, but obviously in even how you choose to ignore what is printed in the very sources you cut and paste! lol.

    Outstanding! :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    What the footage shows is a man seriously wounded who posed at that time no danger whatsoever (you hear me Thanatos? NO DANGER WHATSOEVER) to the US Soldiers sitting cosily 25 yards away behind a wall.

    Never been in combat, have you?

    Your ignorance is prima facie.

    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin


    I have no doubt that the Founding Fathers will be turning in their graves at the sight of some of the people who are part of the US Army today, and of the US government that allows it all to happen and is happy to let cold blooded murder and torture go unpunished, while lecturing the rest of the world about human rights and freedom.

    The delusion and hypocrisy reach boiling point.

    The Founding Fathers would be more appalled at the parasitic likes of the collaborator... :rolleyes:

    Those men two plus centuries past understood the realities of armed conflict.

    Boiling point? Nah... your delusion and hypocrisy have reached the flushing point...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perfect display of how little comprehension you have of anything remotely as academic as the original founding principles, mistrust of centralised power and disdain for nationalistic militancy such as you so blindly subscribe to. LOL.

    I suggest you cease from pretending to be anything other than the flagrant right wing nationalistic extremist than you are. A product of heavy aggressivistic conditioning, steeped in paranoia and the propaganda of fear and reactionism and completely out of tune with what America was established to stand for. It certainly had nothing to do with your allegiance to expansionistic control and foreign engagements based on lies and public misdirection. But I wouldnt expect you to appreciate the progressivism enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    You're far too busy defending those who are systematically dismantling all three to entrench us in a fear- and anger-ridden police state back home and perpetual warmongering abroad. The very elected tyranny that our founding fathers warned us would be our inevitable inheritance if mindsets such as your ever gained ascendency.

    You are to reality what fire is to water. Never too late to wake up though, one can but hope.

    Thanks for the laugh though. ;)
    "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have...a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers."
    --John Adams to Thomas Jefferson In a letter dated November 4, 1816

    This Whitehouse with its wall of secrecy and refusal to cooperate with numerous investigations into its activities and links would indeed have them spinning.
    It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in thechoice of the person to whom so important a trust (the office of President) was to be confided.... Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.... The process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... It will not be too strong to say that there be constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters preeminent for ability and virtue...." ( In Federalist No. 68)
    --Alexander Hamilton

    Ol Hamilton would take one look at the coddled prince of the Bush Dynasty and tear his hair out that a slack drunken legacy student with barely passable grades, pampered silver platter business ventures with Daddy's cronies throughout life should assume the premiere office of the land. Truly sickening.
    "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent an sudden usurpation."
    -James Madison (architect of the Constitution and co-author of the Federalist Papers).

    And sure as shootin Washington has steadily employed fear and paranoia generation after generation to breed a political echelon that seeks only its own self perpetuation and the steady extension of its power and control at home and abroad. Ol James would be proud of what we've become? The evidence says not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    The Founding Fathers would be more appalled at the parasitic likes of the collaborator... :rolleyes:

    Those men two plus centuries past understood the realities of armed conflict.
    Congressmen: Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble!

    Dickinson: We cannot found a country based on war!

    Adams: We cannot found a country that is afraid to fight!

    Congressman: Rabble!

    Congressmen: Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble! [the doors open and in walks an august figure. The boisterous voices become hushed] Oh my, it's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin Franklin. [they keep murmuring this as Franklin walks towards the main desk]

    Cartman: Oh, it's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin Franklin. It's Benjamin Franklin.

    Hancock: Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

    Franklin: I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

    Jefferson: Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

    Dickinson: Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

    Franklin: And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

    Adams: [holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it too.

    Congressman 2: Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

    Hancock: And we will call that country the United States of America.

    South Park scripts
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    The bottom line is this: I don't know what the man had done prior to the footage. He could be an evil butcher who deserved to die- but then "good guys" who "love freedom and civilisation" don't usually execute wounded people as they lay on the ground. What the footage shows is a man seriously wounded who posed at that time no danger whatsoever (you hear me Thanatos? NO DANGER WHATSOEVER) to the US Soldiers sitting cosily 25 yards away behind a wall. Yet the soldier took aim and shot repeatedly at the wounded man, who could barely raise an arm let alone travel any distance, until he was dead.

    So, you don't know what he had done before hand, you don't know what he was doing at the time he was fatally shot, therefore you don't know if they were actually in danger, you don't know what the US soldiers could see and you don't know that he was seriously wounded and you obviously don't seem to understand that wounded doesn;t mean incapacitated.

    But apparently you do know that the US soldiers murdered him.

    I pray that you never serve on a jury.
    paint impossible scenarios in an attempt to justify murder.

    Have I?

    All I've done is question what you cannot see and what you cannot know. I always thought it was the "right-wing" who were reactionary, but clearly the left can be too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually I do know what he was doing at the time he was fatally shot: he as laying on the floor, injured and trying to move and crawl away (without much success).

    And that's all that counts. Regardless of what might have happened before, regardless of the impossible scenarios one wants to paint, the US soldiers were in no danger whatsoever from the wounded man.

    But I guess it was easier for them to shoot him on the spot like a dog than having to walk to him and arrest him.

    As I understood it human life is sacrosanct and unless one's life is in danger there is no justification whatsoever for shooting someone for the sake of it (or 'for a laugh', as this case appears to be).

    Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the cheering and ''awesoming'' heard?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    As I understood it human life is sacrosanct and unless one's life is in danger there is no justification whatsoever for shooting someone for the sake of it (or 'for a laugh', as this case appears to be).

    Immediately or potentially in danger? Speaking hypothetically, if a terrorist steals a private plane but nobody knows what his intentions are, should he or should he not be shot before he is allowed to enter the plane? Just an example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think he should be intercepted and warned that he won't be allowed to enter the said airspace and that he must be allowed to be escorted elsewhere. If he doesn't listen then yes, it is perfectly justified to take the plane down.

    But that scenario can be described as clear and immediate danger or threat. Quite a different scenario from the one shown in the clip.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Actually I do know what he was doing at the time he was fatally shot: he as laying on the floor, injured and trying to move and crawl away (without much success).

    So... crawling toward the detonator to explode that IED he had just dropped, does not qualify as "remaining a threat"?

    Observe the direction of the rifle fire which hit him? It came from beyond the cover, NOT from the Marine to the right of the camera... unless you have invented some type of rifle which shoots in a horizontal arc. :rolleyes:

    Ever think that those Marines might have a better view - from the front, rather than over the back - of what the non-uniformed, illegal combatant was doing? Naw... so much easier to spout your hatred from your perspective of ignorance.

    Better start saving up those coins that you find on the sidewalk... perhaps someday, you might be able to buy a clue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin


    Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the cheering and ''awesoming'' heard?

    Never been in combat, have you? Never survived the moment when another had done his damnest to kill you? Never witnessed your closest friends killed by those such as that illegal combatant, have you?

    Reactions vary, from person to person, according to their individual experience and emotional makeup. Most of these kids have not been in heavy combat, on a daily basis, and have not grown the "emotional armor" of one who has, and feels absolutely NOTHING.

    Keep saving those coins... you definitely are in need of that clue...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Trying to crawl towards the detonator to explode that IED he had just dropped".

    Dream on.

    And since you seem to put so much emphasis in the "illegal combatant" status (which even if true does not make cold-blooded murder right) you perhaps have not stopped to consider that since the US is conducted an illegal occupation that was achieved by an illegal war, all of the US army in Iraq can rightfully be considered illegal combatants themselves. All your pretty uniforms and all your pretty badges are not worth an iota to most people in Iraq (and many more elsewhere).

    A funny old deluded world you live in, in which for as long as a murderer is wearing army fatigues he can get away with everything.

    Since the Iraqi army has been dismantled while the US installs its puppets in command, I think those fighters are the only thing today that can be regarded as official or an army of Iraq. I think they have rather more authority when it comes to what constitutes legal combatants than the foreign illegal occupier.

    As for the cheering crowds, you know... you would actually have gained a little credibility from at least admitting that those soldiers should be ashamed of themselves for cheering and shouting 'awesome' at the incident. But then again I would not expect you to put a single word of criticism out if a video clip was released tomorrow showing US soldiers pouring petrol over 2 year old babies and setting them alight. I'm sure you've come up with some justification there... such as the babies were wearing explosive nappies or they were going to grow up to be illegal combatants anyway, so why allow it.

    Right Thannie?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Actually I do know what he was doing at the time he was fatally shot: he as laying on the floor, injured and trying to move and crawl away (without much success).

    You presume that he was trying to "crawl away".
    the US soldiers were in no danger whatsoever from the wounded man.

    According to you, based on video footage. Hell don't they at least the deserve the right to be heard, before you condemn them?
    Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the cheering and ''awesoming'' heard?

    I think I covered that earlier.

    What you have done here is act like a lynch mob, no better than the person who makes generalisation based on little information. You predjudices against the war - war in general even - means that you apparently aren't prepared to make the judgements which I would usually expect from you.

    Do you condemn Michael Jackson? No, because you know that you don't know all of the facts. What I am trying to do is remind you that you don't know what happened at all. What you have seen is some footage from a camera - and we all know that footage can be chopped to suit. Hell, a Sky journo lost his job because of it...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not that consistency of perspective can be ascribed to our resident "clued-in" (*cough*) wannabe action hero, yet if he bothered to draw out his ill-formed logic to its ultimate conclusions, then he would have to condemn a large portion of our own forebears who fought off British colonial control to establish independence. Hmmm very few uniforms amongst those firing from farmhouses, behind trees and stone walls... guess they were illegal combatants and terrorists then! :rolleyes:

    Now run along like a mindless zombie and go do some collaborating of your own with Ashcroft and co. Im sure you would be more than happy to inform on your liberal neighbours and help to advance the neo-con efforts to eliminate accountability from our central government.

    Good little lacky, here's a bone! :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.