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.

US Army at it again

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can you cover my lack of knowledge about US history?

    1. We're the "revolutionaries" also coming from countries other than the US?

    2. Did they deliberately target their own countrymen, or did they just target UK soldiers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What more evidence would anyone need?

    Is there really room for doubt in your mind?

    If we were at least discussing the possibility that others might take aim and shoot at any US soldiers who might attempt to approach the man and arrest him alive... but as far as that man is concerned, he did not present any danger because he could hardly move. My earlier assessment that he was crawling is actually far-fetched. The man cannot manage anything much greater than raising an arm for a few seconds and moving one of his legs.

    Is there anything at all you would be prepared to condemn without having a full trial to corroborate it? Because if I put it to you that Saddam has never killed anyone in his life, that the gassing was in fact carried out by others disguising as Iraqis, that mass graves are planted and the dead are not victims of Saddam's regime you couldn't prove me wrong could you? Saddam has not been sent to trial yet, and all we have is the word of the West and some inconclusive footage.

    Yet earlier on in another thread you were happy to say that the man is guilty of genocide. So it'd seem that your dislike of Saddam is prompting you to act like a lynch mob in that particular case.

    Now, I like you don't doubt for a moment that Saddam has killed many people in his life. Because it is obvious. It is also obvious that the man seen in the footage is seriously incapacitated by his injuries and unable to do anything what could put anyone's life in danger. Regardless of what might have happened before he was shot, regardless of whatever real or imaginary weapons might lie 20 yards away from the man, he was not in a position to reach anything or even displace himself when he was shot dead. He was shot dead unnecessarily and gratuitously.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    What more evidence would anyone need?

    You would convict on that alone?

    Is there really room for doubt in your mind?

    Yes. My mind isn't quite as closed as yours appears to be. You know that surprises me, you always appeared to be much more open minded, but I guess that we all have our predjudices.
    but as far as that man is concerned, he did not present any danger because he could hardly move.

    And you come to this judgement from what.... 3-5 seconds worth of edited footage?
    Is there anything at all you would be prepared to condemn without having a full trial to corroborate it?

    Yep. But I remind you that you are suggesting that these people did murder.

    Perhaps you missed my earlier comments about the "comfort" level, but I refuse to argue that murder has taken place here.
    Yet earlier on in another thread you were happy to say that the man is guilty of genocide.

    Er no I didn't.

    I said that the Iraq people should put him on trial, that I didn't like the death penalty usually, but genocide would be different.

    I have not said that he is guilty of anything.
    It is also obvious that the man seen in the footage is seriously incapacitated by his injuries and unable to do anything what could put anyone's life in danger.

    How many working fingers does it take to push a button?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1. Yes, in fact the Grench aided both in terms of Supply and leadership. One such leader who came over to assist the colonists was the Marquis de Lafayette...

    http://www.worldhistory.com/lafayette.htm

    Another item on French assistance...

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/AmerRev_ForeignAssistance.asp

    And then there was even a famous Polish General who, having met Ben Franklin in Paris, was convinced to come over to help fight against the Brits...

    http://www.newbedford.k12.ma.us/elementary/casimir.htm

    Nevertheless, If you are attempting to make the point I suspect you are making, I would remind you that what has been claimed to be merely foreign fighters and ex-Baathists comprising the brunt of the Iraqi resistance to foreign occupation is typical war propaganda and is increasingly being recognised as ancillary to the much broader resistance arising from the Iraqis themselves, mainly non-Saddam supporting ex-military who are fighting not for loyalty to the ousted dictator but against foreign occupation. Something that has historically fueled Iraqi nationalism.

    This is another reason the presumptuous neo-con claims of massive celebration for the arrival of our forces never materialised as they had promised to our troops and our citizens.

    2. In war, isnt all death of civilians merely "collateral damage"? The argument certainly works for us. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    You would convict on that alone?

    No I would live the convicting to the judge. But for that to happen we would have to have all those men suspended, arrested and brought to justice.

    I think there is a better chance of Saddam being the next US President than of those men facing trial (or of people like as the bushbots at certain other forum to even consider some wrongdoing might have been committed by a member of the US armed forces).

    Yes. My mind isn't quite as closed as yours appears to be. You know that surprises me, you always appeared to be much more open minded, but I guess that we all have our predjudices.
    I guess we do. I will try to be more open minded from now on, starting with the following:

    - The earth is flat
    - Hitler didn't invade Poland
    - The Holocaust didn't take place
    - The Moon doesn't exist

    Now I don't think you can prove me wrong in any statement. Evidence can be fabricated. Footage can be deceiving.

    So if you happen to disagree with either of those 4 statements your mind is clearly as prejudiced as mine.


    And you come to this judgement from what.... 3-5 seconds worth of edited footage?
    The footage shows a wounded and nearly completely immobilised man being shot dead for no reason.

    It'd be considered the ultimate killer evidence in any court of law in the world. Not that any of the soldiers is likely to face the law anyway... What chance is there?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    ... 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...

    Now you are equating the termination of a still lethal combatant to the immolation of infants? :rolleyes:

    That clue is getting ever so elusive is it not? :(

    And by the way?

    That "boy" invective you have grown so fond of? If delivered face-to-face? Would be received in the same vein as the "N" word censored out on this forum, and would have you fighting for your very life.

    Since I have been warned of "inflamatory rhetoric", perhaps you could back it down a notch?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    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:

    Seems that "The Crown" treated them as exactly THAT, when they were apprehended. Or have you revised that part of history, also?

    And? By the way? The "militia" of the times - the "ordinary citizen in civilian clothes"? Were extremely ineffective. Such was the reason for a standing army. The ineffectiveness of the militia/civilians were much the reason that Canada remained a possession of "The Crown", rather than a part of the emerging United States.

    Need to brush up on Military History, do you? :rolleyes:

    And "wannabe action hero"? :o How embarrassing, for you.

    I have many times stated that I do not believe in the concept of "heroes", but simply that some fulfill the responsibilities to which they are called. And "wannabe"? One would presume that the 500+ days I spent in close combat during 26 months of heavy fighting, the four wounds (three by rifle fire, one by close grenade) which brought recognition by four Purple Hearts (you do know what those are, right?) would label me as whatever I have proven myself to be, rather than a "wannabe". Hero? Is an appelation others used when they pinned bits of metal and tin to my chest, and sewed stripes upon my sleeve. Me? I laid those icons at the base of a long stone wall, two decades ago, in honor of REAL heroes, whose sacrifice has never ended.

    So much easier to demean what you have not the testicular requisites to do yourself, is it not? Yeah, I set aside my own future, stepped away from the classroom, and spent a "forever" on the other side of the world, because I believed in the ideal set forth within the constitution of my country, to a greater value than my own life. And after having been wounded twice, in my first tour of 13 months in Hell? I requested a second tour, because I had observed the genocide which the communists intended to visit upon the Dega (you do know who the Dega are/were, don't you?).

    How terribly quaint, to actually step into a war for the freedom of others, whose language you can barely even speak.

    How terribly anachronistic, to actually back your ideals with your life, rather than simply give lip service to them. How stupid, to actually put ones life on the line, rather than skip out and play the self-styled supremist/elitest diplomat/bureaucrat/advisor, too precious to soil their dainty hide.

    Yeah, clandestine, I love my country - with all of its faults and shortcomings - more than you hate it.

    Deal with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    Now you are equating the termination of a still lethal combatant to the immolation of infants? :rolleyes:

    That clue is getting ever so elusive is it not? :(
    Oh dear dear :rolleyes:

    No I wasn't equating the (murder) of a fighter with that of a baby. I was pointing out that no action, crime or atrocity committed by a US soldier ever would prompt you to utter a single word of criticism, would it? I know US soldiers don't kill babies purposely (well, generally speaking. I could mention the bombing of the civilian Iraqi bunker in 91 but I'll let it pass...). But if they did, if in the hypothetical scenario that some cameraman had caught some US soldiers torturing or killing and Iraqi baby for a laugh you could not bring yourself to condemn them could you? A man wearing a US uniform is clearly incapable of any wrongdoing, unlike the rest of us mortals. And in any case your warped sense of "patriotism" would prevent you from speaking ill of any comrades publicly wouldn't it Thanatos?
    And by the way?

    That "boy" invective you have grown so fond of? If delivered face-to-face? Would be received in the same vein as the "N" word censored out on this forum, and would have you fighting for your very life.

    Since I have been warned of "inflamatory rhetoric", perhaps you could back it down a notch?
    I'm scared shitless...

    You do really make your daily goal to reach higher levels of hypocrisy than the previous day don't you? You're offended by the term 'boy'? You're demanding that I back it down a notch?

    Can I then point out to your daily remarks about "children", "parasites", "circlejerks" and countless other childish things you enjoy saying so much to those who disagree with your agenda... Not that they bother me in the slightest, but I find it highly amusing that you complain of the term 'boy' used on you while you use far less innocuous terms on others.

    Besides, as it has been pointed out before you seem incapable of calling certain posters by their own username, resorting instead to would-be derogatory terms. That is nothing more than primary school tactics. There is only one person here who acts childish.

    So I'm very pleased that you have suddenly acknowledged the lack of need for inflammatory rhetoric when debating on these boards. Perhaps you could lead by example by start calling people by their names and spare us those self-coined terms you seem so proud of? You might be surprised to see that others will oblige too…
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    No I would live the convicting to the judge.

    "What more evidence would anyone need?"

    So, to rephrase my question. Would you expect a judge & jury to convict on that footage alone?
    So if you happen to disagree with either of those 4 statements your mind is clearly as prejudiced as mine.

    Indeed I am, which is why I said that we all have our predjudices. I'd say that included me.


    The footage shows a wounded and nearly completely immobilised man being shot dead for no reason.

    It'd be considered the ultimate killer evidence in any court of law in the world. Not that any of the soldiers is likely to face the law anyway... What chance is there?

    If you really want to understand what a wounded man is capable of, perhaps you should read some of the VC citations. It might change your perspective a little.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Nevertheless, If you are attempting to make the point I suspect you are making

    No, it was a honest question.
    2. In war, isnt all death of civilians merely "collateral damage"? The argument certainly works for us. ;)

    Isn't there a difference between targetting civillians, and civillians being caught up in the action?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But unless the soldier who shot had psychic capabilities and was able to see into the future it is clear to see that the injured man was getting nowhere and endangering no one. That particular man, in that particular place and moment in time was nearly immobile and nowhere near a weapon or in a position to endanger anyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    But unless the soldier who shot had psychic capabilities and was able to see into the future it is clear to see that the injured man was getting nowhere and endangering no one.

    So, the soldier who was there knows less about the potential risk he was facing that you do - even though you have only a short piece of footage?

    What is clear to you, from the footage you have seen may be different from what was clear to the soldier who had more information...

    As those citations will show you, it really isn't that simple. It really isn't that obvious that an injured man poses no threat, if they didn't pose a threat then many of those VCs would not have been "won" at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.