US Military kills multiple Iraqi civillians, including two journalists, wounds 2 kids

Deck Knight

Seize Your Doom
is a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I guess you chose to ignore the pictures showing Abu Gharib, My Lai, Guantanamo and such.
How many people died at Abu Ghraib? Zero. My Lai has nothing to do with these current conflicts. If we want to get into the entire history of every military, no military will be left untouched by scandal. Gitmo? You mean where prisoners get three fucking squares and throw piss and shit cocktails at American soldiers who cannot do so much as gesture back at them?

You're right, we should put Gitmo terrorists in with the general population of a Super Max for them to stand trial in a US court system.

They won't live the night.

Um, did I defend terrorists using child soldiers? That's almost as immoral as shooting civillians as you please. Or raping and torturing prisoners at will. Or using chemical and nuclear weapons in wars that continue to plague the locals, still causing child defects and cancer after 60+ years (see Vietnam War and WWII). Or claiming to be a champion of human rights while ignoring all these, and even worse, feeling no guilt and trying to defend these actions.
Your entire worldview is all about guilt. We have to feel guilty for all the terrible shit humans do to each other. Guilt is an emotion with no value in a war. Do you know how many people would have died if we hadn't dropped the bombs? Japan was so militaristic (and indeed, imperialist) at the time their first wave sneak attack used kamikazes. Japanese pilots were locked into their airplanes, their goal was to attack and when you couldn't attack anymore to sacrifice your plane and your life. Countless people would have died in a land invasion of Japan.

I never claimed to be a champion of human rights, you are the one attempting to claim that mantle with your emotional moralism. Here's what guarantees human rights: an open democratic society with free and fair elections. Which the Iraqis now have after we deposed their former ruler under the assumption he was a threat to any nation within range of the nuclear weapons that global intelligence thought he was seeking. What happens inbetween is always ugly, just like the United States' Civil War was ugly.

You have to be an ignorant fuck or a far-right American to think that Iraq War has nothing to do with petrol. Yes, Iraq isn't the 51th state now, but this doesn't change the fact that you still exercise control over their civil affairs.
I'm the ignorant fuck? As I recall, there were no Americans on the Iraqi ballots. America is on its way out of Iraq. They want to handle their own affairs and we're currently trying to ease out of there as the Iraqi police and army assume more and more responsibility. We've shifted from a combat role to a supervisory/mentor role, and soon we'll be shifting out of that. I know that doesn't jive with your narrative, but it's the reality on the ground.

That's the thing. A life of another human being lies in your hands. The pilot wasn't in immediate danger (read broth3r's post previous page) yet he decided to shoot anyway. Now, 12 men are killed. They are gone. Poof. Forever. They won't get a chance to live again. Did they really deserve to suffer the death they did for no reason? If a relative of yours or a loved one suffered such a fate, would you be able to "take it with a grain of salt"? Would you be able to say "shit happens" and shrug it off? Think about it. Whatever you believe in, human life is holy. Empathy is the word. I find it disgusting how you can find the killings of innocent people as a plausible act.
Do you even understand the purpose of air support? Air support exists so that a potential terrorist with an RPG can't blow up a convoy heading in that direction, because the airplane neutralizes that threat. An apache helicopter is not looking out for it's own ass in a counterinsurgency, it's looking out for ground resources in the vicinity.

Whether or not they deserved death is irrelevant. It happened. It might have been a terrible, cruel mistake. Or we might have nailed an Al-Quaeda bigshot responsible for subway bombings in three nations. Here's a reason they died: wandering around with unmarked vehicles in a war zone characterized by an opponent that uses child soldiers, guerrilla tactics, and fights in civilian clothing. It's a pretty shitty reason to die if you're a hapless innocent, but it's a reason nonetheless.

Yes. It's impossible for any human being to defend the killings of civillians, or so I thought. The difference between terrorists and US soldiers is that one side wears uniforms, the other side doesn't.
That's a pretty big difference. It's the difference between fighting for a nation and vigilantism at best, terrorism at worst.

Really? What about Mahmudiyah? Or Hamdania? Haditha? Isaqi? Mukaradeeb? Guantanamo prisoner abuse? Waterboarding and beatings? Wait, that's enhanced interrogation.
I'm glad you brought up Haditha. Where 12 marines got wrongly accused by a sitting (now deceased) US Representative of murdering in cold blood with no evidence whatsoever. All of whom were acquitted. That doesn't matter though, because thanks to the late Congressman Murtha, Al-Quaeda got a huge PR boost.
Al-Quaeda said:
"Even their own pig representatives say they are killers! ALLAHU ACKBAR! KILL THE KAFIR!"
This is what I was alluding to earlier. You operate based on the seriousness of the charge. The US military is guilty before proven innocent with you. I thought you had a problem with that, but I guess when it's the right target...

Also, don't feed the bullshit about Islam playing a role in these terrorist incidents. I don't know if you have been following the news lately, but a massacre commited by Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Congo has been discovered. Quoting from Human Rights Watch:
The difference between Muslim terrorists and most of the other terrorists in the world is that most other terrorist groups are provincial. They have specific political goals for their own nation or their own desired but ultimately limited piece of property. These terrorists have the caliphate as a geopolitical goal which includes, among other things, making Islam the reigning political and religious force in the world. They operate with global goals and attack civilizations everywhere.

Religions were created/made up to give people a sense of morality. If it's the law that says you cannot steal, yet you know you won't be caught, you'd still go ahead and steal. If you knew that you'd burn in hell for stealing, you'd be reluctant to commit the crime.

Islam does say martyring oneself for Allah is a good deed. This only strictly includes dying while defending your country in the name of Islam on the frontlines against enemy soldiers. Blowing yourself up and killing civillians or other Muslims /=/ martyring yourself.
Which all is what Islam should be, but isn't what these extremists have perverted it into. Unfortunately their fellow Muslim travelers are either fatwa'd into silence, or if a death threat and excommunication isn't good enough, beheading and suicide bombs will do the trick. I do have Muslim friends on Smogon. They are all bright and work hard to please their parents, akthough they do have a sneaky streak. The Saudi I met in college was more interested in Super Smash Bros. and some kind of smoked weed in a bag than establishing the caliphate. But their Islam is being perverted by these people and unfortunately until there is internal pressure on that fanatical branch, the only way to limit their influence is to stop their plots and kill their leaders.

Final line: You are humans for fucks's sake. Have some feelings. Don't be so dull, so cold.
Don't accuse the US Military of Mass Murder when you know it isn't true, then. Don't pull this empathy bullshit on me; I'm neither dull nor cold, I simply have a firm grasp on reality, and the reality is that terrible things like this happen in a conflict zone. All you can do is what I first suggested, which is mourn for the families and move on.

If only you would apply that sense of empathy you proclaim to have with the United States Soldier, Marine, Sailor, and Airman.
 
Yes they did. Hitler, despite all of his other evilness, refused to authorize gas shells as he thought it would be terrifying, and the Allies did the same.
There was also the fact that gassing frankly wasn't very reliable (and almost worthless especially in Blitzkrieg tactics) and Hitler didn't like getting gassed very much himself (which happened to him as he fought bravely in the First World War.)

Fun fact! An apache helicopter can take three s.a.m.'s to the tail, and still fly home! I can understand why at 2:35 he would think their is a guy crouching at the corner getting ready to fire an rpg, but even then, trying to hit a helicopter with an rpg(or any kind of non guided rocket for that matter) seems stupid, with very low chances of success, It just didn't seem like the kind of situation where they had to murder them so quickly. It wouldn't of killed them to wait a minute and confirm what may or may not have been an rpg
The apache was not by itself - it was covering a convoy that had been in firefights throughout the day, and RPGs can do quite a bit to a soldier or Humvee. So your logic fails.
 
Deck Knight said:
The difference between Muslim terrorists and most of the other terrorists in the world is that most other terrorist groups are provincial. They have specific political goals for their own nation or their own desired but ultimately limited piece of property. These terrorists have the caliphate as a geopolitical goal which includes, among other things, making Islam the reigning political and religious force in the world. They operate with global goals and attack civilizations everywhere.
This isn't actually true. Almost all religious terrorists are the same, take for example Hutree, if we want an American example, they were simply a regional group because they were small, but they had global plans, if you read their literature.

It is true that most non-religious terrorists are regional, though. I don't think that global terrorism is intrinsically worse then regional terrorism. After all, if there is suicide bombing, it doesn't matter if it only happens in Sri Lanka (to take the Tamil example) it is just as hideous as if it took place around the world.
 

Pirika

O boxeador revolucionário
is an Artist Alumnus
That's a pretty big difference. It's the difference between fighting for a nation and vigilantism at best, terrorism at worst.
This is relative. When Germany occupied France during the WWII the french resistance used tatics as sabotage or guerrilla warfare to combat the germans. The french combatants didn't use any uniform but I think they were figthing for a much better reason then the germans who were figthning for a nation.

Fighting for a nation, specially when you are invading another country doesn't make this anything better.
 
Japan was so militaristic (and indeed, imperialist) at the time their first wave sneak attack used kamikazes. Japanese pilots were locked into their airplanes, their goal was to attack and when you couldn't attack anymore to sacrifice your plane and your life. Countless people would have died in a land invasion of Japan.
I'm sorry about the nit-picking here and straying a bit off-topic, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze said:
These attacks, which began in October 1944
So, no, it did NOT begin with Pearl Harbor. It only happened once Japan started losing.

However, aside from that, I agree with Deck Knight.

EDIT: @Ferrouswheel
only by individuals, who made the decision independently (such as when they were leaking fuel, or, in many cases, accidental collisions. Anyway, it was not planned in advance then.
 
I don't get why people claim that the US invaded Iraq for oil. If that was the case, the US would import a lot more oil from Iraq than it currently does. The top 5 importing constitute 67% of all US oil imports. Iraq is not part of that group.
 
I'm sorry about the nit-picking here and straying a bit off-topic, but
So, no, it did NOT begin with Pearl Harbor. It only happened once Japan started losing.
You (and Wikipedia) are misinterpreting the source it refers, too. The first pure kamikaze divisions were organized then, but the principle was present even during Pearl Harbor.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top