wolfriverjoe 1,340 #76 April 6, 2010 Quote>Bit of a difference between AKs and RPGs just outside of Sadr City and >gun rights isn't there? Not really. If you can be killed if someone thinks you are carrying a gun in the place you live, you can be killed for carrying a gun in the place you live. (And since some of those "AK's and RPG's" turned out to be cameras, I don't believe they knew what they were carrying.) >It's a war zone. It's a suburb. >And FWIW, carry classes usually spend a fair amount of time on how to >handle the weapon after a shooting situation so that you don't get shot by >the cops that are responding. So once the cops have opened fire on you, how do you respond? Because some of those guys were trying to crawl away after being shot at the first time, and they opened up on them again. What should they have done? >If you are holding a weapon at the scene of a shooting, the responding >officers usually aren't willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to being >a good guy or a bad guy. OK. So if you ever draw your weapon, being killed is justifiable? Again, I will remember that the next time someone whines about "their right to defend themselves." Bahgdad Iraq, where this happened is a war zone. When this happened there were US and Iraqi soldiers on patrol on a daily basis, fighting against the insurgents who lived in Sadr City. The locals knew that anyone armed out on the streets was a potential target of US/Iraqi gov't fire. They were allowed to have weapons in their homes but weren't allowed to be armed on the streets. Once the cops open fire you are fucked. Period. The idea is to not behave in a manner that gets you shot at in the first place. The group that was attacked in Iraq was a group of "military age men" who appeared to be armed. The heli crew saw them as militants. No, being killed for simply drawing a weapon isn't justifiable. But if you are holding a weapon (or in some cases holding what appears to be a weapon - toy gun, cell phone, wallet) , some people - especially the cops -will see you as a threat and open fire. At the very least they (cops) will order you to drop the weapon and get on the ground. Non-compliance will get you killed. Something very important to remember for those who wish to carry. It's also important to remember that when travelling in a war zone that having the appearance of being militants will get you killed. It's not right. The heli crew and their superiors may merit punishment. But it's pretty easy to see how this can happen."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #77 April 6, 2010 >Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than >they were 10 years ago? 100,000 or so of them definitely aren't. Claiming that those 100,000 people were just a "few isolated incidents" is a very hard sell indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #78 April 6, 2010 >Bahgdad Iraq, where this happened is a war zone. Ah, well, Al Qaeda had declared war on the US prior to 2001, so what happened on 9/11 was perfectly understandable then; it was war. And if an Al Qaeda operative kills your friends while they're home one night - hey, they chose to live in a war zone. Sad but understandable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #79 April 6, 2010 Quote>Bahgdad Iraq, where this happened is a war zone. Ah, well, Al Qaeda had declared war on the US prior to 2001, so what happened on 9/11 was perfectly understandable then; it was war. And if an Al Qaeda operative kills your friends while they're home one night - hey, they chose to live in a war zone. Sad but understandable. Bit of a stretch there. There's just a little bit of difference between being threatened by a terrorist group and having bombs going off, soldiers patrolling, armed helicopters flying overhead and all the other activities that were going on in Baghdad at that time. But yes, the attacks on Sept 11 were both understandable and to some degree had been predicted."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #80 April 6, 2010 Quote>Regardless of the original reason for being there, the fact is we're there. >The Iraqi's still need our help . . . I think they could use a little less of this sort of "help." Iraq needs our help a bit more than we need to provide it. I said 6 years ago that we could leave, having removed Saddam from power. That was the only necessary objective of the 2003 invasion. You, my mother, and many others insisted that the US now had a responsibility to fix Iraq. When did that stop being true, Bill? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zagijimzoo 0 #81 April 6, 2010 QuoteDo you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago? Do you not agree the American people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago? I know a few private corrupt “Federal Reserve” bankers are better off now with the interest made on a 1trillion dollar war! I know a few government backed private contractors are better off now! And I’m their slave having to pay that interest while the dollar devalues right in front of my eyes the longer i hold it...for what? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #82 April 6, 2010 QuoteQuote""It's war. War is, by definition, immoral." I apologize if it seems like I'm nit-picking your post, Not nitpicking at all. QuoteBut if an action is immoral, doesn't that mean we shouldn't do it? If war is by definition immoral, doesn't that mean that people should not wage war? I fully agree with you. It is a matter of weighing the moral options. "Is the result of not goign to war a greater moral hazard than not going to war?" Because this is always a subjective determination there will always be room to argue. But yes, I agree. For example, I do not think we had a reasonably justifiable reason to be there. QuoteI would argue that some wars are morally good and some are not. America's involvement in WWII is usually cited as the classic example of a morally good war. I agree. The war was morally good. The carpet bombing of Dresden, the firestorming of Tokyo, etc., were examples of atrocities and immoralities committed in furtherance of the "moral good." It's why war is immoral, because though a moral end is achieved, it is generally considered immoral what is done to achieve that end." Quote We can make a distinction between jus ad bellum, the right to wage war, and jus in bello, the limits of morally acceptable wartime conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war I'd argue that it is possible to have a good war from both points of view. A country could go to war for a morally good reason, and fight in a morally acceptable manner. In other words, it would have been possible for us to fight WWII without firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. If I understand you, you are arguing that even in a war fought for good reasons, it is inevitable that atrocities will occur, thus war is by definition immoral. I'm arguing that wars can be fought for good reasons, and fought in a morally acceptable manner. War does not have to be immoral, although it can easily slip into immorality if the participants are not extremely careful. And this is what ties into the OP's concerns. These American soldiers seem to have been somewhat careless in their actions, and innocent people paid the ultimate price. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #83 April 6, 2010 Quote fight in a morally acceptable manner. If both sides are civilized and value human life, this might be possible. However should one side use human shields and children as soliders the other side can't stick to their rules and expect victory.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryThomas 0 #84 April 6, 2010 How many years in combat do you have. Or should it make a difference? Of course it does. How many times have you been shot by civillian looking enemy? how many Days have you spent in the hospital?How many letters have you had to write to a mother telling them there son was dead. These men are in a war they did not start. They're following orders of there President not there country. Be it right or wrong there just doing what they have been sent to do.It is hard to tell these men are not a threat. Does Black Hawk down ring a bell.Or Pamujon on the DMZ in korea in the 70's . How about TeT in 68.Beheading of inocent people. Do you honestly believe that these soldiers would rather be there instead of at home with there family. The President started this not the Americans. Lets not forget, How great Iraqs wonderfull leader was killing even his own family. Genacide and all. There still killing each other in Iraq.Before long Iran will be involved. North Korea can be next.There is a lot of threat to the human race out there. Maybe the next bombing will be in a switzerland neighborhood and the only excuse they will have is because switzerland wouldn't take sides. Or in the netherlands the excuse there could be that they weren't a Moslum nation.Does any of this make sense it is hard to make sense out of war.Why! they seem to loose track of the reason it was started in the first place.World war 1 they knew exactly the day the time the war would end yet americans died in the final seconds of that war, did the german that shot them know there was only seconds left in the war. Yes he did. Weapons of mass distructions was not Bush Jr reason for this. What I remember most is his statement ( Sadaam tried to have my father killed ) Intel realy didn't support the WMD theory.So it was changed to the War on terror. Go figure . Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #85 April 6, 2010 Quote>Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than >they were 10 years ago? 100,000 or so of them definitely aren't. Claiming that those 100,000 people were just a "few isolated incidents" is a very hard sell indeed. I never said few. I said any. QuoteYou can take any isolated incident and use it to one's viewpoints advantage. It's not until you look at the big picture that one can see the true positive or negative impact. In your example the 100,000. For them and their families they may feel the sacrifice was too great. But overall, in the big picture, how many millions more were saved? So, I'll ask again. Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #86 April 6, 2010 >You, my mother, and many others insisted that the US now had >a responsibility to fix Iraq. When did that stop being true, Bill? When they had their own sovereign government. At that point our responsibility went from being the country's judges, juries and executioners to supporting the new government the way we'd support any other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #87 April 7, 2010 >In your example the 100,000. For them and their families they may feel >the sacrifice was too great. But overall, in the big picture, how many millions >more were saved? How do you know anyone would have been saved? You don't; it's a guess. That logic can be used to justify any action. "If I don't set off these IED's, the invasion will continue and the Americans will kill more of my friends and family." That's why it's a crime to murder someone, even if you think someday they might kill someone else. >Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now >than they were 10 years ago? No, I don't. Their country was torn apart by a very bloody war and they're still recovering. Might they be better off in another 10? Perhaps. If so, that will be their doing, not ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,254 #88 April 7, 2010 QuotePeople didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryThomas 0 #89 April 7, 2010 bilvon you are 100% correct. We should just support not dictate. It is time to redirect our troops. But where Alqueda , Iran , North Korea. Or just bring them home untill after we get Nuked.Personally I don't think there is much anyone can do It worry's me. The future generations are going to have some real isues to deal with. Global warming included. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #90 April 7, 2010 Quote Quote People didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world. World peace is like perfection. We know it's unatainable, but that doesn't mean you don't try. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #91 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuotePeople didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world. Wow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #92 April 7, 2010 QuoteWow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... Defeating Germany in WWII was a team effort. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #93 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteWow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... Defeating Germany in WWII was a team effort. True. So was defeating Japan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #94 April 7, 2010 Quote>You, my mother, and many others insisted that the US now had >a responsibility to fix Iraq. When did that stop being true, Bill? When they had their own sovereign government. At that point our responsibility went from being the country's judges, juries and executioners to supporting the new government the way we'd support any other. Let's be serious. Pulling out so that this 'sovereign government' can collapse in weeks or months isn't doing it any favors. A lot of the fighting is not against the US troops anymore. So if your answer is to just let it happen, we could have done that 6 years ago (and a few thousand US soldiers ago). Would fewer Iraqis be deal in that scenario? Quite likely the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #95 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuote fight in a morally acceptable manner. If both sides are civilized and value human life, this might be possible. However should one side use human shields and children as soliders the other side can't stick to their rules and expect victory. Holding onto the moral high ground is never an easy thing in any situation, much less in war. I respectfully disagree with the idea that because our enemy behaves badly in war, we must do so as well. If we can't win the fight honorably, maybe it's not worth winning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #96 April 7, 2010 QuoteSo how about Prayers for all and forgiveness. War is hell this happens and it will continue to happen till the end of time . It doesn't make it right how ever all involved will continue a life of sorrow . Believe me I Know and Have been there. Jerry Good post. Thanks. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #97 April 7, 2010 Quote> The rules of engagemnet are already restrictive enough to put our soldiers >at risk. The only thing we could do to make them any more restrictive would >be to forbid any engagement until fired upon avoid unneeded wars. Fixed that. You don't need to kill Iraqi kids or journalists if you're not there to begin with. Strawman.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryThomas 0 #98 April 7, 2010 1969912:Thank you.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BDashe 0 #99 April 7, 2010 Never served, but I was just visiting some friends and friends of friends in Arlington, VA 2 weeks ago... There are all kinds of stories to justify the actions taken in that video, many of which can't be told from the first person perspective. I saw a guy drop to a knee using a building for cover with a long tube aimed at a gunship, then get on a radio. I did not see any children, even in zoomed and edited video. It's a war zone, tap tap. Overall the whole situation sucks. -BrettSo there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #100 April 7, 2010 QuoteI saw a guy drop to a knee using a building for cover with a long tube aimed at a gunship, then get on a radio. I did not see any children, even in zoomed and edited video. It's a war zone, tap tap. I saw that same guy walking down the middle of the road with a camera slung over his shoulder only a few seconds earlier, when the people were shot they were just standing there in plain view talking to each other, they were shot and most of them killed, one was crawling and wounded with no weapon and the soldier in the helecppter was itching to shoot him, the same soldier wanted to kill the people in the van including 2 children. When this mass murder was exposed years ago (minus video), we were told that it was not known how the children were injured and those that were killed were armed insurgents. They reprted 5 or 6 guys with AK's. and an RPG. From watcing this video we can see quite clearly that these people were not posing a threat, they were taking photos and acting normally. the murderer lied to his superiors in order get permission to shoot people for his own pleasure. If iraq is a warzone, and it is O.k. for US soldiers to kill anyting that moves, then you set the precedent that it is O.k. for those you are fighting to do the same, and then worse. So that makes the entire USA a warzone currently. so they can justifyably come and shoot you using the same moral principal. This american world police attitude is dangerous, it allows atrocities like this to continue, and as long as 'simple (minded)' americans support this type of behaviour it will continue, and the (real/actual) danger to american citizens will continue to escallate exponentially. Al Qaeda is a product of america tryng to protect itsef. Al quaeda would not exist if it wasn't for the IMC pumping billions of dollars into it a couple of decades ago. America should not be in Iraq and these innocent people should still be alive. what was achieved by killing them?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Bolas 5 #83 April 6, 2010 Quote fight in a morally acceptable manner. If both sides are civilized and value human life, this might be possible. However should one side use human shields and children as soliders the other side can't stick to their rules and expect victory.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #84 April 6, 2010 How many years in combat do you have. Or should it make a difference? Of course it does. How many times have you been shot by civillian looking enemy? how many Days have you spent in the hospital?How many letters have you had to write to a mother telling them there son was dead. These men are in a war they did not start. They're following orders of there President not there country. Be it right or wrong there just doing what they have been sent to do.It is hard to tell these men are not a threat. Does Black Hawk down ring a bell.Or Pamujon on the DMZ in korea in the 70's . How about TeT in 68.Beheading of inocent people. Do you honestly believe that these soldiers would rather be there instead of at home with there family. The President started this not the Americans. Lets not forget, How great Iraqs wonderfull leader was killing even his own family. Genacide and all. There still killing each other in Iraq.Before long Iran will be involved. North Korea can be next.There is a lot of threat to the human race out there. Maybe the next bombing will be in a switzerland neighborhood and the only excuse they will have is because switzerland wouldn't take sides. Or in the netherlands the excuse there could be that they weren't a Moslum nation.Does any of this make sense it is hard to make sense out of war.Why! they seem to loose track of the reason it was started in the first place.World war 1 they knew exactly the day the time the war would end yet americans died in the final seconds of that war, did the german that shot them know there was only seconds left in the war. Yes he did. Weapons of mass distructions was not Bush Jr reason for this. What I remember most is his statement ( Sadaam tried to have my father killed ) Intel realy didn't support the WMD theory.So it was changed to the War on terror. Go figure . Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #85 April 6, 2010 Quote>Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than >they were 10 years ago? 100,000 or so of them definitely aren't. Claiming that those 100,000 people were just a "few isolated incidents" is a very hard sell indeed. I never said few. I said any. QuoteYou can take any isolated incident and use it to one's viewpoints advantage. It's not until you look at the big picture that one can see the true positive or negative impact. In your example the 100,000. For them and their families they may feel the sacrifice was too great. But overall, in the big picture, how many millions more were saved? So, I'll ask again. Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #86 April 6, 2010 >You, my mother, and many others insisted that the US now had >a responsibility to fix Iraq. When did that stop being true, Bill? When they had their own sovereign government. At that point our responsibility went from being the country's judges, juries and executioners to supporting the new government the way we'd support any other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #87 April 7, 2010 >In your example the 100,000. For them and their families they may feel >the sacrifice was too great. But overall, in the big picture, how many millions >more were saved? How do you know anyone would have been saved? You don't; it's a guess. That logic can be used to justify any action. "If I don't set off these IED's, the invasion will continue and the Americans will kill more of my friends and family." That's why it's a crime to murder someone, even if you think someday they might kill someone else. >Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now >than they were 10 years ago? No, I don't. Their country was torn apart by a very bloody war and they're still recovering. Might they be better off in another 10? Perhaps. If so, that will be their doing, not ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #88 April 7, 2010 QuotePeople didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #89 April 7, 2010 bilvon you are 100% correct. We should just support not dictate. It is time to redirect our troops. But where Alqueda , Iran , North Korea. Or just bring them home untill after we get Nuked.Personally I don't think there is much anyone can do It worry's me. The future generations are going to have some real isues to deal with. Global warming included. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #90 April 7, 2010 Quote Quote People didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world. World peace is like perfection. We know it's unatainable, but that doesn't mean you don't try. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #91 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuotePeople didn't bellyache about civilian casualties when America's intervention brought peace to the world in WWII. Don't kid yourself. No-one has ever brought peace to the world. Wow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #92 April 7, 2010 QuoteWow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... Defeating Germany in WWII was a team effort. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #93 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteWow. Downplaying America's role in ending WWII... Defeating Germany in WWII was a team effort. True. So was defeating Japan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #94 April 7, 2010 Quote>You, my mother, and many others insisted that the US now had >a responsibility to fix Iraq. When did that stop being true, Bill? When they had their own sovereign government. At that point our responsibility went from being the country's judges, juries and executioners to supporting the new government the way we'd support any other. Let's be serious. Pulling out so that this 'sovereign government' can collapse in weeks or months isn't doing it any favors. A lot of the fighting is not against the US troops anymore. So if your answer is to just let it happen, we could have done that 6 years ago (and a few thousand US soldiers ago). Would fewer Iraqis be deal in that scenario? Quite likely the opposite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #95 April 7, 2010 QuoteQuote fight in a morally acceptable manner. If both sides are civilized and value human life, this might be possible. However should one side use human shields and children as soliders the other side can't stick to their rules and expect victory. Holding onto the moral high ground is never an easy thing in any situation, much less in war. I respectfully disagree with the idea that because our enemy behaves badly in war, we must do so as well. If we can't win the fight honorably, maybe it's not worth winning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #96 April 7, 2010 QuoteSo how about Prayers for all and forgiveness. War is hell this happens and it will continue to happen till the end of time . It doesn't make it right how ever all involved will continue a life of sorrow . Believe me I Know and Have been there. Jerry Good post. Thanks. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #97 April 7, 2010 Quote> The rules of engagemnet are already restrictive enough to put our soldiers >at risk. The only thing we could do to make them any more restrictive would >be to forbid any engagement until fired upon avoid unneeded wars. Fixed that. You don't need to kill Iraqi kids or journalists if you're not there to begin with. Strawman.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryThomas 0 #98 April 7, 2010 1969912:Thank you.Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #99 April 7, 2010 Never served, but I was just visiting some friends and friends of friends in Arlington, VA 2 weeks ago... There are all kinds of stories to justify the actions taken in that video, many of which can't be told from the first person perspective. I saw a guy drop to a knee using a building for cover with a long tube aimed at a gunship, then get on a radio. I did not see any children, even in zoomed and edited video. It's a war zone, tap tap. Overall the whole situation sucks. -BrettSo there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #100 April 7, 2010 QuoteI saw a guy drop to a knee using a building for cover with a long tube aimed at a gunship, then get on a radio. I did not see any children, even in zoomed and edited video. It's a war zone, tap tap. I saw that same guy walking down the middle of the road with a camera slung over his shoulder only a few seconds earlier, when the people were shot they were just standing there in plain view talking to each other, they were shot and most of them killed, one was crawling and wounded with no weapon and the soldier in the helecppter was itching to shoot him, the same soldier wanted to kill the people in the van including 2 children. When this mass murder was exposed years ago (minus video), we were told that it was not known how the children were injured and those that were killed were armed insurgents. They reprted 5 or 6 guys with AK's. and an RPG. From watcing this video we can see quite clearly that these people were not posing a threat, they were taking photos and acting normally. the murderer lied to his superiors in order get permission to shoot people for his own pleasure. If iraq is a warzone, and it is O.k. for US soldiers to kill anyting that moves, then you set the precedent that it is O.k. for those you are fighting to do the same, and then worse. So that makes the entire USA a warzone currently. so they can justifyably come and shoot you using the same moral principal. This american world police attitude is dangerous, it allows atrocities like this to continue, and as long as 'simple (minded)' americans support this type of behaviour it will continue, and the (real/actual) danger to american citizens will continue to escallate exponentially. Al Qaeda is a product of america tryng to protect itsef. Al quaeda would not exist if it wasn't for the IMC pumping billions of dollars into it a couple of decades ago. America should not be in Iraq and these innocent people should still be alive. what was achieved by killing them?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
