Collateral Murder

The worst part is the people defending the soldiers in this case. I don't mean to say these people should get off scott-free when I shift the blame onto the government for this cover-up. But there are those who are all trying to say things like "You haven't served, you don't know what it's like."...

My reply on another forum - and this is open to anyone here willing to answer it as well:

One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.
Click to expand...
I understand that, behind it all, the job of a solider can involve taking someone's life.

I do not understand laughing while doing it.

Teach me why that is okay.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Stopped from killing civilians and violating the Geneva conventions with no fear of criminal repercussions?

Maybe I'm not as cool as the rest of you guys, but I get a little heated watching soldiers take out civilians even though I know it happens all the time.[/QUOTE]

You act like they raided a house, put everyone inside up against a wall and shot them.

That's clearly not the case; at least some of these guys actually were armed, and that's why they were fired upon. Yes, the soldiers obviously misperceived that they were a threat and overreacted. Yes, their cavalier attitude is frightening. Yes, the order to fire shouldn't have been given. Yes, those people shouldn't have died. I doubt anyone will seriously argue that the whole situation wasn't a colossal and irremediable mistake.

However, consider the alternate scenario, where this guy does have an RPG and the helicopter doesn't receive clearance to fire, and gets shot down. Or where soldiers on the ground are facing actual enemy fire and their commanders are faced with the decision between risking civilian casualties and saving soldier's lives. That wasn't the case here, obviously. But is your response then that these guys are still psychopaths? How would you react in those circumstances?

War isn't the milieu for laborious decision-making and moral absolutes. It's fucked up six ways from Sunday and no good is going to come from it. But that doesn't excuse the implication that there are never any extenuating circumstances and that everyone who has put on an American uniform becomes some kind of casual murderer. They're the reason we get to have our silly little online debates. A little respect is warranted.

EDIT: Hell, I didn't see any children in that van until the video slowed down, zoomed in and pointed big black arrows at them. If it were me, I could've easily shot them and had no idea until well after the fact, and that scares the shit out of me. Can you really say any different?
 
I'm with Magus on this one.

Best way to avoid mistakes like this is not to go to war. Once it's on though, you have to expect a certain amount of mistakes like this to happen.

Does it make it any better? Of course not but I'm not going to assume I know everything about the situation on the ground so I won't condemn the soldiers.
 
We can't just pull out of Iraq at this time. That'll just let the situation over there revert to near-Saddam conditions. We have to stay the course and continue to help the Iraqis.

Also, for all those who can't stand living in the US, please GTFO now and never come back. Go to some other country(Mexico maybe, since that would be progress on sending a near-equal amount of Americans there as there are Mexicans who come here) and tell us then how good life in the US was.
 
[quote name='dabamus']We can't just pull out of Iraq at this time. That'll just let the situation over there revert to near-Saddam conditions. We have to stay the course and continue to help the Iraqis.[/QUOTE]

Homer: First you didn't want me to get the pony, now you want me to take it back, make up your mind!
 
[quote name='depascal22']Of course not but I'm not going to assume I know everything about the situation on the ground so I won't condemn the soldiers.[/QUOTE]

So... umm... you're perfectly okay with the soldiers laughing and making jokes about the lives they're taking?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The worst part is the people defending the soldiers in this case. I don't mean to say these people should get off scott-free when I shift the blame onto the government for this cover-up. But there are those who are all trying to say things like "You haven't served, you don't know what it's like."...

My reply on another forum - and this is open to anyone here willing to answer it as well:[/QUOTE]

Whistle while you work.

The soldiers genuinely thought the civilians were enemies. Soldiers are trained that enemies deserve to die. The laughter is a way of suppressing their conscience from feeling bad about taking a human life. Think of it as a nervous tick and a sign they're getting burned out.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Soldiers are trained that enemies deserve to die.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's because I've not served in the military and I'm simply not fond of the idea of taking another human life, but this seems like an issue to me. Instead of training soldiers that the enemy deserves to die, shouldn't we be training them that killing is a last resort?
 
Well like I said before, I can see why they may have fired on the group the first time because they thought they had weapons. An unfortunate incident. But after that the way the guy really wanted to kill the crawling dude was pretty disturbing, and I don't see why they fired on the van that was picking him up (they clearly weren't carrying any weapons).

Is it common practice to fire on anything that picks up the wounded?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']whistle while you work.

The soldiers genuinely thought the civilians were enemies. Soldiers are trained that enemies deserve to die. The laughter is a way of suppressing their conscience from feeling bad about taking a human life. Think of it as a nervous tick and a sign they're getting burned out.[/quote]

+1
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well like I said before, I can see why they may have fired on the group the first time because they thought they had weapons. An unfortunate incident. But after that the way the guy really wanted to kill the crawling dude was pretty disturbing, and I don't see why they fired on the van that was picking him up (they clearly weren't carrying any weapons).

Is it common practice to fire on anything that picks up the wounded?[/QUOTE]

Based on them requesting permission to fire, I would say yes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Based on them requesting permission to fire, I would say yes.[/QUOTE]

Then why can't he fire on the wounded guy who doesn't have a weapon?
 
You know what's scary, aside from Bob's hate for social/entitlement programs, we probably share a lot of opinions.
 
Interesting article, excerpted below

Blaming video games for real-world violence is old hat. Yes, research has linked video games to increased levels of aggression in children, but none has definitely proved that they cause it. To be fair, Asstrange's point is more subtle than that. He's not saying American gunners mistakenly shoot innocent men because they grew up playing video games. He's suggesting they do so because the killing itself feels like a game.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/id/2249999/
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe it's because I've not served in the military and I'm simply not fond of the idea of taking another human life, but this seems like an issue to me. Instead of training soldiers that the enemy deserves to die, shouldn't we be training them that killing is a last resort?[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to rewrite my bit from joeboo's blog here but in regards to training, killing is the business of the military. It's an ugly thing to say and an ugly thing to think about. We are not police officers, we are not mediators, we are not ambassadors. The job of *any* military is first and foremost, to kill the enemy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A lot of hard-core anti-war folks at least realize that we can't just drop everything and get out - we broke it and we should do *something* to help fix it.

While I understand where they're coming from, I'm pretty sure they were broken before we came along. ;)



You taking about class is about like Myke's earlier comment about how economic disparity doesn't equal racism.[/QUOTE]
Leave the one man against the evil government routine at the door, Bob. We know how you feel about health care and basically everything else that Obama has done, but this took place before he was even in office. Have a little respect for what this is about, it isn't health care or the US becoming "socialist."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Maybe it's because I've not served in the military and I'm simply not fond of the idea of taking another human life, but this seems like an issue to me. Instead of training soldiers that the enemy deserves to die, shouldn't we be training them that killing is a last resort?[/QUOTE]

You have to understand we are watching that video knowing beforehand that they killed innocent people. If we had just been told to watch the video without any of that background information, it would be somewhat different.

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is also unique compared to enemy engagements in the past. In the past you knew you were fighting and opposing army. Now we aren't fighting a standing fighting force of a nation, but civilians armed as terrorists that are often blended into to the population.

I can't defend or comdemn the actions of the soliders in a realtime situation like this because I am not a soldier. None of us know what they go through unless we are there. Not an excuse, but we don't know if the people in the helicopter were fired on recently, lost a fellow soldier, if hesitation has caused them to lose soldiers in the past, or anything else. What I CAN condemn is the lack of a better way to identify enemy combatants. I was absolutely appaled at the fact that with all the technology we have, we can't get a clear close up to see if someone has a gun or RPG. That is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Then why can't he fire on the wounded guy who doesn't have a weapon?[/QUOTE]

An unarmed combatant isn't a threat. It isn't clear to the helicopter pilot whether or not the van has weapons.

As one retired enlisted man from the army explained to me, an armed soldier has to drop his weapon to subdue an unarmed opponent. It sounded weird to me, too.

So, you have a soldier in a helicopter that can't drop his 30 mm cannon and an unarmed opponent crawling around. The soldier views the wounded opponent as a future threat and wants to remove it legally. Ergo, pick up a gun, please.
 
Yeah, but I thought the whole point was to see that it's a threat first, which is why they don't shoot the wounded guy. If you can shoot anything that might be a threat (like the van), then why didn't they just shoot up the whole fucking block? It just seems like a kind of random application of restraint.

I mean, I can see why he might want to shoot the wounded guy, he sees him as the enemy, but if you can't shoot him because he's unarmed, it seems weird that once you take a wounded unarmed guy and put him in a van then it's fair game. Like if he walked into a house then it would be fair game to bomb it, having no idea who else is in there.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, but I thought the whole point was to see that it's a threat first, which is why they don't shoot the wounded guy. If you can shoot anything that might be a threat (like the van), then why didn't they just shoot up the whole fucking block? It just seems like a kind of random application of restraint.[/QUOTE]

Get real, man. They only had so much ammo.

[quote name='SpazX'] I mean, I can see why he might want to shoot the wounded guy, he sees him as the enemy, but if you can't shoot him because he's unarmed, it seems weird that once you take a wounded unarmed guy and put him in a van then it's fair game. Like if he walked into a house then it would be fair game to bomb it, having no idea who else is in there.[/QUOTE]

U.S. Military ROE

The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows:

  • Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
  • Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
  • Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
  • Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
  • Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

Yeah, it's wiki, but it lays out the general idea. The soldier in the helicopter can't do anything but level 5. I'm assuming a van is construed as a weapon because you can hit somebody with it.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']
However, consider the alternate scenario, where this guy does have an RPG and the helicopter doesn't receive clearance to fire, and gets shot down. Or where soldiers on the ground are facing actual enemy fire and their commanders are faced with the decision between risking civilian casualties and saving soldier's lives. That wasn't the case here, obviously. But is your response then that these guys are still psychopaths? How would you react in those circumstances?
[/QUOTE]
To quote someone else entirely:

Double effect or double intention is ... well, think of a SWAT team in a hostage standoff. (That's probably a better operating model for America's current wars than other notions that may spring to mind when hearing the word "war.") They can try to shoot the hostage-takers, but doing so raises the risk of accidentally hitting the hostages. Generally speaking, SWAT teams won't take that risk, but if the situation is judged to be one in which not shooting puts the hostages in even greater danger, then they'll risk the shot. In such a circumstance, the blame for any hostages unintentionally injured or even killed by the SWAT team is not attributed to the officers, but to the hostage-takers. The SWAT team isn't regarded as having killed civilians because that is not why they chose to shoot. Their actions are covered under the principle of "double effect." Killing the hostages was not the motive or intent for the SWAT team's actions.

The principle covers more than just such accidental, wholly unintentional casualties. Imagine a scenario in which a hostage-taker is about to kill several of his hostages and is also shielding himself by holding a hostage in front of him. The SWAT sharpshooter's only option for stopping him is to shoot him through that hostage. The sharpshooter takes that option, thus stopping the hostage-taker and saving several lives, but also killing one of the innocent hostages it was his mission to save. The killing of that hostage is not accidental or even unintentional -- it was foreseeable and deliberate. But the principle of double effect still applies, because the consequence of killing that hostage was not the primary purpose or intent of the sharpshooter's actions.

But this important, nuanced ethical rule -- one that exists just for such extreme, restricted-option, awful situations -- is not infinitely elastic. It could never be used to justify, for example, a SWAT team opening a spray of indiscriminate automatic weapons fire or calling in an air strike to destroy the hostage-takers, the hostages and the surrounding neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
I may be misreading your/their point to an extent, but you're right; a soldier's actions aren't always justifiable based on the "fog of war" or anything else. There are always limits, and that's why we have rules of engagement and international accords designed to set them. The question is whether the soldiers' behavior here is over the line.

The analogy presented fails because, as has been said, soldiers are not police. Their ultimate objective is not to protect or save civilians. It is to kill the enemy or, failing that, stay alive so that they can kill the enemy later. This is why we have the Posse Comitatus Act. As such, the decision faced by the soldiers and their commanders here is not between killing some civilians to save the rest or allowing all the civilians to die. Rather, it's between firing into a group of armed men, risking civilian lives, or risking their own lives instead. Did they make the wrong choice? Yes.

But, like I said before, these soldiers didn't fire wildly into a crowd. They did not carpet bomb the block. They did not drag people out of their homes and execute them in the street. They were an occupying force that shot a group of people who were armed and who they believed posed a threat to them. They were incorrect, and nothing is going to change that. Nothing is going to undo the damage from that event or any of the other horros that the continuing occupaiton of Iraq has brought on. But that doesn't cast their actions inherently unjustifiable, as so far over the line of reason that no amount of extenuating circumstances can make them seem like anything but butchers.

As always, the pertinent inquiry is: would you have done any differently? And fortunately enough, for the vast majority of us it's a question that's impossible to answer.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I may be misreading your/their point to an extent, but you're right; a soldier's actions aren't always justifiable based on the "fog of war" or anything else. There are always limits, and that's why we have rules of engagement and international accords designed to set them. The question is whether the soldiers' behavior here is over the line.
[/QUOTE]
Rules of engagement, indeed.
Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.
Click to expand...
Note the "and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately".

I'm not sure that openly carrying an AK qualifies...
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Rules of engagement, indeed.

Note the "and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately".

I'm not sure that openly carrying an AK qualifies...[/QUOTE]

Maybe not, though I'd argue that it might quite reasonably be assumed that someone openly carrying an assault rifle probably intends to use it, and soon. It might even make for an interesting and relevant discussion were said wikipedia quotation taken from something other than a decade-old USMC handbook on hand-to-hand combat. Here's the whole thing (quoted portion is page v-vi): http://judoinfo.com/pdf/USMCcombat.pdf

Doesn't much look like a treatise on the Geneva Conventions or a set of standard orders in effect in Iraq in 2008 (or whatever year this occurred, on that I'm not entirely certain). But I'm not an expert on the law of war, nor am I familiar with what the ROE were when these events did occur. As such, I'm not trying to interpret either. I'm merely suggesting that the viewpoint that what these soldiers did as shown in the video is so inherently out-of-bounds that it can never be justified glosses over the complex nature of the situation and errs dangerously close to levying condemnation in the wrong place.
 
I want to clear a couple of things up.

I, personally, am not going to blame the soldiers for their direct actions on the ground. I wasn't there, the video isn't great quality and I've got no experience judging such situations.

HOWEVER - with that said - jump ahead to about seven minutes in the video. The attitude of these men. It's disguising. It's sub-human. This isn't uncomfortable laughter meant to ease the situation. This is the behavior of a psychopath. Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I can tell that something just isn't right with these people and the way they're reacting to this situation.

And that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is how our government reacted to the entire thing. Cover it up and hope no one finds out.

[quote name='Halo05']I'm not going to rewrite my bit from joeboo's blog here but in regards to training, killing is the business of the military. It's an ugly thing to say and an ugly thing to think about. We are not police officers, we are not mediators, we are not ambassadors. The job of *any* military is first and foremost, to kill the enemy.[/QUOTE]

100% Disagree. The job of the military is to stop the enemy. This *could* mean killing them. Hypothetical situation for you (since everyone loves my stories so much). Let's say you're part of a small team who comes under fire from some enemies. After a few shots are exchanged, they scurry to cover. Later that evening, while searching for them, your group comes upon their party and their lookout is asleep at the wheel. They're all asleep. You're inches from them, guns loaded. Do you fire upon the sleeping men?

[quote name='JolietJake']Leave the one man against the evil government routine at the door, Bob. We know how you feel about health care and basically everything else that Obama has done, but this took place before he was even in office. Have a little respect for what this is about, it isn't health care or the US becoming "socialist."[/QUOTE]

Oh, get over yourself, Jake. I never once mentioned Obama. Just get over yourself.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
100% Disagree. The job of the military is to stop the enemy. This *could* mean killing them. Hypothetical situation for you (since everyone loves my stories so much). Let's say you're part of a small team who comes under fire from some enemies. After a few shots are exchanged, they scurry to cover. Later that evening, while searching for them, your group comes upon their party and their lookout is asleep at the wheel. They're all asleep. You're inches from them, guns loaded. Do you fire upon the sleeping men?[/QUOTE]

There are too many variables to consider to give a straight up yes or no answer. If I knew something of their motivations I could make a better call. If they were marginal troops who were fighting for something material like cash, I'd probably attempt a capture (provided I had the logistical backup to ferry them out of the area very quickly). If they were hard core, Japanese Imperial Army during WW2 types, I'd probably kill them all.

The best catch-all I can come up with given what I know is to get everyone in position and call out, "Surrender, drop your weapons, you are surrounded." in their native tongue. Anyone that lunges for a rifle gets killed, anyone that sits still stays alive. That said, even that approach assumes much risk. Enemies can faux surrender and drop a grenade as they're being cuffed, detonate an explosive vest while being searched, and the like.

Shit's complex, no one with a brain would suggest that it isn't but to blame military personnel whose orders we don't know would be premature and possibly dangerous. In combat you need to feel like you can count on your chain of command, all the way up, for support as you carry out your orders. Military operations would be even more chaotic and costly if every soldier or Marine involved had to say, "Okay, HQ said to seize and hold this house but what if *blank* *blank* and *blank* happens. Last month they threw Murphy to the wolves because a round from his machine gun hit and killed a civilian a half mile down the road while he was covering his squadmates."

EDIT - Forgot to mention, do my ROE cover sleeping enemies? If (por ejemplo) it says that enemies within arm's reach of their weapon, whatever the circumstances, are considered acceptable targets, that could change things. If it considers sleeping enemies already incapacitated and thus not eligible for attack, that would also alter my tactics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']not to threadcrap but the wikileaks guy looks uncannily like Pete White from Venture Bros.

Anyway, I really am not surprised. The numbers of civilians killed is in the hundreds of thousands and this gets downplayed when not ignored outright and the media in the US is corrupt and lazy.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing venture brothers are beast. But besides that I hate watching videos like theses cause I feel like doing something about it but what is there to do? Some soldiers are going into this war for revenge just wanting to kill anything no mater what. I don't want to sound like I know what exactly went down but listening too are soldiers talking about "just pick up a gun" it seems to me they just wanted to kill them regardless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we gave Saddam those chemical weapons back when they where fighting Iran which we also gave weapons too.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... umm... you're perfectly okay with the soldiers laughing and making jokes about the lives they're taking?[/QUOTE]

I didn't say I'm perfectly OK with it but I understand it. It's the same way in the medical field. Things that shouldn't be funny are because of circumstances and peer pressure.

Is it right? No way. Does it make the soldiers cold blooded murderers? Nope.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I want to clear a couple of things up.

I, personally, am not going to blame the soldiers for their direct actions on the ground. I wasn't there, the video isn't great quality and I've got no experience judging such situations.

HOWEVER - with that said - jump ahead to about seven minutes in the video. The attitude of these men. It's disguising. It's sub-human. This isn't uncomfortable laughter meant to ease the situation. This is the behavior of a psychopath. Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I can tell that something just isn't right with these people and the way they're reacting to this situation.[/QUOTE]

Just going to interject a few points and then shut up for awhile.

Yeah, it's pretty fucked up. But what, exactly, were you expecting? GIs who quote Henry V and wax poetic about the savage nature of man as they sally forth into battle? The US military is, by and large, comprised of 17-24 year-old men. I don't know how many college parties you've attended lately, but as a whole 17-24 year-old men are probably the least emotionally mature and well-adjusted people on the planet. Yet we give them high-powered automatic weapons, send them to war, and tell them to follow orders and shoot people. And, from time to time, we have them watch their friends get killed.

All this in an insular, highly regimented society built around conformity and the chain of command.

Of course their coping mechanisms are going to be bizarre and frightening. Of course a percentage of them (as with the populace at large) may have or may develop genuine psychopathy or sociopathy. Of course they're going to appear to be seriously deranged to the casual outside observer. Of course some of them are going to be deeply, deeply fucked up a result of their experiences. This is why the Army employs psychiatrists, and this is why the VA has more and more cases of PTSD to treat every day. But this does not make anyone a murderer.

Is this a good situation? No. But it's one we've created as a society, and it's nothing new. I don't understand why you're so surprised.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I want to clear a couple of things up.

I, personally, am not going to blame the soldiers for their direct actions on the ground. I wasn't there, the video isn't great quality and I've got no experience judging such situations.

HOWEVER - with that said - jump ahead to about seven minutes in the video. The attitude of these men. It's disguising. It's sub-human. This isn't uncomfortable laughter meant to ease the situation. This is the behavior of a psychopath. Now, I'm no psychiatrist, but I can tell that something just isn't right with these people and the way they're reacting to this situation.

And that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is how our government reacted to the entire thing. Cover it up and hope no one finds out.



100% Disagree. The job of the military is to stop the enemy. This *could* mean killing them. Hypothetical situation for you (since everyone loves my stories so much). Let's say you're part of a small team who comes under fire from some enemies. After a few shots are exchanged, they scurry to cover. Later that evening, while searching for them, your group comes upon their party and their lookout is asleep at the wheel. They're all asleep. You're inches from them, guns loaded. Do you fire upon the sleeping men?



Oh, get over yourself, Jake. I never once mentioned Obama. Just get over yourself.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to man, it's implied. You complain about the "socialization" of the country, well tell me then who is it that you think is socializing the country?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You don't have to man, it's implied. You complain about the "socialization" of the country, well tell me then who is it that you think is socializing the country?[/QUOTE]

Weird, pretty sure I've never posted anything about "socialization". Can you find me a quote?

[quote name='depascal22']Because it's super easy to get outraged about things you have no idea about. See Exhibit A: Tea Baggers.[/QUOTE]

I do often see you post derogatory things about "Tea Baggers" when it seems you have no idea what they're about. At least you'll admit it. :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Weird, pretty sure I've never posted anything about "socialization". Can you find me a quote?[/QUOTE]

In this thread, you haven't used any word beginning with "social". So, you're OK.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In this thread, you haven't used any word beginning with "social". So, you're OK.[/QUOTE]

Bless the search engine...

Here are the whopping three posts on the entire PaC forum where I've ever used "socialism" or "socialize":

An obvious joke:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6024173&postcount=49

A comment about the idea of using the Joker to represent socialism (which goes along with the old avatar I had):
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6269585&postcount=32

A comment where I actually call the idea of Obama wanting to "socialize" health care as crazy.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6254184&postcount=69

Considering that Jake wants to stay on topic, he sure does a great job derailing threads.
 
[quote name='INSANEx708']I was thinking the same thing venture brothers are beast. But besides that I hate watching videos like theses cause I feel like doing something about it but what is there to do? Some soldiers are going into this war for revenge just wanting to kill anything no mater what. I don't want to sound like I know what exactly went down but listening too are soldiers talking about "just pick up a gun" it seems to me they just wanted to kill them regardless. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we gave Saddam those chemical weapons back when they where fighting Iran which we also gave weapons too.[/QUOTE]


What gets me is when they said something like "well shouldn't have brought those kids to a warzone", I mean the place was a residential area and a ton of fighting in this conflict has happened in cities.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Bless the search engine...

Here are the whopping three posts on the entire PaC forum where I've ever used "socialism" or "socialize":

An obvious joke:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6024173&postcount=49

A comment about the idea of using the Joker to represent socialism (which goes along with the old avatar I had):
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6269585&postcount=32

A comment where I actually call the idea of Obama wanting to "socialize" health care as crazy.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6254184&postcount=69

Considering that Jake wants to stay on topic, he sure does a great job derailing threads.[/QUOTE]
I never told you to stay on topic, i said to keep the anti gubment bullshit in some other thread. I said that because it's disrespectful to the topic of this thread, which that a bunch of innocent people were murdered.

But go ahead and use this as another example of why government doesn't work, because that's obviously the point.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I never told you to stay on topic, i said to keep the anti gubment bullshit in some other thread. I said that because it's disrespectful to the topic of this thread, which that a bunch of innocent people were murdered.

But go ahead and use this as another example of why government doesn't work, because that's obviously the point.[/QUOTE]

So... you want to honor the innocents that were killed by glossing over the fact that our government worked so hard to hide the facts behind their deaths? I honestly don't get what you're wanting here.

The deaths of these individuals is a sad, horrible thing - but as most of us have agreed, without more knowledge and experience, it's hard to put a lot of blame on the troops for their direct actions.

Several of us take issue with the attitude of these troops during the events. I think that's something worth looking into, yes.

But, it seems to me, the larger issue here is the way our government went about trying to cover up the details of this atrocity. If you disagree, please - do tell - what do you think the major focus on these events should be?
 
I think stuff like Obama ordering the assassination of American citizens is worse now. Why? Well if Bush had done it, Democrats would pounce and Republicans would say stop being unpatriotic.

Now, Obama does this, and Democrats are too chicken shit to take on the President when he's a member of their party, and Republicans stay quiet or complain he's not going far enough.

I mean, what the fuck, the Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional to indefinitely imprison fuckers like Al-Awlaki, what the hell do you think they're going to say about assassinations?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Now, Obama does this, and Democrats are too chicken shit to take on the President when he's a member of their party, and Republicans stay quiet or complain he's not going far enough.[/QUOTE]

The 'pubs have to stay quiet or Obama will probably start leaking files in regards to who they gave the thumbs down to. :(
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Weird, pretty sure I've never posted anything about "socialization". Can you find me a quote?



I do often see you post derogatory things about "Tea Baggers" when it seems you have no idea what they're about. At least you'll admit it. :D[/QUOTE]

It's funny that you have zero reading comprehension skills.

Oh, and the government always tries to cover up stuff like this. Does anyone remember Pat Tillman?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Oh, and the government always tries to cover up stuff like this. Does anyone remember Pat Tillman?[/QUOTE]

STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS ALL ABOUT YOUR ANTI-GOVERNMENT RANTIN'S.

Or something.

While the extent of this case goes beyond Tillman's, I still get angry when I think about what happened there. I mean, they frickin' had people stand up and lie at his funeral. :(
 
It's not anti-government at all. It's a simple fact that the US Army and the government do everything they can to keep mistakes on the battlefield under cover and away from the media.

I'm not coming in with bullshit claims about how death panels will be rolling around in 64 Impalas looking to execute anyone with a cough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Someone here made that claim? Where?[/QUOTE]

Seriously. My 8 year old daughter understands English better than you do.

Let's take this simple stroll down logic lane. Many anti-government types make their living exaggerating and lying about everything the government does. They do it to scare people to their side. My "bullshit" claim was an example of that.

I'm saying that I made no exaggerations or false statements. The government does everything they can to keep bad news from hitting the light of day. It doesn't matter which admistration is in control at the time.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Many anti-government types make their living exaggerating and lying about everything the government does. They do it to scare people to their side. My "bullshit" claim was an example of that.[/quote]

So... ummm... you were demonstrating how anti-government types exaggerate by presenting us with a big ol' whopper of an exaggeration? I get it now.

I'm saying that I made no exaggerations or false statements. The government does everything they can to keep bad news from hitting the light of day. It doesn't matter which admistration is in control at the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Thus my distrust for them.
 
Colbert had a surprisingly aggressive (by Colbert standards) with Julian Assenge, founder of Wikileaks about using the term 'collateral murder' to name the video. Assange admitted 10% of the people who click on it actually view the entire video.

Might be the first interview where I saw the message 'to watch the full interview go to comedycentral.com'. I'll catch it at some point.
 
What is the big deal again?

Battle-hardened troops accidentally killed innocents without wailing and gnashing their teeth before learning they were innocents? OK. We're in what ... the seventh year of this?

The sun will continue to rise. Shortly before it does, our troops will be working on poor intelligence and threatening women and children after dragging them out of their beds.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What is the big deal again?

Battle-hardened troops accidentally killed innocents without wailing and gnashing their teeth before learning they were innocents? OK. We're in what ... the seventh year of this?

The sun will continue to rise. Shortly before it does, our troops will be working on poor intelligence and threatening women and children after dragging them out of their beds.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of like feces though, when it's in the ground or sewer it's not as bothersome as when it's right in your face.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It's kind of like feces though, when it's in the ground or sewer it's not as bothersome as when it's right in your face.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, the Sergeant Schultz response. I see nussing, NUSSING!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top