Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Awaiting Leazes answer with interest too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 how do you justify killing anyone Gemmil?it's war it's not diplomacy, it's not subtle and safe. It's horrific and wrong and terrible. I'm just fed up with peoples indignation at the sad, but blatant, fact that unspeakable things happen at war. it's a terrible thing that people die, of course it is, but I refuse to happily throw insults, and blame at people who are trying to do an impossible task, with no support from home and resistance away. of course we shouldn't have gone in, but it's easy to say that now, what we should be saying is, we shouldn't sell weapons or give assistance to people simply with the short term gain in mind. We shouldn't enforce "democracy", we should nurture it. There will not be a stable Middle East in my life time, there isn't the education and infrastructure to harbour democracy and the petty despots will squabble over dirt because they still cling to outdated theologies and beliefs. but lets not get out panties in a bunch about the political debacle that has made this situation apparent, no lets instead focus upon the horrific acts carried out in it's name. I love that we can all say that if we were in that suituation, (either joined up to patriotically serve out country, or been forced into the military through lack of opportunities) that we would be able to effortlessly decide which arabian-featured man was an enemy and which was a civilian. I love that we can all indicate through our revulsion at these acts, that we'd somehow be able to dettach ourselves from the feelings of rage and betrayal. It's remarkable to me that we hold our soldiers to higher standards than we do theirs. We almost seem blase when a man walks into a store and massacres 20 or so innocent countrymen, deliberately.... to make a point... the comment about Hussein I stand by, any man who does what he has done... does not, in my eyes, deserve the rights and privileges afforded to men of stature. Prison will not be punishment, and this court will take years to decide upon the fate of a genocidal bigot... when really a rank and file marine could have saved the world a whole lot of time, money and pain by squeezing back that trigger. I'd say the same for Pol pot, Mugabe et al. But fortunately for them we won't invade as they have no oil. 143595[/snapback] Jesus wept tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Well Leazes? How do you justify killing a two year? It wasn't an accident either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Are we still at war in Iraq then? Turning out to be quite a long one. Since we have terror attacks here in the UK, are we also living in a warzone? You don't half spout a load of crap sometime GF. There is no excuse for atrocities like this (on either "side"), and they pepetuate the cycle of violence. Hopefully, those responsible will soon be on a murder charge. As for Hussein, I would suggest the very worst thing you could do is martyr him, but really, I suspect whatever happens ito him now will make little difference in this gigantic cock-up called Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. 143607[/snapback] I take it you haven't read the reports about what supposedly took place then Leazes? The fact that US Senators have already been briefed about what happened and the fact that some have already condemned the purpetrators says it all to me. As does your refusal to condemn what happened. Feel free to justify the killing of a two year old in the circumstances by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I agree with GF. And whatever you hand wringers think, some things are sadly unavoidable in war. Shoot first, or be shot first ? Think about it. 143607[/snapback] Did you read the article, or related ones on the BBC site, about soldiers deliberately seeking revenge on civilians for the acts of others (terrorists), and murdering them in cold blood, including children? Are you seriously condoning this? Jesus wept, even the US government is probably going to be pressing murder charges. Are they also do-gooders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Are you seriously condoning this? 143610[/snapback] It's not like LM or GF are advocating that all iraqi 2 year olds are rounded up and shot. They don't condone it (do you?) and have said it's very unfortunate. Someone in that situation was incapable though, and they shouldn’t be allowed to repeat their mistakes. If LM or GF are suggesting there should be no investigation or disciplinary then I can't defend that. From the limited information we have, I think it wouldn't be right for the particular soldiers to go on trial for homicide. The marines are trained as killers. They aren't encouraged to think for themselves and do what's right, they're encouraged to follow orders and to kill. It’s not right to kill anyone, irrespective of age. If any of the 3 ranking officers had insisted they cease fire, the carnage wouldn't have occurred. They are the ones who should be held fully responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 of course we shouldn't have gone in, but it's easy to say that now 143595[/snapback] Didn't the majority of your electorate say it before? I agree that we can have no appreciation of the pressure they are under, well, not until Battlefield: Iraq comes out on the 360, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Are you seriously condoning this? 143610[/snapback] It's not like LM or GF are advocating that all iraqi 2 year olds are rounded up and shot. They don't condone it (do you?) and have said it's very unfortunate. Someone in that situation was incapable though, and they shouldn’t be allowed to repeat their mistakes. If LM or GF are suggesting there should be no investigation or disciplinary then I can't defend that. From the limited information we have, I think it wouldn't be right for the particular soldiers to go on trial for homicide. The marines are trained as killers. They aren't encouraged to think for themselves and do what's right, they're encouraged to follow orders and to kill. It’s not right to kill anyone, irrespective of age. If any of the 3 ranking officers had insisted they cease fire, the carnage wouldn't have occurred. They are the ones who should be held fully responsible. 143618[/snapback] I'm confused. Are people reading the same article as me? And the related articles on the same site (BBC) which suggest very strongly marines are engaging in revenge attacks against civilians? How is the deliberate massacre of civilians by the US army justified but not by Hussein, when it is called genocide? Can you not see how this hypocracy is going to be counterproductive and lead to more deaths, on both sides? Well I'm sure you can but not so sure about Leazes tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) I would have liked to see universal condemnation of what happened. Perhaps I am naive. Edited June 1, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Are you seriously condoning this? 143610[/snapback] It's not like LM or GF are advocating that all iraqi 2 year olds are rounded up and shot. They don't condone it (do you?) and have said it's very unfortunate. Someone in that situation was incapable though, and they shouldn’t be allowed to repeat their mistakes. If LM or GF are suggesting there should be no investigation or disciplinary then I can't defend that. From the limited information we have, I think it wouldn't be right for the particular soldiers to go on trial for homicide. The marines are trained as killers. They aren't encouraged to think for themselves and do what's right, they're encouraged to follow orders and to kill. It’s not right to kill anyone, irrespective of age. If any of the 3 ranking officers had insisted they cease fire, the carnage wouldn't have occurred. They are the ones who should be held fully responsible. 143618[/snapback] I'm confused. Are people reading the same article as me? And the related articles on the same site (BBC) which suggest very strongly marines are engaging in revenge attacks against civilians? How is the deliberate massacre of civilians by the US army justified but not by Hussein, when it is called genocide? Can you not see how this hypocracy is going to be counterproductive and lead to more deaths, on both sides? Well I'm sure you can but not so sure about Leazes tbh. 143621[/snapback] I'm reading the BBC article Alex linked to that is the topic of the thread. If you want to move onto others, a link would be handy. Who's justifying anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Are you seriously condoning this? 143610[/snapback] It's not like LM or GF are advocating that all iraqi 2 year olds are rounded up and shot. They don't condone it (do you?) and have said it's very unfortunate. Someone in that situation was incapable though, and they shouldn’t be allowed to repeat their mistakes. If LM or GF are suggesting there should be no investigation or disciplinary then I can't defend that. From the limited information we have, I think it wouldn't be right for the particular soldiers to go on trial for homicide. The marines are trained as killers. They aren't encouraged to think for themselves and do what's right, they're encouraged to follow orders and to kill. It’s not right to kill anyone, irrespective of age. If any of the 3 ranking officers had insisted they cease fire, the carnage wouldn't have occurred. They are the ones who should be held fully responsible. 143618[/snapback] I'm confused. Are people reading the same article as me? And the related articles on the same site (BBC) which suggest very strongly marines are engaging in revenge attacks against civilians? How is the deliberate massacre of civilians by the US army justified but not by Hussein, when it is called genocide? Can you not see how this hypocracy is going to be counterproductive and lead to more deaths, on both sides? Well I'm sure you can but not so sure about Leazes tbh. 143621[/snapback] I'm reading the BBC article Alex linked to that is the topic of the thread. If you want to move onto others, a link would be handy. Who's justifying anything? 143624[/snapback] I get the impression some people are suggesting that committing atrocities is an unavoidable and acceptable consequence of war, a war which is already supposed to have been won btw. Mainly referring to Leazes and GF, I might add. Do a google search on marine revenge attacks in Iraq, or search the BBC site. There is now strong evidence marines are deliberately killing civilians in revenge of their fallen comrades. There's even messageboards out there where people claiming to be marines on active duty readily admit this (I haven't read these but I'm told they exist). There was an article on the BBC site I read yesterday about it which I can't find now, don't know if it's been pulled for legal reasons. This link gives some incite into the extent of the civilian tragedy,most of whom are directly or indirectly attributable to allied activity: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 As an aside, this is worth a look http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Both your links (although sad) are an inevitable result of war. We'll never know (having made the decision to invade) how many of those deaths were avoidable. 143636[/snapback] That's the point tbh. It's an incredible amount of civilian casualties in Iraq. At this rate the US will overtake Saddam. 143639[/snapback] And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Leazes says we are naive. I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Leazes backed the war and now he wants out. It's as simple as that apparently. I'm the naive one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 And if we withdraw, civil war will almost inevitably lead to the loss of even more lives. Catch 22. But this was completely predictable, despite what LM or GF may think. Course it's fuicking predicatble I've said time and time we shouldn't have gone to war, but I'm not so naive as to think that bad things won't happen in war. I refuse to squeal and weep everytime there's an atrocity for the fear that it's all I'd do. We shouldn't have supported the Hussein government by selling them guns, we shouldn't have dealt with tyrants just to get a short term gain. Leazes says we are naive. but you are if you're surprised that horrible things happen at war I suggest the naive ones are: People who thought there were WMD, or that Iraq was any military threat to the West. People who think we did this to liberate Iraq from a tyrant. People who believe civilian lives have been saved by the removal of saddam. People who believe the Middle-East is more stable as a result of this war. People who believe oil prices will come down. People who believe Iraq can ever be a peaceful democracy. People who believe the west is safer from terrorist attacks now. and although I can't speak for Leazes I'd say that those statements are correct. unfortunately I'm not one of those.I'm fully aware that this is a rediculous exercise. Also I'd add to that list. People who think that men and women trained to kill, who have had the enemy systematically de-humanised, will not seek revenge for the endless atrocities that are heaped upon them. This isn't condoning the soldiers acts, if you look at the posts I've made, I've referred to them as terrible, horrific, etc. etc. so don't be so narrow minded as to think that by expecting them that I accept them. I seriously wonder if even the US would take the same actions again now, if they knew what the consequences would have been, which like I have said, were very predictable to all apart from the right wing bigots. 143651[/snapback] you should go further back than simply this war, if the US knew the consequences they may not have done a million things. oh and I hope that you're not calling me a right wing bigot, because that's just petty name calling and a little to frivilous when you're rtalking about something like this. I think both sides agree think that this is a tragedy, it appears that one side expected, but still condemns it, while the other seem surprised that it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) Don't you think this is a pretty bad atrocity which should be totally condemned GF? Edit: And are you saying that you actually expected this sort of thing would go on? By that I mean US Marines deliberately targetting children as young as two in revenge. I was shocked personally and I can't accept that this is something we should expect. It's a cop out to say it is in my view. Edited June 1, 2006 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I have condemned the act alex, it's just that I am not surprised by it. the commanding officers should stand trial and be suitably punished, however, to attack the soldiers is, in my opinion, missing the point. they're just the thin end of the wedge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10876 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I didn't predict this particular atrocity, but I would say it's an idiot who can't see that atrocities have happened, do happen and will happen in a combat situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21643 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 GF, this atrocity doesn't surprise me in the least, but I think it should be recognised for what it is, an atrocity. If people understood that this "war" (I use that term loosely) involves atrocities on both sides, then perhaps that would be a start to finding some sort of solution. Instead, we have terrorists, cowards, and animals on one side, and brave, stressed soldiers on the other. I would also like to highlight that the perpetrators of these crimes should be hunted down and charged with murder. Do you agree? The right wing bigots comments was specifically aimed at Bush's government, although I think we all know it could apply to certain posters here at times . Not you though - tbh I find your views on this matter to inarticulate to understand what the hell you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I might also add that reports suggest the troops who were involved in the ‘clean up’ exercise after this took place were also very shocked and some were very traumatised. I'm talking about this particular incident, not fucking British soldiers beating up a few looters for example. That's not right, but hardly unexpected. This however is totally different. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 244 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 While I think it's clear that atrocities will happen in war, this particular example is of a rarely seen especially brutal and barbaric type. This type of atrocity cannot and should not be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now