• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies

No I don't, I wasn't there.


How many folks get away with horrific crimes as civillians? your attack on the military is rather shocking coming from a veteran such as yourself. an honest person would state there are sociopaths in all walks of life, the fact some got into the military is not a black eye on the military but a shocking reminder that there are nuts out there.

what next are you going to remind us that the tea party is white? :roll:

You don't have to have bene in VN to know about it.

As for civilians, someone clearly recognizes a crime has been committed. In war, not so much. Easier to hide (this is a logic problem).

You might start reading here:

War crimes; history - Google Search
 
You don't have to have bene in VN to know about it.

As for civilians, someone clearly recognizes a crime has been committed. In war, not so much. Easier to hide (this is a logic problem).

You might start reading here:

War crimes; history - Google Search



You need to show that people commit more crimes of horrific nature in uniform., than do civillians otherwise you as usual have bunk.,
 
You need to show that people commit more crimes of horrific nature in uniform., than do civillians otherwise you as usual have bunk.,

No, I need to prove what I claim, that it is easier to do, and by virture of being eaiser, more likley that people will get away with it. This is a logic problem and not a citing problem.
 
No, I need to prove what I claim, that it is easier to do, and by virture of being eaiser, more likley that people will get away with it. This is a logic problem and not a citing problem.


again, you haven't served in combat so I am unsure as to how you arrived at the conclusion of it "being easier".
 
I think. I read. I can reason. ;)

as to being easier, know this. every single freakin bullet that gets issued is accountable. you sign for it. if you are short a bullet you have to explain where the hell it went. the rules of engagement are so damn rigid that it makes it damn near impossible to actually shoot anyone. So it is not any easier to get away with killing someone without justification in today's combat than it is in civilian life.

If I wanted to kill a random civilian for fun it would be just as easy to do it here as it would be in Afghanistan or Iraq. I won't go into the details because that might give some nutter reading this ideas.
 
Can't let this "quip" slide...

unless you have a double standard, then you believe those now incarcerated, but unconvicted at camp delta - some for almost nine years, are innocent until a court determines them to be guilty

Lets see...the detainees meals are prepared according to Islamic guidelines, along with fresh bread, vegetables and yogurt. Hell, even traditional desserts and honey also are served during the Ramadan observances. They also have access to treadmills, stationary bikes and other fitness equipment, etc, etc...lol

We probably give them more luxuries than our own soldiers.


it's a matter of perspective. disenfranchised muslims likely view those warriors as freedom fighters, opposed to an occupational force, much as American forefathers viewed those who fought for our nation's freedom. those American patriots also refiused to stand in straight line formations and fight conventionally - because that would have placed them at a disadvantage to prevail. what causes the muslim fighters' strategy to be any different?

Sorry, huge difference. An honorable warrior fights other warriors. He does not deliberately target civilians for the purpose of creating terror as a means of political change. That's why we call them terrorists instead of guerilla.
 
Can't let this "quip" slide...



Lets see...the detainees meals are prepared according to Islamic guidelines, along with fresh bread, vegetables and yogurt. Hell, even traditional desserts and honey also are served during the Ramadan observances. They also have access to treadmills, stationary bikes and other fitness equipment, etc, etc...lol

We probably give them more luxuries than our own soldiers.




Sorry, huge difference. An honorable warrior fights other warriors. He does not deliberately target civilians for the purpose of creating terror as a means of political change. That's why we call them terrorists instead of guerilla.


amen and bravo
 
Can't let this "quip" slide...



Lets see...the detainees meals are prepared according to Islamic guidelines, along with fresh bread, vegetables and yogurt. Hell, even traditional desserts and honey also are served during the Ramadan observances. They also have access to treadmills, stationary bikes and other fitness equipment, etc, etc...lol

We probably give them more luxuries than our own soldiers.
the discussion was not whether we accommodate the suspected terrorists' islamic traditions (when we were not torturing them by waterboarding and other techniques). your point was those American soldiers who stand accused of taking enemy body parts as they conduct war are not guilty until they are found so before a court. and i countered by asking whether you similarly believe that those terrorist suspects we have incarcerated at guantanamo - some for nearly nine years - are also believed by you to be innocent until proven guilty before a court

you can evade the question; your choice ... my point was made in the asking of it

Sorry, huge difference. An honorable warrior fights other warriors. He does not deliberately target civilians for the purpose of creating terror as a means of political change. That's why we call them terrorists instead of guerilla.

read up. our patriotic forefathers were guilty of tarring and feathering the loyalist tories ... civilian supporters of the british rule
at the conclusion of the war, many of those loyalists made their way to re-settle in canada, because they were unable to endure the actions inflicted on them by the prevailing American patriots. in your study, specifically examine the practice of riding people out on a rail
we would want to think our soldiers are better than these alleged actions just as we would want to believe our forefathers were not guilty of practices against loyalists. unfortunately, the facts tells us that we do not get what we want
 
as to being easier, know this. every single freakin bullet that gets issued is accountable. you sign for it. if you are short a bullet you have to explain where the hell it went. the rules of engagement are so damn rigid that it makes it damn near impossible to actually shoot anyone. So it is not any easier to get away with killing someone without justification in today's combat than it is in civilian life.

If I wanted to kill a random civilian for fun it would be just as easy to do it here as it would be in Afghanistan or Iraq. I won't go into the details because that might give some nutter reading this ideas.

And how hard would it be to account for them? Seriously? And how hard would it be to excuse killing by simply saying they did something they didn't?

This isn't really that controvestial. I am surprised anyone takes exception to it. But war presents the opportunity to kill wrongly, and does so as much as it does justifiably. And in the middle of a war zone, the opportunities will nearly always present themselves. Remember Iraq? Even the charges that didn't see convictions were only lost due to lack of evidence (and some claim that lack was because of the investigation being hindered). It is hard to prosecute and know.

But here, there would be no hiding it among the other bodies. We would know someone committed a crime. In war, we can excuse it as collateral or even lie that it was really the enemy, or just that we thought it was the enemy. Logically, that makes it harder to even know there was a crime, and as such easier to commit.
 
Back
Top Bottom