- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 409
- Location
- Humble Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That's not the only way they could break the rules. Being too shaky, too quick to act, too reckless could also be a problem. It is not enough to say they feared something. There would also have to be reason to fear it, to be concerned, following a proper procedure. All professionals are held to such standards. They always have been.
Nor am I asking you to judge. Not me either for that matter. But there are those charged with doing that, and they may well find fault. If they do, then there may well be good reason for it. If they don't, then there may well be reason for that as well.
Wow, if you live in the land of unicorns and tooth fairies, I could see how you arrived at that conclusion, but since we are in reality, I'll try to explain my clear point so that you don't feel so left out.
As other have suggested, there is little to no chance they did this for ****s and giggles, and giving them the benefit of the doubt in no way indicates a lack of desire for an investigation.
On what basis do you think its a 50/50 proposition that they may or may not have done this on purpose?
Sad really. seeing you post something indicating a lack of "innocent until proven guilty" for those who serve. Shame.
I give them, US troops, our brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt.... there is no "if" in my book at this point.
I have tried to stay away from this particular incident as we really don't have enough information and comment only on your statement, which was:
When you declare that there is never an if, you are actually saying you don't really want to know and don't care about the facts of any case. I see this far too often and is the point I have been trying to make.
I have tried to stay away from this particular incident as we really don't have enough information and comment only on your statement, which was:
When you declare that there is never an if, you are actually saying you don't really want to know and don't care about the facts of any case. I see this far too often and is the point I have been trying to make.
I'd rather them be too shaky, too reckless, or too quick to act 100% of the time then put themselves in harm's way.
They are in harms way; it is their job. Professionals understand this and still manage to work within the confines of that job. These are professional soldiers and not civilians with no training. As professionals, they are accountable for their actions. No different than any other professional.
Selective quoting... You forgot "at this point"..... FAIL
They are. And when they are in harm's way, I expect them to act and ask questions later. So when they do act they way they are trained, it's hardly fair to turn around and question them about why they acted in the first place.
Nothing selective about it. It was your entire quote. "at this point" doesn't negate your comment. For all I know, it is your point in life. You point as it relates to how you feel about war crimes. If you mean something more specific, be more more specific.
It's how they act that is in question. If they act properly, I'm with you. If they act improperly, there will be consequences regardless of how any of us feel. Do you really think I'm wrong about that?
Yes, I really do. If they wait to have all necessary information before they act, they could quite realistically be killed. Therefore, we are expecting them to act before they have all the information they need. If based off of the information they have available, they feel they are threatened and act, that's the end of the story as far as consequences are concerned, whether their actions turn out to be proper or not.
Yes, I really do. If they wait to have all necessary information before they act, they could quite realistically be killed. Therefore, we are expecting them to act before they have all the information they need. If based off of the information they have available, they feel they are threatened and act, that's the end of the story as far as consequences are concerned, whether their actions turn out to be proper or not.
If you want to play obtuse, we can end this exercise now.....
"at this point' was clear, innocent until proven guilty. Lets not start the boo radley shuffle for once. Thanks. :thumbs:
"at this point" I believe these honorable men acted in good faith, Until you provide me with evidence they did not, I will not consider them guilty of anything.
I can not make it any simpler for you. :shrug:
I don't think there is only the two extremes. There is a lot of middle ground, which I think you're missing, that doesn't require they shoot first. I think you will find the military doesn't agree with and as in the past, will investigate, and if they see a problem, they will act. The military, not anyone else, has sought prosecution before.
As I have not pronounced them guilty, and have said repeatedly I have no way of knowing, your statement, if read the way you want it read, seems to be addressed to someone else. If you're talking to me, it must mean something else.
Exactly...... It's common sense to those of us who served and most people for that matter.
Ahh here comes the Boo Radley shuffle.... :lamo
For the record, I've served. 82nd Airborne. Just so you know.
Can you show me anywhere that I said they were guilty?
Oh, I know. During peace time, right?
Nah, I'll just remind you of your position against my argument regarding the word "if"....
The inferences is stunningly clear. :shrug:
True. But trained. Did you mean to say only those who served during war time?
No but it explains your mentality to me regarding waitng to be shot before responding. :shrug:
Not exactly what I'm claiming. But you can't just shoot everyone. There has to be and is a standard as to when it is appropriate and when it isn't, which is why they will investigate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?