- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The frequency of such occurrences of collateral/friendly fire incidients might lead some to the conclusion that it is safer to be an enemy than a friend.
The frequency of such occurrences of collateral/friendly fire incidients might lead some to the conclusion that it is safer to be an enemy than a friend.
Okay, let's play the ole "what did I post?" game. The Rev said:
I'd argue at a certain point not firing upon it would be being cavilier with ones own life.
To which you replied:
Quote:
a cowardly sentiment from a supposed veteran
Which seems a pretty clear indication to me that you strongly disagree with his sentiments that after a certain point not firing on it would be careless with your own life.
Even granting your point, it seems the troops were a long way from that point. Real soldiers do not shoot civilians just to make sure they can't be hurt by them, despite the Rambo pretense of the "veteran" quoted above (who,despite calling me a liar and ridiculing my OP, demonstrated his true nature by reporting me for the above quote). If the convoys were concerned about the bus, they could have stopped short and sent squads to check it out. Considering the poor relations between the military and Afghan civilians, this encounter between convoys and an inter-city bus should have been resolvable without killing the passengers.
Would it trouble you if a Greyhound bus were pulled over on the interstate and passengers were killed because the driver failed to respond to an order to stop? Perhaps your son was on the bus coming home from college. Why would you value the lives of Afghan civilians any less than Americans?
There were two convoys of armed soldiers at the scene, they could, and should have been able to solve the problem without opening fire on the bus.
Even granting your point, it seems the troops were a long way from that point. Real soldiers do not shoot civilians just to make sure they can't be hurt by them, despite the Rambo pretense of the "veteran" quoted above (who,despite calling me a liar and ridiculing my OP, demonstrated his true nature by reporting me for the above quote). If the convoys were concerned about the bus, they could have stopped short and sent squads to check it out. Considering the poor relations between the military and Afghan civilians, this encounter between convoys and an inter-city bus should have been resolvable without killing the passengers.
Would it trouble you if a Greyhound bus were pulled over on the interstate and passengers were killed because the driver failed to respond to an order to stop? Perhaps your son was on the bus coming home from college. Why would you value the lives of Afghan civilians any less than Americans?
There were two convoys of armed soldiers at the scene, they could, and should have been able to solve the problem without opening fire on the bus.
It said “an unknown, large vehicle” drove “at a high rate of speed” toward a slow-moving NATO convoy that was clearing mines.
Will, I do not know why you insist on jumping to blame the troops first, but you are not going to have much luck with that line of argument. I know you are speaking from a complete and total ignorance, but that does not excuse the defamation you are doing towards those very fine men and women. Those people, who you so quickly criticize, are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of their country and your ass.
Really, do your self a favor and read the ****ing article linked in the very first post this thread.
Here, let me hold your hand and show you a key part to read:
One of the survivors, Rozi Mohammad, told The Associated Press at Kandahar hospital that the bus had just left a terminal when it pulled over to the side of the road to allow an American convoy to pass. Shooting broke out as the third or fourth American vehicle passed by, he said.
"They just suddenly opened fire. I don't know why. We had been stopped and after that I don't know what happened," said Mohammad, his left eye swollen shut and his beard and clothing matted with blood.
Perhaps you yourself should read the part where the bus was stopped and pulled to the side before it came under fire. And please spare me the patronizing tone, you ain't gonna hold my hand.
Perhaps you yourself should read the part where the bus was stopped and pulled to the side before it came under fire. And please spare me the patronizing tone, you ain't gonna hold my hand.
Well criticizing is all you ever do. So it's safe to assume the military is a bunch of no good killers in your eyes.
When you are in a combat zone...and a bus is bearing down on you, ignoring flares and warnings...just how do you determine that "oh...hey...its cool...they are all civilians"?
So by all means. Stop...weigh it...hear it out. Dont assume ****. One way OR the other.
That is what they are reporting, and I have no reason to dispute it. But was the bus anything but civilians? If that's all it was, they weren't scum bags and while it might not be criminal, it is surely a shame if they were only civilians. And being bother by that would be fair. I would bet those who did the shooting are bothered.
Fair means stepping back, waiting, hearing all the testimony out, learning and not assuming. Am I wrong about that?
You might try reading what I wrote:
No where do I say they were wrong. Only that those doing the shooting will likely be bothered. Good people are bothered by killing the innocent even when they act appropriately.
Boo Radley shuffle, Slight of hand move.... Make an ambiguous statement early on in a thread, just so one can slightly change ones point to somethng no one is arguing against.
:lamo
Nothing ambiguous. You and others simply like to read in what you want. I don't know why, perhaps it is because it makes it easier for you. But this messy business has consequences, and not just to those who die.
Who ever argued that anyone would not be bothered by accidenltly killing civillians?
I like how you tell me about your theories on how we would feel btw. :ssst:
If you will recall, you leaped into another discussion. I started here saying I could not comment on this case. I stated clearly that I saw no reason to doubt the testimony of the soldiers. I simply wanted to discuss if it was possible to criticize without the contempt your side so often shows. One person, Kelzie, gave a reasonable response and we continued that conversation, . . . again, not related to this case specifically.
But as the military will investigate and will charge if wrong doing is found, questioning the actions of the soldiers, any soldier or soldiers, is not inappropriate. And pointing out the consequences on the soldiers doing the shooting is not inappropriate either.
As for my "theories," I would suggest you read closer and seek to understand more than jumping around wildly and creating your own strawman. That way you might actually be able to address what was said and not what ever fantasy you seem to be addressing.
Or perhaps you can make a coherent point instead of arguing that there are "conseguences" for the soldiers personally, as if someone made that argument. Your strawmen are much more formidable than mine. :shrug:
I have tried to make one you can follow. It centers on criticism not being equal to hating the troops. I don't think it is a difficult point, but maybe I over estimate the ability of some to follow. Who knows.
I totally support our military efforts in Afghanistan, but incidents like this make me question if our military can be trusted to prosecute a war without killing innocent people. What rules of engagement could possibly justify opening fire on a crowded bus?
[/url]
Either that, or you suck at being ambiguous, I think its more the latter.
Since our soldiers can't tell the good guys from the bad (they're all Afghanistan), it's best to shoot first and ask questions later. That's the way we handled the Indians back in the old west... Women and children too, because they were also a potential threat.
ricksfolly
Ah... I don't think you can equate those two things Rick.
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?