Let down by USA forces once again

[amiquechu 0]

Perhaps endangerment of civilians during wartime would be a better charge. Fourth Geneva Convention covers that.

How were they endangering her? Is it possible that she could have been a suicide bomber or trying to draw soldiers out in the open so they could be shot? Or some other tactic insurgents use to get US troops killed? Who knows what happens afterward? Maybe by not going out there they saved all of their lives.

I'll bet a dollar that if there was no danger of them being killed by the enemy if they went out there, that they would have gone out there in a heartbeat to keep her away from the bridge.

[Peikko 1,575]

Abu Ghraib was much more than a PR nightmare. You have to be kidding.

I'm sure that if it were Americans being subjected to such treatment in any prison/detention facility, domestically or internationally, there would be quite an outrage.

and then the usual suspects showing up saying they shouldn't have been there to begin with

and lal - much of that sounds to me like a typical fraternity hazing.

Why? The premise argued here by those usual suspects is one of human dignity and following rules. Its called being equal in scope under equal considerations.

you might wanna hang out at frat houses, i hear there's lots of problems with human dignity and suffering going on during pledge week.

####, if that's how US frats typically behave, my son isn't going to be going to no US college...

Perhaps endangerment of civilians during wartime would be a better charge. Fourth Geneva Convention covers that.

How were they endangering her? Is it possible that she could have been a suicide bomber or trying to draw soldiers out in the open so they could be shot? Or some other tactic insurgents use to get US troops killed? Who knows what happens afterward? Maybe by not going out there they saved all of their lives.

I'll bet a dollar that if there was no danger of them being killed by the enemy if they went out there, that they would have gone out there in a heartbeat to keep her away from the bridge.

Not a bet I would take. Laughing is an inappropriate response whatever way you slice it. Either they are unethical or they are mentally unbalanced, either way, I can't see them risking their lives to save no son of a ###### muslim woman, who probably is under your rules a closet suidice bomber anyway.

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Well, ask that question to Charles as he was busily defending their actions not so long ago. Ex military man and all and he doesn't think those guys are louts and bring disgrace to the US uniform? What about all those suckers who go through years of this #### and don't turn into gibbering morons, are they slow or something?

Yeah, I get it, some people react badly to these appalling situations. I know, but it doesn't make it freaking acceptable.

when you've been there and done that, then your words might carry some weight with me. until then, they are dismissed as rantings by someone who's never been in the position where any second death can come calling. be it a sniper bullet, artillery, or even a land mine.

It's only uncalled for if you take my statements and twist them into some rabid insult against the US army per se. It was very simple. It's not acceptable for soldiers to behave in that way. It may be understandable, but it's not acceptable. That was my point, very clear and succinct but oh no, people have to get up on their 'anti American' band wagon and start going off on all these rants about how 'those sitting in their cubicles and have no knowledge of' blah blah blah blahde blah.

so what? do you want a war crime trial for them laughing in a combat zone?

can you justify Abu Ghraib in the same way, Charles?

when the thread deals with abu ghraib, then we'll address it.

No biggie - I was trying to discern what lengths are acceptable behavior for soldiers under stress. For some, Abu Ghraib is, which I find deplorable.

while abu ghraib is a pr nightmare, was anyone killed, maimed, or lost a limb or eyesight?

eta: any permanent physical damage from what was done in those photos?

That is such a silly response. On the one hand you find it ok for troops to behave in an unethical fashion because they are exposed to a dehumanising enviroment, but on the other you think that prisoners exposed to a dehumanising environment can't be damaged. Which is it?

As for the justification, I get it, yes, it's one possible response to difficult stress triggers but is it a response that one should just shrug one's shoulder's at and say, well, it's understandable? Or, more reasonably should one express disquiet at this inappropriate response to this situation and seek to address it?

Clearly, you are of the 'brush under the carpet it doesn't matter' variety.

silly to you perhaps. but then again, you're a babe in the woods when it comes to the field of combat.

i'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to list any permanent physical disabilities anyone in ag suffered from that frat house hazing.

try as hard as you'd like, war is the worst humanity has to offer. once you can understand that, you'll realize that this entire thread is a mountain made from a molehill.

[HAL 9000 96]

Perhaps endangerment of civilians during wartime would be a better charge. Fourth Geneva Convention covers that.

How were they endangering her? Is it possible that she could have been a suicide bomber or trying to draw soldiers out in the open so they could be shot? Or some other tactic insurgents use to get US troops killed? Who knows what happens afterward? Maybe by not going out there they saved all of their lives.

I'll bet a dollar that if there was no danger of them being killed by the enemy if they went out there, that they would have gone out there in a heartbeat to keep her away from the bridge.

So... what does the vid show?

I'd say that a detonation of that size less than 50 feet away could potentially maim a bystander, no? Since there is no evidence of the woman being a suicide bomber, we must stay with what is available.

I don't know about you, but I did state that I am pretty sure soldiers don't ignorantly stroll about without first trying to survey the area they're in. That is called seeking a tactical advantage over any possible hostile in the area, of which there is no evidence of any in said video.

You could 'maybe it' in order to justify the unjustifiable all day long.

But I do HOPE that indeed they would have gone out and warned the civilian. They were detonating an explosive artifact and were obligated by the Geneva Convention (#4) to protect civilians from harm in this case. Unfortunately for them, they were humoring themselves.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah, human rights are really just some molehill not to be bothered with. Trivialising, that's all you are good for.

[amiquechu 0]

Abu Ghraib was much more than a PR nightmare. You have to be kidding.

I'm sure that if it were Americans being subjected to such treatment in any prison/detention facility, domestically or internationally, there would be quite an outrage.

and then the usual suspects showing up saying they shouldn't have been there to begin with

and lal - much of that sounds to me like a typical fraternity hazing.

Why? The premise argued here by those usual suspects is one of human dignity and following rules. Its called being equal in scope under equal considerations.

you might wanna hang out at frat houses, i hear there's lots of problems with human dignity and suffering going on during pledge week.

I can vouch for that No sodomy though unless you count the sheep...but that's not a human dignity issue

i suppose that depends on if the frat members photograph you and send the pics to your parents

No cameras allowed during hell week

[Ggreen 12]

Luky Strike calls Muslims usual suspects, i am not a muslim, i do respect them as i respect other religions.

[quote

the usual suspects in the above context refers to people here in vj

People who don't think like you do are usual suspects?!! B) i got it, it makes you feel better.

Edited August 12, 2008 by vjmmbr

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, ask that question to Charles as he was busily defending their actions not so long ago. Ex military man and all and he doesn't think those guys are louts and bring disgrace to the US uniform? What about all those suckers who go through years of this #### and don't turn into gibbering morons, are they slow or something?

Yeah, I get it, some people react badly to these appalling situations. I know, but it doesn't make it freaking acceptable.

when you've been there and done that, then your words might carry some weight with me. until then, they are dismissed as rantings by someone who's never been in the position where any second death can come calling. be it a sniper bullet, artillery, or even a land mine.

It's only uncalled for if you take my statements and twist them into some rabid insult against the US army per se. It was very simple. It's not acceptable for soldiers to behave in that way. It may be understandable, but it's not acceptable. That was my point, very clear and succinct but oh no, people have to get up on their 'anti American' band wagon and start going off on all these rants about how 'those sitting in their cubicles and have no knowledge of' blah blah blah blahde blah.

so what? do you want a war crime trial for them laughing in a combat zone?

can you justify Abu Ghraib in the same way, Charles?

when the thread deals with abu ghraib, then we'll address it.

No biggie - I was trying to discern what lengths are acceptable behavior for soldiers under stress. For some, Abu Ghraib is, which I find deplorable.

while abu ghraib is a pr nightmare, was anyone killed, maimed, or lost a limb or eyesight?

eta: any permanent physical damage from what was done in those photos?

That is such a silly response. On the one hand you find it ok for troops to behave in an unethical fashion because they are exposed to a dehumanising enviroment, but on the other you think that prisoners exposed to a dehumanising environment can't be damaged. Which is it?

As for the justification, I get it, yes, it's one possible response to difficult stress triggers but is it a response that one should just shrug one's shoulder's at and say, well, it's understandable? Or, more reasonably should one express disquiet at this inappropriate response to this situation and seek to address it?

Clearly, you are of the 'brush under the carpet it doesn't matter' variety.

silly to you perhaps. but then again, you're a babe in the woods when it comes to the field of combat.

i'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to list any permanent physical disabilities anyone in ag suffered from that frat house hazing.

try as hard as you'd like, war is the worst humanity has to offer. once you can understand that, you'll realize that this entire thread is a mountain made from a molehill.

I do agree with you Charles. Just be mindful that there are rules and codes to follow on top of recognized norms that we all agree to following when engaged in a warzone.

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Abu Ghraib was much more than a PR nightmare. You have to be kidding.

I'm sure that if it were Americans being subjected to such treatment in any prison/detention facility, domestically or internationally, there would be quite an outrage.

and then the usual suspects showing up saying they shouldn't have been there to begin with

and lal - much of that sounds to me like a typical fraternity hazing.

Why? The premise argued here by those usual suspects is one of human dignity and following rules. Its called being equal in scope under equal considerations.

you might wanna hang out at frat houses, i hear there's lots of problems with human dignity and suffering going on during pledge week.

####, if that's how US frats typically behave, my son isn't going to be going to no US college...

do some research, you might be shocked.

Perhaps endangerment of civilians during wartime would be a better charge. Fourth Geneva Convention covers that.

How were they endangering her? Is it possible that she could have been a suicide bomber or trying to draw soldiers out in the open so they could be shot? Or some other tactic insurgents use to get US troops killed? Who knows what happens afterward? Maybe by not going out there they saved all of their lives.

I'll bet a dollar that if there was no danger of them being killed by the enemy if they went out there, that they would have gone out there in a heartbeat to keep her away from the bridge.

Not a bet I would take. Laughing is an inappropriate response whatever way you slice it. Either they are unethical or they are mentally unbalanced, either way, I can't see them risking their lives to save no son of a ###### muslim woman, who probably is under your rules a closet suidice bomber anyway.

sometimes, all you can do is laugh at the situation. like that time i found myself in a minefield in iraq during the first gulf war. fortunately, the wind was not blowing and i was able to retrace my steps back out of it.

Yeah, human rights are really just some molehill not to be bothered with. Trivialising, that's all you are good for.

i fail to see how her human rights were violated. she's alive.

[Peikko 1,575]

You aren't getting it Charles. Laughing in the face of your own personal danger I can understand, believe it or not. Laughing at someone else facing danger I can't. Silly me!

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Luky Strike calls Muslims usual suspects, i am not a muslim, i do respect them as i respect other religions.

[quote

the usual suspects in the above context refers to people here in vj

People who don't think like you do are usual suspects?!! B) i got it, it makes you feel better.

still a nice try at dragging ls into this. go forth and try some more.

[Peikko 1,575]

No Charles, human rights violations don't depend on whether someone lives or dies.

[amiquechu 0]

Yeah, human rights are really just some molehill not to be bothered with. Trivialising, that's all you are good for.

So some human lives are worth more than others? Apparently Charles, your life isn't worth much...just trivializing (according to the Queen of Morality)

PH, you take stuff way too personal. You need to get on some meds or something. Lighten up! It's just an internet forum

Edited August 12, 2008 by SKTEAMO

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

Well, ask that question to Charles as he was busily defending their actions not so long ago. Ex military man and all and he doesn't think those guys are louts and bring disgrace to the US uniform? What about all those suckers who go through years of this #### and don't turn into gibbering morons, are they slow or something?

Yeah, I get it, some people react badly to these appalling situations. I know, but it doesn't make it freaking acceptable.

when you've been there and done that, then your words might carry some weight with me. until then, they are dismissed as rantings by someone who's never been in the position where any second death can come calling. be it a sniper bullet, artillery, or even a land mine.

It's only uncalled for if you take my statements and twist them into some rabid insult against the US army per se. It was very simple. It's not acceptable for soldiers to behave in that way. It may be understandable, but it's not acceptable. That was my point, very clear and succinct but oh no, people have to get up on their 'anti American' band wagon and start going off on all these rants about how 'those sitting in their cubicles and have no knowledge of' blah blah blah blahde blah.

so what? do you want a war crime trial for them laughing in a combat zone?

can you justify Abu Ghraib in the same way, Charles?

when the thread deals with abu ghraib, then we'll address it.

No biggie - I was trying to discern what lengths are acceptable behavior for soldiers under stress. For some, Abu Ghraib is, which I find deplorable.

while abu ghraib is a pr nightmare, was anyone killed, maimed, or lost a limb or eyesight?

eta: any permanent physical damage from what was done in those photos?

That is such a silly response. On the one hand you find it ok for troops to behave in an unethical fashion because they are exposed to a dehumanising enviroment, but on the other you think that prisoners exposed to a dehumanising environment can't be damaged. Which is it?

As for the justification, I get it, yes, it's one possible response to difficult stress triggers but is it a response that one should just shrug one's shoulder's at and say, well, it's understandable? Or, more reasonably should one express disquiet at this inappropriate response to this situation and seek to address it?

Clearly, you are of the 'brush under the carpet it doesn't matter' variety.

silly to you perhaps. but then again, you're a babe in the woods when it comes to the field of combat.

i'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to list any permanent physical disabilities anyone in ag suffered from that frat house hazing.

try as hard as you'd like, war is the worst humanity has to offer. once you can understand that, you'll realize that this entire thread is a mountain made from a molehill.

I do agree with you Charles. Just be mindful that there are rules and codes to follow on top of recognized norms that we all agree to following when engaged in a warzone.

i'm aware of that. however, laughing in a combat zone isn't against the law. while it may be of questionable taste, that's not against the law or geneva convention.

No Charles, human rights violations don't depend on whether someone lives or dies.

no harm, no foul.

[Shpat_Argjira 0]

What happened here dude?