Let down by USA forces once again

[HAL 9000 96]

The laughter and dialogue clearly shows the soldiers knew the woman could have been killed by the explosion. That is endangerment.

[Peikko 1,575]

SKTEAMO, when you can see into my head and percieve how I am reacting to anything that's written here, maybe then you can make the 'lighten up' comment. Until then, well, let's just say just because I don't laugh at anything and everthing it doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour or that I need medication, or that I am taking this more seriously than you, or anyone else.

[Ban Hammer 13,279]

The laughter and dialogue clearly shows the soldiers knew the woman could have been killed by the explosion. That is endangerment.

any chance you can show they had control of the charges and intentionally set them off with the intent to kill or maim her?

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the audio in the vid says enough. But Tara does paraphrase it in Post #4.

BTW, endangerment doesn't always mean that there has to be a 1:1 correlation with intent. $hit happens, yes, and even "innocent" stupidity can be punished under UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.

Well, time for me to pull out the Cartman card:

Edited August 12, 2008 by maviwaro

[amiquechu 0]

Well, time for me to pull out the Cartman card:

Me too. It's well past 5:00 B)

[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.

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

How ? i posted my comment replying to the OP..go back and reread it again...don't get mad while discussing.

[baxxy 0]

Look it's really very simple. Ethically, laughing at a woman who is probably, although not certainly, an innocent civillian as she teeters between life and death is not acceptable. There might be a million excuses why it happens, but on at an ethical level it is not right.

Whether there should be any punishment/consequence for doing so, that is entirely different matter.

Anyone who thinks that laughing in this situation is acceptable is beneath contempt.

According to you miss high and mighty!

Yeah, I am up on my high horse looking down on those of you who think that putting on the US uniform means you can put down your ethical values, set them aside for a later date when you might need them. Too bad.

You're black and white. But believe it not the world is gray.

[Peikko 1,575]

No kidding Sherlock!

[baxxy 0]

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

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

No, I don't expect them to break down sobbing. How pathetic. However, I do expect members of the armed forces to have one criteria at the back of their mind at all times, and that is the value of human life. If that becomes fuzzy and the military allows that to become fuzzy, then you have lost any pretence of civilization.

Mabye those who keep telling me that values have changed really are right because I have never, ever heard it acceptable to laugh at these kinds of sad and unfortunate situations.

pure rubbish. the one criteria in the back of their mind is staying alive.

Exactly, staying alive is the primary goal, and the value of human life applies to their own lives first and foremost.

[baxxy 0]

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

No LaL, really, it wasn't much more than that at ALL. As Charles said, no one was maimed, killed, or had their head cut off. As someone else said earlier, the use of cams etc play a role in this war. You can be sure this happened in every war known to man, it just wasn't recorded back then.

[baxxy 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.

####, 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.

Well maybe instead of going to a US college, he should join the military.

[baxxy 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.

Yes, why risk the life of one of our troops for someone who we don't even know what she's about to do. Safety first.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, let's just say

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT'S HOW THEY ARE.

[Yiyi and Chris 0]

I agree safety first!!!

What if she was like Achmed the dead terrorist...????.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Yiyi and Chris

[baxxy 0]

Well, let's just say

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT'S HOW THEY ARE.

Well in that case you really don't know S**T. You should go over there and show everyone how to play nice. Again its the whole gray area that I mentioned earlier that you seem to know all about.