U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians


Goober
#571
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Not quite true, Goober.
My Lai Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
The only one convicted served but 3.5 years under house arrest.

I was aware that little to nothing was done. I just do not see a connection to that and this soldier murdering 16 innocents -
 
Goober
#572
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'm curious how the killer in toulouse is called a serial killer for killing 7 and this guy kills 16 without the label. Interesting.

oh yes, and this guy get's his defense handed to him by having his sanity immediately questioned while the guy in France is immediately labeled a terrorist which means he can't use insanity as a defense.

And you are claim to be a pacifist yet threaten to beat the crapola out of people. 1 punch or push can kill.

Or are you a selective violent Pacifist - You being and have the sole right to select when and why you will use violence.

pac·i·fism (ps-fzm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action

Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare".[2] Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.[3] Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "...A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." The whole theory is based on the idea that the end does NOT justify the means.[4]
 
earth_as_one
#573
This story is already old news. This killer will be free within 2 years. At which point I'll revive this thread if it still exists.
 
Goober
#574
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

This story is already old news. This killer will be free within 2 years. At which point I'll revive this thread if it still exists.

Again biased - Based upon your opinion.
 
earth_as_one
#575
Is the purpose of this forum to post other people's opinions?

I thought the point of a debate was to have an opinion of your own, express and defend it.
 
gerryh
#576
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Is the purpose of this forum to post other people's opinions?

I thought the point of a debate was to have an opinion of your own, express and defend it.



No no no.... the warmongers will only accept an opinion that supports killing.
 
Goober
#577
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Is the purpose of this forum to post other people's opinions?

I thought the point of a debate was to have an opinion of your own, express and defend it.

Deleted

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No no no.... the warmongers will only accept an opinion that supports killing.

Ah the Violent Pacifist speaks. Care to define what type of Pacifist you are.
 
earth_as_one
+1
#578
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No no no.... the warmongers will only accept an opinion that supports killing.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if its not their own opinion, but an opinion they got from cable news or various right wing shock jocks. The gullible would support peace, if these sources supported peace. But peace doesn't boost the ratings of infotainment and shockjock programs. These sources promote fear, hate and anger. They do not support rational thought or debate, love or tolerance.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#579
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

This story is already old news. This killer will be free within 2 years. At which point I'll revive this thread if it still exists.

To which I would guess you are hoping for his release. I'd bet on it. You would want justice denied, wars to start just so you can wallow in the pain and death of others.

That is why you are a warmonger. You feed off the pain in your own special way.
 
Goober
#580
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if its not their own opinion, but an opinion they got from cable news or various right wing shock jocks. The gullible would support peace, if these sources supported peace. But peace doesn't boost the ratings of infotainment and shockjock programs. These sources promote fear, hate and anger. They do not support rational thought or debate, love or tolerance.

It is still their own opinion. Really lame post.
 
CDNBear
+2
#581
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

These sources promote fear, hate and anger. They do not support rational thought or debate, love or tolerance.

Just like you.
 
earth_as_one
#582
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

To which I would guess you are hoping for his release. I'd bet on it. You would want justice denied, wars to start just so you can wallow in the pain and death of others.

That is why you are a warmonger. You feed off the pain in your own special way.

I prefer the US do the right thing. Send him back to Afghanistan where the crime was committed and let the Afghans decide what is just.

I am against capital punishment, but the crime was committed in Afghanistan by someone who was AWOL.... allegedly. Such a decision would improve the US's standing in the eyes of Afghans, who currently believe Americans have two standards of justice. One that applies to them (assassinations, torture, no due process) and another than applies to American soldiers (able to commit murder, torture and other atrocities with impunity). examples Haditha and Abu Ghraib where few people were held accountable for torture and murder.

If you think the Americans are being just then let's switch it around.
If an Afghan soldier killed a bunch of American women and children in the US, would you support that soldier facing justice in Afghanistan by an Afghan military tribunal or would you want him to face American justice for committing a crime in the US?

I believe the most likely outcome of this incident will be that this soldier will be judged not guilty by reason of insanity. He will be a free man within a few years.
Last edited by earth_as_one; Mar 22nd, 2012 at 05:06 PM..
 
Goober
#583
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I prefer the US do the right thing. Send him back to Afghanistan where the crime was committed and let the Afghans decide what is just..

Clearly you are against fair trials, for capital punishment. It would be a show trial - Something you would love to see.
 
CDNBear
#584
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

If you think the Americans are being just then let's switch it around.
If an Afghan soldier killed a bunch of American women and children in the US, would you support that soldier facing justice in Afghanistan by an Afghan military tribunal or would you want him to face American justice for committing a crime in the US?

If we ignore all the actual things that would have to be, to make it so. I say send him back to Afghanistan to face a Court Martial.
 
earth_as_one
#585
As soon as the soldier went AWOL, he was a tourist visiting Afghanistan and should be treated as such.
 
CDNBear
+2
#586
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

As soon as the soldier went AWOL, he was a tourist visiting Afghanistan and should be treated as such.

Stop making things up. You look silly.
 
Ocean Breeze
#587
Quote:

-- Afghanistan massacre suspect Staff Sgt. Robert Bales to be charged with 17 counts of murder, senior U.S. official says.

Source: CNN breaking news mailing.

and this from same source:
Quote:

Staff Sgt. Robert Bales will be charged with 17 counts of murder and six counts of assault and attempted murder related to a March 11 shooting spree in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. defense official said.



The charges are expected to be announced on Friday. Bales was flown out of Afghanistan last week and is being held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.



The civilian deaths, which included women and children, strained already-tense U.S.-Afghan relations and intensified a debate about whether to pull American troops ahead of their planned 2014 withdrawal

Last edited by Ocean Breeze; Mar 22nd, 2012 at 06:02 PM..
 
DaSleeper
+1
#588
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Source: CNN breaking news mailing.

and this from same source:

If you want to be taken seriously...learn to post a bloody link, instead of putting a copy and paste in quotations..
 
gerryh
+1
#589
U.S. official: Bales to be charged with 17 counts of murder - CNN.com (external - login to view)
 
EagleSmack
+3
#590
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I prefer the US do the right thing. Send him back to Afghanistan where the crime was committed and let the Afghans decide what is just.

I am against capital punishment, but the crime was committed in Afghanistan by someone who was AWOL.... allegedly.

You're against Capital Punishment? Impossible... absolutely impossible. His sentence would assuredly be death and if you were to be the one making that decision you may as well kill him yourself.




Quote:

If you think the Americans are being just then let's switch it around.
If an Afghan soldier killed a bunch of American women and children in the US, would you support that soldier facing justice in Afghanistan by an Afghan military tribunal or would you want him to face American justice for committing a crime in the US?

If Afghan soldiers were here in the US under the same circumstances 100%, and I supported what the Afghans were doing... I'd understand the Afghans meeting out their own justice to their own.


Quote:

I believe the most likely outcome of this incident will be that this soldier will be judged not guilty by reason of insanity. He will be a free man within a few years.

You HOPE that is going to happen is more like it.

This guy is not going to be found insane. Do you know how hard that is to prove?
 
Goober
+1
#591
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

U.S. official: Bales to be charged with 17 counts of murder - CNN.com (external - login to view)

What else would he be charged with. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out now does it?
 
lone wolf
+2
#592
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

As soon as the soldier went AWOL, he was a tourist visiting Afghanistan and should be treated as such.

You really don't know how serious a charge AWOL is do you? It's enough for his employer to have first go at him.
 
Goober
+1
#593
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Source: CNN breaking news mailing.

and this from same source:

And for you as well.
What else would he be charged with. Does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out now does it?

Tell me what else you thought he should be charged with. Really ffn dumb.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#594
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

As soon as the soldier went AWOL, he was a tourist visiting Afghanistan and should be treated as such.

Are you that soft? As Wolf pointed out...UA (awol) is very serious and you're not a tourist. You are a soldier who is under UA status... but you're still a soldier (Marine, sailor, etc).

And when they get you... you're screwed.
 
earth_as_one
#595
We'll see. I predict an outcome similar to Hathitha and Abu Ghraib. Somehere between 90 and 521 days. Good luck winning Afghan hearts and minds after this one.
 
Goober
#596
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

We'll see. I predict an outcome similar to Hathitha and Abu Ghraib. Somehere between 90 and 521 days. Good luck winning Afghan hearts and minds after this one.

Have you and your opinion not been sent to the shxttxr often enough. You must like being dumb
 
gerryh
#597
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

We'll see. I predict an outcome similar to Hathitha and Abu Ghraib. Somehere between 90 and 521 days. Good luck winning Afghan hearts and minds after this one.



If Haditha is used as an example, then he will get a slap on the wrist at the most.
 
Goober
+2
#598
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If Haditha is used as an example, then he will get a slap on the wrist at the most.

Keep on running - You and EAO are the same.
And you are claim to be a pacifist yet threaten to beat the crapola out of people. 1 punch or push can kill.

Or are you a selective violent Pacifist - You being and have the sole right to select when and why you will use violence.

pac·i·fism (ps-fzm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action

Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare".[2] Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.[3] Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "...A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." The whole theory is based on the idea that the end does NOT justify the means.[4]
 
gerryh
+1
#599
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Keep on running - You and EAO are the same.
And you are claim to be a pacifist yet threaten to beat the crapola out of people. 1 punch or push can kill.

Or are you a selective violent Pacifist - You being and have the sole right to select when and why you will use violence.

pac·i·fism (ps-fzm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.

b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action

Pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism "in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas" as "an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare".[2] Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as "anti-warism", the rejection of all forms of warfare.[3] Teichman's beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as "...A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong." The whole theory is based on the idea that the end does NOT justify the means.[4]

\



How about commenting on the statement that you quoted rather than running away at the mouth spouting crap that doesn't pertain. Or are you incapable of cognizant thought?
 
Ocean Breeze
-1
#600
Quote:

The Folly of Soldier Worship
John Glaser, March 22, 2012

State doctrine holds that soldiers are intrinsically honorable. It is a conviction held by most of the public that those who wear a military uniform are to receive automatic society-wide praise for their service, irrespective of who they are or what they’ve done. If one dissents from the blind nationalist approval for America’s wars, it is fine to criticize the politicians, but soldiers generally can’t be at fault.

The Folly of Soldier Worship « Antiwar.com Blog (external - login to view)


Truisms in above article. This same hero worship., of the troops is a component of why troops believe they can do as they wish and get away with it. The public has gone way overboard in this hero worship and has lost perspective . thus becoming the enabler of such dastardly acts.

........one wonders how many horrific atrocities the public is protected from. (again......enabling the troops to belief the rules don't apply to them as their self importance is exaggerated by the hero worship of their culture.

Other empires felt the same kind of power and gradually lost all integrety ,respect etc. The deterioration the world is seeing now of the current empire is vivid to most descerning thinkers and observers.

the problem IMHO.....is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The entire world population is in a crisis .....and the elective invasions, the atrocities by the invaders , the economy disaster are all symptoms of this crisis.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

We'll see. I predict an outcome similar to Hathitha and Abu Ghraib. Somehere between 90 and 521 days. Good luck winning Afghan hearts and minds after this one.

It has been too late for that for some time. It was one of the most stupid slogans to come out of washington anyhow.

Winning the hearts and minds of a population of a different culture , in a far off land by invading and warring on it. No rational being would swallow that Bull crap. Only an idiot would say it out loud.

Quote:

War Crimes and the Mythology of 'Bad Apples'

War Crimes and the Mythology of 'Bad Apples' | Common Dreams (external - login to view)
 
no new posts