U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians


Machjo
#1
U.S. soldier kills up to 16 Afghan civilians - Yahoo! News Canada (external - login to view)
 
petros
#2
Good aim?
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Good aim?

He is a trained US soldier, and 16 people dead. What do you think?
 
petros
#4
I'd think either good aim or doesn't have to buy his own ammo.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I'd think either good aim or doesn't have to buy his own ammo.

Good point.

Looks like it's 15 confirmed:

BBC News - US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar (external - login to view)

Looks like Afghans want him tried in Afghanistan but apparently US policy does not allow US troops to be tried abroad. That could become a point of conflict, but out of respect for sovereignty, the crime did occur in Afghan jurisdiction, no?
 
B00Mer
#6
Here comes more protests against western forces..
 
Cliffy
+4
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Here comes more protests against western forces..

And your point is? What the hell do you expect? To write it off as the price of democracy? What are we doing there again? (the official version, not the real one).
 
Ron in Regina
+2
#8
This is a weird one. I just finished reading the article from the O.P....&
there is no mention of a wedding taking place, or having just taken
place, or even about to have taken place.

The article mixes the singular & the plural often also. Was it one lone
gunman, or a group of them? It reads like a pack or drunken soldiers
invading this town.....but only one of them actually shoots these people?
Am I misreading this one? Only one soldier has been arrested?
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Mar 11th, 2012 at 10:24 AM..Reason: typo (used "their" for "there")
 
Cliffy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

This is a weird one. I just finished reading the article from the O.P....&
thier is no mention of a wedding taking place, or having just taken
place, or even about to have taken place.

The article mixes the singular & the plural often also. Was it one lone
gunman, or a group of them? It reads like a pack or drunken soldiers
invading this town.....but only one of them actually shoots these people?
Am I misreading this one? Only one soldier has been arrested?

Not to worry Ron, you are not the only one confused by the way this article reads.
 
#juan
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I'd think either good aim or doesn't have to buy his own ammo.

That's really funny petros. Especially since nine of the dead were children.
 
Cliffy
+2 / -1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

That's really funny petros. Especially since nine of the dead were children.

Anyone can hit an adult. It takes special skill to shoot someone as small as a child. Takes a lot of practice.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

This is a weird one. I just finished reading the article from the O.P....&
there is no mention of a wedding taking place, or having just taken
place, or even about to have taken place.

The article mixes the singular & the plural often also. Was it one lone
gunman, or a group of them? It reads like a pack or drunken soldiers
invading this town.....but only one of them actually shoots these people?
Am I misreading this one? Only one soldier has been arrested?

What I got is that it's one soldier only it would appear, though he was a staff serjeant I believe, so still relatively high up in the non-commissioned ranks.
 
CDNBear
#13
The Firefighter in that region must be way better than the local foundation savers. Since they managed to put the chemical fires out, before they could so consumed the bodies, that bullet wounds were easily recognizable.
 
B00Mer
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

And your point is? What the hell do you expect? To write it off as the price of democracy? What are we doing there again? (the official version, not the real one).

Yawn... Don't be a tool Cliffy..

It's just a cycle that most have gotten tired off. No we don't belong over there.. They are not a threat to their neighbors, and it's a warped society that will never change.

I'd say leave them to their caves and camels.

They are not building a Nuke, or threatening to wipe out a country.. I think those troops could be better placed somewhere else in the world.
 
#juan
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Anyone can hit an adult. It takes special skill to shoot someone as small as a child. Takes a lot of practice.

And takes a tiny brain to joke about the murder of children. In the U.S. the killing of 15 people would be considered a "serial killing" and the killer would likely be executed. I wonder if this mass killing in Afghanistan is even punishable in the states.
 
Just the Facts
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

And takes a tiny brain to joke about the murder of children. In the U.S. the killing of 15 people would be considered a "serial killing" and the killer would likely be executed. I wonder if this mass killing in Afghanistan is even punishable in the states.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm thinking probably yes. Although mental competence will likely come into play. Also, not a military lawyer, but I'm thinking on paper at least, he could likely be in front of a firing squad quite summarily if the brass decided to go that route.
 
CDNBear
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

And takes a tiny brain to joke about the murder of children. In the U.S. the killing of 15 people would be considered a "serial killing" and the killer would likely be executed. I wonder if this mass killing in Afghanistan is even punishable in the states.

If the facts dictate, it should be tried in an Afghan court.
 
Just the Facts
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If the facts dictate, it should be tried in an Afghan court.

I disagree. We (western nations) routinely give refugees amnesty on the grounds that they fear not getting a fair trial in their home countries. Why would we throw our own to the wolves?
 
lone wolf
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

I disagree. We (western nations) routinely give refugees amnesty on the grounds that they fear not getting a fair trial in their home countries. Why would we throw our own to the wolves?

Saves the expense of a trial at home - IF, in fact, the guy did go apeshyte and randomly fire on innocent civilians. A trial at home just maintains an illusion of out-of-sight-out-of-mind among they who already hate you
 
CDNBear
+5
#20  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Why would we throw our own to the wolves?

People who purposely slaughter unarmed women and children, aren't my own.
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

I disagree. We (western nations) routinely give refugees amnesty on the grounds that they fear not getting a fair trial in their home countries. Why would we throw our own to the wolves?

If the Afghans can ensure a fair trial, what's the issue?
 
Just the Facts
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Saves the expense of a trial at home - IF, in fact, the guy did go apeshyte and randomly fire on innocent civilians. A trial at home just maintains an illusion of out-of-sight-out-of-mind among they who already hate you

True, but I don't think we should govern ourselves on the basis of others' illusions about us.Appeasement hasn't done an ounce of good so far. Just look at the whole Quoran burning fiasco. Apologising was just interpreted as weakness, and led to more demands.

I say screw 'em. If the guy's an American, bring him home and deal with him. Let the afghans think what they want. Besides, they'll be too busy pursuing the guy that executed the two Americans in the secure government office anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If the Afghans can ensure a fair trial, what's the issue?

Seriously, there's an "if" there?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

People who purposely slaughter unarmed women and children, aren't my own.

Unfortunately, they are. You can make a good case for bringing him home just to hang him, but he's our own to hang. (assumedly).
 
relic
#23
Was it in FMJ that the fella asked the door gunner,"how can you shoot women and children?"and the gunner sez,"easy,you just don't lead 'em so much"add maniacal laughter.
They {the us}will bring the "aleged shooter"home and treat him for ptsd,and screw him out of his pension,no wait that's the Canadian army.
 
#juan
#24
Anyone who purposely shoots and kills fifteen people including nine children is an homicidal lunatic. Quietly bring him home and put him in the deepest prison there is......not a mental hospital, or some doctor at some point will decide he is cured and let him out.
 
CDNBear
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by relicView Post

Was it in FMJ that the fella asked the door gunner,"how can you shoot women and children?"and the gunner sez,"easy,you just don't lead 'em so much"add maniacal laughter.

One of the most memorable lines in that excellent movie.

The best scene though, is the last scene, when they're marching across a back drop of burning buildings, singing the Mickey Mouse Club march song...

Full Metal Jacket - Mickey Mouse song - YouTube



Very appropriate and extremely poignant.

Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Seriously, there's an "if" there?



Quote:

Unfortunately, they are. You can make a good case for bringing him home just to hang him, but he's our own to hang. (assumedly).

Active duty Soldiers are usually tried by their own nation. Unusual circumstance sometimes give the host nation wiggle room, or their own nation, my opt to allow the host nation to try them. Usually for the purposes of cool optics.

If true, he/they'll most likely be brought home.
 
Machjo
-1
#26
U.S. soldier reportedly kills 16 Afghan civilians - World - CBC News

Now MacKay is calling it a "cowardly" act of violence?

It is many things, but how is it "cowardly". Is it just me or does it seem that either many politicians don't know the meaning of the word or just have a bad habit of calling all violence cowardly?
 
CDNBear
+3
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It is many things, but how is it "cowardly".

If true, you don't think gunning down unarmed civilians is cowardly?

How much courage does it take to gun down unarmed women and children?
 
Machjo
-1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If true, you don't think gunning down unarmed civilians is cowardly?

How much courage does it take to gun down unarmed women and children?

It takes no courage to eat a sandwich either, but I'd hardly call that cowardly. Cowardly conjures the idea of hiding from danger. For example, If that soldier killed them out of some irrational paranoia that if he did not kill them they'd kill him, then maybe that could be called cowardly.
 
CDNBear
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It takes no courage to eat a sandwich either, but I'd hardly call that cowardly.

You obviously never get food off a coffee truck.

Quote:

Cowardly conjures the idea of hiding from danger.

It can conjure any image you want I guess. What danger do unarmed women and children pose?

Perhaps ignoble would be a better term. But the thesaurus lists cowardly as a related word.
 
Machjo
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You obviously never get food off a coffee truck.

It can conjure any image you want I guess. What danger do unarmed women and children pose?

Perhaps ignoble would be a better term. But the thesaurus lists cowardly as a related word.

I stand corrected:

cow·ard·ly

   /ˈkaʊərdli/ Show Spelled[kou-erd-lee] Show IPA
adjective 1. lacking courage; contemptibly timid.

2. characteristic of or befitting a coward (external - login to view); despicably mean (external - login to view), covert, or unprincipled: a cowardly attack on a weak, defenseless man.

According to the first definition above, I'd have been right. I was unaware of the second definition: "despicably mean, covert, or unprincipled" it was.
Last edited by Machjo; Mar 11th, 2012 at 01:03 PM..
 
no new posts