No offense to the american army, before you start to read.

I was just watching the news...where i sai some horrible pictures. Some news-reporter, named Kevin. Was at the attack at Falujha in Iraq. He was with a American Team, that attacked a mosk, killed people with heavy armor and just shot some guys that where unarmed or had light weapons. They took those weapons and leaved them injured (not live threatning) in that Mosk...It's a shame that this happend, but this is not what i think is horrible. That they later, the team of soldiers returned to the mosk, and saw another squad at the mosk. The Leader of the 1st squad asked the leader of the second squad if they saw five people. The second Leader said: Yes...Then he asked if they where armored...The second leader JUST SHRUGGED HIS SHOULDERS! The first leader said: Ah, well, who cares...Kevin filmed one innocent guy (I don't know the word, but its like a Priest) that was being shot just because he was scared and playing dead...

What do you think of this action? Do you still think the war in Iraq has any use...I don't think so.

Did it ever have any use?

Amerrricans and their delicious desert wars!

That post hurt my brain.

Umm...a news article might help. Or something.

I second that.

Yay for the new guy!

I'm just going to throw this out there. If your clearing a room, your life and the lives of the men next to you depend on your decisions and it all could be over within seconds. If someone looks threatening most people would eliminate that threat rather than risk being killed. These are 19 year olds going into a room where there are severely high chances that there are men inside waiting to kill them. A man playing dead is something they're warned about in training. They're warned with countless stories of men playing dead and setting off an explosive or pulling out a firearm and taking surprise shots at them.

Roach speaks truth, heed it.

Would the Iraqis have been better off under Saddam? I don't think so.

Also, what Roach said.

Random person posting a story without credible links or even proper spelling of what he's talking about.

Sounds like a trustworthy source to me.

Say, what!? Construct your sentences better. I couldn't understand what exactly you said.

He might have been trying to demostrate his point... I can't tell though.

There isn't really enough info make judgement in this situation. What Roach said is perfectly valid as well.

Why was the news covering a six month old story? Earlier this year, the military decided to not prosecute the marine.

That makes more sense. I can understand that kind of thing happening. Have you ever stepped into a masque where there might be 20 crazed Islamic fundamentalists ready to shoot you? I know I'd be a little trigger happy.

needhelp, your name is so very appropriate...

Learn how to type, and maybe I'll be able what's so scary and sad.

Dude, his native language isn't english.

Learning new languages isn't a strongpoint of his I guess.

Ok, we get it, you're all grammar Nazis.

Haha, ironic.

Anyway, this was covered here at massassi about a year or so ago, as I remember the thread.

In general, mosks should be left alone in my opinion. Unless you're being fired at from a mosk, don't go in; even if that's a threat to you. If someone pops out, then shoot. A law of war, I think it might be.

JediKirby

That only works when both sides agree on the rules, though.

A law of war is that people die in wars. Throughout the history innocent people have been killed in battles. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but the profession of soldiers is to kill, so what do you expect when you send them out to the field?

Yeah but doing this just makes more people join the insurgency as they hear of and witness such atrocities.

Also, "eliminate that threat"? Stop using the word kill only when an american is being killed.

Probably alot of events, facts and news stories can be twisted to make people join the insurgency.



?

Thats what it should say.

And your point is..?

My point is that he's trying to manipulate words to justify killing someone. He uses the word kill when the iraqi is killing but calls it eliminating a threat when the american soldier is killing.

Call it manipulating if you want, but if the person being killed is a threat, they are eliminating a threat.

But Roach only said this one time. It seems that he was not "munipulating words" but just using a different word for "kill". Also...



Is he using "someone" to mean an Iraqi? I don't think so. He was talking about human nature in a general sense. Someone that could be threatening could be a bank robber, a murderer, a Nazi, a mad gunman...

Avenger:



Okay, then he could have said that and the whole war would have sounded like a fun game of laser tag.

Echoman: The word kill has a much more negative connotation so he does not use it when refering to the americans action. And even if he was describing a theoretical situation where you were running into a church in nazi germany the arguement still aplies.

Er...what?

He is just trying to express an idea about human nature with words. Simply, he chose those words to say what he wanted to say. I don't think Roach had intentions to "dehumanize" Iraqis or make war less serious with one post.

I think this matter is going a bit too far.

Yeah he is trying to express an idea about human nature. He is also making human nature sound more civil than it is. If it was intentional or not doesn't really matter.

No. But we still had no business going in there.

Yes. The word "kill" has a negative connotation. But he, I believe, is not referring to Iraqis in this situation but any threatening figure. He is talking about "somebody."

If I came up to you and said, "If you're clearing a room, your life and the lives of the men next to you depend on your decisions, and it all could be over within seconds. If someone looks threatening most people would eliminate that threat rather than risk being killed." You may say, "I agree." This is a general thought about the behavior of soldiers.

I don't believe that Roach was trying to make human nature more civil when he wrote these statments on a SW forum. I don't think changing "eliminate" to "kill" and "kill" to "eliminate" is going to change the way human behavior are viewed in this simple sentence.

Even if he is refering to war in general that would still include the war in Iraq.

If it has a different connotation than it will change the way that the sentence is viewed. It is subtle but it is definatly different.

Who is going to confuse eliminate and kill in this context?