Not really ironic, because my writing is atleast legible.

You just replied to...your own quote O_o

Grammar Nazis: You all lambasted need_help on his English. Not everyone speaks English as their native language. We do get people outside the United States here. I see that again, I slap bans mmkay.

Thread topic: I've heard of this/similar stories. Basically Roach's first post is spot on. Soldiers are trained for these situations. They must take the appropriate action to protect their life and their squad's lives.

True, we were not really justified in heading over there... but since we're there now and it's going rather well, from what I've heard (concerning the development of a new government), we may as well finish what we started.

Obviously, it'd do more harm than good to just leave now.

And also, I personally didn't get any impulse of bias from the kill/eliminate issue. In fact, I didn't even take any real notice -- never have.
Roach, for the sake of overcritical people I suggest you edit your post.

Confuse the two? I never said that anyone would confuse the two. That dosent make any sense.

What I am saying is that the word kill conjures up a different image in ones mind than the word eliminate. The word eliminate is less connected to the act of killing because it can have other meanings. Imagine if they changed the TV show Most Extreme Elimination Challenge to Most Extreme Killing Challenge.

Yeah I just did that to show that I had already explained that point.

That's a stretch because you know there is know killing on a TV game show. There is killing in war, but not everyone an American soldier shoots dies, so use of "eliminate" is perfectly valid.

Beyond that, you're arguing semantics and nothing more at this point.

Not every american that is shot by an iraqi dies either.

Also the MXC thing was just to show that the word eliminate can be used for things that are nonviolent.

Not really. Most people would eliminate the threat, whether through killing, threatening, or some other, more benign action.

As a general description of human nature, Roach's statement is more accurate.

Yeah. Sometimes a platoon of heavily armed Marines would be enough to make and enemy soldier or two surrender, thus eliminating the threat.

Mosque dammit, MOSQUE, not Mosk.

Anyway, there should be one war thread of all time. This multi-threading is getting old.

Well, i'm sorry, but i just heared it at the TV, maybe the dutch television is a little slow. And by the way, i'm dutch also, so please. Do not flame me just because i can't type english/american perfectly

There was a rule about not bashing those whose native language isn't english.

Doesn't really make anyone wonder why it was taken off. Mm'hmm?

In defense of the soldiers:

Lots of fancy-pants terrists like to use mosques as hideouts and bases because it's OMG HOLY GROUND. Don't blame the soldiers - they were clearing out an area that was very, very, very likely to contain enemies. What else are they supposed to do?

And the priest? We've seen and heard about it hundreds of times: an "innocent person" grabs the gun off of a corpse and uses it against the soldiers. I tell you - the priest wasn't so innocent. They're the ones who are letting violent, horrible people camp out in their temple. You think they don't know what they're doing? They're just trying to abuse their religious status.

At least in WW2 Christian churches were used for triage. Not as goddamn artillery emplacements.

This is relatively old news of a highly publicized event. He killed an enemy combatant who was playing dead. The marine was recently cleared of any wrong doing, fortunately. He made a split second decision when hesitation can cost lives. The man was not armed but had he had a weapon or explosive and the marine didn't take him out the outcome could have been much worse.

And the depiction you related is severely flawed. Had the version you posted been true then this would be a different deal entirely.

It's called a dead-check. Language warning on the linked article.



Brutal? Yes. Legal? Nnyes. Guy who was executed wasn't armed. Thus illegal. Technically, he should be given aid (a GI was prosecuted a few months ago for the "mercy-killing" of an unarmed boy who he had shot and fatally wounded, and who was probably violating a curfew). Then again, faking death in order to cause harm to an opponent is forbidden according to the conventions of war. Add to that the whole controversial "illegal combatant" debacle, as they have no clear uniform or distinguishing marks. A confusing situation.

Then again, it's not like stuff like this hasn't happened before since the dawn of organised armed conflict, or to U.S. troops before even. Put 19-21 year-olds (many of whom have never even left their country, if their own continent at all), trained to fight a war of conquest instead of "liberation"/occupation, to a place where they've never been, surround them with angry people whose language and viewpoint they don't understand, and then their superiors tell them it's a simple black and white war, righteous "good guys" and eeevil "bad guys". Not really all that surprising then, is it?

Hilarious how on the contemporary thread for the event, a lot of people were saying that he shouldn't even be tried or the case investigated.

Oh, and mosque, people. Don't insult his spelling. Also: imam or perhaps even muezzin for the "priest guy".

Do you guys remember back in the beginning of the war, when insurgents would pretend to surrender or be dead, and then pull out a gun or blow them selves up? That happened allot. That is, unfortunately, why we must take steps to protect our selves. They brought this on themselves.

Just to play Devil's advocate. Aren't they protecting themselves from an invading force? How is that bringing it upon themselves?

Well, i'm sorry if i offended one of you guys, as you know by now, i'm dutch, and if there are these rules...then mankind sucks even more (it allready is a ************ ******** because it kills for fun, and finishes eachother of). But i didn't know anything of these rules. So i oppeligize (< THATS WRONG TOO!) to all the people i have offended.

You obviously didn't read the other's arguments that justified such actions.

Has any country ever not done something like this during times of war? Yeah. That is what I thought. What do you expect? Everything to be perfect in war?

Simma down now. It's all right.

There's only honour in war when both sides agree to fight for whatever they believe in. The bad guys are always the guys that attack civilians. There is a difference between people educated and trained as soldiers who fight other like people in a designated area, and people who haven't been educated in war, raised in a society that babies them until they turn 21 suddenly expecting that they're all grown up, and strapping on them automatic weapons to fight what everyone is telling them are terrorists. The U.S. hasn't solved any problems in Iraq; perhaps it's glossed a few over, but none of you can say **** about the Iraqis being better off than if they were under Saddam, because the same bull**** that was going on in the Soviet Union is the EXACT same bull**** that is going on in your good ol' ****ing U.S. of A. Just shut the **** up and stop being naive. You don't have freedom—not as long as freedom is what you buy into.

Whoa? I don't have freedom? You mean to tell me that someone is guiding my actions and decisions w/o my consent? What sorts of government style does the "good ol' U. S. of A" have then? If you say tyrannical dictatorship, I will seriously bust up laughing.

Now, and why do we start a war...A complete war isn't justice. Why do we kill eachother, we do we hunt for fun. Why do we distort the natural balance. Why do we make weapons. Why do we threaten eachother... Thats something to think about.

Oh, and over the past time, the Netherlands never won a war. They always losed, the only black page in our book was the slavemarket we controlled...about a 300 years ago (i think)

Human nature. Many people either don't see it or ignore it intently but humankind is by nature aggressive, corrupt, and power-hungry. Throughout our entire history, we have been in conflict with each other sometimes on a weekly basis. For the most part, items and technologies created and invented have been used to destroy. We invade other lands, conquer other people. In turn the conquerors are then conquered. Slavery has been in many societies since the city-states of Mesopotamia. Slaves were often subjugated people recently conquered. Othertimes it was people deemed "inferior" or "weak."

This is quite possibly the most nonsensical and irrational post I've ever read here.

Chill out. This is the umpteen billionth time you've made a post like this, and you still don't make any sense.


There's NEVER any honor in war. War is killing, plain and simple.


Aparrently we're having a draft, because we're getting strapped with automatics at 21 and being sent off to war. Last time I checked, service was voluntary.



The Iraqis are tons better off...they have a say in their government, there's no more tyrannical dictatorships in that country...I mean hell, even I admit this, one who is/was so staunchly against the war.



You do know that Russia is a free market socialist country, no longer the communist country it was, right? Also, what does what's going on the US have to do with what's going on in Iraq in the first place? I mean...seriously... Your points are nonsensical, and are almost insultingly stupid.

Why do we start wars? Humans imperialistic nature, and with the case in Iraq, the want to protect precious natural resources and overthrow a dictator that had gotten out of control, and I suppose could possibly threaten us in the future.

A complete war isn't justice? What does this mean. If you're referring to Iraq again, that's NOWHERE near a 'complete' or as you probably meant 'total' war.

Why do we make weapons? To protect ourselves. Or to fight others.

Why do we hunt/'disrup the natural balance'? We hunt because it's instinctual, and it's recreational. There's more than enough animals to sustain a few people taking them down. Hell, that's what they were used for long ago, only they were our ONLY source of food.

The Netherlands never winning a war isn't exactly something to be proud of. That means they participated, but they never got a damn thing done. And I'm sure there's a lot more jaded nature in the Netherland's past, but I'm not well versed enough in their history to say what. All nations have a jaded history, no matter what their current alignment.

"I walked down the street and killed three american expecting mothers."

Your first mistake was to assume I value human life. The second was that I care what nationality a person being murdered is.

In reality, "eliminating that threat" was my choice of words because that's all an opfor member is. A threat. You see them as another person and suddenly you run the risk of guilt. The last thing you need in combat is guilt. Guilt preoccupies the mind, and gets men killed.

Sounds like you value human life to me.



Yeah and a complete lack of guilt gets innocent civilians killed.

You're making stuff up, dude. There is no mandatory military service in the US.



Like executing dissenters, keeping new social ideas down with force, exploiting the working class to benefit the Communist Party? You're making stuff up, dude.

Did it ever occur to you, that the priest could have a had a bomb under him?

Trying to keep men alive in combat is a great way to save your own ***. It means there are more eyes watching out for you and more weapons pointing where yours is.

I also like how you ignored the rest of my post...

Ahh so you value human life only if it is your own life or if it is someone who can help save your own life.

The rest of you're post just said that the enemy should not be thought of as human (which basically confirms my original pont).

I think you are trying to make his statements "politically correct" to the point of annoyance.

No, I simply wanted to point out the fact that his statement tired to downplay the death of an unarmed man.

To be honest, I wouldn't have liked to use the word 'kill' twice in the same short sentence. I wouldn't have liked to use the word 'pumpkin' twice in the same short sentence either. It just looks better to have a synonymn.

*shrugs*

Oh, and I totally agree about clearing out rooms: one of my best friends is in Iraq and if he has to shoot people playing dead to ensure his safety then fair play to him. I know I'd do it in a heartbeat, especially if it has been known for soldiers to play dead then come up from behind.

I guess if you believe the news reports that he was unarmed and everyhting. Fact is, you don't know one way or the other. I'd have done the same thing in that situation as I'd certainly put my life and the lives of my fellow soldiers/buddies above someone that's trying to kill me. I certainly wouldn't want you by my side in a life or death situation.

I would word that as simply "I value my own life," being human has nothing to do with it.

You make me sick. Get a freakin grip on reality you puppet. And swearing every 2 seconds doesn't make your posts sound "passionate" or "powerful". It makes them sound completely moronic. You have no content or argument, so you resort to petty rhetoric and fill your posts with swearing. Ohhh your just so fed up and frustrated with all the idiots who don't know anything about the world aren't you. But you, you've got it all worked out, don't you? Newsflash - you aren't superior, you don't have it all figured out...you are the naive sheep my friend, YOU ARE.