http://www.ebaumsworld.com/dontloot.html

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

Seen that ages ago.

I don't see how it's supposed to be funny.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

No wonder they hate the U.S.

political correctness and threat of lawsuit and other stupid crap like that keeps the chain of command from cracking down on these idiotic soldiers who think playing with their guns and kicking the asses of helpless people is a real riot.


Or maybe tougher screening for the military would help... the point is, with a threat of sever consequence for such an aciton, it wouldn't take place.

uck.

------------------
Saberopus: omfq musical genuis j00 >mozart
Thrawn42689: Mozart = n00b

I've also seen this before, and it isn't funny at all.

It's pathetic. What the hell is their problem? Did they miss out on their opportunity to be an action-hero and decided to compensate as an excuse when they spotted a western cameraman? Over firewood?

This is why you don't want un-educated jarheads dishing out vigilante stupidity in a foreign nation that already isn't exactly rejoicing at it's occupiers.

But perhaps strongarm justice is what it takes to enforce the law in those parts?

I was surprised the car didn't explode. Unless it happened to not have any petrol in it at the time.

I was also interested as to where the Iraqis were when that was going on.

Well, when you consider the fact that the Army is trying to recruit a bunch of 13 year old punks through an online video game, it's no wonder why so many soldiers are screwed in the head like that.

-- SavageX

------------------
"...and if you don't like that, then you need to be slugged in the face repeatedly, until my hands are soaked in blood. Have a nice day!"
http://www.savagex.net

[This message has been edited by SavageX378 (edited June 03, 2004).]

^ good point.



------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Then why bother removing Saddam?

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

I'd like to say that many of you are clueless, could care less about facts, and are really very ignorant for assuming that few people represent the majority.

edit: I don't need to back up my facts right? I'm okay just causing trouble right?

[This message has been edited by PnHobbit (edited June 03, 2004).]

I'd like to say that you are clueless, could care less about facts, and are really very ignorant for assuming so many of us assume that. And some find that the fact that anyone is acting on that level unleashed perturbing.

And surely they removed Saddam for more reasons than his strongarm policy of justice.

I'd like to call you ignorant for not paying attention. I was referring to the above posters such as those quoted.

EDIT: Not sure who his is, but I do agree that Saddam must have done a little more than uh...strong arm his people. More like say cooperate, give me your money, or die.

[This message has been edited by PnHobbit (edited June 03, 2004).]

his point stands.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

You shouldn't be looting. Yeah it was only wood apparently, and the crushing of the car was a bit extreme. But with any crime, you gotta be prepared to face a charge.

Though I think those soldiers took TOO MUCH liberties. Arresting the guys and holding them for awhile would've been just the same as they do here. Just cause they're Iraqis doesn't mean they get worse punishments, but they shouldn't go unpunished either after breaking a law.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

Or maybe they should have helped them find another place to find firewood that's legal?

------------------
EvilMagic.net: Brian's Web Log

^ they're not retarded people who need to be told where to find firewood.

They stole the wood. Stealing is bad. Sure, the army dudes shouldn't have crushed the car but the citizens knew what they were doin was bad

------------------
My Life.

Apparently you don't know how to read. Clearly I was not being completely serious in my post. I was attacking the idea of using a game to get new soldiers more than the army itself in that post. If you ever played America's Army, you'd get what I'm talking about.

-- SavageX

------------------
"...and if you don't like that, then you need to be slugged in the face repeatedly, until my hands are soaked in blood. Have a nice day!"
http://www.savagex.net

That's horrible.

------------------
I check my e-mail.

Yeah. wonderful reason for wanting to kill us.

and hey... this is iraq... what if another iraqi had caught him... dont they normally cut off hands for that? i would rather keep my hands and be able to buy a new car, rather than lose my hands, not be able to drive, and not be able to work again, thus becoming homeless.

------------------
There are two asses in Massassi... and I'm one of them.
The Matrix Unplugged|My Portfolio|My Levels

[This message has been edited by Cazor (edited June 03, 2004).]

I think they were captured by someone other than the Americans, since the start of the clip shows the tank closing in. Yes, there should be some form of punishment for looting. Possibly paying a fine to the owner of the precious firewood that was run over. Possibly spending a week in a humane lock-up. Call someone up to bring them down to the local station in any case. They could've just left it at retrieving the wood and just blowing out one or more of the tyres.

Still,
1) They (the tank crew) had no jurisdiction to decide a suitable punishment.
2) They decided to shoot up the car... for what reason exactly? For kicks? To dish out their pent-up frustration? I was almost expecting them to high-five eachother. Look at the guy on the left in his lame "bling-bling gangstah" one-handed stance. The 9mm ammo they expended was probably worth more than the entire loot. Is that standard operating procedure? Where they going to leave the car as perforated? Was the tank running over it being just an afterthought?
3) They didn't even bother retrieving the precious firewood that had been stolen, choosing instead to leave it on the roof and run over the car and the wood.

Heres a scary thought: so now when a squad of "foreign agitators", "insurgents", "rebels" or "loyalists", whatever they're being labeled as, show up at the driver's doorstep and ask him to stash some RPG warheads or give them a safe place to bunk, he now has just one more reason to feel compelled to oblige them. I'm not saying that this is unique. I'm sure we've all seen an Israeli Merkava driving down some dusty Palestine street deciding to "accidentally" run over a row of parked cars like some monster-truck. That's not the point.

My point is, for all their massive war-fighting might, the Americans armed forces still have a lot to learn from the British troops who have applicable experience from the decades spent occupying Northern Ireland co-existing and dealing with the local civilian population.

COULDN'T



COULDN'T



You didn't watch the entire video.
The car was a taxi.
What makes you think that the taxi driver was in on it?



That's Saudi Arabia.
Now that his taxi has been destroyed, how can he make money? His hands have pretty much been cut off, as he won't be able to earn a living to buy another car or pay the rent. and become homeless.

Car petrol tanks explode better when they're near empty, more combustible fumes and better exposure to oxygen. If the tank's half full you'll often just get a massive gout of flame coming out of the petrol inlet, rather than an explosion.

It'd explode good if it ruptured the petrol tank, but you still need to spark it off anyway. Had a car-ramp go through dad's car's petrol tank a couple of years ago. Petrol everywhere, but nothing caught alight.

Oh? I didn't know that.
That is suprisingly interesting.

First I want to say that I take offense to SavageX's comment regarding the Army game.

Second I would like to suggest that in that short clip we may not have enough information to put the entire incident in proper context.

Third, those soldiers would most certainly have been disciplined severely for their actions if the totality of the circumstances would indeed show them to be inappropriate.

Lastly, based solely on what I know from that short clip, I'm disappointed in my fellow soldiers that took part in it.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

yeah... AA isnt to revruit. anyone who would join the army because of that game is just... lets just say i would rather them stay in their room than endanger people other than the enemy on the battlefield. more than half the people who play AA are too out of shape to join the real army anyways.

------------------
There are two asses in Massassi... and I'm one of them.
The Matrix Unplugged|My Portfolio|My Levels

I don't play AA and infact I don't like it, but I'd have to say that was a pretty negative comment.



------------------
Maker of the Levels:
Sand Trap
Sand Trap (Night)

Writer/Author of the fanfic: Dragonball Aftershock

_.~'AKA DBF_SuperSaiyan'~._

Heh, I wouldn't imagine it's too far from the truth. The army isn't exactly a walk in the park.

right, its the fumes that burn. That's why old gasoline isn't worth a damn, most of the fumes are gone.

------------------
Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next." They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.

[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited June 04, 2004).]

Well we don't know do we if he was in on it or not. I know the car was a taxi and they said that was his only means of money. But you know, criminals say that as well here in America.

Alot of times people are dumb enough to do a crime, and then they complain about losing their means of finance when they get punished.

Either way..
The soldiers I think should be punished for their extreme "justification," and possibly the taxi owner compensated for HALF the worth of the taxi. If they all were to confess the driver wasn't in on it, then he'd get the second half.

Having the video say the car was the taxi driver's only means of finance without including wether or not he was in on the looting is just anti-America propaganda.

Frankly I think they could've told the full story and it still would've come across as a corrupted Soldiers thing. I would've preferred them do that.

It's better to use common sense than bias.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

Where in the hell did all of this conjecture on whether or not the driver was in the car come from?

Of course he was.

Just kidding.

Those soldiers MAY have been morons but they certainly didn't murder anyone in that clip. Especially not in front of a US news crew. You see, that's the whole thing that gets me about the clip. I would think there would have to be more to the story than what we've seen simply because they did do what they did in front of their embedded reporters. Guess I'll never know for sure.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Uh, that seems like ridiculously flawed legal logic.
The taxi driver should be fully compensated for the car, unless there is any evidence that suggests the taxi driver had anything to do with it. Innocent until proven guilty, you know.
Taxi drivers do just...drive taxis. Some fellows came along with a bundle of wood and hailed a taxi, he was just doing his job transporting them from A to B.



It's common sense to assume that he wasn't unless there's anything to suggest that he was. Which, from that clip, there isn't. He's just a taxi driver.


Also, the debate is whether the taxi driver was in on it, ie was working with the looters. Not whether he was actually in the taxi. :-)

[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited June 05, 2004).]

...Just because he's a taxi driver, doesn't mean it wasn't planned. "Hey, I've got a car we can use!" What is there to suggest either way for sure? Each situation is HYPOTHETICAL. I'd like to see where you're getting your "facts" that he had no knowledge. You seem to be missing that I'm not making assumptions...



Thank you for rephrasing what I said. Except that I would've offered at least half the compensation even if he was -hypothetically- guilty, due to the abuse of power of the soldiers.



This of course follows your assumption that he had nothing to do with it. Which is stated NOWHERE. They did not say in the film that the Taxi driver DENIED his involvement. Nor did they say that he was being charged, so please stop making an assumption.



Sleeping pills cause drowsiness too.

-Please- read my post correctly before assuming I'm making an assumption such as charging the Taxi Driver of being guilty, even without evidence?

You even rephrased a suggestion of mine, but made it even harsher than what I offered. But you were doing it to spite down my suggestion?

I don't know where you saw me making claims that the taxi driver was indeed guilty, but I would appreciate it if you would actually read my post.

Edit: Had to put a /B tag.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

[This message has been edited by Jedigreedo (edited June 05, 2004).]

Well, you've been banned twice so far, and what you do is bad...and you don't learn..So can we run you over with a tank yet?

------------------
OSC Empire | A.H.N.U.L.D.
[Jim7 PING reply]: 666secs

Not agreeing with some one is no reason to ban him. Give him a break.