So a bunch of G.I.s are partying at the zoo and one of them decides it would be a good idea to go through an outer cage intended for keepers, go right up to the inner cage and stick his fucking arm in. When the idiot (quite rightly) gets bitten, his drunken buddy, instead of pulling the Steve Irwin wannabe away from the cage decides to shoot and kill the tiger. :mad:
US officials are apparently “discussing” the incident but I doubt anything will come of it. Personally I think the tiger-murdering jerk-off should be court-martialled and discharged but I would be surprised if he received any kind of sanction at all.
This is also another failure of command as far as I’m concerned. Why were these guys allowed to make that zoo their own private party grounds in the first place. This reminds me of the looting and vandalizing of the Baghdad airport. Why isn’t US command making any attempt to reign these kids in and force them to respect Iraqi property? Fuck this pisses me off. That poor tiger
His buddy was such a tough guy with his military-issue rifle, executing the caged tiger wasn’t he? I’d like to see how he’d have done mano a mano against Tigger, cage match to the death.
Note: In general I support the troups in Iraq - they’re risking their lives doing a job few of us would want. It’s just these two morons - actually, “fucktards” is being generous. This reminds me of the cruelties perpetrated by the Taliban on the animals at Kabul zoo.
referring to a case where a zoo animal had attacked (not killed) a human who’d stuck their arm into the cage. I’ll second the request. Perhaps you’d like to comply or retract???
B. the OP used the word “Kill” several times (including in the thread title) while using the word ‘murder’ once, referring to the action nimrod who killed the tiger. You’ve focused all of your attention upon this one word, used once, vs. actually dealing with the issues raised by the OP and others. Any chance you’ll abandon this and actually address the issue? (about the same as you’ll respond with a cite or retraction for A, I suspect)>
Why were they carrying weapons in the first place if they were drinking? They obviously weren’t on any kind of detail or watch. They were just there to party. Since when are US troops allowed to carry arms when they’re drunk?
I think the fucktard here is the one who stuck is arm in. The one who shot the tiger was probably pretty stunned at the ordeal and was trying to “rescue” his friend. I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t know, but I’m willing to bet it wasn’t done in the spirit of “execution” but rather in the spirit of “Oh my FUCKING GOD! A TIGER IS RIPPING MY BEST FRIEND’S ARM OFF!!! bang”
IMHO - the hijack of milroyJ/s focus on the single use of the word “murder” is in fact a dumb nitpick, which was, of course the point I was attempting to make w/him.
the other assertion of his (which was that it was essentially ‘sop’ to kill the tiger under the circumstances) is not a hijack, since it’s an affirmative defense for the nimrod in questions behavior. And since MilroyJ made the assertion that it was the correct action to take, he was asked, (rightfully so) for a fucking cite to prove said assertion. He, of course, ignored it to continue his petty hijack. I repeated the request.
Does anybody have proof that these “American soldiers” were actually drinking, in civilian clothes and driving military vehicles while carrying WEAPONS?
You guys need to look at this from a more logical view. I doubt very seriously if ANY Commander would let any of his troops drink in a war zone let alone go tooling around in a humvee while wearing civilian clothes and toting weapons.
Get a grip and wait for some proof for once Diogenes.
If the tiger had been loose or if the soldier had actually been inside the cage with the tiger or been in any kind of truly life-threatening situation (even a self-inflicted one), I could see shooting a tiger to save a human life (followed by a few weeks of shit-details for the asswipe that had to be saved).
It was not necessary to kill the tiger to save a life. All the moron had to do was pull his arm out of the cage. As it is, it sounds like he just got a finger bitten off. That sucks for him but he wasn’t going to die from it. Shooting the animal was a total bullshit, macho overreaction.
I actually understand the mindset. I used to be one of those kids. I was not in combat but I know how immature I was, I knew how to drink, I knew the macho comaraderie of the military and I know how great it felt to have a weapon in my hands. I still don’t think I would have shot a tiger (going back to the Baghdad airport, though, I probably would have pilfered cigarettes and booze at that time) but I can see how some young men under tremendous pressure and long-time isolation from home and family would get out of control.
As I said in the OP. The grown-ups have to be in charge over there. These kids need discipline and boundaries. There should have been someone telling them not to fuck with the animals. That tiger was a valuable piece of property if nothing else.
Well, this is an unfortunate situation all around, but I think that the blame lies almost exclusively with the dumb-fuck who stuck his arm into the cage. If a real risk was being posed to a person’s life by an animal, even if it wasn’t the animals fault to begin with, I think that shooting the animal is usually an appropriate decision.
Sticking your arm into a tigers cage while drunk: never an appropriate decision.
The fact that the U.S. Soldiers were permitted to use the Iraqi Natinal Zoo as a private party venue, also probably a bad idea.
I’m not sure that a court martial is necessarily in order.
I suppose that I should also point out that since Iraq is a Muslim country, Centcom would absolutely forbid ANY alcohol for the troops whatsoever. The only beer we saw in Desert Storm was whatever the hell that crap Miller puts out that’s non-alcoholic. And it tasted, if you can imagine it, even WORSE than regular Miller.
I find it extremely unlikely that the troops in question were boozing it up.
Much as I hate to give the appearance of supporting milroyj, I have to contest this. Although the article doesn’t say definitely one way or the other, it is entirely possible that the tiger simply refused to let go of the soldier’s arm. The second soldier may have been faced with a choice between shooting the tiger or waiting until the first soldier got his arm pulled off.
That being said, I stand by what I said earlier in the thread: the soldiers actions led directly to the unnecessary death of the tiger. And I agree with what you say in the last paragraph of your post about discipline and boundaries.
Xploder: fine. We’ll ignore the stated testimony of the night watchman of the zoo. We still have armed soldiers wandering through the zoo trying to play with the kitties, resulting in the tiger’s death.
frankly, Xploder even w/o the “not in uniform” and “Drunk”, if one soldier entered the area and stuck his goddam arm into the cage w/a tiger and the other one killed it, those facts alone justify the rant (IMHO). Unless you can come up with a legitimate reason for them to be in the zoo, and stick their hand into the cage w/the tiger.