(Xploder I’d assume that there were ‘some’ system in place, I also assume that the GI’s involved were able to thwart same. re: civilian clothes, I’d have to bow to your experience of what is and isn’t provided, but I would point out that the witness, who apparently used the term ‘civilian’ clothes wasn’t a military person, so may have used the term ‘civilian’ to denote ‘not in full dress uniform that I’m used to seeing them in when they’re on duty’)
I don’t recall him saying that it was SOP to kill a ZOO animal, just to kill the animal that attacked.
There. That’s MY nitpick for the thread. I’ll kindly request that everyone else keep themselves to ONE nitpick each. Thank you 
hint to milroyj I linked to the definition.
Possibly true, but you didn’t take issue with Diogenes’ bias, you took issue with him accepting the Reuters story at face value. I haven’t seen any reason not to assume that the report isn’t an accurate accounting of what happened in that Baghdad zoo. If this is just about Diogenes, you could have made that clearer by calling him a few names in your first post.
In other words, it is entirely possible that the soldiers in question were drunk, regardless of Centcom’s policy on alcohol for troops stationed in Iraq (the nature of which still has not been established, btw).
<Sigh> Here’s the definition one more time:
Personally, I seldom use the word “murder” to refer to anything other than homicide, and agree in principle that it should be reserved chiefly for that use. However, that’s clearly not the only way the word can be used, and Diogenes clearly was using the second definition of the word. However, considering that milroyj is stupid on a truly epic scale, I fully expect him to pounce on the first definition of the word and proclaim that he’s been right all along, while totally ignoring all of the other, equally valid defintions of the word. And, of course, any attempt to point out his nearsightedness will be met with the endlessly repeated mantra “It wasn’t murder. You can only murder humans,” which will continue until either everyone in the debate who’s mind functions at more than the merely autonomous [n.b. everyone but milroyj) level gets sick of it and gives up, or until a mod steps in with a warning about spamming the board.
That is not correct as regards zoo animals. Generally, zoo officials have a written policy that includes guidelines to use when deciding whether to put an animal down. Here’s an instance where they did not. Here’s another. In the United States, the standards are set under the guidelines of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
Now if the tiger still had the guy, then clearly putting the animal down was the right thing to do (which is not to excuse the atrocious series of events which apparently led to the biting in the first place). But to assert that all zoo animals which attack humans are destroyed is factually incorrect.
Well, I pointed out that it was actually CASUAL clothes. If the soldiers were not in full uniform, to include body armor and a helmet then they were in direct violation of orders.
In a war zone, it’s MANDATORY that you wear your kevlar vest as well as your helmet. If this night watchman saw GI’s NOT doing so then they deserve the full penalty that their commanders can bestow.
Crap. I previewed a couple times, too.
Please consider the last sentence to be revised to read: "But to assert that all zoo animals which attack humans are destroyed as a matter of course is factually incorrect.
{yes, Xploder, he did not say ‘in case of zoo animals’, but since he posted that as the excuse for why the action was ok in this case that involved zoo animals it should be assumable. otherwise, his comment was completely off topic and non responsive to the OP. so, once again, we have a dilemma - either he’s being obtuse or idiotic. your choice. 
)
Hint to wring, I posted the Webster’s definition. Are you saying that one is better than the other? On what basis?
Broad ass statement to milroyj - are you contending that dictionary.com’s version is unacceptable? Unless you are (and have proof), then their definitions do indeed include a viable and legitimate usage in English.
Next broad ass statement to milroyj - now that manny’s done the homework for you, are you ready to retract your original assertion and admit that you’re flat out wrong that it was SOP to kill the tiger under those circumstances??? or will you continue to ignore repeated requests for you to back up your statements??
(taking bets here, folks)
I try not to call people names. I myself have been called some vile shit here on the boards and have NEVER seen a good reason to reciprocate.
I never said that it WASN’T POSSIBLE, just that it was HIGHLY improbable. The two people that I referenced both had their girlfriends send them baby bottles filled with appelcorn. While this was enough to get them a good buzz, it was NOT enough to get them drunk. Theny still payed the consequences.
It is impossible to MURDER a tiger. You can kill it, yes, but murder? Not.
redrum
I said nothing that was anti-American. I criticized the two soldiers in question and what seems to be a lack of discipline being maintained by US command. I think it shows that we have an incompetent CiC who staged a self-aggrandizing invasion without any real preparation for the post-invasion occupation. I am not anti-American, I’m anti-Bush but I served in the US Navy and I’ll be damned if I’ll accept being called anti-American. Criticizing Bush and his scummy little war != criticizing “America” and I’m getting pretty fucking tired of having that bullshit hurled at me.
Do you have a cite that Cencom currently forbids all alcohol consumption in Iraq right now, or are you just assuming that?
Indeed you CAN kill an animal, just as you can kill a Redwood Tree but it STILL isn’t murder. I don’t care HOW many times you quote a definition, I feel that you have to look at the commonly held belief that murder is related to human deaths caused by other humans.
Can a bear or a dog murder a human? If we go by your definition then yes they can. If **that’s ** the case then farmers murder plants every time they harvest a crop.
Hey Diogenes, you are anti-American.
Hey shithead (see? I called him a name!) What I said was that you have a tendency to post comments that make me seem that you would LOVE to see us fail in Iraq. If your agenda was to bash Bush then why the fuck not just come out and SAY that you were bashing Bush?
While I might agree with SOME of your points, I do NOT agree with your statement that there “seems to be a lack of discipline being maintained by US command”.
Ya know, if you STOPPED criticizing the TROOPS that are carrying out orders and limit your criticizm to BUSH and his POLICIES then you might stop being called anti-American.
How so? Care to elaborate?
No I do NOT have a cite and if you bothered to read your own fucking thread you might have seen that.
Asshole.
I’m just curious as to why Diogenes doubts anything will come of the issue?