I don’t give a shit about what you like or don’t like.
Actually, no. You read that into my post. If I wanted to say we shouldn’t be appalled, I would have said… we shouldn’t be appalled.
Perhaps I’m not trying to argue anything more than exactly what I said: “This is one reason you don’t go to war unless you absolutely have to.” Emphasis added. I’m generally anti-war. This is one reason.
Some 20th century rule books (Hague I was 1899, I’m calling it 20th century) don’t change thousands of years of reality any more than laws eliminate criminal behavior. Curb it? Maybe, but they don’t eliminate it and it’s naive to believe they will. “Thou shalt not kill” was even accepted with a bunch of crossed fingers. A significant portion of the population will always cotton to doing pretty awful things to other people–that, and mercy, and fear, and self-righteousness are all part of being human. Rule books overlook that.
I’m not saying war attrocities are A-OK and I hope nobody got that impression. I’m just saying if you don’t like attrocities, don’t fight a war involving homo sapiens.
If you didn’t give a shit what people thought here, you wouldn’t bother to post at all.
Here is the actual quote from the RS pictorial:
"According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
Here is what you quoted:
…At one point, soldiers in 3rd Platoon talked about throwing candy out of a Stryker vehicle as they drove through a village and shooting the children who came running to pick up the sweets…
Where’s the pictures of the run-over children? Shot children?
I had you pegged for a worthless piece of shit. Now I’m pretty sure of it.
It’s not “other people”. It’s just you.
I don’t think anyone you’re talking to is fighting a war or involved in the decision making process. They can bitch about sonofabitches killing innocent people while working as a defacto representive of their government’s foreign policy and that of their allies can’t they? That’s what they are doing after all.
Ah, I see. Well, I think you do care, because you haven’t put me on your ignore list. Deeds, not words, dear Ogre.
It may be naive to think it won’t happen. But you didn’t say that. You said it was naive and hypocritical to be appalled by it. You didn’t just say atrocities will happen.
We have fought wars without attempts at genocide, and with attempts at genocide. It can be done. And I am going to stay appalled at attempts at genocide, even while acknowledging in a world with war they may happen.
You’re right of course, I’m just screaming at cheese. My words are as useless here as theirs with that logic.
You’re absolutely right. Duly corrected.
And you’re splitting hairs–I believe what I said can be rephrased as “If we accept war, then the appalling is acceptable. Because atrocities are part of the package whether we want them to be or not, whether we punish them or not.” Maybe I’m conflating “shocking” with “Expected.”
Further to Lucy’s attempted twist at an alternate truth, right along with the Rolling Stone implication of their preferred version of the truth…
Maybe, just maybe the REAL truth in this “scenario” was soldiers discussing the wisdom of candy throwing from moving vehicles inasmuch as it endangered the children who might accidentally get hit by the vehicles?
Ya think? Just Maybe?
Possible, no?
Get your own fucking truth, moron.
Well, what you are quoting is from picture 12. Picture 11, on the other hand, includes the following quote:
Two separate scenarios are discussed. One running over, one shooting. I’m hoping to God that use of the phrase scenario indicates it was guys bullshitting around about how it would be funny to do that. But who knows any more.
According to the RS article, that’s more or less what they did. (Bullshitted, that is, not carried it out.)
There is a certain selection bias going on - those stupid enough to take pics are more likely to get caught, and thus more likely to be heard about.
The depressing counterpoint to that is that there are probably lots more incidents where the perps were not stupid enough to take pics, and thus likely did not get caught.
Good. The quotes with the photos could be taken two ways - one they talked about doing it (which is bad, but obviously happens); or alternatively that they were talking about a situation where it was done by someone else.
You’re very right not to believe that. The author is embellishing. Tossing candy to the children and then shooting them or running them over is exactly the sort of gallow humor you’ll hear among soldiers, but it doesn’t mean a thing.
I’m not sure which “process” is meant here. Murdering children and other civilians seems like a good way to extend this conflict and ensure that new generations of bitter enmity are sown.
As far as I’m concerned, the soldiers in this story (and others like it) have betrayed us. That is not something I say lightly. Their actions are beyond all human decency in themselves, but worse still, their commission in our uniforms, under our flag, have made America more and faster enemies. Other lives, of better men, will likely be lost as a result.
I hope you’re right. Because a psychopath in the military can do a lot more damage, not only to the innocent people in front of him, but to his erstwhile comrades in arms, and the rest of my country.
For the good of America, it would probably have been best if these twisted bastards were hanged high, and that fact made well known in Afghanistan. But I never thought that was likely. We don’t really have the balls to hold soldiers that accountable. Still, serious prison time is something, and I hope the word about the sentences gets around.
Exactly. Perfect example of the thorough, forthright, unbiased RS war reporting. :rolleyes:
Would you care to call it an “inconsistency,” or just bullshit reporting?
Odd, that dialog is not attributed to any particular soldier.