Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show

[Bal-Sagoth]

Also another example for you would be the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan. I would have rather dropped an atomic bomb on every city in Japan instead of having Marines invade and end the war by conventional means.

I can't believe they let people like you walk on this earth, let alone be allowed on this website. Why aren't you banned yet?

Because I value the lives of my countrymen and its defenders over the lives of the citizens that belong to a country my country is at war with?

edit:

Using UAVs, attack helicopters, or F-16/F-18s to bomb doesn't make it less of a bombing , does it ? Bomb and rockets, whats the difference in the end ? Results are the same. Your "wunderwaffen" are not as accurate as it is sometimes claimed.

No but they make for some awesome youtube videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cudCIlnZWo

I will take the highroad and not post any combat related videos. That is a pretty interesting clip about a "Sensor Fused Smart Bomb".

 

[Patton89]

So it doesn't matter what means are used to win a war ? As long as the casualties of your soldiers are minimized, genocide is acceptable, second holocaust can be done ?
That way of thinking gives me shivers, reminds me of totalitarian states policy, ALA Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

So it doesn't matter what means are used to win a war ? As long as the casualties of your soldiers are minimized, genocide is acceptable, second holocaust can be done ?
That way of thinking gives me shivers, reminds me of totalitarian states policy, ALA Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

I am not advocating we open up a concentration camp and start gassing Iraqis and Afghans.

At the same time I am not going to shed tears if several thousand civilians die in bombing runs if it means less casualties for U.S. and Coalition soldiers.

 

[remake]

Because I value the lives of my countrymen and its defenders over the lives of the citizens that belong to a country my country is at war with?

And why is your country at war with those countries? Is it not purely because of financial reasons? Don't big corporations need new markets to exploit? Oil reserves to control? Cultures to ravish?

That seems like a cheap excuse to allow so many civilian casualties.

 

[Tycn]

At the same time I am not going to shed tears if several thousand civilians die in bombing runs if it means less casualties for U.S. and Coalition soldiers.

I was just wondering, why do you value the lives of trained soldiers who know the risks that they are taking over civilians who are just trying to live out their lives? Citizens of warring countries aren't a participant, they're victims of circumstance.

 

[Patton89]

I am not advocating we open up a concentration camp and start gassing Iraqis and Afghans.

At the same time I am not going to shed tears if several thousand civilians die in bombing runs if it means less casualties for U.S. and Coalition soldiers.

Oh great. This is pointless really, try to understand that even if you are not fighting a conventional army, you simply cannot shoot civilians because they might or might not be "insurgents" , "rebels" or "freedom fighters".

What have the innocent men, women and children done to your country ?
There are laws of warfare, if you don't remember. Civilians are civilians, not target practice so you can adjust your rifle sights. Terror against local populace will NOT stop the "insurgents". They will get more recruits, and in the end you find out that you have failed. That is not a viable strategy. What reason would they have to not join the "insurgents" ? Their country is unstable, basics are not provided and their family members are dead.

Rebuilding and holding the country will work better, with counter insurgency operations when necessary.

 

[Loxley]

At the same time I am not going to shed tears if several thousand civilians die in bombing runs if it means less casualties for U.S. and Coalition soldiers.

That depends. Will such a bombing run lessen casualities? On one hand it can save some soldiers right there. On the other hand it can enrage the population and then there can be more casualities in the long run. On the other hand it might scare the shit out of the population. Hard to say, probably such bombing runs will do both. At the end of it though, in afghanistan there is the attempt to win hearths and minds. You do not do that by bombing civilians.

 

[Dragula]

So it doesn't matter what means are used to win a war ? As long as the casualties of your soldiers are minimized, genocide is acceptable, second holocaust can be done ?
That way of thinking gives me shivers, reminds me of totalitarian states policy, ALA Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Says the ones that literally BOILED russians inside their tanks with molotovs.

 

[Patton89]

So it doesn't matter what means are used to win a war ? As long as the casualties of your soldiers are minimized, genocide is acceptable, second holocaust can be done ?
That way of thinking gives me shivers, reminds me of totalitarian states policy, ALA Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Says the ones that literally BOILED russians inside their tanks with molotovs.

I was talking about EXTREME measures, such as usage of nuclear weapons to win a war.

Killing soldiers is killing humans, it is still wrong, but it can't really be avoided in war, and sometimes war cannot be avoided either.

My great grandfather got grenade shrapnel on his hip and legs in the war.

We really didn't have a choice, either possible war or give territory and face the fate of Eesti and Latvia and Lithuania, annexation to the USSR.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

And why is your country at war with those countries? Is it not purely because of financial reasons? Don't big corporations need new markets to exploit? Oil reserves to control? Cultures to ravish?
That seems like a cheap excuse to allow so many civilian casualties.

Well in particular when I said that we were talking about Japan and the atomic bomb. You can debate the reasons we went to war all you want but the fact is we were at war and invading Japan would have been very costly in terms of American lives.

I would not trade the lives of all those vaporized at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the lives of a single Marine platoon.

I was just wondering, why do you value the lives of trained soldiers who know the risks that they are taking over civilians who are just trying to live out their lives? Citizens of warring countries aren't a participant, they're victims of circumstance.

Because I love my country and those who take the oath to defend it.

I do not really feel the need to elaborate on this as I feel it is self explanatory but if you want more of an answer just ask and I will go into detail.

Oh great. This is pointless really, try to understand that even if you are not fighting a conventional army, you simply cannot shoot civilians because they might or might not be "insurgents" , "rebels" or "freedom fighters".

I am not saying we should go house to house and randomly execute people for fear they might be insurgents. If a squad is taking fire from a house that has civilians in it however I see no problem in lighting that building up like it is the fourth of July.

What have the innocent men, women and children done to your country ?

They have done nothing to deserve this I am afraid. Provided they do not support radical Islamic terrorist,Anti United States/Euro/Israel/Western ideals. In which case they can burn in the rubble for all I care.

If they truly are just living life and are victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time I apologize. Our Soldiers and Marines have work to do however and they should not let something so little as civilian deaths from bombing runs or misfire get in the way.

There are laws of warfare, if you don't remember. Civilians are civilians, not target practice so you can adjust your rifle sights.

Never heard "All is fair in love and war"?

In all seriousness I am well aware of the various conventions and laws and all that. As laughable it is to say something so terrible as war has rules I intend to follow them when I am over there even if our enemy does not.

I am still missing where you are getting that I should say we should hold mass civilian executions and using them as target practice to adjust rifle sights.

When a Soldier or Marine guns down a school bus full of kids or executes a van full of unarmed prisoners I will join you in condemning him.

That being said I care little for civilian life lost during bombing runs or misfire during firefights. Judging by the Iraqi death count someone else higher up must agree with me

What reason would they have to not join the "insurgents" ? Their country is unstable, basics are not provided and their family members are dead.

Let them join and we will put them down just like the other insurgents. Iraq is a mild place now compared to Afghanistan, I am just as ready as everyone else to get out of there. Especially considering Obama wants to put two more Battalions into Afghanistan (not to mention who knows what will happen in Pakistan).

Bigger fish to fry and all that. The time is soon hopefully that we get to see if the Iraqi Government can sink or swim.

You do not do that by bombing civilians.

Well of course not, even myself in all my warmonger glory will say I would LOVE to cut civilian casualties out of war.

Guerrilla warfare however thrives off support from the local populace. As long as the insurgents continue to store arms,make base,get support, etc from civilians and civilian towns there is little we can do to cut out the civilian death.

 

[Patton89]

What have the innocent men, women and children done to your country ?

They have done nothing to deserve this I am afraid. Provided they do not support radical Islamic terrorist,Anti United States/Euro/Israel/Western ideals. In which case they can burn in the rubble for all I care.

If they truly are just living life and are victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time I apologize. Our Soldiers and Marines have work to do however and they should not let something so little as civilian deaths from bombing runs or misfire get in the way.

There are laws of warfare, if you don't remember. Civilians are civilians, not target practice so you can adjust your rifle sights.

Never heard "All is fair in love and war"?

In all seriousness I am well aware of the various conventions and laws and all that. As laughable it is to say something so terrible as war has rules I intend to follow them when I am over there even if our enemy does not.

I am still missing where you are getting that I should say we should hold mass civilian executions and using them as target practice to adjust rifle sights.

When a Soldier or Marine guns down a school bus full of kids or executes a van full of unarmed prisoners I will join you in condemning him.

That being said I care little for civilian life lost during bombing runs or misfire during firefights. Judging by the Iraqi death count someone else higher up must agree with me

What reason would they have to not join the "insurgents" ? Their country is unstable, basics are not provided and their family members are dead.

Let them join and we will put them down just like the other insurgents. Iraq is a mild place now compared to Afghanistan, I am just as ready as everyone else to get out of there. Especially considering Obama wants to put two more Battalions into Afghanistan (not to mention who knows what will happen in Pakistan).

Bigger fish to fry and all that. The time is soon hopefully that we get to see if the Iraqi Government can sink or swim.

You do not do that by bombing civilians.

Well of course not, even myself in all my warmonger glory will say I would LOVE to cut civilian casualties out of war.

Guerrilla warfare however thrives off support from the local populace. As long as the insurgents continue to store arms,make base,get support, etc from civilians and civilian towns there is little we can do to cut out the civilian death.

Even if the civilians don't love you, why does it make them less civilians ? i certainly wouldn't like the guys who bombed my country to ruins , it is obvious.
And in the end, the insurgents will become too much of an hindrance. They get more and more people on their side. If you can't see how this is a problem, i must wonder, have you read history at all ? As soon as you have lost the support of the locals, or gained their hatred , you will pay for that dearly.
This War on terror reminds me of Vietnam. A war that cannot be won because of miscalculations.

And no im not saying that you should say that civilians are mearly targets, but it seems that you just really don't care what happens to civilians at all. That really conserns me , and makes me think how much people will blindly do in the name of "patriotism". A lot it seems.

Please don't add your imaginary friend as a "proof" or justification, even if it was a joke. Not funny.

Iraq won't last long, when your troops leave,the country is barely standing as it is. It might have a chance, but i doubt it. And you can't attack Pakistan,you really don't have enough troops at the moment, and if Pakistan starts loosing, they might use their "last resorts" You really don't want a war with a nuclear weapons equipped country. Who knows what could happen.

No real point to keep arguing. You aren't going to start caring about civilians, and im not going to become war lover.
Simple as that.

Edit: And i meant about anti guerilla warfare in general. Seems that afganistan isnt safe yet. And you said something along th e lines that "someone up there must like us"

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

And in the end, the insurgents will become too much of an hindrance. They get more and more people on their side. If you can't see how this is a problem, i must wonder, have you read history at all ? As soon as you have lost the support of the locals, or gained their hatred , you will pay for that dearly.
This War on terror reminds me of Vietnam. A war that cannot be won because of miscalculations.

Please do tell me when this "paying dearly" is going to come? As I said before Iraq is a joke now compared to Afghanistan. Even Obama in all his "the Iraq war was a mistake" admitted " the surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams"

We will be out of Iraq soon enough do not worry, we might even get out before Iraqi body count list civilian deaths into 100,000

And no im not saying that you should say that civilians are mearly targets, but it seems that you just really don't care what happens to civilians at all. That really conserns me , and makes me think how much people will blindly do in the name of "patriotism". A lot it seems.

To be blunt when measured against American life I view the Afghan and Iraqi populace a little bit above common livestock.

I am willing to give my life in the name of "patriotism" so yes quite a lot.

Please don't add your imaginary friend as a "proof" or justification, even if it was a joke. Not funny.

Who is my imaginary friend?

Iraq won't last long, when your troops leave,the country is barely standing as it is. It might have a chance, but i doubt it. And you can't attack Pakistan,you really don't have enough troops at the moment, and if Pakistan starts loosing, they might use their "last resorts" You really don't want a war with a nuclear weapons equipped country. Who knows what could happen.

I could care less if Iraq sinks or swims after we leave, not our problem anymore once the boots leave the ground.

As far as Pakistan I do not want to go in there right now either. We need time to let Obama get in and keep good on his word to increase the size of the Marine Corps and Army.

It is also important to note unless I am gravely mistaking Obama never said he wanted to take on the Pakistani government. More or less the terrorist groups who are rebuilding inside Pakistan.

I also seem to recall him saying he would do this even without the approval of the Pakistan government if the terrorist posed a threat to Americans.

So really I guess we just have to wait and see how that one plays out.

 

[Patton89]

And no im not saying that you should say that civilians are mearly targets, but it seems that you just really don't care what happens to civilians at all. That really conserns me , and makes me think how much people will blindly do in the name of "patriotism". A lot it seems.

To be blunt when measured against American life I view the Afghan and Iraqi populace a little bit above common livestock.

I am willing to give my life in the name of "patriotism" so yes quite a lot.

I can't really even comment that: "Nothing more than lifestock" ?
That would borderline crime, hate crime in my country.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I can't really even comment that: "Nothing more than lifestock" ?
That would borderline crime, hate crime in my country.

Well you forgot the part of "When measured against American lives", but yes nothing more than livestock. \

It is completely my opinion and I do not expect you or ask you to respect it. I simply put greater value on the lives of Americans and our service members over the people who inhabit a country my country is at war with.

If you want to get very technical I also value Coalition member life over Iraqi/Afghan life as well. I assumed that went without saying however.

Sorry if saying that is a crime in your country, Americans pride ourselves on free speech and being able to speak our mind without fear of persecution.

 

[Patton89]

I can't really even comment that: "Nothing more than lifestock" ?
That would borderline crime, hate crime in my country.

Well you forgot the part of "When measured against American lives", but yes nothing more than livestock. \

It is completely my opinion and I do not expect you or ask you to respect it. I simply put greater value on the lives of Americans and our service members over the people who inhabit a country my country is at war with.

If you want to get very technical I also value Coalition member life over Iraqi/Afghan life as well. I assumed that went without saying however.

Sorry if saying that is a crime in your country, Americans pride ourselves on free speech and being able to speak our mind without fear of persecution.

Persecution ? i said it borderlined hate crime , do you understand the term. It means trying to create hatred against a nationality. But really, no one would prosecute you for that, unless you said it to iraqi refugees. That their lives are less worthy.
There are some limits in free speech, and in america too. Don't forget patriot act. Real free speach when your goverment keeps listening your phones and reads your emails.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Persecution ? i said it borderlined hate crime , do you understand the term. It means trying to create hatred against a nationality. But really, no one would prosecute you for that, unless you said it to iraqi refugees. That their lives are less worthy.
There are some limits in free speech, and in america too. Don't forget patriot act.

I do not feel anyone should be charged for a crime simply based on speech. Same argument I have for people who are jailed when they say things like "The Holocaust did not happen". I mean really ruin the credibility of the person and make them the laughingstock of the nation but to put them in jail?

Anyways all of that is another thread in its self.

"Hate Crimes" in the States can be something as simple as calling a black person a coon during a fist fight. I had someone at Books A Million tell me my "Muhammad was a terrorist" t-shirt qualified as a hate crime.

I understand the point you are making all the same.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm disgusted by Sagoth. Supporting your troops is one thing, but stating that foreigners are less valuable than own soldiers is disquieting.

 

[marko2te]

I experienced war from first hand. I spend months sleeping in cellar while my hometown was bombed and every day i prayed for safety of my father who was on the front. In five years of war i lost family members, i was a refugee for some time and i witnessed many horrifying events. If someone came to me and said that i can drop a nuclear bomb on the capitol of my enemy and that then war will end and i will save thousands of lifes of my countrymen. I would refuse because for me victory made by committing mass murder or civilians is something that can not be justify by any cause. I would gladly give my life for my family and my country but i would not kill women and children to make a shortcut for my victory.

 

[Hoxie]

I'm disgusted by Sagoth. Supporting your troops is one thing, but stating that foreigners are less valuable than own soldiers is disquieting.

I've been thinking that this ENTIRE time, it's simply sickening how "patriotic" some people can be, killing civillians is wrong, I don't give a damn what country you're from, what race you are, what religion you stand for, or what creed you follow, killing innocent unarmed people is pathetic and cowardly on any standard.

 

[Dragula]

I would gladly give my life for my family and my country but i would not kill women and children to make a shortcut for my victory.

Za Dom?