Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show
- Thread starter Buxbaum666
- Start date
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Mikael Grizzly said:
As said before I do not expect acceptance here because of my views. The only time I ever really get support on these positions are from military members and the friends I have who are of the far right nature.
The Raging Russian said:
So when tasked with a situation where you could possibly die but save civilian life or keep yourself and your comrades safe but in the process kill civilians you would take the first option?
If so I must say you do possess a respect for human life I will never have. I am not mocking you either that is really a quality many would admire. Personally I would put a bullet in an unarmed insurgents head if it would save my life or the lives of my fellow brothers and sisters.
Either way I would not call a Soldier or Marine a coward because during a firefight they shot a civilian or called in air support on a building that had women and children in it but also housed a sniper.
These are the situations I am talking about when I say civilian death does not matter to me. I have not anywhere in this thread stated I wanted to get over to Iraq just so I could execute civilians on a genocidal scale.
If anyone here misinterpreted my post in some other way I apologize.
Alright, so 1 armed sniper in a hospital completely and totally warrants the horrible needless death of all the men women and children in that same hospital, WRONG, that's absolutely retarded, I'm sorry but I don't believe it's okay to kill a big amount of innocents to save a soldier or two, I don't care if they're from my own country or wherever the hell they're from, it doesn't make it fine to kill mass amounts of unarmed, undeserving, innocent people that were only living their lives, sitting in their homes with their loved ones, fuck all that.
you take care of your own first. that does not mean that you do not try to save civilians in the nation your fighting in but you take care of your own first and foremost. the priority above EVERYTHING including mission sucess is ensuring that the fighting effectiveness of the unit is not destroyed. you take care of your own first goes as well for our civilians vs theirs, my family vs yours.
its simple, i MUST protect what is most precious to me before i worry about the rest of it. that doesnt mean i dont care when someone suffers, it means that i put him as a secondary priority. honestly the truth is especially in war desisions like that have to be made. are we going to sacrafice one of ours for one of theirs? are we going to ease up restrictions a little and prioritise ourselves first?
lets have a good real world example... a marine platoon was tasked with clearing an area, so a squad moved in to clear the first floor of a building. they didnt know that a chechian mercenary had set a trap for them but they were prepared. the unfortunate truth is that the trap was so perfect that there really wasn't anything they could do with their infantry firepower.
basically the first marine entered the building and was shot in short order by the mercenary whom was aiming through a scoped rifle through several mouseholes. see, the sniper actually was on the third story but was shooting marines on the first. the problem is that marines do their damn best not to leave the wounded or the dead on the field and shame ourselves. so pretty much the sniper picked off the entire squad as they helplessly tried to rescue each other and not being able to figure out where the shots were coming from, and even then its highly unlikely that they could have shot the guy had they known what was truely happening.
i dont remember the whole story after that. i just remember that in the end they had to demolish the building. a single highly skilled merc shot an entire squad down and the only way we could take him down without further exessive loss of life was to destroy his fortress, we didnt know if there were innocents in the building along with the sniper, however it was time for that man to die.
this happens also when the enemy holds a strip of buildings overlooking key routes. often durring the invasion of iraq for example we've had to hit those strips of buildings with supressing artillery fire or try to blast out the front walls with mark 19 rounds.
now some targets such as churches, hospitals and so on we dont touch unless they are turned into a fortress for the enemy and even then we do our best to storm it with small arms instead of destroying it. honestly someone's house as opossed to a hospital is a big difference. schools and hospitals are good for a lot of things and its a real shame to loose even just the building.
See, there is a difference the way you conceive it and balsagoth conceives it.
You say that civilian casualties are unavoidable, and that i agree with. They should be avoided and minimized, but they cannot be avoided completely. Thats is one of the reasons a war should be avoided, as innocents will suffer because of it, no matter what you do.
For the record, if i was american, i would support The war in AFGANISTAN, but not the "war" in Iraq. I can sympathise with the reasons for war in Afganistan. But Iraq ? No.
9/11 was a declaration of war, using an act of terror.
However: sagoth says that civilians in the opposing country are nothing more than cattle compared to one soldier or few soldiers. That means that you can kill 300 civilians with a bomb to save 1 soldier.
THAT is sick. Nothing else but sick.
You say that civilian casualties are unavoidable, and that i agree with. They should be avoided and minimized, but they cannot be avoided completely. Thats is one of the reasons a war should be avoided, as innocents will suffer because of it, no matter what you do.
For the record, if i was american, i would support The war in AFGANISTAN, but not the "war" in Iraq. I can sympathise with the reasons for war in Afganistan. But Iraq ? No.
9/11 was a declaration of war, using an act of terror.
However: sagoth says that civilians in the opposing country are nothing more than cattle compared to one soldier or few soldiers. That means that you can kill 300 civilians with a bomb to save 1 soldier.
THAT is sick. Nothing else but sick.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Patton89 said:
I am not sure of any real life scenario where bombing 300 civilians could save Soldier/Marine lives. I more or less was talking about killing a couple during a firefight or several dozen in a bombing run as acceptable civilian causalities.
Sure it adds up over time but I do not think I could ever approve of bombing "300" civilians at a time if only for the reason it would create a fire storm back on the home front.
The cattle comment was simply meant to show how I view life when measured up against the lives of Americans and our Marines/Soldiers who are doing the fighting.
Theoretically speaking however yes I view a single Marines life as something more precious than 300 Afghans.
So guilty as charged.
Let's just leave it at this: your morals are pretty fucked up and you're a disgrace to egalitarianism.
Patriotism isn't a catch-all term that excuses supremacist thinking. "Virtues" are irrelevant if they conflict with absolute morality.
I'm not saying your ideology is unnatural. It's all but. In fact, valuing the lives of your kin higher than that of outsiders is completely natural, but that doesn't justify it.
I wouldn't condemn anyone for killing many in order to save the lives of a select few they are more closely related to, but it certainly makes you ineligible for any concept of heroism or having high moral standards.
In fact, I would argue, that a soldier in particular is in no position to have any personal value judgements when it comes to individuals. You act as a means to realise the demands of your command. And if that command values the life of soldiers higher than that of foreigners, you're not to blame -- it's the command that's to blame.
On the other hand orders aren't a reason to be an asshole in private. And the last world war pretty much established that a soldier's duty also lies in evaluating the validity of the orders they are issued and not executing orders if doing so would constitute a crime -- sadly the definition of such crimes and the real world applicability were never clarified beyond "the Axis were bad, m'kay".
Enough rambling. What I really wanted to say is: Fuck you, asshole, and don't expect any sympathies.
Patriotism isn't a catch-all term that excuses supremacist thinking. "Virtues" are irrelevant if they conflict with absolute morality.
I'm not saying your ideology is unnatural. It's all but. In fact, valuing the lives of your kin higher than that of outsiders is completely natural, but that doesn't justify it.
I wouldn't condemn anyone for killing many in order to save the lives of a select few they are more closely related to, but it certainly makes you ineligible for any concept of heroism or having high moral standards.
In fact, I would argue, that a soldier in particular is in no position to have any personal value judgements when it comes to individuals. You act as a means to realise the demands of your command. And if that command values the life of soldiers higher than that of foreigners, you're not to blame -- it's the command that's to blame.
On the other hand orders aren't a reason to be an asshole in private. And the last world war pretty much established that a soldier's duty also lies in evaluating the validity of the orders they are issued and not executing orders if doing so would constitute a crime -- sadly the definition of such crimes and the real world applicability were never clarified beyond "the Axis were bad, m'kay".
Enough rambling. What I really wanted to say is: Fuck you, asshole, and don't expect any sympathies.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Ashmo said:
My feelings on these issues are obviously in the "extreme" and at the very least something people do not want to talk about even if they harbor the same views.
Despite how I feel, I still think the Government has tried in many cases to reduce civilian casualties. Just as Ceacar said with the church and hospital comment, Total destruction of such buildings is the last resort. The military has also disciplined many Soldiers/Marines for the crimes they committed in the war so far. Hell they even sent home a sniper for using the Koran as target practice
.I suppose what I am really trying to get at here is while I mean everything I say I also have no intention of going against my orders. The keyword in my post above was "Theoretically" Yes I do believe American life is valuable than Iraqi/Afghan but I would not throw my life/career away committing war crimes to put my beliefs to practice.
Ashmo said:
bit off topic but something else that interest me and I am curious on how you see it.
Events in WW2 such as the Bombing of Dresden and the atom bombs being dropped on Japan. Obviously they do not compare to the Holocaust or the Japanese Unit 731 experiments. However do you feel they also would qualify as war crimes?
Ashmo said:
Fair enough and I do not believe I deserve any.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
Bal-Sagoth said:
I probably shouldn't get myself involved in this, but it has roused my curiosity in a topic I find mind provoking and interesting, so here goes.
Yes, I would classify them as war crimes as they are indiscriminately targetting civilians for war aims. Bombing of cities had by that time already been proved to be counter-effective (Bombing of London and other cities only strengthened British Morale and resolve, not other way round - you would think the British would have learned).
As for the atom bombs, it was the logical thing to do. You kill thousands of ciivilians, ENEMY civilians, and save millions of your OWN troops in the process. However, morally, I think it is the wrong thing to have been done. Soldiers are the instruments of war, they are there to kill and die for ones country. That is their duty, their function. Civilians in the other hand are generaly 'innocent'.
If you are in a war you fight it to the bitter end regardless of casualties. Heck, look at the USSR in WW2. From a logical and rational standpoint I would have bombed them too if I was president. From a humanistic, kantian and moral view I would have ordered the landings regardless of casualties.
BTW, sorry to continue the OT. If possible we could move this particular discussion elsewhere for it not to interfere with the current thread.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Chancellor Kremlin said:
I would not worry about it to much until a mod steps in and says something. After all this thread was originally about a boy getting shot at a gun show
.Thanks for your response all the same, I always like to hear peoples feelings on those two incidents in particular.
I really cant accept the bombings, they were immoral and nothing short of war crime. If Germans had done it, they would have been condemned for the acts as war criminals.
Invasion should have been used, at least in my opinion. I really don't think that the japanese could have resisted long against american armoured divisions, because they had very little in the ways of anti-tank weapons or tanks.
Invasion should have been used, at least in my opinion. I really don't think that the japanese could have resisted long against american armoured divisions, because they had very little in the ways of anti-tank weapons or tanks.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
Patton89 said:
Thats not the point. Its the fanaticism that counts. Neither did they possess extensive anti-armour or artillery in Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa, Wake Island and so on, but the americans suffered extremely heavy losses for a range of reasons, banzai attacks, suicide charges, fierce determination, guerrilla tactics, refusal to surrender and so on.
Invasion of the mainland was estimated at least 500,000 casualties. THat was the positive view! Negative views ranged from 1.5 mil upwards. Can you imagine japanese soldiers defending their homeland? Even civilians would join in and the distinction would blur.
Thats assuming that they wouldn't have surrendered before the invasion. They had almost no resources left, almost no oil, almost no food. How long do you think the japanese would have waited before surrendering eventually. Also there is debate on the fact that japanese would have surrendered of the americans would have promised that the emperor retained his position.
And dont forget, the invasion might have caused the japanese to surrender. The psychological impact of having your homeland invaded, when your leaders say that it cannot happen, cannot and must not be underestimated.
Who knows what would have happened if the americans would have done otherwise. There are no certain things.
And dont forget, the invasion might have caused the japanese to surrender. The psychological impact of having your homeland invaded, when your leaders say that it cannot happen, cannot and must not be underestimated.
Who knows what would have happened if the americans would have done otherwise. There are no certain things.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
Patton89 said:
True, there is a theory the americans deliberately demanded unconditional surrender from the japanese (although I cannot remember the reasons for such at this time)
I am just judging by the past fanaticism of the japanese on islands that werent even their homeland. Many civilians also commited suicide rather than join/surrender the americans. I would imagine japan itself the scale of the fanaticism/suicide would be much greater. All you need is a bamboo stick to kill a man, and that Japan had plenty.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Patton89 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
No one knows for sure but the studies on possible casualties are interesting to say the least. Most numbers I see are somewhere in half a million to a million Americans would have died in the invasion.
Quotes like this from the Imperial War Journal paint a fairly grim picture of what the invasion would have been like:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
The Japanese had already gained quite the reputation for not being the surrendering type during battles.
I have to give it to em tho, it takes some serious balls to do a Banzai charge against troops armed with machine guns and semi auto rifles.
Chancellor Kremlin said:
I agree, many of those studies are based off the idea the civilian populace would not have gone down without a fight. Cant say I blame them however, I would expect the same thing from any countries populace if they were facing defeat.
All of this talk about Japanese and invasion has reminded me of one of my favorite quotes I would like to share
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)
edit: This in particular I found very interesting from that wiki link.
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[45] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[45]
I've read all you guys said. There'd be a lot to answer to, but i'll point out a small thing. You're not fighting a nation. You're fighting the enemies army. Especially in places like Irak where you want to get the civilians to be on your side. The sooner everybody understands that, the better. Saying you are fighting a nation makes you think that automatically all the members of said nation are supportive of the war against you, which is not the case with Irak. Irak is not Total War. The last Total War was WW2. Maybe the Cold war too...
often people really dont understand how truely much the world has changed since then....
your destitute even though you work yourself bloody every day. when you go to the store to buy food you have to put all the money you would need in a shopping cart because you couldn't possibly carry it all. when you actually can buy a new dress for your daughter you dont have her try it on first to see if it fits because in those few moments the price could jump dramatically.
you live in a society that is shamed, and in the racial times everyone spits on your people. your government is treated like dirt and is forced to give what few resources it has left to those that did this to it. all the while newcomers whom would have been considered so weak they weren't even a bother try to take chunks of land away from your people.
then a man with a silken voice gathers the people. he fills their hearts with fire and for the first time in twelve years you see people whom actually understand the value of self worth again. your children have bread and clothes again, jobs are beginning to grow and all because this one single man made it happen. the final step, the dignity of your people he says may have to be fought for. under his leadership your nation stands up and asserts itself and even gets concessions from its former masters, when your hero pushes just a little too far and sparks a major war you do the only thing you can. help your nation and its people in any way possible, even by taking a bullet.
i dont think of hitler as a truly evil person. he was a man who had very strong beliefs, wrong beliefs but beliefs all the same. he and the men like him(which there honestly weren't many) were men who were willing to do ANYTHING for their people. thus sterilizing "inferior genetic specimens" such as people born with club foot or mental retardation, the killing of the jews, the hatred against the communists, even the mass killings that involved religions other then judaism. do you think that man really did that because he enjoyed it? or rather did he do it because he felt it was necessary?
the people whom followed were compelled by social psyc. lol, my high school principle tought me first hand how easily for example it can be to herd people like cattle with a strong uncaring voice, which is why a few nazi were able to control large crowds of jews whom knew they were going to be killed. the men who were converted, well. there were those who truely were racist, either racist by upbringing or those converted by hitler. many just went along, its social dynamics. everyone screaming that its the right thing to do, you feel like your in an impossible situation and normally someone feels compelled to act according to the norm. really society, especially classical german society programs him to.
its interesting, at early mass killings done with machineguns ncos and officers told people that they wouldnt have to perform the killings if they did not want to, however group dynamics resulted in the fact that even in nearly completely non nazi units maybe one out of fifty people said they wouldnt do it. it wasn't that they were evil, and it wasn't even that most of them thought it was right. it was social characteristics that compelled the men to do those terrible things.
now i said my opening also because of this quote...
see back then the ENTIRE of the opposing nation was considered a threat from a military standpoint on many levels. the massive bombings conducted by the allies in europe were done on the viewpoint that even if the bombs missed the military targets(as they did almost all the time) the sheer destruction of it all would force the enemy's will to break. they thought that they would force revolt and discord in the host nation like what happened to russia and germany both at the end of the first world war. this mentality carried through the korean war, all the way to the end of the vietnam war and not ONCE did it work as planned. really what happened is it made the enemy harder and stronger. we found it was very hard to prevent the enemy from getting weapons(maybe heavy weapons like tanks but not small arms) that way and the bombings intensified the enemy's will to fight.
today we dont do destruction on such a massive scale because we no longer believe it will work. in many ways it hurts us more then it does them, even using artillery on an enemy position can have devastating results on your own side. instead of facing a well ordered fortress that is clear to make out you are fighting a maze of walls, shell holes and various other forms of cover. none of it uniform meaning each moment is a new surprise and often deadly. this is exemplified in ww1 during the battle of somme where modern german tactics and a high concentration of artillery EASILY overcame the enemy trenches but hasty defenses built around shell holes, trees and other small strong points soon became FAR more deadly to the germans and their highly advanced tactics then the trenchline ever was.
honestly, if it were up to a shit load of innocents in the nation we invaded or one of our own i'd pick one of our own. however it doesnt really work like that, as i said we dont even have strategies that could even claim to function along those lines. however the unfortunate truth is that with the civilian casualties in iraq thats pretty much how it petered out....
Shattering Fast
First time out of the vault
Excellent. If more children were given the opportunity to fire weaponry at gunshows, we'd have less of them and the world would be a significantly better place.