Crazy soldiers

[DOGG]

OK so this iraqi is lays a bomb at the side of a road. The americans shoot him. Which is OK ofcourse. But when he's laying on the ground all fucked up facing away from them, they shoot him in the back and he is killed. So basically they killed an injured person who at that point presented no real danger. Check their comments, they find killing people FUN.

Vid here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

[KrisEz]

havent you ever beaten a level of say MAX PAYNE and been all god that was awesome lets do it again?

now take away the seperation of fantasy and reality, add a bit of desert, a bunch of towel heads and some butt-sex and there you go.

[DOGG]

More killing. This time of protesters. They continue shooting as the crowd is running away and dispersing.

http://strike-free.net/dead_list/shame/killing_like_flies.htm

[scathing]

Originally posted by DOGG
OK so this iraqi is lays a bomb at the side of a road. The americans shoot him. Which is OK ofcourse. But when he's laying on the ground all fucked up facing away from them, they shoot him in the back and he is killed. So basically they killed an injured person who at that point presented no real danger.

If he's been taken down anywhere near the bomb, and still alive, he could detonate it.

The safest thing would have been to terminate him. Which is what they did.

The quotes from the marine afterwards smell so "lets chop up our interview with the guy" out of context that the first thing I thought of was that episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets made to look like he's a pervert feeling up that babysitter.

[scathing]

Originally posted by DOGG
More killing. This time of protesters. They continue shooting as the crowd is running away and dispersing.

http://strike-free.net/dead_list/shame/killing_like_flies.htm

Like that site isn't slightly biased. I like the quote below the video:

To all Iraqi people, to all Arab people

Don't let them get out of Iraq. Not alive!

With the swastika in place of the 50 stars, and the devil's head on a pentagram.

Of course its really bad that the Americans are returning fire after being fired upon first, and even though the crowd is dispersing the guys with guns are still in it. Quite a few of those tracers were going high. I don't know if its because marines are bad shots or if they're intentionally firing over their heads....

I notice that you don't blast the Iraqi police for shooting protestors, though. They killed more than the American soldiers, according to that video clip.

[Colonel Kurtz]

If the marines wanted that crowd dead, there wouldn't be many left.

The Americans will fie only when fired upon or are under lethal threat.

And I would have shot the guy with the bomb until he stopped moving. Like was said earlier, the fucker could still detonate it.

[DOGG]

Yeah well i have seen footage of a checkpoint where they admit they MISTAKENLY thought they came under fire when in fact they didn't. They went wild there too and killed 3 people. Anyway you can always use the excuse that you were under fire. But shooting unarmed people isnt cool.

[utopian]

Iraqis, like the Jews should have all been killed. That way we wouldn't have any problems as the United States Nationalist Socialist Workers Surprise Birthday Party would rule the world.

[scathing]

Originally posted by DOGG
But shooting unarmed people isnt cool.

Yelling abuse and throwing large rocks at people carrying automatic weapons and with training to use them lethally, and in a highly volatile environment where the majority of people may love them to bits, but a highly motivated and armed section want to cut them to bits, is just stupid.

Especially when you're in a crowd of people who are rallying in support of the head of the regime these soldiers are fighting against, and calling on the populace to kill them all. Considering those aforementioned motivated people can just as easily blend into their crowd, and carry large guns under their robes to take pot shots at the visible Americans?

Where's your criticism of the general stupidity of those unarmed Iraqi civilians?

[DOGG]

Yeah well i reckon they have the right to support who ever the fuck they want be it right or not. I dont think these particular protesters were throwing anything. It may not be the best idea to do so anyway. But its an equally bad idea to indiscriminately fire at people. Shouldn't they acquire a target first, rather than shooting in all directions.

[The Avatar]

What the fuck are the americans shooting iraqians for anyway, isnt it their country??!!!

Cant they blow the shit out of it in peace?

Why not let them just get on with the job of killing each other and be done with it?

[Unsavoury_Type]

Originally posted by DOGG
Yeah well i reckon they have the right to support who ever the fuck they want be it right or not. I dont think these particular protesters were throwing anything. It may not be the best idea to do so anyway. But its an equally bad idea to indiscriminately fire at people. Shouldn't they acquire a target first, rather than shooting in all directions.

Dude.
Aim a wep. at someone and try and "acquire a target " Let a alone a seething mass like a crowd. You have never even held a gun I'm sure (prolly a good thing - but makes you grossly inempt to make your above statements.)
It's like the old police argument "Surely they could have shot him in the leg!"

Those US trooper's don't want to be there - yes, they are over zealous in their comments after a contact - they are out of their minds with fear etc.

The old Iraq rule is over - yet I see no condemantion of them - only how the US are fucked - ok maybe it was a tad gungho etc but seriously man - the country is 0wned - these fucks that are setting bombs should be killed - then all relations - going back 2 generations, then all assests seized and houses bulldozed...
Wait I sound like Saddam..

[scathing]

Originally posted by DOGG
But its an equally bad idea to indiscriminately fire at people. Shouldn't they acquire a target first, rather than shooting in all directions.

I never said they couldn't support whoever they wanted. I was setting a context to try having you understand a point of view outside of your own narrow focus. It would appear that I've failed again.

In this instance, there were no reports of rocks being thrown (but I was drawing from other situations, as you also have done). However, there were reports of shots fired at the American soldiers first, which is probably at least as bad as having bricks thrown at you.

Yes, they should acquire a single moving target in a crowd of similar moving targets (and its not as if they're not going to be wearing clothes that'll make them stand out from the crowd, unlike the American soldiers). And, while we're at it, they should also run into that mob and attempt to handcuff and arrest these people. It was easy for me to say, it should be easy for them to do.

[starts a golf clap]

And, to reiterate again (in the perhaps vain hope that this time you'll notice) those shots in the video are going over the heads of the crowd.

If you were truly after non-lethality, wouldn't shooting in all directions well over everyone be better than aiming specifically at one person and hitting them, with the risk of missing and hitting someone of a similar height that's innocent?


I would love to stick you in a similar situation, and see how you'd react. In the middle of a mob protesting against your presence, and then having people throw / fire shit at you. Lets see how much of a marksman you are at that point, and with AK47 rounds (which are much bigger than your own bullets) whizzing past you, how much of a rat's arse you give about the lives of the people trying to end yours.

[pleed]

I remeber not long after America went into Iraq that they treaded really carefully and hesitated when killing people.
One day, doing a routine car inspection and a check point, a family pulled up. The adults got out of the car, refused to show ID then shot and killed the American soldiers.
This is why they have to treat everyone, even general citizens, as hostile.

[DOGG]

Yeah well what i'm saying is that previously, they have thought that they were under fire at a checkpoint when in fact they weren't and people died for it. The cars were all standing still. So perhaps this was a mistake also. Maybe it wasnt. Either way, they fired not only over but into the crowd as 2 of them died. Not sure how many injured. Personally i reckon they wanted to teach them a lesson.

[pleed]

well, before that they thought they weren't under fire when they where and they ended up dying.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take my chances after that so I would shoot first.

[Al]

Do you even have a decent argument DOGG? All I've read is lots of "Yeah well..." followed by your oppinions and conjecture which is loosely based on actual events.

Now I don't give a crap about this either way, it's not my problem, but if you are going to argue, do it properly.

This has been a public service announcement.

[DOGG]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1121981,00.html

BAGHDAD -- The international news agency Reuters has made a formal complaint to the Pentagon following the "wrongful" arrest and apparent "brutalisation" of three of its staff this month by US troops in Iraq.

The complaint followed an incident in the town of Falluja when American soldiers fired at two Iraqi cameramen and a driver from the agency while they were filming the scene of a helicopter crash.

The US military initially claimed that the Reuters journalists were "enemy personnel" who had opened fire on US troops and refused to release them for 72 hours.

As is evidenced here, they can simply state that they were being fired on, which then gives them the licence to do whatever the fuck they want.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by pleed
I remeber not long after America went into Iraq that they treaded really carefully and hesitated when killing people.
One day, doing a routine car inspection and a check point, a family pulled up. The adults got out of the car, refused to show ID then shot and killed the American soldiers.
This is why they have to treat everyone, even general citizens, as hostile.

If that had happened in America with U.S citizens (wouldn't surprise me), would that have justified being hostile to all citizens in the U.S as well? Or do we have two sets of standards?

[Goat Boy]

yawn
whatever

wake if any white people get shot

[durus]

good one goat boy. That does seem to be the general consensus.