Beatnik

It must be porno for necros.
Porno for necros.
Porno for necros.
neh neh neh neh neh neh neh neh

__________________

aeroripper

GhostintheShell

The scariest thing about this entire thread is that I knew implicitly what Whiskey was talking about with that "The Claw" reference to Toy Story without even reading his explanation at the bottom.

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

Rincewind

lol

I hear yah.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

CingularDuality

When your job is to kill other people, you sometimes have to keep telling yourself that you're doing the right thing. The dramatic editing helps in that regard.

I highly recommend "On Killing" by Dave Grossman on this topic.


Oh, and I'll go along with WhiskeySix's differentiation between terrorist and insurgent.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

ChIck3nL3gz

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. The entire region IMO should have been turned into a glass parking lot a long time ago. But thats just my opinion.

As for the use of the word "Terrorist" in the context it was used. It was appropriate. In a conventional war you know your enemy. They have actualy military tactics, they have set battle plans, they have an organization, chain of command, similar weapons, uniforms, armor. In this war its like fighting the Vietcong. You don't know your enemy. You know you have one but they are unconventional. They use women and children as human shields. They stuff corpses with unconventional weapons, IEDs. They use a multitude of weapons and have absolutely no organization. They have no real purpose. They use their religion as a purpose to fight which IMO is baseless. They fight out of hate, out of ignorance. They drive vehicles loaded with bombs with the intent on blowing up military units, civilian units. They strap bombs to children, themselves and run rampant in market places, churches (mosques). They do not follow a set path to warfare. They use a human shield because they know that the US, Britain, Canadians, Germans, French, Russians are all governed by the Geneva Convention and therfore are not allowed to fire upon non-combatants.; ie: women, children people who have no military identification. It makes fighting a war very difficult if not impossible.

The reason why the armored convoy did not fire on him as he approached because he was "waving a flag". The Wermacht during WWII did not load up their Half-tracks or Mercedes trucks with live ordinance, dress in plain clothes and drive up to an allied convoy waving a flag only to detonate the vehicle to kill the allies. That was dishonorable. Even though Hitler's army did some pretty horrendous things during the course of the war there was honor and respect for the other side. The were soldiers, there were German officers who treated Allied troops with dignity when wounded, gave medical treatment and even released hem back to join with their units. The ally forces did the same to German units. There was a code of honor. There was respect for the enemy. And both fought for a common goal, to control the countries in which they took over.

In this war there is none of that. Wounded soldiers are beheaded, tortured, murdered. Non-Combatants pick weapons up off the ground and fire on American soldiers. The enemy has no identification, has no organization, has very little chain of command if any at all. They are in escence, terrorists. That isn't to say that there weren't terrorists during WWII, because between the years 1946 and 1948 there were remnant German forces in Berlin who blew up buildings, allied convoys and they wore plain clothes. But during the actual war there was structure.

This current war has no structure, no common enemy. Everyone is considered an enemy.

__________________

[volun][drill]
I'm cannon fodder.
Irreg's Wiki
Rules and SOPs

leejo

I agree. Screw that guy, and the troops, I think, did the right thing. But releasing this video on the internet with the rock music and the shots of the guy, living, followed by the shots of the guy, dead...

I think it makes the troops look like jerks and us like bloodthirsty jerks. Not helpful.

Churchill said "when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." This video seems smug and gratuitous to me. I'm glad he didn't kill any troops or civilians, and I can't think of a nice way for this to have ended, but I still wish that video wasn't floating around on the internet.

CingularDuality

Agreed. This video should've stayed semi-private, only being seen by the military types that can benefit from seeing video like this. Unfortunately, the internet makes it so very easy for a video like this to "escape" into the rest of the world.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

DudeMan

well i didnt watch the video, i have seen people dieing before, and it isnt something i find entertaining, no matter how much of a prick they may be... so your safe for now leejo.... just kidding man...

i also agree it was not worth the life of one american soldier to help or save this guy, he should have been killled. not sure if this is exactly on a par with the good ol geneeva conventions... but i dont care, those are a set of rules governing a different war.

for the most part this thread has stayed good, H-hour, i agree with your question, and i have to say, he is not a terrorist in my eyes. the word terrorist tends to get thrown about too much i feel, he attacked an active military threat, that makes him something else, call it freedom fighter call it insurgent i dont care much, but as long as he was not blowing up civillians as a target i think we have to make the distinction. when we make a civillian a target we are terrorists.

this saddens me, i just want to ask, why.... i feel this kind of statement has fallen victim of the generalisation that all iraqis are hiding behind street corners with c4 loaded up and ready to blow... that isnt the cxase and dare i say it, although i do not disagree with our presence, if we were not there, this would not be happening. in many threads previous to this i have had discussions about gun laws and ownership, to which lots of people in these forums have stated that one ood reason is that no invading army could take hold if all the citizens are armed. this is no different apart from its the shoe on the other foot. and i have to disagree with this comment, nuk'em is not my idea of a solution. and i know you said it was your opinion, im not trying to tell you your wrong.... but i feel diferently.

the SAS a good rebuttle i would think... they dress as they like carry what they like, sneak up be your buddy then cut your throat if its the best way of doing it... i have to make an ethical distinction between terrorist, and freedom fighter or insurgent on the basis tat they do not attack civillian targets. but thats just my opinion.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

DudeMan

agreed 100%

as i say, i did not watch the video, i would find it hard to argue for the troops if i had. i know the same rules would have applied, but as someone else said, watching someone take a bullet. and watching them see death and wait for it to come over a gruling time period, let alone the glroification with sound bites and what not... thats a different story... but hey... i rekon the only reason this has not been on the news with bonefied hippies calling everyone nazis is because its so disgusting... (unless it has been on the news... but i have not heard about it.)

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Steeler

I will. If you truly and without humor believe that nuking a populace is the correct solution to problems in the Middle East then you are wrong.

As for the video - too voyeuristic for my tastes. If we delight in the death of another human being, then our own humanity erodes. I would not criticize the soldiers' actions, but we should take no joy in this.

__________________

DudeMan

riight but 90% of my posts cause fights...

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

CingularDuality

I've changed my mind about this particular person being labeled a terrorist. He's got a suicide car bomb. Just because he decided to try to take out an Abrams instead of a mosque this time, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been willing to wipe out a crowd of civilians. Can't terrorists occasionally pick military targets, too?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Lucky Shot

He served his purpose and hopefully that video will dissuade other terror bombers who feel that their is honor in suicide bombing.



Lucky Shot

freekyE

I really wonder how many of you would become "terrorists" or "insurgents" if a bigger, tougher nation decided our ways were wrong.

I certainly would fight for my country to the end, doing whatever had to be done to retain the culture and ways of my society.

I do not condone or even sypathize with attacks on innocent civilians, but this was and attack on soldiers, in tanks, the only difference between this guy and a soldier is a uniform.

And as such, to be the human, to prove that our way of life is more compassionate, that saddams ways of killing were wrong..... we blow him up? create a whole new generation of poeple who HATE? the ONLY way to stop these terrorists is to understand them.....killing them only cements into the minds of their children that they were right.

btw. I know why they call him a terrorist.... so they can get around that annoying little thing called the Geneva Convention. We're so quick to throw it out the window when were doing the killing and to curse them for not using it as well.

i know most of you want blood but christ, when is it gonna stop?

Hate eats you alive..........

P.S. Chicken, you want that whole area to glassed huh? really? is that just a statement made on a whim in a forum? Because on your whim you want over a million people to just DIE. Children, women, fathers, mothers........when people say stuff like that it makes me sick to my stomach.
And i wonder how much better they are than the terrorists they hate so much.