To all American soldiers - Learn from this man

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

What if his duty is to perform a crime. That is the whole point.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by oozyism]


I think the above quote this sums up everyone's main issue with this post is, this apology was not for his duty this apology was for the crimes he committed over there, to families who his crimes affected. Those crimes were rape and murder, not military crimes.

Some one correct me if I'm wrong but if these actions/duties were committed under the orders of his superior officers while he was still active this case would be dealt with inside military court not a court in Kentucky. That said the apology would speak more towards his duty over there. As it stands right now his just a civilian criminal giving out a prepared apology in court like they all do. I could Google several criminals and share with you their apologies, this particular one just came from an ex-soldier and is colored with a military overtone because the crimes took place while he was in the military.


Originally posted by oozyism

No it didn't, read the apology letter again, the thread is based on the apology letter written by an ex-soldier. Being a rapest and murderer doesn't mean he wasen't an American soldier.


No, it doesn't mean he wasn't a soldier, but it does help us to place the timing of his apology and place this particular one into the context it was delivered under.


Originally posted by oozyism

The apology letter wasen't taken out of context, you have to prove that. What did I say which made the apology letter out of context?


And here's the flip side of the coin, you can't prove it was in context due to the situation he presented it in. That's why this debate is weak. You've presented us a criminals apology an apology given during court dates then relied on others to present links to the full story. You're wishing us to hold up the words found in an attorney prepared court apology, these aren't the words of some one who came back and YouTubed themselves, wrote a letter to the paper, or appeared on a television program on their own accord. They gave this statement designed to apologize for their crimes committed while stationed over there.

Now what I feel you've done is created a hot post by using a sensitive subject in a questionable way, by not sharing the full story or linking it in the OP. It was a shady way to go about things. And it's questionable why you would pick the words of a criminal and then not share that fact up front. I do believe like others this is a propaganda thread, I just can't figure out 100% what you're trying to sell except raising your post counts. This thread literally feels like you decided to walk in and start swinging just to get attention. Not saying that's what it is, just saying that's how it feels.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 


He has started threads calling for a moment of silence for dead terrorists and jihadists and has applauded the deaths of Americans killed in Afghanistan. What do you expect?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Uh, Oozy....whatcha doin'?

Soldiers follow orders...it's debatable whether some will do so even when they know they are wrong. I would assume that a current soldier, marine, whatever, if they ar e currently drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam, they don't have any reason to think it's all a big lie. When they have bullets coming at them, the people shooting them aren't their friends.

Crimes committed over there (and this line gets really gray philosophically) need to be prosecuted. When someone gets found guilty of something, the apology doesn't really mean much any more as it's uaually an attempt to influence the sentencing portion of the trial...after guilt has already been established.

I bet if you looked around hard enough, you could see some war crimes hiding behind a bush somewhere. You could find some soldiers that followed orders that were immpral or unethical or just downright illegal. There are ghosts hiding behind a lot of bushes.

We saw the same thing as your Op after Nam. Spitting on the soldiers, calling them baby killers. It wasn't their fault. There has to be an available percentage somewhere, but I'm guessing 5 percent of members of military are criminals.

War isn't about raping, or murdering innocents. (at least American war) That is why so many Americans have to die. great pains are taken to protect innocent lives. Sometimes there are incidents and innocent people die. It's atrocious and regrettable and even sad, but if there was no INTENT to cause the hardships on the part of the soldiers, then what is the crime?

I am behind ANYONE that wants to speak their mind and make a compelling argument. You should know that. I find this argument weak and inciting.

Not all soldiers are committing crimes. You can't make that statement and expect there to not be considerable backlash. Not all soldiers OWE an apology. If they did, that is between their God, if they have one, and themselves.

It would be just as easy to say that every civilian owes Iraq and Afghanistan an apology. The president and his generals listen to US, right? nah...I'm not jumping on board with this one, oozy.

I appreciate a good argument and being forced to look at something a different way, but comparing all military personnel to a rapist is taking it a little too far.

The apology of a convicted rapist and murderer means absolutely NOTHING to me. To compare myself, my two brothers and others who have served to rapists, or war criminals is a little more than I can accept.

Tone it down a little, buddy. If you DO have an agenda, perhaps you should work on making it not so corrosive.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 





perhaps you should work on making it not so corrosive.

I get what you mean, and I understand why you would get offended, but it is not as simple as that. If I was to make it more corrosive than who would listen? This is an important issue, soldiers following orders blindly. It is as bad as the Jihadists who are following order blindly.

The Iraq war which cause so much death and misery for the Iraqi people was something in mind when I was comprising this thread. American soldiers are also responsible, you can't simply say I was following orders.

Just imagine if every killer in legal case came with the argument that he/she was following orders. That is all I'm portraying.

Why do you look at the ex-soldier as a killer and rapist, that doesn't change the fact that he was an American soldier.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by KSPigpen
 





perhaps you should work on making it not so corrosive.

I get what you mean, and I understand why you would get offended, but it is not as simple as that. If I was to make it more corrosive than who would listen? This is an important issue, soldiers following orders blindly. It is as bad as the Jihadists who are following order blindly.


I don't think you should make it MORE corrosive...A soldier can't stop to weigh the long-term consequences of their actions. War sucks, but it's nothing new. If these guys stop to contemplate the 'meaning' of it all when they are in these situations, then they endanger themselves and their brothers and sisters.

'Blindly' following orders is what a soldier does. (a bit of an oversimplification) They are given objectives and must operate within their experience, training and instinct to accomplish those objectives. There ARE such things as conscientious objectors, but once you sign on the dotted line, you've, for the most part, given up your opportunities to be involved in the philosophical debate about your presence in any given theater.




The Iraq war which cause so much death and misery for the Iraqi people was something in mind when I was comprising this thread. American soldiers are also responsible, you can't simply say I was following orders.

Just imagine if every killer in legal case came with the argument that he/she was following orders. That is all I'm portraying.



It's apparent that your feelings on this issue are very strong. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but it's just as easy to make an enemy espousing peace as it is war. Once you have made an enemy, your chances of engaging them in meaningful debate has, for the most part, evaporated.

For whatever reason, many people believe that the United States' actions in Iraq were and ARE warranted and justified. I don't buy that one hundred percent, but when my boss tells me I have to do something, I have to do it, or get fired. The trouble with that in the military is that they have different names for 'not listening to your boss' and the 'fix' for some of those is a bullet in the head. It's not surprising how individual conviction tends to wane in the face of certain death.

I think it is understandable that the ability to follow orders is NECESSARY to the safety of everyone involved and not just the individual. That's why we have squads and platoons and companies and battalions and brigades and divisions of SOLDIERS, not individual philosophers walking in the fields alone, pondering the consequences of their actions.

Cohesiveness is required, or the unit will fail and more people will die than the one objecting.

If you ask some of the older patriots, you will get a response about how even though they DETEST your comparison of them with war criminals, they have fought and put THEIR lives on the line, so that you can be free to have that opinion you are so proud of. It may be an overly romantic viewpoint, but any time during historic battles, the majority of American forces could have decided that they didn't want to be part of the killing, and you know what comes next. If Hitler wasn't stopped, or Hussein...I think there HAS to come a time when someone standing on the sideline has to stand up and say that there has been enough.

On the off chance that Saddam would have been left in power (forgetting the ties he had with the U.S. Govt.) Would his own brand of ethnic cleansing continue? Would he have stopped with the extermination of the Kurds? Would he have stopped at the invasion of Kuwait? Does a ruthless dictator EVER stop on their own? Could you name on that has for me?



Why do you look at the ex-soldier as a killer and rapist, that doesn't change the fact that he was an American soldier.


I think it DOES change it, Oozy. I think at the point you make the decision to become a rapist, you give up your RIGHT to be called an American soldier. The instant that your mind justifies the rape of a girl and the murdering of her family, you have given up your right to be called ANYTHING but a rapist and murdered....except for maybe 'convict.'

It really IS pretty simple for me. I know that the percentage of actual crimes committed by servicemen and women is pretty low. I would guess way lower than the general populace. Following orders and killing for your country just isn't a crime. It sucks on a few different levels, but it's not an offense...to US.

Now, there have been some instances, particularly in WWII, where soldiers who were 'just following orders' were brought up on war crimes charges. They were of course, Nazis, but that doesn't really matter.

I want to get this part perfectly straight. If the United States was ever defeated by Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan or Germany or anyone else, there would be a real likelihood of American servicemen and women facing war crimes trials. Victory in battle may bring closure to a battle, but it doesn't end a people's need for vengeance or their desire, however misguided, to enforce what they perceive as 'justice' against those that perpetrated particularly heinous acts against their people.

Although it may be largely an effort to placate some, there is an Attorney General in the United States trying to figure out whether the treatment of 'detainees' and 'enemy combatants' by the United States constitutes criminal action. He is trying to determine whether or not the LEADERSHIP is guilty of crimes. In a war effort, the private does not have the luxury of second guessing his sergeant, or their captain.

The way the US works, if a serviceman or woman creates a crime, they will be charged, typically by the jurisdiction that they are in when they commit the act. When they are just following orders and have no intent to commit the crime, the chain of command is at fault and there are facilities within the military to address those instances. It doesn't happen as quickly as some would like, but an evil murdering bastard will get his, in the end.

The men and women of the armed forces are NOT automatons, but must follow orders. That doesn't mean they have no sense of what is right or wrong.

Not to deteriorate this argument any, have you seen Apocalypse Now? I don't think that movie is too far off. The forces have a history of policing themselves and bad apples are weeded out.

I don't think anyone enjoys killing, unless they have some serious issues. I think you are generalizing and turning your desire for peace into a big stick with which you are beating on the military with. I just think there's bound to be a better way to express yourself. If you get everyone to add you to their ignore list, who will listen then?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by oozyism
 


I do apologize.

I apologize for not putting you on the ignore list the first time I read your drivel.

I apologize that my buddies died over there and you are alive holed up in your mommas basement.

If I apologize any more I will get a site ban.



AMEN



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Would you apologize for lives you have taken that where just as zealous to take yours?

Would you apologize for killing a man behind a .50 cal (I know I know, just an example) that just claimed the lives of some of your best friends?

Would you apologize for women (I'm not sure how common this is) strapping bombs to their own children or themselves?

Yes they follow orders. Do they enjoy taking lives? No! Must they to survive? Yes!

Even if the war is unjustified if you are a soldier in the thick of S*($ you do what you have to do to survive.

You would take lives too if it where your own neck on the line and now you come here telling soldiers to apologize to the families of men that tried to take their life from them? Ok, good luck with that!



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


How do you win "people" over to your cause by comparing US soldiers to a accused "apologizing" rapist? (Guilty by association arguments do not work when you compare a grape to a spoiled raisin.)

What is your agenda?





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join