Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

reply to post by Salamandy

O god...Im sorry but you are hilarious. Disarm me with your tae kwon do? Your pistol you shoot once a month? My acquaintances would sh.. on you. As for me? I would make you my girlfriend.

reply to post by MarineSniper12Kills


I do not know any Tae Kwon Do.
You sound gay which I dont care about but you probably do. Plus that insult is so old and why are you insulting like a kid anyway?
You are setting me up to fight your buddy online? Really? I mean is there money involved because if we were to go through the appropriate channels, I would be willing to set up a contract to fight him on TV. Boxing, mixed martial, whatever! We could promote everything using this thread as build up in major chat rooms across the globe. Everything insured, do this legit. Something tells me your buddy would be totally sauced though kickin old storys at the local watering hole come fight night though.

OK now im insulting so I admit a little hypocrisy on my part in this one area. But dont worry, I still dont think its right to kill humans.

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Funny you bring up monsters hiding behind human skin. Sounds like they might be also hiding in your mirror sometimes?

Yeah, and in my nightmares, too. Ain't you glad someone else took up that mantle so you ain't got to live with it, but still get to live?

You argue that murder is just if it is human vs animal for the practical purposes of food, etc.

Uh, NO! I didn't say that at all. I never defined "murder" for you in any manner, I only said "murder" is not the same thing as "killing". As a matter of fact, killing either plants or animals can in NO WAY be defined as "murder".

Likewise, killing humans is not always "murder", either.

OK agreed, but your deflecting, much like with those bologna cliches you resort to (brainwashing 101). Human killers arent cool in my world

Yeah. That's sort of obvious. They may not be "cool" in "your world", but you HAVE a world only because they exist. Bologna cliches? Anyone have any bread and some mayo?

And there it is again... Tough guy babble.

I guess you didn't get my drift, so I'll be clearer: You wouldn't know a "tough guy" if he bit you on the ass. Your Hollywood concepts are blinding you to the real world around you. I'm not at all "tough". I'm a broken down old fart. I ain't "bad", but the "bad" do NOT screw with me.

Is that better, as "tough guy" talk goes in your world?

I could care less about who you know or who is behind a posters keyboard.

That, too, is obvious. Self-absorption works that way.

I would defend myself if attacked and disable them from any further attempts at harming me or family. I'm not a violent man but if provoked I will defend myself and your acquaintance would be no exception to my rules. You even stated this yourself in your last post.

No you wouldn't. You like to think you would, but you wouldn't. You would go into a shaky "horse stance", and then curl up in a ball and whimper. I've run into far too many "talkers" and chair-borne commandos to be led to believe otherwise.

You see, I AM a "violent man" - I'm just not indiscriminate with it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Your posts continue to resort to fantasy scenarios. Something tells me you were taught to fight by using acts of intimidation rather than physical acts. It is very clear. You lose dude....

You gonna sit there and babble cliches while someone is correcting your attitude? Real world dont work like that!

reply to post by Salamandy

Salamandy, for God's sake - why don't you go find a cooking thread so you'll have some basis of knowledge.

What "do not kill" crap are you talking about? In fact, what are you talking about, period!

I specifically named a particular type of person. A non-uniformed, armed combatant.

Since you don't seem to have any idea of what we're talking about here - I'll tell you why every signor of the Geneva Conventions find these non-uniformed combatants so disgusting - and therefore provide zero protections:

It is these very non-uniformed combatants that will hide in a crowd of innocent civilians and open fire, hoping we won't return fire in fear of hitting innocents - you know - women and children.

It is these very non-uniformed combatants who will literally drive women and children in front of themselves, while firing at you. Same logic. We will get shot ourselves, reluctant to return fire.

It is these very non-uniformed combatants who even conceal themselves as women, just to enter mosques and crowded markets so that they may remain concealed from everyone, until they open fire on civilians.

It is these non-uniformed combatants who are the greatest of cowards.

By killing these SOB's as quickly as possible, in the greatest numbers possible, in the greatest concentrations possible, as ruthlessly as possible, I am the one who shows the greater compassion for those innocents these clowns kill and don't give a damn about.

By removing these cankers on the ass of humanity, I am acting as the shield of innocents, I am helping innocents live, I'm improving the gene pool, and I get to demonstrate very clearly my greater moral standard, and higher moral resolve by relentlessly pursuing and destroying these animals.

And it feels good when you've done your job.

Unlike some, who sit on their asses, don't know what in hell they're talking about, and aren't making a difference themselves.

Soldiers take a lot of pride in their work. Sometime their business is killing.

And sometimes, business is GOOD.

reply to post by FarArcher


Totally seems like your killing way more people to stop a few and why are they popping out to shoot at YOU in the first place. Ask yourself that and answer honestly. Look I hate to mess with a guys occupation, but I also feel killing a human based on orders is not right. There really isnt much grey area in that.

reply to post by Salamandy

Salamandy, I'm going to say this in all sincerity.

This is a great truth. You may not like it, but nonetheless, it's the truth.

Some SOB's really, really need killing.

More than you'd think.

Question.

You have a gun with your sights right on the head of a man who just killed three civilians, and you're in a war zone. Are you going to let him go to kill more because killing is wrong?

Here's the dilemma. He's going to keep killing until killed, and he may get another dozen or two within the next month.

What will you do? Kill one to save two? Kill this one and save maybe ten?

How many innocents does this guy get to kill before you find sufficient justification?

reply to post by Salamandy


Not buddy...acquaintance, which you brought into the debate. I don't fight on tv, I don't fight period. Were trained to do what we do. I find a personal gratification when I am able to" eliminate" an armed combatant. It gets a little bit easier each time.

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Big movie like set up to try and convince me killing is right. Not gonna work.

Look deeply into my eyes, grasshopper, and see how deeply wounded I am if it's "not gonna work". Be prepared for a surprise if you realize how little I care what you individually think. I'm only countering your fantasy for the benefit of others.

It ain't your world, hoss, we ain't all here for you.

And your scenario about the martial artists and your buddy, now THAT sounds like you're reading write off a Hollywood script!

Actually, it was on a college campus of all places. Takes all kinds.

Ever really been in a fight?

You betcha, baby! Wanna see the scars, or what?

We all know damned well the bigger guy doesnt always win.

Then give up your silly notions of ballerinas taking over the fighting world - as long as they've got the "physical power".

The fight in you is way less than in me because I have something called moral fibers on my side to give me that extra umph when the limits are pushed (if you wanna play that game).

Maybe. Sounds like more Hollywood to me, but it's possible, I reckon. Perhaps one day we'll meet in the field, where you can test your resolve, but I doubt it. I really doubt I'll ever catch you in the field, I've got to wonder about the "moral fiber" of a gent who doesn't comprehend the difference between killing and murder. Can I get some of that "moral fiber" if I eat more Wheaties?

I'll play whatever game you like.

And one more thing... I have had family members die for this country so you better appreciate the time youve been given to sit there typing justified violence speech on your keyboard to the world.

Yessir, I DO appreciate it. Not because of your "family members" specifically, although I don't care to belittle their sacrifice, but because I've seen my own friends die, up close and personal. I've worn their blood, gained holding a dying man while he took his last breath, with his guts looped around his canteen cover.

I've heard grown men die crying for a momma that they knew they'd never see again.

There's not much you have to teach me about life, death, honor, sacrifice, or fighting. I'll throw "moral fiber", "physical power", and "toughness" in for added value.

You can "Hollywood script" me all day long, but there are things that never leave you, and there are people who come to visit some of us in the quiet times at night to keep themselves alive in memory. Those people are not abstract "family members" - some of them are a damn sight close than family.

Now go ahead, what do i think about my past family members being military. Basically times were different, we have more info now. But thats for another topic

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Some things NEVER change.

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by Salamandy

 

I find a personal gratification when I am able to" eliminate" an armed combatant. It gets a little bit easier each time.

There is the problem, it shouldn't get "easier" to kill a fellow human being. I wonder how long it will be before it becomes "easier" for our military and police to take the lives and freedoms of Americans, just because they were ordered to?

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Your posts continue to resort to fantasy scenarios. Something tells me you were taught to fight by using acts of intimidation rather than physical acts. It is very clear. You lose dude....

You gonna sit there and babble cliches while someone is correcting your attitude? Real world dont work like that!

edit on 4-1-2011 by Salamandy because: (no reason given)

I'm ready for my "attitude correction" whenever you feel froggy. Please, tell me more about your "real world" and how it works.

How and where I was "taught to fight" really isn't your concern. You weren't there, and ought to be damned glad of it.

I didn't realize we were in a competition, but just declaring that I "lose" don't make it so.

Have a nice day

hole, if you're shooting baskets, it gets easier after a while.

If you're digging a ditch, within a couple weeks you've trained new muscles, and it gets easier.

If your job is shooting, with practice you get better.

If it includes shooting enemy combatants - that first few may not sit well on your supper - but that too, gets easier.

It gets real easy when you look first hand, up close at some of their handiwork.

In fact, you'll come upon scenes that will knock a buzzard off a gut wagon, and I assure you, there is an actual hunger to find and kill the animals capable of such things.

Don't confuse them with humans.

They lost any trace of humanity long, long ago.

Because humans don't do things like this.

Originally posted by FarArcher

In fact, you'll come upon scenes that will knock a buzzard off a gut wagon, and I assure you, there is an actual hunger to find and kill the animals capable of such things.

Don't confuse them with humans.

They lost any trace of humanity long, long ago.

Because humans don't do things like this.

Exactly. They wear the human skin, but the heart is lacking.

reply to post by thewholepicture


Have you had to take a life? Do you know how it feels? Different people are affected different ways. It is easier for me to embrace it.

reply to post by thewholepicture

wholepicture, one other little thing.

I didn't shoot folks because I was ordered to. Hell, if we had to wait until we got an order to shoot, we'd never get anything done.

No.

It's kinda strange. You get shot at, you take it personal, and you find yourself astounded that he/they would have the gall to shoot at you personally.

That emotion only lasts a few nanoseconds, and then you find yourself taking exception to being shot at. But that only lasts a moment.

If they hit you, you find yourself really, really pissed.

Otherwise, it's all a matter of working the problem, solving the problem. Which means fire and maneuver where possible.

It's like any other job. Solving the problem, and if it's really, really intense, you don't even have time to be fearful, because you're so busy working the problem.

Shoot them, problem solved.

Shoot them some more, and problem forgotten.

Dead men will kill you. Dead men killed twice hurt no one. And they don't seem to mind.

reply to post by FarArcher


Very well said. I was in a pile of rubble with a group of about eight on the floor below me. If I missed a shot, the eight below me were dead. If I hit my target, they lived. Doing this repetively over a period of weeks, makes you different. You see a friend go down, it changes you. It changed me. I have the bullet that was in the chamber of each rifle I pulled off of someone after I had to end it. 12 in all. My gratification.

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by spy66

 

I understand exactly what your saying, but if a civilian is not accustomed to our training how can they tell me otherwise? You yourself is accustomed yes....diff branch diff country but all in all same parties had rigorous training in whatever field or specialty as well as basic. I just don't understand how someone who hasn't had any training can tell someone who has....that it is nothing,

Before we went to Afghanistan we interviewed Afghan people living in Norway. We communicated with different Embassies to gather knowledge. Some of us had already been in Afghanistan before and knew how to act and approach the Afghan people, And we knew how they would approach us. This is not a common routine fallowed up by every unit.

We drilled in different tactics on how to passively provoke populated areas. Where we had a hunch that the enemy might be located. A passive controlled approach is a lot easier to control then a surprise and aggression approach, where the population out number your unite. What i am talking about now is probably way over some heads to comprehend. Tactics are very often a bliss. Some units have more control if they go aggressive. Some unites like aggressiveness because it implies action. Some because its better to be safe then sorry. There are as many argumentations to tactics as there are different units.

In the early stages of this war. The enemy and the civilians where very often located at the same locations/Villages. They lived together.
To day this is not very common. But if you do a surprise and aggression approach on a Village that houses the enemy and civilians, you are going to have a lot of people running/moving around uncontrolled. Because they out number you and move outside your controlled area of space. For some of you this is hard to comprehend as well. Because you dont know how a surprise and aggression approach takes place, and you cant visualize the Village topography and layout which this takes place in.

We preferred passive provocations. That way we could from a distance observe their behaviour towards us. Behaviour is the clue to how you chose your approach.
There is something we did that differ from US and British tactics, and that is that we where always polite towards the civilians, even if we had engaged the enemy in their Village. We didn't treat them like suspects visually with our body language, weapon or verbally. But mentally we where prepared to go tactical, Mental readiness is the basics.

We did this because we didn't want to scare them more then they already where. Or anger them more then they already where. Communication, cooperation and respect is the key. And you dont have to be aggressive to acquire any of these. Politeness and respect is a language everyone understands. And is accepted by most everyone. These civilians are not criminals and shouldn't be treated like criminals.

That is how we chose to use our skills. We are trained to kill, but we are also trained to show respect and be polite, and it can be used as a tactic.

reply to post by spy66

Spy, I would agree that being civil and polite is preferable.

We had the approach to be polite to everyone, but be prepared to kill everyone we met as required.

That passive approach?

Another way to bring the fanatics to you is to construct a Baptist Church well outside town, complete with a nice, big cross on the steeple.

Now the greatest fanatics will come to your kill box.

And will continue until they're either all dead, or you are.

I never saw a bit of sense in bug hunting. Much preferred to bring them to me.

reply to post by FarArcher


Creating a religious provocation was never a option with us. Respecting their religion and customs where our priorities. That is why we gathered knowledge about them before hand.

If we had used religious provocations. We would have disrespected the civilian population as well. It would have made it harder to earn respect and trust among the civilians.

Trust and respect is a key element to gather facts and Intel when you talk to Villagers. If you dont show the civilians the respect they deserve. They will show you a respect you cant trust. You can see it in their eyes that they hate you and want you gone.

Not sure if the author of this thread read the Guardian article that was linked to the map. The map plots 109,032 Iraqi deaths, 23,984 insurgents, 15,196 Iraqi security forces, and 66,081 civilians.

Of the civilian deaths, 34,814 people were murdered and 31,780 died in IED attacks. Only civilians are "murdered", if you are a combatant you are "killed in action", and obviously the vast majority of casualties from IEDs are civilians.

Maybe a few murders or IEDs were from coalition forces, but I think it's safe to say the vast majority of civilian deaths recorded on this map were at the hands of their fellow Arabs, not by Americans as the author implies.