US soldier kills Afghan civilians in Kandahar

And it's perfectly ok for us to slaughter women and children in cold blood, and we shouldn't discuss it because we'll never understand. And oh, I had a tear in my eye but nope it's just dust.

That sound about right? Do I sound all cold hearted and like big tough man shooting women and children? Because I had to? Because I did my duty and that's more important for manly men that shoot little kids?

It's times like this I really hope there is a hell. Burning white hot.

reply to post by L00kingGlass

And it's perfectly ok for us to slaughter women and children in cold blood, and we shouldn't discuss it because we'll never understand. And oh, I had a tear in my eye but nope it's just dust.

Well, if it's being done in cold blood, I don't think you're going to make a very strong argument against it with bleeding-heart rhetoric. I contend that your attempt at discussion is fundamentally flawed. Would you like to try again?

Further - you all are still presuming many things. First - that this soldier was involved. The man was reportedly drunk... and yet he was able to walk between houses several kilometers apart, kill people, burn bodies, etc. You'd be foolish to deject those observations.

That sound about right? Do I sound all cold hearted and like big tough man shooting women and children? Because I had to? Because I did my duty and that's more important for manly men that shoot little kids?

Since we're dealing with presumptions and hypotheticals. I'll ask you what kind of action you would take if a 10 year old leveled an AK-47 at you. Or if a man is shooting at you from behind his "beloved" wife.

I'm curious to hear how you would respond to such instances.

It's times like this I really hope there is a hell. Burning white hot.

A person who finds it easy to judge the hearts of others will certainly reject their companionship and find him/herself alone with their own perfection.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by beezzer
We are at war. People die. People lose it.

People are, well, people.

Here's real neat idea!

Surrender. Have all the people who are trying to kill us, stop. Raise the white flag.
Quit.

Once you do that, we leave, have a parade, give a few speeches, and it's done.

Um last time I checked, there was no Taliban threat in N. America. Why are we over there again? I forget. Oh, to catch OBL. Did we get him yet?

Fine. Have them wave the white flag and we'e gone.

How hard is it?

Just surrender and we leave.

They are not going to surrender because they are going to win. They know it. The US government knows it and the military knows it.

All they have to do is hang on until we leave. We've already said we're leaving.

When we do the Karzai administration will have to make an accommodation with the Taliban to survive, thus gaining Pakistan proxy influence (the reason they created the Taliban in the first place).

Then the western world will forget about the country again.

I think the above is unpalatable but I can't think of a reason why it isn't accurate.

Originally posted by gravitor
He's a brainwashed murderer.
He murdered.
Why the suprise?????

He should be set loose in the place He murdered, and let the people decide His fate.

I can't say I agree with you
But I wonder what he would do if he was !


Damn I'm dishing out some stars !

reply to post by Aim64C


I'm not going to answer you. I would hope that an event such as this would stimulate moral questions, but nope. Not some people. No heart at all. If you don't have a heart you're not a human being any longer, you've become a monster.

Also, where did this nonsense come from that if you have a heart you're automatically "bleeding heart" and a Liberal? Having a heart makes you a decent human being. If this world had more heart we wouldn't be shooting women and children in the face.

reply to post by L00kingGlass

I'm not going to answer you. I would hope that an event such as this would stimulate moral questions, but nope. Not some people. No heart at all. If you don't have a heart you're not a human being any longer, you've become a monster.

That rush of air was my comment flying right over your head.

I'll tell you what I told another guy. You can never make someone not a human being. Even now, you talk of condemning a man to hell because you -think- he did something wrong. You presume to judge his soul and wish eternal agony for him because you -think- he took the life of someone for reasons that make no logical sense to you.

Quite hateful... monstrous, even; wouldn't you say?

Now, -presuming- this man is responsible for those deaths under the context outlined; then his actions are certainly not acceptable. However, killing him will not bring those people back. Understanding why he did what he did - and ascertaining the probability of him committing such acts again is what is important in determining his deposition.

Also, where did this nonsense come from that if you have a heart you're automatically "bleeding heart" and a Liberal? Having a heart makes you a decent human being. If this world had more heart we wouldn't be shooting women and children in the face.

The heart doesn't prevent irrational behavior. The heart evokes feelings of passion, endearment, ideals, and dreams. When those things are threatened; or when we feel our dreams and ideals are being denied - we often become upset, irrational, and angry. But it's all our imagination. What we think we are being denied is all stuff we have made up in our fanciful world induced by our hearts' desire. Because of that, we often miss the opportunities that are before us.

However, the point of my previous post was very simple. If you genuinely believe someone doesn't have a heart. Why are you attempting to appeal to the very thing you don't believe they have and/or speaking of its benefits?

reply to post by Aim64C


I'm sorry, part of having a heart to me means we don't slaughter innocent people including children. If killing little kids is merely a button we press to win a game, and anyone who disagrees doesn't understand, then I don't want to understand. NEVER. EVER.

Everyone is worthy of forgiveness at some point, however this doesn't mean that wrongful deeds should go unpunished.

I read again and again about drunk American soldiers killing Afghanistan civilians.

and there is more than one resource to confirm this, CNN is not among them...

www.moonofalabama.org...


rt.com...


www.reuters.com...


www.thefix.com...


fintandunne.blogspot.com...


tribune.com.pk...



but maybe we should believe the official story, it has never let us down so far...

Originally posted by torsion


So soon after US soldiers burned copies of the Koran a soldier goes on the rampage and kills at least 17 civilians. It will be interesting to see what happens to the soldier. Will he escape punishment like the American soldiers who carried out the Haditha massacre? Looks like a lot may be played on saying he had a "breakdown".

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Comparing to the incident at Haditha is not a good comparison. After the Haditha incident, there were courts-martial with some acquittals and one conviction. There were no claims of insanity in that case.

A better comparison would be with the Army Major who went crazy at Ft. Hood. Do you think the Staff Sergeant in Afghanistan will be court martialed first?

reply to post by L00kingGlass

I'm sorry, part of having a heart to me means we don't slaughter innocent people including children.

A heartless act does not a heartless person make.

I will resolve to logical decisions that my heart screams are less than or even counter to the ideal. But the consequences of failing to act will result in a far more heartless act being carried out upon others or myself.

Thus is the soldier's paradox.

If killing little kids is merely a button we press to win a game, and anyone who disagrees doesn't understand, then I don't want to understand. NEVER. EVER.

Failure to understand how a person arrives at acts we decree as heinous is a grave mistake. It is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

By all means, if a person is not going to stop their unacceptable behavior - get rid of them. Exile, execution, forced labor - whatever. But the goal should always be to return a person to a functional and productive status unless it is deemed grossly cost-ineffective or the person is just unwilling or incapable of achieving a return to such a state.

Everyone is worthy of forgiveness at some point, however this doesn't mean that wrongful deeds should go unpunished.

And what punishment can you possibly give a person for this?

What has he cost society that can be repaid? What threat does he pose now?

People base their sense of justice far too closely to their sense of revenge. Punishment is supposed to teach a lesson and instill discipline.

I want to know how many times this soldier reached out of help concerning his problems? How many visits to mental health, how many times he got in trouble at work, how many fights he had with fellow soldiers?

Did he reach out for help and the help failed him, or did he hide his problems and truly "snap" out of the blue.

Did he have friends or family that were aware of his issues? Did someone see this comming or was it totally hidden?

My bet is plenty of people had a clue about this guy. A good portion of soldiers sent downrange should not be down there, and yet there they are, and now we have this.

Where is his command? Why are they not explaining this? All we are getting are these vague reports.....i hope we get better info cause at this point, everything feels really shady.

reply to post by torsion


He went off the reservation, way off.

reply to post by L00kingGlass


"I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor."

Latest news 12 March 2012

Mr Obama told US television stations that the troops must be withdrawn in a responsible way.

No rush for Afghan exit after killings, says Obama

This is despicable. Killing people while they sleep? Toddlers? Preschoolers? Teens? Really? Wow, what a big, brave man you are, soldier. I don't care if he's a cold-blooded psychopath or if he snapped, he deserves the death penalty. Preferably at the hands of the countrymen & women of the people & children who's lives he stole.

reply to post by seiva7


I kind of figured late last nigth there was a strong possibility there was more than one soldier involved in this slaughter of civilians.

I'm no longer accepting the official story and like all of us I want the truth and expect nothing less.

On another site it is alleged the soldier in question received brain damage through an incident in one of his earlier tours of Afghanistan, how can that be possible he was sent back for more tours? Thats what got me suspecious there's more than what we are told and he could'nt possibly do this multiple killings on his own regardless.

Originally posted by Intrud3r
So when an American kills children he is unstable. When a group of Afghans behead UN workers over burned Koran they are backward muslim wackjobs, right?

Let me ask you this. Afghanistan has been at war ever since 1979. How many Afghans,do you think, are unstable and suffer from a mental disorder ?

Unstable and "wackjob" are readily interchangeable terms, you'll find. Political correctness is the only discerning factor.

As far as the per capita wackjob ratio of Afghanistan: I'd wager - in a country where misogyny and fundamentalism is rife - the majority would likely be clinically insane; by civilised, Western standards.

Also, to accentuate the fact the "American" also killed children so, not only undermines the value of an adult's life, but also smacks of sympathy fishing. It was murder... as it was when those military personnel were murdered for the fantasy book burning, as it was when Theo van Gogh was murdered for championing Muslim womens' human rights and, indeed, as it was on September 11, 2001.

American Forces may as well just pack their bags and leave now.

I think it's safe to say that almost every male in the family of each of those victims will be out for blood.
Pashtunwali Afghans are very tribal and strongly believe in 'an eye for an eye.'

And they never forget.

I disagree when people say that the soldier should be handed over to the Afghan authorities, for the following reasons;

1. He'd be dead in a couple of days
2. We need to learn what triggered this event, so that new measures can be put into place to help soldiers who are close to boiling point on Op tours.
3. After handing him over, what would that mean for the guys blamed for collateral damage? Would they have to be handed over too?…

Are they seriously going to try to make excuses for this lunatic???

The U.S. soldier who allegedly attacked and killed 16 Afghan civilians Sunday may have experienced a relatively rare state of mental derangement characterized by a blind killing rage, a disregard of pain and danger, and a total disconnection from his fellow troops, military mental health specialists said.

How about we all just call it how it is..... This psychopath went off on a murdering rampage and its just that... If this soldier would have done this in USA killing 16 civilians this would be one of the bigger stories of the last 5 years, but becuase its in Afghanistan its not that big of a deal... I like how the military is calling it a relatively rare state of mental derangement........aye aye aye... This story really pisses me off.... Crap like this shouldnt happen, we are there to help these civilians, not kill them.....Or atleast thats what they want us believing...



www.huffingtonpost.com...

does this make us the terrorist now? paybacks a b*tch aint it