Is the weapone, or the soldier dangerous?

My quastion is, is the soldier or the weapone you have 2 watch out for.
What makes a man kill another, or what kind of bullet does it.
A pilot in a fighter plane do not know whats happening under them.

Take a look at a ground fighter in afghanistan www.compfused.com...
And for those who think he is waked, take a look at this american pilot.

And this is from the air, notice how he takes the lifes with a laugh.
www.misplaced.net...

Plz i do not want any propeganda # in here.
I have seen alot of things in my life, and do not type anything that you dont know of.

Type your opinion in here, and stick to the topic, alright.
God bless ya all, not just america !

notice one thing, go 2 google and type God bless.
and explain your find !



[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]

take a look how it could be after a Bomb drop.
WARNING !
www.m90.org...

The weapon is as dangerous as the man how uses it........

An Excellent Question Mate.

This is the very question that people have asked since the beginning of time when Cain first slew Abel, to gain his father’s love and affection.

From this murderous act of jealousy, we have inherited the gene and/or the ability to commit murder or acts of wanton violence, upon each other.

All we have discovered thus far, are bigger and better ways and methods of doing it. From small flint stones and wooden clubs to nuclear weapons, we have used them all.

Nothing in man’s psychology has changed in the last millennia. We have learnt nothing from past wars and conflicts. The strong will always dominate the weak. It is the way of the world and nothing is being done to change it.

Somebody once scrawled on a wall of one of London’s underground stations, ‘The pen is mightier than the sword!’

Below which another graffiti artist replied, ‘Until you try to cut somebody’s head off with it!’

That sums it all up for me. People kill people, not weapons. Weapons are just the tools of the trade.

Originally posted by fritz
An Excellent Question Mate.

This is the very question that people have asked since the beginning of time when Cain first slew Abel, to gain his father’s love and affection.

From this murderous act of jealousy, we have inherited the gene and/or the ability to commit murder or acts of wanton violence, upon each other.

All we have discovered thus far, are bigger and better ways and methods of doing it. From small flint stones and wooden clubs to nuclear weapons, we have used them all.

Nothing in man’s psychology has changed in the last millennia. We have learnt nothing from past wars and conflicts. The strong will always dominate the weak. It is the way of the world and nothing is being done to change it.

Somebody once scrawled on a wall of one of London’s underground stations, ‘The pen is mightier than the sword!’

Below which another graffiti artist replied, ‘Until you try to cut somebody’s head off with it!’

That sums it all up for me. People kill people, not weapons. Weapons are just the tools of the trade.

Nice words, you explain much more than i did.
Thx, keep those words up !
I do not see weap as weapones, we do use Nuclear for energi and Rifels for Hunting.
As you said, we are using them as weapones against our self.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]

I remember seeing this video, I know there was an F-14 at the end half but what was the first plane? Was it the same one or was the whole thing 'Friendly Fire'?
www.m90.org...

Anyway i think the Soldier is more dangerous than the weapon becouse the Weapon does not have a mind of its own, The most dangerous weapon ever is a human being, Even more dangerous than a Nuclear Bomb

Becouse:

Humans invented them and if there were no humans, There would be no technology n stuff like that

Its from a BBC crew with kurdish forces and some American also.
They got hit by Frindley fire.
They killed there translater.
You should find this one in BBC archive.

I do like the background sound.
Really nasty hit, and impact =(

Reckon,

>>
My question is, is it the soldier or the weapon you have to watch for.
What makes a man kill another, or what kind of bullet does it.
Pilots in a fighter plane do not know what's happening under them.
>>


Functionally, warfare is an instinctive behavior inspired by but ultimately unrelated to predation. For a lion will kill a cheetah, a leopard or their cubs. Even though they are not in anyway a prey species or even direct competitor to their principal bioniche. Just as lions will ambush and slaughter hyenas and seek out and attack their dens. Because they ARE such a danger.

Lions will even battle other prides when the hunting territories become too densely overlapped or encroached upon, especially in bad years. Lions will also seek to dominate for rights of mating relative to older and younger generational changeout between rogues.

And there are HUNDREDS of similar examples, throughout the wild kingdom. Such that you cannot make moral judgments based on what emotions humans display when engaged in the act of killing (whether through true joy, guilty-pleasure as a release from societal norms or as FOF stress relief) but must acknowledge that, within fixed limits, war is a functional tool of great evolutionary value in isolating cultural, strategic and natural resources to a stronger social body.

>>
Take a look at a ground fighter in afghanistan www.compfused.com...
And for those who think he is waked, take a look at this american pilot.
>>

The real question is whether each is serving a function. Or whether, /by allowing a warrior to fight without hope/, it is more evil to endorse 'indirect warfare' as a spoiling tactic via client sponsorship.

If this MANPADS shooter was a Native American fighting the Westward Expansion and he attacked a flying conostoga wagon which was simply /passing over/ his tribe's home range. Would you feel more pity for what he is about to lose? Or more anger for what an 'innocent civillian' was about to be hosed for? Or rage for the trader who enabled the encounter? Keeping in mind that this Indian does not know any of the tribes in Oregon or California where the settler is finally heading. And would himself compete with -them- if they entered into his territory.

OTOH, the simple ability to synthesize and condense a personal environmental awareness into a condensed descriptive commentary as "I got a bunch of individuals moving down the street". Probably vastly exceeds the pilot's physical skill in adjusting targeting-pod cross hairs onto a given cluster of video-MTIs (which any computer could be taught to recognize as raster-discrete translating points of interest).

In these examples it is obvious that man sees a separation from ascendency in the act and 'meaning' deriving from it's successful prosecution. Whether he be a Roman Legionaire fighting on a cluttered battlefield whose final outcome or decisive point he literally cannot see an end of. Or an isolated group which sees NOTHING BUT the obvious illustration of mortal futility (with no response possible), as a single F-15E drops a GBU-12 on them, from 10,000ft.

If there is any simple answer to these matters (for me) it is this-

1. If, today, you made war a crime in name as it was effectively 'morally' stated to be at Nuremburg. Subjecting any leader, industrialist, engineer or soldier who created, exported or enacted weaponized conflict beyond their own borders to an instant death penalty eligibility under international law. War and all it's preparative waste would be a historical anecdote by Monday morning and all actions would be 'policing' related against small arms at most.
2. As long as we continue to breed without care or concern for the planet's ability to sustain life independent of our existence, war will be the inevitable resource-access competitive outcome and also the simplest LCD board leveler. Unfortunately, this means elective genocide for the races and classes which breed the most, in the poorest and richest cultures. Victimizing them for their procreativity.
3. Man sees himself in any opponent. As an identity polar for the 'current' of rage, jealousy, fear or frustrative spite to flow to. To kill the opponent is to remove the focus but not the cause of his feeling. If you destroy the identification displacement process by making a machine intelligent enough to kill 'without a face'. Then there is no psychology of coup inherent to the emotional release. If you remove the emotional justification, you eliminate the driving force behind which a symbolic threat justification is made. Each F-16 costs 550 college graduates a chance at a real life. Who knows what that kind of money could buy in the 3rd World.
4. War must pay for itself. If you haven't the honestly to take-forever what you need from someone, you haven't the morality to place yourself above him as a 'better person', morally obligated to kill.

The man or the weapon?

Well, consider that a man can use a rock, a stick, a shovel, or a gun...I'd say it's the man. Besides, man invented weapons in the first place.

As for the pilots (as well as other remote style fighters) it more akin to a video game, fire and forget. The soldiers that get the most severe mind problems would be the ones (snipers and such) that actually see their targets before and after the kill.

Anyway, it's the man you must watch out for. Why does a man kill another? Greed? Fear? Anger? Jealousy? Many, many reasons.

Originally posted by Reckon
What makes a man kill another, or what kind of bullet does it.
[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]

A fascinating book that discusses under what psychological conditions a man is willing and able to take a life. Aptly named On Killing by LtCol Dave Grossman


Amaz on Link

I highly recommend it, we even used it in an upper level Philosophy course, so it is reputable.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Baphomet79]

Baphomet79
I will grab it one day it does sound intresting read, thx for the infromation =)


ch1466

Your text was really deep, in a good way. nice work!
Well i do have 2 strike your opinions.
You did compare some of the situation, the thing is that you did not compared the important fact that we live in modern world.
Think about what i want you 2 think about.
Our technology, it does getting beter and more intelligent.
How could that change it, we do see modern warefare in those footage.
If a Roman sword man BC had a M16, what would he do with it ?
Think in those terms... !

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]

Removed =)

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Reckon]