im turning on my own ignore function
Tu Stultus Es
Bravery is entirely subjective and based on circumstances. It does take a certain amount of courage to perform any combat role in a war zone, yes, but bravery requires a direct threat.RTHKI wrote:
so signing up for the military isnt brave? especially if its a combat role?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think things like the internet are making such assertions obsolete. No army currently has the capacity to assert its definition of right on the entire globe and the definition of right will be fought on the airwaves and broadband connections, not on the battlefield. When one globalhypermegapower subdues us all you can get back to me. They very fact I am expressing a counter opinion to what you deem to be right shows your definition is too narrow to be applied in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Fact is right. Your perceptions of right and wrong can in no way be logically defined as more correct than any other definitions of right and wrong. What goes in the history books as right and wrong is the only definition that has any meaning beyond the academic.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 12:01:08)
Good call. I'm done in here too. Gonna go get me a $5 footlongeleven bravo wrote:
im turning on my own ignore function
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
but we don't know if any lives were saved, because we don't know who they were, except the unarmed reporters.JohnG@lt wrote:
Lighting them up with an Apache from long distance saves lives. Some civilians happened to die on this occasion. So be it.
Saying 'so be it' is such a blase response it's pretty sad that you have no compassion for people, including children ffs, who just 'happened' to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got blown to shit by some rootin tootin apache gunner who then proceeded to laugh at their dead bodies.
I mean, the thousands who died in WTC were civilians too...so be it? I don't think so.
depends why you do it tbh.RTHKI wrote:
so signing up for the military isnt brave? especially if its a combat role?
You called?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Protip: If you ever find your neighborhood in a combat zone, don't run out in the street with a group of men carrying AK's and RPG's -especially in braod daylight. Also don't point said weapons at distant helicopters.ruisleipa wrote:
you talked about exterminating these people, which is just what the video shows. executing would be a better word perhaps.DBBrinson1 wrote:
So how do you know that they all were civilians? Cause the video said so?
I don't know if they were all civilians, no-one does - you, anyone here, even the pilots don't know - ubt we DO know SOME of them were civilians and two were journalists. So what's the point about being compassionate and not killing everyone... I don't get it.
What that Apache crew did was SURGICAL. Calling in an f-15 to drop a jdam or MOAB would be killing everyone.
I disagree. Take the OP in this thread for example. Ottamania is showing his supposed outrage and disgust at whats going on, clearly he thinks its wrong, but he doesnt even recognize the sinister role his government played in the armenian genocide. he thinks it was a civil war with losses on both sides and no kind of ethnic cleansing. obviously he thinks what the turks did was right.CameronPoe wrote:
I think things like the internet are making such assertions obsolete. No army currently has the capacity to assert its definition of right on the entire globe and the definition of right will be fought on the airwaves and broadband connections, not on the battlefield. When one globalhypermegapower subdues us all you can get back to me. They very fact I am expressing a counter opinion to what is right shows your definition is too narrow to be applied in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Fact is right. Your perceptions of right and wrong can in no way be logically defined as more correct than any other definitions of right and wrong. What goes in the history books as right and wrong is the only definition that has any meaning beyond the academic.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-04-06 12:02:51)
Tu Stultus Es
which is what you're also doing by expressing disgust at the armenian genocide and not accepting that there's anything fucked up about this situation, no?eleven bravo wrote:
I disagree. Take the OP in this thread for example. Ottamania is showing his supposed outrage and disgust at whats going on, clearly he thinks its wrong, but he doesnt even recognize the sinister role his government played in the armenian genocide. he thinks it was a civil war with losses on both sides and no kind of ethnic cleansing. obviously he thinks what the turks did was right.
And then they walk around the corner and see a APC or wait an hour and an Apache flies overhead...CameronPoe wrote:
But Galt said that the Apache would have been well outside of range.eleven bravo wrote:
the gunner on that chopper facing the very possible fact of being shot down is just as brave as the insurgent lying 500 meters away from a patrol of troops waiting to detonate an ied
Aren't you a target, by either side, if you are carrying in a warzone?
I had one the other day or Id get one too.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good call. I'm done in here too. Gonna go get me a $5 footlongeleven bravo wrote:
im turning on my own ignore function
Tu Stultus Es
And there's a perfect example of might not being right. Ottoman might crushed the Armenians and any reasonable person would know that it was heinously wrong. He was never presented with knowledge about what his nation did because it is a skeleton in their closet to be swept under the carpet. He can be educated and informed now because he lives in a world that communicates with each other from pole to pole across wires and airwaves. The truth has not died and what is right has not died. Cries for justice are still heard today. I'm sure many Turks know of their crimes and lament them. The majority probably don't because the facts have probably been suppressed, something not so easy to do anymore.eleven bravo wrote:
I disagree. Take the OP in this thread for example. Ottamania is showing his supposed outrage and disgust at whats going on, clearly he things it wrong, but he doesnt even recognize the sinister role his government played in the armenian genocide. he thinks it was a civil war with losses on both sides and no kind of ethnic cleansing. obviously he thinks what the turks did was right.
I never questioned the validity of 'targethood' if carrying.Pug wrote:
And then they walk around the corner and see a APC or wait an hour and an Apache flies overhead...CameronPoe wrote:
But Galt said that the Apache would have been well outside of range.eleven bravo wrote:
the gunner on that chopper facing the very possible fact of being shot down is just as brave as the insurgent lying 500 meters away from a patrol of troops waiting to detonate an ied
Aren't you a target, by either side, if you are carrying in a warzone?
tell that to ottamania, he finds outrage at this while excuse the actions of his ancestors as a side effect of war.
Tu Stultus Es
...and you continue to do EXACTLY the reverse. Amazing.eleven bravo wrote:
tell that to ottamania, he finds outrage at this while excuse the actions of his ancestors as a side effect of war.
That's just Ottomania playing the oft-played anti-US card because that's his particular soapbox. If we wrote up a proper well researched and documented OP on the Armenian genocide I'd like to see how long he'd last in the thread before conceding.eleven bravo wrote:
tell that to ottamania, he finds outrage at this while excuse the actions of his ancestors as a side effect of war.
I believe its the majority of the sentiment we're finding here in this thread. look at ryebread, he has yet to address anything ive said other than with insults or just saying BULLSHIT. He's making assumptions and trying desperately for my attention but I believe I presented a very good argument concerning the use of force when the threat to non combatants exist yet its been mostly ignored.CameronPoe wrote:
That's just Ottomania playing the oft-played anti-US card because that's his particular soapbox. If we wrote up a proper well researched and documented OP on the Armenian genocide I'd like to see how long he'd last in the thread before conceding.eleven bravo wrote:
tell that to ottamania, he finds outrage at this while excuse the actions of his ancestors as a side effect of war.
Tu Stultus Es
To you "counterexample" I already saidCameronPoe wrote:
I think things like the internet are making such assertions obsolete. No army currently has the capacity to assert its definition of right on the entire globe and the definition of right will be fought on the airwaves and broadband connections, not on the battlefield. When one globalhypermegapower subdues us all you can get back to me. They very fact I am expressing a counter opinion to what you deem to be right shows your definition is too narrow to be applied in the real world.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Fact is right. Your perceptions of right and wrong can in no way be logically defined as more correct than any other definitions of right and wrong. What goes in the history books as right and wrong is the only definition that has any meaning beyond the academic.
Besides that, for a definition of "right" to be meaningful it has to do more than just exist. This entire thread is trying to decide the justice of the issue, but that doesn't mean whatever conclusion we come to (we frequently come to those ) has any sort of sway on the situation. The action already happened, any consequences of the action have nothing to do with us, and the same situation is probably happening again. I would like to think that the U.S. military wants to limit collateral damage because they think it's the right thing to do as well, but regardless of reason they choose to do so the public has little discourse for changing their decisions on the matter. They don't rule with an iron fist but they do the next best thing, essentially act with impunity. The fact that their ideals align closely (I mean seriously, all things considered they are still within 90% of reasonable liberal people) is more a matter of coincidence than necessity.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You only have the opinion you are presenting because the powerful have indirectly granted it to you - as much as you may despise their methods, the democratic West has largely protected free speech despite clearly having the military hardware to suppress it. We are lucky that the present day "might", though it has many obvious failings, is largely moral.
limiting colateral damage is not only recognized as the right thing to do but also is the most beneficial towards the success of a military operation considering the urbanization of the world's population.
Tu Stultus Es
I don't understand how a genocide that resulted in the loss of one million people is comparable to shooting a group with members that were armed.
Wrong, Baghdad is lolz that place gets worse everyday at least Basra has come leaps and bounds on the way to recovery.JohnG@lt wrote:
Basra is lolz.LostFate wrote:
I have and i don't agree with you, there's always time to section off combatants from non combatants, we were not there to kill civilians we went there to help them apparently.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have valid views because I actually spent a year in the country, have you?
I have no doubt the US military wants to limit collateral damage. They are a professional 'non stupid' organisation, who no doubt have the best of intentions. My opinions on 'might v right' were expressed mainly in the context of the political decisions that brought this situation to bear, not on the actions of the individuals involved in the clip. As with most things, whether it is right or wrong is a matter of opinion and your own individual values and principles. My denunciation of 'might makes right' stems from the fact that what is right, or more accurately what is contrary to the victors 'version of right', no longer dies. There is no single history book anymore and people can draw their own conclusions by accessing the globally shared bank of knowledge. The Tiananmen Square massacre may not feature in any Chinese history books but the fact the movement was suppressed by might and the information suppressed by power hasn't stopped modern Chinese people from finding out what their forebears did and perhaps being reviled by it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Besides that, for a definition of "right" to be meaningful it has to do more than just exist. This entire thread is trying to decide the justice of the issue, but that doesn't mean whatever conclusion we come to (we frequently come to those ) has any sort of sway on the situation. The action already happened, any consequences of the action have nothing to do with us, and the same situation is probably happening again. I would like to think that the U.S. military wants to limit collateral damage because they think it's the right thing to do as well, but regardless of reason they choose to do so the public has little discourse for changing their decisions on the matter. They don't rule with an iron fist but they do the next best thing, essentially act with impunity. The fact that their ideals align closely (I mean seriously, all things considered they are still within 90% of reasonable liberal people) is more a matter of coincidence than necessity.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 12:29:50)
I forgot if I asked this or not. But now after seeing the video for the 3rd time (only 2 times to the end) I don't understand why they engaged the mini-van.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Sorry, I thought you meant they shouldn't have shot the RPG guy because the RPG couldn't hit them from that range.CameronPoe wrote:
I never questioned the validity of 'targethood' if carrying.Pug wrote:
And then they walk around the corner and see a APC or wait an hour and an Apache flies overhead...CameronPoe wrote:
But Galt said that the Apache would have been well outside of range.
Aren't you a target, by either side, if you are carrying in a warzone?
What did you mean?
The only reason is the audio, when the pilots say that they are gathering weapons.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I forgot if I asked this or not. But now after seeing the video for the 3rd time (only 2 times to the end) I don't understand why they engaged the mini-van.
But the camera shot doesn't show any of that.