BF2S Forums Unbelievable Massacre

11 Bravo wrote:

if you dont see the pattern of certain members by now in relation to their posts regarding ANYTHING about the US, then well I dont know what to tell you.

ruisleipa wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

if you dont see the pattern of certain members by now in relation to their posts regarding ANYTHING about the US, then well I dont know what to tell you.

There's no-one here as far as I know who can't think of ANYTHING positive to say about the US. You, on the other hand, are incapable of admitting there IS anything wrong with the US or anything they do, unless it's criticising your duly elected president...weird huh?

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-04-07 05:50:12)

11 Bravo wrote:

if you dont see the pattern of certain members by now in relation to their posts regarding ANYTHING about the US, then well I dont know what to tell you.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

the pilots adhering to the ROE's in the example of the OP. Against assertions by you and your ilk of simply gun running over innocent civilians.

I never said anything in any of my posts about the RoE. I don't know what they are. But I DO know that, in the normal world, it's considered wrong to blow up children and civilians, which is what happened here. Now, you might consider it OK because there were some guys with guns there as well, and certainly the official report makes interesting reading, although it's hardly unbiased is it, but I consider the actions of the pilots morally wrong, not only but partly because of their bloodthirsty attitude and gloating over the dead bodies, as well as their shooting of a van obviously coming to provide medical care to those wounded in their initial attack, and the uncertified nature of those accused of being enemy combatants.

Varegg wrote:

Please elaborate because I still have difficulties understanding your motive writing just that ... "oh christ there is a pattern" isn't exactly explaining anything is there?

He's trolling without saying anything constructive..as usual.

lowing wrote:

It is now to the point where ruisleipa shows up seeking to dissect each post into single words then seek to argue the definition of each of those words. Just watch

such a sad and bitter man...

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Investigated by a Major in the Infantry, can't see a problem with that?

thats not up to you.  tough shit.

Thats not the point, its the military investigating themselves, they didn't find anything at Haditha either - the first time at least, or My Lai.

ruisleipa wrote:

I also read the official report, and like I said it was interesting, but you have to take it as an obviously biased report which just presents the situation in a different light and offers no absolute conclusions for anyone with a vaguely independent mind.

lowing wrote:

might want to go back and read what KM posted.. Noting such things as, the OP only hightlighting the journalists, not the insurgents carrying weapons. The lack of knowledge about the children being there, and the quation raised as to why anyone would bring children into a danger zone such as that of the OP.

anyway, go back and read what KM posted. very enlightening. because yes, you must have missed those points or are ignoring them.

The Sheriff wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

I also read the official report, and like I said it was interesting, but you have to take it as an obviously biased report which just presents the situation in a different light and offers no absolute conclusions for anyone with a vaguely independent mind.

Kinda like that unbiased and balanced video from wikileaks.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-07 06:16:20)

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

might want to go back and read what KM posted.. Noting such things as, the OP only hightlighting the journalists, not the insurgents carrying weapons. The lack of knowledge about the children being there, and the quation raised as to why anyone would bring children into a danger zone such as that of the OP.

anyway, go back and read what KM posted. very enlightening. because yes, you must have missed those points or are ignoring them.

I watched the OP and I read KMs post. I said my opinion about both. I'm not ignoring anything.

Again, you're the one who has some kind of moral block, not me.

The Sheriff wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

I also read the official report, and like I said it was interesting, but you have to take it as an obviously biased report which just presents the situation in a different light and offers no absolute conclusions for anyone with a vaguely independent mind.

Kinda like that unbiased and balanced video from wikileaks.

Thats why it was good to read the official report and watch the video and make up my own mind about it. Would you REALLY trust an official government report?

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lol well nice to see your own conclusions do not fall on the side of fact a reason. If it did, you would not be able to dismiss the points made in KM post, of which you have never lended a word other than "interesting"

already explained what bearing I feel the RoE have on the morality of this situation. The report is interesting, and not much more. I suppose you find it definitive?