143 replies to this topic

[Dan'O]

Quote

Ironically it was the US who supplied him with a lot of weapons and it was also the US who put Saddam in power of Iraq. He didn't play their game when they wanted him out, hence the war.

What weapons?

Quote

There was the exact same evidence the hijackers had met with CIA... So what does that telly ou?

What evidence?

Quote

I was merely pointing out that Bush admitted it was false.

Link?

Quote

it was also the US who put Saddam in power of Iraq

You like making up your own facts? You Better get on wikipedia quick and fix his rise to power.

Just show me some links...

[Frank Merton]

joc, on 04 February 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Why do you value the life of a murderer over your own?  If a man lives, it is certain that he will die.  Or, do you  have some kind of a Jesus complex?

My personal interest comes below my duty.  This is all hypothetical since I'm way too old to be called, so maybe my feelings are affected by the fact that I know I won't have to face such a decision.

If I were personally attacked, I would ward off blows and flee if possible, and even injure the person if necessary, but I would never use lethal force.

[Wyrdlight]

Cradle of Fish, on 03 February 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

I remember seeing him on Sons of Guns, seemed like a pretty cool guy. Still he was no Vasily Zaitsev.

And Vasily was no White Death ^^

[tyrant lizard]

Coffey, on 03 February 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Maybe if we did that before they wouldn't be suicide bombers.

I'd blow up people if they messed with my family.

That sounds awefully close to condoning suicide bombings to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Dr. Mrdad, on 03 February 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

The enemy....Who's enemy?... You don't even know who he's killed and for what reason..... Over 200 families and lives affected... yet... you hail this man as a hero?.....

His own enemy and the enemy of his country. He is a soldier, he's paid to kill people, so he does it.

Babe Ruth, on 04 February 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

"I was just following orders" was the central theme offered by those Third Reich fellows we prosecuted at Nuremberg.  It seems invoking that theme in this case is getting perilously close to a slippery slope.

If it were up to me, the dead sniper would still be alive, but it's not up to me.

The facts are that we invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception.  By definition, and I sure wish it weren't so, we committed military aggression against those countries because we lied about everything.

So you think snipers should refuse orders to shoot people? If everyone in the army did that it woudln't be long before America got invaded and conquered. I don't know, but I'm guessing the guy wasn't just blowing away random people but taking legitimate targets out of the war.

Frank Merton, on 04 February 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

I had avoided this thread as probably too upsetting for me, and I was right, but I just got through forcing myself to scan it.

The idea that the murderer was under some influence so as to eliminate a danger to society who was nevertheless a hero (who would therefore be inconvenient to kill any other way) certainly comes to mind, and I usually dismiss such government conspiracy theories out-of-hand.

That the man was so good at killing people and did it so often tells me he enjoyed doing it.  We are good at what we enjoy.  This was more than just war necessity here.  That would also explain why later he became a government inconvenience.

As several people said, "What goes around comes around," and this does seem to be evidence supporting that idea.  Still, we do not wish anyone dead, no matter what.  We may expect something of the sort, but we do not celebrate its coming to pass.  Justice may demand it, but that does not mean we want it -- doing so brings on the same negative cycle to us as we are observing.

You have no idea if he enjoyed it whatsoever and that is a ridiculous thing to say. He's been trained to shoot people, so he shoots them. Do you thin a guy who slaughters farm animals gets a kick out of it? Probably not, but I bet he's killed a **** load of pigs

Frank Merton, on 04 February 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

This sort of person volunteers.  They are good at it or others would replace them.  We are good at what we like doing.  The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts.  We cannot draw any conclusions from them.  The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being.  I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

Edited by tyrant lizard, 04 February 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Frank Merton]

tyrant lizard, on 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

We apparently are very different.

[Coffey]

tyrant lizard, on 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

That sounds awefully close to condoning suicide bombings to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Of course i don't condone it, but I'm not blinded by hatred or propaganda enough to be able to see that not everything is as clear cut as it might appear.

As I said I would take revenge on my loved ones.

tyrant lizard, on 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

Hence why Al Qaeda fights us....

tyrant lizard, on 04 February 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

So you think snipers should refuse orders to shoot people? If everyone in the army did that it woudln't be long before America got invaded and conquered. I don't know, but I'm guessing the guy wasn't just blowing away random people but taking legitimate targets out of the war.

Not true at all. LOL

The people of America would defend their home land. There is huge difference between going to another country to kill people and defending your country, home, family, friends and yourself.

Frank Merton, on 04 February 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

This sort of person volunteers.  They are good at it or others would replace them.  We are good at what we like doing.  The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts.  We cannot draw any conclusions from them.  The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being.  I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

You raise some very good points.

Edited by Coffey, 04 February 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[tyrant lizard]

Coffey, on 04 February 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Hence why Al Qaeda fights us....

You think Al Qaeda fights us because we have the audacity to fight for our own lives?

[Coffey]

tyrant lizard, on 04 February 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

You think Al Qaeda fights us because we have the audacity to fight for our own lives?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Last I checked, it is them defending themselves... We are attacking them. How is that fighting for our lives?! LOL They are fighting for theirs.

[tyrant lizard]

He said he'd rather die than fight
I said that was stupid
You said thats why AQ fight us


But they aren't all fighting for their lives... Not the ones blowing themselves up

[joc]

Frank Merton, on 04 February 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

My personal interest comes below my duty.  This is all hypothetical since I'm way too old to be called, so maybe my feelings are affected by the fact that I know I won't have to face such a decision.

If I were personally attacked, I would ward off blows and flee if possible, and even injure the person if necessary, but I would never use lethal force.

And what of your loved one?  If the attacker was about to rape your wife say and the only way to stop this crazed individual was to shoot him dead.  Would you?  Or would you let him rape and murder your loved one?  I ask you again...do you have a Jesus complex?  Do you think it is morally necessary for you to die rather than kill?  Either way you are killing you know?  If you kill the attacker you have killed the attacker and if you don't kill the attacker then by default you have killed yourself.  You are both human.  You will not kill him...but he will kill you...either way you have taken a life...even if it is your own.

Edited by joc, 04 February 2013 - 08:27 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

CrimsonKing, on 04 February 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Ok said i was done here but obviously some here do not get what has been said.This man was sent to do a job the gov ordered him to do!It was not this man acting on his own,his job was to watch the back of other lives and make sure they came back alive!He did so very well,to say he got what he deserved you counter act your own statements about death.Did this man declare war on other nations?Did you vote this man into office to start said wars?I didnt think so,he was a soldier.People now days have stopped realizing your gov works for you,they are your employees not the other way around.You dont like what they do join together and demand they stop sending people over there on your account because tearing a single soldier apart for what your appointed employees do is stupid.Yes babe ruth we did invade many soldiers have disagreed with the invasion,again do not tear the soldier apart for this blame your gov the soldiers have not lied about anything,the soldiers commited no fraud.1 question if you were a soldier and read this kind of stuff being said about you and your fellow group would you ever if need be defend there lives with your own?This man did not die on a battle field,he was murdered in cold blood trying to help out another former soldier defending this is a disgrace.

There are a few soldiers, one example being Ehren Watada, who stood by conscience and refused to participate in the military aggression and killing.  Others go AWOL as a way of saying the same thing.

This guy did not, and neither did my nephew.  I'm really sorry the guy got it the way he did, but there is nothing anybody posting here could do about it.

The troops over there occupying Iraq & Afghanistan are not protecting me from a damn thing, just as I protected nobody from anything when I went to Vietnam.  With certain exceptions, none of them are heroes.  They are cogs in a very large machine attempting to gain empire, just as I was.

No tears for the sniper.  Invoking the Nuremberg defense shows how desperate one must be to defend illegal military aggression.

[CrimsonKing]

Babe Ruth, on 04 February 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

There are a few soldiers, one example being Ehren Watada, who stood by conscience and refused to participate in the military aggression and killing.  Others go AWOL as a way of saying the same thing.

This guy did not, and neither did my nephew.  I'm really sorry the guy got it the way he did, but there is nothing anybody posting here could do about it.

The troops over there occupying Iraq & Afghanistan are not protecting me from a damn thing, just as I protected nobody from anything when I went to Vietnam.  With certain exceptions, none of them are heroes.  They are cogs in a very large machine attempting to gain empire, just as I was.

No tears for the sniper.  Invoking the Nuremberg defense shows how desperate one must be to defend illegal military aggression.

Well if you truely served thanks for your service,lots of young men were drafted into vietnam had no choice but to go.I have several uncles who went.1 was a green beret the war ruined him,came back drank himself almost to death then finished the job off.I am not defending these pointless wars,but if you are suggesting that all the induvidual soldiers go off for there own empire making [of course i know how many millions they get paid wink wink] and our political leaders are not the real culprits who should be held accountable  then that is one of the most pompous answers available.I am not defending the pointless wars just the individual soldiers.

You have your opinion i have mine.Got to go later

[Kafkaesque]

Rlyeh, on 03 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Do yourself a favor and give a suicide bomber a hug.

This is just idiotic, the government had no reason to kill him.

Watch this video and tell me otherwise.

This man, of course, was a Navy SEAL, which means he was equally intelligent to how strong he was and how skilled he was with any weapon. You have to be wicked smart and have a ridiculous aptitude to be a SEAL. You cannot mess up - ever - or you and your teammates are dead. You have Jesse Jackson saying we should put the DHS in Chicago and calling people who back the Second Amendment 'Domestic Terrorists', but when it comes down to the most skilled sniper in the US - an incredibly smart man, blasting holes in the logic of the current administration and their agenda regarding guns - it's impossible for him to have been taken out? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in the hell does that not make sense?

On top of that, returning Veterans, liberty-lovers, and conservatives are being grouped into "The Extreme Right."

On top of that, the CNN coverage keeps referring to how Kyle was killed by a semi-automatic handgun. It looks like the media is going to spin this and use Kyle, a fierce advocate for gun rights and the Second Amendment, as a martyr to go after handguns, next.

Something smells stinky here.

Either way, RIP Chris Kyle. He did his duty, and he served his country proud. It's a shame how they're using his death.

Edited by Eonwe, 04 February 2013 - 10:31 PM.

[chopmo]

Sad story, but funny watching people squirm as they contridict themselves at just about every turn, Middle Easterners (and everyone else that hates the west) are raised with hatred for the west and other religions bar their own so in their minds they are as equally on the good side as the "defenders". I agree there is probally about 30 different theories, plans and tactics in use by each country to blow smoke over it so people are too busy arguing about whats right and whats wrong. War Crimes seem to be a punishment not suited for us westerners as it's always in defence of the nation yet nothing has happened in a western country majorly since 911 and the uk train bombings 10 years to establish a decent government, aren't prime ministers and presidents and world leaders given mostly 4 years to do their job how is it it's taken near 2 and a half terms to acomplish something, it's not sneaky anymore, it's not interesting and it's not something that makes most people proud of having happen in the world it's old, stale and should have been over and done with ages ago then again if it happened all in a year they wouldve seen bush as the next hitler and ww3 would have been in full force funny how time does that :S. It is something that us "commoners" should either actually pull our finger out and do something about (except b****, winge and throw fits) and beat them at their own games if you aren't happy with the government.

Killing in the name of your country is always been the name of the game since the dawn of time, expand & conquer, repeat. Just because we are told to not like these actions and show hatred to these people we are doing exactly the same thing we are participating in the hatred of another theory because we are told to. Then to double kink everything we are told tollerance and accepting mental rape of what we as our individual countries are raised to be then having people performing verbal treason... and people wonder why the future generations never had "respect and blah blah blah".

At the end of the day no matter what violence occurs there will always be a party to support the cause so technically each are doing what they think is right. Hence putting us as no better or no worse than the people we are told to dispise.

As for Al Qeada, how is it that "rebels" were fighting against Gadafi and they had no weapons to do so, so the US/UN(whatever!) delivers the "rebels" brand new guns to assist in winning the fight on terror, then out of no where the Taliban/Al Qeada have the exact weapons that were delivered. Having too many different sources damages the lie they are trying to protect.

This is one of those stories that can spark up the neverending pick-your-poison conspiracy theories.



Sorry if I lost track a bit, 3 out of 4 wisdom teeth are deciding to play games.

Edited by chopmo, 05 February 2013 - 03:10 AM.

[Detective Mystery 2013]

It underscores the need to treat psychological disorders brought on by eternal wars. Depression and suicide claim more veterans than enemy combatants. Maybe we should address the root causes of these tragic events by bringing our troops home and only sending them into battle when it is absolutely necessary to do so. People, who serve in our armed forces, deserve bright futures, not daily struggles with PTSD, and our "leaders" need to keep that in mind before they start the next military conflict.