3 Royal Marines killed, another soldier shoots self

[mechanicallizard]

Three Royal Marines have been killed in Afghanistan reportedly by a 13-year-old boy pushing a massive bomb in a wheelbarrow.

In a fifth death, Corporal Lee Churcher, a soldier from 20th Armoured Brigade based at Basra airbase in Iraq, shot himself.

im not sure what to say. i just saw this on the news.

Reports suggest the triple killing involved a boy pushing a wheelbarrow in which a bomb was hidden under papers.

news link
the Royal Marines is the unit i'm joining next year. as of yet i have no affiliation
to the unit, but i am amazed at how angry i am, the feeling of hatred i have for
these terrorists. i fully support the war, and was wondering, (another war thread yes i know)

with the new presidency and the current times, how many of you actually support the war? or would you prefer a withdrawal? we're talking afghanistan here, not iraq.

 

[Polaris]

Horrible news indeed. I always supported war against terror in Afghanistan.
Pentagon should withdraw most of the US forces from Iraq and send more soldiers to Afghanistan. NATO, UN and EU and should send more peacekeepers too.

 

[99.vikram]

Pentagon should withdraw most of the US forces from Iraq and send more soldiers to Afghanistan. NATO, UN and EU and should send more peacekeepers too.

Haha, no.

UN Peacekeepers have enough on their hands in African countries without getting sucked into the never ending War on Terror(TM).
Can anyone locate Terror on a world map?

 

[Pesmerga]

ho ho, witty

 

[Eejit]

The war on terror is so counter-productive it makes me lose faith in humanity when I think about it.

Who came up with the idea that invading and occupying a country would lower the number of terrorists that place produced?

 

[Gray Fox]

Weren't you already in the marines?

 

[mechanicallizard]

nope. joining early next year. hopefully start training around easter sometime.

 

[Krynn72]

Man i'm so pissed off right now that im going to join the marines so that it can happen to me too!

 

[CrazyHarij]

what do you think motivated that boy? his hatred for freedom?

 

[jet_porkins]

The war on terror is so counter-productive it makes me lose faith in humanity when I think about it.

Who came up with the idea that invading and occupying a country would lower the number of terrorists that place produced?

So I suppose staying in your nation doing nothing militarily other than airstrikes to fight terrorists, who would delightfully bomb themselves in order to kill as many people as possible, that hide in caves and tunnels is the ideal way to reduce the number of terrorists.

Good luck with that idea.

 

[the cow says moo]

they probably promised the boy 50 virgins in heaven when he died

 

[Emporius]

So I suppose staying in your nation doing nothing militarily other than airstrikes to fight terrorists, who would delightfully bomb themselves in order to kill as many people as possible, that hide in caves and tunnels is the ideal way to reduce the number of terrorists.

Good luck with that idea.

Therein lies the rub. You people tend to ignore the fact that there are options besides military force.

 

[nurizeko]

More lives wasted on a futile war.

 

[Krynn72]

Therein lies the rub. You people tend to ignore the fact that there are options besides military force.

Like tickle force. TICKLE TICKLE YOU TERRORIST BITCH! GOOCHIE MOTHERF*CKING GOO!

 

[Pesmerga]

The war on terror is so counter-productive it makes me lose faith in humanity when I think about it.

Who came up with the idea that invading and occupying a country would lower the number of terrorists that place produced?

The idea of destroying terrorism is nice; the methodology which the US chooses to attack terrorism is pathetic and stupid. But anti-terrorism wasn't really the point in invading Iraq.

As I see it, Iraq was supposed to be an American stronghold in the middle east in an attempt to exert influence over neighboring oil producers.

Of course, this failed miserably. Economic coercion seems, to me, to be the more effective ideology behind warfare. But that's just Jeffersonian democracy talking.

 

[unozero]

Haha, no.

UN Peacekeepers have enough on their hands in African countries without getting sucked into the never ending War on Terror(TM).
Can anyone locate Terror on a world map?

Islam

 

[Eejit]

The idea of destroying terrorism is nice; the methodology which the US chooses to attack terrorism is pathetic and stupid. But anti-terrorism wasn't really the point in invading Iraq.

As I see it, Iraq was supposed to be an American stronghold in the middle east in an attempt to exert influence over neighboring oil producers.

Of course, this failed miserably. Economic coercion seems, to me, to be the more effective ideology behind warfare. But that's just Jeffersonian democracy talking.

Well this thread is supposedly about Afghanistan.

So I suppose staying in your nation doing nothing militarily other than airstrikes to fight terrorists, who would delightfully bomb themselves in order to kill as many people as possible, that hide in caves and tunnels is the ideal way to reduce the number of terrorists.

Good luck with that idea.

No that's not ideal either of course, but at least it wouldn't be quite as counter-productive...

 

[Laivasse]

Why isn't the War on Drugs being fought as aggressively as the War on Terror?? Let's invade some countries and really get this bitch moving!

Also sign me up for any potential future wars on Deceit, Materialism, Beauty, and Miscellaneous Abstract Concepts. I can't WAIT to put some bullets through darkie skulls.

In seriousness, I wasn't opposed in principle to the war in Afghanistan. As for this story, I'm most interested in why that one guy shot himself.

 

[Kase]

what do you think motivated that boy? his hatred for freedom?

Muslim brain washing ?

and if that guy shot himself oh well i dont really feel bad for people who take there own lifes.

But as for the 3 Marine Commando's Killed i Feel sorry for the familys and loved ones but there deaths also shows you how low al qaida are willing to go to kill our troops

you may not be for the war but atleast be for the troops

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm sorry that the troops in question are dead, but I can't really be 'for the troops', the troops being individuals who of their own free will have chosen to participate directly in a war which is both harmful and ineffective, and therefore unethical.

 

[the cow says moo]

Originally Posted by Emporius
Therein lies the rub. You people tend to ignore the fact that there are options besides military force.

Ok, so how do you suggest we take care of terrorism?

 

[Gunner]

you may not be for the war but atleast be for the troops

What does that even mean?...

 

[leib10]

Therein lies the rub. You people tend to ignore the fact that there are options besides military force.

Not with these people. It'd be nice if we could talk our ways out of wars, but that doesn't happen all the time.

 

[Eejit]

You realise law enforcement ain't military, right?

 

[Kase]

As Sulk points out, the individuals in this case are there by their own decision.

Alot of them were Miltery before the war started they Had to go and do there job they had no choice.

What does that even mean?...

it means if your not for the war atleast be for the troops appreciate there sacrifices for the defence and well being for your country they dont want to be there as much as the next person because its there Job and at the end of the day they sacrifice more for the well being of there countrys than most people ever will


sorry for any spelling or errors in this post but
am just drunk and to lazy to bother checking ^_^

 

[the cow says moo]

the people against the war don't seem to have any other solutions for terrorism. makes me wonder if they just hate Bush

 

[Kase]

thats prolly it

 

[Eejit]

Yeah must be it. There's no other explanation for someone being against the war. Thanks cow, you're a genius. Your insight and wisdom are invaluable.

 

[CptStern]

the people against the war don't seem to have any other solutions for terrorism. makes me wonder if they just hate Bush

the sheep say baaaaaaa

 

[Some_God]

I'm sorry Sulk, but your comments about the men and women serving in the military are inappropriate and unacceptable. You can criticize the government and all their brilliant decisions, especially their carrying out this "war on terror". But the soldiers signed up to serve their nation and protect it's citizens and sovereignty. They were ordered to go to war. Maybe you should think about the sacrifices that the men and women in the armed forces have made in the past for the country they serve.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I respect the duty soldiers do to each other in deeply problematic situations and I respect them as I respect all human beings, who must hold opinions and help each other and make decisions in a way that is barely voluntary. But that is not the issue here. The issue is: can I agree with their decision to sign up to "serve the country" by killing people? Can I reasonably approve of the fact that a misbegotten conception of what an army does and why it does it and whether this is moral has led them to join an organisation which ultimately 'serves its country' in a very tricksy way? Moreover, can I approve of that as an internationalist who is dubious about the integrity of nations anyway, and dubious about the practical importance and even existence of nations in the modern world? I cannot.

If being "for the troops" means respecting them as human beings, that is easy. If being "for the troops" means being of the opinion that their actions are moral and politically virtuous, and supporting them politically - well, that's a bit more difficult. Soldiers might sign up to serve their nation and protect their people, but that is very rarely what they actually do.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I didn't sign up for this shit.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Big old kind-hearted mother Munro may have got you out of trouble last time, son, but you just remember it'd be easy as hell for us to sign you out.

 

[Pesmerga]

It's an interesting argument. The notion that soldiers should be honored despite their virtues or vices is one that people probably haven't spent a lot of time thinking about. Can we, as citizens, rightfully cast judgment for or against a body of protectors- even if those protectors are used in ways that do not directly serve the security of those they swear their lives for?

Can we morally justify securing resources for our own nation and our allies? Does the control of those resources (and its fair distribution) outweigh the lives of both American and insurgent soldiers? Should we prioritize life over all else, or prioritize virtue as the situation calls for?

When American soldiers volunteer for active duty, they agree to put their lives down for order, justice, and peace. They must be faithful that the American electorate are well informed of their situation and will either condone or condemn the use of military might as a just means to fulfill just and virtuous causes. The electorate must realize that they are the scale to which action is weighed. They judge the situation when a soldier cannot. Sulkdodds, the soldier cannot be blamed for following orders unless those orders conflict with others' natural and universal human rights. The American electorate is to blame for not acting with as much conviction as needed to either end or prevent a perilous and immoral war. The right to life is forfeit when one has volunteered to wage war- all other sacred rights persist so long as no other virtues take precedent. To kill the enemy is to save another's life. To kill the enemy's army is to end war and acquire terms. This is the theory behind the virtue of war.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Big old kind-hearted mother Munro may have got you out of trouble last time, son, but you just remember it'd be easy as hell for us to sign you out.

Sign me up!


I feel a burden. I should contribute to the thread now. Instead I'll just leave.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Pes: The whole 'ethics of war' field is a hugely difficult one, and threatens to make this thread vastly more interesting than it initially promised to be...

You make a good point when you say that the electorate are (in theory) ultimately responsible for what the soldiers do and you're absolutely right that the electorate's failure is the biggest failure by far. But I'm still interested in the smaller failure of the man who becomes a soldier for a country like the US and in times like these.

I don't dispute that a soldier can't be blamed for following orders that aren't obviously ungeneva. My contention is that the soldier is doing something inadvisable in signing up and saying "yes. I will kill whoever you want me to, and I voluntarily submit to the great legal control you have over me and my actions." Not only is he saying that: he is also saying "yes, I have faith," or even "I have reasonable belief, that this democracy is great enough and that this electorate is smart and moral enough to use my service rightly." I don't think such a belief is supportable, in the US or in most other countries. As part of this he says: "I also believe that the electorate have sufficient control over the armed forces to ensure that my service is never used wrongly." And I don't think that's supportable either.

In short: on the basis of beliefs which aren't accurate or aren't right, this person is putting himself in a position in which he is very likely to be a part - a small part, a tiny cog, but a part nonetheless - of something terrible. The beauty of his faith in the electorate does not allow you to condone the choice he's made.

I feel a burden. I should contribute to the thread now. Instead I'll just leave.

Babby killer.

 

[unozero]

straight up ****** hippies in this thread it's sad.

 

[Pesmerga]

Enlisting in any military is a choice that should obviously never be taken lightly- a path that shouldn't be taken without honorable cause. The purpose and function of a standing army is both effective and just. You condemn those who enlist now because you do not support the war- shouldn't you reserve your opinions for the president who committed troops? It would be as if to blame the wolves for eating the sheep while ignoring the responsibility of those who let the fence open. I know you also blame the fence keepers, but why strike at the branches when you can cut down the tree?

One enlists for many reasons. Those reasons are irrelevant- his actions should determine whether he is a just and honorable soldier. A soldier cannot guess if a war is just or not- the weather is uncertain. He must put faith in his commander, and his commander must have the faith of the people.

In the case of the Iraqi conflict, the people have spoken. Plans for withdrawal are in motion. The war was deemed unjust and ineffective. The cost of life and liberties have already far outweighed any positive outcomes we might have hoped to gain victory over. But even now, it is the right and civic duty of a citizen to enlist in the military. He is justified by law and by virtue to do so; for they serve the electorate and those that represent them. They are his moral compass; he is the tool to which good and evil is constructed, as so allowed to do so by the people.

Again, the electorate is to blame. The ignorance of the masses are to blame. Enlisting soldiers, no matter how grave or immoral the war may seem, serves his commanders, his nation and its citizens. He can either be a part of something terrible or a part of something good- he is part of the tool to which no blame or compliment can be administered. Only those who wield the tool can.

 

[unozero]

well said, man that doesn't wear shirts when he takes pictures of himself.

 

[Krynn72]

Enlisting in any military is a choice that should obviously never be taken lightly- a path that shouldn't be taken without honorable cause. The purpose and function of a standing army is both effective and just. You condemn those who enlist now because you do not support the war- shouldn't you reserve your opinions for the president who committed troops? It would be as if to blame the wolves for eating the sheep while ignoring the responsibility of those who let the fence open. I know you also blame the fence keepers, but why strike at the branches when you can cut down the tree?

One enlists for many reasons. Those reasons are irrelevant- his actions should determine whether he is a just and honorable soldier. A soldier cannot guess if a war is just or not- the weather is uncertain. He must put faith in his commander, and his commander must have the faith of the people.

In the case of the Iraqi conflict, the people have spoken. Plans for withdrawal are in motion. The war was deemed unjust and ineffective. The cost of life and liberties have already far outweighed any positive outcomes we might have hoped to gain victory over. But even now, it is the right and civic duty of a citizen to enlist in the military. He is justified by law and by virtue to do so; for they serve the electorate and those that represent them. They are his moral compass; he is the tool to which good and evil is constructed, as so allowed to do so by the people.

Again, the electorate is to blame. The ignorance of the masses are to blame. Enlisting soldiers, no matter how grave or immoral the war may seem, serves his commanders, his nation and its citizens. He can either be a part of something terrible or a part of something good- he is part of the tool to which no blame or compliment can be administered. Only those who wield the tool can.

The difference lies in the fact that, unlike a tool, a soldier is a human being with their own mind and will. I dont believe that the electorate should be a soldiers moral compass, it must be himself as it should be in every situation. How can we absolve them of blame when they continue to enlist and continue to fight for an unjust cause? In my eyes, volunteering your life to be a tool of evil is nearly as bad as the wielding of that tool.