Marine General says killing is good

Status
Not open for further replies.
burner69 said:
Bad analogy.
Very few companies make their employees sniff white lines. Very few armies DON'T have soliders who're trained, and do, shoot and kill people.
Killing people has an impact on a person. While I'm in no way implying everyone who's killed someone thinks it's fun, when a high ranker who's done nothing like it for years thinks it's fun, it's very possible to assume that people who're out on the field now will be, especially when their higher ranking officers are reinforcing that idea.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's a fairly decent analogy when you take the time to actually unpack it.

While companies don't force you to use coke, there's a stereotype that some feel the pressure to coke up in order to be the kind of aggressive ladder climber that one day takes the CEO spot.

It is an inaccurate stereotype, just as inaccurate as the one that suggests the military condones or encourages sociopathic behavior.

Both are absolutely ridiculous stereotypes.
 
ah but you're not leaving room for mob mentality

the military may not condone sociopathic behaviour as you put it but that doesnt mean they're churning out a bunch of humanitarians that feint at the sight of blood. It takes a lot to kill a man, the military has to justify killing so that the soldier will do his job and not question orders
 
Yes. But the majority of the ones giving the orders are men like my father. Who spent 30 years of his life learning how to fight a war, all the while despising the very thing that he felt was a necessary evil.

As much as it crushes the dillusions of the general public, the military spends a considerable ammount of time and money educating those in powerful military positions not just on the strategies of winning war, but the philosphical consequences of it.

I'm not asking anyone to condone this Marine's statement. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that he certainly doesn't speak for the majority of the educated upper-crust of today's military.
 
lord dubu said:
I'm not asking anyone to condone this Marine's statement. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that he certainly doesn't speak for the majority of the educated upper-crust of today's military.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Though it is happening in some areas, and it's especially bad because they're saying it's ok cuz these ppl are terrorists, when they're not at all. Which I find quite disturbing.
 
burner69 said:
Agreed.
Though it is happening in some areas, and it's especially bad because they're saying it's ok cuz these ppl are terrorists, when they're not at all. Which I find quite disturbing.
Click to expand...

i find it disturbing when people defend the terrorists.
Obviously the terrorists want to be viewed as normal civilians and blend in. actually i cant say anything, cos i dont know. but you dont know either, how do you know these people arent terrorists?
 
clarky003 said:
wtf, this is messed up,, people on this forum trying to justify killing a human being? I dont care who you are, or what you believe in, nothing can justify it.. its just horrible.. and capitalist society isnt exactley in a position to start spouting off about 'fighting for democracey' when its not actually acting like one..
Click to expand...

You wouldn't kill anyone if they were trying to murder you? You would let them kill you?

burner69 said:
Very few armies DON'T have soliders who're trained, and do, shoot and kill people.
Click to expand...

For every person in the military who kills someone there are 3-4 behind them who will never be in the position to kill anyone, let alone have killed anyone. In the army the grunts are the only ones trained to kill. Everyone else is trained to do their jobs.

burner69 said:
Though it is happening in some areas, and it's especially bad because they're saying it's ok cuz these ppl are terrorists, when they're not at all. Which I find quite disturbing.
Click to expand...

Then what are they?
 
Yet another similarity to the disaster that was vietnam. Once you take the enemy as in-human it's gonna create some big problems. Sorry, but I couldn't imagine doing such a thing, being such a thinker that I am. I realize the consequinces.
 
Hanx158 said:
Yet another similarity to the disaster that was vietnam. Once you take the enemy as in-human it's gonna create some big problems...
Click to expand...

Read up on your SunTzu.

The first endeavor in -every- war (not just Vietnam) is to dehumanize the adverssary. Simply put psychologically sound humans aren't supposed to kill each other. In order to stay sane in a situation where killing the other guy is a necessity, one must first dehumanize the enemy.
 
yes but then it leads to atrocities, torture, murder etc
 
what the ****? someone actually thinks saying shit like this is okay? :|
 
Bodacious said:
Then what are they?
Click to expand...

People who are using force against people who have invaded their country.

How many of the Iraqi's killed in Iraq do you HONESTLY think have ties with Al-Quaeda, had any plans of going over to the US and blowing themselves up. Some might be like that, but it's a minority. The majority are people either fighting against the invaders of their country, or have moved in to attack the West because WE brought the fight over to them. Many people in the Middle East see the Western way of life as a horrible, money grabbing, loutish culture - when we invade promising to spread our ideals onto them PEOPLE WILL RETALIATE.

They're not terrorists, any more than the German army were terrorists when we fought them in the second world war. Bush and his pals just use the term terrorist until people attach no meaning to it other than "the people we're fighting" no thought goes into distinguishing what's goin on over there.
 
I agree with what the General has said. Some biography on him has shown him to be a great leader and cared about his men.

Yes, it would be fun to eradicate that type of scum from the earth. It needs to be done, and I thank those who have done it.
 
I don't see what the 4 pages is about... Who wouldn't think it great fun to kill terrorists?

I hear there's even a game about it and that thousands think it's a hoot and a hollar.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
I don't see what the 4 pages is about... Who wouldn't think it great fun to kill terrorists?

I hear there's even a game about it and that thousands think it's a hoot and a hollar.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but thats just a game.. and if it happens to be Terrorist Takedown then I'd rather cut my eyes out with shards of glass than play that awful "game" :LOL:
 
eople who are using force against people who have invaded their country.
Click to expand...

Then why do they do suicide attacks against civillians?
 
I don't know about you guys but I've seen some pretty hardcore stuff on some gore sites with torn up bodies of the insurgents. Its disturbing and Im just viewing pictures! I can't imagine what it must be like to kill someone, to actually end someone's life. Even if it is the enemy, i don't think one could go through all that unscathed.
 
Yes sath, it's exactly that. Your ending that individuals life, their family, community and world will not be affected by him any longer for better or for worse. Only the blank minded would actualy enjoy such a thing, with no real-realizations of the after math to come. The imediate horror should be enough to sicken REAL men.
 
KoreBolteR said:
i find it disturbing when people defend the terrorists.
Obviously the terrorists want to be viewed as normal civilians and blend in. actually i cant say anything, cos i dont know. but you dont know either, how do you know these people arent terrorists?
Click to expand...


No one is defending the terrorists, but don't you think the people over there feel terror knowing that top ranking generals go on the record talking about how fun killing people like them is.
 
satch919 said:
I don't know about you guys but I've seen some pretty hardcore stuff on some gore sites with torn up bodies of the insurgents. Its disturbing and Im just viewing pictures! I can't imagine what it must be like to kill someone, to actually end someone's life. Even if it is the enemy, i don't think one could go through all that unscathed.
Click to expand...

That is why you have cases of abuse and torture sprouting up. In order to make it easier to kill a human, humans tend to take their humanity away from them by treating them like animals or lesser beings.
 
Men like killing, it gives them adrenaline and dopamine. The same reason it's fun to shoot in videogames, except you don't have the usual consequences of people actually dying. It's just the truth, simple as that, it made us survive when we had to kill animals.

I saw a documentary about the WW2 pacific battles, every soldier agreed that they didn't look upon the enemy as human, you simply shut that part of your mind off.

A guy talked about when they found corpses with stuff like a wallet, photos of their relatives, a religious object and things like that, it was very confusing since it made them realise the enemy soldiers were not much different from themselves.
 
Bodacious said:
Then why do they do suicide attacks against civillians?
Click to expand...

Some do that. Hardly the majority - you need to understand that because of the fraility of the situation over in the Middle East, there are MANY different enemies down there. The people you see fighting with AK47s on the street are highly unlikely to be terrorists.
Very few of the suicide bombs that go off over there are designed to hit civilians. Read the news stories; "Suicide bob at a military checkpoint" "Suicide bombed killed five marines" etc etc. Sure, a bomb is a horrible messy weapon and civilians in the way (I hate using those words) can and do get killed. They may be using suicide bombs against the soliders over there - that don't make um terrorists.
If killing civilians while attacking your enemy makes you a terrorist, then I could very easily say the coalition are terrorists.

A few of the suicide bombers ARE aiming for civilians - however they are all targetted on the coalition trained new police officers, military, the voting stations - stuff the coalition are organising. As far as they're concerned these people are on the enemies side. Imagine if Iraq invaded your country and you were fighting against them, as you no doubt would, what if they won the war, took control, and started forcing women to wear veils, made it illegal to utter a bad word against Saddam. Suppose there was a, I dunno, a military training base opened where you could go and train to fight in Saddams military, would you consider that place a target?

There are terrorists in Iraq; but terrorists don't fight on the streets with weapons, terrorists are politically motivated people, who seek to strike at targets that will cause larger reprocussions.

If you're gonna invade a country, kill thousands of civilians, set up money making deals (aka forcing farmers to buy US seeds, and I won't go into the oil), and spread your ideals - WHICH MAY NOT SUIT THAT COUNTRY, you're going to get a resistance. As you're killing them, you might as well have the decency not to call them evil terrorists, and imply they wish to attack our own country - and then say "Well, it's all a good laugh shooting them really"
 
He chose his words poorly thats for sure. I dont think he meant that its fun to kill. Theres a difference between enjoying killing, and enjoying the end result. He probably believes in what he fights in, and for whom he fights, and I'm sure he appreciates the results of hardworking soldiers. We celebrate veterans day, we put memorials up, all in honor of them having killed people. I'm sure he meant the same, thats just how I interpret it.
 
gh0st said:
He chose his words poorly thats for sure. I dont think he meant that its fun to kill. Theres a difference between enjoying killing, and enjoying the end result. He probably believes in what he fights in, and for whom he fights, and I'm sure he appreciates the results of hardworking soldiers. We celebrate veterans day, we put memorials up, all in honor of them having killed people. I'm sure he meant the same, thats just how I interpret it.
Click to expand...

Its most likely that's the case, however, when you're a general, and you're talking to the world.. you should think more about what you're saying; communication is the basis for human kind.
 
gh0st said:
He chose his words poorly thats for sure. I dont think he meant that its fun to kill. Theres a difference between enjoying killing, and enjoying the end result. He probably believes in what he fights in, and for whom he fights, and I'm sure he appreciates the results of hardworking soldiers. We celebrate veterans day, we put memorials up, all in honor of them having killed people. I'm sure he meant the same, thats just how I interpret it.
Click to expand...


You can interpret and analyze what he said forever but the words are there for everyone to see. And like bliink said, he should have chose his words more carefully because he has the world's ear.
 
I just said he chose his words poorly. I think you are all being overly dramatic/paranoid.
 
some of them might hav seen their mates killed beside them.
a majority of the US army would be on the streets if not for the army. add to that a propaganda of a "evil" enemy and you will no doubt hav ppl with different morals to you and me.
 
burner69 said:
The people you see fighting with AK47s on the street are highly unlikely to be terrorists.
Very few of the suicide bombs that go off over there are designed to hit civilians. Read the news stories; "Suicide bob at a military checkpoint" "Suicide bombed killed five marines" etc etc. Sure, a bomb is a horrible messy weapon and civilians in the way "
Click to expand...

so.. when the terrorists kill people in the way "mistakenly"... its ok, but when a US marine does it, its the crime of the century?

no all these days i hear are "Suicide bomb kills 30 iraqis" not that many marines. they just blow up a place they think could help iraq to freedom in the long term. :sniper:

btw, i have a hangover after last nite :( LOL

Very good night tho :D:D:D woo
 
burner69 said:
Some do that. Hardly the majority - you need to understand that because of the fraility of the situation over in the Middle East, there are MANY different enemies down there. The people you see fighting with AK47s on the street are highly unlikely to be terrorists.
Very few of the suicide bombs that go off over there are designed to hit civilians. Read the news stories; "Suicide bob at a military checkpoint" "Suicide bombed killed five marines" etc etc. Sure, a bomb is a horrible messy weapon and civilians in the way (I hate using those words) can and do get killed. They may be using suicide bombs against the soliders over there - that don't make um terrorists.
If killing civilians while attacking your enemy makes you a terrorist, then I could very easily say the coalition are terrorists.

A few of the suicide bombers ARE aiming for civilians - however they are all targetted on the coalition trained new police officers, military, the voting stations - stuff the coalition are organising. As far as they're concerned these people are on the enemies side. Imagine if Iraq invaded your country and you were fighting against them, as you no doubt would, what if they won the war, took control, and started forcing women to wear veils, made it illegal to utter a bad word against Saddam. Suppose there was a, I dunno, a military training base opened where you could go and train to fight in Saddams military, would you consider that place a target?

There are terrorists in Iraq; but terrorists don't fight on the streets with weapons, terrorists are politically motivated people, who seek to strike at targets that will cause larger reprocussions.

If you're gonna invade a country, kill thousands of civilians, set up money making deals (aka forcing farmers to buy US seeds, and I won't go into the oil), and spread your ideals - WHICH MAY NOT SUIT THAT COUNTRY, you're going to get a resistance. As you're killing them, you might as well have the decency not to call them evil terrorists, and imply they wish to attack our own country - and then say "Well, it's all a good laugh shooting them really"
Click to expand...

Then your view of the situation is biased, becaue there are far more atacks aimed towards plain old civillians than there are military attacks. Also, you are justifying terror when you say, "Oh they were aiming for a military target." When 2 marines die and 30 civillians die.

Keep twisting reality.
 
Bodacious said:
Then your view of the situation is biased, becaue there are far more atacks aimed towards plain old civillians than there are military attacks. Also, you are justifying terror when you say, "Oh they were aiming for a military target." When 2 marines die and 30 civillians die.

Keep twisting reality.
Click to expand...

Not in the news I've been reading. I'll have a hunt for some stats, but I reckon they'll be hard to find, but the majority of articles reporting suicide bombing have been against the coalition.

And Kore, point to the part in my post where I said it's ok for terrorists to kill innocents, but not the coalition. No, what I said was, if they're attacking their enemy (the coalition) and civilians are being killed, and thus they are being labelled terrorists, you'd have to label the coalition terrorists too. You can't have double standards on the issue.
 
burner69 said:
Not in the news I've been reading. I'll have a hunt for some stats, but I reckon they'll be hard to find, but the majority of articles reporting suicide bombing have been against the coalition.

And Kore, point to the part in my post where I said it's ok for terrorists to kill innocents, but not the coalition. No, what I said was, if they're attacking their enemy (the coalition) and civilians are being killed, and thus they are being labelled terrorists, you'd have to label the coalition terrorists too. You can't have double standards on the issue.
Click to expand...

but the difference is, the terrorists dont care if the civilians die, but the coalition do. and are very careful who they aim for. especially when all the terrorists are dressed as civilians.

IF the coalition were dressed in civilian clothes, killed innocent children and women on purpose(adding rape), put bombs under civilian cars, detonated themselves by civilians killing loads, and plagued the country stopping it from reaching its target of a free democratic state, which we all know is better than tyrancy, THEN i'd agree that the coalition are terrorists. ;)
 
Well considering at least 16'000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by coalition fire, and nobody has been held accountable for it, I find your definition of "caring" quite intriuging.

What you're doing is confusing "caring" with "necessity".

Time and time again when I've raised the point of civilian deaths in Iraq I've been told that "It happens in war" "There's nothing we can do about it" "It's necessary" etc etc. Well guess what, no matter what the good intentions are there are civvys being killed, and a dam sight more than the 'terrorists' are killed doing the activities they deem "necessary" to stop Iraq falling into the evil hands of the west.

Now, if both sides are doing it out of necessity, and the coalition are killing more... well... you work it out.

For the record I DON'T think the coalition are terrorists, I think they're doing a dam good job. I also do not think the people fighting against the coalition over in Iraq are terrorists either, they are the enemy, there is a stark difference.
Not to say that there aren't terrorists over there, there are, just not anywhere near as many as the media makes out.
 
burner, I think 14000 is rather trivial compared to the hundreds of thousands saddam tortured and executed. Oh, and gassed. This death toll is sad, but what did you expect?
 
burner69 said:
. Well guess what, no matter what the good intentions are there are civvys being killed, and a dam sight more than the 'terrorists' are killed doing the activities they deem "necessary" to stop Iraq falling into the evil hands of the west.
Click to expand...

this is what i dont understand, why do the terrorists think that Iraq is falling into the evil hands of the west, when all the west is trying to do is to stop an evil tyrancy from ruling them, stop terrorists who roam the streets making the civilians scared to come out of thier houses.

iraqs like a PC.
"the PC has had a virus for years, and only now has had an Anti virus installed. but STILL these virus' keep damaging and stops the PC from workin tidy" :p
 
gh0st said:
burner, I think 14000 is rather trivial compared to the hundreds of thousands saddam tortured and executed. Oh, and gassed. This death toll is sad, but what did you expect?
Click to expand...

And if you compare Saddams total with the US's total?

CptSterns favourite about the US destroying an Iraqi water supply, killing half a million people, is but one example.

this is what i dont understand, why do the terrorists think that Iraq is falling into the evil hands of the west, when all the west is trying to do is to stop an evil tyrancy from ruling them, stop terrorists who roam the streets making the civilians scared to come out of thier houses.
Click to expand...

You need to look at in on a wider scale. The US regularly bends countries over for their own gain. Already in Iraq measures are being implimented to force farmers to buy seeds from only US companies. And quite simply, the religious ideals in Iraq do not match those of the West, in fact they often directly oppose it. It's like, say, if Japan took over Europe in the second world war, or the US was turned into a communist society. We hated their ideals, and would fight to the death to protect our own.
 
*Without having read the entire thread, just 1st post*

I think his words are taken out of context, perhaps even distorted.
Obviously the man's under alot of stress, and each day he's alive is a blessing under fire. So when something that apparently stupid comes out of his mouth, he probably wouldn't mean it in any other context or situation.
And all killing and war is bad. Don't try to moralize it either way.
 
burner69 said:
And if you compare Saddams total with the US's total?

CptSterns favourite about the US destroying an Iraqi water supply, killing half a million people, is but one example.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Where did this "half million" come from? Wasent it 16000?

burner69 said:
Well considering at least 16'000 Iraqi civilians
Click to expand...

Even Iraq Body Count says 15654. Is it just me or is that statistic full of shit? Somehow I doubt that destroying a "water supply" would kill the population of Seattle, especially in a concentrated area. Thats just absurd, try again.
 
Killing....fun for the whole family! :D

That guy seems no better than the terrorist.
 
Tr0n said:
Killing....fun for the whole family! :D

That guy seems no better than the terrorist.
Click to expand...

i dno, hes killing terrorists. getting rid of the dangers of the world.

so no, hes not a terrorist. stupid marine perhaps, but not a terrorist. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top