US soldier admits mercy killing Iraqi teen

[CptStern]

the terrorists can do anything they want, kill innocent people, and when they do, nobody says a thing about it!

BUT when the Coalition kill innocent people by mistake, you all go nuts, whats the big deal? i dont see people moaning about terrorists killing people, jus moaning at coalition

why is this so hard to understand? the terrorists are fanatical organizations that see civilians as legitamate targets. The ends justify the mean is their raison d'être . Now when a government or country, uses tactics that mimic the terrorists they become no better than those they would call "terrorist"

I dont buy that coaltion "accidents" excuse ..7000 dead iraqi civilians is not precision bombing

 

[KoreBolteR]

why is this so hard to understand? the terrorists are fanatical organizations that see civilians as legitamate targets. The ends justify the mean is their raison d'être . Now when a government or country, uses tactics that mimic the terrorists they become no better than those they would call "terrorist"

I dont buy that coaltion "accidents" excuse ..7000 dead iraqi civilians is not precision bombing

so your calling the Terrorists "fanatical organizations"... thats total bs, no offence. they are terrorists and the coalition are out to get them. you always see the coalition trying to get rid of these menaces and civilians getting the worse of it, its a sad fact, but think about the terrorists kidnapping the civians and blowing up cars and themselves. i dont think youll see the coalition blow themselves up tbh.

 

[Absinthe]

so your calling the Terrorists "fanatical organizations"... thats total bs, no offence.

I really don't want to get caught up in this crap, but I'm curious. What exactly is wrong with this?

 

[Kangy]

so your calling the Terrorists "fanatical organizations"... thats total bs, no offence.

Of course they're fanatical organisations. They use extreme views of Islamic texts and clerics that promote violence and murder (fanatical) in order to form a group that recruits young people to their cause (organisations).

 

[KoreBolteR]

Of course they're fanatical organisations. They use extreme views of Islamic texts and clerics that promote violence and murder (fanatical) in order to form a group that recruits young people to their cause (organisations).

they use the word "terrorist" for that

 

[Absinthe]

they use the word "terrorist" for that

I don't understand why you have a problem with terms that are more or less synonymous.

But oh well. I'm done now.

*Leaves*

 

[CptStern]

so your calling the Terrorists "fanatical organizations"... thats total bs, no offence.

no actually they're decent humanitarian individuals just trying to prove a point [/sarcasm]

fanatical as in the means to their end

they are terrorists and the coalition are out to get them. you always see the coalition trying to get rid of these menaces and civilians getting the worse of it, its a sad fact, but think about the terrorists kidnapping the civians and blowing up cars and themselves. i dont think youll see the coalition blow themselves up tbh.

not making much sense here, I dont know what you're trying to get at

 

[Top Secret]

not making much sense here, I dont know what you're trying to get at

Let me simplify it for you:

A GI isn't going to run up to a vehicle at a red light, dive onto the hood, and blow himself up. A terrorist will. And the civs get the flack because the GI is across the street shooting at the terrorist laying on the hood. Unfortunately, the civ in the car gets his face blown off from the random 5.56 rounds whizzing by.

 

[CptStern]

Let me simplify it for you:

A GI isn't going to run up to a vehicle at a red light, dive onto the hood, and blow himself up.

no but he may force a tied prisoner to jump off a bridge in the hopes he'll drown, just for kicks

 

[K e r b e r o s]

no but he may force a tied prisoner to jump off a bridge in the hopes he'll drown, just for kicks

Source ... ?

 

[CptStern]

Source ... ?

source

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The incident marks the first time that Army troops who served in Iraq have been charged with manslaughter or murder in connection with the handling of detainees. -Sterns Source

C'mon! Dont those soldiers know? Kill someone in style! Tie them down, Film them, then kill them whilst being recorded ... on film!

Oh wait, thats right ... The Soprano's have their own US Division.

[Missle strikes Iraqi family home]
[Donetello Michelle Di'Vanni Saprano walks out, comforting the crying survivers from the blast]

Eh, Iraqi ...

FOHGET ABOUT IT!

 

[CptStern]

umm there's been a few more that have been charged with murder since this incident

new reports from the FBI confirms the deaths of 12 prisoners in guantanamo bay (starting as far back as 2002) as a result of the excessive use of torture ..but nice try at dancing around the issue. I have no doubt in my mind the terrorists wantonly kill civilians ..can you admit the same about your government?

 

[Top Secret]

I have no doubt in my mind the terrorists wantonly kill civilians ..can you admit the same about your government?

Why, Cpt Stern, you're absolutly right! How did I not see it?! The sole purpose and mission of my goverment is to kill innocent civilians! I was so blind!

****ing idiot.

 

[KoreBolteR]

no but he may force a tied prisoner to jump off a bridge in the hopes he'll drown, just for kicks

I highly doubt this.
the only way those civilians are dying is Mainly gettin blown up by the terrorists (by carbomb or suicide attack etc) and a small persentage of gettin caught up in the crossfire.

The Six-Day war was another Cold War chess piece. The Russians were using their weapons against us -- it was a Sudo skirmish, just without their responsibility ... because they were'nt the ones behind the tanks or fighters.

intresting stuff, learnt a little more

 

[Kangy]

I highly doubt this.
the only way those civilians are dying is Mainly gettin blown up by the terrorists (by carbomb or suicide attack etc) and a small persentage of gettin caught up in the crossfire.

Oh come, there was a posted source from the highly censored media. I think it's safe to say it is true.

This website database disagrees with you somewhat on your second point.

 

[KoreBolteR]

what?? ok 1 case out of all the coalition, that means your painting the WHOLE coalition with the same brush, what about the 99.9% of the good troops, not fair on them, and think of it... ALL 100% of the terrorists kill civilians :| compared to the coalitions 0.01%, its just coalition deaths make it to the media coverage more all the time

 

[CptStern]

I highly doubt this.
the only way those civilians are dying is Mainly gettin blown up by the terrorists (by carbomb or suicide attack etc) and a small persentage of gettin caught up in the crossfire.



intresting stuff, learnt a little more

7000 died within the first few weeks of the invasion from coalition bombing.

 

[CptStern]

Why, Cpt Stern, you're absolutly right! How did I not see it?! The sole purpose and mission of my goverment is to kill innocent civilians! I was so blind!

****ing idiot.

you'd better have a smile on yer face when you say that, boy

I'm the idiot? you're the blind arrogant fool who thinks just because someone wears the american flag on his shoulder must be decent and caring and above all else a freedom loving hero :upstare:

here's something to mull over while you say the pledge of allegiance and genuflect in the general direction of Dubya ..if the US used so many "smart" bombs and "guided" missles why where there 7000 civilian causualties during the war?

 

[Bait]

what?? ok 1 case out of all the coalition, that means your painting the WHOLE coalition with the same brush, what about the 99.9% of the good troops, not fair on them, and think of it... ALL 100% of the terrorists kill civilians :| compared to the coalitions 0.01%, its just coalition deaths make it to the media coverage more all the time

What people sometimes fail to see is the fact that these civilian bombing spawned out of the invasion of Iraq by the Americans. Therefore, the Americains should take much responsibility for those actions as well. Not that I am condoning those attacks, but I am saying it would be foolish and blind of someone to say that the States are free of civilian blood. To say otherwise is completely false. The Americains have innocent blood on their hands. And if people can brush that idea aside without a second tought, then what more can people say to aid people in realizing the injustices being done?

And keep the media out of this. Facts are more important than snipets from "ACTION NEWS AT 6: WAR OF FREEDOM"

 

[Top Secret]

you'd better have a smile on yer face when you say that, boy

I'm the idiot? you're the blind arrogant fool who thinks just because someone wears the american flag on his shoulder must be decent and caring and above all else a freedom loving hero :upstare:

here's something to mull over while you say the pledge of allegiance and genuflect in the general direction of Dubya ..if the US used so many "smart" bombs and "guided" missles why where there 7000 civilian causualties during the war?

1. Boy. Do not address me as "boy", boy. I might be older than you. I might not be. Point is, that's a stupid excuse for being a jackass.

2.Where did I state that anyone who wears an American flag is decent and caring? No. We've got dumb asses, murders, child molesters, just like anyone else. ONCE AGAIN, putting shit in my mouth. Don't speak for me, you suck at it.

3. There are 7000 civial casualties for several reasons. Soldiers killing civs, terrorists killing civs, poor intelligence, you name it, it's happened. Where have I denied this? (What does this have to do with my reply to you)

4. You address me as arrogant. Which is funny, because I don't portray this.

5. I don't say the pledge of allegiance. I stated this openly on another thread. ONCE AGAIN, shoving shit in peoples throats. Don't talk for other people.

6. Most of the articles you quote, they don't even say what you're telling. You still HAVE NOT shown me where Allawi said quote "claimed responsibility" for those bombings.

7. You just asked me to achknowledge that my country's mission is to kill civilians. What the **** is wrong with you? I'm sure that's what Bush said to his officials. "Hey, let's go kill some brown people and claim it was for WMD!" You make me sick.


What a poor post on your part. Silly
boy.

 

[FoxDie]

1. Boy. Do not address me as "boy", boy. I might be older than you. I might not be. Point is, that's a stupid excuse for being a jackass.

You call him a f***ing idiot and you get upset over being called boy? Then you call him a boy back to prove that he shouldn't be a jackass?

...mature....

6. Most of the articles you quote, they don't even say what you're telling.

I've noticed this a few times in this thread (by multiple people.) Seinfeld linked to a page about celebrations in the middle east after 9/11 , and most of the article is devoted to pointing out that most of the publicized photos were staged.

3. There are 7000 civial casualties for several reasons. Soldiers killing civs, terrorists killing civs, poor intelligence, you name it, it's happened. Where have I denied this? (What does this have to do with my reply to you)

That doesn't change the fact that they have lost nearly twice as many civilians as we did on 9/11...

 

[Top Secret]

You call him a f***ing idiot and you get upset over being called boy? Then you call him a boy back to prove that he shouldn't be a jackass?

...mature....


I've noticed this a few times in this thread (by multiple people.) Seinfeld linked to a page about celebrations in the middle east after 9/11 , and most of the article is devoted to pointing out that most of the publicized photos were staged.

That doesn't change the fact that they have lost nearly twice as many civilians as we did on 9/11...

1. No, I'm not upset about being called "boy". Not in the least. I just responded to it, is there a problem with that? I called him a ****ing idiot because he asked someone to admit that their goverment's sole mission is to kill civilians. Maybe you thought that was extreme. I didn't.

2. Yeah, people often post links to articles that don't back themselves up, kind of funny huh.


3. About the 7000 civ deaths: I know it doesn't change the 'fact'. I'm not trying to say it does. But, all I'm left to say is that that has nothing to do with the current arguement. Here's how this thread went:

"Soldier kills kid for merciful reasons"

"I think it was wrong etc etc"

"I think he did the right thing etc etc"

"Yeah, but the US killed 7000 civilians, and look, here's a soldier raping an Iraqi girl, and here three us soldiers drowned an old man"

"??"

I know a lot of people really hate the war, or the US, or both. But come on people. This isn't the politics section anymore. It's the "Let's rip apart the US" section.

The most common arguement I'm getting when I try and defend my country is "You blindly defend your countrymen" every single damn time. And the answer is, no, I'm not. Like I've said, several times, we have idiots, child molesters, rapists, murderers, etc etc.
I'm just trying to correct any false statements, or put light onto others. That's all. I know we kill civilians, and I know that it's not justified or right. So please, everyone, stop telling us that it's not. At least me. Have a nice day. :cheers:

 

[FoxDie]

1. No, I'm not upset about being called "boy". Not in the least. I just responded to it, is there a problem with that? I called him a ****ing idiot because he asked someone to admit that their goverment's sole mission is to kill civilians. Maybe you thought that was extreme. I didn't.

Just pointing out that his insult was much less of an insult

3. About the 7000 civ deaths: I know it doesn't change the 'fact'. I'm not trying to say it does. But, all I'm left to say is that that has nothing to do with the current arguement. Here's how this thread went:

"Soldier kills kid for merciful reasons"

"I think it was wrong etc etc"

"I think he did the right thing etc etc"

"Yeah, but the US killed 7000 civilians, and look, here's a soldier raping an Iraqi girl, and here three us soldiers drowned an old man"

"??"

I know a lot of people really hate the war, or the US, or both. But come on people.

Well when a controversial act is brought up, other controversial acts are discussed, and the overall impact and meaning of the events are discussed. We may have gotten slightly offtopic, but that's the only way to have a good conversation

 

[Top Secret]

Blast! I edited my post after you quoted. Please re-read.

 

[FoxDie]

The most common arguement I'm getting when I try and defend my country is "You blindly defend your countrymen" every single damn time. And the answer is, no, I'm not. Like I've said, several times, we have idiots, child molesters, rapists, murderers, etc etc.
I'm just trying to correct any false statements, or put light onto others. That's all. I know we kill civilians, and I know that it's not justified or right. So please, everyone, stop telling us that it's not. At least me. Have a nice day. :cheers:

I'm not accusing you of blindly defending our country, I'm just pointing out that in our quest to protect our civilians from more disasters like 9/11, we have killed almost twice as many Iraqi civilians, and have lost 1/4 as many (soldiers.)

 

[CptStern]

1. Boy. Do not address me as "boy", boy. I might be older than you. I might not be. Point is, that's a stupid excuse for being a jackass.

allllrighty :rolling:

2.Where did I state that anyone who wears an American flag is decent and caring?

quit being so literal, you paint the occupational forces with one brush and everyone else with another ...if I have to explain further there's no use in continuing this "debate"

ONCE AGAIN, putting shit in my mouth. Don't speak for me, you suck at it.

you really dont understand the concept behind debate do you? it's an exchange of ideas not a contest on who can yell the loudest

3. There are 7000 civial casualties for several reasons.

Soldiers killing civs,

no

terrorists killing civs

no

if the US used so many "smart" bombs and "guided" missles why where there 7000 civilian causualties during the war?

reading comprehension


the figure is actually closer to 15,000 since the invasion although I wouldnt be surprised if it was much higher than that

poor intelligence

a fraction of the time

, you name it, it's happened. Where have I denied this? (What does this have to do with my reply to you)

6. Most of the articles you quote, they don't even say what you're telling.

reading comprehension

, You still HAVE NOT shown me where Allawi said quote "claimed responsibility" for those bombings.

:upstare: what are you dense or something? CIA operatives said he [Allawi] was involved read the damn documents, what more proof do you want? a signed confession?

, 7. You just asked me to achknowledge that my country's mission is to kill civilians. What the **** is wrong with you? I'm sure that's what Bush said to his officials. "Hey, let's go kill some brown people and claim it was for WMD!" You make me sick.

ummmm I wasnt even talking to you, you halfwit

, What a poor post on your part. Silly
boy.

 

[Top Secret]

quit being so literal, you paint the occupational forces with one brush and everyone else with another ...if I have to explain further there's no use in continuing this "debate"

What kind of reply is that? You accused me of thinking every American was someone special. That was my reply.

you really dont understand the concept behind debate do you? it's an exchange of ideas not a contest on who can yell the loudest

Cat got your tongue? I don't recall yelling. And I believe by definition, a debate isn't the exchange of ideas. It's the act of making your idea supreme. Defend and attack.

no
no
reading comprehension

Reading comprehension? Let's see what you wrote:

if the US used so many "smart" bombs and "guided" missles why where there 7000 civilian causualties during the war?

If I'm comprehending this correctly, you just asked why there were 7000 civilain casualties during the war. To which I replied the following reasons which you stated were "no":

Soldiers killing civs - This thread is about a soldier killing a civ

terrorists killing civs - Did they not cut off that contractors head?

I'm just going to assume you didn't mean what you wrote, since I think we both know both are true. Perhaps if your writing was more comprehensible and less uncomprehensible I would comprehend said writing?

reading comprehension

Right back at you.

:upstare: what are you dense or something? CIA operatives said he [Allawi] was involved read the damn documents, what more proof do you want? a signed confession?

There's a difference between "claimed responsibility" and being possibly involved. You're stretching.

ummmm I wasnt even talking to you, you halfwit

True. However, I believe you were flaming this place I live in with a stupid reason.

Have a nice day sir.

 

[bliink]

Sheesh, stop with the flaming already.
Everyone, go back and read the topic heading and first post thanks.

 

[CptStern]

If I'm comprehending this correctly

no, you're not

you just asked why there were 7000 civilain casualties during the war.

the war, not the occupation, the war, you know, when the US invaded iraq

 

[Top Secret]

no, you're not



the war, not the occupation, the war, you know, when the US invaded iraq

There's a million posibilites. Bad intelligence, faulty bombs etc etc. Most guided bombs have a 2% mechanical failure. Meaning 1/50 guided bombs are un-aimed. Which can rack up the casualties in a dense urban landscape. So you're trying to say that the US goverment intended to hit innoncent civilians? Because there's a difference between targeting a biological lab with civilian workers and targeting a play ground.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you'd better have a smile on yer face when you say that, boy

Redneck.

You call him a f***ing idiot and you get upset over being called boy? Then you call him a boy back to prove that he shouldn't be a jackass?

...mature....

Calling someone "boy", or "girl" no matter what they're age, is still a euphamism for talking down on someone.

Its no matter, but I still think its funny Stern sounded like a Redneck.

IkidIkid

I've noticed this a few times in this thread (by multiple people.) Seinfeld linked to a page about celebrations in the middle east after 9/11 , and most of the article is devoted to pointing out that most of the publicized photos were staged.

However, most of them were not.

That doesn't change the fact that they have lost nearly twice as many civilians as we did on 9/11...

So, murder justifies murder, eh?

Something you should remember, it took 7,000 people in the course of 8 months. It took 3,000 people in the course of an hour, for the 9.11 attacks.

Time makes all the difference.

quit being so literal, you paint the occupational forces with one brush and everyone else with another ...if I have to explain further there's no use in continuing this "debate"

Why should he quit being so literal. If he does, you'll get literal. Its a loose/loose situation for the both of you; except if you just happent to be literal and thinking at the sametime.

As for you quitting the debate, ... I dont know why.

the figure is actually closer to 15,000 since the invasion although I wouldnt be surprised if it was much higher than that

Its not that the number is tragic to you -- ... seeing as how you've already shown bias.

 

[FoxDie]

Redneck.



Calling someone "boy", or "girl" no matter what they're age, is still a euphamism for talking down on someone.

Its no matter, but I still think its funny Stern sounded like a Redneck.

IkidIkid

I understand why it's insulting But I don't think it's nearly as insulting as being called a ****ing idiot.

So, murder justifies murder, eh?

Something you should remember, it took 7,000 people in the course of 8 months. It took 3,000 people in the course of an hour, for the 9.11 attacks.

Time makes all the difference.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You imply that I believe that murder justifies murder, but my entire point was that in our quest to protect our civilians, we have murdered more than twice as many innocent civilians in another country. I was pointing out the irony in what we are doing, I was not approving our actions, I was condemning them.

 

[CptStern]

Something you should remember, it took 7,000 people in the course of 8 months.

for the last time, the 7000's plus civilian deaths happened during the initial invasion and NOT during the occupation:

"This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003."

source

It took 3,000 people in the course of an hour, for the 9.11 attacks.

"So, murder justifies murder, eh?"

how is 9/11 related to Iraq?

so tell me, how does 9/11 justify the deaths of over 7000 civilians that had nothing to do with the attack on america?

 

[Eg.]

because some asswipe gave us a black eye and now we have to ass rape several nations to look good again, hello Nkorea and IRAN

 

[Absinthe]

because some asswipe gave us a black eye and now we have to ass rape several nations to look good again

Well, at least you admitted it.

 

[Kapitan Helion]

the only difference is most terrorists have already been punished...

Hey... You know... The terror flow will never stop.....

 

[Bait]

because some asswipe gave us a black eye and now we have to ass rape several nations to look good again, hello Nkorea and IRAN

Your open mindedness and compassion towards other human beings truly is second to none. I'm sure Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and probably even Yoda are all spinning in their respective graves.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

how is 9/11 related to Iraq?

so tell me, how does 9/11 justify the deaths of over 7000 civilians that had nothing to do with the attack on america?

Well, if you scroll up, then you would've read these comments:

I'm not accusing you of blindly defending our country, I'm just pointing out that in our quest to protect our civilians from more disasters like 9/11, we have killed almost twice as many Iraqi civilians, and have lost 1/4 as many (soldiers.)

That doesn't change the fact that they have lost nearly twice as many civilians as we did on 9/11...

Since they were made, some of us here have since debated them.

"So, murder justifies murder, eh?"

Unfortunately, you missed the point I was trying to make. Its illogical, and well beyond a political perspective, to compare two entirely different categories of deaths; and the situations that came with them.

how is 9/11 related to Iraq?

Well, you would've gotten me there, but the Insurgency has declared themselves recently to be the Al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, as it was'nt before -- it is now.

so tell me, how does 9/11 justify the deaths of over 7000 civilians that had nothing to do with the attack on america?

However, how does anything prior to 9/11 occuring, justify 9/11 all in itself? Remember, if you can find an answer, so can I. My point in this is, we all assume for one reason or another, one side did more wrong.

So to address your question more directly, let me this answer:

It never would have -- if the Insurgency hadn't declared themselves Al-Qaeda.

"This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003."

source

Some of these people also died of old-age, sickness, heart-attacks or accidents involving them falling off bridges. One thing that remains inconsistent is that some of the pre-war death tolls, happen to be commited by tanks?

That site happens to give credit, it was the Bombing Campaign that caused many of those deaths. Strangely, more people were killed by debris or shrapnel then the bombs detonation itself. Its a good site with a keen observation -- however there remains an error to your logic.

We cannot control shrapnel. We cant control how much of it they’re will be, where it will go -- we can however know where our bombs are going. From as this site credits, it wasn’t the charge of malicious and unforgiving; and utmost random bombings, but of detonation sites creating dangers.

So, how far does your charge go?

 

[CptStern]

Well, you would've gotten me there, but the Insurgency has declared themselves recently to be the Al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, as it was'nt before -- it is now.

no that's being sorely shortsighted ..evey single religious, political, social and fanatical movement in iraq is fighting for control ..sure there's some Al queda but most have been recruited because of the invasion, they have little or nothing to do with osama

However, how does anything prior to 9/11 occuring, justify 9/11 all in itself? Remember, if you can find an answer, so can I. My point in this is, we all assume for one reason or another, one side did more wrong.

So to address your question more directly, let me this answer:

It never would have -- if the Insurgency hadn't declared themselves Al-Qaeda.

how many Al queda have been captured or neutralised in Iraq? 10? 100? 1000? does that justify 14,000 + civilian deaths?

Some of these people also died of old-age, sickness, heart-attacks or accidents involving them falling off bridges.

:upstare: it distinctly says died due to coalition bombing ...not falling off of bridges One thing that remains inconsistent is that some of the pre-war death tolls, happen to be commited by tanks?

That site happens to give credit, it was the Bombing Campaign that caused many of those deaths. Strangely, more people were killed by debris or shrapnel then the bombs detonation itself. Its a good site with a keen observation -- however there remains an error to your logic.

We cannot control shrapnel. We cant control how much of it they’re will be, where it will go -- we can however know where our bombs are going. From as this site credits, it wasn’t the charge of malicious and unforgiving; and utmost random bombings, but of detonation sites creating dangers.

so in other words "if they're in the way it's their own fault"