I am so f***ing sick of this garbage

But I didn't misunderstand! I quoted his damn post! He said what he said in plain English. How did you guys interpret that post?

Exactly. The solution here is to stop taking prisoners.

There might be specific people we are looking for to take prisoner to acquire intelligence from, but otherwise...

...but otherwise KILL EVERYBODY ELSE? Give me a break.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
But I didn't misunderstand! I quoted his damn post! He said what he said in plain English. How did you guys interpret that post?



...but otherwise KILL EVERYBODY ELSE? Give me a break.

Awww, s'ok. :baby4:

Anyho, what else would you do with people committing crimes if you don't plan to arrest and detain them......eh? Not me personally BTW, I feel acting as my slave would be a delightful way to fulfill community service sentances.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
...but otherwise KILL EVERYBODY ELSE?
That is precisely what I meant.

I don't want our soldiers second guessing themselves. I want them to shoot. I want them to shoot to kill.

I don't want them risking their lives to take people alive if they aren't ordered to.

I don't want them wasting their time guarding prisoners.

And I sure as shit don't want them setting terrorist prisoners free because there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a court.

I want them to kill.
 
Well, the obvious question for me is how many dead Iraqis holding frying pans, screw drivers, kitchen utensils, etc. that our soldiers mistook for weapons does it take to invalidate that kind of policy?
 
I'd prefer mass internment over mass killing.

Thank you, finally some sense comes to the thread.

Megalo, what's "strawman" about what I said? You don't think soldiers face arrest situations outside of the ones that are outlined for them in pre-mission briefings?
 
As an edit I might add.

What do you mean miss said?

I got that "shoot 'em up" comment up there before the next post was up.

I feel acting as my slave would be a delightful way to fulfill community service sentances.

Now you're advocating slavery? I don't know what they're teaching ya'll up there in Canada, but we south of the border believe that slavery is just unChristian. :)
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Thank you, finally some sense comes to the thread.

Megalo, what's "strawman" about what I said? You don't think soldiers face arrest situations outside of the ones that are outlined for them in pre-mission briefings?

Only when the bad guys throw their weapons down and their hands in the air. They are not cops and are not trained to be cops.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
What do you mean miss said?

I got that "shoot 'em up" comment up there before the next post was up.



Now you're advocating slavery? I don't know what they're teaching ya'll up there in Canada, but we south of the border believe that slavery is just unChristian. :)

Come on Hag, she's not advocating slavery. You're losing sight of things, friend.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Well, the obvious question for me is how many dead Iraqis holding frying pans, screw drivers, kitchen utensils, etc. that our soldiers mistook for weapons does it take to invalidate that kind of policy?
A frying pan, screw driver, or kitchen utensil can be used as a weapon, but ignoring that, no number would invalidate it.

If more than half the people being shot were in fact old Iraqi women in their kitchens, holding blenders, than I would suggest a re-evaluation of the types of missions our soldiers were being sent on, not a re-evaluation of their conduct.

See, I don't care about innocent Iraqis anywhere near as much as I care about our troops. That's why I support strategic bombing, and that's why I support a free fire policy for our troops.

I don't think we should second-guess the actions of our troops in the field, nor do I believe we should hand-cuff them with unreasonable expectations of restrait. They are soldiers, they are trained to kill. I say let them do their job.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
what's "strawman" about what I said?

The straw man is your next sentence:

You don't think soldiers face arrest situations outside of the ones that are outlined for them in pre-mission briefings?

With policy as it is now those situations do exist, obviously. The question of their existence is the argument you've introduced all on your own.
 
They are not cops and are not trained to be cops.

I made this point in a previous post on this thread. Given this fact, they still arrest people. Hence the existence of all the detainees being released from prison for RamadaInn.

*I was also kidding with the slavery remark. Hence the "miss said," the Canada joke, and the smiley face at the end.

To Zuk, since the soldiers are fighting in the name of us citizens, I would prefer it if they didn't shoot every person they saw but would instead make an effort to preserve life when it is possible. And I never introduced any question about the existence of arrest possibilities. I pointed it out because you did not leave room for it in your "shoot 'em all" post.
 
Zhukov said:
A frying pan, screw driver, or kitchen utensil can be used as a weapon, but ignoring that, no number would invalidate it.

If more than half the people being shot were in fact old Iraqi women in their kitchens, holding blenders, than I would suggest a re-evaluation of the types of missions our soldiers were being sent on, not a re-evaluation of their conduct.

See, I don't care about innocent Iraqis anywhere near as much as I care about our troops. That's why I support strategic bombing, and that's why I support a free fire policy for our troops.

I don't think we should second-guess the actions of our troops in the field, nor do I believe we should hand-cuff them with unreasonable expectations of restrait. They are soldiers, they are trained to kill. I say let them do their job.

There is a balance between killing enough people to make a point and killing so many people you literally drive people away from your cause out of sheer fear. You can't expect someone who's lived their entire life under the brainwashing control that used to be in Iraq to suddenly trust you. There's a lot of propaganda that you're fighting, and having a shoot to kill policy of that magnitude, I believe, will ruin any chance you have of winning people over.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
To Zuk, since the soldiers are fighting in the name of us citizens, I would prefer it if they didn't shoot every person they saw but would instead make an effort to preserve life when it is possible.

Hey look everyone, another straw man.

HC said:
And I never introduced any question about the existence of arrest possibilities. I pointed it out because you did not leave room for it in your "shoot 'em all" post.

Really?

Then...

HC said:
It proves I won the argument between him and me.

...what were we arguing about? At least as far as you're concerned, I mean.

The ClayTaurus said:
There is a balance between killing enough people to make a point...

Stop right there. When did I say anything about killing people to make a point?
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Isn't that what civil rights are all about? I thought that was one of the things America was supposed to stand for. Rather, as an American, that's one of the things I stand for. :dance:

Oh really? how do you feel about affirmative action. AKA raced based preferences.
 
Zhukov said:
Hey look everyone, another straw man.



Really?

Then...



...what were we arguing about? At least as far as your concerned, I mean.



Stop right there. When did I say anything about killing people to make a point?

You didn't. Protect ourselves and fuck everyone else. I get it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top