U.S. Army kills Afghans who were speeding on bike!!!

reply to post by Vicky32


You are judging from the safety of your home, nice and cuddly behind your computer monitor. To develop a less-flawed and more experienced perception of the situation in that war, it would be beneficial to see things for yourself in person. So far all you have to base your ideas on are televised broadcasts and personal statements that are usually always with one agenda or another (either anti-war or pro-war, almost never neutral).

That said, I will provide you with a neutral perception as I have experience with military men. There ARE a few that just want to kill, but there are equal amounts of people in there that just want money, experience, and/or to genuinely help people. There is no pure-evil or pure-good in any aspect of any event in life, it is always shades of grey.

Having said that, painting all military men as killers, is the same as painting all cops as power-hungry sadistic racists, all doctors as money-grubbing sadists, all teachers as closeted pedophiles, etc etc. These are very emotionally charged and flawed perceptions. Perhaps even naive.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing


That said, I will provide you with a neutral perception as I have experience with military men.

Having said that, painting all military men as killers, is the same as painting all cops as power-hungry sadistic racists, all doctors as money-grubbing sadists, all teachers as closeted pedophiles, etc etc. These are very emotionally charged and flawed perceptions. Perhaps even naive.

edit on 1-4-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Neutral? I don't think it's possible to be neutral on these subjects... Tell me, what other motivation could a military man have but to kill? but to kill? That's all they are there to do. If you say 'build schools and hospitals and help people' I will say that aid workers already do that, and much more effectively.
I pity soldiers such as my late father, who joined the British army in 1938, at the age of 19, because the alternative was unemployment. He knew what was coming, too, but at 19 years old, you think you're bullet proof, literally, and he wasn't - literally.
(Although to you Americans, WW2 began in 1942, it really started in 1939.)
No soldier since 1980, in any western country, has had my father's excuse. Military men are killers. That makes them evil, by me.
Cops are power-hungry sadistic racists and that's just the ones on TV. (Real ones in the USA are probably much worse, cos real ones in NZ are bad enough, although they're more likely to be rapists than racists.
Doctors are arrogant berks, but here in NZ, not money grubbing, and teachers are not paedophiles (I am a teacher
:lol
Vicky

Originally posted by Vicky32
Sigh... I know you Americans are rather shaky on geography and history - but basically there are two reasons : Agent Orange (which is still causing birth defects all these decades later) and the #e you're banging on about which took place in Cambodia which FYI is a different country.
Where do you get the million figure from?

Are you really that ignorant … oh wait, I’ve read your other posts, I already know the answer.

Its time for a non John Pilger approved history lesson four our absent minded kiwi friend here.

The iconic image of people fleeing to the roof of a waiting helicopter isnt one of Americans evacuating …. it was Vietnamese civilians escaping their new liberators from Hanoi. After the fall of Saigon in 1975 approximately one and a half million Vietnamese fled as refugees, a third of these died at sea from Thai piracy, malnutrition, or harassment from the new Vietnamese government. Another million plus were sent to “re-education” camps that sprang up like weeds after the fall of Saigon. About 20% of these died between 1975 and 1979 from causes ranging from execution to malnutrition. The selection criteria for “re-education” was a better safe than sorry approach; ethnic Chinese, teachers, military, business men, university students, land owners, and pretty much any government employee from mail carrier to judges (and their families) were sent off. Then there were the tens of thousands executed in the weeks immediately following the fall of Saigon. Why they were executed is anyone’s guess as there were no formal charges, trials or paperwork.

Then there are the hill tribes of Western Vietnam. They allied themselves early on with the South Vietnamese and US after their first few encounters with Hanoi. The Hmong, Degar, and Khmer Krom have virtually become extinct since 1975 and that’s not by accident. Trapped between hostile governments in Vietnam and Laos, a few hundred thousand managed to escaped to Thailand and then onto the US and Canada while most were murdered and sent off for reeducation. In 1975 they numbered over five million, today there are fewer than one million left in Vietnam.

I find the lack of attention on this latter group most ironic considering how “sensitive” good liberals are to the rights of indigenous peoples … I suppose it only matters when non leftist regimes are the ones perpetrating the predations.

Vicky, dont try hard. This is an American Forum, which means the majority here are brainwashed. Don't exhaust your oxygen and enjoy the ignorance. It is funny to watch from a distance..

This isn't an american forum....although.....this forum is like america. Its made up of people from hundreds of different countries. Thanks for realizing who we are though.

Originally posted by Vicky32Neutral? I don't think it's possible to be neutral on these subjects... Tell me, what other motivation could a military man have but to kill? but to kill? That's all they are there to do. If you say 'build schools and hospitals and help people' I will say that aid workers already do that, and much more effectively.

I have read plenty of your anti- military nonsense in the past. I can only speak for myself and my motivations for choosing the military as a career.

Your own minority opinion aside, the profession of arms is a respected one especially here in the United States.

Every year there is a poll conducted that asks about the most ethical and trusted professions. Usually military service in general is up towards the top and military officers – you know the ones who lead the troops has been in the top 10 most respected professions for as long as I can remember.

Here is the latest one. Gallup Poll

Military Officers are number two, right behind nurses as ethical and trustworthy in the eyes of the American public. Unfortunately they failed to conduct a poll of the people of New Zealand as frankly their opinions mean very little - when was the last time someone said "Hey, let's discuss New Zealand foreign policy?"

Why? Because it's irrelevant to the world at large.

Anyway, the American people trust the military officers to do the right thing because of their professionalism and ethics. We hold ourselves to a much higher standard of ethics than the population at large, things civilians wouldn't bat an eye at will cost you your commission in the military.

Originally posted by Vicky32I pity soldiers such as my late father, who joined the British army in 1938, at the age of 19, because the alternative was unemployment. He knew what was coming, too, but at 19 years old, you think you're bullet proof, literally, and he wasn't - literally. (Although to you Americans, WW2 began in 1942, it really started in 1939.)

Wow, I served 24 years and wouldn't trade my experiences for anything. I enlisted in 1985 as a Private; made Sergeant First Class and eventually retired as a Major - completed Ranger School and the Q course not once but twice... I don't think there is any other career I ever wanted.

I could have done almost anything in life I wanted to do; I had decent grades in school high SAT scores, played several sports etc. The military is hardly a dead end for those who can do nothing else. Actually those people who feel they have no other recourse than military service are likely unqualified and probably discouraged as they will in the end be a drain on the military resources just like they will to society at large.

In fact , only 3 of 10 people aged 18-21 in the United States qualify for military service most are either disqualified mentally (meaning test scores or education), morally (meaning being drug user or having past non-waiverable criminal behavior) or physically (usually too fat).

That said military service is hardly a dead end; in fact, for many it is the beginning of a life changing experience and the key to a better and more prosperous future for them and their families.

Most companies want to hire and actively seek retired or ex -military officers for their leadership programs and management teams; why - because it’s a dead end?

No because they already have demonstrated they can be successful at something very challenging under duress and with tight resources. They are problem solvers and money makers not slackers and nere do wells.

Originally posted by Vicky32No soldier since 1980, in any western country, has had my father's excuse. Military men are killers. That makes them evil, by me.

I have killed a man and while I don’t regret it I still feel the weight of its gravity. No Soldier relishes killing – it is always, always something you will remember and live with. It is no trivial thing nor for the faint of heart or weak of will.

I have been places and seen things you wouldn't believe. I've jumped from an airplane at 20k feet and rode a horse through the mountains and desert of Afghanistan.

I have been both been bored to tears and stricken with fear on the same day; held a dear friend as he died in my arms, seen heroes and villains in action - cried with widows and presented a flag to an 8 year old orphan at a funeral. Best part is I would do it all over again today given the opportunity.

There isn't a mission I participated in that wasn't just and made the world a better place to be.

Originally posted by Vicky32Doctors are arrogant berks, but here in NZ, not money grubbing, and teachers are not paedophiles (I am a teacher :lol

Vicky

There are many examples of Teachers who are indeed pedophiles too many to enumerate here; however, that does not mean they all are. They represent much like the military a cross section of the society from which they are drawn and indeed there are some people happen to be in the military who commit horrible acts of cruelty and indiscriminate killing – the video in question on this thread is not one of those examples.

Those who serve in the American military that are discovered to be of this immoral bent are swiftly and effectively dealt with much like anyone in your chosen profession would be for his/her actions.

I would contend that they are often dealt with more harshly and swiftly than with civil justice as the UCMJ allows for more liberal rules of evidence and the threshold for burden of proof is often only a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt like civilian law.

Originally posted by deccal
Vicky, dont try hard. This is an American Forum, which means the majority here are brainwashed. Don't exhaust your oxygen and enjoy the ignorance. It is funny to watch from a distance..

Good point, Decca, and thanks! I am really running out of patience so I shall cease trying... Oh and Loverboy, in effect, it is an American forum, you dominate, numerically and in other ways..
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Statistics anywhere?

reply to post by Golf66


I think you pretty much summarized everything up right here. Excellent post.

Originally posted by Golf66

In fact , only 3 of 10 people aged 18-21 in the United States qualify for military service most are either disqualified mentally (meaning test scores or education), morally (meaning being drug user or having past non-waiverable criminal behavior) or physically (usually too fat).

I recommend you listen to the song 'Alice's Restaurant' by Arlo Guthrie... The irony of someone being found morally unfit to go and kill people, is too delicious!
(You can probably find it on YouTube. )
Vicky

I love how even the person who created the thread can't see that these were armed Taliban thugs- even though it says it the title of the video he posted.
You can hear a soldier say "Stop!"
You can hear one say "Did you see him draw down on me?"
When you "draw down" on someone, that means you are pointing a weapon at them and are ready to actively engage.
And to all the Aussies and Kiwis that have been bashing the U.S. non-stop for the last year (at least) all over this site, when your countries are some perfect Eden-like utopia- let me know...........

Originally posted by Vicky32
I recommend you listen to the song 'Alice's Restaurant' by Arlo Guthrie... The irony of someone being found morally unfit to go and kill people, is too delicious!
(You can probably find it on YouTube. )
Vicky

The fact that you can't comprehend how we would want to screen out irrational and immoral people before we give them powerful weapons and the authority to use lethal force says that you have absolutely zero understanding of the profession of arms.

Further, the irony of your post here is that you seem to draw your moral philosophy on the morality of the use of force in modern geopolitics from a pop culture reference.

Moral disqualification from military service is an attempt to weed out individuals who have shown a marked lack of respect for the rights of others (theft and assault charges), respect for authority (excessive traffic or other violations), respect for their oaths and obligations (irresponsible spending and debt repayment failure) and simply to see of those who may have committed an infraction in the past how to they view these acts.

Some people with past criminal acts are allowed to enlist with a waiver after a pretty extensive set of interviews. The question is primarily; do they present themselves as a victim of the "system" or take personal responsibility for their actions. Having interviewed countless young people a good many consider themselves and innocent and exploited victims of their surroundings, upbringing and or an overzealous police force. It is almost the universal response to minor possession to claim to have never even smoked pot but to have been charged for being in the car with someone who had some... I have never accepted that as an excuse.

In my brief stint as a Battalion Executive Officer in Recruiting I would never approve such a person for a waiver because they still do not accept responsibility for their own actions and choices.

Violent crimes such as assault and fighting is school in an excessive number - even if the kid was found innocent are disqualifying in my eyes; unless the person had some really good resaoning or the behavior was many (5) or more years in the past I would never approve them for a waiver and didn't. That shows a pattern of irresponsibility in handling confrontation through force - not an ideal skill set for a professional Soldier.

This was awesome! Love watching Muslim Terrorists getting taken out. Made my day!

reply to post by Carseller4


I love watching IEDs rip apart a m1tank and a hummer with the crew ripped to shreds inside as well. See how silly your comment is? Those folks are not terrorists, they are soldiers fighting for their country. If you were in the revolutionary war in 1776 as an American, you would be labeled a terrorist to.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I would read a book about the taliban, than read a book on the colonists. Most people would be able to see a slight difference.

Originally posted by Golf66

The fact that you can't comprehend how we would want to screen out irrational and immoral people before we give them powerful weapons and the authority to use lethal force says that you have absolutely zero understanding of the profession of arms.

Profession, really? Soldiers are there to kill or be killed. End of. Except for the generals who sit in safety at HQ and drink port, it's a 'crap shoot' as Letterman might say.

Originally posted by Golf66Further, the irony of your post here is that you seem to draw your moral philosophy on the morality of the use of force in modern geopolitics from a pop culture reference.

That's a pretty tortured sentence. I suppose that's what happens when a military person tries to write like a scholar! But as I understand it, you're accusing me of getting my pacifist beliefs from a song. Don't be absurd. I've been a pacifist all my life, since I saw the effects of World War 2 on my family - dead people, people wrecked for life... The song was introduced to me by my ex decades later. I've been told that Americans by and large don't get irony, and Alanis Morisette amply proved in the 1990s that that's true. The song is about a guy who's called up to fight in Vietnam but to his relief and amusement, he's rejecting because he has a conviction for littering. The irony is that because he's a criminal he's found not morally fit to invade a country and murder women and children. Simple!

Originally posted by Golf66In my brief stint as a Battalion Executive Officer in Recruiting I would never approve such a person for a waiver because they still do not accept responsibility for their own actions and choices.

Violent crimes such as assault and fighting is school in an excessive number - even if the kid was found innocent are disqualifying in my eyes; unless the person had some really good resaoning or the behavior was many (5) or more years in the past I would never approve them for a waiver and didn't. That shows a pattern of irresponsibility in handling confrontation through force - not an ideal skill set for a professional Soldier.

The fact that you were a recruiting officer says a lot about your point of view! You're emotionally invested in persuading minimum wage workers, the uneducated and the unemployed to go and get killed. I wonder how you can live with yourself?
Vicky
PS - What qualifies as an 'excessive number'? Three convictions for GBH? Five? Ten? A recent study showed that it's actually very difficult to make men murder each other. Soldiers tended to shoot to oops miss, so surely a man who's likely to nut off and deck someone would be an asset?

Originally posted by Viking9019
I was thinking the same but this a another case of a U.S. soldier getting scared and firing without any thought.

Once again, posters on ATS don't have a clue.

It isn't the case of some Soldier being scared. It's something called a "hasty ambush."

I've seen the entire video, which had better sound and picture quality.

Guy on the bike was raising his weapon to do a drive-by. After they are schwacked, you can see one is sporting a chest rig with ammo, a radio and the weapon.

Sorry, no "murder" or "war crime" here. Hate to burst everyone's bubble.

when your in someones backyard and sneaking around, and then you end up shooting the occupants, that's murder... It's that simple.

reply to post by Rastus3663


Patience Rastus - You never know your luck

Originally posted by Vicky32Profession, really? Soldiers are there to kill or be killed. End of. Except for the generals who sit in safety at HQ and drink port, it's a 'crap shoot' as Letterman might say.

Again, quoting pop culture for comment about the profession of arms… David Leterman knows as much about the Military as I do about late night comedy I would imagine.

To completely discount the existence of an entire vocation, profession or trade that is one of the oldest (second to prostitution perhaps), and consitently one of the most respected and has been for melinia is laughable. Just because you personally don’t espouse merits of the profession doesn’t negate its existence.

I suppose there are those who could disparage your profession as well – Those who can, do those who can’t, teach? I am not one of those people - there are good and bad teachers but the bad few do not negate the necessity of the entire profession by the collateral damage they casue.

Originally posted by Vicky32The fact that you were a recruiting officer says a lot about your point of view! You're emotionally invested in persuading minimum wage workers, the uneducated and the unemployed to go and get killed. I wonder how you can live with yourself?

Again you display a total lack of understanding with regard to the profession; the primary duty of the Executive Officer in a Recruiting Battalion is to enforce policy, ensure the minimum qualification standards for the recruits is being maintained and for all intents and purposes is an anti-recruiter or a voice for reason in questionable and border line cases (moral issues) in a mission that focuses solely on filling the ranks.

I assure you I disqualified and talked more wishy-washy kids from joining the profession than I talked into it. I certainly discouraged the bottom feeders of society from joining out of a lack employability in the civilian marketplace. No one wants the fat, lazy and stupid in their professions - they are a drain.

Originally posted by Vicky32PS - What qualifies as an 'excessive number'? Three convictions for GBH? Five? Ten? A recent study showed that it's actually very difficult to make men murder each other. Soldiers tended to shoot to oops miss, so surely a man who's likely to nut off and deck someone would be an asset?

George Bush did not enlist he was elected and therefore he is not subject to the screening... The current abomination of a Chief Executive would not even qualify for a security clearance IAW the Army reglations were he to enlist simply based upon his own claim to have associated with known Marxists and terrorist - that and his admitted drug use; it seems there is a higher standard to being a Soldier entrusted with national security informatio than the vetting process for President, which is all said and done a simple popularity contest.

To answer the question directly it is in some cases spelled out by the level of the charge and the outcome for which the matrix is available in AR 601-210 (which is available in PDF) and in others, i.e., waivers purely a subjective call of the XO who should err on the side of caution.

Please do some research… While your assertions about effective fire may have been true about 40 years ago; any recent research into the science of killing indicates that today’s young Soldiers are about 2-3 times as likely as those of the WWII generation to fire their weapons effectively at the enemy. The reasons are many and varied including desensitization through video games and TV, the increase in violence in society, etc., the thing that has the least impact on a Soldiers willingness to kill is the method of training and indoctrination.

One cannot make a bold change to a person’s moral code in 8-16 weeks of training which is why the vetting process and screening of recruits is so important. The ability to tell right from wrong is imprinted early in childhood education and development, a fact that I thought you certainly would be aware as a member of the teaching profession.

Finally, to get this through; we don’t want psychopaths and sociopaths in the ranks – their lack of empathy/respect for and ultimately their lack of remorse for the use of necessary lethal force is the antitheses of the profession of arms.

Soldiers bear a heavy burden and responsibility when making that choice and we make sure that they consider it a grave duty rather than something done for kicks.