It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What you want is for someone to give you the answer that you want to hear, so you can then say- see I knew it.
That was a nice cherry picked example of a man being shot for stealing food.
You've obviously had no experience at military guard duty to make the assertion that no matter what is being guarded, that soldiers will die or kill to protect it. If what is being guarded doesn't warrant lethal force, then soldiers will use non-lethal force, and if that doesn't work, will call for assistance. They won't resort to dying in place or killing though.
Your assertion that soldiers are being executed downrange, is asinine. It's awfully convenient to say X is happening- I don't have any proof, but they'd cover it up, so it must be happening. That's some BS logic. I've been downrange, and seen how things work. You haven't.
Please refrain from lecturing me without one iota of background to back up your severely uninformed opinions.
As for Saddam relenting- that's horsepucky.
jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?
Hitler went on to gain their support by convincing most Germans he was their savior from the economic Depression, communism, the "Judeo-Bolsheviks," and the Versailles Treaty, along with other "undesirable" minorities
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Long Lance
My problem is with folks who like to cherry pick stories that support their agendas/fears, and then try to claim that such behaviors happen regularly in all parts of the country and in every police department. It's just like folks who try to say we need more gun control, and cite the few instances where a wacko used a gun, whilst ignoring the thousands of incidents where guns were used in a positive way to prevent crime.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by White Chapel
jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?
Try sticking to the topic. Baiting and personal attacks are against ATS policy. Portions of my backround are not to be discussed with anyone, much less on a public forum.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by White Chapel
jackinthebox - why don't you enlighten us all on your background? You keep telling people that they don't know your background so how can they judge...well, share then. What is your background?
Try sticking to the topic. Baiting and personal attacks are against ATS policy. Portions of my backround are not to be discussed with anyone, much less on a public forum.
When the National Guard arrived in town that evening, a large demonstration was already under way on the campus, and the campus Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building (which had been boarded up and scheduled for demolition[citation needed]) was burning. The arsonists were never apprehended and no one was injured in the fire. More than a thousand protesters surrounded the building and cheered the building's burning. While attempting to extinguish the fire, several Kent firemen and police officers were hit with rocks and other objects by those standing near the fire. More than one fire engine company had to be called in because protesters carried the fire hose into the Commons and slashed it.[8][9][10] A call for assistance went out and at 10:00 p.m., the National Guard entered the campus for the first time, setting up camp directly on campus. There were many arrests made, tear gas was used, and at least one student was wounded with a bayonet.[11]
Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio ARNG, the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.
Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When they refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some began a second rock attack with chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students threw the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen. The only protection the soldiers had were their steel helmets. They had no body armor or face shields, although they had put on gas masks upon first using tear gas.
At this point, at 12:22 PM,[1] a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand semi-automatic military rifles into the students.
it is not a bait or a personal attack, it is relevant to the discussion because you keep referencing it when people make statements. Without some sort of clarification here, I'm just going to assume your a 13 year old with too much time on his hands.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
The specifics of my backround are irrelevant and will not be provided, other than to say that I am qualified to answer the question posed by the OP.
Who am I to presume? It can be seen plainly that if you don't get the response you want, you dismiss it.
It's not a yes or no question with regards to shooting people, if you don't give the context. If the people are endangering me, my buddies, other civilians, trying to steal weapons, classified materials, blow things up, etc....then yes, I wouldn't have an issue with taking them out. If the question is would you shoot someone standing in line with a sign, or trying to eat, then absolutely not.
The example you provided of the man being shot for stealing food gave no other background info on the circumstances. On it's own, it does sound a bit messed up. There may be a lot more to the story we don't know though, so I can't ignore that in my opinion formulation.
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Long Lance
There are some jerks who were probably beat up in school and have a chip on their shoulder, and now that they have a badge, are trying to make up for it, but I believe them to be in the distinct minority.
Wouldn't that make the specifics of your "backround" relevant?
Anyone can say they are qualified, but can they prove it?
When you assume guard duty in the military, you receive a briefing on your duties and rules of engagement. If you're not guarding something that warrants lethal force, you will not use lethal force for other than self defense. Your special instructions cover contingencies, should they occur. If need be you'd call for assistance, but it's not expected that you would die for something that you're not authorized lethal force to protect.
As for assuming that soldiers have been executed- could you be specific? Are you talking about Pat Tillman? If so, that was fratericide, not an execution.
The first one with the fat cop and his go-cart of a police car, I would have done the same thing he did to those spoiled brats mouthing off.
The second video was creepy, felt bad for the lady and she should sue. Point is, there are good and bad people everywhere.
One last thing, if I was one of those kids in the first video I would take off and run. There is no way that fluffy wonder of a cop would have caught me. Those kids should have taken off and run in different directions, kids are lame these days.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
Fine. No one on this thread should say anything further until they have posted their entire record, certifications, and identifications.
You go first.