gav wrote:kickycan wrote:Of course you know that, because you have been in that situation before. Oh wait a minute, you haven't. You've been sitting here playing armchair judge, jury and executioner on the internet.
Yip, thats why I didn't sign up to be a soldier - I don't think i could deal with such a situation. Therefore I would expect people that were willing to sign up and recieve the training to deal with it professionally, as I'm sure such a situation came up in said training.
I believe you are forgetting that these are human beings, and not automatons. Either that, or you are working backwards from a belief that the guy is a murderous thug, and trying to find points that back you up.
kickycan wrote:gav wrote:kickycan wrote:Of course you know that, because you have been in that situation before. Oh wait a minute, you haven't. You've been sitting here playing armchair judge, jury and executioner on the internet.
Yip, thats why I didn't sign up to be a soldier - I don't think i could deal with such a situation. Therefore I would expect people that were willing to sign up and recieve the training to deal with it professionally, as I'm sure such a situation came up in said training.
I believe you are forgetting that these are human beings, and not automatons. Either that, or you are working backwards from a belief that the guy is a murderous thug, and trying to find points that back you up.
I think Gav is against anything that looks military and doesn't support terrorism. His choice of a second flag gives it all away.
cav also ducks questions like the last one I asked.
Oh crap, you mean I'm on Baldimo's, Bill's and Larry434's side in this argument???!
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
kickycan wrote:Oh crap, you mean I'm on Baldimo's, Bill's and Larry434's side in this argument???!
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
what the hell is the matter with you?
It's okay Kicky. You're not truly anti-American. I'm not just saying that... it's true with this one, and he doesn't deny it.
(Btw, I fixed that image for you, gav)
Baldimo wrote:I think Gav is against anything that looks military and doesn't support terrorism. His choice of a second flag gives it all away.
Ah OK, so I support terrorists coz I have a Palestinian flag on my avatar - WOW. You should work for the Supreme Court!!!
OCCOM BILL wrote:It's okay Kicky. You're not truly anti-American. I'm not just saying that... it's true with this one, and he doesn't deny it.
(Btw, I fixed that image for you, gav)
I seen it, I seen a kid in one of those this morning - he was licking the window and wearing a hat just like your's!!!. BTW is that your house its parked outside?
gav wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:It's okay Kicky. You're not truly anti-American. I'm not just saying that... it's true with this one, and he doesn't deny it.
(Btw, I fixed that image for you, gav)
I seen it, I seen a kid in one of those this morning - he was licking the window and wearing a hat just like your's!!!. BTW is that your house its parked outside?
Notice the deafening silence from Gav on the important issue? Me too.
What? That I'm anti-American? Like I said before -you hear what you want to hear, and see what you want to see. And if you thinking I'm anti-American gives you even a small bit of displeasure or discomfort, I'll continue to let you think that!!!
gav wrote:Baldimo wrote:I think Gav is against anything that looks military and doesn't support terrorism. His choice of a second flag gives it all away.
Ah OK, so I support terrorists coz I have a Palestinian flag on my avatar - WOW. You should work for the Supreme Court!!!
They wouldn't have me, I believe in the US constitution and would follow it. In order to work on the Supreme Court you need to be able to look past the Constitution and only rule on ideology and what your radical agenda groups feel is the correct course.
You speak of Arafat like he was a perfect man and did no wrong. That is your support for terrorism.
Baldimo wrote:
They wouldn't have me, I believe in the US constitution and would follow it. In order to work on the Supreme Court you need to be able to look past the Constitution and only rule on ideology and what your radical agenda groups feel is the correct course.
You speak of Arafat like he was a perfect man and did no wrong. That is your support for terrorism.
And because America and Israel said he was a bad man that means it is so.
And I couldn't give a **** about your Supreme Court - no offence!
gav wrote:Baldimo wrote:
They wouldn't have me, I believe in the US constitution and would follow it. In order to work on the Supreme Court you need to be able to look past the Constitution and only rule on ideology and what your radical agenda groups feel is the correct course.
You speak of Arafat like he was a perfect man and did no wrong. That is your support for terrorism.
And because America and Israel said he was a bad man that means it is so.
And I couldn't give a **** about your Supreme Court - no offence!
No looking at his history says he's a bad man.
Insurgent hiding in a pile of bodies, hand on an automatic weapon. You're the soldier who might die - what decision do you make?
Personally, I'd have made the same decision...This guy is going to get disciplined and discharged for being a soldier and doing his job.
I'm copying this quote from a fellow troop supporter on another board:
"I work Army Public Affairs & can say with authority, THE CAMERA DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!
From what I've heard, the Marine was WIA in the face the previous day & had a buddy KIA due to a booby-trapped enemy body. You'd have to be nuts NOT to blast any Iraqi threat the way he did! That Marine did like the WWII Marines did in the Pacific, if in doubt, pull the trigger. The enemy are suicidal and if you make the wrong choice, you might not live to make a decision again!"
