About the CT shooting, does anyone else find it most disturbing that...

Define "serial killer."Palantas

Are we just talking about murders of foreign civilians?Palantas

Are you comparing them to the civilian justice systemPalantas

Is it your assertion that this leniency for the military is more prevalent in the United States than in other countries?Palantas

[QUOTE="I"]Define "serial killer."kuraimen

I'm asking you to define your term. That's not arguing. Point out where I am making an argument about the term.

Also, since we're only looking at serial killers, are we going to ignore soldiers who murdered only a single civilian. If so, why?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="I"]Define "serial killer."Palantas

I'm asking you to define your term. That's not arguing. Point out where I am making an argument about the term.

Also, since we're only looking at serial killers, are we going to ignore soldiers who murdered only a single civilian. If so, why?

Ok we can include them if you like but my argument will only get stronger. I just figured that since the US military loves to hide the atrocities they commit finding single murder cases is pretty difficult, most probably go unpunished and unreported.kuraimen

I tell you what... I will let you continue using this theory without proof, if you will accept the following without proof: Using my security clearance, I am able to access data on military trials and punishments, the details of which I cannot discuss. Do you agree with this?

I am able to access data on military trials and punishments, the details of which I cannot discuss.Palantas

Eh yeah right... sorry but to believe that I need to trust you first...kuraimen

Allrighty then. I need to see your evidence about military coverups before we go any further. I'll repost the other issues you've been ignoring.

Answer this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]On your character and the kind of person you are. Not a very honest one I must say.I

Oh, I'm not honest. Show me the quote block where I'm being dishonest.

Answer this:

You accused me of "hearing voices" because I said "several people" were laughing at you, while you claimed there were only two. If I can find more than two people openly criticizing you, will you admit this statement above was incorrect, and quit the argument? I am making a bet with you. The bet is that I can find more than two people in this thread laughing at you. The wager is that the loser will admit he f*cked up and quit the argument. Do you accept, or would you like to alter the wager?

I

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Eh yeah right... sorry but to believe that I need to trust you first...Palantas

Allrighty then. I need to see your evidence about military coverups before we go any further. I'll repost the other issues you've been ignoring.

I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.kuraimen

Right, if you're a dumbf*ck who is easily swayed by obvious propoganda* videos.

The facts of that case:

1. Multiple armed persons and heavy weapons were observed from the air.
2. The observed personnel were in close proximity to US troops who had been taking fire for hours.
3. The observed personnel appeared to be moving into a position to fire on a Humvee.
4. After opening fire, the scene was secured by ground forces within minutes.
5. The AK-47s and heavy weapons observed from the air were found on the scene and documented.

Tell me, exactly what standard should US troops be held to whenever a civilian in their AO dies?

EDIT: "Propoganda" is an overused term around here, so change that to "marketing." The point of the video was to generate an emotional response, not deliver information as efficiently and accurately as possible...and this should have been obvious to anyone watching it.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.Palantas

Right, if you're a dumbf*ck who is easily swayed by obvious propoganda* videos.

The facts of that case:

1. Multiple armed persons and heavy weapons were observed from the air.
2. The observed personnel were in close proximity to US troops who had been taking fire for hours.
3. The observed personnel appeared to be moving into a position to fire on a Humvee.
4. After opening fire, the scene was secured by ground forces within minutes.
5. The AK-47s and heavy weapons observed from the air were found on the scene and documented.

Tell me, exactly what standard should US troops be held to whenever a civilian in their AO dies?

EDIT: "Propoganda" is an overused term around here, so change that to "marketing." The point of the video was to generate an emotional response, not deliver information as efficiently and accurately as possible...and this should have been obvious to anyone watching it.

Indiscriminate fire in civilian territory.thebest31406

Is that what you're claiming happened in that incident? I'm not sure, since you didn't actually write a sentence there.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]Indiscriminate fire in civilian territory.Palantas

Is that what you're claiming happened in that incident? I'm not sure, since you didn't actually write a sentence there.

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]Indiscriminate fire in civilian territory.thebest31406

Is that what you're claiming happened in that incident? I'm not sure, since you didn't actually write a sentence there.

Ah, I see. The fire was not indiscriminate, and the area in question was a combat zone. You are mistaken.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="I"]

Is that what you're claiming happened in that incident? I'm not sure, since you didn't actually write a sentence there.

Palantas

Ah, I see. The fire was not indiscriminate, and the area in question was a combat zone. You are mistaken.

12 civilians were killed, 2 kids wounded and it all took place in a residential area. This term "combat zone" only applies because the US says it is.thebest31406

Yes, and some of those civilians were carrying heavy weapons...making them not exactly civilians. The term applies because combat was taking place there, versus shooting up a residential area at random, as you implied with your initial, clumsy comment. If you don't like that definition of "combat zone," then come up with your own.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]12 civilians were killed, 2 kids wounded and it all took place in a residential area. This term "combat zone" only applies because the US says it is.Palantas

Yes, and some of those civilians were carrying heavy weapons...making them not exactly civilians. The term applies because combat was taking place there, versus shooting up a residential area at random, as you implied with your initial, clumsy comment. If you don't like that definition of "combat zone," then come up with your own.

Indiscriminate fire in civilian territory.thebest31406

All right.

I'm sure it was done with aim and with a purpose. Even so, if you were to blast an area with the intention of achieving such an aim, it's still a crime under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.

thebest31406

No it's not. It wasn't even an "area." The fire was quite precise, at point targets and a vehicle. The pilots had every reason to believe they were firing on combatants. In fact, after observing heavy weapons for some time, they held fire until they saw what appeared to be a clear threat to US troops. They followed their ROE, and were cleared of any wrongdoing. This scenario in no way resembles "Insiscriminate fire in civilian territory."

EDIT: What's your experience in ground combat?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]12 civilians were killed, 2 kids wounded and it all took place in a residential area. This term "combat zone" only applies because the US says it is.thebest31406

Yes, and some of those civilians were carrying heavy weapons...making them not exactly civilians. The term applies because combat was taking place there, versus shooting up a residential area at random, as you implied with your initial, clumsy comment. If you don't like that definition of "combat zone," then come up with your own.

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the U.S.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Yes, and some of those civilians were carrying heavy weapons...making them not exactly civilians. The term applies because combat was taking place there, versus shooting up a residential area at random, as you implied with your initial, clumsy comment. If you don't like that definition of "combat zone," then come up with your own.

tenaka2

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the U.S.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] Nope, I never said it was random. I'm sure it was done with aim and with a purpose. Even so, if you were to blast an area with the intention of achieving such an aim, it's still a crime under the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.thebest31406

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the U.S.

No, War crime laws are just sort of loose guidlines in the US.

War crime laws are sort of loose guidelines to everyone, since no one has any power to enforce them.

War crime laws are sort of loose guidelines to everyone, since no one has any power to enforce them.

Palantas

This, just like the holocaust, the Nuremberg trials never actually happened :roll:

This, just like the holocaust, the Nuremberg trials never actually happened :roll:

tenaka2

Obviously not. What's your point?

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the U.S.

tenaka2

No, War crime laws are just sort of loose guidlines in the US.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="thebest31406"] It should.LJS9502_basic

No, War crime laws are just sort of loose guidlines in the US.

Or in this case their childrens arms.

In almost all conflicts, there will be civilian casualties, its unavoidable. The real issue is whether or not the western powers should be there in the first place.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

No, War crime laws are just sort of loose guidlines in the US.

tenaka2

Or in this case their childrens arms.

In almost all conflicts, there will be civilian casualties, its unavoidable. The real issue is whether or not the western powers should be there in the first place.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.Palantas

Right, if you're a dumbf*ck who is easily swayed by obvious propoganda* videos.

The facts of that case:

1. Multiple armed persons and heavy weapons were observed from the air.
2. The observed personnel were in close proximity to US troops who had been taking fire for hours.
3. The observed personnel appeared to be moving into a position to fire on a Humvee.
4. After opening fire, the scene was secured by ground forces within minutes.
5. The AK-47s and heavy weapons observed from the air were found on the scene and documented.

Tell me, exactly what standard should US troops be held to whenever a civilian in their AO dies?

EDIT: "Propoganda" is an overused term around here, so change that to "marketing." The point of the video was to generate an emotional response, not deliver information as efficiently and accurately as possible...and this should have been obvious to anyone watching it.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The Geneva Convention says if civilians pick up arms they are no long considered civilians.LJS9502_basic

Or in this case their childrens arms.

In almost all conflicts, there will be civilian casualties, its unavoidable. The real issue is whether or not the western powers should be there in the first place.

It's your turn on point, I'll take up the rear.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.kuraimen

Right, if you're a dumbf*ck who is easily swayed by obvious propoganda* videos.

The facts of that case:

1. Multiple armed persons and heavy weapons were observed from the air.
2. The observed personnel were in close proximity to US troops who had been taking fire for hours.
3. The observed personnel appeared to be moving into a position to fire on a Humvee.
4. After opening fire, the scene was secured by ground forces within minutes.
5. The AK-47s and heavy weapons observed from the air were found on the scene and documented.

Tell me, exactly what standard should US troops be held to whenever a civilian in their AO dies?

EDIT: "Propoganda" is an overused term around here, so change that to "marketing." The point of the video was to generate an emotional response, not deliver information as efficiently and accurately as possible...and this should have been obvious to anyone watching it.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Right, if you're a dumbf*ck who is easily swayed by obvious propoganda* videos.

The facts of that case:

1. Multiple armed persons and heavy weapons were observed from the air.
2. The observed personnel were in close proximity to US troops who had been taking fire for hours.
3. The observed personnel appeared to be moving into a position to fire on a Humvee.
4. After opening fire, the scene was secured by ground forces within minutes.
5. The AK-47s and heavy weapons observed from the air were found on the scene and documented.

Tell me, exactly what standard should US troops be held to whenever a civilian in their AO dies?

EDIT: "Propoganda" is an overused term around here, so change that to "marketing." The point of the video was to generate an emotional response, not deliver information as efficiently and accurately as possible...and this should have been obvious to anyone watching it.

LJS9502_basic

kuraimen

You've got a whole slew of unanswered questions on the previous page, and now you're brining this sh!t up? Your whole argument here is an appeal to ignorance fallacy: "I can't trust the US report (the only one), so I can make up whatever I want." (It's the same argument people use to say there are aliens at Area 51.) Without the evidence from the US military, there would be no video.

Oh so a murderer has the best evidence of a crime since he was closer?kuraimen

Produce different evidence.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Palantas

You've got a whole slew of unanswered questions on the previous page, and now you're brining this sh!t up? Your whole argument here is an appeal to ignorance fallacy: "I can't trust the US report (the only one), so I can make up whatever I want." (It's the same argument people use to say there are aliens at Area 51.) Without the evidence from the US military, there would be no video.

Answer this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]On your character and the kind of person you are. Not a very honest one I must say.I

Oh, I'm not honest. Show me the quote block where I'm being dishonest.

Answer this:

You accused me of "hearing voices" because I said "several people" were laughing at you, while you claimed there were only two. If I can find more than two people openly criticizing you, will you admit this statement above was incorrect, and quit the argument? I am making a bet with you. The bet is that I can find more than two people in this thread laughing at you. The wager is that the loser will admit he f*cked up and quit the argument. Do you accept, or would you like to alter the wager?

I

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]kuraimen

You've got a whole slew of unanswered questions on the previous page, and now you're brining this sh!t up? Your whole argument here is an appeal to ignorance fallacy: "I can't trust the US report (the only one), so I can make up whatever I want." (It's the same argument people use to say there are aliens at Area 51.) Without the evidence from the US military, there would be no video.

Nope I trust the video more than the report and the video shows irresponsible and indiscriminate killing. Lol do you even sleep? You're going to get a seizure palkuraimen

The video is from the US military. Why would you trust it? Produce different evidence.

Lol do you even sleep? You're going to get a seizure palkuraimen

Do you ever stop being a little c*nt?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

You've got a whole slew of unanswered questions on the previous page, and now you're brining this sh!t up? Your whole argument here is an appeal to ignorance fallacy: "I can't trust the US report (the only one), so I can make up whatever I want." (It's the same argument people use to say there are aliens at Area 51.) Without the evidence from the US military, there would be no video.

LJS9502_basic

I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.kuraimen

Why would trust a video that was made from a US military source? (Other than that it supports your prior conclusions, but let's pretend your an entity capable of critical thinking.)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Can your provide evidence that there was nothing that happened before nor after that video?kuraimen

So that's a "No," right?

Answer this:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]On your character and the kind of person you are. Not a very honest one I must say.I

Oh, I'm not honest. Show me the quote block where I'm being dishonest.

Answer this:

You accused me of "hearing voices" because I said "several people" were laughing at you, while you claimed there were only two. If I can find more than two people openly criticizing you, will you admit this statement above was incorrect, and quit the argument? I am making a bet with you. The bet is that I can find more than two people in this thread laughing at you. The wager is that the loser will admit he f*cked up and quit the argument. Do you accept, or would you like to alter the wager?

I

When a video is edited...that is cherry picking the evidence. I don't know about you.....but I take that at face value. LJS9502_basic

The full video is available (versus the marketing version kuraimen mentioned). But kuraimen's whole point is you can't trust any evidence from the US military...which would include that video. So he's discredited a piece of evidence that he himself mentioned.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.Palantas

Why would trust a video that was made from a US military source? (Other than that it supports your prior conclusions, but let's pretend your an entity capable of critical thinking.)

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I have no particular interest in you believing me but the collateral murder video bradley manning released shows the US military hides their fvck ups pretty well.kuraimen

Why would trust a video that was made from a US military source? (Other than that it supports your prior conclusions, but let's pretend your an entity capable of critical thinking.)