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

Still that hardly amounts to being pressured to make split second decisions. And time has little to do with them discriminating or not properly.kuraimen

It only takes a second to fire off an RPG and boom, several troops are dead. I feel bad for the innocent people who died but just like you shouldn't walk around in known gang territory when you know a shootout just happened a reporter should have the common sense not to walk around in a part of town where a group if insurgents just attacked coalition forces and are still in the area.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry. /quote No I'm not biased. I do keep an open mind....I'm not bigot nor prejudiced. Shame that people such as yourself exist that are biased though. Part of the reason the world is so f*cked up. Congrats on not doing something to make it better.DeathCl0ck

Hahahahaha!

First of all - You don't have a masters degree in anything. As a matter of fact, I HIGHLY doubt that you've ever even attended a collage.

Second - Even If you did, then you are an embarrassment to the educational system and whatever unfortunate school you attended should be closed down and lit on fire.

Third - You are a douche bag who's only talent is publicly humiliating himself. Go on and live your delusion of grandeur and intellectual supremacy while everyone else laughs at your blatent and obvious stupidity.

Hahahahaha!

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

Ah, so it wasn't indiscriminate. Good. Glad we finally got that cleared up.

ad1x2

It only takes a second to fire off an RPG and boom, several troops are dead. I feel bad for the innocent people who died but just like you shouldn't walk around in known gang territory when you know a shootout just happened a reporter should have the common sense not to walk around in a part of town where a group if insurgents just attacked coalition forces and are still in the area.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I highly doubt you have a master's degree in anything.....particularly cognitive science. But nice joke nonetheless.LJS9502_basic

You don't have a masters degree in anything. As a matter of fact, I HIGHLY doubt that you've ever even attended a collage.DeathCl0ck

[QUOTE="DeathCl0ck"]You don't have a masters degree in anything. As a matter of fact, I HIGHLY doubt that you've ever even attended a collage.MrPraline

DroidPhysX

can you explain to me what was so awesome about what I said about NFL players that made you want to quote it and put it in your sig?

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

In a lot of drone strikes the drone is just flying circles around a house for hours

ad1x2

Imagine what it must be like to live like that. Always thinking will my house be blown away at any second.

Over here in Afghanistan we don't target the house itself unless we can confirm that no women or children are in it. Which is where the part about flying circles around the house for hours comes from, waiting for them to go out to a field to take a crap so they can get blown up with a turd halfway out their ass....

If we're talking about women and children, possibly they don't know they're living with insurgents, but even if they do, do you think a 6-year old kid sees his father as an insurgent? A mother regarding her son? It's all a matter of perspective, they're probably seen as freedom fighters or something like that.

Either way, having a drone that you know can kill you at any moment flying over you for hours is nerve wrecking I'm sure, even if you did nothing wrong, after all colateral damage does happen quite a lot.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Imagine what it must be like to live like that. Always thinking will my house be blown away at any second.nunovlopes

Over here in Afghanistan we don't target the house itself unless we can confirm that no women or children are in it. Which is where the part about flying circles around the house for hours comes from, waiting for them to go out to a field to take a crap so they can get blown up with a turd halfway out their ass....

If we're talking about women and children, possibly they don't know they're living with insurgents, but even if they do, do you think a 6-year old kid sees his father as an insurgent? A mother regarding her son? It's all a matter of perspective, they're probably seen as freedom fighters or something like that.

Either way, having a drone that you know can kill you at any moment flying over you for hours is nerve wrecking I'm sure, even if you did nothing wrong, after all colateral damage does happen quite a lot.

Hahahahaha!

First of all - You don't have a masters degree in anything. As a matter of fact, I HIGHLY doubt that you've ever even attended a collage.

DeathCl0ck

I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't going to say it. And if I did, I would have spelled "college" properly...unless you mean he's never attended a collage, like the artistic product. I'm not sure what that means.

Still that hardly amounts to being pressured to make split second decisions.

kuraimen

But you do admit you were wrong, right? They clearly were not hundreds of miles away, as you claimed. So tell me, were you lying about seeing the video, or were you lying about what you saw in the video?

And time has little to do with them discriminating or not properly.kuraimen

I dunno about that, but then it doesn't matter. You described them making a decision, versus behaving randomly. Thus, their decision was not indiscriminate.

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

Answer this:

Describe your experience in ground combat, specifically in working with US forces.

I

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Still that hardly amounts to being pressured to make split second decisions.

Palantas

But you do admit you were wrong, right? They clearly were not hundreds of miles away, as you claimed. So tell me, were you lying about seeing the video, or were you lying about what you saw in the video?

And time has little to do with them discriminating or not properly.kuraimen

I dunno about that, but then it doesn't matter. You described them making a decision, versus behaving randomly. Thus, their decision was not indiscriminate.

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

I find your inability to differentiate between the two instances to be disturbing.

wis3boi

off is the general direction in which you should fvck

Yes it seems to me it was indiscriminate. Like I said time has little to do with it being indiscriminate or not if the assessment of the situation was not carefully made.kuraimen

"There are heavily armed men near where friendly forces have been attacked" was not reason enough by itself to open fire, so they held off. You should draw on your vast tactical experience and describe how they should have made the decision more carefully.

And no I'm not lying silly boy. kuraimen

So did you forget what you saw in the video? Let's put it this way: You are in error where the truth is concerned. Can you theorize as to the reason behind this?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yes it seems to me it was indiscriminate. Like I said time has little to do with it being indiscriminate or not if the assessment of the situation was not carefully made.Palantas

"There are heavily armed men near where friendly forces have been attacked" was not reason enough by itself to open fire, so they held off. You should draw on your vast tactical experience and describe how they should have made the decision more carefully.

And no I'm not lying silly boy. kuraimen

So did you forget what you saw in the video? Let's put it this way: You are in error where the truth is concerned. Can you theorize as to the reason behind this?

Send ground units to investigate further.

kuraimen

This is based on your extensive tactical experience, right?

Answer this:

Describe your experience in ground combat, specifically in working with US forces.

I

And when ground forces see what appears to be someone pointing an RPG at them, they should do what? Sending ground forces in doesn't change your critisism of this scenario. Heavy weapons were observed, and it appeared that someone was about to engage friendly forces.

When you're the invading force of a land you at least can try and act as ethically as possible by putting your life before civilians but it's clear the us military prefers a more indiscriminate approach

kuraimen

As opposed to which countries that do it differently? Also, why should soldiers put their lives before the civilians of another country?

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]

but in both cases innocent children are murdered what is the difference? Location... That's kinda tcs point...Cloud_Insurance

I think there is a huge difference between an innocent person dying accidentally as the result of a drone strike and an innocent being executed on purpose.

Also, why should soldiers put their lives before the civilians of another country?Palantas

I hope soldiers are doing what they do because they want to protect innocents.
Not because they love killing things, and they were always great at hitting the most possible targets in CoD.

I hope people who volunteer to be firefighters, dont stand outside the houses of minorities,
shrugging it off because they might not even be citizens.

You're supporting some terrible things Palantas.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]Also, why should soldiers put their lives before the civilians of another country?Nibroc420

I hope soldiers are doing what they do because they want to protect innocents.
Not because they love killing things, and they were always great at hitting the most possible targets in CoD.

Hope all you want, but soldiers join the Army for all sorts of different reasons. It's definitely not the binary scenario you present here.

You're supporting some terrible things Palantas.

Nibroc420

Like what?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You're supporting some terrible things Palantas.

Palantas

Like shrugging off the lives of others, simply because they're of a different nationality.Nibroc420

Hmm...I dunno if I'm supporting that. I'm questioning kuraimen's assertion that soldiers should automatically consider their lives to be of less worth than all other persons.

1. Why should anyone believe this?
2. Why should soldiers specifically believe this?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Like shrugging off the lives of others, simply because they're of a different nationality.Palantas

Hmm...I dunno if I'm supporting that. I'm questioning kuraimen's assertion that soldiers should automatically consider their lives to be of less worth than all other persons.

1. Why should anyone believe this?
2. Why should soldiers specifically believe this?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Like shrugging off the lives of others, simply because they're of a different nationality.Nibroc420

Hmm...I dunno if I'm supporting that. I'm questioning kuraimen's assertion that soldiers should automatically consider their lives to be of less worth than all other persons.

1. Why should anyone believe this?
2. Why should soldiers specifically believe this?

You asked the rhetorical question.. "[W]hy should soldiers put their lives before the civilians of another country?" Simple answer? Their job is to provide stability in the region, and that is made easier if the civilian populous supports your troops/side.Nibroc420

First of all, "stability in the region" is a pretty broad and inspecific goal, one that might little inform the mission of a small unit. Secondly, that goal does not even apply on a broad level to all conflicts.

And why is that question rhetorical?

Gunning down civilians is counter productive to their goal, protecting citizens and having them support you is productive.

Nibroc420

I am not advocating gunning down civilians. I want to know why a soldier should consider other people's lives more valuable than his own.

I want to know why a soldier should consider other people's lives more valuable than his own.Palantas

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Like shrugging off the lives of others, simply because they're of a different nationality.Palantas

Hmm...I dunno if I'm supporting that. I'm questioning kuraimen's assertion that soldiers should automatically consider their lives to be of less worth than all other persons.

1. Why should anyone believe this?
2. Why should soldiers specifically believe this?

[QUOTE="I"]

I want to know why a soldier should consider other people's lives more valuable than his own.

Nibroc420

No-one, not even Kuraimen has suggested that.

Hmm...

When you're the invading force of a land you at least can try and act as ethically as possible by putting your life before civilians...

kuraimen

Right. Moving on...

I'm simply saying that while "kill the insurgents" might be a priority, killing civilians doesn't help your cause. As the count of Civilians killed by US soldiers...(Continued)

Nibroc420

I'm not arguing against this. I haven't mentioned drones once, I don't think. My argument with kuraimen centered around an incident where US ground forces and heavily armed civilians were in close proximity to one another, an entirely different scenario from the drone attacks.

I never said they should consider their lives less worthy, I'm saying that, ethically, they should put their lives in jeopardy before those of civilians considering they are the ones choosing to be there invading another country while the civilians didn't have that choice.

kuraimen

Why is that ethical? And how is that any different from how I phrased it? Answer that, then we'll get to your assertion that soldiers choose to invade countries.

And I couldn't care less about the military rules, I'm aware the military is not an ethical institution like the video we're discussing clearly shows but that's exactly why I'm critical of them and all their apologists.kuraimen

But you haven't watched the video, so how would you know?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

I never said they should consider their lives less worthy, I'm saying that, ethically, they should put their lives in jeopardy before those of civilians considering they are the ones choosing to be there invading another country while the civilians didn't have that choice.

Palantas

Why is that ethical? And how is that any different from how I phrased it? Answer that, then we'll get to your assertion that soldiers choose to invade countries.

And I couldn't care less about the military rules, I'm aware the military is not an ethical institution like the video we're discussing clearly shows but that's exactly why I'm critical of them and all their apologists.kuraimen

But you haven't watched the video, so how would you know?

I'm not arguing against this. I haven't mentioned drones once, I don't think. My argument with kuraimen centered around an incident where US ground forces and heavily armed civilians were in close proximity to one another, an entirely different scenario from the drone attacks.

Palantas

You have a bad habit of cutting quotes short, it makes it quite clear which things you want to reply to, and which you do not.

Currently there are miltary forces from many differnent nations within the Middle East, publicly we're told they're trying to provide stability and prevent any excelation.
Those nations CHOSE to bring their forces their, with the interest of the citizens in mind. Womens' rights were being neglected, so the Taliban was removed from power through force.
The purpose of that was to help the civilians in that country.

The soldiers stationed there have a job, part of that job is to help provide stability in the region. You cannot claim to have the civilians in mind while planning for the invasion, yet kill civilians daily without someone questioning something.

Why is it ethical? Exactly because of what I said, soldiers are putting their lives in jeopardy because they choose to, civilians don't. Soldiers are the ones acting with aggression towards a foreign land civilians don't. And putting your life before other doesn't have anything to do with "worth".kuraimen

Other than you saying this is ethical because it is ethical, I'm not seeing your point here. That someone has made numerous decisions in their life, possibly stretching back decades, that puts them in a particular situation, that therefore they "chose" that situation? So it's your assertion then that every soldier who is a member of a military has chosen to be in a situation where they A.) Believe themselves to possibly be in mortal danger from an uncertain threat, and B.) They should endevour to increase that danger to their person due to that choice.

Oh, and C.) You're extensive combat experience has given you the wisdom to judge when soldiers have not gone far enough in making themselves vulnerable.

And putting your life before other doesn't have anything to do with "worth".kuraimen

Perhaps you should define what "putting your life before another" means.

Also soldiers don't choose to invade another country but they choose to be part of the invasion.kuraimen

Explain.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

I'm not arguing against this. I haven't mentioned drones once, I don't think. My argument with kuraimen centered around an incident where US ground forces and heavily armed civilians were in close proximity to one another, an entirely different scenario from the drone attacks.

Nibroc420

You have a bad habit of cutting quotes short, it makes it quite clear which things you want to reply to, and which you do not.

Currently there are miltary forces from many differnent nations within the Middle East, publicly we're told they're trying to provide stability and prevent any excelation.
Those nations CHOSE to bring their forces their, with the interest of the citizens in mind. Womens' rights were being neglected, so the Taliban was removed from power through force.
The purpose of that was to help the civilians in that country.

The soldiers stationed there have a job, part of that job is to help provide stability in the region. You cannot claim to have the civilians in mind while planning for the invasion, yet kill civilians daily without someone questioning something.

You have a bad habit of cutting quotes short, it makes it quite clear which things you want to reply to, and which you do not.

Nibroc420

Identify where I have done this and describe how my error has affected the conversation.

The soldiers stationed there have a job, part of that job is to help provide stability in the region. You cannot claim to have the civilians in mind while planning for the invasion, yet kill civilians daily without someone questioning something.

Nibroc420

All right, fine. Did I say otherwise somewhere?

You're familiar with kuraimen, right? His sole function on this forum is to indentify any topic discussing the US, then complain about the US, regardless of the circumstances. A more resonable person can disagree with the drone strikes, but might not indict US soldiers in a different, specific incident.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Why is it ethical? Exactly because of what I said, soldiers are putting their lives in jeopardy because they choose to, civilians don't. Soldiers are the ones acting with aggression towards a foreign land civilians don't. And putting your life before other doesn't have anything to do with "worth".Palantas

Other than you saying this is ethical because it is ethical, I'm not seeing your point here. That someone has made numerous decisions in their life, possibly stretching back decades, that puts them in a particular situation, that therefore they "chose" that situation? So it's your assertion then that every soldier who is a member of a military has chosen to be in a situation where they A.) Believe themselves to possibly be in mortal danger from an uncertain threat, and B.) They should endevour to increase that danger to their person due to that choice.

Oh, and C.) You're extensive combat experience has given you the wisdom to judge when soldiers have not gone far enough in making themselves vulnerable.

And putting your life before other doesn't have anything to do with "worth".kuraimen

Perhaps you should define what "putting your life before another" means.

Also soldiers don't choose to invade another country but they choose to be part of the invasion.kuraimen

Explain.

Quote nitpicking is the only way this guy can argue. How else can his badly constructed semantical arguments pass as anything but hogwash. He doesn't argue ideas he argues terms and phrases.kuraimen

You are criticizing me for not arguing ideas...with a post void of ideas.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

You have a bad habit of cutting quotes short, it makes it quite clear which things you want to reply to, and which you do not.

Palantas

Identify where I have done this and describe how my error has affected the conversation.

The soldiers stationed there have a job, part of that job is to help provide stability in the region. You cannot claim to have the civilians in mind while planning for the invasion, yet kill civilians daily without someone questioning something.

Nibroc420

All right, fine. Did I say otherwise somewhere?

You're familiar with kuraimen, right? His sole function on this forum is to indentify any topic discussing the US, then complain about the US, regardless of the circumstances. A more resonable person can disagree with the drone strikes, but might not indict US soldiers in a different, specific incident.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Quote nitpicking is the only way this guy can argue. How else can his badly constructed semantical arguments pass as anything but hogwash. He doesn't argue ideas he argues terms and phrases.Palantas

You are criticizing me for not arguing ideas...with a post void of ideas.

A fireman goes into a building in flames to help people putting his life in danger for the lives of others. That doesn't mean he values his life less just that he signed for a job where situations ethically merit such actions and he acts in such a way.

kuraimen

Whatever, the effect is identical. This actually is an argument about semantics. Change my post above to read "puts his life ahead of others." So why should a soldier put the lives of everyone else above his own? Why should he do this? What's your standard for determining when he has put other lives ahead of his own to a sufficient degree?

And how does a firefighter's job ethically merit going into a burning building? What does that mean? Are you saying that because a firefighter signed up to be a firefighter, he is ethically charged to enter any burning building? Because that's baloney. Firefighters do not enter certain buildings, because they deem it to be too great a risk.

A soldiers that signs to the army when the country is invading other countries is basically choosing to be part of what the army is being used for, aka the invasion.kuraimen

It's pretty much a given that you know absolutely nothing about the military (but then you don't know much about much of anything). A lot of soldiers join the military in jobs where the chances of them seeing combat is very low. Then through bad luck, they are placed in situations for which they were minimally trained. Other soldiers join in units and jobs where they never expect to be deployed. What about someone who joins a military before their country was at war? What about soldiers who were drafted?

Since you're such a fan of asking for proof I ask you to proof that I post in every US thread and complain about it. Also proof that is my "function" whatever that meanskuraimen

I wasn't talking to you in that post FYI.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

A fireman goes into a building in flames to help people putting his life in danger for the lives of others. That doesn't mean he values his life less just that he signed for a job where situations ethically merit such actions and he acts in such a way.

Palantas

Whatever, the effect is identical. This actually is an argument about semantics. Change my post above to read "puts his life ahead of others." So why should a soldier put the lives of everyone else above his own? Why should he do this? What's your standard for determining when he has put other lives ahead of his own to a sufficient degree?

And how does a firefighter's job ethically merit going into a burning building? What does that mean? Are you saying that because a firefighter signed up to be a firefighter, he is ethically charged to enter any burning building? Because that's baloney. Firefighters do not enter certain buildings, because they deem it to be too great a risk.

A soldiers that signs to the army when the country is invading other countries is basically choosing to be part of what the army is being used for, aka the invasion.kuraimen

It's pretty much a given that you know absolutely nothing about the military (but then you don't know much about much of anything). A lot of soldiers join the military in jobs where the chances of them seeing combat is very low. Then through bad luck, they are placed in situations for which they were minimally trained. Other soldiers join in units and jobs where they never expect to be deployed. What about someone who joins a military before their country was at war? What about soldiers who were drafted?

And I'm rferring to soldiers that go to the battlefield. If a soldier signed up to be a cook then well but the ones who sign up for combat know that their job includes a risk. Do you seriously don't understand that?kuraimen

You never made that distinction. I'm not going to write your argument for you.

I have stated twice the reasons why a soldier should put their life at risk before civilians.kuraimen

Your reason as far as I can tell is "Because I say so." What does choice have to do with it? And I'm going to bring up the worth of life thing again, because that's the logical implication of your statements: In these situations, the civilian's lives are worth more than the soldiers.

And I'm even being generous with you there with the choice issue. Soldiers in any position do not "choose" to be placed in ambiguous situations, where someone may or may not be a threat to them. They choose a course for their life that makes it more likely that such a situation might occur. That is not the same thing as them "choosing."

And yeah firefighters avoid buildings some buildings because of the risk but the video we're discussing it was clear the risk for those who shot was minimal and ground forces could have perfectly been used to asses such a situation before shooting indiscriminately from afar.

kuraimen

But you haven't seen the video, so how would you know? Go watch it, then answer the following:

1. Based on the evidence at hand, how did you determine that the individuals in questoin
2. How do you know ground forces could have been "perfectly used" to assess the situation?

Also answer this:

Describe your experience in ground combat, specifically in working with US forces.

I

What makes you even qualified to answer the above two questions?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Like shrugging off the lives of others, simply because they're of a different nationality.kuraimen

Hmm...I dunno if I'm supporting that. I'm questioning kuraimen's assertion that soldiers should automatically consider their lives to be of less worth than all other persons.

1. Why should anyone believe this?
2. Why should soldiers specifically believe this?