RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Two soldiers are murdered because a Koran is improperly disposed of...

Except one doesn't actually explain the other. First you say that 'soldiers exist to die' and then you explain why they die. But pointing out why they die doesn't actually support your brand new definition of why a soldier exists.





That is contempt. Not simply because it's insensitive to what the soldiers have to deal with, but also because you're characterizing them as being complicit in some kind of Manifest Destiny-esque campaign. I have seen no videos where American soldiers have deliberately fired at people they knew were innocent civilians. I have, however, seen videos where civilians where killed after they were mistaken for enemies. Thus, the word "atrocity" is purposefully misleading. A tragedy? Undeniably. But calling what they've done an atrocity conflates some kind of sinister motive to their actions.

On top of this, the only time you take the opportunity to defend or compliment a soldier is when it turns out that he's done something that betrays his Creed as a soldier. That motherfucker went on to SIPRNet and stole classified information. Manning had a 35 series job title, which awards him above top secret status specifically because the military decided he wouldn't do such a thing. You have the gall to refer such an act as courageous and honest when he went of his way to betray his own organization, which was filled with people that he secretly despised.

Had it ever occurred to you that the kind of material he mined off of SIPRNet just fuels propaganda machines for our country's enemies? I'm sure you'd rationalize that as being a good thing specifically because it goes against the military and "Merica"--a term you're using to try and divorce yourself from your own nation--but you'd conveniently forget that this organization--which you have absolutely no contempt for whatsoever--would only be put at greater risk because of it. Collateral damage is not criminal behavior, but it still retains a negative influence, and that's why it's called "sensitive." It's not some insidious term that refers to a conspiracy or a cover up. I mean, even if they don't advertise events in which they're responsible for collateral damage, do you really hear them denying that it occurs?

In the end, the only reason you're going out of your way to bring up collateral damage is because you're trying to distract from the fact that these soldiers were murdered. As if the accidental killing of civilians--in a time of war--is comparable to honor bound executions pushed by the region's mentality during a cease-fire; 'Middle Eastern civilians were shot in American crossfire, so these guys had it coming anyway.' That's not how it works.



Putting them in harm's way is not the same as getting them killed. If that were true, there'd be no survivors ever. Nice try though.



Collateral damage is not murder. And it's not going to distract from the fact that these men were executed in cold blood outside of a conflict.



What's responsible is the question here.

These individuals have not been condemned for their actions by their countrymen. They're still angry about burning the Koran. The same mentality that motivated the shooters is the same mentality that's causing the mobs. This is not isolated behavior. I don't argue that the rioters may or may not be innocent insofar as they haven't killed anyone (yet), but it's hardly unreasonable to assert that their cultural mentality gives them the capacity to do so. As such, on a long enough time line more honor-driven executions of soldiers will occur.



I didn't mention anything about Pearl Harbor. And I don't think G-man did either. I think he was referring to dropping the atomic bomb--which is actually a pretty good example here.

Japan in the 1940s was similar to the Middle East is now. Except, instead of Islamic zealotry, the Japanese had the Bushido code, which meant that the Japanese weren't going to stop fighting, and more lives would be lost. It finally took two nuclear drops--with massive collateral damage--to get them to acknowledge the situation was hopeless and surrender. In the end, the death toll didn't end up as bad as it could have been.



A soldier needs to be willing to fight to death. Not to actually die.



That wasn't the definition you offered. It was: "Soldiers die. That's why they exist."



Unless of course, it's the culture that produces the mentality responsible for the murderous behavior.