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

I quoted it so that you could see the entire post. Obviously you must have missed it. Like normal.

You really think this....



....rationalizes this?



Your delusion--and bewildering contempt for the military--knows no boundaries.

Soldiers are shot and killed by alleged allies--over the disposal of a book--and you don't see warrant for anger.

Two officers were murdered execution style with bullets to the back of their heads--in their own base--by someone that claimed to be an ally. And you don't see warrant for anger.

There was no official conflict at the time these events occurred. They were strictly morality-driven reactions. And you don't see warrant for anger.

This isn't my righteous anger as a soldier speaking. This is common sense. The reason there's so much structure and regulation applied to military procedure is that the organization is so concerned with making sure soldiers don't die. Putting soldiers in harm's way is not done for the purpose of letting them die.

What's especially outrageous about your moronic comment is that it applies a context of battle to this particular situation. I will reiterate: THERE WAS NO OPEN CONFLICT WHEN THESE PEOPLE WERE SHOT AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES IT MURDER. And COs and the Administration are still putting more emphasis on these motherfuckers being offended over the fact that their own soldiers were killed in cold blood.

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. Next question?



I have no contempt. I'm just not under any disillusion as to the role of the US soldier in the real world. Not the pro-American-good idea the Pentagon wants you to have. I mean, the reality. Seen the footage of the soldiers mowing down two unarmed men, via helicopter? Yeah, they were talking on their phones to their family. The audio is clear that the soldiers aren't sure if that's their target or not, but are told to take the shot anyway. So, two more civilians die. But, that gets buried. I had to see the footage on the BBC documentary concerning the material Wikileaks had obtained through Bradley Manning (one of the most honest, and bravest soldiers this country has ever produced, btw). And it doesn't stop there. There's hundreds of reports, loud and quiet, about the atrocities our military inflicts upon civilian middle eastern cultures, all in the name "Merica" and "acceptable collateral damage".

I reiterate:



Once again, where is your outrage? Why now, but not when American soldiers are at fault for murder?



Anger? Yes. Directed at the ones responsible, not innocents. Indignant outrage that a soldier in a conquered warzone dies by an extremists hand? Anger, maybe, but not surprise. Not this "OH MY GOD IT'S THE WORST ATTACK SINCE PEARL HARBOR 9/11 IRAN KILL'EM ALL!!!1!!!" infantile bloodlust you and G-Shill are going on about.



If a soldier wasn't there to fight to the death for his country, then they wouldn't have put him there. Soldiers exist to defend the continental United States of America from invasion and to fight and kill other humans. Simple as that. They serve no other purpose to their existence. There is no draft. Thus, I don't freak out when a drunk driver dies in an accident. You choose your own destiny.



Yep. Just like when American forces kill civilians. It is murder. That's why you punish those responsible, not target their entire culture. THAT is common sense, man.

Your hate is going to burn you up, Pariah. Seriously. You're going to stroke-out one day from stressing your heart. I hope you can find something that brings you peace. Seriously.

It's all good.

Armchair warriors like Pariah and G-I hate my wife man are going to Afghanistan, John Rambo style to begin



Pariah just needs to find his Special Forces application, and G-man needs to find his balls. Maybe Mrs. G-man will take them out of the jar she keeps them in so she get rid of him.

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.

Okay, I guess this is the part where I jump in and "cheerlead."

This was stupid. We've seen riots and violence over the burning/destruction of the Quran before. What made us think this would be any different? You'd think we learned our lessen by now. We could've, at least, been bothered enough with the business to do it in secret somewhere if burning was the only option.

As for it being a member of the ASF that shot the advisers, there have been worries for years that we were training the Taliban, the HN, radicals, Islamists, guerrillas, or what-have-you. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

This guy deserves to be caught, tried, and shot. No doubt about it. However, I think the greater point here is that this is yet another moment to seriously rethink our strategy and goals in Afghanistan that we are going to let pass-by.

I don't hold anything against our troops on the ground. But, I seriously question that sanity of our political and military leaders. An Afghanistan with a centralized, democratic government is a pipe-dream. In fact, if one reads over the history of Afghanistan, there are very few instances--save the area being dominated by an outside power--that there has ever been a unified Afghanistan. Further, even those instances are generally short-lived due to the inherent tribal nature of the peoples there. What do we really hope to accomplish that thousands of years of history couldn't?

Under this umbrella, I think we also need to dump Karzai. Now. Many--if not most--Afghans consider his re-election a fraud and his government corrupt. Hell, we acknowledge much of the corruption. However, we backed the election results. Further, we've left democratic opposition groups out of the negotiations with the Taliban. What has come out of this? The United Front has, well, re-united against both the Taliban and--to a lesser degree--the Karzai government. While I'm fine with there being no such thing as a unified Afghanistan. I'm not fine with there being a fractured one. And, it seems that is where it is heading. I recognize the distinction may not mean much to others, but I think there is a difference between disunity and fracture. Disunity is the general history of Afghanistan. Fracture is the state of the "country" that sparked the civil wars of the 1990s. Once again, it appears that past is prologue.

I know some here think that bombing them into the stone age will "teach them a lesson in respect" or whatever. But, I seriously question that claim. This isn't 1940s' Japan. Japan in the '40s was an modern, unified country. Afghanistan is anything but that. What would pacify one would embolden the other.

We've spent over a decade of blood and treasure spinning our wheels over there trying to build a country that doesn't really exist. It is time to call it quits. Osama is dead. Al-Qaida has been disrupted and dismantled within Afghan "borders." What else do we feel we need to accomplish there?

This was a tragedy, but it was a tragedy that needn't happen.

If no one here actually said that, why did you use quotations? It's rather misleading.

I've more important things to be arsed about than the "misleading" nature of an unattributed quote meant to summarize my take on one side's position in nine pages of debate on an internet message board. That said, I don't think it is misleading at all if I were to present it as a side-by-side comparison to direct quotes I could give a shit to dig up. But, feel free to plug in gratuity, hopelessness, fear, futility or whatever the exact words you and G-Man used into the quote. The reading is generally similar regardless of which word is used.

Except it isn't really since it totally misrepresents my position. Seriously, why the fuck would I try to seek out the "respect" of Muslim zealots? You think there's little distinction between a call for retaliation and "teaching respect?"

It's very telling how dismissive you are of the opposing viewpoint that you don't really put any effort into an analysis of exactly what it is it's proposing. You just stereotype it from where you believe to be the high ground.

So, what? At worst, now you know what it feels like to the billion plus people offended at the burning of what you dismissively point out is just "a book."

If it was someone reacting to a Bible being burned, I'd still call it a "book." Regardless of what the text is, the punishment doesn't come close to fitting the--unintentional--crime. I'm pretty sure God would agree with me on that one even if it was the Bible. After all, it's not as though--in either case--the text is the only one of its kind.

Nice attempt at a redirect though...Actually, I take that back. It was pathetic.

Love the underlined point that your holy book is more important than their holy book in your attempt to exonerate us of any culpability in this tragedy.

It seems to me that Pariah thinking "his" book is more "important" yet still not thinking its worth killing anyone over demonstrates this isn't a case of moral equivalence. Not everything is, you know.

Because all the Muslim protesters were chucking grenades and shooting people in the back of the head, right? Sure, I'm glad Pariah won't necessarily be the one to hunt me down for burning a bible. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone else in the Christian community would be so tolerant. I don't buy this notion that one religion is necessarily more peaceful than another. To me, it is more a matter of the circumstances or perception of circumstances that have bearing on how violent a particular religious group may be. Christianity, overall, has it pretty easy here. Hence, a general lack of extremism. I do notice, however, that many are starting to take the view point that there is an actual (see, not spiritual) war being waged against them. This does not bode well to me.

This isn't even taking into account the large numbers of Christians that actively promote things that they hope will lead to a hastening of the "end times." They want "wars and rumors of wars" because, hey, that means God's coming back soon to flush all the wickedness away. That's fucking crazy and it exists here...in America.

All religions are tainted by the blood of those they've persecuted. I'm not going to just dump on Islam because it is the one currently having the worst psychotic break.

Right. G-man "only" called for genocide as a means of retribution, he's not trying to reform Muslims all over the world.

I know the conscience of the RKMBS will chastise him soon.

Exactly, JLA, I'm seriously wondering if Herr G-Man gave a hardy sieg heil while typing that gem.

I'm sure this is a favorite at the G-Household. Especially, when he can pretend they're wearing turbans.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6229070629122885245

They threw them in a fucking trash heap where they burn all their other refuse in front of protesting Afghan Security Forces! What the fuck is "socially sensitive and appropriate" about that?

And, that isn't "Soros-driven liberal propaganda," it's Fox fucking News.

I think it's clear G-man was talking specifically about the Taliban/Al-Qaida muslims in Afghanistan.

And it's not about retribution, it's about protecting ourselves from fanatics, so they won't 9-11 us again.

I don't advocate killing them all. But I do advocate carpet-bombing those stronghold areas. The Taliban and Al Qaida are conducting actual war, while we endanger our soldiers with ridiculously restraining rules of engagement, where soldiers have to actually radio in and ask permission to fire back when fired upon. Our military and leadership has bent over backwards to be sensitive to islamic culture, but occasional things like friendly fire, collatoral damage, and a koran burning will occur.

By accepting Afghans' violent backlash without demanding an apology and without underscoring how incredibly disproportionate the killing of these 2 U.S. soldiers is, by an Afghan we trained and armed as part of re-building his nation, along with our building schools and hospitals, water treatment plants, roads and bridges, then those who meekly accept this truly have no appreciation for the lives of our soldiers, or for the moral authority and generosity of our government.



AGAIN:

1. U.S. troops burned a Koran, in an unwitting attempt to dispose of it respectfully (isn't that the respectful way you're supposed to dispose of a torn or old U.S. flag?). Koran copies that were defaced by writing of Taliban prisoners. A Koran-burning for which our military officers, generals, and President have apologized profusely for, and assured it will not happen again.

2. U.S. soldiers have been murdered in complete disproportion to that accidental burning. With an ongoing jihadist contract on every U.S./NATO soldier and civilian. No apology, no call for moderation, from Afghan government officials, military, or from Afghan civilian clergy or leadership. AND NOT EVEN A REQUEST FOR AN APOLOGY OR CESSATION by our weak Obama administration, that has endlessly apologized for U.S. foreign policy, and has absolutely no sense of our moral authority, and our exceptionalism as a nation.




We have nothing to apologize for, and have every right to declare war on people who pose as our friends, and then shoot our soldiers in the back, by backstabbers WE TRAINED, in our costly and generous effort to build their nation.

This. From You. Is Fucking PRICELESS!!!





We've said that before. It has happened again.



Lie. Corrupt as he may be, Karzai and his government have called for calm.



We're special because we say so!!!



We threw those copies of the Quran on the fucking trash heap despite protests from ASFers in the vicinity. And, we've been warned for years that we were training people not down with the master plan. This should come as no surprise.

Please cite the last time any Christian in the US shot anyone or chucked a grenade at them for improperly disposing of a bible.

You're right. We just have a history of killing others because they weren't the right kind of Christian. Totally different and completely justifiable. My bad.

Or, you know, we just threaten them with death because they don't believe in the God of Christian America. Once again, totally different and completely justifiable.

Sure you don't have a secret fetish for eating flesh and drinking blood, G?

I mean, we do generally get the idea that you'd like to stab a "subhuman" Muslim baby with a pitchfork because it isn't properly "grateful." Seems like the two might be part and parcel.

Beg your pardon? Where did I make the distinction of one book being more important than another?

Or is this just another half-assed redirect?

Trust me. Anyone who reads your hate-mongering gets the underlining meaning of "even if it was the Bible."

You can't accuse two groups of moral equivalence if you can't show both groups engage in the same behavior.

You've made some broad conclusory allegations which appear (the sarcasm and hyperbole make it hard to be sure) to be directed at military actions.

If so, is it your position that a military action is exactly the same thing as what happened here?

In all fairness, his wife is an accepting liberal and wears the pants in the family, so I can't imagine a video like that being shown under her watch.

So are you saying there's a general outrage over killing American soldiers for the accidental burning of a Koran in the Muslim community? Are you saying that these riots consist of a minority?



Just ask yourself something for a minute: between burning a Bible and burning a Koran, which action is more likely to get you killed?

I'm sure you're gonna recite 'tit for tat' till the end of time because you have such a colossal difficulty distinguishing the values and culture of one religion over another, but we both know how much the likelihood varies between the two scenarios even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Contemporary American culture has produced numerous less than flattering renditions of Christ in South Park, Family Guy, etc. and even showcased such works of "art" as the "Piss Christ." How many people have been murdered over these things?

I think you mean "reads into a perception of your hate-mongering."

The phrase "even if it was the Bible," supposes a scenario where it was a Bible that was burned rather than a Koran. Nothing more.

But please, by all means, keep attempting to redirect.

We're talking mob violence here. Yes, we have a history of Christian mobs killing others because they weren't the "right" type of Christian or because they weren't Christian. Religious violence is religious violence. Period.

Just to be clear: you would expect Christians to execute people over the burning of a Bible, and that's why you don't see anything outrageous about this scenario?

All religions and cultures are the same!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Sincerely,
IggyJLA

Shariah Law and the Bible are no different!! Stop deluding yourselves!!

Sincerely,
IggyJLA

If many Christians had their way, yes. Unequivocally, yes.

Point. Guess he just watches it when studying traffic law at the office.

If "many." Very weasel-wordy of you; offering an abstract excuse to avoid conceding the point.

But that wasn't the question: You would expect Christians to execute people over the burning of the Bible in a similar scenario?

This isn't a what if question as to whether or not it would happen if society allowed it, but rather if you honestly believe your average Christian had the capacity to do it.

What's kinda funny here is that you're presupposing that the Christians who would carry out the murder would be in an environment that would tolerate such a thing--as this Muslim individual did. But that kinda of flies in the face of your and Prometheus' idea that this was carried out by one crazy as opposed to an overall mentality channeled through your average Afghan.