> your user icon is very, erm, 'distracting' here at work right now.
Then you definitely shouldn't view the whole picture over on Taurin Fox's website. Yep, you definitely shouldn't go there. We wouldn't want to expose you to anything... inappropriate!
I'll probably be the minority, having no problem at all with the idea or its execution. I'm actually rather more bothered that it was publicized after it went off poorly.
Well, shucks, let's just kill everyone there, then! Good morning, kids, it's pogrom-palooza! Winning more hearts and minds every day. And by winning I mean shooting them with bullets.
I have to agree, though for different reasons. You can't count on the media to get its facts straight and then avoid putting a slant on whatever half-correct data they got in the first place. For all we back here know, they are following the trucks full of boomstuff from Iran and shooting whoever comes to meet the trucks.
Death isn't punishment enough, I say. Rape his wife and drink her blood, that'll teach him to manipulate items placed on his property by snipers.
"I'm actually rather more bothered that it was publicized after it went off poorly."
Same here. Some Army dude pops a couple caps in a civilian and then plants evidence? Sweep that under the rug... how can we expect to bring freedom and democracy to people if we actually abide by the law? This is war, baby, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of your own country, am I right?
"There are no classified programs that authorize the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."
Why not?
"Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined "quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items."
Misconstruing civilians as enemy combatants happens all the time. Unless it changes something major, or starts happening more deliberately, why bring it up at all? This is a localized case that's attracted far too much widespread attention.
Planting evidence to further legitimize an already legit shooting is fair game; but at the same time it's extremely indicative of the already omnipresent fear of consequence of failing to play by Queensbury rules. The need to hit ones superior officers over the head with proof of insurgency shouldn't be necessary. -That- is the major issue, as I see it; lack of trust in the military hierarchy by the low end soldiery, and a universal fear of media sensationalism.
> Misconstruing civilians as enemy combatants happens all the time. Unless it > changes something major, or starts happening more deliberately, why bring > it up at all?
Because it involves killing a non-combatant?
In the overall course of the war, such killings may be a minority, but it doesn't change the fact that a human being died needlessly. Furthermore, I think we really need to have more--not less transparency with regards to what is happening over there. What if there are other civilian killings that have occurred? What if detailed examination eventually determines that they all have something in common, and can therefore be prevented? Isn't that a worthy goal?
> Planting evidence to further legitimize an already legit shooting is fair > game;
I have to disagree. If the shooting is legit, why further need to justify it?
What strikes fear into me is this: if our people are lying about shootings by way of planting evidence, what ELSE are they lying about? And the answer is: we just don't know. We can't just take their word for it since by way of planting evidence, they have already proven to be untrustworthy. And the effect that this will have on worldwide perception of our country scares the crap out of me.
You missed my reasoning, it seems. They planted it to make sure they wouldn't get lambasted for having a kill with less than absolute reasoning. If you can't trust the soldiers in combat to make that sort of decision, and you can't trust their superiors not to ream them for it... who can you trust?
I meant the decision to initially engage. The evidence-planting wouldn't have happened if they weren't afraid of being unnecessarily chastised for the original kill.
It still doesn't help if the person shot is someone known to be an american sympathiser or somoene of non violence trying to move dangerous materials off his property, or to pick it up to hand over to americans.
What happens then? outcry that he was unjustly slain? Way to win the hearts and minds of people. These are people too.
Would this be considered a legitimate tactic towards gang violence?
I knew the morning of 9/11 that we would become the very monsters we seek, and this is further evidence of that.
I saw this on MSN today too. So what is this new strategy? It couldn't be just someone wanting to get the things off their property or out of the street? How can they say they aren't just gunning down the totally innocent bystanders here?
I believe their logic is "if he picks up the weapon then he is an Enemy Combatant and is fair game."
This goes right along with "we can execute those we suspect, and we always suspect a wounded person, because if they were worth shooting once, they are worth shooting twice."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:04 pm (UTC)...
Also, on an entirely unrelated note, your user icon is very, erm, 'distracting' here at work right now.
Not that I'm complaining.(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:35 pm (UTC)> your user icon is very, erm, 'distracting' here at work right now.
Then you definitely shouldn't view the whole picture over on Taurin Fox's website. Yep, you definitely shouldn't go there. We wouldn't want to expose you to anything... inappropriate!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:30 pm (UTC)When I read that, some vague legal concept of "due process" came to my mind...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:05 pm (UTC)Unlike the justifications of what's currently floating about the news re:habeas corpus, that area is indisputably a battleground.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:08 pm (UTC)It's also a residential area. i.e., people live there.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:35 pm (UTC)JUST ABOUT TO TURN THAT CORNER
Date: 2007-09-24 10:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 06:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:36 pm (UTC)Sometimes, you just gotta start blastin'.
Date: 2007-09-24 10:31 pm (UTC)Death isn't punishment enough, I say. Rape his wife and drink her blood, that'll teach him to manipulate items placed on his property by snipers.
"I'm actually rather more bothered that it was publicized after it went off poorly."
Same here. Some Army dude pops a couple caps in a civilian and then plants evidence? Sweep that under the rug... how can we expect to bring freedom and democracy to people if we actually abide by the law? This is war, baby, and if you can't stand the heat, get out of your own country, am I right?
"There are no classified programs that authorize the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."
Why not?
"Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined "quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items."
Goddamn traitor...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:03 am (UTC)Planting evidence to further legitimize an already legit shooting is fair game; but at the same time it's extremely indicative of the already omnipresent fear of consequence of failing to play by Queensbury rules. The need to hit ones superior officers over the head with proof of insurgency shouldn't be necessary. -That- is the major issue, as I see it; lack of trust in the military hierarchy by the low end soldiery, and a universal fear of media sensationalism.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:17 am (UTC)> changes something major, or starts happening more deliberately, why bring
> it up at all?
Because it involves killing a non-combatant?
In the overall course of the war, such killings may be a minority, but it doesn't change the fact that a human being died needlessly. Furthermore, I think we really need to have more--not less transparency with regards to what is happening over there. What if there are other civilian killings that have occurred? What if detailed examination eventually determines that they all have something in common, and can therefore be prevented? Isn't that a worthy goal?
> Planting evidence to further legitimize an already legit shooting is fair
> game;
I have to disagree. If the shooting is legit, why further need to justify it?
What strikes fear into me is this: if our people are lying about shootings by way of planting evidence, what ELSE are they lying about? And the answer is: we just don't know. We can't just take their word for it since by way of planting evidence, they have already proven to be untrustworthy. And the effect that this will have on worldwide perception of our country scares the crap out of me.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:25 am (UTC)And imagine how it must have looked to Iraqis who saw the whole thing...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 05:01 am (UTC)What happens then? outcry that he was unjustly slain? Way to win the hearts and minds of people. These are people too.
Would this be considered a legitimate tactic towards gang violence?
I knew the morning of 9/11 that we would become the very monsters we seek, and this is further evidence of that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-24 10:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 08:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 12:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:29 am (UTC)I believe it's in the "older" section. Check the bottom of one of the pages.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 02:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 12:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 01:43 am (UTC)This goes right along with "we can execute those we suspect, and we always suspect a wounded person, because if they were worth shooting once, they are worth shooting twice."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-25 06:32 am (UTC)