Collateral Murder

[kai]

Can an enlisted solider generally has some ideological foundation for joining the military,What? if not straight up for money. What is the motivation for working for a private company? It's not transparent, it's not democratically accountable, and someone is profiting off the contract. What's the number one rule about profit? Always increase it. How does that inevitably lead up to some seriously bad news? Is this not what Eisenhower was warning us about?

I know many ,many people who joined the military for a career,To get and keep a steady job.

 

[Kathryn]

Hey, BY THE WAY - speaking of spin - I never said or implied that Iraqis attacked the World Trade Center. Dust1n took the photos I had posted of CIVILIANS killed in acts of war, and cut a quote I made about ONE of the photos of civilians killed by IRAQIS in the photo ABOVE the 9/11 photos, and included it above another photo of civilians killed in 9/11. Here is my original post:

Originally Posted by Kathryn
Surely you don't want to open this can of worms, do you?

Spoiler: Warning Graphic Pictures, including dead bodies

American contractors murdered, burned and hung from a bridge by Iraqis

Kurdish civilians murdered by Iraqis

More civilians killed by Iraqis

Sorry - but I thought it was clear that the statements I was including about the photos were BELOW each photo.

I didn't include statements about the 9/11 photos because, frankly, I didn't think they needed any explanation.

Love the way, however, that the issue of civilian deaths at the hands of Islamist extremists has been COMPLETELY ignored - even though they FAR outweigh civilian deaths caused by coalition forces.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Love the way, however, that the issue of civilian deaths at the hands of Islamist extremists has been COMPLETELY ignored - even though they FAR outweigh civilian deaths caused by coalition forces.

We also completely ignored the issue of cancer and heart disease, which kill even more people each year. That's because that is not what this thread is about.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought the gyst of the thread was to discuss civilian deaths in a war zone - and accountability, who is responsible for those deaths and our reactions to those deaths.

However, thanks for clarifying. Now I see that the gyst of the thread is simply anti-American rhetoric. My bad.

 

[kai]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought the gyst of the thread was to discuss civilian deaths in a war zone - and accountability, who is responsible for those deaths and our reactions to those deaths.

However, thanks for clarifying. Now I see that the gyst of the thread is simply anti-American rhetoric. My bad.

yep you got it

 

[JMorris]

neither is a security guard, what is a Mercenary in your view?

i think i already answered that

a mercenary is anyone employed by a pmc,

 

[JMorris]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought the gyst of the thread was to discuss civilian deaths in a war zone - and accountability, who is responsible for those deaths and our reactions to those deaths.

However, thanks for clarifying. Now I see that the gyst of the thread is simply anti-American rhetoric. My bad.

yep you got it

yes, attempting to hold your own country to the same standards they demand of its enemies, or hell, maybe even to a higher standard; that is extremely anti-american. i wouldnt think that'd be so hard since we are "america: the country from which all goodness flows".

 

[kai]

i think i already answered that

is there a personal reason for not having any sympathy for someone employed by a PMC ? i am genuinely interested in your reasoning.I mean its a far cry from Costas Georgiou and the FNLA in Angola.

 

[JMorris]

is there a personal reason for not having any sympathy for someone employed by a PMC ? i am genuinely interested in your reasoning.I mean its a far cry from Costas Georgiou and the FNLA in Angola.

because their business is to make money, and the product they sell is death. and the reason they work for us now is because we have the money. but what happens when other countries start offering more money than we can? i seriously doubt they'll stay working for us, making less money, simply out of loyalty. not to mention that we have far less oversight over what them than we do our own military.

 

[dust1n]

Hey, BY THE WAY - speaking of spin - I never said or implied that Iraqis attacked the World Trade Center.

I never implied you said that.

Dust1n took the photos I had posted of CIVILIANS killed in acts of war, and cut a quote I made about ONE of the photos of civilians killed by IRAQIS in the photo ABOVE the 9/11 photos, and included it above another photo of civilians killed in 9/11.

No, I didn't.

Are you confusing me with Paul, or trying one hell of a spin tactic.?

 

[Reverend Rick]

because their business is to make money, and the product they sell is death. and the reason they work for us now is because we have the money. but what happens when other countries start offering more money than we can? i seriously doubt they'll stay working for us, making less money, simply out of loyalty. not to mention that we have far less oversight over what them than we do our own military.

I think your worries are unfounded.

 

[dust1n]

I know many ,many people who joined the military for a career,To get and keep a steady job.

Sorry, I accidently put up 'can' for some reason; it should read:


An enlisted solider generally has some ideological foundation for joining the military, if not straight up for money. What is the motivation for working for a private company? It's not transparent, it's not democratically accountable, and someone is profiting off the contract. What's the number one rule about profit? Always increase it. How does that inevitably lead up to some seriously bad news? Is this not what Eisenhower was warning us about?



I was just saying that I feel a bit more sympathetic towards a solider in the US Army, because generally they have some sort of ideological foundation for doing so. It is morally correct for them. A private worker for a company is less likely to have that backdrop. He is there specifically to make money.

But I'm not saying I don't feel some sympathy for either one. I am aware that there are people who basically have no option as far as their job is concerned and the military is the way out of lots of troubling financial times; to some degree.. I can't blame them for needing to make a paycheck come on the table. But when they do so, they understand the risk of the occupation, which is way different than a civilian who had no will to fight anyone at all.

Are you asking me which I feel most sympathetic for... the civilians.

 

[Kathryn]

There are many people who join the military because they believe it is an honorable profession. They are willing to put their lives on the line, not simply for money, and not because they feel powerful wielding a weapon, but because they believe in the ideals of military service.

For these men and women, military service means a lot more than just a paycheck.

 

[dust1n]

Love the way, however, that the issue of civilian deaths at the hands of Islamist extremists has been COMPLETELY ignored - even though they FAR outweigh civilian deaths caused by coalition forces.

And what are you arguing? That this somehow justifies killing more civilians or that that alone gives us a reason to declare war on them and bomb the country side for 8 years?

 

[dust1n]

There are many people who join the military because they believe it is an honorable profession. They are willing to put their lives on the line, not simply for money, and not because they feel powerful wielding a weapon, but because they believe in the ideals of military service.

For these men and women, military service means a lot more than just a paycheck.

And I feel more sympathetic than when they die; they actually believe what they are doing is moral or part of a great moral movement.

 

[Kathryn]

I never implied you said that.



No, I didn't.

Are you confusing me with Paul, or trying one hell of a spin tactic.?

Dust1n, I'm sorry - I owe you an apology. Yes, I confused your posts on the pictures with the one that Paul Rusco EDITED which then implied that I said that Iraqis killed US civilians on 9/11.

Which is absolutely NOT what I said or implied in that post. But if one edits a post before quoting it, it's like any other quote taken out of context - it can be spun however one wants to spin it.

Once again, I'm sorry Dust1n, I didn't mean to call you out on that. My comments were about Paul's misleading post.

 

[dust1n]

Dust1n, I'm sorry - I owe you an apology. Yes, I confused your posts on the pictures with the one that Paul Rusco EDITED which then implied that I said that Iraqis killed US civilians on 9/11.

Which is absolutely NOT what I said or implied in that post. But if one edits a post before quoting it, it's like any other quote taken out of context - it can be spun however one wants to spin it.

Once again, I'm sorry Dust1n, I didn't mean to call you out on that. My comments were about Paul's misleading post.

No problem, I was just trying to clarify.

 

[Kathryn]

And what are you arguing? That this somehow justifies killing more civilians or that that alone gives us a reason to declare war on them and bomb the country side for 8 years?

You brought up the civilian death rate and implied that it was at the hands of US/coalition forces. I was simply clarifying. The vast majority of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have been at the hands of their own countrymen.

That was my point.

 

[McBell]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought the gyst of the thread was to discuss civilian deaths in a war zone - and accountability, who is responsible for those deaths and our reactions to those deaths.

However, thanks for clarifying. Now I see that the gyst of the thread is simply anti-American rhetoric. My bad.

This is exactly why I am strictly limiting my participation in this anti-American forces thread.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused. I thought the gyst of the thread was to discuss civilian deaths in a war zone - and accountability, who is responsible for those deaths and our reactions to those deaths.

However, thanks for clarifying. Now I see that the gyst of the thread is simply anti-American rhetoric. My bad.

Some of us are trying to discuss the actual topic. Thread topics are traditionally established by the OP. In this case, the topic is the Wikileaks video / the incident of the Apache pilots shooting Reuters photographers and other civilians.