American troops shoot Iraqi child

[Guest Kamui]

...and your research is where?

http://crime.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite....12%2D2shep.html

 

Took me ten seconds to look that up. Has a lot of legal crap to shift through but they give some reasons as well.

 

-Duo

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I probably know more about it than you do, sir moron, being as I have multiple family members who are or have been in the armed forces. And yeah, I still don't like soldiers, because I have a grasp of what REALLY goes on in some of these situations. Think before you type and don't make moronic assumptions.

Hmmmm, well seeing as how one of my best friends is in the Air Force, my father was in the Marines, my Grandfather(now dead) served in the Korean War, my old neighbor whom I still keep in contact with was in Vietnam and had his leg blown to shit(its no held together by metal plates, and screws) while dragging the upper torso of one of his division mates to a rescue chopper, not to mention he wound up a victim of after effects from Agent Orange and also has a metal plate on his skull...all of that makes me confident I have an idea. Now before being placed on an MAO inhibitor I was scouted by the military from the age of 15 and a recruiter told me I would make a good soldier because I show no remorse. I would kill somebody in the heat of battle without a second thought to their age or gender...if they're armed they are a target.

 

I know more about the military than you'll ever imagine.

 

So to answer your qestion, no I don't feel stupid because I know you have no clue as to what goes on in a hot zone

[Damaramu 0]

Yes yes he can. If I gave my 5 year old cousin a gun and said "shoot that guy" he'd know what I was telling him to do. If I was 7 in the 3rd grade mind you and told to shoot someone...I'd know exactly what's going on. Your supposed "research" pretty much flies in the face of common sense here.

Oh and don't get mad at someone for the blatant insulting. You were the first one to flame in this thread...when you called everyone dickheads in your first post. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Guest Kamui]

Well, it's nice to see that the government is putting your lack of human feeling to good use rather than letting you become an axe murderer or something. Have fun killing people! Hope it doesn't all catch up to you someday.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

Well, it's nice to see that the government is putting your lack of human feeling to good use rather than letting you become an axe murderer or something. Have fun killing people! Hope it doesn't all catch up to you someday.

 

-Duo

Don't get morally high and mighty on us. This is the reason nobody is listening to you. You're a condescending little hypcorite. Your posts smack of "I'm superior to you in every way."

[Guest Kamui]

Oh and don't get mad at someone for the blatant insulting. You were the first one to flame in this thread...when you called everyone dickheads in your first post. Don't be a hypocrite.

Didn't say I was mad, just said he insulted. If he's trying to prove a point (and in turn trying to prove that I'm wrong), flaming isn't exactly the best way to go about it, is it? Originally I was not trying to prove any point.....just express my disgust with all the "the kid should have died" posts, which is why I flamed.

 

And once again- there's a reason why kids under 14 aren't tried as adults for murder, because there's scientific evidence that they aren't going to know the full consequences of their actions. It doesn't fly in the face of common sense to assume that a seven-year-old doesn't have the mental capacity to choose whether or not to kill on the same level as a 14-year-old- this is, indeed, common sense.

[Damaramu 0]

Oh and don't get mad at someone for the blatant insulting. You were the first one to flame in this thread...when you called everyone dickheads in your first post. Don't be a hypocrite.

Didn't say I was mad, just said he insulted. If he's trying to prove a point (and in turn trying to prove that I'm wrong), flaming isn't exactly the best way to go about it, is it? Originally I was not trying to prove any point.....just express my disgust with all the "the kid should have died" posts, which is why I flamed.

 

And once again- there's a reason why kids under 14 aren't tried as adults for murder, because there's scientific evidence that they aren't going to know the full consequences of their actions. It doesn't fly in the face of common sense to assume that a seven-year-old doesn't have the mental capacity to choose whether or not to kill on the same level as a 14-year-old- this is, indeed, common sense.

No. Because I just told you I remember when I was 7. And I have a 5 year old cousin that is perfectly aware of what is going on. A 7 year old knows perfectly well what will happen if he's given a gun and told to shoot someone unless he's just a blithering idiot.

[Guest Kamui]

Don't get morally high and mighty on us. This is the reason nobody is listening to you. You're a condescending little hypcorite. Your posts smack of "I'm superior to you in every way."

I wasn't getting morally high and mighty- that would be called sarcasm. It's seemingly fine when people use it on me, right, but when I reply with it, that makes me "condescending". Hello, double standard.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

Don't get morally high and mighty on us. This is the reason nobody is listening to you. You're a condescending little hypcorite. Your posts smack of "I'm superior to you in every way."

I wasn't getting morally high and mighty- that would be called sarcasm. It's seemingly fine when people use it on me, right, but when I reply with it, that makes me "condescending". Hello, double standard.

 

-Duo

Yes please tell us about the double standard hypocrite.

[Guest Kamui]

No. Because I just told you I remember when I was 7. And I have a 5 year old cousin that is perfectly aware of what is going on. A 7 year old knows perfectly well what will happen if he's given a gun and told to shoot someone unless he's just a blithering idiot.

Right, so I guess you're just smarter than the US justice system and all the scientists who have ever presented research to the contrary, right?

 

-Duo

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I can't join due to being on an MAO inhibator...if I can somehow get off all this shit I would join in a heart-beat.

 

But once again you ignore the whole point of that post.

 

If a 7 year old middle-eastern child with a gun of that magnitude came up to you with your views you would be dead in seconds. Of course nobody here would be complaining because it would weed out a bit of the stupidity here.

[Guest Kamui]

If a 7 year old middle-eastern child with a gun of that magnitude came up to you with your views you would be dead in seconds. Of course nobody here would be complaining because it would weed out a bit of the stupidity here.

Hence why I'm not enrolling in the army anytime soon. Obviously, if I was going to enroll in the army, then I would have different views, otherwise I would not do it. What part of this don't you understand?

 

-Duo

[Guest FrigidSoul]

This is a waste of time trying to explain all of this to you because you're as dumb as a lump of shit

[Damaramu 0]

No. Because I just told you I remember when I was 7. And I have a 5 year old cousin that is perfectly aware of what is going on. A 7 year old knows perfectly well what will happen if he's given a gun and told to shoot someone unless he's just a blithering idiot.

Right, so I guess you're just smarter than the US justice system and all the scientists who have ever presented research to the contrary, right?

 

-Duo

Well gee...I wonder why my 5 year old cousin can reason? I didn't say I was smarter. I said that I know that my cousin can reason and I know that when I was in the fucking 3rd grade I could reason. If you're trying to tell me that I couldn't and I'm wrong about myself then you're full of it.

[Guest Kamui]

This is a waste of time trying to explain all of this to you because you're as dumb as a lump of shit

Ooooh, more flaming, that'll show me!

 

I'm starting to think you're the stupid one: newsflash, sir moron: THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "UNDERSTANDING" AND "AGREEING". I get what your point is just fine, I don't agree with it. You can "explain" it to me a million times over if you'd like- simply disagreeing doesn't make someone an idiot.

 

-Duo

[Guest Kamui]

No. Because I just told you I remember when I was 7. And I have a 5 year old cousin that is perfectly aware of what is going on. A 7 year old knows perfectly well what will happen if he's given a gun and told to shoot someone unless he's just a blithering idiot.

Right, so I guess you're just smarter than the US justice system and all the scientists who have ever presented research to the contrary, right?

 

-Duo

Well gee...I wonder why my 5 year old cousin can reason? I didn't say I was smarter. I said that I know that my cousin can reason and I know that when I was in the fucking 3rd grade I could reason. If you're trying to tell me that I couldn't and I'm wrong about myself then you're full of it.

So then explain to me why there's studies to the contrary and why the US justice system believes it. You're just saying the same thing over and over again without actually answering my question.

 

-Duo

[Slayer 0]

Duo's posting here = proof of 7-year old cognizance and awareness

[Guest Kamui]

Duo's posting here = proof of 7-year old cognizance and awareness

Angelslayer's posting here = proof of a 7-year-old's lack of mental capacity

 

-Duo

[Slayer 0]

Duo's posting here = proof of 7-year old cognizance and awareness

Angelslayer's posting here = proof of a 7-year-old's lack of mental capacity

 

-Duo

Here I am trying to compliment your abilities and you have to go and throw it in my face

 

Bad Duo! No dessert for you

[Justice 0]

Okay, this is moronic. I'm tired of watching this endless debate continue.

 

Duo: Your argument is fatally flawed. You argue because we don't execute minors it would not have been right to kill him in that instance. Is that correct?

 

If so, your argument about "He shouldn't get killed because we don't have the death penalty for minors" is completely wrong because this doesn't deal with a trial and sentencing, this deals with apprehension. If a cop has a gun pointed at them, child or no, if he feels that his life is in danger or that people around him are in danger they are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defuse the situation. The same goes for soldiers: Whether or not he realizes the consequences behind it, the child was pointing a rapid fire assault weapon at soldiers in the US Armed Forces. The soldier felt that the child, regardless of his level of understanding, could cause considerable harm to his fellow soldiers and most likely any civilians in the area. The action of killing the child, no matter his motive or level of understand, because he posed a rather large threat to the soldier, his squadmates, and civilians in the area, is completely justifiable even if it is a bit tragic. Your constant assertions of "How do we know he could aim?" make no sense because nothing in the article suggests that he couldn't. He came out and pointed the gun at the soldiers; technically, that would qualify as aiming. It wouldn't matter anyways, because in a combat situation soldiers ALWAYS treat guns as being loaded and their owners as people who know how to use them, regardless of age. Understanding doesn't matter when he's still a threat.

 

If not, then your current argument makes absolutely no sense. The people against you are arguing that the soldier (Or anyone else in the same situation) would be justified in their actions. If you agree with that, then what the fuck do you keep going on about? He's not getting a trial or being sentenced to death; that wasn't even remotely suggested here. Hell, no one said he ever deserved to die. Hell, Anglesault (In the post before your first) commended the guy on his restraint because if he had seen someone point a gun at him, regardless of their age he would have taken them down. That's not a sentence to death, that's saying "He was a bit cooler under fire than I would ever be". Hell, I don't even know why you posted that flame because NO ONE WAS DOING WHAT YOU WERE BASHING!

 

In conclusion, I reccommend stopping before you look stupider than cartman.

[Guest Kamui]

Duo's posting here = proof of 7-year old cognizance and awareness

Angelslayer's posting here = proof of a 7-year-old's lack of mental capacity

 

-Duo

Here I am trying to compliment your abilities and you have to go and throw it in my face

 

Bad Duo! No dessert for you

*makes like Frigid and shoots you in the chest, grabs desert out of hand anyway, and runs*

 

HAH! NO REMORSE, BABY!

 

-Duo

[Guest FrigidSoul]

This is a waste of time trying to explain all of this to you because you're as dumb as a lump of shit

Ooooh, more flaming, that'll show me!

 

I'm starting to think you're the stupid one: newsflash, sir moron: THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "UNDERSTANDING" AND "AGREEING". I get what your point is just fine, I don't agree with it. You can "explain" it to me a million times over if you'd like- simply disagreeing doesn't make someone an idiot.

 

-Duo

You don't understand at all.

 

You've presented your beliefs as being the child was innocent and had the soldier killed him he would be a monster.

 

Go find a Vietnam Vet and ask them what they went through when faced with the fact that the Viet-kong army was arming children in schools and telling them to fire at any American soldier they saw. Ask them how they felt when they saw their friends go into homes to save babies from crossfire only to be blown up by plastic explosives placed in the infants diapers. Alot of these soldiers were traumatised for life, some to the point of commiting suicide...but they understood it was their duty as deployed American Soldiers. These soldiers know they're going to be faced with the same thing, and ya it was nice of him to shoot the kid in the foot...but I wouldn't have let him live...you never let a known armed enemy live unless they become a guarded POW.

 

You have no fucking clue what goes on out there.

[Guest Kamui]

If not, then your current argument makes absolutely no sense. The people against you are arguing that the soldier (Or anyone else in the same situation) would be justified in their actions. If you agree with that, then what the fuck do you keep going on about? He's not getting a trial or being sentenced to death; that wasn't even remotely suggested here. Hell, no one said he ever deserved to die. Hell, Anglesault (In the post before your first) commended the guy on his restraint because if he had seen someone point a gun at him, regardless of their age he would have taken them down. That's not a sentence to death, that's saying "He was a bit cooler under fire than I would ever be". Hell, I don't even know why you posted that flame because NO ONE WAS DOING WHAT YOU WERE BASHING!

Uh, did you miss the "I would have killed the kid." jokes? Wasn't talking about Anglesault, was talking about:

 

"I would have shot him in the head. If he had a gun then he knew how to use it and now that he's been shot in the foot he'll want to shed blood even more" -FrigidSoul

 

"Wow, shooting a kid in the foot -- that's some marksmanship.

 

Wonder how Al Jazeera would have covered the story if the soldiers smoked the little bastard, which is what they should have done..."-kkk

 

Those were the two I was talking about, both happening before my post. I was saying that all the "the kid should have died" jokes were idiotic, hence why I went with a semi-sarcastic flame. Somehow, that got turned into a serious debate. /shrug

 

-Duo

[Guest Kamui]

You've presented your beliefs as being the child was innocent and had the soldier killed him he would be a monster.

I have? News to me.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

No. Because I just told you I remember when I was 7. And I have a 5 year old cousin that is perfectly aware of what is going on. A 7 year old knows perfectly well what will happen if he's given a gun and told to shoot someone unless he's just a blithering idiot.

Right, so I guess you're just smarter than the US justice system and all the scientists who have ever presented research to the contrary, right?

 

-Duo

Well gee...I wonder why my 5 year old cousin can reason? I didn't say I was smarter. I said that I know that my cousin can reason and I know that when I was in the fucking 3rd grade I could reason. If you're trying to tell me that I couldn't and I'm wrong about myself then you're full of it.

So then explain to me why there's studies to the contrary and why the US justice system believes it. You're just saying the same thing over and over again without actually answering my question.

 

-Duo

I'm going in circles because what I'm saying is true. I don't care what the justice system is I know what I was like and I know what my cousin is like. That's why I keep saying it. You can't buy the fact that what you found may *shock* be flawed.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I wasn't joking, I would have shot the child in the head without thinking twice. Lives of my fellow soldiers > 7 year old with large fucking gun

[Damaramu 0]

If not, then your current argument makes absolutely no sense. The people against you are arguing that the soldier (Or anyone else in the same situation) would be justified in their actions. If you agree with that, then what the fuck do you keep going on about? He's not getting a trial or being sentenced to death; that wasn't even remotely suggested here. Hell, no one said he ever deserved to die. Hell, Anglesault (In the post before your first) commended the guy on his restraint because if he had seen someone point a gun at him, regardless of their age he would have taken them down. That's not a sentence to death, that's saying "He was a bit cooler under fire than I would ever be". Hell, I don't even know why you posted that flame because NO ONE WAS DOING WHAT YOU WERE BASHING!

Uh, did you miss the "I would have killed the kid." jokes? Wasn't talking about Anglesault, was talking about:

 

"I would have shot him in the head. If he had a gun then he knew how to use it and now that he's been shot in the foot he'll want to shed blood even more" -FrigidSoul

 

"Wow, shooting a kid in the foot -- that's some marksmanship.

 

Wonder how Al Jazeera would have covered the story if the soldiers smoked the little bastard, which is what they should have done..."-kkk

 

Those were the two I was talking about, both happening before my post. I was saying that all the "the kid should have died" jokes were idiotic, hence why I went with a semi-sarcastic flame. Somehow, that got turned into a serious debate. /shrug

 

-Duo

He is lucky he wasn't killed. That soldier there had some restraint seems how most of them are trained to shoot to kill.

[Guest Kamui]

I'm going in circles because what I'm saying is true. I don't care what the justice system is I know what I was like and I know what my cousin is like. That's why I keep saying it. You can't buy the fact that what you found may *shock* be flawed.

Okay. But my point is that you don't have any actual proof other than your old word here, while I have studies to back me up. In any decent debate, I would win.

 

Show me a study that refutes the current standard I'm going on, if you want to make a serious debate out of this. Saying "well, I know how I was at 7 and my cousin is at 5" doesn't prove anything.

 

-Duo

[Guest Kamui]

He is lucky he wasn't killed. That soldier there had some restraint seems how most of them are trained to shoot to kill.

.....

 

I AGREE WITH YOU. Holy fuck. All I said when it turned into a serious debate was that I was glad the kid wasn't killed, and that all this second-guessing of the soldier's decision was unneccesary with the result that came out.

 

-Duo

[Jobber of the Week 0]

TheMikeSC:

Which is QUITE an irrelevant point and one I'm shocked you're siding with Duo on. If a kid is pointing a gun at you, I doubt you'd want to find out first if he could aim.

 

It is amazing the utter lack of military common sense some people have.

 

Okay, you said that if the kid is trained with a Kalishnakov at age 7, it's obvious he's going to have a future of violence.

 

I'm saying we don't know how experienced he is with weapons or not. This has absolutely no bearing on the event of the soldier shooting him in the foot, I'm not talking about that at all.

Edited December 1, 2003 by Jobber of the Week