American troops shoot Iraqi child

[Guest Kamui]

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

Then you have different moral values than I do. /shrug Don't know what else to say here.

 

You honestly think the soldier did the wrong thing by shooting the kid in the foot? That's all I'm asking.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

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 curret 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

It does to me. I know exactly what I'm like. I'm sorry if you were a drooling idiot when you were 7 and didn't know what the hell was going on and couldn't reason until you were 12. I apologize you were like that. But I know what I was like. Therefore I am right because I know from my own personal experience. To say "Well this scientist says you weren't" is just asinine. It's like the people that say "We know what's good for you. You don't." I know what I am thinking and feeling and I know what I have thought and have felt. And nobody is going to tell me otherwise. So give up...you are not going to win.

[Guest Kamui]

It does to me. I know exactly what I'm like. I'm sorry if you were a drooling idiot when you were 7 and didn't know what the hell was going on and couldn't reason until you were 12. I apologize you were like that. But I know what I was like. Therefore I am right because I know from my own personal experience. To say "Well this scientist says you weren't" is just asinine. It's like the people that say "We know what's good for you. You don't." I know what I am thinking and feeling and I know what I have thought and have felt. And nobody is going to tell me otherwise. So give up...you are not going to win.

There's a difference between being a drooling idiot and having the decision-making ability of an adult. Not to mention the fact that children are more easily influenced than adults (obviously).

 

There's really no point to this debate if you're dead-set on one point of it and refuse to offer anything else to back up your view on the issue- I'm open to seeing some kind of study that refutes my arguement. You, on the other hand, seem stuck on this one point of the issue (your own personal experiences). Nothing I can do then.

 

-Duo

[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

Then you have different moral values than I do. /shrug Don't know what else to say here.

 

You honestly think the soldier did the wrong thing by shooting the kid in the foot? That's all I'm asking.

 

-Duo

He handled it the way he saw fit and the situation turned out favorable for us. I would have done otherwise but again the situation was handled.

 

The child is lucky it was that soldier and not somebody like me (I was being groomed for special forces)

[Guest Kamui]

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

Then you have different moral values than I do. /shrug Don't know what else to say here.

 

You honestly think the soldier did the wrong thing by shooting the kid in the foot? That's all I'm asking.

 

-Duo

He handled it the way he saw fit and the situation turned out favorable for us. I would have done otherwise but again the situation was handled.

 

The child is lucky it was that soldier and not somebody like me (I was being groomed for special forces)

This was my point- the situtation was handled. Obviously, the soldier knew what he was doing- he took down a child without killing them. All I've been saying throughout the serious portion of this thread is that the soldier deserves praise for this, not constant second-guessing.

 

From my experience, I'd expect a soldier (or even someone who was only training to become one, I have no idea what your status is) to have more respect for his fellow soldier's ability to make a decision than you appear to have.

 

-Duo

[Guest FrigidSoul]

From my experience, I'd expect a soldier (or even one who was only training to become one, I have no idea what your status is) to have more respect for his fellow soldier's ability to make a decision than you appear to have.

 

-Duo

I have no problem with what he did nor do I question. I only say that had it been me the child would be dead. My major dispute was you trying to take responsability away from the child.

 

My status is I if I get healthy and off the meds I'm headed in for Special Forces training. I can deal with the solitude that goes with covert ops so that's where I would be

[Guest Kamui]

I have no problem with what he did nor do I question. I only say that had it been me the child would be dead. My major dispute was you trying to take responsability away from the child.

Okay, well, the way you said it kind of came off that way, but thanks for clarifying your position.

 

Anyway....I wasn't trying to absolve the kid of ALL responsability, only trying to put it in perspective compared to an adult running at a soldier with an assault rifle. To me, if the soldier is going to shoot a kid in the foot rather than kill him, unless he has some kind of policy where he does this to any Iraqi that runs at him with an assault rifle, it's because he more than likely believes the same thing I do- that the kid is less responsible for his actions than an adult in the same situation. So I was just trying to defend his position.

 

-Duo

[Damaramu 0]

It does to me. I know exactly what I'm like. I'm sorry if you were a drooling idiot when you were 7 and didn't know what the hell was going on and couldn't reason until you were 12. I apologize you were like that. But I know what I was like. Therefore I am right because I know from my own personal experience. To say "Well this scientist says you weren't" is just asinine. It's like the people that say "We know what's good for you. You don't." I know what I am thinking and feeling and I know what I have thought and have felt. And nobody is going to tell me otherwise. So give up...you are not going to win.

There's a difference between being a drooling idiot and having the decision-making ability of an adult. Not to mention the fact that children are more easily influenced than adults (obviously).

 

There's really no point to this debate if you're dead-set on one point of it and refuse to offer anything else to back up your view on the issue- I'm open to seeing some kind of study that refutes my arguement. You, on the other hand, seem stuck on this one point of the issue (your own personal experiences). Nothing I can do then.

 

-Duo

The only thing I can offer is my own personal experience which I KNOW IS RIGHT. I know what I felt and I know what was right and what was wrong. If my dad had given me a gun and said "Shoot that police officer" when I was 7 I would've said no. That is how I know I'm right.

[Guest Kamui]

The only thing I can offer is my own personal experience which I KNOW IS RIGHT. I know what I felt and I know what was right and what was wrong. If my dad had given me a gun and said "Shoot that police officer" when I was 7 I would've said no. That is how I know I'm right.

But then this brings up the question of how your enviornment effects (affects?) you- again, the "children are easily impressionable" arguement. Unless you lived in a REALLY fucked-up household, someone told you growing up that it was wrong to shoot police officers, right? So of course you'd make that decision.

 

Obviously, this kid was in a different situation, and along the way someone told him that it was right to point guns at members of the US armed forces. This still brings me right back to my original point in the debate- that the kid lacks the same decision-making ability as an adult.

 

-Duo

[Guest MikeSC]

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.

If you're in a society where they train you with rather heavy machinery at age 7, then yes, violence is likely in your future. I doubt many of these kids end up as nice, happy people --- ESPECIALLY not in that shithole.

I'm saying we don't know how experienced he is with weapons or not.

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

[Guest Kamui]

If you're in a society where they train you with rather heavy machinery at age 7, then yes, violence is likely in your future. I doubt many of these kids end up as nice, happy people --- ESPECIALLY not in that shithole.

 

So your position is basically that you don't care whether or not the kid died because he's an Iraqi anyway? How enlightened.

 

And hey, I don't think you're a very nice, happy person- does that mean I can come over to your home and kill you?

 

 

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

 

Thanks for backing up my point for me.

 

-Duo

[NYU 0]

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

 

Thanks for backing up my point for me.

 

-Duo

So the kid could have killed that soldier, the soldier standing next to him, and an Iraqi that was in the background, that had nothing to do with the entire incident.

 

Doesn't exactly help prove your point there.

[Guest Kamui]

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

 

Thanks for backing up my point for me.

 

-Duo

So the kid could have killed that soldier, the soldier standing next to him, and an Iraqi that was in the background, and had nothing to do with the entire incident.

 

Doesn't exactly help prove your point there.

No, it helps my point that the soldier did the right thing by taking him down in a non-lethal fashion, since if the kid wasn't trained, who knows what he actually meant to do with the rifle compared to what he would actually end up doing with it. I still maintain the kid didn't deserve to die and the soldier did the right thing, and this helps my point.

 

-Duo

[Justice 0]

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

 

Thanks for backing up my point for me.

 

-Duo

So the kid could have killed that soldier, the soldier standing next to him, and an Iraqi that was in the background, and had nothing to do with the entire incident.

 

Doesn't exactly help prove your point there.

No, it helps my point that the soldier did the right thing by taking him down in a non-lethal fashion, since if the kid wasn't trained, who knows what he actually meant to do with the rifle compared to what he would actually end up doing with it. I still maintain the kid didn't deserve to die and the soldier did the right thing, and this helps my point.

 

-Duo

Well, training doesn't figure into intent. Whether or not he was trained doesn't mean he was intending to cause harm to those infront of him; it doesn't matter if he's a good shot or not if he is going to start shooting, and in all likelihood that would lead to innocent people being killed. I think that's the idea being put across here.

[Guest Kamui]

Well, training doesn't figure into intent. Whether or not he was trained doesn't mean he was intending to cause harm to those infront of him; it doesn't matter if he's a good shot or not if he is going to start shooting, and in all likelihood that would lead to innocent people being killed. I think that's the idea being put across here.

But the soldier put a stop to that anyway, which is why I STILL don't get why we're having this conversation. /sigh

 

-Duo

[NYU 0]

Okay, here goes.

 

Either way, whether it was the soldier killing the boy or just shooting him in the foot, the POSSIBLE attack would have been stopped. Now, it comes to matter of opinion or preference on what choice would have been made. Some might have just wanted to stop the boy, in as mild a way as he could. Duo, this would be your position, I assume. Others would have wanted to either MAKE SURE the boy wouldn't get an opportunity to kill him or later kill another soldier. Some of these people could have even wanted to extract revenge on him just for coming over with a loaded gun.

 

You have to look at it as, at that point, the boy WAS A THREAT. A good amount of soldiers have been killed in Iraq by sneak-attacks and, as stereotypical as it might be, suicide bombings DO happen and measures need to be taken for a soldier to make sure he can avoid it. You can't fault people for saying they would have killed the kid. It comes down to what they think would be the proper self-defense for himself and the others around him.

 

Personally, it's probably for the best that the soldier didn't kill him. I can't understand the people who said he made the entirely wrong decision - but I can understand the people who said they would have killed him if the same situation happened.

 

You HAVE to presume that if he had a loaded gun, and was walking to a soldier, he didn't have good intentions on his mind. He didn't walk over saying "Merry Christmas, Mr. Soldier. I found this gun, and thought you would appreciate to have it." Considering some of the horrific events that have happened in Iraq, you have to presume bad intentions were on his mind and you need to take action.

 

Shooting him MAY not have been necessary, but it wouldn't have been unwarranted. I think that's where you and the other posters are disagreeing.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"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

 

Mike SC, how can you do your point-by-point debating at this place? I nearly went crazy dealing with this dipshit.

 

Oh, and Duo shooting a kid in the foot IS good marksmanship -- Jesus, the one time I was making a serious point and he misinterprets it.

 

Damn, it's threads like this that make me second-guess my normally pro-life poistion and wonder if some folks are better off as an aborted lump of tissue.

 

And I'm pretty sure THOSE beings don't have the ability to fire off a gun at soldiers...

[EricMM 0]

I'm sure Duo would have preferred that the soldier shot the gun out of the kids hand. Then NO ONE would have to be hurt.

 

Did you just ignore my point about shooting to kill? I would be very surprised if non-lethal shots are ANY part of a standard combat procedure. I AM glad that the kid didn't get killed. But if the kid hadn't been incapacitated and had shot some other person then the foot-shot would be undefensable.

 

Don't you get it?

[Guest Cerebus]

Sorry Duo, well not really but...

 

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Holy ruddy hell. What a clusterfuck.

 

First, my opinion on the matter: soldier did well by using nonlethal force. I probably would have had dibs on a head shot for the kid if I were there, but again, I don't have the capability to aim. Anyways: soldier shows some pretty good restraint to handle the situation in a manner without a death. Would I have questioned it had the kid died? No. End of story.

 

My main problem, however, stems not from the stupid debate surrounding Duo that has come across this entire thread, but that apparently all of these children will eventually become suicide bombers. Now, Iraq, before Saddam Hussein renegaded against the United States, was an extremely westernized country. It was considered the most "American" city in the Middle East. Then there was the Iraq-Iran War, which led to Saddam becoming more of a religious fundamentalist. Then we have the situation now, where there are two main groups for support: the pro-Westerners, and the radical Muslims.

 

The pro-Westerners, obviously, do not attempt to kill with suicide bombers. The radical Muslims, however, do. Their purpose is to perpetuate the hatred towards anything Western, or more particularly, American. We have seen the problems with suicide bombers in Palestine and Israel. I don't question the fact that suicide bombers exist, nor how they are created.

 

No, my problem comes from the fact that there are no mainstream news source confirmation of al-Qaeda being a complete form of threat within Iraq. And I hope to God nobody quotes the Weekly Standard article, because it will be easy as hell to tear a new one for. I need to see a current form of evidence in order to state that there is a perpetuation of al-Qaeda. No, until then, I can only state that a couple of radicals, just as any radical, like Timothy McVeigh here in America can attest, are trying to spread their hatred towards a specific source through violence.

[Guest Cerebus]

To salvage some sort of intelligence to this thread, here is an article about two ten year olds shooting at US troops with RPGs and since Duo knows so little about military affairs that is an acronym for Rocket Propelled Grenade, you may recognize it from your first person shooter video games.

[Guest Cerebus]

And I hope to God nobody quotes the Weekly Standard article, because it will be easy as hell to tear a new one for.

How about Slate and that bastion of Radical Right Wing Facism the New York Times

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

To salvage some sort of intelligence to this thread, here is an article about two ten year olds shooting at US troops with RPGs and since Duo knows so little about military affairs that is an acronym for Rocket Propelled Grenade, you may recognize it from your first person shooter video games.

 

But is the recoil factor on those RPGs the same as on a Kalashnikov?...

[Guest Kamui]

Wow, those who posted after everyone else stopped manage to take it completley off-topic and mis-interpert everything I was saying. Way to go!

 

For the last fucking time: Saying I was happy that the kid didn't die doesn't mean I don't know anything about military affairs, considering a good portion of my family is IN the military. If I knew nothing about military affairs, perhaps I'd like the military a hell of a lot more.

 

The fact that I KNOW about military affairs (and you're right, non-lethal shots aren't included anywhere in there) is what made this story all the more refreshing for me. Because, to be 100% honest, clicking on the thread I was expecting to read about the soldier shooting him dead, but the fact that he just shot him in the foot was a pleasant surprise. I defended him with passion because the poor guy did the right thing and is probably already getting dressed down by his supreriors for it, and here's a bunch of know-it-all jackasses on a message board second-guessing him to no end.

 

Hint, guys: Shut the fuck up already, everyone stopped posting because they understood each other's positions and there was no real reason to continue on. Sorry if you lack the reading comprehension skills of the rest of us.

 

-Duo

[Guest JMA]

This whole "debate" is meaningless. I wish it would end.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Fuck you bitch.

 

Don't make me shoot you in the foot with a Kalashnikov.

 

And I'm not pissed off because some soldier didn't kill a Seven-year-old Iraqi. I got pissed because pinheads like you seem to think that real-life warfare is like what you play in a RPG video game or first-person shooter.

 

"Ooooh Jimmy, if we shoot this gun-toting enemy in the leg we'll get 50 POINTS and a WARP GATE TO LEVEL 9! So what if we get blasted in the process? We have two more lives and a cheat code for unlimited ammo!"

 

The fact that I KNOW about military affairs (and you're right, non-lethal shots aren't included anywhere in there) is what made this story all the more refreshing for me.

 

And I support John Kerry, so I myself know a thing or two about warfare, especially Vietnam.

 

For the last fucking time: Saying I was happy that the kid didn't die doesn't mean I don't know anything about military affairs, considering a good portion of my family is IN the military.

 

I agree with this -- you said PLENTY of other things that showed us how big of a dumb ass you are.

 

I defended him with passion because the poor guy did the right thing and is probably already getting dressed down by his supreriors for it, and here's a bunch of know-it-all jackasses on a message board second-guessing him to no end.

 

Once again, I, and I know a good many of the other know-it-all jackasses on this message board didn't second-guess the soldier to no end for not wiping the brat out.

 

What I'm ultimately glad about is that little brat didn't take out any of our troops.

 

Hint, guys: Shut the fuck up already, everyone stopped posting because they understood each other's positions and there was no real reason to continue on. Sorry if you lack the reading comprehension skills of the rest of us.

 

Hint, gal: Then why are you still posting in this thread? Isn't Desert Warfare Volume III on sale at your nearby Electronics Boutique or something?...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This molehill turned into the mountain that I predicted it would.

 

You know, 2 pages ago we reached this impedement:

 

Duo: I think it's inappropriate to seek death upon a child, even in a warzone.

 

Various Others: I don't for these reasons, some more well thought out than others.

 

Twice as much ranting and raving and posting later, what have we come to? The same conclusion.

 

Old Yeller is beginning, Timmy. You know what to do.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Twice as much ranting and raving and posting later, what have we come to? The same conclusion.

But it's so much fun -- especially when you're on the right side.

 

And can we PLEASE stop posting in here? I mean, come on you guys.

 

Old Yeller is beginning, Timmy. You know what to do.

 

Yeah, make sure Old Yeller doesn't click on this thread anymore -- he'll have nothing to yelp about then...

 

EDIT: Laughs out loud with only one month to go in the year 2003 because he spotted, with his kkk-vision, a certain poster reading this thread that earlier whined about how this thread should stop because it was a waste of time...

Edited December 1, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Anorak 0]

The child is lucky it was that soldier and not somebody like me (I was being groomed for special forces)

[Guest MikeSC]

If you're in a society where they train you with rather heavy machinery at age 7, then yes, violence is likely in your future. I doubt many of these kids end up as nice, happy people --- ESPECIALLY not in that shithole.

 

So your position is basically that you don't care whether or not the kid died because he's an Iraqi anyway? How enlightened.

Yup, exactly what I'm saying. The kid is being reared in an environment where violence is pretty much the most appropriate response to ANY situation.

 

But, hey, if holding hands and singing "Kum-Ba-Ya" makes you feel better with the world --- go for it.

And hey, I don't think you're a very nice, happy person- does that mean I can come over to your home and kill you?

Well, should you try, let's hope and pray that you are a quick shot. Going to jail for killing you seems like such a waste.

And that is absolutely irrelevant. I --- who have NO experience with an AK-47 whatsoever --- could perforate you in moments with one. Heck, UNTRAINED people could well be MORE dangerous as they'll kill people they don't intend to kill.

-=Mike

 

Thanks for backing up my point for me.

You think I'm backing up your point? Man, you DON'T know anything about logic or debate.

 

Just keep adding to the list.

-=Mike