Vin: >I don't see how you can claim that his is >delusional and a liar in view of posts that >you have been replied to. Apparently it is >you squirming without reading?.... So you just like making statement that make you look stupid? -- you accuse me of not reading and yet I have formatted and quoted the conflicting statements by this Marine several times now. For the benefit of those sloooooooow persons in the crowd I will do so again (refer to both orginal posts(Vins and mine) for context.) >They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some >warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit >them up. >They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. These two statements directly conflict -- thus he is either delusional or a liar. The second statement (if true) describes his murdurous actions regardless of orders. >Sooooo your opinion and for the record: he is either >delusional or a liar, and later he is also a merderous >thug regardless following orders or not. I'm surprised you were able to figure it out on your own since I made my position so incredibly obtuse. >Hmmm I thought a soldier was trained to follow >orders, but that's another story on what discretion >he can have in following his chain of command orders They are trained NOT to follow obviously illegal orders such as "intentionally shoot weaponless civilians in a surrendered position". This training is part of Basic in every branch. Check out United States v. Keenan, one of the cases used in this training. >In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was >found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot >and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military >Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant >to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature >that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would >know it to be illegal." Vin: >Nice try, I don't recall "redirecting" a response to >you with a "warmonger statement" Apparently you can't differentiate between past and future tense. Read my statement again and you will see that I never accused you of redirecting, but rather it was an invitation. JB
Ahhh yes...let's be sure and not nit-pick a soldier murdering weaponless civilians with their hands up. If we nit-pick a little thing like that it leads to a very slippery slope.
i have an idea for cynical "brave" souls like you. go over join a combat unit get the "true" story for us; then you can come back and provide sworn court-room like testimony in the best of grammar.
Ah yes.... yet another COWARD creates a new ID just to attack his well armed opponent LMAOOOOOO.... what a cowardly loser Sad and pathetic. Show yourself you chicken livered little shit peace axeman
Agreed it is sad.... We've seen both better and worst interviews. Maybe we need a set of acceptable interview standards for next time? We are on the same page, War a very ugly thing, best to be avoided... Axeman, you pose no challenge what's so ever..Yawn blah blah blah...just your same crap different day routine lol. SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE OFFICIALLY RUN FROM THE debate AND SHOW ME WHERE I HAVE CONCEDED. Quote me conceding or leaving. Yer not only blind, but stupid to boot. Obviously your statement is plain wrong..well as the rest of your arguments, nothing new there. I'm sure you'll keep on ranting along... You have no argument to start with, just garbage worded to look like it has meaning. No major revelation there. ahhh yes the "Like I said.... logically impaired. The label fits." Again It will be better for your self esteem if you remove the mirror in front of you. Sorry bud, take your crap elsewhere. It's getting old...Again... ok it seems this is what started the fights here. You assume that these Iraqis: group A >They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some >warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit >them up. are the same as these, group B They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on >them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down >weapons." That's what they were doing, but we >were still lighting them up. Reread the interview, it doesn't seem to be case. These two groups of Iraqis are amongst the many cars and (walking maybe) that crossed..He is talking about many cars and over the period of Baghdad invasion. It didn't happen in few minutes... And that's why my first response to you. So I don't see lying and inconsistency there. He is talking about separate incidents as examples out of the many. The pamphlets were air dropped earlier before even the invasion began as part of the preparation. Do you assume that the Marine interviewed threw the pamphlets on these same Iraqis during that incident and after they got gunned down? I have difficulty attacking our Marine's character down there especially a 12 year old veteran and in view of what they are going through.... On legalities, heck there was a Geneva convention, that seems to have been circumvented from the "top" with new "directives for enemy treatment". But this war was ILLEGAL to start with...Anyway..Knowingly killing civilians is criminal, what does that say for the whole mess there? Your "redirection" statement was fully understood. Nowhere I said that you did accuse me of calling you a warmonger in the past. I did not recall at that moment if I did or not, and out of courtesy I pulled back assuming I was in error, that's all. ok??????? (a preemptive invitation?) sheeeeesh
Good military training of the order followers requires them not to think about not following orders. The split second of the soldier in doubt may mean the difference between life or death of other soldiers. Yes, they are supposed to know "right" from "wrong" but in the heat of battle, they should be more reasonable than most Americans are reasonable in their daily lives? Given the stress of their job, a state of temporary insanity is very understandable. If you look at the veterans of Vietnam, there is a split among them. More than 30 years later, many are not conflicted at all about the experience, others are deeply conflicted, confused, angry, etc. Kerry had a reaction to his Vietnam experience, which was similar to others who had different responses. The man who was interviewed, if this story is accurate, sounds to me like he is in a state of shock and post traumatic stress syndrome. He is all over the map because his emotions are all over the map, and he has had little time to digest the experiences. Those who expect a marine who experienced the trauma of war as described, who participated in the killing of civilians while following orders should be held to Turok's standards of reason and consistency? Hogwash. We have an administration who builds their case on justification, and "the end justifies the means" and we expect the "grunts" to be moral and reasonable and keep to the highest standards of principle? The administration leads by the example of doing what they want despite the warnings of caution by our allies, so the soldiers under this administration should be more civil and accommodating to the situation? The administration acts brutishly and thuggish, but the soldiers are required to act consistently and reasonably under their conditions? Can you imagine George Bush or Rumsy, etc. and all of the chicken-hawks, showing restraint at a civilian Iraqi citizen who possibly posed a risk to their own life? I don't blame the soldiers who are in battle, I blame the order givers who are not in battle, who are not under fire, who are not risking their lives in their daily duties.
Listen up mr logically impaired. You have effectively conceded when you fail, no REFUSE, to back up your assertion. You are running away, when you REFUSE to defend yourself or answer my challenge, and instead just attack me. That is exactly what you have done. But to make it clear.... let me refresh your flawed memory, and I quote: I don't see how you can claim that his is delusional and a liar in view of posts that you have been replied to. Apparently it is you squirming without reading?.... Sooooo your opinion and for the record: he is either delusional or a liar, and later he is also a merderous thug regardless following orders or not. Here you clearly are claiming there is an inconsistency in Turoks statements. There clearly is not, so I CHALLENGED YOU TO FORMALLY POINT OUT THE CONTRADICTION SINCE THEN, you continually have DODGED the issue and instead attacked me, and name called. To be clear: YOU FAILED TO BACK UP YOUR STUPID ASSERT AND YOU CONCEDED BY REFUSING TO DEBATE AND INSTEAD SLING MUD Keep running away.... because you dont make any sense. Everyone here has already stated they SEE THE INCONSISTENCY in the story. Only you seem logically incapable of identifying it. As for the rest of your post, typical 100% unsupported silly assertions on your part. How typical. Blah blah blah axe this, axe that. How about backing up ONE THING YOU STATE, just ONCE? LMAOOO Pathetic. All you can do is spew crap all day long without supporting it. Sad very sad. So I reiterate. You are logically impaired. The proof? You cant identify obvious inconsistencies to save your life. Bye bye Nolan.... go learn how to think properly ok? LOL peace axeman