RIP Chris Kyle

[Robbo]

Ah wow a gramar nazi. There is always one. Eugenics for anyone who is dyslexic or mispless. Irony is I bet your a right ugly **** as well. Guess who I would use eugenics on

Oh dear. It gets worse.

I'm merely pointing out that you make next to no sense at all.

 

[Shayper]

LOL I wan't actually referring to you with the pyschopathy reference, it was about pyscho killer - but you assumed I was talking about you. Narcissist!

It's not really a hard assumption to make, considering you posted right after a response I made

Robbo made the link as well

 

[Shayper]

Oh dear. It gets worse.

I'm merely pointing out that you make next to no sense at all.

Can you report him this time, I've done it three times already

 

[Von Smallhausen]

What do you mean here exactly?

I think the difference is clear as day between regular killing and killing in a war environment. I don't have a military background.

I also find it extremely strange that a select few people here want to glorify or defend enemy combatants...

What I mean is that Chris Kyle was not a murderer. He was a highly skilled marksman and a highly trained naval commando and he was paid to do what the US government told him to do and that often involved taking lives. Whatever your thoughts on the man, he was not a murderer in any sense.

Perhaps only those from a military background understand this.

 

[Robbo]

What I mean is that Chris Kyle was not a murderer. He was a highly skilled marksman and a highly trained naval commando and he was paid to do what the US government told him to do and that often involved taking lives. Whatever your thoughts on the man, he was not a murderer in any sense.

Perhaps only those from a military background understand this.

Ah, I completely agree.

 

[Shayper]

Hero? Probably the most reluctant word a solider would chose to call himself.

I see people saying R.I.P to a soldier who was respected inside the US military / navy at every level for his skill, bravery and courage - and a few self-righteous idiots pushing their flawed idealism, lack of understanding and religious agenda's into the post.

As has been said - the sniper is probably the most ethical of soldiers on the battlefield. The rules of engagement that handicap these guys in doing their job is constantly being exploited by the enemy. The ethics that come with distinguishing and civilian from a legitimate target to ensure that if a shot is fired, they know the person on the receiving end is armed and a threat. If a legitimate target puts down their weapon and becomes unarmed - the rules of engagement dictate that the shooter cannot take the shot against what is now an unarmed civilian. See how easy it is for the target to exploit and how hard the job for the sniper becomes?

To have 150+ confirmed kills under these conditions is not seen as a macabre achievement like you would like to believe - rather its the knowledge that doing it would have saved lives both of other coalition forces and the civilian population. That's why they do it.

These guys don't drop bombs, they don't shoot up the place on full-auto, they do not kill indiscriminately - they see the people they shoot, they see they are a direct armed threat to the snipers, coalition forces or the civilian population. There is no ambiguity or room for doubt when that shot is fired.

Don't try and put your civilian values or labels on military engagements or personnel you clearly know nothing about. Calling a solider who performs his duty to the best of his ability a murderer, insults every solider whether active, retired or lost.

Best post of the thread

 

[Agent_Smith357]

Killin' people for money sure is honorable.

 

[Shayper]

Killin' people for money sure is honorable.

But you are glorifying someone who (fictionally, yes) wanted to subjugate the entire human race with your name!

WE'RE DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE NOW BOYS!

 

[Egon]

Ah wow a gramar nazi. There is always one. Eugenics for anyone who is dyslexic or mispless. Irony is I bet your a right ugly **** as well. Guess who I would use eugenics on

yourself....?

That would be some blessed irony!

 

[Shayper]

yourself....?

That would be some blessed irony!

 

[elmarko]

Don't try and put your civilian values or labels on military engagements or personnel you clearly know nothing about. Calling a solider who performs his duty to the best of his ability a murderer, insults every solider whether active, retired or lost.

I don't believe the military should be living my different moral values - perhaps that's why the world is in such a mess.

Besides, you can perform your duty & still be a murderer - (not saying it was so in the case of the person in the OP, but I don't like the kind of "blanket honor" you are ascribing to people I don't hold in that much higher regard than mercenaries.

Putting on a uniform doesn't suddenly absolve an individual of moral responsibility either.

Really my problem has nothing to do with the person the thread is about - just the mind numbing soldier worship the people of the UK have been indoctrinated into by the media is somewhat boring & pathetic.

Don't get me wrong, the same applies to "freedom fighters or terrorists" abroad (pending on if they are on our side or not) - this isn't a problem exclusive to the UK.

One phase embodies the attitude very well, the kind of people who say "Our boys".

 

[EyepodI]

Hero? Probably the most reluctant word a solider would chose to call himself.

I see people saying R.I.P to a soldier who was respected inside the US military / navy at every level for his skill, bravery and courage - and a few self-righteous idiots pushing their flawed idealism, lack of understanding and religious agenda's into the post.

As has been said - the sniper is probably the most ethical of soldiers on the battlefield. The rules of engagement that handicap these guys in doing their job is constantly being exploited by the enemy. The ethics that come with distinguishing and civilian from a legitimate target to ensure that if a shot is fired, they know the person on the receiving end is armed and a threat. If a legitimate target puts down their weapon and becomes unarmed - the rules of engagement dictate that the shooter cannot take the shot against what is now an unarmed civilian. See how easy it is for the target to exploit and how hard the job for the sniper becomes?

To have 150+ confirmed kills under these conditions is not seen as a macabre achievement like you would like to believe - rather its the knowledge that doing it would have saved lives both of other coalition forces and the civilian population. That's why they do it.

These guys don't drop bombs, they don't shoot up the place on full-auto, they do not kill indiscriminately - they see the people they shoot, they see they are a direct armed threat to the snipers, coalition forces or the civilian population. There is no ambiguity or room for doubt when that shot is fired.

Don't try and put your civilian values or labels on military engagements or personnel you clearly know nothing about. Calling a solider who performs his duty to the best of his ability a murderer, insults every solider whether active, retired or lost.

What a load of sentimental ******* the guy is shooting up 3rd world people from 2km away. He can't even see them. If he is so self-righteous then who and why is fighting? Fighting phoney Afgan wars all cash, all about oil pipelines, all about control of the poppy and hash trade. About coshing the Iraq with their ******** WMD.

You've been suckered - get over yourselves with your bravey BS.

As Henry Kissinger said

Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.

 

[Robbo]

yourself....?

That would be some blessed irony!

What a load of sentimental ******* the guy is shooting up 3rd world people from 2km away. He can't even see them. If he is so self-righteous then who and why is fighting? Fighting phoney Afgan wars all cash, all about oil pipelines, all about control of the poppy and hash trade. About coshing the Iraq with their ******** WMD.

You've been suckered - get over yourselves with your bravey BS.

As Henry Kissinger said

There's only one (well, more than one) sucker here, and it isn't 'us'...

Hero? Probably the most reluctant word a solider would chose to call himself.

I see people saying R.I.P to a soldier who was respected inside the US military / navy at every level for his skill, bravery and courage - and a few self-righteous idiots pushing their flawed idealism, lack of understanding and religious agenda's into the post.

As has been said - the sniper is probably the most ethical of soldiers on the battlefield. The rules of engagement that handicap these guys in doing their job is constantly being exploited by the enemy. The ethics that come with distinguishing and civilian from a legitimate target to ensure that if a shot is fired, they know the person on the receiving end is armed and a threat. If a legitimate target puts down their weapon and becomes unarmed - the rules of engagement dictate that the shooter cannot take the shot against what is now an unarmed civilian. See how easy it is for the target to exploit and how hard the job for the sniper becomes?

To have 150+ confirmed kills under these conditions is not seen as a macabre achievement like you would like to believe - rather its the knowledge that doing it would have saved lives both of other coalition forces and the civilian population. That's why they do it.

These guys don't drop bombs, they don't shoot up the place on full-auto, they do not kill indiscriminately - they see the people they shoot, they see they are a direct armed threat to the snipers, coalition forces or the civilian population. There is no ambiguity or room for doubt when that shot is fired.

Don't try and put your civilian values or labels on military engagements or personnel you clearly know nothing about. Calling a solider who performs his duty to the best of his ability a murderer, insults every solider whether active, retired or lost.

This is a great post by the way. Well said.

 

[Castiel]

Oh the irony.

This forum is littered with examples of me admitting when I'm wrong. You unfortunately don't share that humility (as the comments in the MoH thread will attest).

Funny, it seems littered with examples of people proving your assertions to be inaccurate and you going off on some tangent or another trying to express something else (usually the points raised against you) as your original point.

Which as I've explained was clearly within the context of the conversation (i.e Are we safer for having our soldiers in Afganistan/Iraq) so why would I be referring to the assassination of Iranian Diplomats or other attacks that weren't aimed at the British public?

You made a very clear statement, you did not qualify it in the way you are now trying to, there was no prior context of asking the question of whether stopping a state from supporting terrorist training camps such as Afghanistan was in the public interest or not. This is something you introduced later, like the change from Islamist Terrorism to a more defined specific Al-Qaeda. It is disingenuous and in any case still does not alter the simple fact that there was Islamist terrorism in the UK prior to any involvement in Afghanistan or the later Iraq War.

And you've ignored the fact that Lockerbie was an attack on AMERICAN citizens. It was not a targeted attack against Britain or the British people (although due to geographical location of the attack a small number of Brits were killed).

I did not ignore it, it was an attack on the West, it killed British (as well as other nationals) and it happened in British Airspace. I do not call the deaths of 43 British Citizens to be a small number either, particularly in order to win an Internet argument.

By whom? There is no officially legally binding definition of terrorism.

By the legal authorities in the UK.

I was waiting for the stock Castiel "you don't understand what something is" ad-hominem, shame it's based on a strawman argument. Where did I claim 'Islamist terrorism is not politically motivated'? I said that the examples you gave were less terrorist attacks and more politically motivated, targeting executions. To take that and turn it into me saying terrorist attacks can't also be political is a non-sequitur.

Pfft, reread what was said. You stated the examples were invalidated because they were politically motivated assassinations, and I explained that Islamism is politically motivated and assassination is simply a tool used by terrorism, such as targeted assassinations of Jews or car bombs outside residences or offices, this doesn't mean they were not acts of terrorism or motivated by political Islam...the IRA targeted politically expedient individuals and they are still classified as terrorism....it doesn't make them any less terrorist activities simply because they target an individual or specific group, terrorism doesn't have to indiscriminate. I intentionally did not mention one attempted assassination of an Israeli Diplomat in London because while it was committed by an Islamist terrorist, it was a done using a rifle and was not essentially a threat to the public at large, unlike the other examples that were given.

That's the first example you've given that's within the context of the original claim. Sadly though it's a not a great example, you've had to go back nearly 20 years (from when we invaded Afghanistan) and found an attack that killed no one and only injured two.

So any example of Islamist terrorism that doesn't succeed or doesn't have a high body count is also invalidated.....sure!!!

Not quite the same as 4 homegrown terrorists blowing themselves up on a tube train, killing 57 and directly attributing it to our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq though.

You realise that I gave you an example of a similar planned attack that was thankfully stopped by the Police that was planned and equipped prior to Afghanistan.

Only if you bend the definition of terrorism to include targeted assassination on political figures and call anyone who engages in violence and just happens to Muslim an 'Islamist'.

If you say so...I disagree with you and your definition of what constitutes terrorism is somewhat counter to the accepted one, but I have no intention of indulging your circular and ever changing argument any further.

 

[Shayper]

What a load of sentimental ******* the guy is shooting up 3rd world people from 2km away. He can't even see them. If he is so self-righteous then who and why is fighting? Fighting phoney Afgan wars all cash, all about oil pipelines, all about control of the poppy and hash trade. About coshing the Iraq with their ******** WMD.

You've been suckered - get over yourselves with your bravey BS.

As Henry Kissinger said

Keep going with the personal insults, I can see you having an illustrious forum career

What was your previous username if I may be so bold as to ask?

 

[EyepodI]

Keep going with the personal insults, I can see you having an illustrious forum career

What was your previous username if I may be so bold as to ask?

I don't give a damn about my forum profile. Your just playing silly ***** because you don't like what I say. Ask the mods if they think I am someone else.

 

[Shayper]

I don't give a damn about my forum profile. Your just playing stilly ***** because you don't like what I say. Ask the mods if they think I am someone else.

That's called discussion. DIS-CUSH-SHUN.

Oh and don't worry, I have

You should really give a damn if you want to stay here

 

[Jason2]

Shayper, ever considered it's YOU with the attitude problem? You sound like a spoiled little brat who thinks he knows everything. Give it a rest.

PS: Why do you keep threatening people with bans? Maybe the mods should ban your sorry little a***.

 

[Shayper]

Shayper, ever considered it's YOU with the attitude problem? You sound like a spoiled little brat who thinks he knows everything. Give it a rest.

PS: Why do you keep threatening people with bans? Maybe the mods should ban your sorry little a***.

Yes, I have an attitude problem. That's why I'm perfectly civil in every discussion. And I most definitely do think I know everything, that's why I'm still in education.

Threatening people, me? I'm still waiting for your response for a face to face discussion on evolution vs. creationism, as that's what you wanted wasn't it?

 

[EyepodI]

That's called discussion. DIS-CUSH-SHUN.

Oh and don't worry, I have

You should really give a damn if you want to stay here

There is another joker on this forum just like you. I actually mixed the pair of you up. He's like ******** Tory boy but he's actaully a Blair sucker. Just lets hope there pair of you ***** never run for government because it would be the end of free speach and full of drugged up misguided yes clowns.