Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You people labelling our soldiers as murders are the same type of filth that spit on the GI's returning from Vietnam.

Killing someone who is trying to kill you is not what most would classify as murder.

Bash the reasons we went to war. Bash the person who sent us into war. But if you bash our soldiers... MY soldiers... may you rot.

At 5/27/06 12:15 AM, Monocrom wrote: Hey dumb-ass! ......... When American soldiers kill Iraqi soldiers, it's because they're being shot at! American soldier sees an enemy sniper and opens fire on him, that's called "3rd Party Self-defense." (Yes, it's a REAL term). If he doesn't shoot the enemy sniper, the sniper will just stay there and shoot at other American soldiers.

Guess what? Out in the field with both sides shooting at each other, it IS self-defense!

But if you still want to bitch about it, take a number............

Here's the tricky part. We invaded their territory. We are the aggressors there. Self defense doesn't exist on our part. It's them, the so-called terrorists that are killing in self-defense. Not us.

That said, pawns can never be murderers (barring certain exceptions). You join the military, you become a slave to the system. Sounds evil "slave to the system", but it has to be that way for the military to properly function. These pawns has no say in how they should use their weapons. They kill because they were trained to. They kill because they were placed there whether they wanted to be there or not. They kill because they're ordered to.

At 5/27/06 01:59 AM, Ovalshine wrote: Here's the tricky part. We invaded their territory. We are the aggressors there. Self defense doesn't exist on our part. It's them, the so-called terrorists that are killing in self-defense. Not us.

Hmmm.......... so it's the so-called terrorists who are killing Americans in self-defense.

That's an interesting outlook. Here's an idea, just come on down to where I live, in NYC, and try explaining that to a certain group of familes. I'll have them all gathered at a certain place that's under construction. Just take the #4,5, or 6 train past Soho......

At 5/27/06 03:30 AM, Monocrom wrote: Hmmm.......... so it's the so-called terrorists who are killing Americans in self-defense.

That's an interesting outlook. Here's an idea, just come on down to where I live, in NYC, and try explaining that to a certain group of familes. I'll have them all gathered at a certain place that's under construction. Just take the #4,5, or 6 train past Soho......

Don't invoke the imperative of other people, unless you intend to say what you mean. I think you understand the difficulty of speaking on behalf of an entire group. Probably one you don't know. Definitly one you don't know or understand in it's entirety. When he said "so called terrorists" he was still refering to Iraqis. A country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, I say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Also, since people continually say this I feel I am forced to repeat: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And you know as well as I do most Gotham residents are against the war.

Also I find the E,1,2,3, or the R,W bring you as close or closer. I live up on 150th.

How can you say someone who kills in self defence isnt a murderer, but someone who kills in war is? A killer isnt always a murderer.

At 5/27/06 10:43 AM, Occluded wrote:

At 5/27/06 03:30 AM, Monocrom wrote: Hmmm.......... so it's the so-called terrorists who are killing Americans in self-defense.

That's an interesting outlook. Here's an idea, just come on down to where I live, in NYC, and try explaining that to a certain group of familes. I'll have them all gathered at a certain place that's under construction. Just take the #4,5, or 6 train past Soho......

Don't invoke the imperative of other people, unless you intend to say what you mean. I think you understand the difficulty of speaking on behalf of an entire group. Probably one you don't know. Definitly one you don't know or understand in it's entirety. When he said "so called terrorists" he was still refering to Iraqis. A country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Again, I say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Also, since people continually say this I feel I am forced to repeat: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And you know as well as I do most Gotham residents are against the war.

Also I find the E,1,2,3, or the R,W bring you as close or closer. I live up on 150th.

Well gosh, it's amazing that your crystal ball is so great that you KNOW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It's so wonderful that you have this all-knowing gift. You should share it with the rest of the world. It's great that you know that zero terrorist-training went on in Iraq. It's great that you know that none of the 9/11 terrorists spent any time in Iraq, preparing for 9/11.

Hey everybody, looks like I just found God's alt account on NG.

BTW Lord, did you notice how I never said once that I support the war? Did you notice how this topic is about one dumb-ass n00b calling American soldiers murderers? Sorru O Heavenly Father, but I STILL stand behind my last post. Anyone wanting to tell the families of 9/11 victims that American soldiers are terrorists, is likely to get a "Devilish" reception.

At 5/22/06 12:53 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: unless it is for self defence, it is murder if you kill someone, even in war.

all these soldiers who kill in iraq come home as murderers, not heros.

"hey i killed about 20 iraqie soldiers" < murderer

go pee!

There were only like 13 Marines involved and they over reacted when one of their own was killed by a road side bomb. You're just over stero typing soilders you bloody hippie. You go pee!

At 5/27/06 01:55 PM, Magnumprimers wrote: You're just over stero typing soilders you bloody hippie.

I hate hypocrites.

At 5/27/06 01:50 PM, Monocrom wrote:
Well gosh, it's amazing that your crystal ball is so great that you KNOW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It's so wonderful that you have this all-knowing gift. You should share it with the rest of the world. It's great that you know that zero terrorist-training went on in Iraq. It's great that you know that none of the 9/11 terrorists spent any time in Iraq, preparing for 9/11.

Well, did they? You implied that they did. As you are impling it now. You posited the theory. Back it up or fuck off. Are you saying 'might' now? Pretty dodgy.

...but I STILL stand behind my last post. Anyone wanting to tell the families of 9/11 victims that American soldiers are terrorists, is likely to get a "Devilish" reception.

That's not what was said. It said that the 'so called' terrorists (not up for arguement by you as you 'so called' them in your last 2 posts) were in a postion of defending themselves.

And regardless of how someone reacts (even if that reaction is justified) doesn't make it a moral truth. This is not the issue and by trying to make it so is evidence of your own inablility to rationalize.

You're not smart enough to use sarcasm so please stop.

At 5/22/06 01:27 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: " All is fair in love and war "

and coffee

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The soldiers on the american side in iraq, who killed people, were murderers, BUT the allied soldiers in WW2 who killed germans on the field of battle, were not.

At 5/27/06 05:26 PM, elkrobber wrote: mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The soldiers on the american side in iraq, who killed people, were murderers,

What would you rather them do? Let the camel-jockies just shoot at them until they're killed? Tell you what, why don't you go over to Iraq and defend the innocent insurgents from those murdering american bastards? I look forward to seeing your blown off head at rotten.com.

At 5/27/06 05:37 PM, GunCrave wrote:
What would you rather them do? Let the camel-jockies just shoot at them until they're killed? Tell you what, why don't you go over to Iraq and defend the innocent insurgents from those murdering american bastards? I look forward to seeing your blown off head at rotten.com.

I'd rather america never went to war in the first place. I'd rather those poor young men never became soldiers in the first place.

I'm not saying that it was their fault, I pity the soldiers who were sent over there, I was merely stating that by definition, they are murderers - because the killings were illegal.

At 5/27/06 05:42 PM, elkrobber wrote: I'd rather america never went to war in the first place. I'd rather those poor young men never became soldiers in the first place.

I doubt most of them regret the decision.

I'm not saying that it was their fault, I pity the soldiers who were sent over there, I was merely stating that by definition, they are murderers - because the killings were illegal.

Save your pity. Look whose usually being killed by America soldiers. Insurgents who use women and children as human shields. They are killing because their lives are in danger because of some suicide bomber or terrorist ambush. Do you actually think things through before posting your opinion?

At 5/27/06 05:26 PM, elkrobber wrote: The soldiers on the american side in iraq, who killed people, were murderers, BUT the allied soldiers in WW2 who killed germans on the field of battle, were not.

They are not murderers. Jesus Christ, you cant murder someone who is firing back at you. You cant murder someone who wants to blow you up.

Please, can we cut the shit. This isnt about Iraq. This isnt about WWII. This isnt about legal or illegal wars or whatever stupid bullshit we want to make this into.

This is about calling soldiers murderers.

The circumstances that sent them to their battleground or where their battle ground is DO NOT MATTER. Infantrymen are the lowest on the chain of command and have no choice where they go or their missions. They simply go. What matters calling them murderers is under what circumstances each individual soldier kills. Whether they kill indiscriminately and kill innocents with intent is what matters. Whether they kill enemy combatants who intend to kill them is what matters.

You CANNOT call the tools of the senior government officals MURDERERS. Call Bush a murderer for all I care. However, to do that you have to prove HE KNEW for CERTAIN Iraq had no WMD's. With the information we have now, you cannot do that now. So refrain from the political BS, please.

Please, someone, tell me, how do you murder someone who wants to also kill you? Who wants see nothing wrong with your death? Its self defense and protecting your life and your allies and comrades lives.

And I want to clarify on my comments to Begoner to leave this country. If you believe soldiers are murderers and you are somehow superior to them, you belong in no society that these soldiers protect you with their lives in. You cannot call soldiers murderers and serial killers from some moral high ground you do not posess, benefit off their actions, and stay in that society.

At 5/27/06 05:42 PM, elkrobber wrote: I'm not saying that it was their fault, I pity the soldiers who were sent over there, I was merely stating that by definition, they are murderers - because the killings were illegal.

I'm curious as to why you say that the killings were illegal. As far as my knowledge of the US Code and US law, the actions of US soliders against insurgents were done in accordance with the law.

However, I assume you have some brilliant explanation as to why they were illegal, so I wonder further if you understand what kind of expectation you have of these soldiers.

Assuming that the only consequences of a soldier's refusal to participate in the defense of Iraq were those stated in law, he's probably go to court martial. Arguments about the legality of war may work when two liberals are talking to eachother, but a soldier trying to explain that to a General isn't going to get very far. The best case scenario would be an other than honorable discharge from the military, and that's not very good.

I imagine a more realistic situation would be that when a soldier starts shooting off his mouth that America is participating in an illegal war and is just as bad as Bin Laden, he's likely to become very unpopular in his unit. Even if no hostile actions are taken against him it would be devastating.

A lot of people in the military joined because terrorists attacked their home and they want to fight back. They're not in Iraq for oil, and they're not thirsty for blood, they just want to keep their friends and family safe from the bad guys.

At 5/27/06 03:30 AM, Monocrom wrote: That's an interesting outlook. Here's an idea, just come on down to where I live, in NYC, and try explaining that to a certain group of familes. I'll have them all gathered at a certain place that's under construction. Just take the #4,5, or 6 train past Soho......

Sure. I'll repeatedly explain to them that Iraq had nothing to do with their loved one's death. I'll also explain how those who died at the WTC are treated like the biggest whores in world history.

C'mon, man. You can't be that blind.

At 5/27/06 01:50 PM, Monocrom wrote:

At 5/27/06 10:43 AM, Occluded wrote:

:Anyone wanting to tell the families of 9/11 victims that American soldiers are terrorists, is likely to get a "Devilish" reception.

I didn't call American soldiers terrorists. I called them pawns. They do what they are told to do which is how a military should be run, therefore I hold no ill will towards them. No matter what evil they may do.

At 5/27/06 05:53 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: ...So refrain from the political BS, please.

um. this is uh... this is the 'politics' section of the boards. Maybe you missed it on the way in.

To the rest of your post. How can you complain about the way we are handling the topic without having reading the basis of the arguements? If you want to be angry about something I'm sure there is something here for you. I will not respond to most of your post as it puts words in the mouths of people who's positions you didn't bother to try to understand.

This is about calling soldiers murderers.

This is about whether or not soldiers are muderers. It's rhetorically clumsy to debate what you call someone. Your posting a theory about a theory. Or accusing the accuser. You are coming at it from the wrong end. All you have to do is prove soldiers are not muderers to disprove the theory. You are putting the author of the statement before the statement. You are doing this to put a negative spin on his intentions. And he might rightly deserve it, but it is weak. And duplicitous.

The circumstances that sent them to their battleground or where their battle ground is DO NOT MATTER.

Nuremberg defense?

no you deserve a baseball bat across teh face, the "people of which you speak have been programmed since day one to give up their life, and to take out as many with them as possible... soo... no bad dog shut up now

At 5/22/06 01:02 PM, Transkar wrote: shut up

thankyou i agree

WAR is bad! NUCLEAR WEAPONS are bad! George Bush should just shove his 10,000 warheads up his tight a**!

Yot a murderer.

At 5/28/06 03:19 AM, Occluded wrote: All you have to do is prove soldiers are not muderers to disprove the theory.

Fine, they are LEGALLY killing. So they are doing nothing wrong and thus not murdering.

Nuremberg defense?

Wow, we are now comparing when our soldiers are sent to foreign nations who are ORDERED to kill enemy combatants following the rules of war to Nazi SS soldiers who GASSED Jews?

Theres a giant fuckin difference from being ORDERED to murder innocent civilians and doing it to being ORDERED to defend yourself from some asshole firing at you or setting up IED's and doing it. I mean, tell me if this is going to fast.

okay this has to be the most retarded post ever.

1) if some iraqi is gonna shoot at me ima blow his head off.
2) unless u are an idiot u will remember 9/11 and desert storm middle eastern people are followers of a theocracy in which killing of americans are any1 against their beliefs is looked favorably upon, so in order to atleast protect ourselves we have to willing to kill.
3) the church actually is proud of our soldiers and blesses them as warriors and protectors of us citizens.

SO WHAT ARE U COMPLAINING ABOUT?!

At 5/28/06 02:44 PM, SilentKillerX wrote: 1) if some iraqi is gonna shoot at me ima blow his head off.

Which wouldn't have happened if the leaders didn't send you to conquer their land in the first place. The iraqi shot at you because your side drew first blood. You need to remember that important piece of info.

All the same, your situation wouldn't change. You'd still need to respond to bullets flying at you. Murderer or not, it's kill or be killed.

At 5/28/06 10:50 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Fine, they are LEGALLY killing. So they are doing nothing wrong and thus not murdering.

They're still killing, yes, and not murdering. Their killing isn't indiscriminate and of civillians, so they're not terrorists.

Wow, we are now comparing when our soldiers are sent to foreign nations who are ORDERED to kill enemy combatants following the rules of war to Nazi SS soldiers who GASSED Jews?

Lots of people do. The enemy combatants don't follow the laws of war, btw.

At 5/27/06 05:53 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
They are not murderers. Jesus Christ, you cant murder someone who is firing back at you. You cant murder someone who wants to blow you up.

You seem to be forgetting that iraq belonged to the iraqis - that it was their home, that the defenders were doing something morally wrong by also attempting to defend their families. Those iraqis fighting the americans were doing their jobs, just as the americans were, but the americans were on the offence, they were the invaders.
I don't really see them as some arm of justice attempting to 'liberate' the iraqi people.

The circumstances that sent them to their battleground or where their battle ground is DO NOT MATTER. Infantrymen are the lowest on the chain of command and have no choice where they go or their missions. They simply go.

You're argument doesn't really say anything new. 'They were just doing their job'. The SS were 'just doing their job', but that doesn't make it okay.

You CANNOT call the tools of the senior government officals MURDERERS.

So, if I hired a hitman to take out the old lady who lived down the street from me, would he be the murderer, or would I?

Both of us would be.

Please, someone, tell me, how do you murder someone who wants to also kill you? Who wants see nothing wrong with your death? Its self defense and protecting your life and your allies and comrades lives.

Both the iraqis and the americans were doing that, it was nothing special on the yank's side.

At 5/27/06 09:09 PM, A_Carrot_By_Dr_Riot wrote:
I'm curious as to why you say that the killings were illegal. As far as my knowledge of the US Code and US law, the actions of US soliders against insurgents were done in accordance with the law.

In accordance with US law, maybe, not international law.

A lot of people in the military joined because terrorists attacked their home and they want to fight back. They're not in Iraq for oil, and they're not thirsty for blood.

I really don't see revenge as a just cause for war. To me, revenge as a reason seems an infatile reason for war.

At 5/28/06 10:50 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 5/28/06 03:19 AM, Occluded wrote: All you have to do is prove soldiers are not muderers to disprove the theory.

Fine, they are LEGALLY killing. So they are doing nothing wrong and thus not murdering.

There you go. Was that so hard? Now that you've made a rational comment I can ask you. Do you believe legality is the only thing that makes a murderer? Was Hitler a murderer then? Or the Nazi executing the order? (qualifier: this is not a comparison. This is a question that has to do with defining the dialogue) He legally killed. So he was "doing nothing wrong and thus not murdering." Is government sanction the only thing standing between right and wrong on this issue?

Wow, we are now comparing when our soldiers are sent to foreign nations who are ORDERED to kill enemy combatants following the rules of war to Nazi SS soldiers who GASSED Jews?

No, I'm comparing your defense with theirs. Please, if you don't understand, ask me to clarify. This seems to be a theme with you. One which is wearing thin.

DO NOT STICK WORDS IN MY MOUTH ANY MORE. If you're too stupid to undestand what is being said... fine. You can't help being dumb. But do not fill in the blanks created by your ignorance with the evidence of your idoicy.

Theres a giant fuckin difference from being ORDERED to murder innocent civilians and doing it to being ORDERED to defend yourself from some asshole firing at you or setting up IED's and doing it. I mean, tell me if this is going to fast.

Fine. You are writing too fast. Slow down so that your brain catches up with your hands.

The Nazi's believed they were doing right. The important part of motivation isn't that you can justify it to yourself. It's that it is just, right, and noble.

To what you said. There is a difference ( a giant fuckin difference ) between being ordered to do one thing and another. You are implying that the Nazi soldiers were wrong, and should have disobeyed an order they knew to be ethically wrong? Yes?

So if a soldier knows a war is being fought under a flase pretense, and that he and his fellow soldiers are killing and dying for a lie. Then, he has an obligation to what is right over and above his obligation to his superiors. And by ignoring what is right he is then culpable for his actions regardless of his orders.

Is that the difference?

See, but now I'm being a dick. Which I try not to do, but you continually prove that you can't handle a reasonable tone of discussion.

This is your last chance. Respond in a rational tone or I'll just flame you like the idiot you've been thus far. In this response I'll expect proof of Iraq's involement in 9/11 or admission that you were wrong. A topic you judiciously ignored in your last response.

FAB0L0US please ignore this in my last post. it wasn't meant for you. Copied over from another arguement. Sorry.

"This is your last chance. Respond in a rational tone or I'll just flame you like the idiot you've been thus far. In this response I'll expect proof of Iraq's involement in 9/11 or admission that you were wrong. A topic you judiciously ignored in your last response."

This was however

At 5/27/06 05:53 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Theres a giant fuckin difference from being ORDERED to murder innocent civilians and doing it to being ORDERED to defend yourself from some asshole firing at you or setting up IED's and doing it. I mean, tell me if this is going to fast.

At 5/28/06 10:50 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: The circumstances that sent them to their battleground or where their battle ground is DO NOT MATTER.

You CANNOT call the tools of the senior government officals MURDERERS.

Does this not seem contradictory?