[Nix]

Maybe everyone would feel better if he would have used the word - " TERRORISTS " instead of "some people".  Course, that'd be too easy.  Everyone would be complaining about how he knows the difference between an innocent and a terrorist!  

[Flipside]

Indeed, it's easy to judge when you see dead people, some of them friends. around you and there is someone to blame nearby...You'll note the Deaths were unexplained though I think Ganks problem is more the fact he said it was fun to do so.

Theres a huge media gap here, I'll admit, maybe if WW2 had got the coverage Iraq got, we'd have seen a side of the army none of us liked (in fact, I know this would be the case).

See, the problem words aren't 'some' and 'people', it's 'killing' and 'fun'.

[Ford Prefect]

In my view, it's unavoidable that soldiers will enjoy shooting people because humans, like all animals, get high on violence and testosterone. What pisses me off is how they take such pride in being animals. This desire is the very antithesis of civilization, and this pig is bragging about it.

Nothing ever changes.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
No. But if I did kill someone I strongly suspected of hanging black men for kicks, then yes I'd likely enjoy it.

EDIT: Let me clarify- No, I wouldn't enjoy it if someone just told that to me out of the blue. However, if there was more evidence to back up that statement, then yes, I'd likely enjoy killing whoever I strongly suspected of it.

Not just soldiers, either. If there was, say, a mob of civilians lynching people, then I'd likely enjoy it just as much.

I sound a bit like a psychopath, don't I?

Well yes, you shouldnt really enjoy it, that does make you a psychopath. You might deem it neccessary to kill them, but finding it fun makes you a bit of a sadist. This guy here is saying its fun to kill them because they beat their wives, but he has no way of knowing which ones of them actually do that, which ones of them say look honey, best put that thing on before the mullah takes a fit and which ones have wives with traditional muslim beliefs who actually believe they should wear a burkha and do so out of choice. Basically hes just saying its fun to shoot people, and using a broad generalisation to justify it.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Note: I said I might enjoy it. Not that I'd actually do it.

Just wanted to clarify.

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper
Alright, to take us away from the Iraq context and speak more generically:

You were one of the soldiers who found Beslan concentration camp. You see everything there is to see there. You have your British rifle in hand, and find some German guards.

What do you do?
 

Lets put this in a bit more appropriate context, if you were stationed somewhere else, and heard about Beslan, and came across soem German soldiers, what would you do?

Bear in mind the soldiers, like the majority of the taliban were conscripts, had no say in overall policy and there was no evidence to suggest they took part in it or even agreed with it. Ok to have fun killing them then?

btw vyper its these sort of attitudes, the all these people are evil, that led to stuff like the holocaust.

[vyper]

If I'd seen Beslan...  I wouldn't wait for them to surrender. I'd just plain avoid the possibility.

Frankly I don't see how you couldn't. It's easy to sit here and speak rationally of how to judge other people, but put yourself in that kind of situation... things change.

I'm not saying this guy's attitude was completely right, but I can say I understand it. If you saw some asshole with an AK47 striding about like he's teh sh1t!11 and you _knew_ what type of person he was instinctively (which people can do) - you'd shoot.

[Nix]

Well I guess we'll always have people on both sides bashing and defending Generals who use broad generalizations to justify thier comments.  There really is no point, cause with these convienent broad generalizations, anyone can take a stand on any side of the issue and say they're right.

Unfortunately, if it looks like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, and it is part of an oppressive and nearly terroristic group, we should kill the terrorist, regardless if the soldier taking out the terrorist gets a little enjoyment out of it.  Tolerating a group like the taliban to operate will result in more radical groups of terrorists, some which may make the Nazi's in WWII look like people commiting misdemeanor crimes.

[Flipside]

... (Don't mention the CCCP)

[Gank]

Riight vyper, its the middle of a warzone, bullets are flying about the place and you know which ones are the real bad guys because they're swaggering around like they own the shop. Bollocks.

And omg kill the terrorists

[Ford Prefect]

Like I said before, almost anyone can take pleasure in killing someone. What I find troubling is that the guy is bragging about it like it's a really awesome thing. Whether you're killing the average nobody or killing a mass murderer, killing is not something that I think should be taken lightly.

[Rictor]

No, you have to be taught to like killing. Humans are the only animal that kills for sport (not out of necessity).

So they beat their wives you say? Yeah, so does a not unsignificant portion of Europe and America, not to mention the rest of the world. Horrible, yes, but the US military can hardly take the moral high ground.

I don't think it really has anything to do with the soldier's concerns about the welfare of Aghan women. There was no such situation in Iraq, and that didn't stop anyone from treating the country like one big free fire zone. The trick is to make yourself completely righteous and thr enemy completely evil, so when you start going around shooting people, its not so hard. This reminds me of another comment made by a US soldier, on the eve of the second Fallujah attack. Something along the lines of: "The devil lives in Fallujah, and we're going in to kill him."

[Styxx]

FPSs taught me that it's fun to kill people.

And you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. So he thinks it's fun? Good for him, it's his job - as long as he follows his orders and the rules of engagement defined by his superiors, the fact that he's enjoying it has no bearing whatsoever on the situation. Soldiers, at least on civilized countries, are not warriors, they're workers. Wouldn't you rather have a job that you think is fun than one that's boring or revolting?

[Gank]

Well when you enjoy something its easier to do it no? So if you're faced with a situation where its not clear whether you should shoot or not you'd be more inclined to pull the trigger. Take the yahoos in the video above for example, they're breaking the geneva convention and enjoying it, and doing it with a camera pointed at them. And here you have a general condoning this.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Gank
Well when you enjoy something its easier to do it no?

Of course - that's true for any profession.

Originally posted by Gank
So if you're faced with a situation where its not clear whether you should shoot or not you'd be more inclined to pull the trigger.

True. But in general soldiers are taught to do that regardless. When your orders and ROE don't specify an action (therefore making it unclear if you should fire or not) the preservation of your unit should be the overriding concern. If the orders are unclear to begin with, then it's not the soldier's fault for enjoying to do what he was trained, and is paid to do.

Originally posted by Gank
Take the yahoos in the video above for example, they're breaking the geneva convention and enjoying it, and doing it with a camera pointed at them. And here you have a general condoning this.

If the soldiers disobeyed an order, they should be punished for it. But reprimanding them for enjoying to do what they're supposed to do is senseless. If you want an army of soldiers who all despise killing, you should forbid volunteering and go back to the draft, and only select those draftees who try hardest to avoid it.

I don't have earphones here, though, so I don't know what exactly is happening at the video. Do you have a transcript?

[vyper]

Originally posted by Gank
Riight vyper, its the middle of a warzone, bullets are flying about the place and you know which ones are the real bad guys because they're swaggering around like they own the shop. Bollocks.

And omg kill the terrorists

Now that was a well thought out argument - are you forgetting where I usually stand on issues involving "terrorists"?

I was discussing a situation where it's not immediate combat.

[Flipside]

The thing is, it's like any situation in which you feel your life is threatened (and yes, they don't look very threatened, but I'm talking about the bodies chemical reaction, not the physical situation), your body gets flooded with testoserone and other stuff that turns you into DS.

I am concerned that the army are sending out a message that it's OK to enjoy it. Yes, they will enjoy it, it's a survival technique, Grandad told me some stories that sound terrible out of context, but when you place him in the trenches, seeing friends around him dying every day, thinking that at any single second in the 24 hours could be your last... The Lizard Brain takes over, and the power rush is... intoxicating.

America had a lot of problems after Vietnam with soldiers who had been so used to living right on the very edge of their nerves that 'normal' life seemed boring and complacent, so they sought out danger, some became criminals, others recluses, some just went mad. I don't like the idea of encouraging soldiers towards that kind of fate again.

[Gank]

that wasnt aimed at you, the other fella who was going on about them.

And how many situations can you invisage where this guy is going to come into contact with ak wielding swaggering iraqi/afghanis hardos where its not immediate combat?

[Ford Prefect]

No, you have to be taught to like killing. Humans are the only animal that kills for sport (not out of necessity).

I entirely disagree. Lust for violence is one of the things that characterizes all animal behavior. "Killing for sport" is the term we apply to doing what comes naturally. Violence isn't supposed to be necessary because civilization strives to find a way around it, but in my view, our nature compels us to do what all animals do: Destroy what we don't like. We enjoy it because there is something extremely liberating about obeying primal urges; it's no different from having sex or eating when you're hungry.

In my opinion, we've nothing to lose by at least trying to overcome the nature that governs us, but I don't think most people truly appreciate how little control we have over anything we do, (in large part because we rarely admit to others, or to ourselves, what the true emotional motivation behind our actions is.) The intellect, the portion of us from which civilization stems, is extremely fragile. We are the pawns of our chemical reactions.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

I entirely disagree. Lust for violence is one of the things that characterizes all animal behavior. "Killing for sport" is the term we apply to doing what comes naturally. Violence isn't supposed to be necessary because civilization strives to find a way around it, but in my view, our nature compels us to do what all animals do: Destroy what we don't like. We enjoy it because there is something extremely liberating about obeying primal urges; it's no different from having sex or eating when you're hungry.

Utter bull....

Animal don't "Destroy what they don't like". They destroy to eat and survive.

A lion with a full stomach won't even look at a antilope grazing ten feet away.

It's not the kill that releases intoxicating chamichals, but rather the danger, the thrill of the chase.