The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know what the truth is, but that Navy Times article definitely muddies the waters. Seems there is basically no proof of most anything. I'm sure we will never know what happened.

Why would you be "inclined" to believe he murdered the wounded guy? Sounds like he just as likely suffocated from wounds in combat.

Other SEALs "He killed that wounded guy with a knife."
Eddie Gallagher via text to friend next to body "I got him with my hunting knife."

Two separate parties that apparently dislike one another, and yet they have the same story.

 

[jamil]

Apropos of nothing, but an interesting side note. Gallagher is a Hoosier native. He's from Fort Wayne and graduated from Bishop Dwenger High School.

Jeez. No wonder he’s an *******.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Big nothing-burger to me. You train people to become killers, then want to try them for a crime when they murder... not just anyone... but an enemy fighter? Is this serious? Why is this even a debate? As long as isis is blowing themselves up to kill innocent people, terrorizing people that have nothing to do with their ideology, and beheading Americans and people who speak out against them... I don’t care how they are killed, as long as they ARE killed. You can’t tell me after being shot at repeatedly, seeing your friends die in combat, and seeing the conditions in which they force people to live, you wouldn’t go to any measures to see them dead. Humane doesn’t mean **** to those people, why should it for those who have to combat them?

Sometimes i cant believe the debates we have here are even debates. And we wonder why the country is so divided, we can’t even agree how to kill our enemies.

 

[jamil]

And what about the word of the other SEALs that pointed the finger at the guy? From them it seems that the guy was a sadist. Take the killing of the ISIS fighter, the other SEALs say that he killed him with a knife. Gallagher sent a picture of the dead fighter to a friend, with the caption "Got him with my hunting knife." That's factual. At trial, one of the SEALs recanted, and said that he suffocated him. So originally, he is accused of killing a ISIS fighter with a knife, he sends a picture of the fighter implying he killed him with a knife, at trial one of the accusers says he suffocated the fighter. C'mon guys, I really don't see how so many of ya'll are willing to think this was all on the up and up. I'm certainly more inclined to believe Gallagher killed the fighter, than not.

I don’t know if he did it or not. He was acquitted. But, it is evident that he’s at least an *******.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Big nothing-burger to me. You train people to become killers, then want to try them for a crime when they murder... not just anyone... but an enemy fighter? Is this serious? Why is this even a debate? As long as isis is blowing themselves up to kill innocent people, terrorizing people that have nothing to do with their ideology, and beheading Americans and people who speak out against them... I don’t care how they are killed, as long as they ARE killed. You can’t tell me after being shot at repeatedly, seeing your friends die in combat, and seeing the conditions in which they force people to live, you wouldn’t go to any measures to see them dead. Humane doesn’t mean **** to those people, why should it for those who have to combat them?

Sometimes i cant believe the debates we have here are even debates. And we wonder why the country is so divided, we can’t even agree how to kill our enemies.

Ever heard of the Malmedy Massacre? From your words it would seem that you wouldn't have issue with it.
But to answer your question, as to why this is a "debate," you need look no further than Nuremberg. We (the United States) and the Allies, following the war, employed Victor's Justice on the defeated. We made it a spectacle, that is forever lasting, that there is a right and a wrong way to wage war. And as such, it has been absorbed into our culture that we do thing the "right way." If we are unable to keep the standards that we have employed, to the point of execution of others, they we would rightfully be called hypocrites.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Ever heard of the Malmedy Massacre? From your words it would seem that you wouldn't have issue with it.
But to answer your question, as to why this is a "debate," you need look no further than Nuremberg. We (the United States) and the Allies, following the war, employed Victor's Justice on the defeated. We made it a spectacle, that is forever lasting, that there is a right and a wrong way to wage war. And as such, it has been absorbed into our culture that we do thing the "right way." If we are unable to keep the standards that we have employed, to the point of execution of others, they we would rightfully be called hypocrites.

Fight fire with fire. What would they have done in the same situation? Probably much worse than stabbing a guy. Sorry if it seems I don’t feel any sympathy for the guy, but given their past actions I don’t think he wold have held himself to the same standards we are holding our guys to.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fight fire with fire. What would they have done in the same situation? Probably much worse than stabbing a guy. Sorry if it seems I don’t feel any sympathy for the guy, but given their past actions I don’t think he wold have held himself to the same standards we are holding our guys to.

I've always thought this was a curious expression, as with few exceptions, "fighting fire with fire" often leads to a bigger fire. How about fighting fire with water?
As far as sympathy, who is sympathizing with the ISIS member? He most certainly wouldn't have held to the same standard, and that's the point. Savages will be savages, to mirror their behavior makes us little better. If there is ay sympathy to be had, it's for the men and women in the armed forces that hold themselves to a higher stander being subjected to people like Gallagher in their ranks.

 

[nonobaddog]

It is pretty common knowledge that you can fight an out of control fire using a controlled fire in front of it to burn it's fuel so when the out of control fire gets there it can't keep raging out of control. You use what limited water you have to control the burn in front of the path.

 

[BigRed]

Some piece of **** ISIS fighter ended up dead.

I have not a damn to give.

 

[jamil]

This seems pretty consistent. It’s fine if it’s our side and we do it to their side.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is pretty common knowledge that you can fight an out of control fire using a controlled fire in front of it to burn it's fuel so when the out of control fire gets there it can't keep raging out of control. You use what limited water you have to control the burn in front of the path.

Uh, ok? That would be one of the “exceptions” I made reference to. I think it’s also common knowledge that, most often, water is the preferred method of fighting fires.

 

[BigRed]

This seems pretty consistent. It’s fine if it’s our side and we do it to their side.

I don't give a rat's ass about their side, just as I don't give a damn about rats running from the burn pile when it is lit....pop them when they come running out and move on to the next one.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

It is pretty common knowledge that you can fight an out of control fire using a controlled fire in front of it to burn it's fuel so when the out of control fire gets there it can't keep raging out of control. You use what limited water you have to control the burn in front of the path.

This.

Thats where the term fight fire with fire came from.

 

[nonobaddog]

Uh, ok? That would be one of the “exceptions” I made reference to. I think it’s also common knowledge that, most often, water is the preferred method of fighting fires.

Based on your comments, I guarantee I have fought more (ETA - 'country') fires than you, none of them in any urban location.

Sometimes you cut trees down in front of a crown fire. Sometimes you plow wide furrows in front of a fire in open country. Sometimes you use a controlled burn in front of a fire. It is nice when you can get enough water with surfactant to the place where the fire is but many fires are just not that cooperative. Sometimes you don't have enough water available and can't get enough water to the fire to be effective. I have never run into any fire hydrants in the woods and fields.
EVERY time you have to actually think a little and make best use of the manpower and resources you have available.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This seems pretty consistent. It’s fine if it’s our side and we do it to their side.

When they behead people, blow themselves up to kill people, rape and torture people, etc., ya, I don’t care how they’re dealt with so long as they’re dealt with.

The same way I don’t care how Bin Laden was dealt with. Kill thousands of innocent people in the towers? Ya, my morals go down the tube when dealing with you.

If they actually had a sense of morality is hold us to a standard. But nope. Not terrorist.

 

[nonobaddog]

Exactly! Face it, combat is a b****. It is killing - savage and brutal. People blowing up, body parts flying, blood and gore. It makes an emergency room look like a playground. Then people sit pampered at home enjoying what the soldiers have died for to give them and then say our soldiers aren't "nice" enough. GAG.

 

[jamil]

When they behead people, blow themselves up to kill people, rape and torture people, etc., ya, I don’t care how they’re dealt with so long as they’re dealt with.

The same way I don’t care how Bin Laden was dealt with. Kill thousands of innocent people in the towers? Ya, my morals go down the tube when dealing with you.

If they actually had a sense of morality is hold us to a standard. But nope. Not terrorist.

There are rules imposed by the military leaders on conduct. Just so we’re clear on this, you’re saying **** those rules, it’s okay if someone breaks them because the other side is horrible. That’s what you seem to be saying.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

There are rules imposed by the military leaders on conduct. Just so we’re clear on this, you’re saying **** those rules, it’s okay if someone breaks them because the other side is horrible. That’s what you seem to be saying.

Pretty much. I’m saying the ones making the rules are sitting at a desk in an office. I don’t care how our boys kill them, in the same way they don’t care how they kill ours. Again, fight fire with fire. I’m tired of them going to any lengths to kill us and we sit back trying to be polite about how we do it. Ever played street ball with someone who fouls like crazy but you never call foul, yet the instance you steal the ball they cry foul? You can’t win a war if you’re the only ones following the rules

 

[nonobaddog]

As everybody knows, when the british were over here trying to fight us over our independence they would line up in rows in their red suits out in the open and shoot at us. They were told to do this by their military leaders. Their military leaders were not very smart.

Yes, there are rules that should be followed if they make sense. But they only make sense if everybody follows those rules.

 

[jamil]

Okay. Just so I’m understanding you accurately. You’ve left no room to doubt. Only follow rules you think makes sense. Be as violent as you want to be because they do it.