I'm quite happy for an animal to get killed in a certian way, I can kill an animal quite easily in the right way. Shock a pig, slit its throat, shoot it in the head, I'm fine with that, chainsaw a pig, slowly cut its throat, throw it off a cliff, skin an animal alive, I'm not OK with.
I am sickened you think this incident is someting to joke about. The insensitivity of some people here is just disgusting.
I think the animal would just prefer to live. Nobody is being insensitive. People are trying to keep perspective. You should try to do the same. It is because people were unable to keep perspective after 9/11 that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq could happen. About 3000 people in the US killed in a heinous terrorist act by six men, and the result? About 10000 Afghan civilians killed and 80000 displaced; 500 Allied soldiers killed; one million Iraqi civilians killed --ten times the number killed under Saddam Hussein-- and 4 million displaced; 2500 Allied solders killed. Take a good look at the pictures of Abu Ghrab. Check out this video of civilians being bombed again (pay attention to the pilot's reaction). Go on, no puppies were hurt during the taking of those images.
Say what you will about the war in Iraq and thousands of Iraqi civilians lost to The Cause, it's not really relevant. There are political agendas which, whether you agree with them or not (and I personally don't), have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. But that's not the issue at all. That guy tossed a completely innocent and defenseless animal off a cliff. For fun. It wasn't a mistake, or an side-effect of any action. It was simply sadist and despicable behaviour that isn't excusable just because he's got a tough job to do. But yeah, I don't think shooting the guy is the answer. I'd possibly kick him square in the nuts though
Tell you a good idea, he killed a dog in a sick way, we could get some dogs, lock him up in a room with them, and see him get bitten to death.
And you think Abu Ghraib wasn't? No, just not a bleeding heart. Pigs are smarter than dogs. You eat bacon?
The assertion that it is understandable does not make it excusable in my eyes. I am more than able to understand how and why such a thing can happen, and the ability to differentiate between the two allows me to assert that I find it inexcusable. Further more, this wasn't a random act of violence in the theater of war, this was a calculated, cruel, and twisted act during downtime. We expect our soldiers to go to war and perform their duties, which may include having to kill, but I do not expect them to carry out acts of cruelty to any living being, especially not for fun.
It's normal for people to eat Bacon over here (unless you cant), kinda like how it's normal for the Chinese to eat the penises of every animal you can think of. I don't have a problem with eating meat, and if I had to kill for it, I would.
Spec, US soldiers are BIPEDS. Well, most of the time. And to the rest of you, give up. A) It's a puppy. Alright it's innocent, etc, but it's dead now. No amount of bitching will bring it back. B) It's a US soldier - they can't be held responsible for their own actions. Especially if he's cannon Fodder. FFS, my brother, who has the problem solving capability of a quick-frozen sausage was let in the army to be general infantry - I'm sure the US is no different.
You and a few others are agreeing on the basis "this soldier deserves a bullet to the head" or death. I'm quoting you Major, as I can't be assed going back further to quote more Anyways, let me get this right. You are saying that the soldier should receive the death penalty for killing this dog? Animal cruelty, yes? Because if so, I would be quite disturbed. here's why. Either: (a) you are pro capital punishment: you think killing a puppy should be given by the same punishment as the murder of a fellow human being. (b) You are anti capital punishment: you think killing a puppy should be given a punishment worse than the murder of a fellow human being. Either way (but especially b), you need to recheck your moral compass. Because there is something seriously wrong with it.
This has been quite amusing to read, I totally agree with Spec and love to read Nexxo's point of view. People really do need to sort their priorities, I know it was a bit of animal cruelty and that animals have feelings too etc. etc. but I wouldn't call it a heinous crime, if he did that to a fellow soldier then (well I would be shocked he could lift and throw a fellow soldier by the neck) but after that be a bit more agrevated. At the end of the day, what does he have to do, Spec has said it's a form of entertainment for them and I would rather they do that than a repeat of Abu Ghraib like Nexxo has said. If you have to pick a dog or a human (no matter what human) I would pick the dog to be tortured. Same as with the argument of using wind energy. "it emits a low level frequency that disrupts the wildlife" F*ck the wildlife, we need the energy. Or something along those lines.
Many of you are saying that the deaths of Iraqi civilians somehow makes this alright by comparison. They are two totally separate issues, and being against one does not mean you are for the other. I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong, and I think tossing a puppy off a cliff is wrong too. Nexxo, you almost always make sense, but this time you are way off. If there is anyone who should have respect for life it is a soldier in active combat. Not all soldiers enjoy killing... in fact for most it's their worst fear. They kill because they have to. The majority of civilian casualties are the result of directives or policy which comes from the top down, not from soldiers just waltzing in there and shooting whomever they see. There are always exceptions, but to say that a soldier is a brainless killing machine is wrong. This incident goes outside of the job they are supposed to be doing. Those soldiers need some serious psychiatric help. Sure, soldiers are trained to kill, but they should NEVER want to kill. That is the cause of the atrocities which give the level headed majority a terribly undeserving reputation.
Because one is an act of hate, malice, and depravity, and the other is a simple act of survival. These soldiers were in no way threatened by the puppy. If it ran out in front of a tank and got killed, or was killed in a mortar blast it would be unfortunate, but an accident. They went out of their way to inflict terror and pain, and ultimately death, on a helpless puppy. And for all you complaining about how the atrocities carried out on people are worse, well what kind of people do you think carry out those type of atrocities? It is well documented that children (or adults) who hurt animals for pleasure, will grow up to be many times more likely to commit acts abuse or even murder later on.
Because he threw that puppy for fun. I don't get where your coming from at all. You seem to be hung up on the fact that an army dude is killing a puppy and people are making it out to be the worst thing in the world. We know this isn't even on par with the general happenings of every day life. The worrying bit is that a person who thinks that is a funny thing to do - something that hopefully during the part of our lives where we grow up and learn right from wrong - is in the army and is given the ability to take another persons life.
Once again, you fail to account for the psychological impact of being in that kind of environment for who-knows-how-long. You know how everything tends to be funny when you haven't slept in three days - even things that you'd never find funny when you're not powered entirely by caffeine? Kind of like that, except replace the caffeine with scattered body parts and senseless bloodshed. When you're in abnormal or inhumane situations, you don't think the same way as you normally would. I'd bet that if you spent months in that kind of environment, you'd get some sort of sick enjoyment out of such a no-risk easy kill.
While this is wrong, not many people bat an eyelid at all the women in the east being raped and beaten for no reason. These guys are trained to have no sensitivity, which I don't think makes a good soldier, and I know soldiers and ex soldiers that would agree with me. A good soldier is a defender with the last circumstance being to kill if it threatens the lives of his comdrades, or the saftety of any civilian from his own country, and even the offending country. Yes, killing a dog for fun is totally unacceptable, but to say this guy should be shot is an over reaction. What I don't understand is why people would want an animals life to take perscidence over the life of a fellow human being. Seems a tad warped to me tbh.
