Discussion in 'Serious' started by will., 3 Mar 2008.
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.
QFT. My point exactly.
Wow! I think he hit the nail on the Head!
Good to hear!
Im heading there in July with my dad.
2 Weeks without essays, what could be better?
I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see the comparison with the actual war anyway. It's like saying the holocaust was terrible so any crime less bad is acceptable (N.B. That Godwin fellow was onto something). Anyway, my point is that war has, on some level, to some people, a point. The people in charge in Washington apparently think that the loss of life in the middle east is acceptable. The object of the war is to achieve something. I'm not sure what anyone achieved in throwing a dog off a cliff.
This is a joke right? Or are you just trying to be different?
The vid was a bit pointless and cruel.
This thread cheered me up though.
Some seriously mixed up view in here tbh.
"He needs to be shot", "I'd like to be locked in a room with him" etc.
Get a grip, seriously.
We don't even know what the circumstances were.
They may have found the puppy wandering about in the desert and figured it best to put it out of it's misery.
Maybe they couldn't risk giving away their location with a humane gunshot and figured a long drop might be better?
In that way, it may have been an act of compassion.
The fact he seemed to enjoy it seemed to indicate he was a bit warped.
But hey, that's war.
I've never been in a combat zone so can't say first hand what it does to you but I'm sure its not pleasant.
As for eating bacon, forget that, I've eaten dog in Korea.
I'd do it again as it was quite nice tbh.
Though I hear they beat the dog while they're still alive to tenderise the meat which isn't so nice.
I hope you're comment about the IED was a joke too.
I'm being quite sarcastic here, of course he shouldn't be killed for killing a dog, doesn't work like that, but I would like something bad to happen to the guy.
(TO ABOVE POST)
So you don't want the guy to be killed, yet you hope an IED blows him to bits..? Or am I misunderstanding?
I'm coming from a law point of view tbh, get killed for killing a dog, oh how funny that would be.
But seriously, if a IED went off under a hummer he was in, I couldn't give a ****.
I'm sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot train people to be effective soldiers, throw them into a fairly brutal war and expect them not to be psychologically affected; not to get desensitised and brutalised by it. These are young people who do not yet have the ego-strength to absorb it all and maintain their equilibrium.
You think Abu Ghraib was a fluke? Check out Zimbardo's Prison Experiment. And that was six days on a University Campus, not six months tour of duty in a real war.
That relationship works in both directions, dude. Those who are trained and sent to kill people will get used to it. They are even taught to take pride in it. Next thing you know, killing a puppy doesn't mean a thing to them anymore.
The soldier is a monster, but one created by the army and in our name.
Real war != Call Of Duty
Well, I'm not a vegan, and I'm not a bleeding heart, but I still think that was a horrible thing to do. I do agree that there are much worse things going on in the world, but I don't think that condones what the soldier did. If we allow soldiers to kill animals in order to blow off steam, then we really can't be outraged when they progress to raping and/or killing other humans when they get stressed. I understand that, as soldiers, they've already gone through a lot of reprogramming to desensitize them to death. Is there a difference between returning fire in live combat, and flinging animals off a cliff just because you can? That's an honest question.
Personally, I think there is a difference, but I'd be interested to see what other folks have to say. In my opinion, the former is based on the grounds of self-preservation. The latter falls in the area of empathy, or more appropriately, the lack of empathy. Edit: Just read Nexxo's reply above. I can see how lack of empathy would actually be part of the soldier's initial training (i.e. it's hard to get people to shoot at each other if they can feel for the other side). Even so, I don't think this dog was carrying the plans to the Death Star. There's just no reason to harm it.
On the other hand, I certainly don't think the soldier should be shot, or shocked, or dealt with in any such manner. I think some counseling is in order.
Sorry, but I'm with Boba Fett on this one.
since we are on the topic...
warning NSFW and graphic
Whether it was nice, not nice, or unsettling for animal activists, the American armed forces--who, I remind you, are desperately recruiting soldiers to compensate for dropping enlistment rates--aren't going to discharge the soldier over this.
So who's to discharge for knowingly air striking a dense residential zone? What's taboo, or isn't, is not as clear-cut when on duty, these days. What matters in the military is precision execution.
I've only skimmed this thread because (lets b honest) its just a few people getting angry at each each for misunderstanding each other.
And to bring this back on topic.
If the video is real, then shame on the soldier for resorting to throwing a puppy around for entertainment. Should we shoot him? No of course not. Hurting things because your bored or because you can is despicable, and if he can do that to a puppy then its possible (and i said POSSIBLE) for his forms of "entertainment" to escalate into something worse..
I think you are wong here. I think its possible to train effective soldiers properly including phsychological training to help combat desensitisation etc. Im not saying that it would be easy, cheap or quick but it would b possible.
Separate names with a comma.