Shooting in Texas

U

UCFbrother

New member
I recommend "War and Christian Ethics". Just because you're a soldier who fights in a war doesn't necessarily mean your afterlife is going to be a hot one.

I've come to terms with my experiences and am sure He has too. I don't have any qualms about where I'm going.
 
H

hunter_1

New member
The thing I find odd is that both the American sniper AND his Taliban target both believe they have god on their side and will go to heaven.
It has always been ever thus though I suppose.
They can't both be right can they?
 
J

J13

New member
Once you're in a 'combat situation' then sometimes its a matter of 'kill or be killed', and that could apply to both an American soldier and a Taliban fighter. Or substitute those with combatants from either side of any war you care to think of.

In many wars, the men on the ground were conscripted and had no choice. But if you are a volunteer or a career soldier, does it make it different from a moral POV once you're there and the bullets are flying? Edit: I mean, is it any differnet morally if you kil someone.
 
B

BigP

Member
Well, I think that volenteering for the Infantry for an Army you know is at war in another Country is a bit like picking a fight IMO. You expect the situation to be violent/deadly, and you are the one with superior man power and fire power.

Then you have to consider he was a Navy SEAL, one of the elite soldiers of the world. So it's a bit like G.S.P kickng down your door, raking your fridge, kicking your ass, kissing your wife then leaving. It's not really a fair fight, or one that anybody but Amercans want.
 
M

Meia

Member
It wasn't just the US who went into Iraq. Coalition forces originated from forty different countries, including the UK. The UK's force was the second-largest force in the Coalition in pure numbers, and per capita compared to its country of origin, was the largest force in the Coalition.



And if I was in the process of mass-murdering my own family I wouldn't really have a leg to stand on about "sovereignty" when some outside force came into my house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

You're branding every single serviceman--every single soldier regardless of rank--involved in the Coalition Forces as a "murderer," because the brutal insurgents they were fighting--who were killing dozens of civilians per day--happened to be Iraqi (at least some of them; the insurgents used international fighters too). Do you believe Do you believe that each and every NATO soldier who attacked Slobodan Milošević's troops in Kosovo, successfully stopping the genocide in that country, are murderers too?
 
B

BrendanM

Member
You should be thankful that some men/women pick up and go regardless of if you agree or not with what your country is doing. If they didn't then a draft is put into effect and when that happens nobody gives two craps about you, you'll go whether you want to or not if you're picked, agree or disagree.

I find your reasoning a bit lacking in sense by thinking things should be "fair" too.
 
C

CrazyShy

New member
Chadderz - I've seen your posts before here on MAP so I know you're not stupid. I'm just going to have to chalk this one up to ignorance. Best not to get too opinionated on an issue you have little understanding of.
 
K

KaNdtE

New member
US and UK soldiers are not "killing in the name of God." Chris Kyle was killing in the name of his country, to protect fellow servicemen and Iraqi civilians from insurgents. He said he did not think God would condemn him for his actions in the service of his country, but that's VERY different from killing in the name of God.
 
H

holden350chev

Member
It's the duty part that separates soldiers from murderers. And in a conflict like Iraq and Afghanistan, you effectively have two sets of willing combatants. So long as the deaths are between those willing combatants, then it can't be described as murder any more than two martial artists sparring can be accused of assaulting one another.

It's the concept of war itself that turns my stomach these days.
 
S

shama

New member
Making assumptions is silly when one can make educated statements.



Unless you know what it takes to become a licensed psychiatrist, you shouldn't make light of it anymore than people should of our servicemen and women. Nor should you assume that no mental health experts have combat experience or anything other than a theoretical education. This isn't The Hurt Locker.




Whatever the case in this incident, two more people are dead and one looking at a bleak future. If Mr. Kyle was indeed trying to counsel his friend and fellow vet or treat him, and if it wasn't in conjunction with a mental health professional, then he was acting irresponsibly and taking unnecessary risks. Time will tell.

Again, these facts take nothing away from his service record and his obvious willingness to lend a helping hand, for which he should be respected.
 
B

BreeN

Member
It is a lot easier to quantify what it takes to become a licensed psychiatrist. It's really not rocket science to either understand this or achieve it.

Getting through war and coming out with a desire to help your fellow man on the other hand, that trait is a lot harder to identify. And is infinitely more admirable than getting your quack certification.
 
S

SitaS

New member
You're comparing apples and computers, not to any useful end. You're also doing what you were accusing Holy of doing a few pages back. So mental health issues and guns go together in your book? Seeking out professional guidance wrong from where you stand? At this point, it's not really clear what you are arguing for(or against).
 
S

StoneDeft

Member
I'm arguing for stopping pointing the finger when someone tries to help and fails. I'm saying that experience counts more than theory but at the end of the day it's a tragedy and picking points and seeking to win an Internet debate in the matter is appalling. So I'll bow out.
 
L

lancat13

New member
I think Holy raised some valid points, just maybe not in the most tactful way. Instead of dealing with the validity of his points, it seems like a knee-jerk reaction ensued and the points got lost in the fallout. I'm not sure who is trying to win what perceived debate in your mind.

It is sad that this happened. It was noble that Mr. Kyle was trying to help out a fellow vet, even if his manner of doing so might have been misguided. Clearly, there is an issue in our country with mentally unstable people having access to firearms, this is but one more example.

Sure, this could've potentially happened in another setting, but it didn't. It happened at a place people go to for the express purpose of firing guns. Again, no guns, no double homicide. Case closed.
 
M

mistered

Member
That's an inaccurate statement. No guns, it wouldn't have happened in exactly the same way it happened, but you really can't say that it wouldn't have happened with a different instrumentality. You may have forgotten the worst case we've had of a US Army combat veteran going off the deep end.

He served in the first Iraq War. He was awarded the Bronze Star for valor in combat during that war, but the military rejected him for special forces because of his psychological profile. He was discharged in 1991.

Four years later, he killed 168 American civilians, including 19 young children, and wounded 450. He didn't use a gun. His name was Timothy McVeigh.

You can't say "no guns, no homicide, case closed." Not when a combat veteran snaps. History has shown otherwise.
 
T

ThomasR

Member
I know, he could've stabbed them with a crocheting needle at the tea party. When that happens, please let me know.



I think in this case we can, unless you are trying to make him into a McVeigh. I'm not drawing any sweeping generalizations or conclusions here. The facts are he shot them. Take guns out of play and it probably becomes less likely he could pull that off.
 
Top