VT gets hit by a loon

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Yeah, really sad. Yesterday all they were saying was that the killer was an asian male. Now today they said he was from Korea. I was like which side? Oh, our Allied side. Well, I guess it was just personal.

but it's interesting how killing effects you differantly. This guy kills 30 people in a grisly, senseless manner and we are shocked because it happened for no reason.

But if there was a patriotic reason and defending your country, or some soldier managed to pop off 30 terrorists in one go a lot of people would be cheering, including me. And that's a good thing, because they are mass murderers themselves.

Soldiers are trained to control themselves out of uniform, and are also trained to not target noncombatents. A soldier is also trained to never, never harm his fellow countrymen, for above all things his job is to protect them.

But what about the enemy civillians? Isn't the obligation and affection to them much less as a soldier?

Not trying to slam soldiers or military personnel, but in uniform, in a warzone, if a soldier was told to attack a university in Baghadad, NOT a university in the United States, would his training allow or help him to do it? Would his soldier mentality, trained to kill with nerves under control, give him more resolve? Would remorse play a factor?

I'm not a soldier so I don't know. But I know soldiers are ideally taught to kill with out constraint to themselves, only to orders.

And that soldiers under battle stress of ALL countries have been more likely than a civilian to kill ENEMY civilians en mass, and it has happened.

I'm just reflecting on whats makes one kill. I flippantly put up a list of targets in a poll, including the option of "non target city" and "Everythings a target." Thats saying a lot. Basically if I was attacking one of those options in real life, I would probably kill close to 30 enemy civilians, maybe more. And perhaps if I was a soldier, I would actually do it. If video games are any indication, I like playing as a WWII soldier in a game like "Medal of Honor, and I kill more than 30 sims on there.

I'm not trying to say I'm a soldier and I know that REAL combat is much more REAL. And that a soldier is trained for it, while I am not. I'm a civilian, and hampered by civilian thinking.

Of course I don't put or think of Veterans and sick people like this Korean murderer the same. I abbhor him for his killings. For one they are senseless and cruel and done on his own fellow students. Even if he was an enemy Korean soldier that did this mass atrocity in war to us it would be better than the way he did it as a mindless, civilian freak.

But I don't abbhor all killing, if is done in a military way. I like Richard Bong for killing possibly 40 Japanese in aircraft kills, and probably more on the ground during strafing runs. I know some people feel that our Bomber pilots in WWII are murderers for bombing German and Japanese cities, but I don't, even if an individual Bomber can kill more than 30 with it's bombs. Those crews were brave to do what they did and many of them died flying their missions.

Those German civilians were living in an enemy zone, and they weren't our civilians. Many of them were working to help Hitlers war effort in the factories.

I know that the Allied Navy and Ground troops in WWII also killed civilians, more often by mistake and not deliberate as the USAF or RAF Personnel did in the firebombings.

It's grissly what went on in WWII, sure.

But at least I can still honor those veterans of WWII, or the soldiers fighting today, for the killing they did for us and the "Free World."

Not like the disgust for that horrid kid that murdered 32 people in VA.


(Why did it give me d-i-s-g-u-s-t in a face?)
 
~ ( ? ) ~ ok man whatever you were trying to say, because I for one am not following. There is no stinking comparison what this oriental ***** did compared to any soldier of the Allies over in the mid-east shooting insurgent scumbags to make a modern comparison
 
I feel no regrets over our soldiers killing terrorists either.

I was more wondering if the Us Military generals designated an enemy countries University a target if a US soldiers training would enable him to carry out the mission or not.

Total War Mentality agains't an enemy country is what I'm talking about.

We are not fighting our wars right now that way, but if orders were orders would the US Military obey them?

In WWII we did indoctrinate total war agains't the Japanese Cities to save the lives of our military men and of the Japanese, so "Total War" for us has happened before.
 
question: does the university in said sentance create an obstacle/stalemate and a dangerous interference to the US troops with said enemy troops ? is it a legit target ? ... if it is a threat then yes, same as a Mosque though we seem to have this strange feel of a coniption that since it is religious and that we may offend knowing full well the mosque is full of dangerous foe fighting and lobbing rockets, we "have to" shy away from it. Will tell ya for a fact if it is was on our land and a church it would be flattened in a matter of minutes. Ridiculous but true
 
Like you said, a mosque, university can be a legitimate target.

I wasn't thinking of an enemy university full of terrorists, since that would be a real target. More of university where the civilians inside are aiding the enemy, discussing ways to fight you, and also gathering. Attacking for that, and also maybe to disrupt the enemy workspace and hurt enemy morale could be the reasons.

And it wouldn't have to be a bloody door to door fight either I guess, since with airstrikes and planes the US can level buildings very quickly, and completely.

It would certainly be easier as well.

I have to go do an errand for a while so I won't be on here. I'll answer any questions when I get back.

I'm sorry if the words I said sound like I'm just slaming military war, since that wasn't my intention.

This school killing just disturbs a bit, and my reasoning is probably a bit poor.
 
the twirp was troubled and upon his OWN initiative he went prowling after women, made bomb threats and then created a suicidal environment for himself after he reaped carnage on innocents..........what a poor fool
 
And the "gun owner" had been committed in 2005 for some mental disorder. This a series of tragedies that has culminated in too many innocent deaths.
 
Soldiers are trained to control themselves out of uniform, and are also trained to not target noncombatents. A soldier is also trained to never, never harm his fellow countrymen, for above all things his job is to protect them.

But what about the enemy civillians? Isn't the obligation and affection to them much less as a soldier?

Not trying to slam soldiers or military personnel, but in uniform, in a warzone, if a soldier was told to attack a university in Baghadad, NOT a university in the United States, would his training allow or help him to do it? Would his soldier mentality, trained to kill with nerves under control, give him more resolve? Would remorse play a factor?

I'm not a soldier so I don't know. But I know soldiers are ideally taught to kill with out constraint to themselves, only to orders.

No in todays military we are encouraged to think about our actions. Yes we are to allways obey orders but if the order is not morally just you have every right to object to it. You will have to answer for it, but if you are right in your morals you have nothing to fear for questioning that order.

The orders to kills civilians or attack civilian establishments just does not fly.

Soundbreaker Welch said:
And that soldiers under battle stress of ALL countries have been more likely than a civilian to kill ENEMY civilians en mass, and it has happened.

Yes it happens but as a whole the majority of Soldiers (atleast in our army) do not stand for this. I know I would have stopped my fellow soldiers from doing so, but then again I did not serve with anyone that would have allowed something like this to happen.
 
And that's what separates us from the majority of the world. Hell, we conquer, leave and those defeated become world powers. :)
 
Soldiers are trained to control themselves out of uniform, and are also trained to not target noncombatents. A soldier is also trained to never, never harm his fellow countrymen, for above all things his job is to protect them.

But what about the enemy civillians? Isn't the obligation and affection to them much less as a soldier?

Not trying to slam soldiers or military personnel, but in uniform, in a warzone, if a soldier was told to attack a university in Baghadad, NOT a university in the United States, would his training allow or help him to do it? Would his soldier mentality, trained to kill with nerves under control, give him more resolve? Would remorse play a factor?

I'm not a soldier so I don't know. But I know soldiers are ideally taught to kill with out constraint to themselves, only to orders.

And that soldiers under battle stress of ALL countries have been more likely than a civilian to kill ENEMY civilians en mass, and it has happened.

I think that's a little bit of a ridiculous post... As Adler said, if an officer gives an order to target civilians, you're OBLIGATED to object, and if not rescinded, to no follow it! I can't just order Marines to kill civilians. US servicemen are not "ideally taught to kill without constraint to themselves, only to orders." That's just false. I'm actually amazed that you could think that.
 
Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?
Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?

Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.
 
Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?
It doesn't but there are many here who would want it that way for political purposes.

Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?
Some States require locks - mine are except for one. As long as the data base cannot be used to consficate from law abiding citizens.
Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.
And in the US its been that way for 231 years.
 
Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?
Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?

Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.

:rolleyes: Both of those are either state laws or voluntarily enacted. Next.
 
I think that was the only thing you said that made any goddamn sense.


Yeah, I suppose I sounded like a pacifist or something. Killing instinct in humans probably stems from the survival instinct, but manifests itself in many differant ways, some horrid and some just and some just plain self defence. Saying that just the natural human instinct to kill is the same thing, when it's not. It's governed by the codes and morals in your life.

You are right Adler, of course. If the Military rules you are fighting under are just and protecting the innocent, you have no fear in rejecting violence to non-combatants.

I don't think those in the armed forces are serial killers or gun criminals. I think the military has some of the toughest and sacrificial guys in this country, and that they are serving something outside themselves, their home and country.

I probably would have liked the average Nazi Wehrmacht soldier better than these school killers, regardless of the mad cause they were serving.
 
Killing instinct.

But humans aren't animals, I realize that and much more complex in our actions.

We reason and can justly or unjustly ration out death to other men.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back