Text 5531, 163 rader
Skriven 2004-12-01 10:44:10 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
   Kommentar till text 5509 av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================
BF>> VH> I take it you have never been in combat?

BF>>No and I'm proud abot it.

 VH> Cowardice is nothing to be proud of.

I fail to see the connection between cowardice and not having killed another
human beeing.

BF>> VH> And you have never been in Iraq?

BF>>No, have you?

 VH> Yes.  Also in Egypt, Syria, and a few other countries int this region.

And when was that and whom did you fight against?
I have been to Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, Greece, Italy, Germany, Belgium,
Holland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Luxemburg, Czech Republic, England,
 Scotland, Finland and Russia but still haven't killed a single soul.

BF>> VH> You are getting your ideas from the media, and using terms of peace,
BF>> no VH> war to discuss the problem.

BF>>And the problem with that would be.....?

 VH> That:

 VH>         1.  You don't know what you're talking about.

But I'm pretty sure thet you do, or am I?

 VH>         2.  You have done nothing to contribute to a solution.

Not personally no, but Sweden have.

 VH>         3.  You are guided by prejudice.

And I'm pretty sure that you aren't, or am I?

BF>> VH> Would you rather we wait until we're over-run?  Who would defend you,
BF>> VH> then?

BF>>Defend me from what?
BF>>We have no known enemys.

 VH> No?  How long will Sweden be free of terrorism if it succeeds in
 VH> overrunning the rest of Europe?

I don't know since we dont' have any known enemy.

BF>> VH> Again, you've never been in combat, have you?

BF>>No, but what's that got to do with it?

 VH> It means, you have no idea what you're talking about.

So just because I haven't been in combat tell you I'm a real idiot?

>> VH> If he kills YOU, you certainly can't ask him if he was pretending or
BF>> no VH> can you?

BF>>I would make sure before doing anything.

 VH> Tell me how you do that.  You've got one second -- too late!!  You're
 VH> dead!

In "real" combat, yes. But not while entering a room whitch is only occupied
by wounded prisoners.

 VH> So sorry.

Don't be.

BF>> VH> Again, you've never been in combat, have you?

BF>>Again, no.

 VH> If you had you'd know that second only to valor, caution is a soldier's
 VH> greatest virtue.  (Apologies to Colonel Karl Brumback.)

Can we add "patience" to that?

 VH> A friend of mine and I were discussing it not long ago -- he said
 VH> something that I've heard from every combat veteran I've ever known, "It
 VH> happens just like THAT!!"

I'm sure it *can* but not every time.

 VH> In combat, your life can be snuffed out in the snap of a finger.  A simple
 VH> mistake -- simply craning your head too far forward, or stepping over a
 VH> "dead" man (as I did once) can end your life before you know what
 VH> happened.

Obviously you made it and in combat I guess thing like this can happend and
a war isn't the most healthy to place to be in.

 VH> And you know that, how?  What personal experience of yours tells you that
 VH> he "could have done something else to secure that prisoner?"

If you say that there are no other option then to shoot, I'm sure that this
wasn't
the last time we did see something like that.
And what is then going on that we don't have a Clue<tm> about.

BF>> VH> Are you a mind reader?  Can you read our soldiers' minds?

BF>>No, can you?

 VH> I am one of our soldiers.  I served for 22 years, and as a retired
 VH> regular, remain on the rolls of the United States Army.

And that makes you a mind reader......?

BF>> VH> No.  I repeat, you have never been in combat, have you?

BF>>This is getting very annoying.
BF>>NO I HAVEN'T!!!!!

 VH> Then where do you get the authority to tell us what men in combat should
 VH> do?

You must at least be able to ask yourself: Did I do the right thing here or
could
I have something else to spare that humans life?
You make it as easy as killing flies.

BF>> VH> Then you didn't hear the Marine say, "He's faking it!"

BF>>Nope.
BF>>And how could he be so sure? Proven fact is that he wasn't, isn't it?

 VH> He only needs a reasonable suspicion -- he isn't required to put the life
 VH> of a war criminal above his own.

Then the word "patience" comes to mind.

BF>> VH> Another Marine was killed that same day by an Iraqi who was faking it.

BF>>And that give you the right to kill whom ever you like=

 VH> And that is a stupid remark -- it shows your prejudice.

 VH> You say "And that give you the right to kill whom ever you like."  You
 VH> ASSUME therefore he killed the man because he LIKED to kill him.

I don't know. Do you?
But of course you do. You are the mind reader.

 VH> He killed him because he had reasonable suspicion that his OWN life, and
 VH> that of his comrades, was in danger.

And what do you think that the dead guy thought before he was killed?

 VH> Explain how you, who have never had such experience, know more about it
 VH> than men who have been in combat, been wounded, and worked all their lives
 VH> dealing with military problems.

I'm just trying to see that there must be another option then to shoot first
and
ask after but if you say ther isn't, well, then it's up to you.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)