cleary every1 that cry's about this have never been in a actual gun fight. or knows how it is to be in war.
I'm just going to clarify this straight up, because any other method seems to not have worked.
I don't give a **** if you've been in an actual gunfight. I don't care if you received massive trauma -- quite frankly, a majority of it is people's fault. Not HUMAN capability, but people's perception and thoughts dwelling in their mind, THAT is what causes the behavior. You can try and justify and say "**** happens" all you please. I'm sorry you're too lazy to seek self-improvement to the point of managing this. Can I say I can? Hell no, I don't know, but I'd like to think that I could rise to the occasion when I need to, at least long enough to give myself the time I need to sort through the experience.
it is easy for people outside the war to tell them how to behave. but war is a compleet different world.
Hey, go back about 16 pages and read what I said.
You're repeating what I said, except being lazy about it.
but i know what war is
So you've been in one?
get my point now?
Your point is the situation and current perception surrounding it. The opinion surrounding this topic based on those who have experienced it, those who are compromised themselves. I refuse to have the acceptance of such bull**** to consistently occur. This can be war, famine, poverty, anger issues, personal bad traits, ANYTHING that can be resolved with no negative side effects, is something that should be pursued. YOU are too lazy to either see that, or attempt to make that the case.
then you have fun being angry on americans pissing on your friends.
and then please join the war and kill a few for me, then be killed by 1.
good day.
It's sad to know there are people willing to fight for others who behave exactly like you.
The biggest shame is that innocent civilians were killed. The only reason I do not criticize these civilians is because I do not know if it was even possible to avoid killing the civilians without the soldiers putting themselves in more danger.
It is not reasonable to kill an innocent under a circumstance like this. The primary reason I can think of killing an innocent is if there was no other choice and he / she was WILLING.
It hurts feelings, but surely any sane person would rather the soldier urinate on corpses rather than shooting innocent people or torturing hostages.
So how do you derive that there "has to be" and alternative? Seriously, if people are able to MANAGE their perceptions or their emotions you wouldn't have such a problem arising in the first place.
If this is truly how the soldiers felt, then I seriously doubt they would urinate on the corpses in the first place.
As you said, they build up a hate. That, and trauma. Do you honestly think that the soldiers did this of sane mind? Almost certainly not, but my primary point is not that it happened, but what could be the case where soldiers don't deal with so much damage, or anyone in general, based on their own perception and others' actions. Why is this such a difficult idea to grasp? Fantasist? Optimist? Yeah, but doing nothing proves nothing. Laying around and accepting it just shows a piss poor way of doing things, where you mays well not have the war in the first place, as it follows the same philosophy of not standing what you believe in.
You think it can't be stopped? ****ing accepting it does nothing, and it is bitterly disappointing to see everyone I know not shed towards the same goal that is so simple, and so good by design.
You know what can fuel half of the good personas known? The idea of being a good person, of doing a good thing. The possibility of so easily empowering another person simply by words and encouragement? That this put in reverse could have the same effect -- that everyone doing this could be a MASSIVE boast to everyday life's standards, emotions, outlooks and etc? Really, if you do not understand some of the basic things I have talked about and cannot put it into that context and realize just how good that could be, especially including that this is of NO COST, then I really don't know.
You give a positive outlook, it reflects on other people, you do that, lose nothing and possibly gain so much more. Another person does, and if you're that heartless then please take a long walk off a short pier.
Just to clarify -- this a long time ago stopped referring only to you NoNameC68, I aim bigger than a single human being, though I doubt that my influence isn't enough for a lot of people who may read this.
I can't speak for any soldiers because I am not one myself
You can't really speak for all soldiers anyway, only from your own experience.
Whether the enemy was merely defending themselves or not isn't something I would expect a soldier to hold in high regards.
Do you need to hold it in high regards to know it's there? Too many things can be passively observed or noticed, just by thinking in different ways on a consistent basis. I'm genuinely more perceptive than most other people in both visual and moral applications, since I've been thinking philosophically for more than half of my life and I learnt a hell of a lot from observation, which oftentimes was the only option.
I'm comparing urinating on dead bodies to actually killing people because the comparison is relevant,
They're two entirely different things. One is a method of control (directly or not, I'm talking about violence altogether as it can easily fall under this category), one is a method of humiliation.
As I said earlier, the only people who should take offense to the actions of the soldiers are the people who were against their deaths.
I am against the form of humiliation because I don't follow that ideology of doing whatever to suit yourself because of what you've been through. That shows weakness. As a result, the act in itself is a disrespect to the individual and the faction -- THAT is what I'm looking at. Any opposition that allows the situation to escalate to war and violence to the extent it has now deserves little respect.
That does not mean you need make the effort to disrespect them, either.
To say that it's okay to kill the soldiers but wrong for their bodies to be urinated on doesn't make sense.
...
I actually have no clue how to get to people at this point.
How many times must I highlight that they are far from the same thing? One is an essential, another is an effort to disrespect that bares no benefits.
I do agree that urinating on the bodies is wrong, but, it's not something I would condemn someone for when I support their actions of killing the people in the first place.
The trauma and damage they've suffered and the actions as a result is something I barely condemn, but disapprove of, surely. At this point, I am more against the attitude that so well accepts this and doesn't seek a way to resolve this happening in the future. The people have gone through a lot -- there's no denial of that, but whilst their actions shouldn't bare too significant a punishment, it should be noted that things like this can be more easily prevented than most people seem to think. Too many trivial problems are that of human error, or lack of positive intentions / actions.
It's not as if the soldiers were torturing captives.
Again stop drawing comparisons. It could be the same case, but that is far from a justification.
(ends here anyway)
Good.
- H
