The use of animals in warfare goes back about as far as warfare, /snip...
Nice history lesson. Too bad you didnt know the history of the tactic in Iraq before calling it nonsense.
Y'see, you made the point that we shouldn't judge this screw up of a soldier for throwing the puppy off a cliff, because we didn't know the whole context.
I mocked that. I still mock that. The video says what it says, its a context all by itself. We don't need to know anything more than the act. In particular, I mocked the notion that there was a broader context by joking about cats with nuclear weapons up their butt, etc. etc.
You see, the problem with that viewpoint is its simply incomplete. For example, in the Israeli invasion of lebanon much ado was made over pictures and film of various civilians in distress after Israeli attacks. Cryng people pulling dead kids out of rubble and so forth. Now, if all you took was that context on its face you would assume (incorrectly) that what hezbollah accused Israel of was correct. What was later found out was that those pictures and film were
STAGED for the sole purpose of misleading people into believing something other than what the truth was.
Without proper context you have no idea what the truth really is. And if you think you can judge this from a few seconds of youtube video, then I in turn mock you for that. Especially since you seem to think you know better. But the truth of the matter is, unless you were there personally, you dont.
Seriously, do you believe that your experiences as an eight year old rural child mindlessly shooting at small game as you've been raised and encouraged to do is equivalent to a grown man engaging in an act of sadism by throwing a puppy over a cliff?
Misdirection on your point. That reference wasnt given as a equivalent comparison, it was to combat the silly notion that every animal death is unacceptable merely because there isnt a good enough reason for it.
Nonsense, and you know it. I grew up in the rural countryside myself. I had a bb gun as a kid. We all grew up potting small game.
Then you should have agreed with me on the point.
But we both know that there was a difference between the kids who grew up hunting, and the one who liked to torture animals.
I am not so sure I would qualify tossing a dog off a cliff as torture as opposed to say its merely the method he used to kill the animal. Now, if he had sit there and say, burned the animal repeatedly to see its reaction you might have a point, but thats not what he did.
Even in small rural communities, kids that went out of their way to torture and be cruel to animals were something appalling. They were often creepy, even to other kids. And if adults caught them they were punished hard.
I agree. I have seen kids do utterly appaling things to animals in my life.
But still, how much of this thread have you diverted in this way? How much of the thread have you gamed?
Gamed? I am simply engaging in discussion the same as everyone else here.
What's one of your other games? The vermin gambit. Yeah, you've dragged the thread way off course on that one too.
I dont think it was a game or gambit for people to understand that in many third world nations - Iraq included - that stray dogs are indeed considered vermin. I have not been the only one to point this out btw.
But again, nonsense and you know it. There's a real difference between disposing of vermin and deliberately torturing animals or displaying sadism.
I disagree with your use of the word torture in that tossing a dog off a cliff is more analogous to an execution than it is of an act of torture.
Dogs might be vermin in Iraq. In which case, the problem should get dealt with efficiently. But sadism is a different thing than disposing of vermin. It's one thing to kill a rat quickly. It's another to set it on fire for laughs, or chop off its legs to enjoy its squirming around. You're making an equivalence that I find dishonest.
I would say tossing a dog off a cliff to its death is quite efficient. It wasnt messy and didnt even meet the expense of a single round of ammunition. How much more efficient can you get? Your attempt at morality here is just not getting you anywhere for the simple reason he didnt set it on fire, or chop it up to see the effect. All he did was toss it off a cliff.
And more than that, you're deliberately overlooking that the soldier is 'American culture' not 'Iraqi culture.' You're arguing for a cultural relativism that the soldier isn't entitled to and isn't catering to. This isn't an Iraqi soldier saying 'this is vermin, toss it a way.' This is an American soldier, from a culture that loves dogs going 'Look at the cute little puppy' and throwing it off a cliff.
Quite simply, not everyone in america loves dogs to the extent you indicate. Thats a logical fallacy on your part to assume this.
So basically, I'm finding your behaviour on this thread to be pretty consistent. Your posts are evasive, dishonest and oriented towards derailing the discussion rather than contributing to it.
And yet your the one making references to other posters moms. How nice.
Hypocritical much?
That's pretty much how I find your latest gambit. Your 'oh so serious' concern about the deadly threat of bomb stuffed animals. Why is it just another game?
Because its not relevant.
Again, it wasnt me that brought it up, but you. If it were not relevant perhaps you shouldnt have brought it up.
Whatever this dog was, it was not booby trapped. I think we can pretty much guarantee its not booby trapped by the way the soldier holds it inches from his face, the way he waggles it around his buddies, and plays with it. That's not how you hold a booby trapped object. Not unless you're suicidal. Or stupidly reckless. That's how you hold an object that you know poses no particular threat to you or anyone else.
It was never my allegation that it was booby trapped. Again, that was your offer to the discussion, not mine.
Hell, even on that front, its inexcuseable for this idiot of a soldier. Sure, this time the puppy is not booby trapped. So he gets to clown around and gross out his friends. Good for him. But the next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, there really is a booby trap. He's clowning around again, but this time he gets his face blown off, or gets one of his buddies killed. Why? Because he got sloppy, because it was okay to be sloppy and clown around for the camera. It's unprofessional, and we both know it.
I totally agree that his conduct was unprofessional and I have said as much previously.
But for some reason, you feel the need to run cover. Sorry, running cover for idiots only gives them a license to screw things up big time further down the road. I would rather not see good men dying just because this fool has an idea for America's funniest home videos.
Again, please refer to my earlier statements in the thread in which I say his conduct is unbecoming. I am not 'running cover' for this guy, but rather putting the entire event in its proper context and leaving emotion at the door.
That whole line of yours is just a dodge because right down at the bottom, you are trying to run defense for something indefensible and you know it.
Nope. I am not 'running defense' for the act at all, but I am giving my opinion on what should be done about it. And fwiw, yes, I will defend this soldier against punishments that dont fit the crime - i.e. death penalties and jail terms. Thats not a dodge, but merely trying to assign some common sense into an emotionally charged situation.
There's a saying: When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side POUND THE TABLE. That's your whole history of posts on this thread.
I simply disagree, and in fact, will make the simple point of the law is on my side in this matter. This soldier will never see jail time, let alone a death sentence. And you full well know it.
I should admire that? Respect it? Cater to it? Why? It's not even done particularly well. It's transparent and ham handed. If you'd like game playing to be accorded courtesy... play games better, bring some finesse.
I recommend the same to you. Less references to momma, and you may actually get somewhere in such a debate.
Now, you may not be impressed with my knowledge of things military. Uh huh. I'm not impressed with slippery gamesmanship. So I guess we'll call it even.
Nope. Thats for our audience to decide. And from where I stand its nowhere near even.
But I do know a few things. I know the difference between hunting and torturing animals. I know the difference between getting rid of vermin and torturing animals. I know the difference between a puppy and a booby trap.
I dont think you know the difference between torturing an animal and simply killing it. If you did, you wouldnt be using the word torture in this particular case.
I know the difference between handing territory over to an enemy and slipping him a few bucks, and actually winning. I know what losing a war looks like.
Have you been in the military? Had military service?
On to other things: Enclopedia Brown was a low blow and I was very mean to you. And I'm sure your mother thinks well of your opinions and there was no need to bring her into it. And for both of those things, I convey apologies.
Accepted.
Now, if I've hurt your tender feelings,
Rofl. I have a thick enough skin. Its generally my opponents that go the emotional route when things get rough.
or wounded the effervescent dignity of your inner soul as you contemplate the righteous majesty of your own opinions, well, please accept my apology, an apology with all the sincerity that this choice of words can convey
Well, your apology started out good. Now it seems to be losing some of its sincerity. We both know the value of apologies offered in such a manner do we not?
Now, if you'd ever actually like to discuss something real, and head on, fine with me. I'm always up for a real argument with real substance.
Trust me. You have just had one.
You wanted me to respond. You actually seemed to demand that I respond. Is this the response you wanted?
Its precisely what I expected and what I looked forward to answering. I call it the 'death wiggle' part of the debate...
