31 US Soldiers (25 Navy SEALS) dead

[Hosakawa Tito]

for that to be a complete parallel situation the US would have to have actual boots on the ground in Libya...

as to the actual subject of the topic...to be expected...it's a war....soldiers die in war.

You're under the impression that there are no US/UK/French special forces boots on the ground in Libya? Interesting. Who started that Libyan intervention thing by the way hmm? Or is it just bombing, with no boots on the ground it really isn't hostilities by the US allies "trained killers" is it, nice and clean and humanitarian like. In war young men die. Y'all want to cheer that's up to you and your values.

God? No, that is seeing what you believe. Thr 'OBL squad (members)' could be more likely to get killed for a number of reasons. Two in particular I guess might have been at work here. One, Afghan allies getting even. Afghan enemies of themselves had no information on who these people were, Afghan 'alies' quite possibly did.
And /or. two, this squad (or members) getting reckless, thinking themselves invincible, superior, on top of the world.


I remember I cheered OBL's demise - albeit after he was buried. (which most conveniently was over and done with the minute the news broke )
I suppose we're all entitled to picking a side. Personally I had rather 31 Taliban had perished.

There's a report that the Seals were on a rescue mission to aid a Ranger unit that was pinned down. Seems they got hit when the attacking force had been suppressed and the mission was almost over.

[Adrian II]

There's a report that the Seals were on a rescue mission to aid a Ranger unit that was pinned down. Seems they got hit when the attacking force had been suppressed and the mission was almost over.

Pentagon says it was a 'lucky shot' with an rpg. But they've said that before for pr reasons, in cases where the Taliban had used a surface to air missile.

Anyway, I quite agree with those who criticise US polities in Afghanistan. But you know what? Some of those US soldiers may have been critical as well. But soldiers don't have a complaint commission where they can all sit down with a nice cup of tea and discuss any orders they just happen to dislike. Some of them probably hated this war. Most of them probably disliked war in general, because the only people who really like warfare are psychopaths who are unfit for teamwork.

These are just everyday human considerations, every one of you is capable of understanding them. To applaud their death is unnecessary and spiteful, to put it mildly.

AII

[Louis VI the Fat]

To applaud their death is unnecessary and spiteful, to put it mildly.

AII

If Breivik had been killed midway his act, I would've applauded his death. Say, if a Norwegian police bullet had stopped him after his tenth, instead of his eightieth victim.
If Breivik would've gotten away, and had spend the past two weeks sending around triumphant, gleeful messages and tips for copycats, then if today the Norwegians would've found him and shot him in a forest cabin in Sweden I would've applauded it.
If they would've shot him in his woodland cabin ten years later, I still would've applauded it.

In all cases, I would've applauded the Norwegian police, would've welcomed the justice being done, and would've cheered this man's violent death.

Anyway, I quite agree with those who criticise US polities in Afghanistan. But you know what? Some of those US soldiers may have been critical as well. But soldiers don't have a complaint commission where they can all sit down with a nice cup of tea and discuss any orders they just happen to dislike. Some of them probably hated this war. Most of them probably disliked war in general, because the only people who really like warfare are psychopaths who are unfit for teamwork.

From a pacifist or humatirarian point of view one can decry all loss of life. If one isn't a pacifist, at least not absolutely so, then why should one decry all loss of life in a conflict? One does not get a free pass, free entitlement to sympathy, simply for being a fighter in an armed conflict. On the contrary, I am tempted to say.

[Adrian II]

One does not get a free pass, free entitlement to sympathy, simply for being a fighter in an armed conflict.

Awesome. We have a strawman.

AII

[Louis VI the Fat]

Awesome. We have a strawman.

AII

It's not a strawman, it is a conscious further exploration of the subject.


This calls for an actual strawman, with an order of Godwin on the side :

Anyway, I quite agree with those who criticise US polities in Afghanistan. But you know what? Some of those US soldiers may have been critical as well. But soldiers don't have a complaint commission where they can all sit down with a nice cup of tea and discuss any orders they just happen to dislike. Some of them probably hated this war. Most of them probably disliked war in general, because the only people who really like warfare are psychopaths who are unfit for teamwork.

So if Hitler's troops can claim they were just following orders, you would forbid us from wanting them stopped?

[Adrian II]

So if Hitler's troops can claim they were just following orders, you would forbid us from wanting them stopped?

I want these gratuitous jokes about dead allies to stop.

AII

[Strike For The South]

I love the smell of moral relativism in the morning

Sometimes you have to pick a side fellas