Re: U.S. rescue chopper shoots six Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed
So if a California boy was found guilty of killing civs on purpose it wouldnt be terrorism in your eyes?
Would depend entirely on his motivations and his potential connections.
But if some brown guy that worships Allah killed civs on purpose it would ammount to terrorism or no?
See above.
What im saying is! If testimony from fellow soldiers and bulletproof evidence was ever shown in any situation and it was one of our guys doing the deed would you think hes a terrorist or does it only apply to other countries?
Evidence of what? Something I'd consider a terrorist act? Sure. I'd call him a terrorist. This situation isn't anywhere near that.
Us being there and civilians dying by US hands DOES affect political outcome and scare people.
This is the most ignorant, simplistic, twisted attempt of spinning what terrorism is that I've seen in a long time.
If this situation turned out to be real and they guy was somehow found guilty of causing choas on purpose its not okay to call it out?
No one in this thread have said this guy should have nothing done to him if he did it knowingly that these people were civilians or even attempting to sort it out.
People had issues with you stating that even if he took every precaution possible to find out the purpose of these individuals before opening fire due to a belief that there was a possability that the others soldiers life was at risk that you thought he should still be essentially dishonorably discharged for having "bad judgement".
As for accidents... If you kill someone that doesnt pose a threat you do not belong on todays modern battlefield.
Which is retarted you're stating that in reference to this. A group of people in a hostile location with no discernable way to know if they're friendly or not approaching a downed soldier IS a potential threat. Whether or not they are DEFINITELY a threat is what had to be determined, and on "todays modern battlefield" that is not always a binary 0 and 1 type of situation.
With the gaint weapons of destruction we have how can you feel okay about not removing soldiers that have accidents?
Because I don't live in a fantasy land of video games and anime with a warped sense of what war and split second life or death decisions actually entail.
We are talking about human life. Guess what, the soldier on the ground is human as well.
You still haven't answered any of my questions...no surprise.
What would your stance have been if he hadn't shot because he wasn't positive of their intent...and they killed the guy on the ground. Should the pilot have been discharged then as well?
Why do you feel its better to gamble on the life of the american rather than the life of the libyans? Because either way this pilot acted, if he wasn't 100% sure, he was taking a gamble on one side or the other's health.