Collateralmurder.com

[SOCALHUSKER]

You act as if all the problems we talk about are unrelated, when in fact if you trace them from end to the beginning they all lead to the same thing. Government!!

[808Husker in KCMO]

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

 

I agree with this 100% The support for war in a population will continue until they are asked to sacrifice. Vietnam ended because the american public was no longer willing to sacrifice via the draft. The American public has made not a single sacrifice in these current wars. The all volunteer army is a sham. The force cannot sustain global operations on this scale. a draft would do two things. Increase readiness by increasing troop levels and end support for the war, effectively ending the war.

[carlfense]

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

No, I'm not with you. I watched the video several times and never once saw anyone point any AK's or RPG's at the helos. Maybe I missed it or maybe it was one of the kids in the van or the guys picking up the bodies? They seemed pretty hostile to me. Or better yet, did it ever occur to you that maybe the helo shouldn't have even been there to begin with? Oh my god, what a novel idea, let's resolve conflict without violence. Let's allow individual's to live their own lives and make their own choices.

 

Violence does not resolve violence, no matter how hard you may will it to. So, get off your holier then though, expressway to scare tactics, coercive monopoly pedestal and take a look at the effects of the things you advocate. Ask yourself, is that moral? Is that just? Is that beneficial? When you answer no to all three, maybe it's time to change your philosophy.

Same sh#t, different day, eh SOCAL? We weren't discussing the reasoning behind the war . . . or even the justness of the war. I guess if you can't win an argument you can always shift the discussion. Enough with the scare tactics card. Your whole deck is scare tactics . . . just read your last paragraph. I think your biggest problem is that you are unable to differentiate between philosophy and reality.

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

I bolded the scare tactics for you. Just in case you're still wondering.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

I bolded the scare tactics for you. Just in case you're still wondering.

Yes, a coercive monopoly and what it does is scary. So, if informing, educating and warning people about it, is what you consider a scare tactic, count me guilty, please.

 

However, scare tactics as a political measure are usually based on myths and fallacies. Seeing as how I do not base my arguments upon that, but rather on non-contradictory, moral, just, rational and consistent principles, I'd hardly call them scare tactics, but simply the truth. If you, or anyone else, would like to point out any fallacies, myths, contradictions, inconsistencies, immorality, injustice or irrationality in my argument please feel free so that I can correct it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

 

I agree with this 100% The support for war in a population will continue until they are asked to sacrifice. Vietnam ended because the american public was no longer willing to sacrifice via the draft. The American public has made not a single sacrifice in these current wars. The all volunteer army is a sham. The force cannot sustain global operations on this scale. a draft would do two things. Increase readiness by increasing troop levels and end support for the war, effectively ending the war.

While I agree with what you say in a sense, advocating a draft is flat out advocating slavery. Except that instead of slave work in a cotton field it's slave work to die in a killing field. Nobody has the right to initiate force against any other person or their property and the draft is exactly that. An easier way of ending the war is to abolish the illegal stealing of people's property, meaning taxation. Without funding for the volunteer army and the millions of contracts, it is guaranteed that the wars would end quickly, if not overnight.

[carlfense]

 

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

I bolded the scare tactics for you. Just in case you're still wondering.

Yes, a coercive monopoly and what it does is scary. So, if informing, educating and warning people about it, is what you consider a scare tactic, count me guilty, please.

 

However, scare tactics as a political measure are usually based on myths and fallacies. Seeing as how I do not base my arguments upon that, but rather on non-contradictory, moral, just, rational and consistent principles, I'd hardly call them scare tactics, but simply the truth. If you, or anyone else, would like to point out any fallacies, myths, contradictions, inconsistencies, immorality, injustice or irrationality in my argument please feel free so that I can correct it.

Re the bold: check the SOCAL's Razor thread for a host of problems with it. Rather than simple responses to simple questions you attack back with a litany of the same questions. That's why people are dropping out of the discussion. You never provide anything concrete or factual.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

I bolded the scare tactics for you. Just in case you're still wondering.

Yes, a coercive monopoly and what it does is scary. So, if informing, educating and warning people about it, is what you consider a scare tactic, count me guilty, please.

 

However, scare tactics as a political measure are usually based on myths and fallacies. Seeing as how I do not base my arguments upon that, but rather on non-contradictory, moral, just, rational and consistent principles, I'd hardly call them scare tactics, but simply the truth. If you, or anyone else, would like to point out any fallacies, myths, contradictions, inconsistencies, immorality, injustice or irrationality in my argument please feel free so that I can correct it.

Re the bold: check the SOCAL's Razor thread for a host of problems with it. Rather than simple responses to simple questions you attack back with a litany of the same questions. That's why people are dropping out of the discussion. You never provide anything concrete or factual.

I answer ever single question I get and I could really care less who drops out of a discussion. Do you really expect me to concede points or change my viewpoint based on false premises, false dichotomies and BS analogies?

[carlfense]

 

No, the problem is that your philosophy cannot work in reality. It has been attempted a million times and has failed every single time. You somehow believe that employing a coercive monopoly, even a limtied one, to control individuals, will somehow make you both safe and prosperous, however that is and always will be impossible.

 

Besides, how is it that you consider morality, justice and beneficial actions to be scare tactics? You lost me there.

I bolded the scare tactics for you. Just in case you're still wondering.

Yes, a coercive monopoly and what it does is scary. So, if informing, educating and warning people about it, is what you consider a scare tactic, count me guilty, please.

 

However, scare tactics as a political measure are usually based on myths and fallacies. Seeing as how I do not base my arguments upon that, but rather on non-contradictory, moral, just, rational and consistent principles, I'd hardly call them scare tactics, but simply the truth. If you, or anyone else, would like to point out any fallacies, myths, contradictions, inconsistencies, immorality, injustice or irrationality in my argument please feel free so that I can correct it.

Re the bold: check the SOCAL's Razor thread for a host of problems with it. Rather than simple responses to simple questions you attack back with a litany of the same questions. That's why people are dropping out of the discussion. You never provide anything concrete or factual.

I answer ever single question I get and I could really care less who drops out of a discussion. Do you really expect me to concede points or change my viewpoint based on false premises, false dichotomies and BS analogies?

I don't expect you to concede anything. As you know, I've been down this road before. What I do expect, is that you might notice that there is literally zero factual basis (as in real world example) to show that an anarcho-capitalist society could be successful.

[808Husker in KCMO]

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

 

I agree with this 100% The support for war in a population will continue until they are asked to sacrifice. Vietnam ended because the american public was no longer willing to sacrifice via the draft. The American public has made not a single sacrifice in these current wars. The all volunteer army is a sham. The force cannot sustain global operations on this scale. a draft would do two things. Increase readiness by increasing troop levels and end support for the war, effectively ending the war.

While I agree with what you say in a sense, advocating a draft is flat out advocating slavery. Except that instead of slave work in a cotton field it's slave work to die in a killing field. Nobody has the right to initiate force against any other person or their property and the draft is exactly that. An easier way of ending the war is to abolish the illegal stealing of people's property, meaning taxation. Without funding for the volunteer army and the millions of contracts, it is guaranteed that the wars would end quickly, if not overnight.

Thats all well and good, but in REALITY, the draft is a viable option. The all volunteer army is indentured servitude for the poor at best. Slavery across all classes is more just. Blah Blah Blah.. Class is a product of an unjust social state that includes the rich getting richer by stealing the wealth of the individual. The ruling class doesn't exist without government. Got it. You'll be better off when you stop listening to leftover crack and against me.

[walksalone]

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

 

No, he's right, we should have more media types embeded with the opposition. I would love to Katie Couric or Morley Safer interview some of these folks to get their true feelings about this conflict.

 

Socal has it all wrong though.

 

He actually thinks people should care about whats going on over there. He hasn't figured it out that people don't care about that. They only care about driving their retarded asses down to starbucks, picking up a people magazine to find out about Sandra Bullock and Tiger Woods, then hurry home to see if they've missed anything on TMZ.

[Enhance]

If Reuters is going to embed reporters with Iraqi insurgents they are putting them in danger. Collateral damage will happen in any war. It's terrible . . . but not exactly unpredictable.

 

For some reason wikileaks doesn't explain what the Reuters employees are doing with a bunch of Iraqis with RPGs and AK-47s . . . in an area where there were expressly no friendlies.

 

Hopefully Reuters is more prudent in the future.

By "prudent" do you mean that Reuters should only show/report on the US or "winning" side of the war? Yes, death is a brutal risk for a war correspondent, and anyone else caught in the cross-fire, but to infer that someone can obtain objective war coverage by staying with the "friendlies" is downright silly. Besides, are there not "friendlies" for the Iraqis?

 

IMHO, this type of stuff needs to be reported more often so that people can witness the real effects and damages of war, instead of the flag waving, supposed "liberty" providing, smart bomb propaganda that is regurgitated over and over on the airwaves. The more this stuff is shown, the less likely people will be to support those who are willing and able to send others marching off to cause and suffer this type of damage.

Wow. How did you come up with that? I'm at a loss as to how you could even begin to infer that from my post.

 

By more prudent I meant that Reuters shouldn't send reporters out with insurgency groups and then complain that those reporters were killed because they were standing near insurgents carrying AKs and RPGs.

 

Sometimes I wonder about you . . .

So, I inferred correctly. How is saying that they shouldn't send reporters in with the supposed "insurgents" any different then what I wrote?

 

...and you wonder about me? Seriously?

If you want to interview insurgents and cover their side of the war safely (if such a thing is possible) then do it privately when there are no weapons around. If you stand in a group of insurgents in an open courtyard when said insurgents are ARMED and even point RPGs at the opponents' helicopter . . . well you shouldn't be too surprised when you end up dead. Don't complain about how the opposing side is a bunch of meanies when they attack armed enemies during a shooting war. With me?

No, I'm not with you. I watched the video several times and never once saw anyone point any AK's or RPG's at the helos. Maybe I missed it or maybe it was one of the kids in the van or the guys picking up the bodies? They seemed pretty hostile to me. Or better yet, did it ever occur to you that maybe the helo shouldn't have even been there to begin with? Oh my god, what a novel idea, let's resolve conflict without violence. Let's allow individual's to live their own lives and make their own choices.

 

Violence does not resolve violence, no matter how hard you may will it to. So, get off your holier then though, expressway to scare tactics, coercive monopoly pedestal and take a look at the effects of the things you advocate. Ask yourself, is that moral? Is that just? Is that beneficial? When you answer no to all three, maybe it's time to change your philosophy.

I asked a buddy of mine (spent 5 months in Iraq) why they would open fire on a group of individuals who had weapons but weren't using them.

 

His answer was pretty simple. If it's in an unfriendly zone that is being monitored for activity, and people show up with weapons, it doesn't matter what they are doing. They will be fired upon. So, because they were in a hostile area, the helos protocol was to fire upon anybody with weapons. That's just how it is. It's a war-zone, and if you're trying to get rid of insurgents, they will fire upon groups of people with weapons.

 

Lastly, let's just stop the violence, coercive monopoly, blah blah blah bullsh*t right now. There is no room for that in this thread, for anyone to talk about, which is why there is an entire thread solely dedicated to that type of babbling between people on this board. Enough with it.

 

Now, back to the VIDEO discussion...

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Lastly, let's just stop the violence, coercive monopoly, blah blah blah bullsh*t right now. There is no room for that in this thread, for anyone to talk about, which is why there is an entire thread solely dedicated to that type of babbling between people on this board. Enough with it.

 

Now, back to the VIDEO discussion...

Sounds like somebody is afraid of the truth!! I guess we all better get back to out celebrity gossip and video games then, sorry!! Last time I checked this was the politics and religion section of the forum, if you don't like either, you have every right to not read and stick to what makes you feel happy.

[M I K E]

Lastly, let's just stop the violence, coercive monopoly, blah blah blah bullsh*t right now. There is no room for that in this thread, for anyone to talk about, which is why there is an entire thread solely dedicated to that type of babbling between people on this board. Enough with it.

 

Now, back to the VIDEO discussion...

Sounds like somebody is afraid of the truth!! I guess we all better get back to out celebrity gossip and video games then, sorry!! Last time I checked this was the politics and religion section of the forum, if you don't like either, you have every right to not read and stick to what makes you feel happy.

 

 

Now I can finally get back to checking on how the Kardashians are doing.

[bennychico11]

question for the military guys....was that even a helicopter? Or was it something like the AC-130 (forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't know my planes very well)?

 

all the news articles I keep reading say it's a helicopter, but I find it curious that a helicopter would be doing circles around the location like that. Why not just hover? The airship keeps losing sight as it goes behind some buildings and they have to wait until they come about to fire. The slow circular motion so high up (no one noticed the aircraft until it fired) makes me think it's a plane.

 

Just curious.

[bennychico11]

btw, I think the controversy is no one in the group had any guns or RPG's. They were news guys with cameras that apparently were mistaken for guns.

 

at least that's what I understand from it all.