coachron said:
So it is good practice generally to shoot the person in the head? It must be kind of hard to do that.
I was in a rush earlier and had to leave. I'm home now and I have to say, I've been stewing about you for awhile now. I took the time to respond to "your" request for clarification and you chose to focus on that one aspect of my reply. Honestly, you didn't answer, what is your purpose here? If you want to debate killing: moral, amoral, legal or ethical reasons for doing so. Then there are other threads, other mediums. If you have a point that you'd like to make, then take your time and make it, as I did for you. The main reason why I'm taking more time now is for the other people who may read this in the hope that they will have a greater understand of the processes involved in regards to the issue of taking down a combatant who may be on stimulants. That and to show that life isn't as simple as you may think that it is. There is a reason for the training and the use of weapons in the military that civilians and non-combat arms personnel may not realise. I responded technically to your query. I decided to leave emotion out of it. I have some personal feelings about the taking of life, but that isn't the topic of this thread so I am choosing to remain on topic. It isn't my wish to proselytize to anyone, but to hopefully inform if I am able. In regards to this once again so that I am perfectly clear; is it good practice to shoot someone in the head? Of course, if that person is trying to do the same thing to you. Is it hard? Technically, it's a matter of a few to the chest and then slowly working up. Psychologically, I haven't had to do so and I don't think I'll have to worry about it this year; but if it is a situation I'm going to place myself in next year, then I will rely upon my training to carry me through. Would it be better to shoot them in the knees so that they fall down in pain, crippled, and decline further attempts to fight? Of course, assuming that they are able to register pain - hence the topic of this thread. Since there are no guarantees in life, that is why the training is as it is. To ensure that you live. It's really as simple as that.
coachron said:
When it comes to killing, argument for argument's sake is not such a bad thing.
Arguing for the sake of arguing, we don't tolerate that in children. Why should any of us have to here? Apparently, you are old enough to know better. If you want to begin a topic of debate, then do so. Take your time, state yourself and then lets see where it goes.
I read your posts. I wondered why you would choose to include a famous photograph of a napalm bombing in Vietnam? You know that war is over correct? You have issues with what you perceive to be propaganda and it's use to dehumanize the combatants that oppose US Forces in Iraq. Honestly, I won't argue that with you, psyops have been going on since before I was born. If that is what you chose to take away from that program, then that is your prerogative. However, what does that have to do with the issue of drugs being used by these combatants? US personnel use drugs as well: coffee, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, alcohol and who knows what else. Drug use is pervasive, we get that. How is that propaganda? Why not start a thread about that (after doing a search to ensure that another thread hasn't already covered it?)?
Finally: murder, death, killing. I'm going to assume that you're against all of those things. Well, here's what you do. You perform your duty as a Canadian citizen and write to: your MP, your MLA, your senator, the Min of DND, the PM and anyone else who has a responsibility to listen to you. Become involved in a campaign against international war, war in general, the clubbing of seals, Celine Dion and anything else that upsets you. Once you've accomplished that, then come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, know this. The Canadian Forces set about the tasks that the Executive initiates for them. The job is to conduct said tasking as professionally as possible within the mandate that is prescribed. Simple. The taking of human life may fall under this via the ROEs (Rules of Engagement) and if it does, so be it. If you want to debate the morality of the taking of life by the CF, you aren't debating a thing; but the people, those professionals who choose to sacrifice in order to ensure that you have the freedom, safety and ability to do so.
Cheers...
P.S.
Infidel, quite the scope for such a short barrel eh?
