"Pro or Con"

[Marauder06]

OK, well done everyone. In a few minutes I'm locking this thread and will reopen it tomorrow for the final posts.

Here's the final exercise- for tomorrow (or whenever you post to this thread again), write a post on the OPPOSITE point of view from the one you posted earlier. For example, if you wrote that you thought the shooting was justified, now write a post as to why it isn't. This should be a little easier because you can get some good ideas from others' prior posts.

Remember this is an exercise is considering alternate points of view. Good luck!

 

[Marauder06]

OK Thread's open to post the "opposite" point of view.

 

[x SF med]

Oh, I feel so schizophrenic... I need time to consult the voices in my head.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

We are the occupying Army of Afghanistan, our soldier’s work to eradicate the TB/AQ something the Afghanis failed to do on their own. We are still eradicating the TB/AQ that there week Armies that we raise for them cannot. Who in the fuck are they to question what or how we do something?

Who cares what a poor Afghani thinks about this shooting, the operation in it’s self justifies the shooting. That Afghanis son’s will be fine and only have a scar at the end, but the true result is that another TB/AQ was captured and that is worth all of the scars in the world.

Who is the world to question what our brave men & women do? Where are there brave men & women? Germany? The world can suck our America dicks, we are keeping the world alive, we are keeping the word safe and we are killing the enemies of the world. Fuck you if you don’t like how we do it, at least you like the freedom of walking down the street safe.

It’s always easy to arm chair quarter back a soldiers actions, but where in the fuck were you as this soldier fired his weapon? On your computer, watching your TV, maybe shopping for your next meal? Instead of questioning him, how about get your ass up and join him. Then you can lead and set the example! Until then shut your fucking mouth!

 

[metalmom]

The soldier followed the right course of action. The locals had prior knowledge of the repercussions they would face in regards to the the actions they took, and they chose to have 2 pre-teens sitting within their vehicle

. Warning shots were justified-and appropriately taken. Is it plausible the soldier followed his ROEs, and in doing so, kept his team safe? definately!

There always have been and will contine to be casualties of any war. The soldier who took the shots was not out to wear the blood of two young pre-teens on his sleeve that day. Like any well trained soldier-he did what needed to be done.
.
Predicting the path of a spent round and how it may riccochet is not in the soldiers control.
Thankfully, the kids will live to breathe another day.
Plain and simple-he made a call-and in my opinion, he made the right one.

 

[x SF med]

*** Disclaimer: I am looking at this as an outside observer - and being honest with my assessment - yet I believe that the SF Soldier himself was in the right in his actions***

Lack of conventional support and a security team of 2 people was too small to prevent this tragedy. The SF Soldier should have had at least 2 other Afghani trainees with him to properly set up and secure the single access point to this area. This was a daylight mission, so security is actually harder - defensive positions can be seen more easily, yet, approach by your oppent can also be seen more easily.

A silenced weapon was a bad choice if protocol called for warning shots - a large caliber pistol would have been more appropriate - but that would have required more security at the site.

Since the bed of the vehicle had military aged civilains in it, why were the rounds impacting near that area - the threat was not fully established - it was still just a potential - poor judgement, planning and wrong equipment led to the two children being shot.

It was inevitable that a daylight raid where security for the access point was weak would lead to an incident such as this - a snap decision by the SF Soldier, with little back up and no reserve element at a time when traffic could be expected was an aggregious breach of proper control and planning.

This was a wholly preventable circumstance, and the command element of this mission should be held accountable for the lack of foresight that this was the weakest area of the plan.

 

[car]

**Opposite Point of view from what I was assigned - same disclaimer, just making an argument** Dammit, Mara, you're making sound like a lawyer!

The threat (no matter in which theater you're operating) surrounds you - 360 degress, in 3D. You all know the saying - "Head on a swivel." Whether you're a leader or a joe, you can't let your guard down for a second. The threat is as real as it gets. Hadji is gonna use whatever method he can come up with, to kill you. He'll send women and chidren at you, carrying their body weight in explosives, because he knows that "we" don't shoot women and children.

Why were those kids in the same truck with a bunch of MAMs? They were tools that Hadji intended to use against us. They had absolutely no control over their own destiny. When it comes to protecting yourself and whomever you may be responsible for, you don't get to be compassionate. You just do what you have to do to survive. and keep the folks around you alive.

Whether or not the kids should have been shot is irrelevant. The Soldier reacted, correctly. As to collateral damage -- it's a fact of war. We all know that. We can't control what the enemy does with its innocents. We can just hope that there are as few as possible, who get hit, when the bullets start flying.

------------------------

BTW, J.A.B.,

Not to start a fight, but I don't think we're an occupying Army in the 'Stan, or anywhere else. Well, maybe we're still occupying Japan - they deserve it! ;)

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

What ever you want to call it, we run dah mothafucka andzzz wez be telin them foos wud up!

Occupying, lending assistence, security forces or what ever we are calling it. We carry guns and tell them what to do...

Thanks for getting me right SGM! ;)

 

[Brando]

Awesome thread, I'd like to get in on the next go-round of this dance.

Also, I've never considered ad-hom to be a fallacy, technically. Ad-hom is only a fallacy when used on it's own, without a proper argument or support. When used in conjunction with sound logical premises/conclusions, I consider it to be rhetorical support to the argument, and occasionally a valid conclusion itself!

Heh.

 

[x SF med]

Awesome thread, I'd like to get in on the next go-round of this dance.

Also, I've never considered ad-hom to be a fallacy, technically. Ad-hom is only a fallacy when used on it's own, without a proper argument or support. When used in conjunction with sound logical premises/conclusions, I consider it to be rhetorical support to the argument, and occasionally a valid conclusion itself!

Heh.

An argument ad-hominem is not always a fallacy, but is considered a weak argument in most cases - except where the character of the opponent and proven, substantial points of the argument can be tied to character thus refuting the argument of your opponent. Calling your opponent a douchebag, with no proof, just to divert the argument would be a fallacious argument ad-hominem; whereas were you to call your oppenent a liar and cite examples of untruths uttered by him/her that would be a solid argument ad-hominem and support your bias on his/her argument. An argument ad-hominem unless fully supported by Topic, premise, thesis, synthesis and truth progression where the conclusion is a statement ad-hominem - could not be a valid conclusion on its own.

In most formal debate and argument analysis, arguments ad-hominem are frowned upon, since they tend to be nothing more than polite name calling and aspersions on character to divert the audience/moderator from the weakness of one's own argument.

 

[Brando]

An argument ad-hominem is not always a fallacy, but is considered a weak argument in most cases - except where the character of the opponent and proven, substantial points of the argument can be tied to character thus refuting the argument of your opponent. Calling your opponent a douchebag, with no proof, just to divert the argument would be a fallacious argument ad-hominem; whereas were you to call your oppenent a liar and cite examples of untruths uttered by him/her that would be a solid argument ad-hominem and support your bias on his/her argument. An argument ad-hominem unless fully supported by Topic, premise, thesis, synthesis and truth progression where the conclusion is a statement ad-hominem - could not be a valid conclusion on its own.

In most formal debate and argument analysis, arguments ad-hominem are frowned upon, since they tend to be nothing more than polite name calling and aspersions on character to divert the audience/moderator from the weakness of one's own argument.

Agree on all points.

I would only add that ad hominem is also extremely fun to do, and mighty entertaining to read/hear when done with wit or style.

 

[metalmom]

I'd really be into discussing Canadian logic-from two POV's, the incident in Somalia, that ultimately got our Airbourne disbanded, I think its a great subject.

 

[x SF med]

Canadian Logic? What's that, "One beer is good, ten are better, Hey?"

 

[metalmom]

lol-well at least we have actual alcohol in our beer-unlike the stuff in the States:)

 

[x SF med]

Bridoors... 'nuff said. Carling Labatt used to get it flown in for parties at TCU...