Super Sniper Sniped

[Nemesiah]

First we look a the hero of the mases for killing 255 people from far away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Ventura-bad-mouthed-troops.html#axzz2K2gpHILW

And then we see it was all for naught since one of his pals kills him while at the shooting range. (Irony anyone?)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/america...d-at-texas-shooting-range-20130204-2dt13.html

The guns control thread is elsewere so that is not what I want to discus (although it makes the point that even combat hardened veterans are not safe from some loon with an itchy finger)

What I want to discuss here is this:

Is America creating such an atmosphere of death and violence worship that it is creating in it's own citizens the same thing they claim to be fighting abroad?

I understand that it seems that this "super sniper" was gunned down by some derranged fellow (probably from post war stress dissorder or whatever it is called) and not a terrorist o some other phantom conjured up by the media in the states, but is it possible that by engaging in so much war (more that a decade straight this time) the american society is becoming so ill that shootings are becoming somewhat commonplace?

Are americans not worried about this?
Do they not see the relationship between invading a country to steal its natural resources and having horrific violence at home?

This interests me since my own country is descending into a violence spiral that I believe is roting our society so that violence is becoming commonplace; but we can't aviod it drug cartels are a part of our society (never mind taht americans want thier mariguana and won't do jack shit to stop the violence over here) butt in america I believe society could be healed easily just by stoping the invasions and interventions and drone murderings etc... and yet, they'd rather have cheap oil.

This fellow died the way he killed so many others in the name of peace in his country, he leaves a widow and orphans, did society failed him? Did america do it's part in keeping him safe once he came back from murdering all those people in the name of peace, good and democracy?

Is America becoming so wrapped by the violence it commits on others that it's society is beggining to destroy itself because of said violence?

What do you think?

 

[Aught3]

What do you think?

I think you're probably reading too much into it. Compared to say WWII or even Vietnam, the public in the USA seem pretty disengaged from their wars overseas. Life continues as normal. I would think it has more to do with the lack of social structure/support and the availability of guns leading to an horrific outcome, but I could be wrong.

 

[Darkprophet232]

I think that jumping to conclusions and trying to paint any person involved in this (even the shooter) in a negative light before we know all the facts is a waste of time and energy.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Are americans not worried about this? Do they not see the relationship between invading a country to steal its natural resources and having horrific violence at home?

There isn't necessarily a connection. Upwards of 50,000 Americans died during the Vietnam war, upwards of 30,000 during the Korean war, over 400,000 during World War II, and a whopping 600,000 died during the Civil War (if you include Southern casualties, that is). In contrast, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken less than 8,000 American lives. I have a cousin who is currently serving in Afghanistan, but by and large the American public is relatively removed from this war, especially since there is no military conscription.

 

[bluejatheist]

Regarding whether people here are concerned about foreign violence
"You have to admit that three or four GIs killed every week is a very small price to pay for the oil that we need."

 

[Nemesiah]

Regarding whether people here are concerned about foreign violence
"You have to admit that three or four GIs killed every week is a very small price to pay for the oil that we need."

People that think like that (the "You have to admit that three or four GIs killed every week is a very small price to pay for the oil that we need." fellow he was talking about) make my decision never to have kids so the world can go fuck itself once I'm dead seem (at least to me) so very correct.

 

[tuxbox]

People that think like that (the "You have to admit that three or four GIs killed every week is a very small price to pay for the oil that we need." fellow he was talking about) make my decision never to have kids so the world can go fuck itself once I'm dead seem (at least to me) so very correct.

+1

 

[bluejatheist]

People that think like that (the "You have to admit that three or four GIs killed every week is a very small price to pay for the oil that we need." fellow he was talking about) make my decision never to have kids so the world can go fuck itself once I'm dead seem (at least to me) so very correct.

I made that decision a while ago, and a thread more or less about it. It's partly why I rarely post here anymore.


------



Also regarding the talk of how the current wars are not as impacting due to the lower casualties; A Vietnam War documentary I'm fond of pointed out something important:

"58,132 Americans were lost to the Vietnam War... And nearly 3 million came home."

The numbers of personnel deployed: 2,333,972 (as of 2011)
476,515 treated for PTSD in 2011

Surviving the war doesn't mean it's over for each of them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-veterans-numbers/story?id=14928136#1
http://www.va.gov/opa/issues/ptsd.asp

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Surviving the war doesn't mean it's over for each of them.

Of course not. My intention wasn't to marginalize the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's why I said that the American public has been relatively removed from those wars.

Edit: I couldn't remember the exact number of troops deployed during the wars that I listed, so I figured that a comparison of casualties would suffice. In retrospect I see that my figures were misleading. Thank you for pointing that out, blue j.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It's got about as much connection as it does to Violent Videogames and the Illuminati in this instance.

And, by and by, he's probably saved more lives than he took simply on the grounds that a single person has the capability to kill many more than himself if he's reckless enough to do so.

 

[Nemesiah]

It's got about as much connection as it does to Violent Videogames and the Illuminati in this instance.

And, by and by, he's probably saved more lives than he took simply on the grounds that a single person has the capability to kill many more than himself if he's reckless enough to do so.

a single person has the capability to kill many more than himself if he's reckless enough to do so.

Yes, some murderous bastard could potentially kill 255 people and later gloat about it in a book.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Yes, some murderous bastard could potentially kill 255 people and later gloat about it in a book.

Spoken like a true-blue, unrealistic armchair cynic of what could be conceived as a quantified realistic scenario. I'm going to wager you've never even read his book - it's also pleasant to see that you side-stepped my entire placid stab at your pathetic attempt to construct a mountain out of a molehill for your own personal pedestal to preach from in favor of, instead, continuing your rant. If you want to hear yourself speak, then voice your opinions in the shower.

Would you shoot someone who posed an imminent threat or plotted to kill the death of you, your friends, or coworkers in an area with no law to speak of?
Oh. And perhaps more civilian casualties than can be counted.

250 bullets to kill 250 people to save possibly 4 times that amount.

Quit acting as if the United States sends out Navy SEALS to plow down civilians, women, and children - if nothing else to appease your idioticly perverse notions towards modern warfare, there's no tactical advantage to doing so and it would be a waste of resources.

 

[Nemesiah]

Yes, some murderous bastard could potentially kill 255 people and later gloat about it in a book.

Spoken like a true-blue, unrealistic armchair cynic of what could be conceived as a quantified realistic scenario. I'm going to wager you've never even read his book - it's also pleasant to see that you side-stepped my entire placid stab at your pathetic attempt to construct a mountain out of a molehill for your own personal pedestal to preach from in favor of, instead, continuing your rant. If you want to hear yourself speak, then voice your opinions in the shower.

Would you shoot someone who posed an imminent threat or plotted to kill the death of you, your friends, or coworkers in an area with no law to speak of?
Oh. And perhaps more civilian casualties than can be counted.

250 bullets to kill 250 people to save possibly 4 times that amount.

Quit acting as if the United States sends out Navy SEALS to plow down civilians, women, and children - if nothing else to appease your idioticly perverse notions towards modern warfare, there's no tactical advantage to doing so and it would be a waste of resources.

Spoken like a true-blue, unrealistic armchair cynic of what could be conceived as a quantified realistic scenario. I'm going to wager you've never even read his book

Quite rght; I'm not into some sick snuf shit.

you side-stepped my entire placid stab at your pathetic attempt to construct a mountain out of a molehill for your own personal pedestal to preach from in favor of, instead, continuing your rant. If you want to hear yourself speak, then voice your opinions in the shower.

I did not sidestep anything I asked a question and you answered it; thanks for your input.

Would you shoot someone who posed an imminent threat or plotted to kill the death of you, your friends, or coworkers in an area with no law to speak of?
Oh. And perhaps more civilian casualties than can be counted.

Of course I would, the thing is this Fella' was part of an invading army he was not DEFENDING he was ATACKING, I would defend against people like him.

250 bullets to kill 250 people to save possibly 4 times that amount.

How about this?, with 1 bullet the guy in the shooting range could have prevented the deaths of 250 people had he acted sooner. Thats a much more impresive ratio.

Quit acting as if the United States sends out Navy SEALS to plow down civilians, women, and children - if nothing else to appease your idioticly perverse notions towards modern warfare, there's no tactical advantage to doing so and it would be a waste of resources.

Well lets see some of this waste of resources you talk about with such disdain:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/un-inquiry-us-drone-strikes

But seriously Hytegia, by now you MUST know that your point of view means less than diddly squat to me, as I have said before, you are a killer that went to war so he could get some scholarship money by invading a country in the process of deffending uncle Sam's oil interests and got to kill a few people while "defending" his unit; on the other hand as far as I understand you are a pagan that believes in some sort of forest spirits or entities or some other nonsense. You and me are never going to see eye to eye on anithyng except maybe in saying that Skyrim is awesome. And while I will not ask you to go "shout in the shower" as you did to me, I will remind you that I can a do decide whose comments I pay mind to.

Have a nice life

 

[australopithecus]

Just a reminder to play nice. Carry on.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Would you shoot someone who posed an imminent threat or plotted to kill the death of you, your friends, or coworkers in an area with no law to speak of?
Oh. And perhaps more civilian casualties than can be counted.

Of course I would, the thing is this Fella' was part of an invading army he was not DEFENDING he was ATACKING, I would defend against people like him.

A man chooses his country, and his military - but, from that point on, he's Government Issued paperwork.

Oh, yes. We've had this discussion before. The one where you, sitting on an armchair, says "he could choose not to kill people."

And then I go: "He probably has made that call more times than he's actually killed people." Especially since he's a sniper - the very act alone insinuating he has to deliberately pick and choose in battle scenarios the best places to put his shots downrange. And, me - who did more of a thing of cutting wire and taking apart unexploded ordinance who only shot if I was being shot at.

You know, things that take place in a reasonable discussion and exchange of thoughts - things you naturally block out because they do not favor the trail you and your high horse are walking along.

Once again, have you read the material you seem so opt to rant and cleave about?
Oh. That's right. You answer that in the next paragraph where you confirm what everyone on the board has known for months - that you'd rather only hear yourself speak. You've no interest in discussion, nor even actively interaction.

You're just a child, screaming on the internet about how he's right and all of them evil Muslims and Navy SEALS are.

That's all you have been, all you are, and all you ever will be.

250 bullets to kill 250 people to save possibly 4 times that amount.

Once again, you side-step a discussion in favor of childish banter in context of the events outlined in his public documentation.

His documentary was far from "Gloating" - but, of course, you'd never take time to actually read the material or actually learn anything about someone before you staple them to a cross and pull them through the streets. I mean, if you did then you'd be better than every other two-bit Christian and Muslim apologist that runs through here to hear themselves speak and block out all other opinions.

But seriously Hytegia, by now you MUST know that your point of view means less than diddly squat to me, as I have said before, you are a killer that went to war so he could get some scholarship money by invading a country in the process of deffending uncle Sam's oil interests and got to kill a few people while "defending" his unit; on the other hand as far as I understand you are a pagan that believes in some sort of forest spirits or entities or some other nonsense. You and me are never going to see eye to eye on anithyng except maybe in saying that Skyrim is awesome. And while I will not ask you to go "shout in the shower" as you did to me, I will remind you that I can a do decide whose comments I pay mind to.

Have a nice life

If there was a nicer way to say "Fuck you too, you little butthurt sack of shit" then I would avoid it, and still say it. You took this from a discussion to personal in 1 paragraph, simply because you're too much of a coward to actually host a discussion that does not favor your openly-slanted opinion and your Fox-News-style reporting and discussion techniques. And, the best part is that you slipped up and showed us your true colors for all but a moment:

You are officially the most unreasonable person to visit the League of Reason - ranked with Bob Enyart and everyone else that comes here to rant for their own personal wars.

Why? Because they have other places to go and other places to host such actual discussions with other people in their own echo-boxes. You don't even have that luxury. You come to a place that's renowned for discussion and an active negation of hivemind, which only indicates that nobody else really shares your opinions nor tolerates your biases either.
You are alone politically, logically, and morally.

Go ahead and pretend to be as those Christians and Muslims you rant about - you know, the backwards ones whom you complacent a negative opinion about due to illogical and impractical - but at what time of day can you say "I'm better than them. I actually listen to the opinions of others and weigh them against my own biases?"

You never can, and you never will.

Welcome to the League of Reason, Nemesiah.

 

[Nemesiah]

Would you shoot someone who posed an imminent threat or plotted to kill the death of you, your friends, or coworkers in an area with no law to speak of?
Oh. And perhaps more civilian casualties than can be counted.

Of course I would, the thing is this Fella' was part of an invading army he was not DEFENDING he was ATACKING, I would defend against people like him.

A man chooses his country, and his military - but, from that point on, he's Government Issued paperwork.

Oh, yes. We've had this discussion before. The one where you, sitting on an armchair, says "he could choose not to kill people."

And then I go: "He probably has made that call more times than he's actually killed people." Especially since he's a sniper - the very act alone insinuating he has to deliberately pick and choose in battle scenarios the best places to put his shots downrange. And, me - who did more of a thing of cutting wire and taking apart unexploded ordinance who only shot if I was being shot at.

You know, things that take place in a reasonable discussion and exchange of thoughts - things you naturally block out because they do not favor the trail you and your high horse are walking along.

Once again, have you read the material you seem so opt to rant and cleave about?
Oh. That's right. You answer that in the next paragraph where you confirm what everyone on the board has known for months - that you'd rather only hear yourself speak. You've no interest in discussion, nor even actively interaction.

You're just a child, screaming on the internet about how he's right and all of them evil Muslims and Navy SEALS are.

That's all you have been, all you are, and all you ever will be.

250 bullets to kill 250 people to save possibly 4 times that amount.

Once again, you side-step a discussion in favor of childish banter in context of the events outlined in his public documentation.

His documentary was far from "Gloating" - but, of course, you'd never take time to actually read the material or actually learn anything about someone before you staple them to a cross and pull them through the streets. I mean, if you did then you'd be better than every other two-bit Christian and Muslim apologist that runs through here to hear themselves speak and block out all other opinions.

But seriously Hytegia, by now you MUST know that your point of view means less than diddly squat to me, as I have said before, you are a killer that went to war so he could get some scholarship money by invading a country in the process of deffending uncle Sam's oil interests and got to kill a few people while "defending" his unit; on the other hand as far as I understand you are a pagan that believes in some sort of forest spirits or entities or some other nonsense. You and me are never going to see eye to eye on anithyng except maybe in saying that Skyrim is awesome. And while I will not ask you to go "shout in the shower" as you did to me, I will remind you that I can a do decide whose comments I pay mind to.

Have a nice life

If there was a nicer way to say "Fuck you too, you little butthurt sack of shit" then I would avoid it, and still say it. You took this from a discussion to personal in 1 paragraph, simply because you're too much of a coward to actually host a discussion that does not favor your openly-slanted opinion and your Fox-News-style reporting and discussion techniques. And, the best part is that you slipped up and showed us your true colors for all but a moment:

You are officially the most unreasonable person to visit the League of Reason - ranked with Bob Enyart and everyone else that comes here to rant for their own personal wars.

Why? Because they have other places to go and other places to host such actual discussions with other people in their own echo-boxes. You don't even have that luxury. You come to a place that's renowned for discussion and an active negation of hivemind, which only indicates that nobody else really shares your opinions nor tolerates your biases either.
You are alone politically, logically, and morally.

Go ahead and pretend to be as those Christians and Muslims you rant about - you know, the backwards ones whom you complacent a negative opinion about due to illogical and impractical - but at what time of day can you say "I'm better than them. I actually listen to the opinions of others and weigh them against my own biases?"

You never can, and you never will.

Welcome to the League of Reason, Nemesiah.

Ok! I suck, got it!

Again, have a nice life Hytegia.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ok! I suck, got it!

Again, have a nice life Hytegia.

Save your face -
if my words held no effect over you, you wouldn't have gotten sore and made it personal in place of engaging in actual discussion. Your doubling sarcasm trying to mask your buttfrustration when confronted with a controversial worldview you can't deconstruct, so you'd rather just avoid the conversation entirely is pure and lovely ending.

I bite my thumb at you.
Nemesiah, I challenge you to a debate regarding The Morality of Modernized Warfare in contrast to it's predecessors, and it's implications on Morality. I say that if you were held to the standard of a formal debate then your complete and utter lack of reasonable stance would not only be recognized, but documented and categorized for future reference as to your unreasonable and religious stances.
You have to use actual evidence to support your views and propose plausible conclusions based upon that which is presented - meaning you can't do your little dance-and-show to avoid the topic, nor can you nit-pick and choose what to discuss.

 

[Nemesiah]

Ok! I suck, got it!

Again, have a nice life Hytegia.

Save your face -
if my words held no effect over you, you wouldn't have gotten sore and made it personal in place of engaging in actual discussion. Your doubling sarcasm trying to mask your buttfrustration when confronted with a controversial worldview you can't deconstruct, so you'd rather just avoid the conversation entirely is pure and lovely ending.

I bite my thumb at you.
Nemesiah, I challenge you to a debate regarding The Morality of Modernized Warfare in contrast to it's predecessors, and it's implications on Morality. I say that if you were held to the standard of a formal debate then your complete and utter lack of reasonable stance would not only be recognized, but documented and categorized for future reference as to your unreasonable and religious stances.
You have to use actual evidence to support your views and propose plausible conclusions based upon that which is presented - meaning you can't do your little dance-and-show to avoid the topic, nor can you nit-pick and choose what to discuss.

Sigh... No Hytegia, I'm not going to be trolled into a debate, specially in a a debate with such an slanted title "The Morality of Modernized Warfare in contrast to it's predecessors, and it's implications on Morality" since this is trying to justify modern war as a less brutal incarnation of war and I never mada a point about that and frankly that sounds like a topic that you were force fed while in GI training ore something like that so I wouldn't be debaiting you but rather the people that came up with a lot of justifications for war.

Frankly I'm bored by this, you always do the same, you atack; then fail to man up to it and call whomever you are "arguing" the source of the attack, its pathetic. You started this time by saying that I should go shout in the shower or some other nonsense snd then said I made it personal.

The truth is "I DON'T CARE" If you need to win then there you go, 5 internets to you. You beat me, you have proven you are smarter, better looking, stronger and a better lover than me; fine.

In the future feel free to coment on any an all post I make, the army man's point of view is always welcome but don't expect me to react to provocations, it's small children that believe that by screaming really loud they will get the attention of their betters, in the real world this is not the case.

So for a third time Hytegia, have a nice life.

 

[Nemesiah]

And now, comming back to the remains of my derailed thread, I saw this piece in youtube



I believe that this addreses the whole "Ambient of violence in society"

My point is; this man's response is one of extreme violence, what is america's society doing to promote such violence?

Then we hear, LAPD is shooting people they SUSPECT could be rogue cop, This is the society of violence I was talking about.

Is there no relationship?

Is the permanent war not is some way responsible for this outreageous violence?

What do you guys think?

 

[bluejatheist]

No. Violent crime rates have declined since the wars started. Most violent crime is due to general inner city problems such as poverty, gang activity and lingering racial tensions. Major spree shootings are more due to mental illness and poor firearm legislation. Veterans with PTSD have a higher chance of committing violent crimes and being arrested but form a very small part of the total population. Violence directly linked to the wars is rare, limited to incidents such as the Ft. Hood Shooting.

And yes, a human that killed other humans in the name of a vain cause where the only tangible benefit was that not as many fellow soldiers died as due to fewer enemies, died vainly at the hands of another veteran with mental illness from war and there's another batch of orphans to join the legions of others throughout the world, and few people will care once the news stops reporting it. Welcome to earth and the nature of humans.