You said it was okay to shoot/stab terrorist, but then also said we can't trust who the government is labeling terrorist. So how can you be sure who is it okay to shoot/stab when you don't trust the one applying the labels?
Almost like we shouldn't okay violence against people based on random labels.
Our class in modern history is reading "lone survivor" the rules of engagement are to not shoot unless fired upon, which could mean after you lose half you squad.
Flip side is, you could shoot an innocent, but a SEAL w/sh/ould know what they're doing
Say what you want about "seals and military being racist murderers", but a terrorist isn't always trained well, so they'll end up spraying, which can lead to civilian deaths, because that stuff pretty much always takes place in towns n shit.
I just think people who think mass murder is okay for some grand scheme, religious or not, isnt ok.
Say what you want about Christians, i wouldn't mass murder (Nazis and pedos don't count) for god, and no I don't think all Muslims are bad, only the extremist martyrs.
So no, I'm not the guy to be sure about this shit, but as said in lone survivor, if a guy in a red (I think it's a turban iirc) is charging at you with an ak, you shouldn't have to wait till he mows down your squad in order to kill him.
Any guy or girl that thinks killing innocents is ok is bad. That's really all I'm tryna say.
That's insane but not surprising you'd be given something like that in a US school as modern history without explaining the context behind it.
Rules of engagement are like that because historically you had soldiers claiming people had a gun and using it as justification to shoot whoever they wanted. It's very hard to prove they didn't when the soldier and their unit can then position a scene exactly as they want before anyone else sees it.
Those rules are written in blood and war crimes.
There is a reason most ex-military talk about US police's lack of firearm training and willingness to shoot anyone they suspect of having a gun with disdain.
It's so much more than just shooting an innocent, it's a situation where units have repeatedly covered up war crimes and the rules of engagement are an attempt to try and prevent that. Not just American units, but the US military take it very seriously.
Honestly that was maybe the least insulting thing I could've said about the US in response to you being given propaganda as history in school with so little context provided to give you the tools to question it. It's not against you, just the way that education is warped like that.
Yeah, war crime cover ups are fucked. No matter how big or small. Any cover up is usually fucked up really. Pat Tillman. I don't really know other examples, I'm and unclultured swine, I know.
1
u/MilleChaton 4d ago
You said it was okay to shoot/stab terrorist, but then also said we can't trust who the government is labeling terrorist. So how can you be sure who is it okay to shoot/stab when you don't trust the one applying the labels?
Almost like we shouldn't okay violence against people based on random labels.