Originally Posted by captiva303

nidal hassan wasnt in a warzone

No but he was in a military environment and filled with hate, possibly due to the illegal invasion of Iraq combined with the abuses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and incidents such as this.

If his fellow soldiers reflected the no remorse attitude by many on here, day after day, such as: "so what?", "sh!t happens", "how can you know?", sort of attitude this would surely have intensified his anger.

I would be interested to hear from those who believe that civilians can't judge military incidents, agree with our civilian legal system for civilian judgements? Wouldn't you have to be brought up in the same environment as the criminal to understand a criminals motives? Peer pressure, poverty, abusive upbringing etc?

BTW what % of the military nowadays actually get involved in combat fighting and are even potentially in a position to feel this level of hate? In Vietnam I heard it was as low as 15%. James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops."

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

I didn't want to open my mouth on this subject because I'm just a young'ing here, however I don't believe that any of us here can judge them for their actions, seeing as none of us were there, we weren't in their boots, nor do we know the situation at the time.

If we go by that logic then no one can be prosecuted. Murders that you see today shouldn't be "judged" because the Jury and Judge never been in that situation. That is if we go by this logic.

There would be no real justice system. Are you saying you have to be in a murderer's shoe to judge a murderer?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

If we go by that logic then no one can be prosecuted. Murders that you see today shouldn't be "judged" because the Jury and Judge never been in that situation. That is if we go by this logic.

There would be no real justice system. Are you saying you have to be in a murderer's shoe to judge a murderer?

No but what I am saying is that this is an extenuating circumstance seeing as the lines are being blurred on the modern battlefield.

Many others in this thread have already made the point of how even if they don't directly participate in the firefights, the civilians still ultimately contribute to the insurgency indirectly, causing our men to not be able to distinguish between the enemy and a truly neutral civilian.

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

No but what I am saying is that this is an extenuating circumstance seeing as the lines are being blurred on the modern battlefield.

That is obviously not true, as if it were, the international community would never have made specific Laws forbidding such behaviour on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

No but what I am saying is that this is an extenuating circumstance seeing as the lines are being blurred on the modern battlefield.

Many others in this thread have already made the point of how even if they don't directly participate in the firefights, the civilians still ultimately contribute to the insurgency indirectly, causing our men to not be able to distinguish between the enemy and a truly neutral civilian.

There is no circumstantial excuse for killing 24 civillians (with rifles).... If he did it out of rage then he should still be prosecuted for killing them and 90 months is NOT fair judgement. In U.S if you did that you would face life sentence/death penalty depending on state, even if the lawyers convinced them you were "insane".

All they did was slap his wrist and said "be on your way. Good job out there soldier". Do you know how that makes the U.S looks to foriegners? How can accuse others of atrocity and not handling problems, if we don't do it to our own?

Are you saying that if Iraqis did that to us you would be fine with this?

Forget all of that, just answer this; What do you think his (and all those involved) punishment should be? This way I will know if you are specifically defending this incident or are just generalizing that circumstances must be taken into account.

Sure the guy "lost control", but that does not lift him from holding responsibility for his actions.

Originally Posted by perseus

No but he was in a military environment and filled with hate, possibly due to the illegal invasion of Iraq combined with the abuses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and incidents such as this.

If his fellow soldiers reflected the no remorse attitude by many on here, day after day, such as: "so what?", "sh!t happens", "how can you know?", sort of attitude this would surely have intensified his anger.

Don't twist my words. When I said "sh!t happens" I was referring to the fact we are living in an imperfect world and acknowledging that bad things do occur.How about you take a look at the other side? these atrocities pale into insignificance when compared to what happens in other parts of the world on a day to day basis.

You do realise who you are standing up for right? As I have said what has happened is wrong but that is the way of the world. That is the way it works and has done since the establishment of society that is the historical norm. The life you and I have lived is not normal as compared to people through history and people who live now. And the only reason we live as we do is because of "sh!t happening"...

Does this mean we shouldn't try and do things right? no. You just have to come to expect that sometimes things go wrong. Horribly wrong and it has always been this way and will continue to do so.

And how can you speak in such definitive terms? You wouldnt know half as much as the prosecutions does. They didn't go up against some kangaroo court. They went before a real court and they were convicted of what could be proven against them . It is scary to think that you would have it otherwise.

Politicians make spin on events they wouldn't risk their careers on intervening same thing goes for people in high authority.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You know the one thing that separates us from despotic dictatorships is that we can and if we are to believe we are indeed free we should question the actions of those who carry out these tasks in our name.

One thing I really hate is this "I an not condoning crime but" it is right up there with "I am not racist but" and "I am not anti-XXXXXX but", you can travel down the path of believing that throwing on a uniform somehow makes you above the law and you can trot out every excuse from medical to mental but the the question you have to ask yourself is whether 24 dead men, woman, children, elderly and crippled have received justice.

However like Perseus I will interested to see what sentence is given to Nidal Hasan.

" Throwing on a uniform" ? I rest my case.

Originally Posted by captiva303

You do realise who you are standing up for right?

Innocent civilians of course. Why who do you suggest I am standing up for?

Originally Posted by perseus

I only hope you have the decency to apologise to the victims of the reprisals when it comes.

Apologize for what, precisely?

Still waiting for your answer Perseus, still waiting.