The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-01-2015, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Were you instructed to go over there and arbitrarily start killing people or were you given Rules of Engagement that including only firing if threatened?
 
 
I know it was my experience to follow very strict Rules of Engagement and to take every measure to reduce collateral damage.
 
But to answer your question only you and God know the malice that was in your heart when you “killed a lot of people.” And he is the only one that can give you the answer you seek. No one on this Message Board can; we can share with you our believes as they have been taught and we understand.

You know damn well we followed the ******' ROE!  You know better so don't act like an idiot or I will treat you like one.  You don't have to feel threatened in order to fire, otherwise we could never initiate contact, only react to contact.  You seem like an misinformed PV2 with that BS.

We took every measure to reduce collateral damage and yet collateral damage still happened because it is a reality of combat.

What soldier doesn't pull a trigger without the intent to kill?  I would call the intent to kill malice. Did you squeeze the trigger hoping you two could be friends? GTFOWTBS.

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs as you understand them and you're avoiding answering the question. Why was it morally acceptable for us to kill Iraqis IAW the ROE over bullshit WMDs?

And save the bullshit this time.