Potential Memorial Day Pardons

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, I can find numerous versions of the events that unfolded to dispute "they complied" narrative.  I've made no assertion that you slurred all service members just that you slurred Lorance when you called them random. I appears you are confused on the definition of random and meant unwarranted, ect...But to call that firing random is BS and I'm pretty sure you know it.

The version that counts is the one given by the soldiers under Lorance's command.

Looks like "random" was the trigger here, the "slur."  The killing was random in the sense that ANY three Afghans riding a motorcycle might have been singled out for Lorance's attention that day. Not random in the sense that he fired his weapon in the air and a falling bullet punctured some unseen person's brainpan a half mile away. That's how the Court Martial viewed it as well. Finding out AFTER THE FACT that one or two of those men had Taliban connections does not make the killing non-random.

(11-19-2019, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You asked a question and it was answered. Quit trying to cling to the ambiguous "this" to prove your question was unanswered. You asked what they react to "this" referencing 3 cases in which Terrorists were killed, by means outside our ROE and I told you: They care a whole lot less (read no reaction) than we do. I'm sure the Afghani are happy that we hold our servicemen accountable (given that they even understand the concept). But they are much happier that another bomb making terrorist has been eliminated (I'm 100% sure they understand that concept).  

A question was certainly answered. Just not mine. The article referred to by "this" was not simply reporting what happened in three cases. The article was published to inform of the PARDONS and the questions raised by them.  That was the topic.

But you decided my question was about "means" of killing from the get go, and not about law and legal/political implications of the pardon--i.e. the "ambiguous" point of the article which I "cling" to. Not a question respecting your experience. Just a "divisive" question.  

That just dismisses considerable evidence that Afghans do care very much about our RoE--
both back then https://www.rt.com/news/afghanistan-us-military-drone-strikes-786/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/07/mil-070703-irin01.htm
and now https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/30/afghanistan-war-afghan-forces-kill-more-civilians-than-taliban/1864749001/

And so might be interested in whether a soldier convicted of war crimes in Afghanistan was let off the hook.

I do believe you have understood and "answered" as best you can. The Afghans you knew would sense no danger to themselves from lax ROE, or lax response to violations thereof.  Let's stop before we get to your pigeon-checkers metaphor.  Nothing left to discuss.