Cavegirl Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's not the soldiers laughing... it's probably the people who planted the IED (not that that is confirmed!) Not that i put much stock in the Daily Mail, but that's what was reported- On the footage, which surfaced two days ago, soldiers can be heard- off camera- laughing as the animal approaches a trap-apparently set up by themselves. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080702/Horror-U-S-soldiers-blow-dog-Iraq-film-it.html#ixzz1iE2OkVpe If you know better you should contact them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Actually that`s what i was going to say.You would prefer guide dogs and sniffer dogs and mountain rescue dogs to die(who save human lives not take them but nevertheless happen to be dogs) over people like Ian Huntley(who kills little innocent girls) just because he happened to be human. I must be stupid because i personally think many dogs are more worthy of life that some of the scum on this planet. No, I'm not saying that the deaths of dogs make me pleased - and I reckon that some of them do very important work. If I had to choose between killing a dog or a human being though, I'd always go for the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I just listed what they did. I'm not making any equivalence here. The fact that you even thought it worth mentioning in the same sentence worries me. Stop interpreting what I say Flamingjimmy. What a ridiculous demand! Of course I'm going to interpret what you say! That's how people communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I imagine that soldiers who work to remove IED's alongside their working dogs would have a lot to say about the barbarity of another group of soldiers who not only stand by and allow yet another completely innocent life to be taken meaninglessly but actually find it entertaining to watch. Personally I would have waited until the dog was safely out of the way. I can't see any reason from the article that waiting would have caused any problems for the soldiers whatsoever. It would have been the moral and civilised thing to do. I guess 10 years of war is creating a lot of barbarous people, people who have little value for life of any kind because they've made it entertaining to kill and maim innocents as a means of staving off their fears for their own survival. I feel sorry for these soldiers as they obviously need help. I wouldn't want one of these people returning to live in my neighbourhood without proper psychiatric help. I also feel sorry for anybody who lacks compassion when a life is taken, whether it be a guilty or innocent life. Life, in whatever form, is precious to who or whatever it belongs to, a life taken prematurely can never be brought back no matter how guilty and remorseful these soldiers will one day feel (because it's very unlikely they're all psychopaths) when they look back at this from more civilised surroundings. Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It's not the soldiers laughing... it's probably the people who planted the IED (not that that is confirmed!) !?! Can you substantiate this please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 No, I'm not saying that the deaths of dogs make me pleased - and I reckon that some of them do very important work. If I had to choose between killing a dog or a human being though, I'd always go for the dog. That`s fine.It would depend on who the person was for me.A dog or Ian Huntley and the dog wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 !?! Can you substantiate this please? We are told on Liveleak,the website on which the footage emerged, that this is Iraq. No actual evidence of it being. (Not that I doubt it) The people with the camera are NOT the troops making the IED safe. (even though they do sound American) Even though mentioned in the article, I see no evidence that the troops planted the IED themselves. Another unsubstantiated claim. Q. Can the troops in the vehicle even see the dog? NOTE: In no way do I find this funny or condone such actions intentionally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 No, I'm not saying that the deaths of dogs make me pleased - and I reckon that some of them do very important work. If I had to choose between killing a dog or a human being though, I'd always go for the dog. But if that dog was destined to save 20 people and the human was destined to kill 20 people you would have aided in the death of 40 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 What are these soldiers doing in Irak in the first place? They are terrorists. Poor dog. Surely the soldiers are entitled to a little light relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 That`s fine.It would depend on who the person was for me.A dog or Ian Huntley and the dog wins. But you are making the mistake that Huntley is real human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.