Viewer Discretion Advised: US Soldier throws puppy off a cliff in Iraq

[CraftyLandShark]

This is silly. All I wanted to do was clarify my position. I've been involved in quite a few stimulating debates in this subforum - as I understood it, that was the point of the subforum. I tried to continue the discussion in the vein it was going, but as I don't want this to turn into something ugly, I'll take it to PM.

 

[Pako]

We expect soldiers to kill other humans every day but want him killed when he takes the life of a puppy? I love animals, but I still value human life more. I don't like what he did, I don't think that just because he's in war he should be exempt from his actions, I do, however, If he's a good soldier, think a hefty fine would make a more lasting effect on him, but who knows.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

We expect soldiers to kill other humans every day but want him killed when he takes the life of a puppy? I love animals, but I still value human life more. I don't like what he did, I don't think that just because he's in war he should be exempt from his actions, I do, however, If he's a good soldier, I think a hefty fine would make a more lasting effect on him, but who knows.

Again given the (likely false) context that this is real, I would agree with you to the point that there seems to be a double-standard of expectation there.

Despite that, someone who would indulge in an act such as that, I would think, is probably not that great a soldier, if you define a soldier as one who does the bidding of his country while at the same time maintaining his country's honor.

It's well known among psychological criminologists that the earliest warning sign of a potential dangerous sociopath is animal cruelty and torture. War, clearly, is a very stressful situation which could easily bring these tendencies to the surface. It seems probable that if you transplanted this hypothetical puppy-killing soldier to the more stressful context of Vietnam, he'd quite possibly be involved in one of the many abuses of power that took place - the slaughter and rape of innocents, the unauthorized destruction of entire villages, etc. This is clearly a hypothetical scenario, but one that seems quite possible.

 

[Richardrfo]

Soldiers shooting the dog.

Again, viewer discretion.
http://www.yv.hu/index.php?nextpage...ba23f4b9474d6ff8c9&sessionid=8v8au7tu6160ve9d

 

[Beerz]

Soldiers shooting the dog.

Again, viewer discretion.
http://www.yv.hu/index.php?nextpage...ba23f4b9474d6ff8c9&sessionid=8v8au7tu6160ve9d

Now, THAT was real.



I'm sick now, and off to another forum or whatever...

 

[YSSMAN]

For killing a dog? Thats a bit harsh don't you think? There's no way thats equal punishment for killing a puppy.

For the troubles that have been brought to the military over the issue, I'd think it would be the only way to keep both sides happy. No, it wouldn't be the way I'd go about doing things specifically, but certainly I think that he should get kicked out (should the tape be proven real)... Thats why he's under investigation.

 

[dylansan]

Killing something for absolutely no reason needs to be punished. I don't like war and all that, but soldiers have reasons for killing in those situations. I'm pretty sure the dog posed no threat to the soldier, and he needs to leave the military now.

Edit: I have not watched either videos as I could not bear to watch violence towards an animal like that. Why the hell would anyone want to do this ever? The only time I would ever accept killing an animal is for hunting or if you are in danger. I don't think either was the case here.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I certainly agree with you Minicooper.

I wasn't going to watch them either, but as the first one was pretty clearly dismissed as a fake and then another one popped up, I went ahead and watched.

The second one looks real - at least insofar as there's a live dog that very quickly becomes a dead dog, with no apparent interruption in the framerate. The sounds of the dog's death whimpers were genuine enough to terrify my dog (three rooms away) so badly it barked for about half an hour.

Whether these were real soldiers in Iraq or not I don't know, but whoever they may be, they're nobody I'd like to know.

 

[Loon]

I couldn't agree with you more, Loon.

Very cool.👍

Why not? We discharged a guy maybe a year or so back just for getting into the Army and then telling his own fellow soldiers that the war was a useless and barbaric idea.

That seems a bit much as well, I can't really comment on it since I know none of the details, but if he was doing what was expected of him then I see nothing wrong with it. And I think I may agree with that guy...to some extent.

Opinions on the war aside, when you swear an oath and wear the badge of your country there is an inherent responsibility to act in a manner befitting the honor your place on what that badge means. I, for one, don't want my country represented by someone who likely disected cats as a hobby in his formative years, thanks. Discharge the worthless SOB if this proves to be real.

Clever subtext, Loon

What about soldiers with weird sexual fantasies that's you'd consider disgusting and lewd? Would you mind them representing our country? What I'm trying to get at is that there are probably plenty of soldiers in our military with "quirks" that probably wouldn't do much for our nation's image. I think its called a double standard, or something like that, I'm really a bit vague on that.

Oh and Devil's Advocate is a great game to play.👍

Btw, if this was a real video...
I'd say discharge (not dishonorable).
Yes killing a puppy is bad but I don't think it is a mistake equal to that of the various other crimes needed for dishonorable discharge.

Wouldn't it kinda be dishonorable anyways? If its not honorable discharge then I would think most people would assume it was for a less than good reason.

Anyways I pretty much agree with that statement.

For the troubles that have been brought to the military over the issue, I'd think it would be the only way to keep both sides happy. No, it wouldn't be the way I'd go about doing things specifically, but certainly I think that he should get kicked out (should the tape be proven real)... Thats why he's under investigation.

So you're looking at the issue as what would be best for the country in terms of global, for lack of a better word, image?

 

[Year.Zero]

Well, the first one just seems fake, too. The soldiers are happy and joyous, and making sarcastic remarks ("That was baaaad..."), as though they knew it was set up.

The second one clearly isn't, regardless of camera [d]effects: "Look out" before the other soldier shot (safety), camera man standing BEHIND the shooter (safety) , and background chatter discussing their surprise at the animal (instead of clearly making remarks aimed at the camera).

Hopefully, this was a mercy killing, as the animal appeared to be injured on the opposite side of its' rear quarters. Perhaps they thought shooting it while it was sleeping would have been the less painful thing to do...but as some of us saw, it didn't go as quickly as perhaps they'd planned ("Damn, it's still alive!" wouldn't indicate an inclination to keep torturing the animal).

 

[dylansan]

If they wanted to put it out of its misery, then I guess that's the one other reason I can see for killing an animal. Like I said, I didn't watch it, so I didn't know the whole story.
Good spot Year.Zero, if that does turn out to be the case.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

What about soldiers with weird sexual fantasies that's you'd consider disgusting and lewd? Would you mind them representing our country? What I'm trying to get at is that there are probably plenty of soldiers in our military with "quirks" that probably wouldn't do much for our nation's image. I think its called a double standard, or something like that, I'm really a bit vague on that.

Oh and Devil's Advocate is a great game to play.👍

I'm assuming this is more Devil's Advocate ... since it's pretty clear that a soldier who gets his rocks off to midget lesbians walking through raw ground beef is a far cry from a senseless animal killing.

And yes, that's a real porno. Swear to God. It's available to rent at the knicknack store/hippie barn/head shop near my school.

 

[Formula1Driver]

That is pretty terrible but I agree with the few that are saying a dishonourable discharge should not happen. Is a dog's life worth more than a person's life? The soldier is fighting in a war killing people and being shot at and we are more worried about a dog. Don't get me wrong I like dogs and most animals but I think some people are going abit overboard.

I dont really want to comment on the second video.

 

[Loon]

I'm assuming this is more Devil's Advocate ... since it's pretty clear that a soldier who gets his rocks off to midget lesbians walking through raw ground beef is a far cry from a senseless animal killing.

And yes, that's a real porno. Swear to God. It's available to rent at the knicknack store/hippie barn/head shop near my school.

Yeah its a bit of a stretch, but I had to come up with something. Practice makes perfect, I was hoping to use a bit of a hypothetical situation to work for me.

 

[Swift]

um...what's the pleasure in that? I mean a rat, sure. But a puppy. Even a dog of any kind. What's the point?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

That is pretty terrible but I agree with the few that are saying a dishonourable discharge should not happen. Is a dog's life worth more than a person's life? The soldier is fighting in a war killing people and being shot at and we are more worried about a dog. Don't get me wrong I like dogs and most animals but I think some people are going abit overboard.

A dog's life is certainly not worth more than a person's life, I agree. However, a dishonorable discharge is certainly not a life-destroying thing. My step-grandfather was dishonoroably discharged from the Marines in WWII for medical reasons - it was considered "dishonorable" only because he hadn't actually entered service when the condition was discovered, and had as such not "earned" an honorable discharge - at least that's how my grandmother tells the story Either way he certainly had no problem finding a job or supporting a family the rest of his life. A dishonorable discharge also carries no inherent penalties with it besides the discharge itself. Michael Vick certainly can't say he received the same slap on the wrist for a similar offense.

Point is, the 'punishment' - if you could call it that - certainly fits the crime - an "honorable discharge" is granted to a soldier who has served without serious infraction and proved himself worthy of the rank he earned, upon his expected and allowed retirement from service. That couldn't be considered the case here, no matter how it's viewed.

And again we go back to this important point - do you want someone with the mindset that foments such an action carrying a gun and high explosives? If nothing else, if I were a soldier, I'd want him out for the sake of the possible danger he might pose to me or my comrades-in-arms if this was more than just an isolated incident.

Yeah its a bit of a stretch, but I had to come up with something. Practice makes perfect, I was hoping to use a bit of a hypothetical situation to work for me.

A reasonable point though - there are doubtless plenty of soldiers who've comitted acts just as bad - and worse - that are still in the service.

 

[Loon]

um...what's the pleasure in that? I mean a rat, sure. But a puppy. Even a dog of any kind. What's the point?

Now this is a double standard I'm sure of it. Why is it that we care so much about a dog, but wouldn't bat an eye if this was happening to a rat, just hanging out, looking for food, not posing any threat to anyone?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I guess that's where the "image" issue comes into play.

In the minds of many, we're already in an unpopular immoral war, and seeing soldiers killing "cute little puppies" isn't what the US Armed Forces want or need. Killing a rat isn't going to raise any eyebrows, and I guess if you want to be superliteralist about it, rats and other vermin are more likely to carry contamination or disease that could be a threat. How's that for a stretch?

Disclaimer: I don't think image is in fact the issue here - just a bit of my own devil's advocate.

 

[Pako]

Again given the (likely false) context that this is real, I would agree with you to the point that there seems to be a double-standard of expectation there.

Despite that, someone who would indulge in an act such as that, I would think, is probably not that great a soldier, if you define a soldier as one who does the bidding of his country while at the same time maintaining his country's honor.

It's well known among psychological criminologists that the earliest warning sign of a potential dangerous sociopath is animal cruelty and torture. War, clearly, is a very stressful situation which could easily bring these tendencies to the surface. It seems probable that if you transplanted this hypothetical puppy-killing soldier to the more stressful context of Vietnam, he'd quite possibly be involved in one of the many abuses of power that took place - the slaughter and rape of innocents, the unauthorized destruction of entire villages, etc. This is clearly a hypothetical scenario, but one that seems quite possible.

I would agree.

 

[YSSMAN]

So you're looking at the issue as what would be best for the country in terms of global, for lack of a better word, image?

Essentially, yes. I'm not sure what else they'd do without even more negative press?

 

[<_Spike_>]

Now this is a double standard I'm sure of it. Why is it that we care so much about a dog, but wouldn't bat an eye if this was happening to a rat, just hanging out, looking for food, not posing any threat to anyone?

Well, not entirely true, rats can and do carry pretty bad diseases...that could be considered a threat. Granted, so could dogs, but rats aren't inclinded to bite you to pass it on. Not that I agree with this, I'm an animal lover and don't like seeing any animals getting killed, some form of punishment needs to be slapped on him though being discharged may be a bit harsh. That said, if he really is getting *that* bored that he has to go waste ammo shooting a puppy then perhaps he's better off at home anyway.

[rant that'll no doubt attract criticism]

In the end, it's ironic that some people say how animals are primitive, stupid, pointless, deadly yada yada yet it's us who are going around shooting them and stealing what is essentially their planet (they were here first after all). Again, we say "human life over animal life", we're destroying the planet...what right do we have to keep it instead of animals?

[/rant that'll no doubt attract criticism]

 

[Loon]

I guess that's where the "image" issue comes into play.

In the minds of many, we're already in an unpopular immoral war, and seeing soldiers killing "cute little puppies" isn't what the US Armed Forces want or need. Killing a rat isn't going to raise any eyebrows, and I guess if you want to be superliteralist about it, rats and other vermin are more likely to carry contamination or disease that could be a threat. How's that for a stretch?

Disclaimer: I don't think image is in fact the issue here - just a bit of my own devil's advocate.

I would think that a small dog in an environment such as that would have just as equal a chance being of flea ridden and diseased as a rat. I mean, what are the chances the majority of dogs there have had any shots to prevent illnesses and diseases.

A dog can be just as nasty as any rat, albeit the dog in the first video didn't look especially dingy and probably wouldn't be assumed diseased.

EDIT:@Spike-One could argue that cows, and other related animals, with the whole fuss about their flatulence having a massive effect on the atmosphere and all that, are indeed destroying the planet too.

 

[Casio]

I would not want scum like that to be given the honour of defending my country.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

[rant that'll no doubt attract criticism]

In the end, it's ironic that some people say how animals are primitive, stupid, pointless, deadly yada yada yet it's us who are going around shooting them and stealing what is essentially their planet (they were here first after all). Again, we say "human life over animal life", we're destroying the planet...what right do we have to keep it instead of animals?

[/rant that'll no doubt attract criticism]

I won't criticise, but I do think a response is probably in order - although this is an issue weighty enough to have it's own thread for sure!

By that logic, amoebas have more "right" to the planet than any other living thing, since they're the oldest. It's kind of a flawed argument, but I understand what you mean.

We "keep" the planet because of the element that separates us from all other living things - the ability to use reason - which allows us to adapt our surroundings to our needs - animals have no choice but to adapt themselves to their surroundings. While some may argue our ability there is "destroying the planet", as the Global Warming thread has been over time and time again, there's really no conclusive evidence whatsoever to bear that out. The only concretely identifiable problem - acid rain - is actually getting better, so much so that it's almost a nonissue now. Likewise, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica that kicked off this whole shebang? Last I read, it's closing rapidly.

 

[<_Spike_>]

EDIT:@Spike-One could argue that cows, and other related animals, with the whole fuss about their flatulence having a massive effect on the atmosphere and all that, are indeed destroying the planet too.

Us - We choose to do the stuff we do.
Cows - They can hardly hold it in for their entire lives.

---

Anyway, whilst it's remarkable how animals and non-human life forms of the planet do adapt to surroundings there is a limit to how much they, and even we, can adapt. Eventually, we're going to reduce their homes to nothing in search of our own selfish needs and development...then what? Are they supposed to adapt and live in our homes? Can't domesticate everything after all.

I'd respond onto the GW stuff but the above is barely on topic as it is I guess. Though on a side note, we're still not likely to see any noticeable changes with the o-zone for another 16 years or so...and in that time, who knows what can happen.

[Talking like that I think I need sleep...lol]

 

[Solid Lifters]

Since the military came out with a specific firearm for the purpose of killing dogs, I doubt they'll do much about the puppy killing. War is hell.

During the Vietnam conflict, the US navy sponsored development of the silenced pistol for use by its SEAL teams. Nicknamed the hush-puppy because of its intended function of killing enemy watch dogs, this modified version of the steel framed Smith & Wesson model 39 pistol was put to other clandestine used as well. Called the mark 22, mod. O pistol by the navy, the hush puppy had a slide lock to keep the mechanism closed and silent while firing. It fired a special green tipped 9mm parabellum projectile weighting 10.2 grams (158 grains that yielded a muzzle velocity of 274m.p.s. (900 f.p.s), below the speed of sound. Use of standard supersonic ammunition quickly degrades the effectiveness of the silencer insert. With subsonic ammunition, an insert is good for about 30 rounds; with standard velocity cartridges the insert may have to be replaced after six shots. Official navy designation for the silencer is mark 3, mod.0 . Ammunition and replacement silencer parts are supplied as accessory kit MK26, Mod.0. Each accessory kit includes 24 9mm pistol cartridges MK144, mod.0 and one silencer tube insert.
All the work on the model 39 hush-puppy was carried out by Smith & Wesson before the end of 1968. Subsequently, Smith & Wesson provided two prototype 13-shot pistols made from stainless steel. These weapons were improved to overcome problems such as extractor breakages, which had been experienced with the model 39. This modified pistol in a slightly different form as later commercially marketed as the model 59 Smith & Wesson 9mm parabellum pistol.


Combination over all length 12 ¾ inch
Total weight with out magazine 34 oz

WOX-1A silencer
Over all length 5&#8221;
Total weight 8oz

WOX-13A pmm pistol
Over all length 8 ½&#8221;
Total weight with out magazine 26 oz

WOX-13A pmm pistol and WOX-1A silencer
Combination over all length 12 ¾ inch
Total weight with out magazine 34 oz

 

[Kent]

Wouldn't it kinda be dishonorable anyways? If its not honorable discharge then I would think most people would assume it was for a less than good reason.

Indeed it is, and often it is assumed a discharge other than honorable is bad. However, a Dishonorable discharge is something that can ruin your life. If I'm not mistaken, dishonorable discharges are similar to felonies and many of the basic American rights are stripped from the offending individual.

Of course, I could be wrong and don't know for sure.

 

[Christhedude]

Soldiers shooting the dog.

Again, viewer discretion.
http://www.yv.hu/index.php?nextpage...ba23f4b9474d6ff8c9&sessionid=8v8au7tu6160ve9d

I'm not even gonna bother to write anything else then that... cause its just pur disturbing!

 

[Jay]

I would not want scum like that to be given the honour of defending my country.

Exactly.

 

[Sureboss]

Why are people still amazed by what soldiers do? It's always happened and always will.