Afghan mass murderer named as Sgt Robert Bales

Scroll to see replies

So your basing your opinions of this guy on solely what you have read, wow your an intelligent individual
Like I said you don't know him you have never met him so your opinion that he isn't an evil man is just that an opinion it is not fact
Also so he saw his friends leg being blown up thats no justification too kill INNOCENT CHILDREN

What else do I have to form my opinions on?

Of course it's an opinion but I would like to think it is an informed opinion. "Evil" is exactly that, an opinion. What is deemed as evil by one might not be deemed as evil by another. Morality is essentially opinion so I really don't see where you're going with this.

I never said it was justification, I am saying that you have no idea what is going through his mind. You quite clearly have no understanding of PST or any similar mental health problems that can be associated with these conditions. Nor do you have any understanding behind what can drive a normal, upstanding decorated individual to commit these acts.

Frankly I find your ignorance and difficulty to grasp simple concepts alarming.

Reply 41

RollerBall

Original post by NuckingFut

I never said you did. Although I empathise with the plight of Bales' family, its nothing compared to the sympathy of those he killed.

There are 4 main aims of sentencing, one of them is infact retribution. This is perfectly reasonable. Why shouldnt people be punished for their actions? If they werent, nobody would follow any laws.

I sympathise equally with the plight of both Bales' family and those of which he has killed.

Whilst one of the 4 aims of sentancing might be retribution it does not mean I can't disagree with it.

I don't believe nobody would follow laws if there was less punishment. As I said before, punishment in my eyes should be for rehabilitation or protection of the collective when the former is impossible. Whilst this may end up acting as a deterrent indirectly I do not belive it to be the only reason.

If you only follow laws for fear of persecution then frankly, I would not consider you to be a particually nice individual.

Reply 42

NuckingFut

Original post by RollerBall

I don't believe nobody would follow laws if there was less punishment. As I said before, punishment in my eyes should be for rehabilitation or protection of the collective when the former is impossible. Whilst this may end up acting as a deterrent indirectly I do not belive it to be the only reason.

If you only follow laws for fear of persecution then frankly, I would not consider you to be a particually nice individual.

That is a very naive view you hold.
It is silly, really that you dont think people should be punished for their actions. One could easily misinterpret this as you condoning them.
Conversely, I dont believe punishment should be the sole purpose of sentencing. Rehabilitation and protection of society are very important. But a criminal has to be punished for them to realise they have done wrong. They shouldn't be mollycoddled. How would this make their victims feel?

Also, the fact that you think one person should get as much sympathy as his 16 completely innocent and defenceless victims is disturbing.

Reply 43

nosaer

Original post by JonathanNorth

I doubt an American court will let him off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, he'll likely get more time for shaming the US and the military. (Added on top of his 18 life sentences he'll be convicted of)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Shinwar_shooting

Reply 44

Agenda Suicide

Original post by sony-pony

Death to his 2 children!

It is upsetting that there were 5 people who actually positive negged this.

Reply 45

effofex

Original post by Anna_Karenina

Well maybe when the Muslim world stops being so damn weak, backwards and stubborn we will stop interfering. Until at least one of these attributes changes the west is going to keep doing what it wants where it wants. :rolleyes:

Not in China, India or Russia though...

Reply 46

Ministerdonut

Original post by doggyfizzel

Just a point, dehousing's purpose was not mass murder it was part of the drive to break the Germany manufacturing industry. After trying to target bombs, they realised it wasn't working. 5% of bombs hit their target and factories were being reopened within the week anyway. If you bomb housing and infrastructure you stop the workers from working which far more effective than stopping the equipment. Later on in the war, area bombing was abandoned in favour of targeted bombing.

As you know the germans were recruiting anyone able bodied to work in those factories, you kill the workers to lower production. Brutal but effective . You forget that at the beginning of these mass bombing raids the RAF were over in america testing the best mix in incendiary bombs in large mock towns made of similar materials to towns in germany.Experiments were done to see what weather conditions were needed for the greatest loss of life, it was seen as particularly effective that they could get at the civvies in the shelters more easily because the firestorms would also starve them of oxygen.

Not nice to speak about,especially when the allies were regarded as better and having more of a moral compass than the nazis but needed in total war. Churchill before he sold out the brave men of bomber command folk like my grandfather and the great leader that was sir arthur harris spoke of terror bombing in documents. It was thought that this kind of bombing would terrify the civilian population and lower morale.

The US airforce did the same, just were not as blatant as the RAF as they worried about US public opinion so pretended the bombing was more surgical using their much vaunted norden bomb sight in the B17. Such sensitivity and pretence was not needed for japanese who were seen as subhuman little savages and also by then the american people like us were damn sick of the war so wanted it ended as quickly as possible.Hence the far more devastating fire bombing in japan with the B29 and later the two atomic bombs. The back up plans without the bombs involved land invasion of japan with the use of chemicals such as mustard gas. The brits and the yanks had built up large stocks of the gas to use against the japs . As you can see by the end of ww2, almost anything was thought okay if it ended the war quickly.

Reply 47

iamwhoiam17

death to the b*sterd and his fam and the day that happens is the day im gonna paaaaarrttyy hard!!!

Reply 48

ReTurd

Original post by cl_steele

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17411009

why the **** do you have to say "afghan mass murderer.." he was american not afghan.

Reply 49

Killer Bean

Original post by RollerBall

This is a shame not only for the deceased/family but also for the soldier involved and his family. This is the story of a broken man not of a cold blooded killer. War does terrrible things not only to the body but to the mind of all of those involved. The fact people are so thick in this thread call for his death/death of his children is utterly moronic.

A real shame, it makes me feel worse that he might face the death penalty for this.

While I'll agree that retaliation by dealing death is moronic, the sympathy you have for this guy seems to me to be grossly misplaced. Of course the court should be sensitive to why he did what he did, but when you murder 16 defenceless people the very least you deserve is a very long time in prison.

Reply 50

cl_steele

Original post by ReTurd

why the **** do you have to say "afghan mass murderer.." he was american not afghan.

now now theres no need for profanities.
either way though its really none of your god damn business why i phrased it how i did so you can stfu :smile:

and because he murdered Afghans perhaps? or do you know not class them as human?

Reply 51

username129099

Original post by Ministerdonut

I have never heard about tests for greatest loss of life, ones to ensure the greatest spread of fire. The original was Cologne, less than 500 people died in bombing, but 130,000 left the city. If the objective was to kill it failed miserably. The objective was always to stop production, either by destroying housing or forcing people out of the city, the aim was never to wipe the people off the map as such a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan is not even comparable.

Reply 52

ShredMaster

Original post by Anna_Karenina

Unfortunately that is the reality outside of the liberal cocoon we live in here in the west. Wait till our fragile society is breached!! I guaruntee nobody will have such petty reservations. :smile:

Everybody, ignore this woman!

Reply 53

stevie2

Original post by cl_steele

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17411009

On other forums of course the muslims are saying how evil he was, lots of al taqqiya etc.

But 93% of civilian deaths in afghanistan is done by the taliban

http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2012/03/16/well_hear_an_afghan_thanks_when_hell_freezes_over/page/full/

Reply 54

JonathanNorth

Original post by nosaer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Shinwar_shooting

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Soldier-Sentenced-to-Life-in-Prison-for-Afghan-Atrocities-133719403.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45366033/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/kill-team-soldier-david-bram-gets-years-jail-over-afghan-misconduct/#.T6C6datSRbc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/jeremy-morlock-murder_n_839722.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/28/us-soldier-life-prison-afghan-civilian-murder

Reply 55

JagSan

If this was an Afghan or a Muslim, people would be saying he should be executed and being racist and bashing him. But just 'cos he's a f*cking soldier, people are defending him and saying it might not be true. Just 'cos he's a soldier, doesn't stop him from being a murderer!(even though he is one regardless)