(09-24-2020, 03:21 AM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: @"Ninurta", your reply tells me you didn't watch the videos I provided. All your questions should be answered there. Or, maybe it was in the other video I didn't post. There was one that said he didn't take the gun with him, someone gave it to him after he arrived. All the other questions are answered in the video though.
None of them are answered.
I saw that it is alleged that someone else gave him the gun. WHO gave it to him, and WHY did they think that was a good idea? What is there about him that made that individual think he was mature enough to carry a gun into a war zone? I'm not saying he wasn't, because I don't know if he was or not, I'm saying that we don't know that he was, or why someone thought he was. Those are unanswered questions so far, and they need answering.
WHY was he in a war zone on purpose? He's not a soldier, nor is he a cop or a security guard - so WHY was he there to begin with, and WHY was he armed there? I know as well as any, and perhaps better than some, that guns are for killing folks, and if I go into a hot zone, I'm going armed just like he did - but I don't expect to get out of that zone unscathed, or without having to put some folks down. In other words, going to war is not "self defense" except in the larger, national sense, and even then it's only sometimes - not every war is legitimate national defense. Individually, if you're going to war, and you're going armed, you'd best be expecting to kill some folk, because if you don't they'll sure as hell kill you. If you aren't prepared for that, you'd best stay home and watch the war on TV.
How can he claim "self defense" if he intentionally put himself on the Big Red Dot? Soldiers are sworn and sanctioned by their nation, cops are sanctioned and sworn by their governments, and security guards are bonded by their state - all of those are covered, and may expect to have to respond with deadly force at any moment, but Joe With a Gun generally is not, if he goes into the Hot Zone with intent to kill, which is demonstrated by going in armed. That may be sanctioned in cases of going to rescue someone in danger, but if there is enough time to plan, there are far better ways of doing it than putting a gun in a kid's hands and pointing him in the direction of gunfire.
So - who thought Kyle with a Gun was a good idea to send into a war zone?
As a further example, when my son was 17, he was mature enough to handle it... but no way in hell would I have sent him into a meat grinder like that as a parent, knowing what he would have to deal with, and deal with for years afterwards. Not even if I was going myself. I did shit like that in hopes he would never have to - no way in hell would I have sent him into it on purpose. not without a DAMNED good reason - so what was the damned good reason for him being there? I've not yet heard one - not saying that there isn't one, just that I've not heard it - and I've been following it pretty closely.
I can only hope one comes out at trial, because it hasn't come out yet.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’