A pretty inflammatory headline wouldn't you agree? I mean shooting children is a pretty serious accusation. However, they left off a key bit of the facts.
A young soldier was so traumatized by the prospect of his first Iraqi posting, he took an overdose which killed him.
Private Jason Chelsea couldn't come to terms with the thought that he might have to "shoot children" carrying suicide bombs.
He was so afraid, on the eve of the tour of duty with the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment he took a lethal quantity of paracetamol and iron tablets.
So you don't want to shoot children carrying suicide bombs? How about you shoot them in the leg or arm? Something that will stop them but not kill them? Sure, everyone can agree that killing children is something that monsters do, but there are less then lethal ways to take care of a situation like that if indeed it comes up.
A sad waste of a life simply because of a paranoid thought that something like that might happen, even if it's extremely unlikely to ever happen.
Travis
2 comments:
Fuck 'em. If they have an explosive strapped to their body put the bullet right between their eyes. My brother served two tours over there, starting at the beginning of the invasion. He never gave kids candy and would never let them near his truck. If they ran up to his vehicle, he locked, loaded and took aim. When you are dealing with psychotics who will use any guise to deliver death, you do not play the nice guy. Sorry if this is cold. Nobody wants to kill a child but if the choice is killing one or coming home in a body bag, the fucking kid dies.
You're right it does sound cold, but you bring up an excellent point. Children are being used to kill US soldiers and in the heat of war, sometimes these bad things happen.
Post a Comment