BREAKING: US MARINE THROWS PUPPY OFF A CLIFF

[Jenne]

It's not the action of the marine in question that is the real subject of this thread, imo.  It's the apparent stigma that attaches itself to a war vet that going apeshit is ok, even if that going apeshit results in tragic death and loss.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Why does that make me hungry...?

RP, thinks the cuter something is, the tastier it is.  Will eat tasty things for hooooooooouuuuuurs, if you know what I mean. 

The primate reaction to cute and fluffy always struck me as misdirected primal instinct.

You salivate, your heart rate increases, pupils dilate, somewhere deep down inside ... you know exactly what you're supposed to do with it

baby ones provoke the deepest reaction. The babies are easier to catch. Coincidence?

Dude, this makes so much sense it's not even funny. I know someone who kept baby ducks for a while, and he frequently expressed a strong desire to bite their heads off.

[Jenne]

Sounds like he watched too many documentaries on Ozzy Osborne.

[Random Probability]

It's not the action of the marine in question that is the real subject of this thread, imo.  It's the apparent stigma that attaches itself to a war vet that going apeshit is ok, even if that going apeshit results in tragic death and loss.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement entirely in this case, but you do make a good point as a general principle.

The subtext of my argument is that stray dogs are considered vermin due to the risks of rabies and dog attacks.  I suspect that the overwhelming majority of troops are rather partial to dogs, so they might have a bit of a problem putting them in the same category as rats and cockroaches.

Then again, it is a statistical certainty that at least one guy out there actually gets off on killing dogs (furry snuff fetish goes where?).

[Jenne]

The majority of troops are just like the majority of humans in general.  Pathological people are a subset of any other group by label.  So, you're going to have your freaks and your idiots and your assclowns everywhere, and they're usually a smaller percentage of the more boring, law-abiding whole.

I see the main issue here as the aftermath of the act rather than the act itself.  As I said before, the act itself was patently BAD, not advisable, illegal, whatever.  But the consequences and ensuing furor, as well as what's at the root of said furor, is the crux of the matter.

Throwing live puppies off a cliff is rather a red herring to the real, underlying discussion, in other words.

[Triple Zero]

AAAAAAAIYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp
                        \

dumbfuck soldier ----------------------->

<------------------------- cliff

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

RP,

You seem to be assuming that the soldier's entire chain of command was aware of the puppy-tossing incident prior to the video catching the public eye. I can't even begin to imagine how you came to that conclusion.

The other notion you keep bringing up is that dogs in Iraq may be rabid and are therefore dangerous and in need of extermination. Need I even point out what a buttfucking stupid argument this is? If a soldier encounters a vicious or visibly sick dog/rat/cat/bunny that is interfering with his orders, he should kill it. Otherwise, soldiers are not the Orkin man. 

Lastly, even if there was a valid reason for killing the animal, the METHOD BY WHICH HE CHOSE TO DO SO REFLECTS A DISCIPLINE PROBLEM. If not addressed and counseled, that soldier is a discipline problem, and it appears that his fellows and superior officer are also discipline problems for allowing his behavior to go unchallenged and undisciplined.

[Random Probability]

RP,

You seem to be assuming that the soldier's entire chain of command was aware of the puppy-tossing incident prior to the video catching the public eye. I can't even begin to imagine how you came to that conclusion.

The other notion you keep bringing up is that dogs in Iraq may be rabid and are therefore dangerous and in need of extermination. Need I even point out what a buttfucking stupid argument this is? If a soldier encounters a vicious or visibly sick dog/rat/cat/bunny that is interfering with his orders, he should kill it. Otherwise, soldiers are not the Orkin man. 

Lastly, even if there was a valid reason for killing the animal, the METHOD BY WHICH HE CHOSE TO DO SO REFLECTS A DISCIPLINE PROBLEM. If not addressed and counseled, that soldier is a discipline problem, and it appears that his fellows and superior officer are also discipline problems for allowing his behavior to go unchallenged and undisciplined.

Infantry squads are extremely tight-knit organizations.  It is practically impossible to so much as fart without at least three other guys knowing about it.  In this case, the other Marines in the video are, without a doubt, the rest of his fireteam.  Squads don't maneuver very far from their platoons, and that dog made a helluva racket doing its Screaming Eagle impersonation, so it is difficult to imagine that more Marines were not aware of the incident.  So either everyone in his fireteam knew and didn't care, or everyone in his squad knew and didn't care, or (more than likely) everyone in his platoon knew and didn't care.  This points towards an official position in favor of killing stray dogs.

While I doubt Marines are performing dedicated anti-dog operations (that even sounds lulzy), I had heard that in some areas stray animals were a problem. I can definitely see the utility of reducing potential disease vectors.  In fact, I believe most cities in the US have a dedicated bunch of folks who routinely round up strays and poison them.  Iraq seems to be a bit deficient in that area.  As for the danger, there have been cases of personnel being exposed to rabies, and the gov't has taken a rather anti-dog stance.  Remember, these are the same people who mandated Anthrax vaccines even though biological warfare wasn't a credible threat.  They do tend to be a bit pro-active when it comes to diseases.

Your last paragraph does raise some interesting questions, and I believe it to be at the heart of the matter.  I for one am interested now more than ever in discovering just what the Marines of 1/3 were thinking during their last deployment.  They had their shit wired pretty fucking tight.  Hell, ask your dad.  They didn't lose a single man during a seven month deployment.  They were either hyper-vigilant and/or very lucky.  My guess is that they routinely put down dogs during patrols and the puppy incident, while being unorthodox, didn't wrinkle any eyebrows.  So I reiterate: dogs == cockroaches. 

[Random Probability]

AAAAAAAIYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp
                        \

dumbfuck soldier ----------------------->

<------------------------- cliff

                     "Don't play with your food, Private Pyle!"
                      /

[Cain]

BOOM DROP KICK.

Personally, I had been rooting for the "he's a shithead" angle since the start.  I just mentioned he was a marine for "brave puppy killing troops" humour.

[East Coast Hustle]

Looking at this whole thing honestly, the problem I have with all of it, is that here we have a case where a Marine performed an action that was considered a non-event by the government at the time, but now they are going to ruin the lives of a handful of people over public sentiment rather than their own rule of law which originally found no fault with the incident.  Just the same, I feel confident in saying that the government will invoke plausible deniability with regards to this incident.

I have a problem with this arguement, since it applies that somehow the military and more important the government somehow should not be subjected to public sentiment, instead of the military and government is suppose to serve the public
if this marine did what he did, wether the dog had rabies or was the spawn of satan, in his backyard he probably would have been arrested if found out
we as a society have determened that form of behavior towards dogs and many forms of life are unacceptable, except for maybe for medical advancement or if your life are in imediate danger, or against rats, vermins or insects, ect.

having nothing to add to this thread that hasn't already been said (mostly by Nigel), I'd just like to point out that rats are not vermin and are, in fact, better company than most people.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Rats are too vermin - they breed out of control, eat grain and spread disease.

Just like humans

[Cain]

Unlike most humans however, rats are loyal, intelligent and amusing creatures

[Cain]

And they can spread biological weapons without even trying.  PLAGUE!!'@@1"2!!

[Thurnez Isa]

Looking at this whole thing honestly, the problem I have with all of it, is that here we have a case where a Marine performed an action that was considered a non-event by the government at the time, but now they are going to ruin the lives of a handful of people over public sentiment rather than their own rule of law which originally found no fault with the incident.  Just the same, I feel confident in saying that the government will invoke plausible deniability with regards to this incident.

I have a problem with this arguement, since it applies that somehow the military and more important the government somehow should not be subjected to public sentiment, instead of the military and government is suppose to serve the public
if this marine did what he did, wether the dog had rabies or was the spawn of satan, in his backyard he probably would have been arrested if found out
we as a society have determened that form of behavior towards dogs and many forms of life are unacceptable, except for maybe for medical advancement or if your life are in imediate danger, or against rats, vermins or insects, ect.

having nothing to add to this thread that hasn't already been said (mostly by Nigel), I'd just like to point out that rats are not vermin and are, in fact, better company than most people.

110% agree
the damn landlord here wont let me have a few pet rats... yet half the people here have cats