Quote:
Originally posted by gekko
You're missing one part to what I said. The Koreans began firing at the Americans, they returned fire. When you're fighting a war, you're trying to keep yourself, and the man next to you alive. When this group of "civilians" has some people take out guns and shoot at you, you're not going to try to negotiate with them, you'll shoot back. The group of refugees were also not supposed to be at No Gun Ri, so if troops saw people start opening fire, they won't sit back and play nice. This is war, we're not playing cops-and-robbers in the backyard.
I don't care if you're Korean or Canadian, the fact remains you don't know exactly what happened at No Gun Ri, so you shouldn't be passing judgement that America massacred a bunch of civilians. I don't care if you're Korean or not, you're now living in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty, and these people haven't be proven guilty. Find a better example.
|
I don't know if you could substantiate your claim as to whether the Koreans began firing at the American soldiers first (if you cannot prove this, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of). I don't know exactly where you are getting your source of information (possibly
http://www.army.mil/nogunri/, which I found to be absurdly euphemistic). But I am basing my judgements of the incident on the things I have heard from people who have had contact with the survivors of the incident. I hardly think that your source of information is more accurate than the testimonials of primary evidence.
Here's another point: some soldiers - new to the war thing or whatever - were given orders to stop the refugees from passing through the area. They assumed this to mean they could use firearms - not with an intent to kill, but to war - to warn the refugees from passing through. There is not doubt that some of thse shots, in fact, killed civilians. In which case, it would be a wrongdoing.
In any case, I don't think you are arguing my main point: every country has its shady history. If you're not arguing this point and just pointing out my alleged fault in logic in providing an example to that point, that's fine. But to me, that seems trivial compared to understanding the big picture of things.