US soldier kills Baghdad tiger

[Kamakazie Sith]

that did nothing wrong?

Huh? It attacked a person. Animals that attack people are put down. That's what you always do to them. The incident might have been avoidable and is hardly a great thing, sure, but once the animal has attacked and mauled a person, it's sleep-sleep time.

It's stupid policy. What part about wild animal do people not understand? Christ.....

[Kamakazie Sith]

A tiger harms my buddy. You're goddamn right I'd shoot it. It'd be the wrong thing to do, and I'd expect to be punished, but its what I'd do nonetheless.

I agree. I would probably do the same thing, if it were attacking him at the time. However, I wouldn't go and shoot it if he was already released.

[Solid Snake]

Acting stupid, yes. But if some animal bit my buddy's fucking hand off, i'd fill the animal with half my magazine, then thwap my friend.

[Keevan_Colton]

All right, so the zoo had at least minimal quantities of veterinary supplies. That does prove that there was little to no danger of being injured while treating sick animals. I want you to explain to me, however, why trainers or zoo personnel are injured by animals if human contact never occurs.

Your usual shifting of the goals bullshit.
I've just shown that they have what you implied they would not, and what is needed to safely handle animals.

As for your stupid point at the end....as you so aptly prove, fucking morons exist everywhere. Accidents do on occasion happen....such as for example shooting down british planes or blowing up british convoys....I mean, after all, incompetence couldnt possibly be a factor when things go wrong

Frankly, how the fuck you can see to type with your head that fucking far up your ass is beyond the scope of my imagination.

[Axis Kast]

I've just shown that they have what you implied they would not, and what is needed to safely handle animals.

The whole point of the smaller debate over whether the Iraqi zoo was well-equipped developed out of the question of whether the trainers would ever have physical contact with the animals that might result in the potential for aggressive behavior to manifest itself. In sickness was one possibility. That was proven irrelevant however by the fact that elephants in German zoos were put down for aggressive behavior. You’ll also note that a Pittsburgh zookeeper was crushed by an elephant while walking that animal. You cannot prove that there would never be an incident in which an unsafe situation could develop.

As for your stupid point at the end....as you so aptly prove, fucking morons exist everywhere. Accidents do on occasion happen....such as for example shooting down british planes or blowing up british convoys....I mean, after all, incompetence couldnt possibly be a factor when things go wrong

I see you don’t read the arguments.

Human incompetence is almost always the problem. That doesn’t change the result of an attack however: the breakdown of psychological barriers that discourage an animal from making aggressive moves toward a human being. The animal is still made more dangerous by the attack – even if the human being was the fulcrum for that eventuality.

[Slartibartfast]

It's not a fucking pet, it's a wild animal in a cage. Whether it fears human or not is irrelevant. Whether it can attack humans or not is irrelevant. Whether it eats human flesh or Fruit Loops is irrelevant.

This is the only valid argument: If there is no immediate danger, you can shoot it because you ARE PISSED OFF AT IT. Because shooting it will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. If it's a very sick dying animal that has been diagnosed no possible cure, you can kill it to put it ouf of its misery (if you happen to OWN that animal or find it in the wild) but the fact remains that either the soldier shot the animal to release its grip on his partner, or he shot it AFTERWARDS because he thought it was his GOD-GIVEN right.

Trying to rationalize it as some kind of punishment for a wild animal comitting a FUCKING "CRIME" is FUCKING STUPID. Get that?

[Durandal]

Maybe if the soldier had put his arm in a meat grinder, the other soldier would have shot it? After all, it's necessary to send a clear message to all the dangerous carnivores (and dangerous food processing appliance) that they must not stand in the way of freedom.

Actually, this tiger was part of the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This was very amusing. Thank you.

And Kast, there's a big difference between what happens in a national park as opposed to what happens in a zoo. In a national park, animals roam freely, while in a zoo, they do not. In a zoo, the human patrons are in full control of their interactions with the animal. They can either do the intelligent thing and not stick their hands into the cage, or they can be dumbshits and stick their hands in the cage.

In a park, on the other hand, a bear can just wander up to a tent and start harassing people, which is why there is justification for putting it down if it does so and injures someone. In zoos, humans are in full control. In parks, they are not. If you get attacked by a bear in a park, that may be cause for concern over the bear that attacked you and justification for punishing it, but if you're so fucking stupid that you think it's a good idea to wave appendages around in close proximity to vicious predators, then the only animal that should be punished is you. The soldier deserved what he got.

[Durandal]

This is the only valid argument: If there is no immediate danger, you can shoot it because you ARE PISSED OFF AT IT. Because shooting it will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. If it's a very sick dying animal that has been diagnosed no possible cure, you can kill it to put it ouf of its misery (if you happen to OWN that animal or find it in the wild) but the fact remains that either the soldier shot the animal to release its grip on his partner, or he shot it AFTERWARDS because he thought it was his GOD-GIVEN right.

That's actually immaterial. If he shot it to get it to let go, then he could have just as easily fired a round in the air to draw its attention away from the soldier. If that didn't work, then I'd see justification for plugging the thing, but either way, hauling off and shooting it was not the right approach.

[Keevan_Colton]

So Kast you now think all animals in captivity should be shot?
I cannot garuntee that the cockerspaniel up the street will not bite some kid if he pokes it in the eye with his finger, so lets kill all pets too....


Your argument is pure fucking slipperly slope bullshit....some stupid motherfucker gets bitten by a large predator through his own stupidity, ergo the predator, despite not being a fucking threat to anyone not dumb enough to stick parts of themselves into the cage, should be killed.

Wonderful lack of logic.

Also, elephants are not carnivores, therefore it is not perfectly normal behaviour for them to try and eat things that annoy them so dont drag them into this bullshit.

[Axis Kast]

It's not a fucking pet, it's a wild animal in a cage. Whether it fears human or not is irrelevant. Whether it can attack humans or not is irrelevant. Whether it eats human flesh or Fruit Loops is irrelevant.

Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.

Whether an animal fears and can attack human beings or not is irrelevant to debate over animal aggression? Fear of – or tacit “respect” of – humans by animals is absolutely central to their being made docile in zoos.

This is the only valid argument: If there is no immediate danger, you can shoot it because you ARE PISSED OFF AT IT. Because shooting it will MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. If it's a very sick dying animal that has been diagnosed no possible cure, you can kill it to put it ouf of its misery (if you happen to OWN that animal or find it in the wild) but the fact remains that either the soldier shot the animal to release its grip on his partner, or he shot it AFTERWARDS because he thought it was his GOD-GIVEN right.

The soldier in Baghdad made an off-the-cuff decision that was probably grounded more in drunken shock and rage than rational analysis. That doesn’t mean his solution wasn’t also favored by circumstance elsewhere.

And Kast, there's a big difference between what happens in a national park as opposed to what happens in a zoo. In a national park, animals roam freely, while in a zoo, they do not. In a zoo, the human patrons are in full control of their interactions with the animal. They can either do the intelligent thing and not stick their hands into the cage, or they can be dumbshits and stick their hands in the cage.

In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.

Human fault has nothing to do with this argument. It still results in the same consequence whether or not it was stupid. You’ve been repeating yourself endlessly, just like everybody else in this thread who can’t distance themselves from the subject of whose responsibility this whole situation actually happens to be. Concession accepted.

In a park, on the other hand, a bear can just wander up to a tent and start harassing people, which is why there is justification for putting it down if it does so and injures someone. In zoos, humans are in full control. In parks, they are not. If you get attacked by a bear in a park, that may be cause for concern over the bear that attacked you and justification for punishing it, but if you're so fucking stupid that you think it's a good idea to wave appendages around in close proximity to vicious predators, then the only animal that should be punished is you. The soldier deserved what he got.

Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?

What does the soldier’s deserving punishment have to do with the tiger’s psychological condition? I’ve seen the same argument fifty times. And I accept your concession for the fiftieth time.

Your argument is pure fucking slipperly slope bullshit....some stupid motherfucker gets bitten by a large predator through his own stupidity, ergo the predator, despite not being a fucking threat to anyone not dumb enough to stick parts of themselves into the cage, should be killed.

Wonderful lack of logic.

Also, elephants are not carnivores, therefore it is not perfectly normal behaviour for them to try and eat things that annoy them so dont drag them into this bullshit.

The predator’s psychological barrier to aggression against humans was significantly eroded. Especially when considered in step with the situation in Baghdad as it then stood, shooting the animal after the fact would not have been at all out of line with logical consequential behavior.

Elephants aren’t carnivores, but the reinforcement of bad behavior by lack of punishment is unacceptable most of the time. In two cases I posted, elephants were put down for sustained aggressive activity. If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.

So Kast you now think all animals in captivity should be shot?
I cannot garuntee that the cockerspaniel up the street will not bite some kid if he pokes it in the eye with his finger, so lets kill all pets too....

Wild animals under extreme stress that have attacked human beings? Yes, I do.

Many living thing is dangerous if left unattended, although your average cockerspaniel is no danger to competent adults.

[Slartibartfast]

Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.

Code: Select all

   Wild
   Animal
    |
    v

------- <--- cage
|   W |
|     |
|     | H <--- human being
|     |
-------

[Admiral Valdemar]

This thread is certainly interesting, I only checked it because I've just seen The Ghost & The Darkness again.

But I'll just say what seems to be the bedrock view here, the soldiers were obviously screwballs when it came to common sense, a commodity not too common in this day and age.

[Edi]

It's not a fucking pet, it's a wild animal in a cage. Whether it fears human or not is irrelevant. Whether it can attack humans or not is irrelevant. Whether it eats human flesh or Fruit Loops is irrelevant.

Prove to me that wild animals in cages have no contact with human beings.

It'll be a pleasure to tear you a new asshole over this issue, you fuckwit. First off, you're making hasty generalization here by demanding that we prove to you that any wild animal of any type must have no contact whatsoever with humans, when the subject of the thread is actually dangerous predators specifically, and to a lesser extent other animals that while not predators, may be dangerous.

On the subject of dangerous predators (the great cats, bears, wolves, hyenas and similar) in zoos, they do not have human contact unless sedated, or circumstances are extraordinary in the extreme (e.g. they escape due to somebody's incompetence), because they are known to be dangerous by default. It is assumed that if they get within reach of a human, they will maul and savage that human, and that's why there are designated safety margins outside the cages that you're supposed to not go into, and any areas of the cage that are not surrounded by such safety margins consist of thick plexiglass capable of withstanding the animal impacting on it full force. When these animals are fed, it happens so that they are lured to a separate enclosed area with some tidbits, locked there while the keepers put food in the cage, and only let back into the normal enclosure once the keepers are gone and the cage locked again. No direct contact at any point, and when the kitties need medical attention, they get introduced to a tranq dart first.

Now if it's deer or fluffy little bunny rabbits or horses we're talking about, these are not considered dangerous by default, and contact with even zoo visitors may or may not be allowed. The Korkeasaari zoo in Helsinki is set up so that you can be in contact with these types of animals and antelopes and such if the animals are so inclined, but there are warning signs in the camel, guanaco and wild horse enclosures about the animals being ornery and bad-tempered and that you might get
a) spit on and bitten (camels)
b) spit on (guanaco)
c) bitten (wild horses)

Anybody who doesn't heed that has only himself to blame, and anybody who goes into the safety margin areas in the cat area is going to get chewed out by the staff. My girlfriend's father once went into the safety margin area of the lion cage in order to get a better picture of the lions, but his wife ordered him out, and good thing too, because he'd not noticed a lion cub trotting near the bars of the cage to investigate what this interesting new plaything was. He'd have gotten clawed, because the cub thought he was an interesting toy (edible too). He sure got a chewing out ( instead of a chewing up) for that one.

Whether an animal fears and can attack human beings or not is irrelevant to debate over animal aggression? Fear of – or tacit “respect” of – humans by animals is absolutely central to their being made docile in zoos.

Fuck off, as you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. The animals kept in zoos are not made docile, they are left to be as their nature dictates rather than domesticated. Some of the animals, such as deer, get halfway domesticated as a consequence of their constant proximity to humans. Others, such as bears and great cats are never domesticated just by proximity if they're raised by others of their kind, as happens in zoos. You'd need to hand rear and train one from infancy to get it domesticated, and it'd still be dangerous, just less so than a wild one (and more so in some respects), and yet other animals are never domesticated and always dangerous (e.g. crocodiles).

The soldier in Baghdad made an off-the-cuff decision that was probably grounded more in drunken shock and rage than rational analysis. That doesn’t mean his solution wasn’t also favored by circumstance elsewhere.

The first soldier in the Baghdad zoo acted like a fucking idiot and deserved what happened to him, and the one who shot the tiger acted like a fucking idiot and deserves to be chewed out, demoted, and posted in some weather station on Antarctica for the rest of his career for being an absolute fuckwit.

Decisions to put down animals in zoos is never made on the basis the soldier made his, and while some animals are put down because they are too dangerous (elephants being a whole different issue than great cats and not really comparable), such decisions are never made lightly.

In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.

True, because the animals have enough territory to roam and are by nature inclined to avoid humans, who they mostly see as a threat. If you've ever observed animals in nature, you'll know that if it moves and isn't prey, they will get the fuck away from it because chances are that it's something that eats them.

Human fault has nothing to do with this argument. It still results in the same consequence whether or not it was stupid. You’ve been repeating yourself endlessly, just like everybody else in this thread who can’t distance themselves from the subject of whose responsibility this whole situation actually happens to be. Concession accepted.

Human fault has everything to do with it, you fuckwit. Responsibility for events must be determining factor when considering what consequences are applied. If my neighbor's dog bites me without provocation, I'll demand medical costs and that they keep the animal under control and not let it near people and I'll be pissed off as fuck about it, but if I go and kick the dog, I'll have only myself to blame for any and all consequences I get (including being bitten, getting charged with cruelty toward an animal and fined, and needing to pay for a doctor to patch me up). You can take your crowings about accepting concessions and shove them up your voluminous ass, because you have won nothing, and just keep shifting goalposts with every fucking post. Fuck off.

Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?

Elephants are a rather specific and extraordinary example that cannot be applied across the board. I happened to read through most of those links you provided, and in almost all cases that an elephant was put down, it was demonstrably unable to function in any capacity in a zoo (even with other elephants), or just became too dangerous to handle (like great cats). An elephant that is too dangerous to handle has to be put down because there is no way to move it from place to place or give it necessary attention without sedating it first, and often sedation makes the needed procedures impossible, so there's an unresolvable catch-22 situation. This is not the case with most animals.

What does the soldier’s deserving punishment have to do with the tiger’s psychological condition? I’ve seen the same argument fifty times. And I accept your concession for the fiftieth time.

Fuck off, Kast. The tiger's default psychological condition is that it's going to bite and claw any non-tiger that gets within its reach, and if it doesn't, it's an exceptional case. Everyone knows this except you, and I'm going to accept your concession right now.

The predator’s psychological barrier to aggression against humans was significantly eroded.

By human actions, fuckwit. In the wild, animals tend to avoid things that are not their prey, or chase it off if they think they can, and a tiger would either avoid a human or kill it (e.g. in defense of its cubs). In the zoo it has no option to avoid humans, so it gets used to their proximity (which helps lower its tension somewhat), but because it can't avoid, it will use aggression instead (something it might choose to do in the wild as well). You have no fucking point here, except to display your stunning ignorance for the world to see.

Especially when considered in step with the situation in Baghdad as it then stood, shooting the animal after the fact would not have been at all out of line with logical consequential behavior.

Only if one subscribes to the tortured distortion of logic you use, moron.

Elephants aren’t carnivores, but the reinforcement of bad behavior by lack of punishment is unacceptable most of the time. In two cases I posted, elephants were put down for sustained aggressive activity. If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.

Key word is sustained in the elephant instances. When the elephants failed to learn from punishment and were dangerous, no other option, but they weren't killed off the cuff on the basis of a single incident. It is also normal behavior for tigers to attack when provoked if they can't avoid humans, and sticking your hand in the cage is fucking provoking the thing, especially if it's hungry. And they would be kept in zoos because people want to see them.

So Kast you now think all animals in captivity should be shot?
I cannot garuntee that the cockerspaniel up the street will not bite some kid if he pokes it in the eye with his finger, so lets kill all pets too....

Wild animals under extreme stress that have attacked human beings? Yes, I do.

Even when the attack was completely the result of the human provoking the animal? You've got some really fucked up values. If you apply the same logic more broadly, then a person defending his home from burglars should be killed because he attacked other humans under extreme stress.

Many living thing is dangerous if left unattended, although your average cockerspaniel is no danger to competent adults.

And your average zoo tiger in its cage is not unattended and no danger to competent keepers, nor danger to zoo visitors who observe come common sense by not sticking their body parts in its cage. Concession accepted.

Edi

[Sarevok]

Zoo animals are dangerous. In the zoos of less developed countries accidents happen sometimes. I recall that in Bangladesh which happens to be the home of Bengal Tigers a kid got head bit of by a Tiger in 1996 and last year a Bear killed it's keeper in the same zoo. Now whether Iraq Zoo is any better is another question

[Keevan_Colton]

Alright, go look up, I'm sure I mentioned that they recently got resupplied, more than just the $800 that's from an artical written right at the end of the war....

Also, Saddam had the place renovated before the war to the tune of $27 million.

[Slartibartfast]

If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.

Here it is: irrefutable evidence that Axis Kast has no brain. At all.

[Vympel]

Does anyone remember the famous Bear incident captured on cam corder in the US?

"Somebody get a gun! Get a gun! Tranquilizer gun!"

(the Bear was mauling some dumbass)

[Admiral Valdemar]

Does anyone remember the famous Bear incident captured on cam corder in the US?

"Somebody get a gun! Get a gun! Tranquilizer gun!"

(the Bear was mauling some dumbass)

Darwin would be proud. If the bear had come onto a camp in an urban area, that's bad. But once on their turf, it's every man for himself.

[Darth Wong]

If it were normal behavior for tigers to attack humans at every possible instance, they wouldn’t keep them in zoos.

Here it is: irrefutable evidence that Axis Kast has no brain. At all.

It's amazing to see how far he'll go to avoid admitting error, isn't it?

[The Yosemite Bear]

yup, we had to kill a bear over here a couple of years ago because she was becomming too agressive and destructive to human property after her cub was stoned to death by campers....

[Sea Skimmer]

yup, we had to kill a bear over here a couple of years ago because she was becomming too agressive and destructive to human property after her cub was stoned to death by campers....

Bullet budget too low to shoot the campers?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Worse yet they were "Boy Scouts!" from La Brea California... (Next to L.A.)

of course that troop has been banned from the park now.

[Slartibartfast]

Isn't Boy Scouts a religious organization? That would explain the stoning to death.

[The Yosemite Bear]

lol

"It went after our improperly stored junk food!"
"Thou shalt not steal"
"And you shall have dominion over all beasts..."

[Durandal]

In a national park, most animals therein never have contact with human beings.

But they're not caged up either. Thanks for completely evading the point.

Human fault has nothing to do with this argument. It still results in the same consequence whether or not it was stupid. You’ve been repeating yourself endlessly, just like everybody else in this thread who can’t distance themselves from the subject of whose responsibility this whole situation actually happens to be. Concession accepted.

ROTFLMAO!!
Let's break this down.
1. You accuse me of "endlessly repeating" myself, even though that was my first post to this thread.
2. You say that human fault has nothing to do with this argument.
3. You then go on to say that the subject is whose responsibility the situation is, thus necessitating that the possibility of human fault be considered.

So you're basically saying that whether or not the human is at fault is immaterial, because it's the animal's fault, so the animal should be punished. That's just fucking hilarious. Thank you. You've provided me with a great deal of amusement.

Humans are in full control at zoos and yet – as I have proven – they are sometimes killed by aggressive animals?

Name an instance in a zoo where humans have been killed by obeying safety margins in a zoo and keeping a safe distance from the animal that wasn't due to a zookeeper's incompetence in accidentally letting the animal loose.

What does the soldier’s deserving punishment have to do with the tiger’s psychological condition? I’ve seen the same argument fifty times. And I accept your concession for the fiftieth time.

Who fucking care about the tiger's psychological condition? It's a fucking wild, undomesticated animal!! It's psychological condition is "instinct"!

The fact is that the soldier, having only himself to blame, got too close to a large, ferocious, wild, undomesticated predator, leading to his buddy shooting the thing. That situation is entirely his fault, and the death of the lion was completely unnecessary. So yes, for being stupid and having their incompetence lead to the death of an endangered animal, I think they deserve punishment.