|
On October 03 2012 09:11 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 02:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:That's ridiculous and stupid. A good example of the ridiculous and stupidly ignorant things that foreigners believe about the US. Civil Rights in the US are about the same level as in East Germany? Put down the pipe and back slowly away from your keyboard, and please pick up a real history book, okay? With the patriot act the CIA has the same authority as the Stasi. Have you ever picked up a history book in your life?
Let's be serious, if you had to ask the question the answer is either no or he was to busy wiping his ass with the pages that the idea of reading was a long shot away.
The power might not be in use but just like every single history book where a nation began the slow steady climb towards security the freedoms and liberty of the nation quickly fall. The only question is if anyone will notice the slow boil that's started and jump out of the pot or continue until ... well we know what happens, we've seen it.
|
On October 03 2012 09:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 08:50 D10 wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Im glad you asked. I believe in a world where people speak one language, use one currency, follow one global government (hopefully the UN). Well, as someone who is broadly sympathetic to utopianism in general, you would want neither one language nor one currency. Large currency regions are disastrous (witness EU) - you need currency barriers in order to stabilize global economic systems. What we actually want is many small currencies, with transaction taxes for exchange. Also, it would be far better to have many languages, and have each person speak several of them. The reasons for this are analogous to currency - you want to separate out different cultures and discourses, so that the "biodiversity" of your global culture remains healthy. Making everything one language would have the effect of creating a discursive landscape in which the most virulent memes would stomp out the less aggressive ones (and it's the less aggressive ones we want around). Basically if you had one language you would be stomping out polyglossia, which is a terrible idea. You would want a unified government to deal with global issues, but you would also want that government to stay out of local business as much as possible, simply because local affairs can be most effectively administered by local government.
You cant tell people to erase all existing record of existing languages and stop speaking what they spoke their whole life, but if english was the official language of mankind (its sort of unnofficial atm) it would be much better, specially if people didnt refrain from speaking it in their native countries (im looking at you french ppl).
But I do believe the only reason we believe several currencies are better than one, is because we have never had to deal with a big unified currency before, and therefore never created solutions to its inherent problems (I dont think the EU fits the scale of what im talking about)
An alternative I like is having a universal currency for international operations, while each place has its local currencies for local operations.
On October 03 2012 09:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
If we are to ever get there as one true global unity, we need the american hegemony to be destroyed, simple as that, as long as america can bully everyone, it will bully everyone.
Bush already helped the world on that front, by diluting your military and forcing you to keep spending high with little results, and what better way to crush the american imperialism than to publish what they dont want to be published, to show the world how everyone is being manipulated into what they want when they want.
Sure, bin Laden's attacks were a masterstroke and Bush played right into his hands. I would offer the caveat that it is not so much american hegemony as the hegemony of transnational capital - we have turned the colonization back upon the homeland. (edit: the term "american hegemony" has the unfortunate implication that america acts in the interest of americans)
And vice versa, theres tons of americans out there that are acting against the interests of said hegemony and helping humanity.
|
On October 03 2012 10:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:11 Euronyme wrote:On October 03 2012 02:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:That's ridiculous and stupid. A good example of the ridiculous and stupidly ignorant things that foreigners believe about the US. Civil Rights in the US are about the same level as in East Germany? Put down the pipe and back slowly away from your keyboard, and please pick up a real history book, okay? With the patriot act the CIA has the same authority as the Stasi. Have you ever picked up a history book in your life? Let's be serious, if you had to ask the question the answer is either no or he was to busy wiping his ass with the pages that the idea of reading was a long shot away. The power might not be in use but just like every single history book where a nation began the slow steady climb towards security the freedoms and liberty of the nation quickly fall. The only question is if anyone will notice the slow boil that's started and jump out of the pot or continue until ... well we know what happens, we've seen it.
Agreed. Patriot Act has to go. It actually has been used a few times, pretty messed up, but I have already heard some stories of people who have been detained indefinitely with no explanation, charge or trial. I still disagree with Bradley Manning not getting a trial (yet) even though I still think he shouldn't have leaked all of those documents. One good thing I will take from what he has done is that it is exposing some of the biggest problems in our governments power getting out of control.
|
On October 03 2012 10:32 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 03 2012 08:50 D10 wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Im glad you asked. I believe in a world where people speak one language, use one currency, follow one global government (hopefully the UN). Well, as someone who is broadly sympathetic to utopianism in general, you would want neither one language nor one currency. Large currency regions are disastrous (witness EU) - you need currency barriers in order to stabilize global economic systems. What we actually want is many small currencies, with transaction taxes for exchange. Also, it would be far better to have many languages, and have each person speak several of them. The reasons for this are analogous to currency - you want to separate out different cultures and discourses, so that the "biodiversity" of your global culture remains healthy. Making everything one language would have the effect of creating a discursive landscape in which the most virulent memes would stomp out the less aggressive ones (and it's the less aggressive ones we want around). Basically if you had one language you would be stomping out polyglossia, which is a terrible idea. You would want a unified government to deal with global issues, but you would also want that government to stay out of local business as much as possible, simply because local affairs can be most effectively administered by local government. You cant tell people to erase all existing record of existing languages and stop speaking what they spoke their whole life, but if english was the official language of mankind (its sort of unnofficial atm) it would be much better, specially if people didnt refrain from speaking it in their native countries (im looking at you french ppl).
Ok, so you're not actually advocating one language. A lingua franca is a good idea, one language is a bad idea.
But I do believe the only reason we believe several currencies are better than one, is because we have never had to deal with a big unified currency before, and therefore never created solutions to its inherent problems (I dont think the EU fits the scale of what im talking about)
An alternative I like is having a universal currency for international operations, while each place has its local currencies for local operations.
That sounds nice but what does it mean? I don't understand how that would work. What are "international operations"?
I used to think a single currency sounded like a great idea, then I started learning some things about monetary policy and I don't think that any more. Having a world with one currency is kinda like building a ship with no bulkheads.
Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:44 sam!zdat wrote:
If we are to ever get there as one true global unity, we need the american hegemony to be destroyed, simple as that, as long as america can bully everyone, it will bully everyone.
Bush already helped the world on that front, by diluting your military and forcing you to keep spending high with little results, and what better way to crush the american imperialism than to publish what they dont want to be published, to show the world how everyone is being manipulated into what they want when they want.
Sure, bin Laden's attacks were a masterstroke and Bush played right into his hands. I would offer the caveat that it is not so much american hegemony as the hegemony of transnational capital - we have turned the colonization back upon the homeland. (edit: the term "american hegemony" has the unfortunate implication that america acts in the interest of americans) And vice versa, theres tons of americans out there that are acting against the interests of said hegemony and helping humanity.
yeah well I try
|
On October 03 2012 09:06 oBlade wrote:You'll have to clarify what you're talking about, why your link is relevant to the current discussion, and why you repeated "sweeping generalization" without it being the least bit relevant to the point I made.
You asked to be told which documents wikileaks have released have hurt someone. I, in less than ten seconds, found and linked someone who has been hurt quite badly by their release of classified documents 
Then I told you to stop making exaggerated claims.
|
On October 03 2012 21:47 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 09:06 oBlade wrote:You'll have to clarify what you're talking about, why your link is relevant to the current discussion, and why you repeated "sweeping generalization" without it being the least bit relevant to the point I made. You asked to be told which documents wikileaks have released have hurt someone. I, in less than ten seconds, found and linked someone who has been hurt quite badly by their release of classified documents
Your line of reasoning is similar to say I leak a document about the CEO of a Mexican bank who was embezzling money, and the CEO loses his job. Well, the CEO was harmed by the release of the document, does that mean I never should have leaked it? Of course I should have leaked it, he was embezzling money.
Then say the angry CEO hires a hitman and has me done over. Well, clearly I was harmed by the release of this document, so I should never have released it, right? Firstly, that's a risk I accepted when leaking information on a Mexican CEO. Secondly, the CEO is guilty of murder by contract killing, which is just more dirt to put him in prison.
I didn't clarify this in my earlier post because I thought it was fucking obvious what scope of people was relevant when talking about who has come to harm by the release of classified documents. So much for trying to be concise.
So in the actual case here, we have a leak of documents saying the US army does bad shit. To respond to this situation, the US army does some more bad shit to someone they suspect of leaking the documents in the first place. Of course Bradley Manning has come to harm. The organization whose documents were leaked saw to that. I assume it's obvious where blame should be directed.
The original point (which I assume you don't understand because you haven't responded to it) is that you can't use a general rule like "governments should be able to keep certain things secret" to say that therefore any specific document shouldn't be leaked. You have to look at the merits of the actual document. I don't believe anybody has ever come up with a casualty of a civilian or soldier that could be attributed to Wikileaks releases. Not in this thread, anyway. On the other hand, they are full of the truth about what the military has been up to.
|
On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable.
You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France).
I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones.
|
On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones.
If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to.
This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home?
He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism.
|
You're making a generality out of a few examples. The behaviour of Einsatzgruppen can not speak for the German army as a whole.
The issue isn't that simple because when you're exposing the "murderers", you could also be exposing those who work with them to a potential crossfire.
Say for example you post that this soldier has committed these crimes and is staying at this base near Beyrouth. An armed angry mob storms the base and kills 15 soldiers. Collateral damage.
It depends of the information leaked. It's situational.
|
On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism.
You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder?
|
On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder?
Cops get away with murder all the time, why would the military be any different? The only time anyone of authority is charged with anything drastic is when it gets leaked out to the public.
|
On October 05 2012 02:13 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? Cops get away with murder all the time, why would the military be any different? The only time anyone of authority is charged with anything drastic is when it gets leaked out to the public.
Not true. If someone in the military committed murder and it got to the chain of command they would be punished as per the UCMJ. Reason being, say for example a PFC kills somebody and it gets reported to his SGT. His SGT tries to cover it up, but someone else tells his SSGT. That SSGT reports it up, it gets found out that SGT was trying to cover it up, they both get burned. Nobody wants to get screwed over some idiot.
|
On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder?
I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims?
Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people?
Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed.
There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc.
This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard.
|
On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard.
Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations.
1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race
2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians
3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice
4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers
It is really hard to take you seriously.
|
On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously.
1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad.
2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering.
3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious.
4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities.
Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi.
|
On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi.
I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college.
|
On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi.
1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that:
"The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2]
They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West."
2. Self Defense and Defense of Others
Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians.
Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT
3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway
4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors.
|
On October 05 2012 08:00 Brosy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. I guess I'm confused on how Muslims are a "race" And you say there are never any objections but that can't be further from the truth. Sure if you watch is Fox News you might not hear anything about it, but the murdering and torturing of civilians and combatants are vilified by every other major news outlet in the country. As for reasons to join the military, financial incentives are pretty good. Once they are out of the service they have health care for life, the government pays for them to attend college.
Arabs are usually muslim in the same way muslims are usually arabs. The point about objections is when it comes to the fellow soldiers they have with them when attacking civilians. Obviously media has to be against it, but the army itself doesn't seem to mind.
I didn't know about the social benefits of joining the military though, with life long health care insurances and such. That's a good point.
On October 05 2012 08:06 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 07:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 03:39 kmillz wrote:On October 05 2012 03:13 Euronyme wrote:On October 05 2012 02:06 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 14:45 Euronyme wrote:On October 04 2012 03:28 Kukaracha wrote:On October 02 2012 03:27 Euronyme wrote:
It'd be interesting comparing notes between American soldiers and notes from old SS nazi soldiers. It would seem the arguments are quite similar.
"Oh no, we don't torture because we want to, it's absolutely necessary." "I kill civilians in foreign countries that don't try to attack us to protect my countrymen". "I engage in this war of aggression against a technologically far inferior country to spread the wonderful ideas of [insert government type]" "I'm a patriot and won't tell anyone how many civilians I've helped to murder because they try to destroy us"
Well great. That sounds absolutely reasonable. You're better off talking about the Wehrmacht. Nazis were nazis and fought for race, but many in the regular army were fighting only because they were called to arms (and because of that recent grudge against France). I don't think these two situations are that comparable though, I'd rather say that the finding of a common enemy and the mental state of soliders in the battlefield has more general effects than that. Chaos is a big component of war zones. If you look at the wikileaks footage, it shows American soldiers killing because they can and because they want to. This is your a-typical serial killer. Do you think this man will have no more urges to murder innocent people once he gets back home? He won't get much of a punishment, and he and people like him are rigorously defended in this thread by people who apply the same logic that was in the quoted post - ie. brutality, racism, ignorance and sheer barbarism. You really don't have a clue. Yes there is footage of a-typical serial killers, but that represents a VERY small number of our military, where as Kukaracha accurately pointed out, nazis fought for race. And your full of shit when you say the American soldiers who do this won't get much of a punishment. I know of an Army soldier who killed a likely terrorist by shooting him in the head after the guy reached for his gun and he got the whole book thrown at him (which I agreed with, he is a murderer). People get kicked out just for doing drugs, you think they are getting away with murder? I was under the impression you did fight for race. Tell me what's the war in Iraq about if not racism and killing off 'towel heads' and muslims? Why would men from a democratic country go to a war that's been condemned by the UN and is considered a severe violation against international law if not to get the chance to murder people / they're extremely nationalistic and want to murder people? Comparing the punishment of Manning who's been tortured for ~2,5 years now for telling the press that the US is committing horrible war crimes and the people who murder people by the dozens on a daily basis and get away with a dishonourable discharge and 12 months in confinement makes my eyes bleed. There's a metric fucktonne of footage like the famous one wikileaks released, and not once is there any reaction on the fact that they're killing obviously unarmed random people on the streets. Not once. It's always the "nice", "good hit" etc. This makes me believe that the procedure is fairly standard. Only an idiot would believe that is standard procedure. Are you just trolling? You are making some really wild accusations. 1. That the U.S. military is fighting a war based on race 2. It is standard procedure to murder innocent civilians 3. If you join the US Army you instantly become a murderer by choice 4. American soldiers are comparable to SS Nazi soldiers It is really hard to take you seriously. 1. What else? George W Bush even said he'd go on a crusade. Crusade = religious war on muslims. It's the counterpart to jihad. 2. Apparently. There are never any objections to it in any of the leaked footage / logs, and they do it laughing and cheering. 3. Tell me, what other reason do you have to join in an internationally condemned aggression war? I'm seriously curious. 4. Just as all German soldiers weren't SS, not all Americans work in the torture facilities. Don't forget my statement that the CIA in fact have the same liberties as the Stasi. 1. George Bush isn't even our current President. He spoke ineloquently, but did not mean a religious war when he said that: "The word "crusade" was used by US President George W. Bush first on the day of the September 11, 2001 attacks, quoted below, and on the national day of mourning which honored the death of the more than 3,000 victims of the attacks. He said that "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."[1] The use of this figure of speech was criticized in Europe, and Arabic-speaking countries. Supporters of the President's usage of "crusade" argue that from context Bush had used the word in a military, non-religious sense, such as "The Great Crusade" which was the phrase used by General Dwight D. Eisenhower to describe the D-Day invasion of Europe to the Allied troops in his order of the day broadcast.[2] They point to many modern dictionaries which define crusade (not capitalized) to include any vigorous action aimed at achieving a particular noble goal.[3][4] However, particularly in predominantly Muslim parts of the world, the term crusade produces the same sort of negative reaction as the term jihad does in much of the West." 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Deadly force can be used if necessary against potentially hostile person(s) if they're posing a threat of death or serious bodily harm to Marine personnel or civilians. Read more: Marine Corps: Rules of Deadly Force | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6321657_marine-corps_-rules-deadly-force.html#ixzz28NGH7cMT3. To better one's future, college benefits, professional experience, higher calling, to provide for ones family, there are countless reasons and a vast majority of people who join never see combat anyway 4. Exactly my point, I never knew one person who tortured anyone or murdered anyone and I met at tens of thousands of Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, and Sailors.
1. So that's the most frequent use of the word crusade huh? https://www.google.com/search?q=crusade
I wonder what dictionary that was.
2. So in what way do civilians pose a threat to marines again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs
66.000 civilian deaths. That's 22 nine-elevens.
3. Imagine if those billions of tax dollars went to making all education and health care free of charge in the US. I can't imagine how much lost potential that's been wasted on war equipment and salaries to massacre muslims.
4. Oh what a surprise. Of course they would walk up to you and say "oh hey, I cut a man's balls off last Monday. I'd be in jail if I weren't in the army. 'merica!"
Most criminals plead not guilty.
|
On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We were attacked, we responded.
You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that.
|
On October 05 2012 08:22 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:41 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:34 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 10:21 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 10:07 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. Oh but why exactly are people caught in a crossfire? Oh right... On October 02 2012 08:40 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 08:24 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 02 2012 06:59 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 05:02 LuckyCharms45 wrote:On October 01 2012 06:17 Cillas wrote:
kmillz, check that : "your troops"
that aint our soldiers, so why should I CARE for american troops.
Those wars are over american interests and every war also aims at civilian population. Cruelty whatever what has to be published. Should i care for murderers just because they are from the glorious usa? This is the mother of all double standards. So what you are expressing is essentially, "I should care about the possibly innocent people who have been torturer but the possibly innocent people who knew anything about the torturing who still serve in the United States Military are not worth anything to me." It makes me sick that the United States may have been issuing torture, but generalizing and demonizing the men and women who are trying to serve their country as well as placing them in jeopardy will only sew the seeds for further violence. That is not to say that we should not punish those who commit atrocities under the cover of warfare, but rather to be conscious that others may be effected by what we make public. In essence all I ask for is careful consideration before any action. Another point I hope to draw attention to is how easy it is for those who do not serve their country to speculate on the men and women who do. When you enter the military, the company you find yourself with are the people you are trusting to keep you alive. I personally have never served my country but I most certainly can appreciate the bond that brothers and sisters in arms share and I can accept if they have difficulty breaking those bonds and accusing a brother/sister of crimes. Rather: should I care more about the American troops than the terrorists? Why? At this point I don't even care any more. They're both mass murderers and condemned by the UN. The only difference at this point is that you get tortured and imprisoned without trial if you say that about the Americans while the terrorists are proud. Both makes me sick to my stomach. *Sigh* Again with the generalizations. You make it sound like every soldier lives only to kill and has no emotion or regret for what they've done. And as far as who you should care about, you should care about any innocent person who is caught in the crossfire, be it soldier, citizen, or wrongly accused terrorist. Why? Because they are a human being. I'm not particularly spiritual but there is nothing more important then preserving innocent life. It is a disturbing generalization, I had a friend who was a pacifistic, but still wanted to serve his country and do what he can to help (which is why he joined the Signals Intelligence side, where we deal more with saving lives than killing). In what way is participating in war serving ones country, unless you're actually being attacked? If the Iraq war was really about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq (lol), the soldiers are effectively undermining the US, as they're basically on unimaginably expensive welfare, with state paid equipment and salaries. These people could've helped export and cultivated a growing economy instead of being a burden on the tax payers. Your taxes goes straight into funding an army that commits war crimes and regularly tortures people. How about focusing on education and health care instead? Forget about 9/11 already? What do education and health care have to do with compromising national security? See, this is where my argument that tax money should go to education comes in. What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? unless you're actually being attacked? We were attacked, we responded. You must be really stupid if you think it's a war. It was an act of terrorism. Terrorists don't have a country, so your argument is dumb. So no, invasions of afghanistan/Iraq are baseless. Also I can't believe I've been dragged into that.
This was already hashed out, read the whole thread before commenting on something in the middle of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
