Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/6/03 07:02 PM, RoyBatty wrote: Hypothetical situation:

6 guys who are in the Air Force and joined because it's a fairly decent paying job (here in Minot it pays about twice our average wages, and there are vast amounts of jobs under the average wage, but the few who have higher wages are much higher) and they like the benefits, they had no intention of ever going to war, and the few that did looked at it as an opportunity to fuck up some people and shoot people who are different than they are. Of course by the time they are done with basic, they decide they are loyal and serve their country, and are misled on their intentions for being in the military in the first place. Now these people are hanging at the mall and see you and call you a faggot, and then you keep walking they jump you and beat the shit out of you and laugh about it, and you end up in the hospital. Now say a week later these fucks go to war so they can have a chance at riddling some "towelheads" full of bullets. And now flashback to the present and tell me these pieces of shit would deserve your respect, or mine for that matter.

roy, i see what you are talking about, but I have to say that a group of assholes who don't do well enough on whatever that test is called you take when you first go into the army (military people, help me out here) to be anything other than cannon fodder aren't going to make me hate the military as a whole.

you know, i think the military occasionally represents a nice cross section of humanity.. mostly assholes with a few good people throughout that clean up after everyone else's mistakes.. just like in the real world.. tell me what you think about that.

At 8/6/03 10:45 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: roy, i see what you are talking about, but I have to say that a group of assholes who don't do well enough on whatever that test is called you take when you first go into the army (military people, help me out here) to be anything other than cannon fodder aren't going to make me hate the military as a whole.

Normally I would agree with you, had my experience not taken me the other route so severely.

you know, i think the military occasionally represents a nice cross section of humanity.. mostly assholes with a few good people throughout that clean up after everyone else's mistakes.. just like in the real world.. tell me what you think about that.

This is the truth until they hit basic. Then the brainwashing and warmongoring training sets in. The condition to make them feel like they are elite, and better than civilians, and a higher form of life. (of course it starts by belittling them, and gradually working them to this point after they achieve certain levels). The process for mentally training our troops is very akin to traditional brainwashing, and the end result is much closer to my scenerio than this. I do know exceptions, don't get me wrong, but they will tell you the same thing as I do, they had to fight the brainwashing, and most are ashamed of being in the military.

well.. going on my personal experience with the military (both grandfathers, one uncle, boyfriend, close family friends all in the army), i think that people who are strong enough can prosper in the military. the military isn't the only place to be brainwashed, in fact most brainwashing is done by watching civilian tv. at least when they try and brainwash you in the military they are pretty damn open about it so you can tell what is and what isn't being said to brainwash you :D

america shouldn't be ashamed of its military, we should be ashamed of our everyday citizenry who were stupid enough to elect a leader who misused our military and then revoked the benefits of the people who fought wars that were worth fighting.

At 8/6/03 10:51 PM, RoyBatty wrote: This is the truth until they hit basic. Then the brainwashing and warmongoring training sets in. The condition to make them feel like they are elite, and better than civilians, and a higher form of life. (of course it starts by belittling them, and gradually working them to this point after they achieve certain levels). The process for mentally training our troops is very akin to traditional brainwashing, and the end result is much closer to my scenerio than this. I do know exceptions, don't get me wrong, but they will tell you the same thing as I do, they had to fight the brainwashing, and most are ashamed of being in the military.

I happen to know people in the military. I don't sense any oozing arrogance and superiority complex, though. Could this just be you?

Also, just because some people beat you up does not mean that the military caused it. There's a certain percentage of mean, violent people in any crossection of people, military or not. You just happened to meet the wrong people, so there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that since some mean people are in the military, that all people in the military are like that. That's a classic case of faulty logic.

At 8/6/03 10:59 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: well.. going on my personal experience with the military (both grandfathers, one uncle, boyfriend, close family friends all in the army), i think that people who are strong enough can prosper in the military. the military isn't the only place to be brainwashed, in fact most brainwashing is done by watching civilian tv. at least when they try and brainwash you in the military they are pretty damn open about it so you can tell what is and what isn't being said to brainwash you :D

Like I said there are exceptions, and no I don't find media quite as powerful in the brainwashing department, but that's opinion. A very large portion of my family is ex military as well, many of which became very brainwashed, my uncle Matt being a firm exception.

america shouldn't be ashamed of its military, we should be ashamed of our everyday citizenry who were stupid enough to elect a leader who misused our military and then revoked the benefits of the people who fought wars that were worth fighting.

I agree with the latter end of this point, but it doesn't change my original point that I mentioned. Just because they are troops does not automatically earn my support or respect, and shouldn't. I judge them on an individual basis, and their reasons for joining the military and going off to war are inconsistent and should be treated as such. Not all troops deserve our support or respect, in my experience, most don't.

At 8/6/03 10:59 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I happen to know people in the military. I don't sense any oozing arrogance and superiority complex, though. Could this just be you?

I live in a military town. The basers here are all over the place, and I've partied with a lot of them. So it's not just a passing knowledge.

Also, just because some people beat you up does not mean that the military caused it.

What part of hypothetical didn't you understand?

There's a certain percentage of mean, violent people in any crossection of people, military or not.

And you don't think that violent people are drawn to an occupation that has an increased chance of being able to legally commit violence upon people?

You just happened to meet the wrong people, so there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that since some mean people are in the military, that all people in the military are like that. That's a classic case of faulty logic.

The scenerio didn't even happen, it was made up. I made that clear. The basers have been guilty of jumping a lot of people around here though, and a lot of people have jumped them too. The fact that they partake in such petty juvenile power trips and don't just do their duty, and the idea that they would attack the people they are sworn to protect (and then get their asses covered by their CO, and we get charged for damaging government property for jacking them back) is sickening. And no, most of the older people in the military I've met don't do this type of shit, they just vote pro war and go home and beat their kids and their wives as a way to deal with the frustration from the environment of oppression they live in. And no this isn't a general rule, but you'd be amazed by how many military brats I hang out with that have abusive parents (predominantly the father, who is generally the parent in the military).

At 8/6/03 10:59 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

I happen to know people in the military. I don't sense any oozing arrogance and superiority complex, though. Could this just be you?

I sense some romanticizing and some glamorizing though.

Also, just because some people beat you up does not mean that the military caused it.

The people who were trained to kill aren't violent? uhm...

Slizor, I do not understand the points you make.

This really isn't a good start. If you don't understand, why do you respond!?

There is a definite difference between an army and a terrorist group. To say that there is no difference between killing innocents and killing terrorists is a narrow-minded observation.

That's not what I said. I said there is no difference between an army and a terrorist group. You assumed that terrorists only kill innocents and you assumed that armies only kill terrorists. Strangely enough, I do not agree. Who has killed more civilians in the past 50 years? Armies or Terrorists?

The Palestinians are fighting a war, yes. But not a conventional one. The Palestinians that resort to non-diplomatic means are terrorists. There is terror in having a silent enemy that resorts to killing civilians because they cannot directly face troops.

If you understand they can not directly face troops what is the problem? I mean you added the civilians bit, which is true if you believe the exaggerations of the mass media (Civilian stories are reported more than Soldier stories.) They are being attacked and they are responding the only way they can.

If you were a Palestinian guerrilla, would you fight conventionally?

My point with the arms caches discoveries is that we have not yet searched everywhere for WMD. It is still too early to definitely say that there are or aren't WMD in Iraq.

Is that so? Have you heard of the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty"? The searches could continue for ten years and you could still say that.

If Saddam did have weapons of WMD, there are several possible reasons why he wouldn't or couldn't use them:
1.Then we would know for sure he had them, and then we would have broad international support
2.Heavy retaliation
3.They were not ready and could have been hidden.

"Neither you or I know that for sure, so let's skip the revellations and conspiracies."

Also Slizor: Your comments suggesting that right wing Christians are racist is unbased and unnecessary.

No it is based in my experience. And I wasn't saying that ALL of them were, just more so.

If Slizor, Bumcheekcity, or RoyBatty, you want to have an intelligent debate I am open to it.

No you're not. You're being all wishy-washy "we can't know this for sure so I'm right" and changing things I say. I'm not one to swallow a load of bollocks so shape up or get out of the ring.

slizor, the points you just made are a big part of the reason why i am not morally opposed to terrorism.

At 8/7/03 09:04 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: slizor, the points you just made are a big part of the reason why i am not morally opposed to terrorism.

I'm morally opposed to it, but I certainly understand how it comes about, why people react the way they do, and how we are no better for putting people in a position where they feel so desperate that they need to resort to terrorism.

CALM DOWN , NO ONES GONNA READ ALL THAT,BUT I BELIEVE YOU, STUPID POSTERS

At 8/8/03 06:10 AM, UpstartDJ wrote: CALM DOWN , NO ONES GONNA READ ALL THAT,BUT I BELIEVE YOU, STUPID POSTERS

Did you get lost on the way to the clubs forum?

At 8/8/03 06:44 AM, RoyBatty wrote:

At 8/8/03 06:10 AM, UpstartDJ wrote: CALM DOWN , NO ONES GONNA READ ALL THAT,BUT I BELIEVE YOU, STUPID POSTERS

Did you get lost on the way to the clubs forum?

Why did you come here again, UpstartDJ? I've only seen CAPS-locked one-liners from you which seem to enforce the fact that you're either incredliby ignorant or an incarnation of Jimsween.

At 8/7/03 09:04 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: slizor, the points you just made are a big part of the reason why i am not morally opposed to terrorism.

I wonder what your military boyfriend would think of that.
Also, please say what your morals are, so that we can find out how the killing of over 3000 innocent people is acceptable to you.

I thought only dictatorhips forced you to support the troops no matter what. hahahaha, I'm so clueless sometimes.

Also, please say what your morals are, so that we can find out how the killing of over 3000 innocent people is acceptable to you.

Why don't you tell us how killing atleast 7000 innocent Arabs is acceptable.

Why don't you tell us how killing atleast 7000 innocent Arabs is acceptable?

I looked at the figures on iraqideathcount.com. The highest numbers come from bombing. It is known that the Iraqi military places military installations among civilian housing. We didn't bomb with the intent of killing civilians. As I have said before, this does not qualify as terrorism. It was a military strike against AA and other implacements. The 9/11 attacks had no military signifigance. They were only meant to kill civilians. And there is a huge difference, which is evident in why there are three degrees of homicide.

. As I have said before, this does not qualify as terrorism. It was a military strike against AA and other implacements. The 9/11 attacks had no military signifigance. They were only meant to kill civilians.

Was it? I mea think about it, the WTC, the Pentagon and Congress (that's where the other plane was heading.) Economic, Military, Political. It's symbolic. If they wanted to kill as many people as possible they could have hit other buildings and they probably would have done in when things were in full swing (instead of early, thus missing any civilians.)

Of course 9/11 had military signifigance becuase millitary doesn't nessecarily mean it was done by offical soldiers it just means fighting and killing. Well thats what the word means but you hear it so much some people get used to thinking that it means soldiers fighting for a good purpose.

I agree that it is symbolic, and that is why they chose those targets. But the fact remains that they knew there would be thousands of people killed. If they purely wanted it to be symbolic, why didnt they crash into the statue of liberty. That would have very effective too, symbolically.
Terrorism and military action are more than just fighting and killing. There's a different intent and methodology involved, especially if comparing the us military and our current enemies.

At 8/8/03 11:17 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/7/03 09:04 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: slizor, the points you just made are a big part of the reason why i am not morally opposed to terrorism.

I wonder what your military boyfriend would think of that.
Also, please say what your morals are, so that we can find out how the killing of over 3000 innocent people is acceptable to you.

I am not morally opposed to terrorism because it is the only way that a small power can fight a much larger power with any hope of success. I would like for the world to be able to be run bloodessly, but I am afraid that it isn't possible. It has much less to do with morals and more to do with the reality of the situation. My military boyfriend knows that I am many times a moral reletavist, because if I wasn't I probably couldn't date him :D plus it keeps the pillow talk interesting.

I always think it's funny when people use the phrase "Innocent civilians". Most people I know DESERVE killing. Just because youre not in the military doesn't make you innocent. I mean, some of these dead "innocents" could have been complete bastards. I hate it when people think just because someone is dead they were perfect. (I make a great pallbearer, but a horrible eulogist)

I support random killing sprees.9 1/2 out of every 10 people you kill will deserve it. ----(I forgot)

At 8/10/03 10:36 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:
I support random killing sprees.9 1/2 out of every 10 people you kill will deserve it. ----(I forgot)

So if someone killed your mother, you'd be all right with it?

At 8/10/03 05:46 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 8/10/03 10:36 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:
I support random killing sprees.9 1/2 out of every 10 people you kill will deserve it. ----(I forgot)

So if someone killed your mother, you'd be all right with it?

I think you have just SERIOUSLY underestimated my propensity for being a cold hearted bastard. However, I will blatantly ignore your lame attempt to defend your position through illogical appeals to emotion, and say that I didn't shed one tear when I laid my great-grandmother to rest as I carried her casket to the grave, or when my aunt Berty died, or when Steve Dowlan got shot, or when Bobby Jr. got shot. Should I go on? Everybody dies sometime. Otherwise there would be no room for children. Death is an intrinsic part of life, and not a cause for sorrow. Because lets face it, no matter how hard you cry, THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK.

BTW, thanks for ignoring my blatant sarcasm in my earlier post. Now you know how I REALLY feel.

At 8/10/03 05:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I think you have just SERIOUSLY underestimated my propensity for being a cold hearted bastard.

*snifff* ohh! a man after my own heart!

I agree that it is symbolic, and that is why they chose those targets. But the fact remains that they knew there would be thousands of people killed.

So the US military thought no civilians would have been killed in the invasion of Iraq?

If they purely wanted it to be symbolic, why didnt they crash into the statue of liberty. That would have very effective too, symbolically.

Yes....that wouldn't change the meaning at all.
Attacking WTC = Challenging US's economic power (which comes from them cementing power in the Bretton Woods system which exploits the world.....complete bastards.)
Attacking Statue of LIBERTY = Attacking US "liberty ad freedoms"

Terrorism and military action are more than just fighting and killing. There's a different intent and methodology involved, especially if comparing the us military and our current enemies.

Especially? Oh please explain.

FUNKbrs: So if you were in power you would institute like another Holocaust? Y'know if genocide doesn't sit on your conscience... What about if I killed you? Would you support that?

At 8/9/03 12:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: It is known that the Iraqi military places military installations among civilian housing.

Then perhaps bombing isn't the way to take these targets out is it?

As I have said before, this does not qualify as terrorism.

Haven't we been over this?
Terrorism:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Terror:
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

They were only meant to kill civilians.

I'm a conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe that the attacks were commited by a foreign nation, but if you do happen to buy that theory (as most do), then are you saying that the attack on the Pentagon/DoD wasn't meant to take out a military target? The headquarters of the US military?

And there is a huge difference, which is evident in why there are three degrees of homicide.

All of which are still against the law.

At 8/9/03 02:02 PM, Slizor wrote: If they wanted to kill as many people as possible they could have hit other buildings and they probably would have done in when things were in full swing (instead of early, thus missing any civilians.)

Their goal was to make the US citizens feel attacked enough to turn a blind eye to the war in my opinion. If they wanted to meet any of the goals terrorists would have in attacking the Pentagon, they wouldn't have hit the one part of the building that just so happened to be protected from just such an attack and just happened to be evacuated. A strike in any other location in the pentagon and the jet fuel explosion contained in concrete walls (backdraft anyone?) would have annihilated the entire population of the Pentagon, including the DoD, which would have been their target.

At 8/9/03 04:27 PM, adrshepard wrote: If they purely wanted it to be symbolic, why didnt they crash into the statue of liberty.

Because it wouldn't have caused fear and maybe they like the French. :P

At 8/11/03 01:24 AM, RoyBatty wrote:

As I have said before, this does not qualify as terrorism.

We really need a good way to define freedom fighting as opposed to terrorism.