Do you have a problem with what

[Guest adam_bomb]

Hate to break it to you.

 

Sub-human monkeys is the only appropriate term for those shitbricks.

 

"How dare you dehumanize somebody who has no problem with killing rape victims for being raped/who thinks that beheading innocent people for daring to be in the wrong place at the wrong time/who feels that targeting innocents for killing is a solid military tactic!!!"

 

I somehow manage to actually have some semblance of perspective on this.

      -=Mike

 

The american military in iraq isnt exactly an innocent party, are you going to say all of those are sub human too due to the incidents of a few of them? A few people do something and some stupid people( such as yourself) get behind the right wing press bandwagon.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

JOTW, Eric, Sek...

 

Can you read?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you really think our military shouldn't have this kind of mindset might as well tear up 200 years of military tradition and mindset and start all over. Starting with effectiveness.

I understand there's a morale and emotional exercise going on at work there, which is why I said I wouldn't have any issue if some soldier in the heat of a battlefield in Iraq said that while dodging bullets and returning fire. I don't really like the thought of it, but the "let's go out and shoot us some bastards and have a good time doing it" mentality is how they keep themselves from going crazy over there. As long as it's not taken too literally, anyway. The Abu Gharib humiliation crew saying forcing prisoners into naked human pyramids is fun, would be a bit much.

 

However, again, when you have a higher-up guy who actually says that, who isn't in the field, you can't really come to any other conclusion than that he actually believes in that and what it means.

 

In other words, guys in the warzone = yes, guys in the Pentagon = no.

 

 

....And yes, Spicy, I can read. Is there something you want to point out to me, because I don't see you've made any other posts in this thread.

[Jingus 0]

An important question: has the guy ever actually shot an Afghani? Does anyone know?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

....And yes, Spicy, I can read. Is there something you want to point out to me, because I don't see you've made any other posts in this thread.

If he told you he enjoyed killing people, no matter who it was, wouldn't you be just a little concerned?

The general didn't say that.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I know he didn't say that. I'm saying even if he said he would enjoy shooting someone, even someone who deserves to be shot. Which is what I meant by "no matter who it is", as in, whether or not they're scum.

 

Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear.

[Guest MikeSC]

The evil sentiment that was expressed was:

 

Men who treat women worse than they treat a dog are fun to shoot.

 

Do you DISAGREE with that, JOTW?

Yes. To find enjoyment in firing on live targets with no remorse is considered barbaric in modern cultures no matter whose doing it and what right or coutnry they're fighting for, and making light of it in public is never a good idea.

 

One may say that it's a justified action or the right cause to do so, and I will not protest. But once you say that it makes for good entertainment, I say you are tasteless.

If I had a chance to kill a Nazi, do you think I'd regret, for one moment, the act of doing so?

 

Hell no, I'd SING while doing it.

 

Ditto Communists.

 

Ditto Islamofascists.

 

I'd kill them with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

Look, Mike, there's a serial killer that I want to see dead. Due to the California system where we take our sweet time and only kill people once every five blue moons, he probably won't be executed. Although I would like to wake up one morning and hear that he's been gassed, and I would say it was "fun" or make humor out of it. It's taking a human life no matter what.

You have a chance to save hundreds by killing one monkey whose only goal is to kill innocents.

 

You'd actually feel even the tiniest bit of remorse for doing so?

 

Good God.

 

The shitbricks forfeited their right to live when they started intentionally targeting innocents to advance their agenda.

 

They want to meet their God and get their virgins? Then we're doing them a favor by expediting said meeting.

Consider this my own personal "pro-life" values. I'm not against killing when judged necessary, but I think it's a serious judgment that deserves a measure of respect, even if the person being targeted doesn't.

And I disagree. Whole-heartedly. Some people --- and the general in question made it rather clear who he was speaking of --- do not deserve to live.

Lastly, imagine if this guy was any American but a military officer. If he told you he enjoyed killing people, no matter who it was, wouldn't you be just a little concerned

Nope.

 

If he said "I LIKE killing guys who abuse their wives and torture women", I'd applaud him.

Such a public comment would likely result in some sort of investigation, and possibly cause for arrest.

And not all crimes are injustices.

I hate to be the one who pulls the OMG HITLERLOL2005~! in this thread, but it its kind of alarming how close this statement is to how Nazis felt about Jews.

Small difference --- my statement is based solely upon their behavior.

Unless the terrorists are sending trained dogs after the troops, then the enemies are human.

The MOMENT you INTENTIONALLY target INNOCENT PEOPLE to ADVANCE YOUR POLITICAL GOALS, you cease being a human. They've done just that for years now.

 

Thus, they are nothing but monkeys.

If a civilian said it was fun to shoot people, they would probably end up getting a psych evaluation if not a stay in the Padded Room Estates. Yet just because a military person said it somehow the uniform makes it acceptable.

Let's say somebody, oh, raped your mom.

 

Would you not ENJOY killing him?

 

Don't lie to yourself.

The american military in iraq isnt exactly an innocent party

Almost all of our casualties are caused by us trying to avoid killing innocents.

 

Hate to break it to you.

are you going to say all of those are sub human too due to the incidents of a few of them? A few people do something and some stupid people( such as yourself) get behind the right wing press bandwagon.

Come back when both of your brain cells cease feuding and then attempt to post, OK?

I know he didn't say that. I'm saying even if he said he would enjoy shooting someone, even someone who deserves to be shot. Which is what I meant by "no matter who it is", as in, whether or not they're scum.

Of course, that was not the issue being discussed.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If I had a chance to kill a Nazi, do you think I'd regret, for one moment, the act of doing so?

 

Hell no, I'd SING while doing it.

 

Ditto Communists.

 

Ditto Islamofascists.

I'd kill them with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

 

 

It's your lucky day! Here's your chance! Go crazy, there, bucko.

 

And there's communists and neo-nazis in the US. You can go kill some of them too, while you're at it, tough guy.

[Jingus 0]

If I had a chance to kill a Nazi, do you think I'd regret, for one moment, the act of doing so?

 

Hell no, I'd SING while doing it.

 

Ditto Communists.

 

Ditto Islamofascists.

 

I'd kill them with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

All Nazis, though? Yes, there were plenty of evil genocidal bastards in the Nazi party. But I'm pretty sure that it probably also contained at least a few more or less good people who joined up to advance their own agenda. The Allied intelligence agents turned plenty of them into spies during the war.

 

Ditto communists. Ditto Muslims.

 

You simply cannot make such sweeping murderous generalities on people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affiliations, or whatever.

 

The MOMENT you INTENTIONALLY target INNOCENT PEOPLE to ADVANCE YOUR POLITICAL GOALS, you cease being a human. They've done just that for years now.

 

Thus, they are nothing but monkeys.

No, Mike, and this is one of the main points I disagree with you on. They're not monkeys. They don't live in trees in the jungle eating insects while hanging from their tails and screeching at one another. They are full-fledged official homo sapiens human people. Humans have been killing each other ever since the dawn of the species. The horrific acts that the terrorists commit are nothing new. Humans can be real bastards sometimes.

[Guest MikeSC]

If I had a chance to kill a Nazi, do you think I'd regret, for one moment, the act of doing so?

 

Hell no, I'd SING while doing it.

 

Ditto Communists.

 

Ditto Islamofascists.

I'd kill them with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

It's your lucky day! Here's your chance! Go crazy, there, bucko.

 

And there's communists and neo-nazis in the US. You can go kill some of them too, while you're at it, tough guy.

Nah. It seems more fun to not do a damned thing, to bitch about anybody trying to do the right thing, and THEN bitch and moan that things aren't better.

 

You know, like you do.

All Nazis, though? Yes, there were plenty of evil genocidal bastards in the Nazi party. But I'm pretty sure that it probably also contained at least a few more or less good people who joined up to advance their own agenda.

Man, sounds pretty rough for them. I'm sure it's as prevalent as people who joined the KKK for non-racial reasons.

Ditto communists. Ditto Muslims.

And, please note, the exact phrase was "Islamofascists". While Islam itself is a rather useless religion, I won't criticize anybody who believes in it.

 

Those people who feel that killing non-Muslims is peachy --- well, not much empathy here for them.

You simply cannot make such sweeping murderous generalities on people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, political affiliations, or whatever.

Yes, you can.

 

Again, you hear somebody was a member of the KKK. Would you question if they were really sub-human racist terrorist thugs --- or would you question if maybe they were the rare Klansman who wasn't really racist?

 

My money says you'd assume they were racists.

No, Mike, and this is one of the main points I disagree with you on. They're not monkeys. They don't live in trees in the jungle eating insects while hanging from their tails and screeching at one another.

I agree --- it is insulting to monkeys to be compared to such blatantly inferior lifeforms.

They are full-fledged official homo sapiens human people.

Your actions can forfeit your humanity.

 

The thugs who force little girls to burn to death in a school because they're not dressed "appropriately" have forfeited their humanity. They are soulless wastes of carbon whose deaths would be a huge benefit to the world.

Humans have been killing each other ever since the dawn of the species.

Which is possibly the worst defense. Because subhumanity has always existed does not suddenly mean it does not exist.

The horrific acts that the terrorists commit are nothing new. Humans can be real bastards sometimes.

Actually, it IS knew.

 

The explosives they use permit more rampant death tolls. They use cars, which is a new thing.

 

And they then have the audacity to go to the UN and bitch about the victims of their evil.

 

Fuck the whole lot of them. Let their "God" sort them out. We've been nice and friendly for YEARS now and they've only become meaner, nastier, and less human.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Way to pass the buck, skippy.

[SuperJerk 0]

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

That's a fine thing to say, considering that the Taliban was using a sporting event arena, namedly a soccer stadium, to carry out public executions in. If this Awad guy is coming to come into this argument, thinking his shit don't stink, he might as well "get right back on the boat."

Since Nihad Awad probably isn't actually part of the Taliban, then "his shit" certainly does not stink.

[Guest MikeSC]

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

That's a fine thing to say, considering that the Taliban was using a sporting event arena, namedly a soccer stadium, to carry out public executions in. If this Awad guy is coming to come into this argument, thinking his shit don't stink, he might as well "get right back on the boat."

Since Nihad Awad probably isn't actually part of the Taliban, then "his shit" certainly does not stink.

You might want to read up on CAIR.

 

They weren't exactly lacking support for the Taliban.

 

They are an organization that is about as evil as NAMBLA.

-=Mike

[MrRant 0]

Which one?

[SuperJerk 0]

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

That's a fine thing to say, considering that the Taliban was using a sporting event arena, namedly a soccer stadium, to carry out public executions in. If this Awad guy is coming to come into this argument, thinking his shit don't stink, he might as well "get right back on the boat."

Since Nihad Awad probably isn't actually part of the Taliban, then "his shit" certainly does not stink.

You might want to read up on CAIR.

 

They are an organization that is about as evil as NAMBLA.

From Wikipedia:

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an organization whose stated goal is to promote a positive image of Islam in America. It encourages people to view Muslims as mainstream and moderate and to distinguish between Islamic terrorists and Islam itself. CAIR's headquarters is in Washington, DC. It is a non-profit organization with chapters across America.

 

CAIR representatives have been included in several public functions hosted by United States President George W. Bush, a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. CAIR had previously endorsed Bush for president during the U.S. presidential election, 2000.

 

I see your point.

[Guest MikeSC]

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

That's a fine thing to say, considering that the Taliban was using a sporting event arena, namedly a soccer stadium, to carry out public executions in. If this Awad guy is coming to come into this argument, thinking his shit don't stink, he might as well "get right back on the boat."

Since Nihad Awad probably isn't actually part of the Taliban, then "his shit" certainly does not stink.

You might want to read up on CAIR.

From Wikipedia:

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an organization whose stated goal is to promote a positive image of Islam in America. It encourages people to view Muslims as mainstream and moderate and to distinguish between Islamic terrorists and Islam itself. CAIR's headquarters is in Washington, DC. It is a non-profit organization with chapters across America.

 

CAIR representatives have been included in several public functions hosted by United States President George W. Bush, a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. CAIR had previously endorsed Bush for president during the U.S. presidential election, 2000.

Try reading ACTUAL sources.

 

Try reading the Sept.2003 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security (where Sen. Schumer said, and I quote, "we know CAIR has ties to terrorism")

 

In fact, CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Associated of Palestine, a front group for Hamas according to US intel sources.

 

Also, read:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040316-085118-1135r.htm

http://www.danielpipes.org/394.pdf

http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/TAPPSletter.pdf and http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=a...1366&theType=NR (just to clarify, they're upset about a PRIVATE group, not a public one)

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

 

That's a fine thing to say, considering that the Taliban was using a sporting event arena, namedly a soccer stadium, to carry out public executions in. If this Awad guy is coming to come into this argument, thinking his shit don't stink, he might as well "get right back on the boat."

Since Nihad Awad probably isn't actually part of the Taliban, then "his shit" certainly does not stink.

You might want to read up on CAIR.

From Wikipedia:

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an organization whose stated goal is to promote a positive image of Islam in America. It encourages people to view Muslims as mainstream and moderate and to distinguish between Islamic terrorists and Islam itself. CAIR's headquarters is in Washington, DC. It is a non-profit organization with chapters across America.

 

CAIR representatives have been included in several public functions hosted by United States President George W. Bush, a few weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks. CAIR had previously endorsed Bush for president during the U.S. presidential election, 2000.

Try reading ACTUAL sources.

 

Try reading the Sept.2003 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security

Gee, I seem to have misplaced my copy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Then look it up. Don't bitch and moan.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Seriously though Mike, when are you joining up to blast the Islamofascists?

[SuperJerk 0]

Then look it up. Don't bitch and moan.

My point was that I've never even heard of YOUR source.

 

Actually, you were the one bitching because I found information that contradicted your precious preconcieved notions.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Try reading the Sept.2003 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security (where Sen. Schumer said, and I quote, "we know CAIR has ties to terrorism")

 

Link?

[SuperJerk 0]

I found it. Its 858 pages long.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/911rept.pdf

 

Care to be a dear and narrow the the search down for us by citing the page number you read that quote on, Mike?

Shouldn't be hard for you to do since I'm sure you read the whole thing yourself.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, he's probably read this argument on a Republican blog and it's all been laid out for him. I doubt he knows what page it's on.

[SuperJerk 0]

Actually, he's probably read this argument on a Republican blog and it's all been laid out for him. I doubt he knows what page it's on.

I had considered that, but decided to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, since he was so keen on only using "actual" sources.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, he's probably read this argument on a Republican blog and it's all been laid out for him. I doubt he knows what page it's on.

I had considered that, but decided to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt, since he was so keen on only using "actual" sources.

Nah. I'll permit you to find it.

 

Since I'm making it up and all, right?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, you're paraphrasing an argument that someone else made without investigating it yourself.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, you're paraphrasing an argument that someone else made without investigating it yourself.

No, actually quoting Sen. Schumer directly.

-=Mike

...Again, though, feel free to disprove it...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, actually quoting Sen. Schumer directly.

 

No, actually, you're paraphrasing someone else's argument, which used Schumer's quote. However, you've probably never read the document yourself, because you couldn't even find a fucking link to it.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, actually quoting Sen. Schumer directly.

 

No, actually, you're paraphrasing someone else's argument, which used Schumer's quote. However, you've probably never read the document yourself, because you couldn't even find a fucking link to it.

Of course, you're going with assumptions, not, you know, facts.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

...Again, though, feel free to disprove it...