Pat Tillman, Dumb jock. WTF???

[Scrim]

Ok I am ready to freakin kill somebody now. Check out what some of these leftist elitest douchebag cocksuckin ****ers think about this great hero.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/286523.shtml :fork:

[Hellman109]

Not letting me get to that link :S

Ill say this without reading it though: You can be opposed to a war, you can be opposed to sending soldiers, but you NEVER disrespect those who fall there, EVER.

EDIT:

Ok only took 2 minutes (1.5mbit DSL so it isnt normally slow at all) but atleast the journalistic article wasnt saying that, it's the retarded ****s who can unfortunatly use a keyboard who did. The above still very much applies though.

[scm77]

I couldn't get to the link but if he's calling him stupid he's an idiot. The man graduated college in three years with I believe a 3.8 gpa. That is very good.

What a ****head. :bash:

[cut]

lol leftist elitist, that's the first time I've seen those two put together.

that title is out of order, but the article is taken from the Washington post

[Dalleer]

Not letting me get to that link :S

Ill say this without reading it though: You can be opposed to a war, you can be opposed to sending soldiers, but you NEVER disrespect those who fall there, EVER.

Have to agree with you there, whatever those people said is just freakin' unbelievable.

People who say these sorts of things should be shot themselves.

Respectively,

[Maverick77]

Anyone who understands anything know Pat Tillman was a great man and deserves nothing but total respect.

Don't give these idiots the time of day.

[Huck Mucus]

You can be opposed to a war, you can be opposed to sending soldiers, but you NEVER disrespect those who fall there, EVER.

Should that sentiment be extended to the "enemy"?

I think of that question in light of another thread talking about conscription. There is a feeling out there that in the old days the honorable professionals would pretty much always extend those feelings to the enemy. It was only through conscription that nations found it necessary to drum up hatred of the enemy in order to get people to be willing to kill them.

A pro would do it as part of his job and respect the opposition who fought dirty, hard and mean. A draftee would only do if convinced the other guy was evil. A pro would be like the Marine in that movie with the Jolly Green Giant quote, whereas a draftee would be the "gook hunting rapists."

I don't expect civillians would honor the warrior spirit of those who take on the most powerful nation on Earth, and die trying, often with the most primitive of tactics ("terror"?) and weapons, but how about the professional? If Mohamad Atta was our boy, we'd of given him the M.O.H.

Should your sentiment be extended to mercenaries?

Or should your sentiment be qualified?

[XASA]

It is a phony headline on an actual Washington Post article that doesn't disrespect Tillman's memory.

The web site is, seemingly, a fringe ultra-leftist one. I say "seemingly" because it is such a joke. Anyone that takes it seriously-- especially without first reading what is on it-- needs to chill out because it isn't representative of what allAmericans feel about Tillman's sacrifice. Politics aside, everyone realizes Tillman's principles are beyond criticism.

Because a few idiots post something on the Internet doesn't make it true. ;)

[DrunkenMaster]

I think its absolutly wonderful that a athlete would go and fight, and unfortunatley in this case die for his countries cause. :( Remember what a certain "champ" did when he was drafted?

[cut]

It is a phony headline on an actual Washington Post article that doesn't disrespect Tillman's memory.

Because a few idiots post something on the Internet doesn't make it true. ;)

that's what I meant, should have made it more obvious :cantbeli:

[Hellman109]

Should that sentiment be extended to the "enemy"?

I think of that question in light of another thread talking about conscription. There is a feeling out there that in the old days the honorable professionals would pretty much always extend those feelings to the enemy. It was only through conscription that nations found it necessary to drum up hatred of the enemy in order to get people to be willing to kill them.

A pro would do it as part of his job and respect the opposition who fought dirty, hard and mean. A draftee would only do if convinced the other guy was evil. A pro would be like the Marine in that movie with the Jolly Green Giant quote, whereas a draftee would be the "gook hunting rapists."

I don't expect civillians would honor the warrior spirit of those who take on the most powerful nation on Earth, and die trying, often with the most primitive of tactics ("terror"?) and weapons, but how about the professional? If Mohamad Atta was our boy, we'd of given him the M.O.H.

Should your sentiment be extended to mercenaries?

Or should your sentiment be qualified?

To get popular support one way is by making your enemy evil... perhaps in some sort of axis... of evil... :roll:

The bodies of those dead should not be disrespected (Ive seen pics Allies took of dead Afgani's and Iraqi's and been pretty pissed off, and isnt that against the Geneva convention?) no matter who's side there on, but then again the first thing lost in war is the truth.

So yes, it should be extended to your enemies, you should not disrespect there bodies, even if they are your enemy... as for verbal slander and such... well you've got me there really... there's no way you could ever stop it, although no one in a position of power should do it to drum up support.

This leads me to terrorist, the biggest buzz word for the last 2 years. In france they were freedom fighters or parisans (sp?), in Afganistan against the russians they were freedom fighters, but against the US, there terrorists. Seems to me that if there with your there freedom fighters, courageous regular people fighting against that evil bad guy. If there against your there terrorists, evil terror monging people who only work for there own ends and should be destroyed at all costs. Just hate how that always works, my little rant :/

[XASA]

I think its absolutly wonderful that a athlete would go and fight, and unfortunatley in this case die for his countries cause. :( Remember what a certain "champ" did when he was drafted?

If you are referring to Mohammad Ali, yes, I remember what he did when he was drafted. I was in the Army at the time and thought it was a very courageous and brave act on his part...as does most of the world.

What Tillman did was just as courageous and just as brave; he, too, was a man who had a strong belief system.

To compare the two is an injustice to both.

[Huck Mucus]

True. Ali could have gone to Canada or joined the National Guard (back then the Guard was a way out of Viet Nam). Had he joined he probably would have ended up on a boxing team somewhere stateside. Instead, he took the stand of a principled man.

[SR15]

This is sad, good guy dies , so this scum can live and call him war criminal and nazi. :fork:

[usa320]

You can be opposed to a war, you can be opposed to sending soldiers, but you NEVER disrespect those who fall there, EVER.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Even when we kill insurgents in iraq, we still treat their bodies with dignity, its a shame that they dont give the same basic human rights to our troops.

[Red]

I cant believe that a group of people sat down and actually wrote those things on that site.XASA i agree that they should not be taken seriously but at what point do we cross the line between political desent and slander of another human being?Those folks on there sit down in the comfort of their homes while another human being turns down such a huge sum of money to take up arms on behalf of a bunch of immatures who dont have the gut to do so.With all due respect Mr.XASA,but i think those people are full of **** and i dont care for their belief system.

[SR15]

this is should be taken seriously , if you leave it, there is will be more much more.

[Trigger]

I don't expect civillians would honor the warrior spirit of those who take on the most powerful nation on Earth, and die trying, often with the most primitive of tactics ("terror") and weapons, but how about the professional? If Mohamad Atta was our boy, we'd of given him the M.O.H.

Should your sentiment be extended to mercenaries?

Or should your sentiment be qualified?

I find your terminology disturbing Huck.
1. 'Warrior Spirit'? I think you mean 'Homicidal Fanatcism'.
2. 'terror'? I think you mean 'Mass Murder'.
3. If Mohammed Atta was 'our boy' he would have at least had the balls to take on a target that had at least a hint of legitimacy and at least the slightest chance to defend itself.

Your suggestion that Atta is somehow worthy of the highest honor sickens me and has really set a great benchmark by which to gauge any future posts you make.

[Red]

I don't expect civillians would honor the warrior spirit of those who take on the most powerful nation on Earth, and die trying, often with the most primitive of tactics ("terror") and weapons, but how about the professional? If Mohamad Atta was our boy, we'd of given him the M.O.H.

Should your sentiment be extended to mercenaries?

Or should your sentiment be qualified?

I find your terminology disturbing Huck.
1. 'Warrior Spirit'? I think you mean 'Homicidal Fanatcism'.
2. 'terror'? I think you mean 'Mass Murder'.
3. If Mohammed Atta was 'our boy' he would have at least had the balls to take on a target that had at least a hint of legitimacy and at least the slightest chance to defend itself.

Your suggestion that Atta is somehow worthy of the highest honor sickens me and has really set a great benchmark by which to gauge any future posts you make.
He said he was a marine ;)

[Huck Mucus]

Trigger:

You sound like one of those unprofessional types who has to wind himself up with hatred to get the killing on.

You think our enemies view us as having warrior spirit or homicidal fanatasism?

You find my terminology disturbing? Good. I hope you lose some sleep tonight thinking about it.

Terror/mass murder: like Mie Lia (sp?)? Wounded Knee, Hanoi, Cambodia, etc?

So, you don't think the Pentagon had the least opertunity to defend itself and was not a legitimate military target? How do the World Trade Centers compare with Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi?

Think about it. If one of our men were to have highjacked a German commercial airliner and flown it into the heart beat of Nazi commerce and industry, or their military headquarters, we would have built a monument to him in D.C. after proving him with the Medal of Honor.

In any event, no need to answer further. You have disclosed the warrior camp you come from. You must demonize to function. That may be a good thing. It means you still have some sense of humanity and are not capable of killing on reason alone.

Those who can go about killing with cold, rational thought alone may be the ones with the problem. However, it just seems so unsightly to watch you people get yourselves all worked up.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Some of the comments below the article are disgusting.

"Tillman chose to go to Afghanistan. He's partially reponsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of Afghan civilians. No need to feel sorry for him, other than feeling bad that he was brainwashed into serving as a grunt. "

[Trigger]

Trigger:

You sound like one of those unprofessional types who has to wind himself up with hatred to get the killing on. Do I? Is that your 'unprofessional assessment'? It's better than winding myself up with cowardice and political correctness in the face of an enemy who hates my country for it's very existence.

You think our enemies view us as having warrior spirit or homicidal fanatasism? No. Our enemies view us as infidels to be slaughtered en masse. Women and children first of course. Tell me, why didn't they find a nice fat Air Force base with millions of dollars worth of aircraft lined up and waiting? hmmm? Why not go after the very tools of our 'agression'. Because they were mass murdering cowards, that's why. And you want to give 'em a Medal of Honor.

You find my terminology disturbing? Good. I hope you lose some sleep tonight thinking about it. Sorry to disappoint you.

Terror/mass murder: like Mie Lia (sp?)? Wounded Knee, Hanoi, Cambodia, etc? That's at least the second time you've used those same examples. That's quite a span of history. I'm sure you could've found more. How about the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March or the Hanoi Hilton or the Murder/Rape rooms in Iraq or the African Embassy bombings or Auschwitz. Of course these all pale in comparison to American atrocities right?

So, you don't think the Pentagon had the least opertunity to defend itself and was not a legitimate military target? How do the World Trade Centers compare with Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi? Yes, the Pentagon was a military target, however the vast majority of casualties were from the WTC, which was NOT a military target.
The WTC does not compare to the others. It was of no strategic value. It was not collateral damage either.

Think about it. If one of our men were to have highjacked a German commercial airliner and flown it into the heart beat of Nazi commerce and industry, or their military headquarters, we would have built a monument to him in D.C. after proving him with the Medal of Honor. I'd really like to see your hypothesis for that kind of fantasy.

In any event, no need to answer further. Too late. You have disclosed the warrior camp you come from. You must demonize to function. No, I must refute to the best of my ability the lunacy you are posting. That may be a good thing. It means you still have some sense of humanity and are not capable of killing on reason alone. Thanks Dr. Phil.

Those who can go about killing with cold, rational thought alone may be the ones with the problem. No, those are called 'Snipers' or as I like to refer to them: 'The best of the best'. However, it just seems so unsightly to watch you people get yourselves all worked up. If it's unsightly, stop looking. Go somewhere that welcomes your suicidal, blame America first/last/always logic, but don't continue to lecture from on high about how we somehow deserved to be attacked.

[Rilence]

Some of the comments below the article are disgusting.

"Tillman chose to go to Afghanistan. He's partially reponsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of Afghan civilians. No need to feel sorry for him, other than feeling bad that he was brainwashed into serving as a grunt. "
a grunt?? i thought he was a ranger.. :oops:

[Huck Mucus]

[quote="Trigger"][quote="Huck Mucus"]Trigger:

You sound like one of those unprofessional types who has to wind himself up with hatred to get the killing on. Do I? Is that your 'unprofessional assessment'? It's better than winding myself up with cowardice and political correctness in the face of an enemy who hates my country for it's very existence.

>Actually, that's my professinal assessment, but I let your words speak for themselves. No need to ask me. Example: You think they hate us for our very existence. There's more to it than that but I'll not waste my time trying to educate you here and now.

You think our enemies view us as having warrior spirit or homicidal fanatasism? No. Our enemies view us as infidels to be slaughtered en masse. Women and children first of course. Tell me, why didn't they find a nice fat Air Force base with millions of dollars worth of aircraft lined up and waiting? hmmm? Why not go after the very tools of our 'agression'. Because they were mass murdering cowards, that's why. And you want to give 'em a Medal of Honor.

>Well, first, they would go after the military (like the went after the Cole, the Marine Barracks, the Air Force Barracks and the Pentagon) more often if they had the tools. You see, they don't have B-2's, etc. You work with what you have. Notice how we call them cowards for attacking civilians and they call us cowards for hiding behind our technology and not coming out and fighting fair? I remember Saddam used that one in the first Gulf War.

>Second, the biggest error in your reasoning is the assumption that an attack on the World Trade Centers is not an attack on "the very tools of our aggression." From their perspective, our support of our corporations in thier country, including propping up thier despotic governments IS the aggression. Say, your not one of those people who think the religious fanatacism is the cause instead of the symptom, are you? If so, I should quit arguing with you until you educate yourself.

>Third, in a nation of, by and for the people, where the governement IS the people, then are the people not responsible for the actions of their goverment? Who is inoccent? If we hold the Iraqi citizens responsible for not rising up against Saddam, or at least burden them as "collateral damage" then I can see where the enemy might use the same reasoning with us.
You find my terminology disturbing? Good. I hope you lose some sleep tonight thinking about it. Sorry to disappoint you.

>Indeed, I am disapointed. I thought you might actually start thinking hard.
Terror/mass murder: like Mie Lia (sp?)? Wounded Knee, Hanoi, Cambodia, etc? That's at least the second time you've used those same examples. That's quite a span of history. I'm sure you could've found more. How about the Rape of Nanking, or the Bataan Death March or the Hanoi Hilton or the Murder/Rape rooms in Iraq or the African Embassy bombings or Auschwitz. Of course these all pale in comparison to American atrocities right?

>Talk about spin. You avoided the "kettle/black" argument by using it and by failing to distinguish us from our enemies. By the way, if it's a matter of comparrison, all of your examples do pale in comparison to Dresden and Tokyo. We sit idly by in Rawanda only because our corporations had no "national interest" there. Likewise, we only stepped into Bosnia, etc. after the cleansing had been under way for over a year. Begining to see a pattern?
So, you don't think the Pentagon had the least opertunity to defend itself and was not a legitimate military target? How do the World Trade Centers compare with Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi? Yes, the Pentagon was a military target, however the vast majority of casualties were from the WTC, which was NOT a military target.
The WTC does not compare to the others. It was of no strategic value. It was not collateral damage either.

>It was of GREAT strategic value and very little tactical value. Also, compare Dresden.
Think about it. If one of our men were to have highjacked a German commercial airliner and flown it into the heart beat of Nazi commerce and industry, or their military headquarters, we would have built a monument to him in D.C. after proving him with the Medal of Honor. I'd really like to see your hypothesis for that kind of fantasy.

>You just did. Do you know what a hypothesis is?In any event, no need to answer further. Too late.

>Snappy comeback!

You have disclosed the warrior camp you come from. You must demonize to function. No, I must refute to the best of my ability the lunacy you are posting.

>If that's the best you can do then . . . , well, never mind.
That may be a good thing. It means you still have some sense of humanity and are not capable of killing on reason alone. Thanks Dr. Phil.

>Your welcome
Those who can go about killing with cold, rational thought alone may be the ones with the problem. No, those are called 'Snipers' or as I like to refer to them: 'The best of the best'.

>You clearly are not a sniper.
However, it just seems so unsightly to watch you people get yourselves all worked up. If it's unsightly, stop looking. Go somewhere that welcomes your suicidal, blame America first/last/always logic, but don't continue to lecture from on high about how we somehow deserved to be attacked.

>You must have some kind of guilt complex if you think objective discussion constitutes "blame." Maybe a little more of that cold, rational, sniper-thought that you think is the best of the best is called for here. Try it sometime. It would definately improve your ability to refute. By the way, I do spend time in those other places but I argue just the contrary over there. They, too, have there counter parts to you. I try to avoid them and pull the gems from those who think objectively. However, like you, those who can't, seem bent on following the others around with their illogical, emotional tripe, clearly in over their heads. Too bad the logical people can't argue in peace any where.

[Truthsayer]

Trigger>> An anti-abortion guy that likes killings - who would have thought. ;)

(And for the love of God, notice the smilie.)

[JiJoMacLE45]

Huck Mucus,

Lay of the Kool-Aid killer. You're gonna give yourself a headache with all that sugar.

[fdt]

Fervent discussion about the thing that nobody even managed to see... :cantbeli:

[ibstolidude]

Terror/mass murder: like Mie Lia (sp?)? Wounded Knee, Hanoi, Cambodia, etc?

So, you don't think the Pentagon had the least opertunity to defend itself and was not a legitimate military target? How do the World Trade Centers compare with Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi?

Think about it. If one of our men were to have highjacked a German commercial airliner and flown it into the heart beat of Nazi commerce and industry, or their military headquarters, we would have built a monument to him in D.C. after proving him with the Medal of Honor.

In any event, no need to answer further. You have disclosed the warrior camp you come from. You must demonize to function. That may be a good thing. It means you still have some sense of humanity and are not capable of killing on reason alone.

Those who can go about killing with cold, rational thought alone may be the ones with the problem. However, it just seems so unsightly to watch you people get yourselves all worked up. - I do have a question - in many of your posts you continue with a theme of your fist 2 paragraphs here.

Since you choose to look at this incidencts objectively rather than in the context of the events of the time in which they happen...you use them as a precedence. DO you beleive that past transgression of international law set the precedence for today? (although some events you posted certainly vioaltions of common humanity did not violate the then international law, but that's right you look at them from todays context) So since the US cav massacre native american indians - then by your logic it is okay that terrorists fly planes into buildings. - By your logic there is no reason for adherence to any humanity or societal norms; after all the whole world, every country is evil, teroristic and aggressive because of their past. So lets embrace it - lets withdraw the our nation's econcomic aid, the largest single country's contribution, from all muslim states and take a more aggressive stance to include assasignation, the use of chemical and nuke warfare, torture, theft and any other means we choose... after all by your model they have all be done in history therefore.

By your posts due to the US/allied bombing of Dresden, targetting the WTC was acceptable and not a terrorist act (regardless that a terrorist intentionally targets civilians) - then where do we end the cycle should we pullout and level fallujah?

[Huck Mucus]

- I do have a question - in many of your posts you continue with a theme of your fist 2 paragraphs here.

Since you choose to look at this incidencts objectively rather than in the context of the events of the time in which they happen...you use them as a precedence.
First, viewing incidents objectively is viewing them in the context of the time in which they happened. However, since all analogy is, by definition, not the thing itself, the whole object for those who wish to defeat the analogy is to draw a distinction with a difference. This has not been done, so far.

Second, I do not use them as precedence. Precedence is generally looked to as authority for continuity. I would argue against that. I would argue for change, rather than having everyone continue to act in accord with precedent (both sides). The first step toward that is to know your enemy. Continuing to misunderstand his motivations just has us repeating history.

Third, the acts to which I referred ALL violated the international law of the time. Pacta sunt servanda is not the problem. The problem is Rebus sic stantibus. But I digress. What is worse, the acts I reference regarding Native Americans constituted a violation of OUR OWN law at the time. Finally, the U.S. is no great champion of international law, especially as of late.

Fourth, you mistake my logic when you pretend to speak for me. I have never, and will never argue that two wrongs make a right. Quite the contrary. I merely point out a naked king when I see him.

Fifth, as to what we COULD do (nukes, etc) don't think for one minute that we would not if we ever found ourselves in the position the enemy currently finds themselves in (big time underdog).

So far we have had the luxury of doing nasty things by proxy with people like Ossama, Saddam, the House of Saud and countless punks in Central America.

Please don't confuse my attempts at objective statements of fact with a sanctioning of those facts. I do not sanction the 9/11 attacks. I just try to know my enemy and understand where he is coming from. I don't like the simple and paternalistic "they hate freedom" mantra from the propaganda machine.

By the way, thanks for the effort at reasonable conversation.

[Trigger]

>Actually, that's my professinal assessment, but I let your words speak for themselves. No need to ask me. Example: You think they hate us for our very existence. There's more to it than that but I'll not waste my time trying to educate you here and now.

...but then you followed up with over a dozen paragraphs trying to re-educate me.

I was being reasonable too. I just disagree with you.

[Huck Mucus]

>Actually, that's my professinal assessment, but I let your words speak for themselves. No need to ask me. Example: You think they hate us for our very existence. There's more to it than that but I'll not waste my time trying to educate you here and now.

...but then you followed up with over a dozen paragraphs trying to re-educate me.

I was being reasonable too. I just disagree with you.
Actually, when I declined to educate you it was only in response to your preceding sentance when you said: " . . . in the face of an enemy who hates my country for it's very existence." My suceeding paragraphs did not purport to educate you regarding the real reason those people hate us.

As to you being reasonable, I think not. You accused me of 'unprofessional assessment', cowardice, political correctness, wanting to give Atta a Medal of Honor, fantasy, lunacy, being Dr. Phil, told me to go somewhere else, and accused me of using suicidal, blame America first/last/always logic and of lecturing from on high about how. Worse, you accused me of arguing we somehow deserved to be attacked.

This is unreasonable argument.

[WARPIG]

Hate to add to this thread hijacking.. but huck muckus is really full of himself. Without feeding your need to quote the theory from your latest sociopolitical reading.. just back up and look at the plain realities. Yes, some people have to create or feed a hatred to get themselves to kill. That is part of how people cope when they are in war. Heck, boxers, football players, and such conjure up a bit of anger to get the adrenaline up to hit the other guy.. Killing another human is going to take an enormos amount of anger and hatred. Whether real or created, welling up some hatred for the enemy is the only way to stem the guilt and shock most people feel when they have to kill. It is those people who kill without anger, remorse, or guilt that you have to be afraid of.

Terrorism isn't a catch phrase... it is often mis-used. Guerrillas are often called terrorists today. Rebels are called terrorists. The line is drawn when a group kills not for strategic gain, not to defend their land, defend their beliefs, or even to instill simple fear in an enemy. When your intent is to instill terror for the purpose of terror alone.. you are a terrorist. What purpose or demand was their in the 9-11 attack? To make the US do what? Stop being American? Stop doing business.. with.. who? Stop being infidels? Convert to Islam? Nope. Just to die and let some Islamic extremists claim victory. Terrorism.

The warrior spirit is that spirit of being willing to go into harms way so that others don't have to. The warrior spirit is spirit that allows you not to fear death, but to fear apathy. Whether enemy or brother in arms... the warrior is to be respected in life and in death. Not all soldiers are warriors.. not all US soldiers are warriors.. Pat Tillman was a warrior.
He felt the call to service to defend our country. Read into that if you want.

[Huck Mucus]

WarPig:

Can't really say as how I disagree with you, except maybe on the 9/11 attack being done for no reason, and the statement that terrorism is not a catch phrase.

In fact, other than that, you pretty much make my points for me, all cloaked in an effort to appear to be in disagreement.

[ibstolidude]

WarPig:

Can't really say as how I disagree with you, except maybe on the 9/11 attack being done for no reason, and the statement that terrorism is not a catch phrase.

In fact, other than that, you pretty much make my points for me, all cloaked in an effort to appear to be in disagreement.
Then perhaps your points are too convoluted or you lack the ability to effectively communicate.

[Huck Mucus]

Then perhaps your points are too convoluted or you lack the ability to effectively communicate.

Or, more likely, you need to work on your analytical and critical thinking and reading skills. It's all quite clear to those who have them.

[Maine Finn]

Then perhaps your points are too convoluted or you lack the ability to effectively communicate.

Or, more likely, you need to work on your analytical and critical thinking and reading skills. It's all quite clear to those who have them.

I have those skills and yet your point escapes me. Perhaps you might clarify?

[Jack Mehoff]

The thing that got me most was not the Marine. I was one. I know what I was/am, and I strongly suspect I know what that Marine was. I know what most Marines are.

What got me was that poor boy. The way he was hugging his daddy; you could just tell how much he loved him. Who ever had to tell that kid deserves a medal.

**** like that used to roll off my back. Now I have a son that age. It bothered the hell out of me. We better have a good f*****g reason "why" but I sure ain't seen one yet.

Then I think of all the little Iraqi boys.

This is militaryphotos.net. Those caskets were military and those were photos. They were not blood and guts graphic. Stop with your rightous indignation already.

I should remind you that impersonation is a bannable offense in militaryphotos.

[Abolith]

Does anyone have a copy of the article's text? seems to have either been taken down or the link no longer works (or my browser sucks).

as much as I hate people who disrespect the fallen I would really rather read it myself before forming an opinion....although the quotes I have seen have sickened me....

[Huck Mucus]

Jack Me Off. Enough said.

Main Finn. Just so I am not called upon to do all your thinking for you, and because you have the requsite skills, lets shift the burden back to you: Please go back and find anything I've said which is inconsistent with the statements made by the individual who I said I agreed with (save the motivations of Atta, et al, and the use of the term "terrorist"). Then, if you can't find any, you might be able to find all those instances wherein I agreed with his position.

[California Joe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a Marine is always a Marine. Not used to be, or formerly but always.

You may be pedantic but you are thorough. Like Ducimus19 on steroids. Are you his dad? Stick around and challenge people here.

[Jack Mehoff]

It's hard to be a Marine when you are a fake one. :roll:

[Huck Mucus]

Once a Marine, always a Marine.

Maine Finn: Sorry, I couldn't resist, so I'll go ahead and explain the clear and patent consistency between what I said and what WarPig said (his comments are bracketed > <:

>but huck muckus is really full of himself.<

I’ll stipulate to that since it’s a subjective comment and not worth arguing.

>Yes, some people have to create or feed a hatred to get themselves to kill. That is part of how people cope when they are in war. Heck, boxers, football players, and such conjure up a bit of anger to get the adrenaline up to hit the other guy..<

That was my point. I might add, try going into the locker room and reasoning with these people when they have their courage all screwed up for the kill. Why, it's almost as hard as coming into this web site to reason. However, note the coach and the calmer heads have been studying the other team and not falling for the hype. It would stop them from seeing clearly.

>Killing another human is going to take an enormos amount of anger and hatred. Whether real or created, welling up some hatred for the enemy is the only way to stem the guilt and shock most people feel when they have to kill. It is those people who kill without anger, remorse, or guilt that you have to be afraid of.<

Ditto. Recall what I said about professionals (snipers) versus the average person? Notice how WarPig qualified his argument with the terms "some people" and "most people."

>Terrorism isn't a catch phrase.<

I think it has become one, largely because no one has ever defined it to a reasonable person’s satisfaction, as WarPig goes on to demonstrate:

>.. it is often mis-used. Guerrillas are often called terrorists today. Rebels are called terrorists. The line is drawn when a group kills not for strategic gain, not to defend their land, defend their beliefs, or even to instill simple fear in an enemy. When your intent is to instill terror for the purpose of terror alone.. you are a terrorist.<

This is internally contradictory. Instilling fear in an enemy and using terror is a distinction without a difference.

>What purpose or demand was their in the 9-11 attack? To make the US do what? Stop being American? Stop doing business.. with.. who? Stop being infidels? Convert to Islam? Nope. Just to die and let some Islamic extremists claim victory. Terrorism.<

I disagree. I think it was, in large part, designed for vengeance and to get the U.S. population to rethink their support of many a middle-eastern government.

>The warrior spirit is that spirit of being willing to go into harms way so that others don't have to. The warrior spirit is spirit that allows you not to fear death, but to fear apathy. Whether enemy or brother in arms... the warrior is to be respected in life and in death. Not all soldiers are warriors.. not all US soldiers are warriors.. Pat Tillman was a warrior.
He felt the call to service to defend our country. Read into that if you want.<

Pray tell, where have I ever expressed any disagreement with those sentiments? I have not. While I could extrapolate on them, as I am sure WarPig could, I agree 100%.

[Maine Finn]

Jack Me Off. Enough said.

Main Finn. Just so I am not called upon to do all your thinking for you, and because you have the requsite skills, lets shift the burden back to you: Please go back and find anything I've said which is inconsistent with the statements made by the individual who I said I agreed with (save the motivations of Atta, et al, and the use of the term "terrorist"). Then, if you can't find any, you might be able to find all those instances wherein I agreed with his position.

I have enough burden shifted to me, thanks. If you knew me at all, you'd know I'm damn near the breaking point. But, given how you don't, you're hardly qualified to tell me to go back and read your previous posts because doing so would result in bad things. Trust me on that. I know myself well enough to know what I should and shouldn't go back and read.

I'm not in the mood to entertain any bull**** today, either from you or other members. Don't address your posts to me unless you have something more to tell me than "go back and read my posts". Your post outlining your points is all well and good, and if I was in a better mood I would read it more thoroughly than I have already.

Right now, though, I need a nap so I can think clearly enough to handle the burden that has been following me for the past six months. And, for future reference, I would suggest not "shifting the burden" to me just because you can. I don't appreciate being told to find examples to support your own statement. You can do that well enough yourself.

~Emily

[Huck Mucus]

Well, Maine Finn, maybe next time you should not state that you have analyitical and critical reading and thinking skills if you aren't willing to use them, because you are too tired or otherwise. Excuses are like . . ., well never mind. As demonstrated above, when I decided to go ahead and do your thinking for you, the consistency between what WarPig said and my previous posts was very clear. Next time you do miss something so obvious I will indeed tell you to go back and figure it out. Hopefully you will recognize your own limitations next time and do so.

[Maine Finn]

Well, Maine Finn, maybe next time you should not state that you have analyitical and critical reading and thinking skills if you aren't willing to use them, because you are too tired or otherwise. Excuses are like . . ., well never mind. As demonstrated above, when I decided to go ahead and do your thinking for you, the consistency between what WarPig said and my previous posts was very clear. Next time you do miss something so obvious I will indeed tell you to go back and figure it out. Hopefully you will recognize your own limitations next time and do so.

Just because I don't acknowledge the fact that I understand what you wrote in my post doesn't mean that I haven't. Get a clue. I'm perfectly willing and able to use the aforementioned skills. I just see no point in doing so because you tell me to. Considering how you're still relatively new around here, I'll refrain from taking offence. Maybe you should lurk more and post less. Just a thought.

And before you take a stab at me for my post count, I'll tell you that the majority of my posts are made in the Off-Topic Section and in the threads that are about the few military topics I am familiar with.

Of course, I'm certain that you dislike listening to anyone younger than yourself, so I hardly expect you to heed any of what I've said.

I'm off to bed for a couple of hours. Somebody keep that nutter Fintin and his chainsaw far away from me.

[Huck Mucus]

Just because I don't acknowledge the fact that I understand what you wrote in my post doesn't mean that I haven't.

Then why say "I have those skills and yet your point escapes me. Perhaps you might clarify?" ?

In any event it's a moot point because I did clarify the obvious for you at your request.

As to me posting less and lurking more, well, I'll take it under advisement. You might note I have not posted a whole lot in the way of initial posts. Most of it has all been responding to people who, had they thought about it first, might have just let the old sleeping dog lie. Since they chose to bring it on, I'm not going to bend over just because they've been around longer.

Hit the rack. Sweet dreams. Say, ever been to Biddeford or Gorham?

[Maine Finn]

Say, ever been to Biddeford or Gorham?

It's not a question of "have I been there", it's more a question of "haven't I been there". There aren't many places in the State I've not at least passed through. York to Mars Hill, Cobun Gore to Machias, Rumford to Kittery, and quite a few places in between.

Maine is my State. There's not a place here that's outside of a day's drive.

[ZeroPositive]

I respect this guy and its sad he had to die in such a way.

[Jack Mehoff]

Here is Rene "IWillGetMyAssKick" Gonzoles. He's the creator of that article.
rene@student.umass.edu
(413) 253-9639
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jbcp/rene.jpg

[mobster]

I understand freedom of speech. But this guy needs to show some f**king respect or he's gonna get his ass kicked.

[Jack Mehoff]

This guy Rene is probably a homo****** judging by his name and look. He is also an attention whore. Well, he will get it from a lot of people. From now on he'll have to look behind his back in a dark parking lot. I hope the police doesn't provide this loser personal escort because it is a waste of tax money.

[mobster]

Amen brother. There should be a campaign to put this homos info on www.specialoperations.com www.Military.com www.StrategyPage.com etc. Won't be long before he changes the info, but to have his face plastered all over the net wouldn't let him remain unnoticed.

[Jack Mehoff]

Trust me, I already spam his ugly mug all over other forums. He wanted attention and he will get it. ;)

[Cleric01]

Can someone post the link to the article. I have some friends who are Rangers..I would like to get this to them..By the way if someone does know where the link to this BULLSH*T is how about someone emailing this to the Ranger Batts...I'm sure they'd just love to pay this guy a little visit sometime "when off duty of course"

I believe everyone in America has the freedom of speech.

If you want to complain about the war or politics, that is freedom of speech, and that's your right.

The article written, even though I haven't read it yet, is not freedom of speech but a personal attack on Pat Tillman himself. Does this "Gonzolez" know Pat Tillman? I highly doubt it.

On behalf of me and my family, our prayers go out to the Tillman family and friends.

As for you "Mr, Gonzolez"....hehehehehehehe....REAP WHAT YOU SOW, BROTHER!!!

(EX) UNITED STATES ARMY INFANTRY, 1993-2001, HOORAH

[Uninen]

Here is Rene "IWillGetMyAssKick" Gonzoles. He's the creator of that article.
rene@student.umass.edu
(413) 253-9639
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jbcp/rene.jpg

Isnt this illegal?

[ibstolidude]

This guy Rene is probably a homo****** judging by his name - hey now - one of my close buds is named Rene' and he is a pretty good dude, SOF guy, former LRSD Ranger (old old old school) - he is also Iraqi (not by heritage, by birth).

[NcDeuce]

Trust me, I already spam his ugly mug all over other forums. He wanted attention and he will get it. ;)

Wait till SOCNET finds out

[Jack Mehoff]

Here is Rene "IWillGetMyAssKick" Gonzoles. He's the creator of that article.
rene@student.umass.edu
(413) 253-9639
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jbcp/rene.jpg

Isnt this illegal?

He has his freedom of speech and I have mine.

[MaDuce]

I live in MA so it's a big story. He has gone into hiding becuase of thousands of death threats. Hope he gets jumped.

[UkrainianAmerican]

Dudes relax. This is INDYMEDIA for godsakes.
I would be HONORED to be dissed by them.

[mobster]

He should be in hiding. Someone is bound to take a swing at him eventually. What happened to his pic though? Yesterday I could see it, but now I get Red X.

[Jack Mehoff]

He should be in hiding. Someone is bound to take a swing at him eventually. What happened to his pic though? Yesterday I could see it, but now I get Red X.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~jbcp/rene.jpg


His school took it down.

[Macs.]

What an asshole.

[Jack Mehoff]

Rene should ask for his tuition money back.

His points were base on somewhat less than compelling arguments like his disdain for Tillman's supposedly "frat boy" personna? Wait, Tillman graduated summa *** laude with a business major... Rene didn't even get that one right.

[Scrim]

Damn fine work Jack.

[Jack Mehoff]

Ironically, I have never attended college. Higher education is obviously not an indicator of intelligence with this Rene "IWillGetMyAssKickByHoodedMaskMen" Gonzoles.

[sethen]

As a former soldier who knows what kind of hardships Pat had to deal with I can honestly say, "F#ck Rene Gonzalez." Judging by his child-like appearance the prick never worked a day in his life! :slap:

[sethen]

Good detective work Jack.

[mobster]

Sethen, thanks for kicking ass for us in the service. You rock, and this thread is proof that there are many of us who do appreciate what you've done. Down with that little turd. I hope the backlash is unrelenting on his ignorant ass.

[Jack Mehoff]

Good detective work Jack.

Hacking pleasure is all mine ;)

[Scrim]

The fvckstain that is Rene is getting thrashed.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/04/29/bc.fbn.umass.tillmanfla.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
I got his phone number too If anyone wants it.

[Cleric01]

Here's what F*cknuts wrote if anyone's interested.

http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html?in_archive=1

[khukuri]

Hey what happened to country of the free mentality.
Suddenly someone says something and all of you who say you would give your life to defend american freedom wanna kick the guys ass.

hint

Even if you think that he´s an assholes it would be hypocrisy to use violence gaianst him.

remember thats the cinds of thing we criticise other "ragheadtalibancavemonkey"countries for.

If I would be you I would rather write an article criticising the liberal anti war side or something like that instead of flooding the guy.... hhmmm.... or is that to "gay and liberal" and its much more fun to kick his ass? = :roll:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:



by the way

huck mucus
i totally agree with you
Unfortanly alot of people react on every different view as a support of terrorism or something like that. If americans make it easy for them and keep thinking all the time that the reasons for terrorism is that poeple hate them just because "they exist" youre never gonna solve terrorism.
I wrote about that in long thread a while ago


RIP
Tillman

[Jack Mehoff]

Lenin,

Perhaps you should come to a funeral, ANY funeral and insult the deceased person. I want to see how many people at the funeral are going to jump your ass. I hope you put that on tape and post it up here.

There is a thing call constructive criticism without using insults, and when you call a guy who gave his life for his country a "dumb jock", that's an insult.

[khukuri]

Lenin,

Perhaps you should come to a funeral, ANY funeral and insult the deceased person. I want to see how many people at the funeral are going to jump your ass. I hope you put that on tape and post it up here.

There is a thing call criticism without insults and when you call a guy who gave his life for his country a "dumb jock", that's an insult.


Youre comparing that to sitting behind a computer and planning something over a couple of days.

Of course I would also punch anybody who insluted a dead person I know at the moment, but in this situation you have the time to calm down and collect your thoughts. It seems to be a concensus here on beating the guy is the right thing to do.
remember guys, if it turns out that he really gets beated it would turn against you cuz people would label you as a bunch of low iq military morons and you would only increase one of those negative prejudices about us in the military


edit: by the way jack
If we are going to react like that against everybody who insult people I think almost everybody on militaryphotos.net should get astick up his ass over all the anti-usa, ant-liberal andsoon insults made on this forum...



its things like this that differs civilised people from not

[Jack Mehoff]

Lenin,

Perhaps you should come to a funeral, ANY funeral and insult the deceased person. I want to see how many people at the funeral are going to jump your ass. I hope you put that on tape and post it up here.

There is a thing call criticism without insults and when you call a guy who gave his life for his country a "dumb jock", that's an insult.



Of course I would also punch anybody who insluted a dead person I know at the moment, but in this situation you have the time to calm down and collect your thoughts. It seems to be a concensus here on beating the guy is the right thing to do.
remember guys, if it turns out that he really gets beated it would turn against you cuz people would label you as a bunch of low iq military morons and you would only increase one of those negative prejudices about us in the military

lenin, you are either really stupid or naive.

Rene "IWillGetMyAssKick" Gonzoles called Pat Tillman a "dumb" jock in front of the world. He literally pissed off half the population of this country. It would not suprise me when local football players in his own university jump his ass. I mean, when you pissed off that many people then it only takes 2-3 people to give him a great ass-whopping.

Rene should have thought of the consquences before he posted his article. He should never put his name on the article. Obviously a college education is not an indicator of intelligence with this nutcase.

Say what?

Youre comparing that to sitting behind a computer and planning something over a couple of days.

The internet is an anonymous world with different people from every country. You can say whatever the hell you want up here without any physical harm being done to you. Rene Gonzoles is another story because everybody knows where he live, his email, his name, his face, his school, his city, his phone.

edit: by the way jack
If we are going to react like that against everybody who insult people I think almost everybody on militaryphotos.net should get astick up his ass over all the anti-usa, ant-liberal andsoon insults made on this forum...

[khukuri]

lenin, you are either really stupid or naive.

neither

beeing naive over what?

of course I also expect him getting beated, but youre helping poeple finding him who may eventually kick his ass. Which won tlead to good things even if it would feel good.


the internet part was an answer to you comparison with the funeral.

[Jack Mehoff]

Don't worry, i'm not going to waste my money and time fly to Mass so I can kick his ass. I probably have to wait in a longggggggggg line behind people who also want to kick his ass. Although I don't mind to give Rene a free dental care for his ugly protruding teeth with my left and right hook.

[Huck Mucus]

Lenin:

You'd be surprisezed at how much the American conservative has in common with his Taliban/Enemy counterpart. They fear and hate women and homo******s and liberals and the educated. They are, for the most part, religious zealots and their first reaction to anything is violence. However, they usually use others to do their violence for them. When it comes down to it, most are cowards. The one's who are not, and who have actually been in combat, don't run their man-pleasers the way most kids on this forum do.

If Gonzalas actually said what he is accused of saying, and if the guy in the picture is actually him (who knows on the internet these days, some freind or enemy pranksters could have set some innocent kid up) then a reasoned person would be more inclined to feel sorry for him than to kill him, especially anyone who was not personally aquainted with the Ranger who died.

A good question to ask, and which is probably being asked by the Ranger's friends and family is this: "What would Ranger Tillman have done if he were alive to hear this?" Figuring he was the man every one makes him out to be, I reckon he would have laughed in Gonzoles' face and let it go. If he would have beat him to death as some people on here propose, then he probably wasn't the "little Jesus" that some of these kids are pretending to honor.

Oh, and by the way, the internet is not nearly as anonomous as some people think it is.

[MaDuce]

Look it's ok tos disagree with the war. But disreasprcting the dead in such a way is just disgusting and uncalled for. If you went to a vigil in New York and yell hoorah for terrorist go jihad what do you think will happen to you???

[Huck Mucus]

Depends. Some people would just shake their heads in discust. Some might attack. The point here is, I didn't think this Gonzales kid went to any funerals or yelled fire in a crowded theater. He just ran his suck on the internet.

[Fox2]

You'd be surprisezed at how much the American conservative has in common with his Taliban/Enemy counterpart. They fear and hate women and homo******s and liberals and the educated. They are, for the most part, religious zealots and their first reaction to anything is violence. However, they usually use others to do their violence for them. When it comes down to it, most are cowards.

Generalizations are a hoot.

[Huck Mucus]

This place run's rampent with them. Problem is, seems many folks can dish it out but can't take it real well. I also note a lack of rebuttle to the generalization. Perhaps that is due to the qualifications I placed in it.

Damn, I'm slowing down. Had I thought quicker I would have simply responded "Not all generalizations are a hoot." ;) Get it? Probably not. :P

[Fox2]

This place run's rampent with them. Problem is, seems many folks can dish it out but can't take it real well. I also note a lack of rebuttle to the generalization. Perhaps that is due to the qualifications I placed in it.

I don't dish out generalizations. I have said many, many, many times that generalizations don't get anyone anywhere.


You'd be surprisezed at how much the American conservative has in common with his Taliban/Enemy counterpart. They fear and hate women and homo******s and liberals and the educated. They are, for the most part, religious zealots and their first reaction to anything is violence. However, they usually use others to do their violence for them. When it comes down to it, most are cowards.

Some would consider me a conservative. And yet, I love women, have no problem with homo******s as people, and am quite fond of the educated. "Surprisezed" yet?

I don't mind those with liberal leanings at all, they have a right to their own opinion, as I have mine. Disagreeing with them does not mean hate.

There may be some "conservatives" who prefer violence and hate liberals, but there are also "liberals" who hate conservatives and use violence to show this as well. Generalizing about either of these groups for the traits of the extreme few is ridiculous.

Your statement above essentially generalizes all "conservatives" as violent, religious, uneducated cowards filled with hate. It is the epitome of partisan idiocy.

Next time you would like a serious rebuttal, please put out some serious content.

[Fox2]

Damn, I'm slowing down. Had I thought quicker I would have simply responded "Not all generalizations are a hoot." ;) Get it? Probably not. :P

Wow, you can get even slower? Amazing. ;)

[Huck Mucus]

First he says: "Generalizations are a hoot."

Then he says:


I don't dish out generalizations.

See what I mean about how you wouldn't get it? See what I mean about education? Probably not.

"Generalizations are a hoot" is itself a generalization. Something you said you don't do. Not all generalizations are a hoot. Generalization, like analogy, metaphor and numerous other techniques of writing, is a valid way of communicating a message. You got the message I was communicating. You may disagree with it, but you got it. So did everyone else.

[Fox2]

Perhaps I should have clarified it as "generalizations about a group of people." :)

But, semantics is irrelevant to the discussion about the inherent evils of conservatism. As is your arrogance.

Tell me, were you born an anal-retentive ass or is this a recent development? ;)

[Cleric01]

Hello...Anybody home?

First of all, I think we are failing to realize what was in the article, have any of you read it? I have. I'm all for freedom of speech...yadayadayada...give me a break already, this isn't about freedom of speech or politics. This is a personal attack on Pat Tillmans character. As I said before, I highly doubt that this individual knew or researched anything about Pat Tillman. This personal attack on Mr. Tillman could be viewed as defimation of character and liable. I agree with what some have written about what Mr. Tillman would have done if he were alive to have read this, "probably laugh and walk away." I believe this to be true.

Should Mr. G get his @ss kicked, everyone has their own opinion, just as he does. He'll be the one that has to look over his shoulder, not me. Do I think it's worth it to kick his @ss? Lets put it this way, I wouldn't piss on Mr. G if he was on fire.

In other words, I could really care less about Mr. G and what happens to him in the future. Had his article had been political, I would have cared less, but an personal attack on a Mr. Tillman, or any soldier is inexcusable. Obviously, Mr. G knows nothing about the military or politics.

I have spent 8 years in the U.S. Army as an Infantry soldier, here's a little history for you Mr. G...Soldiers don't make policy, they enforce it.

(EX) UNITED STATES ARMY INFANTRY, 1993-2001, HOORAH

[Ria]

There was a great article of Tillman in this month's Time. He was a great man :( RIP hero.

[Huck Mucus]

Perhaps I should have clarified it as "generalizations about a group of people." :)

Perhaps you should have.

But, semantics is irrelevant to the discussion about the inherent evils of conservatism. As is your arrogance.

Another typical conservative trait: If it's educated, it must be arrogant. LOL! Anyway, semantics is NEVER irrelevant to the discussion of anything. Semantics are crucial. It helps one define things like what Clinton's definition of "is" is, or the difference, if any, between Rice's "plan" and what ever else it was she tried (and failed) to distinguish.

Tell me, were you born an anal-retentive ass or is this a recent development? ;)

It's a character trait you develop over the years dealing with morons.

Now that we have the ad hominem aside, I'll note we have both been using many subjective terms (hoot, conservative, arrogant, etc.). To try and bring it back on point, I'd suggest Bob Dole is a conservative who does not fall within my generalization. However, I would also say he is the exception, not the rule. Labels, like generalizations, can be useful and/or misleading.

People don't like others to label them but they are often quick to label themselves. If you label yourself a conservative then you should be prepared to be cloaked with subjective generalizations. Many folks do so with the Taliban; noted for certain traits that conservatives themselves wave among their own guidons.

I'd love to stay and play but I've work to do. I will be back in while. Discuss among yourselves. :hug:

[Fox2]

Another typical conservative trait: If it's educated, it must be arrogant. LOL!


See what I mean about how you wouldn't get it? See what I mean about education? Probably not.

Educated people are not always arrogant. Many arrogant people aren't educated at all. ;)

You conducted yourself from the start in an arrogant and insulting manner.

Your education (or lack thereof) does not mean you are arrogant. Your arrogance means you are arrogant.


If you label yourself a conservative then you should be prepared to be cloaked with subjective generalizations.


Some would consider me a conservative.

I said "some" would label me conservative. I don't personally.


I'd love to stay and play but I've work to do.

Have fun working on Sunday. :D

[Huck Mucus]

You conducted yourself from the start in an arrogant and insulting manner. . . . I said "some" would label me conservative. I don't personally.
Have fun working on Sunday. :D

Here is arrogant and insulting; Quoting Fox2 refering to me or my statements: "ridiculous" "the epitome of partisan idiocy" "you can get even slower?" "arrogance" "anal-retentive ass."

Your hypocracy is patent. First, the foregoing insults of yours were in response to my statement regarding conservatives, something you claim you are not. Thus, you, without a dog in this fight, come rushing in with your insults and arrogance. Seems pretentious, paternalistic to your conservative bretheren, and solicitous to me. Second, none of my comments were ad hominem attacks like yours. A generalization, yes, but not insulting. Third, who are you? The internet cop? You're not a conservative. My statement was not addressed to you, and here you come on your white horse.

You stand corrected.

Your opinion of my arrogance is subjective in any event.

As to working on Sundays, damn, that livestock. We tried to get them to eat only six days a week but they would have none of it. :P

[Fox2]

A generalization, yes, but not insulting.

If you cannot, or will not, admit yourself to see your original statement as insulting, this discussion is pointless.

I would have made the same original remark were your little diatribe about liberals. It was an unwarranted attack on a political leaning, and you know that. Perhaps before you call out the hate card on people, you should examine your own.

[Huck Mucus]

A generalization, yes, but not insulting.

If you cannot, or will not, admit yourself to see your original statement as insulting, this discussion is pointless.

I would have made the same original remark were your little diatribe about liberals. It was an unwarranted attack on a political leaning, and you know that. Perhaps before you call out the hate card on people, you should examine your own.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Perhaps you find that insulting. I stipulated to the generalized nature of my statement and will stand by it. The "attack" comparing the U.S. conservative with the Afgan conservative was warrented.

You state that you would have jumped in here regardless of who my generalization was about. That says alot about who you think you are and what role you think you play on the internet. Talk about arrogance. If you don't want a response to your own assinine statements then maybe next time you'll hold your counsel in response to what you think is an assinine statement. If not, then you can expect rebuttle.

Edited to add: If you plan on sticking your two cents in every time you percieve an insult on this militaryphotos.net site (or any other place you might happen to visit), you are going to be one busy boy indeed. However, after looking around, I don't see you doing that. Hmmm. Wonder why? Something I said must have really struck a nerve. What hurts? p-)

[Fox2]

Sometimes the truth hurts. Perhaps you find that insulting. I stipulated to the generalized nature of my statement and will stand by it. The "attack" comparing the U.S. conservative with the Afgan conservative was warrented.


Just the tip of the ice berg, but for one, stating that "most conservatives are cowards" is hardly the "truth." Perhaps enlighten the rest of us mere mortals as to how you came about this epiphany? I mean, other than your personal hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with your world viewpoint?


You state that you would have jumped in here regardless of who my generalization was about. That says alot about who you think you are and what role you think you play on the internet. Talk about arrogance. If you don't want a response to your own assinine statements then maybe next time you'll hold your counsel in response to what you think is an assinine statement. If not, then you can expect rebuttle.

I jumped in there and made the comment because your insults were unwarranted. I'd hope that any decent human being would stand up to such childish inflammatory diatribe.

If you don't want to be perceived as arrogant, do not burst in with assumptions that the opposing party is uneducated, simply because they disagree. Usually mature people understand that disagreement with someone does not make them less intelligent. Obviously you do not belong in that bracket.

Your comments were inflammatory. I was not inflammatory in my initial response, but you decided to make an ass of yourself.

I apologize for my comments to you, but they were warranted.

[Huck Mucus]

Well, check out the chickenhawk data base for starts. Then investigate the distinction between the myth of personal responsability and the law of limited corporate (shareholder) liability. Also, remember my comment about getting painted with the brush of your leaders should you decide to call yourself something, like conservative, liberal, etc. My original post also mention combat. How many religious and political leaders of the conservative movement have been in real deep ****? And I don't mean in the REMFs. I could go on with legions of examples but you must educate yourself.

You say: "I jumped in there and made the comment because your insults were unwarranted."

Yet, as I pointed out before, I don't see you doing that with the plethora of much WORSE generalizing, insulting, death threats and wishes and other crap that goes on here. Thus, your true colors are showing. You are no champion of objectivity with a Lancelot agena. You have your own generalized bias and you felt threatened by some modicum of generalized truth or you wouldn't have wasted your time arguing with someone you percieve to be such an ass.

You say: "Usually mature people understand that disagreement with someone does not make them less intelligent."

Actually, mature people don't pipe in with generalizations attacking generalizations, with little one liners like "hoot" and then proceed to step on their own crank in argument, repeatedly. Mature people also look behind the generalization for the point that is trying to be made. Mine was one of hypocracy. Rather than run with that, you decided to digress with a childish retort (hoot) in support of a given. A given to which I stipulated.

You say: "I apologize for my comments to you, but they were warranted." If they were warrented, in your subjective opinion, there is no need to apologize.

[Beowulf]

Hmmm this thread is done for.

Huck Mucus perhaps you should apply for the Airforce Space Shuttle Door-gunner Universal Program. You seem more than qualified.

Don't bother Pming me unless it's with your creds.