......Are you saying that the original (army) "Army Strong" message is not a lie?
Are you saying it
is ?
Yes. It comprehensively misrepresents reality.
You think the government had a hand in 9/11. You are a twoofer. All credibility goes right out the window.
Thanks. In common with other definitions I have been offered on this forum, by your definition (implied by your mistaken assertion about what I think), I am not a "twoofer". I wonder what your mistaken assertion was based on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a HUGE difference between "demonizing" terrorists and disliking what they stand for.
I would also note that I never specifically said Longtabber WAS demonizing terrorists (although it may look that way from what I posted), but that's beside the point.
You very clearly and specifically stated that LONGTABBER PE was demonizing terrorists. It would be helpful if you could shed more light on the reasons for your U-turn beyond simply pleading that it is now "beside the point"?
What, in your mind,
do terrorists "stand for"?
What I DID say is that he has justifiable contempt for their cowardly tactics and has no qualms about teaching them the error of their ways.
Have you considered that "our" ("your") ways may also be in error and that going round the world violently teaching foreigners lessons might be one of them?
When someone on "our" side sacrifices their lives for the cause it is seen as heroic not cowardly. What's cowardly about flying an plane into a building? Is it more courageous to drop a bomb out of an plane or to press a button on a remote computer?
There is nothing in military training that allows for any soldier to generalize their enemy, but I would point out that Longtabber is actually there; we are not. He SEES the results of their actions on a daily basis; we do not. He has an incredibly unique perspective that is not shared by many of the people in this thread, including myself, simply because he is actually present in theater and actually experiences what the terrorists are perpetrating against the innocent civilians present there.
(We now know he's not "actually there".)
What special insights into the political realities of war does fighting give to a human being?
Embedded journalists report that people on the "frontline", constantly under threat of death, often from an unseen enemy, have a very distorted view of the "theatre". It is not an objective view at all. For a start they very rarely get the opportunity to hear the native population's side of the story, who have just as much, if not more, authority on the reality of the occupiers' actions than the occupiers.
No-one who believes that they are risking their lives for freedom will easily accept that they may not be fighting for freedom at all, but for oppression.
In the OP video one witness mentions the targeting of civilians in Iraq. This is met by a poster on this thread with a blanket denial, supported by insults, accusations of lying and attempts to discredit witnesses. Yet one of the chief complaints (e.g.
in this report (
video)) of Iraqi's about the occupation forces is that, when attacked, they tend to spray bullets in all directions regardless of who is in the way. Are they all lying? Are we simply to trust the military's supposedly superior authority instead?
How trustworthy is the US military as an authority on its own conduct? We have seen its repeated attempts to spin, cover up and and/or blatently lie its way out of bad news. It even invents fictitious good news (eg.
Jessica Lynch,
Pat Tillman (
short video),
Mission Accomplished (
long video)).
Any organization that instinctively closes ranks in the face of criticism cannot be considered an objective authority on its own conduct. That's why independent inquiries are used to ascertain truth.
We cannot know what he goes through on a daily basis, so to even make the assumption that he is "demonizing" anyone is, quite frankly, a ludicrous assumption, because it has no basis in fact.
Have you already forgotten that you yourself agreed with this "ludicrous assumption"?
From what I can tell, he is merely a soldier doing what a soldier does and being an exemplary NCO to show his soldiers what the hard right is over the easy wrong. Once again; I'm not stationed with him, so I can't say that is fact, but from what I have read of his posts, that is the impression I get. And like it or not, the whole "appeal to authority" argument has merit here, simply because there is a major difference between the way a civilian views the world and the way a soldier views the world; it cannot be denied and should not be denied.
The difference between the civilian and military worldview is irrelevant to the morality of the wars and any atrocities that occur prosecuting them.
As to his views on liberals; I get the impression there he simply has little tolerance for people who whine that war isn't necessary, not necessarily liberals.
Please give an example of a liberal "whining" that war isn't necessary.
I would classify myself as a liberal, but even I recognize that war is sometimes necessary in order to protect others' freedoms,
Which liberals, besides pacifist ones, have stated that war isn't sometimes necessary?
Whose freedoms are the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan protecting?
so I have little tolerance for them myself. But he has not demonized them. And they are not his enemy.
And the military in general does not tell its soldiers how to feel about politics, so Longtabber's views are his and his alone, and he has a right to them.
Political dissent is not encouraged in the military: The views that war, in general, is a largely scam, for example, or that the Iraq invasion was illegal, will not be welcomed.
I may disagree with him in some respects, but I do not begrudge him his right to his feelings on the subject, nor does the military.
I do not begrudge him his feelings, either.
We are trained not to generalize our enemy; that is correct. Longtabber has not once, in all the posts I've seen, violated that training principle. Nor has Quad; nor even have I or any other military member here. The military is far from a perfect entity; I would be foolish to even suggest such. We have our d-bags and useless personnel, and even personnel who violate laws much the same as any other corporation or company; and when we find them, we do our best to get rid of them just the same as those corporations and companies out there. But our military provides some of the best training in the world to personnel willing to work hard and take advantage of it, and it has paid off in spades for me, and will for Quad and Longtabber should they ever decide to get off of active duty and get civilian jobs. Longtabber has trained in the military for decades; he know their training principles better than anyone in this thread. You, b2b, JJ, do not.
I am not particularly concerned about discussing training principles. Actions speak louder than words.
So I'm sorry, but your arguments have failed miserably.
Can you be more specific? Which arguments?
I have never once regretted my military service, despite being confronted with several of those d-bags I mentioned above, because I know how to use what I was taught, and I do so on a daily basis. I would imagine Longtabber and Quad feel the same as I do.
Contemporary revelations about US torture policy, directed right from the top, severely undermine the popular Few-Bad-Apples theory.
Are you for real ?! Iraq was virtually disarmed before the brave invaders arrived.
