• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Marines Urinating on Dead Guys?

They should be glad the Marines are urinating on their dead comrades. They just need to have their faith tweeked a little. That should not be too difficult to do. It is the annoiting from Allahs true messengers.

You people who think it is barbaric just need to be reeducated. Why hasn't that Americans adopted reeductaion camps?
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
No. But by claiming there is popular Muslim outrage because some marines pissed on a dead terrorist would be to tacitly claim they support the terrorists.
Click to expand...


What???:confused:

So if I disagree with someone assaulting a christian it means that I, a confirmed atheist, am suddenly a christian supporter? I think not.
picture.php


You can know an act is wrong even when it's perpetrated against your worst enemy.

If you were assaulted by a complete stranger while you were innocently walking down the street then people here would know the act of assault was wrong even if they had posted here to say they don't agree with your views on Muslims. Their disapproval of an unprovoked assault on you would certainly not mean that they agreed with any of your opinions.

The argument you present is, therefore, wrong.
 
ANTPogo said:
Then why do you keep namedropping him in single-sentence responses, as if that means something?
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't have a complete coherent argument.

You see this "argument by rhetorical question" or "argument by trite quip" from people that can't defend their position intellectually.

Putting together a complete argument is self-defeating because then it is too obviously stupid. So you flit from one "zinger" to another, never having to actually make your case.

The other aspect is the illusion of elegance, because it is short. The last aspect is plausible deniabilty. They work at the level of insinuation instead of actually committing to a full argument. That way you can actually deny the very thing you are insinuating.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Because he doesn't have a complete coherent argument.

You see this "argument by rhetorical question" or "argument by trite quip" from people that can't defend their position intellectually.

Putting together a complete argument is self-defeating because then it is too obviously stupid. So you flit from one "zinger" to another, never having to actually make your case.

The other aspect is the illusion of elegance, because it is short. The last aspect is plausible deniabilty. They work at the level of insinuation instead of actually committing to a full argument. That way you can actually deny the very thing you are insinuating.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed that.

Bill Thompson said:
Wow, lots of posts moved.
I no longer know where we are in this topic.
Click to expand...

And apparently you won't for another couple of weeks at least.
 
What's so hard to believe about anti-Western sentiment stemming from a chronically sick, weak and failed civilization?

Nobody likes to admit they're responsible for their own problems. Especially so of cultures where honour is a matter of life and death, and people kill to preserve it.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
What's so hard to believe about anti-Western sentiment stemming from a chronically sick, weak and failed civilization?

Nobody likes to admit they're responsible for their own problems. Especially so of cultures where honour is a matter of life and death, and people kill to preserve it.
Click to expand...

American soldiers urinating on dead people is anti-Western sentiment?
Say what?
 
kerikiwi said:
American soldiers urinating on dead people is anti-Western sentiment?
Say what?
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't talking about that but something else. Since the discussion has branched off in other directions.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Because he doesn't have a complete coherent argument.

You see this "argument by rhetorical question" or "argument by trite quip" from people that can't defend their position intellectually.

Putting together a complete argument is self-defeating because then it is too obviously stupid. So you flit from one "zinger" to another, never having to actually make your case.

The other aspect is the illusion of elegance, because it is short. The last aspect is plausible deniabilty. They work at the level of insinuation instead of actually committing to a full argument. That way you can actually deny the very thing you are insinuating.
Click to expand...
Great post. I'm going to plagerize the hell out of it.
 
Virus said:
What's so hard to believe about anti-Western sentiment stemming from a chronically sick, weak and failed civilization?

Nobody likes to admit they're responsible for their own problems. Especially so of cultures where honour is a matter of life and death, and people kill to preserve it.
Click to expand...

well you think that the taliban feel envy when they say we are living sinful lives beacause here woman can dress almost as they want, or it is envy they feel when they point out how our society is leting gay people marry eachother? envy? really?
 
Well, the recent killing of French soldiers in Afghanistan is being attributed, by the person who did the killing, to the video. He felt sufficient rage against the Americans that he went after the nearest Western troops.

You may now return to your speculation about envy of civilizations.
 
Border Reiver said:
Well, the recent killing of French soldiers in Afghanistan is being attributed, by the person who did the killing, to the video. He felt sufficient rage against the Americans that he went after the nearest Western troops.

You may now return to your speculation about envy of civilizations.
Click to expand...

So...does anyone really believe they would not have tried to kill those soldiers anyway?
 
Mycroft said:
So...does anyone really believe they would not have tried to kill those soldiers anyway?
Click to expand...

So...here's what I don't understand about this little pissing contest.

Scenario.

You just been in a shooting war. Looks like you won. Get to the enemy, there's a heap of bodies. Now here's the problem...you know some of the them might not really be dead, so you stay close and keep the rifles trained on them. But you gotta piss. Now where's the likely spot?

Nothing complicated there!

Next problem?
 
angrysoba said:
I have been told Santa is real. I don't believe it anymore.

Anyway, it seems you are more concerned about them urinating on these people then them being blown away in the first place.

Personally, I would prefer the urination to the being blown away.
Click to expand...

the concern is for them to be killed and then urinated.

being urinated: bad
being killed: worse
being killed and then urinated: worst (for relatives and co-nationals, of course, since the dead themsleves have nothing to say about it)
 
Why is this more upsetting to you than the fact that they aimed a metal pipe at them that is hollowed out such that an explosvie charge can shoot a piece of metal at them faster than the speed of sound to tear through their bodies and kill them?

Did you notice that this story seemed to fade away? I take this to mean the people who could have made a big deal of this (The Taliban and others) are also people who know what it is like to be shot at and to shoot at people. And they understand that urinating on the dead bodies of people trying to shoot at you is not a big deal at all.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
Why is this more upsetting to you than the fact that they aimed a metal pipe at them that is hollowed out such that an explosvie charge can shoot a piece of metal at them faster than the speed of sound to tear through their bodies and kill them?
Click to expand...
Who said this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom