Iraq videos of U.S. military on the losing end

[TheNoNamedOne]

In the interest of fairness and balance, it is only right to show the horrors of war when not only cheering and winning, but also when crying and hoping that your life isn't taken as you are losing a battle, or when it is lost.

It is wrong to show only a romantic version of fun and excited feelings when winning, because if that were the only side, then the reality of war would be distorted. So, for those who were elated with the winning vids, grimace and suck up the bad with the good.

I posed this question in the other thread:

I wonder what it sounds like on the side that is losing the firefight?

and from C6:

Sucks to be the loser LMAO.

and from SexWax:

I think they should get a bonus for each kill. I'll buy em a beer. A whole keg even. Damn good job ! I wish I could be over there with them. Cheer all you want !!!

Look at these scared U.S. Marines losing and crying for their lives. I bet there is some giggling and laughing on the other side as they watch them trapped and pinned down while shooting at them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7T84ax2bLE&feature=related

Not so funny now, huh?

That's war! Enough suffering to spread around for all. Equal opportunity distributor of suffering.

[P_chan]

deleted.......Not worth it.

[okisteve]

Pretty terrible. What I really don't get is the videotape thing. Don't all those guys have something more important to do?

[silviasichigo]

Maybe he is the CC Guy with a pistol, or just some guy who thinks it will make him some cash if he makes it out....... either way sad......

[TheNoNamedOne]

Pretty terrible. What I really don't get is the videotape thing. Don't all those guys have something more important to do?

Before the camera started rolling and filming, as they were getting into location, they probably thought they would be laughing and joking it up as they pwned some insurgents.

Looks like the joke got turned around and put on the other foot. Glad we have a record of it for balance. Marines do get scared and cry like babies, too, like I imagine the insurgents do while/when Marines are laughing at them.

[DougP]

These videos capture the moments in a timeless fashion but do very little to represent the magnitude of the overall situation. What you are witnessing is a reactive state of mind, if you will, which consists of instinctive, emotional and learned reactions. The result of ones conditioning and reaction to fear and stress. They are flashbacks to a specific time where adrenaline and emotions combined with muscle memory are in complete control.

Its also another example of classical conditioning The link between neutral stimulus to a prior experience/action/feeling. Like Pavlov's experiment, the dog would salivate simply by hearing a bell--even without the presence of meat. To compare the way they are reacting to this elevated level of stress and unusual circumstance to the way we behave in normal society is rather unfair. War in itself seems rather easy to critique and actions associated with it based on the way we are normally expected to behave under far less levels of mental strain. Its not uncommon to see reactions like this under duress. The pain, guilt and mental anguish come after the fact. One's inner struggles to cope with the loss of friends, family or the guild associated with taking another life are not represented or apparent in the moments, seconds or mere minutes that take place in a firefight.

[P_chan]

Before the camera started rolling and filming, as they were getting into location, they probably thought they would be laughing and joking it up as they pwned some insurgents.

I don't think it was like that TP, only in your wettest dreams. It looked as if they were in a tent, most likely a mortar attack. So they were probably just sitting around their barracks, possibly just filming their off time, when mortars starting coming in. Which sucks because you have no idea when or where the next one is going to hit.

Makes me wonder what time of combat experience you had while in the military. Because IMO if you had experienced anything remotely close to this, then you wouldn't be so snide about it.

[DougP]

Now on the flip side, let me just make it clear that this is by no means acceptable behavior. There is nothing acceptable about war, period. What I was getting at in my above post was that raw emotions and instinctive come out in those "shit hits the fan moments" It is not however something that should be encouraged. Quite the opposite actually.

The other videos which are in this thread depicting deplorable acts while "out and about" with the local Iraqis are anything but humane. They are in many ways the undesired and unintended consequences from something as horrific as war. As I mentioned above its not just the instinctive part that rears its ugly heads but the conditioning brought on by the training, leadership, and the environment in which the service member finds him/herself emerged in.

So I do not condone the behavior but I do find some of it(the rash words said during firefights) to be understandable. There are probably a few among us that can personally relate to this. How often have you seen someone try to answer the question: "So what were you thinking about? What was going through your mind while you were engaged with the enemy?" You'll rarely ever get a well laid out explanation depicting a scenario where every action was well thought through during the event.

One thing is for sure. During war, there is a dehumanization of the enemy. They are painted in a not so friendly light and the reactions you see in these videos plays quite well to that tune. I shudder at the thought and almost ashamed to admit, but I am certain that if I was being fired upon and was returning fire against men I had never met, in such a scenario, I'd probably say a few despicable things myself. If there's anyone out there that could honestly say that they wouldn't do the same in such, my hat is off to you sir or mam.

[TheNoNamedOne]

These videos capture the moments in a timeless fashion but do very little to represent the magnitude of the overall situation. What you are witnessing is a reactive state of mind,...

Yes, Doug, all that is true, however, I think you are missing the point of the two threads set up in opposition to one another.

There is nothing acceptable about war, period. What I was getting at in my above post was that raw emotions and instinctive come out in those "shit hits the fan moments" It is not however something that should be encouraged. Quite the opposite actually.

You mean U.S. soldiers in those other threads showing them winning battles as they attack and kill the enemy should be discouraged from cheering?

Strange, I also think only one person took the time to state calling them "ragheads" was wrong.

The other videos which are in this thread depicting deplorable acts while "out and about" with the local Iraqis are anything but humane.

Doug, those vids are not in this thread. You are referring to a whole different thread -- the one about "winning hearts and minds of Iraqis". Your statements on those would be better placed there, for this thread and the thread that quotes are linked to in the OP from the other thread, is about perceptions from the winning and losing side and the ability to empathize and/or dismiss that with celebrations just because one identifies with one side or the other. I guess you could say it is more about prejudiced emotions getting in the way of good will and shared humanity.

Furthermore, and probably most important, these two threads are more about those who choose to comment on them than the actors in the films used as props for these topics. These threads are mostly about self-examination for the audience.

[okisteve]

Strange, I also think only one person took the time to state calling them "ragheads" was wrong.

I had a Brit friend back before 9/11 (it's 11/9 in England, BTW) who called the wealthy Arab tourists there "the tea towel and fanbelt crowd".

[DougP]

Doug, those vids are not in this thread. You are referring to a whole different thread -- the one about "winning hearts and minds of Iraqis". Your statements on those would be better placed there, for this thread and the thread that quotes are linked to in the OP from the other thread, is about perceptions from the winning and losing side and the ability to empathize and/or dismiss that with celebrations just because one identifies with one side or the other. I guess you could say it is more about prejudiced emotions getting in the way of good will and shared humanity.

Furthermore, and probably most important, these two threads are more about those who choose to comment on them than the actors in the films used as props for these topics. These threads are mostly about self-examination for the audience.

Ah sorry, I was trying to make a statement in regards to the other video in an attempt to clarify that I was not referring to them in my previous post. Slip of the mind there.:) Hey at least all the lower case wasn't in caps and the caps in lower case, right?:) I understand the intent as far as self examination is concerned. Which is why I wrote.

One thing is for sure. During war, there is a dehumanization of the enemy. They are painted in a not so friendly light and the reactions you see in these videos plays quite well to that tune. I shudder at the thought and almost ashamed to admit, but I am certain that if I was being fired upon and was returning fire against men I had never met, in such a scenario, I'd probably say a few despicable things myself. If there's anyone out there that could honestly say that they wouldn't do the same in such, my hat is off to you sir or mam.

Its true, I do find such behaviors.. (again not referring to the "hearts and minds" thread) to be despicable. Just as I find cursing around children to be in bad taste. But in the event of, shock, accelerated heightened stress( a loud bang nearby) its very possible that even I would say a few four letter words around the little ones. Again, I can only imagine what would be pouring out of my mouth in any one of those situations. I do not take every expression on those tapes to be genuine. By that I mean what we think they are really feeling or that its "genuine happiness" and not just relief we are hearing, well, it might be rather misleading.

Again These threads are mostly about self-examination for the audience. So for the sake of this exercise of self examination, lets say I was over there. Far far away from my indoor shooting range and my Big Macs(after all I'm just a gun toting war mongering American glutton:)) The last two weeks have been a little more than stressful. Besides the long hours of watch, sleep interrupted by motors, the last two patrols and convoys have been hell. Now assuming I was a young service member, this past week could very well have been the first time I laid eyes upon a severely mutilated body. That alone would be hard on the mind, let alone if it was a dear friend of mine I had known since boot. To compound upon this already bad experience, this one "set back" gets down graded to a minor one, a mere drop ion the bucket compared to the multitude experienced in the last 10 days or so. So how would I react if all of this is still fresh in my mind and we come under fire? What would be the first, second, or last words out of my mouth while returning fire? I don't know. But I'd imagine they wouldn't be "Excuse me or I'm sorry I'm shooting at you, sir."

Honestly, after partaking in this "self-examination", I'm really not sure what I'm supposed to expect out of anyone over there.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Intense fear and confusion in the smothering confines of a vehicle hit by a roadside bomb.

Were insurgents laughing and cheering from afar as they possibly watched the event unfold from high powered scopes, or a window with a good line of sight? Maybe they laughed saying, "That's what you get for fvcking up my birthday."

Watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R9hbyTXp9Q

[DougP]

I'd imagine they were TP.

[okisteve]

We just need to get out of there, the sooner the better. Let's see how the Petraeus testimony goes this week.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'd imagine they were TP.

Here is something to examine, Doug -- the most probable reaction to this thread had it been created prior to the other one.

In all probability, posts would have bordered on replies like this:

How dare you TP just show one side of videos with Americans being attacked. God forbid you show us kicking their ass, too.

Thing is, when the other thread came out first, there were no calls for a sense of equal showing.

Some people just do not understand that if a person holds an opinion or wants to make a point, it is not their responsibility to cover both sides of the issue. Who takes issue with one side has the responsibility to put forth the side they care about that they think is lacking and not being portrayed equally.

After all, forums are for expressing opinions and beliefs. We are not BBC reporters or FOX News trying to act as if we are "fair and balanced."

Like I said, we have opinions. Reporters are not supposed to when they report. Again, we are not reporters. I can't believe I have to go through such lengths to drive this simple point home.

[DougP]

That I understand full well, TP. Agreed you are not a reporter. You nor anyone else for that matter has to represent both sides of an argument. You are entitled to your opinion and have the right to express it and represent it in your posts. I think some of the frustration that you see from others is not knowing exactly what "your" opinion really is. Or where(and I find myself among this crowd sometimes) you are going with some of these threads. Besides the "self examination" aspect, what is the goal in threads like the 'hearts and minds" or even this one? I haven't viewed this thread as an opposing book end to the other one. But maybe this is what you meant it to be. Maybe you thought it would cheer people up, I really don't know.

I wouldn't mind at all if you were to indulge me on what you opinion is or what view you are really trying to portray here in threads such as the last one. Is it to offer up a spoon full of humility to the military crowd here? Some humble pie if you will. I understand that "Some people just do not understand that if a person holds an opinion or wants to make a point, it is not their responsibility to cover both sides of the issue." So please, what is your point? What is your opinion? This is what has alluded me and I'm sure others up until now.

[Asshat]

So please, what is your point? What is your opinion? This is what has alluded me and I'm sure others up until now.

I said it in the earlier post. The answer is "Troll." He posted the first video, waiting for the expected responses knowing full well he would use those on the second video.

Give him a break. He's merely increasing the readership here.

[TheNoNamedOne]

That I understand full well, TP. Agreed you are not a reporter. You nor anyone else for that matter has to represent both sides of an argument.

There are those here who have not yet grasped that, Doug. Consider that point not directed to you since you do.

You are entitled to your opinion and have the right to express it and represent it in your posts. I think some of the frustration that you see from others is not knowing exactly what "your" opinion really is. Or where(and I find myself among this crowd sometimes) you are going with some of these threads.

Subtlety eludes many. Though I do understand, many need forceful spoon feedings to understand they are being fed. But that Eureka lightbulb moment is more fulfilling I think.

Besides the "self examination" aspect, what is the goal in threads like the 'hearts and minds" or even this one?

Why does it have to be anything more than "self-examination"? And besides, whatever my main goal is, the perceptions of some may be different. Some may just view them on a superficial level of "life in a war zone." Which is fine also, I guess. But, it would be nice if they could catch what is below the surface.

I wouldn't mind at all if you were to indulge me on what you opinion is or what view you are really trying to portray here in threads such as the last one. Is it to offer up a spoon full of humility to the military crowd here? Some humble pie if you will. I understand that "Some people just do not understand that if a person holds an opinion or wants to make a point, it is not their responsibility to cover both sides of the issue." So please, what is your point? What is your opinion? This is what has alluded me and I'm sure others up until now.

C'mon, Doug. I don't think you need the spoon. Besides, I have already told you about a big part of it being self examination (http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html) for the audience. Do certain methods confound you (http://www.livewiremedia.com/socmethod.html)?

Why would you think spoon-feeding to be the most beneficial?

[DougP]

All this time I've been trying to put my finger on it... just couldn't come up with the words... an 8 month long brain fart.:D The Socratic Approach is definitely you. :first:

Oh but it would be nice if every now and then if you were to at least warn some here first Say, by starting out with "What I am really here for today is to try an experiment with you." It might not keep everyone from feeling they're being antagonized but I'm sure it couldn't hurt.

Also, don't be afraid to wear your thoughts a little more out there on your sleeve by being more direct. It may not be your style or your personality, but try it sometime. I know you can do it.:D

[Asshat]

Spoken with the usual degree of pompousness. Subtlety is not a trait demonstrated by this poster, yet he espouses his own special, hidden, ability to "spoon-feed the unwashed masses by referring to archaic teaching methodology for primary students.

LMAO! This post explains "everything."

[Asshat]

All this time I've been trying to put my finger on it... just couldn't come up with the words... an 8 month long brain fart.:D The Socratic Approach is definitely you. :first:

Oh but it would be nice if every now and then if you were to at least warn some here first Say, by starting out with "What I am really here for today is to try an experiment with you." It might not keep everyone from feeling they're being antagonized but I'm sure it couldn't hurt.

Also, don't be afraid to wear your thoughts a little more out there on your sleeve by being more direct. It may not be your style or your personality, but try it sometime. I know you can do it.:D

Doug, the word is condescension. He cares not at all about anyone's feelings but his own. Perhaps you could take your own advice, and wear your thoughts a little further out there.

[DougP]

Doug, the word is condescension. He cares not at all about anyone's feelings but his own. Perhaps you could take your own advice, and wear your thoughts a little further out there.

You can have my thoughts when you pry them from my cold dead hands! :thumbup:

I'd say I'm pretty open about my thoughts usually:) I just wish TP, would apply this Socratic method to himself( or at least openly) and share what he thinks with the rest of the class.:) Look, getting us to think is great, I love it. These threads have a headliner zing to them that brings the posters in droves and elevates the activity here. Wonderful. However I would love to see the thread stater in any or all threads at least interject with their thoughts on the topic they started and their reasoning behind it. That would really help things progress. Or make them more interesting.:thumbup1:

[Asshat]

You can have my thoughts when you pry them from my cold dead hands! :thumbup:

I'd say I'm pretty open about my thoughts usually:) I just wish TP, would apply this Socratic method to himself( or at least openly) and share what he thinks with the rest of the class.:) Look, getting us to think is great, I love it. These threads have a headliner zing to them that brings the posters in droves and elevates the activity here. Wonderful. However I would love to see the thread stater in any or all threads at least interject with their thoughts on the topic they started and their reasoning behind it. That would really help things progress. Or make them more interesting.:thumbup1:

The time for zinger OP's is long past especially when they are designed to offend people.

At nearly 50, I don't feel the need to have someone apply basic and archaic philosophy to me....I don't need them to correct my grammar, my spelling, or really any other aspect of "me."

I am quite certain the rest of the posters feel the same way for various reasons. A poster who takes it upon himself not only to "preach" but to infer a higher intellect is someone who either needs the internet to boost their machismo, or has an alter ego. Very few people are that disrespectful in person- and those who are, soon learn comportment rules.

For you, I doubt he has much to "teach" you, but then perhaps you are a really nice guy and enjoy being the sole person on this site who will give him the time of day. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

...yet he espouses his own special, hidden, ability to "spoon-feed the unwashed masses by referring to archaic teaching methodology for primary students.

LMAO! This post explains "everything."

Ah, my Umi dear, don't let one or two web sites linked to throw ya. Maybe Princeton Law Review (http://www.princetonreview.com/law/research/articles/life/socratic.asp) is a tad higher than primary students. LMAO!

There are law professors who are alleged to have gone an entire semester without uttering a declarative statement. Though the Socratic Method has passed out of vogue in the last decade, it remains a common instruction style in many law schools. The case method already places a dizzying burden on a 1L, but when combined with the Socratic Method, it leaves many feeling helpless.

Indeed, everthing explained -- what is that story of the frog sitting in the well?

You know it, dontchya, Umi? Or are ya kinda feeling helpless?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Oh but it would be nice if every now and then if you were to at least warn some here first Say, by starting out with "What I am really here for today is to try an experiment with you." It might not keep everyone from feeling they're being antagonized but I'm sure it couldn't hurt.

They have gotten the spoon feeding from me before, Doug.

Also, don't be afraid to wear your thoughts a little more out there on your sleeve by being more direct. It may not be your style or your personality, but try it sometime. I know you can do it.:D

I have used both styles on a number of times, Doug. Pay attention!

You surely think there are times for both styles to be used, don't you? Or do you think it is a one size fits all choice? Or is it that the OP starter or thread poster cannot discern for him/herself when it is more appropriate to use which?

[the_wrath_of_Khan]

That's war!

Are you a combat veteran? If not then how do you know what war is? These guys are hardly on the loosing end of the battle. They are just pinned down for a bit..

[TheNoNamedOne]

These guys are hardly on the loosing end of the battle. They are just pinned down for a bit..

Ahhhh... I see. A little bit of Orwellian spin with language and a pinch of the "O'Reilly Factor" to boot, eh? El Rushbo's "truth detector" would probably spin it the same way, too.

[Brand_X]

old thread revived LOL.

Base got mortared they followed the SOP getting down on the floor of their hut. They lived so whats the big deal. Not everybody is calm and collective under pressure. I dont know why they are referred to as the losers though. Not always but much of the time the idiots mortaring base get decimated by return arty that often returns fire before the first enemy mortar hits the ground.

[Bones]

As posted by Brand_X:

Not everybody is calm and collective under pressure. I dont know why they are referred to as the losers though.

Well, we all know why they were "referred to be as the losers".

Just have to look at the guy who posted the thread. :rolleyes:

The guys in the flick were scared, and anyone who tells you that they are "BRAVER", if they were to be caught in that type of a situation, is a liar.

While some people out there tend to make fun of them, they do so from the comforts of their own home, behind a keyboard.:thumbdown:

While the people depicted in the video may seem to be afraid, they are on the front line. They are the people who may, or may not lose their lives. That's their job, it's what they have volunteered to do.

Like a lot of other people out there, I've served my country for 20 some years. In a small way, I might have impacted some things for the better, but it pales in comparison to what all of the new warriors are doing these days.

I have nothing but respect, for the people who are currently wearing the uniforms.

Bones

[FLiprayzin240sx]

All this video shows is that there wasn't a reaper up in the air to fix the problem...

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/28/reaper.jpg

Nothing a couple hellfires or GBUs cant fix...

[The Preacher]

Sure it's only fair to show the two sides of war while pointing and making fun of the otherwise dominant side when they run for cover...

But here's why you shouldn't (since you asked...)

Your entire readership is on the side you're insulting... You're doing a great job at pissing off the only people who are paying the JU bills. This forum exists solely because the American Military are here, past and present. Good luck finding advertising revenue from local companies catering to "the ragheads" when you finish alienating all the Americans :77:

Where is the "EPIC FAIL" smily when you need it? :thumbdown:

[P_chan]

catering to "the ragheads" when you finish alienating all the American

Define "raghead"?

[The Preacher]

I'm the only one taking the the time to call them "ragheads" Am I wrong.



FROM THE URBAN DICTIONARY

since you asked...


1. raghead

The rag being a turban and the head being that of a middle eastern or far eastern male. Although not all middle eastern or far eastern people wear turbans the term raghead is used in any case. It's the same as calling an Iraqi a Paki. See alse: towelhead, sand nigger, Paki, camel jockey, oil nigger.
Taxi Driver: Those damn armericans are always putting there noses where they shouldn't.
Taxi's Fare: Shut up yah ****in raghead! What the **** do you know anyway.

2. raghead

1. A person of Middle Eastern or North African decent(derogatory)

2. a Hindu Indian(derogatory)

3. a gypsy(derogatory)
He got fired for calling his co-worker a raghead.
rag head rag-head towelhead towel head towel-head camel jockey arab red dot red mark dot head

3. raghead

A derogatory term used to describe a male of middle eastern descent, the part “rag” refers to a turban and the part “head” refers to the chocolate coloured face of the person. Other terms for a male of middle eastern decent include: paki, sand nigger, oil nigger, chocolate face, chocolate drop and desert rat.

White man A: “awww man what the **** is that smell?”
White man A: “smells like …curry”
White man B: “it’s that ******* raghead, bloody curry lover”

towel head paki sand nigger oil nigger chocolate face chocolate drop and desert rat.


Here's the link.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=raghead

[P_chan]

I meant define "raghead" in context with your posts? Just how are you calling ragheads? Hopefully not all people of middle eastern descent. But it wouldn't surprise me if you were implying just that.

Oh and I don't think anyone is catering to the "ragheads" on this forum:rolleyes:

[The Preacher]

I meant define "raghead" in context with your posts? Just how are you calling ragheads? Hopefully not all people of middle eastern descent. But it wouldn't surprise me if you were implying just that.

I am Iranian and muslim, infidel. What are you trying to say? That I hate myself or that I don't have the right to use the term raghead, when I am, in fact, a raghead? Why does that surprise you? Enlighten me.

Here's another rule: If a black person says "nigger", you ARE NOT allowed to quote them without saying "the n word" unless you are also black.

Black guy: "Wassup nigga!"
White guy: "HuuHuu, he said the n word."

Had the white guy said: "HuuHuu, he said nigga." there would have ensued an immediate beat-down.

That said, I am Iranian and can say "reghead", "cammel jockey", "sand nigger", etc. The JU forum moderator (aka TheProsecutor) can not say raghead under ANY circumstances unless he is so blessed as being one... As an example, he must say "the R word".



Oh and I don't think anyone is catering to the "ragheads" on this forum:rolleyes:

Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Alah, and Mohamed. Are you dense? I'll spell it out for you in kinder-speak: If the JU staff makes the American community here angry, they'll (the American community) stop reading the JU newspaper (and I use that term very loosly). If that happens, they (JU) won't get any advertising revenue. Therfore, they (JU) will go out of business. Therefore, this forum will shut down... The "Catering to the "ragheads"" bit was this thing called s a r c a s m. I'll let you look it up; easier to remember it that way. Anyway, there's this war going on. America vs. a mostly Muslim country (or 2 or 3. Who's counting?). Because the JU readership is mostly American Military, and the forum moderator is posting videos and saying things that are highly inflamitory to this (American Military) crowd, he (or she) is making the Americans (readership and bill payers) angry. Where I come from, we call that "bad business". Of course there aren't enough businesses that cater to the Muslim country side to pay the bills.... THAT was the point (and the sarcasm). Nobody said that he (or she) was catering to "the ragheads". Specifically, there are two sides. A JU forum moderator (employee?) is making inflamitory statements towards one side. This person has the apperance of representing JU. I hope there are enough businesses that cater to the other side (aka "the ragheads") to keep JU in business when the current readership erodes due to tactless statements made by their employees or those who have the appearance of being in their employ... Get it?

Where's the "over your head" smily..?

[P_chan]

Exactly, I didn't understand what you were trying to get at. So I asked for some clarification. No need to freak out in a wall of text, nor talk down to me. Only makes you look like a fool.

Where's the "over your head" smily..?I've got one for you!
http://home.alltel.net/petronski/obvious.jpg

No need to talk down to me about the whole "TP is bad for JU because the readership is mainly americans". I think that point as been addressed time and time again. Also, TP is not an employee of JU, maybe you should do a little more research before you fly off the handle?:rolleyes: Might I suggest the search button?

[The Preacher]

I know he's not an "employee". Hence the "appearance of representation" of JU.

Thanks for the pic. Sorry for the beatdown. You had the "appearance of defence of the person with the appearance of representation of JU"... but I was clearly mistaken.

I kill me... :D

[dk]

No, TP is not the staff of JU. Yes, I have tried to keep these forums AS FREE AS POSSIBLE since the very first one was placed online six years ago or so. Yes, this time we have a moderator who expresses feelings uncommon with most other foreigners on this island. Yes, we also have three other moderators who often disagree with him (me too), each having their (and my) own individual voice.

But if your primary issue is on his use of the term "raghead", that I can understand. You have every right to complain about whatever you feel like complaining about.

[P_chan]

No biggie. It just seems that a lot of people are giving TP flak for just voicing his opinion. Sure you can disagree with it and post your own feelings about whatever subject is being discussed. But I don't like it once I see people say he should be censored just for posting an opinion that contradicts their own.

[TheNoNamedOne]

ThePreacher, you deliberately altered my words when you quoted my post #9 in your post#23.

In post #23 you purposely altered my words in a quote to read as:
Originally Posted by TheProsecutor
I'm the only one (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=113800&postcount=33) taking the the time to call them "ragheads" Am I wrong.

When in fact I said nothing of the sorts. I said in post #9 before you perverted it:
Strange, I also think only one person (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=92088&postcount=9) took the time to state calling them "ragheads" was wrong.

BIG DIFFERENCE. Sorry, you've been busted. What, you didn't think I'd go back and follow up on something so egregiously dishonest as this?

If you are going to quote someone and accuse them of something based on a quote, do not alter their quotes to have a different meaning. -- TP

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are you dense?

Refrain from name-calling. -- TP

3. Any spamming, bashing, cursing, calling names, slander or making fun directed at forum users is prohibited. This includes directly calling members names and embedding them in a question format. One may still strongly criticize the message or point one is making without name-calling toward the person putting forth the point.

Link (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/announcement.php?f=29)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do not discuss issues of moderation within a thread not created for that. -- TP

[TheNoNamedOne]

haha what a wimp, can't even handle the truth still.


pulling out the rule book is not abusing powers, but creating rules that work in ones favor especially when they create them and overly use them when in a losing arguement I feel is abusive.

You don't see active members using rules to win an arguement do you.

Plus if said be was not true then why not let me previous post stay as seen. Too butthurt to let others see a reaction from others.

Refrain from name-calling and for the second time, do not discuss moderation in a thread not created for that. YOu are free to create a thread in the forum feedback area to do so. -- TP

[the_wrath_of_Khan]

Ahhhh... I see. A little bit of Orwellian spin with language and a pinch of the "O'Reilly Factor" to boot, eh? El Rushbo's "truth detector" would probably spin it the same way, too.

Interesting how you managed to avoid my question about your veteran status.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am Iranian and muslim, infidel. What are you trying to say? That I hate myself or that I don't have the right to use the term raghead, when I am, in fact, a raghead? Why does that surprise you? Enlighten me.

Obviously if one person has the right, we all have the right.

Likewise, if a Marine posts a Youtube vid of he and his squad cowering and crying on the floor, it is there for all to use and comment on.

[Asshat]

Interesting how you managed to avoid my question about your veteran status.

Khan, I need to ask you, what does the veteran status have to do with one's personal view of the morality of war?

On this website, there have been numerous comments about kicking ass, taking names, evil Arabs, etc etc.

Even a bone-dried hard core hippy pinko fag is allowed to discuss the horrors of war, and as long as I have sons, (3) then I don't mind people discussing those horrors. And yes, I am a retired US Marine and a vet.

[Bones]

As posted by TP:

Likewise, if a Marine posts a Youtube vid of he and his squad cowering and crying on the floor, it is there for all to use and comment on.

That's a valid enough point, TP. I would question why you even brought it up to begin with. You claim to be a "Battle Hardened Veteran", so are you making fun of theses guys in a video from "Youtube"? Do we even know if the video in question wasn't placed there as a joke? You know, like people pretending to throw animals off of a cliff?

Anyone who goes into combat for the the first time is afraid. Sometimes the people who are not afraid, get killed out of stupidity. They run out there thinking that nothing can hurt them, and BAM, their light is extinguished.

The "Heroes" that you see on tv, like the ones who throw themselves on grenades, they don't plan on doing that. It's a quick "Gut" reaction, a lesson learned via good training. They deserve a heck of a lot of respect, imho.

All of the people wearing the uniform these days, be they Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, the Reserves, the Coast Guard, deserve our "RESPECT".
They are earning their right to wear the uniform, and they are the ones defending the freedoms of our country. They are the ones who are taking our places, after we've hung up our uniforms. Granted, there are a few idiots out there, but for the most part I'm proud of each and every one of those who don't get their names mentioned in the local papers, by doing something stupid.

I'm not a hero by any means, jumped out of a lot of perfectly good airplanes, helped to take care of the wounded coming back from the field, and have carried more than my fair share of caskets containing the bodies of my friends. Even made a few dollars with suggestions on improving how we did our jobs.

But on serious issues, I am proud of one thing.

I have never made a post suggesting that one of my fellows in uniform, are cowards, as you have done. Indirectly perhaps, but....:thumbdown:

Bones

[TheNoNamedOne]

As posted by TP:
That's a valid enough point, TP. I would question why you even brought it up to begin with.

I think the OP states that pretty well -- another perspective.

You claim to be a "Battle Hardened Veteran",...

Where have I claimed to be a "battle hardened veteran," Bones?

Link and quote, please.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well, Bones??? How about it?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yo! Preacherman, where ya at? Cat gotchya tongue? Don't forget I busted you on your deceptive style of quoting where you basically lied about what I said.

So, do Muslim preachers lie? Looks like it from the bust I thumped on ya.

I am Iranian and muslim, infidel. What are you trying to say? That I hate myself...

Well, do ya?

"Being good isn't always easy, no matter how hard I try ~~~..."

Son of a Preacher Man (http://tinyurl.com/4o8m9h)

[okisteve]

Miss those hairdos, do ya'?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Miss those hairdos, do ya'?

Especially on the heads of Sunday mornin' preacher wives.

[Zanpa]

TP, I completely agree with your motivation of the start of this tread. Seeing the other side, combating mindless "were number one" chanting and flag waving, I totally get it and agree. However I get the impression you have never been shot at or mortared like i assume alot of posters here have. I'll just say this, untill you have you may never realize that there are only a few real bad asses on the planet and the rest just cry and try not to sh*t our pants (to include myself). The video in the original post is in no way a cowardice or shamefull reaction. I hope with a little more combat experience the troops in question had an oportunity to give back a little to a deserving target. I wish well for all the GOOD HEARTED fighters on both sides as they are all fighting for their ideals and families which I believe to be nobel.

[Bones]

As posted by TP:

Where have I claimed to be a "battle hardened veteran," Bones?

It would take too long to dig through all of your threads, but I believe in one of your replies you had stated something along this line:

"I have seen much more combat than you have, Bones."

So if you have, then you either spent a long time in theater operations (war zones), or you watched a lot of war footage on tv.

Which is it? Just curious.

Bones

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sorry, Bones. Yer a stabbin' in the air like always. Never stated such. If yer gonna assert someone said somethin', at least be prepared to back it up.

Again, you got nothin'.

[Bones]

I'm not asserting anything TP, just saying that "I believe" that this was one of your responses to me.

But my last question is valid enough.

Bones

[TheNoNamedOne]

How can it be valid when it is premised on it needing to be fact when it is not, and actually just based on a total error in belief -- or a lie on your part? Explain that.

[vvloc]

You claim to be a "Battle Hardened Veteran", so are you making fun of theses guys in a video from "Youtube"? Do we even know if the video in question wasn't placed there as a joke? You know, like people pretending to throw animals off of a cliff?

Anyone who goes into combat for the the first time is afraid. Sometimes the people who are not afraid, get killed out of stupidity. They run out there thinking that nothing can hurt them, and BAM, their light is extinguished.

The "Heroes" that you see on tv, like the ones who throw themselves on grenades, they don't plan on doing that. It's a quick "Gut" reaction, a lesson learned via good training. They deserve a heck of a lot of respect, imho.

All of the people wearing the uniform these days, be they Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, the Reserves, the Coast Guard, deserve our "RESPECT".
They are earning their right to wear the uniform, and they are the ones defending the freedoms of our country. They are the ones who are taking our places, after we've hung up our uniforms. Granted, there are a few idiots out there, but for the most part I'm proud of each and every one of those who don't get their names mentioned in the local papers, by doing something stupid.

I'm not a hero by any means, jumped out of a lot of perfectly good airplanes, helped to take care of the wounded coming back from the field, and have carried more than my fair share of caskets containing the bodies of my friends. Even made a few dollars with suggestions on improving how we did our jobs.

But on serious issues, I am proud of one thing.

I have never made a post suggesting that one of my fellows in uniform, are cowards, as you have done. Indirectly perhaps, but....:thumbdown:

Bones

Searching for the "I believe," here.

Can't find no "I believe." Sounds like an assertion to me.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do we even know if the video in question wasn't placed there as a joke?

A joke? I fail to see the humor. I think it is pretty serious. Though I do accept the opposing side could be laughing and cheering it up, but it appears to be real U.S. personnel in a pucker factor 10 situation. Were you laughing at 'em?

In any event, irrelevant if it is there as a joke or not. Funny though, you are the only one that came up with that theory. Another one of your beliefs that you cannot support, eh, Bones?

[TheNoNamedOne]

An appropriate song for soldiers or marines that 'fall down'.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=1uKQMTXt9hw

Martika -- Toy soldiers (http://www.hoogrrl.com/uploaded_images/pink-toy-soldiers-760351.jpg)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yo! Preacherman, where ya at? Cat gotchya tongue? Don't forget I busted you on your deceptive style of quoting where you basically lied about what I said.

So, do Muslim preachers lie? Looks like it from the bust I thumped on ya.



Well, do ya?

"Being good isn't always easy, no matter how hard I try ~~~..."

Son of a Preacher Man (http://tinyurl.com/4o8m9h)

Well, it's Sunday, and I really hate to quote myself, but IIRC ThePreacher made his debut here last Sunday, so maybe we will have a better chance of him coming back today fer a little more preachin'.

[Oki alumni]

During a 20+ year career with the USAF, the closest I came to gunfire was the rifle range. I consider myself either lucky or blessed that I DIDN'T see combat since I wuz in during the Vietnam era. Those of you who HAVE seen combat and returned...you have my thanks and my respect. Those of you who haven't seen combat...I hope you NEVER have to, and YOU have my thanks and respect also. I easily relate to the video...butt pucker factor to the MAX, and prayin' like ... well, praying! Might have even been some butt puckering on the side that was shooting, too. NOBODY wants to die! But nobody wants to live like a slave either.

-Oki Alumni:old:

[the_wrath_of_Khan]

Khan, I need to ask you, what does the veteran status have to do with one's personal view of the morality of war?

On this website, there have been numerous comments about kicking ass, taking names, evil Arabs, etc etc.

Even a bone-dried hard core hippy pinko fag is allowed to discuss the horrors of war, and as long as I have sons, (3) then I don't mind people discussing those horrors. And yes, I am a retired US Marine and a vet.

Sure he can discuss all he wants, but I give no validity to his opinions if he hasn't at least worn the uniform. His point was not the morality of war, but more, "Look at these Marines having their ass handed to them, Ha ha!" This is common rhetoric of the America hating liberals. The fact that he avoids answering the question shows even more that he is just a big bag of wind.

[TheNoNamedOne]

In the interest of fairness and balance, it is only right to show the horrors of war when not only cheering and winning, but also when crying and hoping that your life isn't taken as you are losing a battle, or when it is lost.

It is wrong to show only a romantic version of fun and excited feelings when winning, because if that were the only side, then the reality of war would be distorted. So, for those who were elated with the winning vids, grimace and suck up the bad with the good.

I posed this question in the other thread:



and from C6:



and from SexWax:



Look at these scared U.S. Marines losing and crying for their lives. I bet there is some giggling and laughing on the other side as they watch them trapped and pinned down while shooting at them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7T84ax2bLE&feature=related

Not so funny now, huh?

That's war! Enough suffering to spread around for all. Equal opportunity distributor of suffering.

I was looking at this video again, and I have come to wonder why some have been so upset for showing it. There are some redeeming features in it:


These troops did what they were trained to do by getting down in the prone.
These troops are seen praying, begging, whining and crying just as many would do under a stressful situation despite training. In other words, the myth of invincibility of U.S. troops by showing their human side of fear let's us see them not as swaggering arrogant people, but humbled and frightened when it is appropriate to be such.


All in all -- good points. What's the problem? Or is it that only an image of invincibility and victory should ever be shown related to U.S. troops? Truth and reality with the good and the bad do a better service to human kind than only hysterical back-slapping, high fives, and or other molded images that result in deception.

[Zanpa]

Trust me PT. Seasoned combat veterans are well aware of their vurlnerability.

[Oki alumni]

THIS is similar to what was shown during the Viet-Nam "conflict"...on a pretty damn regular basis, and NOT all...of us (U.S.) being on either the giving or receiving end. THIS is what (I feel) the current administration does NOT want shown. Do "they" REALLY think that the dumb ol' average Mister and Missus Schmukatelli think that we prevail in EVERY battle? I don't know about the rest of JU readers/writers, but THIS ol fart would be shitting bricks, and praying his ass off given the same situation!!! Whether the war is considered "fair" or "unjust" for whatever reasons, these actions are a part of it.

-Oki Alumni

[eodmatt]

People react in different ways to the fear of being killed. Some maintain a "British" (heh) stiff upper lip and some crumble. Its a well known fact in SF circles that 99% of people will fold eventually if enough stress is put on them. Which is why codes and cyphers are always of short duration validity. There is no shame in succumbing to stress, if there were, we wouldnt be treating people with PTSD and other stress related illnesses. But there is shame in helping or collaborating with the enemy uneccessarily. Incidentally, Oki Al, I served 22 years with the Brit army, but I have been shot at more times since I left the army in 1990 (and ambushed twice too) than I ever was when I was serving. I wonder if someone somewhere has a grudge.....

[Maggie]

I said it in the earlier post. The answer is "Troll." He posted the first video, waiting for the expected responses knowing full well he would use those on the second video.

Give him a break. He's merely increasing the readership here.

You think?

Although I agree with your remark about "Troll". I don't really see any sign of increased readership, in fact quite the opposite.

Why we need to see videos of soldiers who may have a very good reason to be afraid, and other videos of terrorists I'd like to have a very good reason to be afraid, I have no idea.

Other than teaching us idiots how we should be thinking.

On the whole, it's more likely to send people to sleep:rolleyes:

Maggie

[Maggie]

Sure he can discuss all he wants, but I give no validity to his opinions if he hasn't at least worn the uniform. His point was not the morality of war, but more, "Look at these Marines having their ass handed to them, Ha ha!" This is common rhetoric of the America hating liberals. The fact that he avoids answering the question shows even more that he is just a big bag of wind.


Try to remember that you're referring to someone whose ideal is a planet where human life doesn't exist.

Think about that for a little, before you bother wasting a reply:cool:

Maggie

[dk]

Maggie. It's time to move on.

[Maggie]

All in all -- good points. What's the problem? Or is it that only an image of invincibility and victory should ever be shown related to U.S. troops? Truth and reality with the good and the bad do a better service to human kind than only hysterical back-slapping, high fives, and or other molded images that result in deception.[/QUOTE]


Did anyone but you find it funny in the first place?

I think not.

For someone who is supposed to think life is sacrosanct, your post sounds like a twelve year old, who has just had the good fortune to find his fathers hidden playboy magazines.

But then again. For some reason, known only to you (and please don't bore me to tears with one of your extended versions of why a terrorist, and inhumane organisation like PETA is forced to kill more animals than any abbatior), you manage to find pleasure in watching people behave perfectly normally, given the circumstances they find themselves in.

You will of course, know exactly how long they'd been on deployed. How much danger they were in. What, where and when the enemy had planned.

All you've done is shown that normal men, who show fear, will still not run. They may be scared, but Hey. They're the ones out there not you.

You're at home planning how many dogs can be killed with one syringe of Euthanol

Maggie (reformed vegitarian)

[Maggie]

Maggie. It's time to move on.

OK:)

Maggie

[Oki alumni]

Sure he can discuss all he wants, but I give no validity to his opinions if he hasn't at least worn the uniform. His point was not the morality of war, but more, "Look at these Marines having their ass handed to them, Ha ha!" This is common rhetoric of the America hating liberals. The fact that he avoids answering the question shows even more that he is just a big bag of wind.

Please try to open your mind. You made the remark that: "This is common rhetoric of the America hating liberals." I'd say it is more of a revelation of what's REALLY happening as the result of the shitty tactics used by the blood lusting right-wankers to protect their oil interests. What ***I*** saw was the troops being humans...not the "glorious and heroic" things that happen in war, that the current administration would like to have us believe is constantly happening.

I don't see the video as "belittling" anyone. I saw it as a PART of the reality of what's happening.

-Oki Alumni:old: