ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, March 05, 2015

The banality of killing

The higher up the chain of command you are, the easier it is:
I spent every day of my seven-month deployment in Afghanistan trying to figure out how to kill the Taliban commander in my area. He lived and operated to our north and every day would send his soldiers down to plant bombs, terrorize the villages and wrestle with us for control of the area. Our mission was to secure the villages and provide economic and political development, but that was slow work with intangible results. Killing the Taliban commander would be an objective measure of success.

I never killed him. Instead, each day we would kill his soldiers or his soldiers would kill our Marines. The longer I lived among the Afghans, the more I realized that neither the Taliban nor we were fighting for the reasons I expected. Despite the rhetoric I internalized from the newspapers back home about why we were in Afghanistan, I ended up fighting for different reasons once I got on the ground — a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive.

The enemy fighters were often young men raised alongside poppy fields in small farms set up like latticework along the river. They must have been too young and too isolated to understand anything outside of their section of the valley, never mind something global like the 9/11 attacks. These villagers fought us because that’s what they always did when foreigners came to their village. Perhaps they just wanted to be left alone.

The more I thought about the enemy, the harder it was to view them as evil or subhuman. But killing requires a motivation, so the concept of self-defense becomes the defining principle of target attractiveness. If someone is shooting at me, I have a right to fire back. But this is a legal justification, not a moral one. The comic Louis C.K. brilliantly pointed out this absurdity: “Maybe if you pick up a gun and go to another country and you get shot, it’s not that weird. Maybe if you get shot by the dude you were just shooting at, it’s a tiny bit your fault.”

My worst fear before deploying was what, in training, we called “good shoot, bad result.” But there is no way in the chaos and uncertainty of war to make the right decision all the time. On one occasion, the Taliban had been shooting at us and we thought two men approaching in the distance were armed and intended to kill us. We warned them off, but it did no good. They continued to approach, and so my Marines fired. What possible reason could two men have to approach a squad of armed Marines in a firefight? When it was over and the two men lay dead we saw that they were unarmed, just two men trying to go home, who never made it.

On most occasions, when ordnance would destroy the enemy or a sniper would kill a Taliban fighter, we would engage in the professional congratulations of a job well done like businessmen after a successful client meeting. Nothing of the sort happened after killing a civilian. And in this absence of group absolution, I saw for the first time how critical it actually was for my soul and my sanity.

Nobody ever talked about the accidental killing. There was paperwork, a brief investigation and silence. You can’t tell someone who has killed an innocent person that he did the right thing even if he followed all the proper procedures before shooting.
It is somewhat amusing that Americans are still insisting that the United States are "the good guys" in all of this long and sordid history of invading and occupying other countries. How many more countries do they have to occupy, how many more innocent civilians have to be killed by American soldiers, before Americans wake up to the fact that, just maybe, the country which has invaded and is currently occupying literally dozens of sovereign countries is not, in fact, "the good guys".

The fact that there are bad guys out there does not automatically make those who oppose them good. When Hitler and Stalin went to war, who was the good guy?

Donald Rumsfeld once said that the USA could only win if it killed terrorists faster than it created new ones. Considering that we're now 14 years into "the war on terror", I think it should be obvious that the USA did not win on the basis of his metric. Forget peace, give isolation a chance.

I'm not a big fan of Louis CK, but in this case, he has a point. “Maybe if you pick up a gun and go to another country and you get shot, it’s not that weird. Maybe if you get shot by the dude you were just shooting at, it’s a tiny bit your fault.”

Afghanistan is not our business. Ukraine is not our business. Iraq is not our business. Syria is not our business. Iran is not our business. And while the neocons are off playing Risk in foreign lands, the homeland has been invaded by 50 million invaders. The only war genuinely worth fighting is the one being completely overlooked and ignored.

The author concludes:
Ensuring our own safety and the defense of a peaceful world may require training boys and girls to kill, creating technology that allows us to destroy anyone on the planet instantly, dehumanizing large segments of the global population and then claiming there is a moral sanctity in killing. To fathom this system and accept its use for the greater good is to understand that we still live in a state of nature.
Monsters so often tell themselves they are heroes.

Labels:

237 Comments:

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 9:17 AM  

"Ensuring our own safety and the defense of a peaceful world may require training boys and girls to kill, creating technology that allows us to destroy anyone on the planet instantly, dehumanizing large segments of the global population and then claiming there is a moral sanctity in killing."

Oh lovely.

Because Sherman, Mao, and Stalin never said or did anything like that.

Blogger MATT March 05, 2015 9:23 AM  

Articles such as this remind me of what an absolute and understated cinematic masterpiece on the nature of human violence "Unforgiven" is.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 9:26 AM  

It is somewhat amusing that Americans are still insisting that the United States are "the good guys" in all of this long and sordid history of invading and occupying other countries.

Indeed, it's is a long history. My public school education had me convinced that the US was staunchly isolationist before the World Wars, refusing to get involved in other countries except in extreme circumstances. It was quite a shock when I read James Bradley's The Imperial Cruise and learned that US belligerence, often for openly commercial reasons, was a normal occurrence well before the turn of the twentieth century.

Blogger MATT March 05, 2015 9:31 AM  

" The only war genuinely worth fighting is the one being completely overlooked and ignored"

Ironically it would be a much less lethal war.

Anonymous Salt March 05, 2015 9:33 AM  

The ability to kill must be tempered with the moral right to kill. People love to talk in geopolitical talk, the grandiose of it. But it really comes down to the local, the individual. Yeah, most people over there probably just want to be left alone. In the grand scheme of things... that's all I want for myself.

Blogger Rabbi B March 05, 2015 9:36 AM  

"Considering that we're now 14 years into "the war on terror" . . ."

War on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, war on . . . here a war, there a war, everywhere a war, war . . .

Why this obsession to frame everything as a war? Maddening and tiresome. Do they really think we are that stupid?

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 05, 2015 9:37 AM  

the homeland has been invaded by 50 million invaders. The only war genuinely worth fighting is the one being completely overlooked and ignored.

Exactly right, Vox. I've been saying this for years. The only wars worth fighting are the coming civil wars / liberation wars in the West.

Anonymous cheddarman March 05, 2015 9:38 AM  

When Hitler and Stalin went to war, who was the good guy?

Murica, hell yeah !!!

Anonymous Salt March 05, 2015 9:40 AM  

Do they really think we are that stupid?

Yes. It also appears they might be right.

Anonymous Kel-Tec PF9 March 05, 2015 9:41 AM  

The mujahideen are the monsters here, not the US servicemen.

Anonymous bw March 05, 2015 9:43 AM  

its use for the greater good is to understand that we still live in a state of nature

Does he follow this (likely) Darwinian state of nature to its logical, observable conclusions regarding gender, race, etal?

The Elitists and their servants have never believed the myths they've sold to the people. If ignorant and uninformed, they are purposefully so.

Blogger Alexander Thompson March 05, 2015 9:46 AM  

Yawn...

Anonymous p-dawg March 05, 2015 9:47 AM  

Wait, you mean denying countries elections, denying them self-determination, and installing puppet regimes in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" makes us the bad guys? WHAT?!?

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 9:52 AM  

The mujahideen are the monsters here, not the US servicemen.


Regardless of whether this is true or not, what is important is that the US servicemen don't belong there in the first place.

What I find interesting about media stories from infantrymen in Afghanistan is that they never mention what is mentioned by the infantrymen I know in real life. They've told me about 1/4 to 1/2 of the men they fight are not Afghani, and are Eastern European, likely mercenaries or Chechens.

The civilians who kept approaching despite the warnings by the men with guns reminds me of the roadblock scene in Generation Kill. There is not a whole lot of common sense or grasp of reality among a lot of Middle Easterners. It doesn't mean they deserved to die; our men shouldn't have been there and in that situation in the first place.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 9:55 AM  

Marissa, a person from Afghanistan is called an "Afghan", not "Afghani". An "Afghani" is a unit of their currency.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 10:03 AM  

Sorry folks. One could believe Afghanistan is not our business, but that wouldn't suddenly make the Taliban into honorable people merely defending their homeland.

Blogger Joshua_D March 05, 2015 10:06 AM  

MATT March 05, 2015 9:23 AM

Articles such as this remind me of what an absolute and understated cinematic masterpiece on the nature of human violence "Unforgiven" is.


Deserve ain't got nothin' to do with it.

Excellent movie.

Blogger David March 05, 2015 10:08 AM  

I'm confused. This blog seems to celebrate most things military and typically places on a pedestal those who "serve," yet axiomatically these people are volunteering to serve as mindless weapons in the hands of the heirs to Machiavelli ruling from Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

A military that actually does what its back cover art claims is no less Utopian than a Progressivist/Socialist state that creates the Heaven-on-Earth promised by its True Believers. This is beside the axiom that military organization is an absolute hierarchy, centrally-planned and internally political system that utterly suppresses innovation and individual moral dictates.

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:09 AM  

Marissa, a person from Afghanistan is called an "Afghan", not "Afghani". An "Afghani" is a unit of their currency.

Krul, thank you for the correction. Whenever I say Afghan, I think of blankets, LOL.

Blogger Vox March 05, 2015 10:15 AM  

The mujahideen are the monsters here, not the US servicemen.

What would you call armed men who invade and occupy a foreign country, then kill unarmed and innocent civilians who haven't attacked them? Heroes?

Anonymous Toddy Cat March 05, 2015 10:19 AM  

This is really neither here nor there, but large sectors of Mr. Grossman's work have been proven to be tendentious bullshit. And lumping Sherman in with Mao and Stalin is retarded. Just sayin'...

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 10:21 AM  

End-of-the-world cults often experience an increase in membership when the predicted doomsday fails to occur. Likewise, the more hated Americans become by the rest of the world, the more convinced Americans are of their own righteousness. Sociologists call this phenomenon disconfirmed expectancy.

Blogger Guitar Man March 05, 2015 10:22 AM  

David, you must be new. There's no military worship going on here.

Blogger MATT March 05, 2015 10:24 AM  

@David many here have parents or grandparents etc who served, or were drafted. Furhermore, these men were in service during a time in which the evil actions of our government werent as widely known as they are now, if at all.

Blogger Bobo March 05, 2015 10:27 AM  

"Sorry folks. One could believe Afghanistan is not our business, but that wouldn't suddenly make the Taliban into honorable people merely defending their homeland."

Nobody here claimed that the Taliban are heroes, they're hell-bound boy fuckers, and worse. But the case for anything in Afganistan being "our" business cannot be made.

And Sherman is in same ring in hell with Stalin & Tamerlane...

Blogger David March 05, 2015 10:28 AM  

Welfarism doesn't work, and one of the reasons is that once you have a group of people whose job exists only to service "poor" people, their entire effort eventually turns to creating more "poor" people to service.

How is having a professional military different?

Money & power flow to the Pentagram and its vast "Complex" of dedicated, ostensibly private firms that support it. The people ensconced in its halls are not in the "business" of making more peace. They are dedicated to prosecuting war. It is their bread and butter, the basis for their power, prestige and perquisites. There aren't beautiful golf courses on Diego Garcia for NOTHING.

Why, then, are we surprised that one aspect of American social disintegration is an obsession with war, mass slaughter and neo-Spartan philosophy? It's actually Big Business for a vast number of people, most of whom do not experience what human flesh smells like after napalm is dropped. The vast numbers of people involved in "warfighting" today get no closer to "oops, we machine-gunned a baby" than does a 15-year-old boy playing GTA.

For all the talk of Christianity on this blog, many of its self-described alpha adherents appear to me to worship Mars, not follow Jesus, the Christ.

Anonymous Porky March 05, 2015 10:28 AM  

What then was the proper response to 9-11?

A big mea culpa?

Anonymous Michael Maier March 05, 2015 10:30 AM  

Vox, I'm surprised this escaped you commenting on it:

"Our elected leaders, after all, are just following orders, no different from the Marine who asks if he can kill a man digging by the side of the road."

Is this psycho absolving the presidents for their actions or admitting they're wholly owned by the banks?

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:30 AM  

What then was the proper response to 9-11?

A big mea culpa?


Waging war on the country that is most involved in fomenting terrorism in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia.

I'm a Truther though, so I'd oppose that too.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 10:31 AM  

Marissa, a person from Afghanistan is called an "Afghan", not "Afghani".

The proper nomenclature is "sandal wearing tango".

The vernacular "haji" is also acceptable.

"Goat fucker", while accurate, is frowned upon in polite company.

Afghanistan is not our business.

It certainly was when Al Qaeda was basing its operations against us from there. Since we cleared that out in 2001-2002, not so much. It's not the wars that cause us problems nearly as much as the adventures in nation building. An Iraq ruled by a Sunni General with the Army and Republican Guard behind him would be relatively stable and peaceful. An Afghanistan split between the northern tribes and a chastened Taliban with something left to lose would be relatively stable (it'll probably never be peaceful).

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 10:34 AM  

What then was the proper response to 9-11?

The top Neocons whose evil policies resulted in 9-11 should have been hanged on national television, of course.

Anonymous Michael Maier March 05, 2015 10:35 AM  

Porky March 05, 2015 10:28 AM What then was the proper response to 9-11?

A big mea culpa?


Hanging the president and his bastards. No, I'm not joking. There's no way that wasn't a false flag.

Blogger David March 05, 2015 10:35 AM  

Guitar man, I have one word: Kratman.
MATT, what you describe pulls me back to the prior thread on Vox's blog;
"Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master." -- Sallust, ancient Roman historian, 2000 years ago.

When ordered by someone believed to be "in Authority" (i.e., the MASTER), ~66% of people, regardless of IQ, occupation or sex will shock a screaming person (who they can hear, but not see) to death. The other ~34% will at some point prior to "death" balk and stop following orders.

A rounding error off ZERO in Milgram's experiment left the room, marched to the school's administration and demanded the experiment be halted. In other words, NO ONE did so, leaving me with the view that those who will stand before murder-ordered-by-Masters is too small to show up in an experimental model.

Slaves and masters. This is the norm for humanity. This is your alphas, betas, deltas and gammas. I like to think sigmas might be the unknown variant, the ones that if Milgram had included them we'd know that someone, somewhere will stand against such evil. Then again, we do know about such people. Germany's White Rose was composed of such people.

Who in America today is parallel to Sophie Scholl?

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:36 AM  

Nobody here claimed that the Taliban are heroes, they're hell-bound boy fuckers, and worse. But the case for anything in Afganistan being "our" business cannot be made.

Yes, and our puppet allies, the ANA (Afghan National Army) are extremely queer as well.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 10:37 AM  

Stilicho - The vernacular "haji" is also acceptable.

"Haji" is not restricted to Afghanistan. Any person who has taken a pilgrimage to Mecca, called the Hajj, may technically be called a haji, although it's often used to refer to any middle-eastern or Arabian muslim.

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 10:39 AM  

And lumping Sherman in with Mao and Stalin is retarded.

Quite right. Mao and Stalin never committed war crimes against the South, unlike Sherman, and therefore we have no legitimate beef with either dictator.

Anonymous Anubis March 05, 2015 10:40 AM  

The woman who does Refugee Resettlement Watch said
"We can survive terrorism, but we can't survive 3rd world migration".

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”~ Ayn Rand

Jihadi John's family has been on UK benefits for over 20 years costing over $60k. The Boston Marathon brothers where refugees brought in on US taxpayer expense and on welfare. We are paying the jizya price against civilization.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978334/Jihadi-John-family-s-20-years-benefits-s-cost-taxpayers-400k-house-fanatic-relatives-upmarket-areas.html

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:40 AM  

Slaves and masters. This is the norm for humanity. This is your alphas, betas, deltas and gammas.

Natural hierarchies aren't enslavement. They can become heavily corrupted, and will likely always have an element of corruption due to sinful human nature. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with hierarchy.

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:42 AM  

"Haji" is not restricted to Afghanistan. Any person who has taken a pilgrimage to Mecca, called the Hajj, may technically be called a haji, although it's often used to refer to any middle-eastern or Arabian muslim.

I most often hear it shortened to haj. One syllable is safer, Jap, slope, gook, etc. when you need to warn your buddies that the enemy is approaching.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 10:43 AM  

" And lumping Sherman in with Mao and Stalin is retarded. Just sayin'..."

Mao, Stalin, and Sherman all used the same logic and justifications for their killing. If you're unaware of this... its really not my problem.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 10:44 AM  

and by the by... it is the same reasoning the author of the piece Vox is talking about uses at the end.

Anonymous JI March 05, 2015 10:48 AM  

I'm an American, live in the US, and have never met anyone who thinks we are "the good guys". Everyone I know even slightly is very cynical about the GWOT. That said, in general, America produces soldiers who are, like the author of the linked article appears to be, good guys who are put in a bad situation.

Anonymous zen0 March 05, 2015 10:48 AM  

Monsters so often tell themselves they are heroes.

Nato has used the concept of "humanitarian war" to continually justify its existence and expand toward Russia.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 10:49 AM  

"I'm an American, live in the US, and have never met anyone who thinks we are "the good guys". "

Where in the US do you live?

Blogger rondolf March 05, 2015 10:49 AM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"

I wondered the same thing. I know my original desire was to blow up Afghanistan then Iraq then Syria and then Iran and if either Russia or China did not like it blow them up also. Fortunately for the world back then I was in charge of nothing and nobody except for myself.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 10:51 AM  

Funny, my first thought was to group Sherman with Hitler, considering that he literally called his 25 year campaign against the Plains Indians "the final solution to the Indian problem".

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 10:53 AM  

in general, America produces soldiers who are, like the author of the linked article appears to be, good guys who are put in a bad situation

Fat, lacking in agency, and nuclear-armed is no way to go through life.

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 10:54 AM  

Someone mentioned Tamerlane above and I looked him up, learning the word ghazi, which has come to mean a Muslim warrior, basically a similar word to Crusader for Christians.

This is the name of the anti-Gamergate group on Reddit. Interesting choice of name.

Blogger Guitar Man March 05, 2015 10:56 AM  

Where in the US do you live?

Must be Portland.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 10:57 AM  

""What then was the proper response to 9-11?""

its not the invasion and regime change that I had a problem with. Its the occupation.

The proper response would've been to go to country X... and totally wreck it. I mean bomb it to hell.. then roll over it with tanks and stomp it into the mud with boots.

Kill hundreds of thousands of people... if not a million or so.

Then simply leave... with the promise to return if they so much as look at you sideways.

And maybe point out that when you return... it won't be gentle like this time.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2015 10:57 AM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"

Agree to the Taliban's offer to turn OBL and his top lieutenants over to a neutral 3rd party
for trial.
If they renege on that, then the campaign in Afghanistan up until the first couple of months of 2002 would be justified. After Tora Bora the AQ presence in Afghanistan was negligible.

Carpet bombing the two nations behind the attack, Saudi Arabia and Israel, might have worked to satisfy the blood lust most Americans had to destroy something.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 11:04 AM  

I'm an American, live in the US, and have never met anyone who thinks we are "the good guys".

Welcome to Yankeedom.

Anonymous Porky March 05, 2015 11:06 AM  

The proper response would've been to go to country X

That's my question. What was country X?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 05, 2015 11:07 AM  

“Maybe if you pick up a gun and go to another country and you get shot, it’s not that weird. Maybe if you get shot by the dude you were just shooting at, it’s a tiny bit your fault.”

No, no! Look at his face!
He's got the mind of a child.
It's not his fault.
Blaster, I'm sorry.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 11:09 AM  

What then was the proper response to 9-11?

Everything up to and including Operation Anaconda. Smash as much as you can quickly and get out.

Blogger Sam Hall March 05, 2015 11:10 AM  

What then was the proper response to 9-11?

Destroy Mecca with nuclear weapons.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 11:16 AM  

"That's my question. What was country X?"

Probably Afghanistan... but I have no qualms with Iraq too. Saddam had it coming. He'd been a bitch and never really abided by the terms of his 1991 surrender. So swatting down that bug is fine with me. I mean you may as well. You're already over there.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 11:18 AM  

"Welcome to Yankeedom."

reminds me of the idiot new yorker back in 2000 that said there was no way Dubya could've beaten Gore because she didn't know a single person that voted for him.

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 11:21 AM  

Destroy Mecca with nuclear weapons.

And what would the proper response have been once all one billion Muslims collectively lost their minds and in the ensuing chaos the entire flow of Middle Eastern oil halted, thereby crippling industrial civilization and bringing starvation to much of the world? Answer that one, genius.

Blogger kudzu bob March 05, 2015 11:24 AM  

reminds me of the idiot new yorker back in 2000 that said there was no way Dubya could've beaten Gore because she didn't know a single person that voted for him

You're thinking of what New Yorker movie critic Pauline Kael allegedly said of Nixon back in 1972.

Anonymous Will Best March 05, 2015 11:27 AM  

The proper response would've been to go to country X... and totally wreck it. I mean bomb it to hell.. then roll over it with tanks and stomp it into the mud with boots.

Kill hundreds of thousands of people... if not a million or so.

Then simply leave... with the promise to return if they so much as look at you sideways.


Yeah pretty much this. And quite frankly, I wouldn't have a problem doing it to any or all of them.. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia. When the US wants to roll one of these countries it does so at the cost of a couple hundred soldiers and maybe 50 billion dollars. It was the occupation that pushed it up to 4,000+ and a trillion.

Anonymous JI March 05, 2015 11:28 AM  

Nate,
Sheesh, I wasn't saying no one is ooh-rah for the GWOT, I was just saying I know no one who is less than cynical of it out of a few dozen folks I can think of whom I've talked with over the years. I think the numbers of ooh-rah are far less than is often depicted by the meme that Americans are mostly all stupid ooh-rah go-team types. Has your own experience been mostly knowing people who fall into the ooh-rah category?

Blogger kurt9 March 05, 2015 11:38 AM  

Having lived and traveled in Asia and Europe, the thought has occurred to me that the U.S. is today one of the most martial societies on the planet, with the possible exception of Israel. A higher percentage of Americans serve in the military than the population of any other large country. We revere our military more than most and place a greater emphasis on our military than most other cultures. We have more national holidays based on our military culture than anyone else (memorial day, veterans day, etc.). I would say that our military occupies a higher position in our culture than any other country I have visited.

Anonymous Porky March 05, 2015 11:40 AM  

The vote tally so far:

4 Invade Afghanistan
2 Invade Iraq
1 Invade Iran
1 Invade Syria
1 Invade Saudi Arabia
1 Nuke Mecca
1 Negotiate with Taliban
1 Bomb Saudi Arabia
1 Bomb Israel
1 Bomb Afghanistan
1 Bomb Iraq
1 Bomb Syria
1 Bomb Iran, w/option to bomb China and Russia
1 Hang Neocons

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 11:42 AM  

What was the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Whatever it was, it obviously didn't work.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 11:43 AM  

After 150 years, it may be time to get over losing a war...

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 11:46 AM  

What was the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Whatever it was, it obviously didn't work

It was treated as a criminal matter.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 11:47 AM  

After 150 years, it may be time to get over losing a war...

after 150 years, you'd think you'd realize that it never ended

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 05, 2015 11:49 AM  

The occupations don't occur in isolation but in the contexts of (a) the neocons' grand dreams for Israel, and (b) an anti-white set of policies that involve pouring enormous numbers of non-whites, including Muslims, into white countries.

This is contrary to the ethnic genetic interests of many of the occupying soldiers. They are acting not in a collectively rational fashion, but as a part of the extended phenotype of something deeply hostile to them.

What should "we" do?

If "we" in that context means the people that control America, they're already doing what's in their interest, or at least what highly aggressive people who love Israel and dislike whites see as in their interests.

If "we" refers not to the ruling elite of America and its allies but we the people, the descendants of those who built these countries, we should be trying to regain control of our destinies. Because if we don't, we're going to be erased.

What should the soldiers be doing? They'll do what soldiers do, just as Ebola-Chan does what she does. Things like this are parts of the human condition.

Blogger Guitar Man March 05, 2015 11:49 AM  

S1AL, you'll learn that southrons are a patient people. Unlike us Northerners, who disdain the experience of waiting in line for our lattes.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 05, 2015 11:52 AM  

4 Invade Afghanistan
2 Invade Iraq
1 Invade Iran
1 Invade Syria
1 Invade Saudi Arabia
1 Nuke Mecca
1 Negotiate with Taliban
1 Bomb Saudi Arabia
1 Bomb Israel
1 Bomb Afghanistan
1 Bomb Iraq
1 Bomb Syria
1 Bomb Iran, w/option to bomb China and Russia
1 Hang Neocons
1 Bloodless Revolution

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis March 05, 2015 11:52 AM  

Probably Afghanistan... but I have no qualms with Iraq too. Saddam had it coming. He'd been a bitch and never really abided by the terms of his 1991 surrender. So swatting down that bug is fine with me. I mean you may as well. You're already over there.

I don't know about Iraq (I did support the invasion at the time) though the US did have a legitimate legal casus belli according to the treaty Saddam was forced to sign at the end of Gulf I. The middle east was a cesspool of violence 2000 years ago and it's a cesspool of violence today. I don't think highly of Islam, but that region could be Christian and I still don't think it would be any different. Best to leave that part of the world to their own devices.

At the same time there is something to be said about letting other nations know that there are consequences for failing to abide the treaties they sign with us. If our international use of force could be less War on Terror and more Barbary Wars I'd could get behind it.

Anonymous Jeigh Di March 05, 2015 11:54 AM  

Oh, I marched to the battle of New Orleans
At the end of the early British war
The young land started growing
The young blood started flowing
But I ain't marching anymore


For I've killed my share of Indians
In a thousand different fights
I was there at the Little Big Horn
I heard many men lying, I saw many more dying
But I ain't marching anymore


It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all


For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes, I even killed my brothers
And so many others
But I ain't marching anymore


For I marched to the battles of the German trench
In a war that was bound to end all wars
Oh, I must have killed a million men
And now they want me back again
But I ain't marching anymore


It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all


For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
Set off the mighty mushroom roar
When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
That I ain't marching anymore


Now the labor leader's screamin'
When they close the missile plants
United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore
Call it, Peace, or call it, Treason
Call it, Love, or call it, Reason
But I ain't marching anymore
No, I ain't marching anymore - Phil Ochs

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 11:54 AM  

Guitar Man, I am neither Yankee nor Southron; I bear the Western disposition of amused ambivalence.

Anonymous Scythian Arrows March 05, 2015 11:56 AM  

The proper response to 9/11 would have been to station a carrier group off the coast of NYC, with constant sorties to destroy the homes and offices of all the bankers and media oligarchs. A bunch of goatherds in a beat-up Hilux 5000 miles away poses less of a threat to apple-pie-and-football Middle America than all the YKW parasites and wealthy degenerates living in our coastal cities.

Anonymous JN March 05, 2015 12:00 PM  

Nuke Mecca

Saw something the other day about how in the Muslim equivalent to Armageddon, Mecca will be destroyed.

Blogger Guitar Man March 05, 2015 12:02 PM  

Westerners are the strangest types.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 12:03 PM  

JN - Nuke Mecca

Saw something the other day about how in the Muslim equivalent to Armageddon, Mecca will be destroyed.


It's interesting to speculate about the consequences of the destruction of Mecca. The only comparison I can think of would be the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in the first century.

Anonymous Bobo March 05, 2015 12:03 PM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"

Do you mean the part of 9-11 where Building 7 fell at free-fall speed from an obvious rigged demo?
Yeah, the Afgans/Saudis/Rags did THAT!

"After 150 years, it may be time to get over losing a war..."

You think Appomattox was a surrender...we know it was just a temporary cease-fire...

Blogger John March 05, 2015 12:21 PM  

Friend of mine from Guatemala described his perception of Americans whilst in his native land. Said he thought of us as giant, rich, and warlike. Two out of three, eh?

Anonymous Jill March 05, 2015 12:22 PM  

"Afghanistan is not our business. Ukraine is not our business. Iraq is not our business. Syria is not our business. Iran is not our business." Yeah, completely agree, but we've made it our business ever since occupying the Philippines--over a hundred years ago. American people were reluctant about involving themselves in foreign affairs in those days. Now they're all Go Team America, Fuck Yeah! to one degree or another.

Blogger Vox March 05, 2015 12:23 PM  

the US did have a legitimate legal casus belli according to the treaty Saddam was forced to sign at the end of Gulf I.

No, it did not. The UN had a legitimate legal casus belli. Not the USA.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 12:24 PM  

" I bear the Western disposition of amused ambivalence."

Then you likely ain't much of a westerner... since precisely the same army that stirred up so much trouble in the South went out there and stirred up plenty too.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 12:24 PM  

"No, it did not. The UN had a legitimate legal casus belli. Not the USA."


***chuckle***

the UN... please...

Anonymous Homesteader March 05, 2015 12:24 PM  

In spite of our preferences, we are no more exempt from the historical pattern of empire than any other nation-empire has been.

Lord Acton and Gibbon. Maybe Thucydides as well.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 12:26 PM  

Do you mean the part of 9-11 where Building 7 fell at free-fall speed from an obvious rigged demo?

You're right, other than burning for something like 8 hours, it looked exactly like a demolition.

Blogger Krul March 05, 2015 12:28 PM  

Homesteader - Maybe Thucydides as well.

Definitely Thucydides as well.

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."

Blogger John March 05, 2015 12:31 PM  

Friend of mine from Guatemala described his perception of Americans whilst in his native land. Said he thought of us as giant, rich, and warlike. Two out of three, eh?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 05, 2015 12:36 PM  

John: "Friend of mine from Guatemala described his perception of Americans whilst in his native land. Said he thought of us as giant, rich, and warlike. Two out of three, eh?"

A shrinking minority in the youngest age cohorts, indebted, and dominated by a more aggressive ethnicity. Which two out of three did you have in mind?

Anonymous REG March 05, 2015 12:52 PM  

" S1AL March 05, 2015 11:54 AM

Guitar Man, I am neither Yankee nor Southron; I bear the Western disposition of amused ambivalence."

I too am from the West, if you consider New Mexico West. Not living there at present. However, to lump Sherman, who destroyed a lot of the Shenandoah Valley as Stalin did the Russian Steppes and tried to eradicate the Western Indians as Hitler did the Jews has nothing to do with the war between the North and South, other than his participation in it. It deals with his attitude toward people he considered his enemy. Same with the other guys, and adding Mao and Po Pot to the mix.


Anonymous patrick kelly March 05, 2015 12:52 PM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?

A big mea culpa?"

Announce we are going to hunt down and kill anyone we decide was involved and anyone trying to stop us from doing that in any way.

Invading Afganistan to get to Osama and his supporters, wherever they were...quickly and decisively ....and if any "state" like A'stan or P'stan resisted us, declare war on them......

Everyone would have been home before 2003.....although the mess we left might still be as bad as now......

"What was the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Whatever it was, it obviously didn't work"

That was a sting gone bad....

Anonymous Porky March 05, 2015 1:08 PM  

You're right, other than burning for something like 8 hours, it looked exactly like a demolition.

And the jets.

The truther scenario doesn't even make for good fiction. Deep inside a some smoke filled Neocon Star Chamber, some pentagon strategist comes up with a brilliant and remarkably simple plan to plant thermite and explosives in the world trade center and blame it on Osama Bin Laden. They take a vote. It's unanimous as the vote finally gets around to George W.

"I want jets." he says.

"Mr. President?" asks Larry Summers.

"Big ones. Fly 'em right into the buildings. Kaboom. Pentagon too. Shit....fly 'em into the White House....just make sure I'm out of town! Hehehehehehehehehe. "

A couple of nervous snickers. Then bewildered silence. Awkward stares. Finally, Rumsfeld asks gently, "Mr. President, who is going to fly these planes?"

W. winks knowingly, leans to his left and without turning his head whispers "Ashley, get the Prince on the phone."

Anonymous Kel-Tec PF9 March 05, 2015 1:20 PM  

VD: "What would you call armed men who invade and occupy a foreign country, then kill unarmed and innocent civilians who haven't attacked them? Heroes?"

Soldiers. Soldiers who made a mistake in the heat of battle. It wasn't unreasonable for them to assume that military age males approaching them during a fire-fight were combatants.

The fault lies not with the servicemen, but with the Taliban regime which declared war on the United States.

Blogger grendel March 05, 2015 1:26 PM  

Let's see now. Saudi hijackers crash a few of our planes, leading our government to attack Afghanistan and Iraq while destroying civil liberties at home and eventually declaring anyone with a gun and a bible an existential threat. Makes perfect sense.

The logical response to 9/11 would have been to say "Ok America, terrorists are a problem, and we're going to try to get the planners and funders of this attack. The lesson of these attacks is that docile compliance with hijackers is not an appropriate response in today's world. From now on hijackers need to be confronted as quickly and violently as possible. The Air Marshall service and armed pilot program will be stepped up." And then quietly deport every foreigner on the watch list and eliminate almost all visas and immigration from the muslim nations. Boom, problem 95% solved. But of course that response doesn't create a crisis for the global elite to use as a power grab.

Blogger grendel March 05, 2015 1:29 PM  

Correction, I should've said eliminate almost all visas and immigration period.

Anonymous jm March 05, 2015 1:31 PM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"

An indefinite moratorium on Middle Eastern immigration.

Blogger Northern Hamlet March 05, 2015 1:31 PM  

Afghanistan is not our business. Ukraine is not our business. Iraq is not our business. Syria is not our business. Iran is not our business.

This is incorrect. Empire is the business of America.

And most America's will not ever want to give up the benefits it entails. No matter how much Libertarian rhetoric is in the air. After all, was it the Romans that toppled Rome?

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:33 PM  

"Destroy Mecca with nuclear weapons."

Because the way to control those evil people is to do a Saddam Hussein and up his ante a few megatons. Funny that the same people that agree with getting rid of Saddam Hussein also want to use his methods to pacify the Iraqis.

From memory and open to correction:
1) Taliban was in control of Afghanistan.
2) uSA demanded Taliban turn in Bin Laden.
3) Taliban asked for evidence and uSA refused to show any.
4) Taliban refused uSA's request.

The Taliban had nothing to do with Bin Laden or the airplanes. They objected to these uSA completely disregarding their sovereignty.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 1:35 PM  

Re: Sherman - I'm not sure how exactly a person can conflate the economic destruction of a combatant power or the establishment of the reservation system en masse with the slaughter of one's own people in the tens of millions. Scorched Earth policies have a long historical record, and their use does not make a man a monster.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:37 PM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"

To treat the people of these uSA like prisoners and suspects. To further take away the natural and individual rights of the people and accelerate the FedGov's control of everything.

Oh, wait ...

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 1:38 PM  

3) Taliban asked for evidence and uSA refused to show any.

Rather irrelevant when OBL publicly claimed responsibility.

The Taliban had nothing to do with Bin Laden or the airplanes.

At the very least they gave him refuge and allowed him to run training camps in their sovereign territory.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 1:40 PM  

To treat the people of these uSA like prisoners and suspects. To further take away the natural and individual rights of the people and accelerate the FedGov's control of everything.

Oh, wait ...


But millions of soccer moms FEEL safer!

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 1:41 PM  

Kel-Tec PF9: Soldiers. Soldiers who made a mistake in the heat of battle. It wasn't unreasonable for them to assume that military age males approaching them during a fire-fight were combatants.

Yes. The soldiers did the best they could. I'm not even sure it could be called a bad mistake on their part. The civilians probably knew the rules by that time, and the reasons for them.

If the Taliban cared about innocent civilians (they don't), they'd have properly separated their combatants from civilians. Some of this is the fault of the so-called "human rights movement" for cutting them so much slack during the arguments over the Geneva Conventions.

Note that polls showed that Afghans supported the war.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:41 PM  

S1AL. But ordering random execution of people and destruction of property to make a point was and is a war crime.
Sherman was a monster. Fine. Yo may think that the South deserve it. Did the Plains indians deserve it? Or the extermination of the Plains indians had more to do with his and his brother's financial advantage in the railroads. Ditto with Lincoln, BTW.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:43 PM  

Stilicho. I do not think that OBL claimed responsibility at the time. IIRC, did not OBL initially deny involvement?
Still, asking for the evidence was relevant and should have been given. Not just in retrospect.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:44 PM  

"Note that polls showed that Afghans supported the war."

LOL

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 1:49 PM  

@JaimeInTexas - It would appear that we differ as to our views of the historical record in this instance. Sherman have the order that civilians in the South were to go unharmed, and his stance on the Indians was that warfare would be incessant until they were either forced onto reservations or "killed off." The historical record bears that out.

There are a great many terrible things that happened in wars, but I see no convincing evidence that Sherman was worse than any other general in those wars.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:51 PM  

S1AL. Sherman did order random executions on his march. Also, retaliatory executions if any snipping occurred from the town. Also, marched POWs in front to act as mines sweepers against what was called in those days, torpedoes.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 1:51 PM  

JaimeInTexas:

Laugh if you like but it's true. Strangely enough, Afghanistan was not at peace just before the war started.

The very evening of 9/11/2001, there were bombs going off in Kabul, and they weren't ours. They will still be fighting when we leave.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:54 PM  

Meridian, Mississippi comes to mind as to another of Sherman's handiwork.

Hell has a special place for Sherman, Custer, Sheridian, Lincoln and others.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 1:56 PM  

I know, I know but this is most reassuring "They will still be fighting when we leave"

And we the people of these uSA will be the poorer. If we survive.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 2:01 PM  

Eh, I'm not going to argue with someone who makes a list of northern leaders and personally declares them hell-bound. Your mind is made up, and you've decided to pick and choose to support your narrative.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 2:03 PM  

I love these arm chair warriors who run around the woods with their camo and AR talking trash about killing the citizens of the countries we invade for reasons other than stated and "let God sort them out". Nice!

And then they go on to say if anyone ever invades Merica... by gosh they better pack a lunch. Moronic hypocrites.

Funny how they are all bad asses yet they are not in the military and would probably max out a 6 pushups (girl style).

Anonymous Keyboard March 05, 2015 2:05 PM  

A rounding error off ZERO in Milgram's experiment left the room, marched to the school's administration and demanded the experiment be halted. In other words, NO ONE did so, leaving me with the view that those who will stand before murder-ordered-by-Masters is too small to show up in an experimental model.

The story of Milgram's experiment is rooted in Milgram's fraud:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/10/02/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments/

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 2:07 PM  

Here you can frown on the details of the conflict, through official memos, letters, dispatches, etc.

The War of the Rebellion: Original Records of the Civil War
http://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

Despite the link's name, this is a great site, where you can spend hours. It is Harper's Weekly digitalized with "over 7,000 pages of original Civil War content."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 2:07 PM  

The Saudi's (with the US acting like they don't see the hijackers in the US, some of who are on the US payroll) are behind 911 and we attack Saddam... and the defenders of the faith say "he deserved it so who cares".

Join the military tough guys and put your blood where your BS now resides.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 2:11 PM  

S1AL. I have my mind made up but I am also open to new information and correction. I can change but you better bring real guns to the fight because I have spent my hours going through the official records.

You did not know about Sherman's random executions nor, I am guessing, his marching POWs ahead of the columns. Is your mind made up or could you still see that Sherman, to focus on him, was a monster.

Blogger JohnG March 05, 2015 2:11 PM  

"The mujahideen are the monsters here, not the US servicemen.

What would you call armed men who invade and occupy a foreign country, then kill unarmed and innocent civilians who haven't attacked them? Heroes?"

You call that being in a shitty situation. Soldiers don't choose the wars (and for sure would rather be in the US than in the crap holes we're in), if there's evil at play, its because of the civilian leadership.

Anonymous joe doakes March 05, 2015 2:15 PM  

We need a supply of young, experienced, trained killers, in case we're invaded for real (or in case we need to send the killers to restore order in a suburb of St. Louis). But who to practice on? Where do you gain the experience of small group tactics under live fire? How do you teach ordinary men kill-or-be-killed? Where can we find a bunch of expendables for a live-fire exercise?

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 2:20 PM  

'You did not know about Sherman's random executions nor, I am guessing, his marching POWs ahead of the columns. Is your mind made up or could you still see that Sherman, to focus on him, was a monster."

I included Sherman for a reason. Sherman explicitly stated that there was a certain kind of southern man, woman, and child, that must be killed for the union to survive.

Which is exactly what Stalin said about the farmers he starved. And exactly what Mao thought abou the millions of people he starved.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 2:20 PM  

@JaimeInTexas - I've *heard* those accusations before. I've yet to see any evidence that they're true. I'm open to evidence, not unsubstantiated accusations.

OpenID cailcorishev March 05, 2015 2:21 PM  

What was the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?

An increase in the number of guest/student visas for Saudi citizens, I think.

Blogger John S March 05, 2015 2:22 PM  

KrulMarch 05, 2015 11:42 AM
What was the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Whatever it was, it obviously didn't work


To cover up the fact the FBI had an informant in on the bombing that asked if he should supply them with fake components just in case they pulled it off?

Their reply : nope.

Dude was smart, smelled a rat, and recorded the call to his handler.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2015 2:24 PM  

"How do you teach ordinary men kill-or-be-killed?"

Men defending their homes and families don't need that training. Men being sent as cannon fodder for the wars of the NeoCons do.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 2:24 PM  

"You call that being in a shitty situation. Soldiers don't choose the wars (and for sure would rather be in the US than in the crap holes we're in), if there's evil at play, its because of the civilian leadership."

The stormtroopers weren't bad guys. They were just following orders.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 2:25 PM  

" I've *heard* those accusations before. I've yet to see any evidence that they're true. I'm open to evidence, not unsubstantiated accusations."

said the ostrich.

Anonymous karsten March 05, 2015 2:29 PM  

The fact that there are bad guys out there does not automatically make those who oppose them good. When Hitler and Stalin went to war, who was the good guy?

This cannot be a serious question. Hitler was the greatest enemy of Team Pink the world has ever known. He gave them more grief than anyone has, before or since, and he came closer to defeating them (or at least freeing his nation of them) than any other leader of the past several hundred years. He also mounted the most serious defense of traditionalism in the arts (and the expunging of degenerate Team-Pink art) of any leader in history. He opposed literally everything that has destroyed our world, from feminism to anti-white-ism to gay supremacy to male effeminacy, and he promoted the very best things in European culture: the traditional role of motherhood, the noblest of art based on beauty and honour, traditional warrior-code masculinity, etc.

Stalin, on the other hand, was a mindless butcher working on behalf of Team Pink.

'Nuff said.

Blogger John March 05, 2015 2:31 PM  

TDTacitus: "A shrinking minority in the youngest age cohorts, indebted, and dominated by a more aggressive ethnicity. Which two out of three did you have in mind?"

I was thinking giant and warlike. I'm not sure what you mean, as "American" is a multi-national term which includes populations in El Norte, Far West, and Appalachia - those are more warlike than other nations IMO.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 2:32 PM  

Nate: The stormtroopers weren't bad guys. They were just following orders.

Our soldiers didn't have orders to shoot innocent civilians. The story linked in the original post doesn't even suggest the existence of such orders. Wikileaks doesn't say that either -- although I'm sure they'd like to pretend otherwise.

If the critics are unwilling to demand that our enemies separate their combatants from civilians then they need to expect tragedies.

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 2:36 PM  

>>>3) Taliban asked for evidence and uSA refused to show any.

Rather irrelevant when OBL publicly claimed responsibility.


While the Taliban demanded evidence right up until the brink of war, they did capitulate and offer to turn over OBL unconditionally.

But I don't consider those American soldiers who lost their lives irrelevant. If giving the Taliban the evidence they wanted was the way to keep American soldiers alive, I consider that a small price to pay. Hell of a lot cheaper to FedEx a package than to waste trillions of dollars as well.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 2:41 PM  

@Nate - It's funny that you would call me an ostrich while misrepresenting that quote from Sherman... which referred to non-Confederacy bandits who had engaged in egregious offenses against both sides in the war.

As for the marching of the POW's into minefields, the only reference to that I can find is that he made said POW's *clear* the minefields by digging up the mines, not walking over them.

And the "random executions" is something I just can't find at all.

But if you guys want to give me some historical records to look at (specific ones, not tens of thousands of pages), I'm completely willing to read them. As it presently stands, this looks like just another instance of the exaggeration and hearsay that is constantly leveled at military personnel throughout history.

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 2:41 PM  

If the critics are unwilling to demand that our enemies separate their combatants from civilians then they need to expect tragedies.

Right, because that is all you have to do. Demand your opponent give up his tactical advantages so he can lose fair and square. I am sure if the next army that fights the US sends over a letter insisting that the US stop fighting with everything more sophisticated than a rock, the US army will get a good laugh out of it.

Anonymous Scythian Arrows March 05, 2015 2:42 PM  

Karsten:

I often imagine the thoughts going through the heads of the WWII veterans still alive today, seeing their homeland in its current state. If they saw then what they see now, I'm sure more than a few would have joined the Wehrmacht.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 2:50 PM  

Chris Kyle discusses going into villages (I believe he was covering the Marines) and killing everyone in the houses they burst into (house after house - I think he says something like "every male between 16 and 48" or something to that effect) so they didn't have to discriminate their target selection and lessened their risk of taking casualties.

That's just awesome!

If you were carrying a gun you were offed in the street. If you looked like you were carrying a gun you were offed in the street.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 2:55 PM  

Something really AWESOME to take a gander at are the Fallujah Babies courtesy of the USofA and our stores of depleted uranium we rained down on the innocents.

Sad so many of our own are now having deformed babies and dying of strange tumor growths, etc..

Or the blowback when we were burning biological and nerve agents in the first gulf war and the wind shifted and our boys and girls got dosed, their meters going off and they were told don't worry no need for PPE. This purportedly destroyed Norman Schwarzkopf's psyche and he faded from the scene shortly thereafter.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 05, 2015 2:59 PM  

John: "I was thinking giant and warlike."

OK.

John: "I'm not sure what you mean, as "American" is a multi-national term which includes populations in El Norte, Far West, and Appalachia - those are more warlike than other nations IMO."

"America" has indeed become a multi-national term. However, I think Jews are much more aggressive than whites. So if American war policy is Jewish inflected, it's more aggressive, with more wars, and this is not something that non-Jews should beat their chests over or feel guilty about. It just is.

For a much milder example of the phenomenon: were Germans in the earliest part of the 20th Century particularly martial? They were when the Prussians, who had firm ethnic self-consciousness and a martial culture, were calling all the shots. Non-Prussians: maybe not. Mostly, they were along for the ride.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 3:04 PM  

Tiny Tim,

Some of those battles were in locations where the entire town was a battlezone. There were no innocent civilians left.

Even leftie Juan Cole had acknowledged that every able-bodied male in Fallujah supported the insurgents.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:05 PM  

While the Taliban demanded evidence right up until the brink of war, they did capitulate and offer to turn over OBL unconditionally.

Nope. Let's go to the anti-American, anti-Bush press for the most favorable treatment of the Taliban offer--From the Washington Post:
Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer

By Kathy Gannon
Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Oct. 14, 2001; 1:50 p.m. EDT

JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.

President Bush quickly rejected the offer.


and this from the Guardian:

New offer on Bin Laden
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad

Tuesday 16 October 2001 22.22 EDT

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Shares
38
A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said


Those were hardly unconditional offers and they were only made after the Taliban was losing the war.

But I don't consider those American soldiers who lost their lives irrelevant. If giving the Taliban the evidence they wanted was the way to keep American soldiers alive, I consider that a small price to pay.

We lost 12. Against that loss must be weighed the cost of giving up classified data, sources, and potentially the ability to get other parts of the Al Qaeda network along with determining whether the offer was genuine and whether the conditions were acceptable.

Hell of a lot cheaper to FedEx a package than to waste trillions of dollars as well.

That's the price of attempted nation building. That and 2,344 additional casualties.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:06 PM  

American genocide has been going on now for quite some time. But we don't wear swastika's we just wave around American Flags and invoke God and Jesus, which is shameful... so it is SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF and if you don't like it maybe we will just kill "your children" ha...!

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:09 PM  

RandyBeck, if we are ever invaded by a foreign usurper and I am ordered to leave my home because there is a police action commencing, I'm not leaving. IT IS MY HOME!

Do I deserve to die for staying in my house?

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:12 PM  

@RandyBeck, don't waste the bytes, Tiny gets a little flustered while he's getting his "hair done" or when a sweaty, tattooed Salvadoran gang banger walks by...

Blogger beerme March 05, 2015 3:15 PM  

"What then was the proper response to 9-11?"
1. Bomb AQ training camps in Afghanistan without permission from the Paki's. Break shit and leave.
2. Aggressively pursue and expel all Islamic illegals and expired visa holders. Expel all of the "refugees" such as the Somalis. Secure the southern border to prevent that method of entry.
3. End all Muslim migration to the US
4. End support for the Saudi regime as long as they export Islam to our prisons and support Mosques in the US.

The solution to the Islamic terrorism is simple. Don't invade them and don't invite them in. We did the opposite and it has proven to be a disaster.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 3:15 PM  

Tiny Tim,

I suggest you either join the U.S. military to fight, or form a militia fighting under the law of war, or you admit, come what may, that you don't care about the law of war, and will fight like one of the savages.

The Taliban, at least, are willing to admit to that last part. But, and here's the funny part, Chris Kyle was called a "racist" for calling them savages.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:16 PM  

RandyBeck, where was everyone supposed to go? Maybe they had a whole lot of Holiday Inn Express' right down the road they could all take cover in...

Also, look at the time of the year some of this occurred. It was WINTER! Where were they supposed to go to get out of the weather? Maybe they were afraid we would do like the British did in WW2 when they firebombed Dresden then strafed the women and children who gathered outside the city seeking water and shelter, as many of them had skin sluffing off by the bushel or were burned beyond recognition, and had just lost everything they had. Kyle even talks about guys stealing out of these houses. I guess that can be explained to everyone's satisfaction as well.

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 3:16 PM  

Nope...
JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.


My mistake relying on memory and saying unconditionally. I was wrong. Still doesn't change the fact a FedEx package is dirt cheap.

>>>But I don't consider those American soldiers who lost their lives irrelevant. If giving the Taliban the evidence they wanted was the way to keep American soldiers alive, I consider that a small price to pay.

We lost 12.


Nope. As of August 4, 2014, there were 2,201 U.S. military deaths in the War in Afghanistan.

with determining whether the offer was genuine and whether the conditions were acceptable.

Easy to find out. Stop the bombing and send the FedEx package. If they don't turn him over, bombing can resume at any time.

That's the price of attempted nation building. That and 2,344 additional casualties.

No, that's the price of invading. The intention was to invade and nation build. Letting the government gets its nose in the door means everything else that comes with it. It is all one package.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:17 PM  

if we are ever invaded by a foreign usurper

That's rich coming from the self-proclaimed, coiffured, illegal alien gang banger employing, Texan, rancher, contractor, gun-owning, all-round internet tough guy. Tell us more.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 3:17 PM  

Thanks Stilicho. I shoulda known better.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:18 PM  

Stilicho, Vox has made it clear attacking people for no reason is verboten. Why don't you obey him?

If there weren't that rule I would eviscerate you as always. But this is Vox's site and I respect the man. Don't bait me.

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 3:19 PM  

Ah, and it turns out my memory is better after all. I knew they did drop the demand for evidence at some point.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

So the Taliban did captiulate and offer to turn over OBL without evidence. Only condition, stop the bombing.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 3:20 PM  

Tiny:

It's a safe bet that Chris Kyle understood the law of war.

Anonymous Bobo March 05, 2015 3:20 PM  

"You're right, other than burning for something like 8 hours, it looked exactly like a demolition."

"And the jets."

Jets hit Building 7? Wow, I completely missed that. Just like everybody else.
Good eye.

I don't know which is worse, the thought that our so-called gov't would be complicit in 9-11, or that they were too incompetent/impotent to stop it...

But by all means, let's slaughter a bunch of goat fuckers...

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:20 PM  

If there weren't that rule I would eviscerate you as always.

Just don't bring a Glock to a gun fight, Timmy.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:22 PM  

Only condition, stop the bombing.

Wrong. the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US That right there is what we call a condition.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:22 PM  

Non response as always because I speak the truth and you can't defend the indefensible only play your little games.

As always, run and hide under your mother's skirt.

The bastion of cowards.

Show me where I am wrong?

Silence...

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:28 PM  

Randy Beck, another man who thought he understood the law of war and the reason for the blood letting was Pat Tillman.

When he woke up and voiced an opinion about killing innocents who were fighting because we invaded their homes, the US army offed him and the higher ups covered it up.

Does this not bother you?

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 3:30 PM  

Wrong. the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US That right there is what we call a condition

No that is called you splitting hairs over irrelevancies. Once he is handed over to another party the US can get him. He is no longer protected by the Taliban.

So no, I disagree with your claim it is a condition. If they had insisted we feed the guy and give him a trial I wouldn't consider those conditions either.

Blogger JaimeInTexas March 05, 2015 3:31 PM  

this one is easier to search:

http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/

---------------------------------

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0079%2F&tif=00496.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0079
Volume XXXIX - in Three Parts. 1892. (Vol. 39, Chap. 51),
Chapter LI - Operations in Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Georgia (the Atlanta Campaign excepted). May 1-November 13, 1864.
Part III

Hdqrs, Military Div. of the Mississippi,
In the Field, Rome Ga. October 2, 1864.

Brigadier General Watkins, Calhoun, Ga.:
Cannnot you send over about Fairmount and Adairsville, burn ten or twelve houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random, and let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston!
W. T. Sherman
Major-General, Commanding.

---------------------------------

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fwaro%2Fwaro0075%2F&tif=00581.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DANU4519-0075

Volume XXXVIII - in Five Parts. 1891. (Vol. 38, Chap. 50)
Chapter L - The Atlanta, Ga., Campaign. May 1-September 8, 1864.
Part IV

Hdqrs. Military Division of the Mississippi,
In the Field, Big Shanty, June 23, 1864.
Maj. Gen. J. B. Steedman,
Commanding District of the Etowah, Chattanooga:

General: As the question may arise, and you have a right to the support of my authority, I now decide that the use of the torpedo is justifiable in war in advance of an army, so as to make his advance up the river of over the road more dangerous and difficult. But after the adversary has gained the country by fair warlike means, then the case entirely changes. The use of torpedoes in blowing up our cars and the road after they are in our possession, is simply malicious. It cannot alter the great problem, but simply makes trouble. Now, if torpedoes are found i the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by wagon-loads of prisoners, or, if need be, citizens implicated in their use. In like manner, if a torpedo is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a car-load of prisoners, or citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope. Of course an enemy cannot complain of his own traps.
I am, &c.,
W. T. Sherman
Major-General, Commanding.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:32 PM  

Norm Minetta's testimony about Dick Chaney's blood lust the morning of 911.

How can you true believers ignore the facts of this case?

How do you true believers ignore the heroin production records being set every year in Afghanistan since we arrived?

Could it be W might have fudged a little? At least a little and he really didn't love the little brown babies as much as he claimed to? Or the dead in the Twin Towers that served their ends "just swell"?

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 3:32 PM  

Just don't bring a Glock to a gun fight, Timmy.

Heh, that's pretty good.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 3:35 PM  

Jets hit Building 7? Wow, I completely missed that.

Never heard of the "third jet"?

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 05, 2015 3:36 PM  

The war genuinely worth fighting is not being ignored.

It is, like all the wars not worth fighting, being fought to lose.

When you win a war the opportunities for massive illicit profits shrink dramatically. In peacetime people expect the rule of law, generally accepted accounting practice, and public accountability of the political class and their favoured sponsors. They become less amenable to believing transparent lies.

That is precisely WHY the US had to engineer a massive failure in Iraq with ISIS (as well as it providing the excuse to expand the conflict into Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon (and possibly Iran at some future date) ).

That is the pattern of war the US has followed since at least as far back as WW1: expand, expand, expand. Expand the conquest, expand the conflict, expand the profit opportunities.

Look at Vietnam. What did Cambodia have to do with it? Nothing. What did LAOS have to do with it? Nothing. Nobody even know where Laos is, who lives there, what their politics is, and nobody on this planet cares. Certainly not one single American cared then or cares now.

Yet we, the US and her allies in Vietnam (of which my country was shamefully one) made Laos the most intensively bombed nation in history.

LAOS, ffs!

Not Germany, not Italy, not the Soviet "evil empire", not any of the "bad guys" - fucking Laos!

Remember, expand the conflict, expand the profit opportunities. That is the sum total of what the fucking dickheads in politics and the press obscenely refer to as "US foreign policy"

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:37 PM  

I saw two gay guys fight in high school. Looked just like two female cats tearing into each other. Scratching, biting, hair flying.

My guess is that is what it would look like with some of you "local Pillsbury doughboys" strapping it on.

I think a Glock would be overkill for sure.

My only fear would be catching AIDS if one of you bit me or scratched me.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 3:38 PM  

Tiny Tim:

A lot of stuff already bothers me.

A lot more would bother me if there was a chance it was true.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 3:41 PM  

It's always a fun thread when Tiny Tim goes full retard, and I believe he just blasted off.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 3:42 PM  

Once he is handed over to another party the US can get him.

Which party would that be? Can you prove that we could get him no matter who he was turned over to? Was it a just a delaying tactic? Did they even have the ability to turn him over at that time?

, I disagree with your claim it is a condition.

Condition: a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance

Do you disagree with the definition of condition as well?

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 3:47 PM  

No refutation of the FACTS as presented. No defense of the indefensible. No real challenges only threats from soft fat guys who once fired a Daisy BB Gun and now think they are Rambo.

Blogger Joshua_D March 05, 2015 3:55 PM  

JohnG March 05, 2015 2:11 PM

"The mujahideen are the monsters here, not the US servicemen.

What would you call armed men who invade and occupy a foreign country, then kill unarmed and innocent civilians who haven't attacked them? Heroes?"

You call that being in a shitty situation. Soldiers don't choose the wars (and for sure would rather be in the US than in the crap holes we're in), if there's evil at play, its because of the civilian leadership.


Soldiers do choose to be soldiers though. I mean, we have the term "war crimes" for a reason, right?

Blogger ScuzzaMan March 05, 2015 4:01 PM  

Indeed, Joshua. Indeed.

It was, after all, we who imposed the death penalty on soldiers who were just following the civilian's orders ...

Some people have very short memories, especially for those things they apparently never learned in the first place.

Logic, history, empathy, character.

Blogger luagha March 05, 2015 4:06 PM  

It's even more fun when Tiny Tim refers to FACTS.

And considers it an attack when his own claims about himself are repeated.

Blogger Joshua_D March 05, 2015 4:06 PM  

I hear the subject of PTSD come up regularly, or rather the subject of treating PTSD. But, I rarely hear people talke about preventing PTSD. I imagine that killing innocent people has a highly negative impact on most sane individuals.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 4:06 PM  

Once he is handed over to another party the US can get him

Which party? Can you prove we could have got him? Was it a delaying tactic or subterfuge to obtain a cease fire? Did they even have the ability to turn him over at that time? See the problems? It's not as simple or as easy as you portrayed it.

I disagree with your claim it is a condition

Do you disagree with the definition of condition as well?

Condition: a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance
.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 4:10 PM  

I suppose that falsely accusing soldiers of killing innocents also takes a toll.

Anonymous Stilicho March 05, 2015 4:16 PM  

I saw two gay guys fight in high school. Looked just like two female cats tearing into each other. Scratching, biting, hair flying.

No one wants to hear about your turn-ons

My guess is that is what it would look like with some of you "local Pillsbury doughboys" strapping it on.

ditto your thoughts on "strapping it on"

I think a Glock would be overkill

No, you're not gay...not even a little bit

if one of you bit me or scratched me.

Keep your fantasies to yourself

No refutation of the FACTS as presented.

I doubt that any of the Ilk are in a position to refute your anecdotal account of your perversions

Blogger ajw308 March 05, 2015 4:16 PM  

I ended up fighting for different reasons once I got on the ground — a mix of loyalty to my Marines, habit and the urge to survive.
Everything I've read, this is the fundamental mindset of any small unit in any war. Strategy & politics being decided 1/2 a world away mean nothing when the best odds of surviving mean keeping your brothers on your left & right alive.

Anonymous LES March 05, 2015 4:22 PM  

Lincoln's use of the Force Act resulted in an unnecessary war that took 800,000 lives. If you want to learn of how vicious the war was, study General Sherman's scorched earth "march to the sea." In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife he wrote that his purpose in the war was: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” This war on citizens was not simply restrained to be applied against men and women but also children. Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Sec. of War, Edwin Station wrote, "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval." In other words, genocide.
"Look to the South and you who went with us through that land can best say if they have not been fearfully punished. Mourning is in every household, desolation written in broad characters across the whole face of their country, cities in ashes and fields laid waste, their commerce gone, their system of labor annihilated and destroyed. Ruin and poverty and distress everywhere, and now pestilence adding to the very cap sheaf of their stack of misery..." -- Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, the man who left a 60 mile wide, 300 mile long path of death and desolation across GA and up through SC. Next on Sherman's list for extermination were the American Indians.
In a January 31, 1864 letter to Major R.M. Sawyer, Sherman explained the reason why he hated the South in general, and South Carolina in particular, so much. The war, he said “was the result of a false political doctrine that any and every people have a right to self-government.” In the same letter Sherman referred to states’ rights, freedom of conscience, and freedom of the press as “trash” that had “deluded the Southern people into war.”
Lincoln's war against the South was the end of the Republic and the beginning of the American Empire.

"'Nuff said" and "Just sayin'..." are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalalala.

Blogger Joshua_D March 05, 2015 4:23 PM  

RandyBeck March 05, 2015 4:10 PM

I suppose that falsely accusing soldiers of killing innocents also takes a toll.


Was that directed at me?

Blogger ajw308 March 05, 2015 4:25 PM  

No real challenges only threats from soft fat guys who once fired a Daisy BB Gun and now think they are Rambo.
Then there's the guys on gun forums who have silly positions. After some back and forth, it comes out they've only fired Airsoft, but still think they have grounds to argue.

I think there's a lot of these unfounded experts out there.

Anonymous patrick kelly March 05, 2015 4:27 PM  

"Do I deserve to die for staying in my house?"

"deserve" has little to do with war, but being too stubborn and stupid to live is pushing it.....

Anonymous LES March 05, 2015 4:29 PM  

The REAL Osama bin Laden did not claim responsibility for 9-11.
WTC-7 was a controlled demolition.

There is no one to hold the real perpetrators of 9-11 accountable.

Anonymous DavidKathome March 05, 2015 4:33 PM  

>>>Once he is handed over to another party the US can get him

Which party?

I wish we knew, too bad Bush didn't ask.

Can you prove we could have got him?

I only had to prove the Taliban was willing to drop the evidence condition. Which I did.

Was it a delaying tactic or subterfuge to obtain a cease fire?

I don't know and I don't care. Although you raising these questions sure does appear to be a delaying tactic because it has nothing to do with the fact the Taliban did drop the evidence requirement.

The reason I don't care is because if it was a subterfuge, once the US figured it out, the war would be back on. Who cares if the US conquered Afghanistan a month later than it did? It makes no difference.


Did they even have the ability to turn him over at that time?

Yes, their country, their power. And if not, same result, the US just finishes fighting the war.

See the problems? It's not as simple or as easy as you portrayed it.

It is exactly as easy as I portray it. There are no problems, only you grasping at straws.

>>>>I disagree with your claim it is a condition

Do you disagree with the definition of condition as well?

Condition: a restricting, limiting, or modifying circumstance


I don't disagree with the definition. I think your suggestion that turning OBL over to a third party would somehow restrict, limit or modify the USA's ability to get him to be nothing but a joke. Once he gets turned over to the third party, the USA can get OBL, and skip the war.

Are you this literal with the Japanese unconditional surrender to the US in World War II? Because technically, when they surrendered, Truman ordered a stop to the bombing.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 4:35 PM  

Joshua: "Was that directed at me?"

I'm sorry if my aim was off. There so many accusations made here that it was hard for me to keep track.

My comment would only be directed at those who were part of the camp that carelessly throws such accusations into the fray without thinking them through. Forex: The pseudo-quote by or about Chris Kyle.

Blogger Marissa March 05, 2015 4:42 PM  

Look at Vietnam. What did Cambodia have to do with it? Nothing. What did LAOS have to do with it? Nothing. Nobody even know where Laos is, who lives there, what their politics is, and nobody on this planet cares. Certainly not one single American cared then or cares now.

Yet we, the US and her allies in Vietnam (of which my country was shamefully one) made Laos the most intensively bombed nation in history.

LAOS, ffs!


To be fair, the NVA were there and it was easier to bomb Laos and Cambodia than to send ground troops because the latter were somehow easier to notice. I don't understand this type of thinking by our betters back then, as if turning parts of Laos and Cambodia into the moon was somehow not very noticeable.

It was very frustrating to grunts who watched the NVA go back behind the border, knowing the U.S. forces wouldn't (couldn't) follow.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2015 4:45 PM  

@Jaime - Fair enough, thought the circumstances different than you described. Frankly, I understand Sherman using the threat of testing newly-planted mines with POW's. Horrific, yes, but his assessment that it is no longer a military action at that point is valid. That's different from using POW's as mine sweepers while advancing into new territory.

As for the "random" killings... granted. Though I was under the impression that you meant just completely random executions, not retaliatory ones against known instigators. Again, that's a different scenario.


So, given your view that he will be damned for that, I assume you would apply the same to the Confederate commanders who ordered their men to mine hospital and civilian trains?

Oh, or the general who said: "The business of a soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to throw up breastworks, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts"

Ah, or this quote: "Obstruct and destroy all roads in Sherman's front, flank, and rear, and his army will soon starve in your midst!"


Anonymous DT March 05, 2015 4:57 PM  

At to think that all of this, starting with 9/11 itself, could have been avoided with proper immigration controls. No Muslim immigrants...no 9/11.

Heck, it could have been avoided if we had just used the laws on the books and followed up on the obscure and cryptic lead of "Hey, I run a flight school and I've got Muslims who say they don't need to learn how to land, only fly. Should I be worried?"

No...no you shouldn't be worried. That's rayciss.

Anonymous Bobo March 05, 2015 4:59 PM  

@LES
"The REAL Osama bin Laden did not claim responsibility for 9-11.
WTC-7 was a controlled demolition.

There is no one to hold the real perpetrators of 9-11 accountable."

Harsh says it was the 3rd jet flying in from the grassy knoll. Adjust your reality accordingly.
("These are not the droids you're looking for...")

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 5:20 PM  

Patrick Kelly, obviously you would bolt at the first apparatchik who told you to hit the road.

Not me.

Anonymous Harsh March 05, 2015 5:29 PM  

Harsh says it was the 3rd jet flying in from the grassy knoll.

Hey man, it wasn't the grassy knoll. The plane came up through the subway system.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2015 5:32 PM  

" admit, come what may, that you don't care about the law of war, and will fight like one of the savages"

If you invade my nation and threaten my home, then the rules of war are off.

Anonymous RandyBeck March 05, 2015 5:49 PM  

Chris: "then the rules of war are off."

One can say that as long as they don't then act like they care when innocent civilians are accidentally killed. The handling of prisoners isn't something they can complain about either.

We've come a long way since the previous decade when critics were whining about the Bush administration's unwillingness to grant POW status to savages -- which is something that neither the Supreme Court nor the Obama administration granted to them either.

Anonymous patrick kelly March 05, 2015 6:06 PM  

"Patrick Kelly, obviously you would bolt at the first apparatchik who told you to hit the road.

Not me."

We're not talking about any "apparatchik", if it is a national military giving warning days ahead of time that the house I'm living in is going to be riddled with bullets or demolished with explosives in order to kill a bunch of criminal assholes who have occupied my neighborhood, you're damn right, I'm leaving.

Anyone who doesn't isn't brave, a hero, or tough, they're just stubborn and stupid. What are you going to do, strap on a ninja mask and try to shoot down incoming hellfires with your AK ?

Blogger Nate March 05, 2015 7:22 PM  

"It's always a fun thread when Tiny Tim goes full retard, and I believe he just blasted off."

No one does projection like Tiny Tim. I wish underwater operative commented more... I would love to see Tiny and him talk.

Anonymous WaterBoy March 05, 2015 7:29 PM  

Vox: "Afghanistan is not our business. Ukraine is not our business. Iraq is not our business. Syria is not our business. Iran is not our business. "

You know that. I know that. But try telling it to the policy wonks who want to influence everything:

"The core philosophical assumption driving this Index is that U.S. military power matters, that it is a unique resource not only to the security and foreign policies of this nation but to the world. For more than six decades, U.S. military power and global presence has been a force for international peace and stability. It follows that the diminution of that power not only threatens the security of the homeland and vital national interests but also creates a power vacuum that, with the withdrawal of American military presence from contested and unstable regions of the globe, others will try to fill. We have only to look around the world, to the rise of ISIS, or Russia’s occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to see the effects of our withdrawal on peace and stability. The state of U.S. military power, like the extent of economic freedom, matters not only to Americans but to the people of the world."

Methinks they might possibly have cause-and-effect backwards.

"But since the end of the Cold War, every administration has accepted, in general, these fundamental missions: nuclear deterrence, protection of the homeland, forward military presence in regions of interest, confront/halt/defeat adversaries in two regions of the world and provide support to civil authorities. To this already demanding list of missions one could add counterterrorism, counter piracy and responding to humanitarian crises."

Plus, World Police.

(The document being addressed in this article -- 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength -- is also interesting in its own right.)

Anonymous Toby Temple March 05, 2015 7:37 PM  

Listening to Tiny Tim is like listening to those people in Tacloban, Leyte insisting to stay in their homes a day before typhoon Haiyan touched down. The good news for Tiny is there are actually no foreign army invading where he lives.

Anonymous J. J. March 05, 2015 7:52 PM  

"These villagers fought us because that’s what they always did when foreigners came to their village. Perhaps they just wanted to be left alone."

This element existed in the American Civil War.  It's funny how many ignorant Yankees don't realize this (I've lived in both the North and South). Because slavery. When my kids (home educated) were studying the Civil War, we actually took them to at least 5 historic sites in 4 different states. When you do this, it overwhelms you to think, "Now just what were those Northern soldiers coming here and fighting for?". They were the most pathetic turds in the history of warfare. They had little to fight for whereas the Southerners were fighting for their land, homes, families, etc., against invading hordes who were there to rape, pillage, and burn. The northerners didn't give a shit about any of the causes (rather excuses) their elites had made for war.

Anonymous zen0 March 05, 2015 8:09 PM  

Your tax dollars at work in Iraq

Allah Akbar, bitchez

Anonymous Fred March 05, 2015 8:24 PM  

I would add that Israel is our business. Any country that assaults Israel is risking intervention by God. The Bible says that God will bless those that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel. As of this week, Obama has done lots of cursing of Israel.

Anonymous LES March 05, 2015 8:54 PM  

No, Fred, the Bible does not say that. Those verses apply to Abram only and not to every Hebrew who ever lived. Besides, the modern, secular state called Israel is not the Israel of the Bible. Israel today is not even a real country. It doesn't have a Constitution or defined borders.

Genesis 12
The Call of Abram

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.

OpenID cailcorishev March 05, 2015 9:04 PM  

The Bible says that God will bless those that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel.

And there's clearly only one possible interpretation of that passage today, right?

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 9:35 PM  

And Nate chimes in and accuses me of projection. The man who puts on a fedora and squints into a camera to look like Clint Eastwood with a .45 strapped on his side.

You are a joke, except to pasty white fat guys who aren't from Texas.

Blogger Tiny Tim March 05, 2015 9:39 PM  

Nate, the inadequate man who finds courage in a bottle and firing rounds that are bigger than his stunted manhood.

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts