fansince62 Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 prf....exactly what is your beef? i don't think anyone on this board disagrees that the perpetrators should meet with a swift and terminal fate. btw, have you ever killed anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandies Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Osama dead or alive would never improve our offense, defense or special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 finally...something we can all agree on!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 fansince62, I got beef with anyone that blames the WTC attacks on anyone else OTHER than the terrorists that directly or indirectly committed the acts.<br /><br /> Which is littered throughout this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 roger!.......allowing myself a little license....i'ld like to see all involved brought to a painful justice also.<br /> <br /> [ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: fansince62 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 kevin - I'm not blaming Clinton for the attacks. He's not the insane one that flew a plane into the WTC or the pentagon. I'm just saying we would have been much more capable of stopping the terrorists had Clinton concentrated more on stopping these *******s than making treaties that decrease our military might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Then I guess, Kevin, you and I have to agree to disagree. As stated in an earlier post, the first four or five groups I put blame on is terrorist a$$holes. But I also affix blame, in part, to the culture that bred them and helped them flourish and allows that type of mentality to exist. They are the enemy, and like President Bush said, you're either with us,or against us. I would give them two chances right about now,because this thing is just getting started. Those two chances are slim and NONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 orange.....i can't get into the sorts of assertions that you are making (wink, wink). however, there was a fascinating documentary on Frontline last Thursday that traced the actions of the terrorists we know of up to 9/11. what caught my attention was the number of mistakes the terrorists made that should have triggered concern/attentioon. there were all kinds of failures here that reach well beyond the Clinton administration's machinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 orange, topics like this always degrade into a political debate. Conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame conservatives. No one ever looks in the mirror. My post was a little sarcastic, but on point. I'd rather not jump into the endless fray. <br /><br />Sarge, IMO your riding the fence. Your either prejudice against all muslims or your not. Don't be conviently, dare I say, politically correct, by condeming just terrorists a few times before condeming all muslims. Meanwhile our republican commander in chief spent his third day after Sept 11th in a Muslim mosque condeming terrorists with other Muslims. Sleeping with the enemy? Or can he simply see the forest AND the trees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Kevin, if your stance on an issue can be shaped by a photo opportunity you have problems more deep politically than simply being overly sensitive my friend. Bush and his advisors have gone out of their way to attempt to draw a distinction between the peaceful practioners of the Islamic faith and those that would commit the acts of terror both here and throughout the world.<br /><br />This political move is well crafted to isolate the hard core fundamentalist movement within the Islamic faith to make them easier to target and destroy. But, we're speaking about an entire, very well funded, very popular movement within the religious base here and not an isolated case of insanity. Here is a religion that calls for war. It directs it. It goes about describing it. A very large number of Muslims follow these directions and in that there are some who take it beyond that which is generally even acceptable within their own belief system.<br /><br />The society that breeds these people IS to blame for these people Kevin. If it were a handful of them it would be one thing. But there are thousands who feel this way. They are taught a cultish religious belief and they are fed lies to fan the flames of their ignorant hatred of this nation, a nation so kind it hasn't smote them out of their existence for constantly decalaring war on us for years.<br /><br />But, we're not making war on Islam. We're making war on those we've dubbed to be terrorists and in this war, that definition is going to continue to be more wide reaching than any of us envisions at this moment in time.<br /><br />And, it's their fault, not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 20, 2002 Share Posted January 20, 2002 Art, I agree with everything you said, and thanks for moving the topic/topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Art, I generally agree with you on this issue. However, I dont think finding the term 'raghead' offensive makes one overly sensitive.<br /><br />In fact, it sickens me that someone would attempt to pervert American patriotism and our justifiable need to defend our way of life by twisting it into an excuse to use such a term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Henry, sensitivity comes in all shapes. Here, knowing who Sarge is, a military man, his use of the term raghead is not the same as if I were to use it. In Somalia the military call the Somali people "Skinnies". This is and would certainly be a very negative comment if I were to say it, but, military men, the men who are there, are known to brand the people we are engaged with in any number of ways that would be less than sensitive in the world outside the military.<br /><br />When I see Sarge using phrasing like that, I don't see it as offensive, because from him, it's not. From him, it's a part of the normal, day to day descriptive manner by which people of that region or country are branded. It's generally done in an attempt to dehumanize because when you know what is coming to them it's sometimes hard to view them as people, because to men in the military, they aren't people, they are objects to destroy. This is training. I've never been in the military and I can't speak for Sarge or any other military man, but I can see when they use a word you may find offensive in every day chatter, that it's meant in a different way.<br /><br />I think you need to understand that it is not your ears that define whether a term is offensive or not. It is the use and the sender that defines it. I don't think Sarge meant it as a slur. I think to him it meant something else and his message, if that's the case, remains true, and no receiver is allowed to make it a negative if it's not. In Sarge's world, that is not a negative word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins57 Posted January 21, 2002 Author Share Posted January 21, 2002 wow.. look what a little news article on Osama possibly being dead turned into. This is the first topic I have started to have reached 5 pages long. WOW again. Only thing I will add is we need to get this son of a b!tch now, if he is alive and shoot him.<br />Hail Skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I think you need to understand that it is not your ears that define whether a term is offensive or not. It is the use and the sender that defines it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I understand that perfectly Art. Our military for years has used terms such as Krauts, Limeys, Dagos, Frogs, Gooks and the like to dehumanize the enemy. However, one also has to know one's target audience. This is not a military forum. Bandying about a term like raghead on this board is inappropriate. Sarge, or whoever, should know that, and if they don't that in and of itself says something about intent.<br /><br />But whatever. My delicate sensibilities will recover. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />I'm not about to spend another 60+ posts arguing about this. Think what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 i'm afraid i have to agree with henry on this one. art's analysis is pretty close, although the implication that we in the military sidestep sticky moral issues through language devices is not altogether true. there comes the moment when decisions have to be made: strategic, operational, or tactical. orders are followed, but that doesn't mean they are followed in a DR Strangelove fashion in every instance. sometimes abstractions take hold (my lai, viet nam) and other times the ilk of human decency creeps into the decision process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.