# Politics and News > World Affairs >  Travesty.

## 007

UK Royal marine jailed for killing Taliban terrorist in a war zone.
http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/articl...ticle/20053675

A royal pardon seems appropriate.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Don't even get me fucking STARTED on this outrage, I don't want to blow an aneurysm in my head....

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

So, if the information presented in the article is accurate, a Royal Marine shot and killed a wounded, unarmed, Prisoner of War and you are upset that he was convicted of his crime.

Okay.

Why?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> UK Royal marine jailed for killing Taliban terrorist in a war zone.
> http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/articl...ticle/20053675
> 
> A royal pardon seems appropriate.


Hanging seems appropriate.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> So, if the information presented in the article is accurate, a Royal Marine shot and killed a wounded, unarmed, Prisoner of War and you are upset that he was convicted of his crime.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Why?


Because apparently, it's okay to lower ourselves to the standards of the Taliban.

----------

Coolwalker (11-12-2013)

----------


## 007

> So, if the information presented in the article is accurate, a Royal Marine shot and killed a wounded, unarmed, Prisoner of War and you are upset that he was convicted of his crime.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Why?


Read the Geneva conventions.
The Taliban do not meet the criteria to be eligible for PW status.
The Taliban have been known to boobytrap the mortally wounded or dead.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (12-04-2013)

----------


## usfan

Justice should not be partisan.  A crime is a crime, & deserves justice.  That said, seeking justice in the 'hell of war' is a difficult task.  Frightened young men are given guns & told to kill people.  Then we condemn them when they do.  These sorts of things become political propaganda pieces.  Justice is not the goal, but emotional hysteria.

How about we put on trial the leaders who sent them there with guns?  Put the politicians on trial, not the individual soldier.  The faux outrage & moral indignation over the effects of war are pathetic.  Either glory in your military might, & kill whoever you want & take their stuff, or stay out of other nations' affairs, & let them determine their own destiny.  You  cannot morally justify killing people for their own good.

----------


## 007

> Hanging seems appropriate.


For what?
Doing his job?
injured Taliban fighter with no status under the Geneva conventions, Taliban well known for boobytrap ping their wounded.
marine A took appropriate action to prevent deaths amongst his unit.

----------


## 007

> Because apparently, it's okay to lower ourselves to the standards of the Taliban.


Neutralizing a threat is not the same as tortuing a person to death.

you think civvy standards apply to the military?

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So, if the information presented in the article is accurate, a Royal Marine shot and killed a wounded, unarmed, Prisoner of War and you are upset that he was convicted of his crime.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Why?


I saw the same story on the BBC:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699

Clearly he is guilty of shooting a wounded, incapacitated man.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Neutralizing a threat is not the same as tortuing a person to death.
> 
> you think civvy standards apply to the military?


The rules of war, including the Geneva Conventions, do apply in this situation.  This man was wounded and not a threat.  A zip tie on his wrists would have assured he wasn't going to do anything.   Left untreated, he probably would have died on his own.   By shooting him in the chest, the sergeant committed a war crime.  While I understand his frustration over the loss of friends, this was not the way to handle the situation.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Neutralizing a threat is not the same as tortuing a person to death.
> 
> you think civvy standards apply to the military?


An incapacitated, disarmed man is by no reasonable definition a threat.

----------


## 007

> The rules of war, including the Geneva Conventions, do apply in this situation.  This man was wounded and not a threat.  A zip tie on his wrists would have assured he wasn't going to do anything.   Left untreated, he probably would have died on his own.   By shooting him in the chest, the sergeant committed a war crime.  While I understand his frustration over the loss of friends, this was not the way to handle the situation.


Under the Geneva conventions, what status does a Taliban hold?

----------


## 007

> An incapacitated, disarmed man is by no reasonable definition a threat.


In Afghanistan it is.
The Taliban boobytrap their wounded, so they can take a few non believers with them.

----------

JustPassinThru (11-11-2013)

----------


## DonGlock26

It's a dirty war because we are fighting war criminals who use booby traps as a matter of routine. Putting a round in every downed Taliban seems prudent unless you want to die by a hand grenade. It should be a general order, if we valued these young soldiers and marines lives. We did it to the Japanese and the British did it to the Waffen SS ESPECIALLY the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth SS Division). The same went for snipers in WWII.

Should they have all been tried for murder?

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Justice should not be partisan.  A crime is a crime, & deserves justice.  That said, seeking justice in the 'hell of war' is a difficult task.  Frightened young men are given guns & told to kill people.  Then we condemn them when they do.  These sorts of things become political propaganda pieces.  Justice is not the goal, but emotional hysteria.
> 
> How about we put on trial the leaders who sent them there with guns?  Put the politicians on trial, not the individual soldier.  The faux outrage & moral indignation over the effects of war are pathetic.  Either glory in your military might, & kill whoever you want & take their stuff, or stay out of other nations' affairs, & let them determine their own destiny.  You  cannot morally justify killing people for their own good.


"Crime" is not a usable term in a WAR.  Killing people is a crime - within a stable political subdivision covered by laws and functioning government.

In warfare, the PURPOSE is to kill.  There IS no lawful authority - that is what is being CHALLENGED.

There is only orders of conduct and punishment, by commanding officers or military authorities, for disobeying those orders.

----------

usfan (11-12-2013)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Under the Geneva conventions, what status does a Taliban hold?


None.  They are neither a signatory nor even a recognized government.

Nor do their operatives identify with a uniform, flag or insignia.  By the Convention protocols, they are spies.  Or, to use the later term, guerrillas.  And as such, subject to the punishment of spies...which is death.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> In Afghanistan it is.
> The Taliban boobytrap their wounded, so they can take a few non believers with them.


They weren't killing him for fear of an ambush. It was essentially a soldier taking out his anger upon a defenceless combatant. I recognize the hell these men go through, but it still doesn't justify the flagrant breach of military conduct.

----------


## 007

> They weren't killing him for fear of an ambush. It was essentially a soldier taking out his anger upon a defenceless combatant. I recognize the hell these men go through, but it still doesn't justify the flagrant breach of military conduct.


You opinion based on what?
civvy values?

The evidence says he believed the terrorist to be dead at the time he pulled the trigger.
 So murder is not an appropriate charge.
life is not the appropriate sentence.

The murderers of lee Rigby will probably recieve a 9 year stretch in prison.
Marine A will serve a longer sentence.
A military sentence may not offer the remission that a civilian sentence would.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You opinion based on what?
> civvy values?
> 
> The evidence says he believed the terrorist to be dead at the time he pulled the trigger.
>  So murder is not an appropriate charge.
> life is not the appropriate sentence.
> 
> The murderers of lee Rigby will probably recieve a 9 year stretch in prison.
> Marine A will serve a longer sentence.
> A military sentence may not offer the remission that a civilian sentence would.


Why would you shoot a corpse? In the audio recording, they express no such illusion (I quote: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us ...").

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Read the Geneva conventions.
> The Taliban do not meet the criteria to be eligible for PW status.
> The Taliban have been known to boobytrap the mortally wounded or dead.


That is a copout and not even a very good one. Even if the victim of this MURDER, and that is what it was, by any definition of the word, didn't qualify as a PW, he was still a prisoner. He was still wounded. he was still a non-combatant when he was murdered.

----------


## 007

> Why would you shoot a corpse? In the audio recording, they express no such illusion (I quote: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. Its nothing you wouldnt do to us ...").


Nah. 
Its been done a thousand times.
In NI when one of the lads shot a pad and killed him, the whole brick would put a round into the body.
Because civvies are fucking retarded.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (12-04-2013)

----------


## 007

> That is a copout and not even a very good one. Even if the victim of this MURDER, and that is what it was, by any definition of the word, didn't qualify as a PW, he was still a prisoner. He was still wounded. he was still a non-combatant when he was murdered.


Based on your immense experience in battle, right?
civvy standards should not apply in a war zone.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> You opinion based on what?
> civvy values?
> 
> The evidence says he believed the terrorist to be dead at the time he pulled the trigger.
>  So murder is not an appropriate charge.


He WASN'T dead, so murder is most definitely an appropriate charge.




> life is not the appropriate sentence.


Hanging would be more appropriate.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Based on your immense experience in battle, right?


I have ridden in more than one rodeo.

How about you, Mr. Bond?




> civvy standards should not apply in a war zone.


Agreed. MILITARY standards should apply. The laws of land warfare prohibit the deliberate killing of prisoners. They prohibit the deliberate killing of wounded, combat ineffective personnel. They prohibit the deliberate killing of noncombatants, which the victim became as soon as he was taken into custody.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Nah. 
> Its been done a thousand times.
> In NI when one of the lads shot a pad and killed him, the whole brick would put a round into the body.
> Because civvies are fucking retarded.


You're missing the point here. Just because this sort of thing passes as typical army "bant", doesn't excuse the fact a defenceless man, Taliban or not, was murdered quite intentionally.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In Afghanistan it is.
> The Taliban boobytrap their wounded, so they can take a few non believers with them.


The wounded man wasn't booby-trapped.  If that was suspected, then shooting the man from a distance would be been appropriate.  In such a circumstance, that's just prudent.  In this case, the Sergeant deliberately executed the wounded man, including shooting him in the chest so as not to make it obvious it was an execution.  Did you listen to the tape?  Read the transcript? 

Such behavior is wrong not just because it is a war crime, but because publication of such behavior demands strong action in order to retain the moral high ground against such things being done to our own by the enemy.  How could we honestly put Taliban insurgents on trial for war crimes when we let our own troops do the same thing?

Back when the subject of the US was torturing using "enhanced interrogation" on prisoners, many vets in Congress were against the action for the very same reason; if we do it, then how can we complain then the enemy does the same thing to ours?

----------


## 007

> He WASN'T dead, so murder is most definitely an appropriate charge.
> 
> 
> 
> Hanging would be more appropriate.


Hanging a soldier for doing his job.
yet the killers of lee Rigby , cold blooded , pre meditated murder of a man outside a war zone , they will walk in 3 to 5 years.

im guessing you would be a terrorist.
your opinion is invalid.

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## 007

> You're missing the point here. Just because this sort of thing passes as typical army "bant", doesn't excuse the fact a defenceless man, Taliban or not, was murdered quite intentionally.


Wasn't murdered.

what in law is required for a murder charge to stick ?

 Something missing in the evidence here?

cant understand why you terrorist apologists choose to ignore it...

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Hanging a soldier for doing his job.
> yet the killers of lee Rigby , cold blooded , pre meditated murder of a man outside a war zone , they will walk in 3 to 5 years.
> 
> im guessing you would be a terrorist.
> your opinion is invalid.


So, does your mother know you are on her computer?

----------


## 007

> The wounded man wasn't booby-trapped.  If that was suspected, then shooting the man from a distance would be been appropriate.  In such a circumstance, that's just prudent.  In this case, the Sergeant deliberately executed the wounded man, including shooting him in the chest so as not to make it obvious it was an execution.  Did you listen to the tape?  Read the transcript? 
> 
> Such behavior is wrong not just because it is a war crime, but because publication of such behavior demands strong action in order to retain the moral high ground against such things being done to our own by the enemy.  How could we honestly put Taliban insurgents on trial for war crimes when we let our own troops do the same thing?
> 
> Back when the subject of the US was torturing using "enhanced interrogation" on prisoners, many vets in Congress were against the action for the very same reason; if we do it, then how can we complain then the enemy does the same thing to ours?


90% of the Japanese wounded killed by British and American troops in ww2 were not booby trapped either.
only one way to make sure.

Marine A did not know if the Taliban terrorist was armed with a device.

bombing the nazis cities was lawfuland legal because they created precedent.
This act was therefore not murder.
The enemy made it the standard.
Reciprocal action.
the Geneva conventions allow this.

still the Taliban have no rights at all under the Geneva conventions or the NATO ROAC.
Marine A was charged under an EU law that only applies to British troops.
If a French or German soldier did the same no action would be taken.
The soldier may even be offered some positive recognition!!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Hanging a soldier for doing his job.
> yet the killers of lee Rigby , cold blooded , pre meditated murder of a man outside a war zone , they will walk in 3 to 5 years.
> 
> im guessing you would be a terrorist.
> your opinion is invalid.


Your opinion is juvenile and ill-thought out, young man.  

First, the Sergeant stopped doing his job the moment he decided to commit murder.  

Secondly, we're not going to win this war by acting like terrorists or murdering people.  

Thirdly, I seriously doubt the murderers of Lee Rigby will be walking free before you reach middle age or even old age.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Marine A did not know if the Taliban terrorist was armed with a device.


Kid, Marine A didn't offer that as an excuse so you fantasizing it from the safety of your parent's basement is ridiculous.

Secondly, the testimony was that wounded insurgent was manhandled and flipped over.  Obviously the three Marines didn't think he was booby-trapped.  If they did, they could have just stayed back and lobbed a grenade on him or opened up on him from afar.

From the OP link:



> Marine A reported to superiors that the insurgent was still alive and - to avoid the watching helicopter and observation balloon - *he was manhandled to the side of the field, under the cover of trees.*The commando is then overheard asking 'Anyone want to give first aid to this idiot?' before Marine B replies loudly 'No'.
> 
> Marine C, standing over the insurgent pointing a pistol at his head, is heard asking Marine A if he should shoot the man in the head, which is refused as 'that would be f****** obvious'.
> 
> *Footage shows the injured man, whose top had been pulled up exposing his bloodied torso, suffering kicks from the servicemen before being flipped over from his back to front.
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2kOFdXBJr

----------


## 007

> I have ridden in more than one rodeo.
> 
> How about you, Mr. Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. MILITARY standards should apply. The laws of land warfare prohibit the deliberate killing of prisoners. They prohibit the deliberate killing of wounded, combat ineffective personnel. They prohibit the deliberate killing of noncombatants, which the victim became as soon as he was taken into custody.


Not according to the NATO ROAC or the Geneva conventions.

----------


## 007

> Your opinion is juvenile and ill-thought out, young man.  
> 
> First, the Sergeant stopped doing his job the moment he decided to commit murder.  
> 
> Secondly, we're not going to win this war by acting like terrorists or murdering people.  
> 
> Thirdly, I seriously doubt the murderers of Lee Rigby will be walking free before you reach middle age or even old age.


The acts of marine A do not meet the requirements for a murder charge .

----------


## 007

> You're missing the point here. Just because this sort of thing passes as typical army "bant", doesn't excuse the fact a defenceless man, Taliban or not, was murdered quite intentionally.


Murder charges require more than a shot and a death.

----------


## 007

> So, does your mother know you are on her computer?


I'm on my I phone .
My old bird knows little!!

Margaret McDonagh
Obituary
Age 58 of Braintree, formerly of England and Ireland, Sept. 14, 2002. Beloved mother of Thomas A. Scott of Quincy, Paul A. Scott of England, Fiona A. Langley and her husband Walter of Braintree. Devoted daughter of Kate (Faherty) McDonagh of Braintree and the late Thomas McDonagh. Loving sister of Mary McDonough of Hull, Patrick McDonough of Ireland, Bridie Nee of Braintree, Michael McDonagh of Weymouth, Thomas and John McDonagh, both of Braintree, Andrew McDonagh of Dorchester and the late Joseph McDonagh. Also survived by 4 grandchildren. Funeral from the McDonald Funeral Home, SO. WEYMOUTH at 809 Main St. (Rt.18 Opp. So. Sh. Hospital) Wedesday at 9 AM. Funeral Mass in St. Clare's Church, Braintree at 10 AM. Relatives and friends invited. Visiting hours Tuesday, 4-8 PM. Interment Blue Hill Cemetery, Braintree. Donations may be made in her memory to the Parkinson Disease Assoc., 720 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA 02118.
- See more at: http://m.legacy.com/obituaries/Bosto....tchkY08i.dpuf

----------


## 007

> Your opinion is juvenile and ill-thought out, young man.  
> 
> First, the Sergeant stopped doing his job the moment he decided to commit murder.  
> 
> Secondly, we're not going to win this war by acting like terrorists or murdering people.  
> 
> Thirdly, I seriously doubt the murderers of Lee Rigby will be walking free before you reach middle age or even old age.


Erm , I'm already well into middle age.

----------


## 007

> I have ridden in more than one rodeo.
> 
> How about you, Mr. Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. MILITARY standards should apply. The laws of land warfare prohibit the deliberate killing of prisoners. They prohibit the deliberate killing of wounded, combat ineffective personnel. They prohibit the deliberate killing of noncombatants, which the victim became as soon as he was taken into custody.


Probably more experience than you.
Civvy and military.

understand the details of the charges before you mouth off.

----------


## 007

> An incapacitated, disarmed man is by no reasonable definition a threat.


Okinawa, Japanese prisoners hid explosives on their person, set them off when medics came to assist!

----------


## 007

> I have ridden in more than one rodeo.
> 
> How about you, Mr. Bond?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. MILITARY standards should apply. The laws of land warfare prohibit the deliberate killing of prisoners. They prohibit the deliberate killing of wounded, combat ineffective personnel. They prohibit the deliberate killing of noncombatants, which the victim became as soon as he was taken into custody.


Link?

----------


## 007

> The wounded man wasn't booby-trapped.  If that was suspected, then shooting the man from a distance would be been appropriate.  In such a circumstance, that's just prudent.  In this case, the Sergeant deliberately executed the wounded man, including shooting him in the chest so as not to make it obvious it was an execution.  Did you listen to the tape?  Read the transcript? 
> 
> Such behavior is wrong not just because it is a war crime, but because publication of such behavior demands strong action in order to retain the moral high ground against such things being done to our own by the enemy.  How could we honestly put Taliban insurgents on trial for war crimes when we let our own troops do the same thing?
> 
> Back when the subject of the US was torturing using "enhanced interrogation" on prisoners, many vets in Congress were against the action for the very same reason; if we do it, then how can we complain then the enemy does the same thing to ours?


They were already killing without mercy before NATO troops hit the ground.
murdering children etc.

They would behave differently to troops than civvies ?

----------


## 007

> Kid, Marine A didn't offer that as an excuse so you fantasizing it from the safety of your parent's basement is ridiculous.
> 
> Secondly, the testimony was that wounded insurgent was manhandled and flipped over.  Obviously the three Marines didn't think he was booby-trapped.  If they did, they could have just stayed back and lobbed a grenade on him or opened up on him from afar.
> 
> From the OP link:


Parents basement?
project much ?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Probably more experience than you.
> Civvy and military.


Please educate everyone on your military service.

----------


## 007

> Please educate everyone on your military service.


Educate?
you meen tell you about?

----------


## 007

> So you live in the attic?  My apologies for assuming you'd prefer to live downstairs, but since you seem to live in the basement, it was a logical conclusion.


Wrong house bub.
Read the posts.
Grow up.
If the subject is too complicated for you, leave it alone.
Your childish ad hominems do you no favors.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Wrong house bub.Read the posts.Grow up.If the subject is too complicated for you, leave it alone.Your childish ad hominems do you no favors.


You are correct, sir, and I apologize.  I shouldn't have ridiculed your age and naïveté.  It was unseemly on my part.The bottom line here is that you supporting war crimes as a means to fight terrorism and I strongly disagree with anyone who not only advocates committing atrocities, but any action that would give ammunition to the enemy to do the same to our troops.

----------


## usfan

> "Crime" is not a usable term in a WAR.  Killing people is a crime - within a stable political subdivision covered by laws and functioning government.
> In warfare, the PURPOSE is to kill.  There IS no lawful authority - that is what is being CHALLENGED.
> There is only orders of conduct and punishment, by commanding officers or military authorities, for disobeying those orders.


Good points.  There are exceptions, though.  Many german soldiers found themselves on trial for obeying orders.  they were held to a higher standard of 'morality' than simply obeying orders.

By & large the whole concept of a 'moral war' is absurd.  It's a silly british notion, based on some kind of chivalry & gentlemanly conduct.  'Say, old chap.. would you be so kind as to put down that rifle?  There's a good lad..'  If war is hell, which most people will mentally assent to, we cannot apply civilized concepts across the board.  There have been wrongful deaths in every war.. on all sides.  Civilians, observers, prisoners.. women & children & innocent bystanders.  Those are 'collateral damage', but are just as dead as if the politician who ordered it pulled the trigger on the person themselves.  We seem to have no problem with that, yet ache in sympathy for an enemy fighter?

If we're going to resort to war, then do not hold back.  Kill anyone & everyone & be total warmongers.  But this effort to sanitize the horrors of war is the pinnacle of liberal absurdity.  It is applying political correctness to something that is anything but politically correct.  War is the most anti PC action that can be taken.  IMO, the culpability for wrongful deaths lies at the feet of the politicians who ordered the war, not some soldier in the madness of battle.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (12-04-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If we're going to resort to war, then do not hold back.  Kill anyone & everyone & be total warmongers.  But this effort to sanitize the horrors of war is the pinnacle of liberal absurdity.  It is applying political correctness to something that is anything but politically correct.  War is the most anti PC action that can be taken.  IMO, the culpability for wrongful deaths lies at the feet of the politicians who ordered the war, not some soldier in the madness of battle.


I think it is immoral to go "total war" by targeting schools, hospitals, using poison gas to murder millions of women and children or attack helicopters to strafe civilians running from the combat zone.  

Except for President Bush, the Unites States doesn't start wars, but we should certainly finish them.  Finish them as quickly as possible, but also be able to have respect for ourselves after the smoke clears.  Being the murderer of thousands of children is not worthy of respect.

----------


## 007

> You are correct, sir, and I apologize.  I shouldn't have ridiculed your age and naïveté.  It was unseemly on my part.The bottom line here is that you supporting war crimes as a means to fight terrorism and I strongly disagree with anyone who not only advocates committing atrocities, but any action that would give ammunition to the enemy to do the same to our troops.


Because the Taliban are so reasonable !!

note to dopes.
Taliban don't give a shit how ISAF troops behave.
They will use painfull humiliating methods to kill prisoners anyway.

The lucky ones get their heads sawn off by your hero's, the Taliban.

 Most captured troops are subjected to far worse.
I can give you an overview of the method if you like, it's a more painfull and humiliating death than that used by the rif tribesmen used.
My naïveté?
Of course you know better, right?
Ever been to Afghanistan?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Murder charges require more than a shot and a death.


Yeah, it requires the individual in question to be disarmed and hopeless. It would also assist the prosecution if definitive evidence were available, proving all suspect parties involved premeditated the act (especially in the form of video footage or audio).

Oh, wait.

----------


## Perianne

> I think it is immoral to go "total war" by targeting schools, hospitals, using poison gas to murder millions of women and children or attack helicopters to strafe civilians running from the combat zone.


What is best in life?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Bond,

I do believe Mad Max asked you in what service you gained such insight about the enemy and how best to engage them.

Why don't you answer him?

----------


## 007

> Bond,
> 
> I do believe Mad Max asked you in what service you gained such insight about the enemy and how best to engage them.
> 
> Why don't you answer him?


Because answering him is pointless.

You could go an look at my profile and find out.

----------


## 007

> Bond,
> 
> I do believe Mad Max asked you in what service you gained such insight about the enemy and how best to engage them.
> 
> Why don't you answer him?


Because answering him is pointless.

You could go and look at my profile to find out.

----------


## 007

> Yeah, it requires the individual in question to be disarmed and hopeless. It would also assist the prosecution if definitive evidence were available, proving all suspect parties involved premeditated the act (especially in the form of video footage or audio).
> 
> Oh, wait.


Malice and forethought?
neither were shown.

How, pray tell did anyone know the terrorist was completely disarmed?
Had a French or German soldier committed the same act he would have been exempted from the elements of law that allowed this charge to be leveled.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Malice and forethought?
> neither were shown.





> *MARINE C:* "I’ll put one in his head, if you want."





> *MARINE A:* "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us."


Sounds like forethought and malice to me.



> How, pray tell did anyone know the terrorist was completely disarmed?
> Had a French or German soldier committed the same act he would have been exempted from the elements of law that allowed this charge to be leveled.


He was tied up and disarmed in the aftermath of a gunfight.

----------


## 007

> Sounds like forethought and malice to me.
> 
> He was tied up and disarmed in the aftermath of a gunfight.


Link?

Can an IED be triggered by a zip tied prisoner?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Link?
> 
> Can an IED be triggered by a zip tied prisoner?


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-audio-2685674

I find it doubtful they wouldn't have patted him down for, and traversed the area in search of, IEDs.

----------


## 007

> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-audio-2685674
> 
> I find it doubtful they wouldn't have patted him down for, and traversed the area in search of, IEDs.


Nothing in the evidence to say they had, right?
The Audio proves nothing.

The fact that they withheld the video is highly suspicious.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Nothing in the evidence to say they had, right?
> The Audio proves nothing.
> 
> The fact that they withheld the video is highly suspicious.


To quote @Max Rockatansky: if it smells of shit, and looks like shit ... it is shit.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Because answering him is pointless.
> 
> You could go an look at my profile and find out.


Or, you could just stop being so juvenile and answer his question.

I have looked at your profile and unless there is something there I missed, I see no biographical information that indicates you do or should be expected to possess any particular expertise in military affairs.

----------


## Coolwalker

> UK Royal marine jailed for killing Taliban terrorist in a war zone.
> http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/articl...ticle/20053675
> 
> A royal pardon seems appropriate.


Pull out and close your borders or else deal with it.

----------


## St James

> To quote @Max Rockatansky: if it smells of shit, and looks like shit ... it is shit.


............just glad we didn't step in it

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> To me it smells like haters hating.
> 
> *<<flamebait removed>>*
> 
> Reminds me of someone!


You expose me, infidel!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> ............just glad we didn't step in it


Are you channeling Cheech & Chong?

----------


## 007

> Or, you could just stop being so juvenile and answer his question.
> 
> I have looked at your profile and unless there is something there I missed, I see no biographical information that indicates you do or should be expected to possess any particular expertise in military affairs.


you could think!!
or is that beyond you.
If I offered info it would be twisted by his childish self into some ad hominem attack.
The info is there, if people are too stupid or lazy to find it, that's their lookout.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> you could think!!
> or is that beyond you.
> If I offered info it would be twisted by his childish self into some ad hominem attack.
> The info is there, if people are too stupid or lazy to find it, that's their lookout.


Neither Max nor I asked for anything overly complicated. You are presenting points of view here which question the competence of other posters to comment on this topic.

Comments like this...

*Of course you know better, right?
Ever been to Afghanistan? 						
*
...suggest you possess a level of knowledge not possessed by other forum members. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you what your credentials are. I am not asking for details, just general background... military vet? Whose military? What branch? Military specialties... stuff like that which does not give us any specifics which might identify you, but which might provide enough information to convince the people here that we are not conversing with a pimply faced fourteen year old (which is what I am inclined to believe), posting from his bedroom.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Neither Max nor I asked for anything overly complicated. You are presenting points of view here which question the competence of other posters to comment on this topic.
> 
> Comments like this...
> 
> *Of course you know better, right?
> Ever been to Afghanistan?                         
> *
> ...suggest you possess a level of knowledge not possessed by other forum members. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you what your credentials are. I am not asking for details, just general background... military vet? Whose military? What branch? Military specialties... stuff like that which does not give us any specifics which might identify you, but which might provide enough information to convince the people here that we are not conversing with a pimply faced fourteen year old (which is what I am inclined to believe), posting from his bedroom.


You are correct, sir, but it's obvious he's dodging the question.   He's playing games.  No one has to play with him.

----------


## 007

Ok.
 Yes, I served one tour in Afghanistan.
Have dozens of mates who have served more.
A close Freinds 18 year old son was killed a year ago.
several lads from the regiment that I served in were killed there last year. 5 from my home town.
I have 16 years service as an infanteer.
The first 4 years in a recconsisance/cop unit of the British Parachute regt.
the remainder in an infantry battalion.
operational tours in Belize , NI, Kurdistan/Iraq , Bosnia,the Falklands,Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Non operational deployments to the USA, to ceremonial duties in London, to Germany, Kenya and NZ.

 Promotional and cultural exchanges to Poland, Latvia , Lithuania, the Russian federation , Turkey, France, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and a few score other places.
Retired after 16 years due to injuries. Exemplorary service record. Full pension.

Greatest achievement?
Returning from Afghanistan with my command in tact.
ie No casualties .
I have a working knowledge of the ROAC as followed by ISAF and the exemptions extended to some nations.

I am 43 years old, live in the USA and will be filing for citizenship on Thursday.

----------

The Sage of Main Street (12-04-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Okay. I will take your word for it.

----------


## 007

> You are correct, sir, but it's obvious he's dodging the question.   He's playing games.  No one has to play with him.


No game, my reasons given  for not responding have now been justified.

----------


## usfan

congrats on citizenship, 007.. hope you are a force for freedom!

----------


## Calypso Jones

You're a little late dude.  The rest of us left several centuries ago.   well...better late than never.  congratulations on your citizenship.  I hope you are a conservative.

----------


## 007

> congrats on citizenship, 007.. hope you are a force for freedom!


Hasn't been approved yet!!
Thanks for the advance congrats though.

----------


## 007

> You're a little late dude.  The rest of us left several centuries ago.   well...better late than never.  congratulations on your citizenship.  I hope you are a conservative.


I'm in no way a liberal.

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'm in no way a liberal.


I can't tell you how glad I am to hear that.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> [color=red][b]<<flamebait removed>>]


What part of "*I will take your word for it*" did you not understand? 

I don't play word games. If I say something, it is what I mean. If I wanted to insult you, I assure you there would be no doubt in the mind of anyone on the forum that you had been insulted.

You are being overly defensive. Why is that? Does it have anything todo with the knowledge that your position on this issue is completely wrong and indefensible, and an insult to every professional soldier, past and present?

----------


## 007

> What part of "*I will take your word for it*" did you not understand? 
> 
> I don't play word games. If I say something, it is what I mean. If I wanted to insult you, I assure you there would be no doubt in the mind of anyone on the forum that you had been insulted.
> 
> You are being overly defensive. Why is that? Does it have anything todo with the knowledge that your position on this issue is completely wrong and indefensible, and an insult to every professional soldier, past and present?


What you implied was clear.
what you write now justifies further.
All your demands were a childish attempt to accuse me of lying.

which is exactly what you are doing.

As I predicted.
You don't know shit about what a professional soldier is.
you pal mad max, all his ranting and boasting?

Walter Mitty.

Me quietly defending a marine railroaded by a politically correct and corrupt government is an insult to me and the 40000 former troops who have joined tge campaign to free marine A in the UK.

Soldiers stand by their brothers.

This marine did not commit murder.

No matter how much the government of the UK hope making him a scapegoat will appease British jihadists.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What you implied was clear.
> what you write now justifies further.
> All your demands were a childish attempt to accuse me of lying.
> 
> which is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> As I predicted.
> You don't know shit about what a professional soldier is.
> you pal mad max, all his ranting and boasting?
> ...


Dude, it was clear in his post that Pool was simply taking your claims at face value and accepted them as fact.  Given your behavior, I think you're either lying or have severe post-combat issues such as a TBI which is affecting your ability to act like an adult.  I don't know which.  Good luck whatever it is.

----------


## 007

> Dude, it was clear in his post that Pool was simply taking your claims at face value and accepted them as fact.  Given your behavior, I think you're either lying or have severe post-combat issues such as a TBI which is affecting your ability to act like an adult.  I don't know which.  Good luck whatever it is.


 *<<Flamebaiting and insults removed>>*your attitude to marine A shows a callous lack of understanding of how battle impacts soldiers.
particulary a long standing  battle with such an enemy as the Taliban.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You never served, your attitude to marine A shows a callous lack of understanding of how battle impacts soldiers.
> particulary a long standing  battle with such an enemy as the Taliban.


Yeah, well when I let a kid on the Internet get under my skin, I'll let you know.

So why are you abandoning your mother country and coming to my country?

----------


## 007

> Yeah, well when I let a kid on the Internet get under my skin, I'll let you know.
> 
> So why are you abandoning your mother country and coming to my country?


Coming to?
 I've been here for a decade.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Coming to?
>  I've been here for a decade.


Same question.  Why are you dumping your mother country?

----------


## 007

You expect me to grace you b/s with an answer?
aint happening.
if you want to find out you can.
via my profile page.
Go to find all posts, look near the first ones.
Don't ask stupid questions , I'm not playing your childish games , kid.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Well, I WAS willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> You expect me to grace you b/s with an answer?
> aint happening.
> if you want to find out you can.
> via my profile page.
> Go to find all posts, look near the first ones.
> Don't ask stupid questions , I'm not playing your childish games , kid.


You might want to rethink your attitude.

Max is a retired Marine. I don't know him personally, but I have read enough of his posts to have no doubt that his claim of Marine Corps service is true. It generally does not take a vet long to spot another vet and even less time to spot a phony.

Now, it is a long standing tradition for members of one service to poke fun at members of a different service. I may give Max a hard time for being a Jarhead. He may make fun of the fact that I was Army. We may both pile on Just Passing Through for being a squid or Oceanlover for having been Air Force, which is kind of military... in its own way. BUT it is all in the spirit of camaraderie, done with respect and the knowledge that we were all players on the same team.

What you have done here goes way beyond that. You questioned Max's service, itself. That is not acceptable.

You have said things on this forum which caused me to doubt that you were as you were trying to portray yourself. I was however, willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, as a Brit, your perspective is naturally going to be somewhat skewed. But now, I am quite certain that initial impressions were correct. You are either a fraud or someone who left the service for the good of the service. No self respecting professional soldier of any army in the world would conduct himself as you have here. I strongly suspect you got your vast military experience by playing "Call of Duty" on your X-Box.

----------


## 007

> You might want to rethink your attitude.
> 
> Max is a retired Marine. I don't know him personally, but I have read enough of his posts to have no doubt that his claim of Marine Corps service is true. It generally does not take a vet long to spot another vet and even less time to spot a phony.
> 
> Now, it is a long standing tradition for members of one service to poke fun at members of a different service. I may give Max a hard time for being a Jarhead. He may make fun of the fact that I was Army. We may both pile on Just Passing Through for being a squid or Oceanlover for having been Air Force, which is kind of military... in its own way. BUT it is all in the spirit of camaraderie, done with respect and the knowledge that we were all players on the same team.
> 
> What you have done here goes way beyond that. You questioned Max's service, itself. That is not acceptable.
> 
> You have said things on this forum which caused me to doubt that you were as you were trying to portray yourself. I was however, willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, as a Brit, your perspective is naturally going to be somewhat skewed. But now, I am quite certain that initial impressions were correct. You are either a fraud or someone who left the service for the good of the service. No self respecting professional soldier of any army in the world would conduct himself as you have here. I strongly suspect you got your vast military experience by playing "Call of Duty" on your X-Box.


Sure, you and your skewed ideas of what a squaddie is or should be!
16 years.
Exemplary record.
 Left due to injury.
more experience than you ever had.
What did you do?
6 months remfing in slipper city? Went sick the day they put you in a basha ?
Biff .
How many blue on blues you cause?
spilled hot soup on a fellow kitchen porter?

Max probably worked as a blanket counter down in cqms.
 Couldn't be trusted with a rifle.

you see, I'm the professional.
stand with my own.

 You and max ?

 Traitors , stand with Alquaida and the Taliban.
Backstab your comrades and turn your coats.
Free Marine A.
UTRINQUE PARATUS.
VIRTUTIS FORTUNA COMES.

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Yeah, okay.

Just curious... what injury? Do the Brits classify psychological problems as "injuries"?

----------


## Perianne

> It generally does not take a vet long to spot another vet and even less time to spot a phony.


I suppose you can't fake it.  That, or any other field.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You expect me to grace you b/s with an answer?
> aint happening.
> if you want to find out you can.
> via my profile page.
> Go to find all posts, look near the first ones.
> Don't ask stupid questions , I'm not playing your childish games , kid.


No, I didn't expect you to give any answers since your track record is clear on this issue.  In one way I was like Pool, just giving you the benefit of the doubt,  but mostly I was curious to see how you'd react.

Pool is correct about vets recognizing other vets.  Even though you are a foreigner and did your service in for another country, there should still be something recognizable.  With you, I detect there is something amiss as I previously mentioned.

Everyone has bad days, but this has been going on several days now and your attitude remains consistent.  I have no way of knowing if you were in the military, if you are suffering from a TBI or if you just like dressing up in daddy's uniform, but something is definitely wrong with this picture than simple differences of opinion can explain.

Have a good day, 007.  Enjoy your stay.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I suppose you can't fake it.  That, or any other field.


It's like conspiracies; lies can only hold up for so long before they start to fall apart.  This is why I don't like to brag about my job, my experiences or other things since anyone can post crap like "I'm an Astronaut with 27 missions under my belt and a secret landing on Mars".   People can doubt them, but proving them wrong is more difficult.  What is much easier is to get them to talk more and let _them_ reveal the inconsistencies in their story. 

You can Google a good astronaut question and they can Google a good astronaut answer, but being selected as one of our nations finest technicians is much harder to duplicate.  They tend to be very focused, very mature, very professional.   Much harder to fake over the long run.  Professional people are confident, which means they don't have to brag.   

Did Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee have to brag how tough they were if they went into a strange bar?  No.  They probably wanted to avoid trouble and just have a good time, but they were confident enough in their abilities that if trouble came along they could handle it.  They certainly didn't have to stand on pool table and brag about their trophies or how many asses they've kicked.  Why? 

Same goes with experienced military personnel, nurses, firemen, office workers, etc.  People who have to brag are people who are missing something in their personality.   My curiosity is what makes me ask more about such people.

----------


## 007

> It's like conspiracies; lies can only hold up for so long before they start to fall apart.  This is why I don't like to brag about my job, my experiences or other things since anyone can post crap like "I'm an Astronaut with 27 missions under my belt and a secret landing on Mars".   People can doubt them, but proving them wrong is more difficult.  What is much easier is to get them to talk more and let _them_ reveal the inconsistencies in their story. 
> 
> You can Google a good astronaut question and they can Google a good astronaut answer, but being selected as one of our nations finest technicians is much harder to duplicate.  They tend to be very focused, very mature, very professional.   Much harder to fake over the long run.  Professional people are confident, which means they don't have to brag.   
> 
> Did Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee have to brag how tough they were if they went into a strange bar?  No.  They probably wanted to avoid trouble and just have a good time, but they were confident enough in their abilities that if trouble came along they could handle it.  They certainly didn't have to stand on pool table and brag about their trophies or how many asses they've kicked.  Why? 
> 
> Same goes with experienced military personnel, nurses, firemen, office workers, etc.  People who have to brag are people who are missing something in their personality.   My curiosity is what makes me ask more about such people.


Bragging?
I answered your questions, that you demanded answers to repeatedly.

As I predicted you made it an excuse to attack.
I answered your questions.
 I did not boast or brag.

Sit carefully on your armchair, general.
wouldnt want you to fall, you might land in the real world.

----------


## 007

> Yeah, okay.
> 
> Just curious... what injury? Do the Brits classify psychological problems as "injuries"?


Foot injury.
disagreeing with you does not constitute a psych injury.
predicting your ad Homs , as I did, shows a greater understanding of the mindset of the armchair general/Walter Mitty Than most.

 Don't fall out of your armchair, general!!

----------


## JustPassinThru

I try to stay out of threads that argue who's the bigger, badder, braver patriot.

I agree with PTRM and Max...vets can sniff out one another.  Usually...type of service differs tremendously.  Someone doing two years in the Air Force (which is like going to college, only easier  :Grin: ) is going to have a different stamp on their personality than someone doing 20 years in Special Forces.

For all that...the contemptuous bad-boy rage along with constant reference to all the things done and seen in the military, screams Internet Warrior.  I can't prove it; and it doesn't matter in the end, anyway...but let's just say there's things that set off the BS Detector.

My impression is that of new recruits I'd see who we'd AdSep after three months or so...psychological disorders or OTH discharge after court martial.

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-14-2013)

----------


## 007

Strange thing that answering a question , after repeated demands is now bragging.

The walts often play that game!

 The remfs too.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> PTRM, I was wrong!!
> I found photographic evidence of your service!!
> Did you ever leave Bastion?


This may SHOCK you...but American troops have a physical fitness standard they have to meet.

Body fat, as a percentage, is one of those standards.

An active-duty serviceman, enlisted or officer, would never get that fat unless they had some sort of glandular issue that caused that weight gain in a six-month period.  Physical-readiness testing happened once every six months.

Someone who did, would be referred for medical evaluation.  If no medical issues other than obesity were found, he'd be separated from the Service.  Too bad, too sad...

----------


## 007

> This may SHOCK you...but American troops have a physical fitness standard they have to meet.
> 
> Body fat, as a percentage, is one of those standards.
> 
> An active-duty serviceman, enlisted or officer, would never get that fat unless they had some sort of glandular issue that caused that weight gain in a six-month period.  Physical-readiness testing happened once every six months.
> 
> Someone who did, would be referred for medical evaluation.  If no medical issues other than obesity were found, he'd be separated from the Service.  Too bad, too sad...


He clearly has a gland problem.
an overactive pizza gland!

----------


## 007

Another travesty.
The UK is morally bankrupt !!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...portation.html

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

He is most likely  a Guardsman or Reservist.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Contractor, most likely.

We had, on the _Vinson_, some civilian employees along for the ride...one was an MWR liaison who was to make advance arrangements for our end-of-deployment crew party in Australia and other incidentals.  When practicable, there were to be available entertainments...tours and the like, when we were at an extended liberty port.  Purpose was supposedly to keep sailors out of waterfront bars.

He wasn't military but he was given officer status.  His name to the enlisted, was *Mister* A____, and he wore officer's khakis.  No rank insignia, but he had gold USN devices on his lapels.

This guy was likely a civilian employee on the front.  Maybe from that hated covert operation, Halliburton!  I can assure you he's not a reservist...they have to meet physical readiness standards, same as active duty, when they report for their one-month refreshers each year.  And when they go to monthly meetings, and the officer overseeing identifies a problem...as I understand it, the command can activate anyone on short notice and in such a case, send him to fat-boy camp.  Or AdSep him.

No, he's a contractor.

----------


## 007

Denial?
20% of the US troops I worked with were built like this guy.
The rest occasionally left slipper city.
Seen a couple of lardys in the British Army too.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Denial?
> 20% of the US troops I worked with were built like this guy.
> The rest occasionally left slipper city.
> Seen a couple of lardys in the British Army too.


Assertion is not proof.

And assertion against our personal experiences; against military regulations, against all evidence...renders your assertion to that which makes the grass green.

----------


## 007

> Assertion is not proof.
> 
> And assertion against our personal experiences; against military regulations, against all evidence...renders your assertion to that which makes the grass green.


Ah well, you seem a little defensive, I wonder why?

----------


## 007

Attachment 1533Thank god we still have the Marines!

http://www.repmanblog.com/repman/201...ture-wars.html.

----------


## 007

Could be that they are all Contractors.....

----------


## 007

Just contractors!!!!

cop out!!

----------


## 007

> Another travesty.
> The UK is morally bankrupt !!!!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...portation.html


Travesty.
lets see how the liberals twist it.

----------


## 007

Again.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-hours-1389909

can there be any justification?

----------


## JustPassinThru

How many of those shots were of VFW gatherings?  Or ceremonial meetings of retirees?

Or of militia or survivalist groups.

Dig the shit out of your ears and LISTEN:  Physical Readiness Testing and Body Fat Standards are NOT optional and NOT recommendations.

They are what active-duty service members MUST measure up to and comply with - or be separated!

If you actually HAD served in the military, you would KNOW that!

...friggin' Internet Warriors....

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Travesty.
> lets see how the liberals twist it.


Write your MP and complain.

It's not my concern.  I'm not British and I didn't serve in the British armed services.

----------


## 007

> How many of those shots were of VFW gatherings?  Or ceremonial meetings of retirees?
> 
> Or of militia or survivalist groups.
> 
> Dig the shit out of your ears and LISTEN:  Physical Readiness Testing and Body Fat Standards are NOT optional and NOT recommendations.
> 
> They are what active-duty service members MUST measure up to and comply with - or be separated!
> 
> If you actually HAD served in the military, you would KNOW that!
> ...


Guess you missed this link.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us...my&st=cse&_r=0

VFW meetings have pot bellied soldiers applying tourniquets to battlefield injuries?

 Attendees drive up in Humvees wearing full CFO?

Being drunk was a crime in the British Army.
 We Regulary got drunk.
Not all regulations are enforced.
I met thousands of us troops in my time posted here as Driver to tge British Military attaché.
there were a good few chubbies.
apparently still are, see the photos.

----------


## 007

> Write your MP and complain.
> 
> It's not my concern.  I'm not British and I didn't serve in the British armed services.


so you don't care?
even about those who died in Americas war?

 Classy.
 Most decent Americans ( non liberal types) truly appreciate the sacrifice made by the UK.

----------


## 007

[QUOTE=007;164075]Just contractors!!!!

cop out!![/QUOT

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Guess you missed this link.....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us...my&st=cse&_r=0
> 
> VFW meetings have pot bellied soldiers applying tourniquets to battlefield injuries?
> 
>  Attendees drive up in Humvees wearing full CFO?
> 
> Being drunk was a crime in the British Army.
>  We Regulary got drunk.
> ...


Being unfit, is not necessarily the same as having a huge beer-belly.

Look - you've been outed.  Own up or shut up.  Soldiers who look like that slob with the pizza, do NOT remain as soldiers!  And anyone who'd served, would KNOW that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Guess you missed this link.....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us...my&st=cse&_r=0
> 
> VFW meetings have pot bellied soldiers applying tourniquets to battlefield injuries?
> 
>  Attendees drive up in Humvees wearing full CFO?
> 
> Being drunk was a crime in the British Army.
>  We Regulary got drunk.
> ...


Only a Leftist tool would use the _New Dork Slimes_ to try to prove ANYTHING.

The _Slimes_ and Truth shall never intersect.  Anyone who's followed current events for two years would KNOW that.

There is a physical-fitness problem in the American military.  That problem is NOT of a size 52 waist; the problem is that the Physical Readiness Standards are not
being met.

Those beer-belly persons are not soldiers - no matter how much you want to believe they are.

----------


## 007

> Being unfit, is not necessarily the same as having a huge beer-belly.
> 
> Look - you've been outed.  Own up or shut up.  Soldiers who look like that slob with the pizza, do NOT remain as soldiers!  And anyone who'd served, would KNOW that.


I didn't serve in the us army.
alongside yes, saw plenty like him in that time.
I recall meeting a mortar NCO who made that guy look pretty slim.
Never saw such a skilled mortarman TBH.
For a demo, he filled a small, shallow valley with smoke, placed ladders of illume, seven stacked, four of them!
Then HE'd the crap out of the range and cleared the smoke.
 Guy must have turned the scales at 400 lbs!!

----------


## 007

> Only a Leftist tool would use the _New Dork Slimes_ to try to prove ANYTHING.
> 
> The _Slimes_ and Truth shall never intersect.  Anyone who's followed current events for two years would KNOW that.
> 
> There is a physical-fitness problem in the American military.  That problem is NOT of a size 52 waist; the problem is that the Physical Readiness Standards are not
> being met.
> 
> Those beer-belly persons are not soldiers - no matter how much you want to believe they are.


Denial!!
what are they ? Boy Scouts, vfw, contractors.

keep trying.
you know you are wrong.

----------


## 007

So these two guys are survivalists or militia.
Hence the us military insignia and vehicles!!
okaydokay.
Perhaps it's a VFW meeting?

----------


## Max Rockatansky



----------


## JustPassinThru

> 


I am chastened... :Sofa:

----------

Max Rockatansky (11-16-2013)

----------


## 007

> 


So, many of those behaviors describe you.

best stop feeding you.

----------


## 007

Strange.
No charges against the crew of this apache.........

----------


## Brewski

> Okinawa, Japanese prisoners hid explosives on their person, set them off when medics came to assist!


They would rather have US military personnel die while apprehending wounded Taliban fighters than cause additional harm to 3rd world minorities.   Once you understand that this is their mindset, it makes it easier to understand their arguments.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> They would rather have US military personnel die while apprehending wounded Taliban fighters than cause additional harm to 3rd world minorities.   Once you understand that this is their mindset, it makes it easier to understand their arguments.


Remind us again of your branch of service, MOS and time served. 

It would help to understand your perspective.

----------


## Brewski

> Because the Taliban are so reasonable !!
> 
> note to dopes.
> Taliban don't give a shit how ISAF troops behave.
> They will use painfull humiliating methods to kill prisoners anyway.
> 
> The lucky ones get their heads sawn off by your hero's, the Taliban.
> 
>  Most captured troops are subjected to far worse.
> ...


They refuse to believe that the Islamic religion is responsible for the deep seated animosity that Muslims have for Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims in general.  They believe that if we show enough respect and cooperation, Muslims will like us.   It's a design flaw built into the minds of white guilt progressives that causes them to believe that non-white minorities of the world can do no wrong, and if they do, it was because of us.

----------


## Brewski

> What is best in life?

----------

Perianne (12-04-2013)

----------


## Brewski

> So why are you abandoning your mother country and coming to my country?


#1 question Max Rockatansky has never asked a Mexican immigrant.

----------


## Coolwalker

> They refuse to believe that the Islamic religion is responsible for the deep seated animosity that Muslims have for Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims in general.  They believe that if we show enough respect and cooperation, Muslims will like us.   It's a design flaw built into the minds of white guilt progressives that causes them to believe that non-white minorities of the world can do no wrong, and if they do, it was because of us.


...Just like The Nam..."they" said_ "grab their minds and their asses will follow"_, but guess what...their asses never followed. It's what happens when civilians and lawyers get involved in warfare...they fuck it up then blame the commanders.

----------


## Brewski

> Remind us again of your branch of service, MOS and time served. 
> 
> It would help to understand your perspective.


I forgot, only old ex-military types can have a position on politically correct white progressives.  My mistake.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I forgot, only old ex-military types can have a position on politically correct white progressives. My mistake.


Thanks for being honest enough to admit you never served.




> #1 question Max Rockatansky has never asked a Mexican immigrant.


Wrong again.  They're here for the money and send back about $23 Billion to their families in Mexico. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lies-home.html



> Migrants working in the United States sent a staggering $120 billion back to their families last year, it was revealed today.
> 
> The amount of money being sent by migrants across the entire world reached $530 billion last year, making it a larger economy than Iran or Argentina, the data from the World Bank showed.
> 
> 
> This worldwide figure has tripled in the last ten years and is now three times bigger than the total aid budgets given by countries around the world. It has sparked debate whether this so-called remittance money could be a viable alternative to relying on help from other governments.
> 
> 
> In the United States last year, more than $120 billion was sent by workers to families abroad - making it the largest sender of remittances in the world. More than $23 billion went to Mexico, $13.45 billion to China, $10.84 billion to India and $10 billion to the Philippines, among other recipients.

----------


## Perianne

> 


 @Brewskier, we think too much alike, lol.

----------


## Brewski

> Thanks for being honest enough to admit you never served.


"Admit" carries a connotation that is unwarranted in this discussion.  I've done nothing wrong by not going into the military, so there's no need to "admit" to anything.  I know quite a few vets and I don't know of any who feel a need to grandstand on the internet about it.  Most of them weren't cut out for college and wanted to do something else.  I don't look down on them for it.  




> Wrong again.  They're here for the money and send back about $23 Billion to their families in Mexico. 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lies-home.html


So you've actually asked a Mexican immigrant "why are you abandoning your mother country and coming to my country?"?

----------

Perianne (12-04-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> "Admit" carries a connotation that is unwarranted in this discussion.  I've done nothing wrong by not going into the military, so there's no need to "admit" to anything.


Of course you haven't done anything wrong in refusing to join the military.  Lots of Americans are chickenhawks and armchair patriots, so you are good company.  Heck, even among the few who do join, about a third don't make the cut due to physical or mental reasons.  Nothing to be ashamed about, Brewskier, you are not alone.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I forgot, only old ex-military types can have a position on politically correct white progressives.  My mistake.


I never said that.

I am just trying to figure out how your head got stuck so far up your fourth point of contact.

I don't care whether you ever wore the uniform of this country. Your opinion is no less nor any more valid than Stormin' Norman's would be. I just like to know where people are coming from because life experiences do affect outlook.

This thread is a great example. You seem to think it is okay to murder prisoners. You have even gone so far to say that people who oppose the practice are appeasers of a sort, afraid to offend some imaginary audience. I, on the other hand, as a combat leader, understand the importance of discipline and standards of conduct, even, or maybe especially, under combat conditions. You would like to pretend that the modern battlefield is some Berserker paradise where anything goes and there should be no consequences for any actions taken against the enemy, even if he has surrendered, been captured, or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. I understand why that is not true.

I know your type and I am not impressed.

----------


## Brewski

> Of course you haven't done anything wrong in refusing to join the military.  Lots of Americans are chickenhawks and armchair patriots, so you are good company.  Heck, even among the few who do join, about a third don't make the cut due to physical or mental reasons.  Nothing to be ashamed about, Brewskier, you are not alone.


Some go to college and/or contribute to society in other ways.  Sometimes better ways.  Let's be honest,  not everybody in the military is doing much that would require physical and mental aptitude.  Some joined because they couldn't do much else, not because they were super patriotic or courageous.  

I don't know, slamming the 99%+ of society who isn't a part of the military as "chickenhawks" and "armchair patriots" seems pretty stupid.  Like I said, I know quite a few confident vets who don't feel a need to use their paid military service as part of their "arrogant smartass" internet condescension act.  Smacks of insecurity, bro.  You might want to look to that.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Of course you haven't done anything wrong in refusing to join the military.  Lots of Americans are chickenhawks and armchair patriots, so you are good company.  Heck, even among the few who do join, about a third don't make the cut due to physical or mental reasons.  Nothing to be ashamed about, Brewskier, you are not alone.


I agree with that, completely.

And with his views, the military is better off without him.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Some go to college and/or contribute to society in other ways.  Sometimes better ways.  Let's be honest,  not everybody in the military is doing much that would require physical and mental aptitude.  Some joined because they couldn't do much else, not because they were super patriotic or courageous.


No need to keep defending your actions, Brewskier.  Of course you can contribute to society in other ways.  So what way(s) did you contribute?

----------


## Brewski

> I never said that.
> 
> I am just trying to figure out how your head got stuck so far up your fourth point of contact.
> 
> I don't care whether you ever wore the uniform of this country. Your opinion is no less nor any more valid than Stormin' Norman's would be. I just like to know where people are coming from because life experiences do affect outlook.
> 
> This thread is a great example. You seem to think it is okay to murder prisoners. You have even gone so far to say that people who oppose the practice are appeasers of a sort, afraid to offend some imaginary audience. I, on the other hand, as a combat leader, understand the importance of discipline and standards of conduct, even, or maybe especially, under combat conditions. You would like to pretend that the modern battlefield is some Berserker paradise where anything goes and there should be no consequences for any actions taken against the enemy, even if he has surrendered, been captured, or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. I understand why that is not true.
> 
> I know your type and I am not impressed.


As 007 has already touched upon, we have had "combat leaders" in the past who weren't willing to risk the lives of their troop to show courtesy to potentially dangerous "wounded" enemies on the battlefield, so it's not from a perspective as a "combat leader" that you advocate for these things.  It's from the post-1960's politically correct progressive viewpoint that you believe we should be reading the Miranda rights to jihadists and risking American lives to do so.  Sorry, I don't agree with that.  If someone shoots down a jihadist and it just barely missed his heart, I have no problem with that soldier taking another shot to make up for the previous miss.  No problem at all.

----------


## Brewski

> Of course you can contribute to society in other ways.


I thought it was obvious too, which made your question even more curious.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> As 007 has already touched upon, we have had "combat leaders" in the past who weren't willing to risk the lives of their troop to show courtesy to potentially dangerous "wounded" enemies on the battlefield, so it's not from a perspective as a "combat leader" that you advocate for these things.  It's from the post-1960's politically correct progressive viewpoint that you believe we should be reading the Miranda rights to jihadists and risking American lives to do so.


Actually, it has to do with the laws of land warfare. There are good reasons why those laws exist.




> Sorry, I don't agree with that.  If someone shoots down a jihadist and it just barely missed his heart, I have no problem with that soldier taking another shot to make up for the previous miss.  No problem at all.


If he still poses a threat and is combat effective, by all means, shoot him as many times as you need to. However, once he is rendered combat ineffective and you have him in custody, you have a legal obligation to not only do him no additional harm, but to protect him from further harm.

Maybe "combat leaders" like Joachim Peiper or fantasy characters like Conan share your view on treatment of prisoners, but those views have no place in a modern, disciplined, professional fighting force.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Actually, it has to do with the laws of land warfare. There are good reasons why those laws exist.


Agreed, which is why it's always amusing to see the suggestions argued by people whose only experience with land warfare or the military is having playing "Call to Duty" for a hundred hours. 

While I respect a person's choice not to serve their nation, that respect only goes if they both contribute in another way and that they respect those who have expertise on the subject.   

I may ask questions of a small business owner or question why they do one thing and not another, but I certainly wouldn't tell them their business if I'd never run a small business myself.   Nobody likes armchair heroes.

----------


## Brewski

> Actually, it has to do with the laws of land warfare. There are good reasons why those laws exist.


Ah yes, laws that our enemies don't care about.  Great.  It's similar to our own business killing greenhouse gas laws that we pass for ourselves, knowing full well that countries like China will never follow our lead.  But I guess we need to keep passing laws that hinder our abilities just as long as they make us feel good.  We have people to impress, apparently.  




> If he still poses a threat and is combat effective, by all means, shoot him as many times as you need to. However, once he is rendered combat ineffective and you have him in custody, you have a legal obligation to not only do him no additional harm, but to protect him from further harm.
> 
> Maybe "combat leaders" like Joachim Peiper or fantasy characters like Conan share your view on treatment of prisoners, but those views have no place in a modern, disciplined, professional fighting force.


It's not fantasy.  Your father's generation didn't have the need or desire for the touchy-feely military that your generation embraced and made standard.  They wouldn't have believed you if you said that in the early 21st century we would have a black Marxist in the White House advocating for Miranda rights on the battlefield.  

Western society went to shit starting in the 1960's.  The rot continues.

----------

Canadianeye (12-04-2013)

----------


## Brewski

> Agreed, which is why it's always amusing to see the suggestions argued by people whose only experience with land warfare or the military is having playing "Call to Duty" for a hundred hours. 
> 
> While I respect a person's choice not to serve their nation, that respect only goes if they both contribute in another way and that they respect those who have expertise on the subject.   
> 
> I may ask questions of a small business owner or question why they do one thing and not another, but I certainly wouldn't tell them their business if I'd never run a small business myself.   Nobody likes armchair heroes.


Uh huh, and nobody can understand Islam except Muslims.  Roger Ebert's opinion on movies is not valid since he never made one.  

Your logic continues its long losing streak.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Uh huh, and nobody can understand Islam except Muslims.  Roger Ebert's opinion on movies is not valid since he never made one.  
> 
> Your logic continues its long losing streak.


Dude, you're the one dissing the military while talking big about contributing in other ways but running away from actually saying what you've done to contribute.   

*<<personal attack removed>>*

----------


## Brewski

> Dude, you're the one dissing the military while talking big about contributing in other ways but running away from actually saying what you've done to contribute.  *<<personal attack removed>>*


Where did I diss the military?  Is this another dishonest strawman?  I only remember dissing people who use their military service in appeal to authority logical fallacies.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Agreed, which is why it's always amusing to see the suggestions argued by people whose only experience with land warfare or the military is having playing "Call to Duty" for a hundred hours.


It is way too common an occurrence.

I was in the machine for a long time, but I can't claim to know everything there is to know in the field. I am fairly certain however, that I can claim a higher level of expertise than someone whose experience comes from his X-Box.




> While I respect a person's choice not to serve their nation, that respect only goes if they both contribute in another way and that they respect those who have expertise on the subject.


I believe that is true of any subject. I would certainly defer to a surgeon's opinion on matters related to kidney transplants or an accountant or tax lawyer on tax shelters. We all have our strong points and our weaknesses. It is important to recognize them.




> I may ask questions of a small business owner or question why they do one thing and not another, but I certainly wouldn't tell them their business if I'd never run a small business myself.   Nobody likes armchair heroes.


Exactly. Not having done something personally does not necessarily mean you don't know anything about it, but it just makes good sense that if you think you know something and someone with years or decades of experience in actually doing it says what you think you know is wrong, it is probably a good idea to at least listen to him. I am not suggesting you blindly accept his word, but listen to him, then do some homework. Don't just ignore him because you "know better".

I used to get a kick out of young Lieutenants fresh out of Ranger School, who would come in all Hooah and think they knew all the things their Platoon Sergeant or squad leaders didn't. One of the first things I would do is pull him aside and remind him that Ranger School is a great school but in the end, it gives you 58 days worth of experience. That Platoon Sergeant has 10 - 15 YEARS of experience. It would behoove you to listen to him.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Where did I diss the military?  Is this another dishonest strawman?  I only remember dissing people who use their military service in appeal to authority logical fallacies.


Oh no.... Another kid who thinks this is his high school debating club.   :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Brewski

> It is way too common an occurrence.
> 
> I was in the machine for a long time, but I can't claim to know everything there is to know in the field. I am fairly certain however, that I can claim a higher level of expertise than someone whose experience comes from his X-Box.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that is true of any subject. I would certainly defer to a surgeon's opinion on matters related to kidney transplants or an accountant or tax lawyer on tax shelters. We all have our strong points and our weaknesses. It is important to recognize them.
> 
> 
> ...


This is a really stupid comparison.  A surgeon is going to have objective knowledge on how to perform a kidney transplant.  You only have your subjective opinion on military matters.  There is a world of difference between the two.  There are people in the military at higher ranks who have accomplished far more than you that have a completely different opinion than you do on this issue.  You and Maxi are not the authority on the military, and you don't speak for the military as a whole.  It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise, and I highly doubt anyone will be persuaded by the circle-jerk the two of you are currently engaged in.  Hoo-rah.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Ah yes, laws that our enemies don't care about.


That is totally irrelevant.




> It's not fantasy.  Your father's generation didn't have the need or desire for the touchy-feely military that your generation embraced and made standard.


Really? The rules regarding treatment of prisoners were instituted by General George Washington after the Battle of Trenton on Christmas day, 1776. Ever hear of him?

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> Because apparently, it's okay to lower ourselves to the standards of the Taliban.


The coward's slogan "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" begs the question.   There is nothing wrong with getting even.   In order to defeat the enemy, we have to get down to his level and push him down even deeper.  The air-conditioned ethics of the Geneva Convention were designed to take the fight out of our fighting men so they wouldn't fight for freedom when they returned from the wars.

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Brewski

> Oh no.... Another kid who thinks this is his high school debating club.


Too bad they didn't include logic 101 in your boot camp schedule.

----------


## Brewski

> That is totally irrelevant.


No it's not.  If we're the only ones obeying these laws, then we're only doing this for our own perceived benefit.    





> Really? The rules regarding treatment of prisoners were instituted by General George Washington after the Battle of Trenton on Christmas day, 1776. Ever hear of him?


Different time, different circumstances.  Washington took surrendering Hessian forces as prisoners instead of executing them to contrast American vs British values.  We are now talking about non-surrendering jihadists who feign injury in the hopes of luring one or two more infidels to their death before going to greet their 72 virgins.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Too bad they didn't include logic 101 in your boot camp schedule.


The Army doesn't have "Boot Camp". But then, you wouldn't know that, would you?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> The coward's slogan "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" begs the question.   There is nothing wrong with getting even.   In order to defeat the enemy, we have to get down to his level and push him down even deeper.  The air-conditioned ethics of the Geneva Convention were designed to take the fight out of our fighting men so they wouldn't fight for freedom when they returned from the wars.


I guess that was General Washington's goal too, eh?

----------


## Brewski

> The Army doesn't have "Boot Camp". But then, you wouldn't know that, would you?


You better inform the military, then.  They're disseminating false information on the internets.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> No it's not.  If we're the only ones obeying these laws, then we're only doing this for our own perceived benefit.


Of course it is for our benefit.




> Different time, different circumstances.  Washington took surrendering Hessian forces as prisoners instead of executing them to contrast American vs British values.  We are now talking about non-surrendering jihadists who feign injury in the hopes of luring one or two more infidels to their death before going to greet their 72 virgins.


War is war. To people who have never been any closer to one than the evening news, there may be differences, but to the boots on the ground, all wars have been the same since the very first time one tribe threw down with another over a piece of turf.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> You better inform the military, then.  They're disseminating false information on the internets.


You are citing a recruiting site. It is geared to appeal to teenagers.

I'll tell you what, go ahead and enlist and when you report for Basic, ask your Drill about "Boot Camp". Let me know how it turns out for you.

----------


## Brewski

> Of course it is for our benefit.


Great, in general I don't particularly care for useless laws whose only purpose is to make certain people feel good.  





> War is war. To people who have never been any closer to one than the evening news, there may be differences, but to the boots on the ground, all wars have been the same since the very first time one tribe threw down with another over a piece of turf.


What a ridiculous statement.  You're telling me that there was no difference between the Revolutionary War and the Gulf War?  People standing in rows shooting across at short distance at their enemy, dying, and then having the next row move up is no different than dropping bombs on countries who have no ability to match our air power?

----------


## Brewski

> You are citing a recruiting site. It is geared to appeal to teenagers.
> 
> I'll tell you what, go ahead and enlist and when you report for Basic, ask your Drill about "Boot Camp". Let me know how it turns out for you.


So the military is lying about there being a grueling 10 week training course to _appeal_ to teenagers?  Sounds legit.  My bank was recently advertising a $2000.00 fine if you sign up for their checking accounts.  I bet they got a lot of dumb kids to sign up!

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Great, in general I don't particularly care for useless laws whose only purpose is to make certain people feel good.


Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea why such rules exist. I guess they don't discuss that much in _Call of Duty_.




> What a ridiculous statement.  You're telling me that there was no difference between the Revolutionary War and the Gulf War?  People standing in rows shooting across at short distance at their enemy, dying, and then having the next row move up is no different than dropping bombs on countries who have no ability to match our air power?


War is about killing people and breaking things. It always has been and always will be. The fact that technology lets us do that more efficiently today than 200 years ago does not change the essence of warfare.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> So the military is lying about there being a grueling 10 week training course to _appeal_ to teenagers?  Sounds legit.  My bank was recently advertising a $2000.00 fine if you sign up for their checking accounts.  I bet they got a lot of dumb kids to sign up!


That site is dumbed down to appeal to high school kids and people like you who have no idea about what the military is like. It uses common terms instead of technical ones so you you don't run away from the page even more confused than you were when you looked it up. The purpose of the site is to get people to contact a recruiter. It is a sales pitch, not a serious source for information.

*<<personal attack removed>>*

----------


## Brewski

> Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea why such rules exist. I guess they don't discuss that much in _Call of Duty_.


They're pointless if one side doesn't abide by them.  Good luck treating jihadists nicely while they behead their prisoners with kitchen knives.  At least we can talk about our moral superiority.  





> War is about killing people and breaking things. It always has been and always will be. The fact that technology lets us do that more efficiently today than 200 years ago does not change the essence of warfare.


Here was your argument _"but to the boots on the ground, all wars have been the same since the very first time one tribe threw down with another over a piece of turf."_.  We now have the ability to fight wars without ever putting "boots on the ground".  We can take care of business from long distances, without a single soldier being killed.  That's a huge difference from the wars we have fought in the past, despite your claim to the contrary.

----------


## The Sage of Main Street

> They refuse to believe that the Islamic religion is responsible for the deep seated animosity that Muslims have for Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims in general.  They believe that if we show enough respect and cooperation, Muslims will like us.   It's a design flaw built into the minds of white guilt progressives that causes them to believe that non-white minorities of the world can do no wrong, and if they do, it was because of us.



That's what they want you to believe.  Don't get taken by that take.  Big Oil owns our government and piggybacks off Muslim price-gouging.  The Exx-Mobsters who own Exxon-Mobil are committing treason in order to get rich off it.   I notice that even the most extreme Hawks don't advocate annexing the Muslim oilfields and bankrupting the jihad.  The have-nots have been had by the haves.   This Left/Right media creation is all a puppet show.

----------


## Brewski

> That site is dumbed down to appeal to high school kids and people like you who have no idea about what the military is like. It uses common terms instead of technical ones so you you don't run away from the page even more confused than you were when you looked it up. The purpose of the site is to get people to contact a recruiter. It is a sales pitch, not a serious source for information.
> 
> *<<PA/insult removed*


Why in the holy mother of fuck would they pitch a 10 week grueling training camp if it didn't exist?!

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> They're pointless if one side doesn't abide by them.


No, they're really not.




> Here was your argument _"but to the boots on the ground, all wars have been the same since the very first time one tribe threw down with another over a piece of turf."_.  We now have the ability to fight wars without ever putting "boots on the ground".  We can take care of business from long distances, without a single soldier being killed.  That's a huge difference from the wars we have fought in the past, despite your claim to the contrary.


No war has ever been won or will ever be won without boots on the ground.

Again, you reveal your lack of even the most fundamental understanding of warfare.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Why in the holy mother of fuck would they pitch a 10 week grueling training camp if it didn't exist?!


What are you babbling about?

----------


## Brewski

> No, they're really not.


I disagree.  What benefit does it give us?  




> No war has ever been won or will ever be won without boots on the ground.
> 
> Again, you reveal your lack of even the most fundamental understanding of warfare.


You can't make that claim.  You have no idea how the role of technology will be utilized in future wars.  There are some countries today that we could completely destroy remotely, without a single soldier being sent out.

----------


## Brewski

> What are you babbling about?


Answer the question.  Why would the army try and pitch a grueling 10 week training course to attract applicants if it didn't exist?

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I disagree.  What benefit does it give us?


The same benefits it gave us when General Washington set the rules in 1776.




> You can't make that claim.  You have no idea how the role of technology will be utilized in future wars.  There are some countries today that we could completely destroy remotely, without a single soldier being sent out.


Of course I can make that claim. Anyone who understands warfare would make the same claim.

----------


## 007

> Thanks for being honest enough to admit you never served.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  They're here for the money and send back about $23 Billion to their families in Mexico. 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lies-home.html


I have no family in Mexico.
*<<name calling/insult removed>>*

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Answer the question.  Why would the army try and pitch a grueling 10 week training course to attract applicants if it didn't exist?


I guess you are talking about Basic Training. Of course it exists. No one said it didn't.

I said there is no "Boot Camp".

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Where did I diss the military? Is this another dishonest strawman? I only remember dissing people who use their military service in appeal to authority logical fallacies.


Nope.  You said it when you became upset that everyone would see you as a chickenhawk, an armchair general: 


> Some go to college and/or contribute to society in other ways.  Sometimes better ways.  Let's be honest,  not everybody in the military is doing much that would require physical and mental aptitude.  Some joined because they couldn't do much else, not because they were super patriotic or courageous.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It is way too common an occurrence.
> 
> I was in the machine for a long time, but I can't claim to know everything there is to know in the field. I am fairly certain however, that I can claim a higher level of expertise than someone whose experience comes from his X-Box.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that is true of any subject. I would certainly defer to a surgeon's opinion on matters related to kidney transplants or an accountant or tax lawyer on tax shelters. We all have our strong points and our weaknesses. It is important to recognize them.


Agreed on both points.  It's team effort.   Having had a career on both sides of the military/civilian fence, a major problem on the civilian side is a lack of leadership and very strong feeling of entitlement.    There's an old saying about how you can judge a person's character by how they treat others regardless of position.   Too many managers I've seen have no clue and treat others like crap to in order to prop themselves up.  It hurts the company's efficiency and effectiveness when they do.   I'm not in a position to correct them but do voice my opinion on the matter whenever I have the chance.  Unfortunately, unless they had a lot of experience in team sports or the military, they don't understand a thing I'm telling them.




> Exactly. Not having done something personally does not necessarily mean you don't know anything about it, but it just makes good sense that if you think you know something and someone with years or decades of experience in actually doing it says what you think you know is wrong, it is probably a good idea to at least listen to him. I am not suggesting you blindly accept his word, but listen to him, then do some homework. Don't just ignore him because you "know better".
> 
> I used to get a kick out of young Lieutenants fresh out of Ranger School, who would come in all Hooah and think they knew all the things their Platoon Sergeant or squad leaders didn't. *One of the first things I would do is pull him aside and remind him that Ranger School is a great school but in the end, it gives you 58 days worth of experience. That Platoon Sergeant has 10 - 15 YEARS of experience. It would behoove you to listen to him.*


LOL.  Good lecture and exactly correct.

----------

Trinnity (12-05-2013)

----------


## 007

So a British marine fighting for the USA should be hanged for killing a Taliban terrorist.

A US piloting an apache gunship can pulverize an injured Taliban and nothing said?

interesting double standard!!

----------


## Brewski

> The same benefits it gave us when General Washington set the rules in 1776.


Feel free to be specific.  




> Of course I can make that claim. Anyone who understands warfare would make the same claim.


You're not a soothsayer and you can't predict the future, so no, you cannot make that claim.

----------


## Brewski

> I guess you are talking about Basic Training. Of course it exists. No one said it didn't.
> 
> I said there is no "Boot Camp".


Now you're reduced to arguing semantics.  Typical progressive.  Feel free to voice your complaints to the military, since they call it "boot camp".

----------


## Brewski

> Nope.  You said it when you became upset that everyone would see you as a chickenhawk, an armchair general:


"Everyone" didn't, just you and your circle-jerk partner.  All the vets I know don't go on the internet and call the remaining 99%+ of the population "chickenhawks" and "armchair generals".  This is most likely the behavior of someone playing a part due to a dishonest background description.  

And I didn't diss the military in that quote.  You made that up.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Now you're reduced to arguing semantics.  Typical progressive.  Feel free to voice your complaints to the military, since they call it "boot camp".


Who calls it "Boot Camp"?

That is a common use term in the Marine Corps and the Navy.

Not the Army.

Is that what they call it in your little White Supremacist morbidly obese inbred Nazi wannabe militia?

----------


## Brewski

> So a British marine fighting for the USA should be hanged for killing a Taliban terrorist.
> 
> A US piloting an apache gunship can pulverize an injured Taliban and nothing said?
> 
> interesting double standard!!


Indeed.  

This is a very interesting discussion.  A Brit espousing common sense while two alleged American "military" members wax poetic on the need to enforce cultural marxism on the battlefield.

----------


## 007

> Feel free to be specific.  
> 
> 
> 
> You're not a soothsayer and you can't predict the future, so no, you cannot make that claim.


Fact is, had they ever served they would understand that many rules exist, not all are followed.
During the war of independence it was rare that prisoners were taken by either side. officers were afforded humane treatment, other ranks often died in horrific conditions in captivity.

Marine A is being sacrificed on the alter of political correctness to appease jihadists in the UK.
The Taliban combatant he killed was not in a position to recieve the protections of the Geneva conventions.
 He was taking his final breaths anyway, it was the right thing for him to do.
The platoon Sergeants job is primarily the safety and well being of the officer and men in his platoon.

----------


## Brewski

> Who calls it "Boot Camp"?
> 
> That is a common use term in the Marine Corps and the Navy.
> 
> Not the Army.
> 
> Is that what they call it in your little White Supremacist morbidly obese inbred Nazi wannabe militia?


If you have a problem with that term being associated with the Army, perhaps you should voice your concerns to the military since they display the term "Army boot camp" at the top of their webpage.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Talking to you is like talking to a cinder block.

You are dismissed.

----------


## Brewski

> Talking to you is like talking to a cinder block.
> 
> You are dismissed.


I accept your concession.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

Junior, dismissing you is not a concession. It is an expression of contempt and disgust.

I am sure you get that a lot.

----------


## 007

> Who calls it "Boot Camp"?
> 
> That is a common use term in the Marine Corps and the Navy.
> 
> Not the Army.
> 
> Is that what they call it in your little White Supremacist morbidly obese inbred Nazi wannabe militia?


I always hear us vets refer to it as Boot Camp.

Common term.

----------


## Brewski

> Junior, dismissing you is not a concession. It is an expression of contempt and disgust.
> 
> I am sure you get that a lot.


I'd be disgusted too if my argument was refuted and I couldn't admit it.  

The military calls it "Army boot camp".  I'll trust that over the unsubstantiated say-so of "Pooltablerepairman" of the internet.  Sorry.

----------


## 007

> Talking to you is like talking to a cinder block.
> 
> You are dismissed.


Yet the army refer to boot camp as boot camp.

----------


## Brewski

> I always hear us vets refer to it as Boot Camp.
> 
> Common term.


Progressives are all about word games.  That's how "tax increases" become "revenue enhancements" and how "War on Terror" becomes "overseas contingency operations".  They're too arrogant to admit when they're wrong, so they leave vague words in their arguments so they can go back and redefine them when they need to.  It's called "hedging".  Just one of the many logical fallacies that progressives employ on a daily basis.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I always hear us vets refer to it as Boot Camp.
> 
> Common term.


Then you are not talking to Army Vets.

I have never heard Basic Training or AIT referred to as Boot Camp by anyone in the Army or with an Army background. That is a Marine term. It is like the difference between Hooah and Oorah. To an outsider, they may sound like the same thing, but anyone in either service immediately recognizes the difference.
l

----------


## Brewski

> Then you are not talking to Army Vets.
> 
> I have never heard Basic Training or AIT referred to as Boot Camp by anyone in the Army or with an Army background. That is a Marine term. It is like the difference between Hooah and Oorah. To an outsider, they may sound like the same thing, but anyone in either service immediately recognizes the difference.
> l


Except the military, who calls it "boot camp" on their webpage.  Weird.

----------

007 (12-04-2013)

----------


## 007

> Then you are not talking to Army Vets.
> 
> I have never heard Basic Training or AIT referred to as Boot Camp by anyone in the Army or with an Army background. That is a Marine term. It is like the difference between Hooah and Oorah. To an outsider, they may sound like the same thing, but anyone in either service immediately recognizes the difference.
> l


If as you say I AM talking to army vets.
Then you go on to say it's not an army term?
why then would army veterans use the term?
Your contradictory claims prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
WALT of the first order!

----------


## DonGlock26

> US Army active duty recruits must go through Initial Entry Training (IET). To ensure that all active duty, Reserve, and National Guard prospects go through identical training for service in the battlefield, everyone attends Basic Combat Training (BCT), *also known as boot camp*. This first phase of IET is a 10 week crash course in what it is to be a soldier. Trainees learn about the seven Core Army Values, how to work together as a team, and vital skills. BCT is where individuals undergo continuous physical training in preparation for the physical strain of combat. One of the most essential lessons learned at BCT is self-discipline.
> 
> http://army.com/info/basic-training


Hmmm.....  Basic training is the official term, but they use boot camp from time to time. 

The Marines have an official term as well:




> *RECRUIT TRAINING*
> 
> 
> http://www.marines.com/becoming-a-ma...cruit-training

----------

Brewski (12-04-2013)

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

As I said, I would love for someone here to ask a Drill about "Boot Camp" and watch how fast he gets a boot up his ass.

----------


## DonGlock26

> As I said, I would love for someone here to ask a Drill about "Boot Camp" and watch how fast he gets a boot up his ass.


A drill? If we called a drill sergeant a "drill", he would have PT'ed us to death.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

If I was in BCT, I would have dared, either. 

Of course, I am not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> "Everyone" didn't, just you and your circle-jerk partner.  All the vets I know don't go on the internet and call the remaining 99%+ of the population "chickenhawks" and "armchair generals".  This is most likely the behavior of someone playing a part due to a dishonest background description.  
> 
> And I didn't diss the military in that quote.  You made that up.


You did just as you are making shit up about me with your accusations.    You, sir, are ridiculous.  I didn't call "99%+" of the population chickenhawks and armchair generals but you are certainly taking personal offense of it.  Feelin' a little guilty there, Brewie?  Something sure has you all lathered up.  

No worries, dude.  Even chickenhawks can contribute to society.  

*<<insult and flaming removed>>*

----------


## Perianne

Just in case there is any confusion, I did not serve in any military branch.  I don't want to be accused of being a veteran or a walt (whatever that is).

----------


## Brewski

> You did just as you are making shit up about me with your accusations.    You, sir, are ridiculous.  I didn't call "99%+" of the population chickenhawks and armchair generals but you are certainly taking personal offense of it.  Feelin' a little guilty there, Brewie?  Something sure has you all lathered up.


You certainly did.  Your only basis for calling me a "chickenhawk" is the fact that I haven't been in the military, so that same label would apply to over 99% of the population as well.  




> No worries, dude.  Even chickenhawks can contribute to society.  I'm just not sure what you've contributed since you hide it.  Judging by your behavior, I think most people have a pretty good guess on how important you are to society.


I'm not hiding anything.  I'm educated and successful in what I do.  I have a good life, and I'm still young with lots to offer.  From my viewpoint, I don't think you have much to be proud of.  You may have fought for your country decades ago, yet you encourage mass immigration from 3rd world countries into the West, defend Islam and Muslims, and make excuses for black criminality.  White guilt progressives (even when they call themselves Republicans) are embarrassments, especially older ones who should know better.  Boomers are the worst generation by far, yet they are the spawn of the greatest generation.   It's amazing what one generation could do.

----------


## Brewski

> I can't really say. 
> 
> I don't recall the last time it happened. It was a very long time ago.


3 people (including 2 fellow vets) and 2 websites say you are wrong when you say there is no such thing as Army boot camp.  Ignoring that in order to protect your fragile progressive ego doesn't change the facts.  Sorry.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm not hiding anything.  I'm educated and successful in what I do.  I have a good life, and I'm still young with lots to offer.


Then why all this butt ache you have about me believing you are a chickenhawk?   You and your little buddy 007 are busy patting each other's fannies saying I'm impersonating a vet.  If you truly believed I'm a liar and a fraud, then it is mystifying to me why you worry so much about what I think.  If you don't truly believe that, then it makes you a liar and a fraud.

As it is, I think both you and your friend lack character and integrity.  You specialize in name-calling, false accusations and childish behavior.   Unfortunately, too many chickenhawks like you have a legal right to vote and send the real heroes off on foreign adventures. 

If the shit really did hit the fan in our country, I pray for the US military to take over because politics is too important to be left to candy-asses like you and 007.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I don't know what a walt is either, but suspect 007, if he really did serve, was thrown out for immaturity.


It is slang for "Walter Mitty".

Mr. Bond obviously thinks he is being clever. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It is slang for "Walter Mitty".
> 
> Mr. Bond obviously thinks he is being clever. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


Thanks and agreed.

----------


## Brewski

> Then why all this butt ache you have about me believing you are a chickenhawk?   You and your little buddy 007 are busy patting each other's fannies saying I'm impersonating a vet.  If you truly believed I'm a liar and a fraud, then it is mystifying to me why you worry so much about what I think.  If you don't truly believe that, then it makes you a liar and a fraud.


No butt hurt, I'm just disagreeing with your accusation, since I don't fit the description.  It's just one of the many fallacies inherent in your reasoning, seemingly due to a mental laziness.  Old age, maybe?




> As it is, I think both you and your friend lack character and integrity.  You specialize in name-calling, false accusations and childish behavior.


Speaking of name-calling, false accusations, and childish behavior:




> I meant no offense about you and your friend playing tag-team with each  other.  It isn't any of my business who here is gay, loves to play with  each other's assholes or anything else people, including you and Brew,  choose to do with each other in your free time is not my business.
> 
> OTOH, I do recommend some PrepH to sooth the pain.  I'm sure you two could find some pleasure in applying it to each other.





> Unfortunately, too many chickenhawks like you have a legal right to vote and send the real heroes off on foreign adventures. 
> 
> If the shit really did hit the fan in our country, I pray for the US military to take over because politics is too important to be left to candy-asses like you and 007.


Aren't you a Republican?   LOL. People don't get to vote on whether or not we go to war.  Congress does, and those people represent you and your progressive views better than they do me.  

I'm surprised you're not all up on nation building, Mr. white guilt.  Don't you want those poor minorities to share in all of our wealth?  Maybe they'll start behaving better, and we can have a multicultural utopia!  Do you support Israel?  How about Pakistan?  India?

----------


## Perianne

I wish you guys would quit.  Everyone has insulted everyone else enough.

Lets talk about something you can all agree on.  How about boobs?  You guys can agree on those, right?

----------


## Brewski

> You know his type, Max. He is the one sitting at the edge of a crowd during a fight, egging on the participants, but never daring to mix it up himself. If you go to his house and get his mother to let you into his room, he'll have a portrait like this on his desk.


Don't worry, it gets easier.  In time, you'll learn how to gracefully accept being proven wrong.  You're not a very smart guy, so we'll get tons of practice in  :Smile:

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> I wish you guys would quit.  Everyone has insulted everyone else enough.
> 
> Lets talk about something you can all agree on.  How about boobs?  You guys can agree on those, right?


I am sure he would just claim his are larger than yours.

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> Don't worry, it gets easier.  In time, you'll learn how to gracefully accept being proven wrong.  You're not a very smart guy, so we'll get tons of practice in


If I am ever wrong, I will be the first to admit it. I do however, doubt it will happen in your lifetime.

----------


## The XL

> I wish you guys would quit.  Everyone has insulted everyone else enough.
> 
> Lets talk about something you can all agree on.  How about boobs?  You guys can agree on those, right?


Insults are a staple of this forum, for better or worse.  Don't you know this by now?

And yes, boobs are fantastic.

----------


## Perianne

> And yes, boobs are fantastic.

----------


## Brewski

> If I am ever wrong, I will be the first to admit it. I do however, doubt it will happen in your lifetime.


It happened today.  You said that the Army doesn't have boot camp, but according to the Army it does.   Oops!

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> It happened today.  You said that the Army doesn't have boot camp, but according to the Army it does.   Oops!


The Army does not have "Boot Camp".

Do this... go to the official site of, visit, or write to any BCT unit in the Army and find even one designated a "Boot Camp". If you can do that, I will leave this forum after apologizing in the open in a thread started specifically for that purpose.

Now, if I wanted to be vengeful, I would ask that you agree to leave the forum if you can't do it. However, since I already know you can't, I won't ask you to give up anything. This is a no lose proposition for you.

Are you up to the task?

While you are at it, you can prove me wrong yet again, by showing me the "Special Forces" classification you claim exists for the Ranger Regiment.

Tell me how much time you want to complete this and I will start the clock.

----------


## 007

> Then why all this butt ache you have about me believing you are a chickenhawk?   You and your little buddy 007 are busy patting each other's fannies saying I'm impersonating a vet.  If you truly believed I'm a liar and a fraud, then it is mystifying to me why you worry so much about what I think.  If you don't truly believe that, then it makes you a liar and a fraud.
> 
> As it is, I think both you and your friend lack character and integrity.  You specialize in name-calling, false accusations and childish behavior.   Unfortunately, too many chickenhawks like you have a legal right to vote and send the real heroes off on foreign adventures. 
> 
> If the shit really did hit the fan in our country, I pray for the US military to take over because politics is too important to be left to candy-asses like you and 007.


Ha ha.
physician heal thyself.

Walt.

----------


## 007

> It is slang for "Walter Mitty".
> 
> Mr. Bond obviously thinks he is being clever. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


Not clever.
walt is a common term to describe those who impersonate soldiers and veterans.

Your clueless beliefs regarding the treatment of Taliban fighters evidences your lack of experience in battle.
Your desire to hang marine A because he killed an enemy in battle is noted.
That you have a different standard for the US apache pilot who pulverized an injured Taliban fighter with a 30mm cannon and a 7.62 chain gun combination, shows a complete lack of respect for those British troops who died and continue to die fighting YOUR war in Afghanistan.
As your Walt bum buddy said;-"I don't care about British troops"!
Even if they save us troops asses every day on herrick!

----------


## 007

> So, do you really prefer your Martinis shaken, not stirred, James?


It's Paul, not James.
I tend to avoid drinking trashy low quality drinks mixed to hide the cheap nature of the base spirit.
Craft beer, gin and tonic or a single malt scotch would be my choice.
Not a fan of claret either, more of a Rhone man myself.

----------

Brewski (12-05-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> 



Oh great...another Vivienne Westwood self portrait.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oh great...another Vivienne Westwood self portrait.


Never heard of her so I looked her up.  Smaller boobs, natural redhead and the carpet matches the drapes.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I wish you guys would quit.  Everyone has insulted everyone else enough.
> 
> Lets talk about something you can all agree on.  How about boobs?  You guys can agree on those, right?


I love boobs!  Big ones, small ones, perky ones, saggy ones.  The span in the variety of boobs is fascinating.

----------


## 007

> Oh great...another Vivienne Westwood self portrait.


Interesting, those cartoon boobs are more realistic than Max and fooltables service records!

----------

Brewski (12-05-2013)

----------


## 007

> I love boobs!  Big ones, small ones, perky ones, saggy ones.  The span in the variety of boobs is fascinating.


The span in the variety of tall tales in your pretend service is also fascinating.

----------

Brewski (12-05-2013)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I love boobs!  Big ones, small ones, perky ones, saggy ones.  The span in the variety of boobs is fascinating.


The pert, perfectly-shaped B-cup is one of the most underappreciated wonders in the world today!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The pert, perfectly-shaped B-cup is one of the most underappreciated wonders in the world today!


Agreed.   Women often focus too much on appearance and try to fit themselves into some ideal of beauty.  What many of them don't realize is that many men simply appreciate their _uniqueness_ in appearance.

----------



----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

THAT! Right there!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't know what a walt is either, but suspect 007, if he really did serve, was thrown out for immaturity.


Exhibit A:


> Interesting, those cartoon boobs are more realistic than Max and fooltables service records!


Exhibit B:


> The span in the variety of tall tales in your pretend service is also fascinating.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Bull.  men just want a nekkid woman...THAT is ALL they care about.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Bull.  men just want a nekkid woman...THAT is ALL they care about.


Superficially true. Sure, that's how to GET us, but if you want to KEEP us, you have to capture our imagination in some way. We're not THAT simplistic.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> THAT! Right there!


On my days off I go to the gym in the morning.  I like classes because they're structured, an fitness expert is readily available for questions and, since it's during the week, it's usually me and 5-10 women.  All married with kids, 30s-40s with a few 50s-60s.   The variety and uniqueness of both appearance and personality in women is a constant source of enjoyment for me.

----------


## Calypso Jones

That's where beer, pizza, Tv and the promise of more sex comes in.  Really.  This is not rocket science.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> On my days off I go to the gym in the morning.  I like classes because they're structured, an fitness expert is readily available for questions and, since it's during the week, it's usually me and 5-10 women.  All married with kids, 30s-40s with a few 50s-60s.   The variety and uniqueness of both appearance and personality in women is a constant source of enjoyment for me.


uh  huh.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> On my days off I go to the gym in the morning.  I like classes because they're structured, an fitness expert is readily available for questions and, since it's during the week, it's usually me and 5-10 women.  All married with kids, 30s-40s with a few 50s-60s.   The variety and uniqueness of both appearance and personality in women is a constant source of enjoyment for me.


Echoes my observations at the gym to a 't'.

But remember: the kind of people who go regularly to the gym represents a relatively small segment of the population, and they will naturally tend to look better than the average.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> That's where beer, pizza, Tv and the promise of more sex comes in.  Really.  This is not rocket science.


No,you underestimate us, or many of us. We're not altogether monkeys. You would not believe how many of us--me, for instance--are raving romantics at heart. Sex is great, but it simply doesn't stop there. Sometimes I wish it would, but it gets more complicated. Sure, there are players and assholes out there, too many. But it's not the whole story.

----------

Max Rockatansky (12-05-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> uh  huh.





> That's where beer, pizza, Tv and the promise of more sex comes in. Really.  This is not rocket science.





> Bull. men just want a nekkid woman...THAT is ALL they care about.


Disagreed, but I can see how the Church Lady would think exactly that way:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No,you underestimate us, or many of us. We're not altogether monkeys. You would not believe how many of us--me, for instance--are raving romantics at heart. Sex is great, but it simply doesn't stop there. Sometimes I wish it would, but it gets more complicated. Sure, there are players and assholes out there, too many. But it's not the whole story.


Agreed.  While young, inexperienced men may be in a rush to just jam it in there and be done in 15 seconds, a more mature man enjoys the _full_ presence of a woman.  More like Tantric Sex.  Prolonging the entire shared experience.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Echoes my observations at the gym to a 't'.
> 
> But remember: the kind of people who go regularly to the gym represents a relatively small segment of the population, and they will naturally tend to look better than the average.


True out on the main floor, but in the classes we have a good cross-section of average.

----------


## Brewski

> The Army does not have "Boot Camp".
> 
> Do this... go to the official site of, visit, or write to any BCT unit in the Army and find even one designated a "Boot Camp". If you can do that, I will leave this forum after apologizing in the open in a thread started specifically for that purpose.
> 
> Now, if I wanted to be vengeful, I would ask that you agree to leave the forum if you can't do it. However, since I already know you can't, I won't ask you to give up anything. This is a no lose proposition for you.
> 
> Are you up to the task?


The Army website itself calls it "boot camp".   




> To ensure that all active duty, Reserve, and National Guard prospects go through identical training for service in the battlefield, everyone attends Basic Combat Training (BCT), *also known as boot camp. *


Have fun arguing that Army.com is not an "official site", LOL  

I know you progressives get off on word games, but you just failed all over this one.  Even if it wasn't officially called boot camp  everybody, including you, knew what I was referring to.  You had nowhere else to go in your argument so you decided to wank out a little game with the English language.  Not impressive, especially since it backfired on you and I was able to show that "boot camp" is a valid term used to describe Army basic training, according to the Army itself.  Just admit you were wrong and move on.  You're embarrassing yourself  the more you fight it.  Be a man  you're acting like a child.  




> While you are at it, you can prove me wrong yet again, by showing me the "Special Forces" classification you claim exists for the Ranger Regiment.
> 
> Tell me how much time you want to complete this and I will start the clock.


I made no such claim.  You must be totally confused or you have mixed up someone else's argument with mine.  So let's add another "wrong" checkmark to your record.  Are you going to deny being wrong in this instance, too?  If so, feel free to quote me on where I said there was a "Special Forces" classification...for the Ranger Regiment."

I won't hold you to anything you said you would do, because progressives don't believe in honor or integrity.  If they are wrong they just go back and lie their way out of it.  The only things progressives believe in is political victory and sexual license, and neither of those are on the table, here.  Moreover, I don't want you to leave the site.  You serve a valuable purpose, here.  Just as you can't have light without the dark, you can't have right without the wrong.  I'm right, you're wrong, and you help me out on an almost daily basis.  Thank you, sir.

----------

007 (12-05-2013)

----------


## 007

> Exhibit C:


Keep crying Walt.
 You initiated this.
now you can't handle it!
poor Walt!

----------


## Pooltablerepairman

> So if the army has no boot camp, why did you say the veterans who used the term were army veterans?


I never said any such thing.

 Even if I had, it doesn't mater WHO says it. It doesn't change the facts.

----------


## Trinnity

*What the heck is going on in this thread? It'll stay closed while I look it over.*

----------


## Calypso Jones

> What part of "*I will take your word for it*" did you not understand? 
> 
> I don't play word games. If I say something, it is what I mean. If I wanted to insult you, I assure you there would be no doubt in the mind of anyone on the forum that you had been insulted.
> 
> You are being overly defensive. Why is that? Does it have anything todo with the knowledge that your position on this issue is completely wrong and indefensible, and an insult to every professional soldier, past and present?


that's not entirely true.  You gave me an indirect hit by remarking on my  NOT being a meany.

----------


## Trinnity

*This thread has been in full meltdown for I don't know how long cuz I'm not going back and check time stamps. I will NOT be re-opening it. Many warnings were issued and a few infractions too. I'm just disgusted. If you all want to trash each other and I don't find out about it, well.... but once a report is sent by just one person and I start seeing a mess like this, the parties who participated in it are all up for review, regardless. 

I'm just so disappointed in what I've seen here today. *

----------

