|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 3rd, 2005 12:09 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
Re: this is really bad Quote:
I honestly wouldn't give a fuck, were it not for these idiots making themselves out to be gleeful crusader/murderers with these stupid fucking captions. Wouldn't the pic be good enough without putting "OMG I totally pwned this towelhead!" underneath it? |
||
| Oct 2nd, 2005 02:58 AM | |||
| kahljorn |
Clearly sir. I brought my gloves and my ak47's 
|
||
| Oct 2nd, 2005 01:46 AM | |||
| davinxtk | I'm clearly outgunned here. | ||
| Oct 2nd, 2005 01:07 AM | |||
| kahljorn |
"It was weak because one is TGI fucking Friday's and the other is THE UNITED STATES ARMY. Who should be enforcing their rules more strictly? Which one can levee a court martial if their rules aren't followed? What's in your head? " I didn't make the statement that, "People who go to work have to obey rules just like the army does, they say not to talk on your cellphone... etc." Kayo? Notice the playfulness? "If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight)." That was the quote, which i quoted right above it... who are you arguing with, honestly. I hate people who can't decifer simple things like quotation marks... and what other people in the thread have said. A little obsessed with me, maybe? Yea, well, like i said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a rule. I was saying who cares if there's a rule for it, it's a stupid thing to be outraged about. That's the nature of war. Haven't you seen hollywood movies about Vietnam? Raping villagers, injecting soldiers with lsd? You can't blame them for breaking under the pressure. Most of the people there probably didn't expect to be there. It's so pointless to even wonder about, there's always prisoners being tortured and ridiculed. Regardless, what outrage can any of you afford, you're not even in iraq. Fighting in some corrupt army that doesn't really give a shit about you. Do you think it was somebody who did it to undermine the entire functionality of the world? No. Do you think he did it to cause moral decline? No. What bad thing occured? Because he traded for porn? Who cares, better than him lusting after women and raping them, or buying cheap iraqian hookers. Your outrage is only there because they traded it for pornography. If it had been for food to feed starving iraqians it would've been okay.. or if it was for money to send home.. but because it's pornography? I don't see you giving that 5 dollars to march of dimes. You're just ashamed of your lustful nature and want to see it banished from anywhere in your mind. 
|
||
| Oct 2nd, 2005 12:32 AM | |||
| davinxtk |
Alright, Kahl, the overall point I'm making is that I agree with you, but your points are weak. The employer/army analogy was weak, admittedly, but not because of the rule-breaking involved on both sides. It was weak because one is TGI fucking Friday's and the other is THE UNITED STATES ARMY. Who should be enforcing their rules more strictly? Which one can levee a court martial if their rules aren't followed? What's in your head? And no, it's not the slightest bit off to blame them for using pictures of war casualties as currency. In fact, that's what the entire thread is about, you useless twat. I can't believe I really have to quote the Geneva Convention to get the point accross, but "the remains of persons who have died for reasons related to occupation or in detention resulting from occupation or hostilities ... shall be respected, and the gravesites of all such persons shall be respected, maintained, and marked." I, personally, don't give a rat's ass; but the outrage is justifiable and to argue that it's not is just plain stupid. |
||
| Oct 1st, 2005 08:01 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
You could almost think I was making a "Short-bus" analogy to mock your intelligence level. I thought it had a nice moral to it. Join the army you sell your soul to obey all rules and lose your free-will. I heard they replace their brains with cybernetic ones. "If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight)." You know, the funny thing about that is it's true, just in a completely unrelevant way. Do people still talk on their cellphones at work? Yes... my point was that they do, your point was they're not supposed to? Last I checked we were talking about human beings, they have this free-will that's generally self orientated. Have you ever taken a job for the rules? No. You took it for the money or some other self-interest. That's what they do, too. Casting blame on them for using a "Currency" is kind of weak. |
||
| Oct 1st, 2005 10:21 AM | |||
| Dole | Fucking hell. What a world. | ||
| Oct 1st, 2005 03:44 AM | |||
| davinxtk |
Quote:
I was, however, specifically referring to your short-bus worthy analogy in the post immediately prior to mine. You don't even look like a douchebag, you're the used juice flowing out of a dirty twat. If you're ordered not to take pictures, you're ordered not to take pictures. Just like most employers don't allow cell phones, the military doesn't, generally, allow photogaphs of corpses to be taken (and if they were aware that they're being used as currency, those orders would carry even more weight). You don't need some farcical contract-with-Satan analogy, you're just being a fucking tool. |
||
| Sep 30th, 2005 07:14 PM | |||
| kahljorn | It is a common stereotype, probably because it's true. Alot of people join the military for money, not to go to war or for the 'lifestyle'. | ||
| Sep 30th, 2005 06:30 PM | |||
| CLICK9 | ah. yo comprendo. | ||
| Sep 30th, 2005 06:26 PM | |||
| GAsux |
Kahl, No need to get butt hurt, I wasn't specifically calling you out. Just noting that it seems to be a common stereotype. As for the military not allowing porn in care packages, it has to do with customs in the host nation. Packages, baggage, etc is subject to search. In the ME porn is not real high on the happy list. Internet porn is different because they have no real way to monitor it. |
||
| Sep 30th, 2005 06:20 PM | |||
| CLICK9 | I don't get why the military is strict about not letting you send pornography in care packages to soldiers (or anything that is contrary to Islam), but they let this go. Because it's not tangible pornography? | ||
| Sep 30th, 2005 04:12 PM | |||
| kahljorn | I said the later group was more likely to break the rules, you poor illiterate sap. Now look, I'm saying poor people are illiterate saps. Jesus. Where will my prejudice end. | ||
| Sep 30th, 2005 03:56 PM | |||
| GAsux |
I dig the "military is full of poor people" argument. It's entertaining. They don't care about the rules, they're just poor. What choice did they have? |
||
| Sep 30th, 2005 03:45 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
Davintx stick to being outraged for popular support on more familiar issues, like why women don't like your smelly armpits. "It's natural," You'd say, "I just don't understand why they don't want to stand within a 4 foot radius." You're only getting a headache because you can't think of anything to say to me. You're duped, funked out, hopeless, deranged. You can't think of any one single reason why taking pictures of dead bodies is a bad thing other than by saying it's a moral outrage(which you can't describe). Of course the media is evil, you might say, it takes pictures of bad things that usually only hide in my closet. It breaks the rules man. Which rule? Gravity. Oh man, that's a sure crime! People in the service don't care about the rules, they are most likely there because they are poor and can't get another job, although I'm sure a few joined for the noble purpose of it all. I wonder which one of those two categories are taking pictures of the dead people? Probably the later. Up next on news at 9, "Boogieman caught by mysterious supermoralistichero davintx and ziggytrix.. what a fighting team. Although delighted they had finally caught the closet hoping menace that had kept many children awake-- wide-eyed-- at night they have refused to allow pictures to be taken of the boogieman for fear it might cause political tension between our world and the Monsterswholovetokillandeateverythingandeveryone. Also, it goes against the monster-hunters code of honor." |
||
| Sep 30th, 2005 01:40 PM | |||
| davinxtk | kahl, stick to causing headaches in philosophy discussions. | ||
| Sep 29th, 2005 10:29 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
"Silly me, I forgot after blowing someones face off they get a smoke break. " I suppose the posibility that they had been dead longer than 30 seconds is a bit of a stretch... "I'm just saying part of being in the service means following orders, and if you're ordered not to take pics, then that's that." Okay. You know, I heard this story once that was I think is relevant to this topic. You see, there was this young boy, 17 years old or so... and he wanted to join the army. His family said no, but he did it anyway. He went through vigorous training, and went to fight in the war. He was incredibly heroic, and stuff happened. Well, anyway, it ended up that when he joined he signed with blood, so he had apparantly made a deal with the devil! And I'll be damned, he never had freewill again. Shame, poor lad. I don't think most of those soldiers really care about being there or "In the service" |
||
| Sep 29th, 2005 10:13 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Sep 29th, 2005 10:11 PM | |||
| Dupes | I don't see why any pressure is coming down on these particular soldiers. Regardless if pictures are taken or not, these people are dead and that's that. If anyone is going to start to protest, don't be protesting at a bunch of soldiers who are doing their jobs. The reason those people are dead and mutilated is because our president started a war in that country, and shit like that tends to happen in war. This whole thing is being overlooked because a bunch of soldiers just wanted to get a commodity for free that I'm sure they don't tend to get frequently. I'm not saying that it's normal to take pictures of mutilated corpses for free pornography purposes, but I don't think this should be blown into a big deal that could possibly get any soldier involved in trouble. In my opinion, these people displayed in the photographs are dead, and whether or not their image is found on tv or the internet or whatever makes no difference, because the simple fact remains that they are dead. That's my opinion. | ||
| Sep 29th, 2005 05:07 PM | |||
| Chojin | I personally don't have a problem with it at all, if this is really what it takes to get some footage out of Iraq. | ||
| Sep 29th, 2005 04:48 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
"OK, lemme put it this way. If a soldier puts down his gun to get out his camera, he's not doing his fucking job. Is that clear enough for you?" Yea, cause you know, they never get breaks and stuff. Did you know when they sleep they also cuddle with their guns? I mean, sure, there's been a few rough cuddling incidents where someone twitched a bit in their sleep and blew off some body parts, but other than that they are absolutely enamered. Also all bodies are picked up immediately by a representive of God's Mortuary service. Where you don't just die, you get a free photo of you sitting on god's lap. Won't your friends be jealous. "What? This concerns me because I'm a US citizen, and these soldiers represent my country. " lol. Yes, they represent you and your interests. The fact that they "Represent your country" means you should shut your trap and let them trade pictures of dead bodies for porno. Not like they are living it up there. Nothing like an ice cold glass of bullets flying at you. |
||
| Sep 29th, 2005 12:32 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
Quote:
OK, lemme put it this way. If a soldier puts down his gun to get out his camera, he's not doing his fucking job. Is that clear enough for you? Unless he's doin recon an on-duty soldier doesn't need a fucking camera! He is not a reporter, he is not a pornographer, he's a fucking soldier, and he needs to be doing his god-damned job, not jacking off on dead enemies. |
||
| Sep 29th, 2005 09:48 AM | |||
| mburbank | It's just a few thousand bad apples. | ||
| Sep 28th, 2005 04:02 PM | |||
| kellychaos | depends on the press who's covering it | ||
| Sep 28th, 2005 03:56 PM | |||
| kahljorn | Well, that's good. I wonder if they'll call the people doing it "Bad soldiers" or if it will actually be attributed to the war. | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
