• US has pressured Britain, Germany, Australia, to charge WikiLeaks editor with espionage
    371 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;23976946]If you really don't know it's where the person is blindfolded and a wet rag is forced over the mouth and nose/whole head to simulate drowning.[/QUOTE] I was being facetious
[QUOTE=Warhol;23976897]Then if that's the case, the soldiers should not be there if they're to barbaric to watch their fire. [editline]03:41AM[/editline] Hurting efforts against the US [B]military[/B]. The military needs to leave.[/QUOTE] Yeah we should leave, but for some reason we aren't, and we shouldn't be punishing people that are trying to help our cause (whatever that is)
no, the documents don't need to be released. they are classified for a reason. don't get me wrong, i'd totally support this if it wasn't endangering innocent informants and shit but it is so you know what julian assange can take his wikileaks and shove it. second, the US isn't "bullying" other countries into helping us take down assange. we asked them nicely for help. :downs: [editline]02:45AM[/editline] yeah, the US army does need to leave, but it's not like we're just walking around shooting innocent people. we are doing good over there, regardless of what your anarchy 101 websites tell you.
Id rather have military documents be released after the operation is complete. I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't broadcast his battle plans to the British.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;23976243]I was like, on the fence about it bro[/QUOTE] How the fuck could you be on the fence about DADT?
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;23977064]Id rather have military documents be released after the operation is complete. I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't broadcast his battle plans to the British.[/QUOTE] the documents don't broadcast any plans they aren't anything recent
[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;23977064]Id rather have military documents be released after the operation is complete. I'm pretty sure George Washington didn't broadcast his battle plans to the British.[/QUOTE] it's not just on operations, it's just military activities. IE giving money to groups that pay the Taliban. George Washington also didn't have a 90% civilian death toll to deal with.
[QUOTE=JDK721;23977092]the documents don't broadcast any plans they aren't anything recent[/QUOTE] If they include information which may endanger a future operation then it should be withheld temporarily as well.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23977128]it's not just on operations, it's just military activities. IE giving money to groups that pay the Taliban. George Washington also didn't have a 90% civilian death toll to deal with.[/QUOTE] you can't measure death tolls in percents :doh:
[QUOTE=Warhol;23977067]How the fuck could you be on the fence about DADT?[/QUOTE] It isn't exactly the worst thing in the world is all [editline]07:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;23977128]it's not just on operations, it's just military activities. IE giving money to groups that pay the Taliban. George Washington also didn't have a 90% civilian death toll to deal with.[/QUOTE] Wait...90% of the civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever are being killed? That sounds like a massive exaggeration
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23976980]no, the documents don't need to be released. they are classified for a reason. don't get me wrong, i'd totally support this if it wasn't endangering innocent informants and shit but it is so you know what julian assange can take his wikileaks and shove it.[/quote] except it's not. [quote]second, the US isn't "bullying" other countries into helping us take down assange. we asked them nicely for help. :downs:[/quote] You didn't read the article, did you mr apologist? [quote]yeah, the US army does need to leave, but it's not like we're just walking around shooting innocent people. we are doing good over there, regardless of what your anarchy 101 websites tell you.[/QUOTE] Reconstruction is few and far between. There is still combat operations going on, the army is focused on that for the most part. There is a massive civilian death toll on the hands of the US, and most of it wasn't just 'lolaccident my bad bro'
fyi dadt tried to make EVERYBODY shut up about sexual preferences so it couldn't obstruct duty. it was misconstrued as being against gays. my aunt is in the army and she explained it fairly well.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23977267]fyi dadt tried to make EVERYBODY shut up about sexual preferences so it couldn't obstruct duty. it was misconstrued as being against gays. my aunt is in the army and she explained it fairly well.[/QUOTE] I think i like you [editline]07:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Warhol;23977249]except it's not. You didn't read the article, did you mr apologist? Reconstruction is few and far between. There is still combat operations going on, the army is focused on that for the most part. There is a massive civilian death toll on the hands of the US, and most of it wasn't just 'lolaccident my bad bro'[/QUOTE] What the fuck do you want? The enemies are ASSHOLES, they see NOTHING wrong with keeping civilians as their protection. THE REASON it's higher than usual is because the Taliban has no honor, and no respect or caring for anyone else.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;23977170]It isn't exactly the worst thing in the world is all [editline]07:53PM[/editline] Wait...90% of the civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever are being killed? That sounds like a massive exaggeration[/QUOTE] 90% of casualties are civilian. As opposed to 60% during WW2
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23977161]you can't measure death tolls in percents :doh:[/QUOTE] Yes you can. amountkilled/TotalPopulation. Also, everyone in this thread has no idea what they are talking about. You can't go around saying "Oh you can/can't do this because this/that isn't/is happening." when you have no idea what it's like. Everyone in here thinks there a goddamn soldier. It is astounding how ignorant both parties are.
Oh alright, but like I said, Nazi's didn't use civilians are protection
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23977267]fyi dadt tried to make EVERYBODY shut up about sexual preferences so it couldn't obstruct duty. it was misconstrued as being against gays. my aunt is in the army and she explained it fairly well.[/QUOTE] DADT is a homophobic policy if you even MENTIONED that you were gay then you would be discharged don't even try to fucking justify it
[QUOTE=Warhol;23977319]90% of casualties are civilian. As opposed to 60% during WW2[/QUOTE] This is because its Guerrilla Warfare. We can't tell whos the enemy when they are wearing civilian cloths, and even if we could tell who is who, the enemy would just use civilians for protection.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;23977298]I think i like you[/QUOTE] a homophobe that likes another homophobe not surprised
[QUOTE=Warhol;23977249]except it's not. You didn't read the article, did you mr apologist? Reconstruction is few and far between. There is still combat operations going on, the army is focused on that for the most part. There is a massive civilian death toll on the hands of the US, and most of it wasn't just 'lolaccident my bad bro'[/QUOTE] hey look a civilian pow pow i've watched the videos supposedly showing us troops killing civilians, and i can easily see how they'd be misconstrued as insurgents. it's easy for you, in your room, in your house, air conditioned and away from danger, to watch these playbacks and think "gee what idiots" but it's like 5000 degrees over there at all times, soldiers are constantly under threat and they HAVE to react quickly to potential threats because what if they don't? they die. soldiers aren't programmed robots, they're humans, just like you, and they make mistakes just like you would if you were in their shoes. now, as for reading the article, yeah, it's politics. what sounds like it would be aggressive in day to day conversation is little more than pretty please with a cherry on top in politics.
Must...insult...people's opinions every chance I get...
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23977267]fyi dadt tried to make EVERYBODY shut up about sexual preferences so it couldn't obstruct duty. it was misconstrued as being against gays. my aunt is in the army and she explained it fairly well.[/QUOTE] Except if you read the law it's exclusive to gays lol you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. [editline]04:02AM[/editline] [QUOTE=teh pirate;23977161]you can't measure death tolls in percents :doh:[/QUOTE] you have 10 people, 4 die, 3 are civilians. 30% are civilians. hurp, basic statistics
You'd think his aunt would know it better than you mister computer boy
[QUOTE=Neo222;23977355]This is because its Guerrilla Warfare. We can't tell whos the enemy when they are wearing civilian cloths, and even if we could tell who is who, the enemy would just use civilians for protection.[/QUOTE] If a guy has a gun and is shooting at me, i'm p. certain he's the enemy
[QUOTE=Warhol;23977425]If a guy has a gun and is shooting at me, i'm p. certain he's the enemy[/QUOTE] If a guy has a gun and is shooting at me and is also near civilians what do I do
[QUOTE=JDK721;23977353]DADT is a homophobic policy if you even MENTIONED that you were gay then you would be discharged don't even try to fucking justify it[/QUOTE] "i'm gay" "i'm lesbian" "i'm straight" "i'm bisexual" no matter what you said you'd get discharged if the person in charge was doing their job right. you have no idea what you're talking about. if i walked out of my house right now and punched 20 people in the face, and 13 of them just happened to be gay, that doesn't make me homophobic. by chance, there were more gays than straights in my punching fest, not by design.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;23977411]You'd think his aunt would know it better than you mister computer boy[/QUOTE] having an aunt in the military means fuck all
[QUOTE=JDK721;23977445]having an aunt in the military means fuck all[/QUOTE] Having an aunt explain a law that she experiences means a lot
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;23977411]You'd think his aunt would know it better than you mister computer boy[/QUOTE] She's saying it's for everyone and keeps sexuality out of the military bullshit: If you spent 10 seconds reading the first fucking line of the law, you would know that's bullshit. you are so obnoxiously ignorant. it's pathetic, really. hurr, i dont want no queers in the military, but it aint discrimination if i lie about it!
[QUOTE=teh pirate;23977438]"i'm gay" "i'm lesbian" "i'm straight" "i'm bisexual" no matter what you said you'd get discharged if the person in charge was doing their job right. you have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] you clearly have no idea what you're talking about show me a case where someone was discharged for expressing hetereosexuality in the military (hint: you'd have to discharge a shitload of people).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.