NationStates Jolt Archive

Not really. I'll go out on a limb and accept it. Course, problem here is that one woman isn't necessarily representative of the whole anti-war protest. The reason the spitting is being called a myth isn't because we think it never happened, it's because we think it wasn't the common reception a soldier got.

It's not hard to find...

There's also more than spitting.

Does it say anywhere that she was an anti-war protester?

Gee, maybe I need to get the court transcript.

It seems a dead giveaway that she asks first, "Are you a Fort Drum soldier?" and when he says, "Yes." her first reaction is to spit in his face.

Here's an example:

Lauren Maggi goes to court on January 27, 2007. Presiding over the hearing is Judge Higgins.

Location. Court room 260A, Onondaga County, City of Syracuse Criminal Courthouse, 505 South Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/updates/index.ssf?/mtlogs/syr_poststandard/archives/2006_12.html


Woman accused of spitting in soldier's face


A Syracuse woman was charged after a Fort Drum soldier accused her of spitting on him without provocation at Hancock International Airport, Syracuse police said.

Lauren Maggi, 35, of 256 Thurber St., was charged with second-degree harassment after the Nov. 22 incident, according to a police report.

Jason Jones, 21, told police a woman he did not know walked up to him near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum solider and, when he responded that he was, spat in his face.

A second soldier on the scene supported Jones’ accusation, police said. Maggi offered no explanation for her conduct, police said. She could not be reached for comment tonight.


You'll have to pay to access the archives for the story.

Oh - I guess that means to you that it's not true...


Does it say anywhere that she was an anti-war protester?

Here's an example:
No, not really...

A Syracuse woman accused of spitting in the face of a Fort Drum soldier at Hancock Airport pleaded guilty today, offering an apology and an explanation.

Lauren Maggi had been verbally abused on the phone by a male acquaintance who is in the military at Fort Drum, and she "displaced her anger" when she encountered the victim as she walked through the airport, defense lawyer Louis Mannara said.

"I was crushed that people saw this as an anti-uniform, anti-war gesture," Maggi said. Maggi said she is a registered Republican who twice voted for President George W. Bush and supports the administration's war effort and the soldiers who are carrying out that mission.

Maggi, 35, pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment in connection with Nov. 22 incident.

Authorities said Maggi had walked up to Jason Jones, 21, near the United Airlines ticket counter, asked him if he was a Fort Drum soldier and then spat in his face when he said that he was.
http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/03/syracuse_woman_explains_why_sh.html

It's not hard to find...

There's also more than spitting.
Then why is it so hard for you to provide proper examples? Especially if worse have been happening?

Gee, maybe I need to get the court transcript.

It seems a dead giveaway that she asks first, "Are you a Fort Drum soldier?" and when he says, "Yes." her first reaction is to spit in his face.

Gee I think maybe you do before jumping to conclusions; if you are going to use this as evidence for what you are saying it does matter whether she was an anti-war protester or not. I would have thought an anti-war protester would have used the court appearance and press coverage to promote their cause. Her silence suggests to me there may have been other reasons for her actions.

Gee I think maybe you do before jumping to conclusions; if you are going to use this as evidence for what you are saying it does matter whether she was an anti-war protester or not. I would have thought an anti-war protester would have used the court appearance and press coverage to promote their cause. Her silence suggests to me there may have been other reasons for her actions.

Maybe you haven't researched the story enough. She's definitely an anti-war protester.

You would have to read the court transcript to know that. The case itself got scant coverage, because it isn't in the media's interest to prominently validate "a myth".

Got to admire the fact that the Police are to scared to support our troops.

It happens often enough now. So it's no longer a "myth".Can you point me to a video, perhaps?

Honestly, now the idea's in their heads, it's hard to believe this without proof. I've been to dozens of antiwar protests... never seen it once. I've read articles in which soldiers make the claim... but it's never been corroborated by witnesses, and there's never been any direct documentary evidence.

I'm not saying it CANNOT happen. I'm just suggesting that, given the evidence that it NEVER happened the first time around (Vietnam), I'm going to be suspicious until I see something I can reasonably take as proof.

That's it - even if it's visible and recorded, you'll still say it's false and never happened. How Stalinesque of you.Oh no, I'd be happy to admit the evidence of my own eyes.

I'd be most obliged if you could point me to the video.

When I come home, The hippies they will say.
"How do you earn your livin' how do you earn your pay?"
My reply as I pull out my knife,
"Get outta my way before I take your life!"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWUwEG9YX3M

Maybe you haven't researched the story enough. She's definitely an anti-war protester.

You would have to read the court transcript to know that. The case itself got scant coverage, because it isn't in the media's interest to prominently validate "a myth".

The press coverage that was given - as I posted on the previous page - debunks your claims.

Can you point me to a video, perhaps?

Honestly, now the idea's in their heads, it's hard to believe this without proof. I've been to dozens of antiwar protests... never seen it once. I've read articles in which soldiers make the claim... but it's never been corroborated by witnesses, and there's never been any direct documentary evidence.

I'm not saying it CANNOT happen. I'm just suggesting that, given the evidence that it NEVER happened the first time around (Vietnam), I'm going to be suspicious until I see something I can reasonably take as proof.

Read back in the thread. It's there.

Let's consider the book that people use as "evidence" that the spitting was a myth in the Vietnam days...

The book was written by Lembcke, who also manage to never find (in another paper) any real life evidence that Marxism as an economic system has never been made to work.

Great research there, eh?

Anyone remember Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Governor of Nebraska?

Hmm. What were his experiences after the Vietnam War?

Let's present an excerpt from p. 232 of Bob Kerrey's new book, "When I Was A Young Man". The future Senator is describing an incident in 1969; he is in Philadelphia undergoing rehab with his prosthetic leg and the incident occurs at the Martin Luther King track meet at Villanova:

After the race I was taunted by a group of long-haired men who blocked the exit and knocked me to the ground as I pushed past them to leave.

Now, Kerrey does not say he was spat upon. However, this does not sound precisely like the Veterans outreach described by Lembcke. Of course, lacking a police report or a contemporaneous news account, Lembcke might just reassure us that this is just an invented memory. (And doesn't he get knocked down in New Hampshire in 1992, or some other Presidential run, by unsympathetic protestors? Hmm...)

More recent spitting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1170039570-ph+RYDXh0ON25gvKO6enIw

In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

“These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

What's with all these cases of vets violently attacking anti-war protesters? I mean, there are very very few documented cases but it's indicative of a larger phenomenon that I cannot point out because the news stories aren't archived online.

What's with all these cases of vets violently attacking anti-war protesters? I mean, there are very very few documented cases but it's indicative of a larger phenomenon that I cannot point out because the news stories aren't archived online.

I can't say that doesn't happen either. I do feel there's a lot of sentiment among soldiers that would approve of such behavior.

Unlike most anti-war protesters, who seem bent on denying that any anti-war protester ever did anything unseemly.

More recent spitting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1170039570-ph+RYDXh0ON25gvKO6enIw

"spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling" - you're getting closer, but you're still not there...

Try again.

"spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling" - you're getting closer, but you're still not there...

Try again.

Read back in the thread for the airport incident. Right in the face.

Also consider the unpleasant card that Mr. Sparling received from anti-war protesters while recovering in hospital.

I love it when Anti-war protestors fight.

The irony...

Read back in the thread for the airport incident. Right in the face.

Also consider the unpleasant card that Mr. Sparling received from anti-war protesters while recovering in hospital.

You claim it happens "often enough." The implication is that it's happening on a statistically meaningful sample. So far you're struggling with one or two incidents. Why don't you show how it happens all the time, like a virulent plague that only you can see?

I haven't seen anyone here say anything to the effect that anti-war protesters never ever did anything violent or out of line. I believe the contention is that what we do hear is a lot of word of mouth and that isn't to be taken seriously. Why should it?

You claim it happens "often enough." The implication is that it's happening on a statistically meaningful sample. So far you're struggling with one or two incidents. Why don't you show how it happens all the time, like a virulent plague that only you can see?

Bob Greene's 1989 book Homecoming: When the Soldiers Returned From Vietnam counts 63 examples of protester spitting. Complete with photos.

Apparently, he's working on the same kind of book for the current war. So be ready for a lot of pics.

Even when those orders conflict clear ethical boundaries?

Soldiers are still human you know. They can still resign.
No they can't.

Read back in the thread for the airport incident. Right in the face.
Read back in the thread. I responded and debunked your claim.

See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13515509&postcount=254)

Link to newsreport here. (http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/03/syracuse_woman_explains_why_sh.html)

Also consider the unpleasant card that Mr. Sparling received from anti-war protesters while recovering in hospital.
Unpleasant card... What card? Was it a threat?

Because if it wasn't, you're still steps away from anybody doing anything unlawful towards the soldiers. And it's still not spitting.

Here's what makes the spitting myth so hard to believe: why does it always seem to end with the poor abused soldier walking off in shame?

If nothing else, we should see assault charges... a paper trail. Yet so far we've produced exactly ONE court case, and it turns out the spitter wasn't even pissed about the war or the military, she just had something personal against men from that particular base.

I mean, come on... someone spits on you, and you just walk away? Soldiers do this? They just turn the other cheek, Christ-like... and that's that?

It's not Christlike. One guy mentioned above was in a wheelchair.

What, he's going to get up like Christ touched him, and kick someone's ass?

Here's what makes the spitting myth so hard to believe: why does it always seem to end with the poor abused soldier walking off in shame?

If nothing else, we should see assault charges... a paper trail. Yet so far we've produced exactly ONE court case, and it turns out the spitter wasn't even pissed about the war or the military, she just had something personal against men from that particular base.

I mean, come on... someone spits on you, and you just walk away? Soldiers do this? They just turn the other cheek, Christ-like... and that's that?

More recent spitting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1170039570-ph+RYDXh0ON25gvKO6enIw

Hahaha... This is great!!

First of all, the New York Times states this as fact (without citing a source) as if the reporter witnessed it... but then fails to corroborate any of the facts and refuses to back up the story. Meanwhile, the Washington Post offers a much more detailed version of events which never mentions spitting, and documentary evidence has the protesters and counter-protesters so far apart that the New York Times version seems, well... implausible, to say the least.

Oh, but it gets better. The poor wounded veteran goes on TV and contradicts his own story.

Ah, and finally... it seems that if anyone in this story is really an obnoxious asshole, it has to be the alleged victim himself.

Questioning the Spitting Incident (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300012?src=item200701300012).

Sparling appeared on the January 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes and the January 30 edition of Fox & Friends and gave his own version of the events, contradicting some aspects of the Times' reporting.

On January 28, the Times reported that "one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back," and quoted Sparling saying of the protesters: "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned." As Media Matters noted, Urbina did not cite Sparling as his source on the incident and simply asserted that it occurred, suggesting that he had witnessed it. On Hannity & Colmes, Sparling offered details, claiming that a man wearing an 82nd Airborne badge was one of several people who spit at him, and he asserted, contrary to the Times report, that he did not spit back at the protester.

Even Mr. Colmes has trouble believing this kid... poor child, why does this always happen to HIM?

COLMES: Joshua, I understand that last spring you were demeaned in an airport when you were told you couldn't board a plane? You got a hate letter at Walter Reed in 2005. Why do you think this always happens to you?

SPARLING: To tell you the truth, Alan, I really couldn't know. The people that have done these things I don't even know personally, so it couldn't be of a personal nature in the first place. Maybe it's because I -- the peace rally is an obvious one. I went there, and that was the most angry peace march that I've ever witnessed, that's for sure. And he wasn't the only person to spit at me either. There was others, but this fella here was actually on the sidewalk with me, whereas all the other ones were about 10 yards away on the other side of the road, and they weren't just spitting. They were throwing cigarette butts, they were flipping us off.Yikes!! What a wild tale!! Could this really happen???

Another version (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117009733090028524). -- Cites photographic evidence by the Cincinnati Beacon that calls the New York Times account into question, as well as Washington Post coverage that never mentions spittle... noting as well that the New York Times dropped the passage from later versions of the story.

.....

Try again?

It's not Christlike. One guy mentioned above was in a wheelchair.

What, he's going to get up like Christ touched him, and kick someone's ass?No.

But I think he might be inclined to have his attacker arrested, no?

but certain men/women in certain military uniforms can be really sexy

Flame? I believe you are the one who started the flame the second you posted the OP. I merely used your own words to illustrate my point. If I wanted to flame I could flame. In fact, my use of the word you claim is my flame was a direct quote of you.

Who's flaming?

See my above post.

i didn't flame anyone.

So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?

How about when there's a way to back out when the holders of that contract decide to exploit my courage and patriotism for their own commercial gain?

It isn't always on the Internet after a while. Stories on local news outlets are available for a month or so, and then disappear.

So go ahead - comfort yourself and say it never happened.

Let me repeat this to you in a way that I did not express it in the first time around:

I do not get the same news as you. Hence, if you want me to believe that it has been on the news, you'll have to be able to show me archives of this happening. Such things do exist.

Everything you've shown so far has been debunked one way or another - The first one was a woman who had felt harassed by one of the soldiers of that fort (which explains why she asked which fort he was from). The second incident you came up with is someone spitting on the ground near soldiers. Not to mention the soldier supposedly contradicts himself.

It's not a common event anymore than the Westboro church is mainstream US religion.

No they can't.

Yes, yes they can [resign that is]. That's exactly what one of my friends did.

i didn't flame anyone.

If SaintB was flaming for implying you are a "fuckwit", then you were flaming when you called somebody (can't be bothered to see who you said it to) a "fuckwit".

Yes, yes they can [resign that is]. That's exactly what one of my friends did.

OK, you can't resign from the U.S. military though.

When I come home, The hippies they will say.
"How do you earn your livin' how do you earn your pay?"
My reply as I pull out my knife,
"Get outta my way before I take your life!"

Ah, a violent reaction to a question.
As if defending anyone's way of life, the security and constitutional rights of a populace suddenly are worse than worthless if you're asked what you did for $.

OK, you can't resign from the U.S. military though.

And so I refer back to my initial statement that maybe they should think twice before signing up, hmm?

Ah, a violent reaction to a question.
As if defending anyone's way of life, the security and constitutional rights of a populace suddenly are worse than worthless if you're asked what you did for $.

Its a cadence [rolls eyes]. Its a BUD/S one that was created during 'Nam, denoting the hostility the SEALs recieved when they returned.

I Don't want no teenage queen,
I just want my M-16.
If I die in the combat zone,
Box me up and ship me home.
Pin my medals upon my chest,
Tell my mom I done my best.

Also, you do automatically give respect to a police officer.

No, I don't.

When he pulls you over u don't start popping off at the mouth right away.

Motivated self interest, not respect.


He expects respect from you in this situation and you give it.

No, I don't. He can expect whatever he wants from me, it doesn't mean he's going to get it.


You can't tell me you'd behave exactly the same if some random person flagged you down.

Most likely not. A random person is not empowered by force of law to stop me, and I am not obligated, by force of law, to obey orders from random people.


You would not ignore his command, because you respect not only him, but the rule of law.

No, not him, just the rule of law. And that's the point. I do not respect every cop I come across, however I am obligated, by law, to follow lawful orders by the police. I don't have any automatic respect for a cop who pulls me over, however I will do what he tells me to, to the extent I am legally obligated to do so, because I am legally obligated to do so.

If a police officer showed up at my apartment with a warrant and told me to step aside while he searched, I would do so, as the warrant gives him the legal authority to do so and I am legally obligated to allow him. If that same police officer showed up without a warrant and informedme he was about to conduct a search I would tell him to go away and return with a warrant. I obey the lawful orders of the police because I am legally obligated to, not because the police are somehow deserving of my respect.


There are instances where respect is given automatically as it should.

No there are not, and no there should not.

but it does exist for us all.

No, it does not. If you wish to operate under some illusion that you should be obligated to respect people because they wear some sort of uniform then that's you. Personally I subscribe to the idea that my respect is something that I, and only I, chose to give, by whatever criteria I choose worthy of earning it, and nobody, nobody is deserving of my respect unless I, and only I, decide he is, and that there is a large and fundamental difference between obeying a lawful order because the law compels me to do so, and doing so because of some antiquated notion of "respect" that isn't earned.

No, it does not. If you wish to operate under some illusion that you should be obligated to respect people because they wear some sort of uniform then that's you. Personally I subscribe to the idea that my respect is something that I, and only I, chose to give, by whatever criteria I choose worthy of earning it, and nobody, nobody is deserving of my respect unless I, and only I, decide he is, and that there is a large and fundamental difference between obeying a lawful order because the law compels me to do so, and doing so because of some antiquated notion of "respect" that isn't earned.

Then again, bullying and spitting are assault. I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to assault.

Then again, bullying and spitting are assault. I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to assault.

Of course not, I do not condone any illegal activity. And, as you so point out, if someone does something, not merely "disrespectful" or "spiteful" but actually illegal...arrest the fucker. Charge him with assault and battery. There's a difference between "I do not respect you and feel no obligation to treat you with respect" and "I will commit a crime against you".

Nobody is deserving of my respect unless I choose to give it, that doesn't mean I tolerate criminal actions.

Of course not, I do not condone any illegal activity. And, as you so point out, if someone does something, not merely "disrespectful" or "spiteful" but actually illegal...arrest the fucker. Charge him with assault and battery. There's a difference between "I do not respect you and feel no obligation to treat you with respect" and "I will commit a crime against you".

Nobody is deserving of my respect unless I choose to give it, that doesn't mean I tolerate criminal actions.

I don't worry about disrespect unless it involves assault or something illegal.

I always consider the source, and it makes it ok.

Speaking of which, have you managed to find a living soldier that fought for freedom of speech yet?
Apparently not.



http://asapblogs.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/20/ap621002038.jpg

Good enough for you? Or are you gonna move those goal posts?

No, I don't.



Motivated self interest, not respect.




No, I don't. He can expect whatever he wants from me, it doesn't mean he's going to get it.




Most likely not. A random person is not empowered by force of law to stop me, and I am not obligated, by force of law, to obey orders from random people.




No, not him, just the rule of law. And that's the point. I do not respect every cop I come across, however I am obligated, by law, to follow lawful orders by the police. I don't have any automatic respect for a cop who pulls me over, however I will do what he tells me to, to the extent I am legally obligated to do so, because I am legally obligated to do so.

If a police officer showed up at my apartment with a warrant and told me to step aside while he searched, I would do so, as the warrant gives him the legal authority to do so and I am legally obligated to allow him. If that same police officer showed up without a warrant and informedme he was about to conduct a search I would tell him to go away and return with a warrant. I obey the lawful orders of the police because I am legally obligated to, not because the police are somehow deserving of my respect.




No there are not, and no there should not.



No, it does not. If you wish to operate under some illusion that you should be obligated to respect people because they wear some sort of uniform then that's you. Personally I subscribe to the idea that my respect is something that I, and only I, chose to give, by whatever criteria I choose worthy of earning it, and nobody, nobody is deserving of my respect unless I, and only I, decide he is, and that there is a large and fundamental difference between obeying a lawful order because the law compels me to do so, and doing so because of some antiquated notion of "respect" that isn't earned.


Exactly, there is a big difference between doing something out of respect and because it is ones best interest to do so. If a cop shows up at my house or pulls me over and tells me hes going to search my house/car, Ill ask him to kindly show me the warrent. If he has one, I will step aside and allow him to conduct his search. I might even offer him a beer because Im just a nice guy.

If he has no warrent, Ill let him question me if I have to time, because I just try to be pleasent and helpful to anybody, but if he insists on searching anything, Ill tell him to sod off, even if Ive done nothing wrong at all.

Just because I let someone do something lawful when it is in best interest does not translate into respect. Not wanting to get arrested for not pulling over or not letting a cop with a warrent search my house does not mean I respect them, it means I dont want to end up in jail. Its all self interest.

Now, if I know there is a cop in my neighborhood who is the pinnical of human morality and is steadfast in his protecton of the people, then I will respect him because I know all these things, just like I would respect anyone who worked hard at their job for the right reasons.

Just because you got a shiny badge (or marine uniform) doesnt mean Im just going to automatically respect you. I need to know you well enough to know you deserve my respect.

However, just because I dont put you up on a pedistal doesnt mean I dont respect you. In most cases Im apathetic on the matter.

Its a cadence [rolls eyes]. Its a BUD/S one that was created during 'Nam, denoting the hostility the SEALs recieved when they returned.
Okay ... one, "[rolls eyes]" is a little easier than that.
Two, how exactly, is it hostile to be asked what you did for $? Spending taxpayer $ means, yes, answers have to be given. Acting like a hypersensitive punk doesn't seem so becoming, even worse if you have to drill it into people repeatedly. Now what kind of asshole sets a precedent like ... oh wait ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc

I Don't want no teenage queen,
I just want my M-16.
If I die in the combat zone,
Box me up and ship me home.
Pin my medals upon my chest,
Tell my mom I done my best.
See, that one's not so bad. It doesn't conjure phantoms from flowers.

Okay ... one, "[rolls eyes]" is a little easier than that.
Two, how exactly, is it hostile to be asked what you did for $? Spending taxpayer $ means, yes, answers have to be given. Acting like a hypersensitive punk doesn't seem so becoming, even worse if you have to drill it into people repeatedly. Now what kind of asshole sets a precedent like ... oh wait ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc

See, that one's not so bad. It doesn't conjure phantoms from flowers.

I don't know html, so sue me.

And two because they did more than just ask a question: from personal accounts of family members (my father who stayed behind, my g-father who fought and a slew of uncles and older cousins), the anit-war protesters really did do that to servicemen upon their return. And comparing Vietnam vets to George Bush is uncalled for. That guy didn't fight, so he has no idea what he's talking about.

And you seem to be taking a cadence waaay too seriously and *literaly.

*I know that's spelled wrong...

I don't know html, so sue me.

And two because they did more than just ask a question: from personal accounts of family members (my father who stayed behind, my g-father who fought and a slew of uncles and older cousins), the anit-war protesters really did do that to servicemen upon their return. And comparing Vietnam vets to George Bush is uncalled for. That guy didn't fight, so he has no idea what he's talking about.

And you seem to be taking a cadence waaay too seriously and *literaly.

*I know that's spelled wrong...


The anti-war protesters were a different breed for Vietnam. I think we're arguing that people dont spit on soldiers now.

Personally I think the assurtion that protesters didnt spit on Vietnam vets back in the day is false, as I personally know someone who was a hippy and says he spat on them.

I don't know html, so sue me.You WANT me to be lawsuit happy? Libruhl. :p
Just compress your intent squarely between two colons. That oughtta ... erm ... *blinks*

And two because they did more than just ask a question: from personal accounts of family members (my father who stayed behind, my g-father who fought and a slew of uncles and older cousins), the anit-war protesters really did do that to servicemen upon their return.They asked them questions? The godless commies, what the hell were they thinking? :rolleyes:

And comparing Vietnam vets to George Bush is uncalled for.Not at all. He's the motherfucker waging our soldiers' lives. What he said is what is meant. There wasn't anything there comparing the vets to Bush - it's knowing where the bullshit comes from and what purpose it serves.
And isn't he, bafflingly, the "Commander In Chief"?
That guy didn't fight, so he has no idea what he's talking about.That speaks some volume of disservice to the people who carry his torch. I would say if you want to support the troops, impeach Bush. Bring some dignity back.
I mean as well the troops themselves should make it known.

And you seem to be taking a cadence waaay too seriously and *literaly.
I suppose when people have to tell each other to revert to brutality to qualify their actions, it deserves at the least, mockery.

You WANT me to be lawsuit happy? Libruhl. :p
Just compress your intent squarely between two colons. That oughtta ... erm ... *blinks*
They asked them questions? The godless commies, what the hell were they thinking? :rolleyes:
Not at all. He's the motherfucker waging our soldiers' lives. What he said is what is meant. There wasn't anything there comparing the vets to Bush - it's knowing where the bullshit comes from and what purpose it serves.
And isn't he, bafflingly, the "Commander In Chief"?
That speaks some volume of disservice to the people who carry his torch. I would say if you want to support the troops, impeach Bush. Bring some dignity back.
I mean as well the troops themselves should make it known.

I suppose when people have to tell each other to revert to brutality to qualify their actions, it deserves at the least, mockery.

1. i meant the discrimination, name-calling, spitting etc, not asking questions. Stop repeating yourself.

2. I didn't watch the vid cause I don't listen to him.

3. He's my CIC, but that doesn't mean I like him. You can hate George Bush and still love the US.

4. The troops can't. Ever hear of Art. 88 of the UCMJ?

5. And when has it been necessary for a soldier to answer a question posed by some random civilian? There's no lawful requirement stating this.

PS: thanks for the tip. for some reason, my reply template doesn't have the emoticon selector...or the font toolbar.

I don't worry about disrespect unless it involves assault or something illegal.

I always consider the source, and it makes it ok.

Found a soldier that's been spat on yet?

http://asapblogs.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/20/ap621002038.jpg

Good enough for you? Or are you gonna move those goal posts?

Has he done any moving thus far?

http://asapblogs.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/20/ap621002038.jpg

Good enough for you?
I don't know. What is the picture meant to be showing me?
Or are you gonna move those goal posts?

No, they're fine where they are.

Pathetic. Show some respect!

Well, if there's no images of spitting, what about this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_BOCN5Bd2FQ

1. i meant the discrimination, name-calling, spitting etc, not asking questions. Stop repeating yourself.Whatever. I'll "repeat myself" how many ever fucking times i want to, if that be the case. Think of it as a cadence.

2. I didn't watch the vid cause I don't listen to him.Your mental stability is markably in less peril for that, too.

You can hate George Bush and still love the US.You may be asked to repeat this in the future, because a whole load of people appear to feel the same.

4. The troops can't. Ever hear of Art. 88 of the UCMJ?Then use flowery language. Certainly the evidence supports the position regardless of having to act sensitive about it. He simply is a colossal fucking failure and an imminent threat to this country, other countries, and both the civilian AND military populace. Imminent.
State the case.

5. And when has it been necessary for a soldier to answer a question posed by some random civilian?If they're just some random civilian then what threat do they pose? Again, sensitivity.

There's no lawful requirement stating this.Well, then we're back to what seems fair for one perspective versus another, don't you think?

PS: thanks for the tip. for some reason, my reply template doesn't have the emoticon selector...or the font toolbar. Just do : + )
: + cool + :
: + sad + :
etc, for what it's worth.

Pathetic. Show some respect!

Respect is a strange old bird. Why should it be shown, to whom, for what reasons?

it's also usually not the case that the soldiers who are fighting in the wars of the world are fighting there because they want to


Yeah, because it's not like we have an all-volunteer army now or anything. :rolleyes:

I swear to God, everyone on this forum combined would just about make an imbecile.

Yeah, because it's not like we have an all-volunteer army now or anything. :rolleyes:

I swear to God, everyone on this forum combined would just about make an imbecile.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13510388&postcount=160
Really? Flatter US more.

This is beauty of the whole thing, that the men and women of the armed services are willing to lay down their lives for these very civilians to have the right to be total verbal dickwads to them. That certainly shows me who the bigger man is.

If SaintB was flaming for implying you are a "fuckwit", then you were flaming when you called somebody (can't be bothered to see who you said it to) a "fuckwit".

i wasn't refering to any forum member.

i wasn't refering to any forum member.

OK, As I said, I couldn't be bother to go back and check...

This is beauty of the whole thing, that the men and women of the armed services are willing to kill other people for these very civilians to have the right to be total verbal dickwads to them. That certainly shows me who the bigger man is.

Fixed.

So when are you willing to lay your life on the line for freedom and democracy?
The 'freedom' of the bourgeois you mean, in short NO, I am not going to risk my life for the property of a tiny minority.

This is beauty of the whole thing, that the men and women of the armed services are willing to lay down their lives for these very civilians to have the right to be total verbal dickwads to them. That certainly shows me who the bigger man is.

I'm not too sure you'll find many of them willing to lay down their lives, to be honest. Certainly those that will won't do it for the civilians, but for some fucked up ideal about countries or religion.

It is the rare person that genuinely cares about his fellow man enough to sacrifice himself for them.

The 'freedom' of the bourgeois you mean, in short NO, I am not going to risk my life for the property of a tiny minority.

Oh shut it with your repeated abuse of the word 'Bourgeois'. I've had enough of hearing such an outdated term.

Oh shut it with your repeated abuse of the word 'Bourgeois'. I've had enough of hearing such an outdated term.

I thought I was the only one. Nice to meet you.

I thought I was the only one. Nice to meet you.

Yeah. See, while I may not respect soldiers automatically, I will at least listen to them to hear their case.

Andaras however, has found his way into my ignore list, because quite frankly, he's like a broken record.

Yeah. See, while I may not respect soldiers automatically, I will at least listen to them to hear their case.

Andaras however, has found his way into my ignore list, because quite frankly, he's like a broken record.

Yeah, all true.

Regardless of your feelings on any particular war, or war in general, people who lay their lives on the line to protect the citizenry deserve respect, or at least the right not to be disrespected. If you disagree with me, please explain why.

Regardless of your feelings on any particular war, or war in general, people who lay their lives on the line to protect the citizenry deserve respect, or at least the right not to be disrespected. If you disagree with me, please explain why.

I disagree because the same type of people who "lay their lives on the line to protect the citizenry" are also the ones who will under most circumstances be the very cause of the need to protect the citizenry. This is why they are not to be respected automatically, but have to earn it (for example by refusing to wage wars of aggression and demand to be only be used in defence).

If I had to afford respect, I would give it to Doctors and firemen first, police second and military third.

The 'freedom' of the bourgeois you mean, in short NO, I am not going to risk my life for the property of a tiny minority.

"They believe they are dying for the Class, they die for the Party boys. They believe they are dying for the Fatherland, they die for the the Industrialists. They believe they are dying for the freedom of the Person, they die for the Freedom of the dividends. They believe they are dying for the Proletariat, they die for its Bureaucracy. They believe they are dying by orders of a State, they die for the money which holds the State. They believe they are dying for a nation, they die for the bandits that gag it. They believe – but why would one believe in such darkness? Believe – die? – when it is a matter of learning to live?" - Francois Perroux

:)

We were the ones however who used two nuclear weapons partly because we wanted to show stalin we could. Drop this nonsensical pretense that the USSR was this great and evil empire and the USA was a shining becon of hope and liberty. Both sides participated in that conflict, both sides committed atrocities, both sides helped to effectively cause the messed up situation in the world in their desperate mutual attempt to create buffer zones and constant one uppmanship.

The USA stopped being about spreading freedom and democracy and entirely about protecting its own interests. Nothing more and nothing less.

You DO realize the article is about the RAF and not the USAF?