Military prosecutors claim Weemer, of Hindsboro, Ill., fatally shot an Iraqi after his squad leader grew irate that AK-47 rifles were found in a house the detainees claimed was free of weapons.Thank goodness speculation about this is unfounded.
It is, isn't it?
11 comments:
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say `YES'!"
-- "Ghostbusters"
And if someone asks you if there are guns in your car, house, on your person, you say "No!"
The best approach is not to let them come down your street.
Funny, our government lets Iraquis keep machine guns legally. Indeed, Saddam let them have anything with no papers. What does that say about our government thinks of us?
"In order to compile with the Law, you'll first need to fill out form 2354, 23564c, 25648b, 57854k in triplicate medium blue ink on an IBM Selectric II. Your failure to comply will be considered a willful violation subject to the harshest penalties prescribed by some very, very, unimportant zero in a office."
Yes, you’re right. Because the two situations are so eerily similar. Yeah, I’m rolling my eyes again.
I'm glad they at least work enough to do that. And that you're so certain of yourself to be so smug about it.
“Smug”, is a poor description. “Disappointed” is more like it. You really see me as smug? That right there tells me a great deal about how you interpret everything.
If anyone here is being smug, it would probably be you. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon of criticizing men in combat from the safety of your own home. That would put you in the fine company of the mainstream media and everyone else who has no idea what it is like fighting under those conditions.
Are you unhappy that these men are on trial? The Marine Corps prosecutes its own people with zeal, which should make you happy. Apparently it’s not enough to satisfy you.
I am hardly one to have blind faith and I am usually suspicious of the motives of people in power. That said, I also have some knowledge and personal experience in these areas in which you have such paranoid suspicion, which is why I think your fears are misguided.
I happen to agree with you on many other issues but not this one. You seem to want to create additional villains where they don’t exist. That’s your prerogative, of course.
Perhaps you could explain in more detail exactly what you think the parallels in the two stories are and how that supports your initial theory instead of relying on insinuation and innuendo.
Regards,
WT
Yes--making an argument by rolling your eyes is smug. I give you back the same level of "respect" and you're "disappointed."
I've already given you plenty of examples and you just dismiss them. If you want to view that as innuendo and attack, I have no time to disabuse you of your fixation. And no, I'm not going back over old ground to point out where. If you're interested, it's already been said and you ignored it.
The bottom line is, our government has already shown a predisposition to deploying the military in civilian areas and using them to disarm citizens.
If you think there is no chance of civil disorder, if you don't think the government would deploy the military to quell it, if you don't think soldiers would obey commands to disarm civilians, and if you further maintain any particular branch of the services would refuse en masse to follow orders, it would help if you would present evidence to support your position rather than coming up with obnoxious and smug statements like you're rolling your eyes at people who think different potentials exist.
You'll get the same respect from me as you dish out.
Yes--making an argument by rolling your eyes is smug.
Fair enough. No disrespect was intended although it’s easy to see why you might interpret it that way.
I give you back the same level of "respect" and you're "disappointed."
No. I’m disappointed that you seem to be trying to find enemies around every corner.
I've already given you plenty of examples and you just dismiss them.
Perhaps that is because they are poor examples.
The bottom line is, our government has already shown a predisposition to deploying the military in civilian areas and using them to disarm citizens.
True, however, this has to be understood in context and it seems like you are trying to extrapolate that into something entirely different.
If you think there is no chance of civil disorder... it would help if you would present evidence to support your position rather than coming up with obnoxious and smug statements like you're rolling your eyes at people who think different potentials exist.
That is not an accurate representation of my position. “Potential” is not the same as “likely”.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with you, sir, not me.
Regards,
WT
Fair enough. No disrespect was intended although it’s easy to see why you might interpret it that way.
It's hard for me to see any other way to interpret it.
No. I’m disappointed that you seem to be trying to find enemies around every corner.
Now you're doing the interpreting. Where did I say that?
Perhaps that is because they are poor examples.
Perhaps. Or perhaps you bring a personal predisposition into this.
True, however, this has to be understood in context and it seems like you are trying to extrapolate that into something entirely different.
I think the context of Guardsmen disarming citizens in New Orleans doesn't make raising the flag of concern about future disruptions out of line, and make it fair to speculate if other pieces point to a pattern. After all, you just challenged me on what something (your words) "seems like."
That is not an accurate representation of my position. “Potential” is not the same as “likely”.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with you, sir, not me.
OK, you win. I can't prove it. We will always be a stable society, no mass disorder will ever occur, the military will never be called out to quell it, and if it is, they will refuse to disarm good people.
It's hard for me to see any other way to interpret it.
While we are on the subject of smug disrespect, perhaps you could explain why you decided on the title you chose for your post.
Or perhaps you bring a personal predisposition into this.
Naturally. As do you. The difference is, I actually have some experience with the things you are talking about. I have been to these places and participated in these operations. Of course, lack of knowledge and inexperience has never stopped anyone from formulating conspiracy theories, so why should it stop you?
I think the context of Guardsmen disarming citizens in New Orleans doesn't make raising the flag of concern about future disruptions out of line, and make it fair to speculate if other pieces point to a pattern.
Understood. But then you make the leap of comparing it to military units preparing for an ongoing war overseas and also to alleged crimes by military men fighting in an intense urban battlefield in a foreign country against mujahideen. This is a fair comparison? And you wonder why I roll my eyes? How are these events related to your NOLA example?
OK, you win. I can't prove it. We will always be a stable society, no mass disorder will ever occur, the military will never be called out to quell it, and if it is, they will refuse to disarm good people.
No, no, YOU win. America is an inherently violent and unstable society, mass chaos is imminent, martial law is inevitable and good people will be ruthlessly subjugated.
This is pointless.
The Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army for similar reasons as I've cited. Go argue with them.
Post a Comment