Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/495030/thumbs/r-AFGHANISTAN-MARINES-large570.jpg

What can I say, US troops glorifying Einsatzgruppen. I'm for ending the war but personally, Afghanistan can keep this unit of Marine Snipers. Just take away their weapons and put targets on their uniforms.

Why is this is a big deal at all.

Having Nazis in the military isn't a big deal?

Having that flag behind them in a picture makes them murderous neo-nazis?

Why else would you pose with that flag?

As a joke? Snipers are weird people, pretty much everyone in the military recognizes that.

You have to be weird to agree to lay in your own piss and shit for six days watching a rock in the middle of a scorching desert.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why else would you pose with that flag?

Because they're the Scout Ssnipers, and they're probably assholes who thought it would be funny.

show of hands: Who would be surprised to find there were neo-Nazis in the military?

Originally posted by inimalist
show of hands: Who would be surprised to find there were neo-Nazis in the military?
*raises hand halfway*

I know for a fact there are, but most of them know better than to flaunt it/display it openly.

Saw a documentary on it...there are some cases where they find Swastikas hanging in barracks next to the US flag.

Originally posted by inimalist
show of hands: Who would be surprised to find there were neo-Nazis in the military?

I'd be surprised to find a whole neo-Nazi unit.

To quote a commenter from the Daily News article this was featured: "The fact that they shoot people in the head from a mile away is OK, just don't let them stand near a flag that may or may not be linked to a flag another army used 70 years ago???"




Why is this even news worthy?

Because it's AMERICAN SOLDIERS identifying with the SS, a group who's only purpose was sabotage and extermination of populations. If these guys are snipers and are identifying with the SS they shouldn't allowed into normal society without some serious treatment. And if they actually are neonazis, then their only role in the military should be target practice.

is there a link that offers any insight into the motivation behind this picture? If this unit did in deed take this photo to display their nazi beliefs then i think there is certainly a moral contradiction and it would bother me. However, those soldiers give their time and lives to protect me so i would think they're atleast entitled to the same rights as any other American in believing what they choose. Although, until i read or hear evidence that directly connects this unit to practicing neo-nazi beliefs i have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That flag and their motivation could be inspired by or mean many different things. Personally, if anything i would imagine it's the units way at protesting the Goverment. They're probably trying to convey how imperialistic this war was. Either that or they simply see our Government crumbling under a similar type of corruption. That's the first impression i got when seeing that picture...,a simple protest.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Because it's AMERICAN SOLDIERS identifying with the SS, a group who's only purpose was sabotage and extermination of populations. If these guys are snipers and are identifying with the SS they shouldn't allowed into normal society without some serious treatment. And if they actually are neonazis, then their only role in the military should be target practice. You chastise a group for wiping people out, then turn around and recommend that a group be wiped out. Regardless of any actual crime or sin committed, mere association is enough to sentence them to death.


Oh excuse me, I have to go---my pot's calling the kettle black again. Page me the next time someone else is condemned for standing in front of a flag without a shred of exposition or context. It's not like they deserve the benefit of the doubt or anything, a chance to explain themselves. Freedom of speech/expression, innocent-until-proven-guilty, fair trial. That'd be democracy, and rational people withholding judgement, sentence, and execution until all facts are known, instead of looking at one still frame and making up your mind. But f*ck that! No sir, not in America. America don't allow no such thing. Neither did the Nazis or their SS goons. Not that that has anything to do with an American flag above a Nazi one. No sir.

Sounds like some trolling is going down.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien


Oh excuse me, I have to go---my pot's calling the kettle black again. Page me the next time someone else is condemned for standing in front of a flag without a shred of exposition or context. .

You still use a pager?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
is there a link that offers any insight into the motivation behind this picture? If this unit did in deed take this photo to display their nazi beliefs then i think there is certainly a moral contradiction and it would bother me. However, those soldiers give their time and lives to protect me so i would think they're atleast entitled to the same rights as any other American in believing what they choose. Although, until i read or hear evidence that directly connects this unit to practicing neo-nazi beliefs i have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That flag and their motivation could be inspired by or mean many different things. Personally, if anything i would imagine it's the units way at protesting the Goverment. They're probably trying to convey how imperialistic this war was. Either that or they simply see our Government crumbling under a similar type of corruption. That's the first impression i got when seeing that picture...,a simple protest.

Well said.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
You still use a pager? I'm all about old school. I also still wear sneakers that light up red when you step down.

I'm not overly concerned that (or if) they're Nazis, what they do in their own time is none of my concern, but they should be kicked out of the military for posing in their US uniforms and clearly displaying and glorifying a flag/symbol that contradicts US military ideals.

The situation has been rectified.


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/02/marine-scout-snipers-nazi-ss-logo-020912/

So it's the "we're ignorant of history", lol. Read a damn book.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
*raises hand halfway*

I know for a fact there are, but most of them know better than to flaunt it/display it openly.

Saw a documentary on it...there are some cases where they find Swastikas hanging in barracks next to the US flag.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd be surprised to find a whole neo-Nazi unit.

ya, fair enough, at the time I posted that I didn't have much more to go on than the photo. For instance, until I saw that the army had confirmed it, we really didn't know this was a single unit (rather than a collection of Nazis from different units or even civilians in army costumes). We didn't know how widely spread the image was, so it may have been something that people attempted to keep underground, etc.

Stoic's link gives a bit more context, though, I'll be honest, finding out that there were even entire units (10 individuals in this photo) that harbored sympathies for Nazis within the institutional military apparatus of the American government would be entirely unsurprising, imho.

I'm not too surprised. Snipers are killers; plane and simple. They see the person they kill. It's personal. I'm not condemning them for that, but they do have that in common with the SS.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not too surprised. Snipers are killers; plane and simple. They see the person they kill. It's personal. I'm not condemning them for that, but they do have that in common with the SS.

also they both wore boots. and brushed their teeth.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
also they both wore boots. and brushed their teeth.

Sorry, but I think your comparison is stupid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I think your comparison is stupid.

quite a weird coincidence, cuz guess what i think about your comparison?

Did you know that Nazis had respiratory systems? You don't want to be like Hitler, do you?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
quite a weird coincidence, cuz guess what i think about your comparison?

You can disagree all you wish, but at least I gave something that furthered the debate. Unlike boots and teeth.

To be fair, they probably have a lot of things in common with the SS, but this serves what point here?

Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, they probably have a lot of things in common with the SS, but this serves what point here?

Just trying to understand why would they take this picture with that flag. Ether they see some connection, or they just didn't know what the flag meant.

None of those people had any part of ww2, "SS" is also the initials of their position in the military, the "SS" symbol is badass in that it is offensive and in your face.

I think this explains itself tbh

'SS' may mean 'Scout Sniper', but specifically using the 'double thunderbolts' links to the Nazis.

sure, they are badasses who just don't give a **** though

idk, the army's explanation does sort of reek of hand waving, etc, but a single picture does not a nazi make

there will likely come a time when the SS logo is viewed the same way the Confederate Stars and Bars are now.

But until then anyone flying it is trying to make a statement or is just completely ignorant.

I don't think that out of an entire unit there wouldn't be at least one guy who understood the significance of the SS symbol, that's just idiotic. I think they knew what it was and used it because they thought it was funny or just to get attention and stand out more than scout snipers already do.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if they just didn't know any better.

I'm more "enlightened" on most issues than the majority of people in this country, or at least I like to think so, but I had no idea the flag in that picture was a Nazi symbol until it was stated to be so. The Swastika is an iconic Nazi symbol. That looks like the type of symbol and font you would see on an AC/DC or Iron Maiden logo.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618l2lF4bwL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

I mean, for Christ's sake. It's more than possible that they just thought it was "badass".

Her is a uniform:

http://www.ssrelics.net/UNIFORMS%20ASSETS/infantry-tunic/0SS%20tunic%20001.jpg

Buddhists and Hindus should take back the Swastika. Remind people that it was used for millenia before Hitler got his hands on it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Buddhists and Hindus should take back the Swastika. Remind people that it was used for millenia before Hitler got his hands on it.

He used it backward.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/piresrl/2113813034/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can disagree all you wish, but at least I gave something that furthered the debate. Unlike boots and teeth.


please explain how a single fallacious comparison "furthered the debate". i mean, it sure created another one, but not pertaining to the thread topic.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Buddhists and Hindus should take back the Swastika. Remind people that it was used for millenia before Hitler got his hands on it.

Bam.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He used it backward.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/piresrl/2113813034/

Well, there are two forms of that symbol: the sauwastika and the swastika.

Hitler did not use the sauwastika. It was just the swastika. The expression of the rotation means two different things in the Hindu system.

BRB...


Edit - Yeah, this is what I was talking about:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/markulyseas/files/2011/04/Sawstik.jpg


Originally posted by focus4chumps
please explain how a single fallacious comparison "furthered the debate". i mean, it sure created another one, but not pertaining to the thread topic.

Please: the SS were entrusted with lots of the atrocious killings. His comparison is quite apt with a modern sniper whose job is to kill people.

He's calling them both "dogs" and you're practically raging, "NAY! One is a Bullmastiff and the other is an English Mastiff!"


At face value, what's the difference between entrusting American Military with special killing jobs and entrusting Nazi Military with special killing jobs? Oh, right...

Originally posted by dadudemon

Please: the SS were entrusted with lots of the atrocious killings. His comparison is quite apt with a modern sniper whose job is to kill people.

He's calling them both "dogs" and you're practically raging, "NAY! One is a Bullmastiff and the other is an English Mastiff!"


At face value, what's the difference between entrusting American Military with special killing jobs and entrusting Nazi Military with special killing jobs? Oh, right...

well the thing is that the s.s. was in charge of an executive ordered systematic execution of a substantial portion of their own civilian population, while marine snipers are (presumably) hitting enemy combatants. its hardly a minor set of details to scoff at

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well the thing is that the s.s. was in charge of systematically executing a substantial portion of their own civilian population, while marine snipers are (presumably) hitting enemy combatants. its hardly a minor set of details to scoff at

I like the strong language you use such as

"Systematically"

and

"substantially"


But dressing up your post with exaggerated words does not make your point any better or worse.

But to address your point...

Your distinction is quite irrelevant and is only a forced "contrary" position.

Indeed. Attacking civilians vs. "military targets" is completely arbitrary. At the end of the day, both groups are simply "following orders".

^
^^
^^^
So it's settled, Marine Snipers are just like the Nazi SS.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like the strong language you use such as

"Systematically"

and

"substantially"


But dressing up your post with exaggerated words does not make your point any better or worse.

But to address your point...

Your distinction is quite irrelevant and is only a forced "contrary" position.

ok but these are all empty presumptions with no substance to back them up while i presented valid points of comparison. (that being the duties carried out by ww2 ss and todays marine snipers)

Those aren't valid points of comparison. They're arbitrary. In other news, Rob eats cocks.

Though it pains me to admit it, I don't think the US government would have to nudge the Scout Snipers very hard to get them to start ethnically cleansing people.

Or at least not as hard as most would think. Snipers aren't really known for considering the ethical implications of orders.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Those aren't valid points of comparison. They're arbitrary. In other news, Rob eats cocks.

It was sarcasm, you large brown bastard. I don't think marine snipers are like the SS. Sure they're both soldiers, use guns and eat etc., but no.

Well, you eating cocks was definitely not sarcasm, so there. uhuh

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, you eating cocks was definitely not sarcasm, so there. uhuh

You're still large.

You're still brown.

You're still a bastard.

there have indeed been command structure breakdowns leading to slaughtered civilians at the hands of jacked up testosterone-drunk sadists who happen to land in the position to make something like that happen, and enthusiastically prove themselves to be human garbage on camera for the world to see.

however, to point that out and compare it to a group of government sanctioned genocide overseers...well its kinda goofy on the grounds that they are both "people who kill people".

its a broad comparison with obvious inflammatory connotations. you could drop the nazi-bomb in a thread about cops, health insurers, court/jury, etc. on that point of comparison.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok but these are all empty presumptions with no substance to back them up while i presented valid points of comparison. (that being the duties carried out by ww2 ss and todays marine snipers)

Thank you for stating that it is an empty assumption with no substance to back it up that US Military Snipers do not systematically kill lots of people with cold precision and there's NO legitimate comparison between them and the German SS from WWII. Without your clarification, I would not know how to think. I owe you one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you for stating that it is an empty assumption with no substance to back it up that US Military Snipers do not systematically kill lots of people with cold precision and there's NO legitimate comparison between them and the German SS from WWII. Without your clarification, I would not know how to think. I owe you one.


Originally posted by focus4chumps

is broad comparison with obvious inflammatory connotations. you could drop the nazi-bomb in a thread about cops, health insurers, court/jury, etc. on that point of comparison.

masterfully dodged, sensei.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
masterfully dodged, sensei.

Maybe it's dodging if you pretend this conversation is about something else entirely...

But let's recap. doped





Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not too surprised. Snipers are killers; plane and simple. They see the person they kill. It's personal. I'm not condemning them for that, but they do have that in common with the SS.





Your problem with his statement:
Originally posted by focus4chumps
please explain how a single fallacious comparison "furthered the debate". i mean, it sure created another one, but not pertaining to the thread topic.

Your reasons:
Originally posted by focus4chumps
its a broad comparison with obvious inflammatory connotations. you could drop the nazi-bomb in a thread about cops, health insurers, court/jury, etc. on that point of comparison.




And here's how your reasons were systematically destroyed:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please: the SS were entrusted with lots of the atrocious killings. His comparison is quite apt with a modern sniper whose job is to kill people.

He's calling them both "dogs" and you're practically raging, "NAY! One is a Bullmastiff and the other is an English Mastiff!"


At face value, what's the difference between entrusting American Military with special killing jobs and entrusting Nazi Military with special killing jobs? Oh, right...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your distinction is quite irrelevant and is only a forced "contrary" position.





Or do you think that government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute people are common enough to make clothing comparisons? Do you see why your comparison with "boots" is silly whereas his comparison is fairly spot-on? Here the point is, again: they are both "government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute/d people".

That's a very specific job and many states throughout history have had their own forms of SS. AKA, specially trained and trusted military forces that carry out sensitive missions that often entail covert and overt executions.

Pretending that anyone else is not like the SS, in that regard, is rather lame. The SS were not even original in their "objectives." They are just more recent and more memorable due to the atrocities associated with the 3rd Reich. Every modern military power has their "SS": unless you live under a rock.



In conclusion, you posted as the contrarian to troll, you were wrong, both Shaky and I called you on it, so you bought the Dodgers and you audaciously accused me of purchasing the Dodgers as you handed Frank McCourt the check. Don't you get enough of your trolling on Bardock's board? Why do it here?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe it's dodging if you pretend this conversation is about something else entirely...

But let's recap. doped











Your problem with his statement:


Your reasons:





And here's how your reasons were systematically destroyed:









Or do you think that government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute people are common enough to make clothing comparisons? Do you see why your comparison with "boots" is silly whereas his comparison is fairly spot-on? Here the point is, again: they are both "government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute/d people".

That's a very specific job and many states throughout history have had their own forms of SS. AKA, specially trained and trusted military forces that carry out sensitive missions that often entail covert and overt executions.

Pretending that anyone else is not like the SS, in that regard, is rather lame. The SS were not even original in their "objectives." They are just more recent and more memorable due to the atrocities associated with the 3rd Reich. Every modern military power has their "SS": unless you live under a rock.



In conclusion, you posted as the contrarian to troll, you were wrong, both Shaky and I called you on it, so you bought the Dodgers and you audaciously accused me of purchasing the Dodgers as you handed Frank McCourt the check. Don't you get enough of your trolling on Bardock's board? Why do it here?

wow man

Bring back a hotdog with all the fixin's from the concession stand, please. You KNOW how fat I am. uhuh

well, its remarkably weird because its usually the one who drops 'reductio ad hitlerum' into a topic thats accused of trolling. thats cool how you flipped it.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well, its remarkably weird because its usually the one who drops 'reductio ad hitlerum' into a topic thats accused of trolling. thats cool how you flipped it.

Yeah, how dare someone resort to Godwin's Law in a thread about ... the ... t-the... 3rd Reich's symbols.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, how dare someone resort to Godwin's Law in a thread about ... the ... t-the... 3rd Reich's symbols.

symbols, not practice. its a flag, brah. not a holocaust.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
*pitiful attempt but impossible to salvage*
Sorry, man...there's just no way you can come back from such a huge mistake. no

hmm. what mistake would that be?

So now im curious, who is this man a sock of?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
hmm. what mistake would that be?

It's obviously in this post:

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well, its remarkably weird because its usually the one who drops 'reductio ad hitlerum' into a topic thats accused of trolling. thats cool how you flipped it.

But we could go back to the main point about SS and US Snipers, too.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So now im curious, who is this man a sock of?

How do you know it's a man? AHA! uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
At face value, what's the difference between entrusting American Military with special killing jobs and entrusting Nazi Military with special killing jobs?

That's not really the critical difference (I assume you're aware of that and just testing to see what argument he comes up with). The SS was given the mission of wiping out millions of civilians. Snipers are given the mission of acting as scouts and of killing people who are trying to kill their allies (only snipers in anime get body counts into the millions). The Nazis used snipers too, Nazi snipers were also not as bad as the Holocaust.

Even if we assume snipers only ever kill innocent people in most moral systems killing two million innocent children is worse than killing fewer than two million non-children, though I've never asked a Mormon about it before.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I
But we could go back to the main point about SS and US Snipers, too.
uhuh

no, the main point (thread) was about u.s. snipers flying an ss flag for a photo. then shaky made his point that the s.s. are like the snipers because they both kill people. he was challenged by others, including myself, of quibbling in order to equate the ss to the marine snipers ....and then we hopped on the ddm rollercoaster.

in hindsight, i think it was meant to troll obnoxiously patriotic american tea party people...which is fine by me. ill be mindful to avoid shaky's critter traps next time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The SS was given the mission of wiping out millions of civilians. Snipers are given the mission of acting as scouts and of killing people who are trying to kill their allies (only snipers in anime get body counts into the millions). The Nazis used snipers too, Nazi snipers were also not as bad as the Holocaust.

If you'd like, we can compare it to the number of Iraqi citizens we killed. Let's play some arbitrary moral comparisons for a bit: SS killed lots of Jews, which were no longer citizens of Germany, mostly in Germany. The US has killed lots of actual citizens (legally) by invading a sovereign nation and doing so. Compare: 3rd Reich killed many mnay "un-citizenized" people mostly in their own country. The US killed many citizens on their own land (and even in their own homes). It is difficult to comprehend the arbitrary distinction you're wanting to make. What...because the 3rd Reich was more successful at it and had less rules to go by, they are magically worse? Here's some of the atrocities we have committed against the Iraqi people:

1. Rape: Check.
2. Torture: Check check check.
3. Murder by both US and International definitions during wartime: Check.
4. Kidnapping by international and US law: check check check.
5. Crimes against humanity: check.
6. Savage killing and maiming of enemy combatants: Check (did you hear or read about the scalping shit and finger collecting shit some of the US Soldiers were doing to the Iraqi insurgents?).
7. Forced Labor: check.
8. Looting: Check
9. Mass Killings of Civilians: check.
10. Execution of PoWs: check (holy shit, I didn't know we did this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...d-to-death.html )

And probably some other shit I can't think off off the top of my head.

Sure, the list isn't nearly as long and as appalling as what the SS did, but it's still fairly disgusting. I'm sure you would agree. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, especially when the snipers themselves made the comparison of themselves to the SS, is not really relevant. Of course, this is my opinion. I just disagree with the fact that P...I mean focus4chumps was "calling out" Shaky on his apt comparison.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, the main point (thread) was about u.s. snipers flying an ss flag for a photo. then shaky made his point that the s.s. are like the snipers because they both kill people. he was challenged by others, including myself, of quibbling in order to equate the ss to the marine snipers ....and then we hopped on the ddm rollercoaster.

in hindsight, i think it was meant to troll obnoxiously patriotic american tea party people...which is fine by me. ill be mindful to avoid shaky's critter traps next time.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how what you're typing has any sort of contradiction to the very brief portion you quoted (you can't open with "no" and then not really contradict the portion you quoted).

Also, I would reword your post to say:

"Yes, the main point of the thread was about U.S. snipers flying an SS flag for a photo. Then Shaky made his point that the S.S. are like the snipers because they both systematically and coldly kill/ed people under the direction of their governments. He was trolled by me because I am high* and bored...and then dadudemon pointed out why Shaky's comparison was fairly apt."

*This is something he admitted to, earlier tonight, on another internet forum. It's not a personal shot.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He was trolled by me because I am high* and bored...and then dadudemon pointed out why Shaky's comparison was fairly apt."

are we approaching the part where you really flip out or is that the core of your closing argument?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Killing citizens, in another country, on their own land, is somehow less morally wrong than a government sanctioned killing of its own "citizens"?

Yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Arguing a case of numbers is non sequitur to the actual point being discussed: people are being systemically killed through a government sanctioned process.

If numbers are irrelevant then you're actually, literally saying that a sniper shooting someone is the same as the entire Holocaust. Of course you'll cry "strawman" now because you didn't think that argument through but aren't mature enough to accept the fact that your often say really stupid things. Ignoring your inevitable histrionics will be the highlight of my day.

The actual point being discussed came from Skaya in the form that:
Snipers kill people.
The SS killed people.

This similarity is an utterly meaningless one (except for people who think one murder is morally equivalent to the Holocaust) insisting on it like it means something is classic trolling. The issue with the SS is not "they killed people" it is "they slaughtered millions."

We can also observe:
The SS eats food.
You eat food.

YOU ARE SIMILAR TO NAZIS!

Originally posted by focus4chumps
are we approaching the part where you really flip out or is that the core of your closing argument?

Careful about getting too personal, now.

Did that even make sense to you when you typed out your "come-back"?


And just because you're raging because the "idiot" has destroyed your trolling fun, yet again, doesn't mean that the "idiot" is also raging.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did that even make sense to you when you typed out your "come-back"?


Careful about getting too personal, now. And just because you're raging because the "idiot" has destroyed your trolling fun, yet again, doesn't mean that the "idiot" is also raging.

wow man you need to relax.

i said absolutely nothing personal, but it seems you want to. id hate to see you get in trouble so maybe we should just drop whatever it is you're on about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
... absurd arbitrariness...





Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If numbers are irrelevant then you're actually, literally saying that a sniper shooting someone is the same as the entire Holocaust.

Originally posted by dadudemon
... absurd arbitrariness...

and:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
strawman

Now why is it a strawman?

Of course, you didn't consider our reply when you said: "literally saying that a sniper shooting someone is the same as the entire Holocaust" because at no point is any of my argument ever about a single instance of only one sniper kill nor can it be logically boiled down to that. The absolute worst silly and illogical conclusion you could make (without deviating into absurd strawman arguments which you do every single time to me for some reason) is saying that I can only boil it down to a single unit of Snipers in the US Army. But you probably DID think of that (because, despite our arguments, you are a smart guy and there's no denying that) but realized that even then, it the comparison between that unit and the SS still works just fine.

So what do you have left? Of course, argue past the point of "absurd" or "not absurd" because the only way to make your point is to try and boil my point down into yet another absurd strawman argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course you'll cry "strawman" now because you didn't think that argument through but aren't mature enough to accept the fact that your often say really stupid things. Ignoring your inevitable histrionics will be the highlight of my day.

Dude...you have lost it entirely, at this point. I will note that you whined to the mods when I called you out on your bullshit and I got in trouble. I will now play your silly troll games and report you, as well, for taking personal shots two posts in a row.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The actual point being discussed came from Skaya in the form that:
Snipers kill people.
The SS killed people.

Wrong:

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Shaky made his point that the S.S. are like the snipers because they both systematically and coldly kill/ed people under the direction of their governments...


But it is easy to see why you've gone off the deep-end, in yet another conversation with me: you actually believe what you say is correct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This similarity is an utterly meaningless one

EXACTLY!

That's why you should stop using strawman logical fallacies for pretty much all of your arguments. They add nothing and just make you a troll.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
insisting on it like it means something is classic trolling.

No, trolling is "strawmanning" someone's point to call that person out like a "fool" to "put him in his internet place". Me clearing up that he cleary wasn't wrong in his comparison doesn't even come close to trolling.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The issue with the SS is not "they killed people" it is "they slaughtered millions."

The issue with the US Snipers is not that "they killed people", it is "they coldy kill people and compare that to the SS's exploits."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We can also observe:
The SS eats food.
You eat food.

YOU ARE SIMILAR TO NAZIS!

Originally posted by dadudemon
...do you think that government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute people are common enough to make clothing comparisons? Do you see why your comparison with "food" is silly whereas his comparison is fairly spot-on? Here the point is, again: they are both "government sponsored and directed killers that systematically execute/d people".

That's a very specific job and many states throughout history have had their own forms of SS. AKA, specially trained and trusted military forces that carry out sensitive missions that often entail covert and overt executions.

Pretending that anyone else is not like the SS, in that regard, is rather lame. The SS were not even original in their "objectives." They are just more recent and more memorable due to the atrocities associated with the 3rd Reich. Every modern military power has their "SS": unless you live under a rock.

Say, if Buddhists are trying to reclaim the Swastika from Hitler how do we know these snipers aren't all followers of turn of the century German mysticism who are trying to reclaim the Futhark runes from him?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Say, if Buddhists are trying to reclaim the Swastika from Hitler how do we know these snipers aren't all followers of turn of the century German mysticism who are trying to reclaim the Futhark runes from him?

You actually make a good point.


The argument could be made both ways, actually:



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/02/marine-scout-snipers-nazi-ss-logo-020912/

Bold emphasis my own. I see two positions presented in that article:

1. They didn't understand the implications of using that symbol and stopped using when ordered.

2. They did understand the implications of using the symbol because they had to view a powerpoint on the inappropriate use of Nazi symbols...but they stopped using it after ordered.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
wow man you need to relax.

i said absolutely nothing personal, but it seems you want to. id hate to see you get in trouble so maybe we should just drop whatever it is you're on about.

What? How are you on topic and how was your reply relevant to what I said?

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls so I'll take you reply via PM.

you have a problem arguing points with people without flipping out on a full-page tantrum and hypocritically calling them trolls over and over...its very childish.

>edit : no its ok. we dont need to PM chat. next time maybe dont be so aggressively antagonistic while calling people trolls.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you have a problem arguing points with people without flipping out on a full-page tantrum and hypocritically calling them trolls over and over...its very childish.

You're off topic. I responded to PMs.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You chastise a group for wiping people out, then turn around and recommend that a group be wiped out. Regardless of any actual crime or sin committed, mere association is enough to sentence them to death.


Oh excuse me, I have to go---my pot's calling the kettle black again. Page me the next time someone else is condemned for standing in front of a flag without a shred of exposition or context. It's not like they deserve the benefit of the doubt or anything, a chance to explain themselves. Freedom of speech/expression, innocent-until-proven-guilty, fair trial. That'd be democracy, and rational people withholding judgement, sentence, and execution until all facts are known, instead of looking at one still frame and making up your mind. But f*ck that! No sir, not in America. America don't allow no such thing. Neither did the Nazis or their SS goons. Not that that has anything to do with an American flag above a Nazi one. No sir.

Oh no, I'm advocating intolerance against the intolerant. Freedom of speech stops at incitements to violence, panic, and murder. Shortsighted US courts have somehow failed to equate hate speech with these so we haven't adopted the double standard that the rest of the western world has in regards to racist and far-right ideologies. So we get assholes in our military learning tactics to use on the streets at home and selling weapons to their patriot pals. This double standard exists for a reason. Communist movements are easy, their usually external. Fascist movements are often internal and like a cancer use liberal democracy and capitalism against themselves.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not overly concerned that (or if) they're Nazis, what they do in their own time is none of my concern, but they should be kicked out of the military for posing in their US uniforms and clearly displaying and glorifying a flag/symbol that contradicts US military ideals.

Why should one be kicked out of the military and forever black listed for demonstrating a peaceful act of protest or a silly prank stunt? These men are made of sterner stuff. There ideals and moral code is probably much more profound than yours ever will be. The mental fortitude it requires to do what these men do is unique. Why would you jump so quickly to assume their motive behind this picture was so harsh? Are you really that quick to throw your protectors under the bus before exercising the act of wondering what their side of the story is? The most these men deserve is a reprimand.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh no, I'm advocating intolerance against the intolerant. Freedom of speech stops at incitements to violence, panic, and murder. Shortsighted US courts have somehow failed to equate hate speech with these so we haven't adopted the double standard that the rest of the western world has in regards to racist and far-right ideologies. So we get assholes in our military learning tactics to use on the streets at home and selling weapons to their patriot pals. This double standard exists for a reason. Communist movements are easy, their usually external. Fascist movements are often internal and like a cancer use liberal democracy and capitalism against themselves.
I love how you're still jumping to the conclusion that these people are Hardcore Neo-Nazis and not even entertaining the possibility that they're just joking around or being ignorant.

Also all fascist movements start with people being intolerant to people they don't like. Until they actually break a law there's no reason to be as harsh to them as you would like.

Like, do you not realize that you sound like a Fascist right now?

They're probably trolling. They should be cautioned, but not kicked out of the army.

Also, why is it an outrage that these guys posed in front of a controversial flag, yet it isn't an outrage the way certain soldiers deal with citizens of invaded countries - rape, murder, torture...etc.

Priorities are all wrong.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also all fascist movements start with people being intolerant to people they don't like. Until they actually break a law there's no reason to be as harsh to them as you would like.

Like, do you not realize that you sound like a Fascist right now?

In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They're probably trolling. They should be cautioned, but not kicked out of the army.

I agree that they're probably just being assholes but why not kick them out? Any other job would get you fired for that kind of thing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.


Which would all be well and good if the people in this photo had actually done any of that.

I don't think that they're inciting violence, panic, or murder. No more than the Prince of England was when he wore a Nazi costume.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Oh no, I'm advocating intolerance against the intolerant. Freedom of speech stops at incitements to violence, panic, and murder. Shortsighted US courts have somehow failed to equate hate speech with these so we haven't adopted the double standard that the rest of the western world has in regards to racist and far-right ideologies. So we get assholes in our military learning tactics to use on the streets at home and selling weapons to their patriot pals. This double standard exists for a reason. Communist movements are easy, their usually external. Fascist movements are often internal and like a cancer use liberal democracy and capitalism against themselves.

I think the government should be as "hate" neutral as possible. That also means preventing hate in the military as well as not cracking down on non-violent hate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In that post he only proposes criminalizing "incitements to violence, panic, or murder". That's pretty far from just people he doesn't like.



I agree that they're probably just being assholes but why not kick them out? Any other job would get you fired for that kind of thing.

Because, while it can be considered offensive, I don't think it breaks any particular rule.

Or perhaps it does, in an indirect kind of way.

Like, do you not realize that you sound like a Fascist right now?
Again, healthy double standard. Nearly every single Anti-fascist social democratic or democratic socialist state has laws against hate speech and far right groups. Making the argument that hate and the right-wing should be protected speech and classes is in the vein as Senator Roman Hruska implying that it's wrong to discriminate against the mediocre in hiring or promotion.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because, while it can be considered offensive, I don't think it breaks any particular rule.

Or perhaps it does, in an indirect kind of way. The US Military has rules to keep political extremists and criminals out, including people with gang affiliated tattoos, etc. However, ever since the Bush wars, members of street gangs (crips, bloods, etc.), neo-nazis, and fascists are allowed in. Socialists and Communists are still kept out.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Again, healthy double standard. Nearly every single Anti-fascist social democratic or democratic socialist state has laws against hate speech and far right groups. Making the argument that hate and the right-wing should be protected speech and classes is in the vein as Senator Roman Hruska implying that it's wrong to discriminate against the mediocre in hiring or promotion.
The thing is that you're jumping to the conclusion that this is hate speech and that these soldiers are Far Right and not just idiots making a joke in poor taste.

You've got tunnel vision, you see one Nazi symbol and you immediately demand blood from the person sporting it.

Now it's entirely possible that they are Extreme Right, I just don't think it's as likely as them just being jokers.

Extremism is the true evil path. Even the purest of thoughts and ideas can be corrupted by extremism. One must use the middle way when confronting evil.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


I agree that they're probably just being assholes but why not kick them out? Any other job would get you fired for that kind of thing.

Because the military is the only job that requires you to willingly give your life.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Because the military is the only job that requires you to willingly give your life.

?

so there should be lower standards?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Because the military is the only job that requires you to willingly give your life.
firefighter, police officer, doctor (in extreme cases), nuclear plant technician (if you're badass like the guys in Japan), etc

Originally posted by inimalist
?

so there should be lower standards?

Define standards.


But, yes, I think so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Define standards.


But, yes, I think so.

Why?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Define standards.


But, yes, I think so.

so, we should expect less morals from the people we train to kill others than we do from common citizens?

well, at least I've never heard you bat an eye about war crimes...

Originally posted by inimalist
so, we should expect less morals from the people we train to kill others than we do from common citizens?

That depends on your definition of morals.

My personal morals on war is: don't kill anyone at any time for any reason. But that's unreasonable. If I expect someone to go to war and do something that I consider NOT moral, I am automatically lowering my expectations of their moral standards.

This is why defining "standards" and "morals" is essential to properly answer your question.

But, yes, hiring someone to kill other people, IMO, constitutes lowering your moral standards for those people.

Edit - Case in point.

You lower your standards for those you would fill your military ranks compared to those you would fill your Nanny ranks.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, at least I've never heard you bat an eye about war crimes...

Did you see my diatribe about all the crap we've done to the Iraqi people?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That depends on your definition of morals.

My personal morals on war is: don't kill anyone at any time for any reason. But that's unreasonable. If I expect someone to go to war and do something that I consider NOT moral, I am automatically lowering my expectations of their moral standards.

This is why defining "standards" and "morals" is essential to properly answer your question.

But, yes, hiring someone to kill other people, IMO, constitutes lowering your moral standards for those people.

Edit - Case in point.

You lower your standards for those you would fill your military ranks compared to those you would fill your Nanny ranks.



Did you see my diatribe about all the crap we've done to the Iraqi people?

so, to keep this on topic, you think it is ok to have different standards regarding nazi symbolism between the military and general work force?

Further, you think it should be more ok for military personnel to display fascist and nazi symbolism than it is for the average citizen?

Like, if I were to wear a red arm band to the lectures I give to first year students, that might not be ok, but if I were in a military situation, it becomes more ok?

Given that he suddenly started talking about how his standards for soldiers are already lower I'm thinking he's done that thing where he starts a completely new conversation and doesn't tell anybody else in order to make sure they misinterpret him.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, to keep this on topic, you think it is ok to have different standards regarding nazi symbolism between the military and general work force?

Let's rewind the conversation to where we are on the same page:









I expanded that and explained it: Yes, there should be lower speech standards required of our military personnel compared to...say...our nannies.



To address this new question you are asking me:

Should there be a difference in speech standards between private workforce and the US Military forces? Yes: some areas would be more strict and some areas would be less strict for military personnel.

To be even more specific about your question: it's quite obvious that the US military personnel should never fly or sport 3rd Reich symbols for extremely obvious diplomatic reasons.

But my comment to you question was NOT specifically about that: it was much more general. I simply answered your question directly: yes, there should be lower speech standards for military personnel depending on your definition of "standard" (and later how i defined "morals".

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, if I were to wear a red arm band to the lectures I give to first year students, that might not be ok, but if I were in a military situation, it becomes more ok?

The depends. Do you know how many factors would play into the scenario you just brought up?

Is your school a state institution? Does a majority of its funding come from the state? Does a significant enough proportion come from the state enough to have the government decide on speech practices in your school? Is wearing that armband protected by speech rights? What is or are your reasons for wearing that armband? Will you be displaying any symbols on the armband (because this is the difference between a Nazi Armband and a version of the Red Cross armband...pretty huge). Does your military have any rules regarding what can and cannot be worn on their person while not in uniform? Are red armbands banned at all time for active duty personnel? Man, I'm tired of the questions...moving on to my actual point...




A better question to ask me, that would have been in line with the context of my post, would have been this:

"Would it be more or less okay for me to curse up a storm in front of my first year students than it would be in front of my Canadian Army platoon?"

The answer is generally "no, it would not be okay to do so in front of the class but might be okay in front of the platoon".


Yes, our standards for US Military personnel should be lower than it is for other areas. Depending on how you define "standard".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Given that he suddenly started talking about how his standards for soldiers are already lower I'm thinking he's done that thing where he starts a completely new conversation and doesn't tell anybody else in order to make sure they misinterpret him.

facepalm


Here:

http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Smallest-Violin.jpg

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They're probably trolling. They should be cautioned, but not kicked out of the army.

Also, why is it an outrage that these guys posed in front of a controversial flag, yet it isn't an outrage the way certain soldiers deal with citizens of invaded countries - rape, murder, torture...etc.

Priorities are all wrong.

Different topic but yeah, the wars were despicable as is any situation wherein a war of choice is fought. However a war motivated by thievery is a relatively, by a micron, better than a war of extermination. The news story coming out today about a US military camp being named "Camp Aryan" doesn't bode well.

I wonder what other camp names they have in use. Camp Fatherland? Camp Treblinka? Camp Tuol Sleng? Camp Lubyanka?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's rewind the conversation to where we are on the same page:









I expanded that and explained it: Yes, there should be lower speech standards required of our military personnel compared to...say...our nannies.



To address this new question you are asking me:

Should there be a difference in speech standards between private workforce and the US Military forces? Yes: some areas would be more strict and some areas would be less strict for military personnel.

To be even more specific about your question: it's quite obvious that the US military personnel should never fly or sport 3rd Reich symbols for extremely obvious diplomatic reasons.

But my comment to you question was NOT specifically about that: it was much more general. I simply answered your question directly: yes, there should be lower speech standards for military personnel depending on your definition of "standard" (and later how i defined "morals".



The depends. Do you know how many factors would play into the scenario you just brought up?

Is your school a state institution? Does a majority of its funding come from the state? Does a significant enough proportion come from the state enough to have the government decide on speech practices in your school? Is wearing that armband protected by speech rights? What is or are your reasons for wearing that armband? Will you be displaying any symbols on the armband (because this is the difference between a Nazi Armband and a version of the Red Cross armband...pretty huge). Does your military have any rules regarding what can and cannot be worn on their person while not in uniform? Are red armbands banned at all time for active duty personnel? Man, I'm tired of the questions...moving on to my actual point...




A better question to ask me, that would have been in line with the context of my post, would have been this:

"Would it be more or less okay for me to curse up a storm in front of my first year students than it would be in front of my Canadian Army platoon?"

The answer is generally "no, it would not be okay to do so in front of the class but might be okay in front of the platoon".


Yes, our standards for US Military personnel should be lower than it is for other areas. Depending on how you define "standard".

no, the actual question I was asking was with specific regard to nazi paraphernalia. If you want to deconstruct what I'm saying to talk about red-cross stuff, it seems like you are deliberately missing the point...

So, am I to assume you think it is more ok for the military to parade around in front of Nazi symbols than for the average person?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, the actual question I was asking was with specific regard to nazi paraphernalia. If you want to deconstruct what I'm saying to talk about red-cross stuff, it seems like you are deliberately missing the point...

I directly addressed that in the post you quoted. Did you read my post or read the first few sentences as responded?




Also, what context you want to applied to the original post of yours I responded to does not matter: Jinx was speaking in general and you responded to it with a very general statement. I responded to that.

If you are not interested in discussing that aspect of speech from military personnel, just say so.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, am I to assume you think it is more ok for the military to parade around in front of Nazi symbols than for the average person?

Is that stated in the post you quoted?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I directly addressed that in the post you quoted. Did you read my post or read the first few sentences as responded?




Also, what context you want to applied to the original post of yours I responded to does not matter: Jinx was speaking in general and you responded to it with a very general statement. I responded to that.

If you are not interested in discussing that aspect of speech from military personnel, just say so.



Is that stated in the post you quoted?

fair enough, I thought the "red armband" would have been descriptive enough, in a thread talking about nazi symbolism, to mean I actually meant a swastika and such, but ya, stuff is muddled sometimes.

No, I read your post, I was really just looking to clarify, you seem to be all over the place with different standards for different situations, which sure, we agree on.

to be fair, Jinx wasn't being very general. He was saying pretty bluntly that it should be acceptable for people in the military to bare nazi symbols because they risk their life. Nor, given the context of my reply and the topic of the thread, was my response, but true, stuff is much less clear in text.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I thought the "red armband" would have been descriptive enough, in a thread talking about nazi symbolism, to mean I actually meant a swastika and such, but ya, stuff is muddled sometimes.





Originally posted by inimalist
No, I read your post,

I don't agree. Maybe you're ignoring the portion where I directly addressed what you asked?

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, Jinx wasn't being very general. He was saying pretty bluntly that it should be acceptable for people in the military to bare nazi symbols because they risk their life. Nor, given the context of my reply and the topic of the thread, was my response, but true, stuff is much less clear in text.

I disagree here, as well. He was being general about lower standards needing to apply to military personnel, when it comes to free speech, because of what they do. His comment is obviously spurred by the topic in this thread, for sure.

Your question to him also made an implicit point which is part of your standard posting style. I picked up on that and stated that the point you're making with your point would very much be variable depending on definitions applied.





To the thread topic as you want it to be extremely close to: yes, military personnel should get to pretend to be whomever they want to be as long as it doesn't violate any treaties, intentional laws, bla bla bla. I don't know if SS is illegal to fly: but the military has guidelines against it. If it is not illegal, let them fly an SS flag.

To throw an entirely different angle into it...Why shouldn't we hijack these flags and symbols of fascism and oppression? Lord knows fascists have done it long enough to symbols of good. Including the Nazis. It's happening/happened in Britain where the Union Flag has been appropriated by far right groups to the point where it's considered offensive in some circles.

So why not try and change the meaning of a symbol by using it in a different context.

clearly it was a 'kiss' logo banner and the "KI" fell off. GO USA!!!

I'm not sure if anyone here knows this, but the SS were also a crack military unit that was designed to be used as shock troops. Mostly they are correllated with the death camps because some SS units ran death camps. Maybe the snipers are trying to saying two things: "we're shock troops and bring death to our enemies." Who knows, but I personally find this picture distasteful.

Hitler would love modern America

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hitler would love modern America
facepalm

^ lol all serious. Smoke one.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hitler would love modern America

Yes, but he would simply want to improve it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
^ lol all serious. Smoke one.
Hitler liked Looney Tunes and forcible relocation of Native Americans, everything else about America he despised.

He could never admire a country in any case that props up Israel.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hitler liked Looney Tunes and forcible relocation of Native Americans, everything else about America he despised.

He could never admire a country in any case that props up Israel.

There is two problems with your argument. Hitler praised the US in his early writings (this is based on a history channel program that I saw some time in the past) and Israel did not exist until after the war.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hitler liked Looney Tunes and forcible relocation of Native Americans, everything else about America he despised.

He could never admire a country in any case that props up Israel. Snow White was also his favorite movie.

Not that that means anything.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I'm not sure if anyone here knows this, but the SS were also a crack military unit that was designed to be used as shock troops. Mostly they are correllated with the death camps because some SS units ran death camps. Maybe the snipers are trying to saying two things: "we're shock troops and bring death to our enemies." Who knows, but I personally find this picture distasteful.
Yeah, that was basically my point, earlier.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is two problems with your argument. Hitler praised the US in his early writings (this is based on a history channel program that I saw some time in the past) and Israel did not exist until after the war.
(1) As I said, he did find some things admirable (cartoons and Manifest Destiny mostly) but even the qualities of America that were good to him were tainted in his view by the fact that according to him all facets of America were Jew-Run. To him America was dangerous because it was an essentially "Aryan" nation run by Jews.

(2) That doesn't refute my argument at all. How you think it could is beyond me. We're talking about if Hitler was still alive today. And he certainly would think poorly of America for supporting Israel even if they were doing great in his view on every other level.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Snow White was also his favorite movie.

Not that that means anything.
I heard it was the Big Bad Wolf. He'd whistle the tune all the time according to aides and officers.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Hitler would love modern America

Yeah, he probably would love modern America, but what he'd REALLY be pleased about is European Union. That might have even made him jizz from happiness.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Different topic but yeah, the wars were despicable as is any situation wherein a war of choice is fought. However a war motivated by thievery is a relatively, by a micron, better than a war of extermination. The news story coming out today about a US military camp being named "Camp Aryan" doesn't bode well.

I wonder what other camp names they have in use. Camp Fatherland? Camp Treblinka? Camp Tuol Sleng? Camp Lubyanka?

There's absolutely no difference. It doesn't make it any better, extermination or thievery, because people die. One doesn't make the other ''nobler''. They're equally bad.

But yes, the name of that camp doesn't bode well, considering the only true Aryans are Persians.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There's absolutely no difference. It doesn't make it any better, extermination or thievery, because people die. One doesn't make the other ''nobler''. They're equally bad.

But yes, the name of that camp doesn't bode well, considering the only true Aryans are Persians.
So you're saying the War in Iraq and the Nazi campaign in Europe are the same thing?

That's a hard position to justify unless you think that intentions and actual results are irrelevant to weighing different crimes of the same vague order.

Like...robbing a house and killing the owner in a scuffle=same as going into a house and raping and immolating the entire household because they're a different race? Is that what you're saying?

Because people die in both cases. I mean like OMG.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(1) As I said, he did find some things admirable (cartoons and Manifest Destiny mostly) but even the qualities of America that were good to him were tainted in his view by the fact that according to him all facets of America were Jew-Run. To him America was dangerous because it was an essentially "Aryan" nation run by Jews.

(2) That doesn't refute my argument at all. How you think it could is beyond me. We're talking about if Hitler was still alive today. And he certainly would think poorly of America for supporting Israel even if they were doing great in his view on every other level....

I don't spend much time thinking about what Hitler would think of anything. So, I'll have to give it a thought or two.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't spend much time thinking about what Hitler would think of anything. So, I'll have to give it a thought or two.
Dodge?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So you're saying the War in Iraq and the Nazi campaign in Europe are the same thing?

That's a hard position to justify unless you think that intentions and actual results are irrelevant to weighing different crimes of the same vague order.

Like...robbing a house and killing the owner in a scuffle=same as going into a house and raping and immolating the entire household because they're a different race? Is that what you're saying?

Because people die in both cases. I mean like OMG.

Intent is everything. After all, in a hundred and twenty years every person alive now, will be dead, give or take a few. So, the greater wrong would be the person who killed the family because of their race. Genocide has happened in the past, but it must not be allowed in the future. Killing an individual brings suffering to a small group of people, but attacking someone because of their race, brings suffering to humanity as a whole. IMHO

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dodge?

The truth. I ran out of arguments. I had everything set in my mind for Hitler in the past, but you are right, we are talking about now.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So you're saying the War in Iraq and the Nazi campaign in Europe are the same thing?

That's a hard position to justify unless you think that intentions and actual results are irrelevant to weighing different crimes of the same vague order.

Like...robbing a house and killing the owner in a scuffle=same as going into a house and raping and immolating the entire household because they're a different race? Is that what you're saying?

Because people die in both cases. I mean like OMG.

No, actually, what I'm saying is ''raping and killing for greed'' is no better than ''raping and killing because of hate''.

Same crime with different motives, not similar crime and similar motives. Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Someone went into a home and raped and killed the entire family for greed, and someone went into a home and raped and killed the entire family for their belief/skin colour.

Both are equally unacceptable and horrendous and both families experienced exactly the same horror and fate. Motives of the killer are different, but the crime is the same.
How can the judge be more sympathetic to one crime? That would not be fair.

Also, comparing Nazi Germany with America in Iraq is just silly. Noone made that comparison.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, comparing Nazi Germany with America in Iraq is just silly. Noone made that comparison.

I made that comparison. War Crimes were being discussed and I pointed out how many we committed in Iraq (made a list of 10 off the top of my head).

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, actually, what I'm saying is ''raping and killing for greed'' is no better than ''raping and killing because of hate''.

Same crime with different motives, not similar crime and similar motives. Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Someone went into a home and raped and killed the entire family for greed, and someone went into a home and raped and killed the entire family for their belief/skin colour.

Both are equally unacceptable and horrendous and both families experienced exactly the same horror and fate. Motives of the killer are different, but the crime is the same.
How can the judge be more sympathetic to one crime? That would not be fair.

Also, comparing Nazi Germany with America in Iraq is just silly. Noone made that comparison.
Ah I see. My bad, I misread your post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I made that comparison. War Crimes were being discussed and I pointed out how many we committed in Iraq (made a list of 10 off the top of my head). But dude, think of all the freedom and liberty you pelted the Iraqis in the face with. They're awash now in a sea of freberty.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But dude, think of all the freedom and liberty you pelted the Iraqis in the face with. They're awash now in a sea of freberty.

Just in time for us to back out and let their real enemy take over.