Updates from Afghanistan

The Phat Conductor · Post by **The Phat Conductor** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:17 pm

nuke a gay whale for jesus!

can i be on the red list now?

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm

popslut wrote:
sweetjesus wrote: *must resist joke about "twats".. and pink colour lists..*
What would the little baby Jesus think about you making jokes about ladies toilet parts?

He's watching when you masturbate you know...

kramerica · Post by **kramerica** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:37 pm

M Breqs, very well written essay/blog. You should send that to a Canadian newspaper for publication. I think I'm the only sane person on here that agrees with your sentiments. And I agree with them precisely because I am a liberal and motivated by advancing and protecting human rights.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:10 am

kramerica wrote:I'm the only sane person on here

kramerica wrote:I agree

kramerica wrote:I am a liberal

Oh guys, come on now, kramerica is a liberal. He said so himself. Come now, listen to the intellectuals who self-apply the liberal title. For they are surely righteous!

I'm a liberal, and I'm going to make you free. I'm going to rape your kids, and make your market FREE, so I can sell MY shit at prices cheaper than you could ever possibly match. That's FREEdumb! But don't fret, being FREE aint easy! Maybe you should stop working the land, and come work in my tax-exempt factory instead!

AWESOME-O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:29 am

D K wrote: you are currently mentally ill
you need to check yourself

I'm sorry that you have been so convinced by the nihilistic forces that spawned out of the failed left that you don't realize just how cherished our civilization should be. I only hope that you realize your mistake one day, and that you come to the realization through introspection, rather than through the failure of our society to overcome the threats it faces due to ignorance like yours.

popslut wrote:How many times can you crowbar the words "moral" and "pragmatic" into a forum post?

Sounds to me like you've woken up one morning and thought "What the fuck am I doing in this shithole?" and now you're grasping at the only rationalisation within easy reach.

The fact that you constantly seek to justify yourself in these long-winded tracts suggests to me your that idealism is wearing thin and you're starting to realise just how much damage you've collectively done.

We sent our armies into Afghanistan and Iraq for "moral" reasons and in the process slaughtered a million innocents?

1. The words moral and pragmatic make up the theme of my post. They're the focus of the internal dialectic that I wrote. So, naturally I'll use them frequently. I use the words that fit, there's no reason to make readers break out a thesaurus just to show off my vocabulary
2. I write these 'long-winded' tracts as emails to friends at home. I cross post them here, since I have some friends on these boards as well (believe it or not). I'm trying not to convince myself, but convince the reader.
3. Afghanistan is not Iraq. We have had nowhere near a million deaths here - not even in the same order of magnitude.

sweetjesus wrote:why are sydney streets now flooded with afghan heroin? the first time in 100 years opium production has seen an increase.. 90% of the worlds heroin now comes from where you are and since the time you landed there it has been shown that afghanistan now makes 4 times the amount of heroin / opium that the entire planet consumes per year.

I'm surprised at the production = 4x consumption. Do you have a source on that? Anyways, the increase in Heroin production is an unintended negative consequence. That's what happened in the chaos that followed the fall of the Taliban. The blame there lies in not securing Afghanistan quickly enough; we deployed with too few troops. Certainly, US distraction in Iraq is to a great part to blame for that.

Machinesworking wrote:I can't resist this one..... So what he seems to be saying is that his position is either:

A- not moral

or

B- not pragmatic

because according to his own logic to have both a moral and pragmatic consideration on the same issue requires some sort of crazy whacky intellectual twisting of ones position.

You're missing my meaning. I'm saying that we need to address issues that are of pragmatic benefit only. But, when there are too many pragmatic courses of action (too many problems to solve), and we can't do them all, we choose amongst them by morally judging them; which of our pragmatic courses of action are morally justified? To what degree? On the other hand, for the vast majority of the Canadian anti-war crowd, they've started with one argument, abandoned it, and adopted another without even so much as a glance back. That implies desperate abandonment of lines of attack and yes, 'intellectual gymnastics'.

The Phat Conductor wrote:just don't kill anyone or you'll regret it later ok?

Depends on what you define 'kill'. The sniper who pulls a trigger certainly kills somebody. But does the artilleryman who enters coordinates kill somebody? What about the loader of a tank's cannon? Did the loadie who mounted the GBU-12 bomb on the aircraft kill somebody? What about the intelligence analyst who identifies a likely insurgent command node and passes that up the chain of command? Is he a killer once that location is targeted? What about the logistician who delivers the bullets to the infantry? Did he kill?

Ultimately, you could consider this 'aiding and abetting'. So, if you answer yest to the questions above, then I have killed a lot of Taliban. I sleep great at night, thanks.

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:01 am

If there were no bad people in the world, how would you know who the good people were?

No conservatives, then no liberals

we need people like MBreqs

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:06 am

djadonis206 wrote:If there were no bad people in the world, how would you know who the good people were?

No conservatives, then no liberals

we need people like MBreqs

and TITBAG.

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:22 am

Tone Deft wrote:
djadonis206 wrote:If there were no bad people in the world, how would you know who the good people were?

No conservatives, then no liberals

we need people like MBreqs
and TITBAG.

TITBAG, Stevie Wonder and Quincey Jones illegitimate gay love child

TITBAG!

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:27 am

where is that little fucker?

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:41 am

Tone Deft wrote:where is that little fucker?

somewhere other than here being

drum roll

TITBAG!

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:44 am

he really should have used an exclamation mark at the end of his name

carries more weight

TITBAG!

popslut · Post by **popslut** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:57 am

M. Bréqs wrote: Depends on what you define 'kill'. The sniper who pulls a trigger certainly kills somebody. But does the artilleryman who enters coordinates kill somebody? What about the loader of a tank's cannon? Did the loadie who mounted the GBU-12 bomb on the aircraft kill somebody? What about the intelligence analyst who identifies a likely insurgent command node and passes that up the chain of command? Is he a killer once that location is targeted? What about the logistician who delivers the bullets to the infantry? Did he kill?

Now that is what I call "intellectual gymnastics".

I define kill the same way the Oxford English Dictionary defines kill.

The OED wrote:
Kill v / v.tr
1.
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:
2. To put an end to; extinguish.

M. Bréqs wrote:Ultimately, you could consider this 'aiding and abetting'. So, if you answer yest to the questions above, then I have killed a lot of Taliban. I sleep great at night, thanks.

And, by definition, you've killed a lot of babies too. Sleep well.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:16 am

popslut wrote:Sleep well.

Are you content in hoping that the morally bankrupt would be eaten away by their conscience?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mvTNh-plY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooFnixBwBSo

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:53 am

M. Bréqs wrote:
Machinesworking wrote:I can't resist this one..... So what he seems to be saying is that his position is either:

A- not moral

or

B- not pragmatic

because according to his own logic to have both a moral and pragmatic consideration on the same issue requires some sort of crazy whacky intellectual twisting of ones position.
You're missing my meaning. I'm saying that we need to address issues that are of pragmatic benefit only. But, when there are too many pragmatic courses of action (too many problems to solve), and we can't do them all, we choose amongst them by morally judging them; which of our pragmatic courses of action are morally justified? To what degree? On the other hand, for the vast majority of the Canadian anti-war crowd, they've started with one argument, abandoned it, and adopted another without even so much as a glance back. That implies desperate abandonment of lines of attack and yes, 'intellectual gymnastics'.

Again, you and your "side" can have it both ways, you can assume to take the moral high road, ( Taliban is the enemy of western culture etc. ), then say that you're being pragmatic when you need to be. Yet if the opposing side does the exact same thing you call them out as waging mental gymnastics.

You cannot have it both ways, period. Your logic is flawed here, and no 25¢ word or mental gymnastics on your part can back you out of this corner you put yourself in. Good job!

...and yes, it shows how weak the argument for your position has become that I don't even have to argue the ethics etc. of the actual conflict, when you can't even keep your own attacks against your political "foes" from obvious hypocrisy.

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:55 am

popslut wrote:And, by definition, you've killed a lot of babies too.

Bullshit. Our Task Force has done no such thing. We don't target babies you ignorant twit. I won't discuss our Rules of Engagement on the internet, but the burden of proof is on the accuser (that's you, fucko). And don't worry, there's LOADS of ignorant ideologues trying to find 'evidence' that we're killing babies... And they're failing. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVE A FALSEHOOD.

Our collateral damage is almost nil! I can think of only one incident where a local national was wounded by a stray bullet in a firefight (and that guy's up on his feet again, thanks to our medical support), but I admit there may be another which I am not aware of. Regardless, it's fucking RARE. Your jaw would drop if you knew all the restrictions we have on engaging... But as I said, I can't post that shit on the internet, as we don't want our enemies to take advantage of our Rules of Engagement.

popslut wrote:Sleep well.

I do. I hope you don't sleep well, you fucking ingrate.