Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Hadji Girl" (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: "Hadji Girl"
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Even if the song is about a soldier being lured into an ambush by a girl, he glorifies grabbing her even younger sister, who may as well be a TODDLER and using her a human shield. This is despicable, and the crude mockery of Arabic that the song uses as a chorus qualifies as hate speech. This can be interpreted easily as trying to subvert the mission in Iraq. For those who think the song is harmless, why don't you buy yourself a plane ticket to Baghdad and sing it to every Iraqi you meet, and see what happens.
Hysterical whiners like you may feel "harmed" by these words, but no one in Iraq was "harmed" in any way shape or form by the singing of these lyrics. The irony is, they're not even hateful words. They're irreverent. Big difference.

As for it being "dispicable" to use a little girl as a human shield, I can think of tons of things in Hollywood movies that were as bad, but that were played for laughs. For instance, no one started a riot about the scene in Scary Movie when the old lady was thrown down the stairs at the killer. That's because everyone knows that it is a stupid movie and a stupid joke. This song is no different. Punish the soldier for "conduct unbecoming" or whatever, but don't give us this hysterical "hate speech" garbage. It's bad enough people like you have managed to get that trash in Canada's criminal code...

As for your challenge, I don't doubt that many people would become violent at hearing this song, just as many became violent at the sight (or in most cases, just the thought of) some cartoons. In both cases, it is the violent people who seemed to be doing the harm, not the words that so easily provoked them.

Your crude rhetoric and baseless insults aside, there is a difference between a piece of fictional media, and an open endorsement of killing small children by government officials armed with powerful weapons.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal-

You're letting your rhetoric get carried away with you. Take this for example:

quote:
This can be interpreted easily as trying to subvert the mission in Iraq.
It could certainly be interpreted that way, but only by a complete moron. I doubt anyone with half a brain believes this guy performed a silly song for his buddies in the hopes of "subverting" the mission in Iraq. For someone bearing the appelation of an ideology which often leads its adherents to flip the hell out whenever anyone claims they're subverting the war effort (regardless of whether or not they actually ARE doing so), you seem very fast to hurl the charge at someone when it's obviously baseless. This young man volunteered to serve this country, and he deserves better than that, no matter how distasteful you find his song.

quote:
Even if the song is about a soldier being lured into an ambush by a girl, he glorifies grabbing her even younger sister, who may as well be a TODDLER and using her a human shield.
He didn't glorify anything, and no mention of her age is made save that she's younger than Hadji Girl. If you think what this guy sang was horrible, that's fine. But honestly represent what HE sang, and don't put in a bunch of emotionally-laden garbage ("may as well be a TODDLER") that isn't there.

quote:
This is despicable, and the crude mockery of Arabic that the song uses as a chorus qualifies as hate speech.
Making fun of a LANGUAGE qualifies as HATE SPEECH to you? This is the kind of hyperbolic rubbish that makes me loathe the entire notion of "hate speech". You want to lump this song together with something you might hear at a KKK rally? It's absolutely insane.

quote:
For those who think the song is harmless, why don't you buy yourself a plane ticket to Baghdad and sing it to every Iraqi you meet, and see what happens.
Yes. In that alternate reality, I'm sure the song would be harmful. Here in the real world, however, the only tiny harm it's visited upon anyone has been caused by hysterical adherents of political correctness publicizing it and blowing it out of all proportion. But, frankly, it really hasn't caused very much harm at all.

Marines make jokes about people they're fighting during wartime? I'm shocked, shocked! It's not like that's ALWAYS happened in EVERY single conflict ever fought. When you take a low ranking enlisted man's joke song and try to pretend it's "open endorsement of killing small children by government officials", that's far more suggestive of subversive intent and questionable judgment than anything this kid sang.

Don't get me wrong; I can see how someone could be offended by this song. But don't pretend that it's something it's not in order to denounce it in stronger terms than it merits. We deal in reality here, and the ideological tint reflected in your post doesn't jive too well with that.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Marines make jokes about people they're fighting during wartime? I'm shocked, shocked! It's not like that's ALWAYS happened in EVERY single conflict ever fought.
This makes my point. Thank you.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Marines make jokes about people they're fighting during wartime? I'm shocked, shocked! It's not like that's ALWAYS happened in EVERY single conflict ever fought.
This makes my point. Thank you.
I'm so glad that police officers never make jokes about the people they pick up daily on the street. SAFE! *phew*
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Me, I'm not that naive. I'm just glad that police officers recognize how incredibly dumb it would be to put a small video of those jokes on the Internet.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Me, I'm not that naive. I'm just glad that police officers recognize how incredibly dumb it would be to put a small video of those jokes on the Internet.

So, as far as your concerned, no police officer has every posted a video of them doing or saying something of equal stupidity? And you've never heard of the T.V. show Cops?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So, as far as your concerned, no police officer has every posted a video of them doing or saying something of equal stupidity?
*laugh* More to the point, jav, I'd like to hear about a police officer who posted a video of themselves doing or saying something of equal stupidity and wasn't reprimanded.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, so it's okay, as long as they were reprimanded? Because my understanding of what you were saying is that this is a uniquely military thing that makes them less suited for their duty in Iraq then say, police officers.

I, of course, never said they shouldn't be reprimanded for doing idiotic things.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, I think you're being a little thick-headed.

Tom's use of the terms "peacekeeping" and "policing", I think, are not to be taken as direct references to officers of the LAPD, or any other PD for that matter.

He has not stated that criminal justice labor is needed in Iraq as opposed to military personell.

Your reducto ad absurdum would eventually conclude that robots make the best police officers and soldiers make the best murderers. That is hardly a fair view of Tom's argument.

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh, so it's okay, as long as they were reprimanded?
I submit that it's precisely because it's not okay that they are reprimanded.

quote:
Because my understanding of what you were saying is that this is a uniquely military thing that makes them less suited for their duty in Iraq then say, police officers.
I contend that this is a far more prevalent tendency in the military, and far, far harder to root out by virtue of the nature of the work done. There will always be outliers; I'd imagine there are chartered accountants who dehumanize enemy economists, perhaps calling them "trained monkeys" and writing semi-amusing raps about how they had to depreciate them right the hell OUT. But I strongly suspect that this is rarer in accounting than in a profession where the dehumanization of your opponent is a goal and requirement.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom - is my summation of your argument correct or not? That you feel that the job being served by our military in Iraq would be better served by policemen?

Is that correct or not? I need to understand whether I am being thickheaded or not.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That you feel that the job being served by our military in Iraq would be better served by policemen?
More precisely, I think our military is trying to do many jobs in Iraq, some of which are mutually exclusive, and this is requiring them to split their forces and their focus in unacceptable ways -- especially when they're also expected to win a contest of "hearts and minds."

A volunteer army, IMO, is horribly ill-equipped to even compete in the latter.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom - who, given the situation in Iraq, would be better in that role? Is there something we can do to make the soldiers there better for that role? Should we bring in a third party? If so, how do we do it?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those are all excellent questions. If I had confident answers, I'd be calling my representatives hourly.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I might join you on that one Tom.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Liberal-

You're letting your rhetoric get carried away with you. Take this for example:

quote:
This can be interpreted easily as trying to subvert the mission in Iraq.
It could certainly be interpreted that way, but only by a complete moron. I doubt anyone with half a brain believes this guy performed a silly song for his buddies in the hopes of "subverting" the mission in Iraq. For someone bearing the appelation of an ideology which often leads its adherents to flip the hell out whenever anyone claims they're subverting the war effort (regardless of whether or not they actually ARE doing so), you seem very fast to hurl the charge at someone when it's obviously baseless. This young man volunteered to serve this country, and he deserves better than that, no matter how distasteful you find his song.

quote:
Even if the song is about a soldier being lured into an ambush by a girl, he glorifies grabbing her even younger sister, who may as well be a TODDLER and using her a human shield.
He didn't glorify anything, and no mention of her age is made save that she's younger than Hadji Girl. If you think what this guy sang was horrible, that's fine. But honestly represent what HE sang, and don't put in a bunch of emotionally-laden garbage ("may as well be a TODDLER") that isn't there.

quote:
This is despicable, and the crude mockery of Arabic that the song uses as a chorus qualifies as hate speech.
Making fun of a LANGUAGE qualifies as HATE SPEECH to you? This is the kind of hyperbolic rubbish that makes me loathe the entire notion of "hate speech". You want to lump this song together with something you might hear at a KKK rally? It's absolutely insane.

quote:
For those who think the song is harmless, why don't you buy yourself a plane ticket to Baghdad and sing it to every Iraqi you meet, and see what happens.
Yes. In that alternate reality, I'm sure the song would be harmful. Here in the real world, however, the only tiny harm it's visited upon anyone has been caused by hysterical adherents of political correctness publicizing it and blowing it out of all proportion. But, frankly, it really hasn't caused very much harm at all.

Marines make jokes about people they're fighting during wartime? I'm shocked, shocked! It's not like that's ALWAYS happened in EVERY single conflict ever fought. When you take a low ranking enlisted man's joke song and try to pretend it's "open endorsement of killing small children by government officials", that's far more suggestive of subversive intent and questionable judgment than anything this kid sang.

Don't get me wrong; I can see how someone could be offended by this song. But don't pretend that it's something it's not in order to denounce it in stronger terms than it merits. We deal in reality here, and the ideological tint reflected in your post doesn't jive too well with that.

Any reason why "moron," "absolutely insane," or other rude figures of speech were used? I don't think they helped your argument, they only taught me to begin avoiding your posts...


As to your statement about the age of the human shield, you are incorrect, go back and read the song, it says

quote:
So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.
Now would be a good time to appologize for the heated and rude rhetoric and to admit you are wrong and accept that the song endorses child killing (he laughs maniacally about it).

I really don't care if Marines acted crudely in Vietnam or World War 2, why does that excuse their behavior now? That sounds like a bad argument to me.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And again we have to come in to request that the general level of hostility be dropped and the tone of the discussion elevated.

It is absolutely against the spirit and rules of Ornery to call other posters things like "hysterical whiner," regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their argument or tone. There are other borderline personalizations and sideswipes throughout this thread as well.

It's unclear what about this topic is making members so emotional that they cannot conduct themselves appropriately, but as I posted in another thread on Friday:

If you cannot participate responsibly in a thread, take a step back from the discussion rather than instigate or contribute to a deterioration of its tone.

There is an interesting question buried in all the stone-throwing here, and I'm sure everyone would like it to return to the forefront, unencumbered by personalization and baiting.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Any reason why "moron," "absolutely insane," or other rude figures of speech were used?
They were used because they were appropriate. Only a complete moron or a crazy conspiracy theorist could look at that song and say that the marine was making an attempt to subvert the mission in Iraq. Your contention that his song could be interpreted that way implied that said interpretation would be a reasonable one (whether or not you intended this implication I can't say).

I'd also point out that I never said anything rude to or about you in the course of my post. If you want to avoid my posts because I don't let misrepresentations fly and I call ridiculous statements out when I see them, that's entirely up to you.

quote:
As to your statement about the age of the human shield, you are incorrect, go back and read the song, it says
No, I'm not incorrect. Re-read my statement:

quote:
and no mention of her age is made save that she's younger than Hadji Girl.
and tell me how in the world that comes anywhere CLOSE to being "incorrect". The lyrics don't say that she's a baby or a toddler. They say that she's Hadji Girl's little sister. My little brother will be my little brother when he's 75; the term doesn't specify an age range.

If you're going to try to tell me that I don't have the facts straight, at least take a few seconds and look at them yourself. What I said was absolutely, factually true.

quote:
Now would be a good time to appologize for the heated and rude rhetoric and to admit you are wrong and accept that the song endorses child killing (he laughs maniacally about it).
I don't apologize, because nothing I said was at all rude. I thought the interpretation you offered was frankly moronic. You thought that my argument was "bad". I don't see why one's so much more offensive than the other; the only difference is extent. That difference in extent is justified.

There's NOTHING here to suggest that this kid, who volunteered to join the Marine Corps and is an active duty soldier, intended to subvert or undermine the mission in Iraq in ANY way. Despite that complete and utter lack of evidence, and despite the fact that his butt's on the line over there, you saw fit to throw that bizarre charge out there as a reasonable interpretation of his song.

That goes beyond "bad", beyond "unreasonable", and beyond "silly"; it enters a range of ridiculousness wherein one can only describe things so gently. If you think I'm wrong about that, demonstrate it and I'll be the first to concede the point. But your hurt feelings alone are wholly insufficient to prove a point or win an argument.

There are plenty of opinions with which I strongly disagree that are nevertheless eminently rational, realistic, and reasonable. The argument you've presented, coupled with and born of a demonstrated disregard for the facts, comes nowhere close, in my estimation, for the reasons listed above.

Edited to Add:

OM- If your comments be a response, in part or in whole, to anything I've written, I'd appreciate either a public or private explanation. I took great care to avoid conflicting with the Ornery rules as I understand them, and would appreciate guidance with respect to any point upon which our interpretations might differ in order that I might change future posts accordingly.

[ June 19, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I really don't care if Marines acted crudely in Vietnam or World War 2, why does that excuse their behavior now? That sounds like a bad argument to me.
The fact that these people are shooting bullets and RPGs at them on a daily basis excuses a certain amount of crudeness that would otherwise be much more offensive. If you don't see how or why, we lack a common, basic understanding and there's not much more to discuss on that point.

Edited to Add: And while I'm at it, how exactly does someone laughing "maniacally" at something constitute endoresement or glorification? "Maniacally" isn't exactly a complimentary term, from where I'm sitting.

[ June 19, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it curious how many people have not bothered to actually do any research on this before posting. For example several people have talked about his posting of the video on the internet without bothering to check if indeed it was him or his band that put the video up. In fact Cpl Belile was unaware that it was on the internet until after he had returned from Iraq and had it pointed out ot him. Several people have intimated that he was deliberately trying to offend Muslims by performing and releasing this song, but are aparently unaware that upon learning of the controversy stemming from it that he made a public apology to anyone who may have been offended, promised to not perform the song again, and exercised what control he could to get copies removed from the internet. All of this happend before this discussion was even begun on this forum, yet no one bothered to find out even that much. Some posters have suggested that Cpl Belile's song constitutes a representation of our military despite the fact that it was done during his off duty time at a recreation center on base.

All of that aside, this discussion has opened my eyes to some apparent attitudes of certain menmbers that took me by suprise. Apparently some posters on this thread think of our servicemembers as secondclass citizens who don't have the same rights as the rest of us. Now as the thread progressed some of those posters "clarified" their position so that now they aren't just talking about members of the military. Aparently speech is free only if someone isn't offended by it and once someone is offended by it the speaker should be punished.

Anyways, enough ranting on my part. I have to get back to work.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And you can back this up, Dave? Cause I see ranting, which if factual would be understandable. What I don't see are links.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The following gems are from Dave:
quote:
Should we look the other way while a branch of the military bows to pressure from an outside group to punish a Marine for expressing his first ammendment rights in the form of this song, whether it is insensitive to some people or not?
quote:
Is it appropriate for the Marines, or any other branch of the military to stomp on the first ammendment rights of one of its soldiers at the insitance of an outside agency such as CAIR?
quote:
Where has it been stated that soldiers give up their right to freedom of speech upon joining the military? I was in the military for six years, in fact I did exactly the same job as the Marine who wrote and performed "Hadji Girl", and I never gave up any of my rights as an American citizen. Try again.
quote:
Apparently some posters on this thread think of our servicemembers as secondclass citizens who don't have the same rights as the rest of us.
Dave, I think you are using inflammatory rhetoric to score points, here. It has been pointed out that members of the military have more limitations on their first amendment rights than civilians do. It's a fact that servicemen have fewer rights altogether. Here's a few examples:

From the UCMJ:
quote:
815. ART. 15. COMMANDING OFFICER'S NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

(b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial--

(1) upon officers of his command--
(A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days;
(B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command--
(i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive days;
(ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months;
(iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days;
(iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months;
(2) upon other personnel of his command--
(A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more than three consecutive days;
(B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive days;
(C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay;
(D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction;
(E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 consecutive days;
(F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days;
(G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay;
(H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant commander, or above--
(i) the punishment authorized under clause (A);
(ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive days;
(iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for two months;
(iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade, if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be reduced more than two pay grades;
(v) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 45 consecutive days;
(vi) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without suspension from duty, for not more than 60 consecutive days;
(vii) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay per month for three months.

There's the right to a trial.

quote:
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct....

891. ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct....

917. ART. 117. PROVOKING SPEECHES OR GESTURES
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct....

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces , and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

All of these are limits on free speech which are punishable by court marshal. If convicted of these crimes they could go to jail. I don't know about you, but disrespecting my boss will get me fired, but I will not be subject to arrest for it.

So please stop pretending that servicemen have the same rights as civilians, because they flat out do not. And let's not assume that people who understand that those in the military do not have the same rights as civilians view our servicemen as second class citizens.

If you think that military personnel should have the same rights as civilians, that is another point altogether, but implying they have the same rights and chastising those who know their rights are more limited come across as ignorant statements.

If you want to argue that the marine did not break any part of the UCMJ and therefore should not be punished, or that he has been scapegoated, then more power to you, but the premise that military servicemen have the exact same rights as civilians is patently ludicrous.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(patent pending)
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I HAD to guess the motivations of the Marine in question, I would guess that was he was goofing on was civilian impressions of Marines. I've got more than one Marine in my family, and grew up partying with them. War or not, they crack each other up playing the part of the demonized ruthless killer, or the stupid jarhead, to absolutely ridiculous extremes.

Parodying those perceptions is part of how they prove to themselves, and remind each other, that that is NOT who they are.

That doesn't mean they aren't subject to the UCMJ, or that they aren't responsible for allowing themselves to be videotaped.

Servicemen are permited to blow off steam, to cut lose, and to express themselves, but always with the understanding that they will not bring public shame upon their fellow service men.

From the Chiefs initiation ceremony-heard it Men of Honor, verified it with a friend of mine who made Chief shortly before the movie came out.

To the best of my recollection-


A Chief Petty Officer shall not get drunk.

If Chief Petty Officer does get drunk, he shall not fall down.

If a Chief Petty Officer does fall down, he will do so in a manner which obscures his rank, so that passers-by will mistake him for an officer.


This Marine messed up. He knows he messed up, which is why he appologized and tried to rectify his mistake.

It's not a sign of the appocalypse. It doesn't mean Marines are all a bunch of psychopathic killers. It was an error by a young Marine who has manned up and tried to correct it.

If his Command disciplines him, I'm not going to scream bloody murder that his rights are being violated. He signed his indenture contract.

I am not calling for his head, either.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse-

Sounds about right.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RickyB said:
quote:
And you can back this up, Dave? Cause I see ranting, which if factual would be understandable. What I don't see are links.
Ricky,

Part of my ranting has to do with the fact that a number of posters, apparently yourself as well, have been writing opinions on this topic without having done your research with regard to the topic. Are your fingers broke? Do you not know how to use Google? Maybe you don't like Google. Do you Yahoo? Perhaps you just need to Ask.

I'll start you off with a story in the Jacksonville Daily News, June 14 which is the local paper where Cpl Belile is stationed in North Carolina.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious whether you waited to post before you did the "necessary" research yourself, Dave. Based on what you've said in this thread, I find that highly unlikely.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
Any reason why "moron," "absolutely insane," or other rude figures of speech were used?
They were used because they were appropriate. Only a complete moron or a crazy conspiracy theorist could look at that song and say that the marine was making an attempt to subvert the mission in Iraq. Your contention that his song could be interpreted that way implied that said interpretation would be a reasonable one (whether or not you intended this implication I can't say).

I'd also point out that I never said anything rude to or about you in the course of my post. If you want to avoid my posts because I don't let misrepresentations fly and I call ridiculous statements out when I see them, that's entirely up to you.

quote:
As to your statement about the age of the human shield, you are incorrect, go back and read the song, it says
No, I'm not incorrect. Re-read my statement:

quote:
and no mention of her age is made save that she's younger than Hadji Girl.
and tell me how in the world that comes anywhere CLOSE to being "incorrect". The lyrics don't say that she's a baby or a toddler. They say that she's Hadji Girl's little sister. My little brother will be my little brother when he's 75; the term doesn't specify an age range.

If you're going to try to tell me that I don't have the facts straight, at least take a few seconds and look at them yourself. What I said was absolutely, factually true.

quote:
Now would be a good time to appologize for the heated and rude rhetoric and to admit you are wrong and accept that the song endorses child killing (he laughs maniacally about it).
I don't apologize, because nothing I said was at all rude. I thought the interpretation you offered was frankly moronic. You thought that my argument was "bad". I don't see why one's so much more offensive than the other; the only difference is extent. That difference in extent is justified.

There's NOTHING here to suggest that this kid, who volunteered to join the Marine Corps and is an active duty soldier, intended to subvert or undermine the mission in Iraq in ANY way. Despite that complete and utter lack of evidence, and despite the fact that his butt's on the line over there, you saw fit to throw that bizarre charge out there as a reasonable interpretation of his song.

That goes beyond "bad", beyond "unreasonable", and beyond "silly"; it enters a range of ridiculousness wherein one can only describe things so gently. If you think I'm wrong about that, demonstrate it and I'll be the first to concede the point. But your hurt feelings alone are wholly insufficient to prove a point or win an argument.

There are plenty of opinions with which I strongly disagree that are nevertheless eminently rational, realistic, and reasonable. The argument you've presented, coupled with and born of a demonstrated disregard for the facts, comes nowhere close, in my estimation, for the reasons listed above.

Edited to Add:

OM- If your comments be a response, in part or in whole, to anything I've written, I'd appreciate either a public or private explanation. I took great care to avoid conflicting with the Ornery rules as I understand them, and would appreciate guidance with respect to any point upon which our interpretations might differ in order that I might change future posts accordingly.

No, people besides "complete morons" might easily conclude the soldier is subverting the mission in Iraq, whether that is his purpose or not, especially since I didn't even establish a level.


As to the age, perhaps some definitions might help:
quote:
girl Audio pronunciation of "girl" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gûrl)
n.

1. A female child
2. An immature or inexperienced woman, especially a young woman.
3. A daughter: our youngest girl.
4. Informal. A grown woman: a night out with the girls.
5. A female who comes from or belongs to a particular place: a city girl.
6. Offensive. A female servant, such as a maid.
7. A female sweetheart: cadets escorting their girls to the ball.

The most commonly understood and widely used meaning of the word girl, especially when it is used more than once within the same passage to refer to the same person, is to signify someone below 18 years of age, and usually not a teenager either, they are referred to a "young woman," "teen," "young lady," etc.

Therefore we can assume at the very least that the repeated "Hadji Girl" is referring to a girl under the age of 18, which would make sense due to most of our troops in Iraq being close to the age of 18.

Now, do I really have to define "younger" or "little" or is it my turn to start throwing around the term "complete-moron?" [Roll Eyes]

Obviously the younger/little sister of a girl is a child, and easily a small child. Given the "maniacal laughter" and joy the soldier takes from their deaths, soldiers that embrace this song probably need a psychological profile and to be removed from access to weapons. It is not merely a case of a harmless bar-ditty.

[ June 19, 2006, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal -

Isn't it more likely that this definition fits?
quote:
7. A female sweetheart: cadets escorting their girls to the ball.
--Firedrake
Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Obviously the younger/little sister of a girl is a child, and easily a small child.

You know, statistically, the odds are better that she's around 14 if her sister is 18.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FiredrakeRAGE:
Liberal -

Isn't it more likely that this definition fits?
quote:
7. A female sweetheart: cadets escorting their girls to the ball.
--Firedrake
No, because that 2nd part isn't even a definition, that was a random example. The first part is the 7th definition and isn't used very commonly.

Tom, I would wager to bet that in Iraq, due to lack of access to healthcare, the age difference between children is larger because it takes womens' bodies longer to recover from each childbirth.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. But you freely admit that at this point you're dealing purely with hypothetical ages. If you want to be outraged, fine -- but why project your own worst-case scenario onto the lyric?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Sure. But you freely admit that at this point you're dealing purely with hypothetical ages. If you want to be outraged, fine -- but why project your own worst-case scenario onto the lyric?

No projection necessary, any "little sibling" of a child is a child. And the death of a child who, in our society doesn't constitute a threat usually, is considered infinitely worse than the death of a man holding a gun on you.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, people besides "complete morons" might easily conclude the soldier is subverting the mission in Iraq, whether that is his purpose or not, especially since I didn't even establish a level.
Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't leave you with any such escape hatch. I'll reproduce it for clarity's sake.

quote:
This can be interpreted easily as trying to subvert the mission in Iraq.
Everyone misspeaks, especially when passions run a bit high on the issues. I completely agree that this song can reasonably be seen as counterproductive. But to interpret it as this 23 year old marine TRYING to subvert the mission....do you see why I think that's ridiculous?

quote:
The most commonly understood and widely used meaning of the word girl, especially when it is used more than once within the same passage to refer to the same person, is to signify someone below 18 years of age, and usually not a teenager either, they are referred to a "young woman," "teen," "young lady," etc.

Therefore we can assume at the very least that the repeated "Hadji Girl" is referring to a girl under the age of 18, which would make sense due to most of our troops in Iraq being close to the age of 18.

This is reasonable, albeit still more likely than not incorrect, in my estimation. I'm fairly close in age to the Marine who wrote the song, and I refer to females around my age as "girls" more often than "ladies" or "women". So do the majority of my peers. If I were to say "I fell in love with a girl", she would almost certainly be older than 18. I'd bet the same's true in this case.

But regardless, I'd rather not get into a protracted argument about whether the song involves shooting a 18 year old or a toddler. I can't agree with your assertion that this is a very serious matter, however. Soldiers dehumanize the enemy during wartime; it's the only way for many of them to shoot someone during the daytime and get a good night's sleep. If stupid songs like this one help them do their jobs better, I don't mind them.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
No, people besides "complete morons" might easily conclude the soldier is subverting the mission in Iraq, whether that is his purpose or not, especially since I didn't even establish a level.
Unfortunately, your sentence doesn't leave you with any such escape hatch. I'll reproduce it for clarity's sake.

quote:
This can be interpreted easily as trying to subvert the mission in Iraq.
Everyone misspeaks, especially when passions run a bit high on the issues. I completely agree that this song can reasonably be seen as counterproductive. But to interpret it as this 23 year old marine TRYING to subvert the mission....do you see why I think that's ridiculous?

quote:
The most commonly understood and widely used meaning of the word girl, especially when it is used more than once within the same passage to refer to the same person, is to signify someone below 18 years of age, and usually not a teenager either, they are referred to a "young woman," "teen," "young lady," etc.

Therefore we can assume at the very least that the repeated "Hadji Girl" is referring to a girl under the age of 18, which would make sense due to most of our troops in Iraq being close to the age of 18.

This is reasonable, albeit still more likely than not incorrect, in my estimation. I'm fairly close in age to the Marine who wrote the song, and I refer to females around my age as "girls" more often than "ladies" or "women". So do the majority of my peers. If I were to say "I fell in love with a girl", she would almost certainly be older than 18. I'd bet the same's true in this case.

But regardless, I'd rather not get into a protracted argument about whether the song involves shooting a 18 year old or a toddler. I can't agree with your assertion that this is a very serious matter, however. Soldiers dehumanize the enemy during wartime; it's the only way for many of them to shoot someone during the daytime and get a good night's sleep. If stupid songs like this one help them do their jobs better, I don't mind them.

"trying to subvert the mission in Iraq was initially posted without a pronoun, and the action itself was what was referred to, it makes perfect sense.


Sorry, there is no need to dehumanize Iraqi children, because they are not the enemy! There might be a very FEW attacks that have been carried out by children, but nothing close to the scale where we need to start making them into one of our targets. That is truly unreasonable.

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone know what the meaning of the word is is?

It's been bugging me.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a Latin word meaning "to give with the intention of taking back." For example:

Somebody please is the popcorn.

Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave, I was commenting on what was known. People posted excerpts from news stories and I commented on those words. I don't go and do extensive research on every news story. If this guy had nothing to do with the posting of the song on the net, then he personally should not be punished. Telling soldiers not to engage in macabre humor/sarcasm is like telling the sun not to shine tomorrow.

However, someone posted this on the net, and that someone should be disciplined. Also the Marines may want to consider issuing an order to their men and women, to the effect that If you take a video of yourself and your buddies, that could make the military or the US look bad and hurt the war effort, then you're responsible for what happens with it.

Making up nasty songs and jokes - inevitable. Recording it on video - far less so. Posting it on the net - actionable stupidity

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tonylovern
Member
Member # 2580

 - posted      Profile for tonylovern   Email tonylovern   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
there are a whole lot of unanswered questions regarding the facts here.

central to the point, i think, is the question of intent. did he intend harm, malice, or publication? from what dave tells us, we can reasonably assume no on all 3 points.

as to who should be punished. was the person that published the video, an active serviceman? i would guess canadians 8 ball would fall back on "reply hazy".

also there are several questions regarding how this song affects people. is it dehumanizing, demoralizing, de-supporting the war effort.

answers vary, mine would be no. i dont see it as dehumanizing, i didnt read any line in the song, that descibed a behavior, that hasn't occured so often, that our soldiers are trained to deal with it. setting ambushes, and using enemy personell as shields are as human as eating with utensils.

it wasn't demoralizing. again, the song descibes no action that debases any character involved. everyone behaves in a predictable fashion. its predictable that enemy insurgents would attempt to lure lone off duty servicemen into ambushes. its predictable that some would fall for it. its predictable that a soldier would use whatever cover was available, when walking into an ambush. ignoring the stresses applied to and implied by the specific lyrics, seems to allow people to asign whatever motive they choose.

does this song damage the war effort? no. its widely known that our soldiers kill people, and civivlian casualties are expected when insurgents use them as bait in ambushes. there are no new reasons to be against the war here.

another question needs to be answered, for clarities sake.

the age of the human shield, while unclear, applying a dictonary definition is irrelevant, the most accurate estimation, would rely not, on dictionary definition so much as the soldiers usage. if she's old enough to be off of her mothers skirts, and used in an ambush, my assumption would be that she's not a toddler.

also i would ask questions to sate my own curiosity. what do the arabic lyrics mean, if anything?

is the situation described factual, or reliant on training?

and predominant, in my mind at least, why hasn't this side bar, from tomdavidson, and javelin,

quote:
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

posted June 19, 2006 11:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - who, given the situation in Iraq, would be better in that role? Is there something we can do to make the soldiers there better for that role? Should we bring in a third party? If so, how do we do it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7092 | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged |

TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

posted June 19, 2006 12:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all excellent questions. If I had confident answers, I'd be calling my representatives hourly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 8420 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

javelin
Member
Member # 1284

posted June 19, 2006 12:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I might join you on that one Tom.


spawned its own thread yet.

i can think of several organizations, the government could ask for help, from increasing red cross aid, to asking habitat for humanity, to start a couple of projects. both would go a long way to humanizing the war effort i think.

how about setting our combat engineers to building a hospital that gets donated to doctors without borders. i'm sure the collective intelligence of ornery can come up with a lot more than these. and i'm pretty sure that most of us dont feel that were doing enough on the hearts and minds issue.

Posts: 1045 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
also i would ask questions to sate my own curiosity. what do the arabic lyrics mean, if anything?
You know, I was reading your post with an increasing sense of "does this guy just not get it?" until this moment. And then I realized, "no, he doesn't."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1