This is topic "Hadji Girl" in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/8755.html

Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Stolen from the Misc thread, because I'M interested:

quote:
Originally posted by Omega M.:
Has anyone here heard about the "Hadji Girl" video, which was posted on youtube.com and "contains images of what is said to be a Marine in Iraq singing a song that seems to glorify killing an Iraqi young girl"? And apparently someone has claimed responsibility for it, though the Marines haven't charged him yet.

Well, that guy's life is over.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave at Work:
First off Omega M, have you read the lyrics to the entire song or have you only seen what is in the two links that you supplied? Have you looked at anything concerning this beyond the two links that you supplied? Are you aware that last year a group of servicemen stationed in Iraq started a rap group which got international praise for content considerably more offensive than the actual content of this video? Do you approve of having the first ammendment rights of American Servicemen stomped on by our military at the insistence of groups like CAIR? Are you comfortable with the double standard applied to these two different groups of servicemen for similar creative output? If you are actually interested in exploring the situation and discussing it start a thread on the subject and I will try to dig up some links to get you started.

Yes please!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It occurs to me that this is yet another reason why we shouldn't be using the military as police. They're just not capable of serving in a civil manner.
 
Posted by sfallmann (Member # 2148) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It occurs to me that this is yet another reason why we shouldn't be using the military as police. They're just not capable of serving in a civil manner.

So are you saying that a policeman would never have done that? Are you able to somehow prove that there is something that's intrinsic in a member of the armed forces that means they can't serve in a civil manner?

Maybe you mean something else by your comment, but I see it as nothing but a slander of our armed forces based solely on your low opinion of them.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
That's a lot of ass umption.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
sfallman - yes. It's not slander at all. If you ask a technician to do the work of a programer, it won't work either.

The entire orientation of the soldier and the policeman is totally different. That was one of the hugest failings of the "post-war" plan by the administration - that they didn't prepare for peace keeping.

I remember seeing a CNN clip from Baghdad on April 10th, 2003 (day after we took the city). there was a Marine there standing in the middle of a street with looters running all around him, shouting: "We're not peace keepers! They didn't train ux for this!!!" Was he slandering himself?
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Why would this incident be something that would separate a soldier from a cop? That sounds rather silly. Are we saying that a cop never says something stupid and/or demeaning about those he/she is serving?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
of course they do, but I think you'll agree that the training and mindset between the two types of forces are different in some important ways...
 
Posted by Gary (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sfallmann:

Maybe you mean something else by your comment [TomDavidson's comment that military personnel are not capable of serving in a civil manner], but I see it as nothing but a slander of our armed forces based solely on your low opinion of them.

I agree with sfallmann that this is a terrible insult to the honor and integrity of military men and women. Most are very capable, upstanding men and women serving with great honor and integrity in a difficult situation. Of course there are a few bad ones - there always is - but on the whole these guys are the best America has to offer.
quote:

The entire orientation of the soldier and the policeman is totally different. That was one of the hugest failings of the "post-war" plan by the administration - that they didn't prepare for peace keeping.

Yes, the orientation of military to police is different. Many police forces have a motto of "Protect and Serve" while the military is focused on killing people and breaking things. Anytime you put someone trained to destroy the eenemy in the role of peacekeeper, you're going to have problems. However, putting the military in the role of peacekeeper has become common - it seems to be the desired role liberals assign to the military. under Clinton, the military was used as peace keeping forces all over the world (e.g. Kosovo) with often disasterous results that led to even more bloodshed and loss of American prestige (e.g. Somalia and it's emboldening of Bin Laden/militant Islam). Blaming the Bush administration for following the same path as previous administrations is selective memory at best.

As for "Hadji Girl", you can see it performed here and these are the lyrics:
quote:
Hadji Girl
I was out in the sands of Iraq
And we were under attack
And I, well, I didn't know where to go.
And the first thing I could see was
Everybody's favorite Burger King
So I threw open the door and I hit the floor.
Then suddenly to my surprise
I looked up and I saw her eyes
And I knew it was love at first sight.
And she said

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.
And she said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I love you anyway.

Then she said that she wanted me to see.
She wanted me to meet her family
But I, well, I couldn't figure out how to say no.
Cause I don't speak Arabic.
So, she took me down an old dirt trail.
And she pulled up to a side shanty
And she threw open the door and I hit the floor.
Cause her brother and her father shouted

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
They pulled out their AKs so I could see
And they said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah

So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.
As the bullets began to fly
The blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacally
Then I hid behind the TV
And I locked and loaded my M-16
And I blew those little f***ers to eternity.
And I said

Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
They should have known they were f***ing with a Marine

Dave at work mentioned the rap lyrics that received praise last year, here are those lyrics:
quote:
I hear is momma cryin
But I still scream ****em
Unload my magazine on this buster
That’s how I say ****em
You know we don’t trust em

Let them all lie dead in a dirt bed
With a bullet in his head
Rest in peace to all my soldiers
Got a lot on my head

Now turn the combinations
To release my thoughts
Im fed up with all this
Save the word talk

Right heres were the ****em starts
And the piece stops
****em

If he aint got no food
****em

If he aint got no shoes
Cause I
Got everything to live for
He got nothing to lose… ****em

I know my thoughts are not fair
But im fighting for my country
And I, wonder sometimes
If my country even cares

But ****em

If he pull that trigger once
Man he’ll do it again
So when he ran out a bullets put the weapon down
He must a thought the violence was gon end

****em

Killem alls what my heart say
So my finger gladly replies
With a 5.56, or a 7.62
Right between his eyes ****em

5 to 55 (what) my bullets don’t discriminate
so if you think that im wrong
get me outta here
you can gladly take my place ****em

chorus
this is war round here
when we see um ****em
everybody on the streets
when we see um ****em

they callin cease fires
but they keep firin ****em
I got no love for them
Pussy niggaz here ****em

They trying to see us all dead over here ****em
But I aint trying to get bled over here ****em
They even look like they bout to do something
Lay em down put 50 rounds in they stomach ****em

V2
Started off kinda professional
But now this **** is personal
Niggaz learn when red crosses
And sirens come to they rescue

And its always getting serious
When hot barrels get pointed at you
Don’t give a **** about yalls lives
Now that im guarding mine more careful

Treat everyday just the like the first day
Examples can be made out you
And any day could be your last day
And experience wont help you

And I’ll be damned if im scared
Cause me runnin is not an issue
And just think
Somebody at the crib might miss you

Wish your wife and children
Wishin For you stepped they woulda kissed you
When all that be said is daddy died
Bein a damn fool

If you got nothing to lose
Take a chance when convoys ride thru
50 cals and 240’s
like 360’s and quarter miles dude

and its, always getting serious
just thought I would remind you
niggaz thought process delirious
not chancing what the next might do

and I still don’t think yall hearin
even though yall should find time to
you can love us and never hate us
and that’s the bottom line dude

v3
just puttem on the same block with me
im poppin off till all 7
of these magazines is empty
no, they will not get me

though they’ve come close to hittin me
so far they missed me
only managed to piss me off
now I react more quickly

and I will never lay down
nor will anybody with me
keep my boots laced up
tighter than ****… lets go

till we dead in the street
or its time to come home
yeah we don held down the block
4 mo****ers strong

and we don popped off a few times
new we was dead wrong
wish they’d let god judgem
cause my judgement is off

and though I try not to playem
they hand me his role
so in his image I judgem
****em they got to go

no I aint trying to be they jury
but this is all they’ll give me
so in return all I can givem
is a verdict of guilty

and carry out they sentence of death
for they kill me they self
they trying to dance with the devil
but I only dance by myself… ****em

"Hadji Girl" is clearly a spoof designed for humor and has mch less 'sensitive' content than the rap song. Why is one praised and the other maligned? Could race be a factor?
 
Posted by Haggis (Member # 2114) on :
 
quote:
Are we saying that a cop never says something stupid and/or demeaning about those he/she is serving?
No, they've just learned not to do it on camera. [Wink]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
There both bull****. But that's what you get when your army is made up of uneducated kids and commanded by an idiot puppet manipulated by corporations.

Jeez, force them to read one book written by a Vietnam Vet before they are allowed to join up. At least then they won't be so suprised when they realize that war is crap and nobody in the government cares about their lives.

KE

[ June 16, 2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Much ado about nothing, it seems. Yes, this week's song is juvenile - the musical equivalent of pulling at the corner of one's eyes and saying "ah so, me like flied lice" - but otherwise meaningless aside from showing just how sophomoric 22 year old soldiers can be.

As for the second song, except for the "expletives deleted" spicing things up, what exactly is the problem with it? OK, it's somewhat more political, but some of the meme's I would expect war apologists to approve of. For instance the whole "if you don't like what I'm doing here, why don't you come over and try your hand at it" thing...
 
Posted by Gary (Member # 1365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
There both bull****. But that's what you get when your army is made up of uneducated kids and commanded by an idiot puppet manipulated by corporations.

Whatever. [Roll Eyes]
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:

Jeez, force them to read one book written by a Vietnam Vet before they are allowed to join up. At least then they won't be so suprised when they realize that war is crap and nobody in the government cares about their lives.

Clearly you've never been in the military or spent much time with someone who was in the military. You should read the book "Jarhead" before you give that kind of advice. There is a very good part where the author talks about books and movies on Viet Nam and the effect it has on military personnel - particularly those that will be doing the fighting.

The author compares it to pornography for the effect and emotion it evokes in the marines that watch war movies or read the books, particularly Viet Nam era stories. They love it and literally eat it up. Someone following your advice is more likely to rush into his recruiter's arms even faster than without such advice.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
of course they do, but I think you'll agree that the training and mindset between the two types of forces are different in some important ways...

If that had anything, really, to do with what Tom D had said, I'd have been with ya. [Smile] Unfortunately, Tom's argument is apparently that soldiers are crude, rude and shouldn't be seen in polite company, and that we'd be better off to have our spiffy policeman from say, Los Angeles, dusting off their six shooters and moosey-ing into Bagdad.

[ June 16, 2006, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Not to troll, but the song -is- pretty funny.

When you deal with death, you get rid of some of the stress through humor. In this case, the Marine had the poor judgement to let his humor be caught on film.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Sorry, I got bogged down at work.I only have a few minutes before I have to get going again but I will be back to comment and possibly provide some links later.

The post by Omega that I originally commented on which I think Javelin quoted in the top post as well.

quote:
Has anyone here heard about the "Hadji Girl" video, which was posted on youtube.com and "contains images of what is said to be a Marine in Iraq singing a song that seems to glorify killing an Iraqi young girl"? And apparently someone has claimed responsibility for it, though the Marines haven't charged him yet.

Well, that guy's life is over.

It seems to me, though I may be reading Omega's words wrong that Omega is condemning this Marine's song and feels that his should be over. While I doubt this is the case Omega could be saying that it is a pity that his life might be over because of this. Regardless or whether my initial interpretation was correct or not this situation brings up things which needs to be discussed, some of which I touched on in my initial response on the Miscellaneous thread.

I initially asked if Omega had read the lyrics to the entire song or just what was quoted in the links that she provided and if she(?) had researched at all beyong what was in those two links because those links didn't give the whole story. Are we really going to condemn someone based on less than half of the facts without looking for the whole truth first?

What about the double standard implicit in holding the arguably offensive lyrics in some of the songs by one group of servicemen up for praise while roundly criticizing the arguably offensive lyrics of another serviceman and calling for his punishment?

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?

While it can be argued that the song is insensitive, it only takes a short look at the CAIR press release to see that they have taken the quote out of context and twisted its meaning in order to create this controversy. If it was indeed this controversial wouldn't it have come to light in the months that it had been on the web before now? If you listen to the song as performed it is clear that it is intended as comedy which is clearly not what CAIR would have us believe.

I have to get going, but I will be back to add to more comments and read more.

Thanks Gary for posting the lyrics so that I don't have to go find them again.

[ June 16, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Great Gary. But you miss the point. At least they wouldn't be shocked and surprised (As seems to be the case with this marine judging by the songs lyrics.) when it doesn't turn out to be a vacation or the glorious adventure the recruiters sold to them. (As the recruiter tried to sell to my son and his Advanced-and-Gifted (that's what they call it) classmates. Talk about fishing in the wrong pond.)

And yes, clearly I've never been in the service. I've never thought the idea of giving someone complete control over my life sounded like a good idea. (All that damn reading and thinking for myself.) And although I have had a lot of military and law-enforcement friends (I'd grown up wanting to be a cop like my dad. So much for "clearly". Clearly you can't know anything about somebody by reading one post. Not that we are supposed to discuss posters education, qualifications, or motives. [Roll Eyes] ), by the time I was an adult I'd learned enough to know that those professions are not the glorious honorable adventures they are often portrayed to be.

And if reading a Vietnam War book gives you a hard-on and makes you want to go fight in a war like that then you are already ****ed-up, and more power to you (even the guys that were there had to be forced to go). Better you than my son. Now watching Audie Murphy and John Wayne fight evil in WWII I can see, or even the bull**** version of Vietnam John Wayne did in "The Green Berets", but not after reading "American Boys" (The movie version of which was "Full Metal Jacket"). But, like I said; my point is this kid seems surprised by all the disillusioning **** that war turns out to be, and he wouldn't have been so surprised if he'd ever read a book or studied war or the history of same. [Roll Eyes]

KE

[ June 17, 2006, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
To insist that it is an insult to say that the lauded US Marines are not trained nor equipped nor selected for performing a very specific, very specialized task is stupid beyond words. I'm sorry, but it is.

Fighting against a regular armoy is one thing, fighting against a guerrila insurgency is a different thing, and being a police/peacekeeping force is different from both of those - even more than they differ from each other, which they do quite a bit.

Not only is stupid to say that pointing this out is dengirating to anyone, it has an insidious effect on discourse. If we can't even suggest that personnel A is not suited to task X, then there's no point in any kind of study of the military endeavor. Close down West Point, Annapolis, whatever they call the Air Force equivalent and send home the many thousnds of military history experts we have on the payroll. Stop all the war-gaming, too. After all, you never know what conclusions you might draw. Why even go there?

So enough with the damn bleating. You can contend that Marines are too suited to the task of peacekeeping, but don't try to shut us up by playing the "you don't respect our troops" card. We're sick and tired of the demonizing demagoguery already.

[ June 17, 2006, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
Well **** me running with a barge pole, people working in stressful jobs often develop a tasteless sense of humour about it. WHO WOULD'VE THUNK?

Seriously, if folks are gonna criticise the behavior of soldiers, aren't there infinitely more important things to lose sleep over than whether a bunch of idiots are making up offensive songs in their time off?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Unfortunately, Tom's argument is apparently that soldiers are crude, rude and shouldn't be seen in polite company...
No.
My argument is that soldiers, by virtue of the work they do -- which is not, by definition, civilian work, and thus not civil work -- are woefully ill-suited to the role of police.

The role of a soldier inherently trains him to identify enemies and to dehumanize them (as this song does). While we can -- as we do with police -- attempt to train soldiers to reduce the incidence of this perfectly natural phenomenon, the simple fact is that soldiers are not servants of the people they may be assigned to "police" in instances like these. They are intrinsically further removed from the people they may be called upon to kill than are the police, and their training does not (and should not) focus as strongly on dealing with moral and ethical issues related to civilian peacekeeping.

This makes them VERY bad peacekeepers. Bluntly, they suck at it.

And songs like this are an EXCELLENT example of why. If you check that guy's MySpace site, you'll see other perfectly good examples of why he and his friends should not be attempting to bring "peace" to anything.

Our soldiers bring the sword, and they're good at it. Sadly, I think it's asking a bit much of them to expect that they also respect the people they're being asked to kill, and who are trying to kill them.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
It's a stupid song. It indicates nothing about the suitability of marines as peacekeepers, and signifies nothing about the work being done by the military in Iraq.

What this amounts to is fodder for CNN and the water cooler. To pretend that it has more significance than that is just stupid.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
The more I think about your post the stupidier it gets, Gary. You're right, they are better off uneducated about what they are getting into. [Roll Eyes] And

quote:
The author compares it to pornography for the effect and emotion it evokes in the marines
Man, when you misunderstand something you really do it up right. I was talking about kids reading about war BEFORE they join. Big surprise that after they are already in and have been indoctrinated that they are gung-ho.

And "Whatever"? That's bloody brilliant! Why bother to quote what I said if that is all you've got? Truly well thought out response. How can the claims I made stand in the face of such powerful prose and evidence? Even if you had been talking about the right people [Frown] siting the opinion of one all-knowing "author" does not constitute proof.

KE

[ June 17, 2006, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
The song proves nothing. It's not about the song. Gary and someone else said that to say that marines are unfit as peacekeepers is degrading.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
quote:
but on the whole these guys are the best America has to offer.

What a sad ambigous lie. In what respect are they "the best America has to offer"?

KE
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Gary and someone else said that to say that marines are unfit as peacekeepers is degrading.
Why?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Don't ask me. They said it. I debunked it. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Adam Lassek (Member # 1514) on :
 
quote:
There both bull****. But that's what you get when your army is made up of uneducated kids and commanded by an idiot puppet manipulated by corporations.
Wow, I feel like I just wandered onto DU by accident. You know perfectly well that statement is entirely indefensible.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
You wish. I wish. It's defensible because it's true. [Frown]

KE

[ June 17, 2006, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
TomDavidson:

quote:
quote:

Gary and someone else said that to say that marines are unfit as peacekeepers is degrading.

Why?
Here's my attempt to answer your "Why" question. Here's your original statement:

quote:
It occurs to me that this is yet another reason why we shouldn't be using the military as police. They're just not capable of serving in a civil manner.
You've clarified your original statement, and it's hard to argue with your point that "military" and "police" are not the same thing and we shouldn't expect them to do the same jobs with equal success.

I don't think this point was the problem. There are a couple of possible reasons why your orignial statement raised some ire.

1. In this context you seem to be using the stupid song as an example of the character/abilities of the military as a whole. I acknowledge your point about the military as bad peacekeepers, but this song says nothing about the military in general, so why make your point in this context? Seems snarky.


2. "They're just not capable of serving in a civil manner." ...reads like a character judgment against all these men and women. I know what you meant, you've restated and expanded on it, and don't disagree with the idea, but the way you put it originally made it sound like the military is generally bad people.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Now that that tangent seems to have run its course how about discussing the original issue of this thread?

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?

If so should it make it up as it goes along or should it develop a consistent standard?

Shouldn't both the military and the mainstream media take a little time to do some fact checking before regurgitating the press release of an organization like CAIR?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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...

Absolutely, in the same way it'd be appropriate for my employer to fire me if I started releasing rap records that slandered Jews.

Soldiers have their First Amendment rights abrogated all the time, anyway. *shrug*
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I'm with Tom. It's very hard to deny that this is NOT the message the US government wants or needs any of its official representatives to come across to anyone nowadays. Like TD says, military personnel have their first amendment rights restricted all the time, as a matter of course, far more than is legal for any other employee - including civilian branches of the government. This is not some new standard.

As for CAIR - who raised the issue is irrelevant once the complaint itself is found to have merit. Are the Marines who released these songs awful people? No. (at least, not baed on this).

However, there's a difference between having a subculture amongst ones peers and actively disseminating offensive material.

See, if it was some journalist spending some time with the marines and reporting "and you know what they sing to each other??? These awful, awful songs" - then I would say "leave them alone already". Like in Farenheit 9-11, Moore shows GI's singing "We don't need no water, let the motherfocker burn", and walking aroung with "Born to Kill" on their helmets. Do I like this? No. Is it actionable? Not really.

But choosing to upload stuff to myspace and such, is choosing to actively push these expressions to the general attnetion of the public, and the government can most definitely tell its soldiers not to do that. It does it all the time. Try to interview a GI without getting specific clearance to.
 
Posted by Koner (Member # 1390) on :
 
quote:
I had a pretty girl

She's in the hospital

One day I played a joke

Pulled the plug to watch her choke!

Imagine 80 guys running in lock step shouting that cadence at the top of their lungs. The above is just one example of a cadence that my entire boot camp company ran to several years back. And that one is incredibly tame compared to some of the stuff we sang as we ran.

This whole "song" issue is nothing more than someone trying to force their vision of "morality" or "political correctness" on everyone around them. People need to lighten up and let young soldiers be young and dumb. I would much rather listen to 1000 songs like "Hadji Girl" then see one picture of "tortured" prisoners, or see one report about masacres at Haditha. Is his choice of song lyric politically correct? Certainly not but its not nearly as bad as a lot of the crap that you see on MTV everyday.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
People need to lighten up and let young soldiers be young and dumb.
Why? Is it your contention that by being young and dumb through song, they are made LESS young and dumb in action?
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
TomDavidson -

I would say so, yes.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I wish that were the case. But the thing is, "outlets" don't actually WORK in most cases; for all that it's a common phrase, people don't REALLY go and "blow off some steam" and "get it out of their system."

Such things tend to REMAIN in the system, rather than being cathartic releases.
 
Posted by Koner (Member # 1390) on :
 
quote:
Why? Is it your contention that by being young and dumb through song, they are made LESS young and dumb in action?
It is my contention that it is far far better to be young in dumb by writing politically incorrect songs than it is to be young and dumb and actually carrying out the lyrics they sing.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
"As a man thinketh, so is he"
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
"The ability to juggle many tasks will take you far."
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
"Reply hazy, try again."
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
OK, Is anyone really arguing that the US government shouldn't be able to tell its soldiers not to do these things if it finds them bad for the war effort?

Please answer the question and nothing but the question. Thanks.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
But Koner, these are the "best America has to offer". Singing cadence is not the same as releasing songs to the public. It actually hurts the war effort.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
But Koner, these are the "best America has to offer". Singing cadence is not the same as releasing songs to the public. It actually hurts the war effort. Hard to win hearts and minds with songs like that being sung by our soldiers.

KE
 
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 2910) on :
 
While I personally wouldn't have sung such a song I don't know why it anyone would expect a soldier to be politically correct. They are over there risking their lives on a regular basis... I am not going to pass judgment on this guys intentions.

I seem to remember some insensitive things coming out of the mouths of some of our leaders during the funerals of some of their colleagues.

Humans sometimes say and do inappropriate things. What is new?
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
Does free speech apply to everyone or not?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
No. It has already been stated that soldiers give up their right to freedom of speech upon joining the military. And if we hope to prevail in Iraq and win back the respect of the world our leaders military and civil should condemn and forbid such hateful songs.

KE
 
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 2910) on :
 
"win back the respect of the world"

Hahahaha... that is so funny. What does it matter if we want the world to respects us? Do you think that they are going to change their beliefs because we stop singing songs?

Respect is not a quality that everyone has and they are not going to attain it by anything we do or do not do.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
No. It has already been stated that soldiers give up their right to freedom of speech upon joining the military. And if we hope to prevail in Iraq and win back the respect of the world our leaders military and civil should condemn and forbid such hateful songs.

KE

Bull****!

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.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Bullf*ck?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
I don't have a problem with people wanting the soldiers disciplined or fired or whatever for publicizing that song. But for people to actually attach significance to it, beyond its political ramifications... it's just moronic.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
You were blind if you didn't perceive that you did. Did you not swear to follow your superiors orders? And if ordered so wouldn't it have been your duty to remain speechless? Who can order an American citizen to do such things? No one. That is how you gave up your right to free speech. Not only that you gave away your freedom, and free will. But curse at me again and I shall withdraw the truth. [Roll Eyes]

KE
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
You were blind if you didn't perceive that you did. Did you not swear to follow your superiors orders? And if ordered so wouldn't it have been your duty to remain speechless? Who can order an American citizen to do such things? No one. That is how you gave up your right to free speech. Not only that you gave away your freedom, and free will. But curse at me again and I shall withdraw the truth. [Roll Eyes]

KE

That is not an unconditional surrender of free speech.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Who said "unconditional"?

KE
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
While I personally wouldn't have sung such a song I don't know why it anyone would expect a soldier to be politically correct.
I don't. That's why I don't think they should play at being police.

quote:

Where has it been stated that soldiers give up their right to freedom of speech upon joining the military?

You ever try insulting the president? Or even criticizing your nation's policies in writing while still serving? Those two, just as an example, are expressly forbidden.
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Who said "unconditional"?

KE

Then unless he was ordered to he had every right to sing that song?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Yes. But he should be ordered not to sing such songs in the future.

KE
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Yes. But he should be ordered not to sing such songs in the future.

KE

K Thanks Buh-Bye [Wink]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

Then unless he was ordered to he had every right to sing that song?

It depends on how you classify a "right." You can put a fairly wide interpretation on "conduct unbecoming," for example. Soldiers have very few "rights" for which they can not be dismissed for exercising at the discretion of their commanders.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seanbear:
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Yes. But he should be ordered not to sing such songs in the future.

KE

K Thanks Buh-Bye [Wink]
What's the problem? While serving in the military, representing and fighting for the ideals of the nation, is it too much to ask that soldiers comport themselves with a little dignity and pride in the uniform they wear?

Those who can't do it out of good common sense should definitely be ordered to do so.

Does anyone really have a problem with that?
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
What ideal is that dont fire on a kid with a grenade?
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
Am I wrong or is this song about being led into an ambush by a little girl?

[ June 18, 2006, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: seanbear ]
 
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 2910) on :
 
What's the problem? While serving in the --------, (please feel free to fill in the blank with... clergy, government, education field, media etc.) representing and fighting for the ideals of the organizations they represent, is it too much to ask that they comport themselves with a little dignity and pride in the position they hold?

Those who can't do it out of good common sense should definitely be ordered to do so.

Does anyone really have a problem with that?
-------------------------------------------------
Do you want to start policing every church, school and television station or are you just anti-military?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Who is anti-military? I for one just ask that they represent our country with honor and dignity. Now what I'd have done with churches...

KE
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Yes, that's exactly what I want, because serving in the clergy is exactly the same as serving in the military during a critical war.

Is this conversation for real? I'm bowing out.

Anti-military?

Please, just stop embarrassing both of us.

[ June 18, 2006, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]
 
Posted by seanbear (Member # 2911) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Who is anti-military? I for one just ask that they represent our country with honor and dignity. Now what I'd have done with churches...

KE

How is writing a song about being led into an ambush by a little girl hateful??
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I had to go back, Canadian, and reread your post to make sure I didn't misread it the first time. Clergy and media do not represent our country.

KE
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
TomDavidson -

They're not playing at being police. They're playing at being an occupying force in a time of war. If anything, ordinary police would be less effective in these instances.

With regard to political correctness - I agree that 'hearts and minds' should be a task here. I do not, however, think that this song will have any major effect on anything.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Even if she was leading them into ambush it is an irreverent song and hardly the acts of an honorable man to grab a little girl and use her as a shield while glorying in the little girls death and killing a family in their own home. Plus it paints a picture of Iraqis hating Americans. It also belittles Iraqis and is irreverant of them, their culture, and language. The...song...is altogether childish and unbecoming of an American soldier.

Winkie, since you are new I must inform you that it is considered bad form to put words in another members mouths. The same can be said about arguing against an argument not put forth in order to ignore or obscure the argument made.

KE
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
I had to go back, Canadian, and reread your post to make sure I didn't misread it the first time. Clergy and media do not represent our country.

KE

yeah...you know I was being sarcastic, right?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
An "occupying force"? Is that what they are? I've never heard that, but then I only watch Fox News.

KE
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Did someone post a link at Freep?

If this soldiers superiors feel that it's appropriate to discipline him for making a public statement of this nature, which is what he did once he posted it on-line, I don't see where they're stepping on any of his rights.

Active Duty personel can't go to anti-war rallies, or make public statements that insult the President, or overtly undermine morale. They can be disciplined for doing any of these things.

I think it's pretty horrific to joke about plugging an un-armed little girl between the eyes. I also think it's pretty horrific to joke about a severed hand sitting in a bucket of KFC, something I've seen some rather fine Americans do (EMTs).

The difference is, those guys didn't record that and post it on a myspace profile to try to show people how cool they were. It was the black humor of survival.

What's funny to me is, as bad as those rap songs were, none of them called anyone a "hadji", or implied that they were bah-bah-arians.

Those rap songs would still be innapropriate for men currently serving to release. You don't get to moonlight at will when you sign your indenture contract.

canadian-Magic 8 Balls are always funny.

[ June 18, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Yes, Candian.

KE

[ June 18, 2006, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
KnightEnder -

Some Iraqis probably do not like US troops. It's not glorifying 'killing a family in their own home', it is glorifying a Marine adapting to unexpected circumstances. The song was amusing. The song glorified the corps, and mocked the enemy - Iraqis that attack US Marines are the enemy.

It is childish. Even though it is slightly humorous, it is still moderately stupid. As I noted on the first page, one reaction to stress is dark humor. Most of it is childish, or at least irreverent - the key is to not let the victims (or in this case anyone beyond the Marines) hear you making 'humorous' statements.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 2910) on :
 
Canadian...

I was talking about "ordering" people not to sing songs that may or may not be offensive..

So how could someone implement that order? By policing? With a law? With a constitutional amendment?

If people are freely willing to order people not to do something because they may be harming the organization they are representing. Well... then why stop at the Military?

Lets just ban all offensive songs and while we are at it... lets ban all forms of speech that offends us.

Or are you just going to stop with the Military?

You hating hater who loves to hate the Military. [Big Grin]

[ June 18, 2006, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: winkey151 ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
lol [Smile]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
winkey151 said:
quote:
If people are freely willing to order people not to do something because they may be harming the organization they are representing. Well... then why stop at the Military?
To a point, we do not stop at the military. If you're acting as the representative of a company, and you do something that reflects badly on that company, it could result in the loss of your job and potential civil actions.

I do not believe that (brown t-shirt notwithstanding), the Marine was acting as a representative of the United States government. I've seen too few facts to make a real determination though.

--Firedrake
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.

[ June 19, 2006, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by winkey151 (Member # 2910) on :
 
FiredrakeRAGE says:
"I do not believe that (brown t-shirt notwithstanding), the Marine was acting as a representative of the United States government. I've seen too few facts to make a real determination though."

Nor do I... Point taken.
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I do not believe that (brown t-shirt notwithstanding), the Marine was acting as a representative of the United States government.
As I understand it, he's an active duty Marine currently serving in Iraq. Tell me that one again.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
FDR, he's an active soldier. He's talking specifically about actions taken WHILE ON DUTY, in the course of executing orders. How is this NOT a representative of the US?

If an employee at a certain restaurant publishes a song about how he pisses in the food while working in the kitchen, you don't think the restaurant has a right to say "um, that reflects very badly on us and directly damages our interests. We're gonna have to insist that you never do that again"?
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
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*
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JohnLocke (Member # 68) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Those are all excellent questions. If I had confident answers, I'd be calling my representatives hourly.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
I might join you on that one Tom.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by OrneryMod (Member # 977) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
And you can back this up, Dave? Cause I see ranting, which if factual would be understandable. What I don't see are links.
 
Posted by Haggis (Member # 2114) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
(patent pending)
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
Jesse-

Sounds about right.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by FiredrakeRAGE (Member # 1224) on :
 
Liberal -

Isn't it more likely that this definition fits?
quote:
7. A female sweetheart: cadets escorting their girls to the ball.
--Firedrake
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Paladine (Member # 1932) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Does anyone know what the meaning of the word is is?

It's been bugging me.
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
It's a Latin word meaning "to give with the intention of taking back." For example:

Somebody please is the popcorn.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
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
 
Posted by tonylovern (Member # 2580) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by tonylovern (Member # 2580) on :
 
enlighten me, what did i miss? if you would be so kind.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
tonylovern - welcome back! Long time, no see.
 
Posted by tonylovern (Member # 2580) on :
 
thank you, its nice to be back, its always good to realize how wrong i am. humility being good for the soul and all.

i have been lightly lurking, maybe an hour or 2 a week spent reading. today however i took off work. so i may have time to participate in one whole thread.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Sweet! Well, feel free to ignore our local carmudgeon. [Smile]

I think there's a translation for the arabic words in one of the earlier posts.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Tony,

The arabic words are a direct quote of a line from the movie "Team America: World Police". Reading some of the articles and commentary on the internet would let you know that he started with that quote and wrote the rest of the song around it.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
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.
On the basics of the story, yes, I had read a considerable amount from various points of view well before Omega made her comment on the Miscellaneous thread which spawned this thread. On some of the side topics perhaps I have let my emotions drive my thoughts. In particular on the topic of first ammendment rights where our servicemembers are concerned, I did specifically ask ask if people thought that they should have their first amendment rights protected, not whether they were. I did not look up what the UCMJ articles concerning the subject were, though I know there are some, but they don't relate directly on my question concerning whether they should be protected.

I have been extremely busy with work and non-work stuff and have not been able to spend as much time here as I would like and have tended to respond quickly and emotionally and probably incompletely when I have taken the time to react at all on this thread.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
I don't go and do extensive research on every news story.
Ricky,

Sorry, it seems that you always have research at your fingertips or are asking for links to help you research something, which is why this statement surprises me. I don't read every thread on this forum though, so I suppose that I could have a skewed perspective.
 
Posted by tonylovern (Member # 2580) on :
 
alrighty, for some reason i've never seen that movie, or been interested enough to look it up. not that i've had much time for that lately, not on dial up. damn my missed pop culture references.

i suppose i should look it up now, though i doubt it will change my opinion as to how serious a transgression this is.
 
Posted by Adam Lassek (Member # 1514) on :
 
quote:
This is despicable, and the crude mockery of Arabic that the song uses as a chorus qualifies as hate speech.
quote:
also i would ask questions to sate my own curiosity. what do the arabic lyrics mean, if anything?
Has nobody in this thread seen Team America?

EDIT: I see Dave beat me to it. At least I'm not the only one who got the reference.

[ June 20, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Adam Lassek ]
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
The Marine in question admits he made a mistake.

If a videotape of a servicemen having sex is widely distributed, he can be dishonorably discharged. It doesn't matter if he distributed it, although it does matter if he was aware the tape was being made.

Those who don't understand why this Marine is responsible for his actions, and why he believes himself to be, and why he has expressed remorse we can only assume to be genuine .... really don't get it.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Dave - I try to do research, especially on important things, but when I read a story like this, I don't necessarily google it till I'm an expert. I appreciate the link you provided and improved my opinion of this particular Marine enormously, and despite Jesse very true words, I hope he specifically gets treated with leniency. However, the moron who uploaded the sing should be dishonorably discharged.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1