Current Events > "Please do not compare the US military to actual terrorists" - mods

(+) Yeah! (+)

The terrorists arent the military, it's the administration ordering them

---

Hexenherz posted...

I've been in for 13 years and have never even deployed or fired a weapon after boot camp, how are you going to sit there and say that me and people like me are terrorists -_-

If a publisher or accountant working for ISIS or Al-Qaeda has never done field work or fired a gun, are they not a terrorist?

---

Doe posted...

If a publisher or accountant working for ISIS or Al-Qaeda has never done field work or fired a gun, are they not a terrorist?

No?

---

Support the military that watch over us and allow us to not get bombed while we shitpost in the safety of our homes

---

Blue_Inigo posted...

The terrorists arent the military, it's the administration ordering them

It's not necessarily an either/or scenario here. Just ask the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

---

Duncanwii posted...

Yes yes, everything's a conspiracy with the people here isnt it.

funny you say that when you constantly try to fear monger with conspiracy theories

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

It's not necessarily an either/or scenario here. Just ask the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Those weren't official government sanctioned actions though and the people who committed those crimes were punished.

---

https://youtu.be/OyBNmecVtdU

---

General Soleimani was directly sanctioned by the UN security council in a unanimous vote in 2007 and by the EU in 2012 specifically for terrorist acts, yet people balk at calling him a terrorist.

Yet here CE is calling another user a terrorist for having gone through basic training.

---

BudDupree48 posted...

allow us to not get bombed

lol

---

Iranian GameFAQs probably says the exact opposite

---

Hexenherz posted...

Those weren't official government sanctioned actions though and the people who committed those crimes were punished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

---

shockthemonkey posted...

lmao

If they have done nothing to qualify under the specifications of a terrorist then they are, by definition, not a terrorist. Doing the bills for Al Qaida is no more a mark on you any more than a Lawyer representing a mob boss is.

---

Duncanwii posted...

If they have done nothing to qualify under the specifications of a terrorist then they are, by definition, not a terrorist. Doing the bills for Al Qaida is no more a mark on you any more than a Lawyer representing a mob boss is.

Tell that to the various people charge with aiding terrorism then for doing just that.

---

Funkydog posted...

Tell that to the various people charge with aiding terrorism then for doing just that.

Then whatever law that we used to charge them with is unjust and should be repealed.

---

ITT Duncan defending terrorism

---

EzeDoesIt posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Literally not relevant at all in this case.

In response to the events at Abu Ghraib, the United States Department of Defense removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty. Eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, these soldiers were court-martialed, convicted, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner and PFC Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten and three years in prison, respectively. Brigadier GeneralJanis Karpinski, the commanding officer of all detention facilities in Iraq, was reprimanded and demoted to the rank of colonel. Several more military personnel who were accused of perpetrating or authorizing the measures, including many of higher rank, were not prosecuted. President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apologized in 2004 for the Abu Ghraib abuses.

---

Duncanwii posted...

Then whatever law that we used to charge them with is unjust and should be repealed.

... Wait are you saying that aiding terrorists should be okay

---

Hexenherz posted...

Literally not relevant at all in this case.

I was simply saying something being an official government sanctioned action does not make it right.

---

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/

kunduz-hospital-bombing-us-knew-site-was-safe-from

-taliban-but-bombed-it-anyway-claims-msf-inquiry-a6723181.html

---

Duncanwii posted...

Then whatever law that we used to charge them with is unjust and should be repealed.

Or they could not aid fucking terrorists. Literal scum of the earth. "Doing the bills" of a terrorist organisation who burn people alive, keep women as sex slaves, make brutal torture videos and fucking bomb innocent people.

Is this really the type of person you want to defend, Duncan? The type of person who is okay working with that, who supports their aims to do this?

---

ModLogic posted...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/

kunduz-hospital-bombing-us-knew-site-was-safe-from

-taliban-but-bombed-it-anyway-claims-msf-inquiry-a6723181.html

Easier link to click on for mobile users like me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike

Wasnt there also another more recent case from 2019 where we needlessly bombed a hospital, as well? Like just within the last few months IIRC.

---

Who is a terrorist is a point of view.

---

MC_BatCommander posted...

... Wait are you saying that aiding terrorists should be okay

No. Just that doing the taxes of someone who happens to be a terrorist isnt aiding terrorism.

---

Blue_Inigo posted...

The terrorists arent the military, it's the administration ordering them

Truly tragic but

https://i.imgur.com/qcmcert.jpg
---

Mods please suspend Duncan for supporting terrorism thank you

---

EzeDoesIt posted...

I was simply saying something being an official government sanctioned action does not make it right.

And I was saying the abu ghraib abuse should not be used as a measure of whether or not the military is a terrorist organization, because it was *not* government sanctioned to begin with.

---

Funkydog posted...

Or they could not aid fucking terrorists. Literal scum of the earth. "Doing the bills" of a terrorist organisation who burn people alive, keep women as sex slaves, make brutal torture videos and fucking bomb innocent people.

Is this really the type of person you want to defend, Duncan? The type of person who is okay working with that, who supports their aims to do this?

I dont know. People in this very topic are trying to make a case that the US Military are terrorists and I'd be shocked if any of that were done by them.

---

Duncanwii posted...

No. Just that doing the taxes of someone who happens to be a terrorist isnt aiding terrorism.

Dude it absolutely is. If you do uncoerced work for someone you are aiding them.

---

Duncanwii posted...

I dont know. People in this very topic are trying to make a case that the US Military are terrorists and I'd be shocked if any of that were done by them.

Answer the question, and stop bringing up irrelevent things.

Are you okay with people supporting and aiding terrorism, which "doing their taxes" is as ensuring they are funded means they can go kill innocent people, rape their sex slaves and make their torture videos more effectively.

---

Duncanwii posted...

I dont know. People in this very topic are trying to make a case that the US Military are terrorists and I'd be shocked if any of that were done by them.

Burn people alive and bomb innocent civilians are a hard yes for US military. They torture people but just don't share the recordings if they do make them.

---

Funkydog posted...

Answer the question, and stop bringing up irrelevent things.

Are you okay with people supporting and aiding terrorism, which "doing their taxes" is as ensuring they are funded means they can go kill innocent people, rape their sex slaves and make their torture videos more effectively.

What if you do the taxes for our corrupt us government tho?

---

Funkydog posted...

Answer the question, and stop bringing up irrelevent things.

Are you okay with people supporting and aiding terrorism, which "doing their taxes" is as ensuring they are funded means they can go kill innocent people, rape their sex slaves and make their torture videos more effectively.

No. I do not think any of that is ok.

---

I'm only curious what "actual terrorist" is supposed to mean here.
---

Wow, this thread is bad.

---

All I know is America would NEVER stand for the treatment that America gives to other nations.


---

Bio1590 posted...

I'm only curious what "actual terrorist" is supposed to mean here.

You know

---

Bio1590 posted...

I'm only curious what "actual terrorist" is supposed to mean here.

Presumably people that actively attack civilian targets for the explicit purpose of spreading terror. A soldier deployed to a warzone for the explicit purpose of killing other soldiers that accidentally kills a civilian isn't the same thing. It's not the same as a guy shooting up a Baptist church or running a van through a Christmas bazaar.

---

Hexenherz posted...

And I was saying the abu ghraib abuse should not be used as a measure of whether or not the military is a terrorist organization, because it was *not* government sanctioned to begin with.

Ok sure, just pointing out that people have used the same defense in the past thinking that what they were doing was right because their government told them to who we now look at as terrorists and war criminals. Examples of what could probably be considered terrorism (bombing of hospitals with no hostile forces inside them, for example) have been listed elsewhere ITT.

---

Duncanwii posted...

Yeah! How dare an American web site not want to get sued because the people on it were calling the military terrorists.

You really are just the dumbest person

That Imperialism is no joke.

The current defenders use the same arguments as past defenders, but act offended when you point it out

---

Remember when those Apache pilots killed those Reuters reporters and civilians?

---

s0nicfan posted...

Presumably people that actively attack civilian targets for the explicit purpose of spreading terror. A soldier deployed to a warzone for the explicit purpose of killing other soldiers that accidentally kills a civilian isn't the same thing. It's not the same as a guy shooting up a Baptist church or running a van through a Christmas bazaar.

Eh, I find that subjective. Im guessing the innocent civilian probably felt terror as he was being gunned down. Remember, ISIS also thinks they are just soldiers being deployed in a war. Pretty much no one believes personally that they themselves are the bad side, always the good guys.

---

EzeDoesIt posted...

Eh, I find that subjective. Im guessing the innocent civilian probably felt terror as he was being gunned down. Remember, ISIS also thinks they are just soldiers being deployed in a war. Pretty much no one believes personally that they themselves are the bad side, always the good guys.

A civilian feeling terror "as he was being gunned down" does not make the attacker a terrorist.

ISIS literally beheads innocent non-combatants like journalists and aid workers from NGOs and sexually assaults and dehumanizes women.

It's not even the same planet and I don't know how any rational human being can try to draw such a comparison.

---

if you can't tell the difference between the american military and terrorist groups, it's a telling sign about you

---

If your tribalism keeps you from being objective, you're just blind still.
---

I'm seeing a lot of post pretty much going "they're just following orders".

Now where have I heard that before?

---