OT: Free speech?
 

This is a perfect example of someone exercising their right to free speech. I just hope for his sake that no one who lives near him finds out his physical address.


********WARNING: VERY CONTROVERSIAL LINK*********

No nudity or profanity. Just...well, see for yourself. And let him/her know what you think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

americasdumbestsoldiers.com

[ May 17, 2004, 18:26: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Site is down. Either it's very popular or someone else has exercised their rights to hack a site.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or at least DDoS it... probably a combination of a lot of links, and somebody not liking the link, so deciding to shut it down vigilante-style.

But from the URL, I can about imagine what the site is about...

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Actually the URL Is just mispelled http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

http://www.americasdumbestsoldiers.com/

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

What is the point of this website, exactly?

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

WEll, I'm sorry I even took the time to check it out. Yeah, accidents happen in military life as well as civilian life. Could they be called "dumb mistakes"? I've seen some of these Gomer Pyle types when I was in the Air Force. It could also be from lack of training, or understanding on the solder's part. But to make a website that's implying it's the soldier's fault, I won't stand for it. People die. Let it rest. If you have an agenda, go for the leaders. If you're anti-war or anti-military, that's your opinion; just don't bring down the military when we're in a war. This is the kind of stuff that makes me angry. I could kind of understand the rebellion in the 60's and 70's over Viet Nam, since it was mostly a political war. But we're in a real war fighting for our way of life, and you get these people who don't understand that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Not sure why this person would be on the dumbest list: "Killed in Balad, Iraq, on May 18, 2003 when Sahib and another soldier were cleaning their weapons and the other soldier's weapon discharged"

I guess my name should be on the list as well as I lost my left eye when a booby trap I was setting exploded in my face.

Most of the reasons/people listed are not from being "stupid".

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I agree that this site is in bad taste in some areas. Of course, i'd rather put up with sites like this than lose the right of "Freedom of Speech"

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I'm against this war from day 1, but this site is horrible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are those f*ckers trying to make fun of people who died while doing their duty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif


AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

Please send the people who made this site to Iraq for a couple of weeks..........

[ May 17, 2004, 18:26: Message edited by: Intimidator ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

They have British soldiers on there, too. Apparently, the "America" is subjective.

BTW, the site is registered in Mexico.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

And every one of you exercising your right to free speech.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

There should be a law protecting somepeople from their right to free speech. In this persons case, violation of that law should be punishable by death.

[ May 17, 2004, 19:26: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

If you remove the ?id=528 portion of the url, you'll get a true random page each time. The top 20 listed on the side are "Gomer"-type accidents. That much is true. But the site thinks in some cases getting your transport shot at by a rocket propelled grenade makes a person "stupid" as well.

This guy is a troll. Not you sachmo, the guy who wrote the site.

There was another site, obviously deliberately written to piss people off with false info. It tried to show how the American flag was no longer flying at the D-Day memorial in Caen, France, shortly after France expressed opposition to the US before the Iraq war. I never found out if it was a case of photoshopping, caught them while they were in the process of raising the flag, wind-blown behind the pole or what. And now I've lost track of the site.

What was interesting to me was what happened when the guy with the D-day site was cornered and asked to explain himself. He got all philosophical on the definition of knowledge and information. I never could find out conclusively if he was pro-US and faked the photos to make France look bad, anti-US and faked the photos, so people would get riled up, be proven wrong and look like fools. Or just a prankster, trying to see what the Internet would do with random bits of information.

Anyhow, a troll. Plain and simple.

[ May 17, 2004, 20:31: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Bad taste definitively http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I can't locate Lynndie England there so it's incorrect to boot. (Or GWB for that matter, but then again he can hardly be labeled a soldier http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Don't let the annoyance of this moron (the site maker) make you forget the real criminals.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I must agree that this site is in extremely poor taste. There is no sign from the information given that any of the soldiers listed died due to 'stupidity' on their part. Many very smart people die in traffic accidents, or while working with heavy machinery, or even in an ordinary swimming pool. Now, if you want to make a case for stupid foreign policy that's another matter... but the soldiers are not the ones responsible for that.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I mean no offense by this, merely a correction. Please take it as such.

You are not officially involved in a war. The war was declared to be over a year ago. I would say that it is essentially a warzone over there, but it is not "officially" a war.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Freedom of speach isn't free. Its paid for by the blood of those very military men and women who have and are dying in the line of duty.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

And freedom has been suppressed by military men. The military must not be supported unconditionally.

Yes, I think the guy's an *** too.

I'm just saying that the military cannot be supported unconditionally.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Well said Narf- you summed up my own feelings eloquently.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I think that falls under the Duhhhhhhhhh file guys. So it goes without saying.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I remember back in 1990 before Desert Storm happened that there were over 100 deaths of military people from various sorts of accidents. Then the war started, and you didn't hear too much of that because of the war casualties. But there was really stupid accidents that happened that I heard from my unit when they were over there. One guy was showing off some rocket propelled grenade when it went off and struck someone in their tent. Fortunately, that person survived, although he was messed up. So yeah, there can be some boneheaded accidents. But we need to support the troops over there now, and not make them feel like their idiots for being over there. And yes, we still are at war. It may not be an officially declared war, but they took the first shot by destroying the twin towers. It won't be over until we can wipe out this extreme form of religion.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Greg:
Huh, for your information: Your in the f**ing wrong country.

Is there really still people who believe Iraq was behind 9/11 ?

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

The irony is that we've enabled the very forces that are most anti-american by invading Iraq.

[ May 18, 2004, 16:38: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought that this war was against weapons off mass destruction (never found), and had nothing to do with 9-11 and Islam. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe it was Nova or some show on the History channel that connected the dots to Iraq. During the gulf war many Kuaties dissappeared only to return as new people. These people then moved to Afganastan and joined the Taliban and Aliquida. The new people were not the same people who dissappeared, but were in fact Iraqie secret police or intel operatives. Or so the show indicated. I found it to be very professional the way they discussed this and if it is accurate then yes, Iraq did have something to do with 9/11. Remember it was Iraq who planned to assinate G. Bush Sr. and had put a bounty on the heads of every American in the middle east. But that is old news.

In retrospect, I think it is plausable that Iraq did have something to do with 9/11 based upon the evidence provided, but how much they were in volved, well that we may never really know.

(Please for give my spelling.)

[ May 18, 2004, 23:35: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">God, I can't believe I just read this! That attitude is the exact same attitude that makes the "terrorists" think they have the right to wipe out all the "infidels". No one can say which religion has a right to exist, and which religions do not! Such an attitude of intolerance is simply wrong, and definitely contrary to the constitution of your own country! Does not your constitution guarantee a freedom of religion? Sure, if the religion is espousing violence, then that's wrong, but that's not what their religion promotes. (as far as I know....I could be wrong) A few fanatics are the ones who twist their beliefs to make them say what they want them to say.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the terrorist's actions, I'm simply saying that freedom of religion is as important a right as freedom of speech. If we don't believe that, then we end up with a situation like WWII and the Jews. And none of us wants that.

I'm sorry for criticizing your opinion, but I have to say I do not at all agree with it, and I could not sit by and not voice my opinion.

[ May 19, 2004, 00:15: Message edited by: Renegade 13 ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Its always about the Jews... what about the dozens of other instances of genocide in the 20th century? For example, millions of Armenians were slaughtered sometime around 1920 or so... the Jews are nothing special or unique. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because of great PR made of it.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I simply mentioned the Jews because it is the most well known example of genocide. Of course there are lots more! Lets see how many I can come up with:

- Hutu's and the Tutsi's (Rwanda I think)(spelling)
- The former Zaire had something like that a few years back
- The Kurds in Iraq

And the list just goes on and on and ....

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Atrocities, the Iraq didn't support Al Quiada as far as it is known. It did not sent military police to Kuwait and then to Afghanistan. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and they were born there, no secret behind that one. It did pay money to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers, that is the only thing true behind the report.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

America committed atrocities too.

America dropped incendiary bombs on the German town of Dresden. Dresden was a town of mostly old wooden buildings and the fire created a surge of air that sucked people into it. The death toll of the Dresden bombing exceeded the atomic bLasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These people were burned to death by the firestorm that sucked them into the core of the fire. It would have been a slow, horribly painful death for many of them.

Yet no kids in America learn about this in school, and you won’t see it on the history channel.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">At risk of being criticised, I have always assumed its because there are so many powerful jewish people in the developed world. They make sure no one forgets. I don't think there are many famous Armenians (apart from Cher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) reminding people.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well I never knew that. I always assumed she was Jewish...

Something else about the holocaust that many people don't realise is that Hitler also sent disabled people, the mentally ill and a whole bunch of ethnic Groups to the gas chambers. Although the jewish population suffered most in terms of sheer numbers of people killed, the romany gypsies were damn near exterminated altogether. (there were less of them to start with.)

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree you. I have an impression most Americans see the world a little bit different as e.g. most of the "Old-Europeans". But what is the cause of this interesting point of view?

My opinion is: the cause is the history of a country and its representation in the historical education in the scools. I know it from Germany: Here is the main focus of history in scool WWII and the Genocide on Jews. As a result an german kid has often an impression to be guilty in things happen over 60 yeas ago. I don't beleave in "Erbschuld" (is an concept that faults of parents are also the faults of their children). As result of this scool indoctrination most germans have an abcence of patriotism. To say "I'm proud to be a german" can stamp you as an radical nationalist.

I think USA have an inverted problem. It's a kind of fragmented Identity. A nation that defends "human rights", "freedom of speech" and "democracy" all over the world MUST NOT break this rules so open and so often (also in own country) because of nobody can punish this country for such delicts.

But problems of this kind are solvable over few years. Many germans owe a new kind of "patriotism" to Rumsfeld. He gives them an alternative identification. Not as "forever guilty german" but as "peace loving old-european" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

Sorry for my bad English http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hitler was not only one. Stalin has killed in the same time many more people. But russian archives are not so exact as german archives are.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

Stalin murdered many more of his own people* than Hitler yet Hitler is considered worse. Perhaps it was because under Stalin people were shipped off to Siberia where they just happened to die, or people just happened to die because of the communists caring more about their plan than the starving Ukrainian peasants. The soviets were just less exact in what they did. The Nazi efforts were planned to specifically kill people. There is a joke that in Nazi Germany at least the trains ran on time, but what is important is what the trains were doing. The Germans get criticised more, either rightly or wrongly, because they were more specific and planned things to the Last detail. It may not be so much that people were killed but that the one regime had a Mission statement and list of goals etc (almost like modern business) Truely History is written by the victor.

*strangely enough neither Stalin or Hitler was actually from the country he ran.

[ May 19, 2004, 11:53: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I wonder if Mel Gibson is going to make a movie about the holocaust? The Pation of The War?

I have no desire to his current movie, from what I have heard it is all about hate and blame. We have enough of that in the world now and we don't need any more.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Many of the casualties from the firebombing attacks in Germany and Japan were from asphyxiation and smoke inhalation. It was indeed a horrible, horrible way to die. The problem is in what position you take on the subject. If you believe that it was necessary to save more lives, then it becomes acceptable. I have a feeling that if there were chemical bombs and/or nuclear weapons going off in America, there would have been far less outcry about the prisoner abuse.

And I learned about the firebombing of Germany and Japan in high school in the late 80's. I have also seen it documented on the History Channel. Maybe they don't talk about this in school anymore, because it might offend someone. I'll ask my kids when they get there.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is never acceptable to fall back to such kind of barbarism. Not for people who say they defend "freedom", "peace" and "human rights". Acceptance for such practics for enemies leads in most cases to use same practics on own population few years later.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

DELURKING


*I had considered toning this down a bit, but I really wanted to convey my anger over this ageless argument about WWII. So bare in mind that I mean no one here any disrespect at all. This is not a personal attack against any one and if you find it offensive or insulting, remember you chose to read it after I warned you.*

Read at own risk, stongly worded comment to follow. If you offend easily, do not read. If you do read and are offended, remember you chose to read it.

I always love to read how people of today judge what happened in WWII by today’s standards. I almost laugh at their logic.

Any argument based on the beliefs of today, judging that era, is flawed to the point of being useless.

So you can use your examples about what occurred in that era and try and say they were atrocities by today’s standards all you want. Unless you were alive then and lived through that time you have no right to pass judgment.

Germany firebombed England too you know.

Japan treated its POW's so horribly that many who are alive today STILL hate the Japanese people and are grateful that we dropped the H-bomb on the island not once but twice. Given the alternative, them or us, we chose them. That is the nature of war.

It how you treat your enemies AFTER you have beaten that shows the world if you’re a monster or not. The US was very generous with its enemies following the war and that record has never been questioned.

War is hell and if another world war were to come, we would all find this out first hand, and I promise you, the gloves will come off and no matter how many liberal, save you from your rights, left wing lets just surrender, flag burning, protesting, anti American Americans there are, we will do what we must to survive.

You can fire off your counter points, I won't be reading them.

RE-LURKING

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is never acceptable to fall back to such kind of barbarism. Not for people who say they defend "freedom", "peace" and "human rights". Acceptance for such practics for enemies leads in most cases to use same practics on own population few years later. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You and I may believe that, but if you had lived through those time, or you were a soldier waiting to invade Japan, you might have a different story. I guess when you come down to it, what is the price you are willing to make others PAY for your rights? Would you firebomb a city to kill your greatest enemy, or would you avoid it because it is not in your character? When I think about losing my family, lots of moral questions get answered pretty quickly.


Clarification: I am not attempting to justify any of the current issues in Iraq nor draw a comparision between the Iraqi threat and the Nazi threat. My purpose is to try and spark conversation on how "atrocities" can be viewed in a different light by some.

[ May 19, 2004, 14:55: Message edited by: sachmo ]

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

I agree your opinion about human nature. To survive should be always the highest priority. But in the actual politics USA fights not for survival.

Atrocities done in the past are good lessons to learn better ways to live together. They shows us many possibilities to solve actual problems, and ways wouldn't work. My point is that i see too much decisions done by potitians today, they could do better if they take a little time to see in our past.

Germany was one of few coutries where "bombing to democracy" ever functions. The couse wos not the total destruction of this country, it was the "Marchall Plan" helps the germans to build up their state.

Reduction of poverty reduces terror, not bombs. I now no "smart-anti-terrorist-bomb". Bombs hit almost the false peole in such asymetric combat.

All that money wasted in Iraq could be effectively used on other spots.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

To the german guy who says that many germans are loaded with guilt over the actions of their predecessors:

You are right, the current generation should not feel guilty of the "sins of the father", and very few people in the world now judge modern germany by it's actions 60 years ago. Most people recognise modern Germany as a peace-loving nation.
The younger generation shouldn't feel guity. Each individual should be judged on their own actions.

However it's interesting that while nobody dreams of judging modern Germany by their actions in the war, many people want us to judge modern USA by *their" actions in the war. How many times have I heard "If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking german by now"?

To whoever pointed out that neither Hitler nor Stalin came from their own countires: Keep your eye on Schwarzenegger.

And to all those people trying to justify the lowering of human rights: You can't. As soon as you put anything at all- even your own survival (and I we can argue later about just how threatened the survival of the USA is/ was) then you can no longer proclaim yourself to be any better than hitler/ stalin/ saddam hussein/ Darth Vadrer/ insert your bad guy of choice here. Remember that Al-Qaeda also think that they are fighting to protect the survival of their way of life. Hitler used similar propaganda to justify the kind of atrocities we have all been condemning here.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you mean me: I do not try to judge USA for their wars of the past. I'm not agree with the actual politic of USA goverment. They make avoidable failures now.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So it would be better to be dead with a clear conscience than to be alive having done horrible things to defend yourself?

I think that each situation must be looked at independently.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think as you do.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

For me, all I want is to know that my family is safe, that the world is at peace, terrorism is no longer the tool of trade for those who want to get their own way, and food and gas aplenty.

I want enough money to live comfortably, and feel safe when I travel abroad and live without the fear that the FBI or other will come crashing into my home because of some computer glitch that identified me as a threat.

To walk through an airport and get on a plane without sweating the security checks, or being blown up in flight or flown into a building by crazy mad men.

I would love to live in a world where we all just focused upon making each others lives better, expanding our understanding of the planet and the universe while working toward the common goal of exploring the unknown abyss of space.

A planet where religion and people respected each other enought to never fight again over petty doctrains of idology and fear.

A planet where I am free to express my opinion, own a gun, drive a car, eat pizza, poop in the woods, fish, hunt, watch tv, play video games, take picutes, and travel from state to state without the fear of someone attempting to take those things away from me.

Image what a world like that would be like. No wars, no famons, no violence, just one big happy planet working toward the common goal of bettering each others lives while expanding our own.

But we don't live in that world, ours is filled with power hungry mad men, corprate jugernoughts out to deforest the planet and enslave the population, religious zeolots who think that God want them to kill inocent children by blowing up school busses and train stations. That the road to salvation lays through atrocities against humanity and that toppling a building full of people is how to earn your passage into heaven.

I hate the violence that is so rampant throught the world where one must kill in order to survive or to feed ones family. Have we not out grown this manality of beat they neighbor into oblivion over petty crap?

If Jesus walked the earth today he would most likely not be a yuppie driving a Hummer while talking on his cell phone to his theorpist, he would be, I think, a poor man working his life away trying to make thing better for those around him. Hey wait a minute; isn't that what most of us are doing? I am a firm believer that all of the planets hardships are caused by only a small percent of the people who live on it. The rest of us just want to live and let live.

War is bad, very bad, and I pray that the one we are in now ends soon.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Within limits, yes. However it is perfectly possible for a nation to defend itself against an attack without resorting to the kind of methods outlawed by the geneva convention.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I didn't mean you.

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Free speech?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think you are right. It is the precicion and efficiency that makes germans to the worst criminals in this time (and the fact that they loose the conflict). But i don't understand why and how my generation of german adults is responsible for this crime. To criticise Israelian politics brings you automaticaly near to the position of Antisemitism, even though many of israelian doings are not so far from what Stalin has do with ethnical minorities in russia. And why do the USA protect this behaviour? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I for one do not "Blame" Germany or the German people for what a few did, the German army was like ours, protecting their home (in the end) would we all not do that? for a people to take the "Blame" for someone else is wrong,look what we Americans have done to the native Americans here!