As stated before, I think there's a distinct difference in targeting civilians and being callous about their lives. Israel could have done much worse if its goals had been tied to civilian casualties.
They weren't separated from it, though. Otherwise they wouldn't have used cluster bombs against small man group, mobile, rocket launchers.
I'm not sure I get how making up a reason to invade a country with innocent people in it is any different than just killing those people directly.
America is to big to go after 'civilians', it would look bad in the press. Much better to target the military installations under false pretenses, because when enemy soldiers die, they are called 'enemy soldiers' and not 'innocent people who dun got thier shit blew up for no good reason'.
I don't know if this is on topic, but is it true that the American fore fathers weren't even Christians, and that America wasn't even founded as a Christian country?
I've heard rumblings of this somewhere, but I thought I'd bring it up in this topic. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
I don't know if this is on topic, but is it true that the American fore fathers weren't even Christians, and that America wasn't even founded as a Christian country?
I've heard rumblings of this somewhere, but I thought I'd bring it up in this topic. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Is... is this a joke?
(yes. the only people who think the founding fathers were some kind of God Squad are right-wing dominionist morons and people who've unfortunately received the dominionist-idiot version of history before the real one)
I don't know if this is on topic, but is it true that the American fore fathers weren't even Christians, and that America wasn't even founded as a Christian country?
I've heard rumblings of this somewhere, but I thought I'd bring it up in this topic. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Is... is this a joke?
(yes. the only people who think the founding fathers were some kind of God Squad are right-wing dominionist morons and people who've unfortunately received the dominionist-idiot version of history before the real one)
If I've never heard the term dominionist before does that mean I got the dominionist-idiot version in school?
Near as I can tell from my very random reading, the meme pretty much started with these kind of folk attempting to justify their worldview. Its spread a fair bit wider since then, because any lie tends to become 'true' if enough loud, scary types yell it often enough. For a given value of true, of course.
Near as I can tell from my very random reading, the meme pretty much started with these kind of folk attempting to justify their worldview. Its spread a fair bit wider since then, because any lie tends to become 'true' if enough loud, scary types yell it often enough. For a given value of true, of course.
I don't know if this is on topic, but is it true that the American fore fathers weren't even Christians, and that America wasn't even founded as a Christian country?
I've heard rumblings of this somewhere, but I thought I'd bring it up in this topic. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Is... is this a joke?
(yes. the only people who think the founding fathers were some kind of God Squad are right-wing dominionist morons and people who've unfortunately received the dominionist-idiot version of history before the real one)
I've never looked into the history of America. Sorry, but it hasn't particularly interested me.
Thanks anyway.
I've never looked into the history of America. Sorry, but it hasn't particularly interested me.
Thanks anyway.
There were a couple devout Founding Fathers (e.g,: John Jay) but they were predominantly Deists and in general not very serious practitioners of their various faiths.
There's also the treaty of...something...with the somebodys from sometime in the early days of the US, which explicitly defined the country as "non Christian."
I'll be damned if I can remember the details, though.
As stated before, I think there's a distinct difference in targeting civilians and being callous about their lives. Israel could have done much worse if its goals had been tied to civilian casualties.
They weren't separated from it, though. Otherwise they wouldn't have used cluster bombs against small man group, mobile, rocket launchers.
Well again, I feel they were in the wrong, but I don't think it's on the same level as actually having violence against civilians being the objective.
...
Also, many (I think most) of the forefathers were Christian, yes, but most of the famous ones (like the ones we have on our money, the ones who wrote the constitution) were not. Given that the U.S. Constitution doesn't really mention religion beyond the bits that give us a separation of church and state, and given the text of The Treaty of Tripoli (Text: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."), it's reasonably safe to assume the U.S. wasn't "founded on the Christian religion", per se.
That said, I'm sure the intention of many of the founders was that there would be tons and tons of Christians and the U.S. would be super Christian, but really, a lot of the founders had slaves, and were wrong about a lot of shit, and what was good and ideal then is not necessarily what is good and ideal now. Even if the country actually were founded on the Christian religion to be the Christianiest of Christian places, that doesn't mean that the U.S. actually should be a Christiany Christian place.
As stated before, I think there's a distinct difference in targeting civilians and being callous about their lives. Israel could have done much worse if its goals had been tied to civilian casualties.
They weren't separated from it, though. Otherwise they wouldn't have used cluster bombs against small man group, mobile, rocket launchers.
Well again, I feel they were in the wrong, but I don't think it's on the same level as actually having violence against civilians being the objective.
...
Also, many (I think most) of the forefathers were Christian, yes, but most of the famous ones (like the ones we have on our money, the ones who wrote the constitution) were not. Given that the U.S. Constitution doesn't really mention religion beyond the bits that give us a separation of church and state, and given the text of The Treaty of Tripoli (Text: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."), it's reasonably safe to assume the U.S. wasn't "founded on the Christian religion", per se.
That said, I'm sure the intention of many of the founders was that there would be tons and tons of Christians and the U.S. would be super Christian, but really, a lot of the founders had slaves, and were wrong about a lot of shit, and what was good and ideal then is not necessarily what is good and ideal now. Even if the country actually were founded on the Christian religion to be the Christianiest of Christian places, that doesn't mean that the U.S. actually should be a Christiany Christian place.
I'm sure part of the likely expectation of "lots and lots of Christians" (which I don't doubt) comes from the fact that back then, most everyone coming to the US *was* Christian in some way, as most of Western Civilization was. I'm sure even the least religious among the founding fathers didn't really expect a time when a great many people wouldn't necessarily be religious.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the fallacy you have been perpetrating?
I've never looked into the history of America. Sorry, but it hasn't particularly interested me.
Thanks anyway.
There were a couple devout Founding Fathers (e.g,: John Jay) but they were predominantly Deists and in general not very serious practitioners of their various faiths.
There's also the treaty of...something...with the somebodys from sometime in the early days of the US, which explicitly defined the country as "non Christian."
I'll be damned if I can remember the details, though.
I think many of them were much like politicians today. They payed lip service to religion because they releazed it was neccessary to securing the public's support.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the phallacy you have been penetrating?
It doesn't even make sense but I couldn't help myself.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the phallacy you have been penetrating?
It doesn't even make sense but I couldn't help myself.
Too much phalla on the phront page. Not enough sleep.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the phallacy you have been penetrating?
It doesn't even make sense but I couldn't help myself.
Too much phalla on the phront page. Not enough sleep.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the fallacy you have been perpetrating?
Dude you've traveled so far from your original bullshit point this is all you have? When you have something you can actually use to debate and/or discourse, but all means please bring it in, but cute non-sequitours aren't going to cut it.
No, he responded to the assertion that the hiring practices of the Legion are not conductive to a well adjusted force by refering to a guy in the U.S. army who raped a girl and killed her family in Iraq.
I even told him that that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. If anything, it strengthened the arguement because the Legion has more lax hiring practices than the U.S. army.
My arguement was soley to link the acceptance rquirements of the legion to attack the notion that they have a rigorous policy that prevents what he was discussing. They dont.
Does the foreign legion have something to do with the relationship between Christianity and the government of America?
Talk to your buddy over there. I'm not the guy who brought it up after 7 pages.
EDIT:
No, he responded to the assertion that the hiring practices of the Legion are not conductive to a well adjusted force by refering to a guy in the U.S. army who raped a girl and killed her family in Iraq.
I even told him that that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. If anything, it strengthened the arguement because the Legion has more lax hiring practices than the U.S. army.
My arguement was soley to link the acceptance rquirements of the legion to attack the notion that they have a rigorous policy that prevents what he was discussing. They dont.
Uh, they do. I've linked to it extensively, hell YOU'VE linked to it.
Your argument was mostly based on opinions and half ass assumptions. Your original claim was that they let in felons and deserters from other armies, welcomed them with open arms, even. Last I checked that's been brought down to "mal adjusted individuals", with no links or references other than your own assumptions and opinions, or what even constitutes a mal adjusted individual.
To wit: You've been busy building the world's biggest strawman. Congratulations, you're still an idiot.
In the past, the Legion had a reputation for attracting criminals on the run and would-be mercenaries. In recent years, however, admission has been restricted much more severely, and background checks are done on all applicants. Generally speaking, convicted felons are prohibited from joining the service.
See that part about the felons and the background checks? Shut up Goum.
Does the foreign legion have something to do with the relationship between Christianity and the government of America?
Talk to your buddy over there. I'm not the guy who brought it up after 7 pages.
EDIT:
No, he responded to the assertion that the hiring practices of the Legion are not conductive to a well adjusted force by refering to a guy in the U.S. army who raped a girl and killed her family in Iraq.
I even told him that that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. If anything, it strengthened the arguement because the Legion has more lax hiring practices than the U.S. army.
My arguement was soley to link the acceptance rquirements of the legion to attack the notion that they have a rigorous policy that prevents what he was discussing. They dont.
Uh, they do. I've linked to it extensively, hell YOU'VE linked to it.
Your argument was mostly based on opinions and half ass assumptions.
Is the level of professional conduct in the French Foreign Legion really worth all this hostility?
If not, perhaps we should direct our attention to these kittens until our hands unclench.
Posts
And, you know, suburbs full of civilians.
America is to big to go after 'civilians', it would look bad in the press. Much better to target the military installations under false pretenses, because when enemy soldiers die, they are called 'enemy soldiers' and not 'innocent people who dun got thier shit blew up for no good reason'.
I've heard rumblings of this somewhere, but I thought I'd bring it up in this topic. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Is... is this a joke?
(yes. the only people who think the founding fathers were some kind of God Squad are right-wing dominionist morons and people who've unfortunately received the dominionist-idiot version of history before the real one)
If I've never heard the term dominionist before does that mean I got the dominionist-idiot version in school?
Near as I can tell from my very random reading, the meme pretty much started with these kind of folk attempting to justify their worldview. Its spread a fair bit wider since then, because any lie tends to become 'true' if enough loud, scary types yell it often enough. For a given value of true, of course.
I prefer Christian Supremacist myself.
I've never looked into the history of America. Sorry, but it hasn't particularly interested me.
Thanks anyway.
There were a couple devout Founding Fathers (e.g,: John Jay) but they were predominantly Deists and in general not very serious practitioners of their various faiths.
There's also the treaty of...something...with the somebodys from sometime in the early days of the US, which explicitly defined the country as "non Christian."
I'll be damned if I can remember the details, though.
Well again, I feel they were in the wrong, but I don't think it's on the same level as actually having violence against civilians being the objective.
...
Also, many (I think most) of the forefathers were Christian, yes, but most of the famous ones (like the ones we have on our money, the ones who wrote the constitution) were not. Given that the U.S. Constitution doesn't really mention religion beyond the bits that give us a separation of church and state, and given the text of The Treaty of Tripoli (Text: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."), it's reasonably safe to assume the U.S. wasn't "founded on the Christian religion", per se.
That said, I'm sure the intention of many of the founders was that there would be tons and tons of Christians and the U.S. would be super Christian, but really, a lot of the founders had slaves, and were wrong about a lot of shit, and what was good and ideal then is not necessarily what is good and ideal now. Even if the country actually were founded on the Christian religion to be the Christianiest of Christian places, that doesn't mean that the U.S. actually should be a Christiany Christian place.
I'm sure part of the likely expectation of "lots and lots of Christians" (which I don't doubt) comes from the fact that back then, most everyone coming to the US *was* Christian in some way, as most of Western Civilization was. I'm sure even the least religious among the founding fathers didn't really expect a time when a great many people wouldn't necessarily be religious.
I'm going to need an electron microscope to see how fine the hairs you've been splitting are.
Provide an official framework for what's a "legitimate" mercenary outfit, and what's not as opposed to pulling definitions (I.E. "mal-adjusted") out of your ass.
Do you really not understand the fallacy you have been perpetrating?
I think many of them were much like politicians today. They payed lip service to religion because they releazed it was neccessary to securing the public's support.
It doesn't even make sense but I couldn't help myself.
Too much phalla on the phront page. Not enough sleep.
Fallacy is what i meant.
Your lack of comprehension is delightful.
Dude you've traveled so far from your original bullshit point this is all you have? When you have something you can actually use to debate and/or discourse, but all means please bring it in, but cute non-sequitours aren't going to cut it.
I swear to God his sophism bullshit should be infractionable.
No, he responded to the assertion that the hiring practices of the Legion are not conductive to a well adjusted force by refering to a guy in the U.S. army who raped a girl and killed her family in Iraq.
I even told him that that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. If anything, it strengthened the arguement because the Legion has more lax hiring practices than the U.S. army.
My arguement was soley to link the acceptance rquirements of the legion to attack the notion that they have a rigorous policy that prevents what he was discussing. They dont.
First post.
Talk to your buddy over there. I'm not the guy who brought it up after 7 pages.
EDIT:
Uh, they do. I've linked to it extensively, hell YOU'VE linked to it.
Your argument was mostly based on opinions and half ass assumptions. Your original claim was that they let in felons and deserters from other armies, welcomed them with open arms, even. Last I checked that's been brought down to "mal adjusted individuals", with no links or references other than your own assumptions and opinions, or what even constitutes a mal adjusted individual.
To wit: You've been busy building the world's biggest strawman. Congratulations, you're still an idiot.
From http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fr/french_foreign_legion.htm :
See that part about the felons and the background checks? Shut up Goum.
Is the level of professional conduct in the French Foreign Legion really worth all this hostility?
If not, perhaps we should direct our attention to these kittens until our hands unclench.