It doesn't really look like they were hurt, but wtf can the backstory on this possibly be?

Looks like a flashbang. Sheep really are too stupid to run when they get too stressed. Still, that's some guys entire livelyhood that they just attacked. Guess which side of the conflict he'll back from now on. Way to go with the recruitment drive fellas.

Looks like they tossed a Distractionary Device.

Flash Bang

wow, what an idiot. Then again they're not exactly paid the ambassador's wage to represent America. What ya expect.

lol nordic i think the kids know what "fragging" means.

i feel like ranting about the crapitude of the average american soldier because i saw a video of bored soldiers irritating livestock. ;-p

Looked like a failed suicide sheep bomber to me, crudely edited (probably by a cow) to cast Americans in a bad light. There are signs of cow tech all over this. Take it from me.

We used to cause some hell around our neighborhoods but it was never at the expense of anything living.

these self-combustible sheep were obviously infiltrators from iran

Fuck. that. shit.

I guess if they weren't doing this over there, then they'd be tipping cows back home. This video would have been funnier if something actually happened.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum


EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?

I believe you sir are misinformed. The majority of troops in our armed forces are very decent and upstanding individuals. I know quite a few Grunts in the marines and they are all very good people, some of the best in fact. You take your average person here in America, they are the lowlife scum compared to these guys. I guess you just don't want to believe that shit 10x worse than this goes on right here in our own country to animals like that. Just because it's military you go making a generalization about our troops being shitbags.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum

EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?


Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed". Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in arms way, but not shoot muslims (these latter would go in the first category). And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum. Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid. Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq. As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore. They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.

Also, you're not countering his point with your question, except by implicitly generalizing your own experience in your own squad in the marines (as I gather from your previous posts here on the sift). Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves. And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum

EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?

Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed". Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in arms way, but not shoot muslims (these latter would go in the first category). And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum. Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid. Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq. As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore. They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.
Also, you're not countering his point with your question, except by implicitly generalizing your own experience in your own squad in the marines (as I gather from your previous posts here on the sift). Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves. And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.


I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

Expect those guys to be dishonorably discharged... just wait a little while for the Pentagon to catch up. Send a link to this video to your congressman, your state governor, attorney general, and your local army recruitment office.

Way to make friends abroad....

Rather send a letter to the World Bank, Queen Beatrix, and the Annunaki fucks that disguise themselves as the Booosh family, and let them know their children's children', not yet born, are low-life scum-....

we're all scum. Now, get over yourselves and finish your algae dinners.

Why the hell is anyone voting for this?

>> ^Bidouleroux:
Why would they not be lowlifes when they represent the 18-35 American demographic, minus all the ones that actually have respectful or high paying jobs? Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America, but the lowlife scum tend to stay "unemployed".

Oh, so having a college degree automatically exempts you from being lowlife scum? So all the other people in that demographic that don't have white-collar sit-in-the-AC-behind-a-fucking-desk jobs are lowlife scum, too? Just because they didn't have parents that were capable of sending them to college? OR because they had other matters in life that were more pressing and needed to pay bills?
I'd rather have my blue-collar job over sitting in a tiny fucking cubicle any day.


Anyway, a majority is fifty percent plus one, not ninety-nine percent. And these are enlisted troops, not conscripts, so you're gonna get only people who want to shoot muslims or people who want to serve their country so much that they want to put themselves in (h)arms way

You'd probably be right in that there are people that want to shoot Muslims. HOWEVER, people with this kind of mentality are the ones that are sitting with a huge confederate flag in their yard shooting at beer cans on a fence, not at the recruiter's office. I've never met ANYONE that said "I joined to shoot me some mooslims." And in the Marine Corps, the "why did you join" question gets asked even if you only knew the other guy for 5 minutes.

As for the people that joined because they want to serve their country? We don't do it because was want to do it so much that we WANT" to put ourselves in harm's way. We do it because we love this great nation, even for all it's flaws. We do it knowing that we could be put in harms way. We're not a bunch of masochists in uniform, ya fuckin know.


And I reckon anyone that WANT to shoot someone else, for whatever reason, is by definition a lowlife scum.

So now you're calling America's greatest generation lowlife scum? I would think that the veterans of WWII deserve nothing but honor and respect for their actions, and you should too. If it wasn't for them, you'd all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika right now.

Everyone that is so blind to politics, backroom machinations and human rights abuse that he still wants to enlist in a military without wanting to actually shoot anyone, is also a lowlife or at the very least stupid.

How can someone that honestly doesn't know of back-room politics and abuse of fellow humans be low life scum? What if he did know about it? Maybe he would fucking want to join just to show that there ARE people in the military that don't beat on prisoners? Someone that honestly loves his country so much he is willing to put his life on the line is stupid? This isn't rhetoric, I really do expect you to answer these questions.
Basically, what you just said is that as far as enlisted personnel, you're either stupid or a lowlife.


Put these two kinds of people together and you get shitty operations like Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, put a highly trained and welldisciplined fighting force against an unknown enemy using tactics and techniques that have not been fought against before and you get situations like that.

As we've seen over the past 7 years, the problems only start when you tell your enlisted troops NOT to shoot anyone anymore.

O RLY? Care to actually back asinine claims like that up with actual fucking data?

They tend to get frustrated and remake the Dumb and Dumber movies. As for those that start out "normal", please refer to the Stanford prison experiment.

Again, O RLY? Moar data plz. Or should I say ANY data, please.

Also, you're not countering his point with your question

Maybe because the point of my fucking post wasn't to counter his points. "Troops are low life scum" isn't a point, it's a n opinion, in case that's what you were referring to.

Yes, you may have "heard things", but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING said here?

And like your precious Jesus said: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” I'm sure nowadays plenty of bible-churning rednecks would gladly obey and start throwing stones, but then again I'm sure that for all your other faults at least you're not that kind of person.


Have I thrown a stone here?


Basically, next time, if you don't have any data to back up supposed "facts", STFU.

>> ^Gunter:
I'll let someone else tear you a new one.

Done and done.

I don't agree with Bidouleroux or MarineGunrock on this. Not everyone who is in the military is a low life scum and not everyone joins to simply defend the great nation.

War is obscene, chaotic, and is the greatest high you can ever achieve in our soft comfortable suburban experience. Its a subconscious desire many would like to avoid recognizing while creating whatever justification they make to survive that day.

I never said everyone joins to defend the country.

Go MG, it's yer birthday, we're gonna party like, it's yer birthday

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The majority of your enlisted occupation troops are lowlife scum that they brought in by lowering their standards.

Lol! You see like what, 12 separate examples of retardation in the military on YouTube and suddenly 1.5 million+ (out of the under 3 million) active and reserve soldiers are low life scum?

I've never even shot a real gun at any point in my 40 years on the planet and I have to say on behalf of Non-Ignorant People everywhere, fuck you and the pipe you smoke your crack in. Give your head a shake.

AND I'M NOT EVEN AMERICAN!

Keep your retarded generalizations to yourself.

i believe bidouleroux has made the largest post here with the smallest amount of actual content in it. A large uninformed rant straight from the heart of your horrible misconceptions and ego. The worst part is there is no point to any of it. It is one long ignorant rant filled with hot air and angst. I hope you are just trolling with that post, otherwise i'd say you are seriously stupid.

its obviously a trojan sheep....come on guys

Any one that posts an opinion on this video is Directly opening themselves up to Trolling and Flaming.

Modded: FlameBait

I want to line each and every one of you up and slap you all with one sweep of the arm.

> I want to line each and every one of you up and
> slap you all with one sweep of the arm.

Oooo I like it like that.

If you want to see the majority of eligible recruitments these days, just go to the mall for an hour.

^NordlichReiter:
I'll let someone else tear you a new one. This makes me wish we had a mandatory military like germany. It would really open your eyes to the respect your taught to give everyone even your enemies. Go to a recruiting station for any branch and tell them you want to shoot people and that's the reason you want to join. Please do so and tell me what they say. I think you'll be surprised.

Of course, no one in his right mind (i.e. not mentally ill) would say that he likes to kill people to anyone, army recruiter or not. You'll have to revise your 12th grade pop psychology and look up "subtility", "concealment", "repressed desire" and "uncounscious desire". Man is a machine with a big and powerful nervous system (yes, that last bit means essentially "powerful brain") and it would be idiotic to think everyone is always open about their feelings to others and even to themselves, or that they even know about their true feelings, emotions or beliefs. This may go against your christian-centric "freedom of will and everything else" worldview, but science doesn't care about you or religious ideology­.

On another note, I too would like for mandatory military service, like Switzerland (they provide for a much better political and economical model than Germany at present), but obliviously for different reasons than your warmongering american ones. There is value in defending one's life and the lives of your kin (which, in my book, should a priori include every human being in the world), but essentially your right to do so stops where the right of the others to defend themselves begins. This may be a cliché, but it is a useful one nevertheless. Of course, where to draw the line in real situations is difficult, but the principle should be remembered. When you are invading a whole country with the pretense of defending yourself, in this case Afghanistan and Iraq, you have to ask yourself some big and important questions, and the answers should be as strong as your claim is: that you somehow have the right to invade someone else for your own protection as a defensive action. Now, you may think, and probably many americans do, that you have the right to bully and push around anyone else you may want to just because of the fact that you exist: that's called "survival of the fittest" thinking (or "being a dick" for short), and as game theory shows, it won't take you far in the long run.

If you can't be a dick and your freedom to defend yourself is restricted, why would you want a military, let alone a mandatory military service? Two big reasons: one, you sometimes do need to actually defends yourself against "I-have-a-bigger-dick-than-you-so-do-my-dad-and-I'll-show-you-why" type of idiots, who either don't know, don't understand or couldn't give a fuck about game theory if their lives somehow depended on it (yes, military officers know about it, but your COMMANDER-IN-FUCKING-CHIEF, the supposed equal of George Washington, has got not even a hint of the most little clue) and they are best dealt with a quick and impressive show of actual or what seems like actual force, not bombastic military parades though these can serve to frighten some kinds of idiots. Two, being in an actual conflict, even and perhaps especially on a peacekeeping mission, can sometimes have a calming effect on trigger-happy or shoot-first-ask-later kind of young men and women. This effect is of course not guaranteed since every one is different (another useful cliché, in moderation).

As an aside, a corps of able and ready young people can be useful in humanitarian situations. Military training can also provide useful skills that some might not want or be able to get elsewhere (navigation, survival, basic weapon and self-defense, etc.). If not misused, a military can be a boon, like everything else in life.

Sorry for the long posts, but even with this (or maybe because of it? The internets are not used to reading long, thoughtful and rhetoric- and logic-filled discourses, especially not this abstract) many don't get what I'm trying to say, so imagine if I just said "EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME?". That could be deviously misconstrued as rock throwing if I was former military personnel, proud of my time of duty, responding to an anti-military statement!

P.S. I never said everyone in the military is lowlife scum or that everyone is joining to protect their country. From what I said would follow that in the worst case, half of everyone would be lowlife scum, and the other half would join to defend their country (in the case of the present american army stationed in Iraq at least). Of course I do not think it is so clear-cut, that was rhetoric. But far worse and damaging rhetorically is the typically american FOX-Newsy "misunderstanding" (conscious or not) of quoting me as saying they were all lowlife, or that they were all joining to defend their country. These are statistically very improbable situations, to say the least! There are also those who join because they need money they can't get otherwise, those who want to make their daddy proud, those who want to continue a familial tradition, those who are planning their political careers, etc. But they are not the focus of this discussion since I believe they form a minority, all the more so when you look at the true, hidden motives.

>> ^NinjaFish:
i believe bidouleroux has made the largest post here with the smallest amount of actual content in it. A large uninformed rant straight from the heart of your horrible misconceptions and ego. The worst part is there is no point to any of it. It is one long ignorant rant filled with hot air and angst. I hope you are just trolling with that post, otherwise i'd say you are seriously stupid.

Smallest amount of factual content maybe, but highest in ideas and concepts surely. That you do not understand said ideas and concepts is partly my fault I suppose, lack of writing skills and a bit of rush-headedness, but calling me stupid because of it only shows your lack of understanding and judgment, if not outright idiocy.

If you care to call what I posted trolling, then you have yourself a very wide category here my friend: use it well, as with great power comes great responsibility!

No seriously, trolling? Have you never heard of guys like Richard Dawkins and the four horsemen? Oh, I see. That's what you mean by trolling! Excuse me, here I thought you liked being shaken in your beliefs and challenged intellectually. My bad.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
That you do not understand said ideas and concepts is partly my fault I suppose, lack of writing skills and a bit of rush-headedness, but calling me stupid because of it only shows your lack of understanding and judgment, if not outright idiocy.


No, I believe he was calling you stupid for not proof-reading. Saying things like "obliviously for different reasons," and "so-do-my-dad." If you're going to spend that much time typing out an inflammatory post and claiming it's "rhetoric" (which by the way, everyone who has used it in this thread has used it incorrectly), you might want to read it over and make sure you make sense.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

First, let me say I appreciate your honest attempt at "tearing me a new one". Compared to other replies, yours is a gem (a diamond with 250 written on it). You asked me some non-rhetorical questions, and I will gladly answer those that my two previous replies haven't, as they were not specifically aimed at your criticisms.

Oh, so having a college degree automatically exempts you from being lowlife scum

Sigh. Obviously not. You quoted me as saying "Not to say there aren't lowlifes in corporate America,". Did you not read the full quote or are you ignoring it on purpose? In the latter case, at least don't quote the embarrassing contradictory bit.

I'd rather have my blue-collar job over sitting in a tiny fucking cubicle any day.

Maybe so, and you may well hold a moral "relatively high" ground by doing so as far as I am concerned, but in light of america's global pursuit of economical happiness, I consider pretty much all jobs inside the U.S.A and some parts of Canada as "corporate". My usage of "corporate America" here was both a rhetorical and a conceptual synecdoche that played on the ambiguity of adjective-noun compound nouns in English (out of context, "corporate America" could mean both "the corporations of America as a whole" or "the whole of America as a corporation"). Sorry for the misunderstanding here, as usage should have required quotation marks to show I didn't use the idiomatic expression "corporate America" in its commonly accepted technical sense.

So now you're calling America's greatest generation lowlife scum? I would think that the veterans of WWII deserve nothing but honor and respect for their actions, and you should too.

I do respect them, and tried to make sure that what I said could not be construed as showing disrespect towards veterans of the two World Wars. Yet you have done so with a comment that is taken completely out of context as I implied it applied only to an ENLISTED army, specifically this one that is stationed in Iraq. As I pointed out, conscripts (and other time-of-war enlistees) are a different matter altogether. If you think they're not, may I just point out that officially, the United States has not been at war with anyone since WWII? Not in Korea, not in Vietnam and certainly not in both Iraqi "operations". The Congress may have voted funds and whatnot, but that is not War according to any international definition. Thus, only WWI and WWII will stand as examples of real modern wars with conscripts and ethically justified enlistment. Also, see my second post.

If it wasn't for them, you'd all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika right now.

Overused red herring. Please think of the Nazis and their children!

How can someone that honestly doesn't know of back-room politics and abuse of fellow humans be low life scum?

It is called guilt by ignorance (in christian terms, "Vincible Ignorance". Ask a theologian near you) You can be condemned in court as a consequence of it, if it can be shown that while you could have known the law, you didn't make the effort to for whatever reason (normally, you're suppose to know all law, but let's say you try to argue that it was somehow absolutely impossible for you to know it and that this should somehow absolve you of any wrongdoing). See also the concepts of "pluralistic ignorance" and of the bystander effect.

What if he did know about it?

Then that makes him guilty by association if he could prevent wrongdoing or if he refused to denounce it.

Maybe he would fucking want to join just to show that there ARE people in the military that don't beat on prisoners?

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that people in the military did beat up prisoners. If he joins the army without denouncing those actions, how are we to know that he doesn't intend to perpetuate them?

Someone that honestly loves his country so much he is willing to put his life on the line is stupid?

If he is doing so blindly then yes, whether or not the thing he does thereby is wrong or not. Of course, that is only my (and I reckon most of the educated world, except some parts of the United States and some other really religious educated regions) ethical standpoint, and you may stand elsewhere on this issue.

O RLY? Care to actually back asinine claims like that up with actual fucking data?

Well, I haven't heard of any prisoners being tortured or beaten during the invasion per se, nor in the immediate aftermath, and my educated guess would be that the advent of such actions would indeed be sudden, but following a gradual increase in emotional detachment from the guards (refer to the Stanford prison experiment that I quoted two sentences later, which is more data than you'll ever need on this matter, I'd think). But what I wrote was not a scientific article. If I were to cite every paper I've ever read (most of which you probably couldn't understand right away anyway) to satisfy your misplaced need for "data", I would not be finished writing that first post yet. Relishing that thought may well please you; if so you are misguided indeed (misguided about how "science" works and also about the internets).

Again, O RLY? Moar data plz. Or should I say ANY data, please.
Again, have you not read what you had just quoted, where I referred you to a well known psychological experiment made in a prestigious school, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and repeated in countless psychology textbooks which happens to sustain my very point? Or are you just trying to rip off my leg off of my still warm body? Also, see my last answer about your misunderstanding of the process of science, which applies here especially to social sciences.

Maybe because the point of my fucking post wasn't to counter his points. "Troops are low life scum" isn't a point, it's a n opinion, in case that's what you were referring to.

Maybe so, but then so was my remark not a statement about the opinionatedness of the poster you replied to, but about your implicit attempt at refutation through a more or less carefully/consciously constructed exclamation of disbelief. Indeed, as it is difficult to ascertain scientifically that a certain person or type of person is "lowlife scum", such bold statements are to be classified as opinion. It doesn't change the fact though, that some opinions are more educated than others and thus may carry more weight, either subjectively through a shared worldview and knowledge base, or objectively by being shown to be closer to an established truth that the participants in this debate eventually come to recognize as such later.

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING said here?

Yes indeed it doesn't directly relate, sorry. It is part of a previous version of my post that I forgot to erase entirely. Though the point it makes is now moot since it is not attached to the post as a whole anymore, the segment can be reconstructed as such: "[Your experience in your squadron may give you a different picture of the lowlifedness of the enlisted troops as a whole, since you generalize from your own, subjectively positive experience, but things may not be such when viewed from outside, and your own squadron may be a statistical anomaly.] Yes, you may have "heard [good] things" [about the rest of the army as whole], but there's a reason hearsay is not allowed as evidence in a trial: it's actually pretty unreliable. Also, keep and bear in mind that no one likes to think that he himself did "bad things" in a conflict. They always blame the other or perversely blame only themselves." For that last bit, see the concept of "pluralistic ignorance" that I quoted earlier.

Have I thrown a stone here?

I would say yes, and my whole post was, in a sense, a way to make this very point.

Basically, next time, if you don't have any data to back up supposed "facts", STFU.

Unfortunately for you, I had data, as I think I have shown here (too) extensively. But it was not to back any facts but to back opinion. I never claimed to have any facts concerning the lowlifedness of enlisted troops and neither did the original poster. The fact that I asserted my opinion as if it were fact is a rhetorical device of which you should be well aware of in "FOX-News America". It is one of the most simple, pervasive, transparent and perversely effective device in the whole of human speech (again, in my and some other people's view). It is also one of the easiest to catch, at least when you and your opponents are on different wavelengths: hence to need to train yourself to detect it even when people you agree with use it. I guarantee you it will save you from trouble in the long run.

British soldiers beating Iraqi children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_aizAo78w

Support the troops? It's psychotic behaviour in an illegal invasion led by psychotic western leaders. No, sorry, I don't support the troops and I think it's past time that little taboo was put to bed.

"Oh, I'm against the war but I support the troops" makes absolutely no sense to me, I don't see any politicians armed to the teeth for the slaughter.

Jihad is over, if you want it.

Choggie, can you change your background back to pink so we know just from the color that crazy shit is coming?

MG said "If it wasn't for them, you'd all be speaking German and saluting the Swastika right now."

I think that just about discredits everything else he says. Especially after he got confused between enlisted WWII troops fighting a real threat against an aggressor, and professional troops in Iraq BEING the aggressors.

here's one for you MG
http://www.videosift.com/video/4th-July-1776-The-day-America-started-becoming-British

Ill keep this one nice and simple. Nordlich and Bidouleroux: Eat my ass. The majority of enlisted are low life scum. Your opinion. My ass tastes great. My opinion. Hope you enjoy.

^You sir, have won the internets.

Flame Bait