Terrorists and sex offenders can join military., page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 11:23 AM by Jenna

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
You want to say the military is running itself perfectly and being ever vigilant in who it hands live weapons to.

We'll add this to the list of things you claim I have said. So where did I say it was running perfectly? Where did I say the ranks should be filled with lowlife scum?

Once you can show that I have said what you claim I have, then we can discuss this further. Until then I am not running circles with you.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 11:25 AM by moonrat

I can't see a problem with murdering thugs joining the army.

Soldiers are an expendable asset. They kill people.

If you want a successful fighting force, then hiring a bunch of psychopathic murdering thugs would be the best option to employ.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 11:34 AM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by Jenna

You must be saying those things because all I said is that it is not perfect, needs to be fixed and too many bad apples are allowed in and to continue on. You are arguing with me. What is it you are trying to say then?

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 11:44 AM by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by moonrat
I can't see a problem with murdering thugs joining the army.

Soldiers are an expendable asset. They kill people.

If you want a successful fighting force, then hiring a bunch of psychopathic murdering thugs would be the best option to employ.

Yes you are totally right. When you are risking your life for your country, the best thing would be to be surrounded by people that have no loyalty to you or the country with weapons.

You are all missing the point.

Good soldier A is risking his life for this country on a battlefield.

Bad soldier B decides to just shoot at some civillians for fun.

The families of said civillians who had no stake in this battle are not a little upset that the U.S. military just murdered their loved ones for no reason.

Do you think they make a distinction between the individual bad apple and everyone else in that uniform? No.

Next you have a new group of people that want anyone wearing that uniform dead. Good soldier A is doing his job protecting this country and then is suddenly attacked by these new terrorists that only exsist because of the murdering thug.

But hey, I give up. Clearly my wanting them to do better at weeding out the bad ones is the wrong opinion. Apparently all the articles of murder and rape charges within the military are all false. The court documents and convictions must all be faked too. Nothing but the best of the best. I was even told that NO FELONS get in at all. No felony waivers are ever issued. OK! You win.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 11:56 AM by Jenna

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

But did I actually say what it is you are claiming? I'll make it easy, no I didn't. I have made my point clearly. I posted the information regarding the Army and National Guard on the second page of this thread. Then you post this:

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I am sure it used to be a great idea but when you have lower test scores, lower physical scores, and more felony waivers than ever along with the fact that we need bodies to get shot at.

Then add in your repeated assertions that those of us pointing out that the number of soldiers who are actually committing crimes while enlisted is relatively low are nothing more than an attempt to ignore that they happen and you wonder why I disagree with you.

Fact is the number of soldiers committing crimes while enlisted is relatively low compared to the 1.3+ million we have total. Not one of us that you have been arguing with has said that those who do commit crimes should not be dealt with. Not one of us has said that those soldiers should be excused. Every single one of us has stated clearly that those soldiers are in the wrong. Yet us saying that they don't represent the entire military is somehow cause for you to claim we want to sweep it under the rug.

So basically you are doing the very thing you try to accuse us of doing. You take one sentence or a fragment of a sentence and twist it to show that your wild assertions are correct. Thus the reason I have asked repeatedly for you to show me where I said anything you have claimed I said. Saying I must have if I am arguing against your assertions is just ridiculous.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 01:19 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by Jenna

I did not ignore that they are relatively low. I said more than once that all it takes is ONE. Is that rare enough for you? It is still too much for me. I am not sure we can lower that ratio any more than that to appease you but one out of all of them is low and still too many.

You claimed not one person gets in that comitted a Felony. Then you go on to say you only know really about the army and national guard.

And....?

I did not know we were relegated to just those two specific branches. Now that I know, I will try to refine my argument.

What are you saying?

What is your point?

The standards are ok? They send in nothing but the best and the brightest? Or are they kind of letting some people out on the field that really should not be but someone has to prevent a draft.

You can argue all you like about ratios and standards of two specific branches. Unfortunately, that does nothing to belie the rise in homegrown terrorism formed by NEW hatred of the enemy U.S. occupiers (read bad apples.) That does nothing to unrape the women and unmurder the people that soldiers are either on trial for now or have already been convicted for does it?

I have no idea what you are arguing. I am saying that less than perfect soldiers are knowingly let on the battlefield much to the detriment of the rest of the military as well as the country. That is all I am saying, are you saying that is not true?

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 03:39 PM by Jenna

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

What on earth are you talking about? The only thing in that entire post that makes any sense to me is your comment about my information regarding the National Guard and the Army. I never claimed that my information was regarding the entire military and clearly pointed out in my original post, as well as the rest of my posts, that what I was saying pertained to the National Guard and the Army.

Let me know when you're going to start making sense instead of asking questions that have nothing to do with anything I've said and then thinking you have my answers already.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 04:02 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by Jenna

That was my point. You are not making sense. I am talking about the military. Just because you jumped in and reduced it to two branches does not make me crazy for reminding you that I was speaking of all military. I then reminded you that if you are just arguing that one point about those two branches, then argue it with someone else because it has nothing to do with what I said. You make no sense. You wandered off and now want to call me out for not following? You came into my argument about the military with your national guard/army crap. It does not apply, you are right. It does not make sense. Glad you see that now. So move along with that or address what I said. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to you, nor care to be responded to if it is going to continue to be about something other than what I was speaking of to begin with. Sorry, not my fight, go have it elsewhere.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 04:31 PM by Jenna

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

So your point in not making sense was that I haven't been making sense? You have been dragging me in circles and frankly I am tired of trying to keep up with what on earth your are talking about. Let me give you a break down of our conversation so far.

I made my original post regarding the Army and National Guard.
You jump in saying all the crimes that have been reported must be false.
I politely point out that it is not possible to predict what any given person will do in the future.
You try to claim you were called a liar for pointing out the crimes that have been committed by those in the military.
I point out that with 1.3+ million people in the military it is not reasonable to assume that none of them will ever do anything they shouldn't. And I point out again that there is no way to predict what any given person will do in the future.
You come back with this:

They know you are a pervert. They know you have evil in your heart.

Then you ask who the felony waivers are going to.
I asked you to explain how it is you figure the instructors know if someone has evil in their heart, which you've never explained by the way.
Then I ask if you read the article I linked or the information I quoted as it shows examples of who was getting those felony waivers, which you apparently have not.
Then you try to claim you were only talking about gang members, when you clearly were not.

That is the point where this conversation stopped making sense and you started trying to claim I said things that I never said. All you have done in the last two pages is jump all over the place and then claim you are talking about something else. So who's not making sense here?

Time for me to learn to not feed the trolls apparently.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 07:52 PM by angel of lightangelo

You know what. You win. There is no such thing as bad behavior being overlooked, encouraged, or taught at all. Two branches of the military do not allow felony waivers so all the others that do must not exsist. I get it ok. You win. You proved that what you said that was not a real response was correct and that I went in circles by pointing out that what you said did not respond to what I said and therefore was pointless and proved nothing and yet somehow still I am wrong for reminding you that knowing about some but not all does not really prove all about anything especially when we know it is not correct anyway. Got it yet?

I said bad people get into the military. I said that felony waivers are given in some branches. I also said that many people are slipping through the cracks that most certainly could and should have been weeded out.

You said that the NG and Arm do not offer felony waivers. I still do not get how that proves that the other branches that do, do not but hey, you said I do not make sense.

So again, you win. They are truly vetting the hell out of every man and woman that they send into combat. So sorry I even said otherwise.

I would post all the youtube videos of them shooting at innocent people for fun but then you will say that rarely happens and somehow feel that makes you right. I am not saying that any of this is the majority or the norm. I simply said it happens. I have no idea what you are saying anymore.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 08:07 PM by Jenna

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

You know what. You have been attacking me since I first posted in this thread. I didn't say a word to you until you responded to my first post. And even though I clearly stated that my information pertained to only two branches in that first post you have repeatedly tried to twist my words and made wild assertions as to what it was I said, though you have never been able to back those up. I have had enough of the kindergarten antics and have better things to do with my time than go round and round with you.

Good day to you Sir.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 08:45 PM by angel of lightangelo

reply to post by Jenna

No....you just continued to assume that every thing that I said was a response to you. So, you continued to respond to me. That lead to me arguing with you. Maybe if you realized that I was speaking to more than just you but you felt you had to keep responding, you would not feel this way.

p.s. pssssssssst just look over this page. Not every response was to you. Some were to the OP, the thread in general, moonrat and that is just this page. But you responded to everyone. I am glad you are done because your ego is getting in the way of this being anything more than just the two of us taking up space. Perhaps someone else can respond for themself now.

Also, if you are really tired of going around with me, I would suggest not going to other threads and responding to me for other people there as well. It is a little hard for me to leave you alone when you follow me to attack me in other peoples stead. So, good day to you.

I forgot, this is ATS and everyone requires proof.

On the other thread that I was not addressing you on, you decided to respond to a post that was directly addressed to someone else.

posted on 15-11-2008 @ 07:45 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could be wrong, but I took their statement to mean they wondered when they would stop the media in general from telling the truth and I can't see what that has to do with the Fairness Doctrine..

Ok so you can leave me alone and that will probably fix everything for you.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply posted on 14-2-2009 @ 03:55 AM by Anonymous ATS

I believe that people should always be given a second chance. If a person is convicted of a first time offense and has taken their punishment and payed their debt to society they should be able to enter into the military. i do believe the in regards to a sexual offender. a psych exam should be given. and if the person passes that psych exam, ( note that exam should be more in depth that the normal psychological exam) that person should be able to serve and deemed fit to serve the country. I do however believe that anyone who is a sex offender convicted of a repeat offense should be banned from military service and committed to a center for those not psychologically fit to be a member of society.

reply posted on 18-6-2009 @ 03:15 PM by useless scum

i'm sorry to necro this thread but as one of the aforementioned scum bag sex offenders reading through the last 4 pages made me so angry i felt the need to register so i could reply.
first, who the hlll do you people think you are and what world do you live in? how can you sit there and pass judgment on people that you know nothing about? you argue about whether a persons past should keep them from serving their country. when did we get to the point where no one was allowed to change? where all of a sudden everyone had to have no faults before they were allowed to do anything. that once you made one mistake it was just a matter of time before you did it again. i'm not sure what you think the job of soldiering is but they're not missionaries. they are people paid to do whatever dirty job is required to guarantee that our way of life stays the same. sometimes that means just doing their job and trying not get themselves and their fellow soldiers killed. however, a lot of time that means killing other people that threaten that way of life. that's why we give them guns. and thats also why we give them our respect. at least why we should.
but because i had a lapse in judgment i can't join the military. i can't prove that i'm sorry for my past. i'm not allowed to move on because for some reason everyone has come to believe that it's just a matter of time before i strike again. well here's a news flash. it's not going to happen. if anyone would take the time to check the current stats for convicted sex offenders committing a new crime they'd find it's about 4%. but that doesn't matter because no one does. it's easier to join the crowd and shout out how much you hate sex offenders when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
for the record i think i'd make a great soldier and i'd be proud to serve. i understand what it's like to live in a world where i don't the rights given by the constitution because i've had them taken away and i'd go to any lengths to make sure it never happens again. but we'll never know because of peoples irrational prejudice against me for a past they know nothing about.
our politicians and men in arms don't bring shame on us. we bring it on ourselves. civilians don't take up arms against the US because of an isolated incident. it's because of our self righteous holier than thou attitude we shove down the throats of the very citizens of this country and every other country on this planet.
get over yourself and learn to stop judging everyone for not living up to impossible ideals that you can't even live up to yourself. then you'll see the beginnings of peace.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^