It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-war, pacifist frauds

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The pacifist anti-war left (and 'paleo-con' right) are fond of trashing Conservatives who advocate the use of force and support war but have never served in the military.

They call them "chickenhawks".

Yet I have seen no name given to the pacifists or isolationists, mostly on the left, who have never been in combat, never fired a gun, never been shot at, yet armchair QB our troops' tactics in the heat of battle.

Surely, there are many of the same people hurling the word chickenhawk around and criticizing our soldiers in the field. Your hypocracy is glaring and staggering.

Frauds, all of you.




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
who have never been in combat, never fired a gun, never been shot at, yet armchair QB our troops' tactics in the heat of battle.

Frauds, all of you.


Never fired a gun or been in combat? They're called neo-conservatives.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
who have never been in combat, never fired a gun, never been shot at, yet armchair QB our troops' tactics in the heat of battle.

Frauds, all of you.


Never fired a gun or been in combat? They're called neo-conservatives.


So even if you're liberal and you've never been in combat, you're still a neo-conservative?

That's some nice kindergarten logic. Let's hear from someone who's not a complete retard.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
FWIW

Here is a pretty good anti-war site that is rather well ballanced.

Fallujah in Pictures

Warning. Graphic images



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
if i am against the war and never fired a gun, how is that hypocritical?

The point of calling a conservative who is for the war but is not willing to put thier own pound of flesh on the chopping block chickenhawks, is to point out that they are using those who would for thier own end.

Are you telling me that if i egged you on into fights all the time with out ever helping you are throwing a punch that you wouldn't be a little offended?

As for "liberals" who support the war, but haven't been in the military, they are chicken hawks too.

Or are you saying that those who don't support the war should have been in the military or that they should go fight it?

That would be like saying that pat robertson should go perform an abortion so he can prove that he isn't antiwoman.

Or that bush should pick up an antiwar sign and go protest his own war.

What is your point? You are trying to shame liberals into what?

Are saying that liberals who deplore the use of unnessisary violence in war have no right to say it is wrong? Are you saying that we cannot condemn the killing grounds tactics that are currently being used. Well # you.

You are the fraud you chickenhawk



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
So even if you're liberal and you've never been in combat, you're still a neo-conservative?

That's some nice kindergarten logic. Let's hear from someone who's not a complete retard.


I'd blame it on the brass section, they rarely keep up.

But, what if you are liberal and you've been in combat? Are you a witch or a plank of wood?



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I'm talking strictly about people who are calling this soldier a war criminal or a blood-thirsty murderer, whatever, blah blah blah.

Let's try to keep up.

If the chickenhawks should not be for war because they've never seen war, then people who've never been in war should not criticize the people fighting in it.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
I'm talking strictly about people who are calling this soldier a war criminal or a blood-thirsty murderer, whatever, blah blah blah.

Let's try to keep up.

If the chickenhawks should not be for war because they've never seen war, then people who've never been in war should not criticize the people fighting in it.




It is a fact of life. War is good money.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It just doesn't look right unless I have a warning flag.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
In multiple threads on this site and others including most major media outlets, pacifists are maligned as "peacenicks", "terrorist sympathizers", "cowards", "commies", "pinkos", and other related remarks. You cannot claim that pacifists aren't maligned in step with the pro-war crowd.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
In multiple threads on this site and others including most major media outlets, pacifists are maligned as "peacenicks", "terrorist sympathizers", "cowards", "commies", "pinkos", and other related remarks. You cannot claim that pacifists aren't maligned in step with the pro-war crowd.



If you watch the news. What is a better way to lose credibility for your cause than a green hair, nose ring clown shouting out profanity.

Staged. Intentional.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Just dropping by to say Play Nice, or don't play at all.


I do not think people are criticizing the troops per se', but the Admin who put them there. I personally do not think we should be in this War, but that does not mean I do not support the Young and old, Men and Women giving their Lives.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Oh no no no.

Alot of people are going straight for the throat of this Marine for shooting the insurgent.

Calling him a coward...a COWARD! How anyone can sit at their computer in the comfort of their home and call a person in a war zone, who only hours before got SHOT IN THE FACE a coward...truly disgraceful.

All I'm saying is I have no doubt in my mind that the same people who cried about chickenhawks for "loving" war but never having served are now trying to destroy this Marine even though they themselves have no idea what this man went through.

And if they're not attacking the Marine themselves they sure are silent about the obvious hypocracy in criticizing conservatives who are pro-war but have not served and criticizing people who not only have served but are serving, in the middle of a terrible war zone.

It's bull/# and you all know it.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I question the use of the world cowardly or bravery during war. As a soldier, isn't that what you are trained to do?

I can accept the usage of cowardly or bravery among civilians, because it is not an expected action.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
If they called him a coward that IS wrong. He may be misinformed by his superiors. He may not know the rules of engagement. He may have forgot that the camera was still on. But he's not a coward.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Given the fact that insurgents were prone to fake their deaths as a tactic of attack, I'd say the marine did the right thing.

The laws of combat are useful and should be obeyed, but they are not a suicide pact.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
It just doesn't look right unless I have a warning flag.



Well since I am clean for once, I got a name for them,

Chicken#s.


EDIT:

And I think that is a good name for the folks that want to fry this guy without knowing the whole details.....From what I understand, he did the right thing. If it was your son in the room and the insurgent moves in a manner that is well , threatening, then shoot and ask later...

[edit on 19-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Well, to be honest, I saw the video and I didn't see the insurgent as threatening in his actions.

But I did take note of the unusual amount of anxiety in the voice of the soldier over a probably mortally-injured insurgent. They were definitely unnerved by him.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I am against our young men and women in the military being sent to the wrong country under B.S. circumstances and to die for a desk-jockey president and to die for his lies. God bless them for answering the call. Damn Dubya to hell for sending them to die for Dubya's B.S. war. At least I can respect George senior AND Kerry for being soldiers in the field and fighting for this country.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ibn Iblis
The pacifist anti-war left (and 'paleo-con' right) are fond of trashing Conservatives who advocate the use of force and support war but have never served in the military.

They call them "chickenhawks".

Yet I have seen no name given to the pacifists or isolationists, mostly on the left, who have never been in combat, never fired a gun, never been shot at, yet armchair QB our troops' tactics in the heat of battle.

Surely, there are many of the same people hurling the word chickenhawk around and criticizing our soldiers in the field. Your hypocracy is glaring and staggering.

Frauds, all of you.


I think the difference is hypocrisy. Never serving in the military and advocating peace, versus never serving int he military and advocating war is a bit different.

Chickenhawks are one step below ape feces.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join