Politically Incorrect, Bill Mahar, and Terrorism

  • Thread starter advanR
  • 115 comments
  • 4,335 views
an easy way to think you are superior to someone is to shrug them off because they are young. i am 18. my mind is 18 in age, but not maturity.

i am now thinking you of as a hardass. the kind of person that wears a stained wifebeater and drives a camaro. they think they are tough.

pfffffffffft
 
Full metal jacket has something to do with bullets.
I think they are hardened bullets to pierce metal or armor.
Could be wrong.
Msinblu
 
Wife-beater :lol: Judging by your previous track record, I think you fit the red-neck bill a closer then I. Let's take this to the PM's before they close a good topic.
 
Originally posted by misnblu
Full metal jacket has something to do with bullets.
I think they are hardened bullets to pierce metal or armor.
Could be wrong.
Msinblu
Click to expand...

Close. They are meant to not break apart on impact so if you get hit by one it will pierce you but not take out half your organs. It cut down on battle fatalities. It is international law to use bullets with a full metal jacket. That speaks to AdvanR's contention that the purpose of was is to kill as many people as possible.

I think he has a very "video game" idea of war.
 
Originally posted by advanR
if they can take an enemy as hostige, instead of killing them, of course they will.
Click to expand...

my mind is loose. i did not consider the thoght of being able to injure/disable an enemy, by shooting them, using non-lethal weapons technologies.

i do not have a "video game" idea of war. i am 18, not 8. war is serious, i know. i never want to have to take part in something like that.
 
Thanks for the explanation MileFile. ;)
In a war of any kind, no one wants to die. Its a pretty good idea to take someone out but not kill them in the process. ;)
Msnblu
Misnblu
 
The Swiss I beleive came up with the international rules of warfare. Rules for war ..go figure. Anyway the full metal jacketed bullet or ball ammunition was proscribed because the bullet would have less of a chance to deform on entering the body theoretically to create a less traumatic wound. It also has the added benifit of not leaving any lead behind to foul the barrell. Funny thing happend somehow the Russians and Americans bullets because of there ballistic qualities have a tendency to tumble wich creates horrible wounds. In Vietnam doctors would find an entrance wound in a soldiers chest and the bullet after travelling through his boddy in the soldiers leg. The damage was much worse and harder to treat because it was so unpredictable. I doubt these bullets were designed by accident but they meet the swiss standards. The technology for exploding bullets has existed for years very lethal stuff wonder why the army doesn't use it.? Must be against the rules. anyway theres lots of rules, heres alink if you want to start a war should know the rules.
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/warfare.html
 
its a degrading way to call people what they are. help me out and tell me a non offensive way to refer to rednecks.

also, I just caught bill mahar plugging his new show on leno. I wasnt even aware he had a new show. anyone with information on it, please tell me. I will be sure to check it out.

I should also say that I thought he was hilarious. most of his opinions were spot on. I only caught the last part of the interview, but I heard some pretty funny stuff. he was very right about ozzy osbourne. the michael jackson/saddam hussein analogy was pretty funny. I wich I would have caught the first part of that segment. they appeared to be talking about jackson a bit. of course leno had his moronic crowd applauding at whatever jay said, but bill had some good points defending jackson.
 
My turn to comment on the topic.

First of all, Bill was definitely liberal. I watched his show (being of neither major political party) and he was always on the left (as most celebrities are). Maybe that's why his show got cancelled.

Here's my take on censorship.

Censorship is by definition government mandated. A private company (like ABC) taking a show off the air is not censorship. ABC can air whatever the hell the ownership wants it to air. ABC wants to make money and apparently Bill was losing them money. That's it. No government censorship. People claimed that radio stations banning the dixie chicks is censorship. This is crap. They can play anyone they want. If the government told them not to play the dixie chicks, that would be censorship.

Here's my take on the cowardice argument

Bill was way off calling people who launch missiles from far away cowards. As some of the people have already stated on this thread, the same argument could be used to claim that anyone who uses a gun or bow and arrow or rock is a coward for not using their bare hands to take out their opponent. Its not cowardly to use technology to fight wars, its smart. It shows regard for human life (which is something the terrorists do not show).

Now. I would argue that the WWII kamikaze example is a good example of bravery. It was totally brave of them to kill themselves for their country. Not really terribly smart on their part, but brave and devoted.

The 911 hijackers and terrorists in general are different. They have a beautiful afterlife system set up for when they kill Americans. So it would be brave of one of them to die without killing Americans and risk an eternity in whatever they consider to be hell. The cowardly (or at least conformist) thing to do would be to ensure that you go to "heaven" by killing as many Americans as possible. They don't want to live in the middle east anyway because there isn't much food there, and they don't want to live in America because we think to differently.


So that's it.

In summary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not brave to kill yourself for your cause if it ensures that you have a paradise of an afterlife.

Its not cowardly to use weapons, its smart. Its cowardly to not stand up for your principles - back out because its easy to back out (i.e. France, protesters).

Censorship requires government sponsorship.

Bill Maher was a liberal. Its just hard to tell when almost the whole rest of the media is too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Originally posted by danoff


First of all, Bill was definitely liberal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Maher was a liberal. Its just hard to tell when almost the whole rest of the media is too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

He's a libertarian,.... which actually falls slightly closer to the right than the left.....
 
Originally posted by danoff


Now. I would argue that the WWII kamikaze example is a good example of bravery. It was totally brave of them to kill themselves for their country. Not really terribly smart on their part, but brave and devoted.
Click to expand...

The also knew that if they retuned they'd be coerced into suicide by their commanders. They had no way out. This was not only the case in Japan. Have you seen Enemy at the Gates?
 
nope never seen "enemy at the gates". I figured there was something going on there, but since I didn't know for sure I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

In that case... I have no good examples of committing suicide for one's goal being brave. Its definitely a show of faith, but I don't know that that's brave. I'd argue that its actually the easy way out.
 
In Enemy at the Gates, underequipped Russian soldiers are defending Stalingrad from the Nazis. There weren't enough guns for everybody so their orders were to run toward the front and when the guy in front of you is shot, pick up his gun and continue running, and so on. It was clear suicide. The Russians who chickened out and ran away were shot on sight by their commanders for being cowards. They were all dead either way.

And since you haven't seen it, YOU SHOULD. It's the best war movie I've ever seen. And it's told from the Russian perspective which is a nice change from the usual.
 
Originally posted by milefile
In Enemy at the Gates, underequipped Russian soldiers are defending Stalingrad from the Nazis. There weren't enough guns for everybody so their orders were to run toward the front and when the guy in front of you is shot, pick up his gun and continue running, and so on. It was clear suicide. The Russians who chickened out and ran away were shot on sight by their commanders for being cowards. They were all dead either way.

And since you haven't seen it, YOU SHOULD. It's the best war movie I've ever seen. And it's told from the Russian perspective which is a nice change from the usual.
Click to expand...

Is that the story about the two snipers? If so,.. yes,. awesome flick. Definately an alteritive perspective.
 
The Kamakazi's are hard to understand unless you can understand the Japenese code of Bushido. The Kamikazes were a rational decision by the Japenese military on how to best use what resourses that they had left to stop an overwhelmingly superior enemy, from destroying their country. At the time for any Japenese pilot to get in an airplane it was suicide. The American advantage in numbers of aircraft , and quality of both pilots and planes was that pronounced. IF you got past the planes you then faced the anti aircraft weapons , that by the end of the war were beyond formidible. with vt fuses and dedicated ships built as anti air platforms.
The Japenese military using the rational that the pilots are dead anyway, decided that the best way to give there deaths value was to have them take as many Americans with them as they possibly could. They took whatever could fly ,stuffed it with explosives and put a pilot it it..turning it into a precision guided missle. They also built dedicated planes..the orcha , or Cherry Blossom , being one ,for use in this way. Along with developing the weapons they also devised tactics on how to best employ them. The Kamikaze became a very formidable weapon of war. Google Kmamakaze and Bushido for more info.
The war in Russia was similar to the war in the Pacific in that it was ask no quarter give none fighting. The fighting was brutal the casualties were enormouse especially on the russian side. Both the Russians and German armys used penal battalions.basically a death sentance for the soldiers assigned to them. you were assigned to such a battalion as a punishment ..if you survived you were sent back to your origional unit. The russian army was at the time not very well equiped at it was common practice to send more soldiers than rifles to the front ..as the soldiers were not expected to last long..again this was just a fact of the war that was accepted as reality and adapted to.
 
First for the original post. Politically incorrect should never have been taken off the air. I know this post is a little late but was reading it and decided to give my opinion.
America prides itself on all of its freedoms and one of those freedoms is speech. This is for good and bad speech. Bill Mahar may have said things a majority of people did not agree with but he still had the freedom to say so. Or is freedom of speech only allowed if the majority agrees?
 
One more thing...the pilots who dropped the bomb(s) in Japan were also on a suicide mission. They knew very well that there was only a very small chance they would come back alive. They knew not all of them would come home and those that did, some would be in a pine box. But they forged ahead and did their mission, all the while hoping they would not die, but knowing they probably would.
 
Wow. Thanks for digging up this piece of crap. Did you know that this thread has been censored? Yep. There used to be some very derogatory comments about Jews by the charming and talented AdvanR. Strangely they are now missing. I guess the majority didn't agree.

Your comparison of the pilots who dropped the bombs on Japan (or Germany for that matter) is bogus. There is no comparison. I won't even waste my time explaining why.
 
Originally posted by DGB454
Ok. You are saying the hijackers were brave because they did what they did. I can see your point. I think though there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. I think the hijackers were the later because they believed in something as stupid as a god rewarding them for killing innocent people. I guess maybe thier god will reward them for doing it but I'm guessing it wont be pleasant.

Second point. If it is braver to fight at closer range then we should get rid of all weapons and fight hand to hand. Just beat the crap out of each others till there is only on man standing.

Some of the world might see the hijackers and suicide bombers as brave but in my opinion they are cowards and lunatics who need to blame everyone else for everything bad in their lives instead of looking at their own screwed up beliefs.

I mean, you have to be twisted to believe that your god rewards you for killing innocent people he created.

If Bill got cancelled for saying the hijackers were brave and insinuating that U.S. and our allies are cowards then as far as I'm concerned I hope he never goes on the air again. In fact I think they should draft him and put him on the front line with no weapon and lets see what bravery looks like.
Click to expand...



what do you think the crusades were about? a lot of ppl were hurt/killed in the name of the catholic church. killing in the name of god is nothing new.
 

Similar threads

Danoff
Misinformation (the internet mirror)
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Scaff
Scaff
Com Fox
  • Poll
Voting in Elections. Should it be Mandatory, Optional, Restricted, or none at all?
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Danoff
Danoff
onedjyoulike
Do you know what's dumber than VGT cars?
Replies
4
Views
761
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
onedjyoulike
LFA Livery choice
Replies
20
Views
2K
Talon16
Talon16

Latest Posts

Back