US Marine: I Was Ordered to Execute Women and Children

Sad how a stupid few can taint the name of one of the greatest branches of the armed forces ever.

 

Yet i still manage to school you on the meanings of logical fallacies when you use them incorrectly in an attempt to appear intellectual... Interesting.

I have always said exactly what i think, I never dodge an issue. It's just a shame that some people lack either the integrity or intelligence to read basic sentences written in simple English without trying to interpret different meanings for them. For some of them i think it is a lack of intelligence, Like toopac, He is having trouble understanding simple sentences. But for other people it's a case of them being a pathological liar.

If you want to see some real issue dodging look at how people responded to this thread where a soldier claims he was ordered to execute women and children, Or the issue of the soldier being tried and convicted for the rape and execution of a 14 year old girl. The scum showed nothing but support, Some scum even went as far as to say they are proud of someone who rapes and murders children.

Even yourself in the text i quoted try to brush the rape and execution of a child under the carpet by saying that the soldier was punished. So what? Is every crime excused simply because the criminal got caught? He killed and raped a child, And you are incapable of forming an opinion on that. Think about it.

 

Poor st0X

I guess if i were like you i would justify the rapes to get the issue done with & to show the degree of hatred i have, i would probably do that by saying; "Still, Like i said, Better that supporting the execution of innocents by muslims day in day out, even on other muslims"

Thanks for the link GTech:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3464145&postcount=24

 

Nah stox, I'm just get tired of letting you dodge the issue. If you'd like to continue the discussion, though. Just for a second here you go.

In this argument,
Hitler killed jews, So the VW beetle is a bad car. - ad hominem

You claim it to be an ad hominem, but its a non-sequitor.

And here's why. I'll do it slowly for you:

Hitler Killed jews (he's bad) - though you probably think he's good since you support groups that kill jews - but anyways.
Hitler is german
VW is made by germans
Therefore, VW is a bad car

Non sequitor. Need any other help here?

Ad ad hominem woudl have been this:
Hitler says the sky is blue. Hitler killed jews. Therefore, the sky is not blue.

Which was your argument to me before:
stox supports terrorists. Lorien is a scumbug. therefore, stox doesn't support terrorists.

Now when you are ready to get back to the actual issue of you absolving terrorists, please let me know

No, stox, the perpetrator of the crime was punished. That one person does not mean everyone in the military (your argument) is a rapist. You are the one saying "the military is raping people". Your argument is the whole military is like that. And you are mad at everyone for pointing that out. Poor stox. If you don't believe the entire military are rapists just say it. Why does it take 10 pages?

Then, you'll go on to say you support the cause of people who's only cause is to kill as many civilians as possible - be they in markets, schools, hospitals or whatever. And are attempting to claim the moral superiority from that.

Which is rather funny. But its typical for you. Every thread you are in consists of stox saying stupid (supporting terrorists, normally), then 10 pages of stox calling everyone dumb for pointing it out and dodging the issue. It's quite an excellent pattern you've got yourself going. You should be proud.

I still dunno why you keep responding here, your views are perfectly clear to everyone.

 

Lorien, I think I will be correct you to some degree, you see Hitler played a huge part of the "people's car" the VW bug, lots of history for the VW fanatic. So I think he is correct with the VW, just not clear for someone who doesn't know all the history behind it.

The rest I agree with, he seems to not under stand how we can still support a military when .00001 percent of that military has raped a 14 year old girl and murdered her and at the same time he supports a group of people who target civilians.

 

Debunked, Read what i wrote. I said "do you support the military that rapes and kills children". I'm not talking about the military personnel that don't, I specifically meant the ones that do. I made sure i worded it that way. And that is the thing toopac is having immense difficulty with. This is why it's important to read exactly what someone says and not invent your own interpretations, Or strawman arguments.

Lorien non sequitur is ad-hominem without the judgment on the persons characteristics. As soon as the argument uses the persons characteristics as a basis for an argument it becomes ad-hominem.

If you can't admit that you used the fallacy incorrectly how can we take anything else you have said seriously. (that is ad hominem by the way).

 

Your quote above says "THE military" not "the soldier", so you are trying to change what it says through meaning or you are confused in your English.

If you are talking about the soldier, than ask "Do you support the soldier who rapes and murders?" Quite simple really. Two completely different questions, one is the military, which the U.S. military comprises of 4 branches and can even include others as well. So your question in its original form actually says that all 4 branches of the military are raping 14y.o. girls.

 

It's simple to understand. You are now intentionally misunderstanding it in an attempt to turn it in to something that you feel adequately armed to counter.

The question "do you support the military that rapes and kills children" does in no way suggest the whole military because it specifically mentions the ones that rape and kill children.

It's no different than the sentence "do you like dogs that bite". That sentence isn't referring to all dogs because it specifically singles out the ones that bite. I know you might be more comfortable with smaller words and maybe a few pictures but the sentence makes perfect sense and the fact that so many people are having trouble understanding it does nothing but demonstrate the intelligence of the average DP member.

 

If English is your primary language, then this is sad. It doesn't need any interpretation to see "the military that rapes and murders" as just that. It is very simple. "the military" not "the part of the military" or "the soldiers", but "the military"
The reason everyone sees your question as loaded is because of the structure. For those whose primary language is English, we read it the same way. When you use "the military" it means the military.

Do you support the religion that kills and rapes children?

 

If i had just said "military" you may have a point about it being the whole military, But any half intelligent human being (and perhaps some retarded chimps) will see that when i added the "... that kills and rapes children" i couldn't possible be talking about the whole military because i specifically point to the ones that kill and rape children.

How can the sentence possibly be referring to the entire military when it specifically says the ones that kill and rape children?

 

Then your question should have been:

"do you support the military personnel that have raped and killed children"

"do you support the soldiers that have raped and killed children"

This is standard English.

Anyone would give the answer as NO anyway (if they are normal).

 

Dude, just admit you made a mistake and move on.
The way you structured the question was crappy and this is the reason which led to all this bullshit.

 

There are many ways that the question could have been worded toopac, Mine was one of the many valid ways. It's hardly my fault if people need sentences written in block capitols in thick black crayon.

No DevilHellz, I didn't make a mistake. The sentence makes perfect sense.
It's no different than saying;
"do you like dogs that bite"
"do you support racist police"
"do you support crooked judges"
In all examples the group in question is obviously not all dogs, all police or all judges because it uses a behavioral trait that limits it to only dogs that bite, Racist police or crooked judges.

Are you people seriously still having trouble with this?

 

Thank you DevilHellz.

''Answer this, Simply yes or no. Are you proud of your military that rapes and murders 14 year old girls? I bet you don't answer.''

It does not get clearer. I am not a native speaker, but this really is as clear as it gets. Your question asks if they are proud of the whole military while mentioning the one sick case of the 14-year-old murder by a US soldier. In other words: Are you proud of a military that kills and rapes little girls all the time? Your goal was to play on that drum when the answer is ''yes, I support the military.'' Supporting a military that you attached to killing girls and raping them would make the ones who answer ''yes'' look bad, and that in your opinion would make you ''win'' the discussion.

We are human beings. We all make mistakes. The best thing is to admit it, apologize, and move on. It was just a very bad and an unintelligent way to start a discussion. It doomed your point of view.

Now about the military. The ones who commit crimes get punished and exposed to the whole world. The absolute majority of the US soldiers are wonderful people. I lived with them for a few months. There surely were bad apples, but when you want to make up an opinion about a group of people, you should look at the majority, not one sick case. Saying the US military is criminal because of one sick and criminal soldier makes you look very stupid and prejudiced.

And guys, take it easy.

 

Yes that is a loaded question.

 

You aren't a native speaker so i won't school you like i did the others. But you don't have to use "other words" when looking at the question, I provided words, use the ones i wrote.

As soon as someone says "in other words" it becomes apparent that they aren't reading the question, They are simply interpreting their own meaning.

Their answer should have been "no, I'm not proud of the military that rapes and kills children, I'm proud of the ones that don't though".

Maybe my ability to ask questions is superior to their ability to answer them, But the question made perfect sense and in no way inferred that i was talking about the entire military.

 

That's a loaded answer.

 

We don't have a military that rapes and kills children. Thank goodness.

We have had some bad soldiers which hopefully are punished when caught.

 

Thats it.

So if you are pushed you should not think??? I think that in the times where you are pushed you have to think even more.
Grafstein, you would back up anyone that are killing muslims anyway.

 

So "in other words" you wrote what you wrote & only you believe it 'reads the way' or means what you say it does, well done!

Everyone is just wrong