Der Trihs, a moment of your time, if you would.

Contrapuntal · February 14, 2007, 2:33pm

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I thought part of why we all served was to defend the rights of people like Der Trihs to make assinine statements like he does? You know we are all sworn to protect all of the Bill of Rights.

Jim
[/QUOTE]
How does the Bill of Rights apply to a private message board? There are all sorts of restrictions on speech around here.
FWIW, I have never sworn to protect the Bill of Rights. What do you mean by “we … all”?

magellan01 · February 14, 2007, 2:40pm

[QUOTE=tagos]
You are ignoring ‘collateral damage’ that arises from deciding military gains outweigh civilian casualties and generally putting our own soldier’s lives above those of the people you are meant to be helping as the safety first approach of US troops mandates. ‘Collateral damage’ aren’t magic words that wipe away the blood on our hands. It’s weasel words for not caring enough to check properly in the case of bombed wedding parties or caring more about military objectives when shelling a city.

And the coalition share in the responsibility for every death resulting from the situation we created. Which is not to excuse the murdering bastards waging their own civil war (any and all involved with ethnic cleansing and civilian attacks I happily wish dead).

In the end I hold Bush and Blair as ultimately responsible as they wilfully lied our countries into the war and implemented an Occupation of monumental ineptitude. And to a lesser extent I blame every war supporter who aided and abetted them with their wilful blindness to reality.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, to most of the mind readers around here it’s all lies, lies, lies. The intelligence around the world was all wrong, but Blair and Bush KNEW it was yet put forth their arguements in spite of that knowledge. Of course this all fact. You know this to be true because, because, well, lot’s of people say it’s true. No I’m not going to re-argue that nonsense here, so you may continue in your Cindy Sheehan cocoon.

Now: collateral damage. A fact of war. Especially in a war when the enemy seek to hide among innocent civilians. To allow that to happen and not act is surrender. The fact is that we go to great pains to minimize collateral damage (where that is the insurgents’ goal) risking and losing lives in that effort. We could just bomb the fuck out of Fallujah or any other insurgent stronghold—flatten it—in a day, but we don’t. Instead, we send our young man and women in these areas with instructions to be as discriminating as possible, while not losing their own lives. A plan that is not 100% succesful. But let’s ignore those realities so you can make yourself feel good chanting: America is a monster. Grow the fuck up.

What_Exit · February 14, 2007, 2:41pm

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
How does the Bill of Rights apply to a private message board? There are all sorts of restrictions on speech around here.
FWIW, I have never sworn to protect the Bill of Rights. What do you mean by “we … all”?
[/QUOTE]

“We … all”, refers to the military folk like myself and many members of my family. You have the right to ignore the Bill of Rights of course, but this might make you more un-American than Der Trihs.

As far as the Bill of Rights, I was replying to those who suggest he leaves the country.

Do you want the Straight Dope to start adding more restrictions on speech? Today it would be no calling for the death of America Troops and then what do we add tomorrow?

Jim

Mellivora_capensis · February 14, 2007, 2:42pm

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Ehh. Der Trihs says everything I want to say in those Iraq/military threads, so I don’t have to say it. I say he’s fulfilling a valuable, if unpopular, service, and let’s leave him to do it.
[/QUOTE]

Stadig, my vriend, stadig. Die reels maak nie altyd sin nie, maar hulle bly nog steeds die reels. Ek wil nie sien dat hulle jou ook verbied nie.

Contrapuntal · February 14, 2007, 2:49pm

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
“We … all”, refers to the military folk like myself and many members of my family.
[/QUOTE]
Really? I wonder how I missed that. Could it be that it is nowhere in your statement?

Who said anything about ignoring it? What the fuck are you on about?

Is it a violation of the Bill of Rights to suggest that someone might be happier elsewhere?

Not particularly. We already have his one.

That should do it.

What_Exit · February 14, 2007, 2:56pm

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Really? I wonder how I missed that. Could it be that it is nowhere in your statement?
[/QUOTE]

Please note the part I bolded.

tagos · February 14, 2007, 2:56pm

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Can you show me a post of someone who has said he wishes all the “insurgents” in Iraq were dead?

[/QUOTE]

Oh come on. You really want a cite for that sentiment? You pick sides you wish death on the opposition. Trihs is just more upfront about the implications of picking sides and has picked the wrong one in most people’s eyes.

My limited search skills found this recent one but you and I both know there is a regular outpouring of rage at massacres and a tendency to turn a euphemistic blind eye to ‘collateral damage’.

At this point, what would be so wrong with taking the extreme action of just issuing an edict that anyone seen with a weapon of any kind, excepting US Military or Iraqi Police/Military, is killed - no questions asked? We have determined that the motives of those committing the violence are inherently wrong by anyone’s standard of morality, so therefore the motivation must be removed in order for the violence to stop. Remove the people propagating the motivation, and it just peters out. If there are no followers, then those in “charge” of these little jihads will fade away. Notice that this is not the same as “Just nuke it all and let God sort it out.” You just get a few really big, strong battalions of troops, and move across the city or landside removing the threat, but leaving the “civil” civilians.

No more failed diplomacy, no more nifty strategies aimed at reduction of violence, just use more bullets, and go gung-ho on any and all opposition to a non-violent Iraq. Kinda like pre-emptive self-defense but more brutal. It’s not morally worse than who we’d be fighting against, in fact it would be a little better…because innocent civilians do not wield weapons, and therefore would not die by our hand. Eventually there wouldn’t be any weapon-wielders left.

From here

magellan01 · February 14, 2007, 2:59pm

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

Ehh. Der Trihs says everything I want to say in those Iraq/military threads, so I don’t have to say it. I say he’s fulfilling a valuable, if unpopular, service, and let’s leave him to do it.
[/QUOTE]

I’m glad you posted this. It brings to light that our whacky military hater is not alone. To his credit, at least he is open an honest about his views. Often around here people like to say that Der Trihs is a tiny exception. So now we have two:

Der Trihs
MrDibble

Anyone else have the courage of their convictions? Kumquat? Tagos? Anyone?

El_Kabong · February 14, 2007, 3:01pm

[Quote=Sarafeena]
People don’t “attack” people for having a different opinion, they do so for personally insulting them. Which is what Der Trihs does when he says something like this to military personnel.

Oakminster was merely pointing out that it’s really easy to hide behind message board anonymity when you are using fightin’ words.
[/Quote]

Sarafeena, I think if you check the laws in the area you live in, you may find that being verbally insulted is insufficient legal grounds for physically attacking someone. Even if most people are sympathetic to givin’ our poster boy a righteous beatdown, the law tends to look unkindly on persons who commit violence on others when they are not themselves under threat. As someone who despises bullies, I’m right on board with that.

If you don’t like what Der Trihs has to say, say so. Threatening him with violence, much less actually carrying it out, does not make you or the others look particularly noble or righteous.

Anyway, you said it yourself. Der Trihs hides behind his anonymity, Oakminster and the other blustering bullies who suggest they’d like to hurt him hide behind theirs. Fact is, none of them are ever likely to actually confront each other, so it’s just another pointless pissing contest.

Contrapuntal · February 14, 2007, 3:02pm

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Please note the part I bolded.
[/QUOTE]
My apologies.

Shodan · February 14, 2007, 3:03pm

Perhaps much of the frustration with the troll mentioned is the asymmetry of perceived construction.

“I hope American servicemen in Iraq die because the war in Iraq is wrong” is the equivalent of saying “You voted for Kerry so I hope your son is murdered” for more than one Doper. Most of us recognize that the second statement would be jerkish, yet the first is allowed.

I am not arguing that either should be a bannable offense. I am giving one of the reasons for my frustration with the one mentioned in the OP.

And, I believe Der Troll has said explicitly that he hates America. No doubt he hates a lot of things, often with justification. But the fact that he continues to live in America, and enjoy the benefits of exercising his God-given rights here, while simultaneously venting his undifferentiated hate for America - this makes him a hypocrite.

What makes him a coward is that he vents his anti-American filth on a messageboard. I imagine that the reason that so many are wishing that he do so someplace where it is not “safe” to do so - like to my face, or the face of my relatives in the military - is to make his cowardice clear. He can post his stuff on a messageboard - fine. If he says the same thing to my face, he runs a risk. Namely, that his next anti-American vomit may pass over a substantially lower number of teeth.

Since he declines to take risks, even to the extent that he refuses to defend himself in the Pit, then he is a coward.

I am stating the obvious, I know.

Regards,
Shodan

tagos · February 14, 2007, 3:18pm

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m glad you posted this. It brings to light that our whacky military hater is not alone. To his credit, at least he is open an honest about his views. Often around here people like to say that Der Trihs is a tiny exception. So now we have two:

Der Trihs
MrDibble

Anyone else have the courage of their convictions? Kumquat? Tagos? Anyone?
[/QUOTE]

This is the Pit right? So I can say screw you to thinking I want all UK and US soldiers dead right? Good.

There are colours other than black and white you know? If this was a simple Resistance vs invaders then I would certainly hope for the military defeat of the Coalition just like back in the day I was happy to see the USA kicked out of Vietnam for prolonging a civil war their side was never going to win.

But Iraq isn’t that simple. 'Nam was messy enough but Iraq is a complete cluster-fuck.

What I would like is for the USA to negotiate in good faith, with no preconditions with all parties in the region, to get out as quickly as possible leaving as stable a situation as possible.

Even if that means a big win for Iran in terms of a friendly govt in Baghdad.

But just like that murdering butchers Nixon and Kissinger, Bush et al only want out on their terms and if that means tens of thousands more civilian casualties, thousands more soldiers maimed and killed and tens of billions more dollars squandered while the Taleban creep back into Afghanistan, they don’t care so long as they hang on long enough to claim the next President ‘lost’.

As previously stated - if I were to wish anyone dead it’s the murdering, ethnically cleansing Sunni and Shia savages, in and out of uniform.

Frankly - I wish the US grunt would turn on the politicians and gung-ho officers like their predecessors did in Vietnam and refuse to fight an unwinnable war just to save other people’s faces.

And I’ve stated in numerous posts I have no problem at all with us fighting in Afghanistan.

I’ve also stated on numerous occassions that as I’ve been marching against western support of Saddam for 20 odd years I was all for an international attempt to overthrow him if it could be done. What I was not for was a go-it-alone attack built on a tissue of lies for blatant geo-political reasons and executed with an incompetent disregard for the reality of what they were getting into.

So don’t friggin’ call me a death-wisher okay?

What_Exit · February 14, 2007, 3:25pm

[QUOTE=Shodan]

And, I believe Der Troll has said explicitly that he hates America. No doubt he hates a lot of things, often with justification. But the fact that he continues to live in America, and enjoy the benefits of **exercising his God-given rights ** here, while simultaneously venting his undifferentiated hate for America - this makes him a hypocrite.
[/QUOTE]

Considering you know as much about **Der Trihs ** as you do, you have to know the bolded part is probably more insulting than the posters who just curse him. His rights are not God-Given, but Constitution and Chicago Reader Given.

Contrapuntal no problem and please do not get me wrong, I hate what **Der Trihs ** says. If he said it while we were at a bar when I was in my Twenties, I probably would have attacked him in a silly knee jerk reaction. I work hard to control my anger. In a recent thread, I wrote up a long post cursing him and then on preview decided he was not worth it and I should not let him aggravate me and I closed the sessions rather than post.

In fact you should have seen my first reply to you.

Jim

magellan01 · February 14, 2007, 3:26pm

[QUOTE=tagos]
This is the Pit right? So I can say screw you to thinking I want all UK and US soldiers dead right? Good.