Ah.
And as we all know, the actions of a couple of American soldiers are representative of the entire US military. Just like the actions of a couple terrorists are representative of all of Islam.
Right?
Doesn’t seem nearly as bad as this, the conduct of the Canadian airborne forces in Somalia:
"The Canadian airborne was disbanded in January after the murder of Shidane Arone, a teenage Somali thief, was followed by embarrassing videotaped footage of racism and brutal hazing in the regiment formerly known for its wartime heroics. One segment depicted Canada’s U.N. peacekeepers in Somalia referring to local citizens as “nig-nogs” and joking about hunting Somalis as trophies.
Another tape showed a black airborne recruit crawling through a gantlet of blows and a shower of human waste with the words “I love KKK” scrawled on his back."
matt, take the log out of your own eye first.
This is unbelievable. Look, you twit, I would have been out on the street protesting that when it happened, except that I was twelve.
As if I can’t condemn the actions of Canadian soldiers because I’m condemning the actions of American sailors! Shove that straw man up your dick.
First of all, I am pretty much in agreement with everyone here who found the writing on the bomb offensive.
I will note that I do find it interesting that for some reason we expect that the people we hire to bring death upon whomever their superiors tell them will also be kind and unhateful. I am not saying that all members of the military are hateful, but it certainly seems like an unrealistic expectation to demand that soldiers not be. I mean, that’s why we have an army, so that those of us who can’t muster up enough anger, patriotism, or cold logic to tell us to shoot people have someone to do it for us. Do we then have a right to be critical that these folks are exhibiting that hatred which in many cases enables them to do their job? I will also note that this incident was “on the job.” I am not going to try to excuse that sort of behavior back in reality.
Just a thought.
I don’t think it’s surprising at all that we would expect professionalism from the members of a professional volunteer army, and the suggestion that we wouldn’t or shouldn’t scares the living daylights out of me. We have every right to require professionalism from people we have armed with deadly force. Military personnel are public servants.
I forget exactly how it was, but in M.A.S.H, wasn’t Klinger trying to get out of the Army by pretending to be a homosexual, and cross-dressing?
I don’t have a point here, just asking.
I personally think it’s inexcusably stupid and insensitive that the Navy cleared that photo for publication.
On the other hand I’m not surprised nor particularly disturbed that that and worse is being written on bombs.
My dad’s an ex-marine, and my grandfather an ex-NYC policeman. Both of these guys curse a lot, and use a wide variety of terminology, and when they build up a good head of steam their capable of denigrating 99% plus of the earth’s population in a single stream of invective.
They use the words without too much concern as to their origins or different meanings, and they don’t attach the importance to them that maybe MattMCL does.
When I say “Jesus Christ on a crutch!” after hitting my thumb with a hammer, I’m not denigrating christianity, I’m cursing.
A curse is supposed to be offensive, and I’m not sure how I’d feel about a bomb that says “High jack, this you gosh darn rascals!”
Many expletives have roots that attach to certain groups, and as they are used they loose their specific meaning and acquire generic meaning.
“Up yours!” is another curse that seems to have an ani-homosexual overtone, yet constant usage has made it so benign, a soda company uses it in their slogan.
So, I honestly wouldn’t get too worked up about what they write on bombs, but I’m with you that choosing one with an epithet like that for release is an extremely poor choice, and one you should be offended about, as am I.
In another sense, as an avid fan of cursing, this bomb also bothers me, as “fag” is a pretty damn weak epithet to write on a bomb.
SCYLLA –
Being in agreement on the larger point, let the quibbling commence. 
Well, you’re not denigrating Christianity, but you might well be offending Christ, seeing as how those of us who are Christian aren’t supposed to do that. In other words, He is the only member in that particular subset, and so far as we know, He is offended by it. Besides which, “Jesus Christ” is not used to denigrate a group of people the way “fag” is.
But surely you see the difference between using a word that is generally profane and offensive, such as “fuck” or “Jesus Christ” and one that denigrates a given group. Would you be willing to even mildly justify this if the word was “nigger” instead of “fag”?
Do you honestly feel that calling someone a fag is the equivalent of saying “up yours”? Surely you see that we all have a “yours” to shove something “up,” but only homosexuals are “fags.”
I don’t buy MATT’s “use of deadly force” argument. The average 18-year-old deck hand doesn’t have much force to use. But I do agree that an organization that purports to be acting for all of our society should not allow its members to publicly denigrate segments of that society.
I dunno, one would think in a perfect world (noting we do not live in one) dropping bombs on people, although necessary in wartime, would hardly be a reason to write celebratory messages on implements of death and destruction. I’d think a somber, more professional, even detached decorum would be called for - killing people shouldn’t be fun.
And just to play devil’s advocate, if dropping bombs on “fags” is ok, it would be ok to beat them up, then, wouldn’t it? And if we’re not actually at war with them, maybe it’s ok to do it when nobody’s looking?
Esprix
ESPRIX, the argument here (not that I buy it) is that “fag” does not equal “homosexual” but that “fag” equals generic insult, directed in this case at terrorists who bomb us. It therefore is okay to use it in its generic, non-specific sense.
So yes, it would also presumably be okay to beat them up, whether or not anyone was looking – them being terrorists, not homosexuals.
Jodi:
Nigger is a pretty specific insult. Fag gets used generically as well as specifically.
No, I don’t. I don’t feel that that hurts my argument since I neither said nor implied as once. “Up yours” has lost just about all of its specific meaning and become almost wholly generic. “Fag” has not.
Au contraire, mon frere. “Fag” also means wimp or wussy, in the same way that “Sissy” does. You’ll note that Sissy used to be a derogatory term for homosexuals but lost all it’s specific meaning.
esprix:
I think it’s a gallows humor kind of thing.
I’ll try to address your point as you meant it. Consider the term “Yankee.” Depending on where you are and how you use it, it can be an insult of a compliment.
Likewise when I’m in the North I know dinner is at night. Down south dinner is lunch.
Depending on your context, location, and environment some words have different meanings. One needs to take the words in the context they’re meant. Among homosexuals the word may have very strong and clear meaning, on an aircraft carrier it might have others.
Personally, though I wouldn’t write “fag” on a bomb in any context. It occurs to me that maybe that picture got through because it was the least offensive thing that got written.
To anyone who hasn’t read it: Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts is a thorough and illuminating look at U.S. military policy (official and unofficial) towards gays and lesbians over the course of the last century. I recommend it.
BTW: If I was that guy’s CO, I’d have taken him aside and told him that while we appreciate his patriotism…
-
If he can’t come up with something better than that, we’ll turn the bomb insults over to somebody who can, and…
-
Let’s not use words that might be misconstrued and hurt the feelings of people on our team, after all, unity is important while trying to blow the shit out of these cock-eyed sheep-fuckers.
Well, SCYLLA, I think it’s just a matter of opinion then. In my estimation, “fag” is not a general insult, nor is it the equivalent of “sissy.” I frankly would have no problem with it if “Bombs Away, You Big Ol’ Sissies!” was written on the side. “Fag” I think is inexcusable, and ignorant. Apparently your M does V.
And I do believe that topic has been covered. Sadly, those who still believe “gay” and “fag” don’t directly relate back to their meanings as “homosexual” aren’t going to change their minds any time soon.
Sadly, there are those who will not bother to differentiate - they’re both “bad.” 
Esprix
I cannot, nor will I ever, understand this rationale. Calling someone a faggot is meant to degrade them, and I don’t see how someone can argue that “a bundle of sticks” is the most humiliating thing you’d ever want to call someone (‘cause, you know, we didn’t mean to say yer gay or nothin’).
Oh, yes - no one ever says homosexuals are less than masculine. :rolleyes:
Oh, please - they knew what they wrote and they celebrate it. Again, in a perfect world, no one would be celebrating, and in this world, I imagine a lot of people are celebrating attacking Afghanistan and/or the terrorists, and those are the ones that wrote “fag.”
And I wholeheartedly disagree.
That is entirely possible, sadly.
Esprix
Esprix:
I see where you’re coming from, and I agree to a degree, but don’t you think this is pushing it a little?
I don’t think anybody’s gonna get confused and beat up a gay guy cause they thought he was Osama Bin Laden, and if we call Osama Bin Laden a “man,” that doesn’t make everybody else who’s a “man” bad too.
Esprix:
You’re using “sadly” a lot as if you are on some morally superior ground. You’re not.
As Wildest Bill of all people pointed out, “fundie” got used a lot (by you as well,) and that is every bit as derogatory and negative as “fag.”
One would think that perpetuating the formula:
fag (equally gay, also equalling [in this case] the same level of contempt as terrorists) = bad (equalling worthy of dropping bombs on)
… would eventually yield some undesirable results. I’m not even talking about solely in the military - keep perpetuating it, and guess what? People believe it. Replacing “fag” with “towel-head,” “nigger” or “dago wop” would be just as offensive, derogatory, and demeaning. “Hijack this, you fucked-up psychos” would have been a bit more appropos, IMHO; instead, they flaunt their ignorance, give the military a bad rap, and piss off the gay community, including the ones serving their country right next to them.
Should they not have written it? They’ll write what they will write, prejudices and all. Do I hate them for it? No - I wouldn’t want their job for all the money in the world. Do I wish they thought differently? Yes. Do I think their employers, the military, should address the inherent homophobia it displays? Yes. Do I think it sends the wrong message? Most definitely.
Esprix
Don’t recall saying I was. Nice supposition, though. Thanks.
In case you missed it, because of the discussions here, I’m not using that term any longer. We all grow and learn.
Esprix
There are those that will blame gays, lesbians, abortionists and the ACLU for the terrorist attacks. They probably wont differentiate between the two.