Oh, I almost missed my favorite part of your post Esprix
I absolutely agree. I just want to add here that I am not trying to suggest that I approve of the way the military operates, I’m just speculating on how it does run.
Scylla,
After reading your most recent post I’ve got to admit that I am wrong about this. I stand re-educated.
But your post also made me really angry. So let me just say:
If the function of war is to “demoralize them and make them as innefective and uncoordinated as possible,” supposedly so they will give in to whatever demands we may want, then why the fuck is fighting them the only way to do it!?!?!? I think the reason I was standing hard and firm on my original opinion is because I can understand wanting to harm someone becuase of hatred. I cannot wrap my mind around droping bombs and killing folks to gain a “tactical” advantage. I mean really, who the fuck says, “I am so damned inpatient that I’d rather kill people (not intentionally perhaps, but as necessary casualties) than try to achieve demoralization in other ways”? Or try to wage an intense propaganda camapign? Or whatever. When I was growing up I was always taught that violence is not the answer, and I am old enough to know that it is not always possible to live by that motto, but jesus, is demoralization a goal worthy of killing?
Don’t mind me, I’ve just had my concept of some major things kind of shaken, and I’ve got to think about it a bit. Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate some life philosophy.
Demoralization is a part of the goal, but I think you are missing Scylla’s point that it is just part of the main function of removing the Taliban’s ability to fight back. The writing on the bombs is a part of the goal of demoralization. It just so happens that the soldiers happen to feel that the Taliban being gay would make them feel better about the war.
Eonwe:
Yeah, demoralization can be a goal worthy of killing, tactically. You bomb for more than one reason as I pointed out, demoralization is just part of it. But the way the logic goes, if you kill a few in the process of demoralizing all, then when the fighting does start, lives are ultimately saved.
The Gulf War is a good example of this working. You’ll basically recall that by the time our troops attacked, they basically rolled through unimpeded as the enemy had been without communication our support, and did not have the will to resist.
I think it’s safe to say a lot less people died on both sides than if we’d just waded in.
joining late here.
Regarding the use of ‘fag’ not being necessarily derogatory: I’d say it depends on where you grew up or live now. I grew up in Chicago, and it indeed in that place and time this was an epithet that most often meant ‘wussy’ or somesuch.
I live on the West coast now, and (not surprisingly) around here (IMHO) ‘fag’ mean explicitly a homosexual and is extremely dorogatory and unacceptable, as much so as ‘nigger’.
FWIW.
Maybe the person didn’t write “fag” because they thought it was a derogatory word. Maybe they wrote it because they knew that accusing someone in that particular sect* of homosexuality was the equivalent of a death sentence.
More than likely, the writer-on-the-bomb is an asshole. But if you give them the benefit of the doubt, they may have been delivering what they knew was one of the deadliest insults you could give a Taliban fanatic.
*NB: I don’t recall Islam’s general attitude towards homosexuality, but I believe the Taliban and their enforcers will happily kill anyone they even suspect of it.
And why would that make them feel better? Is it because of stereotypes that are in the minds of people who would use the epithet “fag?”
So, they write something on a bomb that the enemy is not going to see, and that is going to strike a blow in an intellectual manner as well as an explosive one?
That an anti-gay slur is demoralizing to the enemy, or thought to be, shows that it is a slur. If they had written “rag head” or a slew of other things, including a slur to the Quran, it would be no less hateful and pointless.
Any Afghani close enough to read the writing on the bomb isn’t going to have enough time to be demoralized.
“What does it is say, Abdullah?”
“Ahh, wait, getting closer. It says “High… Jack… This… Fags…” Huh? I don’t get it, we’re not homosexua…”
BBBBBOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!!!
As I said earlier the writing itself isn’t meant to demoralize the enemy to build up the morale of our troops.
If we’re able to ridicule them, maybe we don’t have to be afraid.
As I said before, it’s unfortunate that in this case it was done so in a way that seriously offended some.
I doubt though that the gay community was the intended recipient of that message, and we don’t know what the idiot was thinking when he wrote it, so while I might be peeved as well, I think it’s a mistake to read too much into it, or assume it represents anything else.
To me the larger issue isn’t that this kind of thing gets written, but the fact that the Navy PR people would be stupid, insensitive or uncaring enough to release the photo for publication.
Agreed. If a bombadeer wants to have some kind of twisted relationship with his weaponry, so be it - heaven knows I wouldn’t want his job. But for the military to parade it around as “a good God-fearing American thing to do” is ludicrous. The message it sends is not one we need to unite the American people in this time of unrest.
Sadly, the military’s getting good PR right now, so most people probably just went, “Yeah!” 
Esprix
I’m a little confused here. Now, admittedly, I’m not real familiar with this subject. I’m from Texas, and there were two of you guys there when I was a boy, both of them teachers at TCU, or maybe Rice, not sure, been a while.
Anyway, don’t you guys pretty much own the Navy? Not like the Air Force.
Oh, just a question. It’s OK, right, to hang out with you on this thread? I mean, nothing personal, you understand, but its kinda late in life for me, sort of set in my ways, you know? I mean, I saw this show once called “Death in Venice” about this guy went to Venice, just hanging out, and bang! all of a sudden he’s like totally gooey eyed about this Italian boy. I just couldn’t take that.
So…any you guys been to Venice? Is that it? I mean, can’t happen just posting to a board, right?
Now, don’t ya’ll get mad, its not personal, its just that I can’t afford new clothes, and my idea of interior design is to pick up the beer cans. I might know if mauve and fuschia went together if I knew what the hell they are. One of them’s blue, right?
Also, if you wouldn’t mind: am I right about Tom Cruise?
No, that’s an old urban legend promoted by the Village People.
Esprix
Who?
What you all fail to realize is that that particular missile represents the latest in “smart” military technology, and is designed specifically to target homosexual Afghani terrorists. It contains special sensors to detect things like pastel turbans, holding of rocket launchers with limp wrists, underground bunkers decorated in chintz, tying pink bows to one’s camel, and similar behaviors. An earlier model designed to target anyone owning a Geri Halliwell CD was shelved after it failed to find any targets whatsoever.
[sub]Oh, for a major tongue-in-cheek smilie right about now…[/sub]
I was talking with a friend on AIM who has a friend in the military who is assigned to the middle east. This topic came up, and apparently, it’s par for the course. He told me a few others, but the one that caught my attention the most was:
[quote]
You want Jihad (on one side), You got Jihad (other side).
Glad that one didn’t get out in the press. It’s circumstantial and may not be true, but I wouldn’t be surprised. . .
These guys need to be a little more creative. How about:
[tollbooth Willy]
Here’s a $1.25 and go fuck your self. (ref. Adam Sandler) [/tollbooth Willy]
What would you put as the ultimate bomb message to your enemies?
DaLovin’ Dj
I’ve ignored this thread for the most part because everything seemed so obvious as to be beneath mention. The language is unforgivable. But I’ve been thinking about the intention of the person that wrote it. Obviously, it wasn’t meant in a literal fashion: The soldier was probably not so uneducated as to think that the intended targets were likely to be gay men, since the Taliban is notoriously intolerant of homosexuality.
My guess is that the message has it’s roots in primate psychology. One monkey establishes his dominance over another by forcing him to submit to anal sex. (Interesting to note that, until the seventies, new boys at english public schools were required to fag for the seniors.) The phallicism of a bomb is difficult to overlook-- Who can forget the WWII propaganda cartoon in which Bugs Bunny slides a bomb into the back of Adolph Hitler’s pants?
Maybe the soldier could have sublimated his unconscious desire for penetration without offending anybody by simply writing, “Up Yours!”
First of all, I wanted to give everyone a second chance to read panzer’s excellent post.
(2) I agree completely with those who are bothered by the fact that the photo was (a) released by the Navy, and (b) posted without comment by AP
(3) I believe there was another photo released in the same series in which the message painted on the bomb was “Hi Opal!”
(4) There’s been a lengthy debate about whether the message was written out of hate, out of an attempt to dehumanize/denigrate the opponent, an attempt to boost one’s own spirits, etc. I would say that the primary motivation was almost certainly anger… this bomb is being dropped on someone who (by associate) killed 6,000 American civilians. What’s not to be angry about?
(5) But I have to come back to Panzer’s post. Imagine a soldier, someone who’s been yanked away from his loved ones, travelled halfway around the world, risks dying on a deadly basis, and has to spend his day killing other human beings under conditions of stress that most of us can only imagine. Don’t you think he’d find it pretty ridiculous, and perhaps quite offensive, that people back home, people who he’s risking his life to protect, are getting really really worked up, and accusing him of basically being a murderer, because of his choice of epithet? (Which is not to say that using the word “fag” in that situation is OK or acceptable or anything… but it’s just NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.)
(To propose an comparison, some Native American groups have protested against sports teams with Indian names, such as the Indians, Braves and Redskins. I may or may not believe that their claims are substantial enough to change the team names, but I certainly won’t get mad at them for protesting. On the other hand, if there was an image of a bomb with a stereotyped native american warrior chopping off Bin Laden’s head (or something of that sort) and, right in the middle of the war, those same groups protested in a way that strongly implied that the poor soldier who drew it was a hateful and racist person, I would find that to be totally inappropriate. Which is not to say that one should ignore or forget such incidents, but I think that it’s incumbent on us to frame our discussion of it in a way that our soldiers would not view as backstabbing or unsupportive.)
(6) Of course, that’s easy for me to say, being a straight white upper-middle-class male
My $0.02: Fag is definitely a generic insult, but one that should be removed from circulation, as it is also an assault on a long-persecuted group of innocents. My little brother uses it (or similar), and i pull him up on it. It makes me uncomfortable. But then, it’s also difficult to deal with because he might start wondering why I’m so sensitive to that particular insult!
It just makes life that little bit more difficult - which it does not need to be.