Dumb and Dumber Fail Again

Introduction

I had responded to a ridiculous post at a website called Real Men Have Spoken. The moronic author of that post responded and this is my response to him. Of course, there isn't much at all to respond to. 99% of his comments are personal attacks. The rest of it he's simply stating (with not a shred of evidence, mind you) that I don't actually know what I'm talking about because all I do is read books. I don't have “experience.” Huh? This is too comical and stupid for words! Books contain vast amounts of knowledge about history and politics, two subjects Magnus clearly knows nothing about. Because the majority of this nonsense is nothing but ad hom attacks I will refrain from posting most of those and concentrate on the few very feeble attempts at a counter-argument to my reply. Going through that nonsense I found very little argument. 99% is nothing but insults, putting words in my mouth, ignoring facts, going off on tangential rants, bitching and nitpicking about a few minor typos and calling me stupid because of it. My earlier assessment of these individuals was right on the money. They claim they're adults but they act like pubescent, idiotic, teenagers. I will note a few instances of this just to show what kind of people I'm unfortunately dealing with. Here's this moron's response: www.realmenhavespoken.com/2011/12/merry-christmas-arizona-atheist-warning_25.html

As usual this moron's statements will be in blockquotes with my replies immediately following.

Let's get started.

Let the ass-kicking commence

In the beginning Magnus gets his panties in a wad over a statement I made about him.

Oh, and I won’t be quoting or citing much because I don’t have the time nor do I need to, but here is a direct quote from you wishing me dead “He's proven himself to be a sexist, wannabe macho man asshole, who needs to take a long walk off of a short cliff.“ You just said you think I should walk off a cliff. You didn’t say die but who walks off a cliff and lives? You fucking hypocrite.

The reason he calls me a hypocrite is because of some other idiot who works in the medical profession who told me flat out that if I had gotten hit by a bus and they saw it they would refuse to save my life because he/she hates me so much. At the end of my reply to his previous post I had made that statement that I think he needs to walk off a cliff. He has served in the military and likely has killed many innocent people, and some comments of his are absolutely disgusting and heartless, such as when he said,

“I am so proud that we dropped two nukes on Japan that I often have wet dreams where I pull the levers myself…SIMULTANEOUSLY! I don’t feel bad for any of those people that died in Japan. Not one.”

I have no pity for human scum such as this, and I got this impression also when I was reading his previous post. Given his apparent sadism I don't doubt he has killed innocent people and therefore this makes him a murderer. He has made remarks that make me believe he has done this so why should I care if a murderer dies? We routinely put murderers to death but often those in the military are immune from not only prosecution but criticism when they kill innocent people. I think Magnus should think twice before calling me a hypocrite. I have never harmed, much less killed, an innocent person, therefore I do not deserve any form of punishment. However, Magnus likely has and his remarks make me believe he has some emotional/mental issues. People who are innocent deserve to be protected and helped, but not human scum like Magnus and other murderers. Therefore, if he ever decided to commit suicide by walking off a cliff (perhaps because one day he realizes how useless and stupid he is) I wouldn't care.

The second comment I will address is one who goes by the name Viceroy. He wrote,

(I think you took my research comment out of context. I am not a professor. What is meant by that is to know what you are talking about and bring some intelligence to the plate.NOT ADDING CITATIONS- IS THERE ONE FUCKING POST IN OUR ENTIRE BLOG THAT HAS ACTUAL CITATIONS?? Idiot, You see we hate it when people say, “you suck.” well why do I suck? Making general and vague comments like that is sooo annoying, kinda like how you generalize and group us. But listen; just for you I will update the introduction. Actually, I need to anyways. It is a year old and we have evolved in our thinking since then, so it is appropriate to do so.- Viceroy)

What he's referring to is the fact that I made these guys look like a bunch of idiots. Now they're trying to backtrack and say I took them “out of context!” That's hilarious. In their introduction it originally said,

4. Let's only use new, relevant facts. The newer the facts the better. Also, if you are going to argue against us, don't being that weak crap. Get off your ass, do your research and honestly debate us; or else we will crush you. I would like to illustrate the failure of the feminists. (Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique could be considered the true beginning of the woman of today)

However, now Viceroy has changed the wording of this section to say:



First of all, I took them at their word. It's very clear. They want people to do research and cite facts and all the good things people should do when they're discussing issues (and by the way, you need to learn what the word research means. It's not just citing references. Idiots). I proved in my last post that they don't do this, and from what I've read in this reply they fail even more miserably in that regard than they did before! So, now they're going to change their introduction after I exposed their bullshit. Priceless! Arizona Atheist 1, Brainless Morons 0.

Second, their immature name calling after I exposed their bullshit is too funny for words! To add insult to injury another knee slapper is the fact that they inserted one word for another but they don't seem to realize that it doesn't do anything to change the meaning of their hypocritical statement (so why change it?). The words research and homework are synonyms; they are two words that essentially mean the same damn thing (especially in the context in which they're using the word). You fucking morons.

Next up is a statement by Magnus. This time he quotes me (my comment he's responding to will be in italics) and replies,

This is hilarious. Since when has the U.S. military ever “protected” our freedoms?

WWII, WW I, Revolutionary War, The Civil War, etc. Or am I wrong there too? Whether any conflict was over money, oil, power, land or whatever, the fact is that every war we have ever fought in has kept America in superpower status. If we did not have that power, terrorists and the like would do a hell of a lot more than9/11. So protecting the citizens may not always be the first priority, it always occurs by default anyway. I think what we have a disagreement about is how we define rights. You see, we fought for our rights against England to become a country. Sure it wasn’t necessarily justified, but they were fighting for the rights that the citizens wanted. The civil war was fought by two sides that each wanted to ensure that their freedoms were not going to be trampled on. I think your view of “rights” is narrowly limited to the constitution. Doing that is a huge mistake because the constitution is not all knowing. If it were, we wouldn’t have needed so many amendments to fix it.

This is insane. In neither WWI or II did the government protect us from an invading army from another country. Prior to WWII the Japanese were able to attack the fleet in Hawaii without any problems and killed several thousand people! How in the hell is that an example of the military “protecting” people!!?? The U.S. had intelligence information about the 9/11 hijackers but they slipped through the government's so-called “intelligence” agencies. [1] He failed to note a single case where the government successfully protected anyone or stopped another country from doing any harm to people, whether civilians or military personnel.

This next comment of Magnus' nearly had me rolling on the floor! He writes,

I know I am one of the rare types, but you still lumped me in the category with everyone else. Even when I was on riot control, I never used excessive force, nor did I not do anything that was within MY rights. See, that is a major aspect that you fail to ever mention. Troops and policemen also have rights. Just because you defend rights doesn’t mean you lose yours. Sure, you give up certain rights but not all of them. Everyone’s rights are equal too, therefore, your rights do not outweigh mine. When I was on riot control, I would move people who wouldn’t move after being asked nicely. If a criminal was in your home, and you asked them to leave multiple times and he said no, would you let him stay there? Same principle. Or better yet, say the cops came and the guy still wouldn’t leave, would you support the policemen’s right to forcefully remove the person? Thought so. Know what that makes you…yup. How many times have you written about an innocent cop or fire fighter getting killed while doing something noble like rescuing a baby from a building or just being murdered by a cold blooded killer? Never because you discriminate. It is that simple.

He is actually trying to compare a cop abusing protesters (which is part of the issue I was referring to, but even the highest levels of government oppress people and take away our freedoms) with a burglar in my home! First of all, there is this piece of paper called the constitution (perhaps you've heard of it?) where the first amendment explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' People should be allowed to protest but they aren't. As we saw with the Wall Street protesters thousands were arrested and the government did everything they could to intimidate and stop them from protesting, from trying to force them to vacate their encampments, arresting them, beating them, pepper spraying them, making up laws to force them to be unable to bring camping gear into parks. It was sickening to see. Second, a burglar in my home is in no way allowed in my home. He is there illegally and I have every right to use force to remove him if necessary. The police, however, are violating the constitution (the very law of the land that they swear to uphold!) by keeping people from being able to protest, or interfering with their attempts to do so.

Magnus continues bitching about WWII:

Which country has ever come over here and tried to take away any of our freedoms?

Japan did when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Or is that a myth. The U.S. was blindsided by an unprovoked attack from a powerful nation who had the backing of other powerful countries. Tell me AA, what would you have done? I’m glad you weren’t president then because we would all be speaking Japanese right now. And by the way, you don’t have to come to America to take someone’s freedoms. You are using “freedoms” too specifically. If after9/11, I became terrified of flying, one of my freedoms has just been stripped from me. The freedom to enjoy flying anywhere without the risk of a terrorist crashing it into a building. What the military attempts (not saying succeed, but attempts) to do is to prevent wars from coming to America. AA, would you rather have battles fought on American soil? I doubt it because then where would pussies like you run to in order to feel safe? Canada? Guess what, I GUARENTEE that if we got invaded by a real country like China, you would be the first there, sucking on all the troops dicks, begging them to protect you. Even if none of that is true, most of your kind would. You see, it is real simple to say what you would and would not so when you are safe, but let danger stare you in the face and see how rapidly your convictions change. That is one of the biggest problems with your perspective; you only have one. We see both sides of the argument. I have been to Iraq and built schools. I have given civilians all my food, even though it meant I would go days without food. Would you go days without food in order to feed the “enemy?” I doubt it.

Once again Magnus didn't read what I said. I wasn't referring to the scenario where another country comes over and attacks us. I was referring to rights and freedoms being forcibly taken away by an invading force. The only government that has done this is ours! He did nothing to answer this. The Japanese did nothing to take away any freedoms or rights we had. So he was a pansy and was scared to get on a plane; the big tough military man scared of a few hijackers that might show up on a plane. Even the “shoe bomber” of 2001 and the “underwear bomber” of 2009 were successfully subdued by untrained passengers! That's not an example of any freedoms being taken away! That's just a supposed “man” being a bitch!

He's proven that he cannot read, given all of his whining about my supposed lack of writing and reading skills (which is funny since he actually called me a “wordsmith” on another forum where he linked to his reply to me). He wrote,

Also, Arizona Atheist will actually engage you back, unlike Cassie. Arizona is a wordsmith though. Here is his reply to the first article I posted called “If You Don’t Support The Troops, Fuck You!” http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/11/real-men-dont-murder-people.html

Magnus says,

On the contrary I'd say he seems to disprove evolution because at least these women are anti-imperialist and speak out against injustice. He sounds like some guntoting, flag waving, makes-me-sick-to-my-stomach “patriotic” buffoon who is so clueless as to the government’s actions in trying to dominate other countries, and taking away our freedoms and rights.

I love how you know so much about politics and world leaders. How is it that you think you know so much? Because you read it somewhere? Oh, you were in Bush’s and Obama’s cabinet, so you had direct access to information right? No? Oh, you must have been one of the President’s advisors right? No? Then what makes you think I am uninformed? I am very informed.

This is hilarious. Most of the information I cite is a matter of public record. Most of the government's plans and agenda get out and the media reports on it. Or, in the case of WikiLeaks, government documents expose government abuse and evidence of their self-interest, when publicly they claimed humanitarian reasons for some action. Take the war in Iraq for instance.

Yet I would not claim to know everything like you do. You people read an article on wikileaks and think you have the war solved. Again, anyone can sound intelligent and act like they know what they are talking about in hindsight. That’s what cowards like you do, you look at history and point out what should have been done differently. Well, that is a total waste of time. The past can’t be changed and trying to pawn intelligence off as education is just sad. Check this out, “If there were never slaves, there would have never been a civil war.” While that statement can never be known, it follows the same guidelines that you use to try to belittle each other. While the rest of us had the courage to go fight in 2001, pussies like you supported in until you saw a few of the negative sides of war. I guarantee that you didn’t even give war a second thought in 2001-2004. As a matter of fact, if you were so anti-war and troops, why did it take you until 2007 to start your blog about it? I know, because you like to bitch, whine and complain. That is it. Tell me, name one single major thing that your site has changed? A law, a bill, a state law? Anything? Didn’t think so. So what makes you think that your opinion is so valid? Because you cite books? I can find just as many books that would argue in my favor. But I don’t need books because I have the American people behind me. Majority rules bro. Sorry to say it and I know you are having flashbacks from being the emo kid in school, but once again, you are the minority. For every one of you, there are thousands that will line up to buy me a drink and listen to me talk. How many strangers would do the same for you? Thought so.

Not only is he making stupid assumptions about me (which are entirely untruthful) but he misses my point. I was commenting on Magnus' comment that once events are in motion you cannot stop them, like a war. Nonsense!

He talks down to me and makes the most pathetic argument ever: argumentum ad populum, which for you morons is Latin for “appeal to the people,” and is a logical fallacy. Just because large numbers of people agree with something does not make it moral, true, valid, or what have you.

Once again, I will place Magnus' comments in blockquotes, while I put the comments of mine he was responding to in italics. In this case the first non italicized comment is from Magnus' first post, with my response (linked to at the beginning) following in italics, with Magnus' most current reply last. I will respond immediately afterward.

1. Fought the English so we could be our own country. Without the troops, none of us would be American. We would all be English. I, for one, love my straight, white teeth and American Football. So this alone makes it worth it to support the troops.

This is just a ridiculous “reason.” I certainly don't care that I'm “american” and this is nothing more than pathetic and illogical ethnocentrism, and I certainly don't support that. I doubt Dill would either.

There is that overused word again, illogical. I know I repeat and overuse things, I trail off and suck at writing, but at least I know I do. I am not some English dropout who claims to be a great writer but really you don’t even have the fundamentals down.

He obviously had no answer to this. Just more of his immature and pathetic ridicule. Maybe that's because he didn't even know how to respond due to his lack of knowledge of exactly what “ethnocentrism” is. Maybe he didn't even know what I was talking about!

2. Ended World War 1 and 2. (There is so much more that can be said about this alone but I will resist).

Regarding WWI the U.S.'s policy was supposedly one of “neutrality” but Woodrow Wilson seemed to enter the war for largely economic reasons and not for any kind of defensive or humanitarian reason. [5] Due to the unethical reasons for entering the war in the first place, I don't see what's so great about their ending of it.

You don’t see what is great about ending an unjust war. ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT! Isn’t that what you have been preaching about the Iraq and Afghanistan war this whole time? So if a war is started unjustly, you think we should just let it continue on forever? According to what you just said, there is no point in ending an unjust war. Wow, I had a little bit of respect for you until that. You just contradicted EVERY FUCKINGTHING you have been preaching about for years. My man, you are a moron. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while. Now that I realize I am dealing with a freshman undergraduate douche, I might ease up on how serious I am taking this. I didn’t realize I was dealing with such a simple person. I’m sorry. I’ll ease up.

This moron doesn't even understand what I'm saying. His argument is that people should support the troops for these reasons. He names the ending of WWI and II. I point out the fact that it was started by our government for immoral reasons. Therefore, so what if our government ends an immoral war they started?! It's insane! I never said the stopping of the war was a bad thing. Like I said, he missed my point entirely. And he calls me the idiot? That's laughable.

Regarding WWII it's crazy that he actually believes anyone should be proud that the U.S. used two atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was due, not for any needed defensive purposes, but purely for political reasons. Because of this, 100,000 civilians were killed. The U.S. didn't want Russia to invade Japan and wanted Japan to surrender to the U.S. so they could be the occupier of postwar Japan. Historian Gar Alperovitz noted a diary entry for July 28, 1945 by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as “most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.” [6] The former Assistant Secretary of State, Archibald MacLeish, “spoke critically of what he saw in the post [WWII] world: ‘As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in brief...without moral purpose or human interest...'" [7]

I am so proud that we dropped two nukes on Japan that I often have wet dreams where I pull the levers myself…SIMULTANEOUSLY! I don’t feel bad for any of those people that died in Japan. Not one. Had Japan never attacked us, we would have (probably) never gotten involved. Sure they attacked a military base (which apparently is perfectly acceptable to you that a group of service members, in a time of peace, got blitz attacked), but it was a time of piece and therefore every one of those people were considered innocent civilians in my book. Plus, they did kill a lot of innocent civilians during that attack. But why don’t you talk about those innocent lives? Because you are the real hateful one and you hate America. Not me. How can you honestly live in a country you bash so much yet try to do nothing to fix? You are a coward in every way imaginable. […] I already knew everything you said without a quote. By the way, your quotes are very unnecessary. I feel like you include them solely because you want people to think you are smart. This isn’t Wikipedia. Pulling a useless quote that doesn’t even matter doesn’t make you look smart, it makes you look like a high school kid who just threw quotes in to fill a quota. Your quotes are a little relevant but overall quite unnecessary. Also, the way you quote is not correct by any academic standards, which are the only official ones.

This is disgusting. This is insane. He has just admitted supporting the murder of thousands of innocent people. These are the words of a psychopath. And I cited the quote, you moron, because you claim that you want your critics to cite facts! Now you complain when someone does cite facts to back up their argument. Idiot! Once again, there was not a single coherent response to my argument.

3. Killed Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Moammar Gadaffi to name a few from this century. I suppose this lady could think of a better way to help save the lives of the millions of citizens struggling under the oppression of these terrible men. Maybe next time we should just kindly ask them the step out of power. We can even sweeten the pot with some organic honey butter soap and toasted rosemary figs wrapped in cage free chicken breasts. Give me a fucking break.

On the contrary, he needs to give me a fucking break. Let's take a look at a few facts.

First, if the united states was truly against fascism and dictators why in the world would the U.S. support dictators, such as Muammar Gaddafi, as just one example of the dictators the U.S. has supported? Second, it wasn't even the U.S. who killed Gaddafi but the Libyan rebel forces themselves! [8]

That is an easy question. The United States supported those dictators because they were friendly and could help the U.S. at the time. (Ok I guess you are not capitalizing “United States” to make a point or something. What a rebel. For a writer, you sure suck at grammar, although you do nail rhetoric). You see, you think these questions and your obvious bullshit are going to stump me. Your community college education is far from advanced enough to try and trap me. As I have said, we service members are not stupid. In fact, since 9/11, and because of the recession, it is more difficult to get into the military (voluntarily) than any other time in history. Everything is stricter and you have to pass a behemoth of testing just to have the privilege of going to boot camp. I know what you know AA. I believe in a few of the same things as you. And get real AA, without allied assistance, Gadhafi would be banging Arab whores right now. All of those rebels would be buried in mass graves if not for our assistance.

Hilarious! He completely glosses over my point, which was the fact that our government supports dictators! They support men who kill their people and commit other acts of human rights violations, and this dumbass just admits it! And worst of all he calls these murderers “friendly!” This just proves my entire damn point! The U.S. government doesn't care about human rights or freedom. It's simply propaganda for the sheep (like Magnus). If the U.S. truly did care about freedom they'd go and free all the people under dictatorships just as they “freed” Iraq and Libya (which, as I explained in my post they did not do this for humanitarian reasons but for selfish ones; in order to consolidate their power).

It's amazing how he credits the U.S. for saving the lives of “millions” when millions of innocent civilians were killed in these wars. In the war against Iraq alone, since 2003,approximately 113,318 civilians have been killed (accessed 11-25-11). And for mostly political reasons as I explain below.

Bet you thought you had me there. As any realist will tell you, sometimes you have to sacrifice a few, to save the many. So, if by killing millions, we could save tens or hundreds of millions, is it right? I say yes. And since when is 113,318 people “millions?” Exaggerate much? I am fairly certain that you could add up the last three wars and you wouldn’t even hit a quarter of a million people. While even one innocent death is more than there should be, it is a fact of war and hasn’t been able to be prevented up to this point. Therefore, it is very possible that you could save millions by killing millions. (WWII and the Jews anyone)? Or did you forget about that too. Without American assistance, it is likely that millions more Jewish people would have been executed. While not American, no groups of people deserve to be slaughtered like that. That is the biggest genocide in history. Go ahead and compare it to what we did in the Middle East. You and I know both know it is nowhere near the same so I won’t even bother talking about it. Do you feel like the U.S. should have stood by and allowed all of the Jewish people to be slaughtered?

Moron. I wasn't only referring to the war in Iraq but all the wars the U.S. has participated in combined. In them millions have been killed, which is clear when you actually read instead of glossing over what I said. An approximate number of total deaths for all the wars the U.S. has participated in (including military and civilian deaths on all sides) is 70 million.

He must be hallucinating against because I wasn't comparing the war in Iraq to the Holocaust. He also misread me. When I mentioned the Jews in my comment I was explaining the fact that the U.S. didn't seem to care about the Jews in the first place, making their entrance into the war a purely selfish act, as all other wars, because the U.S. government didn't want to criticize Hitler's actions. The U.S. also did not allow the Jews to come to the U.S. to escape their brutal murder. They only allowed a few thousand in, and only several years later allowed more to come. [2]

In the case of Hitler, the U.S. “had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. […] it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties.” In fact, “Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic politics; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express “surprise and pain” at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask for restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department “caused this resolution to be buried in committee.” [9] After the U.S. finally decided to enter the war against Hitler (even after ignoring the many deaths of innocent Jews) Hitler actually committed suicide and wasn't killed by american forces as Viceroy Magnus claims.

Ok so you got me on a technicality. Let me change my sentence to make it more applicable:

“Helped kill or killed Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Moammar Gadaffi to name a few from this and last century.” Is that better? How are you still living. Are you not aware that there is such a thing as context and interpretation. You know what

I meant. Obviously they didn’t kill Mussolini or Hussein. But if they weren’t there, all of those people would be alive. You claim I am the jackass and a good writer? YEAH RIGHT! You write way worse than I do and I don’t even claim to be one. Damn your life must suck because you take every aspect of life so literally and seriously. Lighten up bro. Pull that giant stick out of your ass and enjoy life a little bit. This weak crusade you’re on is useless. Your points are invalid and basically you are just anti-government or anti-establishment. Either way, your issues go much deeper that no supporting the troops. You need therapy man.

More immature insults. He also missed my entire point - again. The U.S. government doesn't go to other countries to “help” or to “liberate” the people there. They go purely to gain greater control over more countries – all the while killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process! Once again, Magnus has utterly failed to refute this simple argument. And as I noted, by citing the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, that when the U.S. does go into other countries most times they are worse off after the U.S. invaded!!! Once again, he ignores my arguments in favor of his stupid insults. Or he is just too stupid to even wrap that pea-sized brain of his around these facts so he has no choice but to spew shit because he has nothing else!

Regarding Benito Mussolini the U.S. “declared an embargo on munitions [to Italy] but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war.” [10] He wasn't even killed by any american forces, but by fellow Italian Walter Aduisio at the behest of National Liberation Committee.

Osama Bin Laden's actions were because of the united states' oppressive and murderous actions in the Middle East. Essentially, the U.S.'s foreign policy caused the September 11th attacks so Bin Laden's murder was no true victory of any kind.[11]

Typical response. Why should anyone take responsibility for their actions? Fuck it, since we made the Arabs mad, why don’t we let the terrorists into our country to take their revenge, unopposed. It would be the responsible thing to do right? Would you let a terrorist murder you as away of repaying them for what our (yeah I said OUR, you are a citizen correct) country did? Regardless of your beliefs, you represent the U.S. If a terrorist captured you, I doubt he would give a shit that sided with him. He would cut your head off just like the savages they are (terrorists, not Arabs). Of course you wouldn’t. Here comes more excuses (I didn’t fight, I didn’t do anything, I don’t agree with the government). Guess what playboy, you are a citizen, so to the world, everything the U.S. does, you agree with it. SO if you aren’t changing shit, then leave so you won’t be associated with us savages.
I agree that Bin Laden’s murder was no true victory, but it sure as hell was a moral victory. Sure everyone lost interest ten minutes after the President announced it, but it felt good for that one second. That’s good enough for me. In case you are confused, I am saying that I totally agree with the murder of Bin Laden, even if it was only to make a minute point. That is the beauty of ethics, they are subjective to culture and human behavior. And like anything else, the majority of people decide what ethics and morals you will follow. I don’t believe in coldblooded murder but I have killed. I have also saved. I carried a 16 year old girl to a helicopter where we transported her to a hospital after an Iraqi shot an RPG into her house. We could have left her to die but we flew her to the nearest hospital for treatment. But you never hear about the good things we do. I’m sure you will say she would have never been hurt had we not been there, but you don’t know that any more than me. We have built plenty of buildings for people in areas where no damage happened. It was just poor.
Speaking of which, how many Iraqi’s have you talked to? Afghani’s? Seeing as how you know so much, I figured you had to of at least travelled there to find out the truth for yourself. You aren’t honestly going to tell me that you just believe all these books you read right? A book does not insinuate fact. You can’t believe everything you read. Even if what you read is mostly true, chances are it is twisted to favor the author’s opinion on the war.
Also, there were very few troops in the Middle East before 9/11 so make all the excuses you want for such a disgusting terrorist.

In this idiot's blithering he once again missed my point. I never said it would be a good thing to allow terrorists over here. Again, these examples of Magnus' are supposed to be good things that the troops have done that I should support. I pointed out the fact that one of the reasons Bin Ladin came over to attack the U.S. was due to the deaths of nearly half a million Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions against Iraq. “Regardless of the precise number of fatalities (which will never be known), the sanctions were a key factor in inflaming Arab anger against the United States. The sanctions were initially imposed to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait and then were kept in place after the Gulf War purportedly in order to pressure Saddam to disarm.” [3] Due to the fact that it was the U.S. foreign policy that caused the 9/11 attacks the revenge killing of Bin Laden doesn't change what the U.S. did that started all of this in the first place. The rest of his bullshit is pointless and I'd consider them to be ad hominem.

Saddam Hussein was actually aided by the U.S. in the 1980's and was even given military intelligence and “stores of materials that could be used to develop biological and chemical weapons.” [12] Even the war against Iraq in the 1990's was for political and monetary reasons. George Bush went to war because it was felt that a great offensive would cause his popularity to rise in the polls since an election was fast approaching. [13] Several nations also benefited from this war in another way, although this reason was kept from the public. “Shortly after the war, as representatives of the thirteen oil-producing nations were about to gather in Geneva, the business correspondent of the New York Times wrote: 'By virtue of its military victory the United States is likely to have more influence in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries than any industrial nation has ever exercised.'” [14]

It's more than clear that the U.S. largely goes into other countries for political or economic reasons and not for any kind of “humanitarian” reasons. Out of this list the only individuals actually killed by the U.S. was Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. In some cases, such as with Hussein, many people believed that the people were better off before the U.S. intervened and caused so much havoc, such as United Nations Secretary General KofiAnnan.

What country doesn’t? Ok history buff, name any war that was totally justified? You can’t because it has never happened. There is always an ulterior motive and it is usually money. There goes 99% of your argument. I don’t know how many more way you can possibly re-word your point that the main goals of the wars we fought in were humanitarian efforts. In case you plan on rewording this statement another time, read this:
NO WAR EVER FOUGHT HAS BEEN JUST. EVERY WAR HAS BEEN MAINLYABOUT MONEY WITH OTHER INTERESTS COMING AFTERWARDS. Dude we get it. No one is arguing with you on that point. Yet, that is your only point. Fuckin A, we aren’t dumb. We probably knew that before you did. While you had to wait until 2007 for documents and books to come out, we were standing in oil fields guarding them from terrorists who said they were going to set them on fire. Bro, I knew the war was about oil before you even knew the war started. Now that you get that we are on the same page about the, can you stop bringing it up? Goddamn. I’m thinking about springing and buying you an editor. Any descent one could cut at least 95% of your work down.

This guy is an idiot! Once again, he is attempting to list several reasons why people should support the troops. I explain the fact that the military goes into other countries not to help people but to suppress them and invade their countries all for the benefit of expanding the power and influence of the U.S. That's my point and Magnus just admitted it! Due to this fact what about this is there to be proud of?!

This fact was even mentioned in the November 28th 2011 episode of Democracy Now! when they played a video of a talk by a former government insider, Wesley Clark, admitting this was the U.S.'s plan for several years before 9/11 to going to several countries and destroy their governments, such as Libya (which they did this year), and Iraq. They simply used 9/11 as a pretext to carry out their plans of domination. To quote Glenn Greenwald: “Clark said the aim of this plot was this: 'They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.'”(emphasis mine)

Again, beating a dog to death. How many times can you state one point man? You are seriously one of the most boring writers I have ever read. I would rather read the Holy Bible in Latin that to have to read another of your posts.

Once again, he doesn't even deny the entirely non-humanitarian reasons for the many wars the U.S has engaged in, deflating his 'good reasons' to support the troops!!! I've just refuted his stupid arguments and he is so stupid he doesn't even seem to realize that he's agreeing with me, that the troops do nothing to be proud of!!!

4. Defended the Alamo from Mexico. 'Nuff said there.

I'm shocked he's proud of this since those men who tried to defend the Alamo, such as Davy Crockett and James Bowie, were doing so in order to uphold their “freedom to own slaves.” [15] Therefore, the U.S. was essentially supporting slave holders during this war.

I’m not saying slavery is right by any means. However, that was the norm then. Of course the U.S. supported slavery. How could slavery be so prominent for hundreds of years if it wasn’t supported by the majority? President’s had slaves, everyone had slaves. Throughout history, slavery has been apparent in just about every area of the world. Again, I am not saying that is it right, but it did happen. That being said, should they have just let the Mexicans slaughter them? Mexico had slaves in their history too. So you advocate the murder of people, as long as they don’t share the beliefs you do? The men at the Alamo should have died because they owned slaves? Is that your point? You advocate peace and non-violence, yet you have implied violence or directly stated your approval of it, for people who do not share your opinions. Sure it is easy to look in hindsight and point out what went wrong (don’t take the blankets Indians!) but that is what pussies do. The only logical step would be to fix the problem, not dwell on it forever like you apparently do. At the time, they felt like they had the right to slaves, so they fought for what they believed in. Hmmm. Didn’t you praise people who stood up and fought for what they believed in? [...]

This guy is an idiot. The U.S. was backing the slave owners in this war! That's my damn point! So, what in the hell is so good about this war?! What's to be proud of?! This idiot is just proving over and over again he knows nothing of history, politics, or much of anything else for that matter it seems. The rest is nothing but mindless ranting, taking me out of context, and putting words in my mouth.

5. Thousands of troops across the globe are immediately sent to aid any area in the world affected by extreme natural disasters. Typhoons, earthquakes, tornado, flood...none of it stops us. Whether it is our country or not, we will help you and even give you our food and clothes if you need it. Troops are some of the most selfless people around. This is especially true when it comes to natural disasters in our country. The National Guard has been helping rebuild cities ruined by natural disasters since they have been around. Yet according to this lady, these humanitarians are the same people who get their rocks off by slaughtering babies.

In some cases this is true, though more often than not the U.S. military is used as a tool for the political and financial elites of the country for their own interests as I've already discussed. In other cases the military severely botches any “aid” that they might attempt or the government politics overrides any aid they seek to give. The Christian Science Monitor reported in an article titled, “Humanitarian Aid Is Not a Military Business,” that “Under a military-controlled relief effort, humanitarian assistance can easily become a tool of war. Hostile forces might see aid workers as easy targets and allies of the occupying force. Moreover, the neediest Iraqis may never receive assistance if their needs don't match the Pentagon's political goals. There construction effort is likely to lack international legitimacy and financial support."

Dude we get it. Holy fucking shit. I really didn’t think that it was possible to re-word the same point dozens of times. I hope you get paid to write because, although you suck at it, you can definitely stretch a thought. You are clearly a pessimist. Everything you say is so freaking negative. Sure we help BUT WE CAN ALSO USE IT AS A TOOL. God damn man, what has happened to you in your life that makes you have no faith in humanity? First of all, there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Most service members that go help do so because they are forced to. Who would honestly want to go to a country and help out for months with no luxuries and usually for a country that hates us? No one. We do anyway though. Speaking of which, how much community service have you done? How much have you donated? We go help out despite the hatred against us, despite the fact that it is not our country, because we are humanitarians. Sure some of us may be psychos but there are way more psychos in your neighborhood than in the military. I have been on several humanitarian efforts for U.S. citizens and for other countries. I am sure the U.S. had ulterior motives for helping other countries. No one is going to help for free. But the fact is that we still helped, regardless. […]

Once again, he does nothing to refute my point. The military does very little humanitarian work, and most of it is purely for political maneuvering and not for any true humanitarian purposes.

6. Troops slow drug trafficking across our borders. Did she forget that the Coast Guard members are also troops? I don't think one person in the Coast Guard has ever gone to Iraq and killed anyone. These men fight a different kind of war. They fight a drug war on the seas. But I guess this lady would rather have Mexican drug cartel members control our country by having the Coast Guard become obsolete enabling the cartel to bring all the drugs they want.

Ah, yes, the “War on Drugs.” This started as mostly a pathetic government-run attempt by cigarette and alcohol manufacturers to block the sale and use of intoxicants that were cheaper and, in some cases, less harmful as in the case of marijuana. Millions of peoples' stolen tax dollars are used to incarcerate nonviolent individuals simply for using a substance that harms no one else but its user. The government spends millions on a pointless crusade and jails millions of innocent, peaceful people. The “War on Drugs,” or more like the War on Innocent People, has been a huge failure. [17]

I completely disagree with the war on drugs. I think it is a total waste of time and resources. But it continues nevertheless. Which brings me to my second point; you don’t have many original thoughts. You use everyone else to do the talking for you. Any time a complex topic arises, you just use quotes. I know using quotes to help prove a point is good practice but I am not in English class and I damn sure am not your professor. Cut the theatrics and tell me what YOU think. I know what you can regurgitate. More than likely you are using quotes because those are the ones you believe in most. You are the typical sponge that absorbs moisture, but is incapable of producing any naturally; therefore you leach off of everything and everyone you can. Basically, you just allow yourself to be brainwashed, then regurgitate the same shit over and over again. This whole paper has had one significant point; wars are never just. I could have saved you so much time.

Hilarious! He just agreed with my point! He argued that the military aids in the drug war and that this is a good thing, something we should be proud of. Then he agrees with me and says that he's also against the drug war! Oh my gosh! Can anyone get any dumber?! He just refuted his own damn argument!

7. Help control our borders. Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is not Hispanics crossing that is the biggest issue. It is terrorists sneaking in to our country via our borders. Who controls the borders? Border patrol and occasionally local help from volunteers and the National Guard. Many people who are in the border patrol are veterans...

More conservative nonsense about “illegals.” Why am I supposed to be proud of, or support groups who, kill or imprison innocent people who are simply trying to gain a better life for themselves? This is nothing more than a form of racism and it's disgusting. The U.S. is, after all, a melting pot of various cultures and always has been. It's sad that pure racism is driving these anti-immigration laws all over the country in 2011.

Here is the deal AA. I myself am half Mexican, so to call me a racist is pretty fuckin stupid. I love Mexico and love being half Mexican. The fact is that crossing the border illegally is ILLEGAL. Why do you people always think it is ok to pick and choose which laws you want to follow? We have rules in America, if you don’t like them, change them. Don’t want to change them?....yeah, you know what comes next. I agree that immigration should be legal. Clearly the system doesn’t work anyway. But that is not my point here. The point is that while people like you think it is acceptable to break the law, the rest of us law-abiding citizens continue to ensure sanity in the country. At the core of you, you are an anarchists. I can tell that right off the bat. You don’t care about any of the topics you state, you just care about overthrowing “The Man.” You preach peace and love then state that it should be perfectly illegal to break the law. I don’t give a fuck how stupid a law is, IT IS A LAW.
By being a citizen, you agree to follow and understand those laws. So when you break them on purpose, it pisses people off. If you don’t see that by now than you really are a total dipshit. I’m not saying you have to agree with me totally, hell, I would never recommend that, but if you don’t see that intentionally breaking the law is wrong, then I really think that you should not be alive. That is not me saying that I think you should be killed or murdered, but it means that it is a miracle that you haven’t walked in front of a bus or drown while taking a shower. I can’t make it any clearer. You hate the military because they kill innocent people (accidentally breaking the law) while you advocate the intentional breaking of the law? In what world does that make sense? In the world of the hypocrite, that’s where.

First off, I didn't call him a racist. I simply said that the people who pass these immigration laws are doing so due to their racism and hatred of people of other ethnicities.

Here is that same old pathetic excuse: “But it's the law!” This is a ridiculous excuse because just because something is a “law” doesn't make it just. I have every right to protest unjust (and in the case of this law, racist) laws. When it comes to unjust laws and regulations fuck the law.

But then Magnus' ignorance and stupidity rear its ugly head again. He originally argued that the military helps control our borders and that this is a good thing; that we should be glad and proud of our military and former military for doing this. But then he contradicts himself and says that he disagrees with the immigration laws! What a hypocrite! And he calls me a hypocrite?! Throughout most of this piece he has contradicted himself and flip flopped on his alleged views! I guess I didn't need to go through and refute his original article. He's doing a good job of doing that himself!

Finally, his immense hypocrisy rears its ugly head again when he gets angry at me for saying that I wouldn't care if a murderer dies and then he himself also says he wants me dead! Above he writes, “I’m not saying you have to agree with me totally, hell, I would never recommend that, but if you don’t see that intentionally breaking the law is wrong, then I really think that you should not be alive. That is not me saying that I think you should be killed or murdered, but it means that it is a miracle that you haven’t walked in front of a bus or drown while taking a shower.”

And for what reason does he want me dead?! For nothing more than not agreeing with unjust laws! That sounds like the words of a dictator! Well, according to him we should have killed Martin Luther King, Jr. and everyone else who has stood up against unjust laws over the years. He obviously tries to talk his way out of what he has clearly stated but his meaning is all too clear. He wants me dead.
This motherfucker is a heartless, brainless, murdering, hypocritical asshole. Pure scum.

8. ...In fact, many policeman are veterans too. So the next time she needs help from a cop, she should ask him/her is they are a veteran. If the cop is, then she should not accept their help. He is probably a more proficient cop because of the training he received, which would enable him to perform his job better, which better serves you. But never mind that, because she does not support the troops.

Yes, and the same kind of abusive practices you can find by soldiers are also done by cops. Police brutality, misconduct, and corruption are rampant through out america and also the world. See my series called The Lucifer Effect.

Bernie Madoff and Martha Stewart were also jailed for corruption and stealing(essentially). Yet everyone likes to use the military as a scapegoat. That is because we don’t talk back. Usually, we don’t have time to waste arguing with you people because we are too busy making a difference in the world. Jealousy rears its ugly head when you see so many heroes getting praise. It makes you envious because you probably never got so much as a thank you. Meanwhile, I have been in the newspaper many times and have spoken at a few small events. I can go out to eat in uniform and have my meal paid for. When was the last time anyone did that for you? And we don’t go out looking for handouts either. Most of the time someone will buy a drink and we buy them one back. Tell a few stories and go on our way. That is because we are friendly American’s. You say we are the hateful ones, how about we go around and tell people what we do. We will see who is angrier by the end of the day. It won’t be me.
Anyway, guess what, you can also find this behavior by CEO’s, Judges, Lawyers, and everywhere else on earth. Singling out the military is a bitch move. It shows that you are too weak and scared to take on the real culprits…big business. You attacking the military is pointless. After all the years that pussies like you protest, NOTHING ever happens. You waste your breath and time. That is because big business controls our country, not the President or Senators, not citizens, but big business. Everyone knows it. Everyone. I promise that it isn’t a secret that they only tell anti-troop “clicktivists” like you. We all know it. Yet you go after the military, a fight far more pointless than the war on drugs, yet you continue it. The military isn’t the problem, that is what your kind needs to understand. The military is only as powerful as those who control it, and the biggest most powerful men reside in America, so guess what that means? Since you knew all of this information already, why continue bashing only the military? Because it is the easy way out. God knows if there is one thing that cowards love, it is an easy way out.

This is nothing but senseless drivel. He's done absolutely nothing to address my point. Again, what is there to be proud of about cops abusing people? Then he goes off on another tangent that has nothing to do with the subject. Idiot.

9. The vast majority of people in our country have been in the service, know someone in the service, or have been affected by the service in some way. So for you to say you don't support the troops is like basically insulting the majority of Americans directly. Enough about this list. Let us get back to thrashing the ignorance profusely spraying from the bridge troll's snarled mouth.

This is a pointless objection. Of course I'm not going to support anyone who has carried out, or stood by, during the countless acts of brutality at the hands of soldiers or cops (since he'd like to place cops in the same category), no matter how many people that includes.

If I were a lesser man, who I am not, I could have possibly overlooked this trick you continue to try to use. It may work on your readers, but I am not dumb. What you are doing here is trying to spin my words so that I say what you want. Of course no one would advocate beatings. Are you that dumb man? Who would? But if you were in a jam, I guarantee that you call the cops for help. BECAUSE YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. You state that all cops are corrupt yet you also use the benefits from it. Sure a few cops fucked up and did something wrong. But there are also millions that are devoted and help every day. Again, you are a pessimist and can’t see the good in humanity anymore. Let me ask you another question I already know the answer to, how much of your opinion is derived from what you read and how much is derived from experience? I am willing to bet that everything you know, you read about in a book or online. You are like Will in Good Will Hunting except nowhere near as smart. You could talk all day about shit, but all you know is what you read and you have to hope that what you read is fact. I have the luxury of having plenty of both.

I'm dumbstruck by this idiot. He missed my entire point! His argument was very clear. He said in the original post that if I don't support the troops then I'm not supporting the majority of people in this country. And I responded rightfully with, so what? Now, he's trying to argue (stupidly) that I didn't understand him! Priceless! This guy just getting dumber and dumber...in fact I may rename this post to Dumb and Dumber, the name of one of my favorite Jim Carrey movies. FYI: The original name for this post was “A Real Dumbass Has Spoken...Again.”

Talk about 'profuse ignorance.' I've disproven most everything he's said thus far. Viceroy Magnus continues with his nonsense.

You haven’t disproved anything. You can’t disprove an opinion. On the other topics, you still have yet to prove anything to me. [Viceroy comments with] (Fucking A’ true)

I'm literally laughing my ass off now. I haven't disproven anything?! Even though this moron has, numerous times now, contradicted himself and agreed with me!? Priceless!

She goes on to say that those in the military don't really know what they are doing. We think we are patriots for a good cause when in fact we are pawns fighting for oil companies and big businesses. Now, this may be true to a certain extent. But there are several factors that’s he probably never considered. For one, there are MAYBE a handful of people in this country that knows what the President knows and what his cabinet knows. These people know things that none of us will ever know about. Therefore, all the reasons behind each war and conflict may never truly be known by the general American population. I seriously doubt that any President would just start a war because he had a hunch. I am sure that the data showed that it was necessary, at least in some way, at the time.

This excuse is priceless! PRICELESS!!! He even admits this is true but then be backtracks and argues that maybe there is this secret reason that only those high up in the government know about... Talk about an ad hoc argument. There is no supporting evidence to support this conclusion. And what was it that Viceroy's Magnus' blog said about providing evidence?! It seems to me that he doesn't even try to live up to the standards he wants others to follow. Hypocrite.

Yeah bro, I’m the hypocrite. You sit here and spew things you read like they were facts. You have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, about the true cause of any war. You read history books and current books and assume that is all truth. Only an arrogant piece of shit like you would ever presume to know everything when you probably haven’t even been near D.C. Despite the fact that I am fairly certain that wars are fought for other reasons, I can’t ever say that I know for sure. I can’t believe you have the audacity to say that you know for sure when you aren’t even close to knowing for sure. Your arrogance level must be so potent that it has a distinct smell. Wow. I can’t believe that you would actually say that you know that same things as the President. That alone proves that you are a total delusional extremist.

Hilarious! I cited their idiotic Introduction where they make this bold statement that anyone who chooses to debate them better bring facts and do their research or they will “crush” you in debate. When I point out the fact that Magnus fails to live up to the standard he wants others to obey he just insults me and repeats his ad hoc bullshit about some secret evidence! Like I said before information about what the government is actually doing almost always gets out in the media and is available to read.

Another factor is that we do not really have much of a choice. Sure joining the military might make you think that we should know that shooting someone is a possibility. However, there are uniformed service members who never receive weapons of any kind (Chaplains, etc). People join the service for all kinds of reasons. Once you are in the military, the President is your ultimate boss. If he says go fight, you go fight whether you believe it or not. I joined during a time of peace and still served through 9years of war. I didn't quit when conflict broke out. That is the pussy thing to do. If you do not go to war, you go to jail, get dishonorably discharged, and have your life ruined. Of course, they have what is called a conscientious objectors which say they do not believe in war so they get a free pass to leave the military. As a side note, if you join the military, then cry conscientious objector, you should be raped by armies of fire ants. What idiot joins the military and doesn't believe in fighting? (Chaplains excluded). Seriously, they should all be punished in some way for being so stupid. Anyway, all service members are free to desert their command and leave. While that is certainly a choice, it is not one that many would be willing to make. I would personally shoot every person in any other entire country in the face, if it meant saving one American from dying. Not an American like this bitch, but a real American. A person who works hard for an honest days pay and is too tired from working to make pretentious YouTube videos.

More nonsense and attempts at deflecting blame. I already addressed this in my response in a previous blog post. I wrote, “It appears you support the murder of people and it appears you wish to place blame on others instead of the actual people who pulled the triggers. That's a common method of disassociating yourself from the people you've killed by blaming someone else (read On Killing, by Dave Grossman). Of course, the fact is that it was the ones who pulled the triggers who are the real murderers. They could have listened to their conscience (if they even have one) and left the battlefield and refused to kill, but they didn't. I find that final statement of yours to be morally reprehensible and sickening. You can defend and deflect your actions all you want but if you pushed the button or pulled the trigger you are a murderer.”

Oh I’m sorry. Did you already address that in another one of your topics? Do you honestly think I read your whole blog? I could barely make it through your boring title. Arizona Atheist. That name screams that you crave attention. Anyone that offers their political or religious views before being asked is just starved for attention. They bring it up because they want to start drama right off the back.
So I am a murderer huh? Ok, I’ll take that. If that is how you view me, OK. That is your opinion. I think you are waste of a life and brain. I also happen to think that something had to have happened to you in life for you to be so hateful and just plain crazy. Seeing as how we want to talk specifics, let’s go. Your name indicates that you live in Arizona, widely considered the most racist state following those racist immigration laws that were passed. Yet you continue to live there, which means you support that. Also, you have a death penalty. By living there, you basically state that you accept that, therefore, you push the button just as much as I do. Also, who cares what you find morally reprehensible. Like I said earlier, morals and ethics are subjective so what you think means dick to me. I find it disgusting that you don’t see the distinction between what I did and intentionally breaking the law. Which brings me to my earlier question. would you kill the murderer that killed your mom or set him free? Either way, you are wrong according to your logic.
(I was attempting to find out an answer about AA, so I read his profile. I should have done this in the first place, but honestly, I could give two shits about this guy. However, after reading what I can only call the most vain profile I have ever seen, I came to realize one thing, I pegged this guy from the beginning. I literally profiled this guy from moment one. Read that man like a fuckin book. This guy is one of the biggest phonies. Ok that is all. I just thought it was funny that I figured him out so easily).

There was nothing here but personal attacks and stupid and wrong assumptions being made about me. Nothing here worth responding to. The blog comment I referred to was the one where Viceroy and I had a little back and forth discussion. I also linked to it in the post so if he wasn't such a lazy asshole he could have seen what I was talking about.

Just more of his stupid ranting. He didn't even address my damn point! Yes, you're a murderer if you chose to pull a trigger or push a button that results in thousands of people dead (many times innocent civilians as I've already pointed out).

As far as “conscientious objectors” thousands were put in prison for refusing to go to war during the first and second World Wars and the Vietnam war. [18] Hardly a “free pass.”

(Another attempt to distort the text. Your quote had nothing to do with conscientious objectors. Way to deflect another point.)
Right, and those wars also had drafts. Neither of those wars were an all voluntary force like now. People went to jail for dodging the draft, which is basically the same thing as a conscientious objector but not really. And hey, that was their choice, jail or war. Like I said, we have that choice too. But we all volunteered to join. As stated before, most won’t kill. They just aid those that do. There are hundreds of different jobs in the military. You would be surprised. They even have cashiers that work at the exchange who are active duty. That being said, you can say that, since they are supporting those that kill, then they are just as guilty. I would agree, but then you would have to include every single U.S. citizen because tax payers pay for those wars. Therefore, you had a role in all those people’s deaths. Also, you act like only America fights in wars. Shit, multiple countries have troops in Iraq. They all want a bite off that oil. So bash America all you want but it is no different anywhere else either.

Only dishonest and idiotic jackasses complain about someone taking them out of context when they clearly didn't. He's simply trying to distract his (illiterate and stupid) readers from the topic under discussion. This is the comment of Magnus' that I responded to:

Of course, they have what is called a conscientious objectors which say they do not believe in war so they get a free pass to leave the military. As a side note, if you join the military, then cry conscientious objector, you should be raped by armies of fire ants. What idiot joins the military and doesn't believe in fighting? (Chaplains excluded). Seriously, they should all be punished in some way for being so stupid. Anyway, all service members are free to desert their command and leave. While that is certainly a choice, it is not one that many would be willing to make.

He is claiming that if a person doesn't want to fight in a war they can choose to be labeled as “conscientious objectors,” but what he doesn't tell you (and I responded to this effect) is that most people when they attempted to apply for that status in many wars of the past (yes, you must apply for the designation and you're not always approved) they were denied and if they still refused to fight they were sent to jail. Some “free pass” huh? Now, he's claiming I took him out of context because I completely destroyed his pathetic, historically illiterate argument. Maybe he's wishing he would have read more books right about now, instead of mocking my voracious reading habits...

Sure, they don't have a draft now, but that's what all the government's propaganda is for. They wanted to get people enraged against Iraq so they made up shit about “weapons of mass destruction” which caused many people to enlist. If those that enlisted had known the truth I wonder how many people might have joined the military voluntarily? Then, with a lack of man-power the government very well could reenact a draft if it wanted. My point still stands.

Even the Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 90, it says very clearly that if one “willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior officer” they can be punished by death (in a time of war) or court-marshaled.

The more I read about you the more I realize that everything you know is from a book, therefore highly damaging your credibility. The UCMJ does say that, but so does Federal Law (although altered slightly). Treason is punishable by death whether you are in the military or not. However, it is a law that is not enforced. In fact, there have been several military members who have committed acts of treason, during a time of war, and were only jailed. There were two service members who killed multiple fellow service members, and they were not put to death, yet all we want to do is kill in the military according to you. If we were hell bent on killing everything, don’t you think that a murdering traitor would be at the top of our list? Yet we let him live. I doubt a jury of your peers would feel the same. In fact, no one has been executed in the military within the last 100 years. Can you say the same for our country or your state?

Hilarious! More bullshit about books. I pointed out the fact that the military has a law that says it can kill you if you refuse to fight in a war. This completely contradicts his “free pass” bullshit. And once again, he doesn't deny it! He agrees with me! But, he says, they haven't done that in a long time. So what? The law is still on the books and could be enacted at any time, just like the draft!

Next she says that troops should know why we are fighting and what they are fighting for. Well let me explain just a few things to you. For one, the majority of the military is men aged 18-24. Men are aggressive and enjoy competition. We want to beat the shit out of anyone that hurts us. The more you hurt us, the more we want to fuck you up. And 9/11 hurt real bad. She says that we shouldn't be able to use patriotism as a reason to fight wars. Well guess what, we don't. We fight wars because our President says we do...period. I have known plenty of troops that were against the war but fought in it. It is our job, not our choice. This lady acts like the military is a religion or something and at any time, we can just change our minds and become anti war liberals. It is a job we volunteered to do, for whatever reason, and it is how millions provide food for their families. Active duty troops is a very small portion of what the Department of Defense spends it's military budget on. Millions rely on military funding for jobs which allows people to earn a living. Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.

More nonsense excuses about how men are naturally aggressive. This does not excuse the common brutality by service members. He continues with the same bullshit excuse as earlier, but it doesn't fly. Something immoral that is done even by the orders of some authority is still immoral. He further doesn't even seem to understand what the hell Dill is talking about when she argues that those that decide to go into the military should know, with the help of all of the independent media, about the governments' selfish agendas and manufactured reasons when it comes to these wars, but they fight anyway. He misses her point entirely.

Here is how I prove you are wrong. You see one soldiers beat a prisoner of war and assume we all do that. You stereotype people which is a form of discrimination. When I look at you though, what I see, is a douche with a shitty blog, and I lump you and all your kind into the same category too; dipshits who have nothing better to do but waste American’s lives and tax payer dollars. I never said aggression was an excuse. Why aren’t you talking about the criminals that run rampant through your own city? There are far more violent criminals running around American than all of the military combined. You just have a vendetta against the military because your chick probably left you for a soldier. Girls don’t like pussies who cry at rainbows and weep when the sun sets.
Also, WE DO KNOW. I already said that a million times. It is a job. If my government gives me legal permission to kill someone, and that is my job, I am going to do it. Call me whatever you want, but that is the law. Seeing as how you are an anarchist, that probably doesn’t mean anything to you. Speaking of anarchy, what bizarre world do you live in where you think anarchy is viable way to run a country? If it were, don’t you think people would have been doing it forever? In fact, anarchy directly leads to order and government. Anarchy doesn’t last because it is a joke. Utopia is far more realistic than anarchy working. If we had no governing entity, how do you suppose we deal with rapists and killers? Just let them do whatever they like? Should we allow the mentally ill to just govern themselves? Anarchy doesn’t work because it is an idea created by slackers who don’t want to do anything with their lives. I picture you with spiked hair, living in England and rocking out to the Sex Pistols with all your punk, anarchists’ buddies. Boy I bet that is a sight to see. [...]

I think he should have begun that first paragraph with, “Here is how I prove how stupid I am.” Once again he failed to answer my argument about how in the hell killing people, even by orders, is not the same thing as outright murder. He also failed again to understand Kassie's point. Even after I explained it! My response is above in italics so just read it. Even more idiotic he says, “I never said aggression was an excuse.” However, in his original reply to Kassie he clearly implied it when he said, “Men are aggressive and enjoy competition. We want to beat the shit out of anyone that hurts us. The more you hurt us, the more we want to fuck you up. And 9/11 hurt real bad.” That's an excuse. Men like to fight therefore they go to fight in wars. And, instead of going to the country that was actually responsible for 9/11 you idiots went to Iraq, killing thousands of innocent people! What's so great about that?! Nothing at all! It was outright murder!

Another blatant error is he erects a straw man when he writes,

“Never mind that though because, according to Liberty Chick, we should eliminate the military altogether which would increase unemployment to somewhere in the 20-30% range. It is starting to sound like this lady is a terrorist herself. Plus, I am only a minute and a half into the video.”

This is a lie. She never said any such thing about doing away with the military in the entire video, let alone within the first minute and a half of it. She was only discussing her disgust about how the military is being used to expand american power and influence.

She never said that directly, which is why I did not quote her. Simple, basic English bro. But if you are against something, it is safe to assume that you do not want it around. Or is that basic logic too demanding for you AA? Do you want the military around? She clearly doesn’t.

First off, I'm not his “Bro.” I would never want to be associated with someone like this. Second, he needs to learn basic English. It's not “safe” to make assumptions about people, which he seems to do a lot. Just because you're against the actions of some group doesn't mean you're against the very idea of the group itself. I don't care that the military exists, I just wish they'd do what they were supposed to do and that's do nothing else but protect the country, not fight political wars for power and profit! Lastly, he clearly has no clue what logic is. If anything he's shown a tremendous lack of logic in my interactions with him.

He continues,

Included in the above paragraph should be this; she is viewing all of this through the magical power of hindsight. Where was this bitch in March of 2003 when the war started? I can tell you where I was; I had been sitting in Kuwait for a month waiting for the word on whether we were going to fight or not. Anyone can criticize the past because of hindsight. If I ran over a nail and flattened my tire, I can now say that, had I drove on another street, I wouldn't have flattened my tire. But we do not have time machines so this type of behavior is utterly useless. Why state the obvious? What matters is that the war is here. Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed. Hell, if correcting the past with hindsight was possible, there probably would have never been any wars and we could all eat granola bars while singing kumbaya around an eco-friendly warming lamp. (No more fires because they cause global warming and if it gets too hot, polar bears will have no glaciers to lay on).

I do not know what Dill thought in 2003 but those who were properly informed should have known that the war was being waged for entirely bogus reasons. Some journalists were exposing George Bush's war propaganda and his lies about “weapons of mass destruction” the very year the war started such as James Bovard in his 2003 book Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. Therefore, Viceroy's Magnus' pathetic excuse about “hindsight” is baseless.

Again, we were and are informed. I bet we are given more information than you could ever know. Not once did I ever say we were uninformed. Also, how are you such an expert on what people in the military know? Did you research every service members history and academic records? How can you say that we are all never informed? Being informed is the right of everyone. Most people choose to not care about real topics. As I have said before, most military members are young. Most young people aren’t that invested in politics and current affairs. I doubt you were when you were young. Do you think that when go to boot camp, they wipe our brains clean, keep us in cages so we can’t read and look at the internet? Seriously, you can’t possibly be that dumb. You see, you have fallen victim to your own criticism. You take everything you see on TV and base your opinions on mass media. We are normal people from all over the place. Different races, genders, cultures and everything. To act like you know everything about every person that has ever served is just mind blowing. Also, from this point forward, I am not going to reply when you say wars are fought for other reasons. We have established that more times than I could have ever imagined. From now on, I will simply write WC after those comments, which appropriately stands for WHOCARES.

More pointless ranting, stupid assumptions about me, and a failure to address what I actually said. The war propaganda about “weapons of mass destruction” were exposed not long after the war started. Those people who enlisted to fight for this made up reason could have refused to fight and left after they found this out. If they did know that these reasons for war were false, then he just confirms Kassie's original argument about why they join the military: they just like to hurt and kill people. They are evil. They didn't care that these people they were killing were innocent.

He writes, “Whether or not the war should have ever happened is completely irrelevant and pointless to talk about because it is here. That can not be changed.”

This is complete bullshit because if information that comes to light, even if it comes a short time after an action has begun, that counters your current beliefs it's only logical and moral to stop any actions you're engaging in and examine the new information before continuing to make sure you weren't in error. However, the contrary evidence was ignored and millions died, mostly innocent civilians. [19]

My friend, you are fucking up big. If I may be so bold as to point out one of your other quotes:

“Due to the unethical reasons for entering the war in the first place, I don't see what's so great about their ending of it.”

This was something you said about WWI yet is very applicable to how you view the most recent wars. Who cares if it is stopped since it was unjustly started; your words man. When I said whether or not the war should have happened is irrelevant, it is. I didn’t say the cause of the war. I just said that there IS a war. So bitching about why we should have never been in one is a waste of time. It is here. Instead of bitching about it, why not bitch about ways to stop it? Because you cannot form independent thoughts. No one told you how to react to that, therefore you won’t comment on it. Of course if you can prove that war was wrong, then it should be stopped. Don’t try to Bill O’ Reilly my words. Trying to distort what I say is silly.
Why is it that you people do that too? I come at you with direct comments and topics and you always give me political answers that deflect and ignore what we are talking about. Then you throw in a few pointless quotes and use back-ended methods to try to distort what I am saying. Well, I hope your readers enjoy your attempt at tricky journalism because you sure as hell aren’t fooling me.

Again...HILARIOUS!!!! I already explained in the previous counter-argument what I was talking about, but I guess Magnus is just too stupid to understand. I think he should have begun his paragraph with, “If I may be so [STUPID] as to point out one of your other quotes...” I didn't contradict myself you complete idiot. He also misread what I had said...again. I'll just repeat what I said when he first brought up this nonsense: “This moron doesn't even understand what I'm saying. His argument is that people should support the troops for these reasons. He names the ending of WWI and II. I point out the fact that it was started by our government for immoral reasons. Therefore, so what if our government ends an immoral war they started?! It's insane! I never said the stopping of the war was a bad thing. Like I said, he missed my point entirely." I think of it like this: There is a rapist who, after he forces himself on an innocent woman, decides in the middle of his attack to stop his attack and leave. According to Magnus' logic we should support and be proud of this kind of action! It's the exact same principle he's using in his argument! But why should we be proud of someone for willingly stopping an attack on an innocent person that they initiated to begin with?! They chose to act immorally in the first place by attacking an innocent person! The truly moral act would be to not attack in the first place! It's the same reasoning with the immoral war the government started in WWI. Why should we be proud of the fact that they stopped an immroal war they initiated? The truly moral thing would have been to not engage in war at all.

She says that since WWII, 90% of casualties were unarmed civilians. Well, that is technically a lie. however, what she includes in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures which is radically unfair since we did not condone this behavior and in fact, ended it. Kassie doesn't support the ending of the slaughter of the Jews though, you know, since troops did it. If it were up to Kassie, she would have helped fill the gas chambers, fucking Nazi bitch. Saddam Hussein attempted a genocide with the Kurds. We stopped that too. Millions of innocent people were dying and we stopped that. I guess human life has no value to Kassie unless it is a straight, American liberal life. Also, I just found out that she runs a homophobic Christian group on YouTube called Alliance of Christ, or AoC. I won't provide a link because I don't want her videos to get a lot of traffic, but if
you must check it out, bash her. Whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, homosexuals are now allowed to openly serve in the military. Therefore, if you support the troops, you have to support ALL the troops.

*Note: Anything I say about Kassie can be forwarded and applied to those that think like her. She is a voice and speaks for many people who agree with this troop bashing philosophy so this goes out to all of you that agree with this asexual succubus. (Also, I am willing to bet that her boyfriend, if she is nota lesbian, is a 105 pound man with the palest skin and he probably works at Whole Foods). But enough of the personal attacks.


I'm not sure what he's talking about Dill supposedly “includ[ing] in her figures is those civilians killed by both sides of each war, along the slaughter/genocides of innocent people, typically by the people we are fighting. The Germans slaughtered over an estimated 6 million Jews. This number is now thought to be on the low side. She includes this number in her figures [...]”

I found some references about Dill and this Alliance of Christ on the web and what he says about her might be true, though I couldn’t confirm Viceroy's Magnus' allegation about hating gays. However, I did find on her blog her obvious hatred and opposition to Planned Parenthood and she seems to believe that 9/11 was an “inside job,” which I think is ridiculous.

I didn't look around her blog too much and I didn't realize she was a theist or held such nutty views. Her views certainly aren't entirely logical or consistent (she's anti-authoritarian about government but accepts another form of authoritarianism: theism) and I disagree with her about a lot, but I do agree with her on her stance on the military and government. But the video under discussion isn't about her other views, but about her views on the military, which I'd say is an ad hominem attack on the part of Viceroy Magnus.

And you claim to be a researcher? It took me a matter of minutes to find her spouting off homophobic bullshit. Just listen to her videos. She does what you people do and deflect, but she is not nearly as good at deflecting as you. I guess this is as close as I am going to get to a compliment from you. I am just glad that you at least realize that Kassie is fucked up. I find it funny that you leap-frogged to her defense without researching who it is you were talking about. Kind of like Hillary Swank giving a speech to that dictator. Should research before you pick a side bro. I am just glad to know that you finally did your research and can agree that Kassie is nuts. Oh and she is very much an anarchists as well. You’re kind of people.
Also, I only put that one video of hers because that was the one that started it all. Should I have put every video she ever made on earth in my posts? And who are you to tell me how to run and order MY BLOG? I can do whatever I want with my blog. Why aren’t you attacking Kassie on her blog for having far worse and “illogical” views than I do. BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD!
And my post was about bashing people like Kassie Dill. An ad hominem attack huh? Ok, you got me. Maybe it was. But so what. I was just adding more facts that would discredit her view. Isn’t that what proving your point is all about? Having more credibility than the other person? If I said I liked dogs and you liked cats, no one would think that was weird. But if you said you hated dogs because they are hairy and immoral, then everyone would know you are crazy and a joke. That is why I included more information. By the way, you did the exact same thing to me by pointing out other posts of mine as well as my profile page. So once again, you are caught again you hypocrite.

More stupid and juvenile insults. I didn't “leap-frog” to her defense. I defended her video because I agreed with what she said about not supporting the troops. He needs to get something through his skull. Just because I agree with someone on a few issues doesn't mean I agree with everything they believe. I didn't “research” Kassie's views on other subjects because they are irrelevant to the video. However, yes, I agree she has some nutty views. But on the subject of the abuses of government and the subject of the troops I agree with her entirely.

After looking at Dill's sources she cited a UNICEF report and it doesn't mention a damn thing about the Jews or the Holocaust. Viceroy Magnus is outright lying here and he calls her a Nazi based on his purely imaginary accusation! Fuck you Viceroy Magnus! What? What was that? You expect everyone who comments on your piece of shit blog to cite facts?

Again, it is called a joke. No one believes that she was actually in WW II and in the German Nazi regime. God bro, learn to read other shit than history books. You have no sense of humor what so ever.

I have a sense of humor. I just don't find this “joke” funny in the slightest. Calling someone a mass murderer isn't funny. I doubt Kassie has ever killed anyone, but I believe Magnus has. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of them were innocent people. So who is worse here? Kassie or Magnus? I'd say Magnus because, like the Nazi's, he's very likely killed innocent people. Hypocrite much?

Next, she says that service members must fall into 1 of 3 categories. Here they are.

1. They must be dumb. She claims that since information is so readily available, that you have to be really, really dumb to join the military without knowing what the war was REALLY about. Well sister, if you think service members are stupid, then I got news for you; percentage wise, the military has a higher IQ, more discipline, better job prospects, a more secure future, greater networking, and more loyalty than any company I know of. Sure 10% of service members are fuck ups, but doesn't that go for any group of people? Take all of America. 1 out of 7 has gone to jail in America. Go to familywatchdog.us and type your address in. It will show you the 300+ sex offenders that live within 20 miles of your house. The percent of criminals in the civilian population greatly exceeds that of service members. How is that possible? Well, to get in the military, you need to pass many, many physical and mental tests, training regiments, written exams, and much more just to be accepted to try to be a service member. To be an American, you just need to survive birth. The screening process never stops in the military either. We are forced to maintain that level or we will be forced out of the military. The U.S. has no such standards. Also, there are many jobs in the military. Dozens. They range from engineers to pilots to everything else. Every job requires you to pass a test in order to be able to accepted for your occupation. Then, you must go to school and be trained on how to do your job. Lastly, you sit through weeks of training a year to be able to maintain that occupation. Very few civilian jobs require much more than a social security number. Back to the list. If you think I am dumb Kassie, I invite you to have an open YouTube, Facebook, phone, or any other type conversation about this topic. If you accept, I hope you bring your A game.

Looking at Viceroy's Magnus' arguments I don't think Dill would even need to bring her C+ game. He completely went around her argument. He stated it correctly in the first few sentences so maybe he's not as smart as he'd like to think because he didn't even answer it! I didn't bother to fact-check all that nonsense he said about those who go into the military as having higher I.Q.'s and whatnot. However, one thing I know isn't true is his claim that those who go into the military have “better job prospects” and “a more secure future.” A quick internet search brought up an article from 2009 titled “Iraq War Veterans Struggle to Find Jobs.” [20] What's this about bringing facts to the discussion? And those in the military supposedly have “more discipline?” Where was that “discipline” when those military men in the “Collateral Murder” video were having fun killing innocent people? Where was the “discipline” when all those jackasses in the military at Abu Ghraib prison tortured those people? [21]

Arizona, you are such a fucking word manipulating tool. You are a piece of shit who twists facts. The reason troops have a hard time finding jobs is because they have physical or mental illnesses usually stemmed from the war they were forced to fight in. The percentage of those truly affected and become unemployable are very low. Your article was a bias look at those that struggle after they get out. Also, I never said that all Veterans have a perfect life when they get out. I simply said that MY life was amazing, due in large part, to the military. You are just a pussy who likes to twist words until they do what you want. Typical pussy who tries to get people on their side through confusion and inaccurate reporting. But guess what, federal jobs give advantages to troops, companies get tax breaks for hiring troops, and troops are generally hired over equally qualified individuals because employers know that they possess far more initiative, discipline and have a much higher work ethic than typical Americans. For every weak, opinion based article you provide and pawn off as fact, I can provide an equal one saying how many Veteran’s have made a success of themselves.

Hilarious! I manipulate words!? That must be an amazing trick, especially considering the fact that I cited a direct quote of his. His only argument is that the article is “biased” but doesn't tell how and not all vets are disabled or unable to work. Even if they were disabled that wouldn't stop them from getting a job. If you're missing a leg you can still work. If he had read the damn article it said that a few vets who did get hired didn't make enough money to support themselves, or employers wouldn't hire them (and these people were not disabled). This is just another ad hoc excuse backed with no evidence, sprinkled with juvenile insults.

2. The troops are evil serial killers who found the perfect job. She makes a valid point. Any serial killer would be more than happy to get paid to kill all the people they could. Just one problem though, we are screened so heavily that it is truly rare that a person of that caliber could be allowed to serve. Sure it has happened. Comparatively, the FBI says that there are around 50 active serial killers in the U.S. at any given time. Sure that seems like a small number, but any more than 0 is too large for me. Plus, that is just serial killers. That doesn't include the thousands of other criminals waiting to kill, rape, steal, or cut you. The point is that what we are talking about is war. War is the combating of two or more parties whose intention is to eliminate the others or to make them surrender. It isn't about who is better at poker or some other bullshit. Therefore, when you are in war, it is necessary to put yourself in a mental situation that enables you to feel no remorse for your opponent. You must be able to kill without it bothering you or it could possibly get you and your squad, team, platoon, etc killed.

Therefore, ensuring your survival is of the utmost importance. Sure there have been mistakes in war. Some people lose touch with reality, soldiers return home and find the war has affected them deeper than previously thought. Even aircraft pilots make mistakes. The optics aren't the greatest for viewing details. It isn't like every aircraft is equipped with a 60 in LED TV in HD. Here is a video she referenced as the brutal slaughtering of innocent people:



If you watched the whole video, it did seem like a few of them had weapons. In fact, some of them did. But here is what you don't know...what happened before this video was shot? What was said in the War Room? Was this mission in a known hostile area? What was the goal of the mission? There are many things that need to be taken into consideration before you automatically assume that every service member is a psychopath. When you are in a war zone, those people are your mortal enemy. They are trying to kill you. It is either you or them. The pilot here even thought he saw an RPG. He did what was necessary to protect his life. He made a bad call but was not ever disciplined because it what he did was within the realm of his responsibilities. While bad, it was an accident. Kassie acts like American's are incapable of mistakes. Many troops in every war have dies as a result of friendly fire incidents. Mistakes happen, except to Kassie, because she claims to have never been morally compromised. These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie? Thought so. Have you ever been in stress for 6-18 months straight with no break, in the middle of the desert with the nearest family member thousands of miles away? Then shut the fuck up. Since you think this only happens in the military, how many times have you heard this exact story about cops? A cop thinks he sees a gun and it they waste a kid, only to find out it was a candy bar or sandwich. Does that mean that all cops are serial killers? Why aren't you bashing them? Oh because your professors and the internet only brainwashed you to hate the troops, not real societal problems.

More ad hoc excuses about secret meetings and alleged intelligence about the area in question. Most of those guys' hands were clearly empty and one of them was a reporter with a camera, not a weapon! This has been confirmed. The man's name was Saeed Chmagh. It was hard to tell in the video but the other man who was clearly carrying something may or may not have been armed. And he appeared to be the only person even holding anything in the group that was fired upon! I saw the man with an RPG peeking out from behind a building but that's not who they fired upon! I never even saw that guy again. They fired upon several unarmed men in the front of the building!

This is really getting old. I am not making excuses. I am merely stating facts. Also, what you fail to understand is that he was given LEGAL permission to kill every single one of those people. Therefore, your whole argument is off. Did you do any research to see if any of the people were punished for this? What about every other thing you mention? The Abu POW incident? EVERY ONE involved got punished severely for what they did. Yet you never mention that. You always act like we commit so many war crimes and they are all swept under the rug. There are plenty of people in jail for what they did. Also, military punishments are FAR worse that civilian punishments for equal crimes. So spare me your bullshit because almost every one story you mention, there was some people that were punished. All I said is that I am unwilling to make an assumption on this based on this short video. Sorry, I don’t believe everything I see on YouTube like you apparently. I can’t say whether or not those people deserved it because I was not there and did not read the reports on it. That is all I said. I think I finally get it now. You people will twist and maim what people say in order for you to mangle it onto an argument. I could say anything right now and you could twist it into something you disagree with. I could say that the sky is nice and blue. You would probably call me a fascist and I discriminate against everything that isn’t blue.

This is despicable! He is one of the most immoral people I've ever encountered. To my knowledge no one was punished for this! Hell, the video was deemed to be “classified” until it was leaked so the government didn't even want it getting out! Sure, occasionally some people are punished for crimes but in most cases they are not. Look at George Bush and Dick Cheney: they went into a country (Iraq) that posed no threat whatsoever and killed thousands but they were never punished! Another example was the infamous 2005 Haditha murders where 7 or 8 members of the military murdered a family in Iraq. At first they were all charged, but currently only one person, Sgt. Frank Wuterich, is set to stand trial this year for the murders. For some reason all the other murderers had their charges dropped.

But once again he ignores the reason I cited those cases to begin with. I wanted to counter his absurd claim that those in the military have more self-discipline. Then he makes up more bullshit excuses with no evidence about how those people may have “deserved it.” Did the innocent camera men deserve to be killed?! Did the unarmed men deserve to be slaughtered??? He is a piece of heartless human trash. I think Kassie may have been right. He joined the military because he's evil. I think he's a fucking psychopath for defending the murder of innocent people!

He cites facts?! I'll grow a fucking tail before this buffoon cites any facts!

Then he rants about Dill liking cops but not the military, but I'm sure she dislikes cops just as much as the military. It just wasn't the subject of her video.

Misuse of what I said. I never said she liked cops. I said that I bet she would be quick to use their services, despite bashing those very same people. Funny how you leave my superior points out of this.

The first question I'd like to ask is what “superior” points? I've yet to see a single example of this in either the original post or this reply that's laced with needless and over the top false accusations and personal attacks. Here is Magnus' comment in context. The entire section under discussion right now. I've placed the section about cops in bold.

If you watched the whole video, it did seem like a few of them had weapons. In fact, some of them did. But here is what you don't know...what happened before this video was shot? What was said in the War Room? Was this mission in a known hostile area? What was the goal of the mission? There are many things that need to be taken into consideration before you automatically assume that every service member is a psychopath. When you are in a war zone, those people are your mortal enemy. They are trying to kill you. It is either you or them. The pilot here even thought he saw an RPG. He did what was necessary to protect his life. He made a bad call but was not ever disciplined because it what he did was within the realm of his responsibilities. While bad, it was an accident. Kassie acts like American's are incapable of mistakes. Many troops in every war have dies as a result of friendly fire incidents. Mistakes happen, except to Kassie, because she claims to have never been morally compromised. These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie? Thought so. Have you ever been in stress for 6-18 months straight with no break, in the middle of the desert with the nearest family member thousands of miles away? Then shut the fuck up. Since you think this only happens in the military, how many times have you heard this exact story about cops? A cop thinks he sees a gun and it they waste a kid, only to find out it was a candy bar or sandwich. Does that mean that all cops are serial killers? Why aren't you bashing them? Oh because your professors and the internet only brainwashed you to hate the troops, not real societal problems.

I had already discussed his obvious bias about the military outright murdering those reporters, which is also a part of the above discussion. But exactly what point did he think he was making about cops? This is the entire quote in full. I don't see a single point being made that I didn't address. Like I said, I'm sure Kassie also dislikes cops (especially after being treated so poorly by them during her protest) but cops were not the subject of her video. I'd also call his accusation to be dishonest. I did address what he said.

When he says, “These pilots in the video are talking casually but that is because no one can be tense for the entire time they are deployed. How do you expect them to talk? Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie?” I'm not sure what he's referring to. She never mentioned anything about “how” those in the military should “talk.” Likely he was just hallucinating again...just as he hallucinated that this response was any kind of a challenge.

Can you even read? Did I ever state that Kassie said anything about the pilots? No, I was making an observation about the video, not Kassie. God you are a fucking idiot. The more I read, the more I realize just how fucked up you really are.

You said very clearly, “Better yet Kassie, why don't you tell us how they should talk? Since you have served and know what war is like first hand, how should they act Kassie?” If you're not addressing Kassie why in the hell did you ask a question to Kassie, as if you're asking her to explain something she said? Can you not read? Or do you not know how to write a proper sentence? Oh that's right, you're not a writer. You're just a jackass.

Speaking of which, who are you to talk about the military anyway? You have never served nor have you fought in a war. What gives your opinion so much credibility? The biggest reason Kassie pisses me off is because she says all troops, like we are all replicas from the exact same mold. We come from all over the world. Yes Kassie, people without an American birth certificate can join the U.S. military. She says stupid phrases like all troops are dumb and love to kill, blah blah blah. Well Kassie, less than 1% of the entire military is in an occupation that is designed for combat only. Infantry, grunts, Special Ops, Recon, Green Berets, SEALS, etc are only a tiny, tiny portion of the military. In fact, most service members will never fire a hostile shot or ever see an enemy. Many service members never even leave the U.S. Therefore, this entire video is vapid and trite. You are talking about maybe 1-3 people in all of the military. Compare that to the thousands of rapists, killers, child abusers, etc that run rampant through America. If you don't believe me, go to familywatchdog.us again. There are probably more sex offenders in your state than there are total active duty members in the entire U.S. Military. So maybe civilians should be the ones getting bashed. Why can't you control each other? Those number are outrageous. How is it that you attack the troops when everyone around you is way more fucked up?

Given the fact that there are numerous cases of members of the military abusing and murdering people his figure of “1-3” people in the entire military who love to kill is completely ridiculous. Yes, there are many people who join the military who do not see any battlefield, however, they still willingly joined an organization that kills innocents and I would consider many of them to be accomplices to murder in many cases.

So did you. It is called the United States. You willingly support our government and military every single day with your tax dollars. You can revoke your citizenship at any time, which I recommend because until you do, you are the biggest hypocrite on earth. You are just as much of an accomplice as anyone if you want to argue semantics. Again, who cares what you would consider? You don’t make the laws or the rules, so stop pawning off your beliefs as facts. What you think is immoral does not guarantee that it is immoral. That is just what you think.

Hilarious!!! Once again this dipshit ignores my entire argument! Yes, my money is stolen from me without my permission and used for who knows what, but I have no choice in the matter, unfortunately. Not that this refutes a damn thing I said about many people joining the military being accomplices to murder. I do not condone the needless killing of anyone.

My favorite part of the whole tape is when she says, and I quote, "You're given a badge of honor, and this is true...you're given a badge of honor for stabbing someone to death who did nothing." On what planet does someone get a medal for that? This woman says it is true! That one statement alone is all you really need to know she is a fucking idiot.

This is probably the only true statement this guy has written throughout his entire rant. I couldn't find any information about this alleged incident. However, his calling her a “fucking idiot” because of a few mistakes (like he said himself above people are human and make mistakes... don't be a hypocrite now...) he dismisses everything she said. Well, I looked up each of her claims and all but three I verified as factual.

You couldn’t find any information about that incident? Because it is a lie you moron. She said it in her video. I can’t believe you actually looked into that. My man, you are totally off your rocker. This is the only thing that I have said that was true? Weird because a few comments up, you said I was right about Kassie being a crazy theists. Or do you change your mind mid post? Your entire post was thrown up too fast. It is full of contradictions, lies and malicious writing practices.

When I thought Magnus couldn't get any stupider he says this! Wow! Here, I'm actually agreeing with him!!! I said I couldn't find any information on the incident that confirms that it actually happened! Jackass!

Then she says she has veteran friends. She told these friends that if she could save their lives, she wouldn't because she doesn't believe in what they do. Some friend huh. I can already tell she is lying. No Real Man or veteran would ever be friends with such a fucking idiot.

She never said any such thing. What she actually said was, “I have friends that have joined the military; it's been against my wishes. I said, you know what, as a human being, as your role as a friend, whatever, I support you, but your role in this, in what you're doing, your role as a soldier, no I don't support you. If you get into a bad situation because of it I'm not going to help you out; I want nothing to do with it.”

Did she say a damn thing about not saving anyone's life?! No. I'm not sure what she was referring to but she didn't say anything that can be construed as allowing someone to die. Throughout this stupid, brainless rant Viceroy Magnus has repeatedly put words in Dill's mouth and I find that to be highly immoral. He is lying about this woman.

Ok, you got me. I may have pulled a classic AA and distorted her words a bit. I will admit that I took it how I wanted. She does clearly say that “if you get into a bad situation because of it, I will not help you out.” What kind of friend is that? Aren’t friends supposed to support each other, despite their differences? Either way, by saying that she would not help him, in specific scenarios, it is also safe to assume that she wouldn’t save his live, if she could prevent it, if it was caused by his choice to join the service. So, it is safe to assume that I am still correct, but I will give you the win on the one. You finally got me. It only took 33 pages. I did not put words in her mouth. I simply manipulated her words, JUST LIKE YOU!I never lied about her. Even that statement I said is not a lie. She said it. Again, no one cares about what you think is immoral. You are not the end all and be all of deciding what is immoral.

I never manipulated any words, jackass. I've proven that earlier. I also find it pathetic how he's trying to distract his readers from his obvious error (which he readily admits) by making things up about me.

You may have noticed that she said there are three types of people that join the service. Well, in the video she only names two (another reason why she is dumb). She says we make the choice to kill. We are unethical and evil on purpose. Then she jumps on the holier-than-thou express and proclaims that she has been in morally compromising situations a lot and never bowed to pressure. Sure. If that is so, let's see how intact that hymen is. Thought so bitch. Gotcha!

This comment is disgusting. It's also ridiculous because just because a woman doesn't have an intact hymen doesn't mean that she's “loose.” Jackass... And who is the stupid one here? His other lapse of thought here is that Dill did state three reasons. She said her categories were that those who join the military are 1) Dumb; 2) Evil; or 3) Morally Compromised. Viceroy Magnus obviously didn't watch the video very carefully. Either that, or he's the dumbass and can't count.

Talk about putting words in people’s mouths. When the fuck did I ever use the word loose? I guess you must have assumed that Kassie was loose because I NEVER said that or implied that. I might forgive you on this one because, chances are, you have NO CLUE WHAT A HYMEN IS (Note: He probably does now because he Googled it). I just simply meant that she has had sex at least one time. Usually, women lose their virginity by peer pressure. It is also possible that she was ready to lose her virginity, and it is also possible that she is still a virgin. This is called a joke you black-hearted fuck. How are you not able to-grasp simple humor. Even if you don’t find my humor funny, any person could simply figure out that it is merely offensive humor. But, like before, weal ready covered this topic a million times. I can count just fine. I chose to lump the second two together. Again, my website is a blog, not CNN.

First of all, I put quotes around the word 'loose' because it's slang for slut. It wasn't meant as a quote from Magnus. Second, he said the following: “Then she jumps on the holier-than-thou express and proclaims that she has been in morally compromising situations a lot and never bowed to pressure. Sure. If that is so, let's see how intact that hymen is.”

You're questioning how “intact” her “hymen” is, which is usually broken during a woman's first sexual encounter. Then you imply that she's been placed in “uncompromising” sexual positions and has allowed guys to have sex with her even if she didn't want to. It's a pathetic insult and your attempted defense of said insult is even more pathetic.

And you call this humor?! You're more deranged than I thought... But I guess the fact that you “get off” on killing people should have been my first clue you sick fuck. And if that earlier statement of yours was your “attempt at humor” you seriously need to seek both a psychologist and a psychiatrist because you obviously need some strong drugs and major therapy to control your psychosis.

And you obviously can't count because Kassie mentioned three reasons, not two.

Lastly, she says that we view others as less than us which enables us to kill terrorists, children and innocent people all the same. To us, Iraqis are lesser people and they don't love as strongly so it is OK to kill them. This is what she says and believes. Can it be any worse than this type of person? Don't you love people you have a never ending flow of diarrhea pouring from their mouth and none of it has any real substance. They might as well be tape recorders, regurgitating verbatim, all the propaganda they hear off liberal extremist sites.

This idiot didn't even engage her statement. It's a fact that the military dehumanizes those it will fight in battle. This is why in the military the “enemies” were called “gooks,” “Krauts,” or “Nips.” “In Vietnam this process was assisted by the 'body count' mentality, in which we referred to and thought of the enemy as numbers. One Vietnam vet told me that this permitted him to think that killing the NVA and VC was like 'stepping on ants.'” [22]

I don’t engage what she says because it is so stupid. We don’t dehumanize the entire group of people, we dehumanize our enemy only. We don’t lump an entire race into a nice little package like you just did. That is so fucking racist that I can’t believe you just said it. We dehumanize those that are directly attacking us. You know who else dehumanizes people? Doctors, Lawyers, and most respected professions. A doctor can walk up to a family, stoned faced, and tell them their daughter just died. He HAS to do this because after he is (or she) is done, she has to go back to work. The family will mourn and go home, but the doctor has more people to treat. If he lets these people get to him, he will provide poor care for those afterwards. The same goes for law. Lawyers and judges look at people like blank slates because you can’t allow emotion to get in the way of judgment. Almost everyone has dehumanized someone else at least once, in their life. You ever watch someone get the knocked out in a boxing match and cheer? That is the same thing. I’m sure you don’t way up there on that high horse, but I am sure if you dig deep enough, you will find that you have done it too. Everyone does. Being able to recognize faults in yourself is a huge sign of maturity. Repeating B.S. and deflecting points, like you, is definitely immature. (I admit that I can be immature, when appropriate).

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN THEHEAD OF TROOP IN COMBAT? You don’t have the slightest clue as to what the fuck you are talking about. This may be true throughout history, but it is simply not so. What you are basing your ridiculous view on is movies and other bullshit. [...]

Hilarious! “I don’t engage what she says because it is so stupid.” Nice excuse! What did he say about citing facts and doing research again??? He just admitted he didn't even bother to address what she said.

Bullshit. If by “our enemy only” you mean the innocent family who was slaughtered in 2005, in what are called the Haditha murders (among many other examples), then yes you're right [Sarcasm]. Then you go around her argument once again and then accuse me of making things up and getting my information from movies! Oh that's too funny for words! I did not call people those names, I was quoting what soldiers called people during various wars! I cited a book by a Colonel in the military who cited discussions he had with actual vets and what they told him! You stupid fuck. Because you can't read or understand anything it seems you missed that fact.

Firsthand accounts prove that degrading the “enemy” is a tactic that has been used throughout military history and could even be witnessed in the “Collateral Murder” video.

We service members do not need your approval, or your support. We do not need your thanks, care packages, or yellow ribbons. People do these things as a way of saying thank you. It also honors those who have fought for over 230 years for our country. People do these things because it feels good. I doubt any service member has ever asked someone to thank them or asked someone to clap for them on a plane. I have never gone to a bar and asked a guy to buy me anything because I was a troop. We volunteered to do this job because it is the right thing to do. Serving your country reaps no better reward, even if you never leave American soil. Doing your part is what makes America so great. Why is it that when John F.. Kennedy Jr. famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" everyone freaked out and wanted to help the country in anyway. Whether right or wrong, they stood together. The rest of the world saw this and became terrified of us. In fact, that unity is one reason why no major conflict happened as a result of the Cold War. Now, we have people like Kassie. People do not want to support our troops or country, yet want to enjoy all of the freedoms associated with it. If you look throughout history, every time we are in a conflict and support for the troops and war is low, our economy and country has been in the crapper (Vietnam, Iraq I and II, Afghanistan). Our nation was glorious when JFK said those famous words and during other conflicts(WWI, WWII, Korean War, Revolutionary War). These wars showed the highest support of troops and coincidentally enough, our economies were pretty good. Hell, WWII even ended the Great Depression. Now, people like Kassie leach off the system until we can't pay our bills, we are in a long recession, our credit rating dropped, and more people are unemployed now more than ever. You do the math. History doesn't lie.

This stupid rant doesn't even begin to address the fact that I pointed out about the military dehumanizing people.

Funny stuff. The people who are molded like “play dough” are people exactly like ignorant and hateful old Viceroy Magnus here and other people like him. People like me and Kassie are true free-thinkers who speak out against hate, needless violence, unfairness, war, unchecked government power and abuse, and the list goes on. People like Viceroy Magnus seem to think all this is OK; that it's for our “safety” or some such nonsense. What's nonsense is this propaganda Viceroy Magnus and people like him blindly swallow and it's sickening. Absolutely sickening. As I've shown Kassie and I are the ones with the facts on our side. It's Kassie and I who hold the moral high ground. And it's Kassie and I who try our best to educate simpleminded buffoons like Viceroy Magnus about what's really going on, but they continue to trot out the same nonsense and propaganda that people like Kassie try so hard to dispel.

You are not a free thinker. No great free-thinker in history ever labeled himself as such. You are an elitist asshole who calls himself a free-thinker because it boosts your ego. You are the same type of pussy who goes writes on his Mac at Starbucks so everyone knows that you are better than they are, yet secretly, we are all saying how much of a douche you are. You are a person who simply restates what you read. You have no experience with anything related to the military. You don’t know anything about training, experiences or whatever so everything you spew is here say, yet you claim it to be fact. I am far from brainwashed. I was not molded in boot camp to think a certain way. To say you are a freethinker is a joke at best. You claim to be a free thinker yet quote everyone else on earth. Think for yourself like I do bro. I take all the information I receive and decide what to believe. You read books that only agree with you. When was the last time you read anything that contradicted what you believe? Real free thinker. I saw your favorite book on your profile. You could be anymore a narrow thinker? Honestly, what you know is limited to what other people tell you to know. At least I have the benefit of having experience on all the topics I cover. I don’t just make up bullshit like you.

More ad hominems and more nonsense. If anyone is making up “bullshit” it's Magnus and everyone else who writes at that pathetic website. I've cited facts throughout this entire discussion. What has Magnus done? Insult me, lie about me, take me out of context, and admit in several cases that I was right!!! How in the hell can I be doing nothing but making up “bullshit” when the very person who said this has backtracked and agreed with me about several of my counter-arguments?! Hypocrite much?

Conclusion

After going through this entire waste of gray matter I've learned that Viceroy Magnus can't write for shit. He's highly illogical and hateful. He's proven himself to be a sexist, wanna-be macho man asshole, who needs to take a long walk off of a short cliff. He's a symbol of everything that's wrong in this country and is a poster boy for the stupid, ignorant, patriotic people who support the government, the wars, and the troops.

It is funny that you wrote this whole article about Viceroy, when it wasn’t even about him. I know I already said it but damn this boy is stupid as fuck. How am I a wannabe macho asshole? Are you calling me that because I fit the description of a macho man? Well, I would rather be that than a hated, liberal pussy who wouldn’t honestly fight for what he believes in. (Protesting isn’t fighting. Protesting wastes everyone’s time and resources. Rarely has protesting created any significant change.) Seriously, I never claim to be macho, but thanks for labeling me as such. Oh and I am very much an asshole, but so are you. You just seem to think that it is ok when you do it, but it should be shunned when I do it.

What's funny (or more like idiotic in his case) is the fact that I corrected that mistake long before he ever read my piece. Hell, he even quotes me several times where I crossed out Viceroy's name and inserted his! But he's still harping on such an insignificant issue. And the fact that he apparently shuns reading is more than obvious because his comment that protests have never done anything is so historically naïve I am speechless. He needs to read a fucking book once in a while and then maybe he wouldn't be such an ignorant asshole.

The rest of Magnus' post was nothing but a bunch of personal attacks and other nonsense. Not even worth mentioning. I will, however, note a seeming addendum Viceroy has written about the references for my post. His “argument” against my references is essentially that they're “biased” and are skewed to “my” way of thinking. True to form he fails to cite a single fact that any of my sources are wrong about anything. Amazingly, and to further prove the lack of gray matter between Viceroy's ears a few of the historical facts I mentioned which his butt-buddy (Magnus) seemed to agree with me on were taken from those books!

The only thing he links to are a few negative reviews of a few of the books I cite. Wow! What amazing research skills! Boy, he really got me this time! He found a few people that don't like a book! That must mean it's entirely error ridden! Oh no! [Sarcasm: Off] Seriously though, give me a break. I would consider this just another argument ad hominem. Not a solitary fact is cited explaining how the books I cite are wrong or biased. Worse of all, regarding one book, he ripped each of the reviews from the Wikipedia article on Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. They obviously didn't check the page's source notes to ensure what was said is even accurate in said reviews. Just another hypocritical act since they chastised anyone who disagrees with them to do their “research,” but they clearly didn't do a damn thing to fact-check any of their misguided opinions.

Another reason I find it funny that he says that the books I cite are wrong and biased is the fact that many of James Bovard's books' sources, for example, are the same news outlets most people read every damn day, like The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and other news outlets. He also cites many government documents. Like the rest of their “response” (if that's what they want to call it, they have very low standards!) it's nothing but ignorant opinions stated as facts.

One review of Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Samantha Power is cited by Viceroy but he didn't seem to read the review very carefully (if at all). Yes, she explains how she believes Chomsky neglected to mention a few facts but the over all review is not as negative as Viceroy makes it out to be. She writes,

But for all that is wrong with ''Hegemony or Survival,'' reading Chomsky today is sobering and instructive for two reasons. First, his critiques have come to influence and reflect mainstream opinion elsewhere in the world; and second, the radicalism of the Bush administration has laid bare many of the structural defects in American foreign policy, defects that Chomsky has long assailed.

Much blood was shed in the last century by United States forces or proxies in the name of righteous ends. Because every state justifies its wars on the grounds of self-defense or altruism, Chomsky is correct that any ''profession of noble intent is predictable, and therefore carries no information.'' He is also right to object to the historical amnesia that American statesmen bring to their dealings with other states. He seethes at the hypocrisy of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell, who invoked Saddam Hussein's 1988 gassing attacks in order to help justify the recent war, but who did not see fit to explain why the Reagan administration (which they served as senior officials) doubled its aid to Hussein's regime after learning of the gassings.

Chomsky also denounces the dependence of foreign policy elites on special interests. With African agriculture ravaged by American farm subsidies, with Israeli settlements unchallenged by Washington's elites and with campaign contributors to both parties landing mammoth paybacks in overseas contracts, it is certainly well past time to sound the alarm.

And it is essential to demand, as Chomsky does, that a country with the might of the United States stop being so selective in applying its principles. We will not allow our sovereignty to be infringed by international treaty commitments in the areas of human rights or even arms control, but we demand that others should. We rebuff the complaints of foreigners about the 650 people who remain holed up in Guantánamo kennels, denied access to lawyers and family members, with not even their names released. Yet we expect others to take heed of our protests about due process. We have ''official enemies'' -- those whose police abuses, arms shipments and electoral thefts we eagerly expose (Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, Iran). But the sins of our allies in the war on terror (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan) are met with ''intentional ignorance.'' Although he is typically thin on prescriptions, Chomsky offers ''one simple way to reduce the threat of terror: stop participating in it.'' [emphasis mine] (accessed 12-29-11)

However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the books I cite do have a few errors. It's entirely asinine to believe that one can simply cite a few negative book reviews to rebut someone's arguments without citing any specific details.

Conclusion

After going through this monstrosity my opinions are even lower of Magnus and Viceroy than they were previously. I decided to give them a dose of their own medicine and throw some heat back their way because I think they seriously deserve it.

Regardless of all the back and forth nonsense the facts of the case are that Magnus and Viceroy didn't do a damn thing to prove me wrong. They failed in several ways. 1) They resorted more to mindless rants and pointless ad hominems rather than putting forth anything that could be construed as a rational argument. 2) Magnus actually agreed with several of my counter-arguments and conceded outright defeat on a few others, even though he stupidly said later that I hadn't refuted anything! 3) Magnus and Viceroy failed to cite a single fact throughout their entire post. They badly need to learn that opinions are not evidence and are not the same things as facts. 4) Magnus needs to learn to calm down and actually read what people write because he put words in my mouth and took me out of context a few times. 5) & 6) The final two reasons are what I believe to be the chief reasons for their downfall: willful ignorance and immaturity (or raw stupidity – take your pick). These two individuals and their entire website epitomise both of these things.

As far as the video that kicked off all this the facts are clear: Kassie was largely correct in what she said in her “Why I Do Not Support the Troops” video and, despite all their tough talk, these imbeciles were completely unable to back up their juvenile, baseless, so-called counter-arguments.

Or...in their native tongue (of pubescent, know-nothing teenagers): pwned (twice).



1. Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 2003; 51

2. Holocaust Encyclopedia: United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1941-1952 – accessed 12-28-11

3. Terrorism and Tyranny, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 2003; 291


Addendum: Giving Another Military Supporter An Education

It's come to my attention that another individual has attempted to refute Kassie Dill's “Why I Do Not Support the Troops” video. This particular piece can be found at http://militarygear.com/asp/2011/12/06/kassie-dill-is-a-moron/. This piece is not as hateful and as laced with ad hominems like the above nonsense I refuted. The only real insult the author calls Dill is a “moron,” which I'd agree when it comes to her religious views and her absurd belief that 9/11 was an “inside” job. However, when it comes to many of her complaints about government, the troops, and the wars, I agree with her almost entirely.

Now that I've said this, I will copy the piece in it's entirety. I will place the author's text in blockquotes. When he quotes Kassie I will place her comments in italics, with the author's response following. Then I will respond to his remarks. Hopefully that is clear so let's move on.

I haven’t done a Moron post in awhile, so I’m doing it now. Boy, did I find a doozie. Oh, wait. You don’t know who Kassie Dill is? Shame on me. Please watch:

[Here he posts her “Why I Do Not Support the Troops” video and responds....]

I hope you laughed as hard as I did. Before I begin to completely rip her a new one, a few things I will agree with her on.

1. Just because someone serves in the military doesn’t make them any more patriotic, honorable, or better than anyone else. There are plenty of people who join the military that commit crimes that the vast majority of Americans will NEVER commit, yet have never served themselves.

2. No, that was about it.

Not that any of you need this kind of an education, but I’m banking on the narcissism that Kassie knows when she’s being spoken about on the internet and will hopefully get a bit of an education here, though I doubt it seeing as how education is only in the liberal vocabulary as it relates to shoveling more money at the concept of education.

It's ironic that he says he's going to give Kassie an education because judging from this guy's arguments I think he's the one who needs to go back to school. Stay tuned.

The author begins with his counter-arguments:

I’m not going to send a care package, I’m not going to clap for them when they’re on the same plane as me…I’m not going to thank them for fighting for my freedoms.

The freedom to not send us a care package is one that you are entitled to. I’m pretty sure that there isn’t a person in the military that trust a care package from you anyway. We don’t want your clapping either. As a matter of fact, while it’s appreciated it’s a little embarrassing to have people clapping for you on an airplane. Most of us don’t want the attention.
As for the last part, you ignore the fact that is was Soldiers that fought for independence and freedom from the Brits. Soldiers continue to fight an invisible enemy so that you’re not wearing a burka on your webcam or getting your throat slit for wearing such a whorish, low-cut top for the world to peek at. But again, you don’t need to thank us. The fact that you are able to publish that video without your door being beaten off and getting drug in the dark of night to some undisclosed location is thanks enough. All we ask is that you enjoy the freedoms that are secured through the sacrifices of those you loath.

As I exposed in my reply above what freedoms has the military ever given us? The government that replaced England has enshrined harsh and unnecessary laws, surveils you 24/7 (at least where I live), and steals your money, as just a few examples. Again, the Muslims do not come over here to take away our freedoms. Their attacks are their attempts at counter-attacking the U.S. for it's share of brutality in the Middle East, eg. sanctions that have killed half a million Iraqi children. [1]

I find it ironic that the only example he could come up with of the military allegedly protecting us was from the 1700's – over 200 years ago! This is also proof of Kassie's point. If the author couldn't think of a single defensive war against other nations that the U.S. has participated in, it seems to me that he has conceded her point that all U.S. wars are needless attempts by the government to expand their power, influence, and profit.

Another irony is his claim that Kassie can post her video without worrying about reprisals. This is because in 1798 John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act, which would make such a criticism as Kassie's video punishable by a prison sentence. Congress passed another Sedition Act (an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917) in more modern times in 1918, which would make a crime any kind of speech that was critical of the government or its armed forces.

My point is the fact that the government has punished dissenting voices in the past and continues to do so. Bradley Manning is one such current example. He is simply being punished for embarrassing the government. There is no evidence that anything he allegedly leaked was used by “the enemy.” His are trumped up charges.

They should know what they’re fighting for; they should know what they’re doing; and ignorance isn’t going to bring someone’s family member back. Ignorance isn’t going to change the fact that since WWII…90% of the casualties in…US warfare has been unarmed civilians.

We know EXACTLY what we’re fighting. Some of the silly restrictions and constant political changes muddy up the waters a bit, but we know why we’re here (I’m currently in Afghanistan, living in the birthplace of the Taliban). Every loss on either side is a tragedy. Just as you say that no military troop is more important than non-military, neither are the lives of those troops any less tragic in their loss than others. As for your 90% statistic, I couldn’t find that anywhere. I would really appreciate a link to your stats.

He knows “exactly” why he's fighting? Well, then, like Magnus, if that's the case this author must be “evil” to go into a country that did nothing to us and kill thousands of innocent people. If he would have looked just a little harder she cited a UNICEF report for the 90% figure.

It’s not going to change the fact that we’ve killed over a million Iraqi people.

I’ve debunked this liberal, kook fringe argument for years! But, because you’re young and probably rely solely on your looks to get you anywhere in life, you’re not as educated on reality as your ugly peers. So, I’ll break this down into elementary math for you.

Number of months since the war in Iraq: 8 years, 8 months. 8 years x 12 months per year = 96 months + 8 additional months = 104 total months. 1,000,000 / 104 months equals an average 9615 deaths per month. Using YOUR numbers, there would have to have been nearly 10,000 deaths EVERY SINGLE MONTH since March 2003 until today to be accurate. I will give $10,000 to anyone who can provide evidence of these drastically high numbers. The worst month since the war began in which civilians were killed was December 2006 when 3,600 civilians were estimated to have been killed by both sides. Assuming EVERY month was the worst month for civilian casualties, let’s get back to the math: 3,600 civilians killed x 104 months of combat = 374,400. Hmmm. Doesn’t look much like a million to me.

Since we know that 3,600 is the worst month by a long shot to what the standard has been the past two years, we know that the number is really nowhere near that. The anti-war site, Iraq Body Count, has it’s highest estimate at just more than 113,000.
Most likely, Kassie is getting her numbers from another liberal thinktank, Just Foreign Policy, that quotes another company as saying that over a million civilians had been killed as of 2007. This, of course, makes even less sense since the average would have to be much higher (over 19,000 civilian death per month).

It's difficult to tell whether or not Kassie was referring to the Iraq war alone or the total number of Iraqis who have died due to the many years of sanctions against Iraq. If she was referring to the total of innocent people killed in Iraq over the years due to U.S. sanctions against Iraq the total is half a million. [2] Another 100,000 civilians are said to have perished due to the U.S.'s destruction of Iraq's water treatment facilities. [3] And another 113,000 Iraqi civilians are said to have died by the author. The approximate total of innocent Iraqi people who died from sanctions and other attacks is approximately 780,000. [4] So, while not the “million” Kassie claimed that is a hell of a lot of innocent people being killed for no reason and is very close to a million. Given the fact the first numbers above only take into account the children that died the number very well could be much higher.

Either way, even a little over half a million innocent people dead is a tragedy so arguing over the precise number is a little pointless. The point is, many innocent people died needlessly. Most people would call that murder.

I believe that people in the military fall under one of three categories: 1) they’re either dumb…2) or they’re evil or 3) they couldn’t get a real job, backed into a corner, had to pay child support and you had to join the military to get money.

Her list of the three reasons seemed to go on and on and I would have gotten lost had I not been so focused on her ignorance. Kassie mentions that she had a friend join the military, but didn’t tell us which category he fit into. Is she calling him dumb, evil, or a lowlife loser? It’s difficult to respond to this sort of logic because one would have to know what Kassie considers “a real job.” I had a real job, wasn’t backed into a corner, didn’t have to pay child support, and made more money as a DJ. I joined the military for some focus and discipline. And I want to do something bigger than me.

For every person in the military, there is a reason they joined. Yes, some joined because they are dumb. Believe me, I’ve led them. There are some that are evil, though that’s not why they joined. And there are others that meet the other areas addressed in this dissertation. However, there are also those that wanted to ensure another 9/11 happened (I know, Kassie, it was an inside job!). There are those that don’t want another Pearl Harbor. There are those motivated by tradition. There are those motivated by gaining an education. Those motivated by earning a skill. Those that wanted money for college. Those that had a choice between the military and jail. Those that had a choice between living on the streets or in the barracks. I don’t expect Kassie to understand our reasons because they’re mostly selfless. It’s hard for people like her who have had everything handed to her with a silver spoon to understand.

I feel he has entirely gone around and ignored her actual argument. Her point was that with all of the information about the false reasons for the Iraq war the people who signed up for the military should know, due to the massive amounts of media information on these false reasons, that they are fighting for no good reason at all. But worse than that, they are going into another country for immoral reasons: to expand the U.S.'s power and influence and for Iraq's oil. So, no matter a person's reasons for joining, the fact that this information has come to light should cause moral people pause and make them question what they're doing and why. Unfortunately this isn't the case (in most instances). Hence, they are immoral murderers.

We are aggressing against other nations that are of absolutely no threat to us. None.

The words “absolutely” and “none” are what kills her logic. The fact is that the Iraqi people slaughtered thousands of Kuwaitis in the early 90s. The United States was a party to enforcing no-fly zones to ensure that Iraq didn’t kill any more innocent people. During those patrols, Iraqis shot at our airplanes on numerous occasions. That sounds aggressive to me. Saddam attempted an assassination against the president at the time, President George HW Bush. Iraq shot down pilot Michael Scott Speicher (who went to the same high school I did, by the way) and never returned his body. It wasn’t returned until two years ago. And it wouldn’t have been returned had we not gone in there to get it. Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each for their heinous acts that killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including Americans, over the decades.

Saddam supported a terrorist group called Ansar al Islam that waged war with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Ansar al Islam was trained in Al Qaeda camps in the deserts of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban that shielded and supported Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, including nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001. Afghanistan refused to turn over the people responsible for these murders after repeated requests.

So, your statement is just plain false. Both countries were a threat not only to their neighbors, but to the world – including Americans. The fact that Kassie lives in D.C., one of the targets of those people, should have been evidence enough. But ignorance is bliss.

There is so much that's wrong here...

First of all, Kassie, I'm sure, was referring to the fact that the war was being waged against a nation that at that point in time was no threat to us.

A war that is claimed to be defensive in nature is not when you give a justification for the war that is many years old. This attack happened in the 90's but the U.S. didn't enter into war with Iraq until 2003, about ten years after the fact! That's like claiming self-defense in court after running up to an ex bully from high school at your ten year high school reunion and punching him in the face for what he did to you ten years ago! No judge in his right mind would buy that justification for a claim of self-defense. It's not self-defense if you're not in immediate danger.

His other justification that had taken place years prior (which would rule it out as an act of self-defense) is that Saddam had tried to assassinate George Bush Sr. but there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Even the author’s very own government denies this ever took place! In a 2008 Newsweek article the Pentagon said,

A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]." [emphasis mine] (article accessed 1-11-12)

He seems to be forgetting that after 9/11 the U.S. attacked Iraq, who had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks, and was the focus of Kassie's video. I'd consider this a straw man argument.

Each of his arguments are pure bullshit in trying to find any justification he can for the attack.

If you were a serial killer, the perfect place for you to find employment would be the US military.

Actually, if you were a serial killer, the perfect place for you to find employment would be a nursing home. The rules of engagement in the military are so strict, it’s nearly impossible to commit murder serially. Not everyone in the military has the opportunity or ability to fire a weapon in at an enemy force. The majority of the military fills a support role, with a minority being combat troops. However, even most combat units never get to shoot at the enemy during their tours. Since many places in Afghanistan are supportive of our presence, these deployments are largely drama-free. For example, my Brigade has been in Afghanistan for 5 months and hasn’t fired a single shot at anyone.

This argument is a non sequitur and is also false. The “rules of engagement in the military are so strict, it’s nearly impossible to commit murder serially?” Really? Well, then I guess the Collateral Murder video doesn't depict the military killing all of those innocent people...including members of the press! And I guess the contamination of the water treatment plants is not an example of 'serial murder' either, even though half a million innocent children died because of these military actions. Another bullshit answer, devoid of any facts whatsoever.

It takes a hell of a lot more courage to…stand up to these wars…than it does to take an AK-47 to some 5-year old’s face.

Ummm, we don’t use AK-47s so you must have us confused. And I’d be interested in your evidence to support this baseless statement.

[The rest of the author's post is blabbering on about this statement so I don't feel it's necessary to copy it. This is also the end of his post.]

Finally, he actually pointed out something that was likely false by Kassie. In my research I couldn't find any reports on this alleged incident.

I will, however, point out a ridiculous “argument” by this author. He posts the following picture:



Then he writes,

My retirement checks for life signed over to the person that can point out the AK-47 shoved in this little girl’s face being taught by a Soldier in Afghanistan.

This is another non sequitur due to the fact that just because you can find a picture of a soldier helping a young girl doesn't automatically erase the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children that have been needlessly murdered by the military. I also suspect that this photo may even be nothing more than a publicity shot. “See how nice the troops are to these civilians!” All the while they're actually killing many of them.

While this piece was not a juvenile, profanity-laced personal attack like Magnus' reply this author still failed to cite a single legitimate reason why the U.S. military went into Iraq. Many of his claims were also outright false. Of course, at least he did a much better job than that dipshit Magnus, but that's not saying much. These people are still attempting to defend the indefensible and that is immoral.


1. Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, by James Bovard, Palgrave, 2003; 291

2. Ibid.; 291

3. Ibid.; 293

4. On page 293 (Ibid.) Bovard lists a study which concluded that 567,000 children died due to sanctions. If you add the other 100,000 people who died due to the destruction of Iraq's water treatment facilities, and the Iraq Body Count total of approximately 113,000, the total rises to 780,000.



Update – 5-5-12

I wanted to add a little update about a few occurrences since I'd written this take down of these immoral defenders of murder.

First, I'd like to address the following screenshot of Magnus' “Real Men Have Spoken” Facebook page.

Not too long ago Magnus was alerted to this response and so far all he's done is post insulting, immature, and idiotic comments in the comments section here on this post (which I've deleted for good reason). Rather than engaging in “civil” debate on the enormous deficiencies of his two blog posts he simply posts insults and other nonsense, both on my blog and his Facebook page. This makes it all the more ironic because he actually claims above that he's tried to be “civil” and “be an adult” about this!

Say again!? Allow me to replay a few nuggets of this 'maturity' and 'civility' Magnus speaks of:

“I may have been in the same place as someone who did, but I would have never known it. Why, because the people that do not support the troops are fucking pussies. PURE PLAIN AND SIMPLE!”

“It takes a real sack of shit to bash the very same people that allow you to breathe delicious, fresh air. I mean what type of person is so jaded that they would openly admit to hating the very people that protect and weave the fabric of democracy?”

And these examples are taken from his first few sentences in his post arguing against Kassie Dill's “Why I Do Not Support the Troops” video!

But wait! There's more!

“If it were up to Kassie, she would have helped fill the gas chambers, fucking Nazi bitch.”

“P.S. Kassie, In all fairness, I wanted to tell you about this organization that was around in 2003. You might be very interested in it and you actually fit the profile to a T. It is called "Operation Take One For The Country". It involved women who would go to bases where men were about to deploy and they would have sex with them and a way to say thank you and good luck. No strings, no diseases, just guilt free, mutual, casual sex. Just a thought. I'm sure there are some guys who would love to try to fuck the stupid out of you.”

If Magnus considers this “civil” I'd really like to know what in the hell he'd consider rude and obnoxious!

Finally, in his response to me, in which there are many examples of his incivility and immaturity, I will choose only one to prove my point. Magnus wrote,

“I am so proud that we dropped two nukes on Japan that I often have wet dreams where I pull the levers myself…SIMULTANEOUSLY! I don’t feel bad for any of those people that died in Japan. Not one.”

This is not a sign of civility or maturity. It is a sign of immature and psychotic tendencies. And he calls me the “psycho”? Wow... That's too ironic, hypocritical, and stupid for words...

The rest of his response I can sum up with the following. I will translate what Magnus actually meant to say: “This guy destroyed my arguments so thoroughly and made me look like such a dumbass that I don't want anyone to read his response. It's just too embarrassing. It makes me look like the total psychotic douchebag that I am. So, instead of giving any substantial criticisms against his arguments just insult him like I do, just like a real man does. Because, as you all know, real men don't bother with those pesky things some people call facts, or logic, or, shit, even common sense.”

Finally, what the hell is up with this second to last sentence? “If you can't beat 'em, destroy 'em?” Ummm... dumbass, if you can't even manage to beat someone, how in the hell are you going to then destroy them? Idiot.

It's actually psychopathic, moronic, war mongers (like Magnus) who are fucking up this country. No, the world.

Second, the other defender of murder I refuted has, at the time of this update, deleted his blog post about Kassie Dill's video. I have no idea what brought this on, but I wouldn't be surprised if he read my response to his post and saw how I obliterated his bullshit. Maybe he was too embarrassed by his many factual and logical errors to keep that post around.

Before I end this update I'd like to say one last thing. Magnus claims that I will delete any comments he or his mindless band of nitwits posts. It's true, I will delete any comments that are insulting and this is the reason I deleted all of Magnus' comments on my blog. He's since been banned because of his complete failure to be even the slightest bit civil. Now, I wouldn't care if him and his pathetic groupies decided to try to pick apart my responses (good luck...) but I'm not going to discuss anything with a bunch of immature assholes. If they're civil and they actually make attempts at actual discussion and debate by all means they can post comments, but not if they're going to refuse to act their age (Assuming they're adults in the first place. Their constant immaturity makes we wonder about that).