If your country was attacked, would you assist in ...

[11 Bravo]

rounding up non-combatants and staging theatrical beheadings? Would you place POWs in a cage and set them on fire as the video cameras rolled? Would you send pictures of a dead young woman to her family? Would you support sending armed assassins into schools to kill the students therein (paying special attention to females daring to seek an education)?

False equivalencies piss me off, whether it's a lap-dog corporate media pretending that "both parties do it" in order to make money; or it's pundits and anonymous internet posters attempting to equate the US Army with the Islamic State and/or the Taliban.

The American military is not blameless. Innocent civilians have perished at our hands, way too many of them. But it was not done indiscriminately, or as a perfect expression of everything we stand for.

I have never liked the term "collateral damage" finding it way too facile; but it has been a fact of life in every war in recorded history. However, wanton murder is not a policy that is being employed by American service men and women.

Just my opinion, YMMV.

[trumad]

1. "not done indiscriminately"

You had me until then.

[11 Bravo]

6. I actually pondered the use of that word. But I honestly believe ...

that we, rightly or wrongly, thought there was a legitimate target for the strikes. I refuse to believe that someone said, "What the fuck, let's toss a Hellfire over there and see if we get lucky."

[trumad]

8. I hear you...

recent history perhaps...past history--- no way.

[sabrina 1]

12. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They were never a threat to us. So what would you call

the killing and torture and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people based on a pack of lies?

And what you call, once they were exposed for the liars they are, not even holding one of them accountable, including the brutal torturers?

Have you read any of the incidences of rape and torture of people in that country? One I remember and to this day am haunted by, was the little 14 year old, innocent girl, gang raped after her baby brother, other siblings, parents and grandfather were murdered, indiscriminately, and then her body burned.

In their own country! Which had zero to do with this country!

Please, war is horrific. Which is why no country should go to war unless it is a last resort to defend itself.

The Iraq War was a massive crime. Bombs falling on your home for no reason, IS indiscriminate.

[11 Bravo]

20. I am also haunted by the incidences you recount.

And having been to war, while I appreciate your comment, I have no need to be reminded of its horrific nature. However, is it your contention that the criminal acts committed by some American service men and women were indicative of national policy? Because murder, mayhem, and terror are damned sure the goals of the Taliban and the Islamic State. That is the the difference I was trying to draw.
(And I was aware when I did it that I was opening myself up to specious claims of insensitivity, but I'm a big boy, I can take it.)

[Blanks]

35. Soldiers aren't diplomats...

We had an opportunity to send diplomats into Iraq (inspectors anyway). History tells us (or it should) that sending young inadequately supervised soldiers into a war zone is going to create an environment for unnecessary violent incidents toward the locals.

I'm not attacking you, but it seems obvious that when we chose force over diplomacy, unnecessary violence toward the locals is part of the deal. Which is reason enough to oppose any war (occupation even) that is not absolutely necessary. Abuse of the natives is such a well known occurrence during war that using war as a method of problem solving IS making native abuse a matter of 'national policy' IMHO.

[sabrina 1]

75. We had a policy of Torture! We had top government officials writing 'torture memos'.

There are videos of some of the results of our policies of torture, that the public still has not seen. We know why, as a few members of Congress were allowed to view those horrific videos and a few of them were horrified. One, surprisingly was Lindsey Graham, who after viewing them told Cheney publicly 'Mr. VP, please allow us to do our job here, we are talking about rape, sodomy, murder'. His face was white, he was visibly angry airc.

However, he has been silent since then so no doubt he was instructed to remain so, or had our policies 'explained'.

White Phospherous was used on civilians in Fallujah, I saw the photos, horrible. The military confirmed its use.

War is brutal, which is why we should not engage in war unless we are in danger ourselves. I can't think of any our wars, since WW11 that was fought for anything other than other people's resources.

All I'm saying is, we are not in any position right now to be the moral arbiters of the world. Not until we start prosecuting our own war criminals.

[geek tragedy]

23. Well, Dresden and Tokyo come to mind . . . nt

[arcane1]

28. Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Not a whole lot of "precision" in those crimes.

[11 Bravo]

33. And that's why we declared war on Japan and Germany, correct?

We simply wanted to slaughter innocents in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Fuck it, you're right! We are EXACTLY like the Islamic State and the Taliban.

[arcane1]

41. And where the fuck did I say that?

I swear, reading comprehension on this site is non-existent these days

[Telcontar]

66. Perhaps, but the art of dog whistles and code words to insinuate without actually coming out

and saying something definative seems to be a well honed skill 'round these parts.

[Man from Pickens]

76. Can't see the basis for that belief

after the report came out that the drone program was killing 50 innocents for every legitimate enemy, it got ramped up big time

We know for a fact we are wantonly killing innocents. It is not disputable, unless you think the US government is purposely making itself look worse by admitting those murders. I got a good imagination but I can't think of a single reason why it would do that.

[Adrahil]

25. I think there is a difference between deaths of civilians killed accidentally or....

collaterally when compared to the horrific and deliberate murders performed by ISIS.

Now don;t get me wrong.... civilians killed collaterally are just as dead, but intent does matter.

[BB1]

60. Not to the dead.

[Adrahil]

74. i don't disagree. But more than the dead are involved. n/t

[NightWatcher]

2. If they were doing to us what we are doing to them, yes. Yes I would

I would do the most extreme acts in the hopes that it shocked them back in their home country so that they demanded they pull their soldiers out of my home.

If they were killing our families with drones and carpet bombings, yes, yes I would do anything I thought I could to drive them out.

[11 Bravo]

29. I appreciate your honesty. I myself would not act ...

as you say you would. Do you believe that the Islamic State beheading Christians, and the Taliban slaughtering girls who dare to seek an education are the equivalent of what I posted about?

I knew this would happen. I made a simple statement … that I don't believe that US policy, as fucked up as it may be, is in any way comparable to the random and murderous brutality committed by ISIL and the Taliban. And for fuck's sake, please don't ignore my use of the word POLICY.

If you believe that it is American policy to randomly slaughter and terrorize innocent civilians in order to further our national interest, say so. And then we will agree to disagree, but at least you will have made an honest argument.

[NightWatcher]

34. While it's not policy, it happens

War is Hell, policy or no. It is Hell.

[CJCRANE]

3. You're forgetting that ISIS are the invaders. This is not an indigenous group.

They use the rhetoric of the original resistance but they are a new and different phenomenon.

[WillowTree]

27. What you said........

Too few think it through to that rather germane point.

[dissentient]

4. No, I wouldn't

I honestly don't know if I would even want to fight back if my country was invaded, it depends on lots of things really.

[uppityperson]

5. "Innocent civilians have perished at our hands, way too many of them. But it was not done indiscrimi

"Innocent civilians have perished at our hands, way too many of them. But it was not done indiscriminately, "?

In many cases it was, it is wanton murder, what care was given who was harmed? Or it was done with false intelligence with the aim of wiping out the informant's enemies, not ours.

Not to mention those tortures and atrocities done wantonly by American service men and women.

RIP Abeer, you are not forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

[trumad]

7. The problem I have with that line is---

it white washes our history of wars. I think we killed many indiscriminately.

Think Sand Creek.

[uppityperson]

9. Yup, I was thinking only recently but indeed, that is a good example

[11 Bravo]

10. I must admit, I did not think of our genocidal policy ...

directed at the First Americans. In that, you are correct, and mea culpa. (I do, however, believed that we have evolved somewhat since then.)

[Adrahil]

26. Perpetrators of deliberate murder should be tried and punished.

And that includes U.S. service members.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. It depends

Are they bringing us freedom?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. If given a choice between the GOP and ISIS I have reservations on how some might choose.

[leftynyc]

37. I hope you're just being hyperbolic

I've already survived several republican administrations. As a Jewish liberal woman, I doubt I would survive isis.

[Lurks Often]

13. Doubtful, but failing to help might get you beheaded and burned alive

It presents the interesting question: would you go along to survive knowing that refusing to would get you beheaded, burned alive or die through some other horrific manner when your death wouldn't change a single thing that was going happen.

[H2O Man]

14. Interesting OP/thread.

Recommended.

I'm not the best at "reading between the lines," but I suspect the OP expresses a bit of frustration, aimed perhaps at the discussions -- including the media's reporting -- on a few topics.

How would I respond to an attack on this country? I can only speculate. I assume that it would be similar to a response to if a group of domestic thugs were to attempt to attack my home.

It's impossible, of course, to say how I would respond, if I lived in the Middle East. I would not have the same sum-total of life experiences that I actually do. Hence, it is no more possible to say how "I" would respond, were "I" in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, or even Grenada. I could speculate, at very best. But such speculation is, at best, utter nonsense.

A sad but true human behavior, in times of warfare, is that violence takes control of groups of individuals, and brings out -- among other things -- the worst of human potential. Not in all of those involved, as warriors/soldiers and/or civilians. But in enough, that it serves to make me sick.

[LanternWaste]

17. The European nations of the 18th century has very little good to say of the doctrines...

The European nations of the 18th century has very little good to say of the doctrines and strategies the colonial rebels utilized. The sniping and guerrilla tactics used by the colonialists were referred to as cowardly, without honor, and a debasement of civilized standards (though the colonials said the same of the Powhatan tribe when it wiped out 30% of white settlers in Virginia in the spring of 1622).

Colonial attacks on crown-friendly businesses, attacks on civilian loyalists (including tar-and-feathering-- almost a death sentence despite what we may learn from cartoons), systematic mob-violence and public demands of loyalty were more common than not.

Yet we celebrate those actions. I don't think that false equivalencies enter into it-- just that every nation-state wages war in a a manner it deems most efficient to its resources.

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Laudable OP, but assumes people can or would be consistent.

They won't. ISIS good because US bad. That's how it is and how it goes in some circles.

[11 Bravo]

21. And that's what troubles me about being on the left of ...

the political spectrum. There are too many people on my fucking side who appear to be willing to assume the very posture you note: i.e.: (insert group here) : good because United States : bad.

[Rex]

19. Yes the dead care so much if it was a rogue hellfire missile at a wedding

or a pathetic publicity stunt beheading...no doubt that is their final thought. Good luck trying to moralize planned mass murder, no one has ever been able to do it before and even your own words look washed out and only half believable by you yourself!

War is fucking horrible. Nobody should ever do it.

[Egnever]

22. Screw that

If I have to go let me be killed by a missile I never see coming as opposed to some dickwad making death porn videos of me getting burned alive in a cage. There's a huge difference.

I wouldn't want either to happen but given my choice I will take the missile every time.

[H2O Man]

32. For what it's worth,

I hope to die mid-orgasm at the age of 105. Admittedly, that's just me. However, I promise not to be making a death-porn video at the time.

[Rex]

38. For what it is worth, I don't hope to die. Period.

Of course I will, but hope and my demise are not something I mix together lightly. If I have to go and I get a choice, it would be onboard some Mothership from an invading alien species. Think V and Independence Day, but I don't make it out of the ship before the grand explosion...

[H2O Man]

44. I'm thinking that

both "V" and "Independence Day" are movies. I have not watched either, and hence am unable to comment upon them.

I don't personally believe in "death," other than in the context of a bodily function. However, even in that context, it strikes me as frequently being unpleasant. As always, my goal is to try to make the best out of a given situation.

[Rex]

36. So you could die happier knowing your entire family and your almost wives family

are probably obliterated (bad day for a wedding right?) with you in a 'oopsie' hellfire barrage, instead of burning to death or getting decapitated alone away from your loved ones? Interesting choice.

[treestar]

24. No, I agree it is a false equivalence

If people want to debate what we have done, fine, but be honest that we are not that savage.

[atreides1]

79. Really? We're not that savage?

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, born August 26, 1995 in Denver, who was an American citizen. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed at the age of 16 in an American drone strike on October 14, 2011, in Yemen. Nine other people were killed in the same CIA-initiated attack, including a 17-year-old cousin of Abdulrahman. According to his relatives, shortly before his father's death, Abdulrahman had left the family home in Sana'a and travelled to Shabwa in search of his father who was believed to be in hiding in that area (though he was actually hundreds of miles away at the time ). Abdulrahman was sitting in an open-air cafe in Shabwa when killed, along with others also in the café. According to US officials, the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the intended target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna, who was not at the targeted location at the time of the attack. Human rights groups have raised questions as to why an American citizen was killed by the US in a country with which the United States is not officially at war. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki had no connection to terrorism.


I disagree, our savagery just uses more high tech gadgets!

When you intentionally fire a missile into an open-air cafe, filled with patrons...all to get just one man, that's pretty savage!

[treestar]

81. He's the one you are going there with?

He was planning to kill some of us. In his case, it was actually true.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Not indiscriminately? My lai? Dresden? Tokyo? Haiphong? Hanoi? Fallujah?

Drones? Carpet bombing? Nuclear weapons?

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi

[11 Bravo]

39. As soon as ISIL tries anyone for a war crime you can invoke My Lai.

Until then , you either fail to understand,or are willfully ignoring my point. The United States of America is NOT the same as the Taliban or the Islamic State.
Rusty Calley was tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. Let me know when the Taliban puts Malala Yousafzai's assailants on trial. Get back to me when the Islamic State goes after the individuals who recently beheaded 30 Coptic Christians.
I'm tired of restating the OP. Re-read it, then come back and tell us how the US is no different then the groups I just mentioned.

[Rex]

42. He went from life sentence, to 3 years of house arrest to

a presidential pardon my Richard Nixon, against the protests from the Secretary of Defense.

Nice try, but your OP is falling apart. And that stupid shit of USA = bad therefore ISIS = good is childish garbage that I personally would be embarrassed to acknowledge as valid...but that is just me.

[11 Bravo]

49. Under the UCMJ, you know, those evil indiscriminate murderers ...

wearing Army green, Calley was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Nixon reduced his sentence to house arrest and eventually pardoned him.
I'll say it again, if you think the US aims and policies are equivalent to those of the Taliban and the Islamic State, just say so. Because the only thing I have stated in this thread is that they are not.
As for what may or may not constitute "childish garbage", I will bow to your superior wisdom.

[Rex]

51. Childish garbage is thinking A = B without any proof.

Shit stirring on this board is sad and predictable. More sad really.

[11 Bravo]

56. Yeah, I've just been hanging out for 13 years as a contributing member ...

to stir shit. If that's your take from the OP, well … AMF.

[Rex]

57. Oh so now you fall back on old timer status blah blah.

You are a real piece of work there fella. My take is that you like to pretend the US is some great place that never does anything wrong. And if someone says, no they do and show you facts that you cannot refute - you tell them they must agree with terrorists that cut peoples heads off.

That's about the biggest pile of shit I've seen in 13 years as a contributing member. Way to go!

[11 Bravo]

63. I've referred you to the OP several times. You either can't understand it ...

or you simply refuse to acknowledge what I actually said. So I will now welcome you to the back of my hand, as you're no longer worth the time it takes to address your fevered nonsense.

And if you're looking for "the biggest pile of shit" you've seen, let me re-direct your attention to your most recent post. I said nothing even remotely resembling what you allege, but fuck it … have a nice life.

You will no doubt now fabricate something new in your response, claiming yet more bullshit that I never said, but I'll give you he last word.

Enjoy it, old-timer.

[Rex]

65. Yeah telling people that if they disagree with you, then they need to admit they agree with ISIS

is exactly what you did over and over in replies to people. Nice try at a dodge - now run off and hide, I would to after getting called out on the mat like you did by almost everyone.

And OF COURSE I knew you would never just say you are wrong. That is impossible for some here, it is to be expected.

[11 Bravo]

70. OK, I was gone, but I'll come back one last time.

If you can find one post wherein I said that anyone I disagree with must agree with ISIS, I'll humbly apologize. Because that's a lie. Also, check the responses. Because "almost everyone" didn't disagree with me. So that's another lie. Hmmm, I'm sensing a pattern. You seem to have an issue with either reality or the truth.
Go back and check the two falsehoods I called you on, then respond.
You will do neither, of course, because you can't. You will come back with yet another non sequitur; and either attribute to me something else I didn't say, or invent yet another falsehood … because most internet bullshit artists assume that the rest of the board won't check back in order to determine whether or not they are being honest. But in my experience, DUers are better than that, so take your chances.)
And now I will truly bid you a somewhat less than fond adieu.

[Rex]

72. Wait, you came back? Nah, then that would mean you were lying about not replying. Not you.

Now don't LIE and say you are not coming back if you really don't mean it...some might think you are being a little dishonest. You told people to admit to agreeing with ISIS in several replies, please don't pretend you are oblivious to your own words. That is sad and a little pathetic.

Now don't come back and lie again - or do it doesn't really matter since you got called out for shit stirring and everyone knows it.

EDIT- HERE, let me show you what honesty means since you seem to lack a general understanding of the concept. I am done with you. Reply until your heart is done with it's faux outrage. And maybe think a little harder about a shit stirring OP before posting it, because yours makes little to no sense and is insulting to just about everyone.

EOM.

[Telcontar]

68. I agree with you

And they say its Republicans who are stuck in black or white thinking. I think you are spot on.

[11 Bravo]

73. If you require further confirmation, check the post above yours.

Several times I asked one particularly disingenuous * to point to one post wherein I actually made any of the statements he or she had attempted to attribute to me. I initially bade them farewell, and they responded via the "na-na-boo-boo, you're running away" route. I should have at that point realized what I was dealing with but, perhaps mistakenly, I came back and again requested that they provide one single instance of me saying what they claimed I had said. The oh-so-mature response to that one was to call me a liar for returning to a post I had indicated that I was exiting …still, of course, with no link back to anything I was supposed to have said.
Apparently in some circles, repeated statements that "You said THIS" regardless of the fact that it didn't happen, constitute a valid argument.
Just wait, they'll be along directly to continue with their puerile foolishness.
(They may also even go so far as to double down on the "you lied, you said you were gone" whine, even though it was them and their juvenile garbage that I took my leave of, not my own OP.)

[arcane1]

50. It's a deliberate attempt to invent an excuse to bash DUers, IMO.

If there is a better explanation, I'm open to it

[Rex]

53. Shit stirring and not even a good try at it.

IMHO. You are 100% correct.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. I literally spit my drink out when he offerd Calley as an example of how tough we are on war crimes.

I no longer need to do mind altering drugs. Threads like this are like going off in to bizarro fantasy land.

[Rex]

61. That would explain the contact buzz I have going right now.

So just remember, IF you think America has done savage, SAVAGE things to others - you are EXACTLY like terrorists that cut peoples heads off for fun!

Premise - it's what's for dinner!

[11 Bravo]

64. Calley should have received the death penalty. I referenced him ...

simply to differentiate the UCMJ from the Islamic State and the Taliban. Let me know when anyone in the latter two organizations are sent to trial.
Now, please proceed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. How much time did Calley, or those who followed him in the killings, serve?

3 years of house arrest. 1 day in prison. But, how about the other murderers? And, Calley's superiors who tried to cover it up?

How "discriminate" were the fire-bombings in Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo? How "discriminate" were the A-bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Pinpoint bombing aimed only at war material production?

ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Queda, are savage. But, they have no corner on savagery.

[11 Bravo]

47. So just say it. The USA is equally as savage as ISIS ...

the Taliban, and Al-Queda. Because that is the only premise that I have disputed in the OP, or in any post since.
So come on, just fucking say it. And from that point, perhaps we can begin the discussion.

[Rex]

54. Nobody believes that, you can keep trying to pretend that is what everyone is saying.

But your OP was destroyed by a few posters as just common shit stirring, I guess you can't handle it and now are begging someone to say what you want to hear. Sorry, but nobody believes A = B so I guess you will have to find a way to cope with being wrong.

[LanternWaste]

46. As soon as the sentence is proportional to the crime, you can invoke War Crimes.

As soon as the sentence is proportional to the crime, you may invoke War Crimes. Get back to us if was something more than house arrest and a pardon.

(six of one, half a dozen of the other-- and each as useless and without cause as the other)

[choie]

69. More American exceptionalism

when the United States arrests and puts on trial OUR war criminals from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who planned the illegal war that killed god knows how many innocent people (many of whom were defending THEIR country) to the soldiers who committed the numerous heinous acts in places like Fallujah to the torturers in Guantanamo Bay to the psychiatrists who aided and abetted the tortures...maybe then we can claim moral superiority..

[Rex]

71. Yup, spot on and the OP knows it and doesn't care to admit to it.

Either that or shit stirring.

[Rex]

43. I think I get it now, their understanding of others actions and reactions are on a childlike level

of comprehension. How else do you explain the childlike logic of 'USA bad therefore ISIS good'? Notice the OP cannot point to a single person on this site or ANY progressive that states that or makes that claim?

They have a really low comprehension level or they are just concern trolling for fellow concerned replies. Either way, this OP fell apart as soon as the poster decided to moralize mass murder.

[frylock]

62. it's binary thinking at it's finest, and that is a hallmark of the conservative mindset..

if you're against drone bombing, then you must want to coddle terrorists. Against the Iraq war? Saddam is your hero. fukcing conservative mindset.

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. No I would not.

If such a thing would happen, I suspect that I would be one of the first rounded up for a theatrical beheading.

[Rex]

40. Me too, I wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut long enough to stay alive.

[TheKentuckian]

48. If you invade my country you have no non combatants. Every soul is part of the occupation force.

If one didn't want to be counted among the invaders then they would have stayed their monkey ass at home.

If it takes brutality to restore our lands then I suspect folks will get a hell of a lot less squeamish when presented with such a reality seeing how easily we can look past all kinds of murderous campaigns for dubious at best aims and forward on all kinds of torture and mayhem, I'd imagine the sanctimony of the phony noble would evaporate like a mist on a hot summer day and in the end the honest among us would be the voices of restraint.

Folks also need to get real, nobody on the business end of our force cares about measuring the perfection of every we stand for and there is no reason to think that a great many believe that such is as perfect a representation as they need account for.

Your distinctions are figment of a privileged perspective fallacy that is heavy on the rationalizations while pretending to be the ruminations of an impartial arbiter and this is not any such thing, this is the perspective of one on the trigger end of the barrel that is confident that they will be wearing the boot not feeling it stomp their face.

Just because some asshole has some supposed plan for some argued purpose doesn't mean it isn't wanton murder and maybe those we accuse of wanton murder have a plan too.

[pnwmom]

52. No. But also -- they are not defending "their" country. They are attacking others

in order to establish their religious Caliph.

[TheKentuckian]

77. I don't think the borders provided by the west are particularly meaningful to the locals

Probably are no small part of the problems long before ISIS. This culture isn't on a 4 or 5 year memory cycle, even the ever sought "more moderate voices".

Yes, of course you have folks from all over the world in the mix but it is pointless to think overly on the borders as set today.

[pnwmom]

78. It isn't only the "locals" fighting there. Radical extremists are flocking in from other places

in response to the rise of the "Caliph." The border of the new Caliph is entirely fluid - it's whatever territory they believe the Caliph controls.

[TheKentuckian]

82. I didn't dispute that at all and acknowledged it.

I'm just say fixation on borders set by the west are not as most Americans would like to believe.

[pnwmom]

83. That doesn't change the fact that the way to end the Caliph is to stop them from controlling

the territory they now claim to control -- whatever its borders are. With no territory there is no Caliph, and they stop attracting followers who will give up everything in order to go there.

[dolphinsandtuna]

55. The OP

is ignoring ghastly crimes the US has committed against civilians, including horrific tortures and murders. The difference is, the US normally doesn't publish videotapes of what they do.

By the way, sending the photos of the young woman killed by the Jordanians was actually decent since it gave the family the truth instead of leaving them with false hope.

[Rex]

67. The OP makes no sense.

"If your country was attacked, would you assist in...rounding up non-combatants and staging theatrical beheadings? Would you place POWs in a cage and set them on fire as the video cameras rolled? Would you send pictures of a dead young woman to her family? Would you support sending armed assassins into schools to kill the students therein (paying special attention to females daring to seek an education)?"

Why would I be rounding up non-coms in my own country that was invaded? Why would I stage beheadings of the people that are my fellow Americans? Why would I treat POWs (I'm assuming that these are actually the enemy that invaded) like garbage when it is against the law? Why would I support assassins killing children in my schools after an invasion by a foreign nation?

The entire thing is pure garbage, but the OP is proud of something...nobody really knows what. Just don't disagree, otherwise you will be asked to admit allegiance to ISIS or some other garbage.

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. Hopefully be like the French Reistance

Although one could argue there were some dark spots regarding treatment of collaborators sans trial.

[whatchamacallit]

80. Right... we didn't murder scores of innocent men, women, and children "indiscriminately"

We did it with much more noble premeditation. Lol. When you invade, bomb, drone... you do so with the knowledge that you will kill innocent people. Assuaging your conscience with the made-for-sociopaths notion of "collateral damage" makes our crimes even more disgusting because we won't even own them.