Atheist -Skeptical- Army and .........

This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S

[Tricky]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S
This may shock you, Carlos, but it is actually possible to disagree with a person on some issues and agree on others. There is no litmus test for skeptics.

Originally posted by Tricky

This may shock you, Carlos, but it is actually possible to disagree with a person on some issues and agree on others. There is no litmus test for skeptics.

And also to everyone in the world, is not a limitation for skeptics.

Who told you that only the skeptics can disagree with a person on some issues and agree on others. ?

Where are the rebelion and the mockery you use to do to theist people in that issue? Or they are just like lambs?

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Ummmm what is S&S talking about this time?

Originally posted by c4ts
Ummmm what is S&S talking about this time?

If you are slow to understand or my english is not good enough for you, ask Tricky.

Thanks,
S&S

[evildave]

Ah, I see. S&S is a little paranoid.

It's all right.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

[Fade]

Do you realize Hal is NOT an atheist?

So , it was not hard to understand the opening post.

Until now : nothing , just bla, bla, bla.

Focus in the subject , skepticas A-theists.

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S
I doubt that anybody who posts here has to find out the theology of a person before they "obey" somebody in a work situation. I am an atheist, my boss is a Catholic.....I have yet to tell him I can't obey work directives on religious grounds :rolleyes:

The question that I would like an answer to is why S&S hangs around here if we are all so evil and nasty.....got no friends?

Originally posted by The Fool

I doubt that anybody who posts here has to find out the theology of a person before they "obey" somebody in a work situation. I am an atheist, my boss is a Catholic.....I have yet to tell him I can't obey work directives on religious grounds :rolleyes:

The question that I would like an answer to is why S&S hangs around here if we are all so evil and nasty.....got no friends?

So why the skeptical - athiest in the army just obey orders based in a religious reason without any mockery as they use too.?

Nope, you are not evil and nasty , your beleifs are just based in your foolosophy. You are just another person with your beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by S&S


So why the skeptical - athiest in the army just obey orders based in a religious reason without any mockery as they use too.?

Nope, you are not evil and nasty , your beleifs are just based in your foolosophy. You are just another person with your beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S

Where are you getting this information from? Mars?

[evildave]

My goodness, Franko's been reincarnated south of the border!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


So why the skeptical - athiest in the army just obey orders based in a religious reason without any mockery as they use too.?

Nope, you are not evil and nasty , your beleifs are just based in your foolosophy. You are just another person with your beleifs.

Thanks,
S&S
please try again, your first statement makes no sense to me. You speak much better English than my spanish but I just can't make it out???

I was in the Army (Australian) for a while and I can't remember the religion of the officers or the commander in chief being an issue. I do remember the padre saying it was ok for us to kill the enemy because they were "godless communists" but I don't think anyone took him very seriously. Some of the prisoners/casulties I saw wore a Crucifix because quite a few were Catholic. I have not yet figured out who's side God was on, maybe he was on both sides.....You can't lose that way.

The psudo skeptical favorite argument : the bla bla ba .

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S
The psudo skeptical favorite argument : the bla bla ba .

Thanks,
S&S
Well I don't know about "bla bla bla" but I still cannot figure out what point you are trying to make...you are just background noise on this forum...

[c4ts]

If S&S actually payed attention and read the other posts, he might be able to contribute to the discussion... sadly, he chooses not to.

Originally posted by The Fool



I do remember the padre saying it was ok for us to kill the enemy because they were "godless communists" but I don't think anyone took him very seriously.


And why you didn't tell the padre ; Hey , I am also an A-thiest, that is not the reason to kill people!!

You just obeyed.
And here in this Forum you pretend to mocker about anothers cultures beleifs.
Is easy when you hide yourself in your anonimatous:the Fool.

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


And why you didn't tell the padre ; Hey , I am also an A-thiest, that is not the reason to kill people!!

You just obeyed.
And here in this Forum you pretend to mocker about anothers cultures beleifs.
Is easy when you hide yourself in your anonimatous:the Fool.

Thanks,
S&S
An army in a warzone is not a F*cking debating club.
I never tried to kill anyone because of their politics or religion, I was a member of an Infantry Battalion and that Battalion had orders. Do you understand the obligations of being a soldier?

Show me where I "mocker about anothers cultures beleifs" Believe what you want, I only mock people who try and tell me I am immoral or evil because I don't follow thier god as well....

As for hiding behind anonymity...thats the WWW. Don't want freaks getting my home address eh S&S?? I wouldn't be talking about personal bravery after your numerous displays of cowardly personal attacks on this board.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Fade
Do you realize Hal is NOT an atheist?

Waiting for a response to this one.

Originally posted by The Fool

An army in a warzone is not a F*cking debating club.
I never tried to kill anyone because of their politics or religion, I was a member of an Infantry Battalion and that Battalion had orders. Do you understand the obligations of being a soldier?

Show me where I "mocker about anothers cultures beleifs" Believe what you want, I only mock people who try and tell me I am immoral or evil because I don't follow thier god as well....

As for hiding behind anonymity...thats the WWW. Don't want freaks getting my home address eh S&S?? I wouldn't be talking about personal bravery after your numerous displays of cowardly personal attacks on this board.

Are you angry now ? a little mad?
Where are now your mockeries about religion ?
Nope, I am not hiding .
Cowardly attacks ? In your face I will repeat it.

You are the coward killing inocent people just because of your "obligations", pseudo skeptic A-theist.

Thanks,
S&S

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you angry now ? a little mad?
Where are now your mockeries about religion ?
Nope, I am not hiding .
Cowardly attacks ? In your face I will repeat it.

You are the coward killing inocent people just because of your "obligations", pseudo skeptic A-theist.

Thanks,
S&S i thought you were a just a little weird, but now i know that you're just a d!ck.

"innocent people" don't go to war.

since when does being an atheist make one a pseudo-skeptic? i would say that it makes them sceptical of god.

the mockeries of religion that he hasn't given have been provided by your speach.

antagonist f*ckwit.

Thanks,

S of A

[MRC_Hans]

A soldier is defending his country. This has nothing to do with religion. I served in the Danish armed forces (Airforce) for 5 years. If I had been ordered to go to war, it would have been on behalf of the Danish Government, which is a democratically elected government. Possible religious beliefs of my superiours would be completely irrelevant.

Hans

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you angry now ? a little mad?
Where are now your mockeries about religion ?
Nope, I am not hiding .
Cowardly attacks ? In your face I will repeat it.

You are the coward killing inocent people just because of your "obligations", pseudo skeptic A-theist.

Thanks,
S&S

Not mad my friend..laughing at you, not with you. It would take more than your blunt efforts to push my buttons.

Where are now my mockeries about religion? I don't need to, your current behaviour speaks for itself. At least I can exist in an online forum without having to be disciplined by the teacher. Maybe you should consider growing out of it too.

Its a funny thing, I don't think of myself as a coward...or a hero. I certainly don't need to prove either to an internet noisemaker like yourself.

I'm skeptical about a lot of things, one of them is your future on this forum. Like all trolls, you will pass on as you find someone else to annoy. Some other people to provide the attention you crave. My advice to you would be to take off the big shoes, floppy pants and red plastic nose and join the real world.

remember...laughing at you, not with you.

[Jethro]

I am an atheist. Many theists think that killing and stealing are wrong since "God says they are wrong." I agree that those actions are wrong, despite my lack of belief in God. Instead my belief in the wrongness of stealing and killing come from a sense of empathy for my fellow human beings. In other words, I share certain opinions with theists, even though my personal justifications for those opinions are far different from the justifications held by those theists.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war? First, I thought the reason we went to war was to three fold:

1. to fight terrorism
2. to remove Iraq's weapons of mass distruction.
3. to liberate the Iraqi people.

How does God or Bush's theism fit into any of that?

edited to add: Okay, I suppose the last one could be seen as a "Love thy neighbor" kind of thing, but that's a stretch.

Second, the army doesn't follow Bush beause of his role as a theist but because he is the duly elected (?) commander and chief of the U.S. military. They follow the president's command because they have sworn to do so, regardless of who the president is.

Why are you trying to polorize a complex issue into rather simplistic blacks and whites? The world is more complex then that.

[Darat]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S

I believe that you are saying "Hal is a believer in 'God' why don't people here ridicule him for that"?

I am quite sure that if Hal said "God is real and I can prove it!" he would be "interrogated" just as much as Muscleman was, and be "called out" to provide his evidence.

And Hal is not alone on being a theist here, in all the polls etc. I've seen (here) there seems to be a fair number of "non-atheists" who post here and are not constantly "challenged" on their beliefs.

It seems here that people are challenged if they make a claim to have evidence or that they can prove something.

Then they are asked to provide the proof.

Originally posted by Denise


Waiting for a response to this one.

I am waiting , too.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fade
Do you realize Hal is NOT an atheist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that I know a little more of his fanatics and understand how they were only defending a partner (same proffesion).

Thanks,
S&S

(CBS) Is George W. Bush launching the next Crusade?
---------------------------------------------------
And all presidents talk about God, especially in times of war or big trouble, not just George Bush. All the great old Founding Father types did. Lincoln did. Kennedy and Clinton did. Nixon did. Carter did, incessantly.

------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/opinion/meyer/main544023.shtml

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
(CBS) Is George W. Bush launching the next Crusade?
---------------------------------------------------
And all presidents talk about God, especially in times of war or big trouble, not just George Bush. All the great old Founding Father types did. Lincoln did. Kennedy and Clinton did. Nixon did. Carter did, incessantly.

------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/opinion/meyer/main544023.shtml

BUT, did he ever use that as justification for going to war?

Originally posted by Upchurch

BUT, did he ever use that as justification for going to war?

Are you trying to justificate his words about "the next Crusade?

Skepticlas -A-thiests were part of it.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Yeah, stop justificating! ;)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you trying to justificate his words about "the next Crusade?

Skepticlas -A-thiests were part of it.

Thanks,
S&S

1.) Crusade has meanings other than its religious origin.

2.) Soldiers join the military for many different reasons. In the end, you fight because you don’t want to let your friend in the next foxhole down. You save his life and he saves yours. If you do not fight, then you let down the people you know.

Originally posted by Doubt


1.) Crusade has meanings other than its religious origin.




Put your meanings and interpretations as your justification.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
Are you trying to justificate his words about "the next Crusade?What are you talking about?

The author said, and I quote, "More importantly, when so many in the Muslim world believe that the Christian West is launching a new Crusade, it seems reckless of the White House to stoke the idea that God is commanding the Oval Office." While he is not pushing the idea to an extreme, I'm saying that Bush has not done that because he has never used God as a reason to go to war.
Skepticlas -A-thiests were part of it.What are you refering to? Part of what? Part of Muslims thinking that the west is launching a new Crusade? Or part of the camp that thinks its wreckless?
Thanks,
S&S
No, thank YOU

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Doubt

2.) Soldiers join the military for many different reasons.
Oh, skeptical atheists were part of the Crusade! Wow, that was clear as mud.

Except it really wasn't a crusade in the christians-waging-war sense, now was it?

Originally posted by Upchurch

Oh, skeptical atheists were part of the Crusade! Wow, that was clear as mud.

Except it really wasn't a crusade in the christians-waging-war sense, now was it?

In what sense?

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


In what sense?in the Christian Holy War sense.
Thanks No, thank YOu

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


In what sense?

Thanks,
S&S

In the justificating Skepticlas -A-thiests sense.

[Checkmite]

Carlos, do you believe that the war comes from a conspiracy of "skeptical atheists"?

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Carlos, do you believe that the war comes from a conspiracy of "skeptical atheists"?

Hi Joshua :

You are the true beleiver, you tell me.

Thanks,
S&S

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by S&S


Hi Joshua :

You are the true beleiver, you tell me.

Thanks,
S&S

True believer in what?

And I'm asking what you think. I cannot tell you what you think, because I do not know (which is why I'm asking).

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


True believer in what?

And I'm asking what you think. I cannot tell you what you think, because I do not know (which is why I'm asking).

Then read again my opening post.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


Hi Joshua :

You are the true beleiver, you tell me.

Thanks,
S&S

Uh, ok, yes, that is what you believe.

[Checkmite]

This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

To be completely fair, it is my understanding that President Bush openly admits he looks to God for inspiration and guidance; I don't know where you got the idea that Bush has declared that he went to war with Iraq because God told him to.

But in any case, I think atheist military officers are able to take orders from theists because they most likely realize that, aside from which particular church one goes to, religion has very little to do with day-to-day operations. Military commanders never give orders justified by "the word of God", nor do they claim to be themselves commanded by God. The military is a secular organization, and doesn't care if you are theist or atheist. Certainly, they provide for the needs of the devout; but base chapels are like base theaters - something for off time.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Oh, skeptical atheists were part of the Crusade! Wow, that was clear as mud.

Except it really wasn't a crusade in the christians-waging-war sense, now was it?

Some definitions of Crusade from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crusade


1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse. See Synonyms at campaign.

2. Any enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm; as, a crusade against intemperance.

To engage in a crusade; to attack in a zealous or hot-headed manner.


Unless Bush invoked God along with the word crusade, the definition that Carlos wants to use does not fit any better than the others.

Originally posted by Doubt


Some definitions of Crusade from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crusade



Unless Bush invoked God along with the word crusade, the definition that Carlos wants to use does not fit any better than the others.

Another poor memory.

Thanks,
S&S

[hal bidlack]

Carlos,

You are suspended for one week. You are directed to log off immediately. Should you not do so, I will be forced to delete your account, and you will lose control of your posts and your PMs. I do not wish to take this more aggresive action. Please log off at once. This information is being PMed to you, as well as being posted in the forums I see you viewing.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

What? How could you ban S&S? What is your justifating? You must be a skepticals -A-Theist!

Thank you for silencing the nonsense...for now.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
How could you ban S&S?He's not there yet, but he's got two strikes...

I know the point is moot, but what is the difference in what S&S does and what Franko used to do?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
He's not there yet, but he's got two strikes...

I know the point is moot, but what is the difference in what S&S does and what Franko used to do?

Franko tried to make a point.

The insults were just a cover for failing to do so. Being unable to support his argument is a bit different than somebody starting threads only to attack people.

It is a difference in intent. Insanity is another issue.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Doubt


Franko tried to make a point.

The insults were just a cover for failing to do so. Being unable to support his argument is a bit different than somebody starting threads only to attack people.

It is a difference in intent. Insanity is another issue.

also It has not yet been tested...lets see what happens if the sockpuppetmaster (wraith/Franko/Muscleman) starts posting again as franko and behaves in that way again.......

[justsaygnosis]

Aside from the fact that a soldier may or may not disagree with their superiors there is the Uniform Code Of Military Justice that governs affairs.
Until a soldier returns to civilian life this code is the law they live by.
Take a peek.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Carlos,

You are suspended for one week. You are directed to log off immediately. Should you not do so, I will be forced to delete your account, and you will lose control of your posts and your PMs. I do not wish to take this more aggresive action. Please log off at once. This information is being PMed to you, as well as being posted in the forums I see you viewing.

Hal, just curious. What the heck is this suspension for?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk


Hal, just curious. What the heck is this suspension for?

44 pages and a year's worth of basis for initial warnings here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=425750#post425750)

The myriad of other threads full of nothing S&Spam bitching about the outcome of the above thread are availible elsewhere on the forum.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


44 pages and a year's worth of basis for initial warnings here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=425750#post425750)

The myriad of other threads full of nothing S&Spam bitching about the outcome of the above thread are availible elsewhere on the forum.

You Hal's sockpuppet?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


Hal, just curious. What the heck is this suspension for?
Been asleep for the last 6 months??

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk


You Hal's sockpuppet?

That was completely unwarrented.

Any hooo, feel free to check out that thread. I can find some of the others for you if you'd like.

Or was your reply a request for the Readers Digest version?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

Been asleep for the last 6 months??

Nope. Unlike you I read things here with both interest and understanding.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

That was completely unwarrented.
Then who nominated you as a moderator? I haven't noticed your name on the lists.


Any hooo, feel free to check out that thread. I can find some of the others for you if you'd like.

Or was your reply a request for the Readers Digest version?
I've read most of the S&S threads I believe. Just checking if thin moderator skin is a reason for suspension; it's looking more & more that way to me. And until a couple hours ago I was thinking how thick-skinned Hal was as he valiantly put up with Winabuse.

To keep a thread like the one on the WTC-etc going for the many many pages it ran takes a lot more enthusiasm than a single troll exhibits, or so it seems to me. BTW, that thead -- or anything remotely paranormal/ufo/yada-yada never interested me in the slightest. My granddad made a living as a Spiritualist "Preacher"; kooks and many non-kooks seem to have unchangeable opinions.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hammegk
Then who nominated you as a moderator? I haven't noticed your name on the lists.


I've read most of the S&S threads I believe. Just checking if thin moderator skin is a reason for suspension; it's looking more & more that way to me. And until a couple hours ago I was thinking how thick-skinned Hal was as he valiantly put up with Winabuse.

To keep a thread like the one on the WTC-etc going for the many many pages it ran takes a lot more enthusiasm than a single troll exhibits, or so it seems to me. BTW, that thead -- or anything remotely paranormal/ufo/yada-yada never interested me in the slightest. My granddad made a living as a Spiritualist "Preacher"; kooks and many non-kooks seem to have unchangeable opinions.

Where did that non sequitor come from? Where did I suggest that I'm a moderator?

You asked a question and I felt I might have some info that could help in providing an answer.

Perhaps this thread is more along the lines of what you're looking for, it only ran for 6 pages.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17696

As far as the "little engine that could" mentality that just keeps chugging along for 44 pages and a year, all the while making rediculous claims of humbrage at innocuous comments by Hal, demands for satisfaction that would make the King's Musketeers tell Carlos to "get over it," and constant spamming might not be the hallmarks of a real troll, but they are signs of someone who's here solely to disrupt the forum and not contribute anything.

Besides, Carlos is hanging himself. He's been warned repeated for months now. If we wants to play Saddam and continue to poke the hornets nest with a stick, that's his problem, not Hal's.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Where did that non sequitor come from? Where did I suggest that I'm a moderator?

You asked a question and I felt I might have some info that could help in providing an answer.
OK, thanks.


As far as the "little engine that could" mentality that just keeps chugging along for 44 pages and a year, all the while making rediculous claims of humbrage at innocuous comments by Hal, demands for satisfaction that would make the King's Musketeers tell Carlos to "get over it," and constant spamming might not be the hallmarks of a real troll, but they are signs of someone who's here solely to disrupt the forum and not contribute anything.
I can think of several posters who have little to contribute -- unlike Carlos who imo from time to time did/does. Be interesting to seeing how "spamming" gets constantly (re)interpreted, won't it?

Besides, Carlos is hanging himself. He's been warned repeated for months now. If we wants to play Saddam and continue to poke the hornets nest with a stick, that's his problem, not Hal's.
Now it just takes one to tango, huh? Who will be next?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

hammegk, are you trolling? S&S was warned, he persisted and now he is paying the penalty. End of story. No further justificating is needed.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
hammegk, are you trolling? S&S was warned, he persisted and now he is paying the penalty. End of story. No further justificating is needed.

Do you actually have something of use to add?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by hammegk


Do you actually have something of use to add?

Ah ha! So, you ARE a troll!

Either that, or you need to pull out the stick wedged up your butt.

[hammegk]

Dear Feeble, that's 2. Does mommy know you are on her 'puter?

I did take a quick look at some of your more recent posts; I missed seeing the added value you bring to the table.

Please advise which post(s) you are particularly proud of. I hate to plonk someone as new as you erroneously.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Perhaps my continued use of "justificating" was a bit juvenile. And, I suppose there really was very little added value, now that I look at it. S&S was really very irritating and I hoped that my mocking him would have been amusing. Likely, it would have been if I had left it at one message. At any rate, I apologize and admit your assessment was correct.

Although, I honestly did think you were trolling. :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind

Although, I honestly did think you were trolling. :)

Perception is the only link to external reality each of us have so far as I know. ;)

Welcome to JREF. :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S

Assuming you mean the great Dubya, actualy some of us did debate this in the Politic forum , some evn used the same abuse they heap on the theists, others use the abuse they heap on leftists.

I'll read and see if I can understand your point.

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
hammegk, are you trolling? S&S was warned, he persisted and now he is paying the penalty. End of story. No further justificating is needed.

Are you sure?

Now I am back and this goes also to the true beleiver of UnrepentantSinner.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Fade
Do you realize Hal is NOT an atheist?


Is that true Hal?

I want to know about it.

Originally posted by ex-latin



Is that true Hal?

I want to know about it.

Hi Ex-Latin:

You seem to be curious for the answer of Hal as Denisse the moderator is. She is also waiting for the response.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Denise in this thread.


Waiting for a response to this one.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by S&S


Hi Ex-Latin:

You seem to be curious for the answer of Hal as Denisse the moderator is. She is also waiting for the response.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Denise in this thread.


Waiting for a response to this one.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
S&S

Yes, I am curious !!!


Denise, Carlos and latin have the curiosity.

Anyone else??

[DialecticMaterialist]

And here in this Forum you pretend to mocker about anothers cultures beleifs.



LOL. That's classic. Now you should feel terrible as a "pretend mocker about another's culture beliefs".

You wicked, wicked man. You should be ashamed.

Seriously S&S you have to stop, my cheeks are hurting.

And you also should recognize that there are other reasons to obey orders in war time besides God, as well as learn to destinguish between beliefs and values. (Obeying an order is a usually a matter of value, not belief.) Skepticism is a method conerning beliefs, not values.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



LOL. That's classic. Now you should feel terrible as a "pretend mocker about another's culture beliefs".

You wicked, wicked man. You should be ashamed.

Seriously S&S you have to stop, my cheeks are hurting.

And you also should recognize that there are other reasons to obey orders in war time besides God, as well as learn to destinguish between beliefs and values. (Obeying an order is a usually a matter of value, not belief.) Skepticism is a method conerning beliefs, not values.

I tend to dissagree with you. In the past war many religious soldiers deserted(...) because of their principles and values :Not Kill.
Many others religious soldiers stayed just obeying external principles and just obying beleifs of the chief commander.In that group also were skepyicals. They were true beleivers.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
And I am not laughing at you.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


I tend to dissagree with you. In the past war many religious soldiers deserted(...) because of their principles and values :Not Kill.
Many others religious soldiers stayed just obeying external principles and just obying beleifs of the chief commander.In that group also were skepyicals. They were true beleivers.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
And I am not laughing at you.

Which war are you talking about? The last one you lost to peru over a couple of bits of Jungle that are not mapped and nobody wants anyway?

Maybe thats why you keep losing to peru, all your troops are sitting around debating belief systems.

Originally posted by The Fool


Which war are you talking about? The last one you lost to peru over a couple of bits of Jungle that are not mapped and nobody wants anyway?

Maybe thats why you keep losing to peru, all your troops are sitting around debating belief systems.

Just helping with your ignorance :

The last war : The invasion of Irak.

I wish my country doesn't have any troops , since they are all created to the same purpose : obey and serve the beleifs of their chief commander.

You are a sadly example.

Thanks,
S&S

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ok beliefs do enter into it but only so far as they influence and play off value judgements. Whether obedience alone is good or not though, and note I'm talking about mere obediance(all other things being equal), that issue is a mere value-judgement.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


Just helping with your ignorance :

The last war : The invasion of Irak.

I wish my country doesn't have any troops , since they are all created to the same purpose : obey and serve the beleifs of their chief commander.

You are a sadly example.

Thanks,
S&S
ok, sorry I thought you must have been talking about your last war with peru. When you said a lot of soldiers deserted because of their religious beliefs I thought you were talking about a war you knew something about.

So which soldiers deserted because of their religious beliefs? do you have anything to back this up, or is this just speculation on your part?

[MRC_Hans]

I think he is right: It seems a lot of Iraqui troops deserted because of their belief that Saddam Hussein was doomed.

Hans

To all the followers of The Foolosophy and the servants of this speculating system:

Just a little example of the extended lists of all the wars:


Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Refused to kill
by Chris • Thursday April 03, 2003 at 02:53 PM


No place for him amongst paid killers.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/115386_wobjector02.shtml

Marine: 'I refuse to kill'

Conscientious objector, former Seattleite, gives up

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

By CHRIS MCGANN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The notion that as a Marine he would be expected to kill people somehow escaped former Seattleite Stephen Funk when he left his job at a California pet food store and enlisted in the Reserves.

Yesterday, 47 days after he refused to report for active duty in Iraq, Funk declared himself a conscientious objector and surrendered to military authorities in San Jose.

The Marines declared him a deserter.

With his decision, the 20-year-old Funk joins a tiny but growing group of servicemen rejecting their previous commitments to the military during the months tens of thousands were deployed to fight the war in Iraq. Funk said he'd made a mistake in enlisting and hoped he could prevent others from doing the same.

"I refuse to kill," said Funk, who had excelled as a rifleman during boot camp. "I object to war because I believe that it is impossible to achieve peace through violence. I am a conscientious objector because there is no way for me to remain a Marine without sacrificing my entire sense of self-respect."

Funk said he would rather face the military's punishment than act against his beliefs.
"He will be dealt with accordingly," said Capt. Patrick O' Rourke, Funk's company inspector instructor. "There will be punitive action but it has not been determined. . . . As a deserter, it's possible that he could go to military prison for one to two years."
O'Rourke said Funk's case was not unusual: "The Marine Corps understands there are members who are uncomfortable with what we do. There are procedures in place for that."
Military law allows servicemen and women to request honorable discharges as conscientious objectors if they oppose war on the basis of religious beliefs or some other deeply held moral conviction.

....................
...........
.......

---------------------------
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php

Read carefully and try to justify your ignorance about philosophy.
I will wait for your insults or your prays to shut me.


Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Hi S&S,
Bienvenido a su retornara!

I agree that there are peple who have difficulty serving thier country due to thier religious beliefs and have always found it amazing that there are purported Xians who support war! (Sargent York is a great myth, I don't know the truth behind it)

Defending yourself and your country is one thing, being Xian and killing 300,000 Mexicans in the name of Texas is another.

I heard a great story on NPR about the Catholic Church in the US and how it's parishoners were changing thier stance towards war , one parishoner even went so far as to say " I think that Jesus would support the war on Iraq", kind of wierd.

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hi S&S,
Bienvenido a su retornara!

I agree that there are peple who have difficulty serving thier country due to thier religious beliefs and have always found it amazing that there are purported Xians who support war! (Sargent York is a great myth, I don't know the truth behind it)

Defending yourself and your country is one thing, being Xian and killing 300,000 Mexicans in the name of Texas is another.

I heard a great story on NPR about the Catholic Church in the US and how it's parishoners were changing thier stance towards war , one parishoner even went so far as to say " I think that Jesus would support the war on Iraq", kind of wierd.

Peace
dancing David

It doesn't matter in which side those true beleivers are .

Both , including the skepticals are true beleivers.

Thanks,
S&S

The Fool and Mrc Hans .....where are you?

"Skeptical " soldiers and true beleivers ?

Hmmmm.

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Hmm, what about sceptics who are sceptical of scepticism, ie those who use a wide variety of intellectual tools to analyze concepts?

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hmm, what about sceptics who are sceptical of scepticism, ie those who use a wide variety of intellectual tools to analyze concepts?

Peace
dancing David

Count me in there.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
The Fool , Hans? http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S
The Fool and Mrc Hans .....where are you?

"Skeptical " soldiers and true beleivers ?

Hmmmm.

Thanks,
S&S
S&S
I'm sorry but I'm done with you.
Due to an unfortunate combination of your lack of english skills and lack of integrity I find it rather difficult to understand your posts or the motivation behind them.

I do find it amusing that you are merrily marching down the path to being banned. I'm sure this is what you want, even you cannot be stupid enough to not realise what you are doing.

I'm going to miss you when you are gone.

Originally posted by The Fool

S&S
I'm sorry but I'm done with you.
Due to an unfortunate combination of your lack of english skills and lack of integrity I find it rather difficult to understand your posts or the motivation behind them.

I do find it amusing that you are merrily marching down the path to being banned. I'm sure this is what you want, even you cannot be stupid enough to not realise what you are doing.

I'm going to miss you when you are gone.

You asked , then I responded you.
Now you are begging again and again for my suspension.

Poor loser.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hmm, what about sceptics who are sceptical of scepticism, ie those who use a wide variety of intellectual tools to analyze concepts?

Peace
dancing David

Until Hal banned me and then suspended, I said that I am skeptical of skeptics.

Maybe for that reason I was banned.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by ex-latin


Until Hal banned me and then suspended, I said that I am skeptical of skeptics.

Maybe for that reason I was banned.

Hardly. Many on this site have expressed skepticism towards skepticism itself and have not been banned.

Originally posted by KelvinG


Hardly. Many on this site have expressed skepticism towards skepticism itself and have not been banned.

But are not able to put proofs and evidences about how the dedicated rules really works.

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


You asked , then I responded you.
Now you are begging again and again for my suspension.

Poor loser.

Thanks,
S&S
No S&S I'm not "begging again and aain" for your suspension. I am simply saying that I will miss you when you are gone. I find peple like you amusing on forums. Its just that your behavior makes it inevitable that you will be thrown out of here. I just assumed that this is what you wanted as , and I'll say it again, even you are not stupid enough not to realise what is going to happen.


So enjoy your 15 minutes, I will miss you when you are gone.

Originally posted by The Fool


So which soldiers deserted because of their religious beliefs? do you have anything to back this up, or is this just speculation on your part?

Are you angry just because of the way your foolosophy works?

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php

Keep on beging and praying .

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S

Because some people don't want to go to jail. Also, GW doesn't put "god" as his soul reason for this war, he's justified the war with other fabrications as well. Some soldiers just follow orders because it's their job too.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


Are you angry just because of the way your foolosophy works?

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php

Keep on beging and praying .

Thanks,
S&S
Its funny how you always ask why people are angry? As if what you post here is something that could make someone angry? You cannot participate in a debate, you can't answer questions or stay on a topic. You are obviously from the High country. You don't seem bright enough for someone from the coast.

So be careful S&S, the forest is full of bandits.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Because some people don't want to go to jail. Also, GW doesn't put "god" as his soul reason for this war, he's justified the war with other fabrications as well. Some soldiers just follow orders because it's their job too.

Yes, skeptical soldiers following True Beleivers' orders.
That's the point.
The same as you.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by The Fool

Its funny how you always ask why people are angry? As if what you post here is something that could make someone angry? You cannot participate in a debate, you can't answer questions or stay on a topic. You are obviously from the High country. You don't seem bright enough for someone from the coast.

So be careful S&S, the forest is full of bandits.

Yes, you are the smart and the intelligent one, according to your Foolosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
Relax, and beg harder.

[Dancing David]

A soldier follows oreders for reasons beyond the beliefs of the leader, so are you saying that maybe:
The fool's army was put here by god to test your faith?

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by Dancing David
A soldier follows oreders for reasons beyond the beliefs of the leader, so are you saying that maybe:
The fool's army was put here by god to test your faith?

Peace
dancing David

First you are a man with your principles , then you turn in the soldier that obeys the beleifs of your leader.

If your "obedience" is powerful than your principles , then you are just a slave of beleifs . You are not a man with principles.

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

I don't always agree with my employer either, I have just found little personal benefit to loosing my job when I can change the system. I think that there are atheists who follow orders in the army and take orders from people who belive in god. Perhaps the question should be, is it unprincipaled for a soldier to follow orders that violate thier personal beliefs?

Peace
dancing David

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't always agree with my employer either, I have just found little personal benefit to loosing my job when I can change the system. I think that there are atheists who follow orders in the army and take orders from people who belive in god. Perhaps the question should be, is it unprincipaled for a soldier to follow orders that violate thier personal beliefs?

Peace
dancing David

Your English , of course, is better than mine.

Your question is resuming in a better way my position in this thread.
Sometimes the replies appear like a personal fight against me, in order to hide the real meaning of the thread.

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


Yes, skeptical soldiers following True Beleivers' orders.
That's the point.
The same as you.

Thanks,
S&S

So your point is that skeptics and atheists are in the military? Ok... that's just a world shattering observation. I think you should call CNN and let them know.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So your point is that skeptics and atheists are in the military? Ok... that's just a world shattering observation. I think you should call CNN and let them know.

I am telling and showing you :True beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

"I am telling and showing you :True beleiver."

It's spelled "believer". And, I am not a believer, I am a skeptic. We all agree that some skeptics work for believers. Did you have any real point beyond pointing out this fact?

Do you know that there are many believers that work for skeptics as well?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&S


Sometimes the replies appear like a personal fight against me, in order to hide the real meaning of the thread.

Thanks,
S&S

I don't know if anyone knows what your "real meaning" in the thread is, aside from insulting the atheists/skeptics in the forum.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I don't know if anyone knows what your "real meaning" in the thread is, aside from insulting the atheists/skeptics in the forum.

Prove it.
Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

So is it unprincipaled for a soldier to take orders that don't meet with their personal beliefs?

Peace

Originally posted by Dancing David
So is it unprincipaled for a soldier to take orders that don't meet with their personal beliefs?

Peace

Is unprincipaled for the skeptical man that is inside the soldier.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


I am telling and showing you :True beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S

Stan Lee, is that you?

;)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fade
Do you realize Hal is NOT an atheist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Originally posted by Denise


Waiting for a response to this one.


Are you still waiting Denise ?

A comment.......please.

If the chief commander have Jesus as his Main Philosopher , how do skeptical soldiers reacts to that affirmation?

"Who is your favorite political philosopher?" George W. Bush surprised, if not stunned, his fellow candidates when he tersely declared, "Jesus Christ, because he changed my life."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2003/001/21.38.html

Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

I served the rest of my enlistment and didn't re-enlist. I don't know about the other "skeptical soldiers".


Why do you ask such stupid questions?:rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S
If the chief commander have Jesus as his Main Philosopher , how do skeptical soldiers reacts to that affirmation? Were I a soldier, I would continue to abide by my oath and hope that my orders were based on reasons other than religious ones.

As a voting citizen, however, I will include this as one of the criteria I use when deciding who to vote for in the upcoming election.

Originally posted by Upchurch
Were I a soldier, I would continue to abide by my oath and hope that my orders were based on reasons other than religious ones.

As a voting citizen, however, I will include this as one of the criteria I use when deciding who to vote for in the upcoming election.

As a soldier your hope is just a naive beleif. You just have to obey your superior , no matter the reason.

As a man with principles you can choose to get out , if you are really a man with principles , not only a bla bla bla man,

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


As a soldier your hope is just a naive beleif. You just have to obey your superior , no matter the reason. Perhaps, but there are many reasons for making a decision. Soldiers have to trust that their superiors make decisions for the right reasons. It is the responsibility of those superiors to do just that.

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps, but there are many reasons for making a decision. Soldiers have to trust that their superiors make decisions for the right reasons. It is the responsibility of those superiors to do just that.

Perhaps? You just have to trust them , and act like a true beleiver. Period.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


Perhaps? You just have to trust them , and act like a true beleiver. Period. This is, perhaps, why I would not make a good soldier. I like to ask questions and have trouble acting like a "true believer".

A question for someone who is actually in the military: Is there a process or system in place to question the orders of those higher in command?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Reminds me of what happened to my high school friend one time.

I think someone was studying Ernest Hemingway, came up to him and said "You know Ernest Hemingway said there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole."

To which the reply was "Ernest Hemingway also said all thinking men are atheists."

Originally posted by Upchurch
This is, perhaps, why I would not make a good soldier. I like to ask questions and have trouble acting like a "true believer".

A question for someone who is actually in the military: Is there a process or system in place to question the orders of those higher in command?

The question is from the begining of my opening post.

And don't keep on being naive, please.

Do you realize how many members of this forum belong to the army? They don't complain or question the orders of their superiors. Period.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Those who join the armed forces understand that the structure and accept that they must follow orders, regardless of the personal beliefs of the superiors.

However, as the superiors have superiors, the orders are not of their own agenda. Rather, they are assigning orders to complete the tasks assigned them by their superiors.

Your presumption that a religious person will give orders based on their religion is unfounded. I challenge you to provide proof or an example.

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
Those who join the armed forces understand that the structure and accept that they must follow orders, regardless of the personal beliefs of the superiors.

However, as the superiors have superiors, the orders are not of their own agenda. Rather, they are assigning orders to complete the tasks assigned them by their superiors.

Your presumption that a religious person will give orders based on their religion is unfounded. I challenge you to provide proof or an example.

I challenge you just to read a little History.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


I challenge you just to read a little History. Is there a specific point you would like to make? And if so, for pity's sake, could you just make it already?

Originally posted by Upchurch
Is there a specific point you would like to make? And if so, for pity's sake, could you just make it already?

Just start againg. From the opening post . I know you are a little slow.Take your time.

Thanks,
S&S

[hal bidlack]

not that it will help any, but the actual facts are that we are required to follow the lawful orders of our superiors, and to not follow unlawful ones.

Originally posted by hal bidlack
not that it will help any, but the actual facts are that we are required to follow the lawful orders of our superiors, and to not follow unlawful ones.

Thanks Hal.

Maybe if you can show us examples of unlawful orders soldiers received and that they refused to obey , I will appreciate it.

Thanks,
S&S

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by S&S
This Forum has administrators and formal members that belongs to the army.

They are aslo skepticals and atheists , according to their replies and posts.

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?

Thanks,
S&S To cut through the fluff and take on the original question: Which superior commander has ordered soldiers to war with God as a reason ?

Before you answer GW Bush: He did not state God as the reason for war. The reason was, officially terrorism, unofficially probably also oil. He stated that God was with the US, which is quite another thing.

My own country also joined the war, albeit symbolically, and our government certainly did not state God as a reason for doing so. I dont even think they claimed he was with us.

I dont know about Americans, but if the Danish government was to declare a war on the grounds that "God wants us to" or something like that, I am very sure they would be out of business before the day was over.

Does this answer your question?

Hans

[Jesse]

Originally posted by The Fool
Like all trolls Like all orcs, you will still not explain to me how you lost half your IQ.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


Just start againg.Okay, since you are avoiding, let's try a different approach:

Do you believe the only reason a leader makes a decision is for religious reasons?

PS.
Since you aren't an English speaker, I'm going to help you out a bit.
The word is "again" rather than "againg". As in, "Just start again."
The word is "mocking" rather than "mocker about". As in, "It is not a matter of mocking Christians, It is a matter of analyzing the philosopher or the Philosophy that inspired the religion."

Note, the italics indicate other spelling and/or grammatical errors.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


I challenge you just to read a little History.

Thanks,
S&S

No, Tard-monkey, it doesn't work that way. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. I am not going to take a vague suggestion and search for "a little History." How about you give an example? Oh, I see, it is because you have none and are simply spouting off your illogical, ill-reasoned opinions.

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


No, Tard-monkey, it doesn't work that way. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. I am not going to take a vague suggestion and search for "a little History." How about you give an example? Oh, I see, it is because you have none and are simply spouting off your illogical, ill-reasoned opinions.

Look intelligent man : It is not my fault of your ignorance .

Now relax , you already provide the evidence of your ignorance.

Thanks,
S&S

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Before you answer GW Bush: He did not state God as the reason for war. The reason was, officially terrorism, unofficially probably also oil. He stated that God was with the US, which is quite another thing.




If Bush stated that God was with the USA , what was the "another " thing he meaned ? You didn't explained.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


Look intelligent man : It is not my fault of your ignorance .

Now relax , you already provide the evidence of your ignorance.

Thanks,
S&S

Ignorance of what? The inner workings of your obviously disfunctional brain? Yes, I agree that I am ignorant of wtf is wrong with you. :rolleyes:

Hey, maybe you should try something new and actually respond to the comments made in the previous posts? Or, are they too complicated? We could try to use broken English in our responses if you think you'd understand it better.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S


Thanks Hal.

Maybe if you can show us examples of unlawful orders soldiers received and that they refused to obey , I will appreciate it.

Thanks,
S&S

Carlos,

There are some questions that I think Hal should probably not answer. Serving officers have practical limits in what they can and cannot address. However, those of us who long ago left the military at a much lower rank can talk about examples without concern.

Ultimately, soldiers are required to respond to legal orders. Having a difference of opinion about motivation, (be it god or anything else), with superiors is not a justification for refusing an order. Being able to follow legal orders regardless of personal perspective is what separate professional soldiers from the rabble the often overthrows their own governments.

If you are interested in the concept of military law, here is the law for the US military, The UCMJ. (Uniform Code of Military Justice):

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

More on what is an unlawful order here:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/MarApr01/david.asp

That one is a very good review on who is responsible for what in the military. (Staff and commanders.) They even have the text in Spanish on that site.

It is hard to find examples of soldiers refusing unlawful orders. My attempt to find good cases on the net got bogged down in things that are irrelevant to this discussion.

In most cases, what happens is not made public. When orders are refused, officers either do so behind closed doors or do not acknowledge radio instructions that are illegal. Higher ranking soldiers are much less likely to just salute and say “yes sir.” Officers have leeway in questioning orders that an enlisted soldiers does not have. The higher the rank, the more space an officer has for questioning his superiors. However, questioning orders in public is a good way to get court martialed for insubordination.

The best known case where some soldiers publicly refused orders is the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Unfortunately, many more did go along with the orders to kill civilians:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html


Meanwhile, the rampage below continued. Calley was at the drainage ditch on the eastern edge of the village, where about seventy to eighty old men, women, and children not killed on the spot had been brought. Calley ordered the dozen or so platoon members there to push the people into the ditch, and three or four GIs did. Calley ordered his men to shoot into the ditch. Some refused, others obeyed. One who followed Calley's order was Paul Meadlo, who estimated that he killed about twenty-five civilians. (Later Meadlo was seen, head in hands, crying.) Calley joined in the massacre. At one point, a two-year-old child who somehow survived the gunfire began running towards the hamlet. Calley grabbed the child, threw him back in the ditch, then shot him.

Hugh Thompson, by now almost frantic, saw bodies in the ditch, including a few people who were still alive. He landed his helicopter and told Calley to hold his men there while he evacuated the civilians. Thompson told his helicopter crew chief to "open up on the Americans" if they fired at the civilians. He put himself between Calley's men and the Vietnamese. When a rescue helicopter landed, Thompson had the nine civilians, including five children, flown to the nearest army hospital. Later, Thompson was to land again and rescue a baby still clinging to her dead mother.


Note about Lt. Calley. One book I read on the subject described him as “a self inflicted wound on the army officer corps.” His actions were highlighted as part of military law classes at Ft Benning when I was being trained as an infantry officer.

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Ignorance of what? The inner workings of your obviously disfunctional brain? Yes, I agree that I am ignorant of wtf is wrong with you. :rolleyes:

Hey, maybe you should try something new and actually respond to the comments made in the previous posts? Or, are they too complicated? We could try to use broken English in our responses if you think you'd understand it better.

Relax kid.

Just read some History , have fun , be a little less ignorant and have a good time .

You will find for yourself the answer to your question :"Your presumption that a religious person will give orders based on their religion is unfounded. I challenge you to provide proof or an example."

Or maybe you are an internet beleiver , google it .
Try typing : religion wars .

Have fun , and don't forget to relax.

Thanks,
S&S

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by S&S


Relax kid.

Just read some History , have fun , be a little less ignorant and have a good time .

You will find for yourself the answer to your question :"Your presumption that a religious person will give orders based on their religion is unfounded. I challenge you to provide proof or an example."

Or maybe you are an internet beleiver , google it .
Try typing : religion wars .

Have fun , and don't forget to relax.

Thanks,
S&S

Sir, what you are doing is making a claim and then asking me to do the research for you to support it. Do you believe that this is necessary? If your point is as iron-clad as you suggest, would it not be realatively easy for you to find the supporting material? Let's assume that I have absolutely no knowledge of history at all; would it make sense for me to search through everything when you know exactly what you are looking for?

Additionally, your perception that I am agitated is correct; when you discard all the points of a message without consideration and respond with a dismissive one-line post, of course you are going to generate a dismissive response from others.

Originally posted by Doubt


Carlos,

There are some questions that I think Hal should probably not answer. Serving officers have practical limits in what they can and cannot address. However, those of us who long ago left the military at a much lower rank can talk about examples without concern.

Ultimately, soldiers are required to respond to legal orders. Having a difference of opinion about motivation, (be it god or anything else), with superiors is not a justification for refusing an order. Being able to follow legal orders regardless of personal perspective is what separate professional soldiers from the rabble the often overthrows their own governments.

If you are interested in the concept of military law, here is the law for the US military, The UCMJ. (Uniform Code of Military Justice):

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

More on what is an unlawful order here:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/MarApr01/david.asp

That one is a very good review on who is responsible for what in the military. (Staff and commanders.) They even have the text in Spanish on that site.

It is hard to find examples of soldiers refusing unlawful orders. My attempt to find good cases on the net got bogged down in things that are irrelevant to this discussion.

In most cases, what happens is not made public. When orders are refused, officers either do so behind closed doors or do not acknowledge radio instructions that are illegal. Higher ranking soldiers are much less likely to just salute and say “yes sir.” Officers have leeway in questioning orders that an enlisted soldiers does not have. The higher the rank, the more space an officer has for questioning his superiors. However, questioning orders in public is a good way to get court martialed for insubordination.

The best known case where some soldiers publicly refused orders is the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Unfortunately, many more did go along with the orders to kill civilians:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html



Note about Lt. Calley. One book I read on the subject described him as “a self inflicted wound on the army officer corps.” His actions were highlighted as part of military law classes at Ft Benning when I was being trained as an infantry officer.

Hi Doubt :

You did a great job . The concepts of military laws are more or less the same in all countries. I also remind that My Lay episode , and asked me how many of them are not reported or just were simple obeyed.

I am not sure, yet , how do Atheists - skeptics soldiers deals with the orders of a chief commander that claims "God is with Us ".

Some soldiers just refuse to KILL because of their moral principles :

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php


Anyway , war between humans are part of our History , they will be always a "justification" for doing it , maybe is just part of human basic and elemental nature , maybe is just part of the irrational animal.

Thanks,
S&S

[Doubt]

Originally posted by S&S


Some soldiers just refuse to KILL because of their moral principles :

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/116112.php


Anyway , war between humans are part of our History , they will be always a "justification" for doing it , maybe is just part of human basic and elemental nature , maybe is just part of the irrational animal.

Thanks,
S&S

I have seen that report before.

The individual in question was a deserter. He chose not to report for duty instead of filling for conscientious objector status, which puts him on the wrong side of the law.

Claims by this individual are a bit credulous. He went through training and then states this


"They don't really advertise that they kill people," Funk said. "I didn't really realize the full implications of what I was doing."


This mans story does not sound believable. What does he think those targets represented on the rifle range? Fluffy bunnies? Ghosts?

Also, in his objection is to killing people, he has not stated an objection to any other part of this policy. I think his case is weak. He is not the first or last of his type. In the last Gulf war, there was a soldier who had re-enlisted for the division band, who then tried to claim conscientious objector status. Not many trumpet players get put in a position to kill someone.

It has already been pointed out to you that there are many reasons for this latest war. Just because the president feels god is on his side does not mean that an atheist, (or anyone else), will automatically assume that the war is just or unjust. There are many reasons for this war. The beliefs of one man, even the presidents, are not enough to tilt the decision process when all issues are considered.

Originally posted by Doubt





This mans story does not sound believable. What does he think those targets represented on the rifle range? Fluffy bunnies? Ghosts?


It has already been pointed out to you that there are many reasons for this latest war. Just because the president feels god is on his side does not mean that an atheist, (or anyone else), will automatically assume that the war is just or unjust. There are many reasons for this war. The beliefs of one man, even the presidents, are not enough to tilt the decision process when all issues are considered.

Hi Doubt .

Considering that you are just making an opinion , I am going to respect your opinion. Here is mine.

Is not a matter of a single isolated article . Is a matter of human principle and moral.
Even the religious organizations try to justificate the barbaries that are done in their "name" , no matter that the real principles of those religions are totally oppossed to those stupids acts.
Justifications for nonsense acts are just part of our History.

I understand fear reactions . Fear ,sometimes, not necesarily make you take the right decision .
But is also part of the Philosophy of mankind to keep on looking for better ways that really help us inside our minds and don't just abuse of technollogy designed to kill , no matter that the excuse is just money, revenge or fear.

Thanks,
S&S

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by S&S


If Bush stated that God was with the USA , what was the "another " thing he meaned ? You didn't explained.

Thanks,
S&S Carlos, quit pretending you don't understand English. You understand my sentence perfectly well. Now answer my question instead: You allege that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds. Please provide examples, otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Carlos, quit pretending you don't understand English. You understand my sentence perfectly well. Now answer my question instead: You allege that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds. Please provide examples, otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

Relax Hans.

Put the evidence that I wrote " that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds."

In every war , there are soldiers that beleives in God or soldiers that are Atheists.

How Skeptic -Athiests soldiers deals with alegations of their superiors based in religious stuff ?
Do they protest to those alegations (...) and refuted like in this forum or just simple obey and stay in silence ?

Thanks,
S&S

[Jesse]

This thread has a cool subject line.

[MRC_Hans]

How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?This is your question from the initial post. I ask you: Which war are you referring to? Which superior commander has, any time recently, made a war with God as reason?

And I have answered your question earlier in the thread, but I will repeat it:

I have been a military man for a period of my life. If I had been ordered to war, it would have been to protect my country, the order would have come from a democratic government. The possible religious beliefs of my superiors would be totally irrelevant. If my commanding officer believed that "God is on our side", that would be his comfort, but not my reason to obey orders.

Get it?

Hans

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
This is your question from the initial post. I ask you: Which war are you referring to? Which superior commander has, any time recently, made a war with God as reason?

And I have answered your question earlier in the thread, but I will repeat it:

I have been a military man for a period of my life. If I had been ordered to war, it would have been to protect my country, the order would have come from a democratic government. The possible religious beliefs of my superiors would be totally irrelevant. If my commanding officer believed that "God is on our side", that would be his comfort, but not my reason to obey orders.

Get it?

Hans

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is totally different to your interpreation and affirmation that I wrote :" that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds."

The fact : you just obey the orders from a theist that name God as your protector and invited you to be part of new crusades .

In all wars the religious-cult or anti-religion factor is involved . Is just part of our nature as humans and you need it to accept it.

Europe is not the exception :North Ireland.
The more you are close to death the most you are close to God. Is the fear factor.

Thanks,
S&S

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by S&S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is totally different to your interpreation and affirmation that I wrote :" that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds."

How is it different? How is "to put God as his reason to make war" different from "order to war on religious grounds" ?

The fact : you just obey the orders from a theist that name God as your protector and invited you to be part of new crusades .

What crusade? The theist assures me God protects me, but that does not make the war a crusade. If I consider the fight against terrorists a legitimate goal, why should I not fight alongside a theist? That the war is a crusade is your allegation, for which you must present arguments.

In all wars the religious-cult or anti-religion factor is involved . Is just part of our nature as humans and you need it to accept it.

Your allegetion again. When I was a soldier, the imminent threat was the Soviet Union. If needed, we would be called to protect our democracy against a dictatorship. Where is the religous factor? Last time my country was seriously at war was during WW2, when we were occupied by Nazi Germany. Where was the religious factor?

Europe is not the exception :North Ireland.

Sure, there is a religious factor there, although I seriously doubt that it is the core of the matter.

The more you are close to death the most you are close to God. Is the fear factor.

Ahhh, ye olde "all atheists cry out to God in their last moment" argument. Talk to Jedi Knight.

Thanks,
S&S [/B]

Maybe your basic question is: Will you go to war for a cause you do not believe to be justified? I can only answer for myself: Only at gunpoint.

Hans

[Jesse]

"If I consider the fight against terrorists a legitimate goal, why should I not fight alongside a theist?"

Hear Hear!

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Maybe your basic question is: Will you go to war for a cause you do not believe to be justified? I can only answer for myself: Only at gunpoint.

Hans
--------------------------------------
Hans wrote
What crusade? The theist assures me God protects me, but that does not make the war a crusade. If I consider the fight against terrorists a legitimate goal, why should I not fight alongside a theist? That the war is a crusade is your allegation, for which you must present arguments.
-------------------------------------------

The term crusade in this latest war, select your favorite link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+crusade&btnG=Google+Search

------------------------------------------------------
Hans wrote
Your allegetion again. When I was a soldier, the imminent threat was the Soviet Union. If needed, we would be called to protect our democracy against a dictatorship. Where is the religous factor? Last time my country was seriously at war was during WW2, when we were occupied by Nazi Germany. Where was the religious factor?
----------------------------------------------------

The soviet Union by that time was a comunist country , ATHEIST or antireligion was part of their politics of expansionism.

The Nazi Germany : Was an antireligion-culture (jews ) party.


Relax , and stay on topic.

Thanks,
S&S

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by S&S


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How come they obey superior orders from someone who is a theist and put God as his reason to make a war?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is totally different to your interpreation and affirmation that I wrote :" that nonbelievers are ordered to war on religious grounds."

The fact : you just obey the orders from a theist that name God as your protector and invited you to be part of new crusades .

In all wars the religious-cult or anti-religion factor is involved . Is just part of our nature as humans and you need it to accept it.

Europe is not the exception :North Ireland.
The more you are close to death the most you are close to God. Is the fear factor.

Thanks,
S&S

These are good points:

1. A soldier is compelled by thier oath to follow orders regardless of the ultimate cause of the order. They can object to orders that are war crimes.
So an atheist who is a soldier is compelled by the law and thier oath to follow G. Bushes orders even though they don't agree on the issue of god's existance.

2. And the main point I feel that G. Bush's call for the moral high ground in the war with Iraq is mainly bombast and hyperbole. I know that he professes to be religious but it is my personal feeling that he uses religion and patriotism to make his mainly political war look like it is a moral war.

3. As for the religion anti-religion, I am not sure that both these factions don't contribute to both sides in a war. I am not sure what you meant, there are zealots , believers and secularists on both sides.

Peace

[thaiboxerken]

The point S&S is trying to make in this thread is this:

Atheists are hyprocritical if they follow orders from a theist.


This is his entire ad-hominem tactic. This is why it's so hard to get him to understand the viewpoints of all others in here, he wants to prove that atheists are hypocrits. Any arguements that might lead to a different conclusion will be automatically rejected.

It's been shown that a soldier follows lawful orders. Rejected by S&S's allegation that a theist couldn't give a lawful order from an atheist viewpoint. (Notice the fallacy S&S uses?)

It's been explained that the current Iraq war isn't a "holy war". Rejected by S&S because he thinks all atheists must view this as a holy war. (More fallacy?)

It's been explained that orders are often questioned and changed. Rejected by S&S, he just ignores the point. (Yet another fallacious tactic)





S&S is trolling. Why feed the troll?:confused:

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by S&S

--------------------------------------
Hans wrote
What crusade? The theist assures me God protects me, but that does not make the war a crusade. If I consider the fight against terrorists a legitimate goal, why should I not fight alongside a theist? That the war is a crusade is your allegation, for which you must present arguments.
-------------------------------------------

The term crusade in this latest war, select your favorite link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+crusade&btnG=Google+Search

------------------------------------------------------

So others than you call it a crusade, but I don't agree. Maybe GW Bush thinks it was a crusade, but I think the struggle against international terrorrists is legitimate.

Hans wrote
Your allegetion again. When I was a soldier, the imminent threat was the Soviet Union. If needed, we would be called to protect our democracy against a dictatorship. Where is the religous factor? Last time my country was seriously at war was during WW2, when we were occupied by Nazi Germany. Where was the religious factor?
----------------------------------------------------

The soviet Union by that time was a comunist country , ATHEIST or antireligion was part of their politics of expansionism.

The Nazi Germany : Was an antireligion-culture (jews ) party.

So was not collecting stamps. Honestly, Carlos, this is too low even for you: You claim that all wars are driven by religion, then when I point out two that were not (one was "only" a cold war), you say being non-religious is also being driven by religion. So you make a definition where you are alway right. Great debate :rolleyes:

Relax , and stay on topic.

Was I off topic?

Thanks,
S&S [/B]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
So others than you call it a crusade, but I don't agree. Maybe GW Bush thinks it was a crusade, but I think the struggle against international terrorrists is legitimate.


I am not calling it a crusade , others are not calling it a crusade. The Chief commander of the Army was who call it a crusade. Just check it out
----------------------------
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said earlier in the day that Bush intended no harm when he used words like "crusade."
---------------------------------

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0109190252sep19.story


So was not collecting stamps. Honestly, Carlos, this is too low even for you: You claim that all wars are driven by religion, then when I point out two that were not (one was "only" a cold war), you say being non-religious is also being driven by religion. So you make a definition where you are alway right. Great debate

If a country have a policy (...) of anti-religion (like comunists and nazis), then the religion factor is included.

Thanks,
S&S

[MRC_Hans]

There are crusades and crusades. The purpose of the war was not to kill infidels, the purpose was to stop terrorists in general and Saddam Hussen in particular. And this answers your initial question: I try to form my opinion based on the facts, not on the rhetoric.

And on the second point: Fine! By your personal definition of religious basis, all wars are on religious basis. Congratulations.

Hans

There are crusades and crusades,

prayers and prayers,

assasins and assasins,

believers and believers,


Mrc Hans and Mrc hans.