What OC means to me!

[WWIIIDefender]

I am almost possitive this will get me banned or at bare minimum an infraction, but inlight of the recent decision to squelch our freedom of speech on this wonderful site I do not much care. The following thoughts and views are mine and mine alone.

I just got my LTCH on Saturday. I couldn't wait even though I took the pansy way out and filed L1 so it only took 4 days....lol anyways I got it. I couldn't wait because, and here is my OC view, I want everyone on this planet to know that I have lethal force and will use it in the defense of my life. I am old school and if I kill you I want you to know that I am armed before anything transpires. Even though I hope and pray that I will never have to draw my weapon for any reason and I will not ever provoke viloence in any manner. There you have it, if anyone in this world tries to deny me of my god given rights, then they have in my mind completed the deadly force triangle and will be dealt with accordingly. They will have crossed over the plain which makes me a free man. I am a firm believer in actions have concequences and at that point in time I will feel 100% justified and will be willing to exept all concequences for my actions. I was born free and I will die free.

I do not believe in torture in anyway, war is war and when you go to war you believe in it with all your heart and soul. If you do infact decide to go to war you kill every man, women and child until either they unconditionaly surrender or they are all dead. Those are the only two exeptible outcomes in true war.

I went to the social security office today to get a copy of mine since it has been lost for quit some time. Apon arriving at the office the entire door was covered with anti 2nd ammendment rules. As I progressed to the waiting area I saw numerous signs on the wall banning the use of cell phones. They also had a TV that gave news about your social security benefits and every screen was followed by the same screen written in spanish. A taxpayer dollar funded public building banning our first and second ammendment rights and possibly promoting illegal immigration. The America that once was is no longer and it will take a few years before people start to realize it. Do people from china, venezuela or russian really believe they are not free men, ofcourse not otherwise they would release thier shackles and right themselves of the oppression. We the people will follow suit and be oppressed by the totalitarian dictatorship of communism, but not I, like I said I was born free and I will die free.

I have several lines in the sand that will break my moral fiber and turn me into a treacherous vengeful lion. I will not be force vaccinated. I will not bear the mark of the beast and accept an implant. I will not give my god given write to the 2nd ammendment away, and I will not live in martial law. Well there you have it, how is that for an intoxicated rant.

The following statement is true to the best of my knowlege so help me God.

and for big government; the following statement was for comedic purposes only.

 

[Comp]

Could you use paragraphs please. I cant read this

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Could you use paragraphs please. I cant read this

I did but when it came through it was all one paragraph, I even tried to edit it but it came back as all one paragraph. Sorry, there tried it again I couldn't do paragraphs but I put spaces in it.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[88E30M50]

You're preaching to the choir Defender. I'm guessing that there are many that share similar feelings towards the loss of freedoms.

Oh, and thanks for breaking that up a bit with spaces. It did help.

 

[USMC_0311]

I do not believe in torture in anyway, war is war and when you go to war you believe in it with all your heart and soul. If you do infact decide to go to war you kill every man, women and child until either they unconditionaly surrender or they are all dead. Those are the only two exeptible outcomes in true war.

Advocate killing women and children? So tell us your experince in "true war".

 

[23mar03]

I don't think that you would go as far as to kill noncombatant women and children. If you do, you need to check yourself.
Only individuals that are combative(ie with weapon in hand) should be engaged, including women, and children(that can't be safely disarmed).

 

[youngda9]

News flash: We did a bunch of killing of civilians in WWII...we bombed the heck out of german cities with incendiaries to burn it all to the ground, and dropped a couple atomic bombs on large Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of mostly civilians...this ended the war.

Our impression of what is war certainly has changed. The images of civilians dying, especially if they are cute children, get plastered all over the television and newspapers that only serve to weaken our resolve.

WWIIIDefender is "old school", USMC_311 and 23mar03 are against these practices apparently.

I don't like civilians dying, but in my opinion war is hell. The most effective way to win is definetly the "old school" method. This is apparent by how successful we have been in iraq using the "new school" method. We let a lot of bad guys off the hook(and sent them right back to the battlefield to kill more US soldiers and civilians via terror attacks) in order to protect their "rights" or to prevent the killing of civilians by using much more effective methods since we don't want their pictures in the paper.

 

[USMC_0311]

News flash: We did a bunch of killing of civilians in WWII...we bombed the heck out of german cities with incendiaries to burn it all to the ground, and dropped a couple atomic bombs on large Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of mostly civilians...this ended the war.

Our impression of what is war certainly has changed. The images of civilians dying, especially if they are cute children, get plastered all over the television and newspapers that only serve to weaken our resolve.

WWIIIDefender is "old school", USMC_311 and 23mar03 are against these practices apparently.

I don't like civilians dying, but in my opinion war is hell. The most effective way to win is definetly the "old school" method. This is apparent by how successful we have been in iraq using the "new school" method. We let a lot of bad guys off the hook(and sent them right back to the battlefield to kill more US soldiers and civilians via terror attacks) in order to protect their "rights" or to prevent the killing of civilians by using much more effective methods since we don't want their pictures in the paper.

Nope you missed my point and you know little about me. Collateral damage is unforntunate but I know it has it place. I don't particularly agree with some of the tactics we are using now but I will let some of the "younger" warroirs comment on that. It's just when I see bold comments like the OP's, I want to get a better perspective on the source. So does "old school" WWIII have some first hand knowledge on killing civilians? Do you ("in my opinion war is hell")? Please tell us of your "old school" expereince. Do you think it would be easy to shoot a innocent mom nursing their child?

 

[youngda9]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. You want to know if it is easy for people to kill civilians? I don't know what you wish to gain out of that discussion, or if you have a psychology degree and intend to gain some sort of insight into something.

I personally have not so I cannot comment on the matter as to how it would affect me personally.

How it affects the soldier on a personal level, or if it is "easy" to do, is a completely different discussion as to whether it is an effective tactic(kill em all and let god sort em out) as many nations practiced in the past(WWII).

 

[USMC_0311]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. You want to know if it is easy for people to kill civilians? I don't know what you wish to gain out of that discussion, or if you have a psychology degree and intend to gain some sort of insight into something.

I personally have not so I cannot comment on the matter as to how it would affect me personally.

How it affects the soldier on a personal level, or if it is "easy" to do, is a completely different discussion as to whether it is an effective tactic(kill em all and let god sort em out) as many nations practiced in the past(WWII).

No psychology degree here. I get a kick out of all the big billy bad ass talk from those that never been. Old School? Tell me some more of this "old school" mind set you all have. What I am driving at is this. The OP stated he would just kill women and childeren. That statement deserves an explanation and the source of the statement needs to be vetted.

 

[youngda9]

No psychology degree here. I get a kick out of all the big billy bad ass talk from those that never been. Old School? Tell me some more of this "old school" mind set you all have. What I am driving at is this. The OP stated he would just kill women and childeren. That statement deserves an explanation and the source of the statement needs to be vetted.

I was not attempting to explain the tactics, or the mindset behind them. I just wanted to illustrate that they have been used for centuries and are quite effective.

From my limited knowledge on the subject it is clear that the purpose of this type of war strategy is to take the will to fight away from the soldier. If their homeland is being destroyed than they don't want to be out attacking others, they want to be defending their families and thus they lose sight and faith in the mission at hand. Perhaps this makes sense.

I will let the OP speak further to clarify his statements to you if he so desires.

On the other hand, soldiers from 60 years ago (WWII) and prior would call us cowards in the way we fight wars today (tiptoeing around civilians, prosecuting our own soldiers for actions that were quite justified and encouraged in their times, bombing from miles away or from planes in the sky, getting all excited when a few civilians die as a result of taking out a target, taking out most targets before boots ever hit the ground)...this would be perceived as weak and cowardly by some I'm quite sure.

Technology changes tactics, and cameras/news have changed tactics and our will to fight/kill as well...as a whole.

 

[esrice]

inlight of the recent decision to squelch our freedom of speech on this wonderful site I do not much care.

Keep in mind that this is a privately owned and operated web forum, and as such, is not required to offer any "freedom of speech".

 

[Que]

Keep in mind that this is a privately owned and operated web forum, and as such, is not required to offer any "freedom of speech".

You may not want to say that...

"... if anyone in this world tries to deny me of my god given rights, then they have in my mind completed the deadly force triangle and will be dealt with accordingly." - OP

 

[Protest]

Keep in mind that this is a privately owned and operated web forum, and as such, is not required to offer any "freedom of speech".

It really cracks me up that people do not understand this simple principle. You can't come to my house and sit in my living room and say whatever you want.

I read an American reader's comment on a British news site the other day. The commenter noted that their free speech had been violated because the newspaper kept removing their comments. So, the person obviously didn't understand that the newspaper has a right to do so and secondly that the paper is British!

 

[USMC_0311]

I was not attempting to explain the tactics, or the mindset behind them. I just wanted to illustrate that they have been used for centuries and are quite effective.

From my limited knowledge on the subject it is clear that the purpose of this type of war strategy is to take the will to fight away from the soldier. If their homeland is being destroyed than they don't want to be out attacking others, they want to be defending their families and thus they lose sight and faith in the mission at hand. Perhaps this makes sense.

I will let the OP speak further to clarify his statements to you if he so desires.

On the other hand, soldiers from 60 years ago (WWII) and prior would call us cowards in the way we fight wars today (tiptoeing around civilians, prosecuting our own soldiers for actions that were quite justified and encouraged in their times, bombing from miles away or from planes in the sky, getting all excited when a few civilians die as a result of taking out a target, taking out most targets before boots ever hit the groung)...this would be perceived as weak and cowardly by some I'm quite sure.

Technology changes tactics, and cameras/news have changed tactics and our will to fight/kill as well...as a whole.

My comments were not directed at you specifically, until you tried to justify WWIII's. Let him speak for himself, I agree with most of what you say. I personally believe we can and have taken the fight right to them without "targeting" innocent civilians. A lot of unexpalianable **** happens in the middle of combat, we don't need to make it worse by starting out with a goal of "kill'em all let God sort them out" mentality. If we are overseas fighting the last thing I want to do is create animosity with non-combatants. Supposedly we are there in the name of freedom and making everyone your enemy does not make sense.

Using the WWII nuke attacks as an example is not a clear picture. Knowing what we know today about nukes, those decisions would have been a lot more harder to make. We would have won the war regardless at that point, it just would have cost a lot more in US casualties.

 

[PatriotPride]

Keep in mind that this is a privately owned and operated web forum, and as such, is not required to offer any "freedom of speech".

My irony-sense is tingling.

 

[braz007]

 

[PatriotPride]

Did you bring enough popcorn to share with the whole class?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Ok so like I said last night I had a few drinks and was kind of upset so allow me to clarify a few points. First I really do like this site a lot. Do I like the recent changes no I don't. Does this site being privately owned have the right to make those changes, absolutely. I don't like the idea of this site being bullied or scared into making those changes. I't just goes to show how everything we have come to know in this country is being transformed.

On war, more civilians were killed during 911 than military personell. When you go to war with a country you go to war with the entire county there are no innocents. All people should be held accountible for what there goverments do in there name. Governments should also be held accountible for what thier people do in their name. This level of thinking would infact get people more proned to take action in the way they are governed, which is something we the people from every nation don't seem to do anymore.

War on terror is just an exuse to go to war with anyone we want and to keep us in war forever. Once we go to war in a country we stay forever. How many troops do we still have stationed in germany or japan? We simply can't afford this mentality and way of thinking when it comes to war anymore. We torture were is the honor in that. Now the president can assasinate or torture an american citizen just on suspicion, how is that not dictatorship.

Our troops fight to maintain our freedom and the way of life we were given by our founders. This however is a falsehood because the longer they continue to fight these wars the more freedom we are loosing here at home. Do I blame our troops absuletly not because the fault will always lay within we the people.

With that said most people on this site are part of the solution and most here are active in the way we are governed, unfortunetly we are still in too much of a minority to make a differance.