The purpose of any protest is to get noticed. Westboro gets noticed.

Have you seen any televised antiwar protests in our generation? Of course not. No one cares who marches on Washington. No one gives a shit about hippies holding hands. The war is the patriotic thing and it's the media's responsibility to wave the flag.

Are Westboro's tactics shameful? That depends. Do you truly believe the wars to be immoral? It's safe to assume that anyone currently in the armed forces WANTS to be a part of these wars. If they join the military, they are entirely complicit in the evils that the United States perpetrates. If they fall while participating, a man that was part of an evil machine has fallen. Sure we'd all like to see all the soldiers back at home playing football in the yard. But if you're a true opponent of this war, you should welcome their deaths. Every American death brings the end of the war closer. Every American death helps bring an end to the hundredfold muslim death toll.

Does their family have a right to a dignified funeral? Sure, if it's a private funeral. Westboro doesn't attend private funerals. They attend massive public ones that travel on city streets in glimmering limousines with flashy color guards. They stand on public streets, beside public cemeteries, amongst all the flowery pomp and showmanship that is a military funeral.

It's impossible to truly condemn the war and commend it's participants. They are all guilty. True antiwar activists call a spade a spade and get noticed. Westboro Baptist gets noticed. You have to get noticed to change opinions.

True antiwar protesters picket funerals. True antiwar protesters upset the public at least a fraction as much as those whose lives we've destroyed abroad.

Westboro Baptist are true antiwar activists. The rest of you are pussies.

PS: I'm not sure if god hates fags. The Genesis 19 story of Sodom would seem to indicate that he does. Therefore I guess if you don't hold a "God Hates Fags" sign, you're not a true baptist either.

11/9/2010 9:37:46 PM

except that the anti-gay message of the westboro church is far more prominent than an antiwar message (if there is an antiwar message to begin with)

11/9/2010 10:23:59 PM

Yeah, they're just getting noticed for their anti-gay stuff, not anti-war stuff.

So, according to your logic, smc, they are not true anti-war protestors.

I'm just gonna assume you were drunk when you came up with this one, but that's a whole lot of words to type drunk.

11/9/2010 10:58:43 PM

So they are more effective anti-war protesters than the rest of you pussies, and they aren't even trying.

If you were truly outraged by the daily American casualties you would do more. If you truly loved American soldiers, you would protest their pointless deaths and curse their nationalistic propaganda-laden funerals.

I think they oppose the war because America supports homosexuals and therefore is unworthy to win in battle. Other protesters oppose the war because they think America is unfit and hypocritical to occupy other nations. Same difference.

[Edited on November 9, 2010 at 11:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2010 11:18:46 PM

Petitioning our leaders has failed to stop the wars. Electing new leaders has failed to stop the wars. Global condemnation and abandonment by our allies has failed to deter our military. The only hope remaining to stop this conflict is that american casualties will be so numerous and horrific that public will is broken. That mothers weep in the street as their sons enlist(they already weep at home).

11/9/2010 11:47:14 PM

WBC are not anti-war at all... In fact, I expect that they proudly support the killing of muslim terrorist infidels and whatnot. They just hate the gays even more.

...Not that you care about the accuracy of the point, smc. All your TSB posts are just wild attention-grabs through the use of controversy.

11/9/2010 11:55:07 PM

Or as I call it, "political dialogue in the 21st oh shit is that a donut left in the bag?

11/10/2010 12:06:01 AM

Quote :

"...Not that you care about the accuracy of the point, smc. All your TSB posts are just wild attention-grabs through the use of controversy."

^^The SMC guide to posting
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/pulling-a-mohammed.php

Quote :

"PERSON: (Noticing a passing red car) "That car is red." CORRECT RESPONSE: "That car is blue." EVEN BETTER RESPONSE: "That car does not exist, and even if it somehow did, it would be yellow and on fire.""

I don't see smc as having any obvious political leanings with the constant insanity, but I just don't know how he has the time for so much of it... unless he's running a script to randomly and frequently post death to america or has several people posting on that account. I don't know if it ever had a point, at some point, but after so many months on end of nonsense, it is certainly lost on me.

11/10/2010 2:06:33 AM

As usual smc produces a huge pile of shit. He implies, as do most lunatics, that support of one policy implies support of another. "That guy supported our Iraq policy, I voted for that guy, ergo I must love our Iraq policy." And so forth.

Quote :

"WBC are not anti-war at all... In fact, I expect that they proudly support the killing of muslim terrorist infidels and whatnot."

I disagree. They've found a moneymaker in suing everyone that looks at them crosseyed, and so they make bank. Anybody so inclined could claim to worship the Church of the Holy Asshole, and they could (conceivably) make money.

11/10/2010 3:05:52 AM

I actually enjoy some of smc's posts

11/10/2010 8:37:17 AM

Quote :

"except that the anti-gay message of the westboro church is far more prominent than an antiwar message (if there is an antiwar message to begin with)"

Quote :

"WBC are not anti-war at all... In fact, I expect that they proudly support the killing of muslim terrorist infidels and whatnot. They just hate the gays even more."

This is what I thought.

Quote :

"I think they oppose the war because America supports homosexuals and therefore is unworthy to win in battle."

Anthing to back this up? You may be right, but I'd like to hear it from Westboro Baptist...

This thread could've had potential, but smc fucked it up by suggesting that Westboro Baptist is anti-war.
They are anti-gay.
They think that the terrorists attacked us because god is punishing the US for allowing gays to have rights.
Westboro Baptist, I'm pretty sure, doesn't like the terrorists, and supports our [illegal and unnecessary] war against them.

If smc were right about Westboro Baptist being anti-war, and their protests being anti-war protests,
he could've made some good points...


This, for example:

Quote :

"Do you truly believe the wars to be immoral? It's safe to assume that anyone currently in the armed forces WANTS to be a part of these wars. If they join the military, they are entirely complicit in the evils that the United States perpetrates. If they fall while participating, a man that was part of an evil machine has fallen. Sure we'd all like to see all the soldiers back at home playing football in the yard. But if you're a true opponent of this war, you should welcome their deaths. Every American death brings the end of the war closer. Every American death helps bring an end to the hundredfold muslim death toll."

When I hear about US soldiers dying in these "wars", my sentiments are, "Shouldn't'a been there."
In other words, yes -- our "war" is 100% unjust and unnecessary. We are simply killing brown people to advance the federal government's interest in things like global military control, oil, and to some degree, Judeo-Christianity. Anyone in the military is complicit to this. If they die, oh well -- they shouldn't have been out murdering innocents... as pawns in our currently evil military industrial complex.

"Every American death brings the end of the war closer", is likely true.

11/10/2010 8:48:01 AM

holy mother of wtf trolling

11/10/2010 8:48:55 AM

Who's trolling? (Oh, you mean smc...)

11/10/2010 8:51:19 AM

I think Iraqis and Afghans are just as deserving of freedom and democracy as the French and British were; therefore, I am evil.

Quote :

"But if you're a true opponent of this war, you should welcome their deaths. Every American death brings the end of the war closer. Every American death helps bring an end to the hundredfold muslim death toll."

It appears Alwaki, banned from YouTube, has had to take his delusional, froth-at-the-mouth rantings to lesser forums.

Quote :

"We are simply killing brown people to advance the federal government's interest in things like global military control, oil, and to some degree, Judeo-Christianity.""

Except that the terrorists are the ones killing most of the Muslims. And most of the Muslims prefer us to the terrorists.

Right, so I am officially "in" this thread. So if you're going to spout off with some hysterical nonsense you either read on the Internet or thought up while picking the Hot Pocket crumbs out of your belly button, do expect to be shown up by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 8:54:13 AM

Quote :

"I think Iraqis and Afghans are just as deserving of freedom and democracy as the French and British were; therefore, I am evil."

hahahahaahahahahaha oh man

keep the hits rollin

11/10/2010 9:05:28 AM

What do you mean?

11/10/2010 9:09:05 AM

This trolling could have been better.

11/10/2010 9:44:42 AM

Quote :

"I think Iraqis and Afghans are just as deserving of freedom and democracy as the French and British were; therefore, I am evil.""

1) So that was the point of those wars? To spread freedom and democracy? Why don't we invade every country that doesn't meet our standards?
2) Who are we to lecture anyone on freedom? We live in a police state. Peaceful individuals are put in jail for many years for victimless crimes.

11/10/2010 11:13:11 AM

Quote :

"Why don't we invade every country that doesn't meet our standards?"

Why do anything if you can't do everything? And what the hell do you mean by "our standards"? Yeah, according to our standards, women should have the same rights as men. According to the Taliban's standards, the best thing that can happen to a woman who has sex before being sold off to a cousin is for her to have bricks thrown at her head until she dies. But hey, who are we to judge?

11/10/2010 12:38:05 PM

Yes, who are we to judge? That was the second point. Did any country destroy their economy funding our revolution? No, the people rose up and decided that freedom was worth fighting for. Every nation on earth has that same responsibility, but it is their responsibility. Our only responsibility is to lead by example, which we aren't doing.

11/10/2010 12:50:57 PM

Quote :

"Did any country destroy their economy funding our revolution?"

USA and France.

11/10/2010 2:11:59 PM

Quote :

"I think Iraqis and Afghans are just as deserving of freedom and democracy as the French and British were; therefore, I am evil."

Freedom and democracy have little or nothing to do with it.

Quote :

"Every American death brings the end of the war closer. Every American death helps bring an end to the hundredfold muslim death toll."

[NO]

Quote :

"We are simply killing brown people to advance the federal government's interest in things like global military control, oil, and to some degree, Judeo-Christianity. "

Geopolitics is a big factor. Oil might be a small part, but I think its importance is grossly overestimated. I think think that Judeo-Christianity has jack shit to do with it.

Quote :

"they shouldn't have been out murdering innocents"

Quote :

"Except that the terrorists are the ones killing most of the Muslims. And most of the Muslims prefer us to the terrorists. "

True. The Taliban have actually implemented a code of conduct of sorts to try to close that gap some, as they were losing a lot of ground due to the fact that they were killing several times as many civilians as us.

Quote :

"Why don't we invade every country that doesn't meet our standards?"

Because it's about our national interests, not freedom and democracy.

11/10/2010 2:41:42 PM

France undoubtedly paid a large price to help us, which had consequences, but the debt they incurred was nothing compared to ours. The political order of the day was destroyed though, probably due in part to the financial strain of the war.

Besides, France didn't help us purely to be nice. They were friendly to enlightenment ideals, but they had beef with Britain already.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 2:48:23 PM

Westboro Baptists are the biggest pansies of all.

11/10/2010 2:57:32 PM

Quote :

"Yes, who are we to judge? That was the second point. Did any country destroy their economy funding our revolution? No, the people rose up and decided that freedom was worth fighting for. Every nation on earth has that same responsibility, but it is their responsibility. Our only responsibility is to lead by example, which we aren't doing."

So, you're a moral relativist with a piss poor grasp of history. Fantastic.

Quote :

"Freedom and democracy have little or nothing to do with it."

One of the first things we did in both countries was help them draft a constitution that guaranteed democratic governance and protected minorities. A huge part of the ideological basis for both wars was the idea that a free and democratic Muslim world was not only a good thing for humanity, but also a good thing for American interests. If you don't know this, you know anything about the history of these conflicts.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 4:03:44 PM

Quote :

"So, you're a moral relativist with a piss poor grasp of history. Fantastic. "

In the sense that different cultures have varying morals, yes. As an example, which I already mentioned, the government here is tyrannical in many ways. It confiscates wages from the younger, working generation without consent and distributes it to non-workers. It incarcerates people for peaceful drug use and prostitution. It allows for the devaluation of the currency. It institutes price controls that have deleterious effects on the economy. Perpetual warfare is the only way that we could have maintained such high levels of artificial growth.

In other words, we should be getting our own house in order before we borrow trillions for what, according to you, amounts to a "civilizing of the barbarians" mission. Of course, it's a strong Anglo-Saxon tradition to do exactly that, but I think we'll suffer the same fate as every other empire that has tried to do this.

11/10/2010 4:18:26 PM

Thanks. That was a fantastic job of proving both of my points.

11/10/2010 4:25:13 PM

I didn't prove either point. There may be a moral code that is objectively the best, but in reality, people don't agree on what right and wrong is. On the second point, you've yet to make your case, and I haven't made it for you.

If you'll notice, there's a disagreement between you and TheDuke. You're both pro-intervention. However, his conclusions are logically sound. He's saying the wars are in our national interests. I happen to disagree. You, on the other hand, support nation building. If you take that philosophy to its logical conclusion, then we should be borrowing more money and invading more countries. Shit, even Bush knew that nation building wasn't a good pitch. Sure, it was considered a positive outcome, but he knew we would at least need to manufacture a legitimate reason to go to war.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 4:46:12 PM

Wow, do constructive conversations EVER break out in the soap box? The nit pickery and off-topicness of (some of) the posts in this thread is astounding.

11/10/2010 4:58:45 PM

Thankfully, you came and changed all that.

11/10/2010 5:02:12 PM

If nation building means helping establish free and democratic countries where crackpot totalitarian regimes once stood, then there is simply no denying that nation building is in our national interest. And, indeed, this is exactly what the so-called neocons were saying well in advance of our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Not that I side with neocons, but they do deserve credit on this point).

I don't think I need to elaborate any further than you have on your ethics or your understanding of history. I think any sane person would read your comparison between the US, what with its crazy fiscal policies, and regimes like the Taliban and Saddam's Baath Party, and form basically the conclusion that I did: You are either an incredible relativist, fantastically ignorant of the history of the latter two regimes, or, which seems to clearly be the case, both. And that's before we talk about your odd opinions on the American Revolution or British imperialism.

^ I'll at least give you points for that one.

[Edited on November 10, 2010 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2010 5:03:19 PM

You made fewer logical points in that post than you threw insults at your opponents understanding of... just about everything related to the topics you're discussing.

Yet, with one post and a "^," you managed to find some middle ground. Can you come together now like reasonable people, or will you continue to debate with shallow attacks at each others intelligence and understanding?

I think we all know.

11/10/2010 5:09:37 PM

Oh I get it. You're here to restore sanity.

11/10/2010 5:21:43 PM

Quote :

"He's saying the wars are in our national interests"

Sort of.

11/10/2010 5:28:27 PM

Westboro Baptist to Protest at Arlington on Veterans Day
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Police-Prepared-for-Polemical-Protest-107029323.html

I can find no mention of any other protests planned against the war. Iraqi Veterans Against the War issued a polite letter. Apparently everyone in America except Westboro supports perpetual war, or has forgotten that we even are at war.

11/10/2010 10:29:48 PM

11/10/2010 10:37:29 PM

^ Racist.

11/10/2010 11:08:15 PM

I'm black

11/10/2010 11:15:42 PM

...if that's what you're referring to.

11/11/2010 11:23:50 AM

I feel bad if lazarus isn't trolling. If not he seems quite naive.

11/11/2010 6:54:54 PM

Quote :

"You, on the other hand, support nation building. If you take that philosophy to its logical conclusion, then we should be borrowing more money and invading more countries."

Not necessarily. As with everything, there is a cost-benefit aspect to these decisions. Eliminating our enemies and replacing them with stable friendly or neutral regimes is in the national interest. So is not going completely fucking broke taking out loans to bring about effective nation building. Perhaps a miscalculation of costs (even benefits) occurred in these recent wars, but that doesn't imply that nation building is in and of itself not in the national interest. We did some of it in Germany and Japan and I think we turned out well for it. Certainly in the German case we did better than the previous policy of "nation-beating-down-into-shit-and-then-shitting-on-that-shit."

11/12/2010 12:56:19 AM

How do you think I'm naive?

11/12/2010 9:22:43 AM

The difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq/Afghanistan is that the latter wars were pre-emptive, wars of aggression.

11/12/2010 10:29:46 AM

I've pointed to incidents where nations were built by their military conquerors. Clearly it can be done under the right circumstances, and probably should have been done -- lest, as bitter experience had suggested was likely, the Krauts and the Japs get all pissy and spend a couple of decades arming themselves for an even nastier round of fighting. In making determinations about whether to pursue a nation-building policy we have to weigh a lot of different things -- including, perhaps, the nature of the conflict, as well as whether or not we can bear the costs.

Your suggestion -- that support for nation building must logically extend to a policy of bankrupting ourselves to invade most of the rest of the world -- is absurd. Like so many actions, it is a good idea in some contexts and a bad idea in others.

11/12/2010 11:46:33 AM

^^We were preemptive aggressors in Afghanistan?

11/12/2010 6:32:21 PM

No, it wasn't pre-emptive, you're right. It was a war of aggression, though. It should be have been a police action - that is, going to where the criminals were, investigating, and killing/capturing anyone who was responsible. It certainly didn't warrant a full fledged invasion, occupation, and rebuild. We were not attacked by a nation.

I was just reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present), and I found this interesting. Maybe it's common knowledge, I don't know:

Quote :

"One day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. The plan involved using escalating methods of applying pressure over a three year period. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials, it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban refused, covert military aid would be channeled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. If both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."[53]"

If I'm getting this right, the Bush administration had already determined that it would be overthrowing the Taliban? And then, the day after this decision was made, the twin towers were attacked? I'm not a truther in any way, but god damn, does that not strike anyone as a little odd? I was going to make the point that we tipped our hand by publicly launching a war, rather than hiring mercenaries to take care of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

[Edited on November 12, 2010 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2010 7:02:06 PM

dude, we had mercs, indigenous afghans (and probably paks), the CIA, probably some special forces, IMINT satellites, fucking Navy missile cruisers/destroyers, COMINT assets, all sorts of shit trying to get bin Laden for years before the 9/11 attacks...like, in the Clinton years...like, PRE-Monica Lewinsky Clinton years.

There is no way in hell that the 9/11 attacks, even if pre-planned and simply waiting for the word to execute, could have been successfully put into action with one day's notice, so that part just sounds like an odd coincidence to me. There had been talk of overthrowing the Taliban for quite a while before 9/11, but it would have been a major stumbling block in U.S./Pakistani relations and deemed not worth it in the big picture.


Also note that OEF was initially pretty much a bunch of spec ops guys assisting the Northern Alliance, with a little bit of U.S. air support (that was partly for show so the Afghans would go all-in against the Taliban, knowing we had their backs).

Quote :

"It should be have been a police action - that is, going to where the criminals were, investigating, and killing/capturing anyone who was responsible."

That sounds an awful lot like what I just finished doing over there. Closer to that than a traditional military invasion, anyway.


[Edited on November 13, 2010 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/13/2010 12:16:06 AM