• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq veteran, activist Tomas Young dies at 34

Again, what "evil" did he promote?

Saddam was almost absolute evil. We were fighting evil. He tried to stop us from fighting that evil. Therefore, he was promoting and trying to protect that evil. Period.

If they couldn't handle it properly, they shouldn't have sent us. they saw that as our "weekness" and attacked us on 911, today we have the beginning of a pan arabic caliphate, just as they planned and told us in 1991.

Bull****. Your basically saying "if you don't know absolutely the outcome" it shouldn't be tried. Since you cannot know that won't be killed the next time you get in a car, you should never travel by car? People displaying that level of fear are just.......hell, is there a word to describe such people.

And it should be stopped. Not this piecemeal, mealymouthed bull**** Mohammad B. Hussein Obama is doing.


Wait, you think PTSD is caused by a lack of faith, not the ****ing 7.62 wizzing past your head and the bombs going off? really? no really?

No, PTSD, as it relates to war is a mental condition brought on by the mind not handling the horrors of war. And, yes, absolute faith that what is being done is right or good can prevent such damage to the mind, even amongst such horrors. The dehumanizing of the enemy that the military has practiced for a very longtime now, not only makes it easier to kill, it protects the mind from the repercussions of killing and all the other horrors of war.

lol, how do you not bow down? please to explain.

That does not deserve an answer. Do you really think I would be stupid enough to publish things of that nature on the net?
 
This is one of the craziest, most unhinged rants I've ever read. Pure, weapons-grade lunacy.

You know, if your opinion was worthy of respect, instead of contempt that is natural towards any communist, I just might actually give a damned. And since you are essentially a commie, it sounding unhinged to you is evidence that it just might actually be sane.
 
You know, if your opinion was worthy of respect, instead of contempt that is natural towards any communist, I just might actually give a damned. And since you are essentially a commie, it sounding unhinged to you is evidence that it just might actually be sane.

:lamo
 
Jesus was essentially a socialist, therefore a communist, therefore he was evil.

Taxes are a form of socialism, therefore America is a communist nation, therefore it is evil.

And so forth...
 

Hmm, lets see. If we map political leanings in two axis, X being left to right and y being Authoritarian at the top with libertarianism at the bottom. Both Libertarian-Left and Communism are in the lower left corner. Details might be slightly different on implementation, but overall they are the same.
 
Last edited:
Jesus was essentially a socialist, therefore a communist, therefore he was evil.

Taxes are a form of socialism, therefore America is a communist nation, therefore it is evil.

And so forth...

Totally incorrect.

Jesus primarily helped those who were unable to help themselves, not those who chose not to be responsible for themselves. There is a vast difference between the poor under the oppression of Rome and the so called "poor" we have in the US today.

Taxes are only a form of socialism when they are used for socialist things. When used for things like common defense, no taxes are not socialist. When used to promote income equality and wealth redistribution, then yes, they are socialist.

Socialism weakens the individual, ignores personal responsibility and enslaves people to dependence on a centralism instead of individualism, so yes, it is evil.
 
Totally incorrect.

Jesus primarily helped those who were unable to help themselves, not those who chose not to be responsible for themselves.

Jesus said that all rich people are going to Hell. Further, social programs are designed to help the unfortunate, not to prop up the lazy.

Taxes are only a form of socialism when they are used for socialist things.

This is like saying that only bad things are bad. Step up your arguments because I'm getting bored.

When used for things like common defense, no taxes are not socialist. When used to promote income equality and wealth redistribution, then yes, they are socialist.

In conclusion, socialism is when government spends money on things you disagree with. When you agree with it, then it's not socialism.
 
Saddam was almost absolute evil. We were fighting evil. He tried to stop us from fighting that evil. Therefore, he was promoting and trying to protect that evil. Period.

Why then only fat that particular "evil"?


Bull****. Your basically saying "if you don't know absolutely the outcome" it shouldn't be tried. Since you cannot know that won't be killed the next time you get in a car, you should never travel by car? People displaying that level of fear are just.......hell, is there a word to describe such people.


Lovely strawman you have there.


And it should be stopped. Not this piecemeal, mealymouthed bull**** Mohammad B. Hussein Obama is doing.


well, this proves my point, if we have term limits and things change, perhaps, occupations aren't are thing...


No, PTSD, as it relates to war is a mental condition brought on by the mind not handling the horrors of war. And, yes, absolute faith that what is being done is right or good can prevent such damage to the mind, even amongst such horrors. The dehumanizing of the enemy that the military has practiced for a very longtime now, not only makes it easier to kill, it protects the mind from the repercussions of killing and all the other horrors of war.


Are you sure about this?



That does not deserve an answer. Do you really think I would be stupid enough to publish things of that nature on the net?


That wasn't what I meant, but, uhm ok.
 
Jesus said that all rich people are going to Hell.

He did? Exactly where is it written that he said that?

Further, social programs are designed to help the unfortunate, not to prop up the lazy.

Very few people in America are "unfortunate", many are lazy and stupid. There are a lot of opportunities for people to improve themselves through their own actions if they discipline themselves and take advantage of those opportunities. Social programs are designed to provide for, especially luxuries, not to help. As a physical therapist, you don't help someone by allowing them to be dependent on others, you help them by making them work their muscles and strengthen themselves. Nothing in social programs in the US are aimed at helping people become stronger. They are aimed at making weak and dependent.

In conclusion, socialism is when government spends money on things you disagree with. When you agree with it, then it's not socialism.

Incorrect. Marx and others have clearly defined forms of socialism. In essences socialism is places society as being responsible for individuals instead of individuals being the core of society.
 
Why then only fat that particular "evil"?

I assume you meant fight.

We weren't only fighting that one. We were also fighting in Afghanistan. Further, between Afghan and the operations that were ongoing in Iraq prior to the war were putting strains on available resources. Particularly some low density-High utilization force amplification assets. Without first freeing up those assets from Iraq, we were unable to go after other evils. Iran would of been a better choice to go after, but without freeing up those assets from Iraq, it was not possible.

well, this proves my point, if we have term limits and things change, perhaps, occupations aren't are thing...

No, occupations are not. By now we should of taken the lessons learned from past wars and build a portion of our force dedicated to rebuilding countries which we have occupied.




Are you sure about this?

When a person kills another human being, it has a lasting mental affect. Much different from when a person kills an "animal", either for food or because it is dangerous. So mentally preparing to kill a "rag head", "dink", "nip", etc, etc, instead of a person is why such terms came into existence. It changes the enemy from a human being into an "animal" or an object. Thus it reduces the cases of hesitation when pulling the trigger but also aides in the person doing the killing being able to cope with having done the killing. I've killed lots of "animals" without lasting mental affects. I have aided in killing thousands of Iraqi's without lasting mental, Combat PTSD, because they were nothing but animals to me. Faith that it was right to do that killing is the basis for being able to keep those killed in the category of "animal" instead of letting them slip into the "human" category.

That wasn't what I meant, but, uhm ok.

One thing I do is to practice dehumanization of socialist, who are the most likely enemies that will have to be fought in the near future.
 
He did? Exactly where is it written that he said that?

Quoth Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24

Deal with it.

Very few people in America are "unfortunate", many are lazy and stupid.

Where are your statistics?

There are a lot of opportunities for people to improve themselves through their own actions if they discipline themselves and take advantage of those opportunities.

There are a lot of opportunities because of social program. Because society has collectively said that we'd rather help people who are mentally ill and/or chronically unemployed than throwing them in the street. Crime rates drop, the streets are not cluttered with the poor, and society benefits from people who are rehabilitated into the work force.
 
Quoth Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24

Deal with it.



Where are your statistics?



There are a lot of opportunities because of social program. Because society has collectively said that we'd rather help people who are mentally ill and/or chronically unemployed than throwing them in the street. Crime rates drop, the streets are not cluttered with the poor, and society benefits from people who are rehabilitated into the work force.

So your ignorance of what You said about Jesus derives from your own lack of reading comprehension. What is quoted does not say, nor mean, that all rich people will go to hell.

Deal with? Sure, when trained and equipped and with good leadership, I very much plan to. Heather Alexander - March of Cambreadth - YouTube

Exert from TANF and Federal Welfare | Downsizing the Federal Government

A Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) report concluded that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."39 The NAACP's conclusion is confirmed by additional academic research. For example, research by M. Anne Hill and June O'Neill shows that a 50-percent increase in welfare and food stamp benefits led to a 117-percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.40

So clearly you point about crime has been definitively proven incorrect.
 
Good thread Dem Socialist!

I just read Nader's piece over at Common Dreams, and had the undeniable pleasure in reading Tomas' letter to the Two Criminals. Bravo for him, in speaking the bitter truth. And the bastards did not ever reply to the letter, but I guess it was in their files?
 
I respect them, but they knew when they took the oath they would perhaps face a war time situation.

Nonetheless, they were deceived, on purpose while abusing government's legitimate power.

And it's fascinating that Young joined BECAUSE OF the events of 11 September, which have in the ensuing 13 years, been shown to be deceptive themselves.

Tomas died 13 years later after the Big Deception, the Bright and Shining Lie.

Truth is stranger than fiction?
 
I would not characterize the people I oppose politically as evil. They are not.

If we allow ourselves to get to the point of absolutism in our politics then we're only a step away from the abyss. I sincerely hope you can allow yourself to take a step back and reevaluate.


Yes, but evil does exist.
 
I assume you meant fight.

We weren't only fighting that one. We were also fighting in Afghanistan. Further, between Afghan and the operations that were ongoing in Iraq prior to the war were putting strains on available resources. Particularly some low density-High utilization force amplification assets. Without first freeing up those assets from Iraq, we were unable to go after other evils. Iran would of been a better choice to go after, but without freeing up those assets from Iraq, it was not possible.

Why not Iran? North Korea, saudi arabia? I get why we went to war, and it had nothing to do with fighting evil.



No, occupations are not. By now we should of taken the lessons learned from past wars and build a portion of our force dedicated to rebuilding countries which we have occupied.


Or shrink our military to a size to do what it's constitutionally supposed to, defend our nation from attacks.


When a person kills another human being, it has a lasting mental affect. Much different from when a person kills an "animal", either for food or because it is dangerous. So mentally preparing to kill a "rag head", "dink", "nip", etc, etc, instead of a person is why such terms came into existence. It changes the enemy from a human being into an "animal" or an object. Thus it reduces the cases of hesitation when pulling the trigger but also aides in the person doing the killing being able to cope with having done the killing. I've killed lots of "animals" without lasting mental affects. I have aided in killing thousands of Iraqi's without lasting mental, Combat PTSD, because they were nothing but animals to me. Faith that it was right to do that killing is the basis for being able to keep those killed in the category of "animal" instead of letting them slip into the "human" category.


What is this "aided" stuff? What was your afsc?


One thing I do is to practice dehumanization of socialist, who are the most likely enemies that will have to be fought in the near future.


I disagree. Thomas young was on the front line, he didn't "aid in killing", if he comes to the conclusion that what he did should not have been done, I can respect him far more than someone who was not in his shoes commenting that his views are null because his views digress.
 
So your ignorance of what You said about Jesus derives from your own lack of reading comprehension. What is quoted does not say, nor mean, that all rich people will go to hell.

So where do rich people go when they are turned away from Heaven?

So clearly you point about crime has been definitively proven incorrect.

No, it hasn't. I said social programs, not welfare. Programs that help the chronically unemployed from entering into a lifetime of poverty. Temporary welfare can be beneficial for people in need of basic assistance, permanent welfare is not desirable under any ideological platform.

Would you rather turn a mentally ill person loose on the street, or get them treated and educated so that they can earn a living and contribute to society?
 
Why not Iran? North Korea, saudi arabia? I get why we went to war, and it had nothing to do with fighting evil.

If you read and comprehended, then you already have the answer. We couldn't as long as the pre-existing operations in Iraq continued.

Or shrink our military to a size to do what it's constitutionally supposed to, defend our nation from attacks.

Defend it by allowing enemies to reach our own territory instead of fighting them on theirs or someone else's? Defend it by allow others to subjugate friendly nations and nations with which we have economic connections with? Wow, wouldn't that be great for our economy if we allowed them to fall and shipping routes to interdicted? Defend it by, like we did prior to WWII, we let our defenses and capabilities atrophy and then hope we have time to rebuild them when an enemy, other than the domestic one, rises up?

When, in the history of mankind, has anyone ever won a war while on the defensive instead of being able to project offensively? How many of our own people should we be willing to sacrifice because we don't want to project power and stop tyranny and threats before they rise strong enough to actually challenge us? How well did that work out for Britain, France and others during WWII? Did sticking their heads in the sand make Hitler go away?

Because people had the unmitigated audacity to have themselves born somewhere other than the US, they don't deserve the same rights and freedoms as Americans? Really, how stupid of them to choose to be born elsewhere.




What is this "aided" stuff? What was your afsc?

Did you actually ever serve in combat? Every person who serves are part of a team. Aided means that I was part of the team that was not a direct shooter. In fact I flew upon unarmed aircraft that went into and loitered in combat zones. Every member of that team, be it a clerk, a maintainer, a rifleman, etc, are all essential to the capabilities of the team as a whole and because they are, they share any moral responsibilities for the deaths that the team causes in their official capacity.

I disagree. Thomas young was on the front line, he didn't "aid in killing", if he comes to the conclusion that what he did should not have been done, I can respect him far more than someone who was not in his shoes commenting that his views are null because his views digress.

I could respect him also, if he had simply stopped there. Since he then took actions against and harmful to those still engaged with the enemy, then he became a traitor and not worthy of respect, or, in my opinion, life.
 
So where do rich people go when they are turned away from Heaven?

Whether they are turned away or not is based upon the individual, not on their being "rich". Despite what you may think, there are ways to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. Sure, it may either take a very large needle or may not be healthy for the camel, but it can be done. The problem, and ignorance, of your statement was the use of the word all.


No, it hasn't. I said social programs, not welfare. Programs that help the chronically unemployed from entering into a lifetime of poverty. Temporary welfare can be beneficial for people in need of basic assistance, permanent welfare is not desirable under any ideological platform.

Would you rather turn a mentally ill person loose on the street, or get them treated and educated so that they can earn a living and contribute to society?

The problem with the "chronically unemployed" is that they are lazy and often stupid, that is why they are "chronically unemployed". I have absolutely no problem with them receiving what they have earned for themselves, even if it is death.

It is the governments responsibility to be a parent, family member or a charity to all it's citizens.

And the answer to your question could only be determined based upon the type of illness, the possibility of it being "cured" or controlled, the danger to innocents that they pose and the genetics of passing it on to future generations. Those who are dangerous and are not able to be cured, should be put to death for the safety of others. There are many, many things in life far crueler than death. I can only imagine, but having a dysfunctional brain that would cause me to be a danger to innocents and the ones I care about would be one of them.

Those who's illness is caused by a genetic fault should be sterilized and never allowed to pass it on.

For the others, it is not the governments responsibility to provide healthcare to anyone who has not earned it for themselves. That is why charities and family exist, not why a government exists.
 
Whether they are turned away or not is based upon the individual, not on their being "rich". Despite what you may think, there are ways to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. Sure, it may either take a very large needle or may not be healthy for the camel, but it can be done.

Dumb-and-Dumber1.jpg
 
Apparently, you are totally unaware that the only thing that makes something impossible is believing it to be impossible. People who think something is impossible never find workable solutions.

Well, when you have God himself (aka Mr. Impossible) saying that rich have essentially zero chance of getting into Heaven, you know that rich people are sh*t out of luck. It would take a miracle to get a camel through the eye of a needle, and God isn't handing out miracles to the rich.
 
If you read and comprehended, then you already have the answer. We couldn't as long as the pre-existing operations in Iraq continued.


I don't even think you really believe this.


Defend it by allowing enemies to reach our own territory instead of fighting them on theirs or someone else's? Defend it by allow others to subjugate friendly nations and nations with which we have economic connections with? Wow, wouldn't that be great for our economy if we allowed them to fall and shipping routes to interdicted? Defend it by, like we did prior to WWII, we let our defenses and capabilities atrophy and then hope we have time to rebuild them when an enemy, other than the domestic one, rises up?


No we let europeans fight european wars, and arab fight arab wars. We drill domestically.



When, in the history of mankind, has anyone ever won a war while on the defensive instead of being able to project offensively? How many of our own people should we be willing to sacrifice because we don't want to project power and stop tyranny and threats before they rise strong enough to actually challenge us? How well did that work out for Britain, France and others during WWII? Did sticking their heads in the sand make Hitler go away?


We rolled through iraq in a week, both times, they weren't a gathering threat.


Because people had the unmitigated audacity to have themselves born somewhere other than the US, they don't deserve the same rights and freedoms as Americans? Really, how stupid of them to choose to be born elsewhere.


If they aren't willing to put thier sons and daughters up for the fight, why should we send ours?



Did you actually ever serve in combat? Every person who serves are part of a team. Aided means that I was part of the team that was not a direct shooter. In fact I flew upon unarmed aircraft that went into and loitered in combat zones. Every member of that team, be it a clerk, a maintainer, a rifleman, etc, are all essential to the capabilities of the team as a whole and because they are, they share any moral responsibilities for the deaths that the team causes in their official capacity.


Yes I have. 1c471. Again what was your afsc? You are changing your argument from knowing what it's like to kill someone to "Everyone involved has a moral responsibility". probably a wise choice to back off that argument my brother.


I could respect him also, if he had simply stopped there. Since he then took actions against and harmful to those still engaged with the enemy, then he became a traitor and not worthy of respect, or, in my opinion, life.


like specifically?
 
Back
Top Bottom