# Honor the flag



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2013)

This man had strong convictions:


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2013)

Good for him.  Usually, disrespect of the flag is out of ignorance, by people who think they're being patriotic.  This seemed like an intentional slight.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> Good for him.  Usually, disrespect of the flag is out of ignorance, by people who think they're being patriotic.  This seemed like an intentional slight.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Ultimately, it's just a peice of cloth with some symbols on it. Like any other religious symbol, it's power lies in the irrational beleif that it means anything at all.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, it's just a peice of cloth with some symbols on it. Like any other religious symbol, it's power lies in the irrational beleif that it means anything at all.



That's just sad....

Do you really not know the difference between what "means" and "represents" is?


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> That's just sad....
> 
> Do you really not know the difference between what "means" and "represents" is?
> 
> ...



Those two things are related. A symbol represents something because of a belief that it actually represents something. It's fundamentally irrational because the symbol has no other extrinsic power. It's just a peice of cloth. There is no physics that describes how that item is infused with anything.

So, I tend to look at these things a little differently because of that. I'm not going to take them too seriously, but I also understand that others do. So you won't find me burning flags or destroying other religious symbols. 

The only reason I point out it's true nature is to give a rational perspective rather than an emotional one.


----------



## crushing (Aug 2, 2013)

While I would be upset seeing the flags flown as they were and certainly would not patronize a business that had flown them in such a configuration, I am much much more concerned and saddened that a vandal and thief imposing his will on the free expression of others is getting a lot of positive feedback from people that apparently think that the symbols of freedom are more important than actual freedom.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2013)

I have a mixed opinion over the whole thing.

The flying of the Mexican Flag over the American flag represents in many peoples minds that the immigration/amnesty issue is really about a subversive/or not so subversive attempt to reclaim the southwest states for Mexico. That these people consider themselves Mexican first...not Americans. It's an in your face disrespecting of my country.

While the display of the flag in this case may be in violation of federal regulation, the flag code (as I understand it) doesn't come with any arrestable penalty. Theft of property does. 

To the mans "credit" he took a stand. Did it in broad daylight and gave his name. He knew he was making a personal statement.

In the end...if I were a cop there I would probably be in a position where I would feel some "good for you man" feelings towards the guy but I would arrest him nonetheless.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, it's just a peice of cloth with some symbols on it. Like any other religious symbol, it's power lies in the irrational beleif that it means anything at all.



Wow.  Lot of folks died because of that irrational belief.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2013)

While it may be melodramatic and over simplified...I always thought that this little movie clip cut to the heart of what believing in something is all about.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2013)

Flag etiquette is, for me, exactly that.  As others have said, the American flag represents many things that I believe are valuable and important.  I don't like to see it disrespected.  I'm sure I wouldn't have cut it down like this gentleman did, but like Tgace and others, I don't blame the guy for doing it and my first reaction was, "Good for you."

As I said earlier, though, most breaches of flag etiquette I see are unintentional.  For example, the flag shouldn't be out at night unless you have a light dedicated to illuminating it.  It should be destroyed if it shows wear, so those worn out flags people put on their cars are a no-no.  The preferred manner if disposal is to burn it, although any "dignified" manner is acceptable. 

It shouldn't be made into clothes or worn as a patch (unless as a part of a military uniform), so the flag shirts and flag pattern martial arts uniforms are a no-no.  Also, specifically prohibited are flag patches on athletic uniforms, so the flag patch on many TKD or Karate uniforms is straight out. 

There are also many unwritten "rules" for displaying the flag.  For example, in official government portraits, the flag should always be over the executive's right shoulder (on the left side of the portrait).  Also, generally, the stripes should lead into the portrait, not out, although this one is often ignored.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 2, 2013)

Good for him!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, it's just a peice of cloth with some symbols on it. Like any other religious symbol, it's power lies in the irrational beleif that it means anything at all.





Makalakumu said:


> Those two things are related. A symbol represents something because of a belief that it actually represents something. It's fundamentally irrational because the symbol has no other extrinsic power. It's just a peice of cloth. There is no physics that describes how that item is infused with anything.
> 
> So, I tend to look at these things a little differently because of that. I'm not going to take them too seriously, but I also understand that others do. So you won't find me burning flags or destroying other religious symbols.
> 
> The only reason I point out it's true nature is to give a rational perspective rather than an emotional one.



Other religious symbol?  Are you intentionally trying to pick a fight or do you just really not understand?  Sorry if I don't understand you position correctly, but it seems it must be one or the other.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> While it may be melodramatic and over simplified...I always thought that this little movie clip cut to the heart of what believing in something is all about.



And if enough of us believe something that is a virtue to be true for long enough then just maybe it becomes true.  Of course, the same thing applies to lies which rather undermines my point :lol:.  But I'll still stand by the necessity for us to believe in honour, discipline, truthfulness and compassion regardless.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

crushing said:


> While I would be upset seeing the flags flown as they were and certainly would not patronize a business that had flown them in such a configuration, I am much much more concerned and saddened that a vandal and thief imposing his will on the free expression of others is getting a lot of positive feedback from people that apparently think that the symbols of freedom are more important than actual freedom.



Freedom is more than a flag. Liberty is something rationally exists. Freedom describes a state of behavior where humans can operate free free from coercion. The flag is a symbol used by a group of humans to represent a belief that they have the right to initiate force within a given geographic area. This belief runs counter to what liberty actually is. So, even the irrational belief that the symbol means something more than something a group of humans wave around is contradictory.

Imagine this all from an alien perspective. ET would look at this simian organism and be very confused by what is happening. Some dude takes down a piece of cloth and runs it back up. Now the humans are making noises with their mouths and gesturing. Now some human with a blue costume arrives on the scene and the other humans defer to that one. More gesturing. The blue costumed human may perform several actions in this hypothetical scenario. He could walk away. He might take out a piece of paper and write on it and hand it to another agitated human. He might draw a projectile launcher and capture the other human.

It's all madness.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> And if enough of us believe something that is a virtue to be true for long enough then just maybe it becomes true.  Of course, the same thing applies to lies which rather undermines my point :lol:.  But I'll still stand by the necessity for us to believe in honour, discipline, truthfulness and compassion regardless.



What if the group of people that waves that symbol displays none of those behaviors?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Wow.  Lot of folks died because of that irrational belief.



Truth. Lots of humans died for other irrational symbols as well. The cross, the sickle and hammer, various stars, etc. see the pattern?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What if the group of people that waves that symbol displays none of those behaviors?



I'm talking about the virtues, Maka, rather than nationalistic or religious symbols.  I hope that was clear from what I wrote i.e. the virtues are valuable and can become real if enough of us hold true to them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Other religious symbol?  Are you intentionally trying to pick a fight or do you just really not understand?  Sorry if I don't understand you position correctly, but it seems it must be one or the other.



Not trying to pick a fight. I'm injecting a different perspective however. I am socially astute enough to understand that these arguments are not popular. If these arguments are accepted, something that is really emotionally important for a group of humans does not exist in the way that they believed. The pieces of wood, the pieces of cloth and the gesturing simply become what they really are and lose their magic.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 2, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm talking about the virtues, Maka, rather than nationalistic or religious symbols.  I hope that was clear from what I wrote i.e. the virtues are valuable and can become real of enough of us hold true to them.



Do you think that the groups of humans who wave the various symbols noted above display those virtues? Can humans display those virtues independent from symbolic displays? 

Do you see displays of those virtues more commonly displayed in the presence of said symbols?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2013)

Why ask me these questions when I have no interest in answering them as that is not the subject I was passing comment on?  I'll answer your second question with a "Yes" and leave it at that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Not trying to pick a fight. I'm injecting a different perspective however. I am socially astute enough to understand that these arguments are not popular. If these arguments are accepted, something that is really emotionally important for a group of humans does not exist in the way that they believed. The pieces of wood, the pieces of cloth and the gesturing simply become what they really are and lose their magic.



I guess what caught my attention was your words "other religions."  I don't consider respect for the flag as a religion.  I don't think many people would.  I do have a religion that I practice, but respect for my country's flag is not a religion.  If you think respect for our flag is a religion, I guess that is something you have to live with.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, it's just a peice of cloth with some symbols on it. Like any other religious symbol, it's power lies in the irrational beleif that it means anything at all.


Like any symbol, the meaning is a subjective representation of other things.  A symbol is a form of shorthand.  You can't really make a personal evaluation of a symbol unless you're educated about its meaning.  And even then, it's not the symbol you're evaluating; rather, it's the things being represented that you're judging.  

The American flag embodies many ideas and philosophies that many Americans believe to be valuable.  If you don't value the ideas and philosophies, it stands to reason that you would see little value in the symbol, itself.

That said, you don't have to have respect a symbol personally in order to demonstrate respect for people.  What I mean is, I'm not a christian, and so the cross holds no particular value to me.  however, I understand in a general sense what it means to Christians, and so I would not go out of my way to disrespect their symbol.  Similarly, the star of David or whatever else.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Freedom is more than a flag. Liberty is something rationally exists. Freedom describes a state of behavior where humans can operate free free from coercion. The flag is a symbol used by a group of humans to represent a belief that they have the right to initiate force within a given geographic area. This belief runs counter to what liberty actually is. So, even the irrational belief that the symbol means something more than something a group of humans wave around is contradictory.
> 
> Imagine this all from an alien perspective. ET would look at this simian organism and be very confused by what is happening. Some dude takes down a piece of cloth and runs it back up. Now the humans are making noises with their mouths and gesturing. Now some human with a blue costume arrives on the scene and the other humans defer to that one. More gesturing. The blue costumed human may perform several actions in this hypothetical scenario. He could walk away. He might take out a piece of paper and write on it and hand it to another agitated human. He might draw a projectile launcher and capture the other human.
> 
> It's all madness.


You presume that the concept of a symbol would be foreign to ET.  Unless you're in some loop I'm not aware of, I don't think that premise is a given.  It seems reasonable to me to believe that a sentient being, even one foreign to the Earth, would understand the concept of a symbol.  It is, after all, the concept of symbols that allows for a written language or even speech.  'Dog' is not a dog.  It is a word that we who speak English understand to represent a furry creature prone to drool and bark.


----------



## crushing (Aug 2, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I guess what caught my attention was your words "other religions."  I don't consider respect for the flag as a religion.  I don't think many people would.  I do have a religion that I practice, but respect for my country's flag is not a religion.  If you think respect for our flag is a religion, I guess that is something you have to live with.



I'm not quite sure where Makalakumu was going with the comparison to religion, but may have been along the lines of the tribalism that is inherit in both nationalism and religion.  People don't choose their parents and thus, for the most part, don't choose their religion or to which nation they swear their allegiance.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2013)

crushing said:


> I'm not quite sure where Makalakumu was going with the comparison to religion, but may have been along the lines of the tribalism that is inherit in both nationalism and religion.  People don't choose their parents and thus, for the most part, don't choose their religion or to which nation they swear their allegiance.


All true, but people are social organisms.  Take away all of the trappings of civilization and we are, for our own protection, pack animals.  Tribes, packs, nations, communities, groups, churches, clubs... we're much more effective when we pool our resources, and we can get a lot more done when we work together.  The problem isn't that we are prone to gather and associate with each other in groups or tribes.  It's when the goals of the group are perverted that things go awry.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2013)

We are, as far as current research reveals, evolutionarily programmed to cooperate as that is the best survival strategy in the long term {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849}.  But that leaves us vulnerable to leadership that uses our drive to cooperate as a tool for it's own devices.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Truth. Lots of humans died for other irrational symbols as well. The cross, the sickle and hammer, various stars, etc. see the pattern?



As someone that has lost friends to that "irrational" symbol I'll bow out of this conversation before I get banned with the response I'd like to give you


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> As someone that has lost friends to that "irrational" symbol I'll bow out of this conversation before I get banned with the response I'd like to give you



I have no earthly idea who wrote it, when, why. I think it was in German, but once I read a - well, not even a short story - more of an allegory...

Two pieces of cloth, cut from the same bale, one is dyed and prettied up, one becomes a humble sheet....
In honor of the prettied up one - a flag - people die....while the humble sheet comforts and binds the wounded and sick....

But then again, I grew up in a country where flying the flag and being patriotic was somewhat suspect....


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2013)

Steve said:


> You presume that the concept of a symbol would be foreign to ET.  Unless you're in some loop I'm not aware of, I don't think that premise is a given.  It seems reasonable to me to believe that a sentient being, even one foreign to the Earth, would understand the concept of a symbol.  It is, after all, the concept of symbols that allows for a written language or even speech.  'Dog' is not a dog.  It is a word that we who speak English understand to represent a furry creature prone to drool and bark.


Unless you are using 'dog' in the sense of slang where it takes on a new meaning. :asian:


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> As someone that has lost friends to that "irrational" symbol I'll bow out of this conversation before I get banned with the response I'd like to give you


With no disrespect, I would hope that no one would give their life in support of an 'irrational symbol' but if that were the situation it was because of a 'rational' cause. :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2013)

K-man said:


> With no disrespect, I would hope that no one would give their life in support of an 'irrational symbol' but if that were the situation it was because of a 'rational' cause. :asian:



The irrational part are his words not mine.  And I dare anyone to go up to me or my friends and say my flag was irrational I can tell you it would end badly.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 2, 2013)

From Sharpe's Rifles:

Major Hogan: Not now, Richard. Our mission is Torre Castro. Spain is a sleeping tiger! If the people of Torre Castro rise up, even for an hour, the shock will shake the whole of Spain. Carry on, sir.
Richard Sharpe: Rise up? Do you really believe men will fight and die for a rag on a pole?
Major Hogan: You do, Richard, you do.

A great quote from a super series of military fiction but I have always thought that Major Hogan was wrong.  Men don't fight for a rag on a pole, they fight for each other.  Some notion of "defence of the realm" (nation) might have brought them to the point where they are exchanging fire with men who are no enemies of their own making but it is (platonic) love of their 'trench-mates' that keeps them there.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2013)

http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/Civil-War-Battle-Flags.htm


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/Civil-War-Battle-Flags.htm




the flag thing is much older though: _Insignia trahere_ is Latin for attack - it means literally 'carrying the insignia (toward the enemy)'

But the current love for the flag is probably a result of the Reagan years...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2013)

granfire said:


> the flag thing is much older though: _Insignia trahere_ is Latin for attack - it means literally 'carrying the insignia (toward the enemy)'
> 
> But the current love for the flag is probably a result of the Reagan years...


Really?  My grandfather loved the flag long before Reagan.  He was in WW2 and when he got back from the war he would put up and take down his flag everyday until he just physically couldn't anymore.  He said it was a way to honor his friends that didn't come home and couldnt raise the flag.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2013)

K-man said:


> With no disrespect, I would hope that no one would give their life in support of an 'irrational symbol' but if that were the situation it was because of a 'rational' cause. :asian:



It always amazes me how other nationalities don't seem to hold their country's flag in the same honor we do.  No doubt others wonder about us.  But I think we accept it as a symbol of not only our nation in general, but its ideals, and the struggles we have gone though to make our nation the good nation we think it is.  And one can carry a flag and show honor to it, where it would be difficult to carry ones entire geographical nation around.  ;-)



Sukerkin said:


> From Sharpe's Rifles:
> 
> Major Hogan: Not now, Richard. Our mission is Torre Castro. Spain is a sleeping tiger! If the people of Torre Castro rise up, even for an hour, the shock will shake the whole of Spain. Carry on, sir.
> Richard Sharpe: Rise up? Do you really believe men will fight and die for a rag on a pole?
> ...



"Defense of the realm" has a lot to do with it to get men into the military, and keep them there.  Certainly men fight for their comrades in battle.  They are trained to take care of each other as much as the mission allows.  They do tend to form bonds most who haven't been in battle have trouble understanding.

The question would be how much of each; what is the percentage.  I personally really wouldn't hazzard a guess on that.


----------



## crushing (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The irrational part are his words not mine.  And I dare anyone to go up to me or my friends and say my flag was irrational I can tell you it would end badly.



How so?  Would you resort to physical violence against someone that expressed an opinion about the flag contrary to your own?

Personally, I put the freedoms that our flag should represent above the flag symbol itself.  Resorting to violence, or stealing and vandalism such as the person in the OP video runs contrary to the freedoms that I think our flag stands for.  I wouldn't figuratively burn the US Constitution to prevent someone from expressing their opinions about what the flag has come to mean to them, no matter how much I may not like how they are expressing those opinions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

crushing said:


> How so?  Would you resort to physical violence against someone that expressed an opinion about the flag contrary to your own?
> 
> Personally, I put the freedoms that our flag should represent above the flag symbol itself.  Resorting to violence, or stealing and vandalism such as the person in the OP video runs contrary to the freedoms that I think our flag stands for.  I wouldn't figuratively burn the US Constitution to prevent someone from expressing their opinions about what the flag has come to mean to them, no matter how much I may not like how they are expressing those opinions.


Would I personally no not anymore at least i dont think i would but I know people that would in a heartbeat.  Some of my old Marine Buddies would not hesitate to go to blows over the flag.  In my youth I would have I'm too old and put my familys needs ahead of my country now but there was a time I'd throw down.

As a man there are times you need to draw your line in the sand and stand for something.  For some that line is the flag and what it represents.  When you see a few of your brothers coffins draped in the flag your line is drawn there


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Really?  My grandfather loved the flag long before Reagan.  He was in WW2 and when he got back from the war he would put up and take down his flag everyday until he just physically couldn't anymore.  He said it was a way to honor his friends that didn't come home and couldnt raise the flag.



you know the band wagon jumpers...to every real fan, there are ten who only know the team when it's on top....
(The WWII generation is/was made from different cloth....No doubt your grandfather had but the deepest love for the flag.)


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2013)

I understand your heart on this, Ballen and I do not mean to anger you my friend when I, very gently, ask whether that reaction of violence to someone not showing due respect to a symbol you hold dear actually does due honour to what that symbol if supposed to stand for?

I empathise with what you are saying about what it means to you personal, for good reasons that no one will dispute with you but isn't one of the things the flag of the USA supposed to stand for the Constitution of your country?  A Constitution written as well as the Founders could make it to ensure personal freedom to do pretty much what you will as long as it breaks no ones leg or picks no ones pocket?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

Steve said:


> You presume that the concept of a symbol would be foreign to ET.  Unless you're in some loop I'm not aware of, I don't think that premise is a given.  It seems reasonable to me to believe that a sentient being, even one foreign to the Earth, would understand the concept of a symbol.  It is, after all, the concept of symbols that allows for a written language or even speech.  'Dog' is not a dog.  It is a word that we who speak English understand to represent a furry creature prone to drool and bark.



What is the difference between the vocalization for the animal dog and the meaning infused into the piece of cloth we call a flag?

I think if aliens were familiar with our use of symbols, they would be familiar with it in a Monty Python sort of way.  I can see LGM's telepathically laughing at our funny little dances and way too serious reactions when it comes to these symbols.  It's Reality TV for them!


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What is the difference between the vocalization for the animal dog and the meaning infused into the piece of cloth we call a flag?
> 
> I think if aliens were familiar with our use of symbols, they would be familiar with it in a Monty Python sort of way.  I can see LGM's telepathically laughing at our funny little dances and way too serious reactions when it comes to these symbols.  It's Reality TV for them!


so we shouldnt have pride or beliefs in anything?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I understand your heart on this, Ballen and I do not mean to anger you my friend when I, very gently, ask whether that reaction of violence to someone not showing due respect to a symbol you hold dear actually does due honour to what that symbol if supposed to stand for?
> 
> I empathise with what you are saying about what it means to you personal, for good reasons that no one will dispute with you but isn't one of the things the flag of the USA supposed to stand for the Constitution of your country?  A Constitution written as well as the Founders could make it to ensure personal freedom to do pretty much what you will as long as it breaks no ones leg or picks no ones pocket?


My friend this is one of the times personal beliefs beat out rational thought.  I understand people have the right to wipe their butts with the flag.  I get people have freedoms to disrespect the flag.  To me this is one of the line in the sand moments every person has to have.  Some its not a big deal and they have other line in the sand issues.  Ive Been to Arlington National cemetery, Ive been to military and police funerals.  Ive had friends bodies draped in that flag so to me you dont disrespect it.  Now I think Im old enough now to not physically attack someone if I were to witness something like that but Im actually not sure how Id react.  I do know several of my friends that lost more then me that would snap on someone.  Its not the flag that they are protecting its what the flag represents.  It dose not represent the USA to me or them it represents my brothers that were lost.  My friends that I drank beer with, trained with, lived with, that are no longer here, it represents to me the 100s of thousands that died for me.  Anyone thats never been to Arlington I suggest going to visit walking in silence and taking it in.  Ive done military funerals and handed a grieving wife a folded flag.   

I dont want to insult your intelligence my friend but heres what Arlington is in case your not sure 
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> so we shouldnt have pride or beliefs in anything?



Not in objects, nor religions, or nations.  If we place our ideals on golden calves rather than look for them in ourselves, we completely lose our grasp of what those ideals actually look like in reality.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Not in objects, nor religions, or nations.  If we place our ideals on golden calves rather than look for them in ourselves, we completely lose our grasp of what those ideals actually look like in reality.


So every man for himself.  screw everyone else.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So every man for himself.  screw everyone else.



No.  Be good.  Do Good.  Don't gesture at a piece of cloth and pretend.  Have a consistent moral code that you apply to yourself and expect of others and don't make excuses.  Be honest when you fall short.  Be willing to accept reason and evidence that shows your contradictions for what they are.  Work to correct them.

The focus on the symbol turns the energy of any ideals it is suppose to represent outside of the self.  Get rid of the symbol and make it a part of who you are.


----------



## K-man (Aug 3, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> It always amazes me how other nationalities don't seem to hold their country's flag in the same honor we do.  No doubt others wonder about us.  But I think we accept it as a symbol of not only our nation in general, but its ideals, and the struggles we have gone though to make our nation the good nation we think it is.  And one can carry a flag and show honor to it, where it would be difficult to carry ones entire geographical nation around.  ;-)


I'm sure most people are very passionate about their flag. Certainly Aussies are and the Poms too. Our flag creates the same emotion and I am annoyed when someone defiles it. If I was in a do or die situation with my mates I would be happy to risk life and limb but if no other person's life was in danger there is no way I would be risking my health to defend a flag, no matter how much respect I have for it.

Flying the American flag below the Mexican flag is defying convention. Whether it was a calculated insult we do not know. Rather than making a big issue of cutting the flags down and leaving the Mexican flag on the ground it may have been better to have spoken to the owner before taking the action he did. 
:asian:


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

> A great quote from a super series of military fiction but I have always thought that Major Hogan was wrong. Men don't fight for a rag on a pole, they fight for each other.



They may fight for the man next to them...but the reason they are fighting with the man next to them has a strong tendency to be for the values represented by our flag. Ask the vets here, especially the combat arms, in particular the infantry, and see what they have to say why they joined up...after all, they didn't know that guy next to them until they signed up...


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

A friend of mine from Norway said that a lot of their guys enlist in the Norwegian Army to have a few years of adventure...to have fun...that is very different from a lot of guys who sign up here in the states...especially after 9/11 when they knew they weren't going in to sit around a Fort  for their 4 years...especially the guys who joined for the infantry.  They knew exactly what they were going to experience...and experienced...and then reenlisted...to go back and fight...

That football player...I don't know his name...the one who passed up a 3 million dollar contract, with all that goes with being a professional football player,  to go into the Airborne Rangers...do you think he did that for anything other than what the flag represented...especially leaving his wife and family to do it...


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2013)

What about Jimmy Stewart?  His acting career was just starting to take off when World War 2 broke out...and he fought to get a combat job...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> No.  Be good.  Do Good.  Don't gesture at a piece of cloth and pretend.  Have a consistent moral code that you apply to yourself and expect of others and don't make excuses.  Be honest when you fall short.  Be willing to accept reason and evidence that shows your contradictions for what they are.  Work to correct them.
> 
> The focus on the symbol turns the energy of any ideals it is suppose to represent outside of the self.  Get rid of the symbol and make it a part of who you are.


you cant do both?  You cant have a good moral code and a love of community?  You cant take pride in being a part of something bigger then yourself?  It has nothing to do with the cloth itself its what the cloth represents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2013)

billc said:


> That football player...I don't know his name...the one who passed up a 3 million dollar contract, with all that goes with being a professional football player,  to go into the Airborne Rangers...do you think he did that for anything other than what the flag represented...especially leaving his wife and family to do it...


Pat Tillman


----------



## Steve (Aug 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What is the difference between the vocalization for the animal dog and the meaning infused into the piece of cloth we call a flag?
> 
> I think if aliens were familiar with our use of symbols, they would be familiar with it in a Monty Python sort of way.  I can see LGM's telepathically laughing at our funny little dances and way too serious reactions when it comes to these symbols.  It's Reality TV for them!


words and flags are both symbols. But they symbolize different things.  While an alien might not understand the specific conventions related to a particular symbol, they would surely understand the nature of symbols.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What is the difference between the vocalization for the animal dog and the meaning infused into the piece of cloth we call a flag?
> 
> I think if aliens were familiar with our use of symbols, they would be familiar with it in a Monty Python sort of way.  I can see LGM's telepathically laughing at our funny little dances and way too serious reactions when it comes to these symbols.  It's Reality TV for them!



You seem to be awfully familiar with how aliens think.  How many do you know to speak for them that way?  

We can make a lot of suppositions, but I don't think anyone who doesn't really know any aliens, if in fact they exist, can be sure how they think or what their value systems would encompass.



Makalakumu said:


> Not in objects, nor religions, or nations.  If we place our ideals on golden calves rather than look for them in ourselves, we completely lose our grasp of what those ideals actually look like in reality.



Where do we get those great ideas we are going to look inside ourselves for?  Work your way up the chain.  Where does it lead you?  If you can only look inside yourself for good ideas you are missing out on a lot of neat things.



Makalakumu said:


> No.  Be good.  Do Good.  Don't gesture at a piece of cloth and pretend.  Have a consistent moral code that you apply to yourself and expect of others and don't make excuses.  Be honest when you fall short.  Be willing to accept reason and evidence that shows your contradictions for what they are.  Work to correct them.
> 
> The focus on the symbol turns the energy of any ideals it is suppose to represent outside of the self.  Get rid of the symbol and make it a part of who you are.



I do not salute the flag nor place my hand over my heart in pretend.  Apparently you are different.  Personally, I think that is your loss.  But you are free to believe what you will.  Oh, and I have no contradictions about my beliefs, including my belief that I should show respect to the flag of the USA.  It is sort of sad to me that apparently you do.

I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence.  Certainly showing respect for the flag shows to those around (outside) us, some of our values.  To get rid of the symbol and make it part of who we are?  Isn't showing respect to the flag showing something about who we are?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Pat Tillman



Who let it be said, was treated rather shamefully by some members of the military.  Shame on them.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 4, 2013)

K-man said:


> I'm sure most people are very passionate about their flag. Certainly Aussies are and the Poms too. Our flag creates the same emotion and I am annoyed when someone defiles it. If I was in a do or die situation with my mates I would be happy to risk life and limb but if no other person's life was in danger there is no way I would be risking my health to defend a flag, no matter how much respect I have for it.
> 
> Flying the American flag below the Mexican flag is defying convention. Whether it was a calculated insult we do not know. Rather than making a big issue of cutting the flags down and leaving the Mexican flag on the ground it may have been better to have spoken to the owner before taking the action he did.
> :asian:



Thanks for your answer.  I also would be unlikely to fight someone for their actions against my country's flag.  Not that I am not passionate about respect for the flag and my country that it stands for.  Rather, since there is no law against it, they have that right to show disrespect for it, and I must defend that as I would their speech against anything that I believe in.  That is one of our freedoms.  If I want to express my opinions, I not only have to let others do the same, I must go beyond and actually defend their right to disagree with me.

Those who say they would be violent (other than in hyperbole), must be prepared to be held accountable.  I may have sympathy for their passion, and give them support as they work through that accountability, but I could never condone that violence.

I really doubt most in here would in fact turn to violence.


----------



## Carol (Aug 4, 2013)

Very ironic that the alleged veteran in the video gets up in arms about the treatment of the flag when it is displayed at the store, yet once he steals it and it is in his hands, he thinks nothing of wadding the American flag up in to a crumpled ball like discarded trash.


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

billc said:


> A friend of mine from Norway said that a lot of their guys enlist in the Norwegian Army to have a few years of adventure...to have fun...that is very different from a lot of guys who sign up here in the states...especially after 9/11 when they knew they weren't going in to sit around a Fort  for their 4 years...especially the guys who joined for the infantry.  They knew exactly what they were going to experience...and experienced...and then reenlisted...to go back and fight...
> 
> That football player...I don't know his name...the one who passed up a 3 million dollar contract, with all that goes with being a professional football player,  to go into the Airborne Rangers...do you think he did that for anything other than what the flag represented...especially leaving his wife and family to do it...


Mmm! Perhaps Tillman is not the best example here. To be honest, I had never heard of Tillman before this but his story is quite sad. He didn't pass up a huge contract to join up to fight for "anything other than what the flag represented". That is sentimental nonsense. He joined up because, like a lot of people, he was incensed by the events of 911. And, he didn't leave his wife and family to do it, in that sense. Everyone joining up was 'leaving family'.  He actually joined up and served with his brother, and he married just before joining up. He lived with his wife during his time in Ranger school.  

But what happened next is the really interesting bit. He had signed up with his brother. After basic training he was sent to Iraq. He finished that tour and went to Ranger School so he obviously was enjoying his time in the military. From there, he was sent to Afghanistan.  He actually was opposed to the war in Afghanistan. He was serving with his mates and actually opposed what his flag represented if you take it that the flag represented America's involvement in that conflict. Then he was killed and the story becomes really fascinating. Loyalty to the flag? What followed was a barrow load of lies and cover ups. He was killed by his own comrades and there is the question of whether or not he was actually murdered. What a waste of a young man's life. All for what his flag represented? Sadly, I doubt it.



> Tillman's brother Kevin Tillman testified at the same hearing that: "The deception surrounding this [Tillman] case was an insult to the family: but more importantly, its primary purpose was to deceive a whole nation. We say these things with disappointment and sadness for our country. Once again, we have been used as props in a Pentagon public relations exercise."
> 
> and ...
> 
> Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky for after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered. General Wesley Clark agreed that it was "very possible"


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman
:asian:


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

> We can make a lot of suppositions, but I don't think anyone who doesn't really know any aliens, if in fact they exist, can be sure how they think or what their value systems would encompass.



Considering the alleged fascination with certain types of "probes" of aliens...they seem kind of weird...just saying.

Murdrerd?  He was killed in a friendly fire accident, something that happens all the time in combat.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

Pat Tillman wasn't murdered, that is a fever dream of the lefty nutters.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-31-tillman-death_N.htm?csp=34



> "I believe the buck stops with Gen. Kensinger," Geren said.Tillman, 27, was killed in Afghanistan in April 2004. At first, the Army said he had been killed by enemy forces and awarded him a Silver Star for bravery at a nationally televised ceremony. Five weeks after his death, Tillman's family was told that he died by friendly fire. The Army said the delay was because of procedural mistakes.
> Several investigations had determined the Army had not intended to deceive Tillman's family, Geren said at a Pentagon news conference. He blamed the delay on a "perfect storm of mistakes" among Army leaders.The investigations found, Geren said, that Tillman died from friendly fire, that there was no cover-up and that Tillman deserved his Silver Star, the Army's third-highest commendation. He called Tillman's death a tragedy and an accident.Although several other officers were criticized for their actions after Tillman's death, Geren laid the blame squarely on Kensinger. He said the general had deceived investigators about what he knew and when he knew it, failed to inform Tillman's family in a timely way and failed to appoint a safety board to investigate his death."Your failings compounded the grief suffered by the Tillman family, resulted in the dissemination of erroneous information and caused lasting damage to the reputation and credibility of the U.S. Army," Geren wrote in his letter. "You are accountable and responsible for the failures of your command."​




So, they let julien Assange live, and Bradley manning live and the new guy lowdown,  but they moved heaven and earth to kill one Army Ranger who some claim didn't like the war in Afganistan...the "good" war that all the lefties said was the war we should be fighting?

Really?


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

billc said:


> Murdrerd?  He was killed in a friendly fire accident, something that happens all the time in combat.


Yep! Clear case of something that happens all the time.



> In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Associated Press, the Defense Department released 2,300 pages of documents which were reported to indicate:
> 
> 
> *There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.*
> ...


Yep! You are obviously right, nothing out of order, stuff that happens every day ... but, wouldn't it have been embarrassing if their poster boy had made his true feelings known? 
:asian:


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

And yet, they allegedly murdered Pat Tillman...and left his brother...who was in the same convoy alive...?  Hmmmm...perhaps his brother was part of the conspiracy?

You know, a battlefield isn't a paint ball field.  



> *There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.*



I'm not sure what this is meant to imply...they saw other guys up ahead and opened fire and it turned out to be their own guys...it happens...ask guys who have served.  We had a marine in our school, back from Iraq, wounded and out of the Marines, who told us he was out on patrol with Afghani forces, leading a squad of the guys when he started taking fire.  He poked his head up from cover and had his guys radio to the other guys in his platoon..."Have your guys stop shooting at us."  It happens all the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35717-2004Dec4.html



> Dozens of witness statements, e-mails, investigation findings, logbooks, maps and photographs obtained by The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His commanding officer was ordered to split up his unit...and the cascade of errors began...



> By 4 p.m. Uthlaut had a solution, he believed. He could hire a local "jinga truck" driver to tow the Humvee out to a nearby road where the Army could move down and pick it up. In this scenario, Uthlaut told his commanders, he had a choice. He could keep his platoon together until the Humvee had been disposed of, then move to Manah. Or, he could divide his platoon in half, with one "serial" handling the vehicle while the other serial moved immediately to the objective.
> The A Company commander, under pressure from his superior to get moving, ordered Uthlaut to split his platoon.
> Uthlaut objected. "I would recommend sending our whole platoon up to the highway and then having us go together to the villages," he wrote in an e-mail to the operations center at 5:03 p.m. With sunset approaching, he wrote, even if he split the platoon, the serial that went to Manah would not be able to carry out search operations before dark. And under procedures at the time, he was not supposed to conduct such operations at night.
> Uthlaut's commander overruled him. Get half your platoon to Manah right away, he ordered.
> ...



And the errors continued...



> Behind them, Serial 2 briefly started down a different road, then stopped. The Afghan tow truck driver said he could not navigate the pitted road. He suggested they turn around and follow the same route that Serial 1 had taken. After Serial 2 passed Manah, the group could circle around to the designated highway. Serial 2's leader, the platoon sergeant, agreed.
> There was no radio communication between the two serials about this change in plans.
> At 6:34 p.m. Serial 2, with about 17 Rangers in six vehicles, entered the narrow canyon that Serial 1 had just left.




And the confusion of the battlefield took over...



> When he heard the first explosion, the platoon sergeant thought one of his vehicles had struck a land mine or a roadside bomb.
> They had been in the canyon only a minute. In his machine gun-laden truck, Greg Baker also thought somebody had hit a mine. He and his men jumped out of their vehicle. Baker looked up at the sheer canyon walls. The canyon was five to 10 yards across at its narrowest. "I noticed rocks falling," he recalled in a statement, and "then I saw the second and third mortar rounds hit." He could hear, too, the rattle of enemy small-arms fire.
> It was not a bomb -- it was an ambush. Baker and his comrades thought they could see their attackers moving high above them. They began to return fire.
> They were trapped in the worst possible place: the kill zone of an ambush. The best way to beat a canyon ambush is to flee the kill zone as fast as possible. But Baker and his men had dismounted their vehicles. Worse, when they scrambled back and tried to move, they discovered that the lumbering Afghan tow truck in their serial was stalled, blocking their exit.
> Baker "ran up and grabbed" the truck driver and his Afghan interpreter and "threw them in the truck and started to move," as he recalled. He fired up the canyon walls until he ran out of ammunition. Then he jumped from the tow truck, ran back to his vehicle and reloaded. When the tow truck stopped again, Baker shouted at his own driver to move around it.





> Instead, on the sergeant's instructions, Tillman moved down the slope with other Rangers and "into a position where he could engage the enemy," the sergeant recalled. With Tillman were a young Ranger and a bearded Afghan militia fighter who was part of the 2nd Platoon's traveling party.
> A Ranger nearby watched Tillman take cover. "I remember not liking his position," he recalled. "I had just seen a red tracer come up over us . . . which immediately struck me as being a M240 tracer. . . . At that time the issue of friendly fire began turning over in my mind."
> Tillman and his team fired toward the canyon to suppress the ambush. His brother Kevin was in the canyon.
> 
> ...





> "I saw a figure holding an AK-47, his muzzle was flashing, he wasn't wearing a helmet, and he was prone," Baker recalled in a statement. "I focused only on him. I got tunnel vision."
> 
> 
> > Baker was aiming at the bearded Afghan militia soldier in Pat Tillman's fire team. He died in a fusillade from Baker's Humvee.





> The driver shouted twice: "We have friendlies on top!" Then he screamed "No!" Then he yelled several more times to cease fire, he recalled. "No one heard me."
> *"We thought the battle was over, so we were relieved."
> *
> Up on the ridge, Tillman and Rangers around him began to wave their arms and shout. But they only attracted more fire from Baker's vehicle.
> ...



Yeah, these things happen...it isn't nice and neat like the movies...there are no "out of bounds," on the battlefield, and no referees to sort things out when people start shooting.  When you start shooting you can't hear anything unless the guy is shouting in your ears, your adrenaline is pumping and as the one guy said, you get tunnel vision...

Even Rangers screw up...



> As they pulled alongside the ridge, the gunners poured an undisciplined barrage of hundreds of rounds into the area where Tillman and other members of Serial 1 had taken up positions, Army investigators later concluded. The gunner of the M-2 .50-caliber machine gun in Baker's truck fired every round he had.
> The shooters saw only "shapes," a Ranger-appointed investigator wrote, and all of them directed bursts of machine gun fire "without positively identifying the shapes."



How did Tillman actually die...



> "We thought the battle was over, so we were relieved, getting up and stretching out, and talking with one another."
> Suddenly he saw the attacking Humvee move into "a better position to fire on us." He heard a new machine gun burst and hit the ground, praying, as Pat Tillman fell.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

K-man said:


> Mmm! Perhaps Tillman is not the best example here. To be honest, I had never heard of Tillman before this but his story is quite sad. He didn't pass up a huge contract to join up to fight for "anything other than what the flag represented". That is sentimental nonsense. He joined up because, like a lot of people, he was incensed by the events of 911. And, he didn't leave his wife and family to do it, in that sense. Everyone joining up was 'leaving family'.  He actually joined up and served with his brother, and he married just before joining up. He lived with his wife during his time in Ranger school.
> 
> But what happened next is the really interesting bit. He had signed up with his brother. After basic training he was sent to Iraq. He finished that tour and went to Ranger School so he obviously was enjoying his time in the military. From there, he was sent to Afghanistan.  He actually was opposed to the war in Afghanistan. He was serving with his mates and actually opposed what his flag represented if you take it that the flag represented America's involvement in that conflict. Then he was killed and the story becomes really fascinating. Loyalty to the flag? What followed was a barrow load of lies and cover ups. He was killed by his own comrades and there is the question of whether or not he was actually murdered. What a waste of a young man's life. All for what his flag represented?


you have no idea what the flag means if you think the flag represents the Govt involvement in this war or that war or this president or that president.  It does not have anything to do with what president or what party runs govt.  The flag represents your brother standing next to you, your father and grand father before you and your sons and grand sons after you taht cared enough about each other to stand up and write a black check with their lives to the American PEOPLE.    The flag is far more important than politics or Govt.  It has nothing to do with the Govt. I could care less about the Govt or the president or Wars.  You dont get it, maybe because you didnt serve, or maybe its just your culture, I dont know but to me it means way more then any of that nonsense you posted. Pat Tilliman joined after 911 for exactly what the Flag represents he was pissed off someone came onto our home filed and killed our people the AMERICAN PEOPLE.  Thats what the flags all about.  Pat Tillman went to Afghanastan to serve with his fellow troops because he loved them and believed in them THATS what the flag represents.  If he was murdered or not we will never know but I cant imagine a tight knit group like Army Ranger unit would kill a friend over him not liking the president.  I joined the Marine Corps because I knew no matter what my fellow marines had my back.  To this day right now if one of my old squad members called me for help Id drop what I was doing and go help them and they would do the same for me even now years later.  Thats what the flag is all about.  Thats what it represents something bigger then me or you  or any one person.    Like I said I hope now Im older and have enough restraint when it comes to messing with the flag but I know people that would still snap at the sight.  Now in this case of it being flown under the Mexican Flag it wound not shock me because I expect it from people.  But in photos of people wiping their butts or pissing on it blowing their nose on it yeah Id be pissed and would not hesitate to snatch the flag away from them.  Id except the consequences its part of being a man and standing for what you believe in.  It may not bother some and thats fine with me you have your beliefs and I have mine.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

> but, wouldn't it have been embarrassing if their poster boy had made his true feelings known?



Yeah, they killed him because of all the people serving, and fighting, who didn't support the war...this one guy had to die...?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> you cant do both?  You cant have a good moral code and a love of community?  You cant take pride in being a part of something bigger then yourself?  It has nothing to do with the cloth itself its what the cloth represents.



When the ideals represented in the cloth are not represented by the people who wave it, that's a problem. I think it's a problem inherit in the process of using the symbol. If the ideals are represented externally, then pretenders can wave the symbol and ape the motions, getting all of the respect that someone should get by standing true and holding to those ideals internally.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Isn't showing respect to the flag showing something about who we are?



How many politicians who wave the flag before everything they do, actually prove they believe in the ideals the flag represents?


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

How long did the Tillman cover up last...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/04/017143.php



> If you read the fine print in the article linked above, you find that Tillman died on April 22, 2004. His family was told that the cause was friendly fire on May 29, 2004, barely a month later. The same day, the Army publicly announced that friendly fire was the apparent cause.



Yeah, that is some cover up...just over a month...and the Army announced it was freindly fire...after looking at the case...


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

A nice breakdown of the Tillman conspiracy film is here...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...view--Anti-Bush-Conspiracy-Just-Doesnt-Add-Up

this point gets to the heart of the left wing silliness involving Pat Tillman's tragic death...



> At this point, the question that came to my mind was why would the Pentagon and the Bush Administration voluntarily come forward and uncover their own conspiracy? The film makes no mention of any outside pressure on the Pentagon from the Tillman family or even the media to get the bottom of anything. Meaning that at this point everyone believed the initial report and apparently all the Administration and military had to do to keep us all believing was to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> So the question is: If the idea was to use Tillman&#8217;s death for nefarious pro-war purposes, why just a few weeks after the memorial service would those with the most to lose from doing so, voluntarily kick over a political hornets&#8217; nest by telling the truth? Why not milk the situation for as long as possible and for as much propaganda as possible, especially with a presidential election just five months off? At the very least, why not save all the political heartache and fallout this revelation was sure to bring (and did) and stall until after Bush is reelected?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> When the ideals represented in the cloth are not represented by the people who wave it, that's a problem. I think it's a problem inherit in the process of using the symbol. If the ideals are represented externally, then pretenders can wave the symbol and ape the motions, getting all of the respect that someone should get by standing true and holding to those ideals internally.


So the black belt in your pic has no value to you?  it represents nothing it just holds your Gi closed?  its just a piece of cloth?


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

Another look at the silly non conspiracy, conspiracy theory about Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...heories-Abound-in-Agenda-Driven-Tillman-Story


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

> So the black belt in your pic has no value to you? it represents nothing it just holds your Gi closed? its just a piece of cloth?



See Ballen, the black belt is used by disreputable people to cheat other people out of their money and to make the guy who wears it feel superior to all of his students as as he exploits them.  It is up to all "martial artists" to opt out of this abusive power structure, because if we don't, we are all morally culpable for the actions of those bad instructors and we all share in the blame for the worst abuses by these so called "black belts."  By wearing the same black belt as these guys we are essentially saying it is okay to lie to and cheat people who come to us as students, because that is what those guys do...


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

Hmmm...type in British soldiers killed by friendly fire and you get this entire list of friendly fire accidents from the war...

https://www.google.com/search?q=fre...oldiers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

I typed that particular search in because I remembered, an Illinois National Guard pilot had been brought up on charges for accidentally killing British soldiers.  that was way back and might have been from the first gulf war...

So yes, it does happen all he time...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...lls-British-woman-soldier-in-Afghanistan.html



> Corporal Channing Day, 25, from 3 Medical Regiment, became the third British woman soldier to die in the country since the conflict began more than a decade ago.
> One of her two sisters, Laken, said last night: "I am the proudest sister ever, her legacy will live on."
> Cpl Day, from Comber, near Belfast, was killed with Cpl David O'Connor, 27, a Royal Marine from 40 Commando, after her unit shot an Afghan policeman by mistake, according to local police.
> The policeman, who was not wearing his uniform and was carrying a gun, went to wash his hands in preparation for prayers about 50 yards from his checkpoint. Cpl Day's unit mistook him for a Taliban insurgent and opened fire, local officials said.
> Farid Ahmad Farhang, a spokesman for the provincial police, said another British unit on patrol nearby assumed it was under attack and fired back, killing Cpl Channing and the Royal Marine. The circumstances surrounding the deaths remained confused last night, however. Other reports claimed that the dead policeman's colleagues returned fire, while British officers were also investigating the possibility that the patrol was deliberately attacked by the policemen.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/afghanistan.military


> Three British soldiers have been killed in an apparent friendly fire incident involving US aircraft in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.
> Two other soldiers were injured in the incident, which occurred yesterday at 6.30pm local time (3pm BST).


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ult-mistaken-beliefs-cumulative-failures.html




> A US helicopter gunship killed a British soldier in Afghanistan after being ordered to attack by officers who had misinterpreted grainy images from a drone aircraft.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eliefs-cumulative-failures.html#ixzz2azcsLwsu 

Here is a look at friendly fire from the British military tradition...

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3774#.Uf4iesu9KK0



> These quips rest upon the twin assumptions that &#8216;friendly fire&#8217; is a relatively new phenomenon and that only the Americans are guilty of it. Both preconceptions are untrue. What is more, Britain, an historically warfaring nation, has in the past been one of the worst offenders of killing its own in &#8216;friendly fire&#8217; incidents.





> Much worse was to come in the Second World War. Indeed, the very first planes to be shot down by Spitfires in that conflict were two Hawker Hurricanes, mistaken for Messerschmitt 109s. In 1939 the submarine HMS Triton sank fellow Royal Navy submarine HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a U-boat. In 1941, HMS Sheffield, misidentified as the Bismarck, was torpedoed by Fleet Air Arm. The following year, the Polish submarine ORP Jastrzab was sunk by HMS St Albans and HMS Seagull. In 1944 a British flotilla was attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons near Le Havre, and one, HMS Salamander, incurred such damage that it had to be scuppered.
> Let us also not forget the most ghastly incident of friendly fire of the Second World War, when on 3 May 1945, only a day before the German army capitulated, the RAF bombed three ships moored in Lübeck Harbour, which contained 7,000 French Jews and Russian and Polish PoWs. Many of those lucky enough to escape to dry land were murdered by the SS, and only 350 victims of RAF incompetence made it home alive.





> British soldiers have been shooting each other in my lifetime, too. In the 1982 Falklands War, HMS Cardiff shot down AAC Gazelle, while in the brief conflict the 3rd Battalion of the Paras exchanged gunfire and artillery fire with Army Companies A and C in one night-time episode, leading to eight casualties. Elsewhere, a UK Special Boat Service Commando was killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos.



Soooo...no conspiracy...just the tragic accident that happens in war...


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

If you still doubt friendly fire accidents happen every day, ask a soldier why they will use the term "danger close" when calling in artillery or air strikes.


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> you have no idea what the flag means if you think the flag represents the Govt involvement in this war or that war or this president or that president.  It does not have anything to do with what president or what party runs govt.  The flag represents your brother standing next to you, your father and grand father before you and your sons and grand sons after you taht cared enough about each other to stand up and write a black check with their lives to the American PEOPLE.    The flag is far more important than politics or Govt.  It has nothing to do with the Govt. I could care less about the Govt or the president or Wars.  You dont get it, maybe because you didnt serve, or maybe its just your culture, I dont know but to me it means way more then any of that nonsense you posted. Pat Tilliman joined after 911 for exactly what the Flag represents he was pissed off someone came onto our home filed and killed our people the AMERICAN PEOPLE.  Thats what the flags all about.  Pat Tillman went to Afghanastan to serve with his fellow troops because he loved them and believed in them THATS what the flag represents.  If he was murdered or not we will never know but I cant imagine a tight knit group like Army Ranger unit would kill a friend over him not liking the president.  I joined the Marine Corps because I knew no matter what my fellow marines had my back.  To this day right now if one of my old squad members called me for help Id drop what I was doing and go help them and they would do the same for me even now years later.  Thats what the flag is all about.  Thats what it represents something bigger then me or you  or any one person.    Like I said I hope now Im older and have enough restraint when it comes to messing with the flag but I know people that would still snap at the sight.  Now in this case of it being flown under the Mexican Flag it wound not shock me because I expect it from people.  But in photos of people wiping their butts or pissing on it blowing their nose on it yeah Id be pissed and would not hesitate to snatch the flag away from them.  Id except the consequences its part of being a man and standing for what you believe in.  It may not bother some and thats fine with me you have your beliefs and I have mine.


I know perfectly what the flag means. What you are attributing to the flag is what Australians call mateship. We stick by our mates and that has nothing to do with the flag. My comments were directed at *Billc* and if you read his post it was him linking the flag to actions.



> *Billc*: They may fight for the man next to them...but the reason they are fighting with the man next to them has a strong tendency to be for the values represented by our flag. Ask the vets here, especially the combat arms, in particular the infantry, and see what they have to say why they joined up...after all, they didn't know that guy next to them until they signed up...





> *Billc*: That football player...I don't know his name...the one who passed up a 3 million dollar contract, with all that goes with being a professional football player, to go into the Airborne Rangers...do you think he did that for anything other than what the flag represented...especially leaving his wife and family to do it...



And sorry, would you care to elaborate on the 'nonsense' I posted? The flag represents whatever you want it to represent. By itself it represents nothing. 

_"The flag represents your brother standing next to you, your father and grand father before you and your sons and grand sons after you taht cared enough about each other to stand up and write a black check with their lives to the American PEOPLE."
_
Really?

I could pick our post apart because it is full of statements that cannot be verified and are purely opinion much of which flies in the face of known facts. It just isn't worth the effort. :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

K-man said:


> I know perfectly what the flag means. What you are attributing to the flag is what Australians call mateship. We stick by our mates and that has nothing to do with the flag. My comments were directed at *Billc* and if you read his post it was him linking the flag to actions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said you never served so you don't get it.  The flag means nothing to you that's fine i dont care and have no desire to change your opinion but it means a lot to me and lots of people like me.  You can't tell me the flag is meaningless when it has meaning to me.  


And the nonsense was you commenting on pat Tillman's reasons for why he served you didn't even know his name yesterday but you read one Wikipedia page on him and your an expert all of a sudden.


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said you never served so you don't get it.  The flag means nothing to you that's fine i dont care and have no desire to change your opinion but it means a lot to me and lots of people like me.  You can't tell me the flag is meaningless when it has meaning to me.
> 
> 
> And the nonsense was you commenting on pat Tillman's reasons for why he served you didn't even know his name yesterday but *you read one Wikipedia page on him and your an expert all of a sudden.*


Feel free to tell me where I said the flag was 'meaningless'.  It means different things to different people. My flag means a lot to me too. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether I served or not.

As to Tillman. All I said was it was a poor choice as an example. I don't claim to be an expert. Please show me where I claimed that. *Billc *claimed Tillman joined up because of the flag. That is nonsense. No one knows his motive for joining and he can't tell anyone either, especially as his diaries went missing. *Billc* claimed this sort of thing happens all the time.well he might be right in that US troops have a terrible record in that area. But normally those mistakes are admitted to and everyone moves on. You normally don't have the lies and coverup that occurred in this situation.



> *New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed*
> Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm





> Pat Tillman, a 25 year old defensive back for the Arizona Cardinals gave up a lucrative NFL career to be deployed in Afghanistan after the events of 9/11. Even though his intentions were courageous and admirable, the fact is, Tillman was duped into this illegal war by the Bush administration that is ultimately run by the global elite who want to establish a New World Order. If you doubt this, let&#8217;s look at some quotes from Tillman&#8217;s family.
> http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/39815





> The notion of a heroic death while fighting the enemy quickly yielded to a concession that Tillman was killed by friendly fire after his convoy had been split into two groups while going through Taliban territory in Afghanistan.  Those who twisted the truth to of the Tillman narrative then tried to cover it up, making the situation worse.
> 
> 
> But none of it changes the fact that Tillman served, and Tillman died.  Soldiers can die in a wide range of ways.  Whether it&#8217;s from enemy fire, friendly fire, a plane crash, a helicopter crash, or some other accident away from the battlefield, joining the military means submitting to broad, vague, and ever-present risk of injury and death.
> ...





> WHY WOULD SOLDIERS WITH NOTHING TO HIDE, WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING burn Tillman's uniform--and his body armor?
> 
> After the shooting, the Rangers destroyed evidence that would be considered critical in any criminal case, the records show. They burned Corporal Tillman's uniform and his body armor. Months later, the Rangers involved said they did not intend to destroy evidence. "It was a hygiene issue,"
> 
> ...



I even looked at Bill's favourite



> While the tragic death of Tillman and the pathetic cover up of the events surrounding that loss has been well documented, we have too often lost sight of the man who willingly gave it all up for his country.
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/05/27/On-Memorial-Day-Remember-Pat-Tillman





> It was an inspiring story of selfless heroism: A stubbornly patriotic football player walked away from fame and a multimillion-dollar contract when he joined the Army immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. It was also a story whose tragic ending brought a nation to tears and inflamed wartime passions: Spc. Pat Tillman had charged up a hill in Afghanistan under "devastating enemy fire," according to his Silver Star citation, and was killed defending his fellow Rangers.
> 
> 
> The problem with the story was that much of it just wasn't true.
> ...





> Pat Tillman was a popular professional football player before deciding to enlist. A tall and imposing 25-year-old, Tillman was on his second tour when he was pronounced dead. As the news had brought such attention to this man who left a multi-million-dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals to fight for his country, his death was a project for careful PR. Military publicity transformed this already principled and courageous figure into a hero--and they did this by rewriting the details of his death. Armed with a massive box of records, Dannie Tillman, Pat's mother, uncovered a considerable revision of history. Pat, the victim of friendly fire, was killed during an awkwardly plotted expedition by his own troops, many of whom reported they were just eager to be in a firefight. Pat Tillman was a public figure because of his career, and his decision to enlist put him in the public eye for new reasons, so it's easy to see why his loss, a national tragedy by its very nature, could not be reported as an accident besot with incompetence.
> http://www.documentary.org/magazine/legend-pat-tillman-deconstructing-military-myth



No mate, I didn't just read Wikipaedia. There are hundreds of pages out there and they all say the same thing! The guy died under extremely suspicious circumstances and you as a LEO should be able to see that.  I read about it because I was intrigued.  It's a bit like the video put out by Wikileaks. I wouldn't have believed that either if I hadn't seen it. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FTc97BR_wQs&desktop_uri=/watch?v=FTc97BR_wQs

Please tell me that didn't happen!
Now I don't know what to believe from US officials. As far as I can tell they will lie and try to cover up anything given half a chance.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I can read and I do question.  :asian:


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

As to Tillman's motiviations for joining, the review of the film looks at that...because the film pretended there wasn't any information about that...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollyw...heories-Abound-in-Agenda-Driven-Tillman-Story



> For example, they discuss how there is supposedly no evidence of any ambush against the second element at all even as the camera pans over witness statements where one of the Rangers states that he saw Taliban and witnessed muzzle flashes. Sorry, guys, but it&#8217;s still evidence even if you don&#8217;t like what it proves.





> *Billc *claimed Tillman joined up because of the flag. That is nonsense. No one knows his motive for joining and he can't tell anyone either,



From the film...



> > They claim that Tillman refused to speak of his motives for joining the military, but they then dismiss as some sort of invasion of Tillman&#8217;s privacy the taped interview Tillman gave on September 12, 2001 in which he expressed admiration for American fighting men and expressed concern that he himself was not making any contribution (he enlisted a few months later).
> 
> 
> They note (twice) that Tillman read at least one book by the inexorable Noam Chomsky, as if that made him a convert to Chomsky&#8217;s dictator-loving leftist idiocy any more than his study of the Bible and other religious works meant he believed in God, which he allegedly did not. They portray him as alienated by the &#8220;illegal&#8221; war in Iraq, yet even after allegedly being offered a chance to get out of his enlistment early to return to the NFL he instead chose to accompany his battalion on the fateful deployment to Afghanistan. Even in death, Tillman refuses to conform to others&#8217; expectations &#8211; especially those of these agenda documentarians.





> Initially, the family was told Tillman died heroically charging the enemy. Tillman was issued a Silver Star almost immediately. Then, about a month later, but after a memorial ceremony where Tillman&#8217;s heroism was praised, they were told he was killed by friendly fire. This demonstrates why it is so critical not to discuss such matters until all the facts are absolutely clear and documented &#8211; that is the least America owes the families of the fallen.



Again, the conspiracy only lasted 37 days...about the time it took to investigate what actually happened...and the people in charge of this conspiracy...outed the conspiracy all on their own...when they didn't have to...since everyone believed the story about his heroism...and outing the story would simply embarass the military and the war effort...and they told the truth anyway...some conspirators...

Again, from the John Nolte piece...



> At this point, the question that came to my mind was why would the Pentagon and the Bush Administration voluntarily come forward and uncover their own conspiracy? The film makes no mention of any outside pressure on the Pentagon from the Tillman family or even the media to get the bottom of anything. Meaning that at this point everyone believed the initial report and apparently all the Administration and military had to do to keep us all believing was to keep their mouths shut.
> 
> So the question is: If the idea was to use Tillman&#8217;s death for nefarious pro-war purposes, why just a few weeks after the memorial service would those with the most to lose from doing so, voluntarily kick over a political hornets&#8217; nest by telling the truth? Why not milk the situation for as long as possible and for as much propaganda as possible, especially with a presidential election just five months off? At the very least, why not save all the political heartache and fallout this revelation was sure to bring (and did) and stall until after Bush is reelected?




And as to the "objective" look at the incident...



> *New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed*
> Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes "orders came from the very top" to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon




Hmmm...no evidence of "Friendly fire at the scene," is that guy serious...how about the wounded and the dead...



> In the village behind Tillman's ridge, Uthlaut and his radio operator had been pinned down by the streams of fire pouring from Baker's vehicle. Both were eventually hit by what they assumed was machine gun fire.





> Nine minutes later, a regiment log shows, the platoon requested a medevac helicopter and reported two soldiers killed in action. One was the Afghan militia soldier. The other was Pat Tillman, age 27.





First, Wesley Clark is a tool...second, Pat Tillman, the other two wounded guys and the dead Afghani militia guy would sort of indicate the "friendly fire," incident took place...



> TILLMAN WAS ASSASSINATED
> He was shot in the forehead, THREE TIMES, and the "official" story, which changes faster than the wind, is that he was shot with an M-16.
> 
> THIS IS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.
> ...



The official story hasn't been changing like the wind,  the guys in his immediate chain made a bad decision to try to hide the freindly fire...something that can end a military career for the guys in charge...and telling his guys to not tell his family at the funeral...since the army was investigating what happened that makes sense...doesn't it...considering 37 days after the memorial they came out with what actually happened...when they didn't have to.

The military doesn't use the M16 anymore, the rifle I used had fully automatic fire, but they changed that to three settings, safe, one shot and a 3 round burst...so yeah, he could have been shot 3 times... and the 5.56 isn't exactly the biggest round around...

Considering that if you read the actual account of what happened...in the Washington Post, as opposed to the lefty nutter sites, a lot of rounds were being fired at Tillman's position, he wasn't the only one killed or wounded at the scene.

and this...



> After the shooting, the Rangers destroyed evidence that would be considered critical in any criminal case, the records show. They burned Corporal Tillman's uniform and his body armor. Months later, the Rangers involved said they did not intend to destroy evidence. "It was a hygiene issue,"



I don't know what the actual protocol is for equipment covered in blood and other internal body parts, in a war zone, in a mountain area in an active combat area...not a crime scene at the time...but could they have been trying to hide their screw up...sure...but after the fact of a freindly fire accident...just like some civilians who run people over in their cars try to hide the evidence so they don't face the penalty...

Besides...freindly fire incidents happen...it wouldn't even be a criminal case considering what actually happened anyway.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

Yes...of all the anti-war vets coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation...Pat Tillman had to die...and they used guys in his own Ranger Company...in a situation they couldn't control...with the guys brother in the same unit...who they apparently  allowed to live...so he could come home and do the same thing his famous dead brother was supposedly killed for...

And then 37 days after the funeral they came out with the truth about the freindly fire incident...on their own...when no one questioned the initial report and they had obviously gotten away with this alleged conspiracy they,  outed the incident on their own...and with an election 5 months away...yeah, some conspiracy...

This is why I never pay attention to conspiracy theories...they are just silly...


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

And the 3 bullets to the head...

From wikipedia...



> One investigation of the autopsy report and photographs by two forensic pathologists in November 2006 concluded that Tillman was most likely killed as a result of fire from a M249 light machine gun. The M249 uses the same ammunition as the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, but is capable of greater accuracy during higher rates of fire. This would allow a competent user to place three bullets within a several-inch target from forty or fifty yards away more easily, even from a moving vehicle.[SUP][3][/SUP]



And the vehicles weren't moving and they were pouring rounds on Tillman's position...a whole bunch of guys and at least one M249, a .50 caliber...and at least one guy fired his machine gun dry...and Tillman and the other guys exposed themselves to the incoming fire, thinking the shooting was over...

As to the 5.56 and the 3 rounds...from wikipedia...



> The M249 provides accuracy approaching that of a rifle, combined with the sustained volume of fire of a machine gun.





> The lethality of the 5.56 mm ammunition has been called into question by reports of enemy soldiers still firing after being hit multiple times.[SUP][40][/SUP]



Yes, spraying a position with automatic fire could place 3 rounds in the same target very easily, especially when several guys are all shooting at the same place...at least one with a machine gun that fires the same caliber as the standard rifle the other guys use...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2013)

The Tillman assassination story is probably the most idiotic theory I have seen to date.....


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

From conspiracy network...ABC...interviewing a Ranger on site of the friendly fire incident...

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Pat...olleagues-pat-tillman/Story?id=8541279&page=4



> Group two was 15 minutes behind group one when they were ambushed in a canyon.
> Tillman was in group one, his brother Kevin was in the other.
> When Tillman's group heard the explosion, they raced to get in position to help their platoon mates.
> "I heard the gunfire, and then I saw the tracer rounds -- pouring out of the canyon," said Aker, who was with Pat Tillman in group one. "It was like -- It was almost like a fireworks show. And my adrenaline just immediately spiked. And then once I got out of the vehicle my squad leader, you know, he was like, 'All right. This is it. Calm down, you know this is what we trained for.' And then we charged up the hill."
> ...





> "The shooting started, basically, as soon as this Humvee turned the corner -- shooting continually. Hundreds of rounds found," Krakauer explained. "At this point, it's only 35 yards away, 120 feet -- the difference between second base and home plate. And they are just unloading on these guys. Tillman throws a smoke grenade to try and indicate they're friendlies -- no good, they're shot and killed. And that's what happened."



What the guy in the above quote does't understand is military tactics when caught in a close ambush...you immediately pour fire on  the enemy positions and aggressively attack...a lesson learned in Vietnam...and considering the confusion, the inability to hear, the tunnel vision, the fear, the excitement, the lack of radio contact...any wonder people were killed?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

The same sources you quote now as gospel are the same ones that lie to you about other subjects.  I would suggest that you have a lot more skepticism in regards to claims by the government.  Pat Tillman was not your average anti-war vet.  He was a football star and that gives him god-like credibility to many Americans.  I don't think you can even imagine how sensational it would have been had he came home and come out against the war.  Pat Tillman, football star, joins the military to fight the terrorists, after giving up a career in the NFL, and now thinks the war on terror is a sham!  He would have been on every TV show, every talk show, every news program.  You saw how the media manipulated the Zimmerman/Martin situation.  Can you even imagine how the HateBush camp would take this and run?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2013)

billc said:


> From conspiracy network...ABC...interviewing a Ranger on site of the friendly fire incident...
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Pat...olleagues-pat-tillman/Story?id=8541279&page=4
> 
> ...



How do you know this story isn't "Trayvoned" up?


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

billc said:


> Besides...freindly fire incidents happen...it wouldn't even be a criminal case considering what actually happened anyway.


Bill, all I said was using Tillman as an example was a poor choice. But cover-ups do happen. For example ... 



> In the Marine Corps, they are quietly calling it their My Lai, the massacre of hundreds of villagers in 1968 that became a symbol for American brutality in the Vietnam war. In this generation's war, the village is Haditha, north-west of Baghdad, where US marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians, including 11 women and children.
> In what is being viewed as the gravest allegation to date of war crimes in Iraq, a military investigation is expected to present findings in Baghdad next week that a small group of troops shot dead 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including five men in a taxi, and women and children at homes in the town last November 19.
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, the flag means different things to different people. What do you think the flag means to the relatives of these Iraqi civilians. (The full article includes much more detail.) :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The same sources you quote now as gospel are the same ones that lie to you about other subjects.  I would suggest that you have a lot more skepticism in regards to claims by the government.  Pat Tillman was not your average anti-war vet.  He was a football star and that gives him god-like credibility to many Americans.  I don't think you can even imagine how sensational it would have been had he came home and come out against the war.  Pat Tillman, football star, joins the military to fight the terrorists, after giving up a career in the NFL, and now thinks the war on terror is a sham!  He uwould have been on every TV show, every talk show, every news program.  You saw how the media manipulated the Zimmerman/Martin situation.  Can you even imagine how the HateBush camp would take this and run?


So how did they talk an entire unit of his friends and his own brother to kill him and then keep quiet about it?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

K-man said:


> ..
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, the flag means different things to different people. What do you think the flag means to the relatives of these Iraqi civilians. (The full article includes much more detail.) :asian:



I Dont care what the flag represents to them or you or anyone else.  I know what it means to me and my friends.


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I Dont care what the flag represents to them or you or anyone else.  I know what it means to me and my friends.


As is your right. I understand exactly your position and I respect it.  :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2013)

I do often wonder if the flag has more symbolism to Marines then other because of the iconic flag raising photo from Iwo jima.  That's like the Marine Corps calling card you see it and know it represents the USMC.  Not to say Marines are motivated or anything its just their claim to fame so to speak.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> *When the ideals represented in the cloth are not represented by the people who wave it, that's a problem.* I think it's a problem inherit in the process of using the symbol. If the ideals are represented externally, *then pretenders can wave the symbol and ape the motions, getting all of the respect that someone should get by standing true *and holding to those ideals internally.





Makalakumu said:


> *How many politicians who wave the flag before everything they do, actually prove they believe in the ideals the flag represents?*



I think that despite what you have been saying, you have proven how important the symbolism of the flag is to many people; so many people want to cash in on it.

But I will grant you that I have no respect for any who try to gain respect when it isn't due them.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2013)

And a look at Haditha...very detailed...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/post_234/

And a look at the outcome...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/lessons_from_hadithas_quiet_denouement.html



> Six years ago, in Haditha, Iraq, in the wake of a deadly insurgent attack on their convoy, a Marine quick reaction force raided several houses from which they were taking fire.  At the conclusion of the action it became clear that a number of Iraqi civilians had been killed, which was duly reported up the Marine Corps chain of command.  The command determined that while the deaths were unfortunate, the engaged Marines had not violated the laws of war.
> 
> ​Then, early in 2006, a reporter from _Time Magazine_ got wind of the incident, and all hell broke loose.  An Army report condemned the Marines, Democrat Congressman John Murtha announced that Marines had killed Iraqi civilians in "cold blood," and the press in general had a field day.  Under this new assault, the Marine Corps changed its tune and preferred court-martial charges against eight Marines, from enlisted men to battalion commander.  These unfortunate men were accused of everything from obstruction of justice to murder.
> 
> ...





> The Haditha legal fiasco might help answer the question.  The battalion involved in the Haditha incident had its own operational lawyer on hand, Marine Captain Randy Stone.  While it appears that he was not consulted before the Marines launched their assault, in the wake of the incident, he vetted their accounts and determined that the laws of war had not been violated.   For this Captain Stone found himself among the eight Marines initially charged!  Stone endured an Article 32 investigatory hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury), but eventually charges against him were dropped.
> When the operational lawyers are being charged along with the soldiers and Marines they are supposed to be operationally advising, something indeed is wrong with the system.
> The real problem is that one person's legitimate military operation is another's war crime, and the so-called "laws of war" have little to do with it.





> Clearly Marine commanders' early instincts in the case were correct, but the Corps subsequently allowed itself to be bulldozed into a Dickensian legal farce.  This was a function not only of bad publicity and political pressure, but of the increasingly legalistic nature of the armed forces in general.  Like other areas of American society, the military is over-lawyered and increasingly hamstrung by its own rules and regulations.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 5, 2013)

K-man said:


> ...
> 
> Please tell me that didn't happen!
> Now I don't know what to believe from US officials. As far as I can tell they will lie and try to cover up anything given half a chance.
> ...



I'm just curious how you understand what you see of what the the video shows.  And do you have information not shown in the video about the events that took place?


----------



## crushing (Aug 5, 2013)

Carol said:


> Very ironic that the alleged veteran in the video gets up in arms about the treatment of the flag when it is displayed at the store, yet once he steals it and it is in his hands, he thinks nothing of wadding the American flag up in to a crumpled ball like discarded trash.



I agree.  The grandstanding vandal and thief in the video really didn't show much respect for the flag.  Worse yet, he disrespected what that flag symbolizes.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2013)

Guys, can we not agree that the flag holds particular value to some people, and less to others?  Also, we can recognize that the brotherhood (mateship) between soldiers is not necessarily centered around the flag?  

Personally, I think that the idea of brotherhood/mateship is a really important and valuable concept, but it's not something that America has the monopoly on.  Since we're a bunch of nerds here, The Lord of the Rings was heavily influenced by Tolkein's experiences in WWI and the relationships between the members of the fellowship were intended to be an illustration of the bonds that are created in times of war, for exactly the reasons you mention, Ballen.  Tolkien believed that this bond was the strongest human bond possible, even stronger than the bond between mother and child or husband and wife.   

But, that bond is not the same as reverence or respect for the flag, which I believe is ALSO important.  The flag provides some sense of purpose.  The brotherhood is a product of the immediate need of crisis.  Ballen, tying it as you are doing to the American flag seems to me like it devalues the similar experiences of soldiers from other countries and implies that without the Stars and Stripes, that bond cannot genuinely exist.


----------



## K-man (Aug 5, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm just curious how you understand what you see of what the the video shows.  And do you have information not shown in the video about the events that took place?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

Just another example of winning the hearts and minds of the locals!


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2013)

And from a different quarter:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/n...4b19ab2c3675f48980b8.html#MHxEXtbisJUSVH1x.99



> MOSCOW (AP) - The American rock group Bloodhound Gang was kicked out of a Russian music festival and pelted with eggs after videos emerged of its bass player shoving a Russian flag down his pants at a recent concert in Ukraine. Russian prosecutors are even considering whether to open a criminal case in the matter, which comes amid a rise in U.S.-Russian tensions.
> Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/n...4b19ab2c3675f48980b8.html#PiPV0OkROxmcCt2z.99


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> But, that bond is not the same as reverence or respect for the flag, which I believe is ALSO important.  The flag provides some sense of purpose.  The brotherhood is a product of the immediate need of crisis.  Ballen, tying it as you are doing to the American flag seems to me like it devalues the similar experiences of soldiers from other countries and implies that without the Stars and Stripes, that bond cannot genuinely exist.



Steve the thing is I dont care about other countries.  I dont care about their bonds.  I dont care about their flags. The topic was the US Flag not the French flag or this flag or that flag. I dont care if I devalue other countries because I do devalue them I hold MY military higher then all others, in fact I hold My US Marines above even other military branches in the US military.  It is what it Is I dont care who it offends.    Do other soldiers in other countries have the bond sure I have no doubt but that wasn't the topic.  My point was and is still the same there are some folks that if you disrespect of the flag in front of them it could be harmful to your health.  Not because the flag has any special powers but because of what it represents to them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 5, 2013)

K-man said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
> 
> Just another example of winning the hearts and minds of the locals!



And glass houses my friend I seem to recall a thread showing the dirty deeds from your country as well but it was quickly locked since its only ok to knock down the US but bring up other places and you get infraction warnings and threads get locked.  War is hell bad things happen, I dont condone criminal behavior or mistakes but they are few and far between


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

If you look into the helicopter shooting, and Makalakumu posted about that a year or two ago and I watched the entire video, not just that short clip...it was an active combat zone and the troops on the ground had been taking fire from the area.  The guy was armed and was a legitimate target, and the reporters happened to be with him when the helicopters shot him...as to the van with the children in it...that is what happens when the radical muslim terrorists hide in innocent communities.  The van was a civilian vehicle without the markings of an emergency vehicle.  If it had had an emergency vehicle marking they wouldn't have fired on it.

The bad guys use innocent people as human shields when they attack our troops...that is why they shouldn't recieve the same protections as regular military forces under the Geneva convention and that is why they never used to get that protection.  By giving them legitimate protection...you just encourage them to hide where innocents live, especially women and children.  They should have kept the status of unlawful enemy combatants...

From your post k-man...



> *Context[edit source | editbeta]*
> 
> _See also: 2007 in Iraq, Iraq War troop surge of 2007, and List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War#2007_
> According to Tom Cohen, a reporter at CNN, "the soldiers of Bravo Company 2-16 Infantry had been under fire all morning from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms on the first day of Operation Ilaaj in Baghdad".[SUP][19][/SUP] Al Jazeera stated that the Army had received "reports of small arms fire", but were unable to positively identify the gunmen.
> ...


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

Keep in mind...medical vehicles in a war zone are marked so that regular soldiers, as part of the Geneva convention don't shoot them...of course most of the bad countries will still shoot our medical evac equipment but we don't...this van wasn't marked in anyway...

Again, from you post K-man...



> *Attack on a van[edit source | editbeta]*
> 
> The wounded Chmagh was crawling on the ground,[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] when a van appeared at the scene.[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] In the van was Saleh Mutashar, taking his two children age nine and six to visit his brother.[SUP][32][/SUP] They saw an injured man lying on the street.[SUP][33][/SUP]
> 
> ...



Again, this is what happens when you give unlawful enemy combatants the protection of regular soldiers...they get to hide among civilians and use them as cover and there is no down side for them...and then innocent people get killed...blame the radical muslim terrorists...not our troops...


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

As to the moron assange and his use of the video to smear the good guys...



> *Commentary[edit source | editbeta]*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







> "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"




What it means is that they are fair targets in a combat zone...


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

Now, here is the important difference that our guys never get credit for...as seen in the post about this incident...had radical muslims come on our wounded civilians after their attack, they would have tortured or killed them or both...what did our professional American fighting men do when they found children were in the van...



> *Interviews with Ethan McCord[edit source | editbeta]*
> 
> Ethan McCord, the soldier seen in the video carrying the injured boy, recalled in an interview on _The Marc Steiner Show_ that on arrival at the scene, "The first thing I did was run up to the van...". After attending the girl's wounds and handing her to a medic, McCord was ordered to take position on the roof but he returned to the van to find the boy moving his hand. "I grabbed him and ran to the Bradley myself". McCord states he was yelled at for not "pulling security." "The first thing I thought of ... was my children at home". He later sought help for psychological trauma, but was ridiculed by his NCO and told that if he were to go to the mental health officer, "there would be repercussions".[SUP][85][/SUP]



Our guys rendered aid and helped them get medical attention...



> Both children were evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital via Forward Operating BaseLoyalty, then transferred to an Iraqi medical facility the next day.[SUP][7][/SUP] This account of first bringing the wounded children to the Combat Support Hospital appears to be contradicted by orders by radio that form part of the video record, which forbids it and orders that the children be handed over to local police.[SUP][107][/SUP]



How would those children have been treated if radical muslim terrorists had been in the reverse roles here...?


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

A final bit on the attack...



> While the Air Weapons Team was providing support at the first engagement area they were informed by ground troops that they were receiving small arms fire from the south/southwest. The crew for Crazyhorse 1/8 then located multiple individuals with weapons about 400 meters east of coalition forces and was given clearance to engage the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, why is it that these things always neglect to show when our guys work to not kill civilians...and focus only on the accidents or the nut jobs who get into the military...


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Steve the thing is I dont care about other countries.  I dont care about their bonds.  I dont care about their flags. The topic was the US Flag not the French flag or this flag or that flag. I dont care if I devalue other countries because I do devalue them I hold MY military higher then all others, in fact I hold My US Marines above even other military branches in the US military.  It is what it Is I dont care who it offends.    Do other soldiers in other countries have the bond sure I have no doubt but that wasn't the topic.  My point was and is still the same there are some folks that if you disrespect of the flag in front of them it could be harmful to your health.  Not because the flag has any special powers but because of what it represents to them.


Ballen, I'm not saying you should care about anything.  I am just observing that you are conflating two things that are related, but not the same.  Reverence and respect for the flag is not the same as the brotherhood shared by members of the Marine Corps who have served together.  

There are people who revere the flag greatly and you are risking bodily harm if you disrespect it in their presence.  Undoubtedly true.  But also, consider that the same is true for the Confederate flag in certain parts of this country, often by people who were unfit to serve in the military.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 5, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, I'm not saying you should care about anything.  I am just observing that you are conflating two things that are related, but not the same.  Reverence and respect for the flag is not the same as the brotherhood shared by members of the Marine Corps who have served together.
> 
> There are people who revere the flag greatly and you are risking bodily harm if you disrespect it in their presence.  Undoubtedly true.  But also, consider that the same is true for the Confederate flag in certain parts of this country, often by people who were unfit to serve in the military.


I'm not saying it only applies to the military members.  I'm commenting about my beliefs and feelings and that of my circle which is military former military and of my family of which I was 5th generation military and other then my father we were all marines.  Hell even my grandmother was in the Marine Corps.   The flag is a personal thing.  Some its nothing more then cloth others its a physical symbol of esprit de corps.  Its not exclusive to one group but I personally don't care about other groups. I care about my group.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not saying it only applies to the military members.  I'm commenting about my beliefs and feelings and that of my circle which is military former military and of my family of which I was 5th generation military and other then my father we were all marines.  Hell even my grandmother was in the Marine Corps.   The flag is a personal thing.  Some its nothing more then cloth others its a physical symbol of esprit de corps.  Its not exclusive to one group but I personally don't care about other groups. I care about my group.



Then if some hippie burns the flag or makes it into clothing, it shouldn't matter?


----------



## billc (Aug 5, 2013)

Another look at the helicopter shooting of terrorists...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/shame-on-wi...agement-as-anti-american-propaganda-part-one/

As to who was killed...



> The Mahdi Army is a Shiite paramilitary organization that operates like an organized crime family, and is infamous for both kidnapping fellow Iraqis for ransom and for brutal acts of sectarian violence &#8212; including beheadings and assassinations of Iraqi civilians and police.



The second part of the story...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/shame-on-wi...agement-as-anti-american-propaganda-part-two/



> WikiLeaks would also have us believe that the presence of camera equipment should have stayed the guns of the American aircraft. Dishonestly, WikiLeaks does not mention the well-known fact that cameras are an integral part of the war for both sides, and that video and still cameras are commonly carried by militants. A few seconds of searching on the Internet would reveal militants filming attacks, from IED strikes to the alleged sniping of American and Iraqisoldiers and police.
> We aren&#8217;t attempting to establish that these Reuters employees were terrorists &#8212; despite their &#8220;relaxed&#8221; behavior with the armed militants, which even WikiLeaks is forced to recognize. It is enough to note that even if the presence of cameras had been detected earlier, it in no way suggested that the armed men were anything other than terrorists.





> Moments later, as the pilots continue to circle, a black van and two men on foot emerge to evacuate the wounded survivor of the attack. Curiously, the van that arrives in the short version of the video to move the wounded man appears as if it could be the same van spotted at the 41-second mark of the long version &#8212; sighted pulling up to a mosque. Vehicles such as these were commonly used to ferry militants and munitions, and the van shown in the longer video was captured pulling up to the front of a mosque &#8212; a favored location to hide weapons and militants because of policies that forbid U.S. troops from raiding them except under extraordinary circumstances.
> The pilots make a logical assumption when the van and the extra men (who are curiously never mentioned by the WikiLeakers) pull up and infer that anyone pulling into a hot combat zone with the dust of explosions still hanging in the air may have nefarious purposes &#8230; such as helping wounded terrorists avoid capture, and recovering weapons before American ground forces can arrive. After requesting permission to fire &#8212; which is granted after a still of the gun camera footage is instantly transmitted to superiors &#8212; the van and the men around it are engaged and cut down.


----------

