Vandal sprays ‘#MeToo’ on statue depicting iconic kiss a day after featured WWII veteran’s death

Apacherat in this thread has advocated using napalm and indiscriminate artillery fire against civilian neighborhoods. You can't do that without murdering civilians. He has stated that using weapons and tactics that minimize civilian casualties is "PC", which he opposes.

My TC would see to the front and to the right, and his view to the left (where the shot came from) would have been mostly blocked by both the radio, and me. He would have had to fire his rifle next to my head, while in a bouncing Humvee going 45 mph down a road full of potholes and ditches with 3 more vehicles behind us meaning we can't slow down. 50/50 chance he shoots me in the head instead of the shot going out the window. He wasn't stupid enough to even try it, and even if he succeeded, he would have likewise been firing blind into a block full of civilian apartments.

 

Reword your question as though you truly wanted a decent debate. I think this confrontation style is harming your own questions.

 

Is napalm still being used? Napalm, and yes I have fired it, is not selective at all.

 

There are so many sources.

Excerpt:

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

 

No it isn't. The US does have incendiary weapons in their arsenal, but they don't use them on cities, although the use of WP marker rockets is seen as that.

 

And none of that backs up your claim.

 

You can't read that fast and comprehend what you read.

 

So you are saying Apacherat advocates what General Sherman used in combat! I went back to try to learn the roots of this entire discussion. Got a bit more now.

I have actually fired napalm and that stuff is ugly. Not very long range, but very very ugly.

War as i know war always has civilians killed. More than the troops dying, the fact that a lot more losses happen to "presumed innocents" makes it even worse.

Your TC would have been on shaky ground to fire past you even with no apartments. Do you agree with that much?

 

I certainly can check it for key words and nothing in there supports you claim that the Obama Administration declared everyone in the radius of a Hellfire strike to be unlawful combatants.

 

Yeah, General Sherman had the option of using Small Diameter Bombs, JDAMs, Hellfire missiles, and GPS guided howitzer shells.

Deliberately using indiscriminate weapons when you have weapons capable of precision fire means you are deliberately choosing to kill civilians, that makes it murder.

Hell yes my TC would have been on shaky ground. I would have been on shaky ground to start firing blindly into civilian housing.

Apacherat on the other hand has openly stated he would have called in 5 inch artillery on the entire block.

 

Use that to defend inmates sentenced to death.

 

Why would I do that? I oppose the death penalty.

 

Just remember if you are ever sitting at a bus stop waiting for public transportation.

Obama wrote the rules for using armed UAV (drones) and that guy sitting next to you could be targeted by the CIA, Putin or even the Chi-Coms and you will just become an unfortunate unlawful combatant.

 

Think of it as you might say the commander is General Sherman and LA is like Atlanta.

 

I presume you mean the death penalty inflicted by the guilty vs the innocent??

 

Then you aren't really that concerned about the socialists you seem to be scared of?

 

I keep looking for the magic post that excuses his anger at you. What post excuses his anger?

 

It is really too late to be scared of our domestic socialists. They are even posting trying to make us complaint to them and to mold us to obey them.

 

What exactly is a hispanic? Are you aware of the enormous white population of Spain?

The native brown Mexican is more native Mexican than say Spanish.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tatue-painted-with-metoo-sarasota/2916338002/

According to this, the woman wasn’t even a war nurse, just a dental student. The woman has stated that it wasn’t her choice to be kissed. The guy just grabbed her and kissed, and it was romantic.

I suppose that’s pretty much assault, But in this particular case, the assault aspect of it wouldn’t have been an issue back then. He was white; she was white. That’s all on the up-and-up for the forties. If it’d been interracial or homosexual, then they’d have labeled it assault.

 

Yes, by snogging my face of, grabbing my johnson, giggling flirtateously when i kiss her chest, moaning when i take it further, etc.

Prohibiting sexual conduct without an affirmative yes is a restriction on the woman's right to choose.

 

Western justice would say the former. If theres even a conflict, which there doesnt seem to be.

We can reduce the stigma around talking about assault without unjustly lowering the standards of evidence for the accused.

 

Don't worry, you are in your 80s? Based on past posts.
The world is way more socialist today than 200 yrs ago or even 50 yrs ago. So, I don't think you have anything to fear. The world progresses.

 

Yet again, you only seem concerned about the skin tone of a person. Why? Does that make a difference to you?

 

How many assaults are ROMANTIC???