Stand Up Comic vs Air Force Colonel: Who’s the Real Joker?
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Oh, terribly sorry, let me clarify. Your posts, including the one after the one I'm responding to here, make it clear you're an anti-American military bigot.
Yep, we've had our problems. We've had atrocities. Every army has, even your Canadian Boy Scouts.
The fact that you choose to see it as the norm for the U.S. forces, and assume that any U.S. serviceperson who comes to your notice is someone who does or would like to commit atrocities, proves your bigotry.
Locutus, you may have noticed that I refrain from calling you pejorative names, yet you seem to be determined to 'bait me into insulting you so that you can use your position to 'revert to administrative punishment'.
Would this be correct, Sir?
Kindly advise
Are you new here? I get called everything. No sweat off my a r s e. Nobody is gonna make me cry.
It's just the internet.
Perhaps its time you shared some of the moderator load.:smile:
A monkey fight is a proper internet term when more than two people are randomly swinging at each other./other /other etc.
NO sweat off my , - backside.
That depends on whether you refer to “American” in the sense of the US and its military culture or Americans as individuals. I am anti-Nazi without being anti-Germans if that example helps.
In Somalia several corporals and privates disobeyed orders, the military punished them and Canada publicized the process. The entire regiment was disbanded in disgrace. The US examples are qualitatively different. US atrocities were committed by whole units under orders and the US only came clean after the facts were exposed - and not always then (Google Tiger Force). They happen time and time again – Vietnam then all over again in Iraq. And how many others successfully hidden?
I don’t believe that any U.S. serviceperson who comes to my notice would like to commit atrocities. Nor did I sayso or even imply it. This isn’t a personal issue. However it is clear history that official America commits and conceals war crimes as a matter ofcourse. There is a difference between periodic criminal activities by individuals and systematic war crimes by a national government. We grew up in the Cold War being told what constituted unacceptable war crimes. The US government was forever accusing Russia of them, only it turns out America was the guilty party.
Please accept my apology if you feel personally attacked. Such is not my intention. I suppose it must hurt seeing how the rest of the world feels about your country. America is a world pariah – as nasty as North Korea and Syria but unfortunately much bigger and closer to home. I am home and I feel entitled to discuss it. Please don’t leave. Somebody has to take the word back to America.
Cheers.
First of all those who are critical of those in command are a little over the top.
Then there is the material, yes likely offensive to some especially conservatives,
Christians and those who don't think sexual assault is funny.
The truth is I don't think jokes about sexual assault are funny I have daughters and
granddaughters. Don't see anything funny about that subject at all. I am not
known as a conservative either.
The other problem is military brass really shouldn't determine what's funny either.
That is determined by those attending the concert. Really soldiers are grown ups
they don't need to be told what is good and what is bad, or what is sinful or not.
Soldiers should have enough sense to know that sexual assault isn't funny either.
Then there is the material, yes likely offensive to some especially conservatives,
Christians and those who don't think sexual assault is funny.
The truth is I don't think jokes about sexual assault are funny I have daughters and
granddaughters. Don't see anything funny about that subject at all. I am not
known as a conservative either.
The other problem is military brass really shouldn't determine what's funny either.
That is determined by those attending the concert. Really soldiers are grown ups
they don't need to be told what is good and what is bad, or what is sinful or not.
Soldiers should have enough sense to know that sexual assault isn't funny either.
And you have presented that as typical, in the sense that you presume that a colonel about whom you know nothing except that he fired a comedian who made off-colour sexual jokes is a Southerner, a right-winger, a Bush worshipper, and an actual or would-be war criminal.
Oh, and by the way, you also presume that attacks which kill civilians are intended to do so, when anyone with a shred of sense not overwhelmed by blind hatred and bigotry would realise that is not the case.
You cannot lie your way out of this. Your words are on record. I quote, bolded for convenience:
"That comedian was bad? Herr Colonel is SO typically American conservative, obsessed with other peoples’ morality, women’s genitalia and breeding habits, and straining at the bit to jump into his high performance aircraft and kill a few Muslim families for Christ and the US Constitution. His lifelong ambition is probably to do with sitting beside George W. Bush on a Sunday morning in a Southern Baptist church, or matching IQ’s with Ronald Reagan."
You judged that Colonel Ciero is, and I quote, "straining at the bit to. . . kill a few Muslim families." And now you're claiming you didn't say that. And once again, I re-emphasise that you made this judgement based on precisely ONE fact. . . the fact that the Colonel had fired a comedian who made what you thought at the time were crude sexual jokes.
I reject your apology because it is no apology, merely a form of words. A true apology involves three elements:
1. An acknowledement that you have done something wrong.
2. Genuine regret that your wrong action has harmed someone.
3. An intention to avoid repeating the error.
You have not acknowledged you did anything wrong, and you have made it clear you see no reason to avoid bigoted snap judgements based on next-to-zero information in the future.
And this little fling demonstrates the insincerity of your "apology." Otherwise, don't make me laugh. I've dealt with dog turd bigots like you all my life, whose personal inadequacies and fears led them to lash out at the colour of my skin, my rank at the time, my profession, my nationality, and even such trivia as my preferred sports teams. You think yourself of particular weight and significance? Get over it. Bigots are a penny a tonne.
So, let us reiterate. I am under no illusion that you will profit from the lesson, but pour encourager les autres. . .
You read the little snippet in the OP.
You went off on your rant, stating as fact things about Colonel Ciero that you could not possibly know, and thus were based on your predispositions (also called "prejudices").
I, by going through the massive effort of clicking on one link and reading a handful of paragraphs, found a possible alternate explanation of the colonel's actions: that he was highly concerned about "jokes" that laugh at and make light of sexual assault and rape, of particular importance as the U.S. Forces struggle with a sexual assault crisis no less serious than the race problems they suffered in the 50s and 60s.
You, being a bigot, rejected this new information when it was brought to your attention, and merely redoubled your attack on the colonel as a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian, Republican war criminal, none of which you know or can demonstrate with the first scintilla of evidence.
I have little doubt you were, and remain, quite proud of yourself. For reasons that utterly escape me, I have found that bigots are often actually proud of their willful ignorance and truculence.
OK, I lied. I know exactly why they are proud of their willful ignorance and truculence.
I agree. Nonetheless, policing the conduct, and even the thoughts, of soldiers is a time-honoured military tradition.
Let me re-frame the issue for one and all.
I have presented evidence, not conclusive but weighty, that the colonel's actual motivation was objection to jokes that made light of rape, a matter of particular concern in our military.
Well, fifty years ago, military leaders were struggling mightily to effect racial integration in our military. Would you all be similarly incensed if a unit commander fired a comedian who was making vicious jokes about how stupid and lazy "n*iggers" and "sp*cs" were? Or would you mount up your liberal high horse and approve of his actions?
If you object to the colonel shutting down violent, sexist jokes addressed to men and women for whose attitudes he is responsible, but would not object to the colonel shutting down racist jokes similiarly addressed, you are a mere hypocrite.
:lol:
Locutus:
the article is about a comedians over the top appearance at a USO show in England.
NOT about the conduct of Canada's and the USA's military for the last two hundred years- for Gawds sake!
"monkey fight' is a general melee that gets way out of hand...
BTW, sorry that people have been calling you names...You actually do a good job moderating the ..whatever's..:lol:
Locutus:
the article is about a comedians over the top appearance at a USO show in England.
NOT about the conduct of Canada's and the USA's military for the last two hundred years- for Gawds sake!
"monkey fight' is a general melee that gets way out of hand...
BTW, sorry that people have been calling you names...You actually do a good job moderating the ..whatever's..:lol:
Some folk are pretty passionate about defending their nation, their military and their leaders. Then we get to name-calling and poo flinging. That's always cool. C'mon. ;-)
Anyway, I don't know this guy's political strip and I don't care. He could be stiff bible or greasy smarmy pc. Maybe he didn't like a swarthy comedian, or a jewish one, who knows. Maybe he's a guy you 'want in a foxhole with you'. I don't care. It's not relevant.
That said, this Colonel sounds like a little crybaby. Not ballsy like Sgt Major Phillip (ol' Mr. censorship) D i c kerson from Good Morning Vietnam.
A puss that didn't have any fun while everyone else was and so took his ball and went home to tell on the comedian to others. This dude is a Colonel. I'm telling on you. You're gonna get it.
Sounds like he saw the audience having a good laugh at material that he likely didn't understand or refused to understand to defend his rant. His oh so dramatic rant with historical story telling about our friend Darius. The befuddled doofus that ran away. He's implying he was a failure and maybe a coward for not standing up, pulling the mic and stopping the show. For not saving his people. The show everyone was having a good hoot at. Well, everyone that is except wee Mark. He wasn't just a coward (which implies that killing the show would be somehow heroic), he was mad. Just plain mad. They were having fun and he wasn't.
Read Fatel's response and then think again if you're on the fence at all:
Mitch Fatel on Air Force colonel who calls act ‘depravity shrouded in comedy’ (Exclusive)
The Colonel comes off looking like a tool, whatever his stripe.
For perspective, here's some comments about Mark from his sad little warrior rant:
I hope when this colonel calms down and reflects on his behavior that he will provide a public apology to Mr. Fatel. I hope he has the intellectual humility to offer such an apology and restore his image as a leader to his Airmen. These censorship types of leaders tend to encourage book burning parties and allow selective art galleries. We don't need that type of leadership in our Air Force we need leaders to fight the kind of oppression colonel Ciero displays.
This is nothing new. Senior officers on bases around the world hve exercised their powers to stiffle free speech before. What is new is to do so publicly. To stand up for all to see and say LOOK AT ME I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING The reason it has always been done privately...is because you look like a total fool. Mitch is an awesome comedian if he wasn't Darius would have led a mass exodus from the room.
This is a typical response from our so called Air Force leadership now.....especially those who aspire to be flag officers at the expense of those that surround them. Mitch Fatel is a comedian colonel......if you didn't like raunchy entertainment as you put it you shouldn't have been there. Obviously the majority of those there did enjoy the show. Good for them and shame on you I suspect from now on all comedian's material will be reviewed and censored based upon one person's lack of a sense of humor
The CV is another fast burner type likely working hard to make GO. Like so many of that ilk he would not make the truly tough leadership action and stop the performance. Why Good question. Probably because he knew that would have caused quite a ruckus. Instead he walked out and then wrote a pompous blow hard commentary. The AF is currently filled with too many of this type of senior leader.
Anyway, I don't know this guy's political strip and I don't care. He could be stiff bible or greasy smarmy pc. Maybe he didn't like a swarthy comedian, or a jewish one, who knows. Maybe he's a guy you 'want in a foxhole with you'. I don't care. It's not relevant.
That said, this Colonel sounds like a little crybaby. Not ballsy like Sgt Major Phillip (ol' Mr. censorship) D i c kerson from Good Morning Vietnam.
A puss that didn't have any fun while everyone else was and so took his ball and went home to tell on the comedian to others. This dude is a Colonel. I'm telling on you. You're gonna get it.
Sounds like he saw the audience having a good laugh at material that he likely didn't understand or refused to understand to defend his rant. His oh so dramatic rant with historical story telling about our friend Darius. The befuddled doofus that ran away. He's implying he was a failure and maybe a coward for not standing up, pulling the mic and stopping the show. For not saving his people. The show everyone was having a good hoot at. Well, everyone that is except wee Mark. He wasn't just a coward (which implies that killing the show would be somehow heroic), he was mad. Just plain mad. They were having fun and he wasn't.
Read Fatel's response and then think again if you're on the fence at all:
Mitch Fatel on Air Force colonel who calls act ‘depravity shrouded in comedy’ (Exclusive)
The Colonel comes off looking like a tool, whatever his stripe.
For perspective, here's some comments about Mark from his sad little warrior rant:
I hope when this colonel calms down and reflects on his behavior that he will provide a public apology to Mr. Fatel. I hope he has the intellectual humility to offer such an apology and restore his image as a leader to his Airmen. These censorship types of leaders tend to encourage book burning parties and allow selective art galleries. We don't need that type of leadership in our Air Force we need leaders to fight the kind of oppression colonel Ciero displays.
This is nothing new. Senior officers on bases around the world hve exercised their powers to stiffle free speech before. What is new is to do so publicly. To stand up for all to see and say LOOK AT ME I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING The reason it has always been done privately...is because you look like a total fool. Mitch is an awesome comedian if he wasn't Darius would have led a mass exodus from the room.
This is a typical response from our so called Air Force leadership now.....especially those who aspire to be flag officers at the expense of those that surround them. Mitch Fatel is a comedian colonel......if you didn't like raunchy entertainment as you put it you shouldn't have been there. Obviously the majority of those there did enjoy the show. Good for them and shame on you I suspect from now on all comedian's material will be reviewed and censored based upon one person's lack of a sense of humor
The CV is another fast burner type likely working hard to make GO. Like so many of that ilk he would not make the truly tough leadership action and stop the performance. Why Good question. Probably because he knew that would have caused quite a ruckus. Instead he walked out and then wrote a pompous blow hard commentary. The AF is currently filled with too many of this type of senior leader.
You wrote a long-winded reply to me so it’s my turn. Unlike your post I will refrain from calling you filthy names.
Perhaps you need educating on the issue of whether the US intends to kill civilians? There was an Internet article recently about a US Marine Corps sniper with 600+ confirmed kills to his credit in Fallujah. In the article it was stated that most of them were women and children. That fact was bragged about. The rationale was that the sniper could see that they had bombs in their hands or hidden under their clothing. Bombs? Recognized at 600-1,000 yards through a rifle scope? How do you define a "bomb" from that distance when it is a wrapped package or a lump under a dress?
How about the media reports from Fallujah that described swimming families in the Euphrates River trying to flee the battle? Men accompanied by their wives and children were shot both by sentries on the riverbank and gunners in Hueys hovering over them with orders to kill anybody trying to flee. If they ran they were killed. If they stood fast they were killed. American justice? Land of the free? Ambulance drivers approaching hospitals, women and children in the streets and their own yards, doctors trying to leave their homes, every person who moved whether or not they appeared hostile was shot. George W. Bush called the attack on Fallujah a "punitive expedition". Why? Because some American mercenaries had been killed and their bodies strung up. And this justified the killing of every man, woman and child who moved in Fallujah and the razing of the city? Too many Americans in Fallujah were war criminals as were their leaders. They were no better than German SS in WW2.
How about the Blackwater mercenaries who opened random fire on a busy Iraqi street and were protected by US diplomacy from legal consequences? They were not US forces, they were unaccountable mercenary trash. These are the guys of whom you write that anyone who thought they must have intended to kill civilians is suffering from "blind hatred and bigotry"? I guess you operate to an American standard that I can't understand.
How about first person reports from returned vets that they were set up with sniper rifles over "bait" planted openly in the streets and ordered to shoot to kill anybody touching it? Children and young teens as well as women fell victim to this tactic. Or are all the Americans who wrote of this double agents and Islamo-fascist liars?
How about Pfc Green, whose picture in combat gear was chosen for posters. He and his buddies reportedly thought that because Green had media celebrity status they could get away with anything (a typical American cultural belief). They got drunk one night, went off base and murdered a whole Iraqi family because Pfc Green had a crush on their 14 year old daughter. The case was well publicized - or do you think I have somehow influenced world media? I wonder how many other yanks fell prey to the same illusion, that they had the power to kill and rape as many Iraqis as they wanted because they were American forces and Iraqis were just "sand ******s"? Would the killers all be conservative boys from Republican states or also right wing boys from blue states? Or Americans of any political stripe?
So yeah, I do think that there is something very sick about modern day America that causes it to believe it can kill Third World people with impunity. The US Military Industrial Complex forms part of the same structure of government that was called "fascist" in the 1930's and1940's. US killing does not have the full degree of premeditated, industrial assembly line killing as German WW2 forces, but it doesn't have to be as bad as the Holocaust to be war crimes. As the world's superpower America should set the best example. Instead it has become the worst example, more than any Third World or Banana Republic dictator.
Do I presume that attacks which killed civilians were intended to do so? The evidence from US media and personal stories on the Internet from returned US servicemen say yes. I believe it.
I'd like to see your reference. Most I can find for an American is 103 confirmed and 213 unconfirmed. Ironically, this doesn't come close to the kill total of Francis Peghamagabow, who had 378 confirmed kills. He was Canadian, as is Rob Furlong, who holds the record for the longest kill (2430 metres).
Top 10 Snipers in History - Listverse
Top Snipers Throughout History | The Armed Forces Military Museum
So, until you provide a reference, please excuse me from buying your unsourced article.
Not bad. Of course, in the post I responded to you were talking about "wedding parties," which I took as a reference to airstrikes, which we have, unfortunately, done. Unintentionally. Nobody smart wastes ordnance on a wedding party.
Yep, we have a fair few war criminals. You'll have to give me a pass on defending Blackwater; I despise mercs.
You ever read War, by Gwynn Dyer? He's Canadian too. It's an interesting look at how they teach soldiers to kill.
The Abu Ghraib abusers went to prison. Sgt. Bales was just sentenced to life without parole. We don't get everybody, but we get some.
How many of Assad's soldiers do you think are in prison for killing civilians?
Never mind. I'll concede your point if it makes you feel better. The only Americans who aren't war criminals are those who were never given the opportunity, and all our military members are rabid, frothing Republicans who want nothing more than to go to church with Ronald Reagan after gassing a Damascus suburb. . . oops, make that "napalming women and children."
Longest confirmed kill is courtesy of a British soldier slim. Geezus cummy, check your sources. You're getting awfully sloppy. Maybe the mad is building up, I dunno.
Craig Harrison (sniper) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The sniper was named Chris Kyle. You can Google him. He was so proud of his killings he wrote a book on them then did the faux news speaking tour. There seem to be a number of different kill totals quoted for him. A former marine shot him dead at a gun range in Texas within the last year.
Nobody is saying that sniping per se is wrong. Don’t you understand the issue? Besides, it’s the military the sniper served with and its ethics that is the point, not his nationality or birth place. It’s the sheer volume of unnecessary civilian killing at Fallujah and the actual rules of engagement that created the war crime. Typical American savagery.
And that’s your only issue? Wasted ammo?
Long ago. You should read what Gwyn Dyer says about the sheer stupidity of US efforts in the Gulf. A good book on teaching soldiers to kill is "On Killing" by a US Lt. Colonel.
Just sentenced? As I recall the incident as it was reported, all he did was frighten some prisoners, have sex with fellow MP Lyndie England and embarrass Dubya. I thought he got a couple of years and a dishonourable discharge years ago? Life without parole for what? Don’t tell me that embarrassing a fool like Dubya is worth life without parole? Man oh man, what a hard case police state. Dubya embarrasses America by the mere act of drawing breath.
Typical American response. What relevance is that to the issue of US malevolence? If Syria is the level of humanity and decency you feel America is able to manage you just made my argument for me. The US is morally bankrupt.
Napalming women and children was Vietnam, remember? US forces used white phosphorous ("Willy Peter") in Fallujah.
Seriously, America has become a despicable nation. It is killing itself as fast as it is killingits middle class, which is going some. Aren’tyou at least willing to say ‘okay, but efforts must be made to turn it around?’ Or have you given up?
Last edited:
Oncea gentle Hominid
Decidedhe would walk upright
&as an upright creature he
Worriedwe would internet fight…
Sofor four million years he chose to
Keep his discovery to himself
&now 500 silly posts later
Whydon’t we park this on the shelf?
Kyle claimed 160, or as you can see in the link "more than 150." Still nowhere near 600.
American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History: Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen, Jim DeFelice: 9780062238863: Amazon.com: Books
Ironically, he was shot to death at close range with a handgun. Irony is cool.
As an American savage, I take exception to that comment. It's you Europeans that get up to that stuff.
Ammo ain't cheap.
Good book. Read it when I was in service. Made me wanna kill somebody. So I did.
Different guy. This one murdered 16 Afghans. He was having a bad day.
No, I wasn't claiming it was relevant to American culpability. I just wondered if your outrage was spread out even-like to all war criminals, or if you saved it all up for the Yanks.
Napalm too, trust me.
Do I have to use passive voice?
YOu forgot 'Nancy boyz".
formed by Theban commanderGorgidas in 4th century BC, the Sacred Band of Thebes was composed of 150 pairsof male lovers (300 in total, which was coincidentally the number of soldiersled by King Leonidas I in as depicted in the movie 300). It was believed then that lovers in battle wouldfight more fiercely and therefore invincible than soldiers who didn’t have abond.
Plato’s Symposium.