Adopt a sniper

[Chisoxmatt]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A U.S. university in Wisconsin has blocked an attempt by Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt a Sniper" that raises money for U.S. sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The students were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide."

 

"Clearly the rhetoric of that organization raised some questions and we had some strong objections as a Jesuit university," Marquette University school spokeswoman Brigid O'Brien said on Thursday.

 

The students, representing a group called College Republicans, originally got permission to set up a table at the student union to raise money for U.S. troops in Iraq.

 

But they chose to promote a group called Adopt a Sniper, which says on its Web site it supports snipers deployed by the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group says it "helps real snipers get the real gear they need to help keep us safe."

 

Link

[Kalapse]

Let the kids raise some money. Come On!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Let the kids raise some money. Come On!

 

The irony is that they're at a Jesuit school and are selling bracelets promoting murder. They aren't saying that the CR's can't fundraise but rather that the private University believes that such bracelets do go against the crux of the religious doctrine on which their school is founded.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The irony is that they're at a Jesuit school and are selling bracelets promoting murder.  They aren't saying that the CR's can't fundraise but rather that the private University believes that such bracelets do go against the crux of the religious doctrine on which their school is founded.

 

 

Murder? Shut the f*** up. Combat does not equal murder you dolt and snipers are the most surgical instruments the military has at its disposal.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Murder?  Shut the f*** up.  Combat does not equal murder you dolt and snipers are the most surgical instruments the military has at its disposal.

 

We are agreed on the nescessity and efficiency of snipers in combat. But it does go against all but the loosest and convenient iyterpretations of Roman Catholic doctrine, especially of a Jesuit institution.

 

More to the point, does the need for private donations to equip such an essential (and potentially innocent civilian-sparing) aspect of the war effort worry you? Is it more of Rummy's "army we have" scrounging for the resources they need to approach the "army we sished we have?"

 

And, off the point. What do you think of the shrewd business decision to cut survivor benefits to fallen soldiers' families if they have the misfortune of being killed anywhere but Iraq and Afghanistan these days? Seems a slap in the face to belittle the rest of our military casualties and the dedication of those troops kileld elsewhere. Completely expected from "friend of the military" GHB, however.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Murder?  Shut the f*** up.  Combat does not equal murder you dolt and snipers are the most surgical instruments the military has at its disposal.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" means just that -- not Amend Section A.

 

That's why Marquette, a "Catholic" institution stopped it.

Edited February 5, 2005 by LowerCaseRepublican

[Rex Kickass]

True, I never saw an asterisk on that.

 

I say let the kids do what they want, but if the Jesuits don't want it under their auspices, can't say I blame them.

 

Although it is kind of sad that private citizens have to raise money to provide better gear for our military which I thought was funded from our money to begin with. Every time I see a body armor drive or something like that, I always wonder a little.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

True, I never saw an asterisk on that.

 

I say let the kids do what they want, but if the Jesuits don't want it under their auspices, can't say I blame them.

 

Although it is kind of sad that private citizens have to raise money to provide better gear for our military which I thought was funded from our money to begin with. Every time I see a body armor drive or something like that, I always wonder a little.

 

 

I can completely understand why a religous institution has issues with this and I never said I disagreed with it.

 

My issue is with a little punk like LCR calling US troops murdererers. Things like that make my blood boil and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his alleged support for the troops is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

"Thou shalt not kill" means just that -- not Amend Section A.

 

That's why Marquette, a "Catholic" institution stopped it.

 

 

Where do you get off calling U.S. troops murderers. Scumbag.

 

:fyou

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Where do you get off calling U.S. troops murderers.  Scumbag.

 

:fyou

 

That's what they do right? They end peoples' lives. They kill which according to the dictionary definition of "murder" (n.) To put an end to; destroy. The military is simply paid killers -- and it amuses me that there are problems putting gays in the military because that would harm the "morality" of the military which has such bright shining moments like My Lai, Abu Ghraib, the Taguba report discussing the vastness of abuses going throughout.

 

Its just hilarious watching a "Christian" President endorsing mass murder of brown people without evening saying "Whoops!" during the times of "collateral damage". But I see that irony is probaby lost on such a staunch supporter of the imperial Bush doctrine.

 

We haven't even neared finishing up in Iraq and Bush is already making threats toward Syria and Iran. Sorry but America is not built on perpetual war for perpetual peace. When PNAC, the group founded by Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney etc. comes out and says "The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come." That is not a recipe for a protected, Constitutional republic. It is the recipe for a quasi-fascist empire.

 

And yes, I know the Orwell quote that people sleep well at night because other strong men are ready to commit violence at our behalf -- but there is a major league difference between SELF-DEFENSE and "pre-emptive" wars with 3rd world countries that did not and do not threaten us. All the bombing campaigns, invasions, etc. do is just over-spread our self-defense force, give our enemies more targets, more ability to recruit and lead to another generation of terrorists and increased anti-American sentiment.

[Texsox]

What Nuke is trying to explain is MAN decides what is murder, not GOD. Duh. The US Government defines morality. If the government decides someone should be dead, that is their right and it isn't murder. Thou Shall Not Kill really means Thou Shall Not Kill unless your government tells you to.

 

Of course GOD only gave this right to the US, not anyone who we disagree with. Of course what Sadaam did was murder.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That's what they do right?  They end peoples' lives.  They kill which according to the dictionary definition of "murder" (n.)  To put an end to; destroy.  The military is simply paid killers -- and it amuses me that there are problems putting gays in the military because that would harm the "morality" of the military which has such bright shining moments like My Lai, Abu Ghraib, the Taguba report discussing the vastness of abuses going throughout.

 

Its just hilarious watching a "Christian" President endorsing mass murder of brown people without evening saying "Whoops!" during the times of "collateral damage".  But I see that irony is probaby lost on such a staunch supporter of the imperial Bush doctrine.

 

We haven't even neared finishing up in Iraq and Bush is already making threats toward Syria and Iran.  Sorry but America is not built on perpetual war for perpetual peace.  When PNAC, the group founded by Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cheney etc. comes out and says "The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come."  That is not a recipe for a protected, Constitutional republic.  It is the recipe for a quasi-fascist empire.

 

And yes, I know the Orwell quote that people sleep well at night because other strong men are ready to commit violence at our behalf -- but there is a major league difference between SELF-DEFENSE and "pre-emptive" wars with 3rd world countries that did not and do not threaten us.  All the bombing campaigns, invasions, etc. do is just over-spread our self-defense force, give our enemies more targets, more ability to recruit and lead to another generation of terrorists and increased anti-American sentiment.

 

 

You cherrypicked the hell out of that defenition didn't you?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

 

The actual defenition of murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

 

There is a huge difference between combat action and murder but you convienently overlook that. You're quick to point out regrettable incidents committed by U.S. troops and indeed Mai Lai was murder and so were several killings committed by U.S troops in Iraq but when stuff like that happens those responsible are punished in accordance with the law, something else you convienently overlook. You're just as quick to sweep under the rug all of the humanitarian aid and reconstruction work the military is involved worldwide ( Who were some of the 1st people to start helping provide aid for the Tsunami victims providing clean water, medical treatment and airlift capacity? Oh yeah, that bunch of evil "paid killers" as you so eloquently put it ) but I expect no less from someone like you.

 

 

Our job is to protect this country and if that requires that we kill someone then so be it. To blindly label the millions of men and women who wore the uniform , myself included, as murderers is wrong and over the top and you damn well know it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You cherrypicked the hell out of that defenition didn't you? 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder

 

The actual defenition of murder:  The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

There is a huge difference between combat action and murder but you convienently overlook that.  You're quick to point out regrettable incidents committed by U.S. troops and indeed Mai Lai was murder and so were several killings committed by U.S  troops in Iraq but when stuff like that happens those responsible are punished in accordance with the law, something else you convienently overlook.  You're just as quick to sweep under the rug all of the humanitarian aid and reconstruction work the military is involved worldwide ( Who were some of the 1st people to start helping provide aid for the Tsunami victims providing clean water, medical treatment and airlift capacity?  Oh yeah,  that bunch of evil "paid killers" as you so eloquently put it ) but I expect no less from someone like you. 

Our job is to protect this country and if that requires that we kill someone then so be it.  To blindly label the millions of men and women who wore the uniform , myself included, as murderers is wrong and over the top and you damn well know it.

 

Yeah and for Bush to say that we needed to invade Iraq because the smoking gun could "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" was over the the top as well and "you damn well know it". Or the threats of Bush to "spread freedom all over the world" -- coming from a man representing the party of less government and fiscal responsibility. Last time I checked, it wasn't the role of the US to be global policeman cuz I sure as hell remember the GOP hacks getting on Clinton's case for his activities in the Balkans (which are war crimes too, btw for the use of DU and cluster bombs) but then they shut their mouths now that a man with an R next to his name is able to take credit for the dead bodies.

 

Nuke, when a high ranking military officer proclaims that its "fun to kill people", there are smiling people taking photos of torture, the US actively engaging in torture etc. etc. etc., the institution itself loses any sort of moral higher ground that they supposedly have.

 

And its a slap in the face to have a President who wraps himself up in the Bible while completely throwing it in the face of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Now maybe I have a different Bible that doesn't have the subsections where they detail the parts where ending somebody's life isn't killing

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yeah and for Bush to say that we needed to invade Iraq because the smoking gun could "come in the form of a mushroom cloud" was over the the top as well and "you damn well know it".  Or the threats of Bush to "spread freedom all over the world" -- coming from a man representing the party of less government and fiscal responsibility.  Last time I checked, it wasn't the role of the US to be global policeman cuz I sure as hell remember the GOP hacks getting on Clinton's case for his activities in the Balkans (which are war crimes too, btw for the use of DU and cluster bombs) but then they shut their mouths now that a man with an R next to his name is able to take credit for the dead bodies.

 

Nuke, when a high ranking military officer proclaims that its "fun to kill people", there are smiling people taking photos of torture, the US actively engaging in torture etc. etc. etc., the institution itself loses any sort of moral higher ground that they supposedly have. 

 

And its a slap in the face to have a President who wraps himself up in the Bible while completely throwing it in the face of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Now maybe I have a different Bible that doesn't have the subsections where they detail the parts where ending somebody's life isn't killing

 

There is a pretty big difference between the Balkans and Afghanistan and Iraq. In the Balkans there was clearly no threat to our security as opposed to the obvious threat posed by Afghanistan and the percieved threat posed by Iraq.

 

 

Interesting how you portray Bush's calls to spread democracy as a threat. Somehow I dont think we're going to invade one country after another to do regime change until the world is 100% democratic.

 

Regarding the idiot general who opened up his yap and those assholes involved in Abu Grhaib they will get what's coming to them.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

There is a pretty big difference between the Balkans and Afghanistan and Iraq.  In the Balkans there was clearly no threat to our security as opposed to the obvious threat posed by Afghanistan and the percieved threat posed by Iraq.

Interesting how you portray Bush's calls to spread democracy as a threat.  Somehow I dont think we're going to invade one country after another to do regime change until the world is 100% democratic. 

 

Regarding the idiot general who opened up his yap and those assholes involved in Abu Grhaib they will get what's coming to them.

 

The blueprint for perpetual war for perpetual peace is being laid out right now. And the original intent of the Bush Jr. War in Iraq was WMD (intel shown to come from many less than reliable sources) but later it became about human rights/murders by state leader. Well, if stopping Saddam's state murdering is fine and a legitimate reason for military action then the GOP hacks who whined about Clinton in the Balkans have a lot of crow to eat.

 

And the rhetoric of spreading democracy all over is like "benevolent empire". And I agree that we won't do every regime -- just the ones that threaten our ally Israel and sit on that precious precious oil.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The blueprint for perpetual war for perpetual peace is being laid out right now.  And the original intent of the Bush Jr. War in Iraq was WMD (intel shown to come from many less than reliable sources) but later it became about human rights/murders by state leader.  Well, if stopping Saddam's state murdering is fine and a legitimate reason for military action then the GOP hacks who whined about Clinton in the Balkans have a lot of crow to eat.

 

And the rhetoric of spreading democracy all over is like "benevolent empire".  And I agree that we won't do every regime -- just the ones that threaten our ally Israel and sit on that precious precious oil.

 

 

If that's true then why are the no plans to "do" Venezuela? Or Russia?

 

 

Also, if not for U.S. support there would have very likely been a second holacaust against the Jews, this time perpetrated by "those little brown people" you keep alluding to who's stated national policy was and in some cases still is "the complete annihilation of the Zionist state".

[KipWellsFan]

If that's true then why are the no plans to "do" Venezuela?  Or Russia?

Also, if not for U.S. support there would have very likely been a second holacaust against the Jews, this time perpetrated  by "those little brown people" you keep alluding to who's stated national policy was and in some cases still is "the complete annihilation of the Zionist state".

 

It's already been proved that the U.S. doesn't really give a s*** about tyrannical leaders. Uzbekistan is a perfect example of this. While it's leader is often accused of some of the worst human rights abuse the U.S. has still formed a military alliance with them.

 

 

I'm not expert on this subject I might add, and further opinions would be nice.