- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The uncle had a chance to survive. Kim proved the uncle was a sissy and lacked command of his men. Case closed.
Dennis Rodman needs psychiatric help for hobnobbing with that madman.
I wonder if he feels embarrassed by his past support of Kim Jong.
Former NBA star Dennis Rodman plans to travel to North Korea next week to train its basketball team, a trip unaffected by the execution of leader Kim Jong Un's uncle.
I wonder if he feels embarrassed by his past support of Kim Jong.
I didn't learn much in airborne school. It was the time I spent serving with the 82nd that taught me the importance of aggression.
First, a dog on my arm or leg does not end my service. I'll destroy its eyes and I can kill more.
Second, you're ignoring tactics. Let's look at the most important 3:
1. The dogs are hungry and thus weak, excessive aggression will pay off against them.
2. The alphas are BARELY holding onto control of the pack. Break them and chaos ensues.
3. We don't need to kill them all.
Those 6 died because they curled up like little sissies. At least one, maybe three, should have lived. They failed their test.
I hope so. At first he had a legitimate claim of ignorance.
Only if he had never picked up a newspaper in his life. And even then his friends, family, coach, the pilot for his airplane, the guy who maintains the airplane...literally everyone...would have at some point had to tell him, "Hey Dennis, you do know that the North Korean regime is cartoonishly evil, right?"
I think it's really easy to forget the extraordinary bubble famous people can find themselves in.
You have a 11b buddy?Incorrect.
Weak. An 11b buddy who saw combat in Afghan says we could do it with 4 like us, and one or more survives.
Let's face it, the uncle and his men were pansies.
Let's give credit where credit is due. Kim was right, the evidence stands for itself.
We might also note that dogs are eaten by people in nK, so it's kinda fair.
Kim was right about what?
Oh, but of course.
That uncle was no good. What kind of elite military commander with his best 5 men is defeated by dogs? Was David defeated by dogs?
Read more here:
Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report
That is about as sadistic as it gets.
It's **** like this that makes me realize how much I hate moral equivalency.
We had a thread the other day with people arguing over the "cruelty" if executing someone with a drug cocktail not yet tested on humans because the normal one was no longer sold. It was being made out to be a horrible, cruel, unusual punishment of the worst kind.
.....then you see "eaten alive by 120 starving dogs" and you realize however bad you may feel like some of what we do is, the act like we're some kind of backwards dictatorial third world barbaric regime morally is just ridiculous.
:lamo He's in good company....without mentioning names.
I was gonna say, I've seen Kim defended here.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's not true. We find it believeable because of where it comes from...
BBC News - Did Kim Jong Un feed his uncle to dogs?
True, but defending something we do on the basis that it's not as bad as the practices of the worst possible countries on earth is also pretty weak.
I'm not really even talking about the "defending" something we do. If we do wrong then we should address that.
It's more the general notion that comes up at times of a "we're as bad as ...." type of thing. It's the same type of thing that would irk me with things back during the war as well. Want to complain about what we do, cool. Want to say we're "no different" than people doing a significantly more barbaric and worse thing at a far greater frequency? That's ridiculous.
It's not so much a notion of "see, what is happening in that other situation is okay". Rather, it's simply trying to look at it a bit in context. Is that particular case wrong or "cruel and unusual by our standards"? That's a big question, and one for another thread. But the fact we're even HAVING that conversation over something that theoretically is meant to be a painless form of execution, but simply hasn't been tested on humans is a wonderful sign that REGARDLESS of how you feel about it you should still be able to feel that the United States as a country and a society does generally try to be as humane as possible on this issue.
We're arguing about whether or not we should use an untested means of potentially painless chemical execution......North Korea is having prisoners eaten by 120 starving dogs.
Even if you can't stand the death penalty, or if you don't mind it but don't agree with what's happening in that case, you should still be able to step back and go "regardless of how wrong I think this is, I can be thankful that I'm in a society where THIS is the worst that's being debated on this topic".
Like I said, it's the whole relative morality thing that it makes me think of. That notion acknowledges that both things CAN be wrong. It's simply suggested that two wrongs aren't always necessarily equal.
The article itself states that while the story may not be certain, the thing about it is its extreme believability in light of what we know about the Kims.
Read more here:
Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report
That is about as sadistic as it gets.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?