TRANSMISSIONS FROM ARIZONA

[Triple Zero]

yeah, some of my best friends have been killed by that guy.

[Random Probability]

Hmmm...

First, from talking to Pope Lecher before, he claims that he swings with the wing (1st MAW based at Camp Futenma, Okinawa).

Second, the job he described is pretty much the general catch-all for the 7200 field (not a specific job, but everything in the ATC/AAD category).  Which means that he's probably a 6062 (hydraulic mechanic) or something equally glamorous, dangerous, and deadly.

Third, (and this is pointed in St. Verbatim's direction) not all human life is valuable.  However, humans have the amazing ability to maintain two mutually exclusive and contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Fourth, ????

Fifth, Profit?

[Cramulus]

Third... not all human life is valuable to me

fixed

[AFK]

"What the hell does any of this have to do with Arizona!?!?!?!?"
/

[P3nT4gR4m]

"What the hell does any of this have to do with Arizona!?!?!?!?"
/

They found human life there

[Random Probability]

"What the hell does any of this have to do with Arizona!?!?!?!?"
/

They found human life there

You can't prove that!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not only did you take my statement out of the original context, but you also took it out a PM.  Why?

Hmm...where have I heard the idea that killing certain people is okay because there's a distinct division between "Human" and "Subhuman"?

Oh yeah. The Fuhrer. 

Not human and sub-human.  "People,"   "Good People,"  and  "Bad People."

And what's Bullshit about my job description Pope Naughty Nasturtiums?

1.  You said they weren't human.  That they thought they were, but there was something they lacked.  Quit lying, psycho-boy.

2.  It should read:  Cook.

[Verbal Mike]

not all human life is valuable.

That's beside the point, to me. I just find it deeply distasteful to kill a human being.

[Random Probability]

not all human life is valuable.

That's beside the point, to me. I just find it deeply distasteful to kill a human being.

But that is entirely the point.  Certainly it is extremely distasteful to have to kill a human.  No argument about that, but at times it is necessary no matter how distasteful it may be.

[LMNO]

Why?

Certainly, one can envision courses of action that render killing completely uneccesary.  Especially considering current technological and pharmecutical advances.

[Cain]

Actually, the strategic advance of the now is working towards mass wounding of enemies forces as a way to fight wars.

Think about it.

You have to pay a lot more to look after a trooper than a corpse.

[LMNO]

good point.

4,000 (american) dead in Iraq, but an estimated 30,000 (american) seriously wounded.

[Random Probability]

Why?

Certainly, one can envision courses of action that render killing completely uneccesary.  Especially considering current technological and pharmecutical advances.

1. Why what?

2. How can "technology" and drugs be universally applied to all situations 100% of the time?  And isn't a firearm an example of "technology" used to bring about a peaceful resolution to certain contested points of interest?  ("peaceful" meaning: no one left alive to offer violent opposition).

[LMNO]

Why?

Certainly, one can envision courses of action that render killing completely uneccesary.  Especially considering current technological and pharmecutical advances.

1. Why what?

2. How can "technology" and drugs be universally applied to all situations 100% of the time?  And isn't a firearm an example of "technology" used to bring about a peaceful resolution to certain contested points of interest?  ("peaceful" meaning: no one left alive to offer violent opposition).

1.  Why, "at times it is necessary no matter how distasteful it may be."

2.  Give me an example.  I can find a way to either avoid killing someone through previous and current choices, or theough the use of currently existing technology.

[Random Probability]

Why?

Certainly, one can envision courses of action that render killing completely uneccesary.  Especially considering current technological and pharmecutical advances.

1. Why what?

2. How can "technology" and drugs be universally applied to all situations 100% of the time?  And isn't a firearm an example of "technology" used to bring about a peaceful resolution to certain contested points of interest?  ("peaceful" meaning: no one left alive to offer violent opposition).

1.  Why, "at times it is necessary no matter how distasteful it may be."

It is necessary because some people won't take no for an answer.  Some people are of the variety of "stupid" that requires weapons and extreme pain for them to learn anything at all.  Such individuals make a hobby out of putting more functional human beings in the position of having to decide if they wish to continue living or not.

2.  Give me an example.  I can find a way to either avoid killing someone through previous and current choices, or theough the use of currently existing technology.

The guy who makes car bombs.

The guy who plants car bombs.

The schmucks who make and plant IEDs.

The people who attack markets with mortars.

The guy who has a knife and really wants your shoes.

The guy who straps ten kilos of gelignite to his ass and lights it off on a crowded street.

The fifteen screaming idiots who rape a twelve-year-old girl to death on a street corner.

I've got more examples if you want them.  Let's see how you do with these ones, first.