The gripping, numbing Combat Obscura detonates fantasies of military heroism
Miles Lagoze, a former combat cameraman for the U.S. Marine Corps, opens his war documentary Combat Obscura with a revealing statement of method: “We filmed what they wanted, but then we kept shooting.” As the official videographer of the 6th Marine Regiment’s 1st Battalion in Afghanistan, he was responsible for capturing footage that “they” (the Marine Corps) could use for recruitment videos and military propaganda, and thus project an authoritative image of justice and and moral rectitude. The roughly hour-long Combat Obscura, assembled from material that Lagoze and other cameramen shot from 2011 to 2012 (and which he revisited years later while enrolled in Columbia’s film program), shows us what’s been left out from years of state-sanctioned publicity. Unsurprisingly, the results aren’t pretty. (On the grounds that the raw footage was captured with government-owned equipment, the USMC threatened, but did not follow through, with legal action against Lagoze.)
Anyone who still thinks of America’s presence in Afghanistan as a heroic affair will be swiftly disabused of that notion. There aren’t any direct verbal denouncements from any of the marines, but the chosen footage makes it clear where Lagoze stands. (In one brief scene, a soldier inspecting a grisly corpse says only: “Oh man. We killed a shopkeeper.”) Eschewing voice-over, basic date and location cards, and really any sort of narrative shape, Combat Obscura consists mainly of disorienting flurries of brusque, brutal action alternated with stretches of uneasy repose.
For a while, this approach is productively amorphous. Even in scenes of relative calm—the soldiers smoking hash, patrolling the desert, or just horsing around—there’s always the sense that all hell could break loose at any moment, a feeling that Lagoze frequently augments by abruptly cutting to deafening firefights. A number of sequences with the local children are especially unsettling, observing as the men offer the kids cigarettes, let them play with their firearms, and tensely question them about possible bombs. Though there’s no attempt to develop any particular personalities among the battalion, we’re given disconcerting glimpses of its members, whom one marine describes as some of the “most fucked up individuals I’ve ever met.” Eventually, though, Lagoze’s relentless horror show becomes rather numbing. A sequence that follows a few men beheading a chicken for sport with others callously inspecting a man gunned down “like a deer” is certainly emblematic of the Corps’ senseless violence (and that of the greater Middle Eastern conflict). But this thudding juxtaposition offers neither novel insight nor incisive observation.
Lagoze, who enlisted in the Corps at 18, has acknowledged an enduring obsession with Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, the poster for which can be seen in the bedroom of a young Spencer Stone in Clint Eastwood’s recent The 15:17 To Paris. Though largely unwatchable, the 2018 film sharply delineated the mechanisms by which scores of American boys are, from birth, practically pre-programmed with notions of militarism, Christian self-sacrifice, and unblinking patriotism. In that respect, Eastwood’s dramatic re-enactment serves as a useful complement to Lagoze’s disjunctive documentary. If The 15:17 To Paris saw three men who managed, against all odds, to fulfill their deeply ingrained ideals and become American heroes (“We got lucky,” one of them says toward the end), then Combat Obscura observes the countless others for whom heroism is no longer in the cards. It may not offer much more than a hellish, on-the-ground vision of the war in Afghanistan, but perhaps it’s enough that Lagoze detonates any lingering illusions of military heroism.
114 Comments
-
-
gernn-av says: Ha ha! You should watch the interview with Miles on youtube. He talks about people saying that when they meet veterans.
-
-
seinnhai-av says:
Just, in the future, please capitalize Marine. It’s a title that we earned.
-
-
archbishop-avclub-av says:
Out of curiosity I went down a bit of a rabbit hole, trying to find what The Marine Corps’ official preference is. So, straight from the Navy’s style guide: “Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces (the U.S. Marines, the Marine Corps, a Marine). Lowercase when describing marines from other nations or the marine services. Do not use the abbreviation USMC.”https://www.navy.mil/submit/navyStyleGuide.pdfWhich makes it interesting that the Naval Postgraduate School follows Chicago Style, but will make an exception for ‘Marine.’ “Examples of a few exceptions: Based on strong tradition among U.S. military personnel, Thesis Processing turns a blind eye to capitalizing Sailor, Soldier, Marine, etc., when they are from the U.S. military. For foreign militaries, these terms are not capitalized.”https://my.nps.edu/documents/105790666/106471207/Capitalization+Reference+Sheet/9b1faaa4-ba79-4944-a2ef-cee20e6a0b12And in 2009, the NY Times changed their style to capitalize Marine, when referring to an individual. “We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals”
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/when-every-letter-counts/-
gkstar-av says:
I was not a Marine. So I capitalize. And, despite a vet having being been an enlisted man, I call him “sir.” Nice info, though. Good post.
-
-
umbrielx-av says:
Logically I’d use the capital in reference to any body of naval infantry that formally refers to itself as “the Marines”, (the USMC, ROKMC, and Britain’s Royal Marines come to mind), and lower-case in generic reference to such troops (“Many larger warships ships carry a detachment of marines”). I guess you’re not wrong sticking to the Chicago Manual, but the organizations I referenced do tend to use “Marine” as an epithet for their individual soldiers.
-
dirtside-av says:
Style aside, I can’t think of a logical justification for capitalizing “marine” but not capitalizing other nouns that describe employment (doctor, lawyer, accountant, whatever). Not to mention that “soldier,” “sailor,” and “airman” aren’t typically capitalized.
-
keithzg-av says:
Yeah, it would be terribly inconsistent to capitalize some profession nouns but not others, although considering the prevalence of American Military Exceptionalism and the inward looking nature of each branch and often of the subsections within them it’s not surprising that there’s folks arguing for that.That being said, maybe we should probably just go back to the German style and capitalize every noun.
-
umbrielx-av says:
I see it as relating to the name of the organization, not the profession. The latter, as in my examples, would be lower-case. I’d use lower-case for “bodyguard”, but upper case for “Swiss Guard”.
-
dirtside-av says:
So the logic then is to capitalize any name which originates from an organization where the word was also capitalized in the name? I suppose that might justify the USMC exception, since it has “Marine” (capitalized) in the name, but a member of the Navy is a “sailor,” not a “navy.” [insert joke about how the USMC calls its members “marines” to keep the marines from having to learn one additional word]For consistency’s sake, I guess it would depend on whether organizations generally capitalize the noun designating individual members, when that noun appears in the name of the organization. The Boy Scouts of America seems to capitalize “Scout” as an individual noun (they capitalize “Scouting” as a verb, too), but I get the feeling that’s more about branding and distinguishing themselves from other scouting-related organizations. Fraternal organizations like the Elks typically capitalize the noun, although those nouns also refer to other things (elk, for example), so the capitalization disambiguates. But “marine” as a non-collective noun only refers to members of a marine corps or similar organization; there’s no risk that someone referred to as “a marine” is going to be thought of as anything but a member of a marine corps.Going back to the military angle, “sailor” and “airman” are terms specific to the Navy and Air Force, respectively, but while “soldier” is used for Army members, it’s also generally used for all members of the armed forces. And the Army doesn’t insist on capitalizing “soldier” to distinguish between Army men and other armed forces members.There are also a number of organizations with “Agency” in the name, whose members are referred to as “agents,” but do not capitalize the term: the CIA and NSA, for example.
-
theupsetter-av says:
The Bureau has agents, the Agency has officers. Everytime someone says a “CIA Agent” it sounds like some one saying “FBI Constable” or “NSA Veterinarian”.
-
dirtside-av says:
While “officer” is the correct term, I don’t think anyone thinks “CIA agent” sounds as weird as “NSA veterinarian.” For one thing, anyone who acts on behalf of an organization is an agent of that organization. A CIA officer is also an agent of the CIA. Unless NSA members are peforming medical procedures on pets, calling them a veterinarian would be both technically and colloquially incorrect.
-
whorfin-av says:
In the CIA, intelligence officers are CIA employees and have officer’s rank just like a captain in the army. Agents are assets or sources, usually from foreign entities.
-
-
-
hulk6785-av says:
Well, when the Chicago Manual Of Style starts fighting in wars, then maybe we’ll stop capitalizing it. Until then, “Marine” gets capitalized!
-
spacesheriff-av says:
well, if we’re making pointless posturing statements about alleged virtue, the Chicago Manual of Style never raped Okinawan women while occupying their territory so they’re clearly more worthy of capitalization than the marines.
-
vermonter1101-av says:
So you think the armed forces of Imperial Japan had the moral high ground, eh?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
-
spacesheriff-av says:
no, i think the chicago manual of style has the moral high ground, i thought i made that clear
-
vermonter1101-av says:
Raping Okinawian women? Go F yourself and the moral high ground you rode in on.
-
spacesheriff-av says:
what say i compromise and just call them the 💩arines instead? that’s a capital emoji so it’s respectful
-
vermonter1101-av says:
Jezus. Did a M(m)arine run your cat over or something? Guy wants a capital M and you’re ready to ship the lot them of the over to The Hague. Lighten TF up Francis
-
spacesheriff-av says:
You: Go F yourself and the moral high ground you rode in on.You, minutes later: lol, angry much??i can’t believe your time as a soldier in the u.s. 💩❄️rines didn’t prepare you to deal with other style guides
-
kylebrand79-av says:
Man, remember when this thread started, and all that was argued about was the different styles used in regards to members of whatever group? That was a good time.
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
F yourself? Is your mom looking over your shoulder?
-
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
The lower case soldiers in the US Army beg to differ.
-
oldmanmckenna-av says:
I’m late to the party as usual, however the Army Style Guide begs to differ with your begging to differ (https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/armydotmil_style_guide.pdf ). As does AR 360-1. Before you mention that not applying to the public, please read the rest of this post, because you’d be right.I will say that, anecdotally, I went through Basic Training in 2002 and Officer Candidate School (OCS) in 2008. In each setting, we were told to capitalize Soldier in military official (memorandum for record, etc) and unofficial (.mil or .gov emails, etc) correspondence & publications when referring to Soldiers in the US Army. Same with Sailor, Airman and Marine when referring to US forces. I think we called Coasties Coast Guardsmen or Sailors but honestly don’t recall.My point: within the Army, we were/are required to capitalize the S.Does this mean everyone outside of the military has to adhere to it? No. Just those of us in the military when writing military correspondence. Look no further than the Army Times for proof of that. Would it be nice if everyone did? Sure. Do the vast majority of us do it out of respect to our sister services when in general, private or non-military correspondence? Also yes. Are we required to do so? No.Do I agree with people not capitalizing soldier, sailor, airman, marine when referring to US forces? No. Can I do anything about it? Also no.
-
-
-
Poodog-av says:
AP Stylebook says capitalize. Chicago style can get fucked.
-
robitaille03-av says:
The Chicago Manual is for academic texts. This, being a piece of journalism, should follow AP Style, just like every other news outlet in the free world, and capitalize “Marine” when referring to U.S. troops.
-
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Your boys up top are certainly heaping glory and honor on that Title.
-
-
mothkinja-av says:
it’s not shitting on you to not capitalize marine.
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Whole lotta earning that title going on at Haditha, champ.And those guys caught pissing on dead bodies? Semper Fi!
-
vermonter1101-av says:
So I think I missed a memo. Are we supposed to hate Marines now? Or is this “Marines are all war criminals because some guy said ‘Marine’ should be capatilized” just some contrarian Galaxy Brain BS?
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Think what you want to think. Why are you looking to me for answers?
-
seinnhai-av says:
Yup. Those things happened. You’re super awesome at pointing out the bad shit some Marines did. Should we talk about what non-military atrocities the US has committed over the past, I don’t know, couple hundred years and then let me pin them on your chest for being a civilian? Because, ya know, as long as you’re one of them you’re culpable, right? Or maybe you should just lock the door to the basement you’re in and keep our edgelord title?
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Sure. Go ahead. Do you honestly think I’m going to disagree? We’re a country of fucking assholes. Also, you don’t think being a literal Marine makes you way more of an “edge lord” than me? Seriously? The shit in film this post is under is super edgy.
-
seinnhai-av says:
The Marine Corps is a weird, psychotic melting pot. We’re talking about 18-20 year olds being slammed together with people they might have been raised to hate, forced to accept ideas that are completely alien to them (no one goes in there having killed another living, breathing person), and then sent to gods know where to do what they were trained to do.
There are going to be idiots. Have you ever walked into a room full of 18-20 year olds where that wasn’t the case? Now add jingoistic indoctrination, heightened levels of toxic masculinity, and lots of time on their hands between levels of terror-fueled adrenaline rushes. That shit is the kind of cocktail that rivals napalm for overall usefulness as an antiseptic.
But someone’s gotta do that shit. You might wanna keep popping off these examples of dipshit kids being stupid on camera, but no one does documentaries on scared 19 year olds, deployed gods know where, saving American lives when the embassy, which is full of women, children, and civilians, is getting shot all to fuck. Being put in a position where your training has to overtake your natural urge not to fucking kill another person isn’t a punishment I’d wish on anyone.
So if you think wanting a modicum of respect that the Corps, with all its fucked up failures, has earned over a couple hundred of years makes me an edgelord while you sit there behind your screen and scribble the ignorant perspective of a non-participant observer using situations you can’t remotely understand but feel confident enough in your self-righteousness to drivel out, fine. I’m a fucking edgelord. But I did shit that saved lives. Fuck you done but talk shit? -
gettyroth-av says:
“But someone’s gotta do that shit.”LMAO, no they don’t.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Really? They don’t? We should just pull our ambassadors and foreign embassies? Or do you mean we should just let them die if the locals go nuts?Lol, you’re smart.
-
gettyroth-av says:
You could not antagonise and destabilise huge regions of the world first. But yeah I wouldn’t expect a marine to really understand that.
-
seinnhai-av says:
So you can keep using the lukewarm meta take that US foreign policy is the primary destabilizing force worldwide and run with it all you want. It’s horseshit, but you go with what you know, I suppose. Have we been caught with our hands in a lot of cookie jars? Yup. Is our use of sanctions backed by military force sometimes way too aggressive. Yup. But you do realize there are a lot of countries that aren’t suffering from US intervention (unless you wanna backpedal and claim that by the US not being more involved is as much a causal relationship as us being over-involved, you seem the type who’d try that shit) that still devolve into chaos and anarchy, right?
I’m not a huge fan of US foreign policy in a lot of cases but trying to say that we’re the ones fucking everything up without acknowledging that influence other countries exert globally is equally destructive (Russia’s involvement in Eastern Europe and on the Black Sea, China’s influence in DRC and other spots in Africa) or pointing out that our foreign policy creates economic stability in places that teeter on financial collapse (which eventually leads to dead bodies) is a fairly ignorant example of why people who don’t study history and have no grasp of what US foreign policy actually details really shouldn’t draw piss poor connections between entities involved in protecting Americans who got caught in embassies during the Serb-Croat fuckstorm and the socioeconomic and political instability that caused that fracture.
Oh, by the way, you’re nowhere close to as well versed on these subjects as I am, trust me. And I’m a Marine so, seeing as you think it’s amusing to imply I’m stupid, what exactly does that say about your level of intelligence? Want some crayons? -
gettyroth-av says:
No I’m far better versed on these subjects than you, and what’s more I’m not deeply soaked in apologia and whataboutery for the US. I mean I get that you have to maintain the illusion you aren’t a pawn for one of the most murderous regimes that’s ever existed to not blow your brains out thinking about all the vile shit you’ve facilitated but when presented with that reality it’s not going to serve you well in the long run to keep attempting to assert it’s not true. Oh and just so it’s clear quite how brainwashed you are I didn’t assert you were stupid I said as a marine you wouldn’t understand it. That’s because it’s antithetical to you being able to fulfill your role as muscle for a bunch of criminals while still believing you’ve done more good than harm. I’d say you have my sympathy but that’s reserved for ex-forces who’ve been honest and clear-eyed enough to renounce being pieces of shit.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Wow. That’s pretty good. You been rehearsing that for awhile? Testing it out in the mirror? I mean, it’s so painfully ignorant that I’m pretty sure anyone who heard it besides you would either eye roll you right the fuck out of whatever freshman philosophy class you popped off in that the only person who could listen to it would be your reflection. To be honest, I’d be surprised if it didn’t side eye that shit too. The most murderous regime? Really? You’re saying that the US Military, or more specifically the Marine Corps, is more murderous than, I don’t know, the Khmer Rouge, the Maoists, the Bolsheviks, Stalin, the Third Reich, Pinochet? It’s like you know less than fuck all about anything, instead deciding to wrap yourself in hot buzzwords like “whataboutisms.” Which, by the way, is a bitchest of moves considering you’re doing a comparative analysis between the US and other “murderous regimes” And still, you provide no evidence to support your wild eyed edgelord rant, no substantive proof to back your claims, nothing. Just a lot of horseshit backed by literally nothing but by some shit you no doubt heard on a podcast and took as the whole truth, completely bereft of context, and are now trying to pass off as your own.
Come with some facts or go the fuck back to your corner and put the dunce cap back on. You don’t know shit about any of this, just admit it and move on. -
gettyroth-av says:
Ok turns outI was mistaken and that you are in fact dumb as shit. From not knowing what a regime is to thinking “whataboutery” is a buzz word when it’s been in pretty common usage since at least GWB’s post 9/11 failure. And that’s before we even get to the irony of you moaning about something you think is performative when your first comment was about capitalizing a letter because you earned that goddamn capital “m”. Of course the other option is you’re a dishonest little weasel instead – you namechecking Pinochet in apparent defense of the US plus using whataboutery in your response to me first and then whining about me calling you on it as though I was the person to employ it in the first place certainly points to that. So your choice – are you dumb as shit or dishonest as shit? Hell I’ll be nice and say you can choose both, you’ve earned that at least.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Ohhhhhh. I see what you’re doing. Very clever. You’re doing one of those “if you talk about this, I’m going to change the subject to this and then hop between both” attacks. For example, if I say the US isn’t the be-all end-all of foreign policy fuck ups (while admitting we have fucked up a lot) you then switch to a “we’re the most murderous regime” statement. Then when I point out how we’re nowhere close to the most murderous regime and throw some names out, you find one that the US was directly involved in (which was bait) and then jump back to the first attack. If you want to debate terms like intellectual dishonesty, I suggest you go back to talking to your mirror. Maybe it can explain the concept of self-awareness to you. Doubtful since so far you’ve proven too thick to bring any of that honesty you crave so much (or facts, for that matter) to the table.
Now, for a free lesson, let me explain the difference between “whataboutism” and comparative analysis since it is apparent you think the two terms mean the same thing. If you make a statement like “we’re the most murderous regime,” full of its own particular vagueness, and then I give you examples of regimes that were far more murderous, that is called comparative analysis. See, you have to compare the two, hence the comparative part, but then you have to do research and perhaps whittle down your sprawling definition of murder to something resembling a definition (is all death caused by military action murder or just the stuff you don’t agree with personally?) and I doubt you have any intention of doing that because it means acknowledging the corner you’re in and the paint that surrounds you. Then we go to my contention that the US is not the be-all end-all of foreign policy fuckery worldwide and I point out what Russia and China are up to. Again, not whataboutism, COM-PAR-I-TIVE A-NAL-Y-SIS. An example of whataboutism would be if I said “we’re not as bad as Russia or China” or flat out denied we had done anything wrong and actually defended our foreign policy choices, neither of which I did. If you read what I said instead of smelling the your own farts while waiting for your turn to talk, you’ll see that I’m fully aware and acknowledge the foreign policy fuck ups that we’re responsible for but since your implication was that our foreign policy was “antagonizing and destabilizing huge portions of the world” without acknowledging the complexities of global socioeconomics and the myriad of influences other than the US, it was necessary to point out that our sphere of influence isn’t what you’re trying to claim it is by showing that other countries are also antagonistic and that complicates an argument that claims one country is accountable for the destabilization of huge regions of the world. That’s why I’m calling you out on your buzzwordy bullshit; you’re defining an argument with a term you don’t even understand, ignorant of the context of the statement you’re attacking, and then doubling down on your stupidity by trying to defend your use of the term. I’d call it pathetic but meh.
I’d also, once again, like to point out you have yet to bring one fucking fact to support your bullshit to the table yet. But keep trying. I can teach this masterclass on how to put ignorant blowhards on blast until the word processing program on kinja runs out of ink. -
gettyroth-av says:
LMAO. You really can’t follow an argument that goes on for more than one post. You made a claim that someone had to do that shit. I said they didn’t. You then set up a false binary choice for the alternatives and I suggested there was more than just your two options. At which point you started in with apologia and euphemism used to downplay how murderous, antagonistic and destabilizing the actions of the US around the world have been – “hand in the cookie jar” is just cowardly downplaying your actions. And that’s actually pretty funny, you’re trying to defend realpolitik and tough choices but you can’t actually face up to them yourself.And all that’s aside from you A) just straight up lying about what I said in order to argue against an invented position I haven’t taken, B) you apparently not knowing what a regime is C) trying to use “bait” but then not going anywhere with it so it looks like you just fucked up and are now trying to deflect. But here’s where you’ve shown you can’t follow an argument:“For example, if I say the US isn’t the be-all end-all of foreign policy fuck ups (while admitting we have fucked up a lot) you then switch to a “we’re the most murderous regime” statement.”When you’re trying to explain the sleight of hand that didn’t happen but you made up because it’s the only way you can argue it’s a good idea to get the ordering right – here’s a hint you don’t “switch” to something when it’s meant to be the initial argument. Like I said and you’ve now confirmed – you’re just a dishonest little weasel. Btw I didn’t at any point say you were the most murderous regime, but you feel certain I did. I’d say a guilty conscience on your part but it’s more like a guilty subconscious clawing it’s way out despite your best efforts to not face up to the shit you’ve helped enable. You’re not teaching a masterclass, you are however a great example of how a (very) little knowledge of rhetoric multiplied by the self righteousness found in only the most insecure armed service personnel equals an incoherent stream of illogical posturing.P.S – look up the definition of murderous it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
-
seinnhai-av says:
“No I’m far better versed on these subjects than you, and what’s more I’m not deeply soaked in apologia and whataboutery for the US. I mean I get that you have to maintain the illusion you aren’t a pawn for one of the most murderous regimes that’s ever existed to not blow your brains out” You were saying? Oh, yeah, that’s right. Nothing. Nothing you’ve said is of any higher value than the incoherent ramblings on a freshman philosopher. You’re calling me on definitions when you’re using words you obviously can’t comprehend, accusing me of trying to defend a regime which I haven’t and then saying I don’t understand what a regime is? Or what murderous means? Are you fucking kidding me, you half-witted dipshit? It’s like you’re copy and pasting arguments from reddit you agree with without looking at the fallout in the responses when people call you an ignorant twit.
And, again, what argument? What argument in all of this have you tried to make other than I’m an apologist for the military and US foreign policy? You’re implying my contentions are disingenuous? You’re kidding, right? Every dippy blurb that you spit out is designed to be a moving target that you can’t even keep straight but you’re going to hold me to a higher standard? This is GOP level bullshit being pumped out by some less intelligent than the presenters on Fox News. You’re not arguing facts, not explaining your contentions, tripping over your own bullshit and then trying to pin my discourse on… what? Pragmatism? Facts? Oooooh, sick burn.
There’s nothing disingenuous about using an euphemism to describe what we’re doing geopolitically, by the way. I could go into the deeper details about the nastier bits we’ve done but I’d use context and you’d probably just glass your eyes over because it wasn’t saying what you wanted it to, and then you’d probably say that’s not what you were asking for and go off on another heavily buzzwordy riff that makes literally no fucking sense, like the last three you’ve done. Worse, you’re writing them so blindly that you’re forgetting what you said and then getting mad when you can’t remember it. It’s like listening to Trump, but less entertaining.
Oh, and how about you define murderous, you dipshit? It’s the term you used (even though you forgot you used it), it’s on you to define it. See, that’s the problem with you pseudo-intellectuals. You use words you barely understand, provide no context for their use, and then expect other people to fill in your failures in the hopes you can find something else you can desperately cling to in order to save face. Quit being fucking lazy and bring something real or go the fuck back to sucking your thumb under your blanket in whatever corner of the internet buys your horseshit. -
gettyroth-av says:
Yeah see this is what I was saying about you being a dishonest little weasel. Even the mentally challenged can tell the difference between “one of the most murderous” and “the most murderous”. So you should just about be able to manage the same. And yet you pretend there’s no difference because it’s literally the only thing you have left after I’ve pointed out the stupidity and dishonesty of your posts. You pretend you didn’t, or perhaps genuinely didn’t know what a regime was – hence you asking if it means the usmc, you name check Pinochet in attempted defense of the US and then pretend it was intentional but have no reason for doing it. You try to deflect from the murderous point by talking about actual murder instead of what murderous means – I was giving you a hand asking you to look it up, but your baked in desperation to defend the fact you’ve wasted your life helping commit thousands of atrocities means you simply can’t be honest with yourself. It’s why you’re getting so mad that you can’t employ your usual dishonest tactics successfully, it’s revealing the bullshit not just to me or anyone else who happens across these posts but to you as well. I’m glad I could help you face up to what you’ve done but don’t worry there’s no need to thank me. Your next post will be hilarious enough.
-
seinnhai-av says:
You are truly pathetic. Is this what you have left? “I didn’t say the most murderous, I said one of the most murderous”? Wow, that’s just sad. See, you say you want me to be able to parse the subtle differences between the two but you refuse to do any comparative analysis to define how we fall into even the category of any of the regimes I provided. What’s worse is now you’re going to hide behind that bullshit in order to avoid doing what I’ve been asking you to do all along – provide a fully fleshed out, contextualized argument using comparative analysis and facts to prove your points.
You want to talk about being a dishonest little weasel? All you’re doing is dancing around hard questions so you don’t have to flesh out your argument because it’s so much easier to just hide in the gray area of debate because that way no one can pin you down to a standpoint. We’re one of the most murderous regimes? Go ahead and contextualize that for me. What do you define as murderous? Is any killing of another person murder? Would you also contend that the deaths in the Civil War were murder? How about the countless dead Nazis during World War II? Were they murdered? Is there any point at which you would define murder as acceptable? See, there’s nothing to your bullshit but a bunch of words you pulled from a thesaurus and a level of self-righteousness that you clearly haven’t earned through study or experience. Here, we’ll go another level. How about you explain to me how US foreign policy is antagonistic and directly responsible for the destabilization of huge regions? And I mean in detail, not your piss poor unsupported statements but with facts, examples, or anything with merit?
Oh, that’s right. You can’t, and more to the point you won’t because you’re intellectually dishonest as fuck, meaning of course your jab at me being a dishonest little weasel is pretty much pure projection. You’re terrified to debate the facts because you don’t have any, scared shitless that everyone’s going to know you’re a fraud, and really don’t have the chops to do anything but try (pathetically) to nitpick arguments, choosing to hide behind argumentum ad dictionarium and ad hominems like a toothless mutt. Well lets see what you got, puppy. Bring me your weak ass shit so I can blow that shit out of the water too. At this point I’m starting to think you’re a masochist but like I said, until the ink runs out… -
gettyroth-av says:
Ha, yep you’ve done it again and made me laugh too, I told you I wouldn’t need your thanks. You’ve utterly failed at simple reading comprehension and now it’s been pointed out you’re throwing a shit-fit because it’s blown what you thought of as “aha!” moment out of the water.“ What do you define as murderous? Is any killing of another person murder?”You’re so busy trying to paint me as a pseudo-intellectual you’re simply missing basic stuff like everyday definitions of words, what regimes actually are, why sanitized euphemisms are cowardly and why “comparative analysis” in your hands becomes whataboutery. You’re doing this because you only have a rehearsed set of talking points and dishonest tactics and when people don’t give you the opportunity to spout them you just have rather lame invective. If you had anything else left you’d use it to counter the points I have made but instead you’re just failing to goad me into making different points that you’ve rote learned responses to, it’s always going to fail you.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Keep ducking the meat of the argument, chump. I’ll wait until you come up with something substantive. If hiding behind definitions you can’t contextualize is the best you got then you’re just another sad sod who can’t back up the words you spew moronically with anything other than a dictionary. Do you seriously believe the term murderous is so cut and dry that the textbook definition suffices? Wow. I mean, it’s one thing to be a coward but to be a lazy one at that? Like I said, pathetic. Come on. You’re so well versed, answer some of the questions I posed you. Shit, answer even one. Or maybe you can’t? If anyone’s still left reading this argument, I’m sure they’d be interested to see if you can summon up enough brain power to say something more intelligent than “look up the definitions!” And they, like me, are surely in for the disappointment we’re all expecting from you.
-
gettyroth-av says:
You haven’t posed genuine questions you’ve regurgitated rote learned talking points that set up false dichotomies so you can regurgitate responses based on those fake oppositions. It’s breaking down now because it’s not working for you hence your terrible attempts to deny you fucked up, like trying to bullshit your way out of the fact the meaning of the word murderous doesn’t just mean literally murder. That’s some classic pseudo-intellectual guff. All the projection is from you here.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Where the hell are you getting this nonsense from? I imagine you’re like one of those people who will say homophobic shit and then swear you’re not homophobic because of the definition of “phobia”. The questions I’m asking are absolutely genuine, you’re just completely incapable of answering them and instead keep hiding behind your dictionary and your unearned self-righteousness. “like trying to bullshit your way out of the fact the meaning of the word murderous doesn’t just mean literally murder”? Are you fucking daft or just so myopic and entrenched in your own stupidity that you can’t tell the difference between murder and defending the life of other people or self-defense? No, right? If you kill another person it’s murder, period, end of discussion? You can’t be that stupid. And what false dichotomies? There are people in our embassies all over the world and if they get attacked, how is it a false dichotomy to say either someone has to defend them or they’re going to die (or worse). That’s not a false dichotomy, that’s a fucking fact, proven by years of our embassies being shot at, bombed, under siege, etc. You seriously can’t see past your own bullshit long enough to accept reality, can you? Do you live in a fucking cave, just staring at shadows on a wall blindly accepting the story you’ve been eating your whole life as truth? The truth is you have absolutely nothing to back up your bullshit and instead have chosen to hide behind indefensible definitions that you either can’t or blatantly refuse to contextualize. If someone is shooting at people in an embassy and a Marine kills the person trying to murder them, that isn’t murder you dumb fuck. You can’t be charged with it, you can’t be tried for it, you were defending innocent people (and oh god, here you come with the bullshit “innocent” definition fight, ffs get your head out of the book already). But somehow I don’t understand the definition of murder and I’m trying to bullshit my way out of it? You’re a fucking joke. I know 9th graders who know how to make that distinction and can at least put that definition in context. All you can do is piss your pants praying your pathetic insults get you out of a situation you’re obviously incapable of walking away from without looking like the chump you are.
I also love how you keep trying to co-opt my insults. Not only are you a lazy coward, but you’re painfully unoriginal too? -
gettyroth-av says:
LMFAO you’re literally doing what I just said and constructing fake points to argue again because no-one is playing your dishonest little game. And what’s more you’re actually getting mad at the imagined responses. It’s hilarious but also a little sad, like a dog chasing his tail. But as you’re a completely brainwashed facilitator of the vile actions of the US, the sadness just makes it even funnier. What argument are you going to have with yourself and get real mad about next?The irony in you moaning about co-opting when you trotted out the old projection canard first is pretty good, but a touch too advanced for you to appreciate.
-
seinnhai-av says:
You are beyond daft if you think anything I wrote there is a construction of fake points. That is a situation I literally lived out. I love how you think you have any sort of intellectual capacity or experiential basis to cast derision on situations you couldn’t possibly understand based off how you seem to think your demented perception somehow defines reality. It’s really telling of how inafffectual you truly are. You think the US regime is vile? Fine. Keep believing it. The truth is your ideas (and insults) aren’t original or even well explained, your only defense for your particular line of bullshit is semantic gymnastics used to obfuscate the fact you can’t engage in a logical argument using things like examples or facts, and you’re an unoriginal coward who thinks dancing around a subject somehow makes you intelligent.
But here’s the truth. You are no one. You’ve done nothing. You’re the Monday morning armchair quarterback. I’m willing to bet you’ve spent your mollycoddled life hiding behind a computer screen trolling, never having had to engage in these situations, choosing rather to hide behind your self-righteousness and a couple dictionaries while people who actually do things with their lives other than pursue materialistic satiation keep your reality running smoothly while you criticize them. At this point, based off everything I’ve read, I’m guessing you’re probably 25, couple years of college, about 35 pounds overweight, have never held a gun or been shot at, have no military experience, well off parents (not rich, but definitely not starving), have about 3 friends because people push you away for being the freshman philosopher of any party (“well, actually….”) and think Rick and Morty is somehow a profound statement on the absurdity of existence.
You’re no one, and more than likely you’ll never be anyone. You’re an insignificant blip on the map no one will miss, The kind of person who has done nothing for anyone but themselves and you’re drawing conclusions based off of concepts you don’t have the faintest idea about. You’re worthless. So please, keep on telling people who have served how we should kill ourselves for being “complicit.” It’s really telling how people who are dealing with PTSD and are at a high risk for suicide mean less to you than owning an uneducated, myopic worldview like that somehow makes you relevant.
In other words, get fucked. -
gettyroth-av says:
Oh you did not disappoint* – from inventing arguments no-one here has made to inventing a fantasy person making them your capacity for self deception is pretty good, sure we already established that from your initial posts but you’ve done a heck of a job confirming it all. Well done.And yeah you’ll note (or more likely won’t as you do genuinely struggle with reading when you get mad) I didn’t ever say or suggest you or indeed anyone who has served should kill themselves. But please go ahead and misread something else I said and quote it here. Showing you’re a dumb and mendacious asshole isn’t hard work but as you’ve been helpful in doing it already I’ll let you continue.*(with 85% of those with PTSD having ED perhaps that happens in more intimate situations for you)
-
seinnhai-av says:
You keep coming back with that same tired ass line. Like I said, unoriginal. Why? Is it because you know I’m right and this is all you have? The boring, tedious, played out rhetoric of someone who’s done nothing with their life? Oh, and now you’re making erectile dysfunction jokes too? Wow, useless bullshit, complete lack of anything even resembling intelligence, and dick jokes. You must be the life of the parties you don’t get invited to.
I know people just like you. You criticize the military but you’ve never served, you criticize capitalism but you desperately cling to the concept that your net worth somehow equates to actual worth, you talk like you know anything about being a progressive but you’re not out there knocking on doors or talking to elected officials trying to get bills passed. You’re a paper tiger and your words are as feeble and as weak as a six year old’s attempts to get out of trouble. I imagine that laughing you’re doing when you read my posts is one of those sad chuckles to cover the fact that you have nothing of value to offer anyone, just snark and the pre-digested information from countless blogs that you’ll happily front as your own opinion because you don’t have enough life experience to have a fully formed opinion of your own.
If there is a left-wing version of Trump, you’d be spot on: Swear up and down you know something when it’s obvious you don’t, use insults to cover up your inadequacies, and have nothing to offer other than being the poster child for ignorant bloviating while you continue to swear you’re something you’re obviously not. Useful. -
gettyroth-av says:
So when I said you just regurgitate rote learned talking points, make up imagined responses from the other person, get mad about them and then argue against the positions you made up, you thought fantasizing about me and ideas and positions you think I hold wouldn’t get you told the same thing? Incroyable. Your responses have been so bizarre, fantasy fuelled and impotent the ED thing was not a joke, your frustration is palpable at this point. At least you have the humility to not try another bullshit misquote though,p.s you know when people write things like LMFAO they don’t mean it literally right?
-
seinnhai-av says:
Oooooh. Look. Another rinse, repeat response. It’s like a Turing test going horribly, horribly ignorant. As for fantasizing, I’m gonna stand by the fact that you’d use the word incroyable that my analysis is pretty spot on. Enjoy continuing to be a non-productive, ineffectual member of society while you self-aggrandize your pathetic existence, fooling exactly zero people into believing you are what you think you are.
The rest of us know the truth. -
gettyroth-av says:
Yes you just given another response full of fantasy so you’re going to get the same reply. Perhaps after a while you might figure it out. Unlikely though. Glad you learned a new word at least.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Oh, I figured out how unoriginal you were days ago. I think maybe at this point waiting for you to come up with something new or clever or you being able to make a cogent argument is like waiting for Jesus to return; a delusion that will never come to fruition.
-
gettyroth-av says:
I’m consistent, you’re unoriginal hence why you’ve been all over the place from lying about things I said to begging me to debate your dishonest arguments. It’s obvious because the moment I laid that out you started fantasizing about me personally instead of the arguments you wanted me to make.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Yawn. The only thing consistent about anything you’ve said has been durrrrrr dictionary durrrrr. Even a simpleton could have taken any of the points I pressed you on and attempted to make a logical argument supporting the nonsense you spewed, eschewing what you believe to be me intentionally misquoting you. Whaaaaaa, he’s not falling for my dictionary defense! What do I do now?!?!!!? You, on the other hand, don’t even rise to the level of simpleton, apparently. But keep crying about how you think I’m lying about things you said. It makes you look like a real champ in what is yet another pathetic attempt to avoid engaging in a discourse you’re so woefully incapable of understanding it almost hurts watching you fidget desperately, fumbling around your thesaurus looking for 10 cent words to hide your 2 cent intellect.Pathetic, as per usual.
-
gettyroth-av says:
Oh so you didn’t intentionally misquote then and just finding reading hard. Yes that’s much better for you. And the murderous thing is the perfect example of your dishonesty/stupidity (or probably both) – you either don’t know or pretend not to know what it means so you can make a rebuttal about something else. The fact you didn’t even dare to try to quote me when you alleged I suggested anyone kill themselves is yet another example of your complete inability to follow a point.
-
seinnhai-av says:
And we’ll circle back around for the dullard who missed it in the first place. What exactly is your definition of murderous? See, you’re positing that the definition of that word or, more to the point the one you have decided is correct regardless if there are 5 or 6 floating around, not to mention the legal context of the term itself, is somehow the only acceptable definition. This is a simpleton’s dictionary argument – if I don’t accept your definition of the term then no matter how I respond I’m wrong. That’s the laziest bullshit possible, devoid of any resembling intellect and the rest of your nonsensical semantics is nothing but you trying to defend that idiotic standpoint.
And that’s why you’re a pseudo-intellectual. You believe that your definition of a term is immutable whereas anyone with half a brain would look at someone questioning that definition and engage the semantics of it. But not you. No, like the petulant mid-20s bitch you are, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and avoiding that topic, hinging your entire premise on the definitions of words. That’s why I brought up the homophobic definition defense – it’s the benchmark of an undeveloped mind to think that the definition of anything is concrete, unassailable, and worse, absolutely infalible. Like I said, 9th graders and freshman philosophy students use that shit because they literally have nothing else in their arsenal.
So keep on keeping on with that nonsense all you want. If you’re best defense is the dictionary and a misquote, you’re worthless. -
gettyroth-av says:
Yeah this is your dishonesty and stupidity colliding. If I have decided on one definition and only that definition then you making a “comparative analysis” of other regimes to rebut what I said was pointless because you didn’t know what my definition of the word was. It would make perfect sense for you, who only has rote learned responses, to trot one of them out like a trained seal though, so thanks for confirming it again. Unless of course you’re reading “murderous” as only meaning literal murder, but then of course the irony will be lost on you.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Ugh. Okay, let me explain it using even smaller words. Calling the US murderous and calling the military murderous are not intrinsically linked and leaving the implication on the table is some lazy bullshit designed to give you an easy “that’s not what I said” out. This is why I’m calling you out on your semantic bullshit. Saying regime and then trying to slide between different aspects of the term without context is semantic gymnastics. What does being “one of the most murderous regimes” have to do with the military, specifically with the Marine Corps? That’s why I’m asking your for comparative analysis. Is it because you believe the US is “one of the most murderous regimes” and the Marine Corps is comprised of US citizens? By that definition, does that make the Girl Scouts part of one of the most murderous regimes as well? Should the Shriners commit suicide too? Or are you making a specific assertion about the US military, which requires a comparative analysis of historical governments and their armed forces, but are now, after you get pressed on it, trying to hide behind your broader definition of “regime”? I’ve asked you repeatedly to contextualize your argument for murderous based on the initial inference I drew from this whole thread being about the military and now you want to play silly fuck fuck games by dancing between different aspects of your terms? Get fucked, you disingenuous prick. Either we’re talking about the military specifically or we’re talking about the US in general, and you don’t get to dance between both without contextualizing either.
-
gettyroth-av says:
Yes yes you’re trying to claim you don’t know what a regime is despite somehow listing ones earlier and also that you don’t know there are differences between a military and an international scouting organisation. Like I said your stupidity and dishonesty have collided, they’ve also made each other worse. Nice work.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Ahhhhh. I get it now. You don’t comprehend the words you’re using. Okay, that makes a ton more sense. Murder, or more specifically your myopic definition of the word, is a far more complex term than your feeble mind can wrap itself around, apparently. Calling the US “one of the most murderous regimes” and not providing any substantive evidence to support that claim proves that you really don’t know what the fuck you’re spewing. Or worse, you think you know and when asked to provide context are incapable. You haven’t and, undoubtedly, won’t provide any basis for this claim, which is complicated further by your misuse and misunderstanding of the term regime.
Now regime is a bit trickier, honestly, because on the surface you think the definition suffices. I did list a bunch of regimes but I was going from the more commonly accepted idea of a regime, that being one that identifies it as authoritarian in nature, but in order to be full contextualized I needed to accept the term regime meaning any governmental institution, not just the authoritarian ones. However again, because you lack the intelligence to contextualize your drivel, I’m forced to ask you to clarify what you mean by it. In most cases intelligent people (yourself excluded for obvious reasons) will define a regime according to certain frames of reference – specific time periods, leaders, eras, etc. – and then provide evidence supporting that claim. Without that context or any evidence you’re engaging in a bad faith argument. If you’re saying the total history of the US is “one of the most murderous regimes” then I have to contextualize the entirety of US history and compare it against other like regimes (again, using the non-authoritarian, all encompassing definition). If you narrow it down to, let’s say the 20th century, the scope is narrowed for the analysis. You, on the other unwashed hand you have up your ass, blatantly ignored my repeated requests to narrow that down because you’re a coward and intellectually weak. All you had to do is provide some context, maybe show a little evidence, and this could have been a much easier beating to give your stupid ass.
Which brings to me one of your favorite insults. Rote. You literally have no idea what that word means past the dictionary definition, do you? I mean, in the wiki that links to you can go down to the section labeled Critical Thinking vs Rote Learning and it describes your bullshit in a nutshell. You have no deeper comprehension of the terms your using other than their definitions and, what’s worse, your responses to my repeated requests for context, clarification, or evidence have been the literal definitions of rote responses, hence me calling you out on your rinse, repeat responses.
So as for my “dishonesty and stupidity”, let me direct you to another definition before I go. Projection. -
gettyroth-av says:
So you realise all that typing just proved you can’t read properly, right? From not being able to tell difference between the word murder and the word murderous to not understanding that if the comment is about you being a pawn for something the era in question has to contain the time period you were a pawn. Plus we’ve already been through you not being able to tell the difference “the most” and “one of the most”. Or you know the alternative is you just have rote learned responses and trot them out whenever they are triggered regardless of the actual words said to you. Your choice.
-
seinnhai-av says:
So, no evidence to support your claim, no comprehension of the terms your using, and another bland ducking of the debate. Typical, I suppose, but it does prove you know how to write a rote response regardless if you understand what it actually means. I do like how you tried to say how the era you’re referring to was the one I was in when, when you wrote that response, you had no way of knowing when I served. Tad dishonest of you, don’t you think?
But thanks for proving my point on projection. Come back when you have some actual evidence to support your claim. If not, keep bloviating. -
gettyroth-av says:
All you have left is suggesting you’re possibly over 80 years old. You think the problem is someone else’s definitions when you don’t know what words you’re asking to be defined – you’ve literally just shown you thought murderous and murder were the same word and “the most” and “one of the most” were the same. Keep on doing the ole “debate me coward” schtick though, it’s bound to work.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Yup. Again, no evidence to support your claim, a weak understanding of the terms your using, and an even harder backpedal on your dishonest bullshit. Keep running with that “you don’t know how to read” theme, but do it in the other direction. No buyers over here until we start seeing some evidence or anything that resembles of cogent, logical argument./wave
-
gettyroth-av says:
Oh so you do know how to read and are just a dishonest weasel pretending to not be able to tell the difference between different words. OK you do you and keep demonstrating why engaging with your bullshit instead of pointing it out would be pointless then crying for me to engage.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Yawn. Back to this, eh? Again, no evidence, no idea what you’re talking about, completely unwilling to engage in a logical debate. Just a bunch of tired semantic bullshit you barely comprehend mixed in with a little more of that projection you so love. Go back under the bridge, troll, and don’t come back until you have some evidence to back your bullshit up other than your unsubstantiated opinion.
-
gettyroth-av says:
Feel free to nap if having your inability to argue honestly and/or coherently makes you sleepy. Hilarious of you to trot out the phrase semantic bullshit when you’ve been hung up on defining words since the beginning though, the madder you get the funnier your flailing.
-
seinnhai-av says:
For someone who seems convinced that they’re the only one who can read in this conversation, you seem to struggle with it mightily. I’m pretty sure I said go back under your bridge and don’t come back without some evidence. If all you’re going to do is keep trolling me with this nonsense you’re only succeeding in proving how low you can sink into your pathetic projection trope and how cowardly you are to face the fact that you’re a fraud.
-
gettyroth-av says:
You did say that, it’s just that I don’t care what you want. Sure you can figure that much out at least.
-
seinnhai-av says:
We’ll add that to the list of things you don’t care about along with logic, cogent arguments, your projection problem, evidence, honesty, and rational and critical thinking./wave
-
gettyroth-av says:
Pearls before swine and all that and rich too coming from someone who thinks evidence amounts to pretending they can’t read simple words like “one of” and suffixes like “ous”.
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Ignorant perspective? Unless you are prepared to claim that the documentary is a fake or that I imagined Haditha or anything else, I’m pretty sure I’ve been apprised of what I need to know. Especially when you, yourself, use terms like “psychotic,” “raised to hate,” “jingoistic indoctrination,” and “heightened levels of toxic masculinity.” But hey, if a capital M somehow fixes any of that, have at it.
-
-
-
-
muttons-av says:
And please don’t refer to them as “soldiers”. Soldier isn’t a generic catch-all for members of the armed forces. They are specifically members of the U.S. Army. Marines are simply Marines. Airmen and Sailors for Air Force and Marines.
-
tomcrow-av says:
We all earn our titles, but no one else’s gets capitalized. Marine is a job, not an honorific.
-
chesty23-av says:
Ditto the title was earned regardless of whether the guy is Faithful to the Corp. Combat, War, Deployment is not pretty by any stretch of the imagination so what is his point? You ask teenagers, young men and women to do unthinkable things and then try to paint this picture that we are not fighting peaceful and pretty enough, give me a break.
-
the_AUGHT-av says:
Same with us in IT. it just looks like ‘it’ but IT oh man you know we can fix some fucking computers.
-
phillip83-av says:
And please don’t refer to these dirtbags as “soldiers”!
-
gkstar-av says:
Amen. Thanks for your service, Matthew. Anyone who casts judgement on our armed forces clearly don’t – or don’t even try to – understand the stress, fear (not cowardice) and adrenaline that results from doing a job like this. Have fun when you can. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em , bum ‘em if you don’t. Because it might be your last. You never know what tomorrow might bring. Service men and women do what they’re told, and do it the best they can. If anyone that hasn’t walked in those shoes wants to judge the reason for being at war, look to the government. But these people do what they’re told – something that most people aren’t cut out for. Our vets came home from WWII as heroes. In comes the liberal 60’s and out ‘nam vets were castigated – and for what? For doing a job they were told to do. That trend continues. Sad.
-
rockyjonesspaceranger-av says:
Viet Nam was fought to sell helicopters. WWII was fought to kill Nazis.It is terrible good people died in both terrible wars.That does not make them the same.
-
-
graysrus-av says:
He did capitalize all but once & ur damn right, but it comes across a lil 2 bravado
-
trees2tribunes-av says:
82D airborne infantry… our attitude towards virtually everything is basically, “so fucking what?” Hell, even bothering to type this out is a departure from precious not-giving-a-fuck timeThe way you guys get so hung up on being a “Marine” is some of the weirdest and saddest shit in the military. As if some boat motor repair dude is even remotely in the same category as someone in the infantry. It’s all marketing.For the professional military that have managed to build a career past the BS. Right on. Otherwise, I guess go slay a fucking lava dragon with a sword or some shit.
-
seinnhai-av says:
Okay, real quick. I want you go look at the request that started this whole thing and then wonder to yourself, real quick, if that’s such a horrible fucking thing to ask. And while you’re in that head space, go ahead and ask yourself how completely hypocritical it is to rip on me for being so hung up on something when you’re introducing yourself as fucking airborne. Fuck, self aware much?
-
-
-
tobias-lehigh-nagy-av says:
You can shotgun Pringles? I’ve been living life wrong.
-
mullets4ever-av says:
even better you can apparently smoke pringles. this actually doesn’t surprise me
-
-
jhhmumbles-av says:
So…a largely unwatchable Eastwood movie and a brutal slog through a war torn hellhole. And I thought binging GLOW was fun!
-
heroinesheik-av says:
Why is that show not good? Did I really just like Alison Brie for her boobies?
-
itsatirefire-av says:
Ha ha!!!Woot woot!Heroine Sheik at it again. Dropping the real shit…Keep at it, homie.
-
qwedswa-av says:
I liked GLOW. It wasn’t fantastic. But it was good. You get to see Alison’s boobies briefly, if you need motivation.
-
-
-
formerly-cubone-libre-av says:
Anyone who still thinks of America’s presence in Afghanistan as a heroic affair will be swiftly disabused of that notion.This might be a “I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon” moment but… are there any of these?
-
Tristain7-av says:
And if there are, is it even possible to ‘swiftly disabuse them of that notion’? At this point, you’re all in one way or another. Kinda hard to ride the fence on the Afghanistan war for 20+ years.
-
tofixthegashinyourhead-av says:
Hard… but not impossible! #radicalcenterism
-
-
-
zeno2654-av says:
Scenes here no different than those from WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and other serious engagements
-
alericc-av says:
Why golly gee, men being not nice in a war zone, who would have ever thought that? As for disrespecting people the military tried to win the hearts and minds of, a failed attempt in both Vietnam and Afghanistan, is understandable when these are the same people planting IEDs and helping the Taliban and now ISIS kill your friends. The Leftist who thinks he is exposing something is basically showing who HE really is. War is HELL is not a phrase but a reality. Those who have never served in it and dealt with death on a daily basis like most Liberals love to try and demean those who do.
-
rmo26-av says:
I just viewed the film in NYC. It was an engrossing film. It had humor, suspense, disturbing insights, and mesmerizing chaos amidst a God awful war. You laugh as young Marines try to burn off stress anyway they can. Yet you can’t help knowing as you are transfixed by their antics that hell is right around the corner. The Marines are humanized by the film in all its gritty reality. The armor is off the knights. However, the lengths they go to protect and evacuate a wounded brother with the evac helicopter roaring above the landing zone and bullets flying by is very moving. The audience left the theater sober faced with the realization that the Marines weren’t crazy, that war is. Recommended viewing.
-
kammvl-av says:
There is not difference between the military men and the murdering white man at the Mosque in New Zealand. Only difference is the Marines are working for the government.
tigersblood-av Leave a Reply Cancel reply
GET A.V.CLUB RIGHT IN YOUR INBOX
Pop culture obsessives writing for the pop culture obsessed.