As someone who has never been in the military, is it wrong for me to say I would hope that our troops would act differently than the British sailors in the same situation? I’m not going to get as indignant as Derbyshire or this guy, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask our military to be a bit mindful of their use as propaganda tools. Some may say, “Hey! You’re already sending them overseas to get shot at; seems wrong to ask any more of them,” but I disagree. Part of the job of the military is to be representative of America — that is, to represent us as the angels of death who bring famine and plague upon our enemies. So, you know, not so much smiling if you get captured. I know a frown takes more muscles, but it can make a world of difference when the cameras are on you.

In case you’re wondering about this…

More than a dozen Filipinos were nailed to crosses and scores more whipped their backs into a bloody pulp on Friday in a gory ritual to mark the death of Jesus Christ.
The voluntary crucifixions in the northern Philippines were the most extreme displays of religious devotion in this mainly Catholic country, where millions are praying and fasting ahead of the Easter weekend.
In the small village of Cutud, about 80 km (50 miles) north of Manila, seven men cried out as nails the size of pencils were driven into their hands and feet before they were hoisted up in the scorching heat.

Once again: NOT ME.
As for this:

Up to 20,000 people watched the spectacle, which has grown from a village production started in 1962 to a media and tourist attraction copied in other parts of the country.
The atmosphere was festive, with hawkers selling beer, ice-cream and souvenir whips. Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” blared out from speakers before the penitents approached the crosses.

Yeah, I’d be the idiot shouting FREEBIRD!

Usually I’m pretty good at not shouting at the TV or the computer screen. This is good because studies show that consumer electronics don’t respond well to negative energy. But, I swear, if I see someone else on TV refer to our troops as “children,” I’m going to hurt someone. It enrages me to no end. I have known many members of the military from many different backgrounds and socio-economic groups. Most great people proud of their service — a few were shady characters — but I’ve yet to meet the poor half-wit duped into the military that the “we support the troops by trying to bring them home” crowd seems to think makes up the majority of our armed forces. I’m not saying there aren’t one or two of them out there somewhere, but where do people get off painting our military with this broad, patronizing brush? I know the military is a smaller percentage of the population than it used to be, but what circles do liberals travel in that they somehow miss ever meeting an actual military man?

They’re like babies with guns. As a nation, we need to put covers on the outlets.

To liberals, it’s like the military is this odd abstraction onto which they project all sorts of strange beliefs. Apparently they believe that, despite there not being a draft, you can be signed up against your will. That’s why they ask congressmen who support the war why they haven’t signed up their children. They also believe that dumb, poor people are tricked — or perhaps kidnapped — into the front lines of conflicts. To them, it’s the only way they can understand anyone is in the military, because it’s simply inconceivable that a person with a brain or other opportunities would ever willingly join such an organization.
So it’s true these liberals don’t hate members of the military any more than it’s hatred of four year-olds that keeps society from allowing them to drive cars. They understand the limitations of these poor saps, and feel deeply they must save these people from the machinations of the evil, money-grubbing Republicans. Though liberals understand that police are expected to confront violent criminals and that firemen are expected to run into burning buildings, they seem baffled by the concept that people in the military would ever be placed in harm’s way. “They’re out in some desert being shot at and hearing loud noises and probably don’t even know where they are! We have to get them home!” When liberals see images of our troops who wield assault rifles and are trained to kill, they can’t help but think, “What poor, dumb babies!”
Part of this is projection, of course, but most of it seems to be sheer ignorance of the military — or complete incomprehension of why we even have a national defense. When I pay my taxes every year, I comfort myself with the fact that a good portion of it will go towards killing people I don’t particularly care for. To me, it’s the one real job of the federal government. All the things liberals think are so important — health care, welfare, regulations — are things humanity has survived without for thousands of years, but national defense has been around since one tribe didn’t like how another tribe was encroaching upon their hunting ground. I don’t believe, though, that liberals even understand why we have a military these days. They think it’s just something they have to fund to get Republicans to support their social programs. I bet most of them deep down believe that if we got rid of the outward sign of aggression that a standing army is, we would have no armed conflicts.
This is all why I think asking liberals to really support the troops is asking too much of them. They first have to understand the military, and for such a thing they would cease to be liberals — i.e., whiny, useless people. Instead, we should aim for the smaller target of getting liberals to respect the members of our armed forces — as you can both hate something and respect it to a certain extent. The ones who protest the war and call our troops “baby killers” and “murderers” not only hold an intellectually more tenable position, but they also allow our troops more dignity by implying they made a reasoned choice. In the view of those idiots, the members of our armed forces chose to kill lots of Iraqi civilians and chose to be part of Bush’s evil war of aggression. Thus the liberals burning an American soldier in effigy are in fact the saner ones.

I don’t see what’s so good about Good Friday, considering that I always end up having to remind people that I didn’t kill Jesus.
Don’t believe me? Here’s the proof:

• I was born in 1969AD. Jesus was killed back in 33AD. Unless I have a time machine, it’s pretty hard for me to go back in time and kill Jesus.
• Besides, if I did have a time machine, do you really think the Temple Mount would have two mosques on it now?
• Or Milli Vanilli would have gotten the Grammy?
• Jesus was up and walking around three days later. Most murder victims don’t do that. Or, if they do, it takes an awful lot of preservatives, strings, rods, and a scaffolding for marionette operators to work from. Unless the last part of the Gospels was just a Team Jerusalem: World Messiah kind of stunt, no dice.
• If we wanted Jesus dead, Jesus would have stayed dead. None of this crucifixion garbage, either. We know how to make things look like accidents. Getting nailed to a cross and taking a spear in the gasworks doesn’t lend itself to plausible deniability like “slipping in the shower” or “cleaning his gun in the dishwasher when it went off” kind of deaths.
• Safetypup says: “Don’t forget the Jet Dry!”
• Jesus went through the Roman Justice System by the book. But the Human Rights Council, United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and CAIR all regularly accuse Jews of engaging in extra-judicial killings. So, from their perspective, if Jews killed Jesus, we’d have wiped him out without the formal arrest procedure and trial.
• I’d have snapped a photo of me and the dead Jesus together. Because every criminal idiot snaps photos of their handiwork with their RAZR, right?

See? Dem Yahood no-killy the King Of Them.
Carry on.