Quake3World

R00k wrote:

Canis wrote:Well, like I said, its a semantics issue that most folks dont seem to have a problem with. I disagree with your inclusion of multiple meanings into this phrase, and its not changing the way I view the phrase. I'm not trying to be stubborn, but "I support the troops" is how I feel, and I dont include myself in how you've defined the meaning of this phrase. I disagree.

The word "Support" has about 1,000 meanings, and for someone to not know exactly what you're talking about isn't semantics.

It is merely you being either too lazy to fully express what you mean, or being intentionally vague.

I reiterate: It is not someone else's fault that they don't understand your meaning in this case, it is yours.

And familiarly, you have waffled for a full page defending your use of the word "support" in this context - even though it's obvious people can't understand what you're saying - claiming that it sums up your thoughts nicely.

"Support Our Troops" doesn't mean anything. It's one of those phrases that, when people hear you say it, accept it to mean what they think it means.

It's a 10-cent slogan, it's hollow rhetoric, it means what the listener wants it to mean. Is that your fault? Of course not. But when you say it, you are expressing yourself in an intentionally vague manner, knowing that people will hear what they want to.

Which is why, when I hear you say it, it means you don't do a thing to support the troops, but you like to talk about supporting them because it makes it sound like you care a lot. Which you don't, as evidenced by countless threads since 2003.

[/rant 2]

Hannibal wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:
If the meaning of "I support the troops" is what you claim it to be, then you should say something like

"I pity the troops"

lol, I don't think he means pity.

Maybe....I support the troops in as much they are risking all to accomplish their mission...yet I believe the mission given them by Bush and Co. is teh suck. That's probably more what he had in mind.

Of course there is a serious tension between caring about/admiring the people involved and deploring the fagged-up, trumped-up rationale for the mission itself. And if you also consider the war itself to be 'illegal', the tension magnifies like a mofo.

JulesWinnfield wrote:That just doesn't sound like something an American soldier would do. Americans are lazy/priveledged/used to luxury compared to an Iraqi/muslim, so I highly doubt farm animals would be a target. They don't even exist on most people's radar.

If it wasn't for that, I'd say it's possible.

S@M wrote:lols @ deconstructionist approaches to language and society - its a false intellect which pulls things appart because thats supposedly the only way to understand them, but then insists on reconstructing them in a particular and specific way (in the rare cases where any reconstruction occurrs at all). Its a quasi intellectual approach which achieves... nothing really given the meaning is reduced to nothing by deconstruction, its on the rebuilding that meaning is re-introduced, and that meaning is therefore in the same "moment" as the original meaning was - just suits somepersons more than others. Seen that shit way to often to be impressed by it anymore

JulesWinnfield wrote:""The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed the animals." The report includes the observation of local medics that all of the bodies had bullet wounds in the head."

That just doesn't sound like something an American soldier would do. Americans are lazy/priveledged/used to luxury compared to an Iraqi/muslim, so I highly doubt farm animals would be a target. They don't even exist on most people's radar.

If it wasn't for that, I'd say it's possible.