Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:19 PM Dec 2012

Oh NOES!1! A South Korean rapper said something bad about our TROOPS!!!11!!

Someone, call the police! Call the fire department!!!

I'm gonna go code brown!!11!!!


Everytime you say something bad about our HEROIC, GLORIOUS SOLDIERS Jesus goes and kills one!

184 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oh NOES!1! A South Korean rapper said something bad about our TROOPS!!!11!! (Original Post) Taverner Dec 2012 OP
Link? Reference? I can't read your mind. MADem Dec 2012 #1
Well exactly Taverner Dec 2012 #2
Here: Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #4
Considering what our "brave boys and girls" have been doing overseas Taverner Dec 2012 #7
I'm angry too. Dr. Strange Dec 2012 #12
No - but you can see where that anger comes from Taverner Dec 2012 #18
If it weren't for "American Imperialism" AlexSatan Dec 2012 #25
Well, if SK had built up their military instead of relying on ours... Taverner Dec 2012 #27
In 1950 there was a very real threat hack89 Dec 2012 #30
Oh, so you support countries spending more AlexSatan Dec 2012 #33
No I just don't support our self appointed role as World Police Taverner Dec 2012 #34
As always, wrong. AlexSatan Dec 2012 #42
As usual, straw men and hyperbole Taverner Dec 2012 #46
Wow. Just Wow. AlexSatan Dec 2012 #50
Well considering you were brainwashed by the best (the US Military) Taverner Dec 2012 #51
Really? You taught the brainwashing? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #52
One million dead Iraqis. Countless maime, some tortured to death, others scarred sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #166
Wait a minute,'As always wrong'?? Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #184
So why are we still in SK? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #54
Not at all AlexSatan Dec 2012 #61
Occupying their country? That would be a surprise to the Government of South Korea.... MADem Dec 2012 #160
Oh . . . Jack Rabbit Dec 2012 #69
Hey, Jack. A bit of background... Violet_Crumble Dec 2012 #170
Agree--with a correction pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #171
Psy talentless? WTF?? lbrtbell Dec 2012 #177
Thanks, Violet Jack Rabbit Dec 2012 #182
"Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers ...Kill them all slowly and painfully " rollin74 Dec 2012 #95
Wow! At least our American rappers never advocate violence against women KamaAina Dec 2012 #116
Thanks for taking the time to give me the context/explanation. MADem Dec 2012 #130
The additional context that a lot of people seem to be ignoring.. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #142
He has also apologized for his harsh language. I think this will blow over. MADem Dec 2012 #145
And an actual "I recognize the not-coolness of what I said" apology too; nice. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #151
Yep--it was for real, not one of those "If I offended anyone..." mealymouth things! nt MADem Dec 2012 #156
Bill O'Reilly threw a tantrum about Gangnam Style and the media got out their knives. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #139
Psy's beautifully composed apology must be ruining Bill's day. MADem Dec 2012 #146
I actually imagine everyone frothing about this will simply ignore that, sadly. Posteritatis Dec 2012 #147
Probably true; but also probably the same crew that believes that MADem Dec 2012 #158
Call the police? No AlexSatan Dec 2012 #3
"Women" didn't kill an innocent Afghani family Taverner Dec 2012 #5
"Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers" Union Scribe Dec 2012 #8
Women have killed plenty of people AlexSatan Dec 2012 #13
OK - you might want to sit down for this Taverner Dec 2012 #16
Ignorance is not a virtue AlexSatan Dec 2012 #23
My eyes are rolling so back into my head, it hurts... Taverner Dec 2012 #28
Yep, we do invade countries AlexSatan Dec 2012 #40
Look, just drop the pretense and admit you like war Taverner Dec 2012 #41
When you stop beating your wife. (nt) AlexSatan Dec 2012 #43
And what "geo-political objective" did we get out of Iraq? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #55
Does it matter? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #68
Oh, i disagree. It went exactly as Bush wanted. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #72
Um, actually, he wanted a quick victory AlexSatan Dec 2012 #81
Please. Bush knew there was nothing in Iraq. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #86
How many years AlexSatan Dec 2012 #89
That's the thing, i didn't need any clearance or experience Daniel537 Dec 2012 #92
Actually AlexSatan Dec 2012 #100
Yep, they were wrong, we were right. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #110
You implied AlexSatan Dec 2012 #123
I actually did some reading around that time. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #125
Just because they were not found AlexSatan Dec 2012 #128
Lol, please don't tell me you think Saddam sent the WMDs to Syria? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #132
Nope AlexSatan Dec 2012 #135
You're either lying about your background in military intelligence or you coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #168
Have you even read the classified NIE? (nt) AlexSatan Dec 2012 #173
Lol. Are you trying to be funny? Bush wanted to remove the threat of WMDs in Iraq??? sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #167
Power projection is the term most often used. MADem Dec 2012 #161
I'll be fucked! That Lynndie England person at Abu Ghraib sure LOOKED like a woman! 11 Bravo Dec 2012 #64
Abu Ghraib was an equal opportunity clusterfuck. MADem Dec 2012 #159
:facepalm: Earth_First Dec 2012 #9
HE DID NOT WRITE THAT LYRIC lbrtbell Dec 2012 #178
Who said he did? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #181
Looking like a clown in the thread itself wasn't enough eh? Union Scribe Dec 2012 #6
i'm getting a good chuckle over this guy making a fool of himself... dionysus Dec 2012 #10
I'm getting a good chuckle watching all you hoo-ra types defending our atrocities Taverner Dec 2012 #17
you're not doing a very good job of putting words in other people's mouths you know. dionysus Dec 2012 #19
Hey I'm not the one throwing around insults...that's you Taverner Dec 2012 #29
I can condemn atrocities and still feel ... hack89 Dec 2012 #39
Oh forgot, "America, fuck yeah!!! Boot in their ass!!! Love it or leave it!!!" Taverner Dec 2012 #14
you illustrate just beautifully simplistic black/white thinking, honey. cali Dec 2012 #20
I'm confused, your post doesn't make sense to me Taverner Dec 2012 #31
That's hardly surprising, somehow. MineralMan Dec 2012 #105
I knew you'd be digging into your insult bag soon enough Taverner Dec 2012 #106
nothing shows how peaceful and anti war you are like defending the notion of torture killings... dionysus Dec 2012 #21
No I just don't buy into the military fetishism you warmongers like so much Taverner Dec 2012 #32
there you go, flailing again dionysus Dec 2012 #35
Hmmm, defending your opinion is "flailing" - I'll remember that now Taverner Dec 2012 #36
carry on with your tantrum. dionysus Dec 2012 #37
There you go again with your tantrum Taverner Dec 2012 #38
"I know you are but what am I"? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #45
When a monkey throws shit at you, throw it back Taverner Dec 2012 #47
Unless you are evolved AlexSatan Dec 2012 #49
Please continue, guvnor... MineralMan Dec 2012 #59
So you are more outraged by these lyrics, than the atrocities our military commits every day Taverner Dec 2012 #62
No. You're incorrect. MineralMan Dec 2012 #65
+1 AlexSatan Dec 2012 #70
No, I do this little excersize called "put yourself in their shoes" Taverner Dec 2012 #71
Ah, but you're not in that position. MineralMan Dec 2012 #76
I see. Well, I recently bought a car made in South Korea. MineralMan Dec 2012 #83
The Hate USA crowd. william cail Dec 2012 #153
Your empty jingoism is amusing Taverner Dec 2012 #154
Please. stranger81 Dec 2012 #183
Remember that song with "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way"? alp227 Dec 2012 #169
Is this guy worth defending to this extent? TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #11
To be honest, I don't give a rats ass about PSY Taverner Dec 2012 #15
These days PSY is looking at our empire with rose colored glasses. nt. NCTraveler Dec 2012 #174
He said it in 2002, as we were torturing the shit out of people bhikkhu Dec 2012 #163
you are going to need some fainting couches quinnox Dec 2012 #22
As opposed to the pearl clutching when our troops are honored? great white snark Dec 2012 #26
You know, Democrats are allowed to support the troops. It in no way makes us more like Repubs. great white snark Dec 2012 #24
Yes, and that's why folks who support our troops oppose foreign occupations Daniel537 Dec 2012 #53
i was going to suggest him for Sec. of State Enrique Dec 2012 #44
Darn! And we're so overdue for Gangnam-Style diplomacy. pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #48
'Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers ' MineralMan Dec 2012 #56
+1 PennsylvaniaMatt Dec 2012 #60
Apparently not for some here, though. MineralMan Dec 2012 #63
Get over it. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #75
Of course that was disgusting. I thought so at the time. MineralMan Dec 2012 #79
This isn't the military, i'm not giving you orders, just advice. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #87
Oh, advice. Well, then. MineralMan Dec 2012 #94
I'll give advice to whom i wish, and you can do as you please with it. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #98
I can't remember, were the ones AlexSatan Dec 2012 #101
Yeah you know, the US military has this thing Daniel537 Dec 2012 #115
Yep AlexSatan Dec 2012 #121
Oh, I will do as I please, certainly. MineralMan Dec 2012 #104
He must hate America a LOT then AlexSatan Dec 2012 #82
Americans get outraged over lyrics. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #57
+1000 Taverner Dec 2012 #58
So, tell us whether or not you approve of MineralMan Dec 2012 #73
He's not my hero - and you guys accuse me of being binary, black and white Taverner Dec 2012 #99
You can sympathize with an opinion MineralMan Dec 2012 #102
Go ahead, put words in my mouth. Tell your employer it's hippie punching time. Taverner Dec 2012 #108
My employer? I haven't had one of those since 1974. MineralMan Dec 2012 #111
Most of us here have you figured out Taverner Dec 2012 #112
Really? You think I work for the DNC? MineralMan Dec 2012 #117
Considering how everything you've ever said has been a DNC talking point... Taverner Dec 2012 #119
Boy, have you misread. MineralMan Dec 2012 #122
No, I just know a con job when I see or read it Taverner Dec 2012 #152
You don't know shit. MineralMan Dec 2012 #157
I never accused you of alerting on me Taverner Dec 2012 #164
Sorry you had a bad day. Truly. MineralMan Dec 2012 #165
No I don't approve lbrtbell Dec 2012 #179
Ditto. truebluegreen Dec 2012 #77
Ever been to S. Korea AlexSatan Dec 2012 #74
I don't believe anybody but US citizens should be setting our foreign policy, first of all. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #78
And what makes you think that? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #84
Now, see, you're confusing that poster with actual information. MineralMan Dec 2012 #85
Lol, information? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #93
How does "maintain an alliance" translate into having thousands of troops occupying their country? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #91
Yes, they did withdraw them AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107
Lol, nice way to spin things. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #113
Yep AlexSatan Dec 2012 #118
Lol, not even close. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #124
Under what definition it "gradually" AlexSatan Dec 2012 #129
Under what definition is significant? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #134
Most people have functioning brains AlexSatan Dec 2012 #136
Most people also have reading comprehension skills Daniel537 Dec 2012 #140
Um, OK AlexSatan Dec 2012 #144
The current plan is that the ROK will be self sufficient in defense in another few years jberryhill Dec 2012 #88
Not according to Sung Kim AlexSatan Dec 2012 #96
And that's the problem. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #97
"FU, I've got mine" AlexSatan Dec 2012 #103
So you think we need to fight wars on behalf of other countries? Daniel537 Dec 2012 #109
England and France AlexSatan Dec 2012 #114
Ah yes, the WWII card. Daniel537 Dec 2012 #120
Um, we have a lot fewer troops AlexSatan Dec 2012 #126
Well, if you support a US military presence in South Korea Daniel537 Dec 2012 #127
So you believe fighting is the same as command? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #131
Oh yes, of course, because the only US troops who will do the fighting are the ones in SK Daniel537 Dec 2012 #133
Yep more would be sent AlexSatan Dec 2012 #137
Well with your expertise Daniel537 Dec 2012 #138
At least he didn't use the "N" word or try to say something witty about rape slackmaster Dec 2012 #66
Well if this offends you you probably shouldn't listen to the Coup, Immortal Technique, Public Enemy craigmatic Dec 2012 #67
I recently discovered Immortal Technique Posteritatis Dec 2012 #143
They say rage against the machine is pretty good. craigmatic Dec 2012 #148
RATM I'd discovered some time ago. ;) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #149
And that one was interesting - I like how he kind of left the ending hanging Posteritatis Dec 2012 #150
True but the best thing about them is that it's leftist music that you can dance to. craigmatic Dec 2012 #155
I get tired of media contrived "problems" get the red out Dec 2012 #80
Especially when they have to dig back a decade to find something to get outraged over. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #141
Code brown?! Uh oh. Yer gonna need this.... bunnies Dec 2012 #90
He said it in 2002, as we were filling guantanamo and torturing the shit out of people bhikkhu Dec 2012 #162
huh, just heard. Psy's covering Shin Hae Cheol's band N.E.X.T. NuttyFluffers Dec 2012 #172
+1,000,000,000 lbrtbell Dec 2012 #180
Looks like he just killed a big chunk of his new fan-base. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #175
Psy DID NOT WRITE THOSE LYRICS! lbrtbell Dec 2012 #176

MADem

(135,425 posts)
1. Link? Reference? I can't read your mind.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:22 PM
Dec 2012

Is this the "Hey, Sexy Lady" Gangnam guy?

Who cares?

He has a right to his opinions; perhaps he has relatives in the north and dreams of a day when his nation and the nation of the "Sexiest Man Alive" are reunited? He certainly looks like Little Kim's slimmer brother, in any event...

Dr. Strange

(26,058 posts)
4. Here:
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:33 PM
Dec 2012
Kill those fucking Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
Kill those fucking Yankees who ordered them to torture
Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
Kill them all slowly and painfully

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/12/psy-kill-american-soldiers-rap.html


Hooray for violence against women! Or at least women who are related to Yankee soldiers. All you other women are safe.
 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
7. Considering what our "brave boys and girls" have been doing overseas
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
Dec 2012

I'm surprised he wasn't more angry

Dr. Strange

(26,058 posts)
12. I'm angry too.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:54 PM
Dec 2012

Of course, I haven't had any desire to slowly torture or kill someone's daughter over it. Much less rap about it.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
18. No - but you can see where that anger comes from
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:09 PM
Dec 2012

And yes, it's justified righteous anger

Put yourself in someone else's shoes - and America, our troops, our corporations, all look very different

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
27. Well, if SK had built up their military instead of relying on ours...
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:22 PM
Dec 2012

Chances are your statement would be untrue.

I actually think NK would fall like toothpick bridge if they ever tried to attack.

There is no control outside of Pyongyang. In the villages, the NK soldiers have to protect themselves from angry locals, who will take their food, guns, whatever they can.

We act as if NK is this big boogeyman, but what you see is a ruse. The Kims made sure that the only place foreigners could visit would be Pyongyang. Then, they moved all of the loyalists there. SOP for Stalinist countries BTW.

There is no threat from NK.

hack89

(39,181 posts)
30. In 1950 there was a very real threat
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:27 PM
Dec 2012

and the SK military was not strong enough to stop the NK invasion by themselves.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
33. Oh, so you support countries spending more
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

on military. Gotcha.

Anyway, S.Korea had the military they had. And if it weren't for "American Imperialism" Psy would be bowing to Kim Jung-in, just like I said.

BTW, ever see how much of an outcry there is in places when we reduce our "Imperialism"? They hate us so much that they don't want us to go, right?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
42. As always, wrong.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:57 PM
Dec 2012

I think we should pull our military out of most places in the world.

But I don't hate our military for protecting those like you who are fine with seeing others raped, murdered and crushed under dictators and juntas. And I would roll over in the name of peace. I think freedom is worth fighting for.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
46. As usual, straw men and hyperbole
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:02 PM
Dec 2012

And as usual, REALLY FUCKING WRONG

Have you ever dealt with these things called "facts?"

We are not the world's police - no one ever asked us to be and the world does fine without us

Syria is NOT our problem. And if it were, invading will probably be the final nail in our empire's coffin.

No, it would be a war for oil, plain and simple. Just like Iraq. Just like Kuwait. Just like Afghanistan. Just like Iran.

Like a junkie, we justify all this pain and suffering so we can get our fix. Then we lie to ourselves and say we're spreading freedom.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
50. Wow. Just Wow.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:20 PM
Dec 2012

Now you seem to think you know my opinion better than I do.

Well, since you think dead people are free, you are right, the innocent Syrians will be fine.

I remember all of the oil we got from Korea and Vietnam, as well.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
51. Well considering you were brainwashed by the best (the US Military)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:21 PM
Dec 2012

I have a keen idea what you might be thinking

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
52. Really? You taught the brainwashing?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:31 PM
Dec 2012

If not, then how do you know, better than me?

BTW, as anyone who served would know, there is a bit of brainwashing in basic training and the missiles career field but the stuff from basic washes off after about a month, if it took at all.

Your ignorance on what military training is about is astounding, especially considering how much you think you know.

So, please enlighten us all. Please tell us what you think everyone in the military thinks.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
166. One million dead Iraqis. Countless maime, some tortured to death, others scarred
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:55 PM
Dec 2012

for life, and babies being born deformed from our WMDs not to mention the half a million children killed by our sanctions before we even got to the rest.

Nearly six thousand of our own troops dead and how many more maimed for life also? All for oil.

Did you support that war? I did not because it was based on lies and I knew that people would die, innocent people and you are correct, dead people are not free, at least not on this planet.

Kingofalldems

(40,278 posts)
184. Wait a minute,'As always wrong'??
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:13 PM
Dec 2012

How would you know if a long time DUer is wrong all the time when you have only been here since Oct 30th? I don't get it.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
54. So why are we still in SK?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:37 PM
Dec 2012

Its one thing to have helped them in the 50s, but now they have their own military that is far more capable than the North's. Why should we be using what happened decades ago as an excuse to continue occupying their country? I don't blame South Koreans for being angry that we are still occupying their country at a time when they don't need us. And i didn't see any outcry from Iraqis when we left that country. Are you going to argue otherwise?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
61. Not at all
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:47 PM
Dec 2012

I think we should cut to a minimal presence in S. Korea.

BTW, most S. Koreans like us being there for A) our money and B) the security.

I think the official reason we are still there is that we are concerned that, should the North try to move South, they would take the entire peninsula before we had a chance to respond and help the S. Koreans (since their active army is the size or ours and S. Korea's combined and knowing they have 8 million reservists)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
160. Occupying their country? That would be a surprise to the Government of South Korea....
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:19 PM
Dec 2012

We're there with their permission and approval, and, if we were "occupiers" we'd surely have a say in the decisions made by their government--and that ain't happening.

There are a lot of people in the Chinese government who would love the unfettered access to the sea that South Korea enjoys....to say nothing of the other riches in both human and natural resources of that nation.

Wiki primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
69. Oh . . .
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:53 PM
Dec 2012

OK, I had a problem with the Bush Junta torturing people. My solution to that was (and remains) putting top ranking Bush Junta officials, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, on trial for war crimes.

I'm going to reserve judgment since an artist often creates a character that doesn't represent his own views or personality in order to ridicule that point of view or that personality. I don't know much about Psy other than he has a video out in which he performs a silly looking dance and sings in Korean, causing him to be severely criticized by the xenophobes at FoxNews.

Violet_Crumble

(36,385 posts)
170. Hey, Jack. A bit of background...
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:07 AM
Dec 2012

As faddy and talentless as PSY is, I feel I have to stick up for him a bit here, not that I think yr attacking him, but I've seen others do it...

He didn't even write those lyrics that he's being attacked for. He sang it, but it's a cover of a song from another Korean band.

When he said the stuff he said, it was back in Bushco's day and he was reacting to a US tank running over two South Korean kids on the side of a road. I don't blame for him being emotional and angry at the time.

Back in the early noughties, the US was a subject of much dislike and contempt around the world. It's unfair on PSY to take what he said out of context and fall into the RW trap of trying to turn him into a monster. Let's focus on the important stuff, how much his commercially driven, boring brand of music sucks...

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
171. Agree--with a correction
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:28 AM
Dec 2012

The reaction to the U.S. armored vehicle running over and killing two 14-year-old girls in South Korea occurred in 2002. That was when PSY smashed a toy U.S. tank onto the stage in protest.

When PSY sang the lyrics to the N.E.X.T. song that people are now up in arms about, it was a later, different protest--and those lyrics were a response to U.S. torture of prisoners.

Also, Jack clearly is on the same page with us.

lbrtbell

(2,389 posts)
177. Psy talentless? WTF??
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:37 PM
Dec 2012

He's been in the music industry for 11 years, writing his own songs, directing videos, having a great deal of input in his choreography and extravagant stage shows.

The songs he writes are a wide variety of styles. His lyrics are often beautiful, highly inspiring or bringing a tear to one's eye.

Just because the world noticed ONE funny video he did, people like you are unfairly pigeonholing him. Go to YouTube and find some English subbed versions of his hits like "It's Art", "Champion", or "Right Now".

Unlike most K-pop acts, he's not manufactured in the least. Music industry insiders told him to get plastic surgery, but he refused. He released his first few albums on his own independent label, so he wouldn't have to conform to K-pop standards.

The controversy he's embroiled in now is one thing. But it's a flat-out lie to accuse Psy of being a fad with no talent. PSY IS AN ARTIST, one of the few true artists to come out of South Korea.

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
182. Thanks, Violet
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:43 PM
Dec 2012

Your review of Psy encourages me to continue to do what I have been doing: paying him little or no attention.

rollin74

(2,300 posts)
95. "Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers ...Kill them all slowly and painfully "
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:30 PM
Dec 2012

wtf?

this guy has serious issues

MADem

(135,425 posts)
130. Thanks for taking the time to give me the context/explanation.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:16 PM
Dec 2012

I didn't understand the who/what/when/where/why of this story from the OP, at all.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
142. The additional context that a lot of people seem to be ignoring..
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:57 PM
Dec 2012

... is that he was covering somebody else's song shortly after the invasion of Iraq began. But we all know that in the current media climate everything everyone thinks is not only unchanging, but defined entirely by the most negative thing they've ever said. Because we all know people the opinions people have in their mid-20s are going to be the exact ones they hold for the rest of their life with the exact level of force they originally word them with.

If Psy was old enough to have said something like that about, say, Grenada, and nothing happened between then and now except for his current video, because of the Fox tantrum the other day we'd probably have people howling in outrage about what a monster he is in the present because of something he'd have said in 1983.

Basically, people put some real effort into stirring up outrage over this, and it seems to be paying off for them.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
156. Yep--it was for real, not one of those "If I offended anyone..." mealymouth things! nt
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:49 PM
Dec 2012

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
139. Bill O'Reilly threw a tantrum about Gangnam Style and the media got out their knives. (nt)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:50 PM
Dec 2012

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
147. I actually imagine everyone frothing about this will simply ignore that, sadly.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:27 PM
Dec 2012

Which is a pity, since I think decent people who are willing to actually own their mistakes need a lot more attention on that aspect of their characters.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
158. Probably true; but also probably the same crew that believes that
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:52 PM
Dec 2012

Money Boo Boo was "robbed!"

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
3. Call the police? No
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:30 PM
Dec 2012

Invite him to the Washington Christmas special? No.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/384350/psy-to-perform-before-us-president-obama-at-christmas-in-washington#.UMI2KIM5zng

And he didn't say they something bad. He said they should all be killed "all slowly and painfully".

In the theme of rape this week, what if he said women should be all killed slowly and painfully. Would that be acceptable to you as well?

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
5. "Women" didn't kill an innocent Afghani family
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:38 PM
Dec 2012

"Women" didn't gang rape a Japanese woman in Okinawa

"Women" didn't torture and kill inmates at Abu Gharaib

Your jingoism is showing...

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
13. Women have killed plenty of people
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:05 PM
Dec 2012

Did all soldiers kill Iraqis of Afghanis? Nope
Did they all rape women? Nope

Should all women be lumped together with those women who have raped and killed? Of course not.

And neither should our military personnel.


Let's not forget that Psy also said to "Kill [the soldiers'] daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers .

Your hatred of our military personnel is showing.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
16. OK - you might want to sit down for this
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:07 PM
Dec 2012

Our military - their job - the reason we send them all over the world - is to - wait for it - kill other people

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
23. Ignorance is not a virtue
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:13 PM
Dec 2012

I was in the military to 20 years and I was (gasp) not assigned or even trained to kill people.

Anyone who actually served knows the goal is to AVOID combat and prevent death. Accomplishing the mission with zero deaths or injuries ( on either side) is the goal.

Do we have nukes so we can use them? Nope. We would have already done so if that were the case. The goal is to prevent violence.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
28. My eyes are rolling so back into my head, it hurts...
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:26 PM
Dec 2012

But you can live in that rose colored world where the US is the good guy, and we never invade other countries, etc...

And re: Nukes. We almost did, and the Generals were foaming at the mouth to do so. Cuban Missle Crisis. All you need to know.

You should know better - war does not make peace. It's like fucking for virginity.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
40. Yep, we do invade countries
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:54 PM
Dec 2012

But the goal is not to kill people. That is an unfortunate in meeting the geo-political objectives. Most presidents since WWII have ordered our troops to kill people to meet his objectives.

Nukes: we didn't. If we wanted to, we would have.

And you are wrong. War does make peace. Or are we still fighting against the Third Reich? Oh, I forgot, you would be fine with just being peacefully content under their rule so there would have been no fighting. The Brits and the French are glad those like you were not in power 70 years ago. Oh, and the Jews.

The only way to have peace without war is to always roll over to bullies. Do you roll over on command? Good puppy.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
41. Look, just drop the pretense and admit you like war
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:56 PM
Dec 2012

And that killing innocents doesn't really bother you

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
43. When you stop beating your wife. (nt)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:58 PM
Dec 2012

Since you support Psy and his supporting violence against innocent women, that obviously won't happen.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
55. And what "geo-political objective" did we get out of Iraq?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:40 PM
Dec 2012

You sound like a deranged neo-con apologist. What the fuck does an Iraqi family who had their family killed by our military care what
"geo-political objective" Bush had in mind?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
68. Does it matter?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:52 PM
Dec 2012

The civilian leadership of this country determines those objectives and the military follows orders. If Psy wants to hate on Bush, more power to him. If he wants to hate on military members who committed crimes, more power to him. However, to want to kill and torture all military member and their families is reprehensible.

But, to answer your question, Bush's official geopolitical objectives were to remove the threat of WMDs from Iraq and force full compliance with UN inspections to establish stability in the region. There are more, and more details, but that is the essence.

As we all know, it didn't work out like he had hoped.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
72. Oh, i disagree. It went exactly as Bush wanted.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:55 PM
Dec 2012

He knew there were no WMDs, he just wanted to scare the shit out of us into re-electing his sorry ass and get his oil buddies rich in the process, and unfortunately for us, his plan worked.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
81. Um, actually, he wanted a quick victory
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:03 PM
Dec 2012

to be able to claim he stabilized the region and do what Clinton didn't. Oh, and yes, to get our oil companies in there (but that didn't work out so well either)

And no, he did not know there were no WMDs. I believe he truly thought they were there--as did the intelligence analysts. I worked in the intelligence world (MASINT) beginning in '04 and to a person the analysts said they screwed up on the Iraq intel.

Yep, Bush did cherry-pick the intel that he thought would be most effective at persuading the masses. But you don't need to rewrite history to find all sorts of ways he screwed up--like listening to Rumsfeld, for starters.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
86. Please. Bush knew there was nothing in Iraq.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:20 PM
Dec 2012

Notice how he didn't even give the inspectors time to finish their job. He was going in no matter what. Nobody "screwed up". They did as they were told. If Iraq had stabilized soon after the war, there would have been calls here at home to leave Iraq sooner than Bush wanted. The instability played perfectly into his hands. That whole "finish the job" bullshit.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
92. That's the thing, i didn't need any clearance or experience
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:28 PM
Dec 2012

in the so-called "intel world" to know that Iraq didn't have WMDs. I was proved right, while people like you, so-called experts, were proved wrong. Why should anybody ever believe people like you about anything?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
100. Actually
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:40 PM
Dec 2012

I wasn't in the intel world at all until 2004. And I actually spoke to analysts from many different agencies/organizations. I'm not self-smart like you.



And, as you pointed out (and they agreed) they were wrong.

I think you just proved my point. Thanks.
 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
110. Yep, they were wrong, we were right.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:54 PM
Dec 2012

So why ask me what intelligence experience i have? Its not like they were of any use.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
123. You implied
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:05 PM
Dec 2012

you knew what the analysts knew, what they were told, and what they told leadership.

I thought you might be able to back that up since they told me they screwed up and you seem to think they didn't get it wrong and that Bush knew the "truth" they knew but ignored it and told the US people the opposite..

Oh wait, you just said the intel folks got it wrong, which means they told Bush wrong.

So which is it?

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
125. I actually did some reading around that time.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:08 PM
Dec 2012

The UN inspectors hadn't found any WMDs in the time they were in Iraq in early 2003, Scott Ritter, the formed lead inspector, said they didn't have any. So, yeah, it didn't take too much to know the facts. If Bush thought there were really WMDs there, why did he not allow the inspectors more time? After all, wouldn't finding WMDs have proved his case for war? Like i said, he knew and he didn't care.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
128. Just because they were not found
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:13 PM
Dec 2012

doesn't mean they were not there. It turns out they weren't, but Saddam intentionally played games of cat-and-mouse with inspectors and didn't allow them to inspect certain sites as certain times to give the possibility that he might have stuff that he had and was moving.

He was trying to avoid admitting to the region that he had nothing and showing weakness. Yes, that strategy bit him in the butt.

Bush didn't want to give him more time because it made him (Bush) look week and, if there were WMDs it allowed them to develop them further. Saddam had been playing games with the inspectors since at least '98.

You should read more or you would have known all of this.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
132. Lol, please don't tell me you think Saddam sent the WMDs to Syria?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:29 PM
Dec 2012

Your defense of Bush's handling of that phony crisis sounds straight from the Billy Kristol book on foreign policy. I've read more than enough on this subject, it looks your just making excuses for something that should have never happened.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
135. Nope
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:37 PM
Dec 2012

I pointed out they didn't exist. But that is irrelevant because Saddam intentionally gave false clues to make the world's intel community (not just our) believe they existed.

And yes, I do believe you think you have read enough on the topic. And yes, in the perfect world our intel will never be wrong.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
168. You're either lying about your background in military intelligence or you
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:16 PM
Dec 2012

are willfully ignorant. Saddam Hussein's son in law defected to Jordan in 1994 and was debriefed there BY U.S. INTELLIGENCE. SH's son-in-law had been in charge of the pre-1990 WMD programs and, when debriefed, said he had personally presided over the destruction of all Iraqi WMD after the conclusion of Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield on SH's express orders. The analysts who debriefed SH's son in law unanimously concluded that he was telling the truth and that all of Iraq's pre-war WMD had been destroyed.

There was no convincing intel after 1994 that SH had resumed his WMD programs. NONE whatsoever, except for the lies cooked up in the Office of Special Plans and stove-piped through Cheney's office to the NY Times and then back to the civilian policy-makers whom you seemingly laud.

In short, the 'intel' you claim existed that analysts got wrong was all 'lies' by charlatans and con artists like Chalabi and Curve Ball. And most people in power knew they were lies, including many of the CIA analysts whom Cheney threatened and intimidated.

So, you're left in a position of endorsing war crimes and crimes against humanity and all based on lies. So, unless you have any links to support your lies masquerading as assertions (you do not), you should just return to whatever NeoCon hole whence you slunk.

I back up my assertions with facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel_al-Majid.

Read it and weep.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
167. Lol. Are you trying to be funny? Bush wanted to remove the threat of WMDs in Iraq???
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:07 PM
Dec 2012

This is a Democratic Forum. Lying to get us into War never worked on Democratic Forums. That lie never went over big with anyone but rabid Freepers, even rational Republicans knew it was a lie.

I'm assuming you were joking.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
161. Power projection is the term most often used.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:22 PM
Dec 2012

Our goal was to be the fallback position if diplomacy failed.

We were the last resort--not the first.

11 Bravo

(24,310 posts)
64. I'll be fucked! That Lynndie England person at Abu Ghraib sure LOOKED like a woman!
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:49 PM
Dec 2012

Thanks for setting us (and his gynecologist) straight.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
159. Abu Ghraib was an equal opportunity clusterfuck.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:09 PM
Dec 2012
Specialist Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of five years.[64] Harman served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[65]
Specialist Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[66]
Private First Class Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years. She was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to three years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to Private (E-1) and received a dishonorable discharge.[61] England had served her sentence at Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar.[67]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Courts-martial.2C_non-judicial_punishment.2C_and_administrative_reprimands


Two female commissioned officers were reprimanded as well. Who knows the gender of the "other agency" intelligence personnel, or what happened to them? That kind of thing is never publicized.

The notion of women "in the rear with the gear" safely behind the lines rolling bandages and typing up orders is an outdated one, despite the continued limitations (which will soon fall, I suspect) on combat participation. There are no "front lines" anymore--there haven't been for a long, long time, actually.

lbrtbell

(2,389 posts)
178. HE DID NOT WRITE THAT LYRIC
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:41 PM
Dec 2012

He was one of 3 artists who performed it, yet he's the only one taking heat for it. What about the band that wrote it? Why no media-fueled outrage toward them?

Doesn't anybody use Google anymore?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
181. Who said he did?
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:33 PM
Dec 2012

Are the other two invited to sing before the President?

Does repeating something that is repugnant absolve him for the words he said?

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
6. Looking like a clown in the thread itself wasn't enough eh?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:41 PM
Dec 2012

Pal, if you're cool with the idea of torture-murdering soldiers' FAMILIES (read the damn lyrics) then that's the sort of thought you really ought to keep to yourself. Not repeat over and over on this forum.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
17. I'm getting a good chuckle watching all you hoo-ra types defending our atrocities
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:08 PM
Dec 2012

Because we're MURICA! Fuck yeah!

hack89

(39,181 posts)
39. I can condemn atrocities and still feel ...
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:52 PM
Dec 2012

that someone advocating "Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers" of our soldiers is an A-1 asshole.

Try it some time - holding nuanced views on something is not hard and doesn't hurt.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
14. Oh forgot, "America, fuck yeah!!! Boot in their ass!!! Love it or leave it!!!"
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:05 PM
Dec 2012

I guess imperialism is OK now...got it.

Seriously, have you ever thought of viewing the world from a perspective other than that of an American?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
20. you illustrate just beautifully simplistic black/white thinking, honey.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:11 PM
Dec 2012

It's not de facto imperialism because one finds lyrics about killing people slowly and painfully repugnant. Hey, I know you'd support lyrics by a country singer about killing Afghans slowly and painfully.

gad.

And the guy's "music" is as sucky as it gets.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
105. That's hardly surprising, somehow.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:48 PM
Dec 2012

Perhaps you should read it again, but more carefully.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
106. I knew you'd be digging into your insult bag soon enough
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:49 PM
Dec 2012

Is that what the DNC tells you to do?

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
21. nothing shows how peaceful and anti war you are like defending the notion of torture killings...
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:11 PM
Dec 2012
 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
32. No I just don't buy into the military fetishism you warmongers like so much
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:28 PM
Dec 2012

In fact, I do NOT support our troops

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
36. Hmmm, defending your opinion is "flailing" - I'll remember that now
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:31 PM
Dec 2012

You're like that guy in an argument, who's entire defense is "YOU SUCK" and and then he high fives his friends

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
59. Please continue, guvnor...
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:45 PM
Dec 2012

PSY also mentioned their wives and daughters as who should be killed and tortured. How are you with that?

Do continue....

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
62. So you are more outraged by these lyrics, than the atrocities our military commits every day
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:47 PM
Dec 2012

Got it

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
65. No. You're incorrect.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:51 PM
Dec 2012

I'm deeply offended by both. You, however, seem quite OK with this rapper's words. You obviously know what he rapped.

I've been opposed to every US war, starting with Vietnam. I've also served in the Military, but wasn't taught to kill anyone. I learned Russian, instead. You, however, apparently support killing US military personnel, along with their families. I would not defend the person who said that in any way.

Please continue, as you please.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
71. No, I do this little excersize called "put yourself in their shoes"
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:54 PM
Dec 2012

Imagine your country has been occupied all of your life, and as far back as anyone can remember.

Imagine your entire defense is at the will and whim of another country.

Imagine that the occupying forces have a little rape problem themselves, as well as nearby bases.

And let's saw that the occupying country is an empire, with little to no regard for human life.

I'd be pretty pissed too.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
76. Ah, but you're not in that position.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:58 PM
Dec 2012

Do you, or do you not approve of PSY's lyrics? Be clear and straightforward with us.

One can be opposed to the USA's military ventures and still find the words of the person you're championing offensive and vicious.

Answer the question, and I'll continue. Don't, and I'll just make my own assumptions about your opinion.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
83. I see. Well, I recently bought a car made in South Korea.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:09 PM
Dec 2012

Odd, isn't it? Were you aware that U.S. soldiers and civilians have raped women in this country, too. Individuals commit rapes and murder, all around the world. Most who do that aren't military at all. How about that?

And yet, they're building cars in SK to send here. They're not doing that in NK. Odd, isn't it?

So, how do you feel about that rapper's lyrics. Do you also think the families of military personnel should be tortured and killed? I'd be curious to know how you feel about that, Taverner.

 

william cail

(32 posts)
153. The Hate USA crowd.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:58 PM
Dec 2012

I find it sickening to read comments that degrade the armed forces. They put their lives on the line so out of touch fringe types can type insults about our brave men and women.

My grandfather served his country during WWII. If anyone on this message board thinks that going to war is never a choice needs to grow up.

WWII brought us Hitler. If American sat on our hands during WWII we be under Nazi rule.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
154. Your empty jingoism is amusing
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:00 PM
Dec 2012

Keep going...

And I don't hate America. I hate what it does, and if you for a minute stepped outside your bubble, you would see that other people in the world, who don't live in the US, view us a bit differently than we view ourselves.

But...It's not worth my time to try and reason with you. You've got red,white and blue shades on, and you think we're the greatest country on Earth, ever!

stranger81

(2,345 posts)
183. Please.
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:50 PM
Dec 2012

Many of our soldiers aren't there to "protect our freedoms," or whatever else Fox Newz says they're doing. They're there for the opportunity to kill themselves some brown folks, all with Uncle Sam's stamp of approval. Been that way since 1898.

alp227

(33,282 posts)
169. Remember that song with "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way"?
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:01 AM
Dec 2012

Conservatives actually defended that song after ABC snubbed it in 2002...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021945534

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
15. To be honest, I don't give a rats ass about PSY
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:06 PM
Dec 2012

I do worry that we look at our empire with rose colored glasses

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)
163. He said it in 2002, as we were torturing the shit out of people
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:32 PM
Dec 2012

Plenty of people were afraid to say anything back then. I think he's worth defending (though I still don't care for rap).

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
22. you are going to need some fainting couches
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:12 PM
Dec 2012

for the many duers who seemed royally outraged over recent military themed threads such as a woman giving the finger *GASP* to our most high honored war dead, or not showing proper respect and admiration to the loyal and gallant soldiers guarding the unknown soldiers tomb, be prepared for the righteous outrage! This is America, buddy, and our military is the most revered and worshiped symbol we got!

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
26. As opposed to the pearl clutching when our troops are honored?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:19 PM
Dec 2012

Nobody is forcing you to honor or revere. Nice strawmen.

great white snark

(2,646 posts)
24. You know, Democrats are allowed to support the troops. It in no way makes us more like Repubs.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:15 PM
Dec 2012

In fact Dems truly support unlike Repubs using for political gain.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
53. Yes, and that's why folks who support our troops oppose foreign occupations
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:33 PM
Dec 2012

Its bad for the people there and its bad for our country. Can't blame PSY for being pissed about the murder of two of his fellow citizens by a US tank.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
56. 'Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers '
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
Dec 2012

This is what you are supporting? Really?

Feh!

PennsylvaniaMatt

(966 posts)
60. +1
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:46 PM
Dec 2012

I agree. You don't have to be a Democrat or Republican to know that when someone advocates "Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law, and fathers", that crosses a line.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
75. Get over it.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:57 PM
Dec 2012

He said it 10 years ago after some of our troops murdered two South Korean girls. I don't blame him for being pissed off after that. I wonder if you find the killing of those two girls "disgusting", or is it just words that "offend" you?

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
79. Of course that was disgusting. I thought so at the time.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:01 PM
Dec 2012

One disgusting thing, however, does not justify another. It never has, and never will.

If you don't mind, I won't take your order to "get over it." I'm not good at taking orders, especially from people I don't even know.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
87. This isn't the military, i'm not giving you orders, just advice.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:22 PM
Dec 2012

Comparing some statements this guy made when he was angry does not compare to the killings of two human beings. False equivalency at its worst.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
94. Oh, advice. Well, then.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:30 PM
Dec 2012

Two little girls were found killed right here in the US. The military did not kill those South Korean girls. An individual did. An individual killed the 11 and 7 year old girls here, too. Individuals kill and rape.

The military also kills. But the military does not rape and murder. Individuals do that.

I have some advice for you, too: Don't give advice to people you don't know.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
98. I'll give advice to whom i wish, and you can do as you please with it.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:36 PM
Dec 2012

The fact is those two girls were killed by people who represented our country in an official capacity, so i will not cast judgement on what this man said when he was rightfully angry over the killings of his two fellow citizens. To compare what he said in anger to the murder of two young girls is despicable.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
101. I can't remember, were the ones
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:41 PM
Dec 2012

who committed those killings invited to sing before the President?

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
115. Yeah you know, the US military has this thing
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:58 PM
Dec 2012

where they represent and defend our country wherever they go. I don't know, its sort of an official thing.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
121. Yep
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:02 PM
Dec 2012

And when they break the rules, they are removed from that position and go to jail.

They are not invited to sing before our President.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
104. Oh, I will do as I please, certainly.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:44 PM
Dec 2012

As I said, I don't know you. I don't know your expertise, if any. I don't know your life experiences. So, I'll just ignore your advice and orders. You'll understand, I'm sure.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
82. He must hate America a LOT then
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:06 PM
Dec 2012

because that has happened here quite a few times. Heck, just this week they found the bodies of two more that it happened to.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
57. Americans get outraged over lyrics.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:43 PM
Dec 2012

But they don't get outraged over the killings of civilians in wars that our politicians start. Must be nice not to have foreign troops occupying your cities.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
73. So, tell us whether or not you approve of
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:56 PM
Dec 2012

the PSY lyrics we're talking about. We'll wait. Do you approve of his suggestions about our military and their families? If so, you've picked a very strange hero to champion here.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
99. He's not my hero - and you guys accuse me of being binary, black and white
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:38 PM
Dec 2012

I don't approve, but I can sympathize

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
102. You can sympathize with an opinion
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:42 PM
Dec 2012

that the families of military personnel should be tortured and killed? Really?

I never took you for someone who sympathized with violence and torture, somehow.

I don't sympathize with our current military ventures, and I don't sympathize with torture and murder of innocents. That you do is revealing. You seem rather selective in your sympathies, it appears to me.

No thanks. I'll not have any of your sympathies.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
111. My employer? I haven't had one of those since 1974.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:54 PM
Dec 2012

I put nothing in your mouth. I'd be afraid to do anything of the sort. You're the one who said you sympathized with this rapper who thinks torturing and killing the families of military personnel is a good idea. I didn't put that in your mouth, or your fingertips, for that matter.

I'm not even sure where your second sentence came from. Maybe you could explain what you meant by "Tell your employer it's hippie punching time." Please clarify. BTW, I'm an old hippie myself. You seem confused this afternoon.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
112. Most of us here have you figured out
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:56 PM
Dec 2012

It's about time to stop the charade

The DNC has never been happy with us liberals, so now that you've won the election, time to go punch hippies eg get rid of the left

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
117. Really? You think I work for the DNC?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:59 PM
Dec 2012

So, are you saying I'm being paid to post here on DU? I'm not. In fact, it often keeps me from my work at my own business. Posting on DU costs me money, rather than earning money.

But, you're saying I'm paid to post here? You really believe that? It's laughable.

I don't write about political issues for money. Never have. Never will. Today, I worked on web pages about commercial packaged HVAC rooftop systems for a website I'm doing the content for. Very boring stuff. That's how I earn my money. That's my business. You can click the link in my signature line to learn more, and to see all the other businesses for which I've written websites.

DNC?

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
122. Boy, have you misread.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:03 PM
Dec 2012

I'm not a professional political writer in any way. I write the content for small business websites. It pays the bills. You are confused today.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
152. No, I just know a con job when I see or read it
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:55 PM
Dec 2012

Although I will give you this: You are not some spineless crybaby when engaged. You never once alerted on me, which I would say gives you a certain amount of credulity.

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
157. You don't know shit.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:51 PM
Dec 2012

If you think I work for the DNC, you are full of what you don't know.

And no, I haven't alerted on you. I hardly ever alert on anything, except for personal attacks. I consider your assertion that I'm paid to post here to be a personal attack. But I don't alert on posts directed at me, either, so you get a pass.

What I post is is what I think and believe. If you don't like what I think and believe, there it is.

 

Taverner

(55,476 posts)
164. I never accused you of alerting on me
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 PM
Dec 2012

In fact, I laud the fact that you HAVEN'T

Look - we're at an impasse here

Everyone hates me in some places and loves me in others

Let's make nice

Today was an especially harsh day for me, IRL

MineralMan

(151,269 posts)
165. Sorry you had a bad day. Truly.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:52 PM
Dec 2012

Now I'm having one. I don't like being accused of some things, and shilling is one of those things. I don't do it. Never have. Never will. It's one of the worst possible insults one can make about a professional writer.

lbrtbell

(2,389 posts)
179. No I don't approve
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:55 PM
Dec 2012

But it wasn't "his" suggestion. He didn't write the lyrics. 2 other artists performed them at the same time. Why aren't you outraged at them, or the band that wrote the lyrics?

Because you're ready to embrace this xenophobic, fact-deficient attack. There is such a thing as checking facts before you rail against somebody.

Read my other posts in this thread, about how Psy has changed dramatically between that time and the present.

And yes, he IS a hero to me. He turned his life around. He had gotten arrested for possession of marijuana (horrors!) and was in jail when his grandfather's funeral was being held. He was quite messed up until he got married. Now, he's a family man with twin daughters, who is kind, caring, and generous.

I also admire him because he succeeded in Korea without succumbing to pressure to change his music and have plastic surgery. He succeeded on his own terms, on his own indie label. His video went viral, and he's been working insanely hard to please his fans by traveling around the world, giving FREE concerts. He was recently hospitalized for exhaustion from working.

So why are people accusing him of changing solely to make money in the USA, when he didn't even intend to pursue U.S. or international fame at all?

Racism and xenophobia. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's recent "news story" about him, and you'll see it clearly.

Finally, I admire him for staying true to himself and succeeding where all other manufactured South Korean acts have failed--scoring a huge hit in the USA.

So yes, he's a hero to me. He's not perfect, for he's a human being--and he was a troubled human being in his youth. But the fact that he overcame all that to become a kind, generous family man is definitely admirable in my book.

If people can't respect someone who made a sincere effort to change his life, it says more about them than it does about him.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
74. Ever been to S. Korea
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:56 PM
Dec 2012

Ask them which of the following options they would prefer:

A) The US have the current presence in their country "occupying" their cities
B) the US completely leave
C) the North Koreans occupying their cities

I did. During the N. Korea famine of '97-'98

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
78. I don't believe anybody but US citizens should be setting our foreign policy, first of all.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:00 PM
Dec 2012

So irrespective i think we should withdrawal our troops from there, but the fact is anti-US sentiment there has been on the rise in recent years, especially after the killings of those two girls. And their military is more than well equipped enough to deal with any threat from the North, which ultimately, is their responsibility.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
84. And what makes you think that?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:13 PM
Dec 2012

"And their military is more than well equipped enough to deal with any threat from the North"

And what do you base that on? Please expand on your vast knowledge of the capabilities of each.

BTW, you do realize that the Koreans do want us there

"While the relationship is rooted in the Korean War, 84 percent said they wanted to maintain the US alliance even if North and South Korea are unified, according to the survey by the Asian Institute for Policy Studies."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i7vGA2claNhtEoHEO20YOqQt0jww?docId=CNG.9c8ff903f2483b2a6a044cdbcbaf225b.941

AND they had thousands of troops in Iraq, right?

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
93. Lol, information?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:30 PM
Dec 2012

Maybe if your a Weekly Standard subscriber. The idea that South Koreans supported the Iraq war is laughable to no end. But keep living in your little bubble all you want, boys.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
91. How does "maintain an alliance" translate into having thousands of troops occupying their country?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:26 PM
Dec 2012

I want to have an alliance with most of the world, doesn't mean i want their troops on our borders. Yes, they had troops in Iraq, and it was extremely unpopular with the people of South Korea, hence why they withdrew them. For someone who claims to know so much about the Koreas, you know so little. You are aware that the North's military equipment is outdated and its troops are starving? I won't do your homework for you, so please look it up for yourself.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
107. Yes, they did withdraw them
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:50 PM
Dec 2012

After FIVE years. When we were withdrawing ours.

Hmmm, so 9 MILLION hungry troops would not be a threat to a country on their border with lots of food. Is that what you are trying to convince yourself of?

Why do you think the S. Koreans were especially worried in '97/'98 when there was a famine in the north? But for the record, the NK soldiers are better fed than the general population.

"Around 6 percent of the respondents said U.S. troops should completely withdraw from South Korea, while another 45 percent said they should leave gradually. The combined figure, 51 percent, rose steadily from 39 percent in 2003 to a peak of 62 percent last year. About 34 percent said they want U.S. troops to stay for a significant period, while another 15 percent said they wanted continuous U.S. presence."

Only 6% of S. Korean want our troops gone.
http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2895206

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
113. Lol, nice way to spin things.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:57 PM
Dec 2012

But i can do the same. Only 15% want us there permanently. See how that works? And yes, i know the North Korean military is better fed than the people, that doesn't mean they still eat good. And the South Korean presence in Iraq was unpopular throughout that whole period, just as our occupation of Iraq was as well. But politicians tend to be hawks, surprise surprise.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
124. Lol, not even close.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:05 PM
Dec 2012

51% want us out sooner rather than later. Yeah, i think, maybe, just maybe, that's a majority.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
129. Under what definition it "gradually"
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:15 PM
Dec 2012

the same as "sooner than later"?

grad·u·al [graj-oo-uh l] Show IPA
adjective
1.
taking place, changing, moving, etc., by small degrees or little by little: gradual improvement in health.
2.
rising or descending at an even, moderate inclination: a gradual slope.

Dictionary.com

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
134. Under what definition is significant?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:34 PM
Dec 2012

A year? A week? Th questions weren't exactly precise, so i assume the ones who said gradual instead of significant want our troops out quicker.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
136. Most people have functioning brains
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:40 PM
Dec 2012

Considering our troops have been there for 60 years, most people would consider a significant amount of time to be decades.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
140. Most people also have reading comprehension skills
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:51 PM
Dec 2012

I said the ones who said we should gradually decrease our presence want us out sooner than those who want us to stay a significant amount of time. And they make up the majority. What part of that did you not get, hawk?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
144. Um, OK
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:02 PM
Dec 2012

regardless, 94% still want level near the current levels for the near-term and half want them there long-term.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
88. The current plan is that the ROK will be self sufficient in defense in another few years
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:22 PM
Dec 2012

However, the current ROK defense plan is that in the event of a PRK invasion, the ROK command structure itself reverts to the US.
 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
96. Not according to Sung Kim
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:31 PM
Dec 2012
http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/korea/fewer-bases-same-number-of-troops-in-south-korea-us-ambassador-says-1.168633

"The new U.S. ambassador to South Korea said this week that the only impending change to the U.S. military presence on the peninsula will be the relocation of servicemembers to a smaller number of bases — not a decrease in troop levels."
 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
103. "FU, I've got mine"
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:43 PM
Dec 2012

I'll bet your friends don't even bother asking you to help move anymore, do they?

I guess you don't even know what alliances are about? Yikes!

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
109. So you think we need to fight wars on behalf of other countries?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:53 PM
Dec 2012

Boy, that's a great strategy. That Vietnam War was such a success. Why wouldn't we want to replicate that? I guess i must have glanced over that part of the constitution that says our troops swear to protect our country, and any others our politicians decide to send them to. Lovely. I'm willing to bet i won't be seeing you on the battlefield anytime soon.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
114. England and France
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:58 PM
Dec 2012

and much of Europe are sure glad we did.

But, yes, I do believe we should help our allies. If not, why bother with alliances?

And you might want to reread the Constitution. The military swears to uphold it and it says the President is the CINC. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

And I will be on the battlefield if they call me out of retirement to do so.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
120. Ah yes, the WWII card.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:01 PM
Dec 2012

Because every war is just like that one. I'm sure General Noriega had plans to invade the mainland US, lol. Helping our allies is one thing, actually fighting full out wars for them is another, especially when you consider most of our allies have well equipped armies and the two you mentioned have nukes. Your definition of alliances doesn't square with mine, and the constitution doesn't define it either, so to each his own.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
126. Um, we have a lot fewer troops
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:09 PM
Dec 2012

in S. Korea than the S. Koreans do. In fact, they have more in their Army than we have in our entire army. And the have a lot of reserves as well.

So who said anything about fighting it for them? Besides, didn't you say they already had the ability to defeat NK? So are we carrying the lion's share of the load or are they? You can't have it both ways.

And yes, all wars are different. Which is why I gave a very important example of a war where we fought a war on behalf of other countries. I don't remember many French troops landing at Normandy with us.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
127. Well, if you support a US military presence in South Korea
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:12 PM
Dec 2012

you are basically conceding that we will fight the war for them since a North Korean invasion means we take command. No two ways around that.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
131. So you believe fighting is the same as command?
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:20 PM
Dec 2012

Do you think the generals actually do the fighting in the war?

Are they the ones who die in battle?

Wow. You CERTAINLY have never been in the military. Or seen it. Or read about it. O r really thought about it.

If our troops make up 20% of the fighting force, we are fighting the war for them? HI-larious. You crack me up.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
133. Oh yes, of course, because the only US troops who will do the fighting are the ones in SK
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:31 PM
Dec 2012

There won't be any additional troops sent whatsoever. Wow. You are such a military expert. How many medals do you have?

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
137. Yep more would be sent
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:44 PM
Dec 2012

But considering the majority of the initial lift (vehicles/troops) is by ship, that would take a while and our numbers still wouldn't come close to the number of S. Koreans.

I have 7 medals. And obviously a bunch of ribbons on top of that.

OK, technically I have fewer medals than that because some have leaf clusters indicating I've received that same level of medal multiple times.

 

Daniel537

(1,560 posts)
138. Well with your expertise
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:49 PM
Dec 2012

i'm sure the ROK will value your assistance. Just don't drag the rest of our troops along with you.

 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
67. Well if this offends you you probably shouldn't listen to the Coup, Immortal Technique, Public Enemy
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 04:52 PM
Dec 2012

, etc. Remember Uncle Same ain't the baker he's the butcher/we're all on punked with no Ashton Kutcher.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
143. I recently discovered Immortal Technique
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:00 PM
Dec 2012

Mostly in a case of "that's too awesome a stage name not to make me curious," but been listening to some of his stuff since then.

I've started trying to make a point of finding more political musicians now and then whose views are far enough apart from mine, or worded in different enough manners from mine, to make listening to them kind of uncomfortable. It can be an insightful experience and has been taking a bit of the edge off some of the kneejerk-reaction-to-such-and-such responses I (like everyone else) have.

 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
148. They say rage against the machine is pretty good.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:28 PM
Dec 2012

Personally I love the coup. Go check out their song called fat cats and bigger fish. It's pretty good. These guys are pretty far left.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
149. RATM I'd discovered some time ago. ;)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:38 PM
Dec 2012

I've spent the last couple years kind of exploring hip-hop and neighboring genres as a whole, since it was almost completely off my mental radar. It's been worth it I think, between some incredibly talented people here and there and the fact that some real fire's getting poured into some of that work.

A lot of political music these days tends to be kind of tepid, just dealing in standard cliches or being really cloyingly pro-The-System and badly written to boot (I'm looking at you, "Let's Roll&quot . Then I go and stumble across Immortal Technique collaborating with Lowkey and am like, "hell-o..."

I'll check out The Coup right now.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
150. And that one was interesting - I like how he kind of left the ending hanging
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:46 PM
Dec 2012

"I'm getting hussled / Only knowing half the game.."

I see a lot of "we need to do such-and-such and it'll get better" in protest music, but not many people do "I'm going to define the problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it yet."

 

craigmatic

(4,510 posts)
155. True but the best thing about them is that it's leftist music that you can dance to.
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:01 PM
Dec 2012

They have so many songs you can dance to that sound like old school funk. Me and Jesus the Pimp, Sho yo ass, and pretty much any song off pick a bigger weapon. These are the guys who had the world trade center blowing up on their album cover in the months leading up to 9/11.

get the red out

(14,031 posts)
80. I get tired of media contrived "problems"
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 05:01 PM
Dec 2012

Some guy has an opinion, ok, so what? I believe everyone should have a right to their opinions.

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)
162. He said it in 2002, as we were filling guantanamo and torturing the shit out of people
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:29 PM
Dec 2012

Plenty of people were saying "bad" things about that back then. Plenty of people were also afraid to say bad things about that back then.

In any case, he made a very well-stated apology more recently, basically for any harm that the non-specificity of his statements might have caused.

NuttyFluffers

(6,811 posts)
172. huh, just heard. Psy's covering Shin Hae Cheol's band N.E.X.T.
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:28 AM
Dec 2012

it's like covering... Public Enemy or Ice T or Beatles or Black Sabbath or any other utterly seminal artist that has a corpus of controversial songs.

Shin Hae Cheol was, and still prides himself in being, a major bad boy from the Korean music scene. i absolutely love his early work. though i admit he does come off as abrasive, even in his live N.E.X.T. sets. but that's the nature of the artist: he has an opinion, he's free to do so, he also makes great art, listeners learn to deal.

to lay this all on Psy's feet for doing a cover is misplaced at best. it's probably FOX sour grapes at anything foreign coming to our shores successfully. besides, covering a controversial song from a legendary artist at a rather timely context isn't bad -- it's artistically appropriate and engaging use of art.

letting one's delicate sensibilities rattle from this, well, it's your free choice to react (or overreact, in my view) as you please.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
175. Looks like he just killed a big chunk of his new fan-base.
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:43 PM
Dec 2012

He was bigger than Jesus, now he's just as big as Jesus.

lbrtbell

(2,389 posts)
176. Psy DID NOT WRITE THOSE LYRICS!
Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:31 PM
Dec 2012

He was only one of THREE artists invited on stage to rap them during a protest concert.

Why is there no outrage against the other guest artist, or how about the South Korean metal band who wrote the lyrics?

Can you say, "Racist resentment of Psy's international fame," boys and girls? That's a major reason the right-wingers are picking up on this story. They've been trashing Psy from the start, on shows like "The O'Reilly Factor".

If the media would actually do their jobs, they would have also reported that Psy was much younger and controversial back then. Since getting married, having kids, and doing military service (twice), he's a changed man.

He even wrote a song about it, called "It's Art"--in which he says that he was a "beast" before he met the woman he loves.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oh NOES!1! A South Korean...