Just because somebody served doesn't mean he's not a shitbag of the highest order, even if he does have a chestful of medals. I mean, look at John Kerry.
Oh, and before some hyper-sensitive idjit jumps on it, by "your lot", I meant of course injuns. Damn drunken injuns.
How is him being an Iraq vet even relevant?? Does this hyperbole have some hidden point or is it just the usual bullshit around here?
Aye. You never see an article lead off with A 7 year full-time employee at Pep Boys, Robert Mcshitstack, has been arrested for yadda yadda yadda.
As someone else mentioned, it was in the Fox headline. It was also in the headline when I first saw the story in the paper at work. As to why his being a vet is relevant, I'd say it's because most people respect veterans more than the average joe, and it's always more interesting when a crime is committed by a respected individual. That's my take, anyway.
The reason it was in the FOX headline is because the Iraq war is controversial. A twenty-seven year old man charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree child abuse of a 3-month-old girl is not. People disagree about the war but there isn't anybody who'd agree with what Kirk Coleman is accused of having done. In other words terrible story + tenuous connection to Iraq war = Controversial Headline
If liberal assholes don't hyperbolize constantly, they'd have no righteous indignation. What's a bleeding heart liberal without all the whining and recriminations? No. Not really. There's a difference in having a certain esteem for what a person has done, and having respect for the person. Most of the people who engage in, what Fuckhead called , "medal worship" have no problem making the distinction between the veteran's service, and who the veteran is as a person. You see, as Tamar pointed out, in this instance, the fact that this scumbag was a vet is irrelevant. It's a passive-aggressive way for the press or some do gooder journalism intern to get his or her digs in about the immorality of the war, since it's no longer in vogue to wait at airports and spit at and harangue servicemen returning from combat.
Uh The story here isn't that somehow serving in the military turned someone into a baby rapist, thats just stupid. The story is, this guy is clearly completely insane, how did he get in to the military in the first place? Dont they have a tick-box on the application form that says 'are you insane?' which would disqualify them from service. or at least a psych evaluation...
Yes, they do have psych evals in the Army. I have taken many myself, and failed a few. You learn to put down the answers the Army wants to hear...so they basically serve no purpose. Having said that, the Army has hundreds of thousands of members, so the law of averages would dictate a few people go "off the rails" crazy now and then...but it's a tiny, tiny percentage.
Yeah it is. Insane opinions aside if the hook to the story was crappy admission standards it'd be equally idiotic. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with what Kirk Coleman is accused of having done. Yeah, the catch-22 box. Yet checking it is the same as leaving it unchecked. Weird.
You probably wouldn't have the length of service at a particular place in the lead, but it's not unlikely that a lead would have a reference to the place where someone works or the type of work someone does, especially if there's a more direct connection between that fact and the alleged crime.
