Why vugularity in SAF
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
If you wanna shoot your mouth off about natural selection and genes, i suggest you read up more first before making us laugh again.
Look up Reproductive Selection, neanderthal. I'm surprised you and your ilk still exist in our supposedly civilised society.
-
So if everyone who uses vulgarities are neanderthals, i suppose everyone who has a dick is your father?
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."-Winston Churchill
So, if according to you, "rough" men equates Neanderthals, my reply to you is a line spoken by Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men".
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it."
You can piss off now, wanker.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
Well then, that shall spell the extinction of such primal warriors from modern society.
Clinging on to antiquated notions is the surest way to maladaptation and subsequent removal from the gene pool. Adapt or die. Don't blame anybody if human females stay the hell clear outta your neanderthal mouths.
Adapt or die? Very true. Especially for the soldier who has to brave thunderstorms, torrential rains, mountains, valleys, seas and the blazing sun to get the job done. We don't have the luxury of having the remote control to turn the air conditioning up.
Oh yeah. I'm sure any girl out there would be more interested in a combatant's job than a pencil pusher office boy. No offence to office boys.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
So if everyone who uses vulgarities are neanderthals, i suppose everyone who has a dick is your father?
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."-Winston Churchill
So, if according to you, "rough" men equates Neanderthals, my reply to you is a line spoken by Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men".
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it."
You can piss off now, wanker.
Wow, a perfect example! Complete with delusions of grandeur too!Yeah, like peace and freedom are possible only with application of violence. The only reason why this is so is because these very same people will scarcely hesitate to take away the freedom and peace of fellow humans.
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
Adapt or die? Very true. Especially for the soldier who has to brave thunderstorms, torrential rains, mountains, valleys, seas and the blazing sun to get the job done. We don't have the luxury of having the remote control to turn the air conditioning up.
Oh yeah. I'm sure any girl out there would be more interested in a combatant's job than a pencil pusher office boy. No offence to office boys.
Glorify soldiers by whatever means you may. As if they're only people who need to brave the elements to get things done.
Also, I cannot help but wonder if you've been smoking mushrooms when writing your second paragraph. No sane hominid can possibly be that deluded to believe such patently false statements.
-
No need to get pissed off here. I think we are going off track, and that is because the original poster knows that he has lost the argument. I think most of the posters here have convincingly shown that vulgarities are part and parcel of any military establishment. In fact, I would go so far as to say that vulgarities are the most efficient and economical method of 'persuasion' when the shit hits the fan.
Rooki, please open your eyes and read more about history before you make your statements. Throughout history, the nations with the most freedoms also have the strongest military. This military is the force that guarantees the survival of the nation so that the freedoms may thrive. The threat of violence may not be the only factor ensuring peace, but it is a critical factor. Whether they want to serve or not, all those in the military like Hellraiza are paying for the freedom you enjoy to come to this forum to air your views. You should at least show some appreciation for that.
-
Cos people need to be farked to get working...
-
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to glorify the soldier. It's just that, people like rooki really make me think, "so i'm working my ass off for people like this?"
Soldiers are not the first in line for the peace progress, but i believe they are definitely the last resort.
Take Iraq. Warnings? Saddam laughs in the UN's face. Peace talks? What talks? Sanctions? Well we'll just have to find alternate sources. And that's where the soldiers come in. Contrary to what some might believe, countries don't send in invasion forces over some small slight they suffered. You say war is babaric and soldiers are neanderthals. So what about Sun Tze who turned war-waging into an art? Neanderthals are the small street gangsters who fight and run. War is based on TACTICS. And for brilliant tactics. YOU NEED BRAINS.
Problem with Singaporeans is, they're so comfortably esconced in the peace and freedom they now have that they forgot that in 1942, and during the Confrontation, our guys died defending that freedom.
-
Originally posted by Ferguson:
cock la.
when is vuglarity part of SINGLISH???????????
Singlish is a mixed of everything including vulgar language. -
Hmm...I'll stop with the insults. However, you may like to ponder upon the irony of using violence, whether physical or verbal, to achieve peace and freedom.
Violence begets violence. Respect people a little more, and perhaps your freedom and peace will not come at the price of depriving others of the same. The notion that freedoms have to be bought with violence is but an illusion. Gandhi didn't need no violence.
On topic, I'd like to say that vulgarities are a form of verbal violence that robs their recipients of the necessary respect they deserve.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
Hmm...I'll stop with the insults. However, you may like to ponder upon the irony of using violence, whether physical or verbal, to achieve peace and freedom.
Violence begets violence. Respect people a little more, and perhaps your freedom and peace will not come at the price of depriving others of the same. The notion that freedoms have to be bought with violence is but an illusion. Gandhi didn't need no violence.
On topic, I'd like to say that vulgarities are a form of verbal violence that robs their recipients of the necessary respect they deserve.
It may be ironic, but the life is full of contradictions ; ). The reason Gandhi (in his later days) didn't need violence was because the British had a sense of fair play. He was the exception, not the rule. Generally throughout history, the peaceful, non-violent groups get wiped out. Look at the Jews at Masada against the Romans, for one. If you are depending on your opponent's sense of humanity in order to win, you have already lost.
If we look at it from an evolutionary/game theory point of view, if everybody was non-violent, then the first person to be violent would gain tremendous advantage, because there would be no one to stop him. Thus, more people would 'convert' to be violent, until a certain equilibrium is reached where it is equally advantageous to be violent or non-violent.
I say again, read your history. Freedom isn't free. It is bought with the blood of those who are willing to die for others; even those who look down on them. The greatest, freest, civilisations have roads paved with blood. The very fact that you are alive today is because your ancestors have fought and killed other humans for the right to live.
Vulgarities are far more than what you classify them as. Vulgarities may be used as verbal violence, but they are also used to bond, to create a sense of camaderie, to identify a group. I may call my friend a fucker, but does it necessary rob him of respect? Not at all. To classify them as crude, blunt tools is in fact vulgar :). Besides, not everybody deserves respect by virtue of the fact that they are human. Respect has to be earned, regardless of whether you are a street bum or King of the World. More to the point of vulgarity in the SAF, I don't care if my soldier doesn't like me calling him a fucker if doing so jolts him into action and saves the lives of himself and his mates. At least he is alive to complain about it.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to glorify the soldier. It's just that, people like rooki really make me think, "so i'm working my ass off for people like this?"
Believe me, you are not the first soldier to think that. Look at some of the peace protesters in the US who picket the funerals of soldiers and insult them. However, I draw some inspiration from the words of Voltaire: " I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. "
-
its ok to use vugularity ba i guess. but the fking problem is some use vugularity even when there is no need for e.g giving instructions or doing for no fking reason (like the way i type).
I mean if lets say a soldier misbehave then vugularities is ok but the issue is some commanders is using vugularities for no reason even in giving cmds etc. Dono how to talk properly n decide when to use vugularities to enforce discipline then dont be a commander or lead ppl thats wad i feel.
I have such a regular whom when in bad mood or flared up will resort to such method to go according to his way .
-
Vulgarities does not tarnishes the image of the SAF, but holding hands with our girlfriends in uniform does
Hmmm.. annoy-you-must, fyi, vulgarities DO tarnish the image of SAF. It is also a punishable offence under the statute esp. when member of public complains about your vulgarities (sect 26 of the SAF ACt Cap. 295).
Also, something for you to remember till the day you ORD.... holding hands with your gf while in uniform is not an offence and doing so does not tarnish the SAF's image!
-
3rd world army uses 3rd world language.
3G chiong ar!
-
rooki is a noob la. she living in those kind of "dreamland" where everyone is nice and understanding. no humans who got ill-desired intentions,no one's greedy,no want wants fame and power. please. if u think Knights are glorious and honourable,go read up on them :) or even the Spartans. read up on them and see the truth of their characters
-
Originally posted by rooki:You said "Also, I cannot help but wonder if you've been smoking mushrooms when writing your second paragraph. No sane hominid can possibly be that deluded to believe such patently false statements." to Hellraiza's "Oh yeah. I'm sure any girl out there would be more interested in a combatant's job than a pencil pusher office boy. No offence to office boys."
You misunderstood Hellraiza's statement. He's not saying that women would be more interested romantically/sexually in a combatant than a pencil pusher office moron. He's saying to you point blank in sarcasm, he's sure that any girl out there would be more interested in BEING a pencil pusher than being a combatant. He said "more interested in a combatant's JOB", not "more interested in a combatant." All you girls who make noise all day about soldiers being vulgar, not refined enough, smelling funny when they book out and all, I request that you all try to go through BMT, no need OCS or sign on, just BMT to know first-hand what the men of this country have been suffering for you. And please don't gimme the bullcrap about how military conscription is not posing any actual benefit to you anyway. If we did not have the army, even if we're not immediately attacked, i can say safely that the country won't have even a fraction of its bargaining chips when it engages in political and economic talks and wrangles for its survival and benefits. What do you think the SAF is there for? Only for deterrence ah? Are you so foolish as to not know that military might (of esp small countries) is directly the pillar of its political and economic clout when bargaining? Why do you think the minister of MFA is also an ex army general?
Even with regards to your misunderstanding of the statement, I know many ladies who have special weakness for men in uniform and i even know one who instantly dismisses non-uniformed, executive pansy-in-a-cubicle suitors. That girl is today the wife of a president's scholar in the army.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
Gandhi didn't need no violence.
That's why he died scrawny and penniless.
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
You misunderstood Hellraiza's statement. He's not saying that women would be more interested romantically/sexually in a combatant than a pencil pusher office moron. He's saying to you point blank in sarcasm, he's sure that any girl out there would be more interested in BEING a pencil pusher than being a combatant. He said "more interested in a combatant's JOB", not "more interested in a combatant." All you girls who make noise all day about soldiers being vulgar, not refined enough, smelling funny when they book out and all, I request that you all try to go through BMT, no need OCS or sign on, just BMT to know first-hand what the men of this country have been suffering for you. And please don't gimme the bullcrap about how military conscription is not posing any actual benefit to you anyway. If we did not have the army, even if we're not immediately attacked, i can say safely that the country won't have even a fraction of its bargaining chips when it engages in political and economic talks and wrangles for its survival and benefits. What do you think the SAF is there for? Only for deterrence ah? Are you so foolish as to not know that military might (of esp small countries) is directly the pillar of its political and economic clout when bargaining? Why do you think the minister of MFA is also an ex army general?
Even with regards to your misunderstanding of the statement, I know many ladies who have special weakness for men in uniform and i even know one who instantly dismisses non-uniformed, executive pansy-in-a-cubicle suitors. That girl is today is the wife of a president's scholar in the army.
Yeah, yeah.
Look, Singapore would never have needed such a wasteful armed forces if its leaders had shut up, put up, and stayed with Malaysia. National pride versus 2(3?) generations of males having their brains fried by NS? A bumi policy -untenable anyway- versus constant paranoia towards neighbours, having no support whatsoever?
Sometimes I really pity you men. Being used as pawns by the rulers while having your language faculties and other parts of your brain slowly wrecked by NS. And then wondering why the government doesn't give you rights commensurate with foreigners.
-
You are much dumber than I earlier estimated.
You support the idea of not separating so you're either a M'sian or been living under a rock. Then you admitted yourself that "a bumi policy - untenable anyway" and then blamed Singapore's leaders for separating from M'sia? You shot yourself in the foot but then again you've done that repeatedly throughout all your posts, why should we be surprised? Hahah!
As a sidenote, i'd much rather be middle class in an independent Singapore. If Singapore never separated from M'sia and we were all M'sians, we would be either one of the working class majority living in a developing country struggling, conversely if we were affluent to rich, we'd be routinely carjacked, robbed, burgled, our wives raped and then killed.
Countries that did not separate from a larger country that they could be depending on now, boasting powerful armies and using their military might to wield political power are US, Switzerland, UK, Russia and China while countries with powerful armed forces are invariably rich and politically influential and can pretty much execise their "freedom" and pursue their agendas for their betterment eg Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Turkey and India. Yet more have stood their grounds against world pressure to disarm for humanitarian objectives because of their military prowess eg North Korea, Pakistan.
You are so ignorant about what's going on in the world and are stuck under a 100-ton rock, still reminiscing like one of those fools who didn't know that the war was over 40 years after US dropped the atomic bomb, dreaming abt the days when Singapore and M'sia were one, yet admitting that it's not feasible (which further proves how stupid you are).
Who's complaining about foreigners? They have to be around to buy and rent our properties, spend more money to stimulate the economy and eat at our otherwise empty french restaurants. We love them! Moreover there's enough of SPGs among your kind who constantly volunteer to suck their __ so they'll hang around long enough to push rental revenue up. Good! We know you are an SPG since you have stated plainly your distaste for anyone who's been conscripted, which includes all Singaporean males. It's good, we see you as one of those chattels that help keep the foreigners 'entertained' and 'amused' in their tenure here, (we see the economic merit) so they won't go.
You should take your idiotic arguments and potshots that hold no water elsewhere, ideally to a place with people whose IQ levels commensurate with yours, since apparently everyone here thinks you can't cease to make a fool of yourself with your stupidity.
Anyway, no eligible officer I know will ever fancy someone as dumb as you and who looks as good as a trashcan so you will never ever be the wife of sombody important. Should go screw someone who is as handsome and rich as Gandhi, your idol. -
Oh yeah guys, this SPG here says our "language faculties" were wrecked by NS. Most of us here have better English than you. What a deluded crone.
-
Originally posted by cookiecookie:
<snip>
My, my. Can't really blame the SPGs, if you're an example of the quinessential Singaporean male.
I wonder who's the fool here, if you can't even interpret that the untenability i mentioned was in reference to the bumi policy. You think Malaysia would continue bumi for long with a vastly reduced Malay majority?
Paragraph 3 shows just how much PAP kool-aid you've imbibed. Obviously Singapore has no carjackings, robberies, burglaries, and rapes of your wives. If women want a parrot, they'd get a macaw bird.
Thanks for making my point for me that " Countries that did not separate from a larger country that they could be depending on now, ... can pretty much execise their "freedom" and pursue their agendas for their betterment," If Singapore and Malaysia were one, no doubt it would be much more powerful than either country now. Also, NK and Pakistan aren't exactly in very rosy situations despite "standing their grounds against world pressure to disarm for humanitarian objectives". There's a reason why there are sanctions and boycotts against them.
Wow, what a tirade you've made against SPGs and foreigners. No need to mask that with your knowledge that they are 'necessary', your insecurity shows through obviously enough. Improve yourself and refrain from calling women who are beyond you 'chattel', and perhaps you'd get more poontang and stop being so bitter.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
Yeah, yeah.
Look, Singapore would never have needed such a wasteful armed forces if its leaders had shut up, put up, and stayed with Malaysia. National pride versus 2(3?) generations of males having their brains fried by NS? A bumi policy -untenable anyway- versus constant paranoia towards neighbours, having no support whatsoever?
Sometimes I really pity you men. Being used as pawns by the rulers while having your language faculties and other parts of your brain slowly wrecked by NS. And then wondering why the government doesn't give you rights commensurate with foreigners.
Hi.
I'll just like to point out a couple of likely scenarios if your average Singaporean male did not serve his National Service.
First example ; Pedra Branca will not be an issue. Why? Because we won't be having our RSN missile corvettes patrolling around that rock and our NDU guys hanging their legs and MP5s out of helicopters overhead to ensure that our right to national sovereignty is not threatened. We can face other foreigners in the eye and know that we are not a country of total wusses.
Secondly, imagine the cost of your PUB bill without the presence of an SAF. Malaysia would play havoc with the water rates. Maybe a ringgit per litre for all you care. Maybe lima puloh sen. Price of an essential good goes up, the rest of the market follows suit. Everything in your life, from buying a bowl of laksa, buying a packet of panadol, having a baby, rises up tremendously. Inflation occurs. Trade deficit tumbles. Economics, baby. Singapore is reduced to a third-world country, where you take a shit in a little hut with no flushing, and an ah pek comes around at 5am daily to dispose of the daily human waste of your kampong. Yeah, kampong. The government probably wouldn't be able to afford to build HDB flats for you. Don't talk about NEWater and desalination plants - we won't be able to afford those, either.
As was mentioned, Gandhi is the exception, not the rule. The Swiss were not invaded during World War 2 by Nazi Germany not because they marched up and down the Alps on hunger strikes, but because they had a dedicated and committed military that could stop German panzers in their tracks coupled with the serious terrain advantages. History has shown that emulating the Swiss model is a more reliable and efficient way of ensuring your survival.
There are very wide political, economic and social implications if we were to dump NS, and if you are not aware of them, then well, I would advise you to do take some time to ponder a little.
Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by rooki:
My, my. Can't really blame the SPGs, if you're an example of the quinessential Singaporean male.
I wonder who's the fool here, if you can't even interpret that the untenability i mentioned was in reference to the bumi policy. You think Malaysia would continue bumi for long with a vastly reduced Malay majority?
Paragraph 3 shows just how much PAP kool-aid you've imbibed. Obviously Singapore has no carjackings, robberies, burglaries, and rapes of your wives. If women want a parrot, they'd get a macaw bird.
Thanks for making my point for me that " Countries that did not separate from a larger country that they could be depending on now, ... can pretty much execise their "freedom" and pursue their agendas for their betterment," If Singapore and Malaysia were one, no doubt it would be much more powerful than either country now. Also, NK and Pakistan aren't exactly in very rosy situations despite "standing their grounds against world pressure to disarm for humanitarian objectives". There's a reason why there are sanctions and boycotts against them.
Wow, what a tirade you've made against SPGs and foreigners. No need to mask that with your knowledge that they are 'necessary', your insecurity shows through obviously enough. Improve yourself and refrain from calling women who are beyond you 'chattel', and perhaps you'd get more poontang and stop being so bitter.
You're far dumber than what I earlier estimated, which was already drummed down from an earlier estimation. I said that you ADMITTED that the bumi policy doesn’t work, so obviously I knew you were referring to the Bumi policy not working. It doesn’t work here, it doesn’t work in M’sia. It simply doesn’t work. Why do you have trouble understanding simple English? Didn’t that silly liberal arts degree from NUS avail you at all? You should back up your hot air too about Malays being a “VASTLY REDUCED” majority, wow such broad strokes here. Of cos we all know you’re a fat fool so no one takes your words seriously, but it’s nice to see how much deeper you can go in the dumb pit.
If you think the crime here is anything like crime in Msia, I recommend you park your fat ass in your homeland for a few seasons. The robbers there wield guns and parangs in broad daylight and carjacking and murder in affluent suburbs are so common, M’sians are used to it. http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=9607 you don’t even know simple things known to everyone, Gosh you’re one dumb broad.
And when did I ever say that NK and Pakistan’s leaders use the advantages they gain from their military power to pave the streets with gold for their citizens? Do you think the leaders of NK care about the sanctions or boycotts? Don’t you know that they make their money through weapons export? You didn’t know that NK’s leader lives in the lap of luxury and eat sharks’ fin everyday? You think he cares about the people suffering from "sanctions and boycotts"? What has that got to do with my point that NK and Pakistan use their military might to achieve their political aims (WHICH WAS WHAT I SAID)? What has the state of the people got to do with that point? You better get a refund for your stupid liberal arts degree from the local university since you can’t follow simple arguments, misconstrue the simplest statements and even dream up nonsense when I clearly said you ADMITTED the bumi policy doesn’t work. It's like what, the 3rd thing you can't understand in plain simple English after you got confused by Hellraiza's simple English about women not wanting to do a combatant's job. Talk about having brains and language faculties "wrecked by NS". You didn't serve NS so what's your excuse for this retardation?
The tirade was about YOU, not the foreigners. Make no mistake, most Singaporeans welcome the benefits they add to the country, most of all the cultural colour that must be present in any cosmopolitan city. The most pulsating cities in the world have large foreign populations that make the place a dynamic melting pot. On a personal note, thanks to ang mohs who are financing 2 of my properties through generous rents, so many Singaporeans can own multiple properties without straining their pockets every month!
We know how dumb you are, but really this takes the cake lah- all hot air from that big fat trap of yours simply begging for some love. Your random saying that “my insecurity obviously shows through” means as little as I saying that Singaporean males generally can’t stand fat women, so you must be darn fat and ostracized.
Singaporeans generally have no ulterior motives on foreigners thus we can embrace them for cultural and economic benefits they bring, can’t say the same for fatty chicks that have been sidelined all these years, of cos their only hope to find someone who doesn’t mind their fat selves, to latch onto an ang moh, whom they dream is their ticket out of poverty although they mostly end up with a one night stand with someone who used to be a bus driver in Eastern Europe.
Poontang? You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m happily married. By the nature of this forum- an ARMED FORCES forum for NS MEN and by the fact that you’re here, a dumb lone broad QUARRELLING with US MEN already cements what a loser you are. Isn't that sweet? The nature of this forum and your actions here already cement you as the loser. Don't see any other female loser here fighting with men in an ARMED FORCES forum for men. Once again you've won the loser race among your kind.
If you focus your energy less on being a no-lifer here in an armed forces forum quarreling with men who hate you and more on that Atkin’s Diet, you may able to shed some pounds and find an Eastern European bus driver drunk enough to give you some much-needed poontang.
-
Originally posted by Ferguson:
cock la.
when is vuglarity part of SINGLISH???????????
Hokkien not part of Singlish meh?
-
Originally posted by iSpeak:
Hi.
I'll just like to point out a couple of likely scenarios if your average Singaporean male did not serve his National Service.
First example ; Pedra Branca will not be an issue. Why? Because we won't be having our RSN missile corvettes patrolling around that rock and our NDU guys hanging their legs and MP5s out of helicopters overhead to ensure that our right to national sovereignty is not threatened. We can face other foreigners in the eye and know that we are not a country of total wusses.
Secondly, imagine the cost of your PUB bill without the presence of an SAF. Malaysia would play havoc with the water rates. Maybe a ringgit per litre for all you care. Maybe lima puloh sen. Price of an essential good goes up, the rest of the market follows suit. Everything in your life, from buying a bowl of laksa, buying a packet of panadol, having a baby, rises up tremendously. Inflation occurs. Trade deficit tumbles. Economics, baby. Singapore is reduced to a third-world country, where you take a shit in a little hut with no flushing, and an ah pek comes around at 5am daily to dispose of the daily human waste of your kampong. Yeah, kampong. The government probably wouldn't be able to afford to build HDB flats for you. Don't talk about NEWater and desalination plants - we won't be able to afford those, either.
As was mentioned, Gandhi is the exception, not the rule. The Swiss were not invaded during World War 2 by Nazi Germany not because they marched up and down the Alps on hunger strikes, but because they had a dedicated and committed military that could stop German panzers in their tracks coupled with the serious terrain advantages. History has shown that emulating the Swiss model is a more reliable and efficient way of ensuring your survival.
There are very wide political, economic and social implications if we were to dump NS, and if you are not aware of them, then well, I would advise you to do take some time to ponder a little.
Have a nice day.
You've just wasted 5 mins of your life explaining to a fat undesirable things that require an IQ level of at least 100 to understand.