On September 29 2010 08:48 RoyW wrote: This happens frequently in war.
That fact is not justification, nor does it mean that one should not be affected by its happening. It does mean that one should use it as a strong reminder that the nation as a whole should not be entering into these needless wars, which have no discernable net benefit to the country, aside from fueling the nilitary-industrial complex and prison slave-labour system that exists in the states.
Reports of this occurring are relatively frequenyt, and to those giving out to the media for sensationalising it, this is more of a result of the fact that the majority of occurances of a lest blatant scale are suppressed as a whole in the media.
These soldiers should be treated for and helped, as they have most probably beeen shaped into the mindframe that would facilitate this. They don't need to be sent to prision for life, or sentenced to death, this wont solve anything, and this wont prevent occurances such as this from happening in the future.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
On September 29 2010 14:11 RoyW wrote: Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Except that they also proceeded to subsequently transfer authority of the ISAF over to NATO, and its explicit goal was to maintain 'security.'
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
"some Americans" "looks down their noses at them" That pretty much explains it. A) Nonsensical generalizations "oh all of Americans are therefore terrible" or B) "looks down their noses" - remind me when the act of looking down one's nose at someone, something, or in any context serves any purpose, goal, or benefit? That's just egotistical-masturbation, meaningless self-inflation. It's not intelligent discussion of root problems, nor is it contemplation of potential solutions.
Llama, pseudo-intellectual dictionary wankery is not a method of rebutting argument that holds any water whatsoever. While RoyW could be construed as unfair in claiming that Americans have no right to feel persecuted, as I suppose they can be in some ways (nobody likes to be attacked for such things), he raises excellent points in that the Bush Administration dehumanised their enemies immediately upon initiation of the War on Terror, and that attitude now permeates the American public. He expresses his argument succinctly, and you would do well to actually address his issues instead of playing scrabble.
On September 29 2010 14:52 DannyJ wrote: the last 2 posters need to keep their paragraphs to 8th grade reading levels so i can follow along better. Thanks.
Llama: @ RoyW: Stop acting as if you're better than Americans, this is the problem and you're not making any decent points.
Myself: @Llama: Stop using big words as a substitute for an actual argument, RoyW had a good point.
EDIT: So looking at my own paraphrase, neither of us said much of use.
On September 29 2010 14:45 NightRapier wrote: Llama, pseudo-intellectual dictionary wankery is not a method of rebutting argument that holds any water whatsoever. While RoyW could be construed as unfair in claiming that Americans have no right to feel persecuted, as I suppose they can be in some ways (nobody likes to be attacked for such things), he raises excellent points in that the Bush Administration dehumanised their enemies immediately upon initiation of the War on Terror, and that attitude now permeates the American public. He expresses his argument succinctly, and you would do well to actually address his issues instead of playing scrabble.
How is there no rebuttal?
I'll break it down for you. His argument: A) the administration's actions were bad
therefore
B) we get to look down on Americans.
I answered it pretty specifically by pointing out that nowhere does he actually prove the link between an administration's actions and every single American, and how the B) point was simply nonsense.
You claim that he showed how the Bush Administration's "attitude now permeates the American public." Not at all.
"It is, unfortunately, symbolic of the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay"
Where do you see the magical proof that Bush's ideas infested all of America? If anything, the fact that it has to be identified as Bush indicates that the fact that we have a new president Obama shows the opposite, the public's general rejection of that.
And how am I playing "pseudo-intellectual dictionary" games anyhow? What word was so offensive. "Egotistical"? Um, I type out the word 'ego' fully...I'm pretty sure a lot of people here are familiar with the word ego. Masturbation? Um, again, should be pretty self-explanatory.
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
well technically it should be a UN backed war but for the most part, it isn't. the bulk of the forces are from america with a very small amount for troops from other countries(like canda for example sent around 100 troops i think, not so sure). basically no country really wants to go to war unless its in the countries' interest to do so.
Hua hua. Oh god, I feel like such a douche sometimes. Cheers. :D
And you know, I skimmed back through the entire thread (admittedly, did not do that the first time) and saw a lot of rational "Man -THOSE GUYS- suck" posts. Not common on the net in my experience.
So I will retract some of my exasperated tone from the original post I made. I guess I jumped the gun a bit.
On September 29 2010 15:18 NightRapier wrote: @Llama: Righto, that's more like it:
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
@2: Your entire point is phrased in terms of "precedence." This is a logical fallacy of slippery slope. Obama has also taken certain actions, for instance wanting at one point to have a legal trial for detainees in New York (but of course the controversy overwhelmed that). While of course it is not magically cleaned, it is not a "dooming precedent" that you're portraying it to be.
@3: The far right conservatives getting behind people like Palin have nothing to do with Bush attitudes of discussion in this topic. They do so because of domestic affairs like the economy.
@4: Once again, what "phrasing"? If anything, there was that one line to spice things up with a more visual description, and its point was pretty clear, as my last post looked at (ie looking at ego and what not).
1- Well, it became more evident under Bush. I never said they invented it, because of cause the true age of terrorist acts was decades ago before we had dedicated counter-terrorist units and legislation.
2- Obama is nothing but a good thing and I believe he has been the best move for your country, which ties into...
3- The same people that dehumanised 'terrorists', supported the war in Iraq, opposed stem cell research, support gun ownership, encourage bigotry and do everything in their power to block or even remove the moderating power of secularism are the same people that supported Bush, and are now trying to get another insane Republican into office.
4- This point isn't worth either of our time, no matter which one of us right.
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
It's war, getting brain washed in a boot camp, seeing your friends get ripped to shreds by a mine right in front of you, it fucks your brain up. Not ev'rybody is mentaly strong to stand up to that. War fucks your moral sence, you're forced to think, your enemy isn't a human being. I can't blame any of these guys, they're just kids.
If you want to talk about war, how about learning the history of USA and terrorism, we can get into a discussion how fucked up and selfrighteouss USA politics are and how the goverment brought all of this up on it's own people.
To the OP, i love your "Soldiers killed Afgans for sport", how about "Soldiers killed Afgans" how's that not fucked up and worth reporting?
On September 29 2010 15:18 NightRapier wrote: @Llama: Righto, that's more like it:
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
i really really wanted to avoid directly throwing dirt at people and tried to restrain myself from the following post for as much as i could. but i will try to make you see why some people, myself included, have a hard time believing that most american soldiers are good people and that what we are talking about here are just the minority bad apples.
these are examples i remembered off the top of my head. to that comes abu ghraib (government endorsed), the baghdad airstrike case that was only revealed through wikileads, the case listed in the OP.
most of us do understand that these cases are not representative of the whole of the united states military. but i am usually not specifically looking for ways to throw shit at people, especially at people fighting the taliban. neither heroin nor fundamentalist religion is something that makes the world better in my opinion. and while the reasons for and the way in which afghanistan and iraq were entered and the strategy employed and the way the military conducts itself are questionable, i do firmly believe that more good comes from staying in afghanistan than leaving and letting the taliban come back to fill the resulting power vacuum. i do not look for cases like this and yet there are so many of them that they fly me in the face so easily. additionally to that you frequently see the people responsible for the whole thing trying their best to keep information about such cases away from the public and even threatening wikileaks. so how rare can these cases possibly be is a question that rightfully sits behind the majority of negative reactions you can see.
i said it earlier: bad apples are only bad apples if you do your best to weed them out (which is not what we see), and if there is few enough of them (which we are not convinced of at all at this point and rightfully so).
May I ask what the big discussion is about here? It's a horrible thing and I'm sure everyone agrees on it, but honestly there are so many murders every year, what makes this case special? Wiki tells me there are 520'000 estimated in the year 2000. five hundred twenty thousand. let that sink in for a moment. And we devote a thread to *gasp* violence in a war.
This has nothing to do with america, nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with the military. It simply happens. And nothing will change that.
I think we should be discussin gthe 50'000 murders anually in brazil, or that it's the leading cause of death for young africans. But that wouldn't make headlines like a nice military scandal now would it
EPT
