|
On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote:
Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason.
I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers.
I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried.
The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
|
On January 28 2012 11:16 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 07:43 zalz wrote:I know there will surely be someone who will justify this ruling but im quite appaled. How can a civilized country treat human beings that differently. Iraqi lives apparently mean nothing to the US. These men should all be in jail for life and now they walk freely (you probably get more than 3months for downloading some shitty mp3). This is terrorism at its finest. Im know horrible things happen in war and it brings out the worst in human beings but this ruling makes it look like the US goverment supports these atrocities.
Im sorry for this poor op but I havent seen a thread yet. I feel that this needs to be discussed and honestly I am curious about the reactions of american posters. The different sentence is not the result of the US placing a lower value on Iraqi lives. The lower sentence is because they are soldiers and thus they are not treated exactly the same as civilians. I agree that a heavier sentence would be in order but to suggest that racism has anything to do with it is just ridiculous. People were killed, why isn't that bad enough? Why do you need to make it so much worse by conjuring up false reasons? Are dead people not enough anymore? Just deal with the facts. Argue about the facts. There is no need to pretend that racism had anything to do with this. You just made assumptions. We don't (and probably will never) know whether racism is part of this.
I'm sure if racism wasn't a factor, white people would still kill brown people. /sarcasm
As an inside info, when Russell Peters should have performed for soldiers. All of the troops were like "wtf is this guy doing here?" . He is brown, you get the point.
|
On January 28 2012 08:59 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 08:48 redviper wrote:On January 28 2012 02:37 eits wrote:
Dear OP,
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points. 1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house. 2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals. And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655. here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter.. "It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion" the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it..
Hey man,
I'm actually an English major. The fact that my browser autocorrected "government" to "Government" is not my fault and I overlooked it in the moment of making my post. If that is the whole thing that really makes you sick out of the post maybe you should reread what I said...
Also, you saying that the United States is not influenced or ran by a "book" such as the Bible then you my friend are sadly just being very naive. What about our previous president who got us in to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars in the first place? He would come out and say to the media that he has to pray hard on these subjects blah blah blah.
Another point: All of our money says "One Nation Under God" , or , "In GOD We Trust." If that is not being influenced by the Bible then I don't know what is
|
I think that overall this was total bullshit.
24 civilians right?
I understand these men are under pressure, and most of us would have difficulty over there.
However, my country (I am American) should have investigated this MUCH EARLIER. Then a heavier punishment would have been due, because the investigation would have been more correct.
|
As soon as nations march to war, the door is opened to this kind of thing. In my opinion the time to express outrage isn't once the walls come down and something like this comes to the public's attention, it's when leaders are so willing to commit to war in the first place.
As much as this needs to be punished, part of me feels sorry for Joe Average that's trained to kill, handed a rifle, thrown in a pressure cooker, and then finally snaps.
|
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
Interesting thread, some good arguments made and lots of stuff I hadn't actually considered while reading the initial post. The stress of war is explanation perhaps from what happened, but certainly doesn't excuse it. If you extend the 'madness/stress etc' defence to civilian society, the strain on the legal system would be too much. 'Oh I was distressed from heroin withdrawal symptoms, so not in control of my actions' etc etc
@My American posters on TL. A lot of measured, reasonable posts. What I have come to expect from this fine forum, where people generally leave their nationality in the cloakroom and band together in a love of Starcraft. You guys are terribly served by the government that is supposed to represent you, and the policies enacted in your name are used as a weapon to bash you as an American. My sympathies, would fucking piss me off anyway 
@zalz, I have nothing against your freedom of speech > everything else stance, by all means live by that maxim if you want. True belief in a concept regardless of circumstance is an increasing rarity so I applaud you for that.
However, you're wrong on a lot of things. Corruption, especially within security forces will not allow the kind of freedom of speech you envisage to come to pass and actually benefit the people in question. As an example of what I'm talking about
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay
A stable society in terms of structural integrity, regardless of the political ideology implemented, is needed for any society to enjoy any of the freedoms that we hold dear. Stability and functioning infrastructure is the bedrock on which you build a democratic society. All the power vacuum created post-Saddam has done is change the perpetrators of violence, Instead of the previous situation - 'don't criticise the Baathist regime, and you'll probably be ok'. Now many of the citizens of Iraq live in fear of any number of faceless threats, be it sectarian violence or somebody out to make a buck off extorting their families.
Not that democracy is all that great, but if your goal is actual, FUNCTIONING democracy you need to have a stable base on which to build. Iraq doesn't have that and any number of 'oh but at least they're free' sentiments are redundant.
|
On January 28 2012 10:33 xtruder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 09:51 Praetorial wrote:
Occupation is illegal? O do explain legalities of war.
I do think that the soldier ought to have gotten a lot more, but calling war illegal is silly. REAL silly.
Yes, technically wars that are undeclared by Congress are illegal. If the president declares war on some country and sends the army over there, it's illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_StatesAlso, there are international treaties such as the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, that make certain acts in war illegal, some of which the defendants in this case have allegedly committed. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=PSo... U feel silly now?
I would say "So?", but that would not explain anything.
So?
Now, the mandatory explanation: Congress *hint hint* approved the war. And *hint hint*, you MAY have noticed that SOME people are on TRIAL for these acts. Now, while that may be a little much, I'm sure that you can figure out that you know, maybe, this war ain't illegal.
|
I ask that unless you have served please take a step back and seriously consider your words. The war does a toll on peoples pysche, I haven't had a tour in 2 years and I still have nightmares of some of the stuff that happened over there. It was quiet for a bit but those little even like seeing friends being killed puts you in a dark place.
It doesn't justify what he did but after seeing his friend get blown apart makes a huge impact on someone and haunts you forever.
|
He should be dishonorably discharged for being anywhere near that kind of civilian slaughter along with everyone else in his squad. I don't believe they wanted to kill a group of civilians but the fact is that they did, and its not excusable.
Oh well, in the end its just another few body bags to all the people with power.
|
Right off the bat you lost me with "How can a civilized people treat others like that". It is just one person, it would be equivalent to me assuming you are a nazi right off the bat because you are German. A person does not represent a whole culture and there are terrible people in every nation on earth.
In addition, what he did was wrong, but that is not something to judge him upon after not being a witness to the situation and also not knowing what actual combat is like.
|
On January 28 2012 11:23 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote:
Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason. I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers. I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried. The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up.
Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed.
I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
|
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
On January 28 2012 13:24 Le French wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 11:23 tokicheese wrote:On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote:
Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason. I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers. I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried. The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up. Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed. I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
I doubt our respective governments could make such a request with a straight face, not as if our nations have not committed their fair share of questionable acts around the world.
|
On January 28 2012 13:24 Le French wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 11:23 tokicheese wrote:On January 28 2012 10:59 bOneSeven wrote:
Send teenagers in different places of the world with a gun to kill "bad" people in a place where chaos is a main factor. No wonder you create these marines who kill innocent civilians for no good reason. I saw a stat somewhere that the average age in the US military has been dropping since WW2. It does kind of make sense that sending younger people into a conflict zone would end up with more "issues" than older soldiers. I think the scariest part of this isnt the sentence but the way the government tried to hide it from the public which is disgusting and pretty scary because who knows what has happened that the successfully buried. The mans sentence is pretty short but he didn't kill anyone. They should not have given immunity for testimony from the killers that's seriously messed up. Nothing new. all throughout history US have always spoken in fork tongues, bringinig democracy to the world one day, protecting criminal military the next. Review US military intervention history, only a ridiculous number of soldiers get punished for their crimes, and those who do get punishments ridiculouosly disproportionate to the gravity of crime they committed. I wonder what would happen if all governments demand america to withdraw its troops from their countries.
Yes I have read about the War Crimes committed during WW2/Vietnam, its true that victors write history.
I almost get a "good old boys club" feeling like the way investigations on a police officer by the police end with little to no punishment for obvious wrong doing and likewise from the military.
|
War is a bitch. You don't send people to prison because they fight for their country in the romantic sense. When it's war people get scared and they make mistakes.
|
On January 28 2012 14:01 cydial wrote:
War is a bitch. You don't send people to prison because they fight for their country in the romantic sense. When it's war people get scared and they make mistakes.
bursting into multiple unarmed civilians houses and shooting 24 innocents is a mistake...?
|
Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap.
|
Northern Ireland25618 Posts
On January 28 2012 14:36 Ansinjunger wrote:
Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap.
Great post actually, although I'd always assumed there was some attention paid to the kind of training you're talking about already. If not it definitely should be, especially as most recent military interventions are ostensibly on peacekeeping/nation-building grounds.
|
On January 28 2012 14:44 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 14:36 Ansinjunger wrote:
Human nature doesn't change across borders, or even oceans. The differences amount to cultural idiosyncrasies. Raw human impulse still dictates us. If you're smacked in the face, you want to hit back harder. That doesn't mean you will. Cue the "cultural differences" where it might be considered a grave, even capital crime in some places, and just a good ole' domestic disturbance in others. That doesn't change the pull of pride or envy that any person feels. For those who can master their more vile instincts, I have great respect, and they can be found in many places, if few and far between.
Speaking more directly to this incident, it was totally wrong, and I've personally been convinced for a long time that military training should include more than how to fight and follow orders, and command--or all the other mechanical stuff. Much greater importance should be placed on empathy, or understanding the people whom you'll encounter. That we tried to change Iraq without understanding the people there was a cause of years of extra strife, and increased power for the enemies of both the U.S. and Iraq to sow seeds of distrust. The ultimate failure and collapse of any good we began to accomplish too little or late may haunt us for decades. Empathy is not the same as compassion, although it can lead to it in many cases, as opposed to fighting the wrong war, or killing a bunch of civilians.
I can see how with a focus primarily on combat training, survival, etc., that a group of soldiers would react based on wrong assumptions, and gun down civilians, yet it's highly disturbing that they could make the leap from "civilian" to "dangerous target" as they did. There should be more natural inhibition to start shooting in that situation. Soldiers should be taught or trained in greater understanding of others, be it foreign peoples or their own--even each other. If your first instinct is not survival but understanding the situation, that you're pointing your gun at a hapless civilian, hopefully there will be no pointless massacres.
Is it possible that more soldiers will die "noble deaths?" Yes. It goes against cold military logic to risk your life, as a seemingly harmless civilian can turn out to be a threat. However, "victory at all costs" is by definition too costly at some point. I'd argue that we're far past the point of "too costly" if this incident results in a minor wrist slap. Great post actually, although I'd always assumed there was some attention paid to the kind of training you're talking about already. If not it definitely should be, especially as most recent military interventions are ostensibly on peacekeeping/nation-building grounds.
I've wondered that, and I hope so, but it would seem more is needed.
|
On January 28 2012 09:30 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 09:12 WhiteDog wrote:On January 28 2012 08:59 Endymion wrote:On January 28 2012 08:48 redviper wrote:On January 28 2012 02:37 eits wrote:
Dear OP,
for the sake of arguement, please tell me what makes you think America is a civilized country?
Lots of people hate the US, many will even say that our actions show that we are, in fact, a rather UNcinvilized country (one of the only countries who is NOT "3rd world" and still has the death penalty, and people fucking love it. Hell in Texas they have ways to make your execution come sooner I.E express lane) So my question is to you i guess, what makes us "better" than other countries to where you wouldn't expect this from someone in the military? America has just as many atrocities as the next country.
It does not matter that I live in the USA, because I am still connected to the humans and the problems that come with other humans AROUND THE WORLD. In todays world we can no longer accept and think that when something happens to someone else in another country it does not have an impact on yourself becasue we are all one species, homosapiens.
That being said, this guy deserves way fucking longer than 3 months for what he did. You are right op that here it just shows that Americans do not value the Iraqi people very highly.
It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion
Two points. 1. The government most certainly lied about it. The only reason the massacre came to light was because a student made a video of the aftermath. The official explanation was that a road side bomb had killed civilians and 1 american soldier. When Time got the video and heard the interview of the 10 year old survivor of the massacre is when the investigation happened. Even then it was a piss poor job of it, with the government dumping a ton of the materials in an Iraqi landfill to be rescued by the NYT. Infact if you really want to have a good cry, you should listen to the interview of the girl. And if you want to be hopping mad, you should listen to the interview by Wuterich where he points out how they went into the house. 2. Every single american soldier in Iraq is there to enforce an illegal war and illegal occupation. That they don't all think or act like Wuterich doesn't excuse their presence. And this isn't an isolated incidence. Mai Lai is an obvious predecessor and also resulted in no real punishment. Infact the hero of Mai Lai (Thomspon) was threatened with punishment for trying to stop the massacre by a member of congress. The entire structure of the military is focused on rooting out dissension, covering up bad pr and punishing whistleblowers instead of the criminals. And Wuterich didn't get 3 months in prison. He got no time in prison, no decrease in pay. Atleast he didn't get a medal like the ship captain who shot down Iran Air 655. here's the answer to everyone's questions about why the US is such a "civilized" country. we're the best country in the world, look at our gdp and research programs. we've achieved a capitalist economy which cannot be rivaled with stability by any other nation in the world. people try to shit on the US because their countries are such a joke in comparison, it happened to the British empire too. we have a few crazy soldiers, sorry it happens when you're under stress in combat. if the rest of the world doesn't like it, they can challenge the US in a war or with economic sanctions.. wait, both of those are suicide in the greatest sense of the word? sorry then, you don't have a say. everyone makes mistakes, stop flinging shit about an isolated incident. what makes the US better than iraq? we don't use fucking poison gas when we fight, and we haven't initiated a holy war against half of our civilians.. the US is led by reason, not by a book like the koran, or the bible for that matter.. "It makes me sick to my stomach thinking that the Government of my country is able to spread their fears and lies around the world without any repercussion" the fact that the US schooling system has failed this person so bad makes me "sick to my stomach," because one government isn't fucking capitalized, and two how does this even spread fears and lies? if anything it's unjust, it's not spreading fears or lies.. spreading fears/lies would be killing people who know about the event, then lying about it.. Is your post serious ? I'm not sure if you are joking or just... the ambiguity is just sooo teasing huh, kinda ironically reflects both sides of the argument from the whole thread: literary art!
If it was an intent, then you are good. The terrible logic is reasonably easy to pull of, but the terrible grammar and punctuation is genius.
|
It was a plea bargain. You can't cry about this when the other possibility was that he got away scott free. For all we know there was no evidence of his involvement at all, and they just opted for the easy out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
