# Afghan Civilians Slaughtered By U.S. Troops



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2012)

If there's already a thread about this I failed to find it. 
What is it that causes someone to go nuts and do this... it's not the first time. Afghans are people too... not lower-caste types that are disposable just because they don't have wi-fi or any other of our ultra-modern conveniences. What gets me is that this one soldier was able to get away long enough to commit this atrocity. That their base commander isn't keeping a watchful eye upon his troops. Yeah, they're all adults (supposedly) and well trained fighting machines and bla bla bla but this kind of thing just pisses me off. 
Winning the hearts and minds of the people... yeah right. Get their trust so they can come closer and we can blow them away. 
Dammit I'm so pissed about this. Burning their holy books and murdering their people in the middle of the night. I thought we were fighting the enemy not becoming one. 
If that soldier tries some b.s. about how they were secretly insurgents or Taliban supporters then he can kiss my ***. Small children are always and forever non-combatants. 
http://news.yahoo.com/us-soldier-kills-16-afghans-deepening-crisis-164242200.html
Obama's response isn't harsh enough I think. It's an outrage and shameful 
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ing-rampage-afghanistan-tragic-190511568.html 
All the more reason to pull out. If the Taliban has been weakened as much as they say then fine... 

This won't do us any good if we keep trying to  build up a reputation that we're supposed to be helping people against their oppressors, then turn around and one (or more) of our own starts killing them. How the hell are they going to trust us in the future? How is ANY other country going to trust us when stories like these keep cropping up. 
Sadly they overshadow any heart-warming altruistic stories that have come out of that area. It's barbaric and savagery and it's not the FIRST TIME! 

:soapbox:


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2012)

I can understand your rage, Caver, and I am the last person in the world to be an apologist for the misuse of force.  

But I have noted before in these forums that it is a testament to the character and training of the modern armed forces that they don't just open up and lay waste to all that falls under their gaze, given the immense stress and danger they endure.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 11, 2012)

It's a tragic symptom of the misallocation force resources. I like the euphemisim...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> What is it that causes someone to go nuts and do this... it's not the first time.



I don't know.  I know it's terrible when things like this happens.  It puts the troops in danger also, it's not like anyone wants this to happen.



> Afghans are people too... not lower-caste types that are disposable just because they don't have wi-fi or any other of our ultra-modern conveniences.



Agreed.



> What gets me is that this one soldier was able to get away long enough to commit this atrocity. That their base commander isn't keeping a watchful eye upon his troops. Yeah, they're all adults (supposedly) and well trained fighting machines and bla bla bla but this kind of thing just pisses me off.



I don't know what the local regulations are at that base, but rules on ground forces leaving base in a war zone vary.  In areas considered relatively safe, it is not unusual for troops not to be confined to base at all times.



> Winning the hearts and minds of the people... yeah right. Get their trust so they can come closer and we can blow them away.



I understand your anger, but you must know that even though this is not the first time, it's also not typical or even common.  It's quite rare.



> Dammit I'm so pissed about this. Burning their holy books and murdering their people in the middle of the night. I thought we were fighting the enemy not becoming one.



As I understand it, the burning of the Korans was through stupidity, not through an attempt to dishonor their holy books.  Apparently, the Korans themselves had been given to prisoners to read, and they had written notes in the margins intended as messages to each other.  The books were confiscated and incinerated with the garbage.  The problem was that a local found them before they were completely burned; it's not like it was a public book-burning for the purpose of insulting their religion.



> If that soldier tries some b.s. about how they were secretly insurgents or Taliban supporters then he can kiss my ***. Small children are always and forever non-combatants.
> http://news.yahoo.com/us-soldier-kills-16-afghans-deepening-crisis-164242200.html
> Obama's response isn't harsh enough I think. It's an outrage and shameful
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ing-rampage-afghanistan-tragic-190511568.html
> All the more reason to pull out. If the Taliban has been weakened as much as they say then fine...



I think it is time for us to leave as well.  Once again, our mission, which no one even seems to know what it is anymore, has failed.



> This won't do us any good if we keep trying to  build up a reputation that we're supposed to be helping people against their oppressors, then turn around and one (or more) of our own starts killing them. How the hell are they going to trust us in the future? How is ANY other country going to trust us when stories like these keep cropping up.
> Sadly they overshadow any heart-warming altruistic stories that have come out of that area. It's barbaric and savagery and it's not the FIRST TIME!
> 
> :soapbox:



We were never trying to help the Afghans against their oppressors.  We went in to drive the Taliban from power and get OBL.  We did that, eventually.  Now it's time to go.


----------



## billc (Mar 11, 2012)

First, from what I heard it was one guy, and we don't know why he did it.  Second, burning Korans is not necessarily forbidden...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/burning-defaced-korans-islam-approved/



> In reality, it is not against Islamic law to burn Korans, as two of the following three points make clear.
> First, and most importantly: authoritative fatwas exist legitimizing the burning of Korans in situations such as prevailed at Parwan. Exhibit number one is this Saudi fatwa, which spells out the conditions for disposing of Korans by either burying them or consigning them to the flames, &#8220;thus imitating Uthmaan,&#8221; the third caliph:
> 
> If it has torn pages;
> ...





> The &#8220;Online Islamic Academy&#8221; _SunniPath_ adds: &#8220;One should not write within the Koran nor highlight it.&#8221; Taken together, these Sunni sources clearly declare that writing in a Koran is tantamount to &#8220;corrupting&#8221; the Islamic holy book and that disposal of the corrupted book by burning is perfectly acceptable.


Also, before we get too outraged at the act of a lone soldier whose motivations haven't been disclosed yet, remember the U.S. soldiers just murdered by the very people they knew and trained and worked with in the most secure areas of Afghanistan.  I'm not saying this is retaliation for that, before anyone tries to say that, but that of the tens of thousands of men and women we have over there, ours and our allies, we have gone well out of our way to not target civilians and to protect them and to give them a chance to not live in terror of islamic radicals.  Let's not forget that before we attack our own people over the act of one guy.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

Oh lord help me I'm agreeing with Bili again.

The news headlines here are that one rogue soldier now in custody went out of his camp before and gunned down two households. there may according to reports have been more than one but the American authorities are still investigating. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17334643

This is not a policy by any of the Allies, the soldier concerned has been arrested and is in custody. He will be court martialed I'm sure and if found guilty he will be punished, all this is being made open to the press and the Afghans. If this were policy or came as a result from orders we would here nothing about it. Being cold blooded about it an act like this would do nothing to further the allies cause in Afghan, there is no point in killing civilians in this way. If they'd be killed by Allied soldiers in disguise as Taliban one could imagine it would stir the people up against the Taliban but this isn't the case.

One can look at similiar cases where a lone gunman in America has gone through a building shooting and killing people, do you blame all Americans then for that? Do you blame all the people who live in the area of Columbine school for the killings there? Of course not, you blame the people responsible so don't blame 'the military' for the aberrations of one man. The blame lies fairly and squarely n his head, no one elses. As with suicides one can often not tell what is going on it someones head, he may have appearred perfectly normal to his colleagues but harbouring terrible thoughts until he snapped and snapped he did.


Soldiers are mothers and fathers too in many cases, they have families and they really wouldn't kill civilians if it could be at all helped, they aren't targeted deliberately and sorrow is felt when civilians are killed. I imagine the soldier responsible is being kept detained for his own safety as much as anything else as I can tell you I know his fellow soldiers will not agree or like what he's done. No one is justifying it, no one excusing it. The American ambassador in Kabul has gone on air saying he is totally sorry for what has happened, an apology that is hard to make because he knows the actions of this soldier are inexcusable and so so wrong, he knows too that certain people on both sides, as shown here, will make much of this. However one doesn't expect to have one's own soldiers vilified by their own people for the act of one nutter.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 12, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> If there's already a thread about this I failed to find it.
> What is it that causes someone to go nuts and do this... it's not the first time.
> 
> *No it isn't the first time; not in this conflict, nor in many others around the world.  This is an abberation.  Who knows when some individuals are going to go over the edge?
> ...



Just some thoughts.  Let me make in clear that I in no way justify what that soldier did.  I am dismayed at the way he may make other good service men and women look.  I also think unless he is shown to be legally insane, justice should (and probably will) be swift.  My hope would be seeing him thrown so far back in Leavenworth that they have to pump sunlight to him.  Sadly, that won't bring back those killed.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just some thoughts. Let me make in clear that I in no way justify what that soldier did. I am dismayed at the way he may make other good service men and women look. I also think unless he is shown to be legally insane, justice should (and probably will) be swift. My hope would be seeing him thrown so far back in Leavenworth that they have to pump sunlight to him. Sadly, that won't bring back those killed.




Your response is exactly what I imagine the vast majority the military and the ex military would be, thank you. Everyone deplores what this soldier has done, no one condones it, your President shouldn't grovel, he's said he was appalled and saddened, as we all are, that's sufficient. The Afghan President, in fact no one from the Afghan government ever apologises when Afghan police or soldiers go on the rampage and kill our troops which has happened several times now both to the British, American and other countries troops.
The BBC coverage said the soldier slipped out of the compound before dawn, sentries will be looking for insurgents trying to get in not their own getting out. No one would imagine if they did happen to see him that he had murder in mind basically because they don't think about killing civilians so wouldn't imagine that he would.

As an ex serviseman you'll know as well as I do that the troops aren't out there slaughtering innocent civilians and that every innocent casualty is a regretted one.  

MA Caver, you need to have more faith in your fellow Americans.


----------



## billc (Mar 12, 2012)

At what point will we know what religion the soldier was? Before everyone goes nuts, keep in mind:

--before the invasion of Iraq a soldier from the 101st airborne rolled a grenade into the tent of his commanding officers...

--Major Hassan at Fort Bliss texas went on a shooting spree killing over 13 (?)  and wounded 29 fellow soldiers...

Both of the above were radical muslim soldiers.  Is it too big a leap to think that perhaps this guy is one as well?

Then there is this...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/five_muslim_soldiers_arrested_over_zYTtFXIBnCecWcbGNobUEJ

Although I don't know how the above investigation turned out...



> Five individuals were arrested amid a probe into food poisoning at  Fort Jackson U.S. military base, Fox News reported on Thursday (EST).
> 
> Sources  told Fox the five men were detained in December over allegations that  they attempted to poison the food supply at the South Carolina base.
> 
> ...



Here is a follow up on the arrests...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/no_poison_food_plot_at_fort_ja.html



> [FONT=times new roman,times]In fact, the way this story  has been played by the army leaves a lot of questions unanswered. It was  left to a Congressman, Representative Joe Wilson, to announce the news  that the investigation revealed that there was not an effort to poison  food," Wilson said. The probe also showed the men had not been disloyal.
> 
> So why were 4 of the 5 dismissed from the army? Petty theft,  according to Wilson. Sounds reasonable. Except if the investigation into  the food poisoning threat is over, why did they seize and are still  analyzing the soldiers' laptops?
> 
> ...



no one was charged but 4 of the 5 were discharged, and there were some holes in the explanation of what actually happened...
​


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 12, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Your response is exactly what I imagine the vast majority the military and the ex military would be, thank you. Everyone deplores what this soldier has done, no one condones it, your President shouldn't grovel, he's said he was appalled and saddened, as we all are, that's sufficient. The Afghan President, in fact no one from the Afghan government ever apologises when Afghan police or soldiers go on the rampage and kill our troops which has happened several times now both to the British, American and other countries troops.
> The BBC coverage said the soldier slipped out of the compound before dawn, sentries will be looking for insurgents trying to get in not their own getting out. No one would imagine if they did happen to see him that he had murder in mind basically because they don't think about killing civilians so wouldn't imagine that he would.
> 
> As an ex serviseman you'll know as well as I do that the troops aren't out there slaughtering innocent civilians and that every innocent casualty is a regretted one.
> ...



All true.  Thanks for understanding. 

MA Caver, I understand your not liking what happened.  I don't like what happened either.  But I certainly don't blame all the military.  Nor do I blame the whole US civilian population.  You do realize our military comes from the civilian population, right?  None are born soldiers.  They grow up in civilian communities and take values, good or bad, from that upbringing.  That means some aren't really good people when they join the military.  Others aren't so bad, but they don't have the self worth or moral upbringing that most of their collegues do, so they can't fight things that hurt their souls; they break down in some way.  The vast majority are good, and have an upbringing that allows them to cope better, either inately, or by seeking support from their comrades.  They still like our support.

I would like to think you know all that, and were just over-frustrated that such a thing had happened, and over-venting.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 12, 2012)

I think this incident is much more an indictment of the over extension of the military as it is of the military itself.  It has been reported here that he was a family man who had already serverd 3 tours in Iraq prior to this deployment in Afghanistan. That will take a serious toll on anybody.  I much more view this as a soldier snapped, than anything else.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

American tours of duty out there seem far longer than ours, our troops do six months with a weeks 'decompression' in Cyprus before coming home, I believe the American troops do over a year which is a long time to be in a war zone. The BBC reported that the soldier, thought to be a staff sgt, has a wife and three children, the whole thing sounds more and more tragic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17343437


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

Sorry but that line of reasoning is crap. Absolute crap. Yes this was a lot of deployments. Yes the strain might have caused him to break down. But when a guy breaking down storms his own gate and kills sixteen civilians, the blame is still on him. Throw his *** in Geneva. This is a war crime. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> At what point will we know what religion the soldier was? Before everyone goes nuts, keep in mind:
> 
> --before the invasion of Iraq a soldier from the 101st airborne rolled a grenade into the tent of his commanding officers...
> 
> ...



Yes. It is indeed too big of a leap to assume that the killing of 16 afghani civilians by an army staff sergeant. Based on the demographics involved I can almost guarantee the guy was white, and that he believes he is Christian.

If if was motivated by the same Muslim feelings as Hassan, he would have shot up Americans. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Sorry but that line of reasoning is crap. Absolute crap. Yes this was a lot of deployments. Yes the strain might have caused him to break down. But when a guy breaking down storms his own gate and kills sixteen civilians, the blame is still on him. Throw his *** in Geneva. This is a war crime.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



If he is or was not legally insane, he will probably get more from a military court (granted, not always).  Regardless, that is where the offense belongs.  I think the Geneva court prefers to only handle offenses not being handled by the country where jurisdiction belongs.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Sorry but that line of reasoning is crap. Absolute crap. Yes this was a lot of deployments. Yes the strain might have caused him to break down. But when a guy breaking down storms his own gate and kills sixteen civilians, the blame is still on him. Throw his *** in Geneva. This is a war crime.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk




We don't know what it is yet, we were commenting on what the press were speculating. We don't know why he went ape yet.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2012)

:Seen here



> The Army staff sergeant who allegedly went on a rampage and killed 16 Afghans as they slept in their homes *had a traumatic brain injury at one point* and had problems at home after his last deployment, officials told ABC News.
> 
> But the soldier, who is based at Fort Lewis in Washington, was considered fit for combat duty and deployed to Afghanistan in December, officials said.
> Details about the staff sergeant, who has not been identified, emerged as the Taliban vowed revenge against "sick-minded American savages" after the mass killing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Based on the demographics involved I can almost guarantee the guy was white, and that he believes he is Christian.



And what do you propose that means?  That he was motivated by racism or bigotry?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And what do you propose that means?  That he was motivated by racism or bigotry?



Possibly. More likely racism than bigotry.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

I wouldn't say that was the only reason, but very likely a factor.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Possibly. More likely racism than bigotry.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Honestly, I don't see the difference between the two. I KNOW the difference, but beyond (official) definition, no, there's no difference.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 12, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Honestly, I don't see the difference between the two. I KNOW the difference, but beyond (official) definition, no, there's no difference.




Sorry, bro, but I am unable to make sense of this statement.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Sorry, bro, but I am unable to make sense of this statement.
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


How about... Racism & Bigotry... one and the same thing.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17349736

I'm sure this makes sense to someone somewhere ...the Afghans kill an Afghan soldier at the site of the massacre. If ever there was a country where life was cheap...


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

certainly makes sense when you make your money from national unrest...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Possibly. More likely racism than bigotry.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



And if the soldier turns out to not be white and/or Christian?

I'm not saying you are not correct about the soldier or the circumstances; but at the moment, I don't think there is any evidence available to suggest you're right, either.  Does this reveal a bias in your way of thinking?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> How about... Racism & Bigotry... one and the same thing.



The results could end up being the same thing, and they are both based on hatred, but of course they are not the same thing.

However, I'm a little concerned with "Well, I'll bet he was white and Christian" statements at this stage of the game.  If one is simply betting the odds, it's probably a safe bet.  On the other hand, if one is suggesting that this happened BECAUSE the soldier is white and/or Christian, then one is suggesting that there is a racial or religious component to this.  And while that may also turn out to be the case, my concern is this; saying "Well, I'll bet he was white..." is as racist a statement as if someone said "Well, I'll bet he was black...."  Think about it.  Racism is racism, even if it's not against a minority.

At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, we do not know the shooter's name or particulars, which makes statements about his probable skin color or religion somewhat curious to me at best.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And if the soldier turns out to not be white and/or Christian?
> 
> I'm not saying you are not correct about the soldier or the circumstances; but at the moment, I don't think there is any evidence available to suggest you're right, either.  Does this reveal a bias in your way of thinking?



In his line of work, I would not be surprised if he is just playing the odds.

I might have my numbers confused, but I seem to recall that white males have a higher instance of loosing their marbles. Religion can be a factor, but I don't think there is enough out thee to support or defute that (I don't think there are enough white people out there who don't claim Christianity in some form or another, but I am guessing here)

I guess it falls under the same heading as serial killers...hardly one among them who is not white and male....

But it is absolutely tragic, no matter who pulled the trigger.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> But it is absolutely tragic, no matter who pulled the trigger.



Yes, it is.

But imagine someone had piped up and said _"I'll bet the guy who did this was black!"_  Would that sound like someone just expressing the feeling that this was a tragic event, or someone with a bias?  Change the word 'black' to 'white' and suddenly it's not a racist statement?  I don't think so.  If the statement was not about skin color and/or religion, then why mention it at all?  You might just as well say "I'll be the shooter owns a Chevy and not a Ford."  Might be true, but a total non-sequitur.  Hence my question - what is the point here?  The shooting, or the shooter's skin color?

EDIT: For what it's worth, I take the same exception when we have a crime here in the USA, and someone immediate asserts that it was an "illegal alien" or a "Muslim" who did it.  Might be, might be, but it reveals that the person's concern is on something other than the crime itself; it reveals biased thinking (IMHO).


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

If we have any clues to what has happened it may be more in the fact that the soldier was reported to have family problems, spouses/partners leaving soldiers especially when they are on deployment can have the most devasting effect on military people. Many can put up with the worst conditions going if they know they have the love and support of their families, take that away and many feel there's little to live for, something which can go a couple of ways.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> But imagine someone had piped up and said _"I'll bet the guy who did this was black!"_  Would that sound like someone just expressing the feeling that this was a tragic event, or someone with a bias?  Change the word 'black' to 'white' and suddenly it's not a racist statement?  I don't think so.  If the statement was not about skin color and/or religion, then why mention it at all?  You might just as well say "I'll be the shooter owns a Chevy and not a Ford."  Might be true, but a total non-sequitur.  Hence my question - what is the point here?  The shooting, or the shooter's skin color?



Considering I have the most random ideas pop into my head at the most inopportune times, I am not faulting the man. Josh that is....

But you do get a feel over time when stuff happens, you know exactly who done it.

just heard a thing on the news...
kid gets shot in a gated neighborhood. Shooter is not in jail even 2 weeks after the incident.
care to venture as to the ethnicity of the participants? Considering that it was probably the reason why it made the news on a somewhat national level.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> Considering I have the most random ideas pop into my head at the most inopportune times, I am not faulting the man. Josh that is....
> 
> But you do get a feel over time when stuff happens, you know exactly who done it.
> 
> ...



There are things I think that I do not say.  Even I have a filter on my mouth sometimes.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 13, 2012)

To me this whole thing isn't about racism or bigotry (by whatever definition)... it's about an AMERICAN soldier going out and killing un-armed NON-combatants! It's about how that one slipped through the cracks and was allowed to commit this inhuman act. It's no different (to me) if it were some nut-job cop going to some neighborhood in good ole U.S.A. and start picking off people. Either way since it has happened before and the U.S. military has made a history of it (Mai-lai during the Vietnam war... oh sure a whole squad/platoon did that, not a lone gunman in this case... doesn't matter they were AMERICAN soldiers) what message does that send to the rest of the world? 

And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. We're so VAIN that we think it's because we're the best and have the best.  :barf:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> To me this whole thing isn't about racism or bigotry (by whatever definition)... it's about an AMERICAN soldier going out and killing un-armed NON-combatants! It's about how that one slipped through the cracks and was allowed to commit this inhuman act. It's no different (to me) if it were some nut-job cop going to some neighborhood in good ole U.S.A. and start picking off people. Either way since it has happened before and the U.S. military has made a history of it (Mai-lai during the Vietnam war... oh sure a whole squad/platoon did that, not a lone gunman in this case... doesn't matter they were AMERICAN soldiers) what message does that send to the rest of the world?
> 
> And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. We're so VAIN that we think it's because we're the best and have the best.  :barf:



Move somewhere else, then.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> To me this whole thing isn't about racism or bigotry (by whatever definition)... it's about an AMERICAN soldier going out and killing un-armed NON-combatants! It's about how that one slipped through the cracks and was allowed to commit this inhuman act. It's no different (to me) if it were some nut-job cop going to some neighborhood in good ole U.S.A. and start picking off people. Either way since it has happened before and the U.S. military has made a history of it (Mai-lai during the Vietnam war... oh sure a whole squad/platoon did that, not a lone gunman in this case... doesn't matter they were AMERICAN soldiers) what message does that send to the rest of the world?
> 
> And people wonder why the rest of the world hates us. We're so VAIN that we think it's because we're the best and have the best.  :barf:





The US has the largest number of currently working serial killers, too...

So one soldier having his cheese slip off the cracker does not cause me anti American sentiments. 
You have to take people as they are, there aren't any others out there....


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 13, 2012)

granfire said:


> Considering I have the most random ideas pop into my head at the most inopportune times, I am not faulting the man. Josh that is....
> 
> But you do get a feel over time when stuff happens, you know exactly who done it.
> 
> ...



Strong odds on white.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Strong odds on white.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



Yes.  But do you state it because the mathematical odds favor it (percentage of white versus black soldiers) or because of some other reason?  And in any case, it's curious that you feel it important to mention.  As well as "Christian," which you also tossed into the mix.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

I have to smile to myself here because Caver accused me of being anti American when it seems clear where that hat belongs.

The American army is huge, American population is huge so yes you will have greater numbers of killers and nutters but the thing would be to actually work out properly... I don't do maths ... what the percentages are ie if you have 40 killers and a population of a billion over a huge distance you have less killers than a country that has 40 killers but a population of a couple of hundred thousand living in a tiny country. 


To assume that someone allowed the killer to go out and kill those people is to make a huge assumption that is verging on hysteria. I've said this before on another thread but sometimes bad things happen and there's no rhyme or reason for it, it just does. We may never know what caused this man to snap and it's likely that no one knew it was going to happen, people can be very good at hiding their feelings. How often do you hear of a suicide when people have said afterwards they didn't know he was depressed or that she had everything to live for? Some people want this to be a conspiracy, they want that because it's an easy answer, it means that someone knew something and that's more comfortable than having something happen that we don't understand and may never understand. We can't understand shooting all these people including children and the majority of soldiers won't understand it either. 

I doubt this soldier had in his mind that this would mean that his country and his fellow service people as well as Allies would be in danger because of his actions, he seems to have totally lost the plot. It's one of those things, not good, not easy to understand but such things happen, we have to live with it and try to do the best we can. 

Perhaps one of the pressures put on soldiers is to be the perfect automatons that some people want them to be instead of feeling human beings who do the dirty work others don't want to. To expect a soldier to lay down his life, to kill and do all the other things they are expected to without having feelings, stresses or things like missing their families is inhuman, some will crack undoubtably. However they don't crack just to annoy Caver, they don't rampage just so he can scream how awful it all is. It's far more awful than you can imagine if you haven't been in a war, the amazing thing is that due to the strength, courgae and resilance and sheer bloody mindedness of the military that this is a very rare occurance. According to Wiki you have 1,430,895 people on active duty and you go mad because one guy, one soldier does something horrible? Yes it's horrible, yes it's inexcusable but you need to look at the other 1,430,894 who didn't do anything like this.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And if the soldier turns out to not be white and/or Christian?
> 
> I'm not saying you are not correct about the soldier or the circumstances; but at the moment, I don't think there is any evidence available to suggest you're right, either.  Does this reveal a bias in your way of thinking?



Sure. Absolutely. I'll admit bias. I have no problem with profiling. If someone attempts an attack on an airport or a suicide bombing, I'll lay strong odds they're Muslim. If a guy goes nuts and kills a bunch of people for no good reason, I'll lay strong odds they're white and claim to be Christian. There are of course, exceptions, but that's why I talk about odds.

And the guy's from JBLM. Most of our crazies are white. Likely, that is because the majority of JBLM's population is white.

In Washington, we have a radio station that plays a game called "black, white, mexi, or jew", where the announcers give the details of a crime, and the callers guess the race of the criminal. You might be suprised how often the callers guess correctly.

Someone could make an anthropological statement about how this works.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

More details are emerging.  It is clear that the soldier's name is being kept back for now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...istan-dec-3-as-details-emerge-on-soldier.html



> The sergeant identified in the killing arrived in Afghanistan on Dec. 3 from his home station at Joint Base Lewis- McChord in Washington state, the U.S. Army said in a memo prepared yesterday for members of Congress. He was with the 2-3 Infantry, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division.
> 
> While in the conventional military, he was attached to a Special Operations task force in southern Afghanistan on Feb. 1, according to the memo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Sure. Absolutely. I'll admit bias. I have no problem with profiling. If someone attempts an attack on an airport or a suicide bombing, I'll lay strong odds they're Muslim. If a guy goes nuts and kills a bunch of people for no good reason, I'll lay strong odds they're white and claim to be Christian. There are of course, exceptions, but that's why I talk about odds.
> 
> And the guy's from JBLM. Most of our crazies are white. Likely, that is because the majority of JBLM's population is white.
> 
> ...



I can make a statement.  You and I are done talking.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

Perhaps some thought for the families of those killed and for the family of the soldier, nothing is ever going to be right again for them in all their cases.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 13, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I have to smile to myself here because Caver accused me of being anti American when it seems clear where that hat belongs.


*SIGH!* Tez... I'd be just as upset if it were a British soldier that had done this.

So shaddup about my being anti-brit okay!

So if you don't like what I got to say then click IGNORE... the same thing just happened to you.

twit


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 13, 2012)

Honestly, I'm kinda suprised that we haven't seen a bit more of this.  We put these men and women into areas that cause severe stress.  We train them to kill. They go home and many times encounter different stressers.  Many we ship right back to the war zone.  It is unsuprising that once in a while, one of these people will lose thier sanity.  This is a tragedy all the way around.  It is a trajedy for the victim and thier families, the killer and his family, and the people in the future that will be harmed because of zealots putting a motive behind it.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 13, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can make a statement.  You and I are done talking.



Fine. But keep in mind this hits a lot closer to home for me than it does you. I serve on JBLM. I go to school in Tacoma. 

I deal with guys with PTSD and TBI. It's my job to point out problem cases, and yes, I will use race, ethnicity, religion, previous deployments, and a number of other factors when briefing the Chaplain or the commander. 

And when it comes to the 3-2 Striker BCT. The overwhelming majority of them are white. 

This might offend you. But, frankly, I know the culture of JBLM better than you do. I'm a part of it. And yes, race is an issue on JBLM. It's an issue in Tacoma. It's an issue in Federal Way and Seattle. 

And If I hear that a guy went nuts and shot up a bunch of people, from WASHINGTON... well, do the math.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> *SIGH!* Tez... I'd be just as upset if it were a British soldier that had done this.
> 
> So shaddup about my being anti-brit okay!
> 
> ...




Calling me a twit and putting me on ignore is childish tbh. I think you have totally misread my post, I said nothing about you being anti British, didn't even think it,certainly didn't mention anything about anything British anyway, you accused me of being anti American and you are the one slagging your troops off not me. If you get around to reading this, please re read what I said.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 13, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Honestly, I'm kinda suprised that we haven't seen a bit more of this.  We put these men and women into areas that cause severe stress.  We train them to kill. They go home and many times encounter different stressers.  Many we ship right back to the war zone.  It is unsuprising that once in a while, one of these people will lose thier sanity.



That it happens as rare as it does is a testament to my brothers in arms.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 13, 2012)

The military are an easy target for some, in peace time having an army is a bit of an embarassment, no one knows what to do with them, come a natural or man made disaster or war though oh they are the publics darlings until the public decides it's all costing too much or it's not going how they thought it should after all they didn't realise people could die in a war then they start blaming the soldiers again. Kipling had the right of it all.
[h=2]_Tommy_[/h][h=5]By Rudyard Kipling, 1892[/h]I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away"; 
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play- 
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.​I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian roo, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide. ​Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll- 
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll. ​We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.​You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; 
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

​


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 13, 2012)

Tez, if your point is that we should be treating our people in the military as well as possible, to keep from having tragedies like this from happening, I agree whole heartedly.

I never liked Kipling though


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2012)

Tez has been right throughout this thread.  She knows the topic and the people.  Too many civilians just don't understand the modern military of democratic nations.  They too often lump them in with the bad guy countries and their militaries which are little more than trained thugs with guns.  Those men and women on the ground from the U.S., Britain and our other allies, are not alien creatures created in the lab.  They are the people who live next door to you, who you grew up with and went to school with.  Then they join up.  They don't change them into monsters.  Occasionally bad guys join up, but they were bad guys to begin with.  If they weren't in the military they would be the guys in civilian jails.  For a second, think of your best freinds.  Then think about how they would be if they enlisted in the military.  They would be the same people, but they would be in the military.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 13, 2012)

Dammit, tez, you got me misty-eyed!

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Tez, if your point is that we should be treating our people in the military as well as possible, to keep from having tragedies like this from happening, I agree whole heartedly.
> 
> I never liked Kipling though



Well that's one point I suppose but the real point is that as Bili says these people are you and you are them. 

Kipling was very gung ho up to the time he lost his son Jack in the first world war, read his poem Jack and you will see what bereavement did to him. 

1914-18


Have you news of my boy Jack?"
_Not this tide._
"When d'you think that he'll come back?"
_Not with this wind blowing, and this tide._


"Has any one else had word of him?: "
_Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
  Not with this wind blowing, and this tide._


"Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?"
_None this tide,
  Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind--
  Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.


Then hold your head up all the more,
  This tide,
  And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
  And gave to that wind blowing and that tide_


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 14, 2012)

Ack! I am agreeing with Billi !!    My father and best friend were military.  Military people are are friends, nieghbors, and family.  It breaks my heart when they aren't treated well.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 14, 2012)

The general feeling among the military here is that the American tours are too long, which cause stresses within families and marriage break ups. Our government have said several times they'd like our troops to do longer tours but everyone is against that. The strains on a family are huge enough when the tours are six months long, to have a year to 18 months tours would break a lot of families. I've seen the stress the children I teach in the martial arts club go through with parents in Afghan, we are building towards it again as our brigade goes out there on deployment from September.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Eventually, all of these guys will come home. Even the ones who could potentially flip out like this. I live surrounded by men who have been on multiple long tours. How should I defend my family if one of my neighbors attacks me?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Eventually, all of these guys will come home. Even the ones who could potentially flip out like this. I live surrounded by men who have been on multiple long tours. How should I defend my family if one of my neighbors attacks me?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


As yet, there is no proof he's been on multiple tours. Remember, after Hasan went on his murder spree at Ft Hood the claim was made his multiple tours drove him to it...


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

You are dodging the question.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> You are dodging the question.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


1. I wasn't dodging, I was ignoring. Because the idea that veterans are apt to come home and flip out is insulting.
2.How? You are a martial artist, defend yourself as you have trained, but, be aware that an armed man will kill an unarmed one with monotonous regularity...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 17, 2012)

billcihak said:
			
		

> They are the people who live next door to you, who you grew up with and went to school with.  Then they join up.  They don't change them into monsters.  Occasionally bad guys join up, but they were bad guys to begin with.  If they weren't in the military they would be the guys in civilian jails.  For a second, think of your best freinds.  Then think about how they would be if they enlisted in the military.  They would be the same people, but they would be in the military.



This is only partially true-I've seen guys-"_nice guys_"-turned into *******s who enjoyed brutalizing people after becoming cops or prison guards. It may be that it was always in them to enjoy it, and they just hadn't found an outlet for it, but that wasn't the only change, and they were no longer the "same people." Same with the military, in fact, though quite a few of those are the same guys, more than 30 years later. 

We now know, though, that the alleged perpetrator of this incident was Robert Bales, a family man-a presumably, white, Christian, American family man, who has been in the service for 11 years, and who had completed three tours in Iraq before being deployed to Afghanistan. 

Now, I  don't care-out country's been "at war" for *eleven years*, not just longer than any war we've ever been in, but longer than any two of them combined, as long as one of them isn't Viet Nam, and, even in that one, no one got deployed more than once who didn't volunteer for another tour.This guys been deployed three times over the course of a decade-he's basically been at war for his entire married life, over the life of his oldest child, and for most of his thirties. 

I've never been to war. I've never had the privilege of serving our country in the armed services. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, or even always the smartest guy in the room. I'm not even a psychiatrist, but I know that's gotta *change* some people, so that they're "*not* the *same people*."

Not the same Robert Bales at all, I'd venture.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 17, 2012)

People 'flip out', they can be service people or they can be civilians, they can be police officers or medics. Anyone can suffer from PTSD who's been through a trauma. Anyone can get mad at the world and try to destroy it. Police officers, firemen and medics deal with as many disturbing scenes and circumstances as service people do. We can't say all service people will flip, we can't say they won't. What we need to do is look at things in a calmer manner and stop looking for eay answers. Blaming service people is an easy option and absolves everyone else from any potential blame. The thing about service people however is that on the whole they are more disciplined than most civilians. Shootings like this don't happen often whatever some may think, perhaps less than in civilian life. I think I would worry about muggings, rapes and other violent crimes committed by civilians long before I worried about a service person going on the rampage. We've have several thousand here on the garrison since before the First World War and not once has a soldier go on the rampage, not even after that war which truly was a horror. At the moment we have have about 12000 soldiers here at it's height during the wars we've had 750,000 and some. We had a military psychiatric hospital here for a few years and even then we had no rampages, a few suicides yes. I think service people are more likely to destroy themselves than actually destroy others.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Big Don said:


> 1. I wasn't dodging, I was ignoring. Because the idea that veterans are apt to come home and flip out is insulting.



As more and more people come home from these wars (assuming they come home and aren't sent to Iran, Syria, or Central Africa next) we're going to have to deal with the emotional trauma these wars caused.  One of the results of this trauma is violence.   



Big Don said:


> 2.How? You are a martial artist, defend yourself as you have trained, but, be aware that an armed man will kill an unarmed one with monotonous regularity...



I actually had this conversation yesterday with a friend.  He described the basics of entering a house and how fast a team can "clear" it.  I honestly don't know if I'd have a chance if someone entered my house.  I have accessible weapons, but I've never shot anyone.  If it came down to it, I'd protect my family with my life, but the best strategy, IMO, is going to be to restrict entry somehow and flee.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> People 'flip out', they can be service people or they can be civilians, they can be police officers or medics. Anyone can suffer from PTSD who's been through a trauma. Anyone can get mad at the world and try to destroy it. Police officers, firemen and medics deal with as many disturbing scenes and circumstances as service people do. We can't say all service people will flip, we can't say they won't. What we need to do is look at things in a calmer manner and stop looking for eay answers. Blaming service people is an easy option and absolves everyone else from any potential blame. The thing about service people however is that on the whole they are more disciplined than most civilians. Shootings like this don't happen often whatever some may think, perhaps less than in civilian life. I think I would worry about muggings, rapes and other violent crimes committed by civilians long before I worried about a service person going on the rampage. We've have several thousand here on the garrison since before the First World War and not once has a soldier go on the rampage, not even after that war which truly was a horror. At the moment we have have about 12000 soldiers here at it's height during the wars we've had 750,000 and some. We had a military psychiatric hospital here for a few years and even then we had no rampages, a few suicides yes. I think service people are more likely to destroy themselves than actually destroy others.



No one is "blaming" service people for anything.  The emotional trauma of war can lead to violence in some people.  I expect that if we keep sending people on tour after tour, place after place, we'll see all kinds of problems.  One of them is going to be violence.

Also, some countries are better then others at dealing with it.  It sounds like the British have a much more realistic approach from what you've written in the past.  It doesn't surprise me that your country has far fewer problems with this, because of the shorter tours, the decompresson period, and greater access to health services.  Maybe America's politicians could learn something from the British about treating their soldiers?

Another thing to consider is that certain bases have better reputations then others.  For example, the base near my home is very orderly, clean, and has a low incidence of problems.  Who ever is in charge there is doing an excellent job.  On another part of the island, the base has a reputation for problems, it's dirty, and the crime rates are high.  I have friends who live there and they don't like to go out at night, because you never know what kind of craziness you'll find.

One more thing to consider is that families of the men who are serving their country often suffer when they are away.  In the schools that are on base and around it, children with parents overseas have more problems with anger, impulsiveness, and outright criminal behavior sometimes.  It all goes back to not having both parents around to raise their kids properly.  I'm dealing with children right now who have had their fathers or mothers deployed for at least half of their lives and when their parents get home, they aren't the same people, or are really suffering from the experience of combat.  

It makes me angry to think that all of this could be avoided, but we collectively don't have the will to stop it...yet.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Ultimately, none of this is defensible anymore.  Supporters can trundle out the same tired old slogans and even the people who aren't paying attention can see that we're wasting our time.  We need to get out of these wars before more families get hurt, before more people lose their minds, before we break our country's financial back on this ridiculous imperial adventure.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, none of this is defensible anymore.  Supporters can trundle out the same tired old slogans and even the people who aren't paying attention can see that we're wasting our time.  We need to get out of these wars before more families get hurt, before more people lose their minds, before we break our country's financial back on this ridiculous imperial adventure.



Wow, so much for :





Makalakumu said:


> No one is "blaming" service people for anything.


Your last post is so full of douchebaggery, I'm stunned.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Wow, so much for :
> Your last post is so full of douchebaggery, I'm stunned.



Why is saying that we need to stop this craziness douchebaggery?  If I believe that none of this is worth it and all of these sacrifices are incredible wastes of human energy and resources, that's a valid opinion.  The US had 1.5 million new cases of cancer in 2011.  There were over 500,000 deaths.  That's a real concern.  THAT is something that might be worth spending trillions of dollars to solve.  

166 9/11s happen each year from just this one issue.  It's a misallocation of resources and morally wrong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Here's how worried our own government is when it comes to "random violence" from soldiers in Afghanistan.

Soldiers disarm during Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's speech.



> [h=2]US soldiers were asked to disarm during a speech by Leon Panetta, the American    defence secretary, in a sign of grown concern over spates of seemingly    random violence in Afghanistan. [/h]


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Why is saying that we need to stop this craziness douchebaggery?



Quite simply, it isn't.  

However, you are batting uphill on a subject like this as far too many people are acceptingly uncritical of their countries foreign policy when it involves military action.  It is quite possible to oppose a policy without opposing the poor sods who get stuck with carrying it out but some find it difficult to separate the two because patriotic emotion makes it seem that the two need to be glued together.  

It's like the fallacy that winds up with the emotional response that guns are inherently dangerous, when, of course, it is those that wield them improperly that are dangerous.  If someone murders someone else, it is not the gun that is at fault.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2012)

It isn't that I am acceptingly uncritical, it's just that seeing the same "ZOMG! AMERICAN IMPERIALISM" BS in every fifth post by someone gets douchetastic.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2012)

Aye, I can understand the reaction, Don, fear not on that.  The cumulative effect of repetition of a theme that you don't agree with can get very irksome in a pure text environment :nods:.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 17, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Quite simply, it isn't.
> 
> However, you are batting uphill on a subject like this as far too many people are acceptingly uncritical of their countries foreign policy when it involves military action.  It is quite possible to oppose a policy without opposing the poor sods who get stuck with carrying it out but some find it difficult to separate the two because patriotic emotion makes it seem that the two need to be glued together.
> 
> It's like the fallacy that winds up with the emotional response that guns are inherently dangerous, when, of course, it is those that wield them improperly that are dangerous.  If someone murders someone else, it is not the gun that is at fault.



Each person who decides to serve is still a person in my eyes, Sukerkin.  I respect the idea that you want to sign up and protect your people, but I think we need to rethink the idea that this is what is actually happening in the wars we are fighting now.  In fact, it takes about two questions to break down the argument.  Therefore, if every man is responsible for the decisions they make, and we're not there to deal with an immediate threat to our people, the people in uniform are caught in a nasty moral dilemma.  

There is no good justification to kill these people and fight here at all.  

Think about it like this.  I read an article a while back that really moved me.  I wish I could find it.  It was about the night raids that are going on in Afghanistan.  It started with the story of a good Pashtun man, a man who was respected by his neighbors and family, and ended with describing how he was killed and how his family was hauled off to Bagram where they were interrogated and tortured.  The story goes like this, one day the man went to the market and complained a little too loudly about the foreigners occupying his country.  Someone heard the complaint and passed it on to the Americans, who put the man on watch list.  Somehow, he ended up on a list and a team of soldiers were sent to bring him in for questioning.  The rest of the story gave me chills, because I could really connect with this young man.  

You are fast asleep and then you hear someone kick your door in, there is some shouting in the rooms in front of the house.  Like any man would, you decide to protect your family and grab your kalishnikov to go and deal with the threat, but you are no match for this team.  As soon as they see you with a weapon, you're dead.  They don't miss.  Your eldest son comes to see what is happening.  Boom dead.  The rest of the family are gathered up, ziptied, bag over the head, and hauled off.  Since the man was armed, the whole situation changes.  This man could be part of the resistance and the rest of them might have intelligence on others.  They are taken to the prison, undergo "enhanced interrogation" and languish in a dark hole for weeks.  Eventually, someone realizes that these people don't know anything and this man was simply trying to protect his family and they are let go.  There might be more to this story, but I have no way of finding any of it out.  If you look at organizations that track civilian casualties, this story is quite common.  In fact, the culture, this would be expected.

Check this article

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11...led-over-1500-afghan-civilians-in-ten-months/



> In Afghanistan, every adult Pashtun male has a weapon  in his home, and is obliged by the ancient code of conduct called  &#8220;Pashtunwali&#8221; to defend his home, his family and his friends against  armed intruders. In a typical extended family compound, several males  have weapons.
> [SIZE=-1]
> 
> As a result, the non-targeted civilians killed in night raids have  invariably been either close relatives or neighbors who have come out to  assist against an armed assault.
> ...



The bottom line is that these men are trying to stop *invaders *from harming their families just like any other god damn red blooded man would do in the same situation.  If these *invaders *did the same thing in the middle of Texas, you'd see the same god damn thing!  There are bad guys here and it ain't the Pashtuns who are trying to protect their women and children from harm.  The people who made an oath to protect their women and children and country from harm are *murdering *men who are doing the same damn thing...but it's real for them and not some propaganda that's easily dismissed with an ounce of reason.

Do I care about the soldiers who are sent to do this dirty work?  Sure, but I also hold them responsible.  In my eyes, you don't get to be a hero for being an invader and doing what is described above.  The people who I really respect are the ones who realize that this is all ******** and find some way to stop doing it.  The men and women who realize that you can't serve evil and call yourself good are the people whom I highly regard.

It's a matter of integrity for me.  I can't care for someone, I can't love someone, without holding them as responsible and capable people.  And I know that I know that I know that if more people in the world did this, we'd have a lot less of this madness in it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

If only it was as simple as you make out. That good Pashtun was more than likely a supporter of the Taliban, kept them in power, kept the tortureers, the child killers, the wwomen beaters in power. Suicide bombers kill more Afghans than the Allies do. It's not a simple case of oh we are the baddies for invading these nice simple peace loving people, if only it were, we could get the hell out of there and leave them to it all. Like a lot of other people you haven't taken the time to actually look and see what life in like there. these are people who blackmail children into becoming suicide bombers, who aren't defending their country as are part of a civil war there.
When the Allies do something wrong we aren't defending them, if soldiers do something wrong we aren't defending them either but you need to actually look into what is going on rather than see this in such a simplistic light.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

How would you react if a group of powerful invaders decided to force you to live a certain way? 

We need to think outside the box of force in order to solve social problems. It never works.

And maybe that Pashtun didn't do a damn thing but complain to the wrong people and grab his gun when other people broke into his house. You don't know and neither do I.  Regardless this man is no threat to me, so there was no reason to for one of our soldiers to kill him.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

And your comment on torture takes on a differnt light when you consider "enhanced interrogations". That's torture too. 

So, what is the difference between our torture and theirs? Both sides claim the side of righteousness and both produce evil results. 

The common factor is one group forcing another to live a certain way against their will.  

You can't use Sauron's ring without turning into him.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> How would you react if a group of powerful invaders decided to force you to live a certain way?
> 
> We need to think outside the box of force in order to solve social problems. It never works.
> 
> ...




How would you feel if a group of your own people made you live the way they wanted you to? How would you feel if your entire gender was treated worse than slaves? that families were being killed because of their religious beliefs? that children were tortured, women stoned to death for being raped etc etc etc? This Pashtun, this very innocent man _of whom we have no proof by the way that he even existed _probably grew poppies for opium so that american children could get hooked on drugs so no threat there to you and yours, he probably supported Al Queda so again no threat there to you and probably beat his wife regularly who was probably a child bride bought from her family but hey it's all about how you feel, not the people who are glad that the Allies are in their country of which there are a great many more than you would imagine, not just the women either but the intellectuals, the doctors, the teachers and those who just want peace. Not all the Afghans are looking at the Allies as invaders, a great many see them as liberators. I don't think we should be there and I hope we get out as soon as we can but you can't get away from the fact that we are there and a lot of Afghans are actually grateful. the picture you paint of a bucolic idyll torn to pieces by the Allies invasion just isn't the truth. 

Should we have gone in? Absolutely not but we have and it's surprising how much good it's done, if you think the country is in a state now you really really should have seen it before. Read up on the Taliban, the war lords, Al Queda and the treatment of the Afghan people that was so much like that of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Afghan had it's killing fields, it's savage killing of the intellectuals and those who dare to disagree, speak to the refugees of the Taliban, we have a lot here and they support the Allies totally.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> the picture you paint of a bucolic idyll torn to pieces by the Allies invasion just isn't the truth.



Of course it's not the truth and neither is it the picture "I've" painted.  It's a strawman.  The violence, the drugs, the extremism, it's all a result of previous intervention.  At some point good people need to step away and let the situation sort its own way out.  I can't even imagine what the unintended consequences are going to be from this latest intervention...


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Of course it's not the truth and neither is it the picture "I've" painted. It's a strawman. The violence, the drugs, the extremism, it's all a result of previous intervention. At some point good people need to step away and let the situation sort its own way out. I can't even imagine what the unintended consequences are going to be from this latest intervention...




You really think that everything that has happened in Afghan is nothing at all to do with any Afghani? That the Taliban are nothing to do with them and is the fault of who exactly? Wow.

I don't think it's possible to discuss objectively something like this with someone who doesn't see things in anything others than how he wants them to be. This is the equivelant of saying the people in prison are only there because they all had bad childhoods and are just misunderstood. It's a very skewed logic and it's a fatal one.  

The violence has always been there, it's a violent part of the world always has been, the tribes are warlike very far from peaceful. Poppy growing for opium has been an Afghan crop for centuries, all that's changed is the market being no longer China. You need to look at Afghanistans history a bit more closely before blaming it on 'foreign intervention'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You need to look at Afghanistans history a bit more closely before blaming it on 'foreign intervention'.



:hb:

Afghanistan, before the Soviets invaded, was a far more peaceful and organized place.  It wasn't perfect, but at least it resembled many other 3rd world countries.  When the Soviets invaded, the decision was made to arm a sect of extremists because they were willing to fight and die for what they believed.  The war was long and ground on for many years.  In the meantime, the Soviets set up an unbelievably corrupt government.  The people who lived there could find no justice, could hold no property for long, and had no way of settling disputes.  The only other group capable of providing any order at all was the Mujahedin.  They had money and weapons from the West and they were fighting to kick the invaders out, so a lot of average men joined them for completely pragmatic reasons.  

After the Soviets withdrew, the Taliban didn't immediately take power.  The old tribal government system that existed before, attempted to reassert itself and attempted to rebuild the society.  Women and girls could go to school and families lived pretty much with the same values they had for thousands of years.  It's not perfect, according to Western standards, for example Pashtun men regularly buy little boys for sex slaves, but it was hell on Earth either.  It was at this time that a friend of mine made a trip around the world and walked from Africa to China.  He passed through Afghanistan and related to me that every family was warm and accepting of him.  They gave him food and helped him with directions.  No one tried to kill him, like they did in Africa.  Afghanis had schools, clean water, and many modern amenities that came from the West or were left over from Soviet occupation.

In the West, a decision was made to keep using their assets and set Afghanistan up as a bulwark against the Soviets and the Chinese.  More money and weapons flowed from the CIA to the Taliban and the fighting began again.  Eventually, the Taliban took over the country and instituted a weird form of Sharia law.  They closed down all of the schools, they forced all of the women into Burkas, they began to disappear intellectuals and anyone else who stood in their way.  Eventually, they controlled the whole country except for a small part in the North.  The Taliban enforced their interpretation of Sharia with fear and death and backed their rule with Western weapons and money.  About the only good thing they did was eradicate the production of poppies.  Opium production fell 96% under their rule.

In the mid to late 90s, oil and gas was discovered in the Caspian Basin and Western governments wanted to get it out of there and onto the market as fast as possible.  Taking the oil out through the Persian Gulf wasn't a possibility because Iran was in the way.  A decision was made to take it through the South, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, and soon negotiations began.  Unocal employees entered into direct negotiations with the Taliban.  Hamid Karzai, the current president of Afghanistan, was one of their spokesmen.  The Taliban were incredibly hard to deal with.  It was discovered that they hated the West as much as they hated the Soviets!  Talks broke down and had to be restarted.  Multinational corporations started losing money on the initial investments.  The US government got involved and began negotiating with the CIA.  Our government threatened to cut off our aid in weapons and money if they didn't comply.  The Taliban dithered and pretended to comply just to keep the goodies flowing.

In the summer of 2001, talks broke down and aid was cut off.  The Taliban was given an ultimatum, "accept our carpet of gold or receive our carpet of bombs."  They flipped the finger to the West and ran all of it's officials out of the country.  In August of 2001, an envoy told the Indian government that, "we would have troops on the ground before the snow flies."  When September 11th happened and Bin Laden was implicated, the Taliban took him into custody.  Washington demanded that he be turned over immediately and the Taliban were ready to comply.  They asked for one thing, they wanted to see the evidence of his guilt first, because they didn't trust the West.  The West sent bombs instead and the rest is history.

Getting him was never the West's intentions, though.  We went in to settle the Taliban, just like we went into Iraq to settle Saddam.  The West's assets needed disciplining and there was a larger vision behind it as well.  9/11 became a pretext to set in motion a plan that was started in the early 90s by a think tank known as the Project for the New American Century.  All of the major officials in the Bush Administration, all neoconservative, helped to create this thing.  In the 90's they sent a letter to President Clinton, urging him to action, but the President wasn't going to support this vision of a unipolar world that spread American hegemony.  The neoconservatives knew their plan was unpopular and even wrote, "this plan has little chance of implementation, barring a new Pearl Harbor event."

Most people know nothing about the history of our intervention in  Afghanistan.  This  war really was not needed and the Taliban didn't just seize power on  their own.  Most people who support the war see it from an ignorant  black and white propagandized perspective.  They don't know that we  pretty much put the Taliban in power.  They don't know that fossil fuels  was the straw that broke the camels back and tried our patience to the  limits.  They don't know that the Taliban actually had Bin Laden in  custody and were ready to give him up.  The real history is important for the people of the West to understand as we contemplate our future in that region.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

What history book were you reading? Afghanistan was a peaceful and organised place? Really, I suppose thats why they bumped off their leaders with monotonous regularity then. There was a civil war going on before the USSR invaded it! The USA didn't arm a bunch of extremists, they armed a bunch of loosely tied together Afghan tribes some of who were Muslim fundamentalist some not. The civil war that was raging at the time of the Soviet invasion was between the fundamentalists and the secularists. You make sweeping statements like that of your friend who 'states that Africans' tried to kill him, well which Africans? the Afghans like other Muslims have a code of hospitality and just because they kept to that with your friend doesn't make them all nice innocent people.  You make others statement as well without backing them up.I admire your passion for wanting to do the right thing but you look at everything in such a one dimensional way, refusing to see the complicated patterns that go on it countries like Afghanistan. You don't take into account the tribal system and seem to think it was a plasant place before the Allies came simply because your friend was there. I think you'll find that people know far more about Afghanistan than you so patronisingly think. You seem to have a very low opinion of your countrymen's intelligence? Here if you ask the man in the street about Afghan you may be surprised how much he knows but then it's our *fourth* war there, Pakistan is part of the Commonwealth and we have a lot of Afghan refugees here. Our news services, newspapers and the general interest in the world means we do have more than an inkling of what goes on outside our borders.I won't speak for Americans, but I will say that you should stop assuming the Brits don't know what's going on in the world and that we don't understand what is happening. It's rather tiresome you assuming everyone but you is ignorant.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> What history book were you reading? Afghanistan was a peaceful and organised place? Really, I suppose thats why they bumped off their leaders with monotonous regularity then. There was a civil war going on before the USSR invaded it! The USA didn't arm a bunch of extremists, they armed a bunch of loosely tied together Afghan tribes some of who were Muslim fundamentalist some not. The civil war that was raging at the time of the Soviet invasion was between the fundamentalists and the secularists. You make sweeping statements like that of your friend who 'states that Africans' tried to kill him, well which Africans? the Afghans like other Muslims have a code of hospitality and just because they kept to that with your friend doesn't make them all nice innocent people.  You make others statement as well without backing them up.I admire your passion for wanting to do the right thing but you look at everything in such a one dimensional way, refusing to see the complicated patterns that go on it countries like Afghanistan. You don't take into account the tribal system and seem to think it was a plasant place before the Allies came simply because your friend was there. I think you'll find that people know far more about Afghanistan than you so patronisingly think. You seem to have a very low opinion of your countrymen's intelligence? Here if you ask the man in the street about Afghan you may be surprised how much he knows but then it's our *fourth* war there, Pakistan is part of the Commonwealth and we have a lot of Afghan refugees here. Our news services, newspapers and the general interest in the world means we do have more than an inkling of what goes on outside our borders.I won't speak for Americans, but I will say that you should stop assuming the Brits don't know what's going on in the world and that we don't understand what is happening. It's rather tiresome you assuming everyone but you is ignorant.



In my immediate circle of friends, I have people who have been to Afghanistan as civilians and as servicemen.  My opinion isn't uninformed.  In my previous post, I said that Afghanistan wasn't perfect before the Soviets invaded, but it was far more organized and peaceful then people think.  I've met people who have immigrated from there in the mid-70s and listened.  Kabul was known as the Paris of central Asia in the 60s and 70s.  They had an Olympic Training Center and I remember reading an article about their boxing program and about how the man tried to keep it going through all of the troubles that followed.  I wish I had time to find it online, because it was really touching.  My point is that Afghanistan used to send athletes to the Olympics!  This doesn't sound like the hell hole you make it out as.  Sure, there were problems, but it's not anywhere near what exists now.

From what you've written, Tez3, I can see that you have a genuine concern for the people there.  I think the way that the Taliban treat their women is abhorrent, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that the propaganda matrix to justify various interventions all around the world is changing.  Look at the new Kony2012 movement, look at the humanitarian removal of Gaddafi, we're being urged to fight *peace wars* now for *humanitarian *reasons.  I think this concern to women and children by governments is being thrown in our faces in order to justify our presence and entrance in all kinds of different countries.  

That's why I think the best thing we can do for ourselves and for the people over there is to leave.  We live in a confusing world where the average person just doesn't have time to sift through the matrix of messages and intents.  I barely have enough time to just scratch the surface and from what I see, I know that we need to get out and get back to minding our own business.  When the money and weapons that we gave the bad guys eventually disappear, Afghanistan will prosper again.  As long as we keep putting in corrupt governments and messing with the place for their own good, we're just going to screw it up further.  

I've spoken to enough of my military neighbors to know that there are some good things being done there by the invaders.  It isn't totally black and white when you get up close and personal, but when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, it's gets darker and darker.  It's kind of like one of those pictures made up of other pictures and when you zoom out, you see something totally different.  So, maybe people like you and I can agree to disagree on certain things, but agree that we need to get out as soon as possible.  And then do our best not let these kinds of things happen again.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 18, 2012)

Well I have the advantage of you I guess, I've been there and am going again in a while. I don't rely on friend's opinions, I speak to the Afghans.

No has said we should be staying there, no one thinks war is good. Not all the Afghans want us gone, many want us to stay at least until the country is stabilised more than it is now. I've been trying to tell you things aren't simple there, it's a complicated subject. Hell is subjective, North Korea sends teams to the Olympics, the Nazis held the Olympics, it isn't the mark of a civilised country I'm afraid. If you've ever been to Paris with it's race riots, crime and poverty you'll know that being called the Paris of anywhere isn't really a compliment.

Support from the Soviets bought a lot of advances to Afghanistan, women were able to not wear the veil for example and education advanced so much of the peace you ascribe to the Afghans came with support from the Communists. civil war broke out when the radical Muslims rebelled giving the Soviets a reason to invade. Russias involvement in Afghan has been going on as long as Britain's way back in the 18th and 19th centuries. The whole area has always been and still is one of the most volatile in the world. 
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index3.html
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html

This is hardly the history of a peaceful and organised country.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Well I have the advantage of you I guess, I've been there and am going again in a while. I don't rely on friend's opinions, I speak to the Afghans.



Maybe someday I'll change that and we can have a different conversation.  At any rate, I've learned quite a bit with the resources I have and that's more then most.  



Tez3 said:


> This is hardly the history of a peaceful and organised country.



True enough and it's not getting any better.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/hamid_karzai/index.html



> Awash in American and NATO money, *Mr. Karzai&#8217;s government is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt in the world.* The Times has reported on the extensive web of Karzai family members leveraging the president&#8217;s position to put them at the center of a new oligarchy of powerful Afghan families.



Sure, the Taliban are monsters, but what kind of monsters are we putting in power now?

I have a feeling we're going to be there for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

BTW, good luck when you go Tez3. Aloha.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I speak to the Afghans.



At the University of Hawaii, the US started a program called the East-West Center.  The whole idea is that Hawaii's unique location makes it a melting pot, so the idea of drawing all of the cultures together and working together makes a lot of sense.  I went to the Central Asia Forum in 2010 and heard a man speak of his life in Afghanistan before the Soviets invaded and about how he fled when the war intensified.  Later, he became a professor and specialized in Central Asian studies.  My biggest takeaway from this experience was the history of intervention and about how much Afghanistan has suffered because of it.  

And it's still going on.  If NATO is successful and the Karzai government is able to hold onto power, looking at their level of corruption and their history of human rights abuses, they are not going to form a benevolent form of government.  So, are we simply installing another brutal Western backed dictator?  That might be the best we can actually do there before the politicians decide that enough money has been spent.  What will be the unintended consequences of forming this government?  Is it even possible in the first place?


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 23, 2012)

> KABUL, Afghanistan (AP)  U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was charged on Friday with *17 counts of premeditated murder*, a capital offense that could lead to the death penalty in the massacre of Afghan civilians, the U.S. military said.
> 
> The  38-year-old soldier is accused of walking off a U.S. military base with  his 9mm pistol and M-4 rifle, which was outfitted with a grenade  launcher, before dawn on March 11, killing nine Afghan children and  eight adults and burning some of the bodies. It was the worst allegation  of civilian killings by an American and has severely strained  U.S.-Afghan ties at a critical time in the decade-old war.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/us-soldier-charged-afghan-shooting-rampage-182910560.html



Now we'll see how the trial plays out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2012)

Beside the obvious moral issues of fighting aggressive wars to force other people to live the way you want, there is another perspective to view this tragedy.

Note this article...

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/20/afghan-massacre-soldier-doesnt-remember-killings/



> The military&#8217;s version has Bales wandering off base, hitting two  villages some 8 km apart, massacring 16 Afghan civilians and burning a  number of their corpses, then returning and immediately being captured  by troops. The US insists Bales acted alone, while the Afghan  government&#8217;s probe says more than a dozen of attackers were involved. Bales&#8217;s lack of memory will make it even more difficult to sort out this major difference.



Readers can't be sure who actually killed these people.  We have conflicting reports from "officials".

That aside, the same article makes an allusion to something else that is important.



> Adding further intrigue to the impending charges against Staff Sgt.  Robert Bales for the massacre of 16 Afghan civilians in Kandahar  Province, his lawyer now says Bales &#8220;*doesn&#8217;t remember*&#8221; carrying out any  massacres that night.



Bales has had part of his foot blown off.  He's got a TBI from an accident.  He begged to not be sent again, as he has already been deployed to combat zones a number of times and been injured multiple times.  How many drugs do you think the military put him on?

http://isepp.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/was-sgt-robert-bales-on-psychiatric-drugs/



> At  a time when the military is awash in psychiatric drugs we encounter no  such mention in the in the New York Times or in the press generally. Not  one. Might Sergeant Bale&#8217;s deadly change of character and murderous  rampage have been due to a &#8220;perfect storm&#8221; of multiple psychiatric drugs  coursing through his brain and body neutering his mind, deleting all  sense friend, foe, right and wrong. Strangely enough psychiatric drug  cocktails&#8212;polypharmacy&#8212;has become official military policy today.* It is  not rare to encounter soldiers on 14 or 15 such drugs.
> *
> 
> Does  this make a better soldier? Faster? A sharper shooter? Is it safe and  efficacious &#8216;treatment&#8217; for any actual disease? In June 2011, a  Department of Defense Health Advisory Group backed a highly questionable  policy of &#8220;polypharmacy&#8221; asserting: &#8220;&#8230;multiple psychotropic meds may be  appropriate in select individuals.&#8221; The fact of the matter is that * psychiatric drug polypharmacy is never safe, scientific, or justifiable.  But polypharmacy maximizes profit*, while making it impossible to blame  adverse effects on any one drug. From 2001 to the present, US Central  Command has given deploying troops *180 day supplies of prescription  psychiatric drugs&#8211;Seroquel included.
> ...



*Boldface *emphasis mine.

If Bales really did snap and kill all of these people, there is a good chance he was over medicated on multiple psychotropic drugs that are being prescribed for uses they were never intended to be used for.  The use of psychotropics in this way is not safe and is PROVEN to cause outbreaks of psychotic behavior.  Time to zoom out and take a look at the bigger picture this all alludes to.

The message being sent by the fascists that run our government is clear.  They're going to propagandize the youth and trick a number of you into signing your rights away to become Imperial Stormtroopers.  They're going to send you to combat until your body breaks or you go insane, so you can install brutal dictators that will enslave their populations and make sweet deals for that countries natural resources.  They're going to pump you full of psychotropic drugs so you don't care about killing these people, so you don't care about being deployed over and over again, so you don't care about missing your children growing up. They're going to throw every drug in the book at you no matter if it's safe or not.  They're going to make sweet deals with their other fascist friends who run the government to do this, stealing the money indirectly from you with inflation, and from your children with debt.

People need to wake up in a big way and put a stop to this madness.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2012)

or he could just be a murdering SOB.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> or he could just be a murdering SOB.



Or maybe there's more to the story...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-massacre-of-16/story-e6frg6so-1226305886039



> In accounts to The Associated Press and to Afghan government officials,  the residents allege that US troops lined up men from the village of  Mokhoyan against a wall after the bombing on either March 7 or 8, and  told them they would pay a price for the attack.



More info leaks out...



> Mr Mohammad said that as the two discussed the incident, two Afghan  soldiers approached them and ordered them to join other men from the  village who had been told to stand against a wall.
> 
> 
> "One of the villagers asked what was happening," he said. "The Afghan army soldier told him 'Shut up and stand there'."
> ...



People are losing their minds in Afghanistan, apparently.  For more information on the history of testing chemicals and drugs on soldiers see this link.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 23, 2012)

Or maybe there's less to this story. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ns-robert-bales-had-debts-of-15m-7579491.html


why do you always side with those who are against your country? Why would they always be right and your country always wrong?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Or maybe there's less to this story.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ns-robert-bales-had-debts-of-15m-7579491.html



The propaganda machines have already decided that Bales is guilty.  Now, they are going to trundle out every tawdry detail in his life to pin it on him before any more information comes out.  The fascists need to make another "lone gunman" or support for this war is going to dry up like water in the desert.  NATO soldiers lining women and children up against the wall and executing them, that's the kind of thing Stormtroopers do.  I wonder how many times this has happened and it wasn't reported on...



Tez3 said:


> Why do you always side with those who are against your country? Why would they always be right and your country always wrong?



I'm an individual, Tez3.  The idea that I am a citizen of the United States because I was born within certain imaginary lines, hasn't stood that test of reason.  In fact, all of what I have been conditioned to believe as a child simply hasn't withstood the test of reason.  The bottom line is that I'm not going to support any government if I think they are in the wrong.  For the last twenty years (since I was old enough to know that such a thing mattered), I haven't been able to support any of this country's foreign policy.  Sure, it looked like I'm reflexively against everything that our rulers decide, however, put me in another tax farm with different rules and I might be more agreeable.  I support self defense, liberty and peace.  We get there through limited government, sound money, and free enterprise.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 23, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Beside the obvious moral issues of fighting aggressive wars to force other people to live the way you want


So, it would be more moral to let religious extremists continue to treat women as chattel, execute homosexuals, execute people for having a different religion, execute people for blasphemy, and otherwise engage in what any sane person would consider barbarity?
Your idea of morals is a little ****ed imho


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2012)

Simplistic and thoughtless propaganda.

Ask those questions before putting those *******s into power. Assuming that the facists give a rats *** about human rights, lining women and children up against the wall, blowing them them away, and burning the bodies to hide evidence isn't the way to win the hearts and minds. But this war isn't about "human rights" or anything approaching something like that. It's just more fascist pillaging. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 23, 2012)

Raping and pillaging.  Put in Karzai, take the loot.

http://www.livescience.com/16315-rare-earth-elements-afghanistan.html



> Recent exploration of rare volcanic rocks in the rugged, dangerous  desert of southern Afghanistan has identified world-class concentrations  of rare earth elements, the prized group of raw materials that are  essential in the manufacture of many modern technologies, from electric cars  to solar panels. So far, geologists say, they have mapped one million  metric tons of these critical elements, which include lanthanum, cerium  and neodymium.
> 
> That's enough to supply the world's rare earth needs for 10 years based  on current consumption, points out Robert Tucker, the U.S. Geological  Survey (USGS) scientist who is the lead author on a report released on  September 14. And from clues his team gathered during three  high-security reconnaissance missions to the site, he suspects the  deposit is actually much larger.
> 
> ...



Why is this war so important?



> Already, then, Afghanistan could provide an alternative source of rare  earth elements for industrial countries concerned that *China currently  controls 97 percent of the world's supply*, Tucker says. Chemical  analyses of rock samples his team collected in February show that the  concentration of so-called light rare earth elements in the Afghan  deposit are on par with the premier site mined in China, at Bayan Obo in  Inner Mongolia.



...and more "national interest"...



> Vast deposits of copper and iron in the northeast near the nation's  capital, Kabul, are together worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The  Afghanistan Ministry of Mines has already tendered an exploration lease  for a copper prospect called Aynak, in Logar Province, and they plan to  do the same for several additional sites in the coming months, including  a massive iron ore deposit valued at $420 billion.



None of the companies that will make the deals with the government we install will have spent any money securing them.  That's why they take control of governments and put the tax cattle to work to do.  And we're going to get stuck with the bill in the form of inflation and debt.


----------



## john2054 (Mar 24, 2012)

Nice one Makala Gonzo, I dare say you already know this but I am totally behind everything you say. I too also have a friend who is over from Afghanistan, and he fled the violence there which has simply gotten out of hand since we have invaded. They are lining up whole villages and shooting the lot you know? Well I am totally against this kind of brutality, as i dare say you are, and people who go over 'imbedded' with the forces are sleeping from the wrong side of the trough i dare say. It was exactly the same in Iraq. And you know the one British journalist who dared to get down and dirty with the natives? Shot like an enemy. By an american (woman gave the order). 

War is bad, to this it seems like we all agree. And there are definite fears that cutting and running isn't the best way out. However unfortuanate as it may seem, we may have little alternative. Or it is that, or a case of staying for as long as there aren't people left to shoot at. But if that is the policy chosen, what will be left of the country when we do finally leave it? A pigs ear ill tell you, thats what. Just like Iraq, where there is a car bomb every day the same as there has been for the last five years. And please Tez dont try to pull the one about women being better off. With their husbands and sons either in jail, or most likely sixteen feet under. We have both been around this block one too many times to know that that story, just wont wash.

On a slightly nicer note, i did some more gardening today, and planted some red yellow orange blue white and pink flowers ok?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2012)

John just stay in your nice delusional world, 'Imbedded? I don't think so try embedded, different meaning. Whole villages being lined up and shot, don't think so but carry on believing and keep taking the tablets.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Isn't people being line up and shot what is at issue here?  How about hellfire missiles taking out wedding parties or family gatherings in order to get one bad guy?

Isn't that what the Afghans are reporting?  Isn't that what they are telling the international new agencies?  What is the truth?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Isn't people being line up and shot what is at issue here? How about hellfire missiles taking out wedding parties or family gatherings in order to get one bad guy?
> 
> Isn't that what the Afghans are reporting? Isn't that what they are telling the international new agencies? What is the truth?



How come you believe everything the Afghans say but nothing your side does? Do you not consider taking everything either side says with a pinch of salt? Do you not think the Afghans have an agenda too? they are just as capable as playing politics and telling the big lies as any other country. One should be cynical about all politicians from all countries.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 25, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It's pretty clear he is a terrorist and was  fighting against NATO in Afghanistan.  No need to muddy the water on  this one.  One of their fighters came to the West to bring the fight to  us.  The back story is interesting though.  It would explain why an  Algerian would pull up stakes and go and fight in the first  place.


Maybe terrorists blowing up his fellow soldiers drove him to it.
I mean if soldiers killing terrorists creates terrorists, wouldn't the reverse be true also?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> How come you believe everything the Afghans say but nothing your side does?



Have you not read his posts? He believes in every harebrained conspiracy theory out there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Have you not read his posts? He believes in every harebrained conspiracy theory out there.



Not every single one, only the ones that are true...lol.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> How come you believe everything the Afghans say but nothing your side does? Do you not consider taking everything either side says with a pinch of salt? Do you not think the Afghans have an agenda too? they are just as capable as playing politics and telling the big lies as any other country. One should be cynical about all politicians from all countries.



The problem in the West is that we've stopped viewing these events with any sort of reason. Cause and effect doesn't exist. We can't look at generations of mistreatment as an answer as to why certain people hate us, we've got to make it about something else.  It's there religion, it's there race, it's anything else but the economic truth of how our system has been running.

Instead, we turn them into terrorists and dehumanize them further, which leads to more mistreatment, more radicalization, and more retaliation. The only winners are the people who profit off the conflict. And those people also control the information and the narrative. 

My countrymen aren't telling me this story about what is going on in afghanistan. The MSM is a multinational corporation with an agenda that 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Needs lies and propaganda to do what it does.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The problem in the West is that we've stopped viewing these events with any sort of reason. Cause and effect doesn't exist. We can't look at generations of mistreatment as an answer as to why certain people hate us, we've got to make it about something else.  It's their religion, it's their race, it's anything else but the economic truth of how our system has been running.
> 
> Instead, we turn them into terrorists and dehumanize them further, which leads to more mistreatment, more radicalization, and more retaliation. The only winners are the people who profit off the conflict. And those people also control the information and the narrative.



Whilst there is truth to this, what also has to be seen, as Tez has been saying, is that there are political forces at play in the countries in question that, like political forces everywhere, will use any tool they can lay their hands on to further their interests.  It is easy to demonise the motives of a large economic power seemingly riding rough-shod over the indigenous 'players' of a smaller country but it is not always the case that the 'bad guy' is the big one.

In Africa and Arabia the real problems arose because of the actions of Empires drawing lines on the map to divide up areas of influence with no regard to the tribal cultures that forced together.  When the strong hand was lifted as the Imperial wave receded then all hell broke loose and is still doing so.  The most stark example of this is South Africa - no naughty American 'Empire' sticking it's nose in there but the country is still disintegrating with the removal of a strong government and the coming of a tribal leader to seemingly democratic power.  I don't know whether President Zuma is an evil and corrupt man, for I don't know him, but his government is presiding over corruption and tribal partisanship that is, in the end, breaking his country.  Why?  Because he sees himself as Zulu first and South African last (if at all).  The feeling is that once Mandela dies then SA will either explode or implode as it is only his presence, even when now not in direct power, that is keeping the lid on.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> The problem in the West is that we've stopped viewing these events with any sort of reason. Cause and effect doesn't exist. We can't look at generations of mistreatment as an answer as to why certain people hate us, we've got to make it about something else. It's there religion, it's there race, it's anything else but the economic truth of how our system has been running.
> 
> Instead, we turn them into terrorists and dehumanize them further, which leads to more mistreatment, more radicalization, and more retaliation. The only winners are the people who profit off the conflict. And those people also control the information and the narrative.
> 
> ...




I do wish you'd stop talking for the rest of us, you can't talk for the West you can only talk for yourself. You don't know how the people in the UK think never mind how people in Europe  so making sweeping statements like 'we in the West' doesn't wash it. Speak for yourself by all means, don't include all the rest of us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I do wish you'd stop talking for the rest of us, you can't talk for the West you can only talk for yourself. You don't know how the people in the UK think never mind how people in Europe  so making sweeping statements like 'we in the West' doesn't wash it. Speak for yourself by all means, don't include all the rest of us.



As of this point, our governments seem to be joined at the hip in our foreign policy.  The citizens may feel differently, but our governments are choosing to march together.  It's the Anglo-American empire that's moving and that's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 25, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst there is truth to this, what also has to be seen, as Tez has been saying, is that there are political forces at play in the countries in question that, like political forces everywhere, will use any tool they can lay their hands on to further their interests.  It is easy to demonise the motives of a large economic power seemingly riding rough-shod over the indigenous 'players' of a smaller country but it is not always the case that the 'bad guy' is the big one.
> 
> In Africa and Arabia the real problems arose because of the actions of Empires drawing lines on the map to divide up areas of influence with no regard to the tribal cultures that forced together.  When the strong hand was lifted as the Imperial wave receded then all hell broke loose and is still doing so.  The most stark example of this is South Africa - no naughty American 'Empire' sticking it's nose in there but the country is still disintegrating with the removal of a strong government and the coming of a tribal leader to seemingly democratic power.  I don't know whether President Zuma is an evil and corrupt man, for I don't know him, but his government is presiding over corruption and tribal partisanship that is, in the end, breaking his country.  Why?  Because he sees himself as Zulu first and South African last (if at all).  The feeling is that once Mandela dies then SA will either explode or implode as it is only his presence, even when now not in direct power, that is keeping the lid on.



Could it also be viewed as economic interests cashing in the chaos that previous empires caused?  Could one also see the actions of a new imperial power clamping down on these far flung places and causing more future problems?  

Wouldn't Ron Paul's strategy of pulling back and letting the people sort out how they want to live be the best solution?  Especially, if all of the intervention really is the cause of the chaos in the first place?


----------

