# The Mt. Rainier Shooting and PTSD: How the Media Got It Wrong



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2012)

[h=1]The Mt. Rainier Shooting and PTSD: How the Media Got It Wrong[/h]  					 						January 6, 2012 by Alex Horton					
VA BLOGS EXCERPT: (emphasis added)

The massacre at Ft. Hood two years ago stunned the nation in its  cold-blooded calculation. The high body count was just as shocking as  the fact soldiers were killed not in combat, but on the grounds of a  military installation. Before the slain soldiers were buried, many in the media speculated on a link between combat stress and the shooting, the correlation being that war trauma had driven a soldier to commit those crimes.

 When news reports finally explained that Nidal Hasan hadnt deployed during his Army career, the narrative shifted to secondary PTSD.  The thought was that his work as a psychiatrist could have caused it.  The reality, however, was that Hasans personal beliefs about the United  States and the military were among the chief motivations behind the  killings. Taken together, the prevailing narrative from those early  reportsintentional or notwas this: Post-traumatic stress is a strong  factor in violent crimes, and anyone who has deployed to a combat zone  is capable of the same.
 That narrativefairly common since John Rambo hit movie screens in  1982bubbled to the surface once again with the killing of Park Ranger  Margaret Anderson on January 1st by Benjamin Colton Barnes, a 24  year-old Iraq Veteran. Within hours of the Rainier shooting, journalists  and writers clamored to mention Barnes war record, combat stress, and  even his duty station in a dizzying effort to find a connection:

The problem? It wasnt true.

  As more information became available on Barnes, it grew clear that his troubles had little to do with his service in Iraq or his assignment at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. According to _The Seattle Times_,  Barnes was apparently disturbed before he entered the Armyhaving been  expelled from school as a teenager. Additionally, military records show  Barnes served in a headquarters communications job in Iraq. A spokesman  at Lewis-McChord told the _Times_ there was no record of Barnes having received a Combat Action Badge, indicating he probably never came under fire in Iraq.
 While violence is undoubtedly a potential consequence  of war-related trauma, highly publicized crimes by active duty members  and Veterans cast the overwhelming majority of law abiding Vets in a  horrifyingand typically unfairlight. As one Army officer pointed out recently,  sensational stories devoid of context (like those about Barnes) inhibit  the ability for people to assess likelihood and frequency in a given  population. He cites the availability heuristic,  which says people predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion  within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to  mind.
 When I asked her today, VA clinical psychologist Dr. Sonja Batten  said that despite this image in pop culture of the dangerous, unstable  Veteran, there is no direct, causal link between combat-related PTSD and  the type of violence shown at Mt. Rainier. Although PTSD is associated  with increased anger and irritability in some individualswhether  civilians or Veteransthis sort of negative portrayal of Veterans is  unfair and does a disservice to those individuals who have served our  country. We work every day in VA to dispel these negative and inaccurate  stereotypes.
 In other words, the misguided and incorrect correlation between  military service and violent crimes like murder can lead to damaging  stereotypes that can inhibit the success of Vets once they leave the  military. The Texas Veterans Commission says some employers have reservations  about hiring Veterans because they may show signs of post-traumatic  signs in the workplace. Hiring managers may think theyre getting a  Travis Bickle instead of a Sully Sullenberger.

 In an MSNBC article about the Mt. Rainier shooting, reporter Alex Johnson connected Barnes to the deeply troubled base of Joint Base Lewis-McChord. *While he later walked the piece back,  his original reporting joined the media-constructed narrative that JBLM  is in crisis without offering a valid explanation why.* There were no  mentions of inadequate mental health services or of a distinct culture  of the base that would indicate a trend of violenceonly some data  showing that violent incidents happen there and in the surrounding  communities.

 But Johnson made no mention that those who murder are overwhelmingly men between 15-30 years old, and that men make up 92 percent  of the U.S. Veteran population. If you accept that folks in the  military represent a cross section of society, it will always attract  the best and the worst our nation has to offer, from Sal Giunta to  Benjamin Barnes.
 That simple reality didnt jive with Johnson, whose angle wasnt  helped by the fact that, despite problems with violence around the base,  Veterans in general are incarcerated at half the rate. of non-Vets.
END EXCERPT
The truth isn't always exciting.


----------



## granfire (Jan 7, 2012)

OH M GEE, the media got it wrong....

Ah sh..

Sad but true fact the times the media gets it right (or even put inteligable information out) have become rare.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

There is no official diagnosis in this article, only assumptions.  This doesn't show anything but bias confirmation.

People who have troubled pasts often join the military hoping they will get their lives straightened out.  Then they go to war and the stress tips them over the edge.  That happens and we don't know if it actually happened in this case, but it's a reasonable internet assumption.  

Lastly, it's not just the people kicking down doors and terrifying families in the night who are experiencing combat in the ME.  Anyone driving around could be a victim of an IED, or snipers, or suicide bombers, everyone there is a target.  I know a guy who has a desk job and was attacked enroute from one base to another in Iraq.  That happens all of the time.  His words, "extreme boredom punctuated by terror with an underlying stress that gnaws, because you don't know when it's going to come."  You don't even need to be attacked in this environment to develop PTSD.  

Take a guy with a checkered past and throw them in a pressure cooker, what do you think will happen?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

Big Don said:


> While violence is undoubtedly a potential consequence  of war-related trauma, highly publicized crimes by active duty members  and Veterans cast the overwhelming majority of law abiding Vets in a  horrifying&#8212;and typically unfair&#8212;light. As one Army officer pointed out recently,  sensational stories devoid of context (like those about Barnes) inhibit  the ability for people to assess likelihood and frequency in a given  population. He cites the availability heuristic,  which says people &#8220;predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion  within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to  mind.&#8221;
> 
> When I asked her today, VA clinical psychologist Dr. Sonja Batten  said that &#8220;despite this image in pop culture of the dangerous, unstable  Veteran, there is no direct, causal link between combat-related PTSD and  the type of violence shown at Mt. Rainier. Although PTSD is associated  with increased anger and irritability in some individuals&#8212;whether  civilians or Veterans&#8212;this sort of negative portrayal of Veterans is  unfair and does a disservice to those individuals who have served our  country. We work every day in VA to dispel these negative and inaccurate  stereotypes.&#8221;
> 
> *In other words, the misguided and incorrect correlation between  military service and violent crimes like murder can lead to damaging  stereotypes that can inhibit the success of Vets once they leave the  military.* The Texas Veterans Commission says some employers have reservations  about hiring Veterans because they may show signs of post-traumatic  signs in the workplace. Hiring managers may think they&#8217;re getting a  Travis Bickle instead of a &#8220;Sully&#8221; Sullenberger.



PTSD is statistically correlated to all kinds of violence.  

http://ptsd.about.com/od/infoforfriendsfamily/a/PTSDViolence.htm



> Several studies have been conducted in an attempt to better  understand what may lead people with a history of trauma or PTSD to  engage in aggressive and violent behaviors. In studies of U.S. veterans,  it has found that depression  played a role in aggression among people with PTSD. People who have  both depression and PTSD may experience more feelings of anger and,  therefore, may have greater difficulties controlling it.
> 
> 
> In line with this, a couple of studies have found that violent and  aggressive behavior, especially among men, may be used as a way of  attempting to manage unpleasant feelings.  Aggressive behavior may be a  way of releasing tension associated with other unpleasant emotions  stemming from a traumatic event, such as shame, guilt, or anxiety. While  aggressive and hostile behavior may temporarily reduce tension, it, of  course, is ineffective in the long-run -- both in regard to  relationships and dealing with unpleasant emotions.



A certain segment of the population wants to pretend like this doesn't exist so we can keep sending people off to fight unjust wars and expect the people to come home heroically clean.  That doesn't happen.  There is a toll American's are going to pay for its ten years of war down the road for this.  It's happened before and it will happen again.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> There is no official diagnosis in this article, only assumptions.


Oh, kinda like the following?





> This doesn't show anything but bias confirmation.
> 
> People who have troubled pasts often join the military hoping they will get their lives straightened out.  Then they go to war and the stress tips them over the edge.  That happens and we don't know if it actually happened in this case, but it's a reasonable internet assumption.
> 
> ...



Yep, no bias on your part at all either... No facts, but, surely no bias...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

We actually don't know if PTSD was a factor or not. We'll never know. We should be talking about this issue though, because its something that gets brushed under the rug and forgotten in the name of patriotism. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 7, 2012)

Again -- I have less than zero sympathy for Barnes.  The ******* murdered a park ranger & mother, and let's not forget the victims in the shooting he was *already* wanted for.  Everything suggests that he was a screw-up before the military, and a screw-up in the military until they kicked him out.  He died because he was a dumbass, and ran while being totally unprepared.

PTSD is an important issue, and worthy of discussion.  But not when you try to give this ******* an excuse with it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Again -- I have less than zero sympathy for Barnes.  The ******* murdered a park ranger & mother, and let's not forget the victims in the shooting he was *already* wanted for.  Everything suggests that he was a screw-up before the military, and a screw-up in the military until they kicked him out.  He died because he was a dumbass, and ran while being totally unprepared.
> 
> PTSD is an important issue, and worthy of discussion.  But not when you try to give this ******* an excuse with it.



Was he killing people before his service?  What happens when PTSD pushes a guy with a checkered past over the edge?  Lots of people handle it without resorting to violence.  It's a fact that some people can't handle it without resorting to violence.  They need help.

PTSD isn't an excuse for the behavior.  It's a possible explanation.  We can have a broader discussion about the effects of war and hold criminals responsible at the same time.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> We actually don't know if PTSD was a factor or not.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Correct so stop saying it was and making barnes a martyr for your antiwar political views.  Politics have nothing to do with barnes being a punk murdering thug.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

Isn't it great how pointing out the horrible effects of war and linking them to social events offends so many people? Some people are allergic to any point of view counter to popular narrative. "We can fight these wars, send people multiple tours of combat and expect no social costs. People who snap under pressure were all flawed beforehand because real heroes don't do that."

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Isn't it great how pointing out the horrible effects of war and linking them to social events offends so many people? Some people are allergic to any point of view counter to popular narrative. "We can fight these wars, send people multiple tours of combat and expect no social costs. People who snap under pressure were all flawed beforehand because real heroes don't do that."
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



I dont disagree with your thoughts about treating PTSD.  I do not agree with making this guy your poster child.  There are 10s of thousands of troops suffering from PTSD as well as many more thousand police, Fire and EMS in the US.  This guy was NOT one of them.  By all accounts he was born a thug, lived as a thug, and died a coward running for his life.
There are far better examples you can find to further your cause and dont need to rely in a murderer.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

RIP Margaret Anderson


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Isn't it great how pointing out the horrible effects of war and linking them to social events offends so many people? Some people are allergic to any point of view counter to popular narrative. "We can fight these wars, send people multiple tours of combat and expect no social costs. People who snap under pressure were all flawed beforehand because real heroes don't do that."
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



I don't think that anyone has said that; you're interpreting it.  What I've said, and what I read ballen (among others) as saying is that, quite simply, PTSD does not justify what Barnes did.  

Very bluntly, I KNOW that I've got a bit of PTSD, from multiple incidents in my career, including seeing the lieutenant who hired me crippled in a motorcycle wreck.  From posts he's made, I suspect that ballen probably has some too.  PTSD is NOT a binary condition; it's a spectrum.  You might have significant issues, or very minor ones.  (Me?  Among them, I had trouble watching some training videos for a while because of the similarity in events.)  An event that flips one person over completely might barely faze another.  But, in general, any violent aftermath of PTSD is directed at the victim, or perhaps immediate family.  In this case, I'll grant the possibility that the Seattle shooting could have had a relationship to any possible PTSD for Barnes, though I'd say it's more likely, based on his history as reported in the press, to be general impulse control issues that long predated his involuntarily truncated military service.  But killing Ranger Anderson?  Nope.  That was a direct, premeditated action, as part of a course of events.  He's not a poster boy for the evils of wartime military service.  He's a poster boy for dumbass murderers.  Fortunately, there won't be the expense and stress on the family of a trial.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

I was diagnosed with PTSD in 2005 by 2 different doctors and was told If I wanted to I could medically retire.  I personally dont think there is anything wrong with me with the things Ive seen and done a few bad dreams and sleepless nights every now and then are to be expected.  I think PTSD is the hot new fad for docs to throw out to make more money "Treating" you.  I think there are real cases of PTSD but I also thing is way over diagnosed kinda like how every boy 4 to 10 years old thats a little hyper is now ADHD and need medication.  
I think by focusing on people like Barnes only makes it harder to have a real conversation about real cases of PTSD.  Every military member now days that gets accused of a crime of violence or drug related at some point during the trial PTSD is floated out there as an excuse for sympathetic jury members to latch on to and get a hung jury or not guilty.

You want a real conversation about PTSD and its effects on US troops find a real person suffering and in need of help and we can talk.  Barnes was not it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

Again I ask, was he killing before his service? Could PTSD push someone with a checkered past over the edge? 

This guy isn't a poster child. He's an opportunity to ask some uncomfortable questions. Maybe Margaret didn't have to die had we made different political decisions.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Again I ask, was he killing before his service?


Yes, again you ask a stupid question. No, he didn't kill anyone before his service or he would NOT have been allowed to serve. I take offense at the way you continue to insinuate his service drove him over an edge.





> Could PTSD push someone with a checkered past over the edge?


 Maybe it could, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE ARTICLE WAS THAT THE "DIAGNOSIS" WAS DONE BY THE MEDIA, NOT DOCTORS





> This guy isn't a poster child. He's an opportunity to ask some uncomfortable questions. Maybe Margaret didn't have to die had we made different political decisions.


 *$&#)$&!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

Isn't the media saying that PTSD wasn't a possible factor? According to the source you posted, aren't they saying he was a bad seed beforehand? Isn't that a diagnosis?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Again I ask, was he killing before his service? Could PTSD push someone with a checkered past over the edge?


Nope I dont believe PTSD will turn someone into a murderer.  A murderer is a murderer.  Make all the excuses you want when he deliberately and with forethought murdered a Law enforcement officer because he was on the run after shooting 4 others the day prior.  All the rangers wanted to do was see if he had snow chains thats it.  



> This guy isn't a poster child. He's an opportunity to ask some uncomfortable questions. Maybe Margaret didn't have to die had we made different political decisions.


Shame on you for trying to turn the death of an 11 year member of law enforcement and more importantly a mother of 2 and wife into a political argument because you don't think the US should have gone to war.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> According to the source you posted, aren't they saying he was a bad seed beforehand? Isn't that a diagnosis?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


So now your saying he had PTSD before he went to war?  
They are saying he was a piece of crap prior to and long after his short and uneventful time in the military before he was kicked out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So now your saying he had PTSD before he went to war?
> They are saying he was a piece of crap prior to and long after his short and uneventful time in the military before he was kicked out.



Saying he was a peice of crap before the war and that PTSD played no part is a clinical assertion.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Saying he was a peice of crap before the war and that PTSD played no part is a clinical assertion.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Nope its using common sense.  If it smells like a duck looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.  If you were a punk as a teen, a punk in the military , and a punk after getting kicked out well guess what your a punk thats just who he was.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

Thanks for your diagnosis.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2012)

As soon as we acknowledge that PTSD might have been a factor, it becomes a political issue. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 7, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Thanks for your diagnosis.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



No diagnosis you and I know about the same info on this incident as anyone else.  Difference is I choose not to make excuses for murder to further my political argumet.  I choose to look at the facts in this case and the killers history thru his whole life and not a short few year span when he was in the military. You choose to assume he has some magical mental illness that caused him to kill and it wasn't his fault he couldn't help it.  Im waiting for you to blame Bush for his behavior.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Saying he was just a jerk is a political argument. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Magical mental illness my ***! Now we see how you view PTSD. If someone has symptoms that fall outside of your propaganda matrix, it doesn't exist. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> As soon as we acknowledge that PTSD might have been a factor, it becomes a political issue.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk






Makalakumu said:


> Saying he was just a jerk is a political argument.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk





Makalakumu said:


> Magical mental illness my ***! Now we see how you view PTSD. If someone has symptoms that fall outside of your propaganda matrix, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk




Simply amazing sir!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Magical mental illness my ***! Now we see how you view PTSD. If someone has symptoms that fall outside of your propaganda matrix, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Apparently unlike you I've studied PTSD after I was told I have it and you seem to think its some mystical mind controling illness that cause good people to kill small children in the streets.  You choose to ignore the real victims in this event and make excuse after excuse for murder.  You want to turn a bad person into your antiwar politcal rantings as proof that bush lied and people died or whatever slogan you guys are chanting these days.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> As soon as we acknowledge that PTSD might have been a factor, it becomes a political issue.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



To be honest a person could have PTSD before they actually joined up, it's not exclusive to service people, it can be caused by any *traumatic* incident such as watching someone being killed, an accident, violence at home, being the victim of a crime, being raped, or being trapped in an avalanche, earthquake etc etc the list is a long one. PTSD is what it says it is, it doesn't necessarily make it a political issue because someone has it. 
We had a military pyschiatric hospital here for a few years, the main problem was that propel with PTSD were more liable to kill themselves, we often had patients leaving to try to do this, this tend to be self destruction, not to be able to cope with life, while some would have rages and destroy furniture etc I cna't remember any that had to be dealt with because actually planned out and cold bloodedly killed anyone. I can see someone killing someone while in a rage or while having flashbacks, there's been reports here of that but not going on crime sprees etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 8, 2012)

If I were to take a guess about what set this guy over the edge it prob had to do with his babys mother leaving him and seeking full custody.  That led to drinking and prob. drug use at the party where he shot 4 people.  The Ranger was then shot and killed when he thought they were going to arrest him for the prior shootings and he was on the run.  Self preservation and fear of jail not PTSD


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 8, 2012)

Now if your looking for a face to put on the forefront of PTSD Marine Sgt Tom Bagosy might fit the bill.

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/hospital-78350-naval-defense.html

In the same week a Marine killed himself after  fleeing treatment at a Naval Hospital clinic, a U.S. congressman  confirmed Friday that the Defense Department is investigating the  hospitals treatment of troops diagnosed with post-traumatic stress  disorder.
 I cannot talk much about the classified  investigation, but I have been briefed and I expect significant  findings, said Rep. Walter Jones. Jones is a Republican who represents  the 3rd U.S. House District, which includes Onslow County and Camp  Lejeune.
 Jones said he called for the inquiry earlier this  year after speaking with a contract doctor supposedly fired for  revealing gaps in mental health treatment at the hospital.
 Jones said he was deeply troubled when he learned  of the death of a Marine being treated at a Naval Hospital mental  health clinic Monday.
 Marine Sgt. Tom Bagosy, a two-tour combat  veteran, fled treatment and shot himself in the middle of McHugh  Boulevard while being pursued by provost marshals, authorities and  witnesses said.
 A total of 52 Marines committed suicide in fiscal  year 2009, according to Marine Corps Manpower in Quantico, Va. While  officials said many Marine suicides occur overseas, eight Marines killed  themselves aboard or near Camp Lejeune in 2009, according to death  certificates on file with the Onslow County Register of Deeds.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Now if your looking for a face to put on the forefront of PTSD Marine Sgt Tom Bagosy might fit the bill.
> 
> http://www.jdnews.com/articles/hospital-78350-naval-defense.html
> 
> ...



This is what we are finding here, it seems to be far more self destructive than 'criminal rampaging', the experiences that lead to PTSD seem to make living unbearable rather than urging them to go around killing others. 

http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/what_is_ptsd.html

http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/common_symptoms_ptsd.html


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 8, 2012)

Also -- the primary source for Barnes having PTSD is his baby's mother's court filings regarding custody.  Apparently, a number of his friends have come forward to refute those suggestions/allegations...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Also -- the primary source for Barnes having PTSD is his baby's mother's court filings regarding custody.  Apparently, a number of his friends have come forward to refute those suggestions/allegations...



I still don't think you can discount it.  The baby's mother would be a direct position to know considering that PTSD is also directly linked to increases in domestic violence.  It's also been a factor in past cases of violence and it wouldn't surprise me if it was a factor here as well.  What surprises me is the amount of people who simply will not acknowledge that this might be a problem.  Five people died when this guy snapped.  That's a steep price to pay for non-existent WMDs.  

20% of returning veterans screen positive for PTSD.  19% experienced a TBI from concussive blasts.  

More veterans commit suicide than are actually killed in combat.

This is a price of war and incidents like this are also a price.  When people say that this incident had nothing to do with PTSD and that he was a bad seed before he served our country, they are making a political statement.  They are denying the consequences of war and attempting to shirk responsibility for it.  Hopefully, very few veterans ever snap like this and these incidents remain rare.  When they do happen, it doesn't help to have people explain it away for political reasons.

PTSD destroyed my uncles life after Vietnam.  He struggled with his experiences for 25 years and died in his bathroom from a side effect of the medications he was taking.  He was 47.  Vietnam was a completely unnecessary war that was based off of lies and has had an untold number of hidden casualties as it's results.  People explained away incidents for political reasons back then, too.  The end result of that is that history repeated itself.  

When do we break the cycle?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> If I were to take a guess about what set this guy over the edge it prob had to do with his babys mother leaving him and seeking full custody.  That led to drinking and prob. drug use at the party where he shot 4 people.  The Ranger was then shot and killed when he thought they were going to arrest him for the prior shootings and he was on the run.  Self preservation and fear of jail not PTSD



Isn't PTSD linked to domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse?  Wouldn't this also explain why he was having major issues with both of these?  Could PTSD push someone with a checkered past over the edge?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

I have to say though that while I'm sure the military mental healthcare people are well trained a good many of them we've found are perhaps less than effective. As I said we had a military psyche hospital here ( it got closed by Blair and patients sent to a private facility owned by a mate of Blair at a cost of millions of pounds). A colleague of mine was called in because a patient, a soldier, had got onto the roof, he arrived and was told nothing could be done immediately because they need to 'conference' and make a plan. After a little while, my colleague ex SBS, though sod this for a game of soldiers and went off, got a ladder and went up it to talk to the lad, after a little while the soldier came down and went off to his room in the ward. My colleague again approached the doctors and nurses ( and a social worker) and was told impatiently to go away until they had put everything in place to coax the soldier down. So he went off a little way then said, 'oh btw he's down and in bed'. Shocked silence followed. We often got calls that they'd 'lost' patients, not a euphemism for dying but that patients had taken themselves off. A lot were suicide risks which involved many man hours searching surrounding countryside. 
One thing we found was that if other ranks committed crimes they were locked up, charged etc but often officers if found to be up to something like one I remember who defrauded the mess funds, were put into the hospital as being 'depressed'. We also had young recruits who couldn't hack training saying they were suicidal to get out of the army. The army doesn't take risks because not so long ago we had quite a high rate of recruit suicides, not a pleasant thing to investigate especially as the soldiers go what we call 'green on green' ie protecting the army by saying nothing or knowing nothing. 
We have a dog handler who has PTSD, he was in the Pioneer Corps, he fought in the Falklands and also dug the graves there as well as digging up the bodies in the Balkans at the sites of the massacres. He'd served in Northern Ireland and lost a mate when a sniper blew his brains out. 
Things are improving, with increased awareness and mentors thoughout the army to watch for sign, the soldiers have a few days in Cyprus to wind down before they come back to the UK after Afghan. They don't go on leave for three weeks after deployment ends so that soldiers and families can adjust within helping distance if needed but the fact remains that many are still suffering in silence and no one knows until it's too late and they've killed themselves, for many that's still the way out of the continous horror.

I think it's so important that we don't 'cheapen' the expeiences and the diagnosis of PTSD of genuine sufferers by slapping that labels on anyone who behaves badly. I understand that defence lawyers who do have a duty of care to their clients, will want to use anything they can to get them off, it's their job after all but it would be easy to use this reason too many times so that genuine PTSD sufferers as dismissed as being either fakes or being over dramatic. I remember not so long ago here that people who said they had ME were scoffed at, it was called 'Yuppie flu' and the sufferers 'drama queens', recently studies have proved that these people who say they are ill, actually are and quite seriously at that. I'd hate to see PTSD being treated the same way.


----------



## billc (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu, we have a lot of vets coming home and they aren't going off and killing other people in a large number of incidents.  As has been pointed out both here and in Britain, it seems PTSD affects the individual in a more personal way than going out and harming others.  Immediate family members may also suffer, because they live with the individuals, but there haven't been a rash of killings of strangers by returning vets.   Let's not try to stigmatize this generation of soldiers the way the vietnam vets were when they came home.  If you look at the stats, these men, the vietnam vets, were ahead of their non-vet peers in most ways.   They recieved a bad reputation because of the anti-war efforts, and that just wasn't fair.  Let's not hurt these vets this time around.

My dad was a combat vet of vietnam and has lived a regular life.  Let's not generalize.

Here is an article that addresses the myth of the crazed vietnam vet...

http://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm



> Societal Success:
> 
> In fact, Vietnam veterans are as successful or more successful than men their own age who did not go to war. Disproportionate numbers of Vietnam veterans serve in Congress, for instance. Vice President Al Gore is a Vietnam veteran, as is enormously popular Colin Powell.
> They run Fortune 500 corporations (Frederick Smith of Federal Express), write screenplays (Bill Broyles formerly of Newsweek) and report the evening news (ABC correspondent Jack Smith).
> ...





> After the war ended, reports began to circulate of veterans so depraved from their war experiences that they turned to crime, with estimates of the number of incarcerated Vietnam veterans as high as one-quarter of the prison population. But most of these accounts were based on self-reporting by criminals. In every major study of Vietnam veterans where military records were verified, an insignificant number of prisoners were found to be actual Vietnam veterans


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

There are also a good many civilians suffering from PTSD from events that have happened throughout their lives who also don't go around killing people, not all these events, not all will be violent, some will be from such things as being trapped in buildings after earthquakes, floods etc. It's anything that is traumatic that can give someone PTSD. 
PTSD isn't necessarily a lifelong condition, it depends on the person, the event, the treatment and/or the mindset of the person, there's many factors. Some people can go through something we'd consider horrific and come away unscathed mentally, others will crumple at something we consider minor, we can't stigmatise everyone with PTSD as being 'mad' or out of control. 
A friend of mine worked on the geriatric ward of our local hospital, a few years back she had a gentleman who had horrific nightmares and flashbacks of his time in the trenches in the First World War, his family said it was a recent thing, he'd never suffered before but as he got old the memories of the past came back more strongly than more recent memories. She said his screams were heart rending as he relived the horror of the war and when he was woken up his eyes were haunted.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think it's so important that we don't 'cheapen' the expeiences and the diagnosis of PTSD of genuine sufferers by slapping that labels on anyone who behaves badly. I understand that defence lawyers who do have a duty of care to their clients, will want to use anything they can to get them off, it's their job after all but it would be easy to use this reason too many times so that genuine PTSD sufferers as dismissed as being either fakes or being over dramatic. I remember not so long ago here that people who said they had ME were scoffed at, it was called 'Yuppie flu' and the sufferers 'drama queens', recently studies have proved that these people who say they are ill, actually are and quite seriously at that. I'd hate to see PTSD being treated the same way.



Exactly.  PTSD is a real disorder, with real impact.  We are not handling it well, in the military or law enforcement communities here in the USA.  The fire departments are doing much, much better, at least in my experience.  We're doing great tactical after-action evaluations, but we're not looking at what's happening to the men and women on the front lines psychologically or spiritual.

I've said that it's a very legitimate discussion.  But not when you try to use PTSD to justify, excuse, or even do extensive explanations of why someone did something.  Most of the effects of PTSD are turned inward, or to those closest to them.  The late 70s/early 80s stereotype of the Vietnam vet going into a flashback, and reliving their wartime experience in some sort of violent psychotic break just doesn't routinely happen.  Instead, the victim is so stuck in the traumatic experience that they can't function in the ordinary world.  They're obsessed with what happened, hypervigilant, and over-reacting to stimuli.  

See the following links:
http://www.army.mil/article/8785/PTSD_healing_process_must_have_balance/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/interviews/grossman.html
http://www.politicalmachine.com/article/404996/The_PTSD_Trap_-_By_Lt_Col_Dave_Grossman
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/index.asp
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/understanding_ptsd/booklet.pdf


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

PTSD isn't an excuse for bad behavior, its something that can help explain it. If society is creating situations where PTSD rates increase, that's a problem. The violence that results isn't just the fault of the individual, the society that created the situation is also at fault. 

People who experience the symptoms of PTSD, depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, etc can act out violently. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen. Denying that denies the reality of the disorder and the reality of war. 

Acknowledging this doesn't denigrate veterans. It merely acknowledges the seriousness of the disorder and hopefully causes us to question the politics that caused it.

Blowing off what happened in this situation is not going to help veterans. When someone is on the edge, they need help immediately because violence could very possibly be a result. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

One of the reasons I've seen put forward for the fact that more American soldiers having PTSD is that they have far longer tours than we do, our soldiers do six months tours with R&R in the middle. Americans regularly do over a year, that's a long time in a frontline situation as well as being away from family and loved ones. It was suggested that our tours should be longer but so far this has been vetoed. We send military psychiatrists and nurse out on deployment plus we have the padres, who while being ordained vicars and priests do an amazing job of supporting the troops in a non religious but very important role.
To say PTSD is associated with alcoholism, violence etc is to misunderstand the whole condition, if I think about it, it's probably fairly insulting to people with PTSD as well. This is an article about PTSD on a rape site but it's relative to the thread. 
http://survive.org.uk/PTSD.html


_"PTSD is a reaction to being exposed to an event which is outside the range of normal human experience. Sometimes it is referred to as post traumatic rape syndrome too. *It is a *_*normal *_*human emotional reaction to an abnormal situation*. Everyone reacts differently to different situations and it doesn't have to be a life threatening experience for someone to respond in this way. It just has to be perceived by the victim as a traumatic event. It is a psychological phenomenon. It is an emotional condition, from which it is possible to make a full and complete recovery. __PTSD affects hundreds of thousands of people who have been exposed to violent events such as rape, domestic violence, child abuse, war, accidents, natural disasters and political torture. It is normal to be affected by trauma. There is help, and it is ok to ask for help. PTSD is not rare. It is not unusual. It is not weak to have PTSD."

_If you look at the avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms it shows how much people with PTSD turn inwards rather than violent, drugs and alcohol taken to numb the pain rather than spread the pain they are feeling.


_"Similarly shutting down feelings in order to do whatever it takes to survive, or do your job and help others survive, is a reality based survival skill. Numbness is the answer. It is effective. It will help you live. __Unfortunately when survivors numb their fear, despair and anger, all their feelings, even good ones, are numbed. Numbness is comfortable. Thinking about what they have been through is so painful survivors wind up avoiding thinking about, feeling, or doing anything that reminds them of the trauma. For example, if they feel the trauma was their fault they may spend the rest of their life having to be right so they won't ever be at fault again. If they were happy when the trauma hit, they may avoid happiness forever."_


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> PTSD isn't an excuse for bad behavior, its something that can help explain it. If society is creating situations where PTSD rates increase, that's a problem. The violence that results isn't just the fault of the individual, the society that created the situation is also at fault.
> 
> People who experience the symptoms of PTSD, depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, etc can act out violently. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it does happen. Denying that denies the reality of the disorder and the reality of war.
> 
> ...




I think you are assuming that soldiers with PTSD are going to be violent because that's what soldiers are..violent. I don't find them so, I find that they are fighters and as such are disciplined about fighting even when it's fora hobby. I suspect actually because they are disciplined fighters that when they get PTSD they are more likely to turn inwards and kill themselves rather than others. I have no proof other than a long knowledge of the type of person who becomes a soldier, their training, their loyalties, ethos etc. To suggest that when ill either mentally or physically they are going to be more violent than civilians is incorrect.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are assuming that soldiers with PTSD are going to be violent because that's what soldiers are..violent. I don't find them so, I find that they are fighters and as such are disciplined about fighting even when it's fora hobby. I suspect actually because they are disciplined fighters that when they get PTSD they are more likely to turn inwards and kill themselves rather than others. I have no proof other than a long knowledge of the type of person who becomes a soldier, their training, their loyalties, ethos etc. To suggest that when ill either mentally or physically they are going to be more violent than civilians is incorrect.



All I'm suggesting is that it is possible to turn the violence outward.  Whilst it is true that it most often turns inward, it is also true that it can explode in very tragic ways.  I get the feeling that a lot of posters here want to deny that this could ever happen.

I live about two miles away from a major Marine Corps Base.  Most of my neighbors are part of one branch or another.  I train with several soldiers in the dojo.  Some of them have seen multiple long combat tours and have spent extensive time away from family as a result.  My observation is that these guys are decent and disciplined people.  It's hard to see any one of them exploding outward in violence, but that does happen and it always surprises everyone when it does.  

Psychic injuries are serious and can lead to violence.  The violence can turn inward, it can turn outward on the soldiers immediate family, and it might just turn outward onto complete strangers.  That is a reality of war that people who support it need to grapple with.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> All I'm suggesting is that it is possible to turn the violence outward. Whilst it is true that it most often turns inward, it is also true that it can explode in very tragic ways. I get the feeling that a lot of posters here want to deny that this could ever happen.
> 
> I live about two miles away from a major Marine Corps Base. Most of my neighbors are part of one branch or another. I train with several soldiers in the dojo. Some of them have seen multiple long combat tours and have spent extensive time away from family as a result. My observation is that these guys are decent and disciplined people. It's hard to see any one of them exploding outward in violence, but that does happen and it always surprises everyone when it does.
> 
> Psychic injuries are serious and can lead to violence. The violence can turn inward, it can turn outward on the soldiers immediate family, and it might just turn outward onto complete strangers. That is a reality of war that people who support it need to grapple with.



Do you honestly think people don't know? for one thing PTSD isn't confined to military personnel. Ask any police office for example, they see it from both sides, victims of crime and accidents, themselves. Rape victims, mugging victims etc et. No one is denying that people with PTSD could be violent but your agenda is an anti war one and when you preach it, which is a valid point of view, you think we are all stupid and don't understand what is going on, you assume that there are things that only you understand and we need to be educated about. 

Speaking for myself, I live and work on the biggest Garrison in Europe, that's of anyones forces not just ours, I have been with the military in one capacity or another for all my life, my father was a soldier. I know soldiers that have been through many conflicts, who are still in conflicts, not just Afghan btw. The civilians understand PTSD due to war far more than you'd think after all the civilians here had gone through the Blitz in many of it's towns and cities, it had gone through the IRA bombing campaign and the racially motivated bombing campagns as well as the Muslim terrorists. We've had the Falklands, Sharjah, Sierra Leone, Balkans as well as the Gulf wars and Afghan, we really aren't thick and do understand far more about PTSD than you think. It doesn't actually take people by surprise when someone kicks off as you say it does. I think you are trying to set yourself up as seeming to be the only person who knows what is going on. there's many ex service people on here, there's many who also know or maybe have been Vietnam vets, I met one not that long ago, he told us of how drug taking was rife among the troops in Vietnam, not the recreational type but those handed out by the army medics, the uppers and downers, he said they cause many problems for a lot of them when they got back.

yes mental illness can drive people to violence as can other things but to use it as an excuse for criminality and then suggest we don't understand what it's doing to the troops is incorrect. We are well aware here of the physical and mental injuries our troops are suffering. There's a huge amount of publicity for both, the MOD is trying to do as much as it can, as are the charities. 

From the MOD
http://www.army.mod.uk/welfare-support/23245.aspx
http://www.army.mod.uk/welfare-support/23239.aspx


I don't think anyone on here is denying that violence by a PTSD sufferer isn't likely, what people are saying is that you are taking this as part of your anti war stance and are saying that soldiers who suffer from PTSD are more likely to harm others. You want to dis-arm your country, that's a political view point that has little bearing on the case dscussed, that of someone who has killed someone then claimed it was PTSD that made him do it when everything points to the fact that he was a criminal and like most criminals his crimes escalate, if he's a violent personality it's more likely it's that which drove him to kill rather than PTSD. the balance of probablility is that this guy was an out and out bad un without the emotional intelligence to be affected by anything he may have experienced in a war zone. His previous background indivcates that is is a very unlikely candidate for PTSD, perhaps even the opposite, he may have actually revelled in war, certain types of people do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Could PTSD push a person with a checkered past over the edge? Why does my anti-war political positions discount my opinions?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> No one is denying that people with PTSD could be violent but your agenda is an anti war one and when you preach it, which is a valid point of view, you think we are all stupid and don't understand what is going on, you assume that there are things that only you understand and we need to be educated about.



That's quite an assumption. All I've said is that PTSD might have been a factor and that its worth talking about on a broader level. Ivan accept that it might not have been a factor here, but can you and others accept that it very well could have been a factor?



Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Ivan is a typo. I've even...it should read.  Autocorrect fail.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Lastly, Tez3, I don't want to disarm the country. I believe in self defense and would like to see policies in place that reflect my belief. Fighting aggressive wars across the world and maintaining 700+ military bases across the world is self defense. That's an empire.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, Tez3, I don't want to disarm the country. I believe in self defense and would like to see policies in place that reflect my belief. Fighting aggressive wars across the world and maintaining 700+ military bases across the world is self defense. That's an empire.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


Words have specified meanings, Merriam Webster defines EMPIRE





> :_a _ _(1)_ *:*  a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number  of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; _especially_ *:* one having an emperor as chief of state.


What territories, aside from Guam, Puerto Rico, etc are you including?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 8, 2012)

A definite point, Don, tho' it is a word that is morphing in usage almost underfoot.  The British Empire was the one that last fitted that description but what Maka is on about, with no argument from me I have to admit, is America's Corporate Empire - it's the same sort of 'deal', with foreign nations serving the economic needs of a central 'hub' but with no formal head of state to which nations are subject.  Another big difference is that the economic 'benefits' are not really accruing to American citizens as a whole for the money enters the corporate 'sphere' and most of it stays there.

None of that is pertinent to what this thread is about of course (and I have to say that couching it in terms of an American empire might not be entirely accurate given who actually 'owns' a lot of the corporate fiscal structure).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 8, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Isn't PTSD linked to domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse?  Wouldn't this also explain why he was having major issues with both of these?


You keep ignoring the fact he had these same issues prior to ever joining the military.   Is PTSD linked to domestic violence and drinking?  I dont know.  I do know Ive been diganosed with it since 2005 and Ive never it my wife and I dont drink.



> Could PTSD push someone with a checkered past over the edge?


Could it?  I learned long ago anyhing is possible.  Its also possible to catch syphilis from a hooker overseas and go crazy, or fall down bump your head and go crazy or let your blood sugar get out of wack and go crazy.  So Sure PTSD could cause people to do bad things.  I still dont think Barnes falls into this catagory

One of the nastiest fights Ive ever been in was with a guy with diabeties that let his sugar get to low.  I thought I was going to have to kill him.  Took 2 of us before we were finally able to get hm cuffed. EMS showed up gave him the sugar gel and in 3 min he was fine and so sorry or his actions.  So anything is possible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2012)

Good post, Sukerkin. The connection between this incident and the global financial corporate empire is that psychic injuries are a price our society pays for it. Sometimes these psychic injuries explode into violence.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian King (Jan 9, 2012)

To be honest I am having trouble keeping this thread and the other thread separate as the same people seem to be posting in both threads
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?100511-Ex-Soldier-Stationed-At-Troubled-Base so I beg advanced forgiveness for mixing the two.


There are I think a couple of misconceptions or misunderstandings that I am reading, and these are causing people to become defensive and repetitive.


The rates of PTSD are increasing but this is do to better diagnostic tools and changed understandings of the criteria of what PTSD is, as well as increased awareness of the different levels of severity and numbers of occurrences/attacks. People see the headline of such and such a number of cases reported not understanding that the severity can be the difference between a paper cut and a sword slash yet all are reported the same and read by the public as the same. 


PTSD is a diagnosable disorder. To be correctly diagnosed there are a number of criteria that have to be met. For the layperson I can recommend Col. Grossmans book On Combat, the Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace. His other text On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is also a good read but I think for this conversation the On Combat book would give readers a more clear working definition and understanding of PTSD. Before folks level the charge/diagnosis of PTSD they should have also read and understood the relevant parts of the DSM-IV and ICD-9 (10 is out and becomes official next year I think, some use it today.) Although it is easy to do, do not skip over the criteria sections. They are specific and must be met, pay attention the ands and the ors. Reporters and family members as well as individuals themselves seem to relish throwing out the PTSD diagnosis even though it has not been officially diagnosed. This lazy ignorant habit along with the perceptions brought about by popular culture cloud the issues and often lead to misdiagnosis and worse failed treatment for physical and emotional issues that could otherwise have been properly diagnosed and treated if professional assistance had been sought. Someone having several of the various symptoms shows that they may have some issues to work through but it in no way means that they have PTSD. Then there is severity and coping issues that along with experiences and attitudes defines the various treatment models for those that in fact suffer from PTSD


Why are so many so quick to assume a diagnosis of PTSD? Why are so many even after not meeting the criteria hanging onto the misdiagnosis of PTSD? There are in my opinion many various reasons, most having to do with acceptance and ease. As trackers know, humans tend to travel the easier paths even while being hunted. It is the same when dealing with physical, mental, and emotional issues. So that means for some, involved with a legal case it might be easy to discredit someone by claiming that they suffer from PTSD. For others that have lost people that are/were close to them, claiming PTSD is a very real way of removing the blame form either party (suicide or early death for example). Those cases are what they are. For some a means of gaining a upper hand and for others a survival mechanism.  There are many other reasons I am sure but It is this second above that I find most interesting, tragic and sometimes inspiring. 


There used to be a mental disorder called survivors guilt. Commonly found amongst survivors of catastrophic events. It is also found amongst emergency personal who can blame themselves for not doing enough during emergencies. I believe that it is no longer classified as a disorder and is now classified as a symptom of PTSD but could be mistaken. People that are suffering from this symptom can display several symptoms such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, etc. These symptoms can lead to self-destructive behavior thru self-medication or if untreated can lead to chronic mental and physical breakdowns and illnesses. One method that people use to deal with the guilt is to find some kind of meaning in the loss and its circumstances. We can see this often in the anti-drunk driving campaigns for example. As well as child murder and kidnappings often lead survivors to campaign for reforms and changes to existing laws and ordinances. Suicides and/or the early death of a loved one can force people as a survival mechanism to assign blame to a disorder for causing the loss, to explain the lack of sufficient help and attention given to the sufferer. Easier to blame the disorder rather than the sufferer and those close to them. It is usually unhealthy but it is a common human reaction and is a temporary survival mechanism to aid in the coping of loss. 


Why do so many refuse to admit to the correct diagnosis of PTSD? There is still a stigma attached for some individuals to the diagnosis. Part of the occurrence of PTSD has to do with a feeling of helplessness and for many that is difficult to admit. For some the event triggering the PTSD was abusive an/or sexual and this could also be difficult to admit. For others the incidents occurred during childhood and is long buried but still causing damage. For some people the correct treatment is to tough it out, yup, John Wayne it.


Summary:
Anytime a discussion of PTSD occurs, folks should bone up on what it is exactly, not what they think due to reading some article written on a blog or forum, or seeing some show on TV. It is heavy research but not impossible. When discussing PSTD understand that some will cling to misdiagnosis and assumptions, it might not be done out of ignorance but might be a very real and needed survival mechanism - either on the conscious or on the subconscious levels. When reading articles in newspapers or listening to news reports understand that the job of the reporters is to get people to listen. When this gunman story first hit the air the reports were sketchy, but right from the first reported as fact was that he was a war veteran, heavily armed with caches of weapons and ammo, had survivalist skills. They closed a huge park, forced people inside the park building and forced them to stay. They left the shot ranger where she fell for hours for fear of ambush, many decisions right or wrong were made based on the faulty sensationalized reporting. Instead of Rambo which was already being compared, the guy was a scared panicked kid in a t-shirt and single tennis shoe who in my opinion took the easy way out via suicide. Lots of lessons to be learned on responses of the LEOs, domestic violence lessons, violence at house parties, winter survival lessons, active shooter lessons. Lessons on how to prevent PTSD from occurring in the first place could be a useful discussion subject.  Debating on whether someone has PTSD when it was never diagnosed, no treatment was sought out for it, is in my opinion falling into the trap of learning the wrong lessons, feeds fearful preconceptions, and encourages misconceptions. Let the reporters blurt out the facts before confirmed and ridicule them for the awful reporting. Awful reporting should not guide thinking on issues unless the issue is the awful reporting in my opinion. Wishing the facts true or false is silly, facts are a stubborn thing a wise man said. They do not need embellishing of or distortions to lead in a false direction. 


Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That's quite an assumption. All I've said is that PTSD might have been a factor and that its worth talking about on a broader level. Ivan accept that it might not have been a factor here, but can you and others accept that it very well could have been a factor?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



It's not actually an assumption, it's based on the many posts you've written on your military and your country. At one point I remember people getting furious with you because of the things you were accusing the military of. Yours is a political agenda when saying the guy has PTSD as you wish to prove that the military are the ones in the wrong here.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 9, 2012)

To be honest, that's not what I thought Maka was saying.  What I have gleaned over the past few years is that what he heavily disapproves of is the *use* that the American military is being put to, not the members of the military itself.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> To be honest, that's not what I thought Maka was saying. What I have gleaned over the past few years is that what he heavily disapproves of is the *use* that the American military is being put to, not the members of the military itself.



However in the past he has caused outrage at his asumptions of how forces behave.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 9, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> To be honest, that's not what I thought Maka was saying.  What I have gleaned over the past few years is that what he heavily disapproves of is the *use* that the American military is being put to, not the members of the military itself.


Gee, doesn't he show that well? 



Makalakumu said:


> As soon as we acknowledge that PTSD might have been a factor, it becomes a political issue.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk





Makalakumu said:


> We actually don't know if PTSD was a factor or not. We'll never know. We should be talking about this issue though, because its something that gets brushed under the rug and forgotten in the name of patriotism.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Trying to make political points over the body of a Ranger is somewhat sickening.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

> > To be honest, that's not what I thought Maka was saying. What I have gleaned over the past few years is that what he heavily disapproves of is the <b>use</b> that the American military is being put to, not the members of the military itself.
> 
> 
> <br />
> ...



War Crimes exist, but that is a separate issue.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> To be honest, that's not what I thought Maka was saying.  What I have gleaned over the past few years is that what he heavily disapproves of is the *use* that the American military is being put to, not the members of the military itself.



I heartily disapprove of the way  society deployed our military. I think we needlessly put them in harms way and that psychic injuries like PTSD are an unfortunate result. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Gee, doesn't he show that well?
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to make political points over the body of a Ranger is somewhat sickening.



How many posts have you been guilty of the exact same thing? Pot and kettle black. Why is it so hard to acknowledge the fact that psychic injuries lead to violence and then question the policies that cause these injuries? Even if its not the case here, which nobody can say for sure, incidents like these certainly bring up the topic for discussion. 

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I heartily disapprove of the way society deployed our military. I think we needlessly put them in harms way and that psychic injuries like PTSD are an unfortunate result.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Armies are there to be put in harms way, it's their job. Are you sure you mean psychic injuries and not psychological?


----------



## Brian King (Jan 9, 2012)

*Makalakumu wrote again:*


> "Why is it so hard to acknowledge the fact that psychic injuries lead to violence and then question the policies that cause these injuries?"


First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD. 
Second, I have only read a couple of hundred different studies on PTSD and different treatment programs but have yet to read a single one that says PTSD leads to the type of violence that that occurred on Mt. Rainier or the city of Skyway prior. Not one. 
Third. Policies are always questioned, doesn't mean that they are wrong just because you continue to come up with a different response or conclusion to the questioning. Saying that policies caused the disorder is a unhelpful way of looking at the issue. Two people could be right next to each other and one might end up with PTSD and the other not yet both were following the exact same policies and experienced the same trauma. If policy caused the injury why to one individual and not others? 


You wrote that you lost an uncle 20 years after his service in Vietnam on this thread or the other. Condolences, it is always difficult to lose someone. One of the means of leading some to treatment, of giving them perspective on their disorders or injuries is by showing them that by continuing to re-suffer the trauma, the guilt, the experience, is to allow a continuing chance for them to lose and for the bad guys or bad situation to win. They obviously won the battle, now to win the rest of the war. When a military member, law enforcement officer, or civilian kill themselves (either suicide or other long term self destructive behavior) because of trauma suffered in the past they allow that trauma to win. Often a step back allows the lessons the space needed to learn them. You and your family long ago lost your uncle yet you continue to bring him up as a tool to focus your rage and contempt at the system, rage and contempt at politics, rage and contempt at military conflicts, and rage and contempt at people who hold different views than yours, such as in these discussions. Perhaps it is time to step back from trying to convince the world it is wrong and look to the rage and contempt you have within? It is a funny thing, but, by working within, by first healing ourselves, this practice often leads to big positive changes in our sphere of influences. Bigger and more positive changes than the howling at the moon and impotently charging windmills are able to. The howling and ranting is not only self destructive, but is unhealthy for those around. 

Some steps a person might take after losing a loved one. Forgive the system while trying to make it a better system. Forgive the person who left. Forgive family and friends who did not do as much as possible to help the person in need. Forgive themselves for the guilt and joy of surviving while others did not, for perhaps not being there or doing enough or not being able to say good-bye. And like the holocaust survivors heal up, and then say nope, never again. A person cannot stop bad things from happening to themselves or loved ones. The only thing they can completely control is how the respond to the bad things. Becoming a victim, increasing the damage of the trauma, getting caught up in the guilt, reliving the trauma even after it has passed, no good comes from this. 

Becoming a better stronger person, not in spite of the trauma suffered, but, because of it. Now that is inspirational living.

Good luck
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Armies are there to be put in harms way, it's their job.



It's societies job to decide how the armies it supports are to be deployed.  If soldiers get hurt needlessly, the fault rests on society for sending them to do that job.  The only caveat to that position I would throw out is that eventually people in an army can make the decision to leave if they find out that "society" is going to keep sending them into harms way needlessly.  Then it's up to the individual to decide.



Tez3 said:


> Are you sure you mean psychic injuries and not psychological?



Both terms seem to be used interchangeably in the media.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812757,00.html



> For every solder killed or physically wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan,  some 10 others come home *psychically *scarred. The Pentagon has diagnosed  roughly 40,000 troops with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since 2003, and  tens of thousands of others are dealing with it on their own or ultimately  will be diagnosed. With the war taking such a heavy *psychological* toll,  some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who  become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the  Purple Heart.



Bold emphasis is mine.
​


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 9, 2012)

I appreciate the heartfelt response and empathy.  This issue makes me very angry because of the losses I've experienced in my own family because of the toll it takes on people around me.  I regularly interact with children of veterans who have a very difficult time when their mothers and fathers come home from combat.  I have a student right now who is in therapy with his dad as they work through some of the family issues together...the problem is that Dad was just deployed on another long tour to Afghanistan and who knows if they can make progress when he gets back.  I hope so.

This kind of stuff makes me very angry when I consider that it doesn't have to happen and that our society is choosing to do this anyway.  



Brian King said:


> First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangeable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD.



This is controversial, Brian.  It's been debated in the Pentagon that PTSD be classified as an injury worthy of a Purple Heart.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812757,00.html


> With the war taking such a heavy psychological toll,  some inside the military are starting to ask if men and women who  become mentally injured in the service of their country deserve the  Purple Heart. To some traditionalists, the idea is absurd on its face,  but it is not a theoretical debate &#8212;the Pentagon is now weighing a  change in  policy that would make PTSD, in a term only the military could invent, a   "qualifying wound" for the medal.



​



Brian King said:


> Second, I have only read a couple of hundred different studies on PTSD and different treatment programs but have yet to read a single one that says PTSD leads to the type of violence that that occurred on Mt. Rainier or the city of Skyway prior. Not one.



Certain cases of depression can explode outward into violence.  The same goes with substance abuse.  The problem here is that PTSD is like a domino.  It can hit other dominoes and cause other problems.  If someone with PTSD abuses substances and loses control, the substance abuse gets blamed because that is what is happening at the moment of the incident.  Yet, the connection is obvious.  



Brian King said:


> Third. Policies are always questioned, doesn't mean that they are wrong just because you continue to come up with a different response or conclusion to the questioning. Saying that policies caused the disorder is a unhelpful way of looking at the issue. Two people could be right next to each other and one might end up with PTSD and the other not yet both were following the exact same policies and experienced the same trauma. If policy caused the injury why to one individual and not others?



This line of thinking requires statistics.  Not every individual reacts to certain situations the same.  However, I think it can rightly be said that if a policy statistically causes a higher rate of injury when it is in place versus not being in place, then it is perfectly reasonable to blame the policy.  



Brian King said:


> You wrote that you lost an uncle 20 years after his service in Vietnam on this thread or the other. Condolences, it is always difficult to lose someone. One of the means of leading some to treatment, of giving them perspective on their disorders or injuries is by showing them that by continuing to re-suffer the trauma, the guilt, the experience, is to allow a continuing chance for them to lose and for the bad guys or bad situation to win. They obviously won the battle, now to win the rest of the war. When a military member, law enforcement officer, or civilian kill themselves (either suicide or other long term self destructive behavior) because of trauma suffered in the past they allow that trauma to win. Often a step back allows the lessons the space needed to learn them. You and your family long ago lost your uncle yet you continue to bring him up as a tool to focus your rage and contempt at the system, rage and contempt at politics, rage and contempt at military conflicts, and rage and contempt at people who hold different views than yours, such as in these discussions. Perhaps it is time to step back from trying to convince the world it is wrong and look to the rage and contempt you have within? It is a funny thing, but, by working within, by first healing ourselves, this practice often leads to big positive changes in our sphere of influences. Bigger and more positive changes than the howling at the moon and impotently charging windmills are able to. The howling and ranting is not only self destructive, but is unhealthy for those around.
> 
> Some steps a person might take after losing a loved one. Forgive the system while trying to make it a better system. Forgive the person who left. Forgive family and friends who did not do as much as possible to help the person in need. Forgive themselves for the guilt and joy of surviving while others did not, for perhaps not being there or doing enough or not being able to say good-bye. And like the holocaust survivors heal up, and then say nope, never again. A person cannot stop bad things from happening to themselves or loved ones. The only thing they can completely control is how the respond to the bad things. Becoming a victim, increasing the damage of the trauma, getting caught up in the guilt, reliving the trauma even after it has passed, no good comes from this.
> 
> Becoming a better stronger person, not in spite of the trauma suffered, but, because of it. Now that is inspirational living.



Wise words here.  I definitely get angry when topics like this come up.  I think a certain amount of moral outrage is neccesary though in order to effect change.  It doesn't help to lose control and get overly aggressive in discussions though.  I'll take a closer, personal, look at that criticism.  Mahalo.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 9, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> It's societies job to decide how the armies it supports are to be deployed.  If soldiers get hurt needlessly, the fault rests on society for sending them to do that job.  The only caveat to that position I would throw out is that eventually people in an army can make the decision to leave if they find out that "society" is going to keep sending them into harms way needlessly.  Then it's up to the individual to decide.


Since we have all volunteer Armed Forces both the individual and society has decided they are not being sent "needlessly"  Im sorry your beliefs dont agree with what society has decided but your not going to change anyones mind by defending a murderer and ignoring his past to try and prove your point.


----------



## billc (Jan 9, 2012)

I have to say that since no one is forced to join, and everyone has known since 9/11 that there is going to be combat against some really bad people, people are not being tricked into going into the combat arms.  After their contract is up, they can also leave.  Some people see this fight as important, and keep re-enlisting to aid in that fight.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I have to say that since no one is forced to join, and everyone has known since 9/11 that there is going to be combat against some really bad people, people are not being tricked into going into the combat arms.  After their contract is up, they can also leave.  Some people see this fight as important, and keep re-enlisting to aid in that fight.



Even if you believe all of that, who's going to pay for it?

And for those of you who think "society" supports the multiple wars and global empire, well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Da6irSCvnZY#!


----------



## Brian King (Jan 11, 2012)

> Originally Posted by Brian King.
> First, you do know that there is a very real difference between disorder and injury. The words might be interchangeable for some people and uses but not when accurately describing PTSD.





*Makalakuma replied:*


> "This is controversial, Brian. It's been debated in the Pentagon that PTSD be classified as an injury worthy of a Purple Heart."
> 
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...812757,00.html
> ...



Makalakumu
Time magazine has very little credence when it comes to reporting what thinking is going on in the pentagon, especially opinion blog like reports. The article you are quoting written in 2008 is quoting a civilian clinical psychologist, Benedictine monk, Vietnam veteran who was running a therapeutic program along with one other civilian psychologist and 5 social workers. 


http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com/2008/07/army-chief-fort-bliss-warrior.html


> Fortunato designed a therapeutic program, which includes massages, acupuncture, Tai Chi, Yoga, Reiki, power walks and visits to the mall.



God bless the man for not only wanting to help but actually trying to. The fact that the civilian program was tiny, underfunded and under appreciated probably had nothing to do with his single handedly trying to get the qualifications for Purple Heart awards changed or the changing the medical terms used to describe PTSD, but, it does make me wonder. Regardless, one psychologist will have a hard time getting the medical community to change the meaning of medical terms no matter how much doing so might help his experimental treatment program grants. 


For myself will error on the side of using the current medical definitions of the terms and their uses when describing disorders or injuries.


*Makalakumu wrote*


> Wise words here. I definitely get angry when topics like this come up. I think a certain amount of moral outrage is neccesary though in order to effect change. It doesn't help to lose control and get overly aggressive in discussions though. I'll take a closer, personal, look at that criticism.




"Before God we are all equally wise... and equally foolish." Einstein

Makalakumu, 
My prior post is not criticism but rather observation. I think that you would agree that there is a subtle difference and hope that you read what I write in the light of observation rather than criticism.  

Holding on to anger is always a mistake in my opinion. If a person must maintain anger in order to maintain a sense of moral outrage I have to wonder at the logic and need to create and maintain this outrage. If something needs to be corrected or changed then work to correct or change it. Getting mad at a burned out light does not make changing it any faster or easier. In fact the added tension and aggravation will almost certainly guarantee fingers getting burned.


Regards
Brian King


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2012)

Combat Stress a British charity has an ad that shows what PTSD can be like. There is a warning on it but I'll repeat it anyway that some may find it distressing.
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/cs_tv_advert.html


If you click on to the part for medical professionals there's info on symtoms etc and what treatment is available. I don't know if there's an American equivilant fo Combat Stress. 

However I think it's vital we don't add to the stigma of mental illness and PTSD in particular by attributing actions to it that may _not_ exist in all if not most cases. I think the Vietnam vet alone in the forest type of portrayal should be avoided, that portrayal is used here as much as anywhere when someone with combat stress or PTSD is wanted, the television here has shown characters in dramas being ex servicemen with murderous urges due to being in battle. It's an image that is useful in drama but does nothing for ex service people when trying to explain their condition.
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/pages/find_out_more.html


----------

