So, this is why they hate us - Caution Mature Content!

[Cryozombie]

While I understand the realpolitik behind this, I think it is morally repugnant. This is mind control.

I'm not excusing the behavior... just giving personal insight into why I believe it happens. You certainly won't see me respond to a barked question of "What Makes the Grass Grow" with the Response "The Blood of Ragheads!" (You will pardon my use of the term, but it is a direct quote, which replaced the term Commies some time ago) as I drive my Bayonet into a dummy anytime soon... but it is a common enough tactic in training to make the enemy less than human to a soldier.

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh and Singer doesnt apply to the military IF IT TAKES ALL 6... because while they do the first 5 in spades durring basic... but they also make it REAL clear that they are doing it to change you, your ideas and perceptions. So #6 doesnt count.
​

 

[Makalakumu]

Oh and Singer doesnt apply to the military IF IT TAKES ALL 6... because while they do the first 5 in spades durring basic... but they also make it REAL clear that they are doing it to change you, your ideas and perceptions. So #6 doesnt count.​

Since the 6th part of Singer's regime is referring to compulsory service, it doesn't surpise me that it doesn't apply. When you sign up, you know what you are getting into...hopefully.

Patriotism = marketing.

 

[Tez3]

I help train these soldiers...soldiers? they're children! They join up at 17 and 18. You all have ideas of big mature men, experts like your Marines and ours. These aren't, they are Infantry soldiers taught how to fight in the field, not act as police officers. They leave the Infantry Training Centre at 18 and go to their regiments where training is supposed to continue, because of man power shortages they go straight to Iraq or in some cases Afghanistan. the standard of recruits is poor, many can't read or write, many come from being in care. the standard of intelligence isn't high. The are doing their damndest out there to do a good job under difficult circumstances. You think you have the right to expect 'professionalism' and seeing your mates being killed and blown up is no excuse? Have you been under fire, had snipers shooting at you, seen a suicide bomber on every street corner? Unless you have been in that situation don't sit there going 'tut tut this is awful'. War is hell, dirty, nasty, the cost in lives taken and destroyed is horrendous. War dehumanises people. The powers that be sent these children to do their dirty work for them, we ether campaign to get them back or we can sit there feeling sanctimonious and judgemental over these things. NONE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ IS RIGHT.

The prison 'torture' is another issue and as I know little about it I'm not going to comment.

 

[michaeledward]

I help train these soldiers...soldiers? they're children! They join up at 17 and 18. You all have ideas of big mature men, experts like your Marines and ours. These aren't, they are Infantry soldiers taught how to fight in the field, not act as police officers. They leave the Infantry Training Centre at 18 and go to their regiments where training is supposed to continue, because of man power shortages they go straight to Iraq or in some cases Afghanistan. the standard of recruits is poor, many can't read or write, many come from being in care. the standard of intelligence isn't high. The are doing their damndest out there to do a good job under difficult circumstances. You think you have the right to expect 'professionalism' and seeing your mates being killed and blown up is no excuse? Have you been under fire, had snipers shooting at you, seen a suicide bomber on every street corner? Unless you have been in that situation don't sit there going 'tut tut this is awful'. War is hell, dirty, nasty, the cost in lives taken and destroyed is horrendous. War dehumanises people. The powers that be sent these children to do their dirty work for them, we ether campaign to get them back or we can sit there feeling sanctimonious and judgemental over these things. NONE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ IS RIGHT.

The prison 'torture' is another issue and as I know little about it I'm not going to comment.

I'm sorry, but by the time we put a deadly weapon in their hands, they are no longer children. The purpose of their training is to make the professional. Their training is to teach them to follow orders. Those orders should be issued from people with greater experience.

That you believe they are being forced to work as police officers points the layer of blame on the command structure. And while the command structure is responsible for the mis-use of the soldiers, the soldiers should be receiving orders that you don't club defenseless detainees. If they break those orders, they deserve the punishment that England and Grainer received.

I believe I have the right to expect professionalism from the professional military. They consume approximately one half of all the income tax revenue in the country. For that kind of money, I better be buying the absolute best available, and I should have expectations on par with that purchase price.

And it is absolute ******** to say that because I have never been in a combat situation I can not have an opinion on the subject. I also promise you I am way past 'tut tut'. I think soldiers who behave like this should be subject to severe punishment.

In our country, from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the Combat Commanders and through the entire command structure, I expect what these soldiers are trained to do. Which is to kill enemies and capture territory. I expect them to do that professionally.

That's the bargain the soldiers enter into, as well. If your a person who just wants to fire big guns at defensless civilians, I'm pretty sure the United States military doesn't want you. There may be some militias in Montana that will take you.

If the military is just a mob with weapons, we have all failed.

 

[Don Roley]

And it is absolute ******** to say that because I have never been in a combat situation I can not have an opinion on the subject.

I wish that standard had been in place when it was pointed out the Bush had only served in a stateside national guard unit when a lot of his opponents had served in Vietnam. How the times have changed.

FYI, I do not think anyone is saying that if people rape or knowingly kill innocent civilians they should not be put in front of a judge and jury.

What a lot of us are concerned about is what we see as attacks on the common soldier in order to try to gain some political points against the administration. It does not take much of a search to find a lot of people trying to paint the soldiers and their action in the worst light possible and then saying that if the guys at the top were a different party they would not be acting like this. While they sometimes claim to be working for the interests of the grunt in the field, it seems they really do not care if they destroy them in the hope that a lot of the mud will be passed onto the Republican party.

And I should note, before someone tries to twist what I say, is that I do see a lot of people on this board who make no secret that they hate Bush with a passion but always act with the soldier's best interest at heart. There is a small number of people that will take whatever side they seem will work best to get their digs in.

I also fear the suggestions of people that might mean well, but do not know what it is like to be in combat and will not listen to those that do. They may mean well, but what they want our soldiers to do would get them killed just as surely as if they shot them themselves.

To those that think our soldiers should not be conditioned, you need to read the book "On Killing" by Grossman. This has got to be the tenth time I have mentioned this book on this board.

Summed up, there is a very, very strong instinct against killing members of your own species in every animal, man included. Just telling people that it is ok to kill in certain situations is not enough. You can tell me just how sturdy and safe a 3X3 foot stage is. But if I look over the edge and see a seven mile drop I will not be moving the same way on the stage as if I saw a seven inch drop. It is beneath our conscious train of thought and to overcome it you need to be conditioned like Pavlov's dogs more than encouraged with words.

In case after case Grossman tells of times when soldiers even when they were being fired upon could not bring themselves to kill another human being. If you do not condition American soldiers to overcome this instinct and actually kill the other guy, you send them in with a disadvantage when facing people who have been almost raised almost from birth to look on us as less than human. You send soldiers in to be more easily killed. If you know the full extent of the problem, there is no way you can say honestly that you are asking to take this aspect of training away because you care about the soldiers.

If you care about the soldiers, then you owe it to them to learn all you can about the problem before you try to change the system that has kept them alive for so long.

 

[Tez3]

I'm sorry, but by the time we put a deadly weapon in their hands, they are no longer children. The purpose of their training is to make the professional. Their training is to teach them to follow orders. Those orders should be issued from people with greater experience.

That you believe they are being forced to work as police officers points the layer of blame on the command structure. And while the command structure is responsible for the mis-use of the soldiers, the soldiers should be receiving orders that you don't club defenseless detainees. If they break those orders, they deserve the punishment that England and Grainer received.

I believe I have the right to expect professionalism from the professional military. They consume approximately one half of all the income tax revenue in the country. For that kind of money, I better be buying the absolute best available, and I should have expectations on par with that purchase price.

And it is absolute ******** to say that because I have never been in a combat situation I can not have an opinion on the subject. I also promise you I am way past 'tut tut'. I think soldiers who behave like this should be subject to severe punishment.

In our country, from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the Combat Commanders and through the entire command structure, I expect what these soldiers are trained to do. Which is to kill enemies and capture territory. I expect them to do that professionally.

That's the bargain the soldiers enter into, as well. If your a person who just wants to fire big guns at defensless civilians, I'm pretty sure the United States military doesn't want you. There may be some militias in Montana that will take you.

If the military is just a mob with weapons, we have all failed.

To enter a bargain both sides are supposed to know what the contract involves. These are children and teaching them to shoot and act like soldiers doesn't mean they have matured into right thinking men. They remain brain-washed children. They do their very best to do what is asked of them and they give their lives doing it.They do a very difficult job well and to pick at them for a lapse which while reprehensible is understandable. I have said before I will support them and defend them, I make no bones about that. I also said I would make no comment on American troops but I'm going to go back on that and ask if you believe friendly fire incidents where you expect your troops to act professionally as you are paying for them to should be punished?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=417236&in_page_id=1770

There has only been a couple of incidents involving British troops which have been dealt with by the military, the people involved have been punished. I'm not turning this into an argument about who's troops are more out of control. The British troops in the video could well have gunned down the far from defenceless Iraqis instead they took their fear, frustration and grief out on them in beatings. It is not nonsense to suppose that beause you have never been in a combat situation you can't imagine what it's like. If you are a man you may have seen childbirth, you could even be a doctor but there is no way on earth you are ever going to know what it's like. Same as combat, you think you might know but guys who have been there will tell you that it's impossible to actually imagine. Soldiers aren't robots, nor are they actors in a film, they are humans with all the failings and virtues of the rest of us.

 

[michaeledward]

I also said I would make no comment on American troops but I'm going to go back on that and ask if you believe friendly fire incidents where you expect your troops to act professionally as you are paying for them to should be punished?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=417236&in_page_id=1770

Friendly Fire incidents happen in war. They are tragic. If the soldier was given an order to 'take that hill', and that hill had friendlies encamped, leading to the soldier to kill a colleague or ally, the soldier is not at fault. He acted professionally. He was given an order, and did his best to take action on that order.

That the United States government does release friendly fire information when available, is a completely unprofessional level of behavior. The more open the military and civilian leadership are with events surrounding friendly fire incidents, the less likely they are to occur in the future, I believe.

The British government and the Families of fallen Brits deserve an honest response to their inquiry from the United States government. Should they have access to the line soldiers? Maybe for questioning, but certainly not for punishment. I will point to the story of Pat Tillman, whose friendly fire death was not revealed in a timely manner and has never been fully examined and his death was used to further political gain by Republicans.

Is friendly fire a crime? I do not believe so. It is one of those items that is inherent in the soldiers contract; I believe. If an inquiry showed that the person planning the attack knew that friendly soldiers were on the battlefield, then perhaps criminal proceedings could take place.

If you are a man you may have seen childbirth, you could even be a doctor but there is no way on earth you are ever going to know what it's like. Same as combat, you think you might know but guys who have been there will tell you that it's impossible to actually imagine. Soldiers aren't robots, nor are they actors in a film, they are humans with all the failings and virtues of the rest of us.

I don't pretend to know what childbirth is like. Never going to be in the room when it takes place. Don't want to know.

Similarly, I don't pretend to know what combat is like. I hope to never be in the situation to find out.

That soldiers are human beings with failings and virtues is not news to anyone. When those failings lead to unprofessional or criminal behavior, they should be held to account. And because the stakes in warfare are so high, so the consequences must also be high.

 

[MA-Caver]

This is only part of the reason why they "hate us"... I was watching a program... well, trying to anyway until my step-mother decided to change the channel... (it's HER television... ) this program was a semi-documentary/journalistic article by a local newscaster... anyway...
He was getting into the whole Islamic hate American/Westerners propaganda thing. Showing videos "never-before-seen-in-the-west" type stuff. Videos of Iranian leader spewing his double rhetortic of love, compassion, brotherhood for all...kill americans the satan and bla bla bla. Same with iraqi anti-american propaganda which basically rivals Gobbells hate-propaganda machine in the late 30's and early 40's.
These people are being taught to hate us. Spoon-fed and repeatedly exposed to anti-american rhetoric... it doesn't help when we have another Mai-lai incident occurring and the propagandists take full flight with it and throws another dixie-cup full of gasoline on to the already raging fire.

It's like racism here in America. In the homes of the families in Iraq fathers are talking TO their wives in front of thier children about the damned Americans doing this and doing that and it won't go away because the kids grow up hearing anti-american rhetortic and thus grow up to be anti-american adults.
How do you win the hearts and minds of the people? Obviously we didn't learn that lesson well enough from Vietnam did we?

Our whole presence there has been mishandled and the fact that we're not doing anything or doing very little to stop the hate isn't going to help ... even if we were to leave totally (which we'll probably do... and I suspect it'll be just as messy as it was in '75...) the people there will have an ingrained hatred of Americans and it'll reflect back upon us in due time.

Of course pulling out admits defeat doesn't it? It'll encourage the terrorist organizations and make them even more bold and the likely hood of strikes within our country increases.

Double edged sword... it's a messy business and I don't envy the new commander in chief in 2008.

 

[Tez3]

The soldiers concerned were punished.Do they constantly have to have it thrown in there faces? They are older and wiser now, better soldiers.
Friendly fire happens yes but why are you willing to accept mistakes made when they kill allies but not when it's the enemy. If you take the premise that all troops should act professionally there would be no friendly fire incidents would there? By your exacting standards the people who made these mistakes should also be punished severely and they weren't
In March 2003 Lance Corporal of Horse Matthew Hull was killed when a US A10 fired on British tanks and APCs outside Basra. Others were injured. The convoy was clearly marked as Coalition. the pilot was on a 'jolly' and didn't use the thermal sight to check out the convoy before shooting. Flt.Lts Kevin Main and Dave Williams were shot down in their Tornedo by a Patriot missile also in March 2003. Despite the Tornedo's identification system sending out who it was an American airwoman who fired it was cleared of making a mistake. The soldiers in the video made a mistake too but are being vilified for it.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/headlines_abd145ba72e04bb02c6a8be56da3b5c2.html

Mistake or not?

 

[michaeledward]

The soldiers concerned were punished.Do they constantly have to have it thrown in there faces? They are older and wiser now, better soldiers.
Friendly fire happens yes but why are you willing to accept mistakes made when they kill allies but not when it's the enemy. If you take the premise that all troops should act professionally there would be no friendly fire incidents would there? By your exacting standards the people who made these mistakes should also be punished severely and they weren't
In March 2003 Lance Corporal of Horse Matthew Hull was killed when a US A10 fired on British tanks and APCs outside Basra. Others were injured. The convoy was clearly marked as Coalition. the pilot was on a 'jolly' and didn't use the thermal sight to check out the convoy before shooting. Flt.Lts Kevin Main and Dave Williams were shot down in their Tornedo by a Patriot missile also in March 2003. Despite the Tornedo's identification system sending out who it was an American airwoman who fired it was cleared of making a mistake. The soldiers in the video made a mistake too but are being vilified for it.

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/headlines_abd145ba72e04bb02c6a8be56da3b5c2.html

Mistake or not?

I am not certain that the replaying of this incident here is an attempt to villify anyone. I believe this is being used to discuss the ramifications of warfare, and warfare's political impact around the globe. If the incidents in this tape were any of the 'coalition' troops ... Polish, Italian, Spanish, American, the question would remain the same. I believe the question here is not if your training was broken or incomplete. The Question here is how can we spread peace or democracy with a military instrument.

I'm trying to figure out the logic of your question concerning 'friendly fire' killing enemies ... not quite sure I can get a handle on that one.

I do not take the premise that 'IF all soldiers act professionally, THEN there would be zero friendly fire incidents' as an axiom. I believe on the field of battle mistakes happen. Professional behavior does not eliminate mistakes; regardless of the IFF indicator status.

I think it is more accurate to contrast the mistake of soldiers beating unarmed detained locals with the mistake of firing a Patriot Missle at an aircraft, rather than compare them. I believe they are more different than they are alike.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And it is absolute ******** to say that because I have never been in a combat situation I can not have an opinion on the subject.

Sure you can have an opinion, but if you dont understand it, its ********.

 

[Tez3]

I am not certain that the replaying of this incident here is an attempt to villify anyone. I believe this is being used to discuss the ramifications of warfare, and warfare's political impact around the globe. If the incidents in this tape were any of the 'coalition' troops ... Polish, Italian, Spanish, American, the question would remain the same. I believe the question here is not if your training was broken or incomplete. The Question here is how can we spread peace or democracy with a military instrument.

I'm trying to figure out the logic of your question concerning 'friendly fire' killing enemies ... not quite sure I can get a handle on that one.

I do not take the premise that 'IF all soldiers act professionally, THEN there would be zero friendly fire incidents' as an axiom. I believe on the field of battle mistakes happen. Professional behavior does not eliminate mistakes; regardless of the IFF indicator status.

I think it is more accurate to contrast the mistake of soldiers beating unarmed detained locals with the mistake of firing a Patriot Missle at an aircraft, rather than compare them. I believe they are more different than they are alike.

Mistakes in war are common, why are some more acceptable to you than others? You say soldiers must act professionally, that's what you pay them to do. The Patriot missile was fired deliberately at the aircraft killing the pilots, it wasn't fired accidentally. The fact the operator didn't check to see whose aircraft was unprofessional, a mistake was made in the heat of the moment. The soldiers in the video beat those guys up, who may well not have been unarmed by the way, they made a mistake in the heat of the moment.Unprofessional yes, understandable yes!

""That soldiers are human beings with failings and virtues is not news to anyone. When those failings lead to unprofessional or criminal behavior, they should be held to account. And because the stakes in warfare are so high, so the consequences must also be high.""

The soldiers were punished as I said, the Patriot missile operator was not. double standards.
The basis of this thread was that if soldiers are doing this no wonder they hate us. Others have posted ,correctly in my opinion, that the hatred is far more than just the incident in the video.

 

[michaeledward]

Mistakes in war are common, why are some more acceptable to you than others? You say soldiers must act professionally, that's what you pay them to do. The Patriot missile was fired deliberately at the aircraft killing the pilots, it wasn't fired accidentally. The fact the operator didn't check to see whose aircraft was unprofessional, a mistake was made in the heat of the moment. The soldiers in the video beat those guys up, who may well not have been unarmed by the way, they made a mistake in the heat of the moment.Unprofessional yes, understandable yes!

""That soldiers are human beings with failings and virtues is not news to anyone. When those failings lead to unprofessional or criminal behavior, they should be held to account. And because the stakes in warfare are so high, so the consequences must also be high.""

The soldiers were punished as I said, the Patriot missile operator was not. double standards.
The basis of this thread was that if soldiers are doing this no wonder they hate us. Others have posted ,correctly in my opinion, that the hatred is far more than just the incident in the video.

I believe it is more accurate to contrast the two incidents you cite.

Yes, the Patriot Battery intentionally fired a missle. Pushing the button was not a mistake. An incoming aircraft, not correctly identified demands swift decision making, doesn't it. A true friendly fire incident and a tragedy.

The beating of a prone civilian; raising a weapon, and striking the person when they are in full view, is a similiarly intentional action. Striking the person was not a mistake. The decision to strike was intentional. Did the soldiers have in their training the skills to identify if the person was armed? Did they have in their training the ability to determine if the person was a threat that merited a beatdown? If they waited, and restrained themselves, were they more or less likely to be on the receiving end of an explosive weapon than the missle defense battery?

These two incidents are more different than they are alike.

I do believe that the full range of actions that cause any 'Anti-Western' sentiment are numerous. I don't believe that the intention of posting this video was to state that actions such as this are the sole, or even major reason for those foreign sentiments, but perhaps that question should be directed to the original contributor.

I think there is little doubt, when these persons who received these beatings ... as with those who were detained in Coalition detention centers ... abused or not ... return to their communities, it is highly likely that they are not going to be spreading warm feelings about the American and British Armies.

 

[Tez3]

I believe it is more accurate to contrast the two incidents you cite.

Yes, the Patriot Battery intentionally fired a missle. Pushing the button was not a mistake. An incoming aircraft, not correctly identified demands swift decision making, doesn't it. A true friendly fire incident and a tragedy.

The beating of a prone civilian; raising a weapon, and striking the person when they are in full view, is a similiarly intentional action. Striking the person was not a mistake. The decision to strike was intentional. Did the soldiers have in their training the skills to identify if the person was armed? Did they have in their training the ability to determine if the person was a threat that merited a beatdown? If they waited, and restrained themselves, were they more or less likely to be on the receiving end of an explosive weapon than the missle defense battery?

These two incidents are more different than they are alike.

I do believe that the full range of actions that cause any 'Anti-Western' sentiment are numerous. I don't believe that the intention of posting this video was to state that actions such as this are the sole, or even major reason for those foreign sentiments, but perhaps that question should be directed to the original contributor.

I think there is little doubt, when these persons who received these beatings ... as with those who were detained in Coalition detention centers ... abused or not ... return to their communities, it is highly likely that they are not going to be spreading warm feelings about the American and British Armies.

And Terry Lloyds death was...?

Do you know what happened before the youths were beaten? Do you know what happened afterwards? It wasn't a peace demo they were on, they were trying to kill the British soldiers. It wasn't a small isolated incident of some youths walking down the road and were jumped by the squaddies, it was a battle, a war where the British troops were actually outnumbered. Six Royal Military Police were torn to pieces by such a crowd.They could have fired on the crowd they didn't, if you want the truth the Iraqis were lucky they only got a beating.Sod what the Iraqis feel, they were/are trying to kill our troops! I'm not being politically correct here but we are at war, rightly or wrongly and like it or not that's the way things are. When someone shoots at you, chucks boulders at you, tries to blow you up, come back here and say you were all touchy feely nice to him and understood where he was coming from!
Hopefully a solution will be found but until then it's not an academic discussion as far as I'm concerned,nor a cosy debate on the internet, my friends and colleagues ( as are many of others on here I imagine) are putting their lives on the line over there.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well said Don.
​

 

[Sukerkin]

Good points being articulated by both divisions in this discussion :tup:.

I don't think that anyone would applaud punitive action being taken by the military on the civilian populous but, given the situation as detailed by Tez3, then most of us could understand it.

For myself, I don't condone the 'charged actions' in this specific case and also don't wish to seem 'unconcerned' but I do have to think that such things happen all the time when you put a military force in a role that such a force is not suited for.

I've known a lot of squaddies in my time and have heard more than a few tales of 'quiet retribution' that has gone on out of the public eye (I'm speaking of events decades ago now, during the Army's interminable involvment in the ever lasting Irish Troubles). So I can't imagine that events would unfurl any differently in an even more hostile environment such as the Middle East.

The core problem is that a military force is still seen as an acceptable extension of foreign policy by some reactionary, backward looking, politicians.

Whilst that worked fine in an earlier age, it is no longer the case that you can invade/liberate another country (whatever pretext is used for public consumption) and hope to keep a grip on that country for long enough to achieve whatever objectives you had that took you there in the first place ... (rereads that to make sure that it makes comprehensible sense ).

The indiginous population will always view the foreign soldiers on their soil as 'invaders' and, unless trully horrific oppressive measures are taken, the 'invader' will eventually be ousted.

In precis, what I'm saying is that the military is the wrong tool for the job and the PBI's on the ground are no more to blame for the situation than ... well ... something that isn't at all to blame for the situation.

The military's primary task is to remove the ability of an enemy to project destructive force at your commercial/social/political assets i.e. break stuff and hold ground. Once it's done that, then the soldiery has fulfilled its role. Asking them to 'keep the peace' on foreign ground is just asking for trouble.

Anyhow, I ranted away from myself there ... :blush:.

I guess my last words would be that it's the wrong-thinking policy that put them in harms way is the problem, not the men themselves.

 

[Tez3]

Sukerkin, good post! I aagree with you. I don't condone what the squaddies did, just that I understand why it happened and I'd like others to understand why too. The basic problem I thnk is that there should have been no invasion of Iraq full stop! Too many people are paying the price for this. On another thread there's a question asking how we deal with this, where do we go from here. I didn't answer because I don't know. I don't know how we can put things right and if we found a solution would anyone listen to us?

 

[Don Roley]

If anyone wants to know the real reason they hate us, go over to www.memri.org and see what kind of propaganda they are spoon fed int he classrooms and the state- controlled media.

 

[FearlessFreep]

This could help

soccer with iraqi kids