Personally, I like what Col. Allen West had to say about it...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ll_616699.html

Agree with him except that last line. One doesn't need to be shot at by the Taliban to have a head on their shoulders and an understanding of human suffering. IMO that's a defense that servicemen just need to stop using - in any case, if they've done right, the righteous service of most of them should speak for itself and shouldn't fear public judgment. That kind of thought isn't befitting a proud soldier, but sounds more like insecure apologetics for what they already know to be morally dubious. Those who say that just need to get some balls and be proud of what they are as human beings, instead of trying to appeal to the uniqueness and incomprehensibility of their experience to everyone who 'hasn't been there'.

Media really could stop sensationalizing this sort of thing, though.

It's not my intention to justify their actions, though as a vet, i think I do understand them. . So im going to try and illustrate, so maybe you will understand.

What people fail to realize is that reality is subjective. What is your reality? I'll wager that for most of us on this forum.. our reality is our daily grind. Work, school, spouse, whatever. For most of us, our biggest concern is getting to work on time, or getting the bills paid. Every morning you wake up in a nice warm bed.

For a serviceman overseas (particuarlly in a war), their reality is far far different. Their daily routine consists of all sorts of pain, both mental and physical. Intense emotions that have to be dealt with some how, danger in whatever form it comes in, even body parts, guts, blood, and dismemberment. These are the biggest concerns. In sum, your world, and theirs, are totally different.

If anything, i think these guys deserve sympathy, or empathy, because of what the'll have to live with later. What will later surface and take hold of them. Yeah, i've a pretty good idea.

I don't think people here, have much of an idea of the mental gymnastics one has to do in order to survive and function. Remember this quote from Band of brothers? It is spot F'ing on. Though, ill rephrase it in a less dramatic fashion. The reason why one can't function or cope with whats going on around them, is because they still believe theres a better place to be. There isn't, or at least that's what you tell yourself There's just here and now, and that's all there is ever going to be. One day at at time. Once one accepts that, your able to function much better. What your really doing? Your pulling the emotional plug, and you abandon hope, because it is too painful to hang on to. You refocus on your job, your duty, your mission.

And here's the thing. When you pull your emotional plug, you lose a bit of yourself. There's two parts to a person, the inner and outer person. The outer part is very much formed by the world around you. The inner part, is something you keep hidden. In a harsh world that takes everything away from you, you have to find something that's yours (your inner person), and make an island for yourself. Where you mentally retreat to from time to time. In an odd way, you might feel like a prisoner in your own body. But when you pull the emotional plug because some things are too painful to hang on to, what can happen is your outer self takes over. Your inner self, becomes a shriveled vine. As time goes on, your inner self, that light, that flicker, becomes dimmer and dimmer. Eventually your just a shell.

Now if one could talk to my family, they'll tell you i was emotionally unavailable for YEARS after i left the military. Eventually a reversal of your outer and inner self occurs. Your inner self eventually (hopefully) comes out, and that hard shell gets buried. What scares me, is that hard shell, it's like this evil seed that gets buried, it never leaves you, and it takes a few years to get over this feeling that your looking in on the society your supposed to rejoin from the outside. Some of those guys coming home may even come to be resentful, because people here live in their self absorbed bubble with no clue or concept of what's going on in the rest of the world, and are full of their blustering ideas.

edit: I should probably volunteer time at VA counceling center or something. :shifty:

:yawn:

Moral outrage over this? Really? The same people who are yelling about the "violation of human dignity" or whatever the heck they are complaining about are the same folks that claim how nutty a guy is for morning the death of his premature child because he should have just chucked it in a bin.

War is hell. Its stressful. These guys decided to blow off a little steam, and send a final "EF You" to the bastards who just a bit before were trying to kill them.

Stop an think for a second... the carcass wasn't a living being - they didn't feel shame or embarrassment because they were DEAD. So who is going to get offended? All the sorry nutcases that already want to kill anyone who isn't toeing the line of their religious nuttiness? Well this is sure gonna be the thing that will send em over the edge? Oh wait - too late, these are the people who strap bombs to themselves and other poor saps and set them off in crowds. This has NO effect on them whatsoever. Lets stop with the bullcrap, ladies and gentlemen....

So why are people complaining? Oh is it because this somehow reflects badly on the US society? If you buy that line of crap, then you do nothing more than demonstrate your looking for reasons to think badly about this country and its people. This was the act one (or possibly a few) folks that had a numbskull moment. If you want to make it bigger than this - then its not because of their actions that you should. If there is any "societal" US indemnity here - its because the powers that are pretending to know what they are doing in running this conflict put men and women at risk in situations where if they survive the conflict, they get into stupid mode sometimes and people wring their hands over it. The only large indemnity here is that if we were serious about WINNING the "war on terror" we wouldn't need to expose nearly the people we do on the ground - meaning we would save the lives of our soldiers and keep incidents like this from happening or to a minimum.

Put the hadwringing away, look at the causes of why stuff happens and address them. Don't want war to desensitize those that fight it? Minimize their exposure to it.

Decide to fight a war, not a half assed "low to mid intensity" action. There is no such thing. If you think there is, then explain that to the families of those killed or wounded.....

Great post Ducimius, I can certainly understand a lot of that. The only thing that I would point out is that, well, ultimately a lot of it does come down to mechanisms of trauma, and trauma is something that not just servicemen deal with. It's something that a lot of people can relate to and sympathise. The whole human experience is full of it.

Of course most people in their ordinary life would rather be as far away from trauma as possible, and stories about it are unsettling and unpleasant - so instead we get sensationalized crap, of which this sad story is a prime example.

This has been going on since war has been raged.
It is not trauma. It is about showing that you dominate your enemy.

I do not understand today's soldiers who seem to want to capture and publicize themselves in this manner.

I've seen video of a sniper team shooting in Afghanistan and when the .50 cal round hits several targets body parts were seen flying in all directions.

Why film it? Why publish it?

Gallows humor.

Tu quoque.


Feeling better now poisoning the well ?

Col. Allen West is talking out of his backside.
It is very easy to prove that Col Allen West is most definately talking out of his arse.
I do find it funny that you posted that statement when the widespread outrage those two incidents caused have already been raised in this topic as a measure of the hypocrisy of those defending this action.

I was wondering, What credentials do you have that say you aren't talking out of your backside?

Well lets see, I didn't have to leave the military after my career was ruined over some torturing of prisoners
So that puts me one up on that muppet.:yeah:
Also I don't campaign for the release of convicted war criminals.
So that puts me two up against that muppet:yeah:
So how do I measure up for credibility against someone who showed they are unable to follow the military laws they signed up to and who campaigns for convicted murderers?
Though of course the main problem seems to be his memory as he has problems recalling some pretty major well publiced events whose condemnations were broadcast all round the world as the leading stories

But to illustrate how much he is talking out of his arse just view the news following the incidents he claims were not condemned, events in Mogadishu were condemned so much it was even rewritten into folklore for Holywood as it made such a good story of rightousness against evil, while even those damn liberals at the BBC in their broadcast on the very day called the Fallujah murders the most extreme barbarism possible and the most brutal atrocity so far in Iraq.
Such outrage explains why widespread support was given to Operation Vigilant Resolve ....until the problems occured over attacking hospitals and the use of phosphorous in built up civilian ares

So now we're trying a different way to play games with the forum rules regarding language?

I can understand you both feel strongly about this subject, but that's no reason to play fast and loose with what is supposed to be a family-friendly forum, including General Topics.

I did not technically use a vulgarity, as the pronunciation of the letter F is not vulgar. At no time did I express myself with disrespect toward another, nor did I star out the word.

However, I do regret pushing the line (if not crossing it in spirit). For that I apologize.

The soldiers are brain damaged. They commit atrocities or when they go back home, a bunch of them commit suicide or are homeless.

The biggest criminals by far in this story are the western regimes' leaders: they consider the military option first, instead of a last resort. War is THE business model.
This story will end badly for these so called "western democracies". They are broke, therefore they'll go around the planet to take advantage of smaller nations' wealth. The populations of these aggressive western regimes are getting poor and are loosing their civil liberties.

The Taliban will take out NATO on the long run: they beat the British in the past, then the Soviets. Just like the VC in Vietnam, they're "like a fish in the water". They are home, they'll prevail.

I was thinking along the same lines when I read that. The fact that he can refer to those incidents in rhetorics ("does anyone remember" etc.) should speak for the fact that there was publicity for these incidents. Otherwise it would make no sense to refer to these specific incidents, as I'm sure it's not like they would be the only times the opposing force has done stuff like this. Just the cases that have made it into the conscience of the wider public through the media.

What he seems to expect now is wide public response along the lines "yeah, but they do the same". He writes as if no one remembers those cases when they aren't widely referred to now. Here is where I disagree: they were referred to when they were actual. This case is now actual, hence it will be referred to now. Likewise, when the opposing force commits atrocities in the future, there will be an outrage and I reckon very few people then will say "yeah, but do you remember when those marines..."

And even fewer people will demand it to be said.