PDA

View Full Version : Hearts & Minds


Neilbert
06-17-2010, 03:08 AM
Wikileaks soldier makes statements about ordered indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians. (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/53208)

Yes, the lefties are sooooooooo crazy thinking that the Army would order/cover up civilian deaths in Iraq. :rolleyes:

There’s something else lying underneath there. It’s not Republican or Democrat; it’s money. There’s something else lying underneath it where Republicans and Democrats together want to keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 08:29 AM
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Ivhon
06-17-2010, 08:40 AM
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Its too bad that can't be applied in reverse...

Sei'taer
06-17-2010, 09:14 AM
Its too bad that can't be applied in reverse...

Naw, he probably learned that quote in the army...they'd be damned if they'd turn it the other way.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 09:19 AM
Naw, he probably learned that quote in the army...they'd be damned if they'd turn it the other way.

4 years of Latin actually.

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 09:37 AM
I think another appropriate phrase to throw in here is "Consider the source."

Give a more legitimate news source aside from one entitled "WarIsaCrime" that references the World Socialist Website and that openly opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then maybe there would be something to discuss here. As it stands now, this is nothing but yellow journalism designed to push the source's view point.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 09:42 AM
I think another appropriate phrase to throw in here is "Consider the source."


I'm sorry, did you watch the leaked video from an apache gunship?

You aren't going to find anything closer to a primary source on the internet, so I'm really not sure what you are whining about here. The site might be biased (obviously) but the video certainly isn't, and the video is certainly consistent with the story presented.

My money says you clicked the link, saw the title, and came back here to whine about biased sources without bothering to scroll down and see the embedded video.

When the video was originally leaked, CNNs response was to block searches for Wikileaks on its website. QUALITY journalism right there. I do appreciate the irony of you calling this yellow journalism.

The funny thing here to me is that not a single soldier I've ever talked to about this, and there have been a fair number, has ever denied that this stuff happens. I've even had soldiers tell me that it's obscene the amount of anti-psychotic medications that are given to platoons. More money spent on it than equipment was the joke.

4 years of Latin actually.

I always wanted to learn Latin until I learned how many freaking tenses and conjugations it has.

One Armed Gimp
06-17-2010, 11:05 AM
The funny thing here to me is that not a single soldier I've ever talked to about this, and there have been a fair number, has ever denied that this stuff happens. I've even had soldiers tell me that it's obscene the amount of anti-psychotic medications that are given to platoons. More money spent on it than equipment was the joke.

The stuff happens but its pretty rare. I've only heard of one instance of something like that and I am sure I've talked to fair number more soldiers than you.

Also, anti-psychotic meds? Never seen or heard of them passed out while over there. I *think* a few guys I know might have gotten some things from the VA after we got back.

One Armed Gimp
06-17-2010, 11:06 AM
On a side note, I have never met anyone that would follow an order from a BC like that. If that got out, which it surely would have, that BC would have had his ass handed to him.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 11:17 AM
The stuff happens but its pretty rare. I've only heard of one instance of something like that and I am sure I've talked to fair number more soldiers than you.

Yeah, this is the most common reaction I got. I went to school on base, so I'm sure I got more soldier exposure than your average civilian, but if you're ARMY you obviously have me beat. Occasionally people had clearly seen some stuff, and just as clearly didn't want to talk about it beyond telling me that the worst you hear is probably true.

Mostly what stuck out to me was the near universal complaint that the ARMY had drastically lowered its recruitment standards (for time context this was about 2+ years ago). Convicted child molesters, drug dealers, etc were told by recruiters (and accurately) that these things can be "made to go away" and "would not be a problem".
I can't help but think there's a correlation between this and civilians getting gunned down.

The impression I got was that this was a very segmented thing. Certainly not orders from on high, but rather a culture making it likely that such things would happen.

On a side note, I have never met anyone that would follow an order from a BC like that. If that got out, which it surely would have, that BC would have had his ass handed to him.

Considering that soldiers have been convicted for blatantly murdering and raping an Iraqi family and covering it up I really don't buy the "it would have gotten out" argument.

Also, anti-psychotic meds? Never seen or heard of them passed out while over there. I *think* a few guys I know might have gotten some things from the VA after we got back.

The Army Times says 1/6 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/military_psychiatric_drugs_031710w/)

I don't know what the Army Times is like as a source, but this is something I actually would be interested to learn more about. Considering that civilians are highly unlikely to admit to being on psych meds, I would imagine that if you "think a few guys might have gotten some things" it's almost certainly much higher.

One Armed Gimp
06-17-2010, 11:36 AM
Considering that soldiers have been convicted for blatantly murdering and raping an Iraqi family and covering it up I really don't buy the "it would have gotten out" argument.



The Army Times says 1/6 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/military_psychiatric_drugs_031710w/)

I don't know what the Army Times is like as a source, but this is something I actually would be interested to learn more about. Considering that civilians are highly unlikely to admit to being on psych meds, I would imagine that if you "think a few guys might have gotten some things" it's almost certainly much higher.

The incident above is a smaller scale, smaller group that committed that act. A battalion wide order is something that is going to get talked about and passed around.

The article leaves me a little uncertain, they seem to at times mix painkillers in with the anti-psych drugs. I could believe 1 in 6 in the service though is on some type of medication anti-psychotic, pain or other wise.

The military is trying to jump on the high suicide rates and PTSD.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 11:40 AM
A battalion wide order is something that is going to get talked about and passed around.

Oh, ok I get ya. Sorry, my knowledge of millitary command structure is essentially obey the guy with the most shineys attached to his shirt.

The article leaves me a little uncertain, they seem to at times mix painkillers in with the anti-psych drugs. I could believe 1 in 6 in the service though is on some type of medication anti-psychotic, pain or other wise.

I'm not sure I care about painkillers being lumped in with everything else. They are far and away the most addictive drug I have anything resembling personal experience with.

Davian93
06-17-2010, 11:53 AM
The incident above is a smaller scale, smaller group that committed that act. A battalion wide order is something that is going to get talked about and passed around.

The article leaves me a little uncertain, they seem to at times mix painkillers in with the anti-psych drugs. I could believe 1 in 6 in the service though is on some type of medication anti-psychotic, pain or other wise.

The military is trying to jump on the high suicide rates and PTSD.


A BC would never be dumb enough to give such an order...illicit "look the other way" permission, maybe...an order? No way in hell. I could see an 1LT being stupid on a heat of the moment type deal but not any systematic plan to commit atrocities.

On the painkiller/anti-psychotic pills thing: Yeah, alot of guys I knew were on one or the other...combat isn't the most pleasant experience afterall. Also, the army tends to try and keep guys on the Ready for Duty list anyway they can...that sometimes means giving him a bunch of percocet to deal with the nagging injuries rather than sending him to the hospital. Same with anti-psychotics...though I remember those being far more prevalent AFTER returning or after getting out from the VA.

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 12:22 PM
My money says you clicked the link, saw the title, and came back here to whine about biased sources without bothering to scroll down and see the embedded video.

When the video was originally leaked, CNNs response was to block searches for Wikileaks on its website. QUALITY journalism right there. I do appreciate the irony of you calling this yellow journalism.


Yes, because I'm sure that video is shown in its entirity with complete context surrounding it being given and has in no way been altered or distorted to better support the anti-war stance of the source. :rolleyes: Ever think that maybe the integrity of the video is why CNN blocked it from their site? Or were you too busy basking in the glow of apparent "evidence" that just happens to back up your obvious negative attitude toward soldiers, the military, and the war efforts we're engaged in. I've criticized CNN before for bias, but they are still an infinitely more legitimate source of news then something ntitled "WarisaCrime." So if they are refusing to run a story of this nature, in light of their generally pro-liberal, anti-war slant, then I think there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

Considering that soldiers have been convicted for blatantly murdering and raping an Iraqi family and covering it up I really don't buy the "it would have gotten out" argument.

Really? There was a cover up? Then how do you explain these?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/08/kentucky.iraq.soldier.rape/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/5293821/Former-US-soldier-guilty-of-rape-and-murder-of-Iraqi-girl.html

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_U.S._soldier_convicted_of_raping_Iraq_teen, _four_murders

I'm pretty sure if this story was legit, there would be similiar articles about it.

Neilbert
06-17-2010, 12:31 PM
Sinistrum, you are literally too stupid for words.

I said they were convicted after the cover up and your rebuttal is a bunch of news articles that "shouldn't exist" because a cover up took place. Not all cover ups are successful, and the one example I gave obviously wasn't.

So if they are refusing to run a story of this nature, in light of their generally pro-liberal, anti-war slant, then I think there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

Do you know what wikileaks is or have any knowledge of this video outside the article I linked or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

Because you really can't justify not talking at all about unedited gunship footage being publically leaked. Well, you can, as we've just seen, but you have to be a retard to do it.

So if they are refusing to run a story of this nature, in light of their generally pro-liberal, anti-war slant, then I think there is probably a pretty good reason for it.

HAHAHAHHAHHhhahhahahahahHAHAahahHAHAhahAHAH
Yes, CNN is pro-liberal.
Too. Stupid. For. Words.

I have literally never met anyone outside the Right wing who actually believes this.

Yes, because I'm sure that video is shown in its entirity with complete context surrounding it being given and has in no way been altered or distorted to better support the anti-war stance of the source.

With 30 seconds of googling you can find the entire video and watch it yourself and make some accurate judgments about whether it's been altered or distorted or you can just be an idiot. Your choice really. I've watched the full video, and there are no obvious or recognizable signs that it was altered.
here's the raw version. have fun. (http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dis9sxRfU-ik)

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 02:44 PM
I said they were convicted after the cover up and your rebuttal is a bunch of news articles that "shouldn't exist" because a cover up took place. Not all cover ups are successful, and the one example I gave obviously wasn't.

*Whoosh* The sound of a point going right over Neil's head. Its quite a common occurrence really so I guess I should be used to it. My point was not to deny that any sort of cover up took place. If you weren't too busy coming up with infantile insults, you might have picked up on that. My point was that even if there was a cover up, a legit news source like CNN would have still gotten ahold of the story like they did with Mr. Green. Legitimate journalists are pretty good at nailing things that portray the government in a bad light, particularly in war time, as stories such as Abu Graiv, Gitmo, Haditha, and Mr. Green demonstrate. It makes for great ratings and makes them bundles of money

And you are arguing that they are choosing to deliberately ignore and help cover up something like this in light of the coverage on all of those other stories? And I'm the one who is apparently too stupid for words.

Do you know what wikileaks is or have any knowledge of this video outside the article I linked or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

Yes I know all about wikileaks. They are a government conspiracy theorist website that occasionally gets something right, but even when they do, they always taint the story to fit their view point. Here is a perfect example.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/05/iraq.photographers.killed/index.html

They portray it as a deliberate assault when what actually happened was an unfortunate friendly fire incident. That is precisely what I'm talking about when I question whether they have provided the full context or made any alterations.

But I guess that's just all government propaganda right? I mean after all, the CIA is out to get wikileaks. They say so themselves.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18 _Mar_2008

With 30 seconds of googling you can find the entire video and watch it yourself and make some accurate judgments about whether it's been altered or distorted or you can just be an idiot. Your choice really. I've watched the full video, and there are no obvious or recognizable signs that it was altered.
here's the raw version. have fun.

Great, a youtube video from god knows where. I'm sure there is probably some truth to that video. The best lies always do include some truth. But that is why, once again, I question whether the full context of it has been provided and whether any alterations to it have been made. Its a lot easier to promote an anti-war agenda if you can demonize the military with evidence of deliberate killing of civilians by soldiers than it is with accidental deaths due to things such as fog of war or misidentification of legitimate targets.

tworiverswoman
06-17-2010, 02:57 PM
Its a lot easier to promote an anti-war agenda if you can demonize the military with evidence of deliberate killing of civilians by soldiers than it is with accidental deaths due to things such as fog of war or mis-identification of legitimate targets. Or it's even possible that it's exactly what it looks like: the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. Mei Lai happened. It's not a once-in-a-blue-moon event, either. However, that doesn't make it POLICY.Considering that soldiers have been convicted for blatantly murdering and raping an Iraqi family and covering it up I really don't buy the "it would have gotten out" argument. Just noting that the mere fact that they WERE convicted makes it a given that "it got out."

Sinistrum
06-17-2010, 03:31 PM
Or it's even possible that it's exactly what it looks like: the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians. Mei Lai happened. It's not a once-in-a-blue-moon event, either. However, that doesn't make it POLICY.

Correct. That is entirely possible. But see my original post in this thread for why this vein of discussion isn't even worth taking up. If this story were coming from a legitimate news sources and they had any inkling of deliberateness to such an attack, then that idea would merit discussion. As it stands now, all we have is a video from anti-war, anti-government conspiracy website proporting to portray such an event. This video also comes complete with biased, interpretative, and conclusary commentary on it from both the source and the bobblehead on TL that drinks the source's koolaid.

nameless
06-17-2010, 05:32 PM
The stuff happens but its pretty rare. I've only heard of one instance of something like that and I am sure I've talked to fair number more soldiers than you.

Also, anti-psychotic meds? Never seen or heard of them passed out while over there. I *think* a few guys I know might have gotten some things from the VA after we got back.

That was a lot more common in Vietnam. They'd hand out meds like candy and in the short term it worked to keep psychiatric casualties to a record low, but they found out that doing it actually exacerbated PTSD when the soldiers came home (although it's unclear as to whether it was the meds themselves that did this or the fact that the meds facilitated longer deployments than would have otherwise been possible).

Davian93
06-18-2010, 08:49 AM
Every time I go to an appointment at the VA, the first thing they ask me:

1. Are you feeling depressed today?

2. Have you thought about killing yourself or harming yourself in the past 30 days? 6 months? 1 year?

3. Do you have trouble sleeping?

4. Are you sometimes uncomfortable and you dont know why?

5. Do certain situations ever make you nervous (for me, parking lots freak me out as a result of being carjacked so I mention it).


I could very easily get on Anti-Depressants if I wanted.

Ivhon
06-18-2010, 09:15 AM
Every time I go to an appointment at the VA, the first thing they ask me:

1. Are you feeling depressed today?

2. Have you thought about killing yourself or harming yourself in the past 30 days? 6 months? 1 year?

3. Do you have trouble sleeping?

4. Are you sometimes uncomfortable and you dont know why?

5. Do certain situations ever make you nervous (for me, parking lots freak me out as a result of being carjacked so I mention it).


I could very easily get on Anti-Depressants if I wanted.

The question being, why would you want?

And yeah, it kinda makes sense that PTSD screen would be the first thing they would do at the VA. Although, Im not sure why they would keep screening you, in particular, once they have a history on you

Davian93
06-18-2010, 09:44 AM
The question being, why would you want?

And yeah, it kinda makes sense that PTSD screen would be the first thing they would do at the VA. Although, Im not sure why they would keep screening you, in particular, once they have a history on you

I wouldn't and dont. They do the screening in the hopes of catching people so they dont do something drastically stupid. I dont mind it personally but its a system wide policy to help prevent suicides and help guys with PTSD (something that doesnt always show up right away).

Neilbert
06-18-2010, 12:19 PM
My point was that even if there was a cover up, a legit news source like CNN would have still gotten ahold of the story like they did with Mr. Green.

"Legit news sources" are generally shit. If you talk to anyone who has ever been personally involved in a news story you would know that.

And you are arguing that they are choosing to deliberately ignore and help cover up something like this in light of the coverage on all of those other stories?

You always do a horrible job summarizing my arguments, it's part of the reason I'm thinking you are too dumb for words.

They portray it as a deliberate assault when what actually happened was an unfortunate friendly fire incident.

A rose by any other name...

Yes I know all about wikileaks.

Great, a youtube video from god knows where.

The youtube video is from wikileaks. It's one of the more famous things they have released. You know, that website you "know all about".

I'm sure there is probably some truth to that video. The best lies always do include some truth.

Generic I am reasonable and see all sides.

But that is why, once again, I question whether the full context of it has been provided and whether any alterations to it have been made.

Without having watched it or knowing where it is from.

nameless
06-18-2010, 05:31 PM
I wouldn't and dont. They do the screening in the hopes of catching people so they dont do something drastically stupid. I dont mind it personally but its a system wide policy to help prevent suicides and help guys with PTSD (something that doesnt always show up right away).

Well being freaked out by parking lots because they remind you of a violent crime that happened to you in a parking lot actually does sound like it could be mild PTSD, but it's not the sort of thing you'd need to medicate unless it starts seriously interfering with your life. A friend of mine had PTSD after being robbed at gunpoint by a former employee. She dealt with it by carrying pepper spray everywhere she went and it worked pretty well for her until she left the safety off by accident and tear-gassed the whole Starbucks.

The VA does a pretty good job of looking out for their charges' psychiatric health. The vets who end up seriously in trouble are usually the ones who tried to deal with everything alone instead of taking advantage of the support network.

Davian93
06-18-2010, 06:35 PM
Well being freaked out by parking lots because they remind you of a violent crime that happened to you in a parking lot actually does sound like it could be mild PTSD, but it's not the sort of thing you'd need to medicate unless it starts seriously interfering with your life. A friend of mine had PTSD after being robbed at gunpoint by a former employee. She dealt with it by carrying pepper spray everywhere she went and it worked pretty well for her until she left the safety off by accident and tear-gassed the whole Starbucks.

The VA does a pretty good job of looking out for their charges' psychiatric health. The vets who end up seriously in trouble are usually the ones who tried to deal with everything alone instead of taking advantage of the support network.

Sometimes its hard to ask for help...especially in when you're in the military. Speaking as a veteran, there's still a pretty strong institutional stance towards not looking "weak" for lack of a better word.

Bryan Blaire
06-18-2010, 08:47 PM
I just refuse to go to the VA hospital.

I do have an unreasonable fear of running, I think, but I'm probably just nuts anyway. :D

nameless
06-19-2010, 12:04 AM
It's sad that there's still such stigma againt mental illness, especially in the military*. 98% of the population will undergo some sort of psychiatric breakdown under prolonged combat conditions. The only reason the rate in actual warfare is lower is that the armed forces take steps to reduce exposure to those conditions with leave, rotations out of combat zones, etc.

*not that the military has an especially stong stigma, but it's especially sad when the stigma exists in a profession where you're virtually guarenteed to come into contact with psychiatric casualties.

DahLliA
06-19-2010, 09:00 AM
until she left the safety off by accident and tear-gassed the whole Starbucks.

now that is something I'd like to have seen :p