Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages. Now the few perpatrators have only recieved a warning email and that is about the most action the Army has taken so far. One comment for instance:
"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
That is only one comment and I'm too ashamed to post the rest on here.
The users making these disgusting comments have been identified as currently serving members which was confirmed by the new Chief of Army Lt. General David Morrison. The general went on to say that this type of behaviour is in some areas common and sometimes impossible to put out, but like most things in society he said that the army is slowly making process to change that.
Now before we all post I must say that Australia's defence force has done excellent work in the Solomons, Timor and Afghanistan in terms of working with and understanding the locals in those theatres. These guys making the comments are to an extent a minority but still human nature and social ideas do still apply to your ordinary soldier who is still human and this is creating an unhealthy culture within the defence force.
My question to Dakka:
Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes as they are representitives of our country overseas and I hope to hell these facebooker's don't get deployed somewhere that is volitile in terms of social fragility.
Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.
The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.
Private_Joker wrote:Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages. Now the few perpatrators have only recieved a warning email and that is about the most action the Army has taken so far. One comment for instance:
"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
That is only one comment and I'm too ashamed to post the rest on here.
The users making these disgusting comments have been identified as currently serving members which was confirmed by the new Chief of Army Lt. General David Morrison. The general went on to say that this type of behaviour is in some areas common and sometimes impossible to put out, but like most things in society he said that the army is slowly making process to change that.
Now before we all post I must say that Australia's defence force has done excellent work in the Solomons, Timor and Afghanistan in terms of working with and understanding the locals in those theatres. These guys making the comments are to an extent a minority but still human nature and social ideas do still apply to your ordinary soldier who is still human and this is creating an unhealthy culture within the defence force.
My question to Dakka:
Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes as they are representitives of our country overseas and I hope to hell these facebooker's don't get deployed somewhere that is volitile in terms of social fragility.
Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.
The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.
To clarify, they were saying these things in a private group, to each other, correct? And then it was leaked by an anon? Threatening the journalist was certainly wrong (and possibly illegal), but I can't honestly see why they should be censured for having what amounts to a private conversation, no matter how bigoted. My point being, they weren't going out of their way to advertise it, at least in this instance. Without further evidence, who are we to say they don't put on a genuinely convincing and charming facade while on duty?
The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on. I was aiming for the fact that this type of behaiviour is unacceptable in a workplace (which the army is) and by acting that way on a website has tarnished the army's image. Just because your out of uniform doesn't mean you have no responsibilty. Imagine how many people who are serving muslims and women feel about this and whether they feel comfortable working in such an enviroment.
Agreed about the above, if it was a private conversation, they are entitled to say whatever the damn hell they want to say, and should not be held responsible/accountable for it. If, however, they are acting in such a manner in a public setting in uniform/in a manner which can be conceived as representative of a military organization, then they shouldn't be serving period.
Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly working with cultures and genders that the facebooker's are abusing? No.
Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech, which includes speech we don't like. That said, someone like the Chief of the Army is always under the spot light, and no one cares about whether or not he has any rights. If he actually said something bigoted or remotely inappropriate his career is probably over.
Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly dealing with the people that the facebooker's are abusing. No.
Members of an armed force have come to hate the people they're fighting and possibly have taken their anger a little too far? Damn. That's NEVER happened before.
Private_Joker wrote: The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on. I was aiming for the fact that this type of behaiviour is unacceptable in a workplace (which the army is) and by acting that way on a website has tarnished the army's image. Just because your out of uniform doesn't mean you have no responsibilty. Imagine how many people who are serving muslims and women feel about this and whether they feel comfortable working in such an enviroment.
Ah, ok. I see your point. 1000's of members is quite different from what I was thinking of. I was under the impression that it was a small facebook page-- maybe a dozen or so that knew each other.
Since it's not private, than I would tend to agree with you. If they are on duty and speaking in a public forum, they should be mindful of military policy regarding minorities, gender, et. al. I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but I know U.S. Military members have a contractual obligation to 'tow the party line', in other words they have willingly given up some portions of their freedom of speech.
They should probably face a bit more repercussion than a strongly worded email. Even if it's just having to undergo diversity re-education. That being said, I don't think this should apply to the commentors who are no longer serving, if only because that helps to preserve the delicate line between freedom of speech and a friendly work environment, and also because they are no longer bound by the aforementioned contractual obligations.
As for holding servicemen and women to higher standards? I'm not so sure. Service members in active duty in hostile environments face a great deal of stress that can easily lead to all sorts of psychological damage. The widespread occurrence of PTSD in U.S. veterans certainly indicates they are every bit as human as the rest of us. I think they're entitled to a certain amount of venting, but I do think they should keep such activities private.
Just because you aren't "under the spotlight" doesn't mean your behaviour isn't damaging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech, which includes speech we don't like. That said, someone like the Chief of the Army is always under the spot light, and no one cares about whether or not he has any rights. If he actually said something bigoted or remotely inappropriate his career is probably over.
Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly dealing with the people that the facebooker's are abusing. No.
Members of an armed force have come to hate the people they're fighting and possibly have taken their anger a little too far? Damn. That's NEVER happened before.
Members of an armed force going overboard is exactly what they are not looking for. Hence this needs to stop.
Private_Joker wrote:Do you really want to employ these types of people into an organisation that is constantly working with cultures and genders that the facebooker's are abusing? No.
Yes actually. I know in this increasingly touchy-feely politically correct "lets be sensitive towards others and do something positive" world we have the perception that the military exists to help people, etc. but the reality of the situation is that the military exists to destroy property and to kill people. Everything else is secondary and of far lesser importance. The type of person that dislikes others for being of a different culture/nationality from themselves/their homeleand, has anger issues, and acts in what would otherwise be described as a violent/antisocial manner is exactly the kind of person you want employed in an organization thats prime directive is to destroy things for being of a different culture/nationality from the people they are sworn to protect.
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." – Winston Churchill
Hell, a lot of this is state-sponsored. Its no secret that the military conducts psy-ops on itself (its even integrated into basic military training programs if you look carefully) to create a feeling of hostility towards current and future threats (both real and perceived) within its ranks. This was very true during the Cold War, and is still true today (though its not quite as overt). There was certainly a lot of it going on in the first half of the last decade (certain popular jodies (military cadences) were actually quite explicitly violent and derogatory towards those of middle eastern descent and the muslim faith) and its since been toned down some as things are winding down, but you can already see it starting to pop up here and there targeting the Chinese/North Koreans.
Meh. Threats against the journalist or whatever, if true, are too far. But you can't expect every enlisted man or woman to be a goodwill ambassador to the world at all hours of the day and night.
Even as advanced and professional as armies in first world nations are becoming, there has to be an element of hating and dehumanizing your enemy. It's how you make yourself go out and kill them, and an army that can't do that isn't much of an army.
Private_Joker wrote:Should we see soldiers, sailors and airmen/women as a higher standard of human being? I say yes...
What? Seriously dude that's crazy. They do a really tough job, but that doesn't make them a higher standard of human being.
Should the Army be cracking down harder on the ethical behaviour of its troops? I say yes. The training does already cover teaching troops to be ethical and respectful of diversity. However at a smaller unit level this behaviour goes unnoticed and is sometimes accepted. I have even experienced the pressure of "going with the flow" in terms of not caring when a fellow soldier does it and we all have a decent laugh. But with social media this behaviour is being exposed and needs to change now.
I don't think standards of practice should extend to what's said between friends in a private forum. That's pretty intrusive, to be honest.
If they did make threats to the journalist, then that's a serious matter, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Private_Joker wrote:The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Facebook is for.
chaos0xomega wrote:Yes actually. I know in this increasingly touchy-feely politically correct "lets be sensitive towards others and do something positive" world we have the perception that the military exists to help people, etc. but the reality of the situation is that the military exists to destroy property and to kill people. Everything else is secondary and of far lesser importance.
The problem is that isn't true. We simply do not judge a units performance by how much stuff it destroyed, we judge it by whether it got the mission done, and increasingly that mission simply doesn't involve straight up destroying stuff.
The type of person that dislikes others for being of a different culture/nationality from themselves/their homeleand, has anger issues, and acts in what would otherwise be described as a violent/antisocial manner is exactly the kind of person you want employed in an organization thats prime directive is to destroy things for being of a different culture/nationality from the people they are sworn to protect.
Which is also completely not true. Military forces are more commonly deployed to secure the peace overseas, not just shoot people from a different background.
Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted. Also sebster when i say higher standard of human being I mean they have to be presenting what there preaching. Acting like tools and not respecting how society works is for civilians. When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.
When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.
A forum that is (officially) only viewable by members is hardly public (and I'm someone who argues the internet is like a public street). We needed some douche from Anon to actually make us aware of this and he's probably swimming in self-righteousness about now. The actions of an individual are not representative of a nation whether your a tinker, tailor, soldier, or a sailor. Only idiots, and thus, the vast majority of the world's population think that hence why we get stuck dealing with crap like this that should otherwise be no where near noteworthy.
Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted. Also sebster when i say higher standard of human being I mean they have to be presenting what there preaching. By acting like tools and not respecting how society works is for civilians. When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.
Look, it's no that complicated. Soldiers should be able to act, say, feel (almost) however they want.......just not in public. They don't need sensitivity training, they need publicity training. It's stupid crap like this that is constantly giving the US military Black Eyes on the global stage. Burn Korans with secret messages in them, fine, but be discrete about it. In today's linked in society desecration really is the better part of valor. Remember, in general you are dealing with 18 year olds that couldn't afford to go to college, what exactly are you expecting from them. I'm sure during the Empire there there were centurions that had some great jokes about Gauls, it's kind of a time honored tradition.
It's like Clinton. Am I angry he was getting a BJ, not really. I'm angry he was stupid enough to get caught.
NOTE: I try really hard to stay out of off-topic but this one hits close to home:
I'm in a group on Facebook called US INFANTRY, it has a lot of members and gets in trouble with facebook for things like this too. I don't post on it except maybe like a picture every once in a while but What ya'll may not know is that this group does fundraising, and seeks out and outs people who pretend to be military as well. These guys are just having their own kind of fun. One of the people they outed as having lied about military service complained to Facebook and had the posts in question removed, so not all of the bad press is justified. Most of the guys in the group are prior service, you have guys who were in Somalia, Desert Storm etc. The guy who started it isn't even in anymore. As for holding military to higher standards, we are regular people just like everyone else, we just chose to do something most people are unwilling or unable to do themselves and that's straight out of my drill's mouth in infantry OSUT. As for some of the name calling I have seen in these posts about this whole thing, those "idiots" are the ones fighting and dying for the 99%'s to about how much their lives suck, and allow the 1% to make money off of it all and use it in campaigns. Would you get mad at your grand dad who was in Guadalcanal or your great uncle who jumped into normandy for calling someone a slur, probably not, you'd chock it up to old prejudice created in the hell that is war. This is the same thing just over blown because of the openess of the internet. I understand it's all about hearts and minds but I know from experience that that is a lot of gak. They don't care and don't want it. If they were threatening someone that goes to far, but infantry are infantry if you didn't have the dirty mouthed fowl minded individuals doing all the dirty work, then who would? The cooks? The mechanics? Seen them in action too, not too impressed. I think ol' winston said it the best. BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?
Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted.
I think you're the one who has no clue what a modern army is. The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources. The story that the global media has sold you is a lie engineered by senior military and government officials to downplay how disastrous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Make no mistake, a military exists to destroy property and kill people. Even the finance officer sitting behind a desk safe and sound in the American heartland is there so that the trigger-pullers and door-kickers in the AO will be able to effectively accomplish that task. You won't see many modern militaries attempting to nation-build while fighting an insurgency again in the future. The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.
Private_Joker wrote:Recently a facebook page created by some serving and former army personel came under fire from the media when comments from the social group were leaked by an anonymous user. The comments in question were mainly aimed at Muslims, homosexuals and the reforms for women being allowed to serve in combat roles. These idiots "venting" on the internet have even gone to the extent of threatening the journalist who exposed them by texting her with abusive messages.
If this is true, its the only thing that's worthy of disciplinary action.
Venting in a private context is one thing, but its another matter when that "venting" amounts to threats.
The army isn't the same anymore Fattimus, you can't have these idiots (yes they are idiots, even the Chief is calling them that) going around doing this racial/sexist behaviour. The major problem I was pointing out was that this report opened up a whole world of hurt on people who are on the recieving end of the jokes on Facebook.
It's the Facebook behaviour that they don't want in the military, and they are trying to get rid of it. The report opened up this whole culture within the military that has nothing to do with facebook. Sure I respect people who have fought and died trying to protect our freedom, but does that allow them to take the freedom of Muslims, homosexuals and females from being able to have the same chance?
chaos0xomega wrote:The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources.
The issue, as occupation and peacekeeping go, isn't size, its cost and political support. The US military is plenty large to occupy Iraq, its just expensive to do so, and political support for occupations is, generally, very low.
Strategies that focus on hearts and minds (read: COIN) are definitely not a waste of resources.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.
Not really, the rebellions there are not at all like the situation that lead to the most recent conflict in Iraq, or the terrorist action that instigated Afghanistan.
I agree, we aren't likely to see much nation building in the future, certainly not of the unilateral sort, but not because its impossible task for the military: because no one wants to pay for it politically, or economically.
Look, those comments are going to be made either way, whether it be verbally around the campfire/watercooler, via text message, or on facebook. "Minority" groups (relative to the military population, not the civilian one) will generally know full well that this behavior goes on, and is unavoidable. It doesn't make it right, but this shouldn't come as a surprise...
Private_Joker wrote:Alright people here have no clue what a modern army is, for one killing people is good and all if you want like 10% of the result you wanted.
I think you're the one who has no clue what a modern army is. The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources. The story that the global media has sold you is a lie engineered by senior military and government officials to downplay how disastrous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. Make no mistake, a military exists to destroy property and kill people. Even the finance officer sitting behind a desk safe and sound in the American heartland is there so that the trigger-pullers and door-kickers in the AO will be able to effectively accomplish that task. You won't see many modern militaries attempting to nation-build while fighting an insurgency again in the future. The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.
So destroy the nation, remove the government and not bother to help the thousands of refugees you just created? Yep that will work.
Oh look the British did the exact opposite in the Dhofor war in the Oman. Wow maybe they should have spent big bucks on bombing the gak out of them.
chaos0xomega wrote:The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources.
The issue, as occupation and peacekeeping go, isn't size, its cost and political support. The US military is plenty large to occupy Iraq, its just expensive to do so, and political support for occupations is, generally, very low.
Strategies that focus on hearts and minds (read: COIN) are definitely not a waste of resources.
I disagree. Besides the fact that we presently lack the manpower to effectively occupy a country like Afghanistan (which is somewhat of a unique case in that regards owing to the terrain and the porous border situation with pakistan, as well as to the political orientation and leaning of certain neighboring states...), our hearts and minds/counter-insurgency campaign has accomplished little for us overall, Afghanistan is just as dangerous now as it was 5-10 years ago. An interesting article that better illustrates things:
So destroy the nation, remove the government and not bother to help the thousands of refugees you just created? Yep that will work.
Oh look the British did the exact opposite in Dhofor. Wow maybe they should have spent big bucks on bombing the gak out of them.
Who said anything about removing the government? For the longest time, war was seen as a way of forcing a government into compliance, not of replacing the government entirely. The only time in the past century that I can think of (prior to Iraq/Afghanistan) that a major power rebuilt the government of a conquered foe was the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany. There was also that thing with Panama, but thats a bit more complicated... >.> Sometime during the Bush administration the government seemed to come up with the idea that you it could create a Pax Americana by setting up pseudo-puppet governments in trouble spots, which is part of the reason why we got into this mess in the first place. If you look back through history however:
Bosnia/Kosovo: bombing campaign to force compliance and ceasefire
Gulf War: military campaign to force withdrawal from Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and disarm Iraq
Vietnam: military campagin to protect South Vietnam, convince North Vietnam to agree to ceasefire
Korea: military campaign to protect South Korea, convince North Korea to cease hostilities
etc. etc.etc.
The guys are educated enough to know not to do it but they do anyway because they don't realise the consequences. I say a harsher punishment for these idiots, even if they are safe under the "law of the land". The army has its own discipline system, and the I hope the Chief uses it order to crack down on these fools.
Who are "these guys" you speak of. Your average soldier is an uneducated 18 year old that could not afford college. You really expect them to be paragons on morality at all times, while asking them to risk their lives in combat against people who really don't give a gak. It's unrealistic and I'd submit counter productive to expect them to be professional 24/7 and have no bias against their enimies . When they get caught doing something stupid in public they need to be reprimanded, but everybody makes off color jokes behind closed doors. Somewhere there is a guy who heard Gandhi tell a racial Joke or two.
While I'm against war in general, soldiers tend to go through hell on a stick. Making jokes to cope is like when a fireman asks his workmate if he will be eating bacon for tea.
"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. "These guys" are the ones who mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour. "These guys" don't deserve the right to be in a UNIFORMAL yet DIVERSE army. When I say uniformal I mean they are all to the same standard of behaviour they signed in a contract and when I say diverse I mean people who are protected from this constant BS from "these guys". Just because they are 18 doesn't mean they come under a different set of rules.
chaos0xomega wrote:
I disagree. Besides the fact that we presently lack the manpower to effectively occupy a country like Afghanistan (which is somewhat of a unique case in that regards owing to the terrain and the porous border situation with pakistan, as well as to the political orientation and leaning of certain neighboring states...), our hearts and minds/counter-insurgency campaign has accomplished little for us overall, Afghanistan is just as dangerous now as it was 5-10 years ago.
Not having the man power to occupy any country in the world does not mean you do not have the man power to occupy a country. No military has man power to occupy Russia, save maybe China, but that doesn't mean no country in the world can occupy, say, Yemen.
And, while COIN hasn't worked well in Afghanistan, it did work well in Iraq. Significantly better than prior military strategies which largely focused on doing exactly what you're saying we're good at: killing people and blowing things up. You can't dismiss and approach to warfare as ineffective simply because its not effective in all possible situations, because no approach to warfare is effective in all possible situations.
chaos0xomega wrote:
An interesting article that better illustrates things:
Sure, I read that, but as I said above, you can't take Afghanistan as a universal example.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Who said anything about removing the government? For the longest time, war was seen as a way of forcing a government into compliance, not of replacing the government entirely. The only time in the past century that I can think of (prior to Iraq/Afghanistan) that a major power rebuilt the government of a conquered foe was the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany.
Did you forget Japan? Then there's all the early 20th century imperial wars (mostly France), and all the conflicts leading up to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Bosnia/Kosovo: bombing campaign to force compliance and ceasefire
Kosovo's government was built by the UN.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Gulf War: military campaign to force withdrawal from Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and disarm Iraq
Ended in the de facto removal of control over about 1/3 of Southern Iraq by way of no-fly zones.
Private_Joker wrote:Also sebster when i say higher standard of human being I mean they have to be presenting what there preaching. Acting like tools and not respecting how society works is for civilians. When a soldier presents himself in public he is not going to act like a civilian because he is doing a job that represents an entire nation and his actions have an effect on the entire nation.
Ah, you mean hold them to a higher standard because the job they do carries a significant level of responsibility. Fair enough, I agree with you there, thanks for the clarification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:In today's linked in society desecration really is the better part of valor.
Was this intended as a pun, because if so it was really pretty clever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:The US has learned the hard way that modern militaries are too small to successfully function as a peacekeeping force or as a force of occupation, and that hearts and minds campaigns are a waste of resources.
No-one, anywhere has made either of the claims you make above, so don't just make things up. It makes you look silly, and drags the conversation away from something that could be interesting and towards people correcting your ridiculous claims.
You won't see many modern militaries attempting to nation-build while fighting an insurgency again in the future. The events in Libya, Egypt, and Syria are proof enough of that.
Uh huh. So all the peace keeping operations that continued throughout the 1990s and 2000s, albeit without US troops, are to be entirely ignored, and instead we are to hyper-focus on the two US led campaigns, and use that as absolutely evidence of future events.
You do not get to just make things up because you like how they sound in your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Who said anything about removing the government? For the longest time, war was seen as a way of forcing a government into compliance, not of replacing the government entirely. The only time in the past century that I can think of (prior to Iraq/Afghanistan) that a major power rebuilt the government of a conquered foe was the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany. There was also that thing with Panama, but thats a bit more complicated... >.> Sometime during the Bush administration the government seemed to come up with the idea that you it could create a Pax Americana by setting up pseudo-puppet governments in trouble spots, which is part of the reason why we got into this mess in the first place. If you look back through history however:
Bosnia/Kosovo: bombing campaign to force compliance and ceasefire Gulf War: military campaign to force withdrawal from Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and disarm Iraq Vietnam: military campagin to protect South Vietnam, convince North Vietnam to agree to ceasefire Korea: military campaign to protect South Korea, convince North Korea to cease hostilities etc. etc.etc.
Does your knowledge of military operations extend beyond US engagements at all?
How does your theory of 'soldiers are there to kill people' reconcile with the successful East Timor peacekeeping operation?
Andrew1975 wrote:Who are "these guys" you speak of. Your average soldier is an uneducated 18 year old that could not afford college. You really expect them to be paragons on morality at all times, while asking them to risk their lives in combat against people who really don't give a gak.
We can expect them to have the discipline required to effectively complete their mission. That's kind of the point of having professional, exceptionally trained soldiers.
It's unrealistic and I'd submit counter productive to expect them to be professional 24/7 and have no bias against their enimies . When they get caught doing something stupid in public they need to be reprimanded, but everybody makes off color jokes behind closed doors. Somewhere there is a guy who heard Gandhi tell a racial Joke or two.
Sure, there's no need to extend that need for discipline to making sure they never, ever tell a racist joke, I agree with you there.
Racist jokes are fine for private matters, I admit they are funny and some of my friends laugh who are of that ethinicity make them with me. But what they did on facebook was way, way over the top of just a few jokes between mates. The page was litterally attacking, not just joking, but attacking these minoritys.
I would also like to point out that this discussion isn't solely based on the facebook matter but what the troops are doing in real life. Some of it amounts to bullying and harrasment and yet seems to go unpunished.
You know , having looked at the source material for my self , I am surpised not by the comments or the material its self
What does surpise me is the poor operational security, I recall having a long very detailed instruction on personal safety , information security and what you share with others...
Granted I serve with the world most proffesional standing army and all the others are poor imitations, its clear that this level of traning is either absence,poor or not enforced in these lesser tranined or skilled forces.
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest...have you ever actually met squaddies? They aren't known for their bourgeious opinions.
And the notion of soldiers being warrior-gods has only come about in the past 20 years or so. In the Victorian age professional soldiers were regarded as scum on the same level as manual workers.
Joey wrote:This doesn't surprise me in the slightest...have you ever actually met squaddies? They aren't known for their bourgeious opinions.
And the notion of soldiers being warrior-gods has only come about in the past 20 years or so. In the Victorian age professional soldiers were regarded as scum on the same level as manual workers.
In the Victorian age we used prisoners for soldiers...
Admittedly training was extensive (in those days) but they were still a rather large bunch of armed criminals...
Tauzor wrote:You know , having looked at the source material for my self , I am surpised not by the comments or the material its self
What does surpise me is the poor operational security, I recall having a long very detailed instruction on personal safety , information security and what you share with others...
Granted I serve with the world most proffesional standing army and all the others are poor imitations, its clear that this level of traning is either absence,poor or not enforced in these lesser tranined or skilled forces.
Alright as I said at the start of the thread the training is there, but you are obviously going to have a few so and so's muck it up for the majority who really are professional and exceptional soldiers. I mean the work done overseas and the character shown is amazing but the issue of racism and sexism is still prevelant from long standing ideals from troops who were part of the era where even the mention of homosexuals joining was laughable, and some of these guys are passing it onto the next generation, hell even a senior officer is being investigated over this. I mean we're not all perfect and even the UK's soldiers have even been in some hot water before.
"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
Dark humor like that is a human way of dealing with emotions, so stressful you can't talk about them openly.
Private_Joker wrote:
"The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on."
Sebster wrote
"I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Facebook is for. "
+1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Private_Joker wrote:"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. "These guys" are the ones who mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour. "These guys" don't deserve the right to be in a UNIFORMAL yet DIVERSE army. When I say uniformal I mean they are all to the same standard of behaviour they signed in a contract and when I say diverse I mean people who are protected from this constant BS from "these guys". Just because they are 18 doesn't mean they come under a different set of rules.
These guys are out there getting shot at. So you can stay safe at home in a warm bed, pontificating on the internet
When I was saying "these guys" I was referring to the inconsiderate ones ruining the majority's reputation. I am part of the majority so start reading before you start flaming mate.
I think it's less important to look at what they SAY, and to appreciate what they actually DO - UK, USA and Australian (and Canadians, Kiwis... Anglophone nations, basically)troops overwhelmingly conduct themselves with tact and professionalism. They abide by strict rules of engagement, and brutalisation of native populations is very, very rare amongst Anglophone servicemen - it's a cultural thing. They really are held to, and perform to, higher standards than pretty much all other militaries on the planet. I think we can afford to cut them some slack when it comes to, shall we say, 'inadvisable' humour.
1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?
2. Despite macho posturing, it isn't actually within our capability to kill everyone with whom we disagree, so we need to find other ways to come to terms with them.
Some muslims in some countries are enemies now. All of them throughout the world are not. If we let our forces do things to piss off muslims, it harms the overall objective of achieving a settlement.
3. Bigotry and hatred does not make a good basis for sound operational reasoning.
loki old fart wrote:"What do you do when you see a muslim crossing the street? Reload."
Dark humor like that is a human way of dealing with emotions, so stressful you can't talk about them openly.
Private_Joker wrote:
"The army is not a private group and that facebook page is not a private group considering it has a thousand members and was not meant for being complete and utter A-holes on."
Sebster wrote
"I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Facebook is for. "
+1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Private_Joker wrote:"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. "These guys" are the ones who mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour. "These guys" don't deserve the right to be in a UNIFORMAL yet DIVERSE army. When I say uniformal I mean they are all to the same standard of behaviour they signed in a contract and when I say diverse I mean people who are protected from this constant BS from "these guys". Just because they are 18 doesn't mean they come under a different set of rules.
These guys are out there getting shot at. So you can stay safe at home in a warm bed, pontificating on the internet
Somewhat miss-leading. It is in the nature of every man to fight for the defence of his country and family.
What we have at the moment is a professional army full of people who want to kill for a living. This does not make them bad people, or savages, or whatever. But to be surprised at attitudes like this from such people is, frankly, naive.
Albatross wrote:I think it's less important to look at what they SAY, and to appreciate what they actually DO - UK, USA and Australian (and Canadians, Kiwis... Anglophone nations, basically)troops overwhelmingly conduct themselves with tact and professionalism. They abide by strict rules of engagement, and brutalisation of native populations is very, very rare amongst Anglophone servicemen - it's a cultural thing. They really are held to, and perform to, higher standards than pretty much all other militaries on the planet. I think we can afford to cut them some slack when it comes to, shall we say, 'inadvisable' humour.
1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.
Woah! You're saying the military is bigoted? That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?
I'm not saying that should be the case, I'm saying that we should judge our servicemen on their actions, and not their words. They are not men of words, after all. They are men of action, and their actions speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of British/US/Can/Aus/NZ service personnel discharge their duties with consummate professionalism.
Kilkrazy wrote:
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?
By 2001 census figures 13.5% of people are Catholic, 3.3% are Muslim.
Given that immigration from South Asia slumped and immigration from Catholic Eastern Europe rocketed in decade since, it's unlikely those figures have changed much.
source
I bet your country has more cops than soldiers, and that those cops interact with your citizens much more extensively. And I bet your cops have a similar sense of humor and that they tell similar jokes.
These kids screwed up threatening the journalist. They should have been smarter than to post any of this crap to Facebook (I've had a long talk multiple times with Son2 about the lack of privacy and the permancy of internet comms).
But to think they are unethical for telling jokes in bad taste? I don't get that.
Ever watch a Richard Prior stand up routine? One done in public, and taped for release? Are comedians like him unethical?
You should hear some of the running cadences troopers use daily in garrison at PT. Filled with sex and violence.
It almost seems a if you think their ought to be some type of mind police that control the way folks think and punish them for thoughts you don't approve of.
1. Multicultural societies like the USA, Australia and the UK, have many citizens of the groups the bigoted military hate.
Woah! You're saying the military is bigoted? That's a pretty sweeping generalisation.
I mean that bigoted people in the military are bigoted -- referring to the people whose facebook page is the thread topic. They naturally have counterparts in other militaries and in society as a whole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
For example there are as many muslims in the UK as there are Roman Catholics. Do we want the British Army to hate our own muslims?
By 2001 census figures 13.5% of people are Catholic, 3.3% are Muslim.
Given that immigration from South Asia slumped and immigration from Catholic Eastern Europe rocketed in decade since, it's unlikely those figures have changed much.
source
I am sure you do not mean that it is alright for people in the army to hate only 3.3% of their own population.
But again, what they say and what they do are actually two different things. Making off-colour jokes between friends is not the same as active discrimination and brutality at operational level.
Racist humour is socially transgressive, and some people enjoy engaging in such behaviour, but I'm willing to bet that very few of those people are actively racist. I know people who make racist jokes (and jokes about other taboo subjects) who would baulk at the idea of treating people differently based on the colour of their skin. Transgressive behaviour is about the thrill of breaking out of social straightjackets - it has nothing to do with hate. We need a sensible discussion about this at a national level urgently.
It's hard to distinguish on a message board between soldiers whose bigotry is genuine and others who are just "having a laugh".
Some soldiers do enact their hatreds on the battlefield, which is against operational doctrine and military law. We need our soldiers to carry out the assigned mission, not enact their personal biases. That is why they are under military discipline.
We know that "group think" can lead to the diffusion of attitudes within a social group, of soldiers for example. Part of the way this happens is by verbal interaction.
Therefore the kind of "hate speech" under discussion should be suppressed, otherwise we tacitly license it, which may lead to an increase in the undesired behaviour.
I have a lot to say about this, but can't muster the effort to say it all, so here are just a few posts that stand out to me.
Bromsy wrote:Meh. Threats against the journalist or whatever, if true, are too far. But you can't expect every enlisted man or woman to be a goodwill ambassador to the world at all hours of the day and night.
Even as advanced and professional as armies in first world nations are becoming, there has to be an element of hating and dehumanizing your enemy. It's how you make yourself go out and kill them, and an army that can't do that isn't much of an army.
Oh, I see. I thought we were fighting a war against terrorism. But it turns out it's a war against Muslims in general, and apparently, homosexuals and women too! I didn't know that!
Fattimus_maximus wrote:BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?
I love it when people pull this. Puts them on a nice high-horse.
Albatross wrote:But again, what they say and what they do are actually two different things. Making off-colour jokes between friends is not the same as active discrimination and brutality at operational level.
Except that they're soldiers, and they're telling jokes about shooting people. Which is a sign that these guys might be inclined to go out and kill people indiscriminately, despite the rules of engagement. So by judging their words, we can prevent their actions, rather than waiting for Captain Hindsight.
And just to finish off, in the UK, you can be arrested for saying things like that. You'd get chucked out of the army, no question. You can come up with any excuse you like, the fact is that the armed forces have standards, and if you're below them, you're not fit to serve.
biccat wrote:While I don't like the comments, I don't see why you should hold military personnel to your personal level of ethics.
"I" don't hold the military to anything.
The body politic, however, holds the military to certain standards, to which I have referred in previous posts.
The OP does. He asked for personal opinions.
You're ignoring your role in "the body politic." Majority ethics don't arise sua sponte, they are a reflection of the society as a whole.
They are a reflection of the ruling elite.
The general public have no qualms whatsoever about racism or hatred...where do you think these soldiers come from?
You claim that soldiers are subject to the moral standards of the body politic. Assuming you're living in a marginally democratic country, this includes you.
You can't, in toto, abrogate your responsibility for forming part of the body politic.
Frazzled wrote:DANGER! Lawyer using Latin! Approach with caution.
Except that they're soldiers, and they're telling jokes about shooting people. Which is a sign that these guys might be inclined to go out and kill people indiscriminately, despite the rules of engagement. So by judging their words, we can prevent their actions, rather than waiting for Captain Hindsight.
I was threatening to shoot some absolutely terrible karaoke singers the other night.
This does not mean I am about to go out and kill people indiscriminately.
You claim that soldiers are subject to the moral standards of the body politic. Assuming you're living in a marginally democratic country, this includes you.
You can't, in toto, abrogate your responsibility for forming part of the body politic.
You claim that soldiers are subject to the moral standards of the body politic. Assuming you're living in a marginally democratic country, this includes you.
You can't, in toto, abrogate your responsibility for forming part of the body politic.
Frazzled wrote:DANGER! Lawyer using Latin! Approach with caution.
inter arma enim silent leges
I'd have thought "quis custodiet ipsos custodes" would be more apt in this topic...
Private_Joker wrote:"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. .
Where did this come from O.o thought we were talking about people slinging derogatory jokes at one another, not actually being criminal (aside from the dumbshit decision to threaten a journalist)... BTW, you haven't actually provided a link or any documentation of what was said really... how can you expect us to get up in arms about this when the only reference or proof of what is going on you have provided is a commonly told joke that i have heard a million times over (including from civilians)?
And, while COIN hasn't worked well in Afghanistan, it did work well in Iraq. Significantly better than prior military strategies which largely focused on doing exactly what you're saying we're good at: killing people and blowing things up. You can't dismiss and approach to warfare as ineffective simply because its not effective in all possible situations, because no approach to warfare is effective in all possible situations.
I would disagree, US military leaders continue to warn that Iraq is teetering on the brink of renewed Civil War, not to mention the widespread influence and corruption within the Iraqi government from Tehran. Hell, the Iranian paramilitary organizations at work within Iraq have done a better job of capturing hearts and minds than the US military has.... If the insurgency isn't shrinking, its winning, and its definitely not shrinking...
Did you forget Japan? Then there's all the early 20th century imperial wars (mostly France), and all the conflicts leading up to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
You'll note that Japan's government was not entirely purged and rebuilt from the ground up, elements of it were allowed to continue and it took a very similar structure post war to what it was pre war, but with more checks to prevent the military/defense forces from dominating once again. You'll also note that those early 20th century imperial wars that did involve replacement of existing governments were the estabishment of puppet governments. That doesn't really count because the de facto government was the imperial power in question, the installed de jure puppets may as well have been installed colonial governments. Its quite a different situation to invade with the intent of subjugating and conquering than it is to invade with the intent of rebuilding a legitimate state. In any case, we can see how well it worked out for those states in question....
Kosovo's government was built by the UN.
Thats a rather over-simplified view on a rather complex series of events. In any case, we didn't destroy an existing government in order to do that. Yugoslavia was fracturing already but it continued to exist afterwards, and those new governments built themselves because they wanted to, they may have had outside assistance, but to say that it was all the UN is robbing them of their accomplishment of achieved self-determination. Besides that, we weren't bombing Kosovo, we were bombing Yugoslavia... to force compliance with the international view that Kosovo should be autonomous/independent and to force a ceasefire...
Ended in the de facto removal of control over about 1/3 of Southern Iraq by way of no-fly zones.
Your point being? we didn't actually attempt to establish a new government there...
Uh huh. So all the peace keeping operations that continued throughout the 1990s and 2000s, albeit without US troops, are to be entirely ignored, and instead we are to hyper-focus on the two US led campaigns, and use that as absolutely evidence of future events.
Yes, because they aren't in line with my point. Most (if not all) of those peacekeeping operations were conducted because the peacekeepers were INVITED, not because the peacekeepers were an invading force attempting to establish a new government
How does your theory of 'soldiers are there to kill people' reconcile with the successful East Timor peacekeeping operation?
Successful? I didnt realize successful meant ongoing... in any case, once again the peacekeepers were invited in, not because they invaded...
Its not a theory, its fact. In the US at least, one of the first things (every?) Cadets/Midshipmen/Officer Recruits (or at least all the ones I know, I was certainly) is asked is, "What is the purpose of the United States Armed Forces?" Everyone gives answers like, to defend the United States, or to provide global peacekeeping operations and humanitarian relief or some crap like that. We are then corrected, told that we are signing up for an organization thats prime directive is to "Destroy property and kill people, everything else comes secondary, and as officers you will be expected to lead personnel in the accomplishment of that goal. If you have issues doing that then you should leave now." Hell, those peacekeepers are there to destroy property and kill people so that other people wont be killed or have their property destroyed if you take a certain view of things...
Private_Joker wrote:"These guys" are the ones who dressed up in a KKK outfit and decided to video tape it. "These guys" are the ones that had sex with a girl at a defence academy and decided to post it on youtube without her permission. "These guys" are the ones who mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour. "These guys" don't deserve the right to be in a UNIFORMAL yet DIVERSE army. When I say uniformal I mean they are all to the same standard of behaviour they signed in a contract and when I say diverse I mean people who are protected from this constant BS from "these guys". Just because they are 18 doesn't mean they come under a different set of rules.
Look I don't really have a problem with any of that.......Except that they were stupid enough to get caught. That deserves some punishment. What really happened here?
dressed up in a KKK outfit.....I find it morally reprehensible but thats just me. There is nothing illegal about wearing clan outfits.
had sex with a girl at a defence academy......Nothing wrong with that.
mock and degrade people based on gender and skin colour......So you have never been to a poker game?
People do all kinds of objectionable things behind closed doors, you can't really enforce morality, do you want soldier or ambassadors? Most people that are really good at one are terrible at the other. People really expect to much from soldiers. They want them insane enough to go to a live battle field, but sensitive enough to consider the repercussions of every action. Its not going to happen.
The crime here is being stupid enough to record and distribute their shenanigans, not the shenanigans themselves.
I especially think about this for the dark humor that soldiers experience. I don't have a problem with soldiers posing with a kill. I have a problem when they let that picture go viral.
Also the reason I said the "these guys" comment was because the thread is about the standards of soldiers and the institutional racism and hatred that is installed. Please re-read the first post.
Please enough with the boys will be boys attitude and the "they can do it if they aren't caught". It's the fact they were doing it in the first place is wrong.
I would also like to add having sex with a fellow soldier is illeagal on a military base and so is dressing up in a KKK outfit and so is mocking and degrading people.
Private_Joker wrote:Just do a quick google search dude.
Also the reason I said the "these guys" comment was because the thread is about the standards of soldiers and the institutional racism and hatred that is installed. Please re-read the first post.
Are you kidding me, you are just being too sensitive. Telling racist jokes does not necessarily make you racist. Have you ever actually hung out with guys in the military? Black guys and white guys tell racist jokes to each other all the time. If you are so sensitive that you take offense to every jab, you probably shouldn't be in the military, its not for @ussies. I don't think you really get to judge the morality of soldiers until you have been in their positions.
Yes when the crap goes public, there is a real problem. For the most part they need to be taught better discretion, not better morals.
I would also like to add having sex with a fellow soldier is illeagal on a military base and so is dressing up in a KKK outfit and so is mocking and degrading people.
So you admit that they are already held to higher standards. These actions are not illegal for the general public.
You wouldn't need discreation when you have the morals not to do it in the first place. Yes I have been on a military base and you can really put your foot in your mouth when you tell that joke to the wrong person. Plus I'm not focusing on the jokes that were made I'm focusing on the damn comments that were literally spewing hate on women, muslims and homosexuals. Please re-read the original post.
EDIT: And yes they are to higher standards its the fact the military system isn't catching up to them. I just wanted Dakka's opinion. Also does it make me sensitive when I see the consequences of this behaviour and decide I'm sick of it?
Well for one those planes arn't the property of the young man and second writing your personal thoughts on an aircraft that represents a whole organisation is a bad idea.
Sturmtruppen wrote:I have a lot to say about this, but can't muster the effort to say it all, so here are just a few posts that stand out to me.
Bromsy wrote:Meh. Threats against the journalist or whatever, if true, are too far. But you can't expect every enlisted man or woman to be a goodwill ambassador to the world at all hours of the day and night.
Even as advanced and professional as armies in first world nations are becoming, there has to be an element of hating and dehumanizing your enemy. It's how you make yourself go out and kill them, and an army that can't do that isn't much of an army.
Oh, I see. I thought we were fighting a war against terrorism. But it turns out it's a war against Muslims in general, and apparently, homosexuals and women too! I didn't know that!
Fattimus_maximus wrote:BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?
I love it when people pull this. Puts them on a nice high-horse.
Albatross wrote:But again, what they say and what they do are actually two different things. Making off-colour jokes between friends is not the same as active discrimination and brutality at operational level.
Except that they're soldiers, and they're telling jokes about shooting people. Which is a sign that these guys might be inclined to go out and kill people indiscriminately, despite the rules of engagement. So by judging their words, we can prevent their actions, rather than waiting for Captain Hindsight.
And just to finish off, in the UK, you can be arrested for saying things like that. You'd get chucked out of the army, no question. You can come up with any excuse you like, the fact is that the armed forces have standards, and if you're below them, you're not fit to serve.
Well, you seem to have thoroughly missed my point.
Except that they're soldiers, and they're telling jokes about shooting people. Which is a sign that these guys might be inclined to go out and kill people indiscriminately, despite the rules of engagement. So by judging their words, we can prevent their actions, rather than waiting for Captain Hindsight.
I was threatening to shoot some absolutely terrible karaoke singers the other night.
This does not mean I am about to go out and kill people indiscriminately.
Are you currently a soldier deployed in a region with karaoke singing extremists, entrusted to fight said minority of karaoke extremists while maintaining the trust of the rest of the karaoke singing population? And are karaoke singers commonly targetted by extreme right-wing parties?
LordofHats wrote:Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech, which includes speech we don't like.
However, it does mean that you have to be held up to a certain standard to preserve the privilege of being a part of the army.
Given that muslims are a part of the army, attacking muslims with such epithets indicates disloyalty and a desire to create disunity within the military. These two are usually punishable to some extent under military law.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:BTW who in this little discussion has actually served?
I have to say, this sort of thing has to stop. Just because a person hasn't served in the military does not mean that their opinions are automatically invalid or even lesser than those who have.
That's not how it works. This also goes for the "They fight so you can make these comments" arguments; that does not put them on some sort of pedestal where nobody is allowed to say anything about them.
That said, I would say that this incident is both not representative of soldiers as a whole. Soldiers are just ordinary guys and girls, at the end of the day, who have a dangerous job to do.
Does this mean they are beyond reproach because they do that job? Of course not. But it must be considered that the stress of the job can get to them, and that is what produces incidents like this;
a need to blow off steam that results in very misguided statements.
Albatross probably summed it up better than me, but eh.
Do I actually want to murder my boss at work or think that he's actually a giant male appendage? No, but I make jokes about it to blow off steam. Same story here. If we didn't auto-worship military personnel there'd be less of it, but they basically sign their lives away for years at a time.
They damn well should be held to a better standard. Maybe not better than a normal human being, but at least we should expect them not to act like murderous psychopaths who have no fear of the law.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Do I actually want to murder my boss at work or think that he's actually a giant male appendage?
So you see no difference between:
*exasperated* "what a dick!"
and
"What do you call 10,000 muslims* at the bottom of the sea? A good start!*"
*I heard that with about another ethnic group. It is the most tame one I could post.
Some of it is just dark humor and a way to blow of steam, some of it is actually inappropriate and should be cracked down on, but the line can sometimes be pretty hard to distinguish.
You wouldn't need discreation when you have the morals not to do it in the first place. Yes I have been on a military base and you can really put your foot in your mouth when you tell that joke to the wrong person. Plus I'm not focusing on the jokes that were made I'm focusing on the damn comments that were literally spewing hate on women, muslims and homosexuals. Please re-read the original post.
EDIT: And yes they are to higher standards its the fact the military system isn't catching up to them. I just wanted Dakka's opinion. Also does it make me sensitive when I see the consequences of this behaviour and decide I'm sick of it?
Yes you can put your foot in your mouth, thats why most people in the military are careful about when they open their mouths and dislike sensitive crybabies that can't take a little ribbing. I've never understood people that want to be included in activities, yet complain when they can't take the social interaction. Some of my friends and I pick on each other mercilessly when we play poker, if you can give as well as you take you are more than welcome to join us. The second you start crying about it my friends will pick on you till you leave, you are not welcome in the group and we should not be expected to change our behavior, its how we like it, if you don't like it don't come play. We have a couple of gay guys that play with us, do they have to hear cigarette jokes once in a while.......you bet they do. Do they know the best ones...yep. Do we have to hear about their sexual exploits sometimes......yep. They are actually great guys and really add some fun to the games, but they know its all in good humor, if we didn't want them there we wouldn't let them be there.
Your moral expectations are really too high. You are again talking about people that have little life experience and education. There is a reason many people join the military, they have very few other options. In general your buck privates are not coming from the upper echelons of society, you expect these people to be saints? Many of these people would be unemployed or working at McDonald's if it wasn't for the military. You really expect them to be instant paragons of a professional military who cannot express their myriad of beliefs on a private internet group? What you want is moral censorship.
Their job is to kill people, not have feelings concerning the act.
How could they not? This is BS. They are not robots. They have feelings, and sometimes the easiest way to justify shooting at someone is to demonize and hate them.
First I will preface by saying that I am posting this from a tab so if there's spelling errors my thumbs only work so well with this touch screen, second I am not intending to argue a point, only insert my 2 cents from a viewpoint of someone who served in the navy and may have a different viewpoint than someone who is "looking in from the outside". Now this isn't to say that just because you haven't served your opinion is invalid, but to say that the perspective is going to differ.
I know that while I served there was a deffinate abundanc of off humor, crude, sometimes racist jokes that, to someone who hasn't spent 6 months "hot racking" on a deployment with the people that the jokes are being told around, would see as extremely unprofessional and possibly label the person telling the joke as a racist or at the least an unfriendly/unprofessional person. But the fact of the matter is that the people I served with and even those I didnt meet I considered brothers, no matter the color of thier skin, religious views, or sexual preferance. I would lay my life on the line to make sure that they got home to see their loved ones the same they would do for me. Does one of them telling a joke that could be perceived as racist change that? No. Does one of them telling a joke that could be perceived as'racist meen that that person is a racist? No. Especially if someone did take offence to it then we work it out like adults and carry on with our lives. Of all the things that we have to worry abou t while deployed I would say that: that concern is the least of them. I know that when the **** hits the fan I can rely on whatever person is sitting next to me, black white brown green Christian Muslim Jewish or whatever they will have my back same as I will have theirs.
People in the military speak to each other differently than we speak to civilians, and off humor, crude jokes are one ways we dealt with all the crap we had to put up with on a daily basis, if you can't laugh about something you will eventually go crazy. Humor, and your fellow service member, no matter how crude, is what can keep you going whenall else seems to have gone to crap. And again if someone takes offense to something that is said we work it out like adults and we know where that line is now so we don't cross it in the future.
Now I am fortunate enough to have never been shot at, but I can fully understand how someone who goes out every day and takes enemy fire can have a hatred towards those who are attempting to kill them. Tell me of a soldier who goes out on patrol and gets attacked on a frequent basis writes it off as "oh its just the jobs we signed up for, him trying to kill me and me trying to kill him, can't fault the guy for that". Doesn't happen, yes getting shot at, and shooting at others is part of the job but that doesn't meen you can't have hatred towards your enemy, and everyone has to have some way or another to express those feelings towards those enemy's without using a weapon, and joking with your fellow soldier to vemt about it can keep person from becoming a "phsycath that only wants to kill". From my experience, its the guys who don't joke around with their fellow soldiers, are quiet and don't express their feelings that are the ones you have to worry about.
Now again these are my views on this subject, and I have not been able to read the comments except for what is written here as I haven't seen a link, but I can tell you this, stop to consisder for a moment that these are people fighting and dieing in war and sometimes humor, no matter how crude, is often times a way to deal with the hell that has to be put up with every day,and sometimes in situations where there isn't a damn thing that's funny with what's going on around you, you only have each other to make fun of.
And on a side note, the folks in higher up positions in the military are often just as bad, if not worse than the lowly e-1 out on the front lines. So don't for a second think that just because there's stars on a shoulder board that there's not the same thing going on on that level of command.
It really seems from my point of view that not much is done to allow Soldiers to properly blow off steam...which considering what Soldiers have to do is terrible. It is a grave failing of society. Its saddening really.
Soldiers are ambassodors.
There are limits however...go too far and they'll just be politicians better fit for some political body.
How could they not? This is BS. They are not robots. They have feelings, and sometimes the easiest way to justify shooting at someone is to demonize and hate them.
Soldiers are going to do this.
You can try to prevent it all you like, it's still going to happen.
With the current net-connected mindset of the current generation, it's going to be shared via the internet and not word-of-mouth like it used to be restricted to (because that's how this generation communicates.)
Older squaddies, who remember a time before everyone could tweet their most inane and pointless thoughts to EVERYONE else, tend to be less likely to post it on social media (the adage of "never write anything on a postcard that you don't want to see plastered on the front page of a major newspaper" applies equally well to the internet.) and tend to still use the WoM approach and only amongst their 'trusted' ears.
Even a "private" facebook group can have 1000 members.
Members have to add you to it, is all. You can't interact with it unless you are a member.
A "public" group means ANYONE can join/read the posts and make them.
Alright people are comparing soldiers to civilians in terms of rights, which are completely different. When you join the army and begin basic traing at Kapooka or ADFA or any other facility you are instantly de-socialised (if that is a word) meaning all individualism and selfish behaviour is thrown out the window.
It is then replaced with the ideals and thinking of the Aussie Digger (soldier) which is teamwork, loyalty, initiative and the ability to overcome hardship. Sure we do have a larikan nature thrown in, it helps us to cope. All this training creates a brotherhood or fraternity that is unbreakable and builds "Esprit de corps" or moral. Now the army is no longer a brotherhood, it is a family with women most likely coming into the combat role and any religion thrown in.
The behaviour shown on that site is completely unacceptable in the army, even though they are in civi street they were posting on a page which represented the ADF.
People keep saying stop being such a "cry baby about the jokes", I am not angry at the jokes it is the actual comments that were targeting ethinicity and women. These comments go beyond jokes, which I will not post on here because it is wrong. Most are along the lines of "All women are filthy lying wh****" and is constantly referring to "Ragheads" or "Mussos" as inhuman or "animals". Not everyone will be so hard and insensitive to that now will they?
Now who is to say out of those thousand members not one of them was a woman or a muslim or a homosexual?
"There is no place in the army for those who choose the softer wrong over the harder right, no place for those who lack respect for the wonderful diversity that is evident in our ranks."
That was from the mouth of the Chief of Army.
Now this type of behaviour has even warranted the fact that some serving in Afghanistan might even be discharged. That is how serious it is, and how professional we want are army to be, not a "poker game".
Here is a link, sorry for not making one at the start of the thread.
The main problem is that you can't have a "larrikin streak" and a complete devotion to "authority". They are kind of polar opposites.
It is that "larrikin" streak that is what lead the Brits and Americans to believe we were undisciplined fighters in WW2. With our more relaxed attitudes to military discipline (not saluting officers, referring to them by their given names, etc).
What they are wanting is to remove the larrikin streak without harming the "independent thinking" that our forces are known for - which is something harder to do - since that larrikin streak is now part of our national identity.
Joker, no offense mate, but in some regards you sound like someone that just walked out of training and is walking the party line (im assuming you're in the service). In any case, it has always been my opinion and understanding that when a bunch of the boys get together and have a couple and start spouting off about some group or another and getting derogatory, it never refers to those that they serve alongside. its somewhat of an unwritten/unspoken rule IMO for a large chunk of the (US) military that when you put on that uniform your identity is that of a brother/sister in arms and only that to your follow troops. I know on a couple occasions we got a bit rowdy and started going off against the Chinese... and guess what the two Chinese members of the group did? They joined in!
chaos0xomega wrote:Joker, no offense mate, but in some regards you sound like someone that just walked out of training and is walking the party line (im assuming you're in the service). In any case, it has always been my opinion and understanding that when a bunch of the boys get together and have a couple and start spouting off about some group or another and getting derogatory, it never refers to those that they serve alongside. its somewhat of an unwritten/unspoken rule IMO for a large chunk of the (US) military that when you put on that uniform your identity is that of a brother/sister in arms and only that to your follow troops. I know on a couple occasions we got a bit rowdy and started going off against the Chinese... and guess what the two Chinese members of the group did? They joined in!
The death of an Asian-American soldier has prompted considerable debate about Army culture and the problem of racial discrimination. Eight soldiers have been charged in the death of Private Daniel Chen, who died of a gunshot wound to the head after allegedly being subjected to abuse and ethnic slurs.
Yeah, that was an unfortunate incident and my heart really does go out to the guys family and friends. I blame the officers for letting it get out of hand.
Now that this topic has gotten into military culture i'd like to add a couple more cents. I will preface this with a reply to all those who got on my about my "who's served" question. YES, it makes a HUGE difference. Civilians do not understand the military. I got into a heated debate in a college english class with a girl who didn't see the difference between the army's video game and basic training. She seemed to think the military is all KILL, KILL, KILL. It's not infantry and other combat arms make up a shockingly small number of the armed forces (in america anyways). Look at WW2, all the fighting the American did was done by 10% of the army, marines, etc. That's why it really grinds my gears when pogues (person other then grunts) come home from living on a FOB with Mcdonalds and saying they were sucking in the desert, and people at home drool over them, don't get me wrong I didn't want a parade but when you have supply clerks who go out on missions just for the fun of it to say they did some combat patrol when infantry, tankers and Cav Scouts role out three times a day, it's too far. Civilians have the wrong assumptions about military service. The point I'm trying to make is that trying to justify against soldiers making jokes and dehumanizing the enemy is pointless, that's what you do, otherwise you come up messed up in the head. You can argue morals, ethics, and what is right all day long, but what a soldier feels is what he feels. He will generally share that feeling with whoever he is around if asked or provoked regardless of the setting. Now, should it have been on facebook? probably not, but don't spit on them for making some jokes. Anything read on that website is far nicer than what you would hear in person. As for that discrimination suicide, what those boys on the facebook page said about it, is EXACTLY what everyone e-9 and below would be saying in private or in company formations, I've seen it. He was an Infantryman, you have to have a thick skin, killing himself was nobody elses fault but his own. The fault that could be put on somebody else is not taking his rifle from him and putting him on KP for a couple of days. Soldiers sit through days of suicide prevention to prevent that kind of thing from happening. Discrimination, name calling, and hazing is the way of life in the Infantry. Before Christmas 8 of us texted the one Jewish guy in our platoon "Merry Christmas" at the same time. Everybody (including him) had a good laugh. I used that as an example of how military are with each other. You find it in non-combat units too, I've met some female soldiers who swear more then we did.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:YES, it makes a HUGE difference. Civilians do not understand the military.
I hate to burst your bubble but you aren't some super secret organization that is so esoteric that it boggles the mind. One bit of anecdotal evidence about one person doesn't come close to meaning anything. The military doesn't exist outside the material plane, and is part of the rest of the world, with civilian contractors, people who once served, people who study the military, documentations, and people who haven't served but one day will, just to name a few. If knowledge only came directly through experience do you realize how terrible the world would be? We would have to reinvent algebra every generation, and history would be practically worthless becuase language would change so fast. We don't come by knowledge solely that way.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:don't get me wrong I didn't want a parade
No, you just want absolute deference.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that trying to justify against soldiers making jokes and dehumanizing the enemy is pointless, that's what you do, otherwise you come up messed up in the head. You can argue morals, ethics, and what is right all day long, but what a soldier feels is what he feels.
This is just as true outside the military as it inside, and even inside the military there are still lines that can be crossed. You don't get a free pass on everything just by saying "combat arms" and pointing to yourself.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Now, should it have been on facebook? probably not, but don't spit on them for making some jokes.
Besides no one here 'spitting on somebody', they didn't just make jokes, but also threatened to kill someone.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Anything read on that website is far nicer than what you would hear in person. As for that discrimination suicide, what those boys on the facebook page said about it, is EXACTLY what everyone e-9 and below would be saying in private or in company formations, I've seen it. He was an Infantryman, you have to have a thick skin, killing himself was nobody elses fault but his own. The fault that could be put on somebody else is not taking his rifle from him and putting him on KP for a couple of days. Soldiers sit through days of suicide prevention to prevent that kind of thing from happening. Discrimination, name calling, and hazing is the way of life in the Infantry.
That is just awful and wrong all at the same time. Apparently your bosses think so to, since they are punishing a bunch of people for the incident. If your view was fair or accurate they would just let it slide, but there is a point where it isn't just friendly hazing and becomes a coordinated assault. You're blaming the victim, which is normally a meme around here, but in this case is what is happening.
The really funny thing is that after saying that people who aren't there can't really have a say you go on to speculate on a scenario you weren't there for either, but are just guessing about. By your reasoning if you weren't there you shouldn't have an opinion on it.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Before Christmas 8 of us texted the one Jewish guy in our platoon "Merry Christmas" at the same time. Everybody (including him) had a good laugh. I used that as an example of how military are with each other. You find it in non-combat units too, I've met some female soldiers who swear more then we did.
People make jokes outside the military. People like to have a good laugh outside the military. There is a huge difference between texting a joke about the name of a holiday and texting "I hope you die you worthless [slur for Jew], you are responsible for the wars of the world". Willing to bet if you did that, and it was discovered, the chain of command would be stepping in. Again, I'm still not sure you have been reading what has been written becuase no one at all has been complaining about swearing or said that soldiers can't or shouldn't swear. We are talking about when it stops being gallows humour and starts being something more insidious.
De- humanising your target is the worse thing you could suggest. Being able to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy soldiers is paramount to your operations in that area. Killing shouldn't be based on "He's a filthy Musso they all deserve to die", it should be based along the lines of "Hey, he choose to come and fight and so did I". A soldier should be putting the operational needs in front of his personal opinion.
Fattimus_maximus wrote: The point I'm trying to make is that trying to justify against soldiers making jokes and dehumanizing the enemy is pointless, that's what you do, otherwise you come up messed up in the head. You can argue morals, ethics, and what is right all day long, but what a soldier feels is what he feels. He will generally share that feeling with whoever he is around if asked or provoked regardless of the setting. Now, should it have been on facebook? probably not, but don't spit on them for making some jokes. Anything read on that website is far nicer than what you would hear in person.
)
And thats why people are upset. This is just the serface and some in the forces seem to think they should have diffrent rules. Teachers have been sacked and banned from teaching for posings like the op discribes. Same with the police. I work for a major company known world wide, not in a major role, but public faceing and dealing with many people around the world. If i made comments like this i would be sacked. Why should soldiers have a lower level of responsibility than the police or teachers? If anything they should have a higher standard, as hate speach ina public forum, and it is public when someone can join with little or no vetting, will come to the attention of the likes of the taliban and be used as propeganda. This will get people killed. Just look at the news.
As for jokes to friends, a gay friend of mine gets constant jokes about being camp. I get constant jokes about my dyslexia from my friends. This dose not meen we are homophobic or have a problem with diisbilitys, and we would never make these same jokes if someone we did not know was there. Your comment about your jewish friend is completly irelevent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Private_Joker wrote:De- humanising your target is the worse thing you could suggest. Being able to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy soldiers is paramount to your operations in that area. Killing shouldn't be based on "He's a filthy Musso they all deserve to die", it should be based along the lines of "Hey, he choose to come and fight and so did I". A soldier should be putting the operational needs in front of his personal opinion.
Unfortunatly i fear this is where the problems are coming from. To many members of the forces seeing it as "them vs us". The lionisation of soldiers and there treatment as being somehow superhuman dose not help. It is to easy for some to see themselfs as special. It seems to be mostly the army for some reason. The navy and ariforce seem to have less of this attitude.
Private_Joker wrote:De- humanising your target is the worse thing you could suggest. Being able to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy soldiers is paramount to your operations in that area. Killing shouldn't be based on "He's a filthy Musso they all deserve to die", it should be based along the lines of "Hey, he choose to come and fight and so did I". A soldier should be putting the operational needs in front of his personal opinion.
Maybe you are thinking abit to the extreme, but human does it all the time on normal bases.
Simple biasedness, even towards friends, religion, ( ew even politic parties )
Fattimus_maximus wrote:YES, it makes a HUGE difference. Civilians do not understand the military.
So tell me, what else does this apply to? Can I not criticise the unhealthiness of McDonalds products because 'non-McDonalds customers do not understand McDonalds'? Can I never make a claim of police brutality because 'citizens do not understand the police'? Can I not vote out a politician because 'the public do not understand politics'?
The military is not beyond criticism from civilians.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that trying to justify against soldiers making jokes and dehumanizing the enemy is pointless, that's what you do, otherwise you come up messed up in the head.
I'm tired of people using the phrase 'dehumanising the enemy'. As I pointed out earlier, Muslim extremists are the enemy of the day, not Muslims. And if these guys can't understand that, they shouldn't be serving. And how do you explain the comments against women and homosexuals?
Fattimus_maximus wrote:As for that discrimination suicide, what those boys on the facebook page said about it, is EXACTLY what everyone e-9 and below would be saying in private or in company formations, I've seen it. He was an Infantryman, you have to have a thick skin, killing himself was nobody elses fault but his own.
I'm not even going to bloody bother with this one.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:YES, it makes a HUGE difference. Civilians do not understand the military.
I hate to burst your bubble but you aren't some super secret organization that is so esoteric that it boggles the mind. One bit of anecdotal evidence about one person doesn't come close to meaning anything. The military doesn't exist outside the material plane, and is part of the rest of the world, with civilian contractors, people who once served, people who study the military, documentations, and people who haven't served but one day will, just to name a few. If knowledge only came directly through experience do you realize how terrible the world would be? We would have to reinvent algebra every generation, and history would be practically worthless becuase language would change so fast. We don't come by knowledge solely that way.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:don't get me wrong I didn't want a parade
No, you just want absolute deference.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that trying to justify against soldiers making jokes and dehumanizing the enemy is pointless, that's what you do, otherwise you come up messed up in the head. You can argue morals, ethics, and what is right all day long, but what a soldier feels is what he feels.
This is just as true outside the military as it inside, and even inside the military there are still lines that can be crossed. You don't get a free pass on everything just by saying "combat arms" and pointing to yourself.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Now, should it have been on facebook? probably not, but don't spit on them for making some jokes.
Besides no one here 'spitting on somebody', they didn't just make jokes, but also threatened to kill someone.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Anything read on that website is far nicer than what you would hear in person. As for that discrimination suicide, what those boys on the facebook page said about it, is EXACTLY what everyone e-9 and below would be saying in private or in company formations, I've seen it. He was an Infantryman, you have to have a thick skin, killing himself was nobody elses fault but his own. The fault that could be put on somebody else is not taking his rifle from him and putting him on KP for a couple of days. Soldiers sit through days of suicide prevention to prevent that kind of thing from happening. Discrimination, name calling, and hazing is the way of life in the Infantry.
That is just awful and wrong all at the same time. Apparently your bosses think so to, since they are punishing a bunch of people for the incident. If your view was fair or accurate they would just let it slide, but there is a point where it isn't just friendly hazing and becomes a coordinated assault. You're blaming the victim, which is normally a meme around here, but in this case is what is happening.
The really funny thing is that after saying that people who aren't there can't really have a say you go on to speculate on a scenario you weren't there for either, but are just guessing about. By your reasoning if you weren't there you shouldn't have an opinion on it.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:Before Christmas 8 of us texted the one Jewish guy in our platoon "Merry Christmas" at the same time. Everybody (including him) had a good laugh. I used that as an example of how military are with each other. You find it in non-combat units too, I've met some female soldiers who swear more then we did.
People make jokes outside the military. People like to have a good laugh outside the military. There is a huge difference between texting a joke about the name of a holiday and texting "I hope you die you worthless [slur for Jew], you are responsible for the wars of the world". Willing to bet if you did that, and it was discovered, the chain of command would be stepping in. Again, I'm still not sure you have been reading what has been written becuase no one at all has been complaining about swearing or said that soldiers can't or shouldn't swear. We are talking about when it stops being gallows humour and starts being something more insidious.
Comments regarding the suicide aside (sorry bro, you're wrong on that one. If you can't figure out why then to make it easy: The unit NCO's and Officers were involved with it to. Officers in particular are supposed to 'stand apart' in that regards. When your chain of command is treating you like gak and singling you out alongside the guys, then its no longer just the military way of life, its no longer hazing, its no longer name calling, its wrong, its hardcore discrimination, and its improper misconduct, and they deserve a lot more than courts-martial), he's right. The American military has become increasingly disconnected from American society (in particular civilian society) as a whole, and large swathes of it have (very rightfully so IMO) taken on an elitist view on things and feel they stand divided apart from the people they protect. Its not just me saying it, have a look through the news, our leaders, both military and civilian, have been saying the same thing for the past half-decade or so.
De- humanising your target is the worse thing you could suggest. Being able to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy soldiers is paramount to your operations in that area. Killing shouldn't be based on "He's a filthy Musso they all deserve to die", it should be based along the lines of "Hey, he choose to come and fight and so did I".
Have you ever been to a combat zone before? And I mean a real combat zone, where you have been shot at, and quite possibly seen your friends and comrades wounded and or killed? From the sounds of it you haven't. Whats more, that hardening is essential for just that reason. We have strict ROE's that make it very clear that your life is pretty much over if you start targeting civilians, the threat of that outcome is enough to prevent 99.9% of those who serve from doing something stupid. The reality of the situation is, especially in an insurgency, there will be incidents in which civilian casualties result in collateral damage. De-humanization is as vital here as it is anywhere else, it keeps our soldiers sane and prevents them from doing something stupid to themselves... like taking their own lives, as the result of a mistake.
And thats why people are upset. This is just the serface and some in the forces seem to think they should have diffrent rules.
They are... in the US at least, military personnel are subject to a different set of laws (not to say they can't be tried for civilian infractions) from the civilian population, which, go figure, is far stricter in most areas than what the rest of the population is subject to.
That is just awful and wrong all at the same time. Apparently your bosses think so to, since they are punishing a bunch of people for the incident.
Only because it's front page news. If the press never got a hold of this story nobody would be getting punished. In most soldiers minds some non hacker offs himself, it's military Darwinism, better he did it then, than when one of his brothers in arms needed him.
De- humanising your target is the worse thing you could suggest. Being able to differentiate between a civilian and an enemy soldiers is paramount to your operations in that area. Killing shouldn't be based on "He's a filthy Musso they all deserve to die", it should be based along the lines of "Hey, he choose to come and fight and so did I". A soldier should be putting the operational needs in front of his personal opinion.
I'm sure that is really easy to say from your computer chair.
Am I the only person to whom racism in culture is commonplace?
I would say it's endemic outside of middle class areas of London/major cities. That's why I really don't find this shocking. They're people, and they have the attitudes of the places they're from.
I agree with Joey, its whatever to me. I don't like it and if I see it I generally try to put an end to it, but otherwise its just another fact of life.
Only because it's front page news. If the press never got a hold of this story nobody would be getting punished. In most soldiers minds some non hacker offs himself, it's military Darwinism, better he did it then, than when one of his brothers in arms needed him.
Thats incorrect, as disciplinary action was taken before the press got ahold of the story, but nice try defending the actions of your fellow grunts.
kronk wrote:The only thing wrong with the original story is threatening the journalist, if that's even true.
Otherwise, it's just guys in a high stress job blowing off steam.
+1, as soon as I read the article I could see that it was just joking around. How many of us have made jokes about the kitchen being the woman's rightful place, but how many actually believe that? Its a joke, people have taken it completely the wrong way. The threats were just wrong, but a joke is a joke.
So people that are under constant pressure to perform 100% when deployed should keep up the strain when back home or in free time?
Bollocks to that, people talk, nothing is new and nothing will change.
About the only issue i have is once again, someone decided to make it a personal job to pick out someone and paint a target on them.
So, the soldier fights for his country, and a journo fights against the soldier?
Sounds about right.
Kind of ignore all of this now, too many people trying to make a massive issue out of a common thing.
All they are doing is kicking up fuss for a story and to make a name for themselves.
Unfortunatly i fear this is where the problems are coming from. To many members of the forces seeing it as "them vs us". The lionisation of soldiers and there treatment as being somehow superhuman dose not help. It is to easy for some to see themselfs as special. It seems to be mostly the army for some reason. The navy and ariforce seem to have less of this attitude.
Thats probably because the Navy and Airforce aren't fighting close-up in the same way a ground army is. That requires a tougher person.
The only bad thing about the original story was the threat.
So people that are under constant pressure to perform 100% when deployed should keep up the strain when back home or in free time?
This is why the Original post is so ludicrous. Its bad Psychology considering society doesn't do enough to help soldiers get their mind back in track.
Why did everyone get upset when I said "de-humanising the enemy is bad"? Always treat your enemy with respect, otherwise you get problems such as pissing on dead, executing the wounded , toturing prisoners and treating civilians like dirt. If you don't see your enemy as another human how do you expect them to treat you like a human?
Because they will not do the same! You fight dirty in war it's not fair fighting like on the tabletop. You know what basic army combat doctrine is? three to one odds. Add to that the indirect Close air support (fixed and rotary) and the fact that we don't roll out of the gate with less then a platoon's worth of pissed off guys who miss home and family who haven't slept very much in months, and that is what the army considers a fair fight.
On another note, I do want to take back the comments on the suicide. perhaps I was being a little too heated and let things get the better of me. It is terrible that he did that, and there are limits to that kind of hazing. His leaders should have noticed and done something.
Unfortunatly i fear this is where the problems are coming from. To many members of the forces seeing it as "them vs us". The lionisation of soldiers and there treatment as being somehow superhuman dose not help. It is to easy for some to see themselfs as special. It seems to be mostly the army for some reason. The navy and ariforce seem to have less of this attitude.
Air Force drop bombs from thousands of feet up above (for the most part) and navy sit on boats and big FOBs behind desks (again for the most part, I am foremost in believing there are always exemptions) and they don't train for hours and days and months to fight "them". Army and marines train to be able to tell the difference between combatant and non-combatant, but if I know if i had to start thinking about that guy with an RPG's family, I would hesitate. Hesitation gets you or more importantly those around you, killed.
Why did everyone get upset when I said "de-humanising the enemy is bad"? Always treat your enemy with respect, otherwise you get problems such as pissing on dead, executing the wounded , toturing prisoners and treating civilians like dirt. If you don't see your enemy as another human how do you expect them to treat you like a human?
It's one thing when you are fighting an actual army that does follow the rules. When was the last time that happened? For the most part these are guerrillas that show that they have little or no concern for the rules. I think for the most part our soldiers have shown remarkable restraint, they are certainly not running around doing slash and burn tactics. There are a few incidents, but these get blown way out of proportion by the press.
Pissing on the dead, torturing prisoners? I mean yeah it's not proper edict and all, but really? These #uckers (the enemy) are beheading people.
I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers with "Towel head" mentality that don't go around blowing away civilians at the drop of the hat, in fact most of them don't.
Thats probably because the Navy and Airforce aren't fighting close-up in the same way a ground army is. That requires a tougher person.
Well that depends, I think you guys are forgetting the Marines which are navy. You want to see some guys that have a hard on for the enemy, just look at Uncle Sam's Misguided Childern.
Marines are sort of a breed of their own though. Don't hold me to it though Australia is a bit late to the whole marine concept. The regular sea bound navy still sometimes deal face to face with people, boarding parties for example. The airforce also have now employed an airfield defence guard of it's own.
On another note, I do want to take back the comments on the suicide. perhaps I was being a little too heated and let things get the better of me. It is terrible that he did that, and there are limits to that kind of hazing. His leaders should have noticed and done something.
.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:
On another note, I do want to take back the comments on the suicide. perhaps I was being a little too heated and let things get the better of me. It is terrible that he did that, and there are limits to that kind of hazing. His leaders should have noticed and done something.
It's cool. It really wasn't the worst comment I've seen in the OT forum by a long, long, looooooooooooooooooooong way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Pissing on the dead, torturing prisoners? I mean yeah it's not proper edict and all, but really? These #uckers (the enemy) are beheading people.
A bit of unrelated trivia and a cautionary tale; the Gurkha regiments the British Army sent into Afghanistan occasionally get into trouble, because they are caught beheading the corpses of the downed Taliban.
This is why you absolutely do not make an enemy out of a Gurkha.
On topic now, beheading isn't the worst death you can face in a warzone, to be honest. Even if it was, that isn't a justification for torturing any of them that we capture.
Let's be honest, the rhetoric used by our side focusses on the freedom we're trying to bring to an oppressed people, in other words, that we are the "good guys" in this tale.
How, therefore, can we justify such rhetoric if torture becomes a method we're happy to use? It's not an effective means of getting information by any stretch of the imagination, and without that to justify it, it becomes an exercise in vengeance, a very cruel act indeed. An eye for an eye, if you will
If you're claiming to be the good guy, you cannot do bad-guy things. Is that a tad idealistic? Of course, it's a warzone after all and rules like that are flouted all the time.
However, even in war some standards should be maintained.
LordofHats wrote:Joining the Army doesn't mean you give up your right to free speech...
Actually, you do lose it. You lose many rights when you join the military. Doing so, is a decision anyway. I knew it going in, and I knew it while in the military. I couldn't say or do whatever I wanted according to the constitution. If soldiers could, the military wouldn't be able to function at all.
Soldiers have been restricted from saying what they want on and/or accessing parts of the internet in the military since the net went public. Soldiers in the military need to be careful of what they say online, otherwise, disciplinary action will be levies against the soldier. I should know... my live journal account was shut down while i was in Iraq back in 2004/2005.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:
On another note, I do want to take back the comments on the suicide. perhaps I was being a little too heated and let things get the better of me. It is terrible that he did that, and there are limits to that kind of hazing. His leaders should have noticed and done something.
It's cool. It really wasn't the worst comment I've seen in the OT forum by a long, long, looooooooooooooooooooong way.
Yeah, I'm sure I probably hold that (dis)honor XD
As for being a good guy, etc. It doesn't really matter, the Afghans are culturally a very suspicious/insular people (as in, they are untrusting of outsiders), the Taliban put out a lot of negative spin about ISAF through their propaganda networks, and the people buy into it. We're already demonized, even if we don't do anything wrong. Assuming we do manage to win their trust, all it takes is one minor mistake to shatter it, and getting it back again is difficult to say the least.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:
On another note, I do want to take back the comments on the suicide. perhaps I was being a little too heated and let things get the better of me. It is terrible that he did that, and there are limits to that kind of hazing. His leaders should have noticed and done something.
It's cool. It really wasn't the worst comment I've seen in the OT forum by a long, long, looooooooooooooooooooong way.
Yeah, I'm sure I probably hold that (dis)honor XD
As for being a good guy, etc. It doesn't really matter, the Afghans are culturally a very suspicious/insular people (as in, they are untrusting of outsiders), the Taliban put out a lot of negative spin about ISAF through their propaganda networks, and the people buy into it. We're already demonized, even if we don't do anything wrong. Assuming we do manage to win their trust, all it takes is one minor mistake to shatter it, and getting it back again is difficult to say the least.
Actually no, unless you were the guy who tried justifying Anders Breivik. I don't remember who that was now.
I get where you're coming from there, but even so, them naturally not trusting us doesn't mean we should be like "ah, hell with it" and start acting like them.
Besides, it's hard enough to keep people onside regarding the war without people hearing allegations of human rights abuses on a mass scale that are being committed by their own troops.
Some people might not care about that, but others will, and it'll be the anti-Vietnam movement all over again (not that such a thing would be bad; frankly, it's time to leave Afghanistan)
On topic now, beheading isn't the worst death you can face in a warzone, to be honest. Even if it was, that isn't a justification for torturing any of them that we capture.
Let's be honest, the rhetoric used by our side focusses on the freedom we're trying to bring to an oppressed people, in other words, that we are the "good guys" in this tale.
How, therefore, can we justify such rhetoric if torture becomes a method we're happy to use? It's not an effective means of getting information by any stretch of the imagination, and without that to justify it, it becomes an exercise in vengeance, a very cruel act indeed. An eye for an eye, if you will
If you're claiming to be the good guy, you cannot do bad-guy things. Is that a tad idealistic? Of course, it's a warzone after all and rules like that are flouted all the time.
However, even in war some standards should be maintained.
Yeah, but they are beheading captured prisoners. If they don't feel like following the rules, that's fine, we can play that way too. People who say torture does not accomplish anything are misguided. It may not be very effective against someone trained to resist or use counter interrogation tactics, but it works just fine against most untrained guerrillas.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah, but they are beheading captured prisoners. If they don't feel like following the rules, that's fine, we can play that way too. People who say torture does not accomplish anything are misguided. It may not be very effective against someone trained to resist or use counter interrogation tactics, but it works just fine against most untrained guerrillas.
No it doesn't.
There is no scientific evidence for torture's effectiveness on any subject as a method of obtaining information, mostly because a) the subject will tell their interrogators whatever they think their captors want to hear, not necessarily the truth and b) even if they do tell their captors something, it's hard to prove what they say is true.
In fact, torture's lack of effectiveness is the subject of several reports and inquiries, such as this: http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf EDIT: Here's another one. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4q565424126068h/
Good guys and Bad guys, Really?
I'll just leave this here.
Good Ash, Bad Ash, I'm the one with the gun!
Good guys/bad guys don't actually exist, but the perception that they do and that the enemy are "bad guys" has been used time and again in the justification for these wars.
Of course, if you use this as a method of persuading people to support your war, then it comes out that you've been using the exact same methods as 'the enemy', then your support evaporates.
Surely you've studied Vietnam?
What we need are the Selous Scouts from the Rhodesian Bush War era... now those people knew how to fight an insurgency... and how to win hearts and minds without getting touchy-feely...
What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.
Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.
The problem was that the war was very controversial.
Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.
The problem was that the war was very controversial.
Dogma's got it in one.
Hard to find support for an unpopular war, as history has shown us time and time again.
Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.
The problem was that the war was very controversial.
Well anytime you bungle a war it's going to be controversial. Excuse me, police action
Yes, I think they should hold service members to a higher standard than normal people.
Of course, there will always be people who can't stick to the plan and go out of their way to demonize the Natives... It's understandable that they have some resentment towards them, but for the sake of peace, it's best to hide those sentiments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like soldiers have the biggest problem with this out of the branches?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Unpopular!? Have you seen how many movies they made about it?? Damnit if that war didn't have the best soundtrack in history... >.>
All of those movies were made long after the war ended. It was possibly the most unpopular war in american history, probably because there were so many baby-boomers to complain about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it seem like soldiers have the biggest problem with this out of the branches?
Probably because the air force and navy aren't close-up, on-the-ground fighting. Thats where you see the real evil of the enemy.
On topic now, beheading isn't the worst death you can face in a warzone, to be honest. Even if it was, that isn't a justification for torturing any of them that we capture.
Let's be honest, the rhetoric used by our side focusses on the freedom we're trying to bring to an oppressed people, in other words, that we are the "good guys" in this tale.
How, therefore, can we justify such rhetoric if torture becomes a method we're happy to use? It's not an effective means of getting information by any stretch of the imagination, and without that to justify it, it becomes an exercise in vengeance, a very cruel act indeed. An eye for an eye, if you will
If you're claiming to be the good guy, you cannot do bad-guy things. Is that a tad idealistic? Of course, it's a warzone after all and rules like that are flouted all the time.
However, even in war some standards should be maintained.
No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.
Andrew1975 wrote:No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.
That's a pretty ridiculous mischaracterisation of the issue.
No-one thinks it's okay for insurgents to behead people. It's just that we all recognise they are bad people doing a bad thing and the discussion ends there. Soon as someone turns up to argue in favour of beheading captives, then we'll get an argument on the subject and you can see everyone trot out there arguments why beheading is bad. In the meantime stop making that silly claim.
In the second part you assume away the key point of debate on the issue when you claim a no torture policy is 'hamstringing' our guys. Abu Ghraib did not help quell resistance, it was very fething obviously counter productive. The only win condition for this operation is when the terrorists have been isolated from the general population to the point where they are no longer capable of operating meaningfully. That cannot be accomplished by a code of behaviour that figures our side can be as bad as the terrorists.
Our enemy is so terrible that we must spend our time, moneny, and lives fighting them. Also, we must become them, they are so heinous. If we do not act like the thing we despise, how can we ever defeat it?
Abu Ghraib did not help quell resistance, it was very fething obviously counter productive.
Only once some idiots pictures got out. Do you seriously think we got no good information from those sessions? The torture that the US was doing was for the most part psychological, which is actually pretty effective and not the same as just senselessly beating people.
I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way. Waterboarding is not the same as pealing someones fingernails off or hitting them with blowtorches.
The problem is there are people that would object to a soldier screaming "Die Raghead!" while shooting at the enemy. Its naive.
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.
My favorite was when people were up in arms over some soldiers that were performing mercy killings by shooting enemy combatants in the head that had basically been eviscerated and had no chance or survival.
I agree with andrew on that last bit (Mercy killings) I know of a junior officer that got hit hard because he put a round into what remained of the head of what was at that point a bloody, twitching, mess of a human to "put the guy out of his misery".... it just so happens that there was a UAV flying overhead with a direct video feed to the Brigade commander who watched it occur in realtime and (I think) overreacted to the situation.
Andrew1975 wrote:What is you point about Vietnam? We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? That wasn't the real problem with Vietnam. The problem was that we would not attack the north in any meaningful way.
The problem was that the war was very controversial.
Well anytime you bungle a war it's going to be controversial. Excuse me, police action
Eh, Vietnam wasn't handled in the best fashion, and the justification for intervention was flimsy, but it was hardly bungled. Probably the most significant issue was the way advances in media technology took the government unprepared, thereby providing a sort of ready-made anti-war propaganda that united the anti-war movement, and allowed it to easily expand.
Andrew1975 wrote:Only once some idiots pictures got out. Do you seriously think we got no good information from those sessions? The torture that the US was doing was for the most part psychological, which is actually pretty effective and not the same as just senselessly beating people.
I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way. Waterboarding is not the same as pealing someones fingernails off or hitting them with blowtorches.
Okay, so you accept the limits on what we can do, just overstated your position before. That's fair enough.
I don't really have a problem with dedicated psychological techniques either (sleep deprivation mostly), provided they are employed on specific targets for the purpose of attaining specific information.
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.
See, I just don't think it matters how poorly the enemy behave. We don't act well for the sake of tit for tat, but because we believe that in order to be a force for good one must, well, be good. And that acting in that way actually makes winning easier, in the long run.
My favorite was when people were up in arms over some soldiers that were performing mercy killings by shooting enemy combatants in the head that had basically been eviscerated and had no chance or survival.
Sure, but that kind of silliness will always be around. It's important to remember they're a noisy fringe, and not use it as an excuse to ignore the more sensible arguments being made. Just like PETA being completely bonkers doesn't mean there's no need for animal welfare at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Eh, Vietnam wasn't handled in the best fashion, and the justification for intervention was flimsy, but it was hardly bungled. Probably the most significant issue was the way advances in media technology took the government unprepared, thereby providing a sort of ready-made anti-war propaganda that united the anti-war movement, and allowed it to easily expand.
In all the years since Vietnam I've not read anything that really adequately answered how the war might have been won any better than what was attempted. I mean, how do you defeat an enemy that's getting supplied from the North, another country you do not want to expand the war into, and who is willing to basically just wait and accept losses until you leave.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.
There are rules?
We put restrictions on our own behavior in combat, and information gathering because we want them there. They're defining characteristics of our behavior, and the sort of conduct we wish to adhere to. Any protection it gives to an adversary is secondary.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not saying we have to be as bad as the enemy, I never said we should be beheading people. Keeping people awake and uncomfortable for hours on end though is not comparable to beheadings in any way.
I would actually argue that psychological torture if worse than beheading someone. Its not a great way to die, but at the end of the process you're still dead, so any trauma you suffered in the process is irrelevant. Compare this to waterboarding, which potentially produces many lasting effects. Its not as bad as taking a blowtorch to someone, but its definitely still torture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
In all the years since Vietnam I've not read anything that really adequately answered how the war might have been won any better than what was attempted. I mean, how do you defeat an enemy that's getting supplied from the North, another country you do not want to expand the war into, and who is willing to basically just wait and accept losses until you leave.
Yeah, the assumption that a stalemate could be forced in a manner similar to that in Korea was one of the fundamental flaws in the reasoning behind pursuing containment in Vietnam.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm sorry but when the enemy does not play by the rules they do not deserve the protections of the rules.
There are rules?
Rules of Engagement (RoE) perhaps?
Well, more guidelines, but GoE doesn't slip of the tongue as easily.
Covering the targeting of civilians, where and when you can engage the enemy, exactly what determines whom an enemy combatant is, that kind of thing.
Stuff like arty strikes on orphanages to take out the enemy AAA crew who are ensconced within, counting on the meat-shields for cover and western unwillingness (especially with the media around) to engage in the face of such collateral damage and negative PR. They say "innocence is the first casualty of war" - it should be the media (especially if you take a camera to a gunfight).
IMHO,The best solution is to pull out of the sandpit and let the locals annihilate each other (like they've been trying to do for the last couple of thousand years anyway). It will know peace one day - the peace of the graveyard, but peace nonetheless.
chromedog wrote:
Rules of Engagement (RoE) perhaps?
Well, more guidelines, but GoE doesn't slip of the tongue as easily.
Covering the targeting of civilians, where and when you can engage the enemy, exactly what determines whom an enemy combatant is, that kind of thing.
Stuff like arty strikes on orphanages to take out the enemy AAA crew who are ensconced within, counting on the meat-shields for cover and western unwillingness (especially with the media around) to engage in the face of such collateral damage and negative PR. They say "innocence is the first casualty of war" - it should be the media (especially if you take a camera to a gunfight).
I suppose my point is that the rules exist only insofar as we apply the to ourselves explicitly because of, for the most part, public relations. Friendly fire and military morale is important too, but I think that public opinion is ultimately the driving factor.
To some degree there is a concern regarding international perception. If we started gunning down civilians in the streets of Kabul the already fragile coalition would disappear overnight. But ultimately that is a secondary concern, at least for the United States, due to being the prime actor in most military adventures.
dogma wrote:Yeah, the assumption that a stalemate could be forced in a manner similar to that in Korea was one of the fundamental flaws in the reasoning behind pursuing containment in Vietnam.
Or that there was a man in South Vietnam who was capable of giving effective resistance to the North.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I suppose my point is that the rules exist only insofar as we apply the to ourselves explicitly because of, for the most part, public relations. Friendly fire and military morale is important too, but I think that public opinion is ultimately the driving factor.
Morality matters too. The morality that causes the general population to condemn the army for killing civilians is the same morality that makes soldiers, and those commanding soldiers, to not want to kill civilians either.
No but just like so many other people he believes it's ok for the enemy to use underhanded tactics while hamstringing our guys and enforcing a no tolerance policy. Its classic.
Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Our enemy is so terrible that we must spend our time, moneny, and lives fighting them. Also, we must become them, they are so heinous. If we do not act like the thing we despise, how can we ever defeat it?
Nice nod to Nietzche there. However, I believe his words were slightly different.
To answer OP's question, I think the armed services should have a higher standard in conduct, especially the airmen.
In fact, just the other day, I oveheard an airman telling his friend that sprite was mountain dew for homosexuals. this made me upset, since he later went on to make jokes about the other branches of the military. the airmen at the nearby base go to the mall every weekend, and many of them act up. I've even seen them hitting on girls who were with their boyfriends/ fiance/ husband.
Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.
I say it depends on what kind of torture you are looking at. Do you really believe that there would be entire schools of torture if there was absolutely no value in it? Yeah beating a guy to death may not be very effective, but the more modern techniques do produce results.
I would actually argue that psychological torture if worse than beheading someone. Its not a great way to die, but at the end of the process you're still dead, so any trauma you suffered in the process is irrelevant. Compare this to waterboarding, which potentially produces many lasting effects. Its not as bad as taking a blowtorch to someone, but its definitely still torture.
Why are you dead at the end of physiological torture, unless of course that was the goal, which it obviously wasn't. If death were the goal Abu would have been full of dead bodies, not tortured souls.
I'm not going to say that nobody dies from psychological torture, but it's not the intended outcome (unless of course it is in some cases) it's used to get information. Of course it's still torture, its just more effective. The use of extreme discomfort, extreme temperature change, sleep deprivation, and body contortion can have serious lasting effects including death in some cases and permanent mental and physical disability in others.
I would have no problem outlawing torture versus a state army that does the same. Many times war comes down to how far you are willing to go to win, I don't want to give the enemy an advantage. Rules or war are not only there to attain a moral high ground, in fact I see that as more of a secondary effect. The rules are there to protect the combatants and civilians form some of the more ugly aspects of war. I see no reason to offer this protection to the enemy while we do not receive the same in response. At the same time I don't believe our soldiers should ever degenerate into complete savagery either, but I think the way our soldiers handled themselves vs the Japanese in WW2 was fine. I'm still amazed that we bother to patch up their wounded, as they have no ability or inclination to provide this same service to our soldiers. If the enemy starts using chemical weapons because of the advantage gained in using it, im not going to remove that option from the table until they do.
When fighting savages you should not become one, this is true, but you don't need to extend them all the courtesies either.
Or that there was a man in South Vietnam who was capable of giving effective resistance to the North.
I think the lesson is don't go into a war when you are not prepared to take the steps to win or don't know what those steps are. Unfortunately we have not really learned that lesson.
There is evidence that the continued bombing of the north would have turned the war.
Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.
I say it depends on what kind of torture you are looking at. Do you really believe that there would be entire schools of torture if there was absolutely no value in it? Yeah beating a guy to death may not be very effective, but the more modern techniques do produce results.
Doesn't much matter what you say, as those were the methods they were discussing.
Hardly. I'm just able to recognise that torture has no real value.
The studies and experts agree with me, not you, chap.
I say it depends on what kind of torture you are looking at. Do you really believe that there would be entire schools of torture if there was absolutely no value in it? Yeah beating a guy to death may not be very effective, but the more modern techniques do produce results.
Except, not really, which is what the research says. If the point of torture is just to be a sadistic bastard, then I suppose it does work, but getting credible information isn't one of the side benefits, and has been shown over and over. Torture gets you whatever the person being tortured thinks you want to hear. They would tell you their sister was at the Battle of the Bulge even though she was born in 2006 if they think it will make the torture stop. Creating networks and gathering intelligence through assets is far better than torture. The little bit of true information isn't worth the price we have to pay to get it, ie betraying the fundamental ideas that we are fighting for in the first place.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Why are you dead at the end of physiological torture, unless of course that was the goal, which it obviously wasn't.
Yes, I'm sure radical Muslims believe that beheading is only torturous, and not at all likely to cause death.
Read the words as written, not the ones you wish were on the screen.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not going to say that nobody dies from psychological torture, but it's not the intended outcome (unless of course it is in some cases) it's used to get information.
You're assuming that death is universally less preferable than life.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Rules or war are not only there to attain a moral high ground, in fact I see that as more of a secondary effect. The rules are there to protect the combatants and civilians form some of the more ugly aspects of war.
So we should, morally, shield our combatants and civilians from the (ugly) consequences of combat, but that really's not really a moral question at all.
Andrew1975 wrote:
When fighting savages you should not become one, this is true, but you don't need to extend them all the courtesies either.
And determining who is, and who is not, a savage is totally an amoral decision too.
Yes, I'm sure radical Muslims believe that beheading is only torturous, and not at all likely to cause death.
Read the words as written, not the ones you wish were on the screen.
I read the words on the screen, you said either way you are dead. I don't believe you always die from pych torture, you sure do from beheading, which isn't torture it execution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, I'm sure radical Muslims believe that beheading is only torturous, and not at all likely to cause death.
Read the words as written, not the ones you wish were on the screen.
I read the words on the screen, you said either way you are dead. I don't believe you always die from pych torture, you sure do from beheading, which isn't torture it execution.
You can find studies that say it works and those that say it doesn't. The facts are that if it didn't work, why would the US spend millions on it? If the militarizes own studies showed that it was ineffective wouldn't they just stop seeing as it costs them so much in every aspect.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I read the words on the screen, you said either way you are dead. I don't believe you always die from pych torture, you sure do from beheading, which isn't torture it execution.
I'm not convinced that you did, because you freely switched between the words "psychological" and "physiological".
In either case, while your reading is one possible interpretation of what was said, it isn't the only or, in my opinion most apparent, one. Torture does not necessarily end in death, beheading does, it seems to me that, therefore, any statement regarding the necessity of death (when the two are compared) is referring on to beheading. Particularly when the opening sentence directly compares beheading with torture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: The facts are that if it didn't work, why would the US spend millions on it?
Because people either believe that it works, or they believe that it should work.
Paying for X has no bearing on whether or not X works, just look at the F-35.
'm not convinced that you did, because you freely switched between the words "psychological" and "physiological".
Opps stupid auto correct i meant psychological
Paying for X has no bearing on whether or not X works, just look at the F-35.
Not really the same thing. The F-35 has to work now, as there is little option without blowing the huge amount invested already in a needed program. The US could just end torture operations at anytime if it wanted to if the program was proven unnecessary.
Particularly when the opening sentence directly compares beheading with torture.
I was saying if the enemy can execute our soldiers, surely we can stoop to using psyche torture, especially if is saves said soldiers set to be executed.
I think it is fair to use psyche torture, considering most of the coalition units that use these methods have to go through the same treatment their captives get.
No, we train them to kill for the state.
That is ethical.
It is not moral - but ethics and morals are not the same thing.
They often have the same end result, but that is not the same as saying an apple is a banana.
These aren't some partisan soldiers holding out in the hills against a hated enemy we are talking about, these are volunteer professional soldiers. Part of being a professional is having certain ideals and expectations. Certainly they will be a bit gruffer than the average bloke, and there will be a gallows humor to be sure. I think any rational person is even fine with them liking their job. What isn't acceptable is when it crosses the line into bigotry, hatred, and ignorance. There is no place in a professional military for that kind of thing. The trick, of course, is that it isn't obvious where that line is all the time. Still, even the military knows this becuase they screen for and do their best to remove radical elements all the time. For example, White Power groups try to enlist becuase they want military training but if the Army gets a whiff of it they get rejected.
Andrew1975 wrote:I think the lesson is don't go into a war when you are not prepared to take the steps to win or don't know what those steps are. Unfortunately we have not really learned that lesson.
It's a decent lesson, but unfortunately war is about as unknowable as things can get, especially before you start the thing. The Americans were wrong in thinking they could build an effective South Vietnamese government and inflict sufficient casualties on the Viet Cong/NVA, but that's all they were, is wrong.
To make a greater case, that they ought to have known better, then you have to establish things were less known or that the known things were worse than they were when the US decided to target Germany over the country that actually attacked them, Japan, or when the US led the UN into Korea, or into Iraq.
There is evidence that the continued bombing of the north would have turned the war.
Given that strategic bombing has never turned a war, I really doubt it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Except, not really, which is what the research says. If the point of torture is just to be a sadistic bastard, then I suppose it does work, but getting credible information isn't one of the side benefits, and has been shown over and over. Torture gets you whatever the person being tortured thinks you want to hear. They would tell you their sister was at the Battle of the Bulge even though she was born in 2006 if they think it will make the torture stop. Creating networks and gathering intelligence through assets is far better than torture. The little bit of true information isn't worth the price we have to pay to get it, ie betraying the fundamental ideas that we are fighting for in the first place.
Which is why torture is a terrible option to use if you're going fishing for information, like asking a person 'are you guilty of doing X?', but considerably more effective when it comes to something that's specific and verifiable, like 'tell me on this map where the training camp is?'
Limited forms of torture, basically designed to break down a person's will to reject, so sleep deprivation combined with specific people treating the captive very humanely has been known to work. It's more or less what police around the world have been using for generations, albeit in a much more mild form.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Not really the same thing. The F-35 has to work now, as there is little option without blowing the huge amount invested already in a needed program. The US could just end torture operations at anytime if it wanted to if the program was proven unnecessary.
You're missing the point, which is that simply being invested in a thing doesn't mean that thing is worthwhile. To use a more mundane example, think of women that remain with an abusive man. They are invested in the relationship, but the relationship isn't good.
Either way, you're talking about the sunk cost dilemma. My point relative to it is that however much money has been invested in the F35 has no bearing on whether or not the F35 is good.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I was saying if the enemy can execute our soldiers, surely we can stoop to using psyche torture, especially if is saves said soldiers set to be executed.
Why should what the enemy considers to be moral have any bearing on what we consider to be moral?
chromedog wrote:No, we train them to kill for the state.
That is ethical.
It is not moral - but ethics and morals are not the same thing.
They often have the same end result, but that is not the same as saying an apple is a banana.
Other way around. Morals are the community standard, which as you say soldiers fit.
Whether soldiers are ethical though, depends on personal beliefs. Some people might have ethical systems that believes training people to kill for you country is ethical. In fact, I'd say most people do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You're missing the point, which is that simply being invested in a thing doesn't mean that thing is worthwhile. To use a more mundane example, think of women that remain with an abusive man. They are invested in the relationship, but the relationship isn't good.
Either way, you're talking about the sunk cost dilemma. My point relative to it is that however much money has been invested in the F35 has no bearing on whether or not the F35 is good.
It also presumes that such a decision is made on a purely rational cost beneift basis. Reality is that there's significant political cost in looking soft on torture, and that means tough sounding options will get the go ahead, whether they work or not.
You can find studies that say it works and those that say it doesn't. The facts are that if it didn't work, why would the US spend millions on it?
The Soviet Union spent a hell of a lot of money trying to prop Communism up. Did Communism work as an idea?
The idea that money spent equals value is a fallacy.
You can find studies that say it works and those that say it doesn't. The facts are that if it didn't work, why would the US spend millions on it?
The Soviet Union spent a hell of a lot of money trying to prop Communism up. Did Communism work as an idea?
The idea that money spent equals value is a fallacy.
What other choice did they have, when your whole system is based on communism you are pretty much pot commited? It would be easy for the US to just not torture and spend millions on studying torture if it was not effective.
In the case of the CIA waterboarding, it wasn't strictly to elicit info from the perp.
It was done to break the perp. Once that was done the real interogations began, and by what is available to the public, this seems to have worked in these cases.
You also have to note that No One relied soley on info from those or any other interogations. The info gathered is then vetted through other sources/used to cue other assets to confirm/deny the validity of the info.
The crap bags at Abu Ghraib were not interogators. They were prison guards. Sadistic prison guards. They were not intelligence MOS troopers nor were they interogating anyone. They were simple crap bags abusing their power for kicks. To use them as examples of torture for interogation is very much off base. They were poorly supervised and poorly lead sadistic people.
Haha I remember they had a whole piece on interviewing those prison guards and they all had a bit of a cry, trying to excuse themselves for what they did by blaming it on someone else. It was all pathetic.
Andrew1975 wrote:It would be easy for the US to just not torture and spend millions on studying torture if it was not effective.
Except, as I already explained, it really, really isn't that simple for the US government to just stop using torture. It is very important for anyone looking to reach higher office to look tough on terrorism, and that means being a tough man who makes tough decisions, even if they're pointless and don't achieve anything.
Whether or not torture works has little to do with why it is so important to talk about why it's very important for politicians to talk about what they're willing to do to protect the country..
CptJake wrote:
The crap bags at Abu Ghraib were not interogators. They were prison guards. Sadistic prison guards. They were not intelligence MOS troopers nor were they interogating anyone. They were simple crap bags abusing their power for kicks. To use them as examples of torture for interogation is very much off base. They were poorly supervised and poorly lead sadistic people.
The only death at Abu Ghraib was presided over by a CIA interrogator.
The most egregious offenses of Abu Ghraib may not have been carried out by authorized interrogators, but the entire situation should be a reminder of what happens when you dehumanize a group of people over whom you have power.
Actually there were several prisoner deaths at AG. Most the result of a mortar attack in Apr 2004. But since they were killed by AQI types it doesn't fit the narative you like it is easy to ignore them.
CptJake wrote:Actually there were several prisoner deaths at AG. Most the result of a mortar attack in Apr 2004. But since they were killed by AQI types it doesn't fit the narative you like it is easy to ignore them.
Casualties as the result of an enemy attack are not relevant to interrogation or torture.
The "narrative" I "like" is that the use of torture has further consequences, beyond any impact it might have on information gathering.
You seem to be implying that I think soldiers are evil, I'm not. I don't believe evil is a sensible concept, certainly not when attempting to find truth.
The modern interogation methods are somewhat flawed mainly because your enemy knows you have limitations and have to look after them. Being wet, naked and sleep deprived is a far cry from getting your fingernails ripped out or an arm decapitated. Hell get some crazy bastard wielding a machette to your throat and most people break down revealing anything they wanted.
about how much their lives suck, and allow the 1% to make money off of it all and use it in campaigns. Would you get mad at your grand dad who was in Guadalcanal or your great uncle who jumped into normandy for calling someone a slur, probably not, you'd chock it up to old prejudice created in the hell that is war. This is the same thing just over blown because of the openess of the internet. I understand it's all about hearts and minds but I know from experience that that is a lot of gak. They don't care and don't want it. If they were threatening someone that goes to far, but infantry are infantry if you didn't have the dirty mouthed fowl minded individuals doing all the dirty work, then who would? The cooks? The mechanics? Seen them in action too, not too impressed. I think ol' winston said it the best. 
+1
