Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!

I imagine that either group think or not wanting to be on the outside had anything to do with it. After all, the military has never had any issues with discrimination.

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.

Yeah, them too. But you also need the grunts who did that for beign knuckle-headed blowhards.

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.

( I apologize for spelling errors)

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.

Its a dilemma really.

Half of it is about ethics
half of it is about conditioning your brain to feel less sympathy towards a potential target or a certain group.

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.

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.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

/rant towards journo's.

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.

Rules and ethics are luxuries only affordable by ones with power.

The weak have to fight with everything they can muster to stand a chance.

Rich and powerful countries will never understand this basic thing....

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.

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.
.

You are forgiven

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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

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.

Good guys and Bad guys, Really?

I'll just leave this here.

Good Ash, Bad Ash, I'm the one with the gun!

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?