• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

nota bene said:
But it's worth consideration because traumatic brain injury is known to affect judgment.

Here's a discussion of an article published in the journal Pediatrics about cognitive problems manifesting years after an injury:

Can suffering a head injury make a person more violent later in life?
Click to expand...

as much as i would want to agree with this rationalization in an emotional, jingoistic way, i have to then recognize if this staff sergeant's judgment was so impaired, he should not have been on the line
like the shrink in uniform before him, whose actions provided very strong clues of mental instability, if this was due to the neglect of his supervisors, then they too need to be brought to justice
 
solletica said:
There is no evidence that the US troop that fired on the civilians was not given an order to do so from a superior, or even if he had not been given an order, had a legitimate military reason for killing them.

It's possible that one of the above was true, or that one is true and not the other, or the killings were purely random. We don't know. We don't have all the facts about this particular case, and sadly, we may never know the truth (since uncle sam has a fondness for obscuring it).

All that is known is that massacres are a commonplace occurrence in war--they are a statistical reality in any long-term combat situation, regardless of whether the massacres are done for military purposes or are random.

If you start a war, then be prepared to accept it.
Click to expand...

There is also no evidence that the soldier had been ordered to go around murdering locals, in fact, it is highly unlikely and even not probable that a superior would ever give such an order.

Also, there is a difference between a massacre during the heat of battle (also not good but it happens occasionally) and what this soldier had done.
 
RIP. I wish to express sorrow at the Afghan loss of life, and injuries. The account of eye witnesses decribe more mayhem, than the execution-style event, described in Western news media.

Search Reuters
 
justabubba said:
as much as i would want to agree with this rationalization in an emotional, jingoistic way, i have to then recognize if this staff sergeant's judgment was so impaired, he should not have been on the line
like the shrink in uniform before him, whose actions provided very strong clues of mental instability, if this was due to the neglect of his supervisors, then they too need to be brought to justice
Click to expand...

I suppose we're all going to learn a lot about this guy in the coming days and months. I don't know enough to have formed an opinion, and I'm not a shrink. I don't know whether it's possible that there weren't "signs" and that this guy just snapped. Can TBI present this way?

Whatever his deal turns out to be, I think we can safely assume that anybody who goes house to house and executes little kids has snapped.
 
nota bene said:
I suppose we're all going to learn a lot about this guy in the coming days and months. I don't know enough to have formed an opinion, and I'm not a shrink. I don't know whether it's possible that there weren't "signs" and that this guy just snapped. Can TBI present this way?

Whatever his deal turns out to be, I think we can safely assume that anybody who goes house to house and executes little kids has snapped.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that this guy is taken as an exception, which he is, and that he "just snapped", or that there might have been serious psychological or physical brain damage.

When a Muslim does much the same thing these excuses are never made. It seems that just being a Muslim is a ready made excuse.
 
StillBallin75 said:
This just happened yesterday. Just because nothing's happened yet doesn't mean nothing will happen at all. I think it's very probable that there will be a great amount of backlash.
Click to expand...

That was my point. I happened yesterday but Obama was on the phone the same day without knowing the circumstances apologizing about it. I wonder what he actually said in the apology without knowing what happened.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not too worried. I figure that the average Afghani can see the obvious truth in my post, perhaps better than you've managed. Really, it's common sense. They see us prosecuting the criminal and notice a difference between the US and terrorists - even if you can't see it.
Click to expand...


How is average Afghani going to see anything? I don't think they have flat screens in every house or even know what has happened.
 
Mason66 said:
That was my point. I happened yesterday but Obama was on the phone the same day without knowing the circumstances apologizing about it. I wonder what he actually said in the apology without knowing what happened.
Click to expand...

one of our soldiers murdered 16 of your people including nine children
why would such an act NOT deserve an immediate apology
 
Mason66 said:
That was my point. I happened yesterday but Obama was on the phone the same day without knowing the circumstances apologizing about it. I wonder what he actually said in the apology without knowing what happened.
Click to expand...

Why should he know any further information before apologizing when a US soldier went on a rampage where he killed 9 children? Is there anything that would make his crimes less worthy of an apology? I do not think so.
 
Peter King said:
Why should he know any further information before apologizing when a US soldier went on a rampage where he killed 9 children? Is there anything that would make his crimes less worthy of an apology? I do not think so.
Click to expand...

It is never a good idea to talk without having the facts. What did Obama say in his apology? He didn't know how it happened nor did he know why. Yes it is important the facts of the case.
 
Mason66 said:
It is never a good idea to talk without having the facts. What did Obama say in his apology? He didn't know how it happened nor did he know why. Yes it is important the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

the facts of the case, which Obama knew, are not in dispute. a soldier of the USA military murdered 16 afghan citizens, including nine children
no other information needs to be known for a rational person to recognize that an apology is in order
 
Grant said:
What's interesting is that this guy is taken as an exception, which he is, and that he "just snapped", or that there might have been serious psychological or physical brain damage.

When a Muslim does much the same thing these excuses are never made. It seems that just being a Muslim is a ready made excuse.
Click to expand...



I guess you miss catawbas post where he essentially infers we are all terrorists. :shrug:
 
So what is the process, if a US Army Soldier feels hs should not finish the time for which he is assigned in Afghanistan? What is the process if a US Army soldier feels one of his men, or officers, should go home before finishing the assigned length of the tour of duty? Is it more important that soliders finish their assgned length of tour of duty, or is it also important that if a soldier starts to lose it on tour, that the soldier get returned back to the states, sooner than later?

What meds was this soldier taking? Psychotropics? Anti-Depressants? Many shool shooting involve Anti-Depressants.


//
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I guess you miss catawbas post where he essentially infers we are all terrorists. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not we. Just the US military. Anyone who uses violence or the threat or violence (typically to achieve a political goal) is defined to be a terrorist, and so the US military certainly qualifies.

The American people, OTOH, aren't responsible for the actions of the military since they're not part of the chain of command. . .

Corporations/oil cos/mining cos -> CINC -> SECDEF -> UCCs -> senior commissioned officers -> commissioned officers -> enlisted troops
 
solletica said:
Not we. Just the US military. Anyone who uses violence or the threat or violence (typically to achieve a political goal) is defined to be a terrorist, and so the US military certainly qualifies.

The American people, OTOH, aren't responsible for the actions of the military since they're not part of the chain of command. . .

Corporations/oil cos/mining cos -> CINC -> SECDEF -> UCCs -> senior commissioned officers -> commissioned officers -> enlisted troops
Click to expand...



And yet another post calling US troops terrorists.....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
And yet another post calling US troops terrorists.....
Click to expand...

They are. . .

ter·ror·ism

1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

The US military uses violence (in Afghanistan, Iraq) and the threat of violence (i. e. comply w/inspections or-else) to coerce others (enemy forces into surrendering, countries to disarm) for political purposes.

Therefore, they're terrorists.
 
solletica said:
They are. . .



The US military uses violence (in Afghanistan, Iraq) and the threat of violence (i. e. comply w/inspections or-else) to coerce others (enemy forces into surrendering, countries to disarm) for political purposes.

Therefore, they're terrorists.
Click to expand...



wow, that is cuckoo bannanas! :lol:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I guess you miss catawbas post where he essentially infers we are all terrorists. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well if that were the case it would certainly make policing the world a great deal easier. There would be a bounty on Muslims.

I doubt Catawba has ever given this a great deal of thought.
 
solletica said:
They are. . .



The US military uses violence (in Afghanistan, Iraq) and the threat of violence (i. e. comply w/inspections or-else) to coerce others (enemy forces into surrendering, countries to disarm) for political purposes.

Therefore, they're terrorists.
Click to expand...
So you are calling Obama a terrorist. Wow. I just think thats the kind of over the top rhetoric that is uncalled for.
 
Grant said:
Well if that were the case it would certainly make policing the world a great deal easier. There would be a bounty on Muslims.
Click to expand...

Putting a bounty on all Muslims would be detrimental to US oil interests--i. e. the Saudi ruling family are Muslims--and so the military would never do that.

Uncle sam only labels the Muslims that endanger US corporate interests as "terrorists" and put the bounties exclusively on their turbans.

For example, if you live in a mineral rich country where your dictator signs an agreement w/Exxon to drill all over the place and only give a portion of the profits to the dictator and his family and none to the people, and you rebel against it, then uncle sam will brand you a "terrorist" since your actions impede Exxon.

However, if you fight for the dictator, you will branded a "rebel" since your actions help Exxon.
 
Last edited:
solletica said:
They are. . .



The US military uses violence (in Afghanistan, Iraq) and the threat of violence (i. e. comply w/inspections or-else) to coerce others (enemy forces into surrendering, countries to disarm) for political purposes.

Therefore, they're terrorists.
Click to expand...
That;'s an interesting link you sent re the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism | Define Terrorism at Dictionary.com

The first questions they ask are "Do you know Islam? Would you like to be a Muslim?"

Perhaps you should consider other sources for your definitions.
 
VanceMack said:
So you are calling Obama a terrorist. Wow. I just think thats the kind of over the top rhetoric that is uncalled for.
Click to expand...

It's the truth, and truth is beautiful :)
 
Last edited:
solletica said:
They are. . .



The US military uses violence (in Afghanistan, Iraq) and the threat of violence (i. e. comply w/inspections or-else) to coerce others (enemy forces into surrendering, countries to disarm) for political purposes.

Therefore, they're terrorists.
Click to expand...

no, they are not. the majority of our military is just doing their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom