• 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

Catawba said:
You mean like we supported Saddam when he was attacking Iran?
Click to expand...

You seem to think there were somehow many better choices available to support. Can you name any?
 
j-mac said:
The investigation of this incident isn't even complete and you are ready to make him pay....Who made you judge, and jury?

j-mac
Click to expand...

There was mention that alcohol was found in the living area of the assailant. Some of the witnesses to the killings said that the assaliant shouted like he was drunk. If alcohol was a factor in the mental capacity of the assailant, would alcohol be a mitigating factor? If alcohol was imbibed, and there is not supposed to be any alcohol in Afghanaisgtan, then might imbibing alcohol be an aggrivating factor? Were other soldiers involved in getting the assailant alcohol? Should other soldiers be charged as acceessories, for providing the alcohol?

Was any other contraband found when the outpost was searched? Were other legal or illegal drugs found? Was there any abuse of drugs by the assailant in the days leading up to Sunday, March 11, 2012? If the assailant ingested illegal drugs, should this be a Mitigating or an Aggravating factor? Was there sufficient mental capacity to form intent for murder?

This soldier going off, with 16 dead, maybe should give a warning to other soldiers in areas of trust in the world, to maintain sobriety. Maybe this assailant is not guilty of murder bedause he was too intoxicated to from an intent to murder. But on the other hand, if a soldier is in a position of trust, doesn't the soldier owe those foreigners in his charge, at least his sobriety of judgement?

Since Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, and alcohol generally not avaiable in Afghanistgan, would it be a cultural insult to Afghans, to give the assailant a break because he was drunk?

What other factors need to be considered at Trial, sentencing, and in charging other soldiers?




//
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
There was mention that alcohol was found in the living area of the assailant. Some of the witnesses to the killings said that the assaliant shouted like he was drunk. If alcohol was a factor in the mental capacity of the assailant, would alcohol be a mitigating factor? If alcohol was imbibed, and there is not supposed to be any alcohol in Afghanaisgtan, then might imbibing alcohol be an aggrivating factor? Were other soldiers involved in getting the assailant alcohol? Should other soldiers be charged as acceessories, for providing the alcohol?

Was any other contraband found when the outpost was searched? Were other legal or illegal drugs found? Was there any abuse of drugs by the assailant in the days leading up to Sunday, March 11, 2012? If the assailant ingested illegal drugs, should this be a Mitigating or an Aggravating factor? Was there sufficient mental capacity to form intent for murder?

This soldier going off, with 16 dead, maybe should give a warning to other soldiers in areas of trust in the world, to maintain sobriety. Maybe this assailant is not guilty of murder bedause he was too intoxicated to from an intent to murder. But on the other hand, if a soldier is in a position of trust, doesn't the soldier owe those foreigners in his charge, at least his sobriety of judgement?

Since Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, and alcohol generally not avaiable in Afghanistgan, would it be a cultural insult to Afghans, to give the assailant a break b ecause he was drunk?

What otehr factors need to be considered at Trial, sentencing, and in charging other soldiers?




//
Click to expand...
Intoxication as seen by most courts, and as far as I'm concerned is not a mitigating factor. You have ultimate control over your body, if you subject yourself to excessive alcohol, you are still 100% liable for your actions.

I would find it in this case and this case only an aggravating factor that he was drunk, because he was deployed and still drank, putting not only his, but his comrades lives in danger.

I'm an afghan veteran myself, and I can say that drinking and drugs are suprisingly prevalent among the troops. The easiest way to get alcohol is have a loved one send it in a mouth wash container or something. Drugs are the same way. Hell, marijuana grew on the COP we were on. Insobriety is no defense.
 
Catawba said:
No, I don't think Obama is stupid enough to set Afghanistan on fire.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to Afghanistan, I was referring to home-grown vermin. Obama actually defied the scum by bringing him to the U.S. for trial.




That happens every time we insert ourselves in a civil war. Look at Vietnam and Iraq.
Click to expand...

And? Do you assume there would be no bloodbaths if we hadn't been involved? That the U.S. just automatically generates them by its' mere presence? That none of those peoples are to blame for anything? Is there some reason why people who habitually use this as a talking point can never bring themselves to blame, say, the Soviet Union and Ho for Viet Nam, for instance?

There are no US troops in Iraq as McCain had planned. Civil wars always result in bloodshed. Have you forgotten how bloody our own civil war was?
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with the civil war started by the railroad lawyer from Illinois for the benefit of his financial swindler Republicans up North. That was key to creating the Republican Party in the first place, destroying the South in order to help themselves to massive handouts. What do you want to know about it?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You mean like we supported Saddam when he was attacking Iran?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Had you a grasp of history you'd be familiar with Iranians attacking, murdering and kidnapping Americans.

It would have been a truer picture of our motivation but would have been too obvious for the rest of the world to abide.
Click to expand...

Rest of the world? What rest of the world? Who are you referring to here?
No it is the scenario of your wish to bomb the hell out of the middle east.
Click to expand...

Use quotes and respond only to the the questions asked.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Intoxication as seen by most courts, and as far as I'm concerned is not a mitigating factor. You have ultimate control over your body, if you subject yourself to excessive alcohol, you are still 100% liable for your actions.

I would find it in this case and this case only an aggravating factor that he was drunk, because he was deployed and still drank, putting not only his, but his comrades lives in danger.

I'm an afghan veteran myself, and I can say that drinking and drugs are suprisingly prevalent among the troops. The easiest way to get alcohol is have a loved one send it in a mouth wash container or something. Drugs are the same way. Hell, marijuana grew on the COP we were on. Insobriety is no defense.
Click to expand...

"The office of attorney John Henry Browne confirmed to ABC News that Browne has agreed to represent the soldier who is based at Joint Base Lewis McChord just outside of Tacoma, Washington."


"According to Seattle press accounts, Browne says he spoke with the soldier by phone early Thursday. Browne told the Associated Press that the soldier "wasn't thrilled about going on another deployment...he wasn't going back, and then he was told he was going.

"Browne said he was making plans to fly to Kuwait to meet with his new client.

Barefoot Bandit Lawyer Will Represent Afghan Massacre Suspect - ABC News






//
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Actually, what's sad is that 16 civilians are dead and one US soldier who probably should have been in a psych ward just took their lives, destroyed their families, ruined his life, hurt his own family tremendously and may have put the lives of American soldiers in addition to the mission at risk. That is what is sad. Your comment is just baseless and out of place.
Click to expand...

TPD, I haven't been following this thread since the first day it was started. I've been thinking about it, though. The best thing I can do to understand an opposing view point is to put myself in their position (or an equivalent one). If someone suggested I was "happy" about this because I support the war effort, I wouldn't like it and I wouldn't agree with it. So, with that in mind, and despite my early defensive protestations that I stand by my comment, I've rethought this. I should not have said that anyone would be "happy" about this. I don't believe anyone is. My word choice was a poor one. I regret it and I do apologize to any one who was offended by it.
 
Originally Posted by X Factor

I stand by what I said originally. Most people revel in the successes of our military, but there are those who revel in their failings


ThePlayDrive said:
I stand by my original comments that your original post was baseless and out of place. I also stand by the assertion that it's odd and questionable that you would chose to concentrate first and foremost on smearing other people based on actions that they haven't committed and ignoring the actual sad part of what has happened.


This isn't a failure of our military. This is the action of an individual that has destroyed the lives of many people. Saying that some anti-war people will be "happy" that some guy killed 16 civilians and destroyed many lives is a far cry from saying that some people "revel" in military failings. You're backtracking. Moreover, anti-war people are usually anti-war because they cannot stand it when things like this happen so it seems like you, as you often do, are twisting what people actually stand for in order to smear people you disagree with.
Click to expand...

The US military has been working on improving the recognition and treatment of PTSD and Brain injury conditions. Mental health is a potential problem in military oerations. While this was an action by an individual, an individual not following orders, there is an option for a deployed US Army soldier to request medical atention. There was an opportunity for other members in the assailant's unit to suggest that the assailant request medical attention, before leaving his base on March 11, 2012, at about 3 AM.

The killing of 16 Afghans is also possibly an institutional failure, because much is now known about PTSD and TBI, Traumatic Brain injury. The Assailant experienced TBI in a vehicle rollover in 2010, in Iraq. It is possible that the Medical evaluation or treatment of the assailant's TBI or PTSD could have been better, based on what is known about PTSD and TBI. It is also possible that by reviewing this assailant's case, something can be learned, so that US treatment of PTSD and TBI can be improved, by the US Army, as an institution.

The US Army should evaluate the treatment of TBI and PTSD, and review the medications being used in these cases. Most school shootings involve anti-depressants. Sometimes the effects of the Anti-depressants take affect a month after stopping taking the medications. Privacy concerns are often cited in keeping the information on anti-depressants or psycho-tropic drugs secret.


//
 
Last edited:
Oberon said:
You seem to think there were somehow many better choices available to support. Can you name any?
Click to expand...

The question was how is the Afghanistan supporting terrorism by the Taliban different that our supporting the terrorism by Saddam?

Our better choice would have been to follow our Constitution and stay the **** out of it.
 
Oberon said:
I wasn't referring to Afghanistan, I was referring to home-grown vermin. Obama actually defied the scum by bringing him to the U.S. for trial.
Click to expand...

Home grown vermin? Do you mean the Americans with morals?



And? Do you assume there would be no bloodbaths if we hadn't been involved? That the U.S. just automatically generates them by its' mere presence? That none of those peoples are to blame for anything? Is there some reason why people who habitually use this as a talking point can never bring themselves to blame, say, the Soviet Union and Ho for Viet Nam, for instance?
Click to expand...

If you don't want to be blamed for killing people when you take sides in another country's civil war, stay the **** out of it. The US claimed we had to stop N. Vietnam or else country after country would fall to communism. Did that happen, or have we been doing business with Communist Vietnam for decades?



I'm very familiar with the civil war started by the railroad lawyer from Illinois for the benefit of his financial swindler Republicans up North. That was key to creating the Republican Party in the first place, destroying the South in order to help themselves to massive handouts. What do you want to know about it?
Click to expand...


Was it bloodless like you apparently expect civil wars in other countries to be?
 
Grant said:
Yes, exactly. Had you a grasp of history you'd be familiar with Iranians attacking, murdering and kidnapping Americans.
Click to expand...

Do you know why they were doing that? And you think its okay to support a murderer and provide him with the stuff to make illegal WMD, if it helps in world hegemony of the world's largest reserves of cheap oil???



Rest of the world? What rest of the world? Who are you referring to here?
Click to expand...

The rest of the world represented in the UN that wouldn't go along with the US attack on Iraq.
 
Here is another twist to the story.

(SEATTLE) — The day before the rampage that killed 16 Afghan villagers, the U.S. soldier accused of the mass killings saw his friend's leg blown off, his lawyer said. "His leg was blown off, and my client was standing next to him," he said.

It isn't clear whether the incident might have helped prompt the horrific middle-of-the-night attack on civilians in two villages last Sunday. Browne said it affected all of the soldiers at the base.





Read more: Lawyer: Afghan Suspect's Friend Had Leg Blown Off - TIME
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
The question was how is the Afghanistan supporting terrorism by the Taliban different that our supporting the terrorism by Saddam?
Click to expand...

No, my question was 'do you know who the alternative choices to support besides Saddam' were. Obviously you don't have the first idea, you just like posting irrelevant 'talking points' over and over. Same for Viet Nam or any of the other conflicts.

Our better choice would have been to follow our Constitution and stay the **** out of it.
Click to expand...

Really? The Constitution says we shouldn't honor mutual defense treaties with allies? Which Amendment is that, specifically?

The myth of 'American neutrality' didn't work out, even in the 1790's. I hate to break it to you, but that's the facts, not to mention 'Mr. Neutrality' himself, Thomas Jefferson, declared our very first war in his first term as President, and also ignored that principle every time it got in the way of his foreign policy as well, as did Washington before him.

Your next post is just more of the same, so no reply is necessary.

The tired old 'isolationist' rhetoric are just Soviet Cold War memes left over from insipid 1960's 'New Left' propaganda rags. Not very convincing at that.
 
Last edited:
The rest of the world represented in the UN that wouldn't go along with the US attack on Iraq.
Click to expand...

You mean the UN whose membership is made up largely of dictators, and had Mommar Quadaffy as Chairman of its 'Human Rights' Commission? Yes, that's a point ...
 
Oberon said:
No, my question was 'do you know who the alternative choices to support besides Saddam' were. Obviously you don't have the first idea, you just like posting irrelevant 'talking points' over and over. Same for Viet Nam or any of the other conflicts.
Click to expand...

The choice is whether to kill people for US oil hegemony, or not. I choose not. Now answer my question, how is the Afghanistan supporting terrorism by the Taliban different that our supporting the terrorism by Saddam?

Really? The Constitution says we shouldn't honor mutual defense treaties with allies? Which Amendment is that, specifically?
Click to expand...

Post Persian Gulf war Iraq did not have the capacity to be a military threat to our allies.
 
Oberon said:
You mean the UN whose membership is made up largely of dictators, and had Mommar Quadaffy as Chairman of its 'Human Rights' Commission? Yes, that's a point ...
Click to expand...

I see if a country doesn't have corrupt democracy that we forced on them at the end of a gun through invasion/occupation/regime change, they don't matter. Got it!
 
RDS said:
He is guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

He confessed. Of course, I realize that doesn't make a difference to those of you ready to make him a hero for killing women and babies while they slept.
 
Thunder said:
most UN member states are dictatorships?

bull****.
Click to expand...

Actually the democracies in the world are pretty substantially outnumbered at the UN.
 
Wiggen said:
He confessed. Of course, I realize that doesn't make a difference to those of you ready to make him a hero for killing women and babies while they slept.
Click to expand...

Please point out who wanted to make this guy a hero for murdering women and baies when they slept, okay? We'll both attack whoever said that. You wouldn't lie, would you?
 
Wiggen said:
He confessed. Of course, I realize that doesn't make a difference to those of you ready to make him a hero for killing women and babies while they slept.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who you are speaking about, but I don't know of anyone who thinks he is a "hero". I would hope that most of us think he's a very sick man. He cracked. He has an excuse. Now the islamists who murder hundreds and hundreds of women and children, what is their excuse?
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
I have no idea who you are speaking about, but I don't know of anyone who thinks he is a "hero". I would hope that most of us think he's a very sick man. He cracked. He has an excuse. Now the islamists who murder hundreds and hundreds of women and children, what is their excuse?
Click to expand...

Yes he is sick.
But why does it matter what the excuse of the islamists are? They dont represent us. You say "whats their excuse" as if its some sort of back ally excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom