Rogue soldier has mental breakdown, kills civilians in Afghanistan

[Formaldehyde]

Your general over-reliance on wikipedia is quite obvious.

It isn't "over reliance" at all to merely use a convenient source which obviously has a fine reputation in providing factual information. And you still haven't managed to dispute anything in that particular article which you alleged is "not accurate".

 

[kramerfan86]

I do find it funny how many people rip on wikipedia. As time has gone on and its become more organized with more devoted editors its accuracy continues to improve, especially on fairly major articles that have editors checking in on them.

 

[MobBoss]

Will he get an "enhanced interrogation" as a "terrorist" ?

He's not a terrorist.

If the US tried him in Afghanistan, why would this soldier will get a less fair trial than in the USA.

Are all trials of US soldiers carried out in the US.

If he is kept in Afghanistan there it is almost a guarentee there would be massive riots and possibly a storming of whatever facility he was held in. By moving him, lives are probably being saved on both sides.

But to answer your question, no, not all courts martial are held within the borders of the USA, but then again, the vast majority dont have this kind of press or potential for trouble.

You wouldn't call this man killing whole families in their homes in the middle of the night terrorism?

If that's isn't terrorism, I don't know what is.

Then, respectfully, you dont know what terrorism is. Terrorism is inheritly an (a)political action using horrendous violence, done to facilitate a political goal. For example, OBL planned 9/11 in an attempt to inflame a worldwide muslim jihad vs the West. In didnt exactly work out the way he planned, but from his videos he released that was what he attempted for the record.

While what this man alledgedly did was indeed horrible, I think everyone would agree there simply isnt any political goal involved in this, there was no plan, it was done emotionally, and probably just as an act of frustration and sheer revenge. But thats not terrorism as defined by most nations across this planet. Cold blooded murder? Absolutely. Terrorism? Not so much.

 

[innonimatu]

Then, respectfully, you dont know what terrorism is. Terrorism is inheritly an (a)political action

What?

using horrendous violence, done to facilitate a political goal.

Very little violence may be needed for terrorism to succeed. But I'll accept that a credible threat of violence, against any rebellious subjects at least, is necessary.

I think everyone would agree there simply isnt any political goal involved in this, there was no plan, it was done emotionally, and probably just as an act of frustration and sheer revenge.

Sure. And the same goes for so many other terrorists. They may turn towards that radical path as a result of some sum of past personal grievances. Whatever else is new?

The thing terrorism seems to have as a requirement is an enabling organization. One or more organizations that provide the logistics, weapons, and/or training for the terrorists. Like the "Taliban", the US Armed Forces... you get the idea. If they're an organization with war toys, they're almost guaranteed to engage in terrorism with them. If they engage in a war, that's a certainty. A fundamental part of every war is to terrorize the enemy. Without terror no war can be won, for no enemy would have cause to submit to peace on the opponent's terms. So all armed forces or groups fighting wars engage in terrorism.

 

[MobBoss]

What?

What part confused you?

Very little violence may be needed for terrorism to succeed. But I'll accept that a credible threat of violence, against any rebellious subjects at least, is necessary.

I am not sure I agree with you on the 'very little violence' point.

Sure. And the same goes for so many other terrorists.

No, it doesnt. While those like OBL may find those willing to execute such terrorist attacks, those you describe hardly have the means to accomplish it on their own. Thus they get used by those like OBL as part of a plan. Thats simply not the case in regards to this soldier.

They may turn towards that radical path as a result of some sum of past personal grievances. Whatever else is new?

Again, this doesnt remove the political goal that those using terrorism attempt to accomplish. Point being not all crimes comitted by those with personal grievances would be terrorism either.

The thing terrorism seems to have as a requirement is an enabling organization. One or more organizations that provide the logistics, weapons, and/or training for the terrorists. Like the "Taliban", the US Armed Forces... you get the idea. If they're an organization with war toys, they're almost guaranteed to engage in terrorism with them. If they engage in a war, that's a certainty. A fundamental part of every war is to terrorize the enemy. Without terror no war can be won, for no enemy would have cause to submit to peace on the opponent's terms. So all armed forces or groups fighting wars engage in terrorism.

No, they dont. In fact, the modern rules of land warfare prohibit terrorism and unnecessary attacks on civilian populations. I dont agree with your premise at all, especially the point about terrorism being a fundamental part of every war. Its simply not.

 

[innonimatu]

No, it doesnt. While those like OBL may find those willing to execute such terrorist attacks, those you describe hardly have the means to accomplish it on their own. Thus they get used by those like OBL as part of a plan. Thats simply not the case in regards to this soldier.

Yes, they need the support of an organization, as I also mentioned.

Again, this doesnt remove the political goal that those using terrorism attempt to accomplish. Point being not all crimes comitted by those with personal grievances would be terrorism either.

Fair point, it is not, by itself, enough for being described as a "terrorist": we all understand those to have some kind of agenda, I believe.

No, they dont. In fact, the modern rules of land warfare prohibit terrorism and unnecessary attacks on civilian populations. I dont agree with your premise at all, especially the point about terrorism being a fundamental part of every war. Its simply not.

I know it's a dangerous issue to insist upon, saying that terror is a necessary part of war can be taken as advocating more brutal kinds of warfare. But it's a risk I'm willing to accept for the sake of pointing out that wars are always very, very nasty business. No amount of rules of warfare will ever end the use of terror in war, I'm afraid. Best to avoid war altogether as much as possible.

The issue is that to win a war you always need to make the enemy accept your terms. And the enemy isn't simply the military you're fighting: it's the civilians. The civilians are the goal you set to capture, their military only the obstacle preventing it. You defeat the military, then way? You proceed to occupy the land! You proceed to submit the enemy civilians to your rule. If you abstain from doing it you cannot win. In fact if you were going to abstain from threatening the enemy civilians into submission - by force - then the enemy would not have needed a single soldier in the first place! They could just sit there and mock you. There would have been no fighting, no war, and no (new) peace (the standard motive for fighting a war).
The "problem" with many prolonged modern wars has been precisely that beating the civilians into submission, in our era when - fortunately - we do have some rules of war limiting the violence against them, is extremely hard.

There may(?) be one kind of war that does not fall into this pattern, the one where the goal is indeed only to destroy the enemy's military, perhaps as some kind of preventive measure. But has ever a war really had such limited goal, been won, and that goal been strictly respected? Has ever a government held back from following up on such a victory with additional demands?

 

[FriendlyFire]

He's not a terrorist.

Insert Obama secret muslim joke

 

[r16]

This is your response rather than just acknowledging you mispoke about institutional racism that you imagined in the US Army based on Viet Nam war movies... you double down on the ignorant statement?]

there is no retraction on anything , where the Turkish interest in Vietnam begins , ı might post tomorrow if ı survive that long .

The soldier in question, we don't know yet what his fate will be... we aren't going to knee-jerk execute someone who has volunteered again and again to serve his country when it asked him. He is guaranteed and deserves a fair trial. That's how us crazy Americans operate. If found guilty, and not insane, our government had already said they would consider the death penalty. Our system of justice may not be perfect, but I'll wager it is much fairer than that which your country has.
Sorry if this isn't happening quickly enough for you...

ask it once again , if after a fair trial he is found guilty , and ı hear his lawyer is already questioning the evidence and this stuff will not be buried down under Taliban provocation or whatever , will he be hanged ? If after the fair trial he is found to be mentally uncapable will he be institiunalized for life ?

it is not the speed , it is the eventual outcome . For speed , ı would say we would wait until the Hell freezes over , but Islamic traditions have it that hell can be as painful as cold as it is hot .

EDIT: I find your mocking of the tragedy in France to be especially disgusting. It was a radical muslim, by the way, they've got him cornered as we speak.

ı guess ı was aware of who was cornered and why it happens but then the black ops and the anger it raises have never been properly appreciated by the West . We will see whether some El Kaide operator , twice turned down by the French Army and under surveillance for years can stop things by shooting kids , the ponytail and all ...

 

[kochman]

It isn't "over reliance" at all to merely use a convenient source which obviously has a fine reputation in providing factual information. And you still haven't managed to dispute anything in that particular article which you alleged is "not accurate".

I know, right! Keep on pounding away at that source with a fine reputation in providing factual information... I'll keep on verifying through other sources.
As for your assertion, not going to do your homework for you (completely, but in this case, I do want others to have the truth rather than the poppycock that you've been posting, so they can understand what PTSD actually is, because most don't).
However, I present this one...
JUST FOR STARTERS... may be a wee bit better than wikipedia... maybe maybe...
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/dsm-iv-tr-ptsd.asp

ask it once again , if after a fair trial he is found guilty , and ı hear his lawyer is already questioning the evidence...

Wait, you mean, a defense attorney is questioning evidence to be used against his client?! The outrage.

If after the fair trial he is found to be mentally uncapable will he be institiunalized for life ?

Let me consult my crystal ball and get back to you.

it is not the speed , it is the eventual outcome .

So, you are castigating America for an outcome you don't even know yet? Nice.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: After a conversation on mod-forums and reconsideration, this is revoked:

I think it's premature to call this guy a terrorist, or that he should be hanged, since we don't yet know much about his motivations or mental status when doing the thing he did. If you know more, please link to the source. Otherwise, it's not your business to judge.

Moderator Action: This has some mod authority behind it too. If it gets out of hands, points will be awarded.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I know, right! Keep on pounding away at that source with a fine reputation in providing factual information... I'll keep on verifying through other sources.
As for your assertion, not going to do your homework for you (completely, but in this case, I do want others to have the truth rather than the poppycock that you've been posting, so they can understand what PTSD actually is, because most don't).
However, I present this one...
JUST FOR STARTERS... may be a wee bit better than wikipedia... maybe maybe...
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/dsm-iv-tr-ptsd.asp

Poppycock?

The Wiki article appears to contain the basically the same information as the overview at that website and is even far more extensive about some aspects. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the same people who wrote those web pages have also read and possibly even contributed to the Wiki article. In some aspects, the Wiki article even contains more information because they also address PTSD from such events as bullying. I certainly don't see any contradictions with the facts contained in the Wiki article. Do you?

There is no reason to fear Wikipedia. It is a very reliable source for basic information regarding just about any topic.

 

[kochman]

Poppycock?

The Wiki article appears to contain the basically the same information as the overview at that website and is even far more extensive about some aspects. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the same people who wrote those web pages have also read and possibly even contributed to the Wiki article. In some aspects, the Wiki article even contains more information because they also address PTSD from such events as bullying. I certainly don't see any contradictions with the facts contained in the Wiki article. Do you?

There is no reason to fear Wikipedia. It is a very reliable source for basic information regarding just about any topic.

Ok, so it was just your failure of reading the material then? You seemed to not understand that causes... you said if people stop engaging in the activity (which you never clarified what the activity was), it goes away.
An example of how this is wrong, every single case of chronic PTSD... the kid who was abused as a child, and still suffers as an adult... the retired cop/soldier, etc, etc, etc.

I'm not going to get into a wikipedia debate with you. If you want to lean on it so much, feel free to do so... I just don't agree with using it constantly.

 

[Narz]

Then, respectfully, you dont know what terrorism is. Terrorism is inheritly an (a)political action using horrendous violence, done to facilitate a political goal.

And the guy who went on the rampage had a political goal. Unless you think he's just a nut (which you claim you don't).

 

[kochman]

And the guy who went on the rampage had a political goal. Unless you think he's just a nut (which you claim you don't).

Have you seen said political goal in a martyrdom video or something?
Wait, he didn't martyr himself...

What makes you sure this was politically motivated?

 

[warpus]

Terrorism is inheritly an (a)political action using horrendous violence, done to facilitate a political goal. For example, OBL planned 9/11 in an attempt to inflame a worldwide muslim jihad vs the West. In didnt exactly work out the way he planned, but from his videos he released that was what he attempted for the record.

You are right that this isn't terrorism, but you are wrong about Bin Laden's goals. His main goal was to tempt the U.S. into invading 1 or more countries in the middle east in order to financially starve you guys so that you'd crumble from the inside.

Terrorism is also the the threat of violence, one thing that was missing from your definition.

 

[Narz]

Have you seen said political goal in a martyrdom video or something?
Wait, he didn't martyr himself...

What makes you sure this was politically motivated?

You don't need to be a martyr to be a terrorist.

Who knows, maybe he would have gone on a similar rampage in the US but I suspect not, likely he saw the people he killed as less than human. He clearly wanted to terrorize them.

Soldiers need to dehumanize the enemy in order to slaughter them, this type of thing is an inevitable result. I doubt there is a single war in human history where this type of thing hasn't occurred at least once.

 

[kochman]

You don't need to be a martyr to be a terrorist.

Who knows, maybe he would have gone on a similar rampage in the US but I suspect not, likely he saw the people he killed as less than human. He clearly wanted to terrorize them.

Soldiers need to dehumanize the enemy in order to slaughter them, this type of thing is an inevitable result. I doubt there is a single war in human history where this type of thing hasn't occurred at least once.

But what was his POLITICAL point?

Hating a group is not really political as far as I see it.

 

[MobBoss]

And the guy who went on the rampage had a political goal. Unless you think he's just a nut (which you claim you don't).

Uhm. No. He had no political goal, or at the very least none is known of at this time. No such 'goal' is being reported by any news agency that I am aware of. Do you have a source for that claim?

And I didnt make any claim as to his mental status precisely. In fact, he could very well be a 'nut' as you put it, suffered from some who the hell knows what.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ok, so it was just your failure of reading the material then? You seemed to not understand that causes... you said if people stop engaging in the activity (which you never clarified what the activity was), it goes away.

It apparently does unless you actually think that anybody who has nightmares over fear of dying or being seriously injured never get over them unless they receive medical treatment. Take those who were bullied as children, for instance. The vast majority of people who suffer from PTSD have never received any treatment untll fairly recently, and the US military continually refuses to treat those who claim to be afflicted even with serious symptoms. As the article I posted earlier shows, even his military base came under criticism for denying over 200 cases from receiving any treatment. Clearly only the most severe cases are even treated by the military and the VA. They simply ignore the rest.

Once again, do you have any proof whatsoever that PTSD is a permanent affliction unless you receive some sort of formal medical treatment?

 

[Dachs]

You are right that this isn't terrorism, but you are wrong about Bin Laden's goals. His main goal was to tempt the U.S. into invading 1 or more countries in the middle east in order to financially starve you guys so that you'd crumble from the inside.

Nah, that's only the very small part of his plan that actually succeeded. Except for the crumbling part, of course, but the jury's still out on that.

Most of what he expected out of the attacks didn't happen.