/* */

PDA

View Full Version : CNN reports a study done in Iraq



caroline
01-03-2008, 07:46 PM
These are some of the results of a study done on over 1,000 US soldiers NOW in Iraq.

CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq

Ethics:

47% of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect

10% admitted abusing civilians or deliberately damaging their property

Fewer than 50% said they would report a comrade for abuse or unethical behavior

Over 1/3 say torture should be allowed

Top US military officials responded by saying this survey should be a compliment to leadership since the soldiers are not acting on the beliefs stated and they are NOT torturing. I guess they forgot that we have all SEEN THE PICTURES.

:cry:
I wonder how long people think the world is going to allow this kind of tyranny...

An Acceptable Source for the Statistics was given: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Intisar
01-04-2008, 02:18 AM
:sl: sis Caroline, can you provide a link of where you got this info from? Jazakallahu khair in advance. :)
Reply

adeeb
01-04-2008, 02:20 AM
very bad then.... if many people think the same way...what would it be in the next century?? :cry::cry:+o(
Reply

Zarmina
01-04-2008, 06:20 AM
No wonder you see innocent Iraqis being tortured and killed. How sad. :(
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
ahsan28
01-04-2008, 07:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zarmina
No wonder you see innocent Iraqis being tortured and killed. How sad. :(
By the invaders in the ist phase and criminal gangs at a later stage, being supported militarily by a so-called Muslim country, which doesn't want peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reply

KAding
01-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Do you have a link? I can't find anything on CNN itself. Can't find anything on Google either.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 04:35 PM
not to say the study isnt real or that it isnt right, but to survey 1000 people out of 150,000 doesnt really hold enough weight to make a solid conclusion about US soldiers in Iraq. Think it about it like this it is 1 in every 150 people and who even knows what these soldiers have been through or where they are stationed

disclaimer: I am not supporting any torture or unethical acts committed by any soldiers
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I am sure they wouldnt like you :)
no offense but given caroline's report you are probably correct... and not in the smug sense that you just responded to that poster.





given the issue at hand i do not think i am surprised... it is difficult to think loving and righteous things when you are in a situation where you are confused... people are trying to kill you, and you are expected to use good judgment. they are just people afterall... i wouldn't be surprised if you polled soldiers from anywhere in any war and you got similar results. this is one of the many reasons i'm completely against war... it's evil.

it seems tremendously naive to think that ones' soldiers are inhumanly righteous in a war... merely because they are your countrymen, religious brothers and sisters or even religious figures.

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 04:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
not to say the study isnt real or that it isnt right, but to survey 1000 people out of 150,000 doesnt really hold enough weight to make a solid conclusion about US soldiers in Iraq. Think it about it like this it is 1 in every 150 people and who even knows what these soldiers have been through or where they are stationed

disclaimer: I am not supporting any torture or unethical acts committed by any soldiers
hola MTAFFI

how is your disclaimer different from muslims who spend three pages ranting about defending themselves from the zionist occupation then close with the parthian shot 'i'm against terrorism' ??

if ultimately the purpose of your words is to look for a way to exculpate and push the issue under the rug so that it's not discussed and addressed in the open (which is embarassing)... then you ARE supporting torture and unethical acts passively.

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 04:45 PM
This study has very normal results. what do you expected?? this guys are in Iraq risking their life's and a "normal person" can easily be a terrorist ready to explode! Not to say that civilians protect insurgents and weapons that killed American soldiers. This results are SO normal.

I am not saying what is correct or not, but this is a "Arabia War". Not like in Europe where the enemy could be easily target, in this case terrorist or civilian is very close. SO is very normal that the soldiers start confusing the population with the real enemy.
Reply

Keltoi
01-04-2008, 04:46 PM
Even if this report is accurate as far as percentages, which would depend on the sample and the method, all that truly matters is what they do, not what they think. In any war the enemy becomes something less than human. That is really the only way to do what one has to do and remain largely sane and able to return to normal society.
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
but this is a "Arabia War". Not like in Europe where the enemy could be easily target, in this case terrorist or civilian is very close.

...de que hablas? :offended:
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-04-2008, 04:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
...de que hablas? :offended:
the terrorists are using an "uniform"? or are they dressing like normal civilians?

the terrorists have bases or are using "civilian houses"??

the distinction between the two, for a soldier, begins to be very difficult, specially when you lose friends or family in this war.
Reply

Woodrow
01-04-2008, 04:53 PM
Thread closed and replies made invisible until a clickable link is provided for the original Post.
Reply

Woodrow
01-04-2008, 05:23 PM
Source provided by Brother Chuck, Thread reopened.
Reply

Chuck
01-04-2008, 06:04 PM
One more source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9B9F188506.htm
Reply

MartyrX
01-04-2008, 06:28 PM
I've had friends who were over in Iraq and some won't say anything others are very negative on their experience.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-04-2008, 06:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
hola MTAFFI

how is your disclaimer different from muslims who spend three pages ranting about defending themselves from the zionist occupation then close with the parthian shot 'i'm against terrorism' ??

if ultimately the purpose of your words is to look for a way to exculpate and push the issue under the rug so that it's not discussed and addressed in the open (which is embarassing)... then you ARE supporting torture and unethical acts passively.

que Dios te bendiga
I am not sure if you interpreted my post correctly, I am not defending torture or unethical acts, just as I put on the bottom of my post, and I am not saying that this report is incorrect. I challenge the accuracy of any study that is done on 1,000 men WHEN THERE ARE 149,000 MORE THAT COULD HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS... the same goes for islamic extremism, while we see 1,000 fighters or 10,000 fighters or who knows maybe 1,000,000 that is still only a fraction of the 1,000,000,000 in the world. That is all I was saying
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 06:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JeffX
I've had friends who were over in Iraq and some won't say anything others are very negative on their experience.
my husband has forbidden me to even bring the subject of his job up at all... i don't ask, even when he comes home i don't ask...
Reply

Cognescenti
01-04-2008, 07:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Do you have a link? I can't find anything on CNN itself. Can't find anything on Google either.
That's because it isn't from CNN, in fact, it isn't an LA Times news story either. It is from the Opinion section. For those unfamiliar with Western journalistic standards, columns printed in the opinion section of a newspaper are not routinely fact-checked by editors and are not even meant to be news stories. The informed reader is supposed to understand that such columns represent the opinions of the author. That is why the call it the Opinion section. It is designed to permit the airing of opposing points of view.

Here is the author....CHRIS HEDGES....who is the author, most recently, of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
:D

There is some collection of troop "interviews" published in the july 30 issue of The Nation, which is sort of like the Washinton Times of the far Left.

More to follow.
Reply

wilberhum
01-04-2008, 08:53 PM
CNN? Right :skeleton:

Do you really believe the OP didn't know that?

It is now obvious why the source was not given.

Even Al Jazeera won't even validate the article.
Al Jazeera is not responsible for the content of external websites
Now it may all be true. But Al Jazeera doesn't even provide a link the source of the study.
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
That's because it isn't from CNN, in fact, it isn't an LA Times news story either. It is from the Opinion section. For those unfamiliar with Western journalistic standards, columns printed in the opinion section of a newspaper are not routinely fact-checked by editors and are not even meant to be news stories. The informed reader is supposed to understand that such columns represent the opinions of the author. That is why the call it the Opinion section. It is designed to permit the airing of opposing points of view.

Here is the author....CHRIS HEDGES....who is the author, most recently, of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
:D

There is some collection of troop "interviews" published in the july 30 issue of The Nation, which is sort of like the Washinton Times of the far Left.

More to follow.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

You will notice the article starts with the phrase: The latest PENTAGON SURVEY....

:statisfie
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
CNN? Right :skeleton:

.
CNN/Pentagon

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 09:35 PM
marines especially frighten me... it seems like the ethos of their branch is obsessed with killing and acting barbaric... and when they come home they have this attitude that they should be allowed to take whatever they want because they 'defended freedom'
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 09:35 PM
Back on topic:

In response to the question "What do you expect?"

First of all, I would expect a government representing the people to abide by the wishes of the people... uh, that is democracy after all. The question is not whether or not Iraq will be a democracy -- it's whether or not the United States will be a democracy. The overwhelming majority of US citizens wanst us to leave Iraq and stop this war. In a democracy the government would abide by that, or at the very least ACKNOWLEDGE it and begin to REPOND.

Secondly, I expect soldiers that represent the United States to make an educated and ethical decision about whether or not to participate in an illegal war.

Thirdly, I expect soldiers representing the United States to act ethically. I expect them to respect the value and dignity of innocent civilians, women and children. I expect them to abhor the very notion of torture. I expect them to abide by the Geneva Conventions. I expect them to report other soldiers for not doing these things.

After all, we say that we are not the terrorists, we are not the backwoods guerillas fighting for our little plot of land. We are the noble defenders of right, the warriors in defense of democracy. What I expect is for our soldiers to behave as soldiers should -- with honor and respect and conscience. And if they can't they should not have access to weapons.
Reply

Jayda
01-04-2008, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Study: Anxiety, depression, acute stress in combat troops


Does that mean that you knew that the original post title was false?

no... it means you didn't read the article. scroll down to the part that says 'see report here' and then look at page 34 of the report.
Reply

caroline
01-04-2008, 10:42 PM
Now, can we get back to the topic?
Reply

Intisar
01-04-2008, 10:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Now, can we get back to the topic?
Please. :blind:

If you guys don't, I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to close this topic.
Reply

wilberhum
01-04-2008, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sister-Ameena*
Please. :blind:

If you guys don't, I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to close this topic.
Well you have "Closed" the topic for me.
It is just a game. I post, you delete.

But of course not all negative remarks to me are deleted, just my remarks.
Reply

Intisar
01-04-2008, 11:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Well you have "Closed" the topic for me.
It is just a game. I post, you delete.

But of course not all negative remarks to me are deleted, just my remarks.
Is it so hard for you to comment on the topic at hand instead of taking little ridiculous jabs at people? If you could stay on topic, I'm sure I wouldn't have to delete anything. :)

PS. Stop making yourself out to look like the victim, I don't only delete your posts but anyone who does not follow this section's (or forum's) rules.

With that being sad, have a great day.
Reply

wilberhum
01-04-2008, 11:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sister-Ameena*
Is it so hard for you to comment on the topic at hand instead of taking little ridiculous jabs at people? If you could stay on topic, I'm sure I wouldn't have to delete anything. :)
The debate is a fallacy. It is based on a lie.

So I find Challenging the lie to be very much on topic.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-04-2008, 11:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

You will notice the article starts with the phrase: The latest PENTAGON SURVEY....

:statisfie
Nice! On your fourth try your are getting warmer. Here is the actual source from teh Mental Health Advisory Team of the DOD.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/0....iv.report.pdf

The survey was on mostly line infantry units (the guys that do most of the fighting) (Marines and Army). The survey was conducted in April 2006.

Let's examine some of your claims:

These are some of the results of a study done on over 1,000 US soldiers NOW in Iraq.
False. That was 20 months ago. Most of their tours are therfore over, though some may have been redpeloyed

CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq
False...it was a Pentagon study. Note how just about nobody here would believe anything else the Pentagon said. :D

47% of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect
False.....and purposely deceptive on your part. The actual question was "All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect". Note your substituion of "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". They are not the same thing. Your editorial substitution is deliberately inflammatory. Now, it wont' be long before an America-hater will counter that the figure is still too high. Perhaps, but these are enlisted men and they do have officers and the officers do enforce the rules. Only 8% said their units "modify" rules of engagement to accomplish their missions. Your linkage to Abu Ghraib is also deliberately inflammatory and deceptive.

This one is rich too.
Over 1/3 say torture should be allowed
False....The actual question was..."torture should be allowed if it will save the life of a Marine or soldier". Can you not see the difference? They are being asked the abstract question if the rules should be changed to permit torture to save their own lives. How would you answer that question?

Lets' Recap...your score now...0 for 4

Thanks for the interesting discussion founded on a false premise.
Reply

wilberhum
01-05-2008, 12:51 AM
Cognescenti,
Well done. A great post. You have proved my point, thank you.
Thanks for the interesting discussion founded on a false premise.
I could never have said it better.
Reply

Jayda
01-06-2008, 04:05 AM
cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...
Reply

wilberhum
01-06-2008, 04:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...
If you think Cognescenti point's are completely trivial, you should read your's. :?
Reply

caroline
01-06-2008, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...
As I noted on another thread, those kinds of responses are typical when people are faced with embarrassing facts about the US or our soldiers. Look how the pictures of actual torture of prisoners in Iraq got minimized, justified and quickly swept out of the public eye. It's a necessary tactic of the herd mentality to avoid the real issue by personal attacks or splitting hairs about non-issues. They'd rather shoot the messenger than confront the facts head on and do the work it takes to change things. I don't let it discourage me because more and more people are waking up every day and seeing that these attempts at justifying the unjust are smoke screens.

The point of the topic was that our soldiers have some pretty scary things to say about their ethics (or rather, lack of) and what do we think about THAT. So let's overlook the stinky herring and get back on topic, shall we?

thanks
Reply

caroline
01-06-2008, 07:47 AM
One other note (perhaps this should be another thread?):

I have noticed on a few other threads that this tactic is quite effective.

1. A strong topic is presented.

2. An opposing camp comes in and starts leveling personal attacks and getting people off topic with red herrings.

3. Moderator and sincere posters try to get back on topic but the personal attacks and distractions continue until the thread gets closed.

4. Arguments not agreeing with the persons ideas who created the distractions are no longer on the table.

This needs to stop. If one or two people can't stop leveling attacks and distracting then their attacks should be stopped so others can continue to discuss the topic at hand.
Reply

Jayda
01-06-2008, 03:37 PM
hola,

in my opinion the results of this poll are frightening, but i do not think out of the ordinary for soldiers fighting in wars. soldiers are indoctrinated to kill and hurt their enemy... and when they are put into the fight i think fear and self preservation make them constantly angry at their circumstances and in turn the people they are fighting.

wars are evil. they don't accomplish anything except to hurt a lot of people... the best thing to do is not resort to them as a matter of policy, and in the unfortunate instance a war is started the best thing to do is to end it quickly... 'blessed are the peace makers.'
Reply

Cognescenti
01-06-2008, 04:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
cognescenti your points are completely trivial... you might as well have provided a list of spelling mistakes from the report. caroline's central point remains just as valid as it did before... and the reluctance of american 'patriot's' posting here to accept the atrocious attitudes of america's military only frightens me further...
They are most certainly not trivial. When conducting a poll, the wording of the question is absolutely critical. The psychologists who did the study for the Pentagon understood this. That is why it is deceitful by the thread starter to substitute a phrase like "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". That may seem compulsive to you but is no "spelling mistake". It changes the entire meaning of the question. It's called going to the original source.

Imagine a pollster came to your door and asked "Would you use a weapon to defend your child"? Most people would probably say "Yes". Now imagine when the poll was published, the question read "Would you use a weapon?"

Do you think that would be a fair representation?

What seems to be lost on almost everyone here is this was a study commissioned by the Pentagon to better understand the stresses their soldiers and Marines were under. Don't you people know anything about management? The brass are on it. They ordered the study. They know if you put a bunch of volunteers (mostly men) age 18-24 and give them a bunch of guns and put them in a difficult situation where it is difficult to tell the enemy from the good guys and then have them witness the death of their freinds they are going to be a bit aggressive. That is why they have Rules of Engagement and that is why they have officers and NCO's with more experience. Note that the study also showed they were overwhelmingly (>90%) strictly following the rules of engagement.

What is needed is for the war to be over. That will happen when AQI runs out of brainwashed madrassa-bred idiots (age 18-24) willing to have their hands taped to the wheel of truck full of explosives and/or when the locals determine that foreign jihadists are a a corrsovie and self-destructive influence (as is already happening in Iraq).

Can we have a show of hands on who wants the war in Iraq to be over?

BTW...please cool it with the annoying "patriot" insults.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-06-2008, 04:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
One other note (perhaps this should be another thread?):

I have noticed on a few other threads that this tactic is quite effective.

1. A strong topic is presented.

2. An opposing camp comes in and starts leveling personal attacks and getting people off topic with red herrings.

3. Moderator and sincere posters try to get back on topic but the personal attacks and distractions continue until the thread gets closed.

4. Arguments not agreeing with the persons ideas who created the distractions are no longer on the table.

This needs to stop. If one or two people can't stop leveling attacks and distracting then their attacks should be stopped so others can continue to discuss the topic at hand.
Caroline;

When a poster fraudulently claims an original source, but in fact, is citing an opinion piece, and when the meaning of the original publication has been altered, and when others rebut this claim........that is not a personal attack. Why do you think the forum rules require a source when the poster claims to be reporting another's work?


If she started a thread that said simply..."I think all American servicemen are murdering, bigoted rapists...so there! <makes raspberry sound>", do you think people would attach credibility to that?


It seems to me what you find troubling is losing the "debate".
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 05:42 AM
No, what troubles me is that, in order to avoid any honest effort to discuss the real issue at hand, you just poison the well until the topic is no longer on the table. That's a cowardly way of avoiding having to face the facts that the study presented.

Your argument has nothing to do with the fact that I was less precise about presenting this issue than I might have been if I were writing a dissertation (I originally typed from an audio file). You are nitpicking the non-issues in order to avoid the real one.

What disturbs me about that is that it is a typical way for many Americans to avoid the problems in our government and our military, and that is what allows them to continue... not only continue but get worse by leaps and bounds. And what really disturbs me about that is the real results, which are lives of living breathing human beings being cut short needlessly (on BOTH sides).

But if it would make you feel better, I can go back and retype the title and get the article in front of me and fix all the little details. But you still wouldn't discuss the real issue, would you?

Not that it matters. Nobody can stop a lemming from running off the cliff. Sadly enough.
Reply

sudais1
01-07-2008, 08:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda

muslims who spend three pages ranting about defending themselves from the zionist occupation then close with the parthian shot 'i'm against terrorism' ??
How is Defending yourself, Holy Places, and People equal to Terrorism. Please Elaborate
Reply

Chuck
01-07-2008, 09:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
What disturbs me about that is that it is a typical way for many Americans to avoid the problems in our government and our military, and that is what allows them to continue... not only continue but get worse by leaps and bounds.
What goes around, comes around... sort of. If this continues US will collapse like USSR sooner or later.
Reply

Keltoi
01-07-2008, 12:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
No, what troubles me is that, in order to avoid any honest effort to discuss the real issue at hand, you just poison the well until the topic is no longer on the table. That's a cowardly way of avoiding having to face the facts that the study presented.

Your argument has nothing to do with the fact that I was less precise about presenting this issue than I might have been if I were writing a dissertation (I originally typed from an audio file). You are nitpicking the non-issues in order to avoid the real one.

What disturbs me about that is that it is a typical way for many Americans to avoid the problems in our government and our military, and that is what allows them to continue... not only continue but get worse by leaps and bounds. And what really disturbs me about that is the real results, which are lives of living breathing human beings being cut short needlessly (on BOTH sides).

But if it would make you feel better, I can go back and retype the title and get the article in front of me and fix all the little details. But you still wouldn't discuss the real issue, would you?

Not that it matters. Nobody can stop a lemming from running off the cliff. Sadly enough.
What is the real issue again? Oh yeah, that U.S. soldiers are evil and are always thinking of torturing innocent Iraqis and mass homicidal rampages. Okay, you point to a study to make that case. The study doesn't make that case. So what is the issue?...oh, nevermind.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-07-2008, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
No, what troubles me is that, in order to avoid any honest effort to discuss the real issue at hand, you just poison the well until the topic is no longer on the table. That's a cowardly way of avoiding having to face the facts that the study presented.

Your argument has nothing to do with the fact that I was less precise about presenting this issue than I might have been if I were writing a dissertation (I originally typed from an audio file). You are nitpicking the non-issues in order to avoid the real one.

What disturbs me about that is that it is a typical way for many Americans to avoid the problems in our government and our military, and that is what allows them to continue... not only continue but get worse by leaps and bounds. And what really disturbs me about that is the real results, which are lives of living breathing human beings being cut short needlessly (on BOTH sides).

But if it would make you feel better, I can go back and retype the title and get the article in front of me and fix all the little details. But you still wouldn't discuss the real issue, would you?

Not that it matters. Nobody can stop a lemming from running off the cliff. Sadly enough.
The reason that the topic cant be dicussed is because you manipulated the "facts", if you would like to discuss the facts, then please give them and I am sure they can be discussed, although I am not sure what there really is to discuss... I think Jayda was pretty clear about it earlier when she mentioned that we are talking about soldiers (people that go through training, camps and basically taught how to kill the enemy) who are fighting on the front lines everyday and are constantly fighting for self preservation. Put any man in that position and you might get some answers that a dope smoking hippy off the street might say "Woooaaahh dude, thats craaazzzyyy" to... But in the real world these men are fighting for their lives, I dont blame them for feeling the way they do, I would probably feel the same if I were in their position.... I wonder what kind of mental state you have to have to be on the other side of this battle, dont you? Probably not
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sister-Ameena*
Please. :blind:

If you guys don't, I'm afraid that I'm gonna have to close this topic.
bingo. topic effectively avoided... just like the pictures from abu ghraib. Just poison the well and run.

Nice.

(not directed at the moderator... at the poisoners of the well)
Reply

Jayda
01-07-2008, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Caroline;

When a poster fraudulently claims an original source, but in fact, is citing an opinion piece, and when the meaning of the original publication has been altered, and when others rebut this claim........that is not a personal attack. Why do you think the forum rules require a source when the poster claims to be reporting another's work?


If she started a thread that said simply..."I think all American servicemen are murdering, bigoted rapists...so there! <makes raspberry sound>", do you think people would attach credibility to that?


It seems to me what you find troubling is losing the "debate".
Cognescenti,

i said already that if you read the article from CNN, you will note midway down the page is the actual pentagon report in PDF format... on page 34 are the results of the ethical questions survey. everything she wrote is correct... like i said before your objection to her title merely because the words cannot be found verbatim in the article, but are in fact there in plain language in the report, is totally inconsequential. you are skirting the issue

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

Jayda
01-07-2008, 03:13 PM
i'm going to lead you through this:

click here

scroll down and click on the link 'read the report' which you find just after the sentence explaining this is the first report to also look at battlefield ethics

go to page 34 'battlefield ethics.' her information is correct, debate that instead of how many punctuation marks she missed.

que Dios te bendiga
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 03:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What is the real issue again? Oh yeah, that U.S. soldiers are evil and are always thinking of torturing innocent Iraqis and mass homicidal rampages. Okay, you point to a study to make that case. The study doesn't make that case. So what is the issue?...oh, nevermind.
What a ludicrous, blatantly fictitious accusation. I supposed nothing of the sort and you know it. I pointed to the study for discussion of the results of the study. You and others are simply avoiding the issue in hopes of getting the thread closed so you won't have to face the facts of the study.

I accept the fact that many people will react by avoidance of the issue but I will not accept you blatantly lying about my statements or suppositions.

Moderator, do you not see that I placed a topic on the table for discussion and the thread has been totally destroyed by smoke screens and efforts to divert attention from the topic? Please, do you see that these efforts have effectively turned all attention away from the issue at hand? Now the thread will be closed. Not because it is not important -- these things the study shows about the moral and attitudes of our military are EXTREMELY important -- but because we've allowed this troll like behavior to keep everyone off the topic?

No wonder we see educated, strong intelligent people like Kelly come in here for a week or so then leave.

The topic is the study. The topic is that our soldiers are lacking ethics and moral. The topic that has not been discussed at all here because everyone is reacting to trolls instead.

Childish, trite, ignorant, back-biting, nitpicking foolishness that has gotten more attention than the fact that an unacceptable percentage of our soldiers are saying they approve of torture (approving of torture under ANY condition is unacceptable as per geneva convention).

And in an Islamic forum, no less. I certainly didn't expect to see these kinds of goings on HERE.

:enough!:
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 03:21 PM
Here is the topic.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/0....iv.report.pdf
Reply

Cognescenti
01-07-2008, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
i'm going to lead you through this:

click here

scroll down and click on the link 'read the report' which you find just after the sentence explaining this is the first report to also look at battlefield ethics

go to page 34 'battlefield ethics.' her information is correct, debate that instead of how many punctuation marks she missed.

que Dios te bendiga
As we seem to have assumed a paternalistic tone, let me "lead you through this". Scroll back a page in the thread to post number 32. You will see I have already posted a link to the PDF file of the Pentagon study. I read the study. Her information is not correct and it is not simply a "punctuation" issue. I will say it again as it seems not be sinking in. Changing the wording of a poll question retrospectively is not trivial. She also has omitted the crucial question about soldiers and Marines following the Rules of Engagement. Do you understand what that means? These are rules which specifiy when force can be used. As others have posted, these are men at the tip of the spear. They are volunteers. They don't work for customer service at Nordstroms. They are daily in situations of deadly peril and it is hard to distinguish friend from foe. Many have seen their friends killed. Now imagine a psychologist approaches them and guarantees medical confidentiality.....how exactly do you expect them to answer a question about whether torture should be allowed in order to save the life of a Marine or soldier??? With the exception of Abu Ghraib and, possibly, a group of 5 or 6 soldiers at Haditha, I think they have behaved very professionally. More than a few people were embarassed by Abu Ghraib because it was essentially a failrue of command and there is a big push to prevent that kind of thing.

Every army in the history of the planet has struggled with the problem of control of their own troops. Are you telling me the US Army and USMC are doing a poorer job than most? I will say it again...this study was comissioned by the Pentagon. They have their antennae up. What do you expect, 500,000 clones of Mother Theresa? They have to be able to use deadly violence when they are attacked. Let's put the naivete out to pasture for a bit, shall we?

The original poster's true purpose is simply to defame the US military and the US. It is not to foster some fruitful discussion so that US soldiers and Marines will suddenly become social workers and ambassodors of goodwill wearing Che Guevara T-shirts passing out shade-grown chocolates.

Debate that.
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 06:52 PM
Jayda, thank you for your efforts to divert us back to the issue at hand. But he's not going to let it happen as long as we keep responding to him. He's going to use every method of avoidance in his repertoire. I've heard of this before... I think it's called fallacy by pig-headedness or something like that.

:) On to better things.

Peace
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 06:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
That's because it isn't from CNN, in fact, it isn't an LA Times news story either. It is from the Opinion section. For those unfamiliar with Western journalistic standards, columns printed in the opinion section of a newspaper are not routinely fact-checked by editors and are not even meant to be news stories. The informed reader is supposed to understand that such columns represent the opinions of the author. That is why the call it the Opinion section. It is designed to permit the airing of opposing points of view.

Here is the author....CHRIS HEDGES....who is the author, most recently, of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
:D

There is some collection of troop "interviews" published in the july 30 issue of The Nation, which is sort of like the Washinton Times of the far Left.

More to follow.
This is the person that has effectively distracted us from the topic with his nitpicking about the wording of my title...

Need I say more?
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Back on topic:

In response to the question "What do you expect?"

First of all, I would expect a government representing the people to abide by the wishes of the people... uh, that is democracy after all. The question is not whether or not Iraq will be a democracy -- it's whether or not the United States will be a democracy. The overwhelming majority of US citizens wanst us to leave Iraq and stop this war. In a democracy the government would abide by that, or at the very least ACKNOWLEDGE it and begin to REPOND.

Secondly, I expect soldiers that represent the United States to make an educated and ethical decision about whether or not to participate in an illegal war.

Thirdly, I expect soldiers representing the United States to act ethically. I expect them to respect the value and dignity of innocent civilians, women and children. I expect them to abhor the very notion of torture. I expect them to abide by the Geneva Conventions. I expect them to report other soldiers for not doing these things.

After all, we say that we are not the terrorists, we are not the backwoods guerillas fighting for our little plot of land. We are the noble defenders of right, the warriors in defense of democracy. What I expect is for our soldiers to behave as soldiers should -- with honor and respect and conscience. And if they can't they should not have access to weapons.
Can we please discuss this now? I will no longer respond to deliberate trolling and distractions.

Thanks!
Reply

wilberhum
01-07-2008, 07:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
This is the person that has effectively distracted us from the topic with his nitpicking about the wording of my title...

Need I say more?
Oh please, don't leave out me. :D
I too think the thread is entirely bogous.

The title has been distorted and the results have been distorted.

This whole piece is a pile of distortions.
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 07:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Oh please, don't leave out me. :D
I too think the thread is entirely bogous.

.
Good. Then run along.

Or take it up with the Pentagon.
Reply

Keltoi
01-07-2008, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Can we please discuss this now? I will no longer respond to deliberate trolling and distractions.

Thanks!
What is it exactly you wish to talk about Caroline? Just say it.
Reply

ricardo_sousa
01-07-2008, 07:08 PM
this study has no meaning. It was done by a person already with the intention of "attack" the american army. so, lol, how can anyone take this seriously?
Reply

wilberhum
01-07-2008, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Good. Then run along.

Or take it up with the Pentagon.
Why should I take it up with the Pentagon?

I don't doubt that the report is a valid representation of what they found.

The problem is the you misrepresented that report.

You changed things to present your bias, not the facts.:raging:
Reply

Jayda
01-07-2008, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
As we seem to have assumed a paternalistic tone, let me "lead you through this". Scroll back a page in the thread to post number 32. You will see I have already posted a link to the PDF file of the Pentagon study. I read the study. Her information is not correct and it is not simply a "punctuation" issue. I will say it again as it seems not be sinking in. Changing the wording of a poll question retrospectively is not trivial. She also has omitted the crucial question about soldiers and Marines following the Rules of Engagement. Do you understand what that means? These are rules which specifiy when force can be used. As others have posted, these are men at the tip of the spear. They are volunteers. They don't work for customer service at Nordstroms. They are daily in situations of deadly peril and it is hard to distinguish friend from foe. Many have seen their friends killed. Now imagine a psychologist approaches them and guarantees medical confidentiality.....how exactly do you expect them to answer a question about whether torture should be allowed in order to save the life of a Marine or soldier??? With the exception of Abu Ghraib and, possibly, a group of 5 or 6 soldiers at Haditha, I think they have behaved very professionally. More than a few people were embarassed by Abu Ghraib because it was essentially a failrue of command and there is a big push to prevent that kind of thing.

Every army in the history of the planet has struggled with the problem of control of their own troops. Are you telling me the US Army and USMC are doing a poorer job than most? I will say it again...this study was comissioned by the Pentagon. They have their antennae up. What do you expect, 500,000 clones of Mother Theresa? They have to be able to use deadly violence when they are attacked. Let's put the naivete out to pasture for a bit, shall we?

The original poster's true purpose is simply to defame the US military and the US. It is not to foster some fruitful discussion so that US soldiers and Marines will suddenly become social workers and ambassodors of goodwill wearing Che Guevara T-shirts passing out shade-grown chocolates.

Debate that.
hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:

format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
These are some of the results of a study done on over 1,000 US soldiers NOW in Iraq.

CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq

Ethics:

47&#37; of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect

10% admitted abusing civilians or deliberately damaging their property

Fewer than 50% said they would report a comrade for abuse or unethical behavior

Over 1/3 say torture should be allowed

Top US military officials responded by saying this survey should be a compliment to leadership since the soldiers are not acting on the beliefs stated and they are NOT torturing. I guess they forgot that we have all SEEN THE PICTURES.

:cry:
I wonder how long people think the world is going to allow this kind of tyranny...

An Acceptable Source for the Statistics was given:http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions
from page 35



from page 36



que Dios te bendiga
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 07:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ricardo_sousa
this study has no meaning. It was done by a person already with the intention of "attack" the american army. so, lol, how can anyone take this seriously?
The Pentagon has the intention of "attack" on the american army?

wow. I did not know that. Can you please expound?
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 07:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:



from page 35

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1...apimagexj7.png

from page 36

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1...pimage2rd7.png

que Dios te bendiga
Thank you for getting us back on topic.

Anybody have the courage to address the color coded statements?
Reply

MTAFFI
01-07-2008, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:



from page 35

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1...apimagexj7.png

from page 36

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1...pimage2rd7.png

que Dios te bendiga
He is actually not lying, take a look at the wording on page 35 that you just linked.. did you even read it? The article in the LA Times is an opinion piece which is worth no more than the individual writing it... If you look on page 35 it says clear as day "non combatant" not "innocent civilian", which is a pretty huge difference since who the heck knows who is innocent and guilty in Iraq anyways.

This was a pentagon study, not a CNN study

This was 20 months ago, not today, when the violence in Iraq was at its worst.

It also does say do you agree with torture to save the life of a fellow marine or to obtain important information about insurgents.

Take a look again, you may wish to apologize for calling someone a liar.

NOW CAROLINE

Rather than divert the topic as you claim everyone is doing, I will happily discuss this with you on the grounds that we stick with the actual study and not an opinion piece written by some liberal flower power freak in LA, because I dont agree with his/her opinions and his opinion is no better than yours or mine. So please do tell, what are you questioning here, the integrity of the troops? The integrity of the government? Whether or not we should be in Iraq? What exactly?
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 07:49 PM
I think the only thing left is the fact that I titled the post
"CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq" instead of "CNN REPORT of a study of American Soldiers in Iraq"

Apparently that invalidates the whole thread and proves some sort of evil ulterior motive.

And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

LOL :D
Reply

MTAFFI
01-07-2008, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
I think the only thing left is the fact that I titled the post
"CNN study of American Soldiers in Iraq" instead of "CNN REPORT of a study of American Soldiers in Iraq"

Apparently that invalidates the whole thread and proves some sort of evil ulterior motive.

And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

LOL :D
i wasnt aware it had to do with CNN I thought it was an opinion piece in the LA Times, all the same though since I think the core issue is the actual study findings from the pentagon, so please answer my post above so we can effectively tackle this thread.
Reply

Keltoi
01-07-2008, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
Thank you for getting us back on topic.

Anybody have the courage to address the color coded statements?
It has already been addressed. This is an opinion survey of 1,000 troops who had recently returned from active front line duty. This isn't about the percentage of non-combatants being insulted, tortured, or whatever, these are opinions..probably more like attitudes, of soldiers who were recently engaged with the enemy, an enemy that looks like, blends in with, and sometimes recieves aid from non-combatants. What would your attitude be?

The only reason you started this thread was to attack the U.S. military, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Perhaps I would be more impressed with the little survey if it was about soldiers actually acting upon any sort of negative attitude towards non-combatants. Personally, I think even the use of the word "non-combatants" is a little vague in the context of this conflict. The enemy pretends to be a non-combatant in most instances.
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 08:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck
What goes around, comes around... sort of. If this continues US will collapse like USSR sooner or later.
What I would like to know is how much effort has been put into studying possible links between the tortures that were exposed at Abu Ghraib and the results of this study. I think this is much too obvious of a possible correlation to be ignored. We also have this issue of water boarding and other reports of torture and human rights abuses. The very fact that we went to war against the United Nations ruling and waged that war based on a pack of lies is bad enough. Now we've been exposed as torturers, a study supports this and anybody speaking about it is jumped by a pack of attack dogs desperately trying to prop up the crumbling facade of American military HONOR. Have we forgotten about international human rights? Are we just going to ignore the Geneva Convention and pretend there was never such a thing as the Nuremberg Trials?

Where are these soldiers getting these ideas? I come from a military family. Every male in my family for as long as any of us can remember has been career military. I was raised in a very patriotic atmosphere and I can tell you my father would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening today.

My question is, where are these attitudes coming from and what can we as US Citizens do about it?

Respectfully

c
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 08:13 PM
PS: I do believe that there is extraordinary stress being put on our soldiers today and that many of them are victims of a corrupt government. But the fact remains that, if they can't handle themselves according to international law then they shouldn't be soldiers. I don't think the Geneva Conventions put forth any clauses allowing for torture and infractions of international law in the case of extreme stress or fatigue. The fact is that a war crime is a war crime regardless of how overworked and stressed out you are. It doesn't excuse it. Ever. And that is not MY ruling. It is the ruling of the International Court at The Hague.
Reply

caroline
01-07-2008, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
i wasnt aware it had to do with CNN I thought it was an opinion piece in the LA Times, all the same though since I think the core issue is the actual study findings from the pentagon, so please answer my post above so we can effectively tackle this thread.
Both Jayda and I have posted the link to the study several times. And I've written several posts outlining my thoughts and what I feel the issue is.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-07-2008, 08:23 PM
Study of Soldiers in Iraq Uncovers Troubling Findings about Ethics and Mental Health
First Ever Battlefield Study of Ethics Brings Troubling Results
By LUIS MARTINEZ
May 4, 2007


The Pentagon's first-ever survey of the battlefield ethics of American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq has uncovered troubling findings about their attitudes toward Iraqi noncombatants, and the mental health risks raised by the continued redeployment of troops to Iraq.

NOTE: I think this shows that the problem is recognized and something must be being done about it


Only a third of Marines and roughly half of the soldiers surveyed said they believed that Iraqi noncombatants should be treated with dignity. Up to 40 percent of Marines and soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a colleague.

NOTE: While this may be troubling to some, I dont find it troubling at all. These men are at war, their enemies are better off dead, if my best friend or the guy watching my back was abducted and to save his life I would have to torture someone else to get the necessary info, plain and simple, I would do it and quickly.

The ethics findings are included in the fourth Mental Health Assessment of U.S. forces in Iraq, which the Army first began conducting in late 2003 after questions were raised about the mental stress on deployed soldiers in Iraq.

NOTE: I think that is important to remember

For the first time, this year's survey was conducted jointly with the Marine Corps. More than 1,300 soldiers and 450 Marines were surveyed last fall for the assessment. The questions on battlefield ethics were included at the request of the then-top U.S. general in Iraq, Gen. George Casey.

One in 10 soldiers and Marines surveyed for the study said they had mistreated Iraqi noncombatants. Mistreatment was defined as damaging or destroying property when not necessary, or hitting or kicking a noncombatant when not necessary. Forty percent of Marines and 55 percent of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for unethical behavior that included killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

NOTE: This isnt exactly a positive light on our country or troops is it? I would agree with that, and disagree that this should occur... I feel sorry for any legitimate non combatant that was ever mistreated. I still keep in mind however that we are at war, non combatants are only that way until they fire on you, and that these soldiers never really know the difference. I could see why they may be overly aggessive or seem even cruel, because war is just that.

At a Pentagon briefing, Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, acting Army surgeon general, expressed understanding of the high levels of anger among some troops that may have led to the troubling answers on the ethics front.

"These men and women have been seeing their friends injured, and I think that having that thought is normal. But what it speaks to is the leadership that the military is providing, because they're not acting on those thoughts," he said. "They're not torturing the people. And I think it speaks very well to the level of training that we have in the military today."


I think this speaks highly of our military servicemen and country, and should be recognized and talked about just as much as the negative aspect of this story.

One of the study's authors, Army Col. Carl Castro, believes soldiers and Marines answered the ethical question on the survey honestly. But he said they are also astute enough not to act out their feelings because "there's nothing gained for them to do that. & You know, yes, we may think it. We may want to do it. But we don't do that because that jeopardizes ourselves or the selves of our other teammates."

Rear Adm. Richard Jeffries said the answers in the survey pertaining to ethics had raised awareness within the Marine Corps, "and they're looking very closely at this, with several groups and several teams & to see what this means and what we may do differently if there is a problem here."

It looks as though they are doing something to correct the situation

The report also found that long and repeated deployments are having an impact on the mental health of affected troops. Soldiers who had redeployed multiple times reported higher levels of acute stress than first-time deployers. Deployment lengths were related to higher rates of mental health problems and marital problems.

Pollock said the study recommended that "shorter deployments or longer intervals between deployments would allow soldiers and Marines better opportunities to reset mentally before returning to combat."

NOTE: Something that should most definitely be corrected by our country

That will prove difficult, as the Army has recently extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to 15 months and troops are only given a year in between deployments, not the 18 to 36 months the study recommends. However, Pollock noted that the Army's plan to expand should help alleviate the current strains on the force in the future.

Among the study's other conclusions: Overall, soldiers experienced higher rates of mental health problems than Marines did. The study's authors hypothesized the Marines' seven-month tours may have been a factor when compared with the 12 to 15 month tours Army soldiers undertake in Iraq. Deployment length was directly linked to morale problems, and again the Army had lower morale than did the Marines.

Iraq suicide rates were still higher than the Army average but lower than last year -- 17.3 per 100,000 soldiers last year down from 19.9 per 100,000 in 2005. The Iraq numbers are higher than the Army average of 11.6 per 100,000 soldiers. The study also found that the current suicide prevention training program is not designed for a combat environment.

NOTE: This is a sad fact, think of how distressed some of these guys must have been, they may have just not been as mentally strong or may have seen some horrible things to bring them to this, but I think it highlights the stress these guys are under. The fact that our country has used the restraint on these places is honorable in itself since if we truly wanted to we could literally level these countries with half the money in a fraction of the time. Do you not agree with that?

Post-traumatic stress disorder is present in 15 to 17 percent of respondents. The study's authors say that figure is consistent with the numbers seen since the start of the war in 2003.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story...C-RSSFeeds0312

This may be a more accurate article
Reply

snakelegs
01-07-2008, 08:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by caroline
What I would like to know is how much effort has been put into studying possible links between the tortures that were exposed at Abu Ghraib and the results of this study. I think this is much too obvious of a possible correlation to be ignored. We also have this issue of water boarding and other reports of torture and human rights abuses. The very fact that we went to war against the United Nations ruling and waged that war based on a pack of lies is bad enough. Now we've been exposed as torturers, a study supports this and anybody speaking about it is jumped by a pack of attack dogs desperately trying to prop up the crumbling facade of American military HONOR. Have we forgotten about international human rights? Are we just going to ignore the Geneva Convention and pretend there was never such a thing as the Nuremberg Trials?

Where are these soldiers getting these ideas? I come from a military family. Every male in my family for as long as any of us can remember has been career military. I was raised in a very patriotic atmosphere and I can tell you my father would roll over in his grave if he could see what is happening today.

My question is, where are these attitudes coming from and what can we as US Citizens do about it?

Respectfully

c
frankly, i don't believe there is anything we can do.
when their government wages a war based on lies and openly condones torture, what can you expect from the soldiers?
i am not justifying their behaviour but i am not shocked (anymore) when i hear these things. and that disturbs me even more.
Reply

Jayda
01-07-2008, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
He is actually not lying, take a look at the wording on page 35 that you just linked.. did you even read it?
did you? i lined up caroline's statements against the statements from the report. they are identical. it's in plain and inescapable language. i even went to the trouble of highlighting... not for the naysayers in the audience but for the benefit of those people who might actually believe the nonsense you (collectively) keep pushing about the truth of her original post.

regarding your other 'points,' you seriously want us to make a big deal out of it because she said 'a cnn report about a pentagon study' versus just calling it 'pentagon study...' how is this relevant? like i said before... you people seem to dwell on spelling mistakes to get us to ignore the completely legitimate (and highly disturbing) content of the 'report'/'study'/'survey'/'whatever doesn't get me in trouble with the spelling gestapo' thing.
Reply

MTAFFI
01-07-2008, 08:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
did you? i lined up caroline's statements against the statements from the report. they are identical. it's in plain and inescapable language.
I did indeed, and yes the words she posted match however she left out key information and changed non combatant to "innocent civilian", anyways it isnt really the issue here, I was just pointing it out to you, I am not sure why you are having a hard time seeing it. I quoted an ABC report on the same thing, it seems pretty unbiased to me since it criticized the government for not doing more while at the same time takes an understanding tone to the troops since they are in fact at war and having longer stays in these countries.
Reply

Cognescenti
01-07-2008, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
hola cognescenti

you are lying. she copied the conclusions of the report almost verbatim. i've even color coded this for you, NO question was changed, none of the results were changed:
Perhaps my Spanish is rusty, but doesn't "hola" imply some degree of warmth or affection? If so, why would you use that salutation then accuse me of lying in the next phrase?

From the Pentagon study there is this question:

"All noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"

Caroline claimed "47&#37; of all soldiers and only 38% marines think innocent civilians deserve dignity and respect".

Does one of us having a reading disorder? There is clearly a substituion of "innocent civilians" for "noncombatants". I am sorry but when use an absolute phrase like "NO question was changed" I interpret that as "no question was changed". It is just my math and science training, when I hear an absolute I naturally assume it means in all cases. To me, "no" means "no". You may think the substitution trivial. I don't. To me it is neither trivial nor accidental. It is designed to inflame and misinform (which is, of course, the whole purpose of this thread) .

Note also the clever context change. The original question asks about "all noncombatants". It is that pesky business about the use of absolutes in the language. To me that indicates the question applies to every noncombatant...no matter how odious or how much the level of suspicion. That is, of course, the goal to which to aspire, and must be the goal of training, but, honestly, if you were an infantryman who had seen combatants blend back in to the population right after your friend's Humvee was blown up...how would you answer tha question. Caroline's phrase is clearly spun to make the soldiers and Marines look bad.

Take this phrase for eg., "Nearly half of all soldiers and over 1/3 of the Marines agreed that all noncombatants deserve diginity and respect even if they have a look of venom in their eyes, spit as you pass by and have suspcious bulge around their midsection." Technically, that would still be true as the question was about all noncombatants. Woudl you accept that as an accurate portrayal?

BTW...I think you have something to learn about he concept of context too. You can't simply leave of a modifying phrase like "in order to save the life of a Marine or soldier" and pretend you have captured the essence of a quote. that is the oldest trick in the book.

Lastly, as has been stated by others, this isn't an expose on torture by US servicemen as has been implied in this thread. The question was clearly directed toward policy. Nobodoy is going to change the policy...it's already in the Army Field Manual. This was a tool to assess the state of mind of the soldiers and Marines.

I will now go back to my hole to await further insults and caterwalling to the mods about the mean guy.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
01-07-2008, 10:59 PM
This is not a CNN sponsored survey. The official military link is as follows. The portion of interest appears under Battlefield Ethics, page 34:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...rt_17NOV06.pdf.

The Ninth Scribe
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-14-2012, 11:28 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-26-2010, 08:15 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 02:28 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!