CNN reports a study done in Iraq

[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.

 

[sudais1]

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

 

[Chuck]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[MTAFFI]

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

 

[caroline]

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)

 

[Jayda]

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

 

[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

 

[caroline]

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!:

 

[caroline]

Here is the topic.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/04/mhat.iv.report.pdf

 

[Cognescenti]

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.

 

[caroline]

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

 

[caroline]

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."


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?

 

[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!

 

[wilberhum]

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.
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.

 

[caroline]

Oh please, don't leave out me.
I too think the thread is entirely bogous.

.

Good. Then run along.

Or take it up with the Pentagon.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[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?

 

[wilberhum]

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:

 

[Jayda]

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:

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.


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/commentary/la-oe-hedges14jul14,0,2778178.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

from page 35

from page 36

que Dios te bendiga