sandinista wrote:

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:Except that too many are trying to say it's military training and access to weapons which is the key element here - they are specifically blaming Soldiers as Soldiers, not acknowledging that them being Soldiers has little to nothing to do with them going insane and committing mass murder.

Yes.
The problem is that non-soldiers do not find themselves in those stressful situations WITH training and weapons.
Which makes the occasional soldier in "tense" areas of the world more susceptible to the mental instability that might not have been spotted otherwise.

Not only the training and weapons, but the view of those being occupied as somehow non-human or sub human. This is what happens when you invade and occupy a country.

Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

Weaver wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:Except that too many are trying to say it's military training and access to weapons which is the key element here - they are specifically blaming Soldiers as Soldiers, not acknowledging that them being Soldiers has little to nothing to do with them going insane and committing mass murder.

Yes.
The problem is that non-soldiers do not find themselves in those stressful situations WITH training and weapons.
Which makes the occasional soldier in "tense" areas of the world more susceptible to the mental instability that might not have been spotted otherwise.

Not only the training and weapons, but the view of those being occupied as somehow non-human or sub human. This is what happens when you invade and occupy a country.

Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

of course there is, just more likely and less surprising in a military occupation.

Weaver wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:Except that too many are trying to say it's military training and access to weapons which is the key element here - they are specifically blaming Soldiers as Soldiers, not acknowledging that them being Soldiers has little to nothing to do with them going insane and committing mass murder.

Yes.
The problem is that non-soldiers do not find themselves in those stressful situations WITH training and weapons.
Which makes the occasional soldier in "tense" areas of the world more susceptible to the mental instability that might not have been spotted otherwise.

Not only the training and weapons, but the view of those being occupied as somehow non-human or sub human. This is what happens when you invade and occupy a country.

Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

I am sure that if you compare the relative number of civilian mass murderers with the relative number of military mass murderers world wide, you will find that access and possibility will boost the latter to a higher relative number than the former.

Please tell me all about the military training, access to weapons, and stress that Anders Brevik experienced before his mass-murder attacks in and near Oslo.

Blaming this on Soldiers being Soldiers is just wrong - the training is all about NOT killing innocents, non-combatants, etc. Nothing in the training encourages or condones murder. Place the blame where it belongs - on a mentally ill person in an environment sorely lacking in mental health care or resources.

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Globe wrote:
Yes.
The problem is that non-soldiers do not find themselves in those stressful situations WITH training and weapons.
Which makes the occasional soldier in "tense" areas of the world more susceptible to the mental instability that might not have been spotted otherwise.

Not only the training and weapons, but the view of those being occupied as somehow non-human or sub human. This is what happens when you invade and occupy a country.

Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

I am sure that if you compare the relative number of civilian mass murderers with the relative number of military mass murderers world wide, you will find that access and possibility will boost the latter to a higher relative number than the former.

Feel free to find some evidence to back up that assertion - personally, I seriously doubt you'll be able to, but it's your claim, so you can back it up with facts.

Weaver wrote:Please tell me all about the military training, access to weapons, and stress that Anders Brevik experienced before his mass-murder attacks in and near Oslo.

Blaming this on Soldiers being Soldiers is just wrong - the training is all about NOT killing innocents, non-combatants, etc. Nothing in the training encourages or condones murder. Place the blame where it belongs - on a mentally ill person in an environment sorely lacking in mental health care or resources.

Breivik was unstable enough to be booted out of the conscript program.
I think that say a lot don't you?

And I don't think anyone here blame the INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER.
You've gone into defence-mode again, and see only "Soldiers being blamed for being soldiers" rather than the actual excuses being made for why soldiers are in more exposed positions to react like than than the average civilian.

Weaver wrote:Please tell me all about the military training, access to weapons, and stress that Anders Brevik experienced before his mass-murder attacks in and near Oslo.

Blaming this on Soldiers being Soldiers is just wrong - the training is all about NOT killing innocents, non-combatants, etc. Nothing in the training encourages or condones murder. Place the blame where it belongs - on a mentally ill person in an environment sorely lacking in mental health care or resources.

The whole invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged murder. Thousands have been murdered in both countries.

Of course I'm in "defence-mode" again - the allegations are the same, so my reaction is going to be the same.

If you want to claim that military training makes it "easier" or more likely for someone to commit a mass murder - first come up with some stats to back up your claim.

If you want to claim that it's the stressful environment - well, you're going to have to define this particular person's environment a whole lot better, given the relative number of people who go to war and don't commit mass murder.

If you want to claim it's a combination of these factors - again, come up with some facts.

Unfortunately, this time like so many others, all that we get is opinions, many of them completely uninformed.

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:Please tell me all about the military training, access to weapons, and stress that Anders Brevik experienced before his mass-murder attacks in and near Oslo.

Blaming this on Soldiers being Soldiers is just wrong - the training is all about NOT killing innocents, non-combatants, etc. Nothing in the training encourages or condones murder. Place the blame where it belongs - on a mentally ill person in an environment sorely lacking in mental health care or resources.

The whole invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan encouraged murder.

No, they didn't.

Thousands have been murdered in both countries.

Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

Weaver wrote:Of course I'm in "defence-mode" again - the allegations are the same, so my reaction is going to be the same.

If you want to claim that military training makes it "easier" or more likely for someone to commit a mass murder - first come up with some stats to back up your claim.

If you want to claim that it's the stressful environment - well, you're going to have to define this particular person's environment a whole lot better, given the relative number of people who go to war and don't commit mass murder.

If you want to claim it's a combination of these factors - again, come up with some facts.

Unfortunately, this time like so many others, all that we get is opinions, many of them completely uninformed.

so...lets see your stats and evidence to back up your claims.

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

What does that site measure?
Is that the information Weaver asked you to provide?
Do you have an explanation for why you provided that information?

quixotecoyote wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

What does that site measure?
Is that the information Weaver asked you to provide?
Do you have an explanation for why you provided that information?

Not sure, I was guessing he was asking about the murders committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do understand this site doesn't count Afghanistan, but those numbers can be found with a little looking around.

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

Not this tripe again.

james1v wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

Not this tripe again.

problem?

Weaver wrote:Of course I'm in "defence-mode" again - the allegations are the same, so my reaction is going to be the same.

No. Actually they are not.
If you read the posts there are a lot trying to, if not defend, then explain why this guy went bonkers.
I wouldn't call that "Accusations".

If you want to claim that military training makes it "easier" or more likely for someone to commit a mass murder - first come up with some stats to back up your claim.

Stats say that if you can't hit the long side of a barn from ten feet away you wont kill many people using firearms.

If you want to claim that it's the stressful environment - well, you're going to have to define this particular person's environment a whole lot better, given the relative number of people who go to war and don't commit mass murder.

If you want to claim it's a combination of these factors - again, come up with some facts.

Unfortunately, this time like so many others, all that we get is opinions, many of them completely uninformed.

Oh please Weaver.

It's freaking AFGHANISTAN.
They get shot on.
They don't know if they are going to be blown up by a RS-bomb.
They don't know if they have to duck for incoming while taking a shit.

I would call that stressful. Most (sane) people would.

As a matter of fact I can say that I am personally impressed that not MORE soldiers have lost it there.

Weaver wrote:

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Not only the training and weapons, but the view of those being occupied as somehow non-human or sub human. This is what happens when you invade and occupy a country.

Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

I am sure that if you compare the relative number of civilian mass murderers with the relative number of military mass murderers world wide, you will find that access and possibility will boost the latter to a higher relative number than the former.

Feel free to find some evidence to back up that assertion - personally, I seriously doubt you'll be able to, but it's your claim, so you can back it up with facts.

Am I happy that I wrote "World Wide".
The military trained militia leaders in Africa alone will tip the scales to show me right.

Edited for fucked up quoting and horrid spelling.

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

Death during war =/= murder.

sandinista wrote:

james1v wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

Not this tripe again.

problem?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/ If you look on that part of the site, you can actually see in the last five years that the majority of the fatalities have been by anti-occupation forces, not by the US.

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:Of course I'm in "defence-mode" again - the allegations are the same, so my reaction is going to be the same.

No. Actually they are not.
If you read the posts there are a lot trying to, if not defend, then explain why this guy went bonkers.
I wouldn't call that "Accusations".

If you want to claim that military training makes it "easier" or more likely for someone to commit a mass murder - first come up with some stats to back up your claim.

Stats say that if you can't hit the long side of a barn from ten feet away you wont kill many people using firearms.

If you want to claim that it's the stressful environment - well, you're going to have to define this particular person's environment a whole lot better, given the relative number of people who go to war and don't commit mass murder.

If you want to claim it's a combination of these factors - again, come up with some facts.

Unfortunately, this time like so many others, all that we get is opinions, many of them completely uninformed.

Oh please Weaver.

It's freaking AFGHANISTAN.
They get shot on.
They don't know if they are going to be blown up by a RS-bomb.
They don't know if they have to duck for incoming while taking a shit.

I would call that stressful. Most (sane) people would.

As a matter of fact I can say that I am personally impressed that not MORE soldiers have lost it there.

Weaver wrote:

Globe wrote:

Weaver wrote:
Which is why there aren't any mass murders conducted by civilians outside of war zones, right?

I am sure that if you compare the relative number of civilian mass murderers with the relative number of military mass murderers world wide, you will find that access and possibility will boost the latter to a higher relative number than the former.

Feel free to find some evidence to back up that assertion - personally, I seriously doubt you'll be able to, but it's your claim, so you can back it up with facts.

Am I happy that I wrote "World Wide".
The military trained militia leaders in Africa alone will tip the scales to show me right.

Edited for fucked up quoting and horrid spelling.

Militia =/= military - just because a militiaman was taught to shoot by someone in the military doesn't make it "military training". Don't try to equate apples and oranges to support your point.

And please don't lecture me about the stresses of war - I've been to three different ones.

Weaver wrote:

sandinista wrote:

Weaver wrote:No, they didn't.

yes, they did.

Weaver wrote:Please be specific in your claims and allegations, so they can get a reasoned response.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

what more do you want?

Death during war =/= murder.

defined by whom? I'm 100% sure that those involved with 9/11 would call that an act of war. Therefor that wouldn't have been murder either. Do you accept that? As for civilians in relation to combatants. These countries were invaded and occupied, that turns everyone into combatants. It's quite simple, if the US was invaded and occupied don't you think that would also turn civilians into combatants. Besides that, then you would need to count everyone who was killed or maimed because of US bombs as well, that would be considered murdered as well.