matt8819 wrote:

sandinista wrote:

james1v wrote:

sandinista wrote:

yes, they did.



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.

...and the "anti occupation forces" wouldn't exist without the occupation.

sandinista wrote:

matt8819 wrote:

sandinista wrote:

james1v wrote:



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.

...and the "anti occupation forces" wouldn't exist without the occupation.

They exist now, yet theres no occupation.

Sandinista, before exposing your ignorance any more, I suggest you study the Laws of War, the Laws of Armed Conflict, and the relevant resolutions under the various Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when you equate civilian casualties in war zones to murder victims, or uniformed Soldiers to murderers.

Weaver wrote:
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.

Militia LEADERS are often, more often than not, military trained.
That they sometimes become mass murderers by proxy, after they have risen enough in the ranks not to have to pull the trigger themselves any longer, doesn't make them any less mass murderers.

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

Which should enable you to see that most of us are neither BLAMING or making ACCUSATIONS, but are actually understanding why stuff like this can happen.
Not that it makes it right, and not that the guy shouldn't be allowed to spend the remainder of his life in a facility where he can't hurt anyone else.

james1v wrote:

sandinista wrote:

matt8819 wrote:

sandinista wrote:

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.

...and the "anti occupation forces" wouldn't exist without the occupation.

They exist now, yet theres no occupation.

That's news to me. You mean all US bases in Iraq have been dismantled?

Weaver wrote:Sandinista, before exposing your ignorance any more

you have to be joking

Weaver wrote:Because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when you equate civilian casualties in war zones to murder victims, or uniformed Soldiers to murderers

You can take your little definitions and do whatever you wish with them. Semantics. When it comes down to it, if the west kills people it's "war causalities" when anyone else does it's "murder". It's legal maneuvering, that's it. To cover the asses of the occupation forces. You invade a country and occupy it for no reason, call it what you want, it's still murder.

Come on Weaver, are you really claiming that being in a foreign country, in an isolated community of soldiers, does not create an us vs. them mentality? Your bias is showing. I don't blame the training. I suspect/hope that training includes strategy to avoid exactly that.

Living with a mantra like "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." is good strategy for survival but can have some serious side effects.

Godless Infidel wrote: Your bias is showing.

understatement of the thread thus far.

Place the blame where the blame belongs - on the individual, and on a system in which mental health care is shunned, unavailable, and where people are ostracized for seeking it.

Don't blame it simply on military training, which is against killing innocents.
Don't blame it simply on access to weapons - because trucks and machetes kill many, many people per year.
Don't blame it simply on the stress of combat - because the vast majority of Soldiers serve their combat tours with honor.

Don't say it's a combination of the above, unless and until you can demonstrate that there is a higher rate of mass murder among professional Soldiers than their comparable civilian populations.

Place the blame where it belongs, and avoid bringing in the emotional, anti-military, anti-war crap that constantly turns these threads into little more than US Army bashing.

The blame is on being there in the first place. On the politicians/military and corporations which profited from it.

OK Weaver. You brought it up. I didn't want to, but you keep asking.

http://www.rense.com/general31/serial.htm

In the 53 years that separate Mr. Unruh from Mr. Muhammad, hundreds of Americans have lost their minds and used guns to cause multiple deaths. One thing unites almost all of them: military training.

http://www.shsu.edu/~stdrem26/pictures/ ... illers.pdf
That's a more general study of what military training does and triggers in potential mass murderers.

sandinista wrote:

james1v wrote:

sandinista wrote:

matt8819 wrote:

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.

...and the "anti occupation forces" wouldn't exist without the occupation.

They exist now, yet theres no occupation.

That's news to me. You mean all US bases in Iraq have been dismantled?

Weaver wrote:Sandinista, before exposing your ignorance any more

you have to be joking

Weaver wrote:Because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when you equate civilian casualties in war zones to murder victims, or uniformed Soldiers to murderers

You can take your little definitions and do whatever you wish with them. Semantics. When it comes down to it, if the west kills people it's "war causalities" when anyone else does it's "murder". It's legal maneuvering, that's it. To cover the asses of the occupation forces. You invade a country and occupy it for no reason, call it what you want, it's still murder.

Who are the insurgents attacking? American soldiers?

Yes, I've read those studies myself, and gone deeply into Grossman's work over the years. Grossman's work has significant methodological errors, related to his original continuance of the crap work promulgated by S.L.A. Marshall.

There is no causal link.

There are many correlations - but there are also many reasons why the correlations are not causative as well.

Nobody has demonstrated a causal link between military training and mass murder.

Weaver wrote:Place the blame where the blame belongs - on the individual, and on a system in which mental health care is shunned, unavailable, and where people are ostracized for seeking it.

Don't blame it simply on military training, which is against killing innocents.
Don't blame it simply on access to weapons - because trucks and machetes kill many, many people per year.
Don't blame it simply on the stress of combat - because the vast majority of Soldiers serve their combat tours with honor.

Don't say it's a combination of the above, unless and until you can demonstrate that there is a higher rate of mass murder among professional Soldiers than their comparable civilian populations.

Place the blame where it belongs, and avoid bringing in the emotional, anti-military, anti-war crap that constantly turns these threads into little more than US Army bashing.

I agree, Weaver, I think we’re looking at a lone individual, who simply went berserk; given the (frustrating?) situation on the ground, maybe it’s also something that was bound to happen sooner or later.

I largely blame the politicians for embarking on war without committing adequate manpower and ‘assets’ to get the job done in the first place, then compounded by not capitalizing on strategic opportunities as they emerge.

Rick wrote:I largely blame the politicians for embarking on war without committing adequate manpower and ‘assets’ to get the job done

what was the "job"?

In this case, firstmost to defeat the Taliban maybe?

Assuming it was ever a winning proposition?

Weaver wrote:Yes, I've read those studies myself, and gone deeply into Grossman's work over the years. Grossman's work has significant methodological errors, related to his original continuance of the crap work promulgated by S.L.A. Marshall.

There is no causal link.

There are many correlations - but there are also many reasons why the correlations are not causative as well.

Nobody has demonstrated a causal link between military training and mass murder.

Are you a psychologist/psychiatrist Weaver?
Because if you are not how can you so summarily dismiss the findings of a study without doing so on hearsay and second hand information.

Not trying to be an ass here, but that is the argument you pull every time someone has an opinion on something even remotely connected with the military, so you should be able to back up such assertions with hard proof.
God forbid anyone actually utilised something as exotic as "Common Sense".

Rick wrote:In this case, firstmost to defeat the Taliban maybe?

Assuming it was ever a winning proposition?

what does that even mean? Defeat the Taliban? That would be akin to the US being invaded and occupied with the goal to defeat the conservative party.

On the current discussion, I can't see any reason why military training should pre-dispose someone to mass killings. Exposure to training might increase the capability, but non-military trained people don't seem to have any trouble killing multiple people. Exposure to war and lack of mental health resources I can certainly see pre-disposing someone to killing, but that is a function of the horror of war, and potentially a culture of macho-ness one might find in such settings, even absent the best training in the world.

Military-bashing might give one a sense of self-righteousness self-satisfaction, but it's singularly unproductive in this case. If there are any questions to be asked of the military, it's 'what were the signs that this was going to happen, and how should they have been responded to to ensure it didn't?'.

So, back to the OP - have there been any reports on the motivations of this individual, or any signs that he was going off the rails?

sandinista wrote:

Rick wrote:In this case, firstmost to defeat the Taliban maybe?

Assuming it was ever a winning proposition?

what does that even mean? Defeat the Taliban? That would be akin to the US being invaded and occupied with the goal to defeat the conservative party.

Don't give the Republicans any ideas...

I never suggested it was a viable objective in itself, militarily or politically, sandinista - for reason inexplicable no one saw fit to consult me!

As Made of Stars notes: Exposure to war and lack of mental health resources I can certainly see pre-disposing someone to killing, but that is a function of the horror of war, and potentially a culture of macho-ness one might find in such settings, even absent the best training in the world.

And as said in the OP piece: The soldier - who reportedly suffered a breakdown before the attacks - is said to have handed himself over to the US military authorities after carrying out the killings

Defeat the Conservatives? Best idea yet?