U.S. solider(s) murder Afghan civilians.

[ThinkAnarchy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/15/americas-war-in-afghanistan

I recently read a report that after interviewing survivors, they used the plural of solider, suggesting he may not have acted alone. I can't find that particular article again, so I'm not sure of it's validity. It could have simply been a misunderstanding due to the language barrier, but regardless of how many were involved, it's despicable. More than one solider partaking would be a bigger P.R. nightmare though.

[Tank]

It would appear he possibly shouldn't have been on active service due to previous head injuries. How a sane person can line up 9 kids and shoot them in the head is beyond understanding.

[Crow]

There was a good segment on Newsnight about this that showed a meeting with President Karzai and the Tribal Elders of the area where the event happened. The Elders were adamant that it was multiple soldiers not a single individual that took part in these actions due to the statements of the villagers who witnessed the events. The most troubling part is if the opinion is made on the Afghan side that it was multiple perpetrators it will not matter if the Americans throw a single soldier to the sword as they will just make the decision that the Americans are liars therefore compounding the problems further that the States have been having in the region.

This is the episode and the segment starts around 16:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dk3th/Newsnight_16_03_2012/

[ThinkAnarchy]

There was a good segment on Newsnight about this that showed a meeting with President Karzai and the Tribal Elders of the area where the event happened. The Elders were adamant that it was multiple soldiers not a single individual that took part in these actions due to the statements of the villagers who witnessed the events. The most troubling part is if the opinion is made on the Afghan side that it was multiple perpetrators it will not matter if the Americans throw a single soldier to the sword as they will just make the decision that the Americans are liars therefore compounding the problems further that the States have been having in the region.

This is the episode and the segment starts around 16:10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dk3th/Newsnight_16_03_2012/

I can't view the video you linked too. It says it can only be viewed by those located in the U.K.

[Ali]

So sad and awful.  I don't know if this guy (or guys if there were more than one) would be considered "insane" though.  I mean yes, they were, but I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that.   

[fester30]

Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence.  I don't know much about the events.  Were they at night?  How many actual witnesses were there?  Perhaps one person actually lived to see what happened, and told others who claim to be witnesses?  It can be dangerous to trust witnesses.  The US military would have nothing to gain and much to lose in purposely covering up the involvement of multiple perpetrators.  I'm not saying it wasn't more than one, as I don't know.  I'm just saying if it was, I think the military would be stupid to try to cover it up.

[Asmodean]

I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that.  

From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.

Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?

Let's look at the opposite end of the scale: A mass murderer or rapist arrives at the emergency room with accute injuries. The dotors and nurses are then expected to hang their feelings on a peg and do their job to the best of their abilities. Is it too much to expext the same of the soldiers?

[Ali]

I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that.   

From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.

Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?

I think some people get caught up in this idea of the "glory" and "honor" of "protecting their country" without really honestly evaluating what it would really be like.  And how could they?  I would guess that mpost have never been in the kind of "life or death" situation that they face in active combat.  Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18.  I know what I was like when I was 20.....

[Asmodean]

Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18.  I know what I was like when I was 20.....

At 18, I've seen enough crappy war movies to know that soldiers kill. It's what they are trained for and it's what they do and do well if they are any good at the craft.

How can you take a job - any job - without asking yourself what it would mean for you?

[ThinkAnarchy]

I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that.  

From what I hear, you can either grow cold or have a breakdown once in a while.

Personally, I don't see why one would give it a second thought. If one kills people for money, than that is what one does. It's a job - one that involves taking lives, but a job still. Why take it if one thinks one might not deal too well with killing? Or do people really not know themselves enough to more or less accurately self-evaluate?

I disagree with this assertion simply because I don't think personal moral codes are always so narrow. I think it is certainly possible to get paid to kill while still upholding a certain moral character. I view it as a private hitman who may refuse to accept jobs where the target is a child. If this individual inadvertently killed a child while carrying out their job, I can see how it could effect their psyche.

I don't typically defend soldiers, but I'm sure there are some who think they are doing the world a service, and try to limit their bullets to those holding weapons. When they are inadvertently responsible for an innocent's death, they may very well experience psychological problems.

This isn't a defense of anything, nor do I think this guy should get less of a sentence on the insanity plea, but just something I thought about.

I do think many are simply killers who enjoy killing though. I also think they view civilians and combatants as equal, hence the abundance of sexual crimes during invasions.

[Ali]

Also remember that the average recruitment agre is around 20-21, with people being elligible to enroll when they are 18.  I know what I was like when I was 20.....

At 18, I've seen enough crappy war movies to know that soldiers kill. It's what they are trained for and it's what they do and do well if they are any good at the craft.

How can you take a job - any job - without asking yourself what it would mean for you?

I just think that sometimes it's hard to know how you will react in a given situation until you are actually there.  I think I know myself pretty well, but I still manage to surprise myself sometimes, and I'm not typically involved in really high stakes high drama scenarios where you have to rely more on your gut insticts and spur of the moment decisions.

[Asmodean]

I disagree with this assertion simply because I don't think personal moral codes are always so narrow. I think it is certainly possible to get paid to kill while still upholding a certain moral character. I view it as a private hitman who may refuse to accept jobs where the target is a child. If this individual inadvertently killed a child while carrying out their job, I can see how it could effect their psyche.

I don't see how this is contrary to what I said. If you can not eliminate your intended targets - and only your intended targets - without hesitation or mental breakdowns while seeing them as human beings not unlike yourself, why would you even want to be a career killer? Or, if you are just a cold-hearted sadist, why would such a career (Mafia hitman and the like excepted) want you?

Collateral damage happens, but that is not what I am talking about here. I'm sure some can shrug it off, others can think it away and others still are traumatised by it, but the word "collateral" implies destruction of unintended targets.

I do think many are simply killers who enjoy killing though. I also think they view civilians and combatants as equal, hence the abundance of sexual crimes during invasions.

Of course. Such jobs are probably very attractive to the adrenalin junkies with a sadistic streak, but one can fire their asses if and when one sees signs of trouble, no?

[ThinkAnarchy]

I don't see how this is contrary to what I said. If you can not eliminate your intended targets - and only your intended targets - without hesitation or mental breakdowns while seeing them as human beings not unlike yourself, why would you even want to be a career killer? Or, if you are just a cold-hearted sadist, why would such a career (Mafia hitman and the like excepted) want you?

I agree it should be predicted you will be responsible for the death's of innocents or be placed in situations they require tough moral decisions, like shooting a 10 year old with a gun; I'm simply saying that there are many who join without thinking about these things. I'm certainly not defending it, just saying many are likely naive when they sign the contract.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing. I'm simply thinking out loud in this thread. 

[Asmodean]

Perhaps we are saying the same thing.

I think we are.

[Stevil]

So sad and awful.  I don't know if this guy (or guys if there were more than one) would be considered "insane" though.  I mean yes, they were, but I kind of feel like people have to...I don't know....turn their hearts away from "the enemy" and see them as evil and less than human in order to go to war against them at all, so this feels like an extreme but sort of inevitable outcome of that.   

Iron Maiden wrote a song called "Afraid to Shoot Strangers"

In a way this is what war is about for the soldier. It is their job to shoot strangers.
Each side has their ideals, but generally the first casualty of war is the truth. The soldiers don't even need to know the truth, it is their job to be obedient, to do as they are told. They are not there to make political or philosophical judgments.
They are there to do as they are told, to act as they have been trained.

I would not like to be a soldier, I'm far too opinionated, I ask why too often, I am simply not very good at doing what I am told.