Army Strong

[funk de fino]

Sometimes, people with military experience have the "agenda" of needing to cover up the truth about what the military does, so they are not necessarily good authorities.

Only in the JJ fantasy homeworld.

 

[paximperium]

Thanks for another post declaring the pointlessness of posting and for your sweet little ad hominem fantasy about me.

Sometimes, people with military experience have the "agenda" of needing to cover up the truth about what the military does, so they are not necessarily good authorities.

Such "agendas" are frequently flagged with juvenile ad hominem abuse.

That's nice. So Jane, what is your point of the the OP or thread that you continue to refuse tell anyone? Do you enjoy the small talk and being ever so coy?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I have no interst in responing to anything in the extract of LONGTABBER PE's that you have quoted, which is a good example of a poster believing his/her own fantasies to be real.

Oh the irony

 

[Nosi]

If you haven't changed your display options, you will have 50 posts per page, so #120 will be on the third page.

Found a post and the bur under JihadJane's saddle I think.... forgive any presumptions.

LONGTABBER PI "You need to remember sweetheart, I've been dealing with them in person and for real longer than there has been an internet or the general population even knew they existed."

JIHADJANE "I don't respond to patronizing idiocy."

OUCH!

 

[Garrette]

My Sermon to the Choir

It has been a few days since JihadJane posted in this thread, and in the few days before that when she did post, she responded to my posts but answered no questions.

In the meantime, she has posted several times on other threads.

So, for the choir: This is a(nother) clear demonstration that JihadJane doese not act in the way she claims and is simply another poster who makes posts that are often nicely formed but rarely nicely filled.

To JihadJane: Despite your claims otherwise, I have acted in an adult fashion in this entire thread. Still, to ensure there was no misunderstanding, I changed my tack to a very formal, very neutral, very fair one.

You did not reciprocate. Instead, you acted as you have done in every serious thread in which I have seen you post, this one included. You acted as an intellectual bully, complete with the bully's cowardice.

You ignore facts and questions all the while denying you are doing so.

I don't know if you are aware of this behavior or if you truly believe you are presenting cogent arguments, but I do not care. If it is the former, then it is on you to change it. If the latter, it is not in my ability to fix you.

If I am mistaken about you, then demonstrate it, don't claim it. I will not respond to your farcical claims and rants. I will, however, respond to direct answers to the questions that have been asked.

You are not a thinker, JihadJane, nor a debater. You are a series of slogans on protest signs, written by the shallow and carried by the gullible. That you obviously take pride in this role is saddening.

ETA: And, yes, this is adult. Speaking truth, even when unpleasant, is far more adult than avoiding it, as you have done throughout this entire thread.

 

[JihadJane]

I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to how this contributes to the discussion.

No one is denying that sometimes military folks are "less than ideal", shall we say. I pointed out a few instances myself, and I hesitate to try and number the times I heard of a soldier coming up hot on a urinalysis or smuggling drugs across the border (I used to be stationed in Fort Bliss, which is right next to Juarez, Mexico) or heard that there was a domestic disturbance of some sort; although bear in mind that I was on active duty for four years and there were at least a hundred thousand soldiers stationed on Fort Bliss, so the actual number in comparison to the population was very small. But I fail to see how that relates specifically to them being in the military. The military did not make them that way; they were that way already. They were inclined to break the law well before they joined the armed forces. And when they break the law, they are usually dismissed from service unless they are a D*** good soldier and the incident was a momentary aberration that they show no inclination of repeating. Repeat offenders get kicked out; single offenders, if they are good soldiers, stay in.

As for veterans; I can't speak to how they are treated in the UK, but being a disabled veteran (technically speaking at any rate) myself, I CAN speak to how they are treated in the US. They are given every opportunity to get help here; people in the Veterans Administration actively seek out veterans who slip through the cracks of an imperfect system and get them the help they need when they find them. You also need to define the term "veteran"; in the strictest sense, it means someone who has seen combat of some sort, but in the sense it is typically used in the US, it means someone who fought with honor and dignity and served their country well. Someone can technically be a veteran without embodying the spirit of the word, and that is typically where you find those individuals you list in your post, JJ.

As for Cindy Sheehan; don't get me started on the lies that woman spouts. I knew people who served with her son while I was on active duty; they've all said she's full of and that her son joined the military at least partially to get away from her. I'm a little more inclined to believe people who served on a daily basis with the man than a woman with a political agenda, regardless of her personal relationship with him. Her son CHOSE to join the military; he CHOSE, IIRC, to re-enlist once his term of service was up at least once. What she is doing is spitting on his choice and the choice of every other honorable military member, so I have NO respect for the woman and wish she would just shut up.

As I said, I'm not really sure what you are implying via that post, JJ, but it looks to me as though you are somehow drawing a correlation between the inclination to break the law and military service, either current or former, on the part of the criminal in question. While I will not deny that the military has its share of lawbreakers, I find it difficult to believe the number is much higher than any other group of people you could name.

And as to the opportunities granted to military members; most of us are a typical example, yes. Military service is viewed by many companies in the private sector as an example of a person's ability to carry out a job in the right way and with the right attitude doing it; we are seen as hard workers who get the job done properly. I will admit that I likely have more going for me than some, since I was and am an officer, but Longtabber has enough time in the enlisted side to more than make up for that difference in rank, and even a soldier who was discharged as an E-4 can parlay that into higher pay and more responsibility than someone who is just starting out in their chosen career.

The long and the short of it is this; is that video an entirely truthful representation of military service? The answer is, yes and no; they aren't lying about what they show, they just aren't showing all of it. But advertising isn't meant to be completely truthful; it is meant to show the most positive aspects of whatever is being sold to make it more appealing to those watching. If you're going to complain about truth in advertising, you might want to aim your weapons in the direction of every company that has ever advertised, because I can guarantee you that you won't find ONE that was completely upfront about their product in their advertising. If the military is to be penalized for not showing absolutely everything, you'll have to apply that standard everywhere else as well, or you're a hypocrite, JJ. It is up to the consumer, in this instance, to educate themselves about the product in whatever way they feel necessary before "making a purchase", so to speak.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.


I think it is unethical to recruit people into risking thier lives and future wellbeing using the manpulative and dishonest tools of consumer advertising, just as it would be for any hazardous job. Going to fight in a war is not comparable with "making a purchase", especially when the true nature of the "product" is disguised.

Cindy Sheehan's question to George Bush was:

"What was the noble cause that my son died for?"

Thanks, Sabrina, for going some way to explaining the "pissing on her son's grave" sentiment.

What she is doing is spitting on his choice and the choice of every other honorable military member.

I disagree with your analysis. Cindy Sheehan isn't making any judgement about her son's choice. She is responding to her awareness that he didn't die for a noble cause. Her son didn't have enough information to make an informed choice. He was lied to, and, along with millions of others, he believed the lies that got him killed in Iraq. She now campaigns to prevent other young people's lives being similarly wasted.

As I said, I'm not really sure what you are implying via that post, JJ, but it looks to me as though you are somehow drawing a correlation between the inclination to break the law and military service, either current or former, on the part of the criminal in question.

I highlighted the "link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence" as an illustration of the kind of result veterans can expect form their service, which they should be warned about before they join up. Veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless and incarcerated. I do not agree with your assessment:

The military did not make them that way; they were that way already. They were inclined to break the law well before they joined the armed forces.

War is institutionalized, legalized murder and the trauma of living with violence and brutality leads directly to the many difficulties war veterans face when returning to civilian life. I do not believe that "they were that way already".

Perhaps we can take the crime that came to represent the the US attack on Iraq, the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, as an example. Those who were punished were the least culpable. They acted as they did in response to a lawless environment. The Military Intelligence operatives who directed the abuse were not imprisoned, nor were those responsible, right up to the White House, for setting up the conditions that allowed the abuse to happen. This illustrates how ordinary soldiers are perceived by the State which sends them to war - they are useful idiots.

I see the OP video as an effort to stop such exploitation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I am not the only one who has serious doubts about LONGTABBER PE.

 

[JihadJane]

Since we are sticking to the OP I will focus my comments on your comments regarding it.

What are they?

See my reply to Sabrina, above, for some comments.

It has been a few days since JihadJane posted in this thread, and in the few days before that when she did post, she responded to my posts but answered no questions.

In the meantime, she has posted several times on other threads.

So, for the choir: This is a(nother) clear demonstration that JihadJane doese not act in the way she claims and is simply another poster who makes posts that are often nicely formed but rarely nicely filled.

To JihadJane: Despite your claims otherwise, I have acted in an adult fashion in this entire thread. Still, to ensure there was no misunderstanding, I changed my tack to a very formal, very neutral, very fair one.

You did not reciprocate. Instead, you acted as you have done in every serious thread in which I have seen you post, this one included. You acted as an intellectual bully, complete with the bully's cowardice.

You ignore facts and questions all the while denying you are doing so.

I don't know if you are aware of this behavior or if you truly believe you are presenting cogent arguments, but I do not care. If it is the former, then it is on you to change it. If the latter, it is not in my ability to fix you.

If I am mistaken about you, then demonstrate it, don't claim it. I will not respond to your farcical claims and rants. I will, however, respond to direct answers to the questions that have been asked.

You are not a thinker, JihadJane, nor a debater. You are a series of slogans on protest signs, written by the shallow and carried by the gullible. That you obviously take pride in this role is saddening.

ETA: And, yes, this is adult. Speaking truth, even when unpleasant, is far more adult than avoiding it, as you have done throughout this entire thread.

Enough personalization.


Although this thread, from its first post ("Still whinging, JJane") onwards, has been remarkably heavy with intemperate personalization, your own preoccupation with me is intriguing.

Perhaps I can respond in kind. I hear your pain. I wonder if you are accostomed to having rather too much control.

 

[Garrette]

See my reply to Sabrina, above, for some comments.

Excellent. This is finally some good commentary. One wonders why it was so difficult to get from you.

I'll respond to it later in a separate post.

Enough personalization.

When there is no discussion of topic, little else is left.

your own preoccupation with me is intriguing.

I've piqued your curiosity, have I? You are mistaken to assume that I have a preoccupation with anything here, let alone you. My interest in this thread is about the topic and the unfounded and undefended statements you made along with the absence of any relevant commentary on your part in a thread you started.

Perhaps I can respond in kind. I hear your pain.

Mine at least, had substance. I'm afraid this is a poor and paraphrased echo of Clinton's original, which was itself a hollow gesture.

I wonder if you are accostomed to having rather too much control.

You wonder in vain.

 

[stilicho]

I think it is unethical to recruit people into risking thier lives and future wellbeing using the manpulative and dishonest tools of consumer advertising, just as it would be for any hazardous job. Going to fight in a war is not comparable with "making a purchase", especially when the true nature of the "product" is disguised.

People choose to serve their nation sometimes, JihadJane. They are not lured into it. Citizens in Hellenistic times vied for the position of serving in the first rank of hoplites.

In Europe it is not uncommon to find compulsory military service.

In Africa, militias are widespread and employ all sorts of coercion, extortion, and manipulation unheard of in the Americas or Europe. India deploys artful propaganda to fill its armed ranks and in China military service is one of the few available ways to enhance one's status, especially for those in rural or remote areas. Arab nations sport huge billboards of their martyrs to urge their citizens to arms.

The USA, most Commonwealth countries, some Latin American nations, and some European nations are alone in actually having to ask people nicely to enlist or to offer benefits unavailable to average citizens.

Cindy Sheehan's question to George Bush was:

"What was the noble cause that my son died for?"

How about service to his nation and his family? Isn't that enough?

I disagree with your analysis. Cindy Sheehan isn't making any judgement about her son's choice. She is responding to her awareness that he didn't die for a noble cause. Her son didn't have enough information to make an informed choice. He was lied to, and, along with millions of others, he believed the lies that got him killed in Iraq. She now campaigns to prevent other young people's lives being similarly wasted.

Actually, JihadJane, she is making a judgement about her son's choice. She believes he made the wrong choice. She believes he was lied to. That's the beautiful thing about our occidental culture, JihadJane. We trust people to make their own choices and to make judgements. It's a rare thing.

War is institutionalized, legalized murder...

That's like saying diplomacy is institutionalised and legal extortion, bribery, and blackmail. Or that property ownership is institutionalised and legal theft.

In a perfect JihadJane world, each nation or militia group would immediately surrender upon the outbreak of hostilities. Each diplomatic exchange would result in complete capitulation by both parties on all points. House guests would stay forever, planting gardens in the back yard, parking their stolen cars in the driveway, and emptying the pantry daily.

The real world doesn't follow your arbitrary judgements, JihadJane, and you are a fortunate individual to live in a nation where your property, security, and succulent privileges are looked after by others who care more about you than you do about them.

 

[JihadJane]

When there is no discussion of topic, little else is left.

A lame excuse!

You wonder in vain.

My wondering was simply wondering.

 

[Garrette]

I think it is unethical to recruit people into risking thier lives and future wellbeing using the manpulative and dishonest tools of consumer advertising, just as it would be for any hazardous job.

I myself have qualms with how recruiting is done but more at the actual recruiting station. The television ads are a grabber, not a contract.

Of course, there is something to be said for the scarred, amputee veteran who is the recruiter in "Starship Troopers."

Going to fight in a war is not comparable with "making a purchase",

I don't recall any advertisement suggesting it is.

especially when the true nature of the "product" is disguised.

Speaking directly to the marketing campaign and not to actual recruiters, I don't think I agree. Can you be more specific, please?

Cindy Sheehan's question to George Bush was:

"What was the noble cause that my son died for?"

And GWB couldn't rightly answer. That is an issue with GWB and the justification for the war, not with the military, unless you are suggesting the military not be subject to the lawful orders of its CinC.

I disagree with your analysis. Cindy Sheehan isn't making any judgement about her son's choice. She is responding to her awareness that he didn't die for a noble cause. Her son didn't have enough information to make an informed choice. He was lied to, and, along with millions of others, he believed the lies that got him killed in Iraq. She now campaigns to prevent other young people's lives being similarly wasted.

Insofar as this is what she does, I have no issues, but her actions go beyond simply demonstrating for and demanding "No More Lies."

I highlighted the "link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence" as an illustration of the kind of result veterans can expect form their service,

These things are oft overstated (read the popular characterization of Vietnam Veterans in the 80s and 90s), but they are real. Change "result veterans can expect" to "possible results veterans should be prepared for" and we may be in violent agreement.

which they should be warned about before they join up.

In every television ad or just at the recruiter's station? Perhaps at Boot Camp before they incur a lasting obligation?

Veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless and incarcerated.

Christians are disproportionately represented among the incarcerated, too. Surgeon General's warnings for religion, then?

War is institutionalized, legalized murder

No. It is this form of statement that makes it difficult to take your sensible statements seriously. (By "sensible" I don't mean "those I agree with." I disagree with much of this current post, but it is, in the main, sensible)

and the trauma of living with violence and brutality leads directly to the many difficulties war veterans face when returning to civilian life.

CAN lead. And rarely "directly."

I do not believe that "they were that way already".

I am between you and Sabrina on this. If they were "that way already" they would stand a good chance (not a perfect one, though) of not making it in (setting aside the declining entry standards for now), so I tend to lean toward your position. However, it can be reasonably argued that the rigors of service, particularly in combat, serve more to highlight inherent problems than to create new ones. Note that I said "more" not "only."

Perhaps we can take the crime that came to represent the the US attack on Iraq, the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, as an example.

I don't think it came to represent it at all. It tarnished it, stained it, shamed those in it, but did not come to represent it.

Those who were punished were the least culpable.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I'd say they were equally culpable with those who made it happen and those who let it happen.

They acted as they did in response to a lawless environment. The Military Intelligence operatives who directed the abuse were not imprisoned, nor were those responsible, right up to the White House, for setting up the conditions that allowed the abuse to happen.

While we could argue about how high up the punishment needed to go, I am with you in spirit on this. Higher heads needed to roll.

This illustrates how ordinary soldiers are perceived by the State which sends them to war - they are useful idiots.

Sometimes, but in that case your beef is with the state and not the soldiers, which makes your OP puzzling.

I see the OP video as an effort to stop such exploitation.

No. The OP is an attack on the military itself, not on its misuse and misleading by the civilian hierarchy.

BTW, I am not the only one who has serious doubts about LONGTABBER PE.

Okay.


Now then. Is your second to last sentence your only comment about the OP?

 

[Darth Rotor]

JIHADJANE "I don't respond to patronizing idiocy."

But JJane does not mind speaking from ignorance.

 

[funk de fino]

War is institutionalized, legalized murder and the trauma of living with violence and brutality leads directly to the many difficulties war veterans face when returning to civilian life. I do not believe that "they were that way already".

We do not really care what you think. You are wrong, as well as being hypocritically insulting.

BTW, I am not the only one who has serious doubts about LONGTABBER PE.

And we have called him out on it. He was not the only one posting however. Others proved your claims to be poppycock. Again.

 

[JihadJane]

Excellent. This is finally some good commentary. One wonders why it was so difficult to get from you.

What's the point of fighting?

Of course, there is something to be said for the scarred, amputee veteran who is the recruiter in "Starship Troopers."

Things are much simpler when one is killing giant bugs rather than human beings.

I don't recall any advertisement suggesting it is.

It was Sabrina's phrase.

Speaking directly to the marketing campaign and not to actual recruiters, I don't think I agree. Can you be more specific, please?

The marketing campaign is a recruitment campaign.

And GWB couldn't rightly answer. That is an issue with GWB and the justification for the war, not with the military, unless you are suggesting the military not be subject to the lawful orders of its CinC.

What noble cause did Cindy Sheehan's son die for?

In every television ad or just at the recruiter's station? Perhaps at Boot Camp before they incur a lasting obligation?

In the national consciousness.

Christians are disproportionately represented among the incarcerated, too. Surgeon General's warnings for religion, then?

Your point?

No. It is this form of statement that makes it difficult to take your sensible statements seriously. (By "sensible" I don't mean "those I agree with." I disagree with much of this current post, but it is, in the main, sensible)

What do you call taking people's lives without their consent?

I don't think it came to represent it at all. It tarnished it, stained it, shamed those in it, but did not come to represent it.

This is the most iconic, instantly recognizable image of the "liberation" of Iraq and, along with the smoking Twin Towers, of the "War on Terror":

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I'd say they were equally culpable with those who made it happen and those who let it happen.

I'd say they are scapegoats.

Sometimes, but in that case your beef is with the state and not the soldiers, which makes your OP puzzling.

How is the OP a beef with soldiers? The State is responsible for sending people to fight its supporters' wars.

No. The OP is an attack on the military itself, not on its misuse and misleading by the civilian hierarchy.

How is the OP an attack on the military?

Now then. Is your second to last sentence your only comment about the OP?

Now then, now then.

This entire thread is my comment on the OP.

 

[funk de fino]

What do you call taking people's lives without their consent?

What do you call it when they are trying to take yours but you get in there first?

Were they trying to murder you?

I would say the most recognisable image is of Saddam emerging from the foxhole, or in court, or in the noose. Not Abu Ghraib photos.

It's the few bad eggs all over again. Every walk of life has them.

You spammed and now cannot even support your OP.

 

[Garrette]

What's the point of fighting?

You'll have to tell me. Most of it could have been avoided in this thread by answering the early and direct questions to you regarding the OP.

Things are much simpler when one is killing giant bugs rather than human beings.

It's also simple to miss the point, and puzzling when the point is both valid and largely in agreement with you.

It was Sabrina's phrase.

And you used it so it became yours.

The marketing campaign is a recruitment campaign.

No. The first is to get you in the door. Recruiters try to close the sale. It's the difference between a Honda ad and the salesman who sits down with you and "works the numbers."

What noble cause did Cindy Sheehan's son die for?

Your question indicates you missed the point entirely. Please re-read.

In the national consciousness.

You want "the national consciousness" to warn soldiers about the dangers of war? Setting aside questions about the validity of the premise of a national consciousness, I say go for it, but don't focus on America; focus on every national with a military and every organization that uses force. Put fundamentalist jihadists at or near the top of your list.

You are free to ignore history.

Your point?

Right there in the part you quoted: "Surgeon General warnings for religions, then?

What do you call taking people's lives without their consent?

It varies depending on circumstance, as you know.

Separate from the absolute silliness of the question -- and it is extremely silly coming from someone who does have a brain (you do).

Is killing ever not murder? Ever? Can you think of no instance?

This is the most iconic, instantly recognizable image of the "liberation" of Iraq

In some circles. And do not make the mistake of conflating recognizability with representativeness.

and, along with the smoking Twin Towers, of the "War on Terror":

And yet you choose to go with the first.

I'd say they are scapegoats.

You would be incorrect.

How is the OP a beef with soldiers?

Did you watch it? Did you not see the claims about horrific and intentional actions on the part of soldiers?

The State is responsible for sending people to fight its supporters' wars.

Agreed. So?

How is the OP an attack on the military?

See above. Watch the clip.

Now then, now then.

An upped ante! Goodie!

This entire thread is my comment on the OP.

Then you've been reading a thread different from the one you're writing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What do you call taking people's lives without their consent?

How often do people consent to have their lives taken?

My favorite pictue of the "War on Terror":

There, there, fixed it for ya.

DR

 

[stilicho]

What do you call it when they are trying to take yours but you get in there first?

Were they trying to murder you?

....

You spammed and now cannot even support your OP.

Notice that JihadJane has artfully avoided an obvious issue.

Quote:
Sometimes, but in that case your beef is with the state and not the soldiers, which makes your OP puzzling.

How is the OP a beef with soldiers? The State is responsible for sending people to fight its supporters' wars.

To the uninitiated, this appears to be a cookie-cutter indictment of the state and of war in general. But, when you look closely, you will nowhere see any JihadJane recriminations against the recruitment methods of India, China, African militias, or even of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.

The only examples she has are from the USA.

Maybe you'll be better equipped to get her to answer my other questions since I'm pretty sure she has me on ignore. There's not only the bias aimed straight at the USA and its allies but I'd also like to how diplomacy would work in the JihadJane world. If, after all, the State is not to be involved with military matters then it probably shouldn't be involved in diplomacy either. I would like to know how that would work.

 

[JihadJane]

But JJane does not mind speaking from ignorance.

What's your expert opinion of the notion that LONGTABBER PE is a "garritrooper"?

How often do people consent to have their lives taken?

Rarely.

There, there, fixed it for ya.

What's your "favorite picture" of the "War on Terror", DR?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You'll have to tell me. Most of it could have been avoided in this thread by answering the early and direct questions to you regarding the OP.

My response to the OP video was sombre silence. I posted it without comment because I was interested to know other people's response. Mostly they have been varieties throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers.

It's also simple to miss the point, and puzzling when the point is both valid and largely in agreement with you.

Yes, in real life, how many front-line army recruitment campaigners have bits of their bodies (or minds) missing?

And you used it so it became yours.

I quoted it while responding to it.

No. The first is to get you in the door. Recruiters try to close the sale. It's the difference between a Honda ad and the salesman who sits down with you and "works the numbers."

A very cynical approach to people lives.

Your question indicates you missed the point entirely. Please re-read.

Comment to be re-read:

And GWB couldn't rightly answer. That is an issue with GWB and the justification for the war, not with the military, unless you are suggesting the military not be subject to the lawful orders of its CinC.

It is a question for anybody who believes that war is noble.

You want "the national consciousness" to warn soldiers about the dangers of war? Setting aside questions about the validity of the premise of a national consciousness, I say go for it, but don't focus on America; focus on every national with a military and every organization that uses force. Put fundamentalist jihadists at or near the top of your list.

I want national consciousness to be reality-based. The OP video aims at cultural constructs.

As the US has done more than any other country to encourage and facilitate the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism the US can share the top position with the "jihadists".

You are free to ignore history.

Thanks, I'll pass up your offer.

It varies depending on circumstance, as you know.

Separate from the absolute silliness of the question -- and it is extremely silly coming from someone who does have a brain (you do).

Is killing ever not murder? Ever? Can you think of no instance?

Assisted suicide.


"There are times when a nation must ingest the poison of violence to survive. But this violence always deforms and maims those who use it." -Chris Hedges.

In some circles. And do not make the mistake of conflating recognizability with representativeness.

Representation is never objective. In a very many people's minds the picture I reproduced has come to represent the reality of the US Iraq project.

Ironically, the picture, staged as it was, does not actually represent what it appears to represent.

And yet you choose to go with the first.

How would the burning Twin Towers represent the attack on Iraq?

You would be incorrect.

In your opinion. There is a long list of lawbreakers hiding behind those few "bad apples".

Did you watch it? Did you not see the claims about horrific and intentional actions on the part of soldiers?

Some of the soldiers talk about their own horrific actions. How do you, with your brain, interpret that as having a beef with soldiers?

Their beef is that they don't want to be part of another round of war-enabling myth building.

"The intimate, personal experience of violence turns those who return from war into internal exiles. They cannot compete against the power of the myth." - Chris Hedges

Agreed. So?

The state, theoretically, at least, directs the military to wage wars. I say "theoretically" because the military-industrial complex has become so vast and powerful that it can now direct the actions of states.

See above. Watch the clip.

The OP challenges the myths of war, the lies of honor and glory, not the military, which is employed to do the states dirty work.

Then you've been reading a thread different from the one you're writing.

Different minds and eyes not different threads. Silent, patient witnessing is also commentary.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What's your "favorite picture" of the "War on Terror", DR?

The only imagery that ever gave me a warm feeling on the WoT was gun camera footage or targeting pod tapes of a few of our better placed airstrikes. Most of that you don't have access to, and I don't either, anymore.

There was a video of an AC-130 killing jihadists a while back that sort of fits into that category. IIRC it was released well before the Iraq War started. I was disturbed that it was released to the internet, but I must say I got a good feeling listening to the crew over the interphone as they sent a few more martyrs into Allah's loving arms.

I have a lot of unfavorite footage, but that isn't what you asked.

If I can find the CD I had it on, there was a great picture of an AH-1W Cobra firing rockets into Shia/Mahdii Army/Sadr's S***Heels fighting positions in and around An Najaf, August 2004. I'll post it if I can find it. I have a lot of friends who flew Cobras. I like that picture.

DR