Army Strong

[Garrette]

My response to the OP video was sombre silence.

Your silence was not a response to the OP; you were silent only when asked questions and presented with counterfactuals.

I posted it without comment because I was interested to know other people's response.

And they were interested in yours; since you posted the OP, that is an entirely reasonable reaction. Your refusal to answer was not the mark of mature discussion or even honest interest, regardless how somber you believed yourself to be. It was the mark of hollow smugness.

Mostly they have been varieties throwing tantrums and attacking the messengers.

The intelligent bully who tweaks others to respond in frustration in such a way that catches the teacher’s eye is still the bully, regardless who is kept after for detention.

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

There’s the violent agreement again. I wish recruiting and recruiters were more brutally honest. Where we differ is that I don’t think it requires—either morally or legally—to be all brutality all the time.

I quoted it while responding to it.

I’ll take your word because I don’t feel like backtracking to it, and offer apologies for misunderstanding/misattributing.

A very cynical approach to people lives.

Quite the opposite. On the assumption there is no deception (by commission or omission), packaging it in sales terms is not only realistic but an admission that one is dealing with adults, not helpless balls of naivete who could function properly and make proper decisions if only they had the good fortune of having JihadJane’s intellect.

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

And still you avoid the point with rhetoric.

I want national consciousness to be reality-based.

Then you want perfect information provided in perfect time to the perfectly rational. None of that exists. If you can’t settle for an approximation that shifts with the times then you are doomed to disappointment.

The OP video aims at cultural constructs.

No. It aims at what it believes are cultural constructs. Your implication that those constructs are part of the national consciousness remains unfounded.

As the US has done more than any other country to encourage and facilitate the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism

In the form of the Taliban, you are correct, but only if you assume that the US’ actions occurred in a vacuum.

the US can share the top position with the "jihadists".

And will your criticisms be shared?

Thanks, I'll pass up your offer.[to feel free to ignore history]

That would be a welcome change from your behavior in this thread.

Assisted suicide.

I agree. Any others?

"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.

Experience changes the experiencer. Life changes the one who lives. Many changes are painful and ugly, but if they are the result of actions that were necessary then lamenting is proper but accusing is not.

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.

So we’re agreed that your representative picture is at best only as representative as other more flattering pictures. That’s a positive step.

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

Undercurrents of that photo are too far afield of the topic for me to discuss with you.

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

Tsk tsk. You’ve already indicated that representativeness is a function of opinion.

In your opinion.

A fact-based opinion. Those who received the punishment deserved the punishment.

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

They’re not exclusive. I thought I made it clear I think higher heads should have rolled, just not in lieu of those that did—in addition to.

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

And how do you, with your brain, if they talked only about their own horrific actions, interpret that as a vilification of the state?

If the principle applies in one direction, it applies in the other. The correct interpretation then relies on what facts are in evidence and, to a lesser extent, on the credibility of the speakers.

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

Uh-huh.

"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

Always? Mostly? A large minority of the time? Rarely?

Not even the Hedges name carries much weight without evidence.

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.

Open another thread if you want to argue that.

The OP challenges the myths of war, the lies of honor and glory,

And if it challenges them with lies? What then?

not the military, which is employed to do the states dirty work.

And is it always dirty work in a pejorative sense?

Different minds and eyes not different threads.

Opinion weighs in on most things, but not all opinions are equal.

Silent, patient witnessing is also commentary.

No. Not in the general sense nor in the particular.

Silence is silence, and while it may effectively cause others to fill the void, it is not in itself a comment save in the minds of the unjustly smug who have not examined their positions prior and who feel no need to do so during.

 

[funk de fino]

My response to the OP video was sombre silence. I posted it without comment because I was interested to know other people's response.

An admission of spamming

 

[Darth Rotor]

An admission of spamming

Or trolling?

 

[foxholeatheist]

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

Here's mine:



This little guy had got hit in the head by something, the terp told us that he said that he was hit by a brick but all the other kids were saying that he was shot- I don't know. Anyway, we had been keeping a close eye on this little mahalla and I saw him plenty of times and I was able to fix him up when I could. A portion of his skull was missing and infected but the last time I saw him he was doing alright and seeing a local doctor.

One of the S-shop LT's went out with us and took some pictures of me taking care of this guy. I made the little "Crossed Sabers" Cav newspaper and come this December, an Army Commendation Medal.

Behind him is my battle Brian and we're as close as brothers.

I'll never forget that place because later on in the year one of our officers lost both legs at the intersection we were walking to that day.

 

[JihadJane]

Your silence was not a response to the OP; you were silent only when asked questions and presented with counterfactuals.

My response to the OP video was sombre silence. Please don't cheapen yourself my claiming to be able to read minds.

And they were interested in yours; since you posted the OP, that is an entirely reasonable reaction. Your refusal to answer was not the mark of mature discussion or even honest interest, regardless how somber you believed yourself to be. It was the mark of hollow smugness.

What does resorting to faux remote viewing signify?

The intelligent bully who tweaks others to respond in frustration in such a way that catches the teacher’s eye is still the bully, regardless who is kept after for detention.

Create your own reality, Garrette! You're not alone.

There’s the violent agreement again. I wish recruiting and recruiters were more brutally honest. Where we differ is that I don’t think it requires—either morally or legally—to be all brutality all the time.

Strawman

Quite the opposite. On the assumption there is no deception (by commission or omission), packaging it in sales terms is not only realistic but an admission that one is dealing with adults, not helpless balls of naivete who could function properly and make proper decisions if only they had the good fortune of having JihadJane’s intellect.

At the the beginning of the assault on Iraq the majority of the troops thought they were there to avenge the 9/11 attacks. Were they "helpless balls of naivete"?

The intimately related fields of propaganda and advertising work on an emotional not intellectual level. Intelligence does not guarantee protection against either.

And still you avoid the point with rhetoric.

What was your point?

Then you want perfect information provided in perfect time to the perfectly rational. None of that exists. If you can’t settle for an approximation that shifts with the times then you are doomed to disappointment.

Approximate rationality will do.

No. It aims at what it believes are cultural constructs. Your implication that those constructs are part of the national consciousness remains unfounded.

Would you like to explain how the myth of heroic war isn't a cultural construct deeply embedded in the US psyche?

In the form of the Taliban, you are correct, but only if you assume that the US’ actions occurred in a vacuum.

US violence has strengthened Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the Middle East and Asia. Before the Iraq assault Intelligence spokespeople warned that this would happen.

And will your criticisms be shared?

Which criticisms?

I agree. Any others?

Accidental killing.

Experience changes the experiencer. Life changes the one who lives. Many changes are painful and ugly, but if they are the result of actions that were necessary then lamenting is proper but accusing is not.

How do US military actions, which are usually based on fraud and which, outside of perpetuating US hegemony, are unnecessary, fit into your musings?

So we’re agreed that your representative picture is at best only as representative as other more flattering pictures. That’s a positive step.

It's not my representative picture. It has come to represent the US Iraq adventure throughout the world, like it or lump it!

Undercurrents of that photo are too far afield of the topic for me to discuss with you.

With me?

Tsk tsk. You’ve already indicated that representativeness is a function of opinion.

You appear to be disappearing up your own abstractions. I reproduced the photo as representing the US in Iraq. You thought it interesting (?) that I chose it over a picture of the burning Twin Towers. Why would would I choose a picture of the burning Twin Towers to represent the US Iraq project?

A fact-based opinion. Those who received the punishment deserved the punishment.

We disagreed about them being scapegoats not on whether or not they deserved to be punished.

They’re not exclusive. I thought I made it clear I think higher heads should have rolled, just not in lieu of those that did—in addition to.

That higher heads haven't rolled means that those who were punished for the crime are serving as scapegoats. Their public trail and punishment serves to protect those whose instructions they were following. It serves to close the case in the public mind.

And how do you, with your brain, if they talked only about their own horrific actions, interpret that as a vilification of the state?

Because the state, using deception, puts them in a position which inevitably generates horrific actions.

If the principle applies in one direction, it applies in the other. The correct interpretation then relies on what facts are in evidence and, to a lesser extent, on the credibility of the speakers.

Do you think they are all lying?

Uh-huh.

Huh?

Always? Mostly? A large minority of the time? Rarely?


Not even the Hedges name carries much weight without evidence.

Always.

And if it challenges them with lies? What then?

Do you think they are all lying?

And is it always dirty work in a pejorative sense?

Yes, dirty is dirty and even dirtier when carried out by those who are claimed to be the worst of the worst by those staking out the moral high ground as a justification for their clean violence.

Opinion weighs in on most things, but not all opinions are equal.

I know what goes on in my own mind. You don't.

No. Not in the general sense nor in the particular.

Silence is silence, and while it may effectively cause others to fill the void, it is not in itself a comment save in the minds of the unjustly smug who have not examined their positions prior and who feel no need to do so during.

Silence is often, in itself, a comment in many situations.

I'll ignore your further pretense at being able to read minds.


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

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

How very psychopathic.

Once again, what is your opinion of LONGTABBER PE, who was lauded as an authority on military matters earlier in this thread and who I was berated for ignoring?

Please note that I myself do not have a "favorite picture" of the "War on Terror".