Onward Christian Soldiers... [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

instant0

07-04-2006, 06:42 AM

If you think that "War is hell" justifies busting into an innocent person's house, raping the women and killing everyone including a 5 year old then you're a bit sick in my book. This is the same kind of justification that drives people to fly Boeings into office buildings.

Good thing we had a IF there. (o:#

Nothing justifies the killing of innocents or rape, although I can see how it could be applied to serve a purpose in a war situation against a "racial enemy", although this is not the kind of war the US and its few allies are entrenched in "over there".

I do think that the media are to eager to report the bad news from Iraq and Afghanistan. We only hear about the bad stuff although there is probably a lot of good stuff happening as well, which is not covered since you do not have dead babies or suicide bombers -- and a dead baby under a US Army boot is worth more advertising dollars than a water treatment plant being rebuilt by Army engineers..

I am not saying that they should do nothing about it, but right now they are only aiding the anti-western sentiments and the "hype" around incidents such as these give them a much bigger impact than what a criminal act should have. If the army attempted to hide the episode and not punish the responsibles, then they could 'blow the whistle', but not before and during the investigation.

Oh whell, it *is* a media war after all.

wildpokerman

07-04-2006, 06:44 AM

As a matter of interest, what is the whistle blowing policy in the US Army?

Based on the stories coming out the "policy" is keep your mouth shut we don't need more bad word going out about this war.

They may have some official policy that is obviously being ignored. Hey if the president can break the law why not pass that authority along to the whole executive branch?

Hanzii

07-04-2006, 07:55 AM

Good thing we had a IF there. (o:#

Nothing justifies the killing of innocents or rape, although I can see how it could be applied to serve a purpose in a war situation against a "racial enemy", although this is not the kind of war the US and its few allies are entrenched in "over there".

I do think that the media are to eager to report the bad news from Iraq and Afghanistan. We only hear about the bad stuff although there is probably a lot of good stuff happening as well, which is not covered since you do not have dead babies or suicide bombers -- and a dead baby under a US Army boot is worth more advertising dollars than a water treatment plant being rebuilt by Army engineers..

I am not saying that they should do nothing about it, but right now they are only aiding the anti-western sentiments and the "hype" around incidents such as these give them a much bigger impact than what a criminal act should have. If the army attempted to hide the episode and not punish the responsibles, then they could 'blow the whistle', but not before and during the investigation.

Oh whell, it *is* a media war after all.

What the hell are you talking about?
When is the annihilation of an entire family and the rape of a wife/daughter (depending on sources) not big news? "Oh it happens in Iraq - put it on page 23".

Media is supposed to tell us about important stuff, not all the ordinary everyday happenings. Building a sanitation plant and protecting the population while building up democracy is what we're supposed to be doing over there - so another sanitation plant is not frontpage news. But when our troops do stuff like this, it most certainly is.
And the only thing that can remotely help getting the Iraqi people to trust us, is if stuff like this is dealt with in the open quickly, fairly and ultimately harshly if their guilt is proven.

Blame the US army/government, blame your own for being part of that war, blame the fucked up soldiers behind this particular incident - but don't fucking blame the media for shining a light on it.

Lizard_King

07-04-2006, 08:01 AM

As a matter of interest, what is the whistle blowing policy in the US Army?
I can't speak for the Army, but I imagine it is similar to ours. Namely, the only thing that is going to prevent you from telling is your fear of peer pressure. I have never seen a complaint, even a totally bitchass one from a known malingerer about alleged hazing incidents or something, get treated with anything other than <48 hour attention by the highest officer requested/around attention. Other than social ostracism for the aforementioned cases, I can't even imagine someone trying to go all Private Santiago on them. They'd get demolished. If you're in charge of someone, and you try to deny them a "request mast" to higher, not only is your career over, but you'll likely be brought up on charges.
Now, I've never seen an incident like any of these anywhere near my chain of command, but as NCO's we have pretty strict guidelines on what we are permitted to handle at our level. It's one thing to help a guy cover up a speeding ticket, something else entirely to be an accomplice to a rape/homicide. Forget about it at the junior enlisted level, we destroy them on principle if they keep us out of the loop (I use the term figuratively).

The word is that the official investigation into Haditha has been concluded, and that a lot more work is going into investigating the coverup than the incident itself. I can't wait to see that report, although the Marines in question have a hell of an unusually...reputable defense composed largely of former servicemen. Should be interesting.

Lizard_King

07-04-2006, 08:06 AM

I am not saying that they should do nothing about it, but right now they are only aiding the anti-western sentiments and the "hype" around incidents such as these give them a much bigger impact than what a criminal act should have. If the army attempted to hide the episode and not punish the responsibles, then they could 'blow the whistle', but not before and during the investigation.

I don't know about not reporting it until it is resolved...that really sets the wrong incentives altogether from a civilian control perspective. But I do think the media has a tendency to misunderstand details and contexts that go into events in Iraq, and report those ambiguities as certain events, documented and delivered. Haditha will be a very significant turning point, as it will show whether more independent reporting by US media in this war zone results in quality journalism or in the worst kind of sensationalistic bullshit.

arctangent

07-04-2006, 08:13 AM

Ironically, the guy charged with the murder was apparently featured in an Army propaganda story last year with the unfortunate title of Coalition forces keep streets of Iraq safe (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8316).

Pfc. Steven Green, B Co. 1-502 prepares to blast a lock off the gate of an abandoned home during a search of homes in Mullah Fayed on Dec. 2.

There isn't a whole lot of good news to report coming out of Iraq, and a lot of bad news that isn't reported in the mainstream media. If and when there is good news you can be sure the Bush admin will pressure the media to report it. Or make it up and pass it on to the media as fact.

Jason McCullough

07-04-2006, 12:15 PM

Except now they have reporters giving you the grizzly details.....

This is a trope that just won't die. You ever read any WWII war reporting, or looked at the combat photography? They make today look like kiddie hour.

We only hear about the bad stuff although there is probably a lot of good stuff happening as well, which is not covered since you do not have dead babies or suicide bombers -- and a dead baby under a US Army boot is worth more advertising dollars than a water treatment plant being rebuilt by Army engineers..

Uh, rephrasing for succintness: Advertisers make more money when running ads in the context of war crime stories than they do on feel-good happy stories. Are you sure about that?

SlyFrog

07-04-2006, 12:22 PM

This is a trope that just won't die. You ever read any WWII war reporting, or looked at the combat photography? They make today look like kiddie hour.

I have. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about? I'm talking about mainstream reporting and publicly released combat photography, not something that became available 50 years after the fact or only showed up in specialist materials.

Jason McCullough

07-04-2006, 12:31 PM

Not at hand, no. I remember, however:

1) Photos of american corpses. Lots of them. In general, these do not appear in US print media anymore.
2) Explicit discussion of how crap organization results in deaths by friendly fire.
3) Stories about US soldiers either actually or almost shooting prisoners or people trying to surrender.

Ernie Pyle (http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/news/erniepyle/), for example; there's a half-dozen stories on there that would get him called a traitor today. There's significant stylistic differences between now and World War II, but the war journalism of the era had nastier content.

Anyway, my theory as to why everyone thinks the media is traitorous or whatever now is that it's a side-effect of a few things. First, we haven't had a war everyone was really in favor of since World War II; in a ever-increasing manner, since then our combat has become a more factional affair, with the bottom finally falling out in "minority of the Republicans" Iraq war. The FDR consensus, and the cold war one that followed it, is completely dead.

As a result, in the way that a friend can tell you something not necessarily positive about you, and you'll listen and thank him, and an enemy will get punched in the nose for it, "not good" war stories now get read in an adversarial manner. There's probably some american cult of positive thinking/mindcure angle here too, but I dunno.

Lizard_King

07-04-2006, 06:20 PM

This is a trope that just won't die. You ever read any WWII war reporting, or looked at the combat photography? They make today look like kiddie hour.
No, they don't. There are still a lot of things kept under wraps as far as the popular version of WWII, Korea, not in a conspiracy sense but in a skipping over details that happen to be important. Vietnam was really a high point for this sort of reporting, and I think both the government and the media learned all of the wrong lessons from it.
But the yellow journalism in earlier wars makes Fox look, well, fair and balanced. Almost.

Uh, rephrasing for succintness: Advertisers make more money when running ads in the context of war crime stories than they do on feel-good happy stories. Are you sure about that?
Well, yeah. You know, because bad news is, generally speaking, more widely circulated. You want to tactfully place things, but I'd say advertising's on board for this, in the big picture sense. It's really only shit like gay teletubbies that gets it pulled.

Uncle Larry

07-04-2006, 06:36 PM

Am I missing the religious angle here?

SlyFrog

07-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Am I missing the religious angle here?

God wants us to kill Iraqis and stop reading newspapers. Your wife should be washing the dishes furiously while you read the Bible in the study.

chumpface

07-04-2006, 07:52 PM

No, they don't. There are still a lot of things kept under wraps as far as the popular version of WWII, Korea, not in a conspiracy sense but in a skipping over details that happen to be important. Vietnam was really a high point for this sort of reporting, and I think both the government and the media learned all of the wrong lessons from it.
But the yellow journalism in earlier wars makes Fox look, well, fair and balanced. Almost.
.

I remember looking at horrible photos from vietnam in my school library in the mid 70s in a time life book! And this is when the war was still on...

Brady's photos of the dead at Antietam (well, his staff's photos, Brady was nearly blind) were on display on the public right in the middle of the Civil War. They're unflinching. (http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam/jps/deadofa.html)

It's shameful that we're willing to send young people to war but are incapable of looking at the photos of what happens there.

Brendan

07-04-2006, 10:54 PM

Am I missing the religious angle here?

God told George W. Bush to invade America.

instant0

07-05-2006, 02:23 AM

I don't know about not reporting it until it is resolved...that really sets the wrong incentives altogether from a civilian control perspective. But I do think the media has a tendency to misunderstand details and contexts that go into events in Iraq, and report those ambiguities as certain events, documented and delivered. Haditha will be a very significant turning point, as it will show whether more independent reporting by US media in this war zone results in quality journalism or in the worst kind of sensationalistic bullshit.

Well,
What I meant was that, the media will often report something as fact/the truth although the details are not verified yet, and if there is an error or omission that they latter have to add to the report, it will not have as huge impact as the "OMG!!"%=!)" report that was first aired, even if it was erroneous.

It is the difference between reporting that "The army is investigating whether US forces massacred civilians in an episode xx/yy in zz" and "US FORCES MASSACRED 50 INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN IRAQ".

ScurvyPig

07-05-2006, 04:56 AM

God wants us to kill Iraqis and stop reading newspapers. Your wife should be washing the dishes furiously while you read the Bible in the study.

If there has ever been proof that liberals can be as stupid as conseratives I'll nominate this. Newspapers?!?! Iraqis have a few and you can read them! And they don't rely on the most simple-minded arguments to make a point.

SlyFrog

07-05-2006, 06:46 AM

If there has ever been proof that liberals can be as stupid as conseratives I'll nominate this. Newspapers?!?! Iraqis have a few and you can read them! And they don't rely on the most simple-minded arguments to make a point.

Could you restate that in something decipherable?

Theodore Rex DX

07-05-2006, 08:49 AM

ScurvyPig: SlyFrog is only pretending to be a liberal parodying a republican wingnut. Your interpretation is crazily nonsensical enough to be actually funny, though - I'm goin' with that.

shift6

07-05-2006, 10:56 AM

Am I missing the religious angle here?
You're missing out on the QT3 jibe, Uncle Larry. Every thread is a LOL JEBUS thread, content notwithstanding.

bigdruid

07-06-2006, 04:11 PM

Nothing justifies the killing of innocents or rape, although I can see how it could be applied to serve a purpose in a war situation against a "racial enemy", although this is not the kind of war the US and its few allies are entrenched in "over there".

Uh, then why bring it up? Because it makes you sound sympathetic to the acts in question when you imply that "the killing of innocents or rape" might be a valid military strategy.

I do think that the media are to eager to report the bad news from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think that's BS. Compare the media coverage of this with the media coverage of Al-Zarqawi's death (an enemy whose importance was blown way out of proportion by the Americans). Al-Zarqawi was all over the headlines for days, while this has mostly faded away.

I am not saying that they should do nothing about it, but right now they are only aiding the anti-western sentiments and the "hype" around incidents such as these give them a much bigger impact than what a criminal act should have.
Yeah, that's the thing about freedom of the press - the media doesn't always march in the direction our "leaders" would like it to. That's what makes America great, isn't it? I'm always surprised at how many "patriots" want a well-behaved press - kind of ironic.

Honestly, when you put thousands of troops on the ground, under fire, in a hostile country, things like this are inevitable. I think it's important to show the american people the consequences of our decision to invade Iraq, both good and bad, so they can make an informed decision the next time a President decides to wrap himself up in the flag and start beating his war drum.

Theodore Rex DX

07-06-2006, 08:52 PM

Somebody should have jumped on that sooner, because it really was insufferably sick and retarded. Junior member shames all of P&R.

extarbags

07-07-2006, 12:33 AM

Nothing justifies the killing of innocents or rape, although I can see how it could be applied to serve a purpose in a war situation against a "racial enemy", although this is not the kind of war the US and its few allies are entrenched in "over there".

I do think that the media are to eager to report the bad news from Iraq and Afghanistan. We only hear about the bad stuff although there is probably a lot of good stuff happening as well, which is not covered since you do not have dead babies or suicide bombers -- and a dead baby under a US Army boot is worth more advertising dollars than a water treatment plant being rebuilt by Army engineers..

I am not saying that they should do nothing about it, but right now they are only aiding the anti-western sentiments and the "hype" around incidents such as these give them a much bigger impact than what a criminal act should have. If the army attempted to hide the episode and not punish the responsibles, then they could 'blow the whistle', but not before and during the investigation.

You're right. That article really managed to spin "Prosecutors charged a US Iraq war veteran on Monday with raping and murdering an Iraqi woman, after gunning down three members of her family, including a five-year-old girl" as though it's some kind of bad thing.

instant0

07-07-2006, 01:02 AM

Uh, then why bring it up? Because it makes you sound sympathetic to the acts in question when you imply that "the killing of innocents or rape" might be a valid military strategy.

Seeing how it could be used as a strategy to defeat your enemies does not make me sympathetic to it being done.

I think that's BS. Compare the media coverage of this with the media coverage of Al-Zarqawi's death (an enemy whose importance was blown way out of proportion by the Americans). Al-Zarqawi was all over the headlines for days, while this has mostly faded away.

And who said anything about them blowing AZ's death way out of propotion was any better - but at least it was positive news that most likely did not fuel the fires of hate towards the troops in iraq.

Yeah, that's the thing about freedom of the press - the media doesn't always march in the direction our "leaders" would like it to. That's what makes America great, isn't it? I'm always surprised at how many "patriots" want a well-behaved press - kind of ironic.

Of course the press should be free to report whatever they want, but many times it seems to me that the media are just eager to jump on anything regardless of it being confirmed or not, hyping up speculations and even better, "confirmed" reports because some other station/news-source reported it earlier. But it is understandable, "BLOOD, DEATH, MURDER, RAPE" sells papers/ad-spots.

I would not consider myself a "Patriot", nor did I support going into Iraq for the reasons they said. (Nor am I an USAian)

Honestly, when you put thousands of troops on the ground, under fire, in a hostile country, things like this are inevitable. I think it's important to show the american people the consequences of our decision to invade Iraq, both good and bad, so they can make an informed decision the next time a President decides to wrap himself up in the flag and start beating his war drum.

Yes it might, although I think the media should report incidents after they happen they should not say "they did it" before someone has actually been caught and tried for it, or the investigators or their own confirmed reveal the findings and present them as their findings and not as 100% absolute facts (unless they can guarantee they are). They are to eager to jump on stories like this and I think it does more harm than good.

Many newspapers were oh-so-eager to report on the muhammed Cartoons althought not many reported that there were a few 'extra ones' the Danish Imams brought with them to the middle east to fuel their cause, and they condemned the original papers who printed the articles for not thinking since they could harm so many people working in the middle east from western countries who then came under attack by directed mobs, but noone is thinking how much harm it does to soldiers in the field when stories like this are reported. It wont change anything if stories like these are revealed much latter, as long as the Army reacts to it immediately and process those who commited the acts.

instant0

07-07-2006, 01:07 AM

Somebody should have jumped on that sooner, because it really was insufferably sick and retarded. Junior member shames all of P&R. You thinking about my comment(s)? What was insufferably sick and retarded about it. And fuck you btw.

If not my comment, what comment and what. And ignore the above 'fuck you' statement :-).

Hanzii

07-07-2006, 02:00 AM

Yes it might, although I think the media should report incidents after they happen they should not say "they did it" before someone has actually been caught and tried for it, or the investigators or their own confirmed reveal the findings and present them as their findings and not as 100% absolute facts (unless they can guarantee they are). They are to eager to jump on stories like this and I think it does more harm than good.

Read again:
"Prosecutors charged a US Iraq war veteran on Monday with raping and murdering an Iraqi woman, after gunning down three members of her family, including a five-year-old girl"
Which newspapers (link please, and I do read Norwegian so feel free to use them) said outright, that he did it and not just that charges were pressed?
Should they only report stories like that when guilt is proven in a court of law (of course, that would have spared us the O.J. trial).
The fact is, that even if he's innocent, the fact that other soldiers accused him of doing this is a story in itself. And how the US army handles the accusation is a very important story in itself no matter the result.

Many newspapers were oh-so-eager to report on the muhammed Cartoons althought not many reported that there were a few 'extra ones' the Danish Imams brought with them to the middle east to fuel their cause, and they condemned the original papers who printed the articles for not thinking since they could harm so many people working in the middle east from western countries who then came under attack by directed mobs, but noone is thinking how much harm it does to soldiers in the field when stories like this are reported. It wont change anything if stories like these are revealed much latter, as long as the Army reacts to it immediately and process those who commited the acts.

So the harm wasn't done buy the original newspaper but by the other newspapers failing to report, that the travelling Danish imans were doing their bit to fuel the flames?
Twisted logic you got there.

Anywway, again I don't know which papers failed to report that part and if you kept following the case, it has been shown, that the travelling imans had little to no impact on the reaction in the middle east. Egyptian and other diplomats had allready set things in motion, when they arrived in the Middle East and the only thing even remotely likely to stop the meltdown would have been a huge asskissing apology from the Danish PM that he was not going to give no matter what.

instant0

07-07-2006, 03:10 AM

The linked article correctly states they are being charged, but not every article about the incident portrays it neutrally like this.

The headlines:
"Raped Mother and Killed Family"
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/06/30/470343.html

"US Troops Raped Mother and Killed Family"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2251217,00.html

"American Soldiers PLanned Rape Attack a week in advance"
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=121689

A few more found on news.google.com.

"US Soldiers Rape, Murder Family"
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=US+soldiers+rape%2C+murder+ Iraqi+family&id=89677

"SOldiers Spent a week plotting rape of Iraqi Woman"
http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=3421

"Another US Arocitiy ....."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m24312&l=i&size=1&hd=0

"US Soldiers Plotted Rape on Iraqi Woman"
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1733214,00050004.htm

Anyway, you can find news that say they are 'accused' of it - correctly - and you can find news sources that say they did it, although in some cases the article text will mention that they are just accused of it.

Headline reading news is something many do, and from the headlines alone you are told something else than what the real story is, because of marketing.

--
On the Cartoons:
No, but many news-sources did not mention the fact that images were added to it -- because it was a 'better' story if only Jyllands Posten (?) were to blame.

It was also 'funny' that it exploded in .. February? Despite the articles being published Late 2005 from what I remember. But I guess it takes a while to plan a "spontaneous" outburst against the west in multiple countries.

Hanzii

07-07-2006, 04:22 AM

The linked article correctly states they are being charged, but not every article about the incident portrays it neutrally like this.

The headlines:
"Raped Mother and Killed Family"
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/06/30/470343.html

Says 'accused of' in the manchet just below the headline.

"US Troops Raped Mother and Killed Family"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2251217,00.html

You left the quotes out of the headline and the very first paragraph says "being investigated".

"American Soldiers PLanned Rape Attack a week in advance"
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=121689

Alleged in the very first paragraph.

I could continue with your Google finds, but since your hand picks were so easy, I'm not going to bother. I'm at work.

But yes, if you get all your news from just reading headlines, you'll become stupid and misinformed. Try reading the words below the headlines - even in tabloids like VG, they may add some nuances to the story.

--
On the Cartoons:
No, but many news-sources did not mention the fact that images were added to it -- because it was a 'better' story if only Jyllands Posten (?) were to blame.

It was also 'funny' that it exploded in .. February? Despite the articles being published Late 2005 from what I remember. But I guess it takes a while to plan a "spontaneous" outburst against the west in multiple countries.
[/quote]

Yes, it wasn't spontaneous - it was orchestrated by moslem diplomats not some Danish imans.

instant0

07-07-2006, 04:40 AM

Of course you get more of the story (truth or otherwise) by reading it all, and even better if you use multiple sources with various biasses. Dagbladet tends to be leftist whereas VG is right-wing, Aftenposten had "accused of"/"alleged" in the headline.

However that does not change the fact that a lot of media outlets HEADLINES from the story was the finds I posted earlier, whereas many other media outlets included the text "ACCUSED OF", "INVESTIGATE" and so on in the headline, which imo is more correct way of presenting the NEWS.

I know what the pargraphs and sub-headlines states since I read the articles, but that still does not mean they were correct in using such a headline.

Jason McCullough

07-07-2006, 09:53 AM

ScurvyPig

07-12-2006, 05:56 PM

Is the accusatory writing style of newspapers on this any different from domestic crime coverage? It's mostly flat statements of fact in the headline ("Cops apprehend killer of 3"), with the cavaets about innocence below the fold.

The difference is Paris doesn't care if a cop raped a girl in Fargo. Well, Paris does, but you get the picture. The world does cares if some American soldier rapes a girl in Baghdad. The weight and import of the news should, perhaps, be handled differently in the media if you want to avoid a a problem that benefits nobody in Iraq, Iraqi or American. Unless, of course, it benefits a type of person in another country.

Theodore Rex DX

07-12-2006, 09:59 PM

They should just report the facts, and the most important facts should get the most coverage. The media generally gives most weight to bad stuff anyways, which is how it should be - those are the most important things. Look at the way Zidane's headbutt dominated the WC final - scandal dominates all, it's not a political issue. Asking for 'balance' isn't asking for balance at all, especially not in a warzone, where just about every piece of news is bad news. Suggesting that this has to do with bias or political agendas - without any evidence other than that, yes, Iraq turning to shit creates a lot of bad news, is just outright retarded and, also yes, pure Fox News bullshit. Iraqi civs getting raped and murdered is important. Easily as important as Zarqawi buying it, but that got a lot of attention. Sensitivity should always be an issue, domestically or otherwise. Accused should never be treaed as guilty, especially not in headers. That shouldn't mean not reporting sensitive facts, though or trying to spare peoples' feelings.