This forum topic is a very strange one.
Shooting unarmed doctors and women is never an act of protest.
If someone has problems with someone, then they might use their fists. He did not have problems with anyone, apparently; he shot random people up at a health check-up. His mosque leader says he was losing it--the apple was baked, so to speak in Russian proverb.
Error is of army organization. He had exited his college as psychiatrist in 2007, and joined Fort Hood. How did an untested man become a major, which is a relatively high rank?
Stephen: I think he is, only he's fighting for good instead of evil, and w/ the keyboard instead of the sword. Hey, that sounds like something a politically correct democratic socialist would ask. Are you a politically correct democratic socialist?
I think he is, only he's fighting for good instead of evil, and w/ the keyboard instead of the sword.
Hey, that sounds like something a politically correct democratic socialist would ask. Are you a politically correct democratic socialist?
Collateral damage: An innocent family is slaughtered. At least all of those killed...............
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Laughing Man:No one was the real laughing man. He was a stand alone complex. A series of actions brought about by separate individuals who were not conscious of each other and yet were working towards the culmination of the same event.
Laughing Man:That may be a possbility but I don't recall affirmative action being a driving force in the military. Until I am proven wrong, I will assume that this man was the average officer and it takes a decade or more for them to achieve the rank he was at.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Snowflake: No it was that yaoi kid.
Haha do you know what yaoi means? Blue [ the kid in the library ] was not the Laughing Man. He just stumbled onto the file and was such an idealist he wanted to do something about it. Watch that last episode again. He explains it.
'After the events of the Section 9 raid by the Umibozu and the last meeting with Motoko and Aramaki, it was discovered that Aoi, though responsible for the initial incident that made the Laughing Man a phenomenon, was not in fact its true originator. He chose to confront Serano only because of the file he found, and despite years of extensive investigation on his own part, he never discovered the origin of that file. It could be said that whoever abandoned the file was in fact the "real" Laughing Man - and it is possible that he obtained it from someone else. Aoi tells Aramaki to make of that what he will.'
Snowflake:Oh i was kidding about that. Though I wouldn't be surprised if a few token half-educated minorities advanced more quickly.
Generally the military doesn't fail upward. There are exceptions and there is a 'good old boys' mentality but you usually don't get shitbags at the higher levels.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man:Haha do you know what yaoi means? Blue [ the kid in the library ] was not the Laughing Man. He just stumbled onto the file and was such an idealist he wanted to do something about it. Watch that last episode again. He explains it.
I love the first two GITS movies and manga, but the cartoon series is a little disappointing....
Yea Aoi is Blue in Japanese. I loved the cartoon series. So technical and thought provoking. A nice in depth plot that isn't cliche or mundane.
Laughing Man:Yea Aoi is Blue in Japanese. I loved the cartoon series. So technical and thought provoking. A nice in depth plot that isn't cliche or mundane.
LM: Byzantine:Actually, most of them don't. If anything, they want to be let off the leash to clear the place for American colonization. I don't think that the vast majority of US soldiers are bloodletters.
Byzantine:Actually, most of them don't. If anything, they want to be let off the leash to clear the place for American colonization.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
He was in the Army for 12 years. The Army paid for his college. He is an American citizen, born in Arlington, VA. He is of Palestinian descent. He didn't speak Arabic. But he did preach the Koran to people (then again a lot of people preach about their religions so no biggie there).
He didn't get his rank out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
As I said before though, he may have been a 'whacked out Muslim" or he flipped from panic of going, or any number of other reasons. It is senseless to speculate why he did it until they have a chance to talk to him (and we'll see if they ever tell us anything).
As far as the war on Muslims... the US is not at war with Muslims, I thought it was supposed to be a war against terrorist? We have approx. 20,000 Muslims in the US military. I keep having to explain this to the guys at work too.
I'm certainly not supporting his actions. If he wanted to kill himself that would be fine, but to just start shooting is cowardly and senseless.
Maybe the Army just attracts whackos. Or breeds them? You know Timothy McVay was an Army vet (Bronze Star in the Gulf War) but when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma did everyone freak out about the Christian terrorist?
A cult is a religion with no political power. - Tom Wolfe
Life without music would be an error. - Nietzsche
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. - Edward R. Morrow
Saan: Stephen: I think he is, only he's fighting for good instead of evil, and w/ the keyboard instead of the sword. Hey, that sounds like something a politically correct democratic socialist would ask. Are you a politically correct democratic socialist? Collateral damage: An innocent family is slaughtered. At least all of those killed...............
My bad. I thought all of those killed were fellow soldiers.
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.
From 2nd Lt to Major it pretty much is a time-based promotion, at Colonel and above is where they begin to scrutinize everything. The fact that he was a psychiatrist makes that a smoother upward tract. Unless he was eating babies every Friday night, they pretty much don't care. There are a ton of very respectable muslims in the military. At this point, who really knows why this guy went wacko. Violence can't be condoned, and for that reason this guy is a scum bag.
The state requires war. It's its life blood, its reason for existence. This conflict has been going on prior to 1948. The middle east was carved up by the western powers without the consent of the people who lived there. In essence, the nations of the middle east are more like colonial powers. Ruthless men were backed as kings, presidents or dictators (and often set against one another to keep a balance of power). The common man was treated like cattle by all parties. Out of a sense of hopelessness, muslims joined together into groups - we call them terrorists, they call themselves resistance fighters or freedom fighters. The tactics chosen are nonconventional - they had to because they don't have the funding and manpower to build a military to take on the west or the states that occupy their territory in a conventional fight. The use of terror in warfare is not at all new. America has used it throughout its history - Black Jack Pershing was perhaps the most well known commander to use terrorist tactics. He learned a lot from the Apache, and later the Sioux, but would surpass their tactics ten fold. He participated in the Wounded Knee Massacre. He'd later have his men coat their bullets in pork fat so that muslims in the Philipines would fear them (using religious belief as a weapon). But seriously, nonconvential means of warfare have been in existence probably since warfare was introduced. Technically speaking, acts against non military targets are less effective strategically unless your aim is to influence political interference. This is the strategy that Osama bin Laden has spoken about - he had witnessed it in Bill Clinton's handling of Somalia. The U.S. used this very strategy to end World War II - the use of a nuclear bomb can only be considered as an act of terror. So while terrorism is despicable, as is all warfare for that matter, it's not exactly limited to people who look like arabs.
First, the U.S. has not declared war. The President set forth objectives he called "the War on Terrorism" to be met, and this was supported in Congress. Second, the Iraq Invasion was not part of the "War on Terrorism" and had to do with enforcing pre-existing UN mandates - and a lot of really bad intelligence. A lot of people confuse Iraq with the "War on Terrorism", but apart from preventing the potential of Saddam Hussein giving weapons and support to terrorists, they are not the same. Iraq was a preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation based upon faulty or even fraudulent intelligence. The other misguided reasons - toppling a brutal dictator, bringing democracy to the region, etc. - were not justified.
Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombings did in fact cause a hysteria against militia groups and others who spoke out against the government. It's not at all uncommon for the media, public and the government to go to knee-jerk reactions after an incident.
In all respects, terrorism, war and murder are unjustified and should not be condoned by anyone. The exception is self-defense. A person has the right to defend himself.
Tukaram: As far as the war on Muslims... the US is not at war with Muslims, I thought it was supposed to be a war against terrorist? We have approx. 20,000 Muslims in the US military. I keep having to explain this to the guys at work too.
Yeah, and the Nazis had 20,000 Frenchmen in a Waffen SS Division (Charlemagne), so what? America has a thing for killing Arabs ever since 1983 (USS New Jersey) or thereabouts, there is no denying it.
Snowflake:Have you seen paranoia agent?
Yea, bizarre plot. Very good though.
Juan: LM, your thoughts and reality don't match. Soldiers are moral agents and murderers - they choose murdering innocents. Whine about it all you want but facts won't change.
I think there is a distinction between soldiers who are killing civilians and soldiers who are killing insurgents. I am sympathetic to a degree concerning the insurgency of Iraq and Afghanistan because of my position on anti-imperialism which the US is obviously conducting. Killing people is a horrible thing, period. However, there is a distinction between killing in the midst of battle and outright murder of an innocent. I deplore the situation that the US has put these people in. The last several days I have been wrestling with a quote I have heard about Herbert Spencer during the Boer war. In it he says that he does not care if men are shot who go to war without a desire to know which is the just cause. I have wondered if I feel the same way. Certainly someone who does not seek justice is not someone we should emulate, but do they deserve to die? Or should we dehumanize them? Should we feel indifferent towards their demise? From what I understand concerning methodological individualism, individuals act, not groups. So we must look at each individual to see what their actions are. I am uncomfortable with calling all of the military murderers. I am certain that there are some in the military who have never actually been to war. Are we to label them as murderers? We know there are individuals who have raped and killed innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan but their actions are a reflection of themselves.
Laughing Man:Yea, bizarre plot. Very good though.
Snowflake:GITS and paranoia agent are like the only two animez i take seriously. I haven't really seen too many others other than fullmetal alchemist and pokemon. Could you recommend some good ones for me? Or I guess any movies/media in general along these lines.
What tickles your fancy? Before I got into political history, I was doing modern Japanese history so I know some bits of the pop culture. I have a favorite though and that is Initial D which is about mountain drift racing with agile cars. Very common in Japan. Like Fast and Furious except not completely teen-pop with no knowledge of the actual technicals of racing. God I hate that movie saga series. It completely bastardizes legitimate street racing with giant spoilers, crappy paint jobs and horrible body kits. Racing is about suspension, brakes and engines. Not cars with dvd players in the steering wheels. Its a good series though.
Laughing Man: I think there is a distinction between soldiers who are killing civilians and soldiers who are killing insurgents.
I think there is a distinction between soldiers who are killing civilians and soldiers who are killing insurgents.
There is a difference but both groups are criminals. Killing someone because he is defending his country is murder.There is a distinction in that where killing civilians is concerned there are no mitigating circumstances. But whereas killing of resistance fighters is concerned the soldiers are partly pressured and bamboozled into a position to murder or be killed. That they are in such a position is mainly their own responsibility, but not wholly so. Eg, it is feasible somebody had signed up before the invasion and then had trouble getting out or had been fooled into thinking the invasion was justified etc plus there are many other additional minor factors.Soldiers are to an extent victims themselves as well. But much less so than the people they themselves victimise.
Laughing Man:The last several days I have been wrestling with a quote I have heard about Herbert Spencer during the Boer war. In it he says that he does not care if men are shot who go to war without a desire to know which is the just cause. I have wondered if I feel the same way. Certainly someone who does not seek justice is not someone we should emulate, but do they deserve to die? Or should we dehumanize them? Should we feel indifferent towards their demise?
Marko: There is a difference but both groups are criminals. Killing someone because he is defending his country is murder.
There is a difference but both groups are criminals. Killing someone because he is defending his country is murder.
Well techincally speaking there is no such thing as 'Iraq.' Nation states are just social constructs of individual actors. Imaginary lines on a map. There is property though and I think there are individuals who defend there home but there are also others who go beyond their own property or the property of their kin. What I mean to say is that there is no white and black on this issue. It is very wishy-washy and I am more akin not to construe all soldiers are heartless killers.
Marko:But whereas killing of resistance fighters is concerned the soldiers are partly pressured and bamboozled into a position to murder or be killed.
Exactly, simply because they are in the military does not a fortiori mean that the Iraq conflict is a place of their choosing.
Marko:Sympathy for soldiers of the empire is fine, but it must not come at the expense of sympathy for their victims
Well its a tangled web we weave. I don't think we are having a difference in kind but in degree. Perhaps you see me as too soft on the subject and perhaps I see you as too hard. That is just simply our personalities. I don't think there is libertarian argument that can be made on the correctness or incorrectness of what we are saying.
Marko:If a death of one soldier from an invading army in a firefight with the resistance means one resistance fighter lives on, then that is the preferable outcome
Well I would say first and foremost, let's work towards death between neither resistance fighter or soldier.
Marko:Red Dawn made that clear I think.
You had to bring that up
Individuals in the military are statists who are willing to hold the gun and even die for their cause. I have more respect for them than statists who send others to fight and pretend there is no gun.
Individual reasons to join the military vary. A lot of people have used the military to get an education and a start on life - that's how it has been marketed. A lot are patriotic statists. Some are power hungry. Some are brutal psychopaths - whether they started that way or became that way through training.
Dehumanizing individuals in the military doesn't really support the libertarian cause. If the state is to fold, as some have predicted it will eventually, then there must be individuals in the military who are understanding and supportive of libertarian positions. This is to avoid military dictatorship or the forming of a new state at the hands of military aggression. Now to some the thought of finding allies within an organization that is set up to violate the NAP is a contradiction. I believe, however, that unless these individuals support the libertarian position there is no hope for a stateless society.
In an unjust war the correct choice of the soldier is conscientious objection. For the killer in the Ft Hood incident, conscientious objection was not applicable since he was a noncombatant. He chose to commit the murders of unarmed people. Why did he do this? We don't really know. He could have had a mental breakdown, or knowing the conditions and factors of mental illness, he could have staged it to appear as a mental breakdown. The true motivations may never be known.
Laughing Man:Well techincally speaking there is no such thing as 'Iraq.'
Well technically there is no such thing as the US army, bla blabla
Laughing Man:Exactly, simply because they are in the military does not a fortiori mean that the Iraq conflict is a place of their choosing.
If they chose somewhere else, they wouldn't be there. This is basic praxeology,
I wish you would stop apologizing for the troops. I can tolerate that some people are ok with that, but to try and make it sound like the troops are victims for choosing to be in the military, and accepting a deployment is a slap in the face to all of the people who refuse to deploy and choose to pursue a path that doesn't lead to violence.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap