Collateral Murder

[Dissent]

i cant believe the comments i see in other forums defending this video. "its war, shit happens" or "ROE blah blah blah"....

[apocryphal]

AS shitty as the video is, as crappy as the events that are displayed are the thing that i find the most showing about this video is not so much the SOP of the soldiers and security forces (Mercs) in the war zones, but the responses of the people that are essentially arm chair quarterbacking the entire event.

It's like theres a type of cognitive dissonance in relation to violence that is applied.. It depends on the type of violence, the person the violence is applied to, and the rationalization for the violence. For the most part everyone here is saddened/sickened by the words in conjunction with the actions of the pilots, and their officers. Yet, when Ry or someone else shares a story where they tell about 'beating the shit' out of someone for whatever reason, it's cool, or OK. So i have to wonder at what point does this rationalized or OK violence beget or become a level of violence that is socially acceptable yet on par with the levels of violence that is displayed in the leaked vids courtesy of Wikileaks?

[Bender]

AS shitty as the video is, as crappy as the events that are displayed are the thing that i find the most showing about this video is not so much the SOP of the soldiers and security forces (Mercs) in the war zones, but the responses of the people that are essentially arm chair quarterbacking the entire event.

It's like theres a type of cognitive dissonance in relation to violence that is applied.. It depends on the type of violence, the person the violence is applied to, and the rationalization for the violence. For the most part everyone here is saddened/sickened by the words in conjunction with the actions of the pilots, and their officers. Yet, when Ry or someone else shares a story where they tell about 'beating the shit' out of someone for whatever reason, it's cool, or OK. So i have to wonder at what point does this rationalized or OK violence beget or become a level of violence that is socially acceptable yet on par with the levels of violence that is displayed in the leaked vids courtesy of Wikileaks?

Did you just equate beating the shit out of someone with sitting in your helicopter and shoot people to shreds?

[apocryphal]

<snip> So i have to wonder at what point does this rationalized or OK violence beget or become a level of violence that is socially acceptable yet on par with the levels of violence that is displayed in the leaked vids courtesy of Wikileaks?

Did you just equate beating the shit out of someone with sitting in your helicopter and shoot people to shreds?

I trimmed my quote to highlight the relevant portion.
Now i wonder is it necessary to answer your question?

Do you deny that rationalized and indiscriminate violence with no attempt to correct, or rehabilitate deviant, or socially maladjusted behaviour is not a step towards the same behaviour illustrated in the video? Hence the original question.

The Way in which society in general is desensitized to physical violence, IE "Beating the shit out of someone" is at the point where the majority of people do not even see it for what it is any more. Physical abuse of another human being. This combined with the abuses that a person goes through in Basic Training increases the De-sensitivity and disconnect between what's natural and whats not.

Physical abuse is the physical maltreatment of a person.
Examples:
• Beating or whipping
• Slapping or punching
• Burning someone with a cigarette, iron or other implement
• Sexual abuse
Abusing someone physically is a way of exerting power over them to make the abuser feel better about them self. (as exampled in the video via verbal cues)
Physical abuse is often accompanied by mental abuse. Serious consequences of abuse can include self-harm, aggressiveness, seclusion, mental illness and even suicide. (as evidenced by the reports on the actions of returning veterans and the escalating numbers of suicides and sexual assaults)


While there is no direct corollary or immediate causation that can be proved via a simple A to B line of logic. The way in which things are glorified via the media, and then emulated in the lives of teens bearing camera phones to be spread virally on the net, to me shows that we as humans seem to be in a spiral of decline when it comes to respecting the rights of ourselves, individually, and others, collectively. Violence and sex are the fastest ways to get noticed and tribalistic social conventions are the way to deal with anyone that doesn't conform to these ideals.

[Ian]

Apoc, regardless of what you might think we're not all Ry's followers. Every one on this board is an individual with common beliefs but we disagree on things, too. If Ry has said, in the past, he'd beat the shit out of someone that's fine. He can say that. Doesn't mean we all agree.

Personally, I don't believe in violence because I don't believe in coercion. I am for freedom above all else. Freedom naturally occurs in the absence of coercion and control. It’s like darkness, which is naturally there when there is no light. All human beings are born free by virtue of simply being(And thinking, of course.) So to presume that freedom is somehow won or earned by physical means is no different than believing that breathing only happens if we fight for it. Granted, when freedom is threatened it can be defended by those who choose to defend it but the defense of freedom must occur in the realm of the mind. A man with a gun leveled at his head can choose freedom at the expense of his own life but if he reacts to coercion with force he is abandoning the principle of freedom, which contradicts obtaining anything at the physical expense of others. Freedom cannot be enforced and likewise freedom cannot be granted. It can be taken away but only when an individual chooses their physical life over their mind. By reducing the free man to a physical level of being, collectives are able to exist at the expense of individuals.

[apocryphal]

Apoc, regardless of what you might think we're not all Ry's followers. Every one on this board is an individual with common beliefs but we disagree on things, too. If Ry has said, in the past, he'd beat the shit out of someone that's fine. He can say that. Doesn't mean we all agree.

I in no way implied nor meant to imply that this site was a sycophantic nest of Rys followers. If it was, and i knew that it was i would have never joined here.

I mentioned Ry because he has told stories of physical violence, and some members of the board expressed that they were OK with his actions, or at least actions taken along that vein. Hence my comments. I was not singling Ry or any member of this community out with my comments.

I am at a loss as to why i have to defend my comments at such length tho. I am aware that the textual realm of communication, unless you have an established rapport with the reader, is devoid of subtext and therefore limited, somewhat, in the means of expression. But I did not think that i was exceptionally vague, nor misleading in my comments.

The concept of Collectivist vs individualistic goes much deeper than the idea of a singular free entity vs a collective mass opposition. In Eurocentric cultures the Individualistic outlook is the one that society and the family has rewarded and formed over time. This individualistic outlook is what has allowed the Eurocentric culture to expand as fast as it has over the last 3-4 hundred years. Especially when viewed against the Cultures of Asia, Africa, And South America. Discounting the social/political effects that the expansion of one culture onto another has had for the time being. If you look at the cultures of Asia, Africa and South America you will find that they are far more collectivist, and much more dedicated to the familial unit. Sometimes even willing to do things that we ( i am assuming, as it is my cultural bias) as Individualists would find ethically wrong in order to achieve, or complete familial obligations.

Does this collectivist outlook and mindset reduce these peoples freedoms at all, or deny them the chance to be individuals?
I ask because the comman assumption is that collectives are wrong and oppressive. These assumptions are a combination of cultural bias and political bias because of years of propaganda and selective programming to educate about the 'evils' of collectivst thinking/living etc.

[Ry]

Yet, when Ry or someone else shares a story where they tell about 'beating the shit' out of someone for whatever reason, it's cool, or OK. So i have to wonder at what point does this rationalized or OK violence beget or become a level of violence that is socially acceptable yet on par with the levels of violence that is displayed in the leaked vids courtesy of Wikileaks?

I don't know what video you are talking about but beating someone up is not anywhere close to murdering people for sport. It's not on par what so ever. And its not a rationalization to excuse violence with reason. No one is opposing violence blanketedly This isn't a forum of hippies. I straight up cheered for Hezbollah to kill Israeli soldiers. I'm not against war in general, I'm against this war because it's pointless. People always have a right to self defense or to punish criminals. . Also If I was ok with beating someone it's probably because they murdered someone. What makes the violence wrong is doing violent things to people for no reason at all. It's unnecessary and undeserved. Shooting unarmed people and rescue workers and children is wrong no matter how you shake it.

I agree completely with the actual Crazy Horse who killed Custer and all his men. That was totally justified. Those monsters deserved to die more than anyone after what they had done. So it makes me sick that one of these asshole piolits is coded named Crazy Horse 6. What a slap in the face to Crazy Horse.

Me beating the crap out of someone for trying to rape a girl is not the same thing at all as shooting people from a far. Oh its violent but not at all the same. My violence was justified and also not lethal. This shit is just sadistic ass holes lying and having fun picking people off because they can. It be more akin to me beating a stranger to death just because I could.

Anyway I see something more sinister in this whole thing. The fact that any media covered this at all should be a red flag. I think this stunt is to loan credibility to wikileaks after about a two week surge of stories about wikileaks and the CIA. I don't buy it at all. And wiki anything is herd mentality bullshit. This could just set up future stories to assists the government. It doesn't harm them at all to say innocent people are being shot in Iraq. Everyone knows that. War supporters know that too and don't care. War is supported because of prejudice at this point. It's all about having your team win. They know Iraq is not a threat to the US and didn't have WMDs etc. They don't care. They just want to have a war it feeds a need of vicarious masculinity.

And people agreeing with me on such a no shit kind of topic doesn't make them sheep. Anyone with common sense knows it's wrong to shoot innocent people. And most people agree with attacking criminals who knowingly do wrong. A fight is because of wrong doings and its a personal event. A war is when people get paid to KILL people they've never even met and have no personal quarrels with at all.

The only people I've beat up either tried to gang up on me, or did something horrible to someone like the guy who shoved his hand down a girls pants under her panties and grabbed her pussy. I hit that guy. All the other "fights" I've been in were controlled contest between martial artists. That two consenting adults with rules and not trying to murder one another. I don't see how you could even compare the two.

And when I say stuff like Richard Perle should be tar and feathered. It doesn't mean I really think he should be killed. But I wouldn't really shed a tear if a person like that were tied to the whipping post because his actions have led to the deaths of over a million people and he has no remorse.

Violence is only bad when it is bad. It's not automatically bad. It's the way of the world. Hand cuffing an armed robber isn't bad, it's good. Violence can be necessary and just. Tazering a naked 70 year old in their own house, (which did happen) is also violent and completely fucked up.

It's what happened and why that matters. To just say, force is wrong period is silly. Some people are evil. Some people don't listen t reason. Physicality is a universal language. But using force to just dominate your way isn't protection its just greed.

look at my tag. It's Batman. Yeh he's not real. But were he to be, he is plenty violent. I am perfectly ok with good violence. The difference is being able to tell what is good and what isn't. And its not that hard. And lying to your commanders to shoot people you dont even know from a cowardly distance in a war based on lies is immoral and bad violence.

[Ian]

Apoc, regardless of what you might think we're not all Ry's followers. Every one on this board is an individual with common beliefs but we disagree on things, too. If Ry has said, in the past, he'd beat the shit out of someone that's fine. He can say that. Doesn't mean we all agree.

I in no way implied nor meant to imply that this site was a sycophantic nest of Rys followers. If it was, and i knew that it was i would have never joined here.

Yeah... actually that WAS implied.

For the most part everyone here is saddened/sickened by the words in conjunction with the actions of the pilots, and their officers. Yet, when Ry or someone else shares a story where they tell about 'beating the shit' out of someone for whatever reason, it's cool, or OK.

"For the most part, everyone..."

What a disgusting statement. That reminds me of Fox News who says "Everybody knows...."

I am at a loss as to why i have to defend my comments at such length tho. I am aware that the textual realm of communication, unless you have an established rapport with the reader, is devoid of subtext and therefore limited, somewhat, in the means of expression. But I did not think that i was exceptionally vague, nor misleading in my comments.

I hope I cleared that up for you.

The concept of Collectivist vs individualistic goes much deeper than the idea of a singular free entity vs a collective mass opposition.

Not really.

In Eurocentric cultures the Individualistic outlook is the one that society and the family has rewarded and formed over time. This individualistic outlook is what has allowed the Eurocentric culture to expand as fast as it has over the last 3-4 hundred years. Especially when viewed against the Cultures of Asia, Africa, And South America. Discounting the social/political effects that the expansion of one culture onto another has had for the time being. If you look at the cultures of Asia, Africa and South America you will find that they are far more collectivist, and much more dedicated to the familial unit. Sometimes even willing to do things that we ( i am assuming, as it is my cultural bias) as Individualists would find ethically wrong in order to achieve, or complete familial obligations.

All I heard was blahblahblah...we should be more like Asia, Africa, and S. America....blahblahblah

Does this collectivist outlook and mindset reduce these peoples freedoms at all, or deny them the chance to be individuals?

Yes

I ask because the comman assumption is that collectives are wrong and oppressive. These assumptions are a combination of cultural bias and political bias because of years of propaganda and selective programming to educate about the 'evils' of collectivst thinking/living etc.

Here's the basic problem - collectivism depends on the entire group. Therefore individuals can tolerate collectives. Collectives can not tolerate individuals.

To just say, force is wrong period is silly. Some people are evil. Some people don't listen t reason. Physicality is a universal language.

I disagree. Even humans that act like animals have the potential to be human. Some would say that humans acting like animals deserve to be treated like animals, with violence and force if they are threatening you. I used to believe the same thing. But then I was watching some MLK speeches and reading Ghandi and catching up on the Gospel and it just occurred to me that Jesus and Martin and Mahatma all changed things for the better without using force. So I don't think violence is necessary in any circumstance.

"If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming." ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[apocryphal]

Anyway I see something more sinister in this whole thing. The fact that any media covered this at all should be a red flag. I think this stunt is to loan credibility to wikileaks after about a two week surge of stories about wikileaks and the CIA. I don't buy it at all. And wiki anything is herd mentality bullshit. This could just set up future stories to assists the government. It doesn't harm them at all to say innocent people are being shot in Iraq. Everyone knows that. War supporters know that too and don't care. War is supported because of prejudice at this point. It's all about having your team win. They know Iraq is not a threat to the US and didn't have WMDs etc. They don't care. They just want to have a war it feeds a need of vicarious masculinity.

The fact that Reuters had been trying to get this exact video via a FOIA for quite a while, even tho the pentagon promised to release it and then didn't makes you suspicious. Even tho the focus of the story is the death of a new reporter you wonder why the press picked it up? If the video was merely the death of more civilians it would have been a non story, but seeing as it isn't as i just stated, it makes more sense that it was picked up by the press than anything you are paranoid about.

FYI a wiki is a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a WYSIWYG text editor. Wikis are typically powered by wiki software and are often used to create collaborative websites, to power community websites, for personal note taking, in corporate intranets, and in knowledge management systems. The first wiki was wikiwikiweb set up in 1995. The name wiki was chosen by Wards Cunningham because he remembered the Honolulu Airport counter employee telling him to take the "Wiki" shuttle bus that runs between the airport's terminals.
Wikipedia is NOT the only wiki in the world, ans wikileaks has FUCK all to do with them.

And people agreeing with me on such a no shit kind of topic doesn't make them sheep.

That is an oddly placed straw man argument that i never made, tho you are the 2nd one to make it. IF you had read my responses you wouldn't have had to make it.

Anyone with common sense knows it's wrong to shoot innocent people. And most people agree with attacking criminals who knowingly do wrong. A fight is because of wrong doings and its a personal event. A war is when people get paid to KILL people they've never even met and have no personal quarrels with at all.

When people are shooting common sense goes out with the first incoming shot. Sure attack criminals, in order to apprehend them, but to just plainly attack them makes you a criminal as well. Vigilante justice leaves society blind and toothless. Fights are not always because of wrongs, perhaps they are most aptly worded because of 'perceived wrongs' and in this 21st century, as i mentioned above as well as in a previous post in this topic, w/ camera phones they are now rarely personal. If WARS are where people get paid to kill, then who does the paying in civil wars?

more on it's supposed media coverage

[Bender]

It's really hard to follow your logic although you insist you've written it down somewhere and "we" don't understand.

what's your point exactly? Is it:
1a) We follow ry
b) ry is violent
c) we are violent

Is it:
1a)people in gunship panic too?
1b) they shot people in cold blood
1c) people in gunships are innocent because we are ry's followers which makes them not the cold blooded murders they are since we agree with ry at some point.

To me it seems like you're full of shit.

But I guess you will cut and paste another 5 page article which will prove your not full of shit.
You're merely nut flavoured.