U.S. soldiers massacre 16 civilians in Afghanistan

[Yuri-G]

Holy shit this elvis nigga got downs or what. 3 pages of disagreeing with someone that agrees with you for no fucking reason whatsoever. You made zero points and look like an ass. Everyone that has posted or read this thread is now dumber for having done so, including myself.

well fuck, I'm glad I skipped to this page then

[Elvis]

Holy shit this elvis nigga got downs or what. 3 pages of disagreeing with someone that agrees with you for no fucking reason whatsoever. You made zero points and look like an ass. Everyone that has posted or read this thread is now dumber for having done so, including myself.

Disagreeing with someone that agrees with me? I didn't agree with him. He says the media is biased toward the war ('painting the troops as barbarians'). And I said there's no proof. It's a war that hasn't been given any attention (first because of Iraq). In the past year or so, coverage of the war has gone up to around 15 % (or maybe 25; can't recall off the top of my head). That puts it on the same level as the economy I believe.

[Byrthnoth]

I wonder what kind of xp he got from Chain 15.

Too soon?


Now they are saying this guy had a TBI, which is very common in vets but also very well correlated with PTSD. Sucks to be him, but it sucks to have been the people he killed. I'm going to let apathy take over from this point.

[Day]

Disagreeing with someone that agrees with me? I didn't agree with him. He says the media is biased toward the war ('painting the troops as barbarians'). And I said there's no proof. It's a war that hasn't been given any attention (first because of Iraq). In the past year or so, coverage of the war has gone up to around 15 % (or maybe 25; can't recall off the top of my head). That puts it on the same level as the economy I believe.

[ronin sparthos]

Another point not discussed is that this could have likely been avoided (if the Qu'ran retaliation killings were causal) if Hamid Karzai has actually admitted that the Qu'ran burnings were accidental instead of blaming US forces and posturing himself not to get his head cut off when the Taliban take back control an hour after we leave the country. Karzai is often guilty of this, and this is a very Afghan/tribal perspective. They have a very narrow worldview and wage their political activities as if they are attempting to kill another warlord for his chai boys. Karzai was probably even shown undeniable evidence, as he often is, that the Qu'rans were burned accidentally and he still said the opposite on TV/Radio.

As a result, as it often is, US service members were killed. This time, by their Afghan 'allies'.

Karzai knows the US wont be around soon to keep him alive and so he's trying to convince the people he's on their side rather than with the Americans by playing politics to seem like he's as much as victim as the common people on the ground. It's not really surprising and probably more reason to get out before 2014 as it's obvious we have few if any allies on the ground.

We've got the support of some Afghan women though! Then again they'd support pretty much anything that prevents a return to Taliban rule.

Frankly I don't see a difference since it's only a matter of time before Karzai is killed by his own people anyway and any sense of progress in Afghanistan is completely washed away but hey, I guess I'd be doing the same in his shoes, self-preservation being what it is. The best way to appeal to people is through religion and the Quran burnings were a great way to build rapport with the people from his perspective. Probably added two weeks or so to his lifespan.

It's funny though because when our flags get burned in protest marches you don't see us ordering civilians to be killed in retaliation.

Ah, irrationality.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

day lol

[Elvis]

So your response is what?

This is what I've been responding to:

Semantics? You're the one playing semen tricks on me, Elvis. For one, an article about war atrocities committed by our troops is definitely going to dim public opinion. Second, as I said in another post, this is often the only angle presented overall. There's no context for this. There is little reporting of the deaths of troops, or any kind of positive human interest piece that comes out of our involvement there. The entire situation is painted with the brush of us being barbaric invaders that have done nothing but rape and murder since our arrival. Yes, rarely you will see an editorial of that nature, but the balance is not in favor of portraying the troops as human beings as well.

And this was the original comment I made that set it off:

These 'reports' do not serve that goal in any capacity.

This is an example of disassociating the actions of soldiers or the government from themselves. If these actions have any value to you, you judge them on their own merit rather than how they are PERCEIVED in the war of narratives (anti-War vs. pro-War vs. ETC).

The fact is that there is a long, well-documented record of atrocities (generally speaking) committed by our troops in war. Shocking! There is also a well-documented record of the government abusing power and concealing information and blah blah blah.

You are quick to neutralize the impact of these issues by generalizing them. Then in the next instance, you accuse MSM journalists of writing about these specific stories w/ the intent of delegitimizing our government.

See the obvious difference in stances taken? It's not my fault you lack reading comprehension.

[Indeed]

Your quote of yourself there is a response to an earlier post of mine. Your comment didn't "set off" anything. I made a post you decided to challenge for pages and pages.

[Elvis]

Yea I know - this one:

I think that these reports also serve to degrade public opinion of the individuals serving in the armed forces and reduce trust in our own government, while at the same time not really galvanizing us to any measurable action except perhaps being disrespectful toward people who wear the uniform. I'm not saying it's wrong to report these crimes; I'm saying it seems like few people seem to make the connection that all military actions are carried out by the same pool of individuals, crazies and all. Few also seem to actually do much of anything about this except sit around and express their righteous indignation on the internet, and it just strikes me as disingenuous at times. Especially knowing that there really is (and has been for years now) a significant portion of the American population who has no idea we still have a presence in Afghanistan.

I included the quotes in the above comment because you explained your POV more clearly there.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I agree with Elvis on this one, Afghanistanians aren't even white who cares if one of our bros killed a few. 16 is a solid square number. We should build this guy a statue of gorditas inside a fountain of Mt. Dew.

[Elvis]

How would that be agreeing with me? You should be agreeing w/ Churchill.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

How would that be agreeing with me? You should be agreeing w/ Churchill.

It's a war that hasn't been given any attention (first because of Iraq). In the past year or so, coverage of the war has gone up to around 15 % (or maybe 25; can't recall off the top of my head). That puts it on the same level as the economy I believe.

The only alternative is that you think they are not biased in any way whatsoever and are just reporting the plain truth. That the truth is bloody atrocities would imply that our soldiers ARE 'barbarians'.

'painted'.

Based on these snippets here you clearly have a disdain for Afghanians and wish to support the slaying of their unworthy lives by our powerful American hands. I totally agree with you on this one man, we should high five and shit.

[Elvis]

Based on these snippets here you clearly have a disdain for Afghanians and wish to support the slaying of their unworthy lives by our powerful American hands. I totally agree with you on this one man, we should high five and shit.

I don't have a disdain for Afghans. I cited reports on the lack of coverage of the war in response to the notion that the media was against the troops.

In fact, the opposite has been proven true in certain time-frames and with respect to certain mainstream newspapers (WAPO and the Times):

In Afghan Debate, Few Antiwar Op-Eds
Elite papers marginalize public opposition

FAIR’s study looked at all opinion columns in the New York Times and the Washington Post during the first 10 months of 2009 that addressed what the U.S. should do in the Afghanistan War. Columns were counted as antiwar if they called for withdrawal or clearly called into question the need or rationale for the war. Columns that supported continuing the war were counted as pro-war; these were divided into those that endorsed the idea of escalating the war and those that advocated some sort of alternative strategy, including reducing the number of troops.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I don't have a disdain for Afghans. I cited reports on the lack of coverage of the war in response to the notion that the media was against the troops.

Yeah, and they obviously totally aren't ( against the troops ) because with the lack of coverage and cameras we're able to kick more ass than usual, like the 16 we just pwnt. It's cool dude, you and me are on the same team here!

[Indeed]

I don't think that lack of coverage means that the coverage is demonstrably neutral, though. I just think it means that it's easier for one or two "negative" stories to more greatly influence perception, since there isn't much neutral backdrop. That's part of the point. I don't see how lack of coverage = balanced presentation of facts. It just means there aren't a lot of facts in total.

[Elvis]

The lack of coverage means lack of coverage.

If within that coverage you could prove there is a pro-war/anti-war/neutral/or something else, sentiment - then you should be able to substantiate it.

[Day]

Your stance would hold a possible drop of water if there has been a positive news story that got a lot of attention since we killed Osama. It's always some soilder kicking a puppy or killing some civs or some shit. No one cares if random soilder #3452343 makes some kind of positive impact. This goes for all wars and media coverage, so it's not a iraq war vs afghan thing. Just look at the popular "war threads" here or on any website. Sensationalist garbage.

Lack of coverage is not even matter at hand, it's what's getting covered and how it's done. Headlines are immediately US Soilder massacres 16 sand niggas, with very little evidence of what actually happened. Perhaps in this case that's exactly what happened, but that's also irrelevant to what we are discussing.

[Elvis]

Your stance would hold a possible drop of water if there has been a positive news story that got a lot of attention since we killed Osama. It's always some soilder kicking a puppy or killing some civs or some shit. No one cares if random soilder #3452343 makes some kind of positive impact. This goes for all wars and media coverage, so it's not a iraq war vs afghan thing. Just look at the popular "war threads" here or on any website. Sensationalist garbage.

Lack of coverage is not even matter at hand, it's what's getting covered and how it's done. Headlines are immediately US Soilder massacres 16 sand niggas, with very little evidence of what actually happened. Perhaps in this case that's exactly what happened, but that's also irrelevant to what we are discussing.

If it's this blatant to you, then why isn't there any fucking shred of evidence?

Other than your own conjecture that is.

In fact, the study above done by FAIR shows that mainstream papers were cheer-leading the war in opposition to public opinion.

Not to mention the video about the soldier kicking a dog was on YouTube! It was not a piece of under-cover journalism. It was someone posting it on YouTube and then the aftermath getting reported.

The other stories like that of Stryker team, were pretty fucking black and white.

[Day]

Oh I'm sorry dude I didn't stay up all night preparing my powerpoint and MLA formatting my works cited page for you. I'll brb with that research, I really do care immensely about this subject so sit tight.

[Day]

Can someone help me figure out how measure which war stories have been discussed the most over the past 13 years?