insomnia: U.S. troops videoed desecrating Taliban dead.

Insomnia (

insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-10-19 19:29:00

U.S. troops videoed desecrating Taliban dead.
The story is here, but it's also been picked up by Reuters. Oy.

Photos courtesy of Didge Politics. Click photo for larger image.

Video taken by an Australian reporter embedded with American troops in Afghanistan aired last night on SBS' Dateline, showing US soldiers burning the bodies of suspected Taliban insurgents. To make matters worse, the bodies were intentionally positioned to towards Mecca. Both of these acts are considered acts of desecration by followers of Islam, and are violations of the Geneva Convention if done for non-hygenic reasons.

Although the video has yet to be released to the internet as far as I can tell, a transcript of the broadcast is available. It seems likely that this act will be viewed as a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as the Taliban in question were recently killed, as indicated in this excerpt from the transcript.

----------------------
At the top of the hills above the village the soldiers have taken the tactics of psychological warfare to a grotesque and disturbing extreme. US soldiers have set fire to the bodies of the two Taliban killed the night before. The burning of the corpses and the fact that they've been laid out facing Mecca is a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs. 

SOLDIER: Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, fucking straight death metal. 

PsyOps specialist Sergeant Jim Baker then broadcast an inflammatory message over the loudspeakers in order to taunt and bait the enemy. 

SGT JIM BAKER: Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be. 

SOLDIER 2: The first message we sent was - Attention, Mullah Tahir, Mullah Sadar, Mullah Kairadullah, Mullah Abdullah Khan and other Taliban, we know who you are. Your time in Afghanistan is short. You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are. 
And the second one. Attention Mullah Tahiir and other Taliban fighters, we have you surrounded, there is no way for you to escape. Come down from the mountains now and you will not be harmed. We will give you food and cold water. If you persist and stay in the mountains it will become your graveyard. 

The soldiers say they're burning the bodies for hygiene purposes but out here, far away from the village, this appears to make no sense. These soldiers have clearly been trained to denigrate and enrage Muslims. Such blatant disrespect for the corpses of their enemy is a breach of the Geneva Convention. It also heightens the perception of local people that the Americans are just as barbarous as the Taliban say they are. Australian troops operate out of the same army base and in the eyes of the locals, as members of the same coalition, there is no distinction between American and Australian forces.
----------------------

The actions of these soldiers may have just made it a whole lot harder for our nation's partners in Iraq to remain partners -- Australians, British, Germans, Canadians, French, etc. -- as their citizens might be a bit infuritated to find out our soldiers are literally goading the local inhabitants to attack them.

Of course, people can always blame reporters for embedding themselves with our soldiers, I guess. Damn that liberal media for reporting on the things that they see!

(Post a new comment)

	rhondaparrish 2005-10-20 03:20 am UTC (link)
	.... (Reply to this)

	lafinjack 2005-10-20 04:48 am UTC (link)
	Fuck them up their silly asses. We don't need people like that on our side. The psyops tactics (calling them women, etc.) are fine, and from what I've heard they've been very effective. But burning the corpses is simply unacceptable. Yes, they're bad guys, but the dead still deserve respect. They are no different than we are, fighting for something they believe in. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Agree reger_lifeland 2005-10-20 05:10 am UTC (link)
	Burning bodies... Bad Suckering out more insurgents with weapons or thier dead... Good (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Agree insomnia 2005-10-20 05:18 am UTC (link)
	Fire baaad! Beer goooood! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Agree reger_lifeland 2005-10-20 06:02 am UTC (link)
	Very much so. And should you find yourself in a pub, at home or in any situation in which the consumption of alcohol is autorized, have a drink for me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

insomnia
2005-10-20 05:13 am UTC (link)

I agree. There's nothing wrong with insulting the enemy in the hope that one of them takes a potshot at you... but when you start desecrating their bodies, that's pretty damn low.

I'm also pretty concerned about the threat they mentioned in the transcript about collectively punishing / arresting the entire village... but that's nothing new. There are quite a few documented incidents like that in Iraq, certainly, and probably a slew of undocumented ones.

Round up all the likely suspects!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

qp4
2005-10-20 07:10 am UTC (link)

I doubt it'll bother the nations of the previous empire (the Brits, Canucks, Aussies, and other countries with the Jack on their flag), they're not too far removed from way worse situations theirselves, and they still haven't fixed the problems they caused in Africa.

And you're comparing Afghanistan and Iraq, and they're two different animals entirely. What happens in one doesn't neccessarily affect the other. I think you did it on accident though, because you do know that the French and Germans aren't in my particular war.

I think what they did is a viable tactic in a brutal guerrilla war. I haven't read or seen the whole thing, just your transcript there, but given the situation up in those mountains (have you ever fought in mountains?), you gotta reach outside the box. Don't think for a second that if the Taliban got their hands on our bodies they wouldn't do worse. The American military will, and this is proven, burn up more lives and millions of dollars to recover our dead, because we fully expect that sort of treatment from the enemy. Look at those that have ended up being taken by the badguys, and I'm not talking a dozen years ago in Africa, I'm talking last year on a bridge in Iraq, or Daniel Pearl, or the other people who have their heads chopped off.

We're fighting barbarians; don't confuse the Taliban or Al-Quaeda in Iraq (or the whole "organization" for that matter) with a nation, an Army, or the honorable Rules of Warfare.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

theodora
2005-10-20 07:29 am UTC (link)

"We're fighting barbarians."

Yeeeaaaah, maybe. And desecrating the dead's always good for a laugh today, but you never know how you'll feel tomorrow. Speaking of the previous empire, some things are just bad cricket. It's the nature of war that you profess love for blah, blah, and blah (usually being decency and everything you hold sacred) and then tramp out to protect it by doing the total opposite, but still, even still, over bloody centuries people have generally agreed that desecrating the dead's a bad idea, no matter how great the contempt in which you hold the dead's side generally.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	qp4 2005-10-21 02:33 pm UTC (link)
	Actually the most successful armies and nations have made it a point to desecrate the dead, and rub the livings noses in it for good measure. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	insomnia 2005-10-21 03:20 pm UTC (link)
	Indeed. So have the most successful barbarian hordes. Genghis would've been proud! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	theodora 2005-10-21 04:26 pm UTC (link)
	But it also makes peace harder to achieve after. Those tanks at Waco that rolled back and forth over the (were they unburied? I think they might have been) dead, just to piss off those still inside - it was shitty. Just shitty. And I don't think it makes subsequent dealing between the feds and the locals in those areas any easier, or safer. (Reply to this) (Parent)

qp4
2005-10-21 02:43 pm UTC (link)

Oh, and since I'm reading this again my original point with the barbarians thing (other than colorful language) is that the Rules of War against a group that doesn't belong to any particular nation are somewhat gray. Even with the recent stuff done in Congress we really haven't (as several hundred men in Cuba can attest to) defined just how to treat that sort of enemy. The West, up until WWII was generally pretty brutal, especially during uprisings and insurgencies. Since then however there hasn't been a lot of that sort of thing, not in the industrial nations at any rate, so there's really not a set of "civilized" rules to follow just yet. If that makes any sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

theodora
2005-10-21 04:23 pm UTC (link)

And the "civilization" of war is pretty recent also, agreed. Still, some gestures seem to cause more trouble than they're worth. I think we all understand the desire (extremely traditional round of golf, anyone?), but, the thing is, still... I thought one of the benefits of having a chain of command was that there were people around to rain on exactly this type of parade?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	qp4 2005-10-22 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	If it was General Perkins it would be, "Destroy them. All of them. And sow their lands with salt." See also any history of the Roman Empire and the book of Joshua. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	theodora 2005-10-23 01:06 am UTC (link)
	And history of the Roman Empire? What about Caesar's Conquest of Gaul? He seems to be a man acutely interested in keeping a carrot as well as a stick. (Reply to this) (Parent)

insomnia
2005-10-23 06:30 am UTC (link)

If it was General Perkins it would be, "Destroy them. All of them. And sow their lands with salt."

That could be why some of us get a mite skittish about having our country led -- either overtly or covertly -- by those in the military. It's a damn good thing that we were lead after the war by Truman rather than MacArthur. Great general, but he had a serious coldblooded streak at times. Eisenhower was arguably the only general since Washington to be level-headed enough for the job, and even then, he was a bit too bureaucratic and vacation-prone.

If you're a general who really wants all the power, then you're probably the wrong one to have it. We don't need another Caesar. The Roman Empire is not something we should aspire to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

theodora
2005-10-23 01:25 am UTC (link)

That was way too brief. What I mean is - Caesar sounds to have been perfectly willing to commit atrocities. But he also seems to have been very good at keeping the ultimate goal (a pacified and tribute-giving Gaul) in mind. To that end, he played tit-for-tat, and committed atrocities as necessary. But it seemed always to be more, "what action will send the message I mean to give?" than, "If they pull this shit, then I can do it right back, because they're all barbarians, so fuck it."

I'm explaining myself poorly, but, the thing is, you don't want to engage in policies that will enrage and commit to the cause of the opposition people who'd otherwise be happier to stop fighting. It's a drain on your own resources. Sometimes, yes, sometimes it's time for zero-winter, Russians-facing-Napoleon, Sherman-to-the-sea tactics. Sometimes. Morality aside. But unless you're really willing to be put in the position of having to kill absolutely everybody, or being at war forever, it's better to avoid doing the extra shit - torture, descrating the dead, killing the children, etc. It's better to avoid the stuff with additional emotional ramifications.

These are generalities I'm speaking in, I'm aware. But do you think I'm misunderstanding the situation?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

booo_urns
2005-10-20 02:54 pm UTC (link)

And you're comparing Afghanistan and Iraq, and they're two different animals entirely. What happens in one doesn't neccessarily affect the other.

Given the impact that the Koran flushing fiasco had (and it was just a questionable story, this one has video and eyewitnesses), I'd say it is more than reasonable to believe that this could have an impact in Iraq. If this incident is as culturally offensive to Islam as some say, then there is no reason why Iraqis WOULDN'T be up in arms about it.

You comparisons to Pearl and the Blackwater contractors (not justifying that one, but let's not gloss over the fact that mere citzens they were not) are not quite valid here. Those incidents were performed by militants. Here, we're talking an incident that could inflame the Muslim world.

I fear it's videos such as these that reinforce the bad things Al Quaeda says, thus causing more people to take up arms as insurgents.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

qp4
2005-10-21 02:30 pm UTC (link)

Now the Blackwater guys, in a way, got what was coming to them. There's an inherit danger in being a merc. Daniel Pearl on the other hand was a neutral party. As a journalist he really didn't have a side at all. So I'd say chopping his head off is somewhat inflammatory to everyone, yes?

Mititant is a derivative of the word military isn't it? It swings both ways. I joined the Army largely to take up arms against Al Quaeda, largely because of the things I saw on tv saying bad things about them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

booo_urns
2005-10-21 03:16 pm UTC (link)

I guess what I'm getting at here is that this incident has the potential for wider impact with "rank and file" muslims.

So to use your example, the Pearl incident incited Americans. The difference is that the public didn't blame Afghanis for it or Muslims in general. Rather people's ire was directed at the group that committed the act (Taliban / Al Quesidilla, etc).

Here, the danger is that the muslim world will look at this and direct thier anger / hostility / revenge towards the group responsible: The U.S. military (and I guess the U.S. government by proxy).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	qp4 2005-10-22 11:32 pm UTC (link)
	So you're basically implying the superiority of the American in Reason, and that most people in Islamic majority nations are ignorant and can't tell the difference between the acts of a few individuals, or a small group and that of the whole or a nation? Because that's what it reads like.... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

booo_urns
2005-10-23 05:33 am UTC (link)

Two points here:

1. Clerics are influential in the realm of public opinion. If they start preaching / saying that this activity was evidence of a U.S. hatred towards Islam, there are those who will tend to agree. Furthermore with the importance placed on elders, clerics, etc the potential for mis-interpretation, mis-application, and downright propaganda is high.

2. My comments are based on the study of national culture. Individual middle eastern countries are very collectivist in nature (not in a socialist way, but more group oriented). Examples of this abound from the way extended family is viewed even to how people associate themselves as part of larger collectives (many Islamic societies still work through defined tribal systems). This as opposed to the U.S. which is one of the most individualistic countries around (meaning that the emphasis is on individuals more and the collective less).

(For more on this, research Harry Triandis or the definitive research by Shalom Schwartz. Schwartz's framework in particular is considered the authority on the subject of national cultures and organizational behavior)

I did not imply any such superiority nor any kind of ignorance. Rather there are fundamental differences between how the Western and Middle Eastern cultures view behaviors. You're in a position to know this better than anyone.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

solri
2005-10-20 10:37 pm UTC (link)

I doubt it'll bother the nations of the previous empire (the Brits, Canucks, Aussies, and other countries with the Jack on their flag), they're not too far removed from way worse situations theirselves

During the Indian Mutiny, we British came up with the spiffing wheeze of executing mutineers by strapping them across the mouth of a cannon and blowing them in two, then - and this is the funny bit - mixing up the halves, so that high-caste Indians would be buried with lower castes. Jolly good show, what?

All I can say in defence of the British is that this happened in 1858, not 2005.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	dlkereluk 2006-01-28 10:00 pm UTC (link)
	We do not have the Union Jack on our national flag. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	qp4 2006-01-30 06:14 am UTC (link)
	No, but you have a monarch on your money. I was being a bit lose with language so I didn't have to write out the United Kingdom of Greath Britain and Northern Island, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

dlkereluk
2006-01-30 07:56 am UTC (link)

I was being a bit lose with language so I didn't have to write out the United Kingdom of Greath Britain and Northern Island, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
Well, you wouldn't have had to anyway, since there are separate names for each of the countries that you mentioned. (see links below)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Govt
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/nz.html#Govt
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html
and
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#VI

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	qp4 2006-01-30 02:08 pm UTC (link)
	Or, to save myself all that trouble, "Countries with the Jack on their flag." Which combined with my statement about the previous Empire summed it up quite well. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	qp4 2006-01-30 02:08 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, and you're a pretty good example of one of the reasons why I don't like Canada. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

dlkereluk
2006-02-01 02:14 pm UTC (link)

You know what, I was going to wait another day and say something a bit kinder and more respectful given your current location, but after reading the article that follows my reply, I won't be doing that anytime soon. I was going to say a few more things, but since they would have involved some very undiplomatic language, and since this is somebody else's Live Journal, I will resist the temptation to.

U.S. troops in Iraq shoot at four Canadian diplomats
Last Updated Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:50:58 EST
CBC News

The Canadian chargé d'affaires to Iraq and three other Canadian diplomats riding in a consular vehicle were shot at by American soldiers in Iraq on Tuesday, the U.S. military says.

* INDEPTH: Iraq

"The Canadian ambassador's vehicle did sustain damage (Tuesday) from U.S. military gunfire," said the statement released overnight.

There were no injuries.

Troops fired warning shots at the Canadian envoy's car after it failed to slow down when approaching a U.S. military convoy, it said.

The car had been travelling through the Iraqi capital's heavily fortified Green Zone, an area in the centre of Baghdad where the Iraqi government office and the U.S. military's headquarters are located.

A spokeswoman at the Canadian Embassy in Jordan told the Associated Press that four Canadian diplomats were in the vehicle.

Other reports suggested Canada's ambassador to Jordan, John Holmes, might have been in the car. Canada has no embassy in Iraq and diplomatic officials regularly travel to Iraq from Jordan.

Holmes serves as ambassador to both Iraq and Jordan, and is based in the Jordanian capital Amman.

"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signalled the vehicle to stay back," the statement said. "After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."

The car was apparently not marked as Canadian.

A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said the American soldiers feared they were dealing with a suicide bomber and fired at the vehicle's engine block.

One round apparently pierced the passenger side of the car.

"The incident is under review to determine why it was necessary to fire warning shots," the U.S. military said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2005-10-20 07:30 am UTC (link)
	http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/burning-issue-with-some-folks.html (Reply to this)

	phlyto 2005-10-20 12:27 pm UTC (link)
	Of course what they do to our dead is just purely civilized. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	insomnia 2005-10-20 12:36 pm UTC (link)
	Of course what they do to our dead isn't always civilized. That said, we're not them. Why should we stoop to their level? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	phlyto 2005-10-20 12:37 pm UTC (link)
	The difference between a give group of humanity and another is never all that different. . . Maybe its not stooping at all. Maybe that's the default. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	insomnia 2005-10-20 12:55 pm UTC (link)
	I would hope that our soldiers are able to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the The Law of Land Warfare and not intentionally desecrate bodies... ...but hey, what do I know? Maybe that's expecting too much. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	phlyto 2005-10-20 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	indeed (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Linking to A Political Misery (Anonymous) 2005-10-20 02:20 pm UTC (link)
	I placed the url to your page in the post re this issue--but didn't hotlink the pics. Thanks for letting me and my readers know where to find shots of this. MM (Reply to this)

	gator0801 2005-10-20 03:00 pm UTC (link)
	Crazy Americans :-p :-p (Reply to this)

swingland
2005-10-20 07:42 pm UTC (link)

man, i used to read your stuff and i was like "right on, this is the stuff we need hearing..." but the more and more i read it, its the same fucking conclusion. we suck, we're insensitive and the shit we do gets us in "maybe" worse trouble.

WE'RE IN A FUCKING WAR AGAINST SHADOWS YOU SADISTIC MOTHERFUCKER. this constant article after article is like salt in the wound. yes, we know. we all suck. we put on a uniform and we MUST be trained to insult the bad guys in the worst way possible. YOU ARE SO THE MAN. do you think we want these neaderthal fucks marching around to some nazi drum? we never asked for this. we walked in expecting...*ahem* RESPONSIBLE FUCKING AMERICANS to make RESPONSIBLE FOREIGN POLICY decisions and we were supposed to enforce them. Instead, we get cheif nazi Bush and 330 million fucking zombies who obviously, for all their bitching aside, are incapable of changing a goddamn thing. You're absolutely right, man, you're fucking spot on. We shouldn't be fucking up cultures half-way across the world and making life harder on people and stomping in the skulls of babies in the streets...We should save some money and do it here. Local populations would just sit back while we burned the bodies of their relatives. Maybe they'd write an interesting online blog message about it and post pictures and say "oh whoa is me". I FUCKING HATE THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLANET.

goddamnit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

insomnia
2005-10-20 08:22 pm UTC (link)

I think it's important not to generalize. Yes, I point out the failings of what is going on in the GWOT, but those failings aren't necessarily yours. The problem is, you sometimes have to bear the weight of someone else's bad decisions. That sucks, but that's been the way it has been since day one, I'd guess.

I know that trying to fight an enemy who vanishes sucks, but it's important to abide by the highest standards in fighting the conflict. Supporting such policies aren't a matter of giving comfort to the enemy, but of trying to take comfort away from them by denying the enemy use of the support of the local inhabitants.

But yeah, I'm not sure how I would feel under such circumstances. It does suck... but try not to take it personally. Whether you like it or not, you and yours are being looked to to set an example and represent our country, under some pretty bad conditions. Is that fair? I don't know. It is the reality of the situation, however.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	swingland 2005-10-21 03:19 am UTC (link)
	if we're going to be the enemy, thats okay. just try and get people to do their part on their side...like vote for people who make decisions that either (a) eliminate the need for us to exist or (b) redefine our standards of conflict. theoretically, ahem ahem the people have ALL the power to change this. well, theoretically. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

insomnia
2005-10-21 03:37 am UTC (link)

You're not the enemy, but sadly you're expected to be better and more responsible than your nation's citizens have been. Once again, soldiers are set up to fail by their leaders and by the circumstances they've been put under.

We've all failed you, in a way... but blind faith isn't going to make it better. All we can do is to see what kind of a mess our nation has made, try to make amends, and hopefully move forward someday.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

coiled_metal
2005-10-21 05:07 am UTC (link)


volunteer service is love
brought to you by the isLove Generator

(Reply to this)

	"Their future will be like the Russians" taosbat 2005-10-21 06:57 am UTC (link)
	I'm pretty unhappy about this. I knew you would post the pictures. I looked at them this morning but only got back here now. I'm not done with the previous matter we discussed. I'll let you know. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: "Their future will be like the Russians"

insomnia
2005-10-21 02:19 pm UTC (link)

I saw that too. I have to wonder how many Afghanis feel that way, and what connotation was meant. That we'll leave one day, or that our people will never get the chance to leave?

I'm not sure what I think about my journal being the place to go for shocking pictures, but I guess I don't feel too bad about it. As someone who has worked extensively on matters relating to the Internet and open source, I'm admittedly on the extreme web fringe of things. I still believe the whole "information wants to be free" creedo, and believe that society functions best and makes more informed decisions when it has free, unfettered access to information *AND* when they are tough enough that they can process the information, even if it's potentially disturbing.

I'm a bit proud that the major news networks such as CNN and FOX have finally picked up on this story and are even showing the video. I really didn't think they had it in them.

It seems bizarre that we live in a world where no horror cannot be recreated and sold as some fantasy to be consumed by young kids, but our society is so timid at times when it comes to the real thing.

When you get a soldier saying "Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, fucking straight death metal", that, to me, is disturbing, not because he is acknowledging how serious what he is seeing is, but rather, because the reality of the situation is being compared to some kind of glorified fantasy.

Last weekend, my s/o and I went for a late afternoon drive along the coast. We stopped at a nearly abandoned beach for a few minutes to watch the sun set; it was very beautiful, of course. Right after the sun set, I noticed a boy who was maybe nine years old, running along the beach with a toy rifle. He was running from place to place, throwing himself prone on the sand bahind little piles of sand and driftwood, pretending to attack an imaginary enemy.

I see more than my share of disturbing things, but that, to me, was perhaps the most disturbing thing I've seen in quite awhile.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: "Their future will be like the Russians"

qp4
2005-10-21 02:39 pm UTC (link)

What really disturbs me is that th' lil tyke was having to play alone. Between about 8 and 15 we used to play with toy guns everday. We had a big pasture in between three neighborhoods, and all the boys would get together and get on teams and play capture the flag: with pellet rifles and bb guns. It was good shit, even during my more nonviolent phases (because I haven't always embraced the inner animal) I looked back on the hunting of each other as good fun.

If you never shot at/got shot with a bb gun growing up you missed out on an integral part of the American Experience.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: "Their future will be like the Russians"

insomnia
2005-10-21 03:16 pm UTC (link)

I shot when I was a kid. Mostly BB-guns, but also rifles. Fished regularly from the nearby creek and other lakes, and we also had an archery target up pretty much all year around. And yes, I did my share of capture the flag, and playing with toy soldiers, constructing forts out of old tree branches, etc.

That said, under the current conditions, seeing kids running around with toy rifles is just a bit triggery. It makes me wonder whether there's any way we can escape a future where we have to send more kids off to fight the enemy off in the sand somewhere. It makes me wonder whether we in the U.S. can ever get beyond viewing foriegners as the enemy.

I guess I have rather limited faith in the threat assessments that our nation has traditionally had of other nations. I grew up in a world where the Soviet Union was the big threat, and where they supposedly outnumbered us in just about every weapons category according to conventional wisdom based upon decades of intelligence gathering. Once their government fell though and their documents became public, it became clear that conventional wisdom was wrong, that U.S. intelligence estimates greatly exaggerated their strength, and that they were terrified of us attacking them.

I'd like to see a future where people of the world are interconnected, where war is less necessary and less likely... but when I take a look at our culture and how it effects people, feeds them full of fear and bogeymen, and discourages the light of reason, it makes me wonder to what extent that is an achievable goal, and to what extent our very nature damns us to never learn from our past.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: "Their future will be like the Russians"

taosbat
2005-10-22 03:57 am UTC (link)

> That we'll leave one day, or that our people will never get the chance to leave?

We'll leave. Our dead & wounded, physically & psychologically, really will never leave.

Folks like Aunt Najma will never get over it.

> I'm not sure what I think about my journal being the place to go for shocking pictures

I don't read you for "shocking pictures," there are sites for that. I don't visit them.

I think you care about what's going on & you have often spared me a search process to find certain facts our media self-censor due to some perception that Americans don't have the belly for the facts.

> It seems bizarre that we live in a world where no horror cannot be recreated & sold as some fantasy to be consumed by young kids, but our society is so timid at times when it comes to the real thing.

Civilization has always had a problem dealing with Thanatos & Eros, if you allow the Freudian drift. We must eat: Thanatos transforming to Eros; &, as a species, we must put our children before ourselves, even unto death, to survive: Eros transforming to Thanatos...all of which civilization seeks to mitigate.

Our supermarket culture greatly influences this modern squeamishness. Here, as in most places, folks still raise & slaughter their own domestic animals. You know what dinner is about when you raise it from a chick or calf or lamb & slaughter it with your own hands. It's different from picking through shrink-wrapped packages for the just-right chops.

I've heard folks argue that "it's not natural to kill." I always wonder what they had for lunch.

We must acknowledge much about the human condition as natural for civilization to do better. That's where the Internet can help us save ourselves from ourselves. We need to acknowledge our destructive capabilities & find new channels for aggression.

We are natural hunters. Our vision & hearing, adrenal glands... all are evolved to acquire a target & predate or flee.

You noted the Milgram experiments in our earlier conversation. We need to acknowledge not just aggression & our pack instincts but much more.

Perhaps we've made some progress due to institutions of international law, such as the UN, our parents & grandparents created at desperate cost. That's my hope: a rule of law which understands our nature.

> ...a soldier saying "Wow, look at the blood coming out of the mouth on that one, fucking straight death metal", that, to me, is disturbing... because the reality of the situation is being compared to some kind of glorified fantasy.

"fucking straight death metal" doesn't bother me so much. I can imagine Beowulf saying something quite in the same vein. What bothers me is our present abandonment of the rule of law which is, I think, the only thing civilization can help us with. If Grendel's death hadn't led to greater lawfulness, would we have had a story to record?

The question should be: how to direct our warrior impulse? It won't go out of our genes any more than a cat's lust for birds will vanish.

We, humans, can change our expectations. Isn't that what these conversations & the I-net are all about? ...mutable expectations?

> I noticed a boy... running along the beach with a toy rifle.

Then his expectations shall also change...to exactly what, I don't know...something we all work to assume. The alternative is a great buzzing of flies.

> It makes me wonder whether there's any way we can escape a future where we have to send more kids off to fight...

We all live or die by the meme. It's memes that aim the gun and thrust the sword, nicht wahr? Meme is what the web is about.

If the meme that prevails is some embodiment of the Geneva Conventions, there's a chance we shan't miss our mark. I hope our grandchildren can rejoice in that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: "Their future will be like the Russians" qp4 2005-10-22 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	I would like to see that future too. That's why I do what I do. It's very small, almost nothing really, in the grander scheme of things, but I do what I can. "The light of reason" is a good line, but you should capitalize "reason" in that, I think. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs