4 Scumbag punks Get what they deserve!

Cianos

Poccington wrote: »

Military training isn't designed to eliminate a sense of individuality from a person. Discipline isn't strict because they're trying to condition you to kill, it's strict because when you come into contact or head out on a Recce Patrol at 2 in the morning when you're dead on your feet, you'll do what you're told because it's your job to do so.

As for the idea that all individual thinking isn't allowed in the Military is very wrong. If soldiers weren't allowed think for themselves, an Army would be completely stagnant. There'd be no progression, no change and certainly no lessons learned from experience. Individual thinking is encouraged in the Military in most things, apart from when taking orders obviously. A soldier needs to be able to think for himself, a soldier unable to think for himself is absolutely useless to everyone.

We're crossing wires I think. The aim of the military is to prepare recruits for the worst of conditions, to instil a high level of discipline and to condition people to kill when ordered to. Being a soldier is far from a normal job and the training required for the above has to be highly psychologically refined to get the desired results.

A soldier can feel that he as a person is important in the military and as an individual can make his own mark, but only when living by the rules. He HAS to wear a uniform, he HAS to have short hair, he HAS to go through intense training, and he HAS to follow orders no matter what. This is the main point. The soldier is in complete servitude to the chain of command. His life and death is literally in the hands of his superiors. His individuality is only accommodated as long as it doesn't get in the way of him being a good soldier.

Soldiers are conditioned to kill by neutralising the concept of "I". "I" being the soldier himself and his enemy. And thus the natural empathy we have for other people, that stops us from killing in the 'normal world' is nullified in war situations by the realignment of 'I' and 'you', to 'my country' and 'the enemy'.

Within the military context, the soldier experiences extreme training, degradation, conformity and panopticism. The individuals normal state of mind is strained to the point where following orders perfectly and without question is the easiest thing to do. By following orders meticulously, there becomes no need for self questioning. The inability for a soldier to choose what to do absolves the impact of his actions because they no longer belong to him. A person would usually find it hard to kill someone, but because the soldier is ordered to kill, the soldier detaches himself, at least temporarily, from the responsibility.

As for the "Leave no man behind" thing, it has nothing to do with being a PR motto. For 99% of soldiers, it's down to personal feelings and loyalty, which is where the concept of "Leave no man behind" came from. Chances are the person that you're trying to retrieve spent years working with you in the same Unit, been Overseas with you, been with you in firefights and was there by your side when you were feeling your very worst. This concept of loyalty to Units, heading out on a rescue mission because an Officer told you to or because it'd look lovely in the papers is wrong. Most people don't give two flying ****s about some General dishing out the orders, I know I certainly don't but they most certainly care about the man standing next to them. So when they hear that some of the lads are in a spot of bother and they're throwing on their gear, it's not cause it's what they were told to do... It's because it's exactly what those lads would do for them. In the end it is about loyalty but not loyalty to a chain of command, or a Unit and definitely not a PR motto... It's loyalty to your comrades.

I understand what you mean. But you only care about the man standing next to you because your superiors want you to care about him. If it made you a better soldier not to care, then your superiors would make sure you didn't care about him. The familial bond of soldiers is an efficient way to ensure obedience and team spirit. The 'leave no man behind' policy is there for a reason and it's not because of the choice of the soldiers. They are the ones who have to go in and do the rescuing, and of course they do it because they care a lot about their comrades, but again they are only going back in to the field because the chain of command allows it to happen, and wants it to happen, because it makes for a better army.

silvine

Was his name Jack Bauer?

Firetrap

If these punks shot my dog, I'd scrape their lungs out with a spoon. :mad:

Terry

Firetrap wrote: »

If these punks shot my dog, I'd scrape their lungs out with a spoon. :mad:

How?

whitey1

Believe it or not I actually had a beer with this guy about 2 months ago. He came to give a motivational speech at my firms annual sales meeting. I have never been as moved by anything in my life. What a human being will endure for the love of his country and comrades is truely remarkable.

If you can get it-definitely read his book. You will shed a tear

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Cianos wrote: »

We're crossing wires I think. The aim of the military is to prepare recruits for the worst of conditions, to instil a high level of discipline and to condition people to kill when ordered to. Being a soldier is far from a normal job and the training required for the above has to be highly psychologically refined to get the desired results.



Soldiers are conditioned to kill by neutralising the concept of "I". "I" being the soldier himself and his enemy. And thus the natural empathy we have for other people, that stops us from killing in the 'normal world' is nullified in war situations by the realignment of 'I' and 'you', to 'my country' and 'the enemy'.

Within the military context, the soldier experiences extreme training, degradation, conformity and panopticism. The individuals normal state of mind is strained to the point where following orders perfectly and without question is the easiest thing to do. By following orders meticulously, there becomes no need for self questioning. The inability for a soldier to choose what to do absolves the impact of his actions because they no longer belong to him. A person would usually find it hard to kill someone, but because the soldier is ordered to kill, the soldier detaches himself, at least temporarily, from the responsibility.



I understand what you mean. But you only care about the man standing next to you because your superiors want you to care about him. If it made you a better soldier not to care, then your superiors would make sure you didn't care about him. The familial bond of soldiers is an efficient way to ensure obedience and team spirit. The 'leave no man behind' policy is there for a reason and it's not because of the choice of the soldiers. They are the ones who have to go in and do the rescuing, and of course they do it because they care a lot about their comrades, but again they are only going back in to the field because the chain of command allows it to happen, and wants it to happen, because it makes for a better army.

Look, you are talking rubbish, unless you have served in any military, studied military psychology or anything, then I suggest you stop You are telling a member of the PDF (if you know what that is) what a soldier is. I don't think that is the best idea . Civvies don't understand much about military issues and should stay out of them... you are pulling things out of the air, mad theories altogether.

Actions do belong to the soldier in question, to a certain degree... being ordered to kill a family, and you doing it, doesn't make you immune to the consequences.

You also don't have a clue about a soldiers bond with another, not a clue. So please do stop.

So your idea is, if a few men get ambushed, it's best to let them make their own way home? This shows your understanding of the military, which is zero.

Terry wrote: »

How?

I think he means scrapping the bronchioli out of his lungs???

Cianos wrote: »

This is what I hate about the whole "leave no man behind" motto. 16 lives are lost to save 4...such a waste. The "leave no man behind" policy is only a marketing term for the military in that it promotes heroism and honour (and in turn ensures higher enrollments) and romanticises the actual cost and waste in human life behind upholding it.

Again, shows us how little you know about the military.

wyk

prinz wrote: »

This was Texas, not Tallaght. Cell phone use while driving is only against the law of the state if the driver is a minor, or driving a special purpose vehicle ( e.g. school bus, public transport etc.) AFAIK.

High speed pursuit in the course of a citizens arrest for a more serious crime.

Correct. It is perfectly legal to drive with a mobile in Texas with no hands off device.

However, he could be charged with the speeding if they had proof of it; your own admission is not enough evidence to convict one of a crime in Texas - there must be proof. He was out in the country, though. Texas roads out there are lonely and straight at night. So the risk he posed to other drivers was minimal compared to being somewhere in Ireland. It is unlikely he will see the charge. Even so, with a clean record, it is still only an infraction even at that speed(many county roads have a 70-80 MPH speed limit), which is easily knocked down to a fine and traffic school. I was once given a 70 MPH ticket when I was traveling at well over 90 mph. There just is simply nothing out there in the country in some places and law enforcement get used to seeing people at terrific speeds that actually deserve the tickets. They also love to give chase in their Hemi V8's and Corvettes.

Mine was a $58 ticket. After that cleared my rcord(3 years to clear) I have not had a single ticket in over 22 years now. I DO have several warnings, though. http://www.pbase.com/wyk/image/22142903/large

It is also perfectly legal to make a citizens arrest if you feel the subjects are armed and intend further harm to you or others.

You are allowed also to defend your property or animals from theft and harm with the use of lethal force, even if you are not ON your own property, from theft or harm.

However, this offense was committed at night - under Texas law, you may shoot first and ask questions later in the case of trespassers under cover of darkness within the confines of your property, or if you are being shot at while on your property by anyone from without your property. You do not have to wait for the criminal to gain the upper hand and first act against you at night. No, people don't go about shooting strangers at night, but it serves fair warning to those whom might cause trouble, and ends up being a defense from prosecution in the event someone does come calling the night with malice in their thoughts.

Texas is NOT Ireland folks - here you are expected to obey the law, and the law is heavily tilted towards property owners and to the law-abiding. If you start trouble, the law basically says those you start it against have a LOT of legal options to use against you to stop it. As a citizen you are also expected to mind yourself and take responsibility for your own safety to a certain extent, until law enforcement arrives. And the law can be a long ways away out there in the country. Compare that to Ireland, won't u

You'll notice none of the imbeciles have a weapons charge(yet). It is legal to carry a gun in your car in Texas if you are not a convicted Felon. Also, a dog is considered BELOW livestock in Texas - merely property. If his dog had been a work dog(guard dog, watch dog, Livestock Sheep or Guardian dog, or registered racing Greyhound) it would have been another crime to shoot it as well, punishable up to 5 years - criminal mischief in the shooting of a work dog and cruelty to livestock or livestock guardian in the death of a work dog. The cruelty charge applies in the case of the animal not dying instantly from his wound. It must be a heart or head shot. You WILL be charged with both if they can make them stick. However, if it were a pet, the cruelty charge is ALWAYS applied regardless of how the animal died, so long as it was killed illegally - so that's one up the pet does get. And the property owner may shoot you in defense of any of their animals if you are attacking it or harming it - whether on his property or not, if it was unprovoked. One of the reasons this case has made news is not just due to the SEAL, but also because such things rarely occur here. After all, who wants to take the chances, but the most stupid amongst us?

Once you break the law in certain ways, IE trespass, threaten harm to someone, shoot someone's dog(which is not legal unless the animal is attacking you in a public place or your own property), steal or burgle property or a vehicle, a Texas citizen has the right to defend themselves with lethal force or the threat of lethal force(which happens much more often - 'stop fvckign around or I'll shoot your ass' ...etc.). This goes a long way towards explaining why hooliganism is all but unheard of here. You will definitely be shot if you cause enough trouble in Texas.

As far as our soldiers go, it isn't brainwashing. It is the principle. Every man is there for every other man, we fight side by side, and we expect each other to do our best to come to each others aid as a matter of principle. If it is at all possible, no one will leave anyone else behind. It has nothing to do with cold hard statistics. I don't know about the Irish Army, but ours can not devine the future. So any plan that seems like it has a chance will be considered. Heroism and honor are not promoted via 'leave no man behind', you proved that when you decided to risk your life for those of your fellow citizens, so that they may live in peace and safety from foreign threats. "Leave no Man Behind" is not only the motto of the Army Rangers, but for nearly all military throughout the world. You either understand the principle, or you don't.


WYK

Cianos

Lachlan Powerful Cylinder wrote: »

Look, you are talking rubbish, unless you have served in any military, studied military psychology or anything, then I suggest you stop You are telling a member of the PDF (if you know what that is) what a soldier is. I don't think that is the best idea .

I'm not telling anyone what a soldier is, I'm just giving my own opinion on the psychological/philosophical ramifications of militarism. It has not been my intention to cause any offence to anyone in the military. I am interested in the subject though and was hoping for some interesting feedback from people with different view points. And unless I'm breaking the charter and or a mod intervenes, I can say what I like thanks.

Civvies don't understand much about military issues and should stay out of them

So the people who are paying the wages should 'stay out' of military issues just because we don't understand it as much as you?

Actions do belong to the soldier in question, to a certain degree... being ordered to kill a family, and you doing it, doesn't make you immune to the consequences.

Re-read my post and you'll see we agree with each other.

You also don't have a clue about a soldiers bond with another, not a clue. So please do stop.

Didn't pretend I did. I haven't served in the military so I can't have any kind of idea compared to someone who has.

So your idea is, if a few men get ambushed, it's best to let them make their own way home? This shows your understanding of the military, which is zero.

Again, I didn't say that. But you don't have to be in the military to understand that there is a higher agenda to the policy than simply the protection of the individual soldier. Personally I would not feel it ethical to order in a rescue team on a highly dangerous mission to save one person when I expect to lose around five more men doing so. Where do you draw the line, how many lives are ok to lose to try and save one?

javaboy

Cianos wrote: »

Personally I would not feel it ethical to order in a rescue team on a highly dangerous mission to save one person when I expect to lose around five more men doing so. Where do you draw the line, how many lives are ok to lose to try and save one?

Would have made for a very short film though.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Cianos wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone what a soldier is, I'm just giving my own opinion on the psychological/philosophical ramifications of militarism. It has not been my intention to cause any offence to anyone in the military. I am interested in the subject though and was hoping for some interesting feedback from people with different view points. And unless I'm breaking the charter and or a mod intervenes, I can say what I like thanks.

You might want to word your sentences a little differant, for instance "I believe that..." "in my opinion it..." "Would I be right in saying..." Otherwise it looks like you are comming accross like you know everything about it.

Not all military organisations would be the same, and with in that organisation there would be completely differant levels of training. For instance, take the following into account, a recruit, cadet, sniper and special forces would all have completely differant training. What you see on TV is a load of bullcrap to tell you the truth. Training tactics used in the likes of America are not used everywhere else.

So the people who are paying the wages should 'stay out' of military issues just because we don't understand it as much as you?

Well, yea, obviously. You don't know much about it. Anyway, civvies do not pay the wages of the public service, the government do through funding of taxes, which are mandatory. You do not have an option so please don't use that argument. You have no right to get involved in military issues. You can voice your opinion on decisions made by Willie and the government. That's about it really.

Re-read my post and you'll see we agree with each other.

Fair enoughy.

Didn't pretend I did. I haven't served in the military so I can't have any kind of idea compared to someone who has.

Well you are emplying that you do, by referring to that bond as a mandatory bond. There is no point trying to understand it unless you are involved in some team based sports.

I can break it down for you a little. You care about your buddy because you rely on that person to get you through some tight spots, he/she will rely on you in the same way. You do not have to be friends or get along, but when the sh!t hits the fan you are buddies... Soldiers can not operate one their own (in general) including snipers (they need spotters). You need to operate as a unit be it a section a company or a platoon. It's all the same. There is a lot of trust in that unit. The soldier does not care what the chain of command think, or say when it comes to this.

Again, I didn't say that. But you don't have to be in the military to understand that there is a higher agenda to the policy than simply the protection of the individual soldier. Personally I would not feel it ethical to order in a rescue team on a highly dangerous mission to save one person when I expect to lose around five more men doing so. Where do you draw the line, how many lives are ok to lose to try and save one?

Your wording emplies you are saying it.

Any idea how much it costs to train a soldier? Let alone a navy seal? The amount of time put into training and conditioning that soldier. Anyway, that's only a fiscal matter... more importantly it's LIFE... which you seem completely oblivious to. No matter what argument you have about it, you are wrong.

If you were stranded, wouldn't you like to know that someone was on their way to help you out. No CO (Commanding officer) knows they will lose more men than they are rescuing. There is a risk but they are obliged to save the lives of their men. What would you do with that one man stranded??? War isn't pretty... sh!t happens...

localhothead

awww MAN , he didnt torture and kill them ,
I thought this was gonna have a happy ending

Cianos

Lachlan Powerful Cylinder wrote: »

Not all military organisations would be the same, and with in that organisation there would be completely differant levels of training. For instance, take the following into account, a recruit, cadet, sniper and special forces would all have completely differant training. What you see on TV is a load of bullcrap to tell you the truth. Training tactics used in the likes of America are not used everywhere else.

They're not all run the same of course. But their objective is almost identical...to take 'normal' people and prepare them for combat etc etc. How they go about recruitment and training is refined based on demographics, religion and culture.

Well, yea, obviously. You don't know much about it. Anyway, civvies do not pay the wages of the public service, the government do through funding of taxes, which are mandatory. You do not have an option so please don't use that argument. You have no right to get involved in military issues. You can voice your opinion on decisions made by Willie and the government. That's about it really.

So if the Irish military are abusing international human rights, I have no right to get involved because I'm just a 'civvie'?

Well you are emplying that you do, by referring to that bond as a mandatory bond. There is no point trying to understand it unless you are involved in some team based sports.

I did not say the bond is mandatory. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I am simply saying it's facilitated and nurtured for cohesion, morale and efficiency as well as the well-being of the actual soldiers.

Any idea how much it costs to train a soldier? Let alone a navy seal? The amount of time put into training and conditioning that soldier.

No but I'm sure it's quite a lot. And losing 18 soldiers costs a lot more than losing 4.

Anyway, that's only a fiscal matter... more importantly it's LIFE... which you seem completely oblivious to. No matter what argument you have about it, you are wrong.

Sigh. We're not just talking about the life of the guy who is in trouble, we're talking about the lives of the soldiers who are sent in to rescue him to uphold the policy!

If you were stranded, wouldn't you like to know that someone was on their way to help you out. No CO (Commanding officer) knows they will lose more men than they are rescuing. There is a risk but they are obliged to save the lives of their men. What would you do with that one man stranded??? War isn't pretty... sh!t happens...

Of course I'd like to be rescued. So would everyone. But it shouldn't be down to me. It should be the decision of the CO to objectively choose whether it is worth the risk to save me. If he believes that approximately 10 people will die because the rescue mission is so dangerous, then I can understand if he chose to leave me. That would be the ethical thing to do, because why should I claim my life to be of more value than 10 others combined? Surely you must see my point here.

So the 'leave no man behind' policy puts a bias on the rescuing of a soldier rather than the preservation of the soldiers that are being sent on these highly dangerous rescue and recovery missions. It's a strategic policy to uphold for morale, cohesion and the image of the military, but it is not always ethical.

helimachoptor

You can't know if people are going to die when they mount a rescue mission. Its calculated risk, to save one person we are going into an enemy stronghold etc but you must beleive you are the better trained better equipped force and tbh each soldier has a bond to the man next to him. I've read a lot of these types of books and one thing is abundantly clear if your in the sh*t and behind enemy lines your buddies will come for you end of.
d

Cianos

helimachoptor wrote: »

You can't know if people are going to die when they mount a rescue mission. Its calculated risk, to save one person we are going into an enemy stronghold etc but you must beleive you are the better trained better equipped force and tbh each soldier has a bond to the man next to him. I've read a lot of these types of books and one thing is abundantly clear if your in the sh*t and behind enemy lines your buddies will come for you end of.
d

Ok, as an example. A 2 manned patrolling vehicle gets ambushed in a remote area and the attacked soldiers report around 100 heavily armed and well equipped enemies closing in fast. The only available unit nearby is a 10 man team, otherwise it's going to be a long wait to get sufficient back up at which point the ambushed men will be long gone. So do you send in the 10 men to attempt a rescue or let the 2 guys die?

Obviously very simplistic, but I'm trying to give an example of a situation that seems pretty hopeless but where there is the option to send in a rescue team.

helimachoptor

Cianos wrote: »

Ok, as an example. A 2 manned patrolling vehicle gets ambushed in a remote area and the attacked soldiers report around 100 heavily armed and well equipped enemies closing in fast. The only available unit nearby is a 10 man team, otherwise it's going to be a long wait to get sufficient back up at which point the ambushed men will be long gone. So do you send in the 10 men to attempt a rescue or let the 2 guys die?

Obviously very simplistic, but I'm trying to give an example of a situation that seems pretty hopeless but where there is the option to send in a rescue team.

No but your making a bad point, what the thread has developed into is those 2 guys getting captured and reporting back to base where a properly armed and equipped rescue effort can be mounted. the 10 man team can covertly follow the captives and provide recon and intelligence and report back to the main force. Only an idiot would send a 10 man team against 100 men.

But those main force would come in with overwhelming force I think it was George Bush sr who said in war its better to have too many guns in battle and too few.



Currently reading a book written by Michael J Durant about the NightStalkers (Blawk Hawk Down) at the end of the film the little bird is flying around broadcasting "Michael Durant we will not leave you behind" That is what makes soldier go into harms way.

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

Ok, as an example. A 2 manned patrolling vehicle gets ambushed in a remote area and the attacked soldiers report around 100 heavily armed and well equipped enemies closing in fast. The only available unit nearby is a 10 man team, otherwise it's going to be a long wait to get sufficient back up at which point the ambushed men will be long gone. So do you send in the 10 men to attempt a rescue or let the 2 guys die?

Obviously very simplistic, but I'm trying to give an example of a situation that seems pretty hopeless but where there is the option to send in a rescue team.

You plan and enact the rescue, if at all possible. Frankly, those ten men nearby will be foaming at the mouth and chomping at the bit to do it. Whatever about commanding officers, soldiers don't leave their men behind, and it's because they're soldiers together, not because it's some stupid policy decided higher up the food chain.

You're fond of analogies, so to understand why it would be risked, here it is from the perspective of the soldiers on the ground:

Soldiers on the ground, analogised for you: Your mate, who you grew up with, played football with and went to school with, who you had fights with, got drunk with, and tell stories and anecdotes to other friends about, is being threatened for his life. For you to intervene against a gang of murderous thugs, with half a dozen of your other mates, is terribly dangerous, and you might all end up paying dearly for it, but there's no other solution but to let your friend be murdered by the gang. What do you do?

From the point of view of those higher up the food chain, it's important to be seen to be strong. Capitulating and leaving men to die, rather than attempting a rescue, even when conditions are unfavourable, means you look weak, both to the enemy and to your own men. Men do not follow poor leaders willingly. You can be cynical about the policy if you want, but before you do so, look back to the scenario above and ask yourself what you'd think of an influence who interfered to prevent you rescuing your mate.

And remember also, good officers are soldiers first and foremost, they're not slimy politicians. They feel for their men. Tim Collins, during a spec ops mission to rescue captured British soldiers in Sierra Leone, was part of a consultative panel involved in planning the rescue attempt. He had commanded the men captured and knew them all personally. When the head of the division who would take part in the rescue spoke to Collins, Collins told him to "make it biblical". Not only was it important to him that the prestige of the British army preserved and its ability to protect its men and its wrath at their mistreatment to be demonstrated, there was a personal responsibility to the individual soldiers captured felt at the highest levels. Without examination, I think it's very difficult for those without motivation to understand just how human an organisation an army is, and to accept it as an efficient machine, but one composed of individuals with countless complex relationships at work within it. Indeed, I think that's the challenge of a good officer; to understand the human element within the machine at his command, and to serve it in order that it should work for him when he needs it.

Poccington

Cianos wrote: »

Ok, as an example. A 2 manned patrolling vehicle gets ambushed in a remote area and the attacked soldiers report around 100 heavily armed and well equipped enemies closing in fast. The only available unit nearby is a 10 man team, otherwise it's going to be a long wait to get sufficient back up at which point the ambushed men will be long gone. So do you send in the 10 men to attempt a rescue or let the 2 guys die?

Obviously very simplistic, but I'm trying to give an example of a situation that seems pretty hopeless but where there is the option to send in a rescue team.

You're leaving out many things from that equation. You have to take into account the training of the enemy, equipment being used, morale, you have to look at the time of attack, the terrain where the firefight is taking place, the ability of your own men to infil the target area and engage the enemy.

With the right circumstances, 10 well trained men could hold off 100 for a considerable amount of time. Although the situation seems hopeless, as long as there's a chance to try pull them out you have to give it a proper go. If you said to those 10 men "Right lads, 2 of the boys were out on a Recce and got hit up. They're up ****s creek but there's still a chance we can pull them out but it involves the 10 of you advancing straight into contact against a larger enemy force... What do you reckon?" I can guarantee that their answer would be yes. I'll say it again, it has nothing to do with an image for the army or morale purposes... It's to do with personally loyalty and dedication to your brothers in arms. I know you seem to have this idea that it's all just a crock that the Army thought up for PR reasons and morale but it isn't. It's down to the person next to you, that's the reason you do what you do... Not because an Officer told you to, not because it's what you're trained to do, it's because the man next to you has been right beside when you were at your very worst, when you were on the verge of breaking he was right there doing it with ya. Speaking from experience, that's something that no Military syllabus will teach you.

Plug

I thought it was a sh!t story tbh:(