US soldier goes on rampage in Afghanistan killing 16 innocent civilians

Guy should be prosecuted. But regardless, we need to get the hell out of afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead. The only thing we are doing now is creating more ill will.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I copy-pasted all the list Wikipedia has. That means those are probably all documentaries and programs on Guantanamo. If you have any other that is not there and contradicts the bulk of information there then provide it. You could also update Wikipedia with the new info since apparently they are not aware of it.airshocker

I just read through the list, and they're not all documentaries. Unless you're saying Harold and Kumar is a documentary. :lol:

You still haven't googled what I told you to? How pathetic.

Also if treating prisoners good enough is all that matters then why do you complain when Iran takes US citizens as prisoners without any accusation or trial? Everyone they have released have been perfectly fine after release. Or is it only the US who should be allowed to take people from other countries indefinitely without any accusation or trial?kuraimen

I believe you were already explained the difference between an administrative arrest and a criminal arrest. No one gets held without reason.

Except in Iran.

You are the one making the claim I provided my evidence your turn. Pathetic is that you claim something and are too scared to provide your own sources. Hint: that's because you're full of sh!t.kuraimen

Kuraimen, what are the fvck are you even talking about? Making a claim you provided your evidence? Did you even read that before you wrote it? It makes no sense. How hard is it to open your google and type in the FOUR things I said? I'm at work on my smartphone, I CAN'T LINK YOU THINGS. If you're going to act like a five year old brat, which is fvcking pathetic because you're a grown man, I'm done talking to you.

There is a lot of BS from both sides in this.

However the people trying to make out that QB is some kind of paid for holiday resort are a bit crazy. The place is an illegal prison that conducts illegal torture.

There is a lot of BS from both sides in this.

However the people trying to make out that QB is some kind of paid for holiday resort are a bit crazy. The place is an illegal prison that conducts illegal torture.

tenaka2

Who is doing that?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]You are the one making the claim I provided my evidence your turn. Pathetic is that you claim something and are too scared to provide your own sources. Hint: that's because you're full of sh!t.airshocker

Kuraimen, what are the fvck are you even talking about? Making a claim you provided your evidence? Did you even read that before you wrote it? It makes no sense. How hard is it to open your google and type in the FOUR things I said? I'm at work on my smartphone, I CAN'T LINK YOU THINGS. If you're going to act like a five year old brat, which is fvcking pathetic because you're a grown man, I'm done talking to you.

Typical you can't provide any sources so you run scared... I provided a link to the Wikipedia article which gives a lot of sources. If you care to read the Wikipedia article you would notice the overwhelming majority of sources cited there support my point, only ONE questionable government source supports your position and it calls Guantanamo a "resort". Prisoners, lawyers and even military officials have called the place illegal and said that prisoners are mistreated there. So your credibility is below 0 if you don't provide a source to your absurd claims.kuraimen

Yeah, I'm done with you. I'm trying to be reasonable, I've explained to you that I can't link you things, I've told you what my sources were so you could look them up for yourself, but you're acting like a child.

And again, I've never called Guantanamo Bay a resort.

There is a lot of BS from both sides in this.

However the people trying to make out that QB is some kind of paid for holiday resort are a bit crazy. The place is an illegal prison that conducts illegal torture.

Having read a report on the military's psychiatric policy, hopefully this event will cause them to take mental health more seriously.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Typical you can't provide any sources so you run scared... I provided a link to the Wikipedia article which gives a lot of sources. If you care to read the Wikipedia article you would notice the overwhelming majority of sources cited there support my point, only ONE questionable government source supports your position and it calls Guantanamo a "resort". Prisoners, lawyers and even military officials have called the place illegal and said that prisoners are mistreated there. So your credibility is below 0 if you don't provide a source to your absurd claims.airshocker

Yeah, I'm done with you. I'm trying to be reasonable, I've explained to you that I can't link you things, I've told you what my sources were so you could look them up for yourself, but you're acting like a child.

And again, I've never called Guantanamo Bay a resort.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What one soldier does....does not reflect on Americans so no damage control. The news report brought up the mental issue. And in the US at least we understand that sometimes people just aren't in the right frame of mind and we treat that differently. Your country may not do that. Which says more about your country actually.tenaka2

In truth however it does reflect on Americans, perhaps not from a western perspective. However invasion forces may not be seen as individuals to the country in question.

Having read a report on the military's psychiatric policy, hopefully this event will cause them to take mental health more seriously.

Jazz_Fan

They already do. When joining the military, you have to get a psych eval. Psych evals are done all the time in the military. When you come back from a deployment, you can't just simply go back home. You spend weeks getting debriefed and evaluated. There's actually a pretty big campaign in the military to stop people from committing suicide and breaking down. They are also taking more notice to mental conditions like PTSD, which should definitely be taken seriously.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"] It's right in front you, I shouldn't have to hold your hand for you to see it, lad.Stevo_the_gamer

Guy should be prosecuted. But regardless, we need to get the hell out of afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead. The only thing we are doing now is creating more ill will.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Guy should be prosecuted. But regardless, we need to get the hell out of afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead. The only thing we are doing now is creating more ill will.

GrayF0X786

This man knows something. This is all about western forces gaining regional control over certain powers around the world mostly in third world countries.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

What one soldier does....does not reflect on Americans so no damage control. The news report brought up the mental issue. And in the US at least we understand that sometimes people just aren't in the right frame of mind and we treat that differently. Your country may not do that. Which says more about your country actually.LJS9502_basic

In truth however it does reflect on Americans, perhaps not from a western perspective. However invasion forces may not be seen as individuals to the country in question.

[QUOTE="GrayF0X786"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Guy should be prosecuted. But regardless, we need to get the hell out of afghanistan. Bin Laden is dead. The only thing we are doing now is creating more ill will.

-Renegade

This man knows something. This is all about western forces gaining regional control over certain powers around the world mostly in third world countries.

Oh god, not this again...

[QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]

Having read a report on the military's psychiatric policy, hopefully this event will cause them to take mental health more seriously.

SpartanMSU

They already do. When joining the military, you have to get a psych eval. Psych evals are done all the time in the military. When you come back from a deployment, you can't just simply go back home. You spend weeks getting debriefed and evaluated. There's actually a pretty big campaign in the military to stop people from committing suicide and breaking down. They are also taking more notice to mental conditions like PTSD, which should definitely be taken seriously.

Actually, you don't get a psych eval when you join the military unless you have something in your medical records or do something that flags the medical officer at the Military Entrance Processing Station when you're trying to enlist. All they do at the MEPS is a full physical exam. They did start giving a personality test about two years ago but the accused shooter joined the Army over ten years ago.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Jazz_Fan"]

Having read a report on the military's psychiatric policy, hopefully this event will cause them to take mental health more seriously.

ad1x2

They already do. When joining the military, you have to get a psych eval. Psych evals are done all the time in the military. When you come back from a deployment, you can't just simply go back home. You spend weeks getting debriefed and evaluated. There's actually a pretty big campaign in the military to stop people from committing suicide and breaking down. They are also taking more notice to mental conditions like PTSD, which should definitely be taken seriously.

Actually, you don't get a psych eval when you join the military unless you have something in your medical records or do something that flags the medical officer at the Military Entrance Processing Station when you're trying to enlist. All they do at the MEPS is a full physical exam. They did start giving a personality test about two years ago but the accused shooter joined the Army over ten years ago.

Yep, forgot about that. They still kind of screen you to see if you actually do need a psych eval though. I remember when I went to MEPS this kid who wanted to join the Marines (who was 23 at the time) had to get a psych eval because he put down that he drank over 6 drinks/beers a month.:lol:

They already do. When joining the military, you have to get a psych eval. Psych evals are done all the time in the military. When you come back from a deployment, you can't just simply go back home. You spend weeks getting debriefed and evaluated. There's actually a pretty big campaign in the military to stop people from committing suicide and breaking down. They are also taking more notice to mental conditions like PTSD, which should definitely be taken seriously.

SpartanMSU

No they don't.

Psych evals are conducted very seldomly in the military. Only time I ever had one was when I went up for a top secret security clearance.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

They already do. When joining the military, you have to get a psych eval. Psych evals are done all the time in the military. When you come back from a deployment, you can't just simply go back home. You spend weeks getting debriefed and evaluated. There's actually a pretty big campaign in the military to stop people from committing suicide and breaking down. They are also taking more notice to mental conditions like PTSD, which should definitely be taken seriously.

airshocker

No they don't.

Psych evals are conducted very seldomly in the military. Only time I ever had one was when I went up for a top secret security clearance.

When you come home from deployment, at least in the Army, you have to get evaluated to see if you are ready to go back into the civilian world. I knew people who couldn't go home when everyone else did because they were having issues. Although I've never had personal experience with coming back from a deployment, this is just what I was told from others in my unit. I got medically discharged right before my unit was about to deploy unfortunatley.

When you come home from deployment, at least in the Army, you have to get evaluated to see if you are ready to go back into the civilian world. I knew people who couldn't go home when everyone else did because they were having issues. Although I've never had personal experience with coming back from a deployment, this is just what I was told from others in my unit. I got medically discharged right before my unit was about to deploy unfortunatley.

SpartanMSU

Hm, never heard of anyone getting a psych eval just because they were coming home from a deployment. There was always some external factor like an uncharacteristic outburst at work, or being unusually quiet, that would trigger some type of mental health assessment.

What a fkin terrorist.

WTF? He is indeed a terrorist. His emotional state does not absolve him of his acts. If that was the case then the term "terrorist" would not exist. What, you don't think suicide bombers didn't go through a mental breakdown? Or a school shooter on a rampage? Please dude, don't say ignorant things like this it just makes you look plain bad. And another point, the U.S military is fully responsable for this event, as this soilder was a representative of the effing U.S MILITARY! I'm soo tired in the lack of responsability in this media obsessed world. Goverments are effing vaginas.edo-tensei

He's not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who tries to inculcate fear in a population in order to effect some type of political, economic, or social change.

The reports are saying the soldier had a traumatic brain injury. If that's the case, he'll most likely get a life sentence in mental hospital.

What a fkin terrorist.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="TehFuneral"]

What a fkin terrorist.

edo-tensei

He's not a terrorist, he's just a murderer. What he did fits the definition of murder but not terrorism.

As for him being a representative of the whole military, saying he represents the entire military is like saying Seung-Hui Cho represents all Korean college students. He did something that was wrong and stupid but there are thousands of other Soldiers who do the right thing everyday.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]WTF? He is indeed a terrorist. His emotional state does not absolve him of his acts. If that was the case then the term "terrorist" would not exist. What, you don't think suicide bombers didn't go through a mental breakdown? Or a school shooter on a rampage? Please dude, don't say ignorant things like this it just makes you look plain bad. And another point, the U.S military is fully responsable for this event, as this soilder was a representative of the effing U.S MILITARY! I'm soo tired in the lack of responsability in this media obsessed world. Goverments are effing vaginas.airshocker

He's not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who tries to inculcate fear in a population in order to effect some type of political, economic, or social change.

The reports are saying the soldier had a traumatic brain injury. If that's the case, he'll most likely get a life sentence in mental hospital.

He still commited terrorist acts. His actions will certainly create a lot of "change" in all the fields you just mentoned over in that region. If the U.S military couldn't notice his condition before all this happened then it's the military responsability all together. The military themselves say it the best; you're only as good as your weakest link. Take responsability for what happened if you want the least amount of hate from those communities. I'm sure you call to complain to a business corporation when one of their employees treats you in an unpleasant manner, right? I think it's a double standard for the military to blame the Middle East for the acts of terrorism of the few, while at the same time brushing off the responsability of this, clearly mentally ill individual.edo-tensei

He's not a terrorist. I gave you the definition of terrorism used around the world. The argument on that point is over.

The military condemns terrorism on all fronts. One of our own committed an act of terrorism against us, and he's being charged accordingly. What that soldier in Afghanistan did wasn't terrorism and isn't representative of the US military as a whole.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]No....... he had an 'emotional breakdown'ad1x2

He's not a terrorist, he's just a murderer. What he did fits the definition of murder but not terrorism.

As for him being a representative of the whole military, saying he represents the entire military is like saying Seung-Hui Cho represents all Korean college students. He did something that was wrong and stupid but there are thousands of other Soldiers who do the right thing everyday.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]He still commited terrorist acts. His actions will certainly create a lot of "change" in all the fields you just mentoned over in that region. If the U.S military couldn't notice his condition before all this happened then it's the military responsability all together. The military themselves say it the best; you're only as good as your weakest link. Take responsability for what happened if you want the least amount of hate from those communities. I'm sure you call to complain to a business corporation when one of their employees treats you in an unpleasant manner, right? I think it's a double standard for the military to blame the Middle East for the acts of terrorism of the few, while at the same time brushing off the responsability of this, clearly mentally ill individual.airshocker

He's not a terrorist. I gave you the definition of terrorism used around the world. The argument on that point is over.

The military condemns terrorism on all fronts. One of our own committed an act of terrorism against us, and he's being charged accordingly. What that soldier in Afghanistan did wasn't terrorism and isn't representative of the US military as a whole.

Well its not a big deal since they kill each others anyways. AussieePet

Actually, it is. The Taliban will use this incident to recruit more people to their cause, which will cause even more deaths on both sides.

Facts say otherwise. The fact that he massacred 16 people for no reason is an act of terror in every part of the world, war or no war. The fact that covering a terrorist act with mental incapacity does not, in itself, nullify said terrorist acts. The fact that this soldier was a representative of the U.S military in another part of the world, and it fell under the military responsability, both his actions and the prevention of said actions(if he indeed was mentaly incapable as they claim now).edo-tensei

What he did isn't in question. He murdered 16 people. That's not terrorism. It's you who doesn't want to accept the facts.

You are wrong and that's that.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]Facts say otherwise. The fact that he massacred 16 people for no reason is an act of terror in every part of the world, war or no war. The fact that covering a terrorist act with mental incapacity does not, in itself, nullify said terrorist acts. The fact that this soldier was a representative of the U.S military in another part of the world, and it fell under the military responsability, both his actions and the prevention of said actions(if he indeed was mentaly incapable as they claim now).airshocker

What he did isn't in question. He murdered 16 people. That's not terrorism. It's you who doesn't want to accept the facts.

You are wrong and that's that.

He's probably right though. You're definitely not an authority on the subject.kuraimen

I've been trained to spot terrorism and to know its definition. That makes me much more of an authority than 90% of the people on this board.

You don't have to like it, but it's the fact of the matter.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]Facts say otherwise. The fact that he massacred 16 people for no reason is an act of terror in every part of the world, war or no war. The fact that covering a terrorist act with mental incapacity does not, in itself, nullify said terrorist acts. The fact that this soldier was a representative of the U.S military in another part of the world, and it fell under the military responsability, both his actions and the prevention of said actions(if he indeed was mentaly incapable as they claim now).airshocker

What he did isn't in question. He murdered 16 people. That's not terrorism. It's you who doesn't want to accept the facts.

You are wrong and that's that.

Ok, I'll bite...

-Definition of terrorism-

1). The use of violencean threadsto to intimidate or coerce especially for political purpoces: Use of violence and threads to intimidate? Check. Even if they do claim he wasn't mentally capable, it still had the same effect. The definition says it is especially used for political reasons, but nowhere does it says that it's only exclusive for political reason.

2). The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization: Are the locals terrorized by the actions of this man? Yeah, that's a positive check.

3). A terroristic method of governing or resisting a goverment: Were the actions of this individual horrific or terror-like by definition? Another automatic check, since this person is representing the U.S military fighting a goverment or rebel stablishment in another nation,while commiting these inhumane acts.

I find itkind of funny you feel the need to excuse the U.S and the responsability the play in all this. Because as they said, the guy was mentaly unstable. Ok, we all get that. But wouldn't be the responsability of the army to have noticed the previous activity of this man before doing what he did?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]He's probably right though. You're definitely not an authority on the subject.airshocker

I've been trained to spot terrorism and to know its definition. That makes me much more of an authority than 90% of the people on this board.

You don't have to like it, but it's the fact of the matter.

Ok, I'll bite...

-Definition of terrorism-

1). The use of violencean threadsto to intimidate or coerce especially for political purpoces: Use of violence and threads to intimidate? Check. Even if they do claim he wasn't mentally capable, it still had the same effect. The definition says it is especially used for political reasons, but nowhere does it says that it's only exclusive for political reason.

2). The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization: Are the locals terrorized by the actions of this man? Yeah, that's a positive check.

3). A terroristic method of governing or resisting a goverment: Were the actions of this individual horrific or terror-like by definition? Another automatic check, since this person is representing the U.S military fighting a goverment or rebel stablishment in another nation,while commiting these inhumane acts.

I find itkind of funny you feel the need to excuse the U.S and the responsability the play in all this. Because as they said, the guy was mentaly unstable. Ok, we all get that. But wouldn't be the responsability of the army to have noticed the previous activity of this man before doing what he did?

edo-tensei

Where is your proof that his actions were intended solely to inculcate fear or intimidation?

Airshocker, without direspect, I can't take you seriously in this subject, because you're as biased in this as a cow to ps3 in sw.

Airshocker, without direspect, I can't take you seriously in this subject, because you're as biased in this as a cow to ps3 in sw.

edo-tensei

:lol:

Look who's talking. Either answer my question, or be quiet.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]He's probably right though. You're definitely not an authority on the subject.airshocker

I've been trained to spot terrorism and to know its definition. That makes me much more of an authority than 90% of the people on this board.

You don't have to like it, but it's the fact of the matter.

[QUOTE="edo-tensei"]

Ok, I'll bite...

-Definition of terrorism-

1). The use of violencean threadsto to intimidate or coerce especially for political purpoces: Use of violence and threads to intimidate? Check. Even if they do claim he wasn't mentally capable, it still had the same effect. The definition says it is especially used for political reasons, but nowhere does it says that it's only exclusive for political reason.

2). The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization: Are the locals terrorized by the actions of this man? Yeah, that's a positive check.

3). A terroristic method of governing or resisting a goverment: Were the actions of this individual horrific or terror-like by definition? Another automatic check, since this person is representing the U.S military fighting a goverment or rebel stablishment in another nation,while commiting these inhumane acts.

I find itkind of funny you feel the need to excuse the U.S and the responsability the play in all this. Because as they said, the guy was mentaly unstable. Ok, we all get that. But wouldn't be the responsability of the army to have noticed the previous activity of this man before doing what he did?

Where is your proof that his actions were intended solely to inculcate fear or intimidation?

I still think you are wrong, I also know the definition of terrorism.kuraimen

Your opinion matters very little in this case. :lol:

You missed the point entirely. tHEY CLAIM THAT HE WAS MENTALLY ILL! Ok we get that, but like I said, it doesn't nullify the act itself. It still had the same "terror" effect on the people in this region willingly or not. There, your question is aswered, now you be quiet and use that brain for more than fronting. edo-tensei

You haven't answered my question.

Wait, so is every murder considered terrorism now?