Iraq Veterans vulnerable to commit suicide

[Echo3Romeo]

The question put was whether the nature of the missions at hand, the daily business of the actual doings, or the memory-informed reaction and adjustment to civilian return, are different in some influential way for the soldiers of a wrong and unjustified war.

Unjust according to whom?

Your response raises another question: in light of the essentially political failure of the US occupation of Iraq - the political failure to win the hearts and minds, as was necessary for success of the mission - would you agree with Ho Chi Minh's battle general that a soldier is better off without a weapon than without a political understanding of their mission ?

An understanding of the political dynamic germane to one's mission is absolutely important. However, the scope of this dynamic is proportional to a soldier's place in the chain of command. A junior soldier's AO for their entire hajj is typically no larger than a part of a large city, officer or enlisted. The political underpinnings relevant to their AO pertain to the alignment of local sheikhs, their various tribal histories, and the influence and political alignments of local imams and muftis, and other factions operating within the area. Personnel who deal with policy at the level you are discussing are a small number of general and flag ranking officers. Like I said, very few soldiers.

 

[Mr. G]

Some of the deleted posts may have had some merit, and I'm sorry if anyone feels they were deleted in error, it's too much to sort out. Please try to keep it somewhat close to the topic at hand.
Thanks,
SG

I'm not thinking they were deleted "in error".

I'm not feeling they were deleted "in error".

I'm remembering an institutionalized range of freedom of action than I can claim for my own purposes in the future.

Now that has merit.

 

[iceaura]

Personnel who deal with policy at the level you are discussing are a small number of general and flag ranking officers. Like I said, very few soldiers.

So you disagree with that general ? In particular:

The political underpinnings relevant to their AO pertain to the alignment of local sheikhs, their various tribal histories, and the influence and political alignments of local imams and muftis, and other factions operating within the area.

involves no larger scale political understanding of the war itself, how and why it should be fought, and for whom. You find this not nearly as important, in a war of occupation, as Ho Chi Minh (say) found it ?

Unjust according to whom?

Unjustified. And dishonorable, etc., according to the reality of the situation as it will become - may already have become, even during the mission - apparent to many of the soldiers themselves, as well as a consensus of the citizenry at home.

Consider a common type of Vietnam vet: one absolute, firm, in their denial of certain realities of Vietnam. They cannot abide the idea that massacres and other serious atrocities committed by some American forces were common, known, and unpunished, for example. They cling to the belief of honorable effort betrayed by weak and unprincipled civilians like a capsize victim to the side of the boat in a storm. Why, do you suppose ?

 

[Echo3Romeo]

Not all soldiers share your personal opinion of the situation in Iraq. Some do, and for them, I think you are onto something.

In any case, the fundamental understanding that you lack is that, while soldiers do have their own opinions (many of which are far more nuanced than anything displayed in this forum), personal bullshit is out the window when the shooting starts. Downrange you live and breathe your mission. Personal opinions are irrelevant. All that matters is the mission, your own safety, and that of the guy next to you.

You're ignorant on a few other points, as well, but there is simply no way I could convince you of this reality over the internet so I'm not going to bother trying.

 

[hypewaders]

iceaura: "would you agree with Ho Chi Minh's battle general that a soldier is better off without a weapon than without a political understanding of their mission ?"

That was refreshingly to-the point.

Echo3Romeo: "An understanding of the political dynamic germane to one's mission is absolutely important."

That's right. But it goes deeper than that, because soldiers are not robots. Our tasks are not the core of our being. What things mean in terms of the mission does not always supercede what things mean to ourselves, as life goes on. If we really were such robots as you imply, pervaded with and defined by our programming, then it's true that conscience would never trouble us, neither would any experience. But that isn't true.

E3R: "However, the scope of this dynamic is proportional to a soldier's place in the chain of command."

Bullshit. Conscience, and crisis thereof, followed by social isolation profoundly impact us all regardless of rank.

"A junior soldier's AO for their entire hajj is typically no larger than a part of a large city, officer or enlisted."

The physical dimensions of an Area of Operations have little to do with how we cope with physical, psychological, and ethical trauma. PTSD and suicide know no rank.

"The political underpinnings relevant to their AO pertain to the alignment of local sheikhs, their various tribal histories, and the influence and political alignments of local imams and muftis, and other factions operating within the area. Personnel who deal with policy at the level you are discussing are a small number of general and flag ranking officers. Like I said, very few soldiers."

Everyone must deal with "policy" in the big picture at the level we are discussing, because soldiers are people and not robots. Yes, reason can be temporarily suspended for a mission. But everyone involved with traumatic events must grapple with how they came to happen. Fanatical ideology, and oppressive cultural pressures that prohiit reflection may be fine for robots, but they are extremely destructive to the human psyche.

In the crucible of war, or under any trying circumstances, doing one's job and trying to survive are not deeply nuanced or unique mindsets, E3R. Everybody does it- downrange, in-country, INCONUS, in the AO, TAD, or wherever whatever the AOR, whatever the MOS engaged, married single, combattant, non-combattant, or under any other jargon or bullshit that we care to throw in. Instinct for survival and camraderie are common to all of us, so is conscience. Soldiers have the same minds and emotions as anyone else. Civilians who live through equally intense trials of mortal peril and co-operative survival go through the same things, but their recovery and processing of their experience is less often hobbled by being forced to bear a mythical stoic-warrior persona.

Military training (leaving aside cases of severe brainwashing that traumatically obliterate personality and the normal psyche) does not change the underlying human psychology that soldiers share with civilians. And conscience is not just for "a few soldiers" or "flag officers". Soldiers experience psychological trauma just like everyone involved in violence and trauma. Severe trauma is transformative, and often leaves scars, but there is also a healing process that requires a healing cultural and social environment. Unfortunately bravado, martiality, and heroic myths often do deny our humanity- But it's a lie that only leads to intense isolation for veterans of any rank who struggle to understand what they have experienced- not as robots, but as human beings who find themselves with normal human lives to live out as best they can.

"while soldiers do have their own opinions (many of which are far more nuanced than anything displayed in this forum), personal bullshit is out the window when the shooting starts. Downrange you live and breathe your mission. Personal opinions are irrelevant. All that matters is the mission, your own safety, and that of the guy next to you."

We're talking here about what happens inside all our heads after the fight.

"You're ignorant on a few other points, as well"

I can see your points, and it's obvious that iceaura does too.

"but there is simply no way I could convince you of this reality over the internet so I'm not going to bother trying."

You seem to be assuming your experiences have been entirely unique. But you are not the only veteran here, and you are not the only one who's been to war. I've seen a lot, but I do not hold the elitist opinion that others can't understand. The barrier you're referring to isn't real- it's only an imaginary wall that stands for and and that hides nothing.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo:

So, are you contemplating suicide because spitting on Viet vets is still chic is certain parts of the human community?

No, but some spitters have come close to commiting suicide.

I have a good handle on the situation today, thanks to V.A. and Col. Ret. Dr.Gary Palmer.

 

[countezero]

That just isn't true. You've been deceived. Bin Laden isn't financing and running a global network from some hidy-hole. Nor was he the prime financier or mastermind of 9-11.

I agree with part of the sentiment expressed in your statement: That is, I think bin Laden has been aggrandized by himself, by the Media and by politicians desperate to personify a struggle and dangle a "bad guy" in front of the voting masses. However, willfully ignoring bin Laden's central role in 9/11 is abject foolishness. It's true the idea for the attacks originated with Khalid Shiek Mohammad, but the go-ahead came from bin Laden, and it was bin Laden who picked the men for the attack. This has been documented. It was Al Qaeda, which bin Laden runs, who financed the attack.

The 9-11 Commission Report did not convince me of Bin Laden's towering personal power, pulling the strings of 9-11. From the anecdotes and videos, he seems more like a peripheral player crowing about a collective crime.

To a certain degree he is. But I think your obsessing over details and missing the larger picture. Hitler didn't operate any gas chambers, but that doesn't mean we describe him as "a peripheral player crowing about a collective crime" when we talk about the Holocaust. Hitler enabled the Holocaust. He was a cause that led to its effects. We can think about bin Laden and 9/11 in similar terms.

We have never seen an organizational chart of the perpetrators of 9-11. It doesn't exist, because the organization was theatrically labeled and hyped, but never seriously investigated. War took precedence.

We have never seen a chart because none exists. This is a terrorist organization, not a Fortune 500 company. They don't keep files and dossiers and power point spreadsheets. Again, I somewhat agree with you about the "theatrically labeled" part of your statement, but that doesn't mean we dismiss Al Qaeda, an organization that bombed two embassies and a US warship before striking on 9/11. And Al Qaeda has been investigated. The CIA's counterterrorism center had a team dedicated to bin Laden and the group before 9/11 (It was called Alec Station) and former terrorist czar (whose name escapes me at the moment) labeled the man and the group the biggest threat to the US in 1999 or 2000.

You haven't been paying attention. I have long posted here my hunches. I think the conspirators primarily share the nationality and ideology of Bin Laden, but have not been identified and connected with the amorphous entity dubbed al-Qaeda by the White House and major media. The 9-11 investigation is a deliberate shambles.

Then you're factually incorrect and looking for conspiracies where none exist. Al Qaeda was created by bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and it was responsible for 9/11. The links have been documented in numerous sources and are irrefutable. I asked you to offer up your alternatives and you have not. I ask you again: Who or what are the other "players" you refer to? Be more specific about your "hunches."

That may be some overstatement, but it's not entirely bullshit. Do you really believe that US foreign policy has not provoked the most significant terrorism of our times, such as 9-11?

That question is irrelevant. Sam said: "The only terrorists in the world right now were all brought to power by the US." The statement is one of absolutism, and as such, can be disproven with one example that shows it's false. I've given two, and can give many more, if necessary. As for your statement, provocation and Sam's "being brought to power" are totally different. I trust you can see this.

I'm here communicating my opinion. It springs from my perspective, and my experiences, which have been considerable. I'm not so often communicating other opinions and perspectives than my own. This doe not mean that I do not acknowledge other perspectives. I only believe in one truth; but I don't profess to own it. Can we get back on topic?

Your appreciation of truth or reality, as is evident in this post, is extremely flawed and seems to be based largely on suppositions and mania — not facts.

Post with some intellectual fortitude, and I'll give what you post careful attention.

You haven't thus far, so I'm prompted to wonder why I should waste my time conversing with you at all. Of course, I'm sure you'd respond by saying your lack of consideration comes from my lack of "intellectual fortitude," which would lead me to wonder what intellectual "buy-in" you consider to be sufficient before you will deign to speak to someone and consider their ideas? Or am I to take your previous behavior as the benchmark of your character and guide to your future responses? That is, whenever you don't agree with someone or consider them ignorant on a subject (because you know everything), you will immediately insult them and turn your nose up? If that's the case, then again, I wonder why I should waste my time with someone so crude.

Don't forget lazy. You're also being intellectually lazy.

And frankly, you're being an ass. People are intellectually lazy because they don't agree with you? How ridiculous. As for laziness, your profess to have all these suspect views about 9/11 and Al Qaeda, but you haven't availed yourself to the plethora of sources that would quickly overturn some of your most basic assumptions about the event? Who's lazy? There are hundreds of books and documentaries out there on the subject, can you not find one? Or is that you can't find one that says what you already think?

When it comes to many of our discussions, I apparently do know more about various subjects at hand, because you resort to this kind of whining while I am left to appeal to you for a return to a deeper examination of the subject at hand.

You apparently don't know more about bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but if you want to go on believing your an intellectual giant who knows all, by all means, please continue to do so.

Higher ground- Come on up. You can do it.

Any mention I made of higher ground was in jest. Talking down to people you don't agree with is not the same thing as occupying the higher ground in debate. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite.

Good. At least you're entertained. Me too.

I am entertained, but I'm also annoyed. Your snobbery and self-perceived intellectual grandeur are impediments to a natural and productive debate, though I doubt you're really interested in debate at all. I suspect your interests really lean more toward preaching your gospel and converting the unbelievers than any sort of legitimate give and take.

I'll take a little time to see if I've been wrong about you.

Oh, I can't wait. Your opinion of me is foremost in my appreciation of myself.

 

[Mr. G]

No, but some spitters have come close to commiting suicide.

I have a good handle on the situation today, thanks to V.A. and Col. Ret. Dr.Gary Palmer.

Can we assume that folks dealing with the multi-various stresses of attempting to survive actual combat are less likely to commit suicide than are folks attempting to deal with the anticipation of the far less pleasant stresses of actual combat?

Anticipating being spit on doesn't seem a viable inducement to suicide as much as an inducement to exercise inhuman restraint not demanded by combat ROE.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Can we assume that folks dealing with the multi-various stresses of attempting to survive actual combat are less likely to commit suicide than are folks attempting to deal with the anticipation of the far less pleasant stresses of actual combat?

Anticipating being spit on doesn't seem a viable inducement to suicide as much as an inducement to exercise inhuman restraint not demanded by combat ROE.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war! when precious water is shed in insult, then war it shall be.

 

[hypewaders]

contezero: "...willfully ignoring bin Laden's central role in 9/11 is abject foolishness."

Because a serious investigation into the 9-11 network has never been accompished, that's a hasty assumption. I don't doubt Bin Laden's involvement, but I do doubt his importance, because it's just too facile and unsubstantiated. He's part of the packaging in the West, but we're never really had a look inside.

"It's true the idea for the attacks originated with Khalid Shiek Mohammad, but the go-ahead came from bin Laden, and it was bin Laden who picked the men for the attack."

Where did you learn of this? I am not aware that the hijackers have even been plausibly identified.

"This has been documented. It was Al Qaeda, which bin Laden runs, who financed the attack."

I've never seen evidence that Bin Laden runs al-Qaeda. We can't even identify the extent of activities of the original al-Qaeda. The 9-11 Commission Report did not convince me of Bin Laden's towering personal power, that he was pulling all the leading strings of 9-11. From the anecdotes and videos, he seems more like a peripheral player crowing about a collective crime.

" your obsessing over details and missing the larger picture."

Without the details, I don't believe we have the real picture. Without focus, it's all impressionism; a charicature.

"Hitler didn't operate any gas chambers, but that doesn't mean we describe him as "a peripheral player crowing about a collective crime" when we talk about the Holocaust. Hitler enabled the Holocaust. He was a cause that led to its effects. We can think about bin Laden and 9/11 in similar terms."

No we can't. We don't have similar knowledge of the 9-11 network.We have never seen an organizational chart of the perpetrators of 9-11. It doesn't exist, because the organization was theatrically labeled and hyped, but never seriously investigated. War took precedence.

"We have never seen a chart because none exists. This is a terrorist organization, not a Fortune 500 company. They don't keep files and dossiers and power point spreadsheets."

The original al-Qaeda could be exposed like any crime syndicate has ever been exposed- but our government has diverted into military mobilization instead of attempting any serious criminal investigation. Eventually the trail will become too cold to follow.

"I somewhat agree with you about the "theatrically labeled" part of your statement, but that doesn't mean we dismiss Al Qaeda, an organization that bombed two embassies and a US warship before striking on 9/11."

I'm not advocating we dismiss the perpetrators of 9-11. I am opposed to diverting the investigation.

"And Al Qaeda has been investigated. The CIA's counterterrorism center had a team dedicated to bin Laden and the group before 9/11 (It was called Alec Station) and former terrorist czar (whose name escapes me at the moment) labeled the man and the group the biggest threat to the US in 1999 or 2000."

And it's been shut down. The key conspirators likely share the nationality and ideology of Bin Laden, but have not been identified and connected with the amorphous entity dubbed al-Qaeda by the White House and major media. The 9-11 investigation is a deliberate shambles.

"Then you're factually incorrect and looking for conspiracies where none exist. Al Qaeda was created by bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and it was responsible for 9/11. The links have been documented in numerous sources and are irrefutable."

Bullshit. The only links that have been released have been those useful in demonizing certain personalities- what we have is a far cry from a credible description of who attacked us on 9-11 and how.

"I asked you to offer up your alternatives and you have not. I ask you again: Who or what are the other "players" you refer to? Be more specific about your "hunches."

Why? They are only hunches. However, it is not a mere hunch to point out that the official 9-11 story is thin, and avoids tricky areas like the Arabian origins, and the motivations for the attacks. Do you really believe that US foreign policy has not provoked the most significant terrorism of our times, such as 9-11?

"That question is irrelevant."

You're wrong. Review the al-Qaeda manifestos.

"Sam said: "The only terrorists in the world right now were all brought to power by the US." The statement is one of absolutism, and as such, can be disproven with one example that shows it's false."

You're just being technical about the language in order to avoid what S.A.M. was getting at in that statement.

"As for your statement, provocation and Sam's "being brought to power" are totally different. I trust you can see this."

No, I can't. I am convinced that US foreign policy has been instrumental in radicalizing the terrorists who have attacked us.

"what intellectual "buy-in" you consider to be sufficient before you will deign to speak to someone and consider their ideas?"

You're in, you're being considered right here.

"am I to take your previous behavior as the benchmark of your character and guide to your future responses? That is, whenever you don't agree with someone or consider them ignorant on a subject (because you know everything), you will immediately insult them and turn your nose up?"

I've been trying to avoid this discussion of style. I come across as arrogant to you, and maybe it's because I don't seem humble enough here. Because forums like this are all about opinion, I don't normally like to couch what I sy with a lot of "IMO", "IMHO", "I think" etc. That doesn't mean that I consider my perspective as absolute truth- I mostly just find it tiresome to always preface and couch everything said here, re-stating that all this is subjective examination of the world we all share.

"People are intellectually lazy because they don't agree with you?"

No, I think that it's intellectually lazy for you to divert us into this discussion of personalities when it's off topic. Go to About the Members if you want to bitch about how I come across to you.

"[you] profess to have all these suspect views about 9/11 and Al Qaeda, but you haven't availed yourself to the plethora of sources that would quickly overturn some of your most basic assumptions about the event?

What have I not availed myself of? I read all the links you post in our discussions. What have i missed?

"There are hundreds of books and documentaries out there on the subject, can you not find one?"

There is a huge lack of clear information on what we try to discuss here. We're in Dark Age of information when it comes to contemporary issues of
warfare, terrorism, and veteran suicides.

"Or is that you can't find one that says what you already think?"

I think the truth is found in coherence. We don't have authoritative, coherent answers for so much of what we are discussing here. So the search for answers continues for those of us who care. I would much prefer that we stick to the subject at hand, and set aside the irrelevancies of what we perceive of each others' attitudes.

"You apparently don't know more about bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but if you want to go on believing your an intellectual giant who knows all, by all means, please continue to do so."

That's not what I believe, nor is it what I have tried to convey here. But I have tended to stay on topic better than you. I'm mostly playing along right now in an attempt to draw you back to the topic. I wouldn't bother if I did not value your opinion, when you can elevate your discussion. Come on up. You can do it.

"Any mention I made of higher ground was in jest. Talking down to people you don't agree with is not the same thing as occupying the higher ground in debate. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite... Your snobbery and self-perceived intellectual grandeur are impediments to a natural and productive debate, though I doubt you're really interested in debate at all. I suspect your interests really lean more toward preaching your gospel and converting the unbelievers than any sort of legitimate give and take."

I feel I give as much as I take here. I've even taken considerable time to review most of your posts. I think I've largely outperformed you in terms of staying on topic, and also in displaying independent thought on these subjects. If it sounds haughty because I don't frame everything I post in "this is only my humble observation", then that's too bad. But I do suspect you're as capable as I am. You're even a journalist, which I am not. But often it seems like you don't put much into this. Maybe you just don't care very much about looking deeper.

"Your opinion of me is foremost in my appreciation of myself."

Well, I hope that by taking a little time to address your apparent concerns about my own mindset, that you can get past your distaste for my unapologetic and often overconfident displays of opinion here. So back to topic.

Mr. G. :"Can we assume that folks dealing with the multi-various stresses of attempting to survive actual combat without getting killed are less likely to commit suicide than folks attempting to deal with the anticipation of less pleasant stresses of actual combat?"

That's a little tricky to follow. Here's how I understand the question:

Is actual combat experience less psychologically treacherous than anticipation of it?

Answer: No. The damage we are discussing here comes after combat; post-traumatic stress.

"Anticipating being spit on doesn't seem a viable inducement to suicide as much as an inducement to exercise inhuman restraint not demanded by ROE."

I would translate that as an observation that being spit on is deeply insulting. It also touches on what I and iceaura have brought up in this discussion: That unnecessary wars may be much more hazardous in term of multiplying PTSD-related suicides. It isn't hard to see that coping with trauma is tremendously facilitated by the assurance that the trauma was necessary, worthwhile, honorable, beneficial, and just. But when a nation is largely incapable of coping with the goals and justification for a war, then it may severely impact the healing process of affected veterans.

The pain of the thought of insult and disrespect is amplified during and following unpopular and controversial wars. Veterans suffering the most from PTSD typically display hair-trigger volatility about respect, by reason of suffering deeply-wounded self-respect, and deeply-repressed hurts of self-respect.

The answer for these sufferers is certainly not in externalizing the pain into an imaginary home environment that wishes the veteran disrespect. But this often happens. The lack of purpose in wrongful wars may be projected onto the citizens questioning those wars, as part of the repression of doubts. When such projection is rampant, critics of the war must often bend over backwards to avoid any appearance of not "Supporting the Troops".

But it is not a service or tribute to veterans of misbegotten wars to play along with any comforting fantasies, because consciously or not, many of us see through them. Dealing with trauma is about facing, not repressing, and not masking reality. If in the case of Vietnam and Iraq, the reality includes a lack of justification for these wars, and if the reality includes a lack of beneficial outcome from these wars, then truly coming to terms with the trauma associated with them requires realism and not fantasy.

We should not leave our veterans to suffer alone, while we outwardly pretend everything terrible that has happened, happened for good reason. It doesn't really make it all better, because lies will always fester incompatible with truth. Protecting the infallibility of our national policies can never be a higher purpose than confronting what we have done as a nation, and as individuals. Pretending often makes problems worse, and I suspect that a significant component of elevated PTSD suicides arises because national pretending can impede personal healing. When veterans have destructive doubts about what and why they have endured and survived, they should not be left isolated while the rest of society glosses it all over.

Could we avoid elevated veteran suicides by staying out of elective and highly-controversial wars? Of course. Failing that, could we avoid elevated suicides by collectively facing national mistakes more frankly? Absolutely. A culture willing to better face reality can obviously better avoid all kinds of blowback, because facing reality builds and heals; avoiding reality corrupts and destroys.

Below is a link to another veteran's story through pictures and interviews. It first interested me, because the story grew out of the major-media hero-worship compost, and yet it opened up another small public window into the struggles so many of our veterans face.

The Marlboro Marine

 

[countezero]

Because a serious investigation into the 9-11 network has never been accompished, that's a hasty assumption. I don't doubt Bin Laden's involvement, but I do doubt his importance, because it's just too facile and unsubstantiated. He's part of the packaging in the West, but we're never really had a look inside.

The events of 9/11 have been poured over, analyzed and investigated more than any event in recent memory. There are numerous books on the subject, documentaries, films, essays and articles. There was also a government commission that looked at it. So to posit that a "serious investigation" hasn't been accomplished or that there is some treasure trove of hidden or unknown information out there that hasn't been dug up by the most intense political and media scrutiny of a generation makes you look stupid and silly.

Where did you learn of this?

Numerous media accounts speak of Mohammed's role in planning the attacks, and he later confessed to it. According to The Looming Tower he first approached bin Laden with the idea about using planes as weapons in the mid-90s. In the spring of 1999, the book states that bin Laden summoned him to Kandahar and gave him the go-ahead to put the operation that became 9/11 into effect. Bin Laden chose all the men who carried out Al Qaeda's suicide attacks personally. 9/11 was no different.

I am not aware that the hijackers have even been plausibly identified.

Then you're incredibly ignorant. The hijackers have all been identified by the governments of the US and the countries from which the hijackers came from. The media has examined and confirmed these identities. They have even interviewed next of kin and former friends, etc. In other words, the identities are not in doubt.

I've never seen evidence that Bin Laden runs al-Qaeda.

Then you're incredibly ignorant. There are numerous statements about the origins of Al Qaeda. Many of them from bin Laden himself or his lieutenants.
There are also handwritten notes taken at the meeting in 1988 when the group was formally created. This is chronicled in The Looming Tower. Bin Laden was the emir of the meeting and both the notes and interviews with subsequent attendees all show that there has never been any doubt about who founded and controlled the organization. In fact, this was initially quite controversial, as bin Laden had very few bonafides to claim such an honor.

We can't even identify the extent of activities of the original al-Qaeda. The 9-11 Commission Report did not convince me of Bin Laden's towering personal power, that he was pulling all the leading strings of 9-11. From the anecdotes and videos, he seems more like a peripheral player crowing about a collective crime.

It's documented that he signed off on the mission and made the assignments for the mission. The eventual participants all passed through his camp and were enabled in Europe in the US with money from his group. Sticking with your crime analogy, his role is similar to Mafia don who sends a hood out to shoot someone for him.

No we can't. We don't have similar knowledge of the 9-11 network.We have never seen an organizational chart of the perpetrators of 9-11. It doesn't exist, because the organization was theatrically labeled and hyped, but never seriously investigated. War took precedence.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. If you really believe this tripe than you are ignorant or being willfully naive in order to further your own mania. We know plenty about Al Qaeda and plenty about how the hijackers achieved their goal. It was a simple of matter of taking what's called back-barrings. The US intelligence community knew within days who was responsible. Things like flight manifests and VISA cards aren't hard to track.

The original al-Qaeda could be exposed like any crime syndicate has ever been exposed- but our government has diverted into military mobilization instead of attempting any serious criminal investigation. Eventually the trail will become too cold to follow.

You don't know much about Al Qaeda or how terrorist cells work. For starters, most of the men use assumed names and don't openly flaunt their attachment to the group. They also use cut-outs, so if one member of a cell is taken down, the others are safe.

I'm not advocating we dismiss the perpetrators of 9-11. I am opposed to diverting the investigation.

What is there left to investigate? We know most of what happened. The people who perpetrated the act are dead. So are many of their handlers. The mastermind behind the plot, Kalid Shiek Mohammed, is living a very uncomfortable life in an Egyptian jail somewhere. High-level commanders like bin Laden and Zawahiri are at large, but this has nothing to do with how seriously one takes the organization or its role in 9/11.

The key conspirators likely share the nationality and ideology of Bin Laden, but have not been identified and connected with the amorphous entity dubbed al-Qaeda by the White House and major media.

They have been identified and they have been linked to bin Laden and Al Qaeda. What more do you want?

The 9-11 investigation is a deliberate shambles.

It's one thing to make statements like this, it's another to prove it. You need to provide evidence of such claims or quit making them, unless you like sounding like a boob...

Why? They are only hunches.

So when asked, you won't divulge any of your hunches? What are playing at? Being a naysayer? That's rather childish, isn't it? If you have thoughts and opinions that explain the situations, please offer them up. It's getting tiresome to read post after post talking about how wrong I am, then have to read that you won't offer any evidence to prove this or any points that put forward contrary ideas.

However, it is not a mere hunch to point out that the official 9-11 story is thin, and avoids tricky areas like the Arabian origins, and the motivations for the attacks.

No, it's not a hunch. It's an opinion, and a very ill-informed one at that.

Do you really believe that US foreign policy has not provoked the most significant terrorism of our times, such as 9-11?

That's not the issue here, so nice try.

You're just being technical about the language in order to avoid what S.A.M. was getting at in that statement.

So in one post I'm slow and intellectually lazy, in the next I'm overzealous and too smart for my own good. My purpose in attacking Sam's statement has always been the same: To show it for the foolishness that it is. Analyzing her poor choice of words is only part of that. I've made other substantive arguments in the past that don't need repeating here. The fact you have stood up for her inane remark and continue to do so, to me, speaks volumes about your warped ideology, your motives and your inability to deal with facts and reality that don't slide neatly into your preordained world view.

No, I can't. I am convinced that US foreign policy has been instrumental in radicalizing the terrorists who have attacked us.

And even if that is true, it is not the same thing as bringing said terrorists to power. Where are your powerful abilities of analysis now? Can you really not look at the statements and see this? It's not difficult.

I've been trying to avoid this discussion of style. I come across as arrogant to you, and maybe it's because I don't seem humble enough here. Because forums like this are all about opinion, I don't normally like to couch what I sy with a lot of "IMO", "IMHO", "I think" etc. That doesn't mean that I consider my perspective as absolute truth- I mostly just find it tiresome to always preface and couch everything said here, re-stating that all this is subjective examination of the world we all share.

I'm not asking you to sully your argument with modifiers and pleasantries, I was merely pointing out that like to hurl personal insults toward people who don't agree with you and behave like an ass to them. You've done this in the past, you've done that in this thread.

What have I not availed myself of? I read all the links you post in our discussions. What have i missed?

Reality, and it's not my job to acquaint you with it. If you want to talk intelligently about bin Laden and Al Qaeda, I suggest you read up on them so you can discuss them with something more than inaccurate skepticism (that is saying this or that isn't true and be completely wrong) and hunches.

There is a huge lack of clear information on what we try to discuss here. We're in Dark Age of information when it comes to contemporary issues of warfare, terrorism, and veteran suicides.

Actually, there is more information, unfiltered and otherwise, available to the human race now than at any other point in history, so forgive me if I find your excuse for your ignorance a little unconvincing.

I think the truth is found in coherence. We don't have authoritative, coherent answers for so much of what we are discussing here.

Not everything is coherent. Not everything fits into neat little categories and boxes. But even so, there are facts available on this subject, and those facts, when added together, can be called the truth. That you are seemingly unfamiliar with the facts and the truth or have chosen to deny their accuracy is not my concern. Their essence remains intact without your acknowledgment of it.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

That's right. But it goes deeper than that, because soldiers are not robots. Our tasks are not the core of our being. What things mean in terms of the mission does not always supercede what things mean to ourselves, as life goes on. If we really were such robots as you imply, pervaded with and defined by our programming, then it's true that conscience would never trouble us, neither would any experience. But that isn't true.

I never implied that soldiers were robots, which makes me think you did not understand my post very well.

What I am saying is that soldiers take a great deal of pride in being apolitical. There are many of us who personally disagree with the policies we have been ordered to implement, and some of us feel the way Mr. Ice does. However, a soldier's commitment to his or her unit, their service, and the nation is totally independent of that, and much, much more important. Those are the areas from which esprit de corps is drawn. It is entirely possible and furthermore quite commonplace for a soldier to have a negative opinion of OIF or even the GWOT as a whole, yet still take a great deal of pride in having a personal stake in it. Attempting to directly conflate an elective war with a higher incidence of veteran embitterment is a specious argument that does not stand close scrutiny.

The physical dimensions of an Area of Operations have little to do with how we cope with physical, psychological, and ethical trauma. PTSD and suicide know no rank.

Irrelevant to what I was responding to. In the context of mission effectiveness, "a political understanding of the mission" is very specific, and for all but the highest echelons of leadership, has nothing to do with Bush lied people died or they hate us for our freedom.

You seem to be assuming your experiences have been entirely unique. But you are not the only veteran here, and you are not the only one who's been to war. I've seen a lot, but I do not hold the elitist opinion that others can't understand. The barrier you're referring to isn't real- it's only an imaginary wall that stands for and and that hides nothing.

Sorry to sound elitist, but his implication was indeed rather ignorant. Of all the stressors on a soldier in the GWOT, how the merits of their mission align with the subjective and unique moral compass of random sciforums poster X is not a very significant one.

Also, did you know that Lembcke thinks PTSD is bullshit? I saw you link to one of his diatribes about the soldiers who were never spit on, so I'm curious.

 

[iceaura]

However, a soldier's commitment to his or her unit, their service, and the nation is totally independent of that, and much, much more important.

Well, clearly something has gone wrong when a soldier commits suicide, or retreats to a world of defensive delusion as some here.

Those are the areas from which esprit de corps is drawn. It is entirely possible and furthermore quite commonplace for a soldier to have a negative opinion of OIF or even the GWOT as a whole, yet still take a great deal of pride in having a personal stake in it. Attempting to directly conflate an elective war with a higher incidence of veteran embitterment is a specious argument that does not stand close scrutiny.

We are not "attempting to conflate" anything - we are noticing an apparent correlation, and making inquiry along plausible lines.

Is it your contention that the actual moral and political foundation of a military action, the reality of the event, has little influence on any but a very few soldiers' esprit de corps, or their reactions to the memories of combat and violence later ?

What I am saying is that soldiers take a great deal of pride in being apolitical.

So you do disagree with the various theorists - some tested in combat - who hold modern war to be essentially and unavoidably political ?

That would amount to taking pride in an assumed identity, or a temporary and unsustainable separation of "political" and "moral/ethical" concerns. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but we might reasonably inquire about the long term effects of such a strategy.

If soldiers are not robots, they cannot avoid permanently the moral and ethical implications of what they have seen and done. Duty, honor, and country are (and should be, IMHO) powerful supports and justifications - but is their support and justification in fact independent of the reality - political and otherwise - of the combat situation involved ?

 

[hypewaders]

E3R: "I saw you link to one of his diatribes about the soldiers who were never spit on, so I'm curious."

Lembke is often taken out of context regarding his original criticism of the term PTSD, and his book did leave him vulnerable to being misunderstood on that point.

When the term PTSD first was coined in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, it was not describing a new phenomenon, but the emergence of the term was politically-charged. Simultaneous with the popular adoption of this term, disturbed vets were sometimes considered not so much as victims of a war, but as troubled cases who had damaged the public image of a war, and even contributed to our defeat. PTSD was not "discovered" post-Vietnam, but the usage of the term did emerge while there were a lot of politics swirling around the notion of "effort syndrome", "soldier’s heart", "shell shock", etc. When the term PTSD first emerged, there was great controversy involved in discussions of the risk factors and pre-dispositions of those people who suffer after experiencing trauma.

When Lembke spoke of the "bullshit" of PTSD, he was attacking the notion that disturbed Vietnam veterans had something wrong with them to begin with, that they had a disorder lurking within themselves that other veterans who came through the same traumas unscathed had lacked. Lembke was attacking the exploitation of a "syndrome" to explain away the reason veterans were speaking out in opposition to the war- He was opposed to disparaging protester-veterans as damaged goods. Here's Lembke himself addressing the confusion:

...there is more to say about who constructed [PTSD], how, and how the concept functioned in post-Vietnam America.

In my book THE SPITTING IMAGE: MYTH, MEMORY, AND THE LEGACY OF VIETNAM (NYU Press, 1998) and the article "The `Right Stuff' Gone Wrong" in CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY (24/1-2, pp. 37-64) I argue that PTSD was as much a mode of political and cultural discourse constructed by the media as anything "found" by mental health professionals. Furthermore, Psychiatrists imported almost all its key elements (e.g. alienation, survivor guilt, and flashbacks) from other contexts.

PTSD functioned to help erase the memory of the war as an act of U.S. agression that we lost because the Vietnamese beat us by rewriting it as a war we lost because we defeated ourseselves, i.e. our military was stabbed in the back, our soldiers spat on, etc. The image of the dysfunctional PTSD-stricken victim-veterans displaced the historical reality that the war politicized and empowered a generation of GIs who revolted against the war and joined the movement to stop it.

Although it may not be immediately clear in taking quotes from Spitting Image out of context, with a little closer examination we can see that Lembke was not denying that some veterans, and others who have experienced can be tormented in the aftermath. Lembke was instead attacking the idea that sufferers suffer because of flaws in their nature. The meme was around after Vietnam, and still surfaces today, that the people who exhibit problems like PTSD have some intrinsic weakness, a weakness that those who do not exhibit symptoms lack. So:

E3R: "...did you know that Lembcke thinks PTSD is bullshit?"

No, I did not know that. Your question evokes an often deliberate misunderstanding of Lembke. Lembke considered the original political employment of the term PTSD, when the term first emerged, to have been bullshit. He acknowledged the undeniable psychological problems associated with traumatic experiences, but criticised the isolation or "syndromization" of the victims as being psychologically-flawed; he criticized the notion that the problem came from the sufferers and not the war.

It's unfortunate that Lembke did not make himself clearer in the original book, because his debunking of the rampant spitting-protester myth is significant, and he comes under regular attack by those who cherish the synthetic "Rambo" image of veterans and the USA.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

hypewaders, I think you are a poser.

 

[countezero]

I'm still waiting for him/her to address his lack of knowledge about Al Qaeda and 9/11, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[hypewaders]

Buffalo Roam: "hypewaders, I think you are a poser."

Posing as what?

"I'm still waiting for him/her to address his lack of knowledge about Al Qaeda and 9/11, but I'm not holding my breath."

We all suffer from a lack of knowledge about al-Qaeda and 9/11. As I have often remarked, there has never been evidence of a serious investigation into the organization that perpetrated the crime. Instead we have watched as the label al-Qaeda has been applied to a wide assortment of insurgents and terrorists without any demonstrated links to the still-mysterious 9-11 organization. Concerning the identities and backgrounds of the hijackers, and concerning the Arabian roots of the organization, the yawning gaps of information and negligence of investigation is obvious. If you can both be more specific about what you're asking from me, I'll respond in kind. I would be pleased to get beyond these ad-hominem diversions, and return to the topic of this thread.

 

[MetaKron]

Today in the papers:

American Iraq Veterans are very vulnerable to commit suicide. Most of them return with severe psychological problems, such as post traumatic stress syndrome.
The papers wrote that the deathrate from postwar suicides is higher then the deathrate on the battleground.

Togheter with this phenomena a lot of veterans, from Iraq and Afghanistan, end up homeless. They live on the streets and are not helped not materialy not financialy.

If this is correct I wonder why people in the USA are driving around with stickers on their cars: 'I support our troups'.
Is nobody taking care of the young men and women that are risking their lives in a allready absurd war??

They say "support our troops" but they actually physically neglect the troops who come home with problems, have lost their jobs, their families, and their minds.

 

[hypewaders]

Frank examination of the sources of this suffering remains forbidden and fearsome territory for the American public, because it does lead to profound questions of what our purpose is in Iraq that justifies the horrors we are dealing in but not with.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

They say "support our troops" but they actually physically neglect the troops who come home with problems, have lost their jobs, their families, and their minds.

The V.A. hospitals are doing their level best to take care of the problem, a problem that is the Governments responsibility.

It is the Government specifically the House who writes the spending bills, and allocates to moneys for the care of Veterans, and in that the Congress has failed, it spent billions above the amounts requested for the Water Resources Development Act, going from 5 billion requested to 23 billion spent, now why can't they take half of that money and shift it to the V.A. for care of the Veterans?

The Leadership of the House, the Democrats don't seem to think Veterans deserve the priority over the special earmarks, that were spent in the over inflation of Water Resources Development Act, so as usual the Military and the Veterans under the Democrats are sucking hind tit.

Now being one of those who after leaving service with service connected disabilities, I can speak from personal knowledge of the V.A. system, and the fact that some of the Veterans don't make the system work for them, they become frustrated with the system as it became, with the neglect that happened to it after the Vietnam War, which was again the Democrats shitting on the troops, cutting funding for the V.A. and the Military Hospital system that was suppose to take care of the veterans, serving troops and their families, I lived through that time, and the only time I ever saw any increases for the V.A. system was when the Republicans controlled the House, the rest of the time the Demorats cut funds, benefits, and care to shift moneys to social programs.

Veterans have to keep at the V.A. to get past the red tape imposed by Congressional mandate to get the care they deserve, it is a shitty way to treat the Veterans, and can be changed by Congress in a Heart Beat, with legislation, but the Democrats control the comitties and in the Liberal Democrats world the Troops are not a Priority!, the Veterans are not a Priority!

So if you know a Veteran keep him going after V.A. make all the noise necessary to get noticed, just like Ty Ziegel, make the system work for you, if you don't it won't.

There are County Veteran Service Officer in every county, of every state in the Union, and they are there to assist the Veteran in dealing with the System imposed on V.A. by the Congress, and Congress both Democrat and Republican in a Bi-Partisan Majority sent these kids to War, so now that the Demorats control the comities that run the V.A. system lets see them take the lead and get the red tap cut to take care of the Veterans, but I know Hell will Freeze over before the Democrats make a Priority of Veteran Problems and clean up the system.