# Rolling Stone Embeds with the Taliban



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2008)

Ethics of a reporter travelling with the Taliban aside, some interesting tidbits from this longish piece in Rolling Stone magazine (.pdf version if link doesn't work)



> ....  As the Taliban insurgency spreads, it has fallen victim to the tribal rivalries and violent infighting that are endemic to Afghanistan, which is home to hundreds of distinct tribal groups. "The leadership is totally fragmented," a senior U.N. official says. "There is a lot of criminality within the Taliban." With the targeting of civilians now sanctioned by the Taliban, top commanders compete for prize catches, stopping cars in broad daylight and checking the cellphones of foreigners to determine if they are worthwhile captives ....





> .... I have been caught in the midst of the bitter and often violent infighting that divides the Taliban. Ibrahim's recent injury, it turns out, was the result of a clash between his forces and a group of foreign fighters under the command of Dr. Khalil. The foreigners wanted to close down a girls' school, sparking a battle. Two Arabs and 11 Pakistanis commanded by Dr. Khalil had been killed by Ibrahim's men ....





> .... The Bush administration is placing its hopes on presidential elections in Afghanistan next year, but everyone I speak with in Kabul agrees that the elections will be a joke. "The Americans are gung-ho about elections," a longtime nongovernmental official tells me. "But it will only exacerbate ethnic tensions." In Pashtun areas controlled by the Taliban, registration would be virtually impossible, and voting would invoke a death sentence — effectively disenfranchising the country's dominant ethnic group ....





> .... Negotiating with the Taliban would also enable the Americans to take advantage of the sharp divisions within the insurgency .... "The U.S. should try to weaken the Taliban," a former Taliban commander tells me. "They should make groups, divide and conquer. If someone wants to use the division between Haqqani and Omar, they can." ....





> .... The Bush administration believes it can stop the Taliban by throwing money into clinics and schools. But even humanitarian officials scoff at the idea. "If you gave jobs to the Viet Cong, would they stop fighting?" asks one. "Two years ago you could build a road or a bridge in a village and say, 'Please don't let the Taliban come in.' But now you've reached the stage where the hearts-and-minds business doesn't work." ....





> .... the Taliban have their own faith, and so far, they are winning. On my last day in Kabul, a Western aid official reminds me of the words of a high-ranking Taliban leader, who recently explained why the United States will never prevail in Afghanistan.  "You Westerners have your watches," the leader observed. "But we Taliban have time."


----------



## Garett (21 Oct 2008)

Collaborator


----------



## Towards_the_gap (21 Oct 2008)

Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy. Cries of 'collaborator' smacks of exactly what we are fighting against. The good news is in the reports of infighting, if we can get the local 'taliban' on side against the foreigners, as per the sunni tribes 'awakening' movement in iraq, we can greatly increase our chances of winning the fight.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Oct 2008)

Who says this can't be a disinformation campaign? Our media are notoriously naive at times.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2008)

Perhaps it's nothing more than a reporter doing his job, and reporting the other side of the story. You know, the side that _journalists  _ normally speculate on for their own gains, or simply make up to bolster their argument, because they are too lazy or scared to get the facts.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (21 Oct 2008)

Very good point OS, could be  a disinformation.

But to what end, surely the Taliban would want to present a united front, with no mention of criminality or ethnic division.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2008)

The Taliban is not, nor has it ever been, a monolithic entity.  Treating it as such is a mistake.

It is probably best compared to a group of loosely allied fiefdoms, working together when it is in their interest to do so.

Documents such as this are useful to glean some insight whch can be validated (or disproved) using other sources and tools.

I've got much mroe respect for a journalist willing to embed with the Taliban than for them moussed coifs who sit in KAF, smile and condescend to the soliders there, and refuse to cover stories because "Polio innoculations?  That's so... Africa.  Don't you have something better for me?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Documents such as this are useful to glean some insight whch can be validated (or disproved) using other sources and tools.


For sure.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Who says this can't be a disinformation campaign? Our media are notoriously naive at times.


Maybe, but you can also learn from how some lies are crafted - according to this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80219/post-770484.html#msg770484
the Taliban want no night-time cell phone service because such service is bad for the everyday Afghan.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....


----------



## TacticalW (21 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> the Taliban want no night-time cell phone service because such service is bad for the everyday Afghan.  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....



Hehe, I wonder exactly how high the casualty rate is from those accidentally detonated IEDs... large I hope. Large enough for them to make this rule 

How can we deny the Afghans their god given right to use cell phones at night? Let those calls be senteth I say for the good of freedom


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2008)

TacticalW said:
			
		

> Hehe, I wonder exactly how high the casualty rate is from those accidentally detonated IEDs... large I hope. Large enough for them to make this rule



Methinks the rule was more about this:


> The invader enemies use their equipment to spy on telephones mainly from sunset to sunrise.


----------



## Garett (21 Oct 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Whilst it is distasteful, at least we can get an insight into our enemy. Cries of 'collaborator' smacks of exactly what we are fighting against.



If you check out the captions of the photos that accompany the article, he refers to a senior Taliban commander as his "good friend". To me the aim of this article (which declares that the war is lost) is to target the will of NATO's center of gravity, the civilian voter. I'm all for unbiased journalism and getting an accurate behind the scenes view of whats going on, but this guy is a douche bag.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Oct 2008)

The article seemed pretty neutral to me. This guy isn't glorifying the Taliban or anything. 



> As the Taliban have attempted to counter the Americans by adopting the tactics of Iraqi insurgents, they have become far more brutal than they were when they ruled Afghanistan. To sow insecurity, they routinely enter villages and bypass traditional tribal mechanisms, waging a harsh campaign of social terror.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (29 Oct 2008)

Very interesting article and shows some good information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. People are quick to dehumanize and demean "enemies" in history, and the Taliban are no exception. Instead of continually antagonizing a serious opponent to stability in Afghanistan, we can instead learn about their motivations so we can hit the root of the problem. Its very easy to simply wave aside an entire movement as "evil", its a lot harder to understand them and learn their motivations.

Hopefully this is a good step towards understanding what motivates these people, and what we can do to move towards reconciliation and dialogue.


----------



## Fusaki (29 Oct 2008)

> Very interesting article and shows some good information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. People are quick to dehumanize and demean "enemies" in history, and the Taliban are no exception. Instead of continually antagonizing a serious opponent to stability in Afghanistan, we can instead learn about their motivations so we can hit the root of the problem. Its very easy to simply wave aside an entire movement as "evil", its a lot harder to understand them and learn their motivations.
> 
> Hopefully this is a good step towards understanding what motivates these people, and what we can do to move towards reconciliation and dialogue.



I think you need to man up, put in for a tour, and see the situation on the ground. After you've been covered in moon dust I _might_ take you seriously.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (29 Oct 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I think you need to man up, put in for a tour, and see the situation on the ground. After you've been covered in moon dust I _might_ take you seriously.



Being an Infantrymen on the ground does not make one a relevant source on international and national politics. Granted those experiences provide very good interaction with local populace and a view of micropolitics in the region, however it does not make said person a comprehensive source on the nation-wide politics of our operations in Afghanistan. Now if I was talking about convoy escort, life in a FOB, or brigade-level infantry operations then I would certainly wish to have that needed background. However I am talking about the future of an entire nation, and of our international efforts therein. One does not require a tour to be knowledgeable in that aspect.


----------



## GDawg (29 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Being an Infantrymen on the ground does not make one a relevant source on international and national politics. Granted those experiences provide very good interaction with local populace and a view of micropolitics in the region, however it does not make said person a comprehensive source on the nation-wide politics of our operations in Afghanistan. Now if I was talking about convoy escort, life in a FOB, or brigade-level infantry operations then I would certainly wish to have that needed background. However I am talking about the future of an entire nation, and of our international efforts therein. One does not require a tour to be knowledgeable in that aspect.



You didn't mention international and national politics, you said information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. I would wager Wonderbread and the rest of us who have been there have metric shitloads of information regarding the situation in Afghanistan, from this very moment and all the way back to 2001. If you want to wrap your head completely around Afghanistan and the international politics related therein and to glimpse into the future maybe you should consider opening your eyes and ears and your brain and not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (29 Oct 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> You didn't mention international and national politics, you said information regarding the situation in Afghanistan. I would wager Wonderbread and the rest of us who have been there have metric shitloads of information regarding the situation in Afghanistan, from this very moment and all the way back to 2001. If you want to wrap your head completely around Afghanistan and the international politics related therein and to glimpse into the future maybe you should consider opening your eyes and ears and your brain and not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.



My assessment does not come solely from one Rolling Stone's report, I assure you. Furthermore, that informations is certainly useful and highly valuable, but what I am getting at is the current overglorification of knowledge involved with deployed members. Yes, by being deployed and being involved in those operations, they have some very key information to give to us regarding the situation on the ground. On the other hand though, to simply dismiss my argument (which has been done plenty of times) by using this logical fallacy of appealing to authority (in this case the authority of a deployed member) is a poor way of handling things. If you are a deployed member or know of one, please use their information as it is. That being said though, it does not give them a free license to throw their weight as some ultimate appeal to authority and the idols of knowledge from the region. Afterall, what most soldiers are involved in are very small scale operations and environments, not the large-scale analysis thats needing for the most part in these types of policy decisions. Again I stress though, those experiences are incredibly valuable and valid still, and should be used accordingly.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (29 Oct 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> and *not antagonize people who have lived, breathed, and ate Afghanistan* and not base your entire haughty assessment of Afghanistan on what one Rolling Stone reporter regurgitated from the Taliban.




+1....and would add, those who have bled in afghanistan.

See what human capital we are expending in the region, FIRST HAND, and you will have a pretty good idea of the price, and risk, of our international efforts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2008)

Ask yourself why people dismiss your arguments, perhaps if you never started posting confrontationally to some initially as you did, people would be more open to your comments. So it should not be a surprise to you. You are articulate enough, better then most here, however, your delivery leads a lot to be desired. Work on the delivery of your arguments to be less confrontational and you might find the discussion you are looking for.

Until then then I can't see anyone being receptive to your comments at all.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2008)

I agree with Ex-Dragoon. Your delivery needs a dash of diplomacy and tact. Your arguments are sound, but your dismissal of those on the ground is definitely a mistake. You would be very surprised at the level of understanding the young soldier of today possesses.


----------



## Shamrock (29 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Furthermore, that information is certainly useful and highly valuable, but what I am getting at is the current overglorification of knowledge involved with deployed members.



These individuals have access to the same opens information you, I, or anyone else has.  This secondhand information is further augmented by firsthand experience -- that is, they have an opportunity to overcome any personal bias this information may have implanted.  It's not unlikely there have been several people who share your doubts about the mission who have actually deployed, yet very few have returned to voice their negative opinions; to me, this suggests their experience trumps their previously negative opinion.  Suggesting experience is less than opinion is a pathetic argument ad hominem.

Furthermore, I accuse you of a confirmation bias.  Yes, your opinion will be dismissed and ridiculed here and often out of hand.  I doubt you're here to disprove your opinion, I think you're here to subtype those who disagree with you in a desperate bid to prove your righteous rightness.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (29 Oct 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ask yourself why people dismiss your arguments, perhaps if you never started posting confrontationally to some initially as you did, people would be more open to your comments. So it should not be a surprise to you. You are articulate enough, better then most here, however, your delivery leads a lot to be desired. Work on the delivery of your arguments to be less confrontational and you might find the discussion you are looking for.
> 
> Until then then I can't see anyone being receptive to your comments at all.



May I ask how for some advice on how should I be posting less confrontationally? If my opinions are in direct contradiction to another members how can I properly convey that opinion without being confrontational? Thank you for your further input.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Oct 2008)

Post in a manner and tone opposite in what you are doing now..try wording your statements differently to convey the same message but have a less confrontational tone. thats just for starters.

But you need to find what works for you...your current style is not working, so that should tell you that you need to try a different tact. Up to you. If you want to enjoy this site like most people do, then you have to do something. If you keep coming across as an @ss then 9 times out of 10 for various reasons you will end up leaving the site.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Oct 2008)

Cog Diss - to put it mildly you are being a d*nk. Don't presume to lecture people here, as many of the posters on here have had the benefit of 30+ years of service. They will eat you up and spit you out in a heartbeat.


----------



## PanaEng (30 Oct 2008)

I don't quite think his delivery lacked tact; I thought that he was just making a point that one has to know his enemy, from many angles - not just from behind the sights of our guns, in order to understand them and defeat them. 
Being in theatre is very valuable but you don't get 100% of the information. Furthermore, what you see and learn from the people in say around Kandahar would be different to what you could learn from the folks in the east or the folks around Herat and most likely different to what people in Quetta or Peshawar think or feel. What you get from an interpreter could be biased by his own convictions and everyone you talk to has their own agenda and trying to manipulate you for their gain. I am of the opinion that scepticism is your friend.
The report from the Rolling Stone is interesting and valuable but again, you can't take one persons account as gospel.

I agree with C-D about learning and hitting the root of the problem. I disagree with him in that he thinks they are reasonable (as a group) and that you can negotiate with them - those filthy evil scumbags  

It is good to be precise and tactful but I think some times we seem to be a bit overly sensitive. By overreacting we are showing that we are not as open minded as we think of ourselves or that we are somewhat unsure of our knowledge and our only recourse is to get defencive.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Fusaki (30 Oct 2008)

> I don't quite think his delivery lacked tact; I thought that he was just making a point that one has to know his enemy, from many angles - not just from behind the sights of our guns, in order to understand them and defeat them.



Look through his posting history. He's playing a game.

He's exploiting the fact that you can't draw a fine line between productive posts and trolling posts. The difference between the two is based just as much on context and tone as it is based on the words written. Cog-Dis is working in that grey area. 

He's carefull to keep the words he writes within the boundries of forum rules - even to the extent that he'll feign interest in the advice of others to improve his posting style. But beneath the surface his tone and intentions are consistently inflammatory.

He's obviously articulate, which is why I don't think he can claim ignorance. He knows what he's doing. He's enjoying flexing a bit of mental muscle for the sake of shit disturbing, like a smartass 16 year old who's crafted an elaborate practical joke just to see if he can get away with it.

This isn't about Afghanistan. It's about a troll hanging out on army.ca for shits and giggles.


----------



## PanaEng (30 Oct 2008)

I looked at some of his posts on other threads and you may be right.
However, if nobody stirs the pot we could end up with just superficial comments/knowledge - We just got to be vigilant and careful not to fall for the joke or feed the trolling.  

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Armymedic (30 Oct 2008)

Interesting read, that article.

Perhaps more people should examine its contents. Knowing how the insurgents are working on a daily basis would be a wise first step in revising current strategies.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2008)

Nir Rosen should be charged with aiding the enemy.Read the comments Rosem responds to Bing West.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/



> By Bing West
> 
> Good for Dave Dilegge for speaking out in Small Wars Journal about the October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. “They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks,” he wrote, “…. once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Garett (2 Nov 2008)

Some comments on this article on the Small Wars Journal. 

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/

An American Journalist

Posted by Bing West on October 29, 2008 7:12 PM | Permalink| Print

By Bing West

Good for Dave Dilegge for speaking out in Small Wars Journal about the October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. “They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks,” he wrote, “…. once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us.”

Having told the reader what his intent was, Rosen described the Taliban as “religious students who knew little about the rest of the world and cared only about liberating their country from oppressive warlords.” Rosen concluded his piece by declaring that the war was lost – unless we negotiated an ending with the Taliban.

But in addition to providing the Taliban with a propaganda coup, did he violate moral strictures, given that killing Americans was an objective of the very Taliban attacks he wanted to watch? Is a journalist guided by virtues higher than those of patriotism or nationalism? Does a journalist transcend the laws and norms governing other American citizens? And who is not a journalist, if every blog and e-mail is a branch of journalism?

This isn’t an obvious call in journalistic circles. Last year, David Schlesinger, chief editor for Reuters, e-mailed to me from the UK that "we (Reuters) are regularly in contact with established Taliban spokespeople via email and satellite phone to get the Taliban's view of various news events. Our competitors are as well. This is the normal and essential journalistic practice we follow anywhere in the world -- we report the views of all sides in a conflict without taking any side.”

While he did not say that Reuters sent correspondents into Taliban camps, his belief that not “taking any side” was an “essential journalistic practice” reveals an attitude that transcends patriotism and cries our for a national debate. It is doubtful if Reuters in 1941 would have interviewed Nazis while informing fellow Londoners that Reuters was not “taking any side”. And although most Americans who fought in Vietnam were outraged when Jane Fonda posed with North Vietnamese soldiers in 1970, the American government never said a word about her conduct, and millions of Americans supported her. Vietnam affirmed an American tradition of journalistic “independence” during a war.

Rosen is in elevated journalistic company in detaching from the American soldiers and their cause. In describing his experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins wrote, “This was not my war. This was not my army.” Whose army, then, was it?

Rosen described how he and two Taliban fighters deceived the guards at a government checkpoint. Suppose during World War II an American reporter had sneaked through the lines with two German officers wearing civilian clothes. “When we caught enemy combatants out of uniform in the 1940s,” a veteran wrote in The American Heritage, “we sometimes simply executed them.” The Greatest Generation had a direct way of dealing with moral ambiguity.

"I am a guest of the Taliban." Rosen wrote. Supposing in 1944 he had written, “I am a guest of the Waffen SS.” It is doubtful if Rolling Stone would have published Rosen’s article during World War II. The norms and values of American society have changed enormously in the past half-century.

Yet had Rosen been captured by Afghan soldiers, it is likely Rolling Stone magazine would have asked the US military to intercede for his release. But if the reporter has no obligation toward the soldier, does the soldier have the obligation to protect the journalist? Should Rosen, if captured, have been released or put on trial for aiding or abetting the enemy?

Not fully trusting the Taliban, Rosen employed the threat of murder more commonly associated with drug lords than with Rolling Stone magazine. “… Those I accompanied knew that they and their families would be killed if anything happened to me,” Rosen wrote, alluding to shadowy Afghan associates who had arranged his trip. But supposing Rosen had died and in retaliation six children were beheaded. What is the difference between the Mafia and Rolling Stone, when reporters are protected by threatening to wipe out families?

Most disturbing was the lack of outrage to Rosen’s sojourn by the administration, the military, the civilian appointees and the politicians. Secretary of Defense Gates is a cool, detached official who reacts to events. He does not plot a course into the future. He does not project a determination or a vision about how to succeed in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral William Mullen, calls for a strategic review – after six years of fighting! - laments that “we cannot kill our way to victory”, a vacuous absolution that transfers responsibility for failure to others. Why increase from 32,000 to 50,000 US troops, whose basic training is as riflemen, if the application of force – killing - is not the objective? A policeman protects the population by arresting criminals; a soldier protects the population by shooting the enemy soldier. Our military succeeds in confusing us all by reverting to Rodney King's plaint that we should all just get along.

When our leaders lack moral clarity and courage, then agnosticism about our mission in Afghanistan is understandable. Rosen’s conduct is not the problem; he was taking advantage of American moral lassitude. Our leaders don’t stand up for the righteousness of our cause. Why not hang out with the Taliban, if America’s leaders see nothing wrong with it?

We are fighting a war. Yet the Department of Defense lacks commitment and passion in the cause. It is morally wrong for an American citizen to deceive friendly troops in order to sneak into enemy territory in the company of enemy soldiers. When not one American official or general will speak out, our Soldiers and Marines who are fighting and dying are let down by their leaders.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Nov 2008)

Ummm.. Unless I missed something, that's identical to the post immediately previous to yours.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2008)

I second Muskrat89's motion....


----------



## Garett (2 Nov 2008)

I don't get the date and time difference between the two posts, five hours later then mine? Not that I really care.


----------



## Garett (4 Nov 2008)

That whole yesterday and today thing was confusing me, it should just have the date.

On the article; while I encourage debate, if we want to maintain the motivation of our soldiers and Cdn civilian voters we can't humanize the Taliban. Unfortunaly due to human nature, hatred is a necessary tool.


----------



## PanaEng (5 Nov 2008)

Well, I for one respectfully disagree with the article posted by Garret and Tomahawk.

I read the entire article by Mr Rosen and I don't see any alleged 'aiding the enemy' activity. In fact, the whole thing paints the Taliban in a bad light.
He is a g.d. reporter for c.s. and one with some balls at that. What would you do if you had to do some reporting on the enemy? go wearing a bug or a locator beacon? Insult Mullah Omar? spit and turn away when offered some tea? His little adventure was inconsequential at best but provides some good insight into the relationships of the Taliban commanders in these areas (we probably already know those details, I hope) and big hints on what we should be exploiting if we had enough personnel. So, overall more value than harm.

West (the writer in Small wars journal) seems to be stuck in the past by comparing the sandbox with WWII. And more disturbingly, he seems to advocate summary executions by quoting from a vet from that era. He laments that we lack the moral clarity in conducting this war similarly to how Col. Kurtz justified his means in Apocalypse now. We are not in 1944 our morality and code of conduct have evolved immensely - perhaps making it more difficult to win a war but thats what we have and I think it is better than what we had before.

From the "About us" page of the Small Wars Journal:


> This site seeks to transcend any viewpoint that is single service, and any that is purely military or naively U.S.-centric.  We pursue a comprehensive approach to Small Wars, integrating the full joint, allied, and coalition military with their governments' federal or national agencies, non-governmental agencies, and private organizations.  Small Wars are big undertakings, demanding a coordinated effort from a huge community of interest.


West seems to have deviated from the spirit of the site. But that is his right to express that opinion.

Anyway, just my opinion - not a popular one, but it is mine - without trying to offend anybody.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## PAT-Platoon (5 Nov 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Well, I for one respectfully disagree with the article posted by Garret and Tomahawk.
> 
> I read the entire article by Mr Rosen and I don't see any alleged 'aiding the enemy' activity. In fact, the whole thing paints the Taliban in a bad light.
> He is a g.d. reporter for c.s. and one with some balls at that. What would you do if you had to do some reporting on the enemy? go wearing a bug or a locator beacon? Insult Mullah Omar? spit and turn away when offered some tea? His little adventure was inconsequential at best but provides some good insight into the relationships of the Taliban commanders in these areas (we probably already know those details, I hope) and big hints on what we should be exploiting if we had enough personnel. So, overall more value than harm.
> ...



Very good post and I agree with everything said in it. I think that our attitudes really do create an "us vs them" environment. It's easy to dehumanize and demean the enemy to the point where they are no longer regarded as human beings, but we need to be careful. This is how human rights violations occur, is by excessive dehumanization. Instead, if we are in fact in a job to defeat the Taliban as a _movement_, then we need to understand its root causes and motivations. Thats why I am a bit miffed that we have only been attempting offensive military action. Why are we not opening dialogue and playing off the natural rifts between Taliban leaders? Its obvious they have some real internal problems and by opening dialogue to those who sound like they are ready for compromise or are interested in doing so will severely hamper the movement. I mean I understand why some people on the border cringe at the thought of dialogue because they immediately relate it to simple talking, and no military action. However what I am proposing is not some moralist "Peace in Afghanistan! No more war guys..." argument but rather trying to look at this strategically. We need to put aside our dehumanized view of the Taliban as a movement and try to sever their strength, that is their organization. The best way to do this is dialogue. O fcourse that being said I don't advocate putting our soldiers and civilians in danger by allowing offensive actions to be undertaken by the Taliban, however I still think some sort of discourse would be benefit us. 

-C/D


----------



## Shamrock (5 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> This is how human rights violations occur, is by excessive dehumanization.



Wrong.  

Milgram.  Zimbardo.


----------



## PanaEng (5 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Milgram.  Zimbardo.



A video of a more resent test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

But it only answers part of the reason why human right violations occur.  What about the Somalia event? I think more than following orders or taking on a role. But I don't know enough to answer that.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2008)

For what its worth, were did any Allied reporters sneak over to the Axis side to "humanize" the Nazi's et al? Don't think so.

I know....different times, different morality. 

If you have no stomach for a fight, don't join. Have a nice day Cog Diss.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (7 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Wrong.
> 
> Milgram.  Zimbardo.



While authority certainly comes into play in these types of situations, however dehumanization still propels a person to believe what they are doing is "right". It is a means in which to avoid cognitive dissonance. Otherwise humans innate abhorrence of killing other human beings kicks in and it is a lot harder to do such an act. The mere act of killing requires professional conditioning, appeals to authority and it is much helped by dehumanization. I am reminded of WWI stories of "the huns" killing Belgian babies as a good example. Now I am not making a moralist question on killing or not, I am merely making a point that naturally speaking human beings are reluctant to kill other human beings. It takes training and other factors to make it a possibility. 

Torture, human rights abuses etc. all can happen when the enemy is so dehumanized that, in the eyes of the undertaker of these horrors, no longer sees their victim as a fellow human being but as something else. Thus, they do not feel the sting of remorse in doing horrible things to other human beings, because in their mind their victims aren't human beings. Thats why I am hesitant and very wary of the dehumanization that many people undertake. Its certainly psychologically understandable, and frankly speaking I have my doubts if we can even avoid it. However for us who realize this fact its important to be careful not to get under the influence of such vitriol and hatred of enemy elements. If we kill them, we do so because it's our job. It's not good, nor is it bad. It just is. 

-C/D


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Nov 2008)

I feel that your post was well thought out, however I have a challenge with this statement, as it flies in the face of your argument




			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> However for us who realize this fact its important to be careful not to get under the influence of such vitriol and hatred of enemy elements. If we kill them, we do so because it's our job. It's not good, nor is it bad. It just is.
> 
> -C/D




By conditioning yourself, to believe that it is just a job, are you not dehumanizing the act?  You are comparing it to a carpenter Nailing in a two by four, while building a structure.  A chef creating a Beef Wellington, and using puff pastry.  A teacher wiping the chalk board, after the lesson.

All part of the Job.  In essence, you have justified dehumanizing the act of killing another, regardless whether you have been taught to hate the person, and just kill them for the sake of doing your Job.  You cannot claim that you are performing an act of Cognitive-Dissonance, and still do the job of a soldier if it involves killing, when you oppose the act of dehuminization.  You have physically terminated a human.  Physically Dehuminized.  That is worst than Psychologically doing the act.

Or maybe I read the post wrong, and that is what you meant…..

dileas

tess


----------



## Shamrock (7 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> While authority certainly comes into play in these types of situations, however dehumanization still propels a person to believe what they are doing is "right". It is a means in which to avoid cognitive dissonance.



You clearly don't understand the concept of cognitive dissonance.  



			
				Incognitive-Dissenter said:
			
		

> Otherwise humans innate abhorrence of killing other human beings kicks in and it is a lot harder to do such an act.



Don't give me that nativist bullshit.  Provide me any one empirical source that says humans are inately opposed to murder.




			
				Ingognitive-Dissenter said:
			
		

> Torture, human rights abuses etc. all can happen when the enemy is so dehumanized that, in the eyes of the undertaker of these horrors, no longer sees their victim as a fellow human being but as something else. Thus, they do not feel the sting of remorse in doing horrible things to other human beings, because in their mind their victims aren't human beings.



Absolute bullshit.

I assume you're completely ignorant of either Milgram's or Zimbardo's work.  Watch the videos.  Pay attention.  Milgram's were naive participants who did not undergo any form of indoctrination, brain washing, dehumanization, or elevator musak to attain the results.  The willingly inflicted pain on the 'learner' knowning full well how much each shock hurt, having been given one themselves.  Most went on to inflict what they thought was a fatal shock, and then some -- all with the instruction of "it is imperative the experiment continues."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> .The mere act of killing requires professional conditioning,



I disagree, we require "professional conditioning" not to kill. It's something we have been teaching our children for thousands of years.......................and yet, as a whole, we still haven't fully learned it.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2008)

CG is speaking out his a$$ once again. The act of killing another human being should not be taken lightly. Having said that, my young friend CG, some human beings don't hold that view. 

Like Clint Eastwood said:

" Some folks need a  good killin"


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

I dont care how you spin it,there is no way that any journalist should be with a terrorist group. Its common sense really,the taliban have been known to kill journalists so why take the risk ? Stay home or go out beyond the wire with NATO troops.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2008)

I agree with tomahawk6. A balanced view? give me a break.


----------



## PanaEng (8 Nov 2008)

I'm not claiming the reporter gave a balanced view. All he can do is regurgitate what he has seen. (which I found to be quite interesting)
However, you can't claim to live in the free world if you impose restrictions on reporters on what they can report on and from where (barring national or operational secrets).
Free press is essential for freedom and democracy. 
Ant that is what we fight for ultimately.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a crime. In this case he is regurgitating taliban propaganda and he is an actibe participant by allowing the taliban to pass a CP with his credentials.He needs to be in the dock !!


----------



## PanaEng (8 Nov 2008)

nowhere in the article he recites the Taliban propaganda as an opinion of himself. Whenever he passes on something that he was told he clearly identifies it as the Taliban line to which he shows clear contempt at times. 
Using his credentials to get around is common practise whether he had civilian fixers, embedded with our troops or going to the other side. Reporters have done that for a long time and it is essential to freedom of the press.
Did the guys he was with need his press pass to get through? Without him they would have used other means or just bribe the guards at the checkpoint. I don't see how he aided the Taliban in any way.

A common thread of the communist and fascist regimes we have fought major wars with since 1914 (and lost so many good men in) and and the ones that continue to oppose democracy and freedom is the restriction of the press citing the same arguments that you are using - the slightest pretext - to incarcerate or otherwise those reporters. If we do that, we are no better. In fact, I would say that it would be anti-American or anti-Canadian.

Maybe we should leave at that and agree that we disagree on this.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

You are very wrong. Once a reporter actively assists the enemy he has crossed the line and becomes an enemy. Once he starts running around with the bad guys he runs the risk of being killed by coalition forces.If he starts waving his credentials on the battlefield friendly troops may surmise its a trick and shoot him.We arrested several stringers for AP in Iraq for being with insurgents.


----------



## TheHead (8 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You are very wrong. Once a reporter actively assists the enemy he has crossed the line and becomes an enemy. Once he starts running around with the bad guys he runs the risk of being killed by coalition forces.If he starts waving his credentials on the battlefield friendly troops may surmise its a trick and shoot him.We arrested several stringers for AP in Iraq for being with insurgents.




But he NEVER assisted them one bit. I enjoyed the article. Why is this pissing you off so much? God forbid we have reporters with the balls to be embedded with the enemy even at the risk of their own lives. Yes he does run the risk of being killed, but NO friendly soldier is going to shoot an unarmed personal, correct?


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

He showed his credentials at a checkpoint to allow himself and his taliban buddies to pass.


----------



## TheHead (8 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> He showed his credentials at a checkpoint to allow himself and his taliban buddies to pass.



I may have misinterpreted a portion of the story. Quote me the entire paragraph please so I can go over it again.

Thanks.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

Read the Small Wars Journal take on this and then go to the comments section where Rosen responds to the author.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/



> Rosen described how he and two Taliban fighters deceived the guards at a government checkpoint. Suppose during World War II an American reporter had sneaked through the lines with two German officers wearing civilian clothes. “When we caught enemy combatants out of uniform in the 1940s,” a veteran wrote in The American Heritage, “we sometimes simply executed them.” The Greatest Generation had a direct way of dealing with moral ambiguity.


----------



## TheHead (8 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Read the Small Wars Journal take on this and then go to the comments section where Rosen responds to the author.
> 
> http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/



Read the comments this person is making. Something is fishy. He sounds like a high school student in those comments and not a journalist.   I smell a troll.   I'll read the rest of the comments after work.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> While authority certainly comes into play in these types of situations, however dehumanization still propels a person to believe what they are doing is "right". It is a means in which to avoid cognitive dissonance. Otherwise humans innate abhorrence of killing other human beings kicks in and it is a lot harder to do such an act. The mere act of killing requires professional conditioning, appeals to authority and it is much helped by dehumanization. I am reminded of WWI stories of "the huns" killing Belgian babies as a good example. Now I am not making a moralist question on killing or not, I am merely making a point that naturally speaking human beings are reluctant to kill other human beings. It takes training and other factors to make it a possibility.
> 
> Torture, human rights abuses etc. all can happen when the enemy is so dehumanized that, in the eyes of the undertaker of these horrors, no longer sees their victim as a fellow human being but as something else. Thus, they do not feel the sting of remorse in doing horrible things to other human beings, because in their mind their victims aren't human beings. Thats why I am hesitant and very wary of the dehumanization that many people undertake. Its certainly psychologically understandable, and frankly speaking I have my doubts if we can even avoid it. However for us who realize this fact its important to be careful not to get under the influence of such vitriol and hatred of enemy elements. If we kill them, we do so because it's our job. It's not good, nor is it bad. It just is.
> 
> -C/D



Typical Army Goon Cog Dis post, and so full of pol-sci and theoritical related crap, so much, in fact its more than enough to gag a maggot! I am so much getting tired of this 'burly', and I am getting rather jack of being baited.

I don't know what or where you are getting your assumptions, but you don't have a clue about the reality of life on the shyte end of the stick.

During my time in Shyteland, we respected our emeny. He was cunning, intelligent, sly, capable of intense bravery, cold and calculating. He adapted to our TTPs constantly, hence why ours were always changing.

Our Enemy there were human beings like us, but with different morals and values. They were also trying to kill us at every opportunity, that is when it suited them, as they were often killing each other (Sunni vs Shiite), which suited me fine, as it took some heat off of us.

During my time in Iraq, I seen enough violence to last a 1000 lifetimes, and I certinally don't need some INDIVIDUAL who knows SFA about nothing, trying to tell us how it all really is.

No wonder why I drink at night!

Crickey!!

OWDU


----------



## TheHead (8 Nov 2008)

What is the best kind of Experience though? First hand.   I'd take that over any of those other sources anyday.  I didn't mean to insult you I'm sorry. Like someone said this thread is running it's course and I will respecfully leave since my area of discussion is the one derailing it. If anyone has any direct comments about anything I posted please message me.


Also please don't question my credentials. I've done my time in Afghanistan.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2008)

There are plenty of first hand accounts available just ask any soldier,such as yourself,what its like.Interview captured taliban if you like.Just dont run around the mountains with the bad guys or else you might be mistaken for one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2008)

I've cleaned up the thread a little, some misunderstandings have been cleared up, and we can try and carry on.

This is a very touchy subject but lets try hard to keep this above board.

Bruce


----------



## PAT-Platoon (10 Nov 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I feel that your post was well thought out, however I have a challenge with this statement, as it flies in the face of your argument
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very good point! I have not considered this point, and you make a very good case. With this i mind I will have to change definitions, as you are correct that turning it into a job is still dehumanization. What is a good term then? What I am trying to argue against is the unneeded demonization of the enemy as an inhuman, almost animal-like entity needing to be eliminated.  48th regulator you are correct, what I am promulgating is indeed dehumanization. With that in mind, would anyone like to speak up about a good term for what I am trying to project? 

-C/D


----------



## the 48th regulator (10 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Very good point! I have not considered this point, and you make a very good case. With this i mind I will have to change definitions, as you are correct that turning it into a job is still dehumanization. What is a good term then? What I am trying to argue against is the unneeded demonization of the enemy as an inhuman, almost animal-like entity needing to be eliminated.  48th regulator you are correct, what I am promulgating is indeed dehumanization. With that in mind, would anyone like to speak up about a good term for what I am trying to project?
> 
> -C/D




Much like our duty as soldiers, it not our job to question the mission.

Well before someone becomes a soldier, they must understand that the ultimate sacrifice that our country asks us is not only to sacrifice our lives, but that we will be asked to sacrifice the lives of others. Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously (1).  These feelings should come to you, when you decide to make the effort to join the military.  Knowing full well my explanation of the sacrifice asked by us as soldiers, one cannot go forward and join, and expect not to perform the act of killing.

Canada offers many others methods of service, for those that wish to help a nation, and not want to perform the act of fighting and terminating lives.  Unfortunately, one can not join the military, and live in an idea that they will never have to dehumanize an enemy, and perform the ultimate act of terminating their life.

So basically, I feel there is no other way you can phrase your belief.  Soldiers cannot have a Cognitive-Dissonance during the service of a country, when fighting a war.

dileas

tess


----------



## Shamrock (10 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> With that in mind, would anyone like to speak up about a good term for what I am trying to project?



Actually, I'd like to ask at what point during your training has your enemy been demonized, or for that manner, even dehumanized.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (10 Nov 2008)

+1 Shamrock.


Surely training in the Laws of Armed Conflict should prevent any 'dehumanization'.

Cog-Diss, you are putting WAY too much thought into your trade, 031 I believe? Are you going to pause and segue into some philosophical pycho-babble when you should be running your enemy through with a bayonet???


----------



## Fusaki (10 Nov 2008)

> Are you going to pause and segue into some philosophical pycho-babble when you should be running your enemy through with a bayonet???



I somehow doubt he'll ever find himself in that situation, or a situation even remotely near it, anyways... :


----------



## TheHead (10 Nov 2008)

So I have corresponded with Mr Rosen in a few emails. I will say that the comments he made on that website Tomahawk are confirmed to be his. He does clarify though what did happen at that check point.  So once I gain permission from him to reproduce the email I Will.

Thanks.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Nov 2008)

"Actually, I'd like to ask at what point during your training has your enemy been demonized, or for that manner, even dehumanized."


It hasn't.

Remember who you are talking to, and the key word is with this individual is "AGENDA".

Thats obvious.

 : ; and op:

OWDU


----------



## PAT-Platoon (13 Nov 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Actually, I'd like to ask at what point during your training has your enemy been demonized, or for that manner, even dehumanized.



Plenty of times I have heard the terms "Haji" and "Raghead" in regards to the Taliban and other enemy insurgents in Afghanistan. Not to mention the context in which was spoken about the Taliban is always a demonized version, of horribly mutilating them and of other disgusting acts. I understand that many will feel hatred towards an enemy, I just wish it wasn't so prevalent and we viewed it more as a job we have to do, instead of a privilege that many seem to find in killing.

-C/D


----------



## Shamrock (13 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Plenty of times I have heard the terms "Haji" and "Raghead" in regards to the Taliban and other enemy insurgents in Afghanistan.



After a breather, I'm prepared to address this individual.

As an institution, the Canadian Forces neither practices nor encourages the dehumanisation in any form of its 'customers.'  We regularly practice our rules of engagement - be they generic or shopping venue specific - to ensure we use the appropriate level of customer appreciation to the scenario; yes, this sometimes require us to return our customers to sender.  We all are also required to be very familiar with the Geneva Conventions as we must do more than ensure customer satisfaction, we must sure it is done in accordance with international law.  All soldiers are also required to be at least passingly familiar with the Canadian Military Ethos.

These values all should have been imparted to you during BMQ; they are key elements to service.  That you so casually overlook them suggests you have completely failed to internalize any sort of military values.  Why would that be?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> instead of a privilege that many seem to find in killing.
> 
> -C/D



A privilege??

For the record, in our line of work violence is business, its never taken personally.

Cog Dis, you have achieved a new high in low! I hope you are happy.

Your post is absolutely clueless, you've been no where, baseless and one of the most 'thick' posts yet.

You do really have issues and an OPEN agenda.

You are confirming yet again that you are a TROLL with a capital T and a disgrace to all those who have served.

Shame on you.

Truly again disgusted,

OWDU 
Veteran

EDITed for clarity


----------



## Franko (13 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Plenty of times I have heard the terms "Haji" and "Raghead" in regards to the Taliban and other enemy insurgents in Afghanistan. Not to mention the context in which was spoken about the Taliban is always a demonized version, of horribly mutilating them and of other disgusting acts. I understand that many will feel hatred towards an enemy, I just wish it wasn't so prevalent and we viewed it more as a job we have to do, instead of a privilege that many seem to find in killing.
> 
> -C/D



After seeing what they have done here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081112/afghanistan_girls_081113/20081113?hub=SEAfghanistan

I can't believe that you are still going on and on adnaseum. Almost borderline trolling.

You obviously have never been in a fire fight and have to "close with and destroy the enemy."

I suggest that if you are seeking join up and go on tour, you join something that will keep you far away from the battle field. 

I don't think, IMHO, you will have the stomach for it. 

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Plenty of times I have heard the terms "Haji" and "Raghead" in regards to the Taliban and other enemy insurgents in Afghanistan. Not to mention the context in which was spoken about the Taliban is always a demonized version, of horribly mutilating them and of other disgusting acts. I understand that many will feel hatred towards an enemy, I just wish it wasn't so prevalent and we viewed it more as a job we have to do, instead of a privilege that many seem to find in killing.
> 
> -C/D



I'm sorry.  From now on I will always refer to the enemy; you know those guys who go around throwing acid on little Schoolgirls or blowing up IEDs in crowded markets, as those very nice people who live next door.  You know; they meek little guys who wouldn't hurt a fly.  The guys who would never pick up a gun, or any weapon, in anger.  

Yeah!  Sure!

I think you are living in a very fuzzy wuzzy fantasy world.  Get REAL.   :


----------



## Fusaki (13 Nov 2008)

You mean it's _not_ a privilege to scrub <a href=http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/afghan101.htm#P67_654>these guys</a> off the face of the earth?

The way I see it, I've been given a gift: LAV Gunnery. I feel privileged to have used my gift to make the world a better place.


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Nov 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> You mean it's _not_ a privilege to scrub <a href=http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/afghan101.htm#P67_654>these guys</a> off the face of the earth?
> 
> The way I see it, I've been given a gift: LAV Gunnery. I feel privileged to have used my gift to make the world a better place.



Canadian Forces, making the world a better place 25mm's at a time!


----------



## 2 Cdo (14 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Plenty of times I have heard the terms "Haji" and "Raghead" in regards to the Taliban and other enemy insurgents in Afghanistan. Not to mention the context in which was spoken about the Taliban is always a demonized version, of horribly mutilating them and of other disgusting acts. I understand that many will feel hatred towards an enemy, I just wish it wasn't so prevalent and we viewed it more as a job we have to do, instead of a privilege that many seem to find in killing.
> 
> -C/D



And this was done in a formal teaching environment or just troops standing around the smoking area bullshitting? : Your last sentence was the worst sensationalist bullshit you have spouted yet. You are an embarrassment and a disgrace for your vague accusations about fellow troops, and frankly you disgust me. :threat:


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Nov 2008)

Remember Lads (and Ladettes) we are giving this 'waste of rations' simply what he wants to hear.

He feeds off us like a crack whore possessed, and is no doubt sharing our quotes with others of his ilk ("look what they wrote about me today guys, those war mongering baby killers who think they are privileged to kill"...). What a POS!

I reckon his time has come on here. His integrity is long gone, and so should he.

Troll/shyte disturber, all from the same mold.

If others can be placed up the warning system for repeated anti LEO comments, then the same should be done for those trolling and baiting us in the anti CF comments, like this INDIVIDUAL is doing.

Ref:   Ms JdrO http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81261.0.html

-------------
"Maybe because it's true.   

This is all I see, and I don't like that ish...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqbmasNeOmM

It should be publicized when the people who are supposed to be "serving and protecting" lose trust and do this type of ish, nah I don't like that ish."
----------------

Cog-Dis's behaviour (he knows what he is doing) IMHO is the same, if not worse as the above reference. His political agenda is truly disgusting.

Action, not words please.

OWDU


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Nov 2008)

Hey Cog Diss - get some time in before you start to spout off.

As a Company Sergeant Major, if I ever heard you shooting your mouth of around the troops like that, you'd be counselled. If you didn't stop, you'd be gone. Now good bye.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (17 Nov 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> And this was done in a formal teaching environment or just troops standing around the smoking area bullshitting? : Your last sentence was the worst sensationalist bullshit you have spouted yet. You are an embarrassment and a disgrace for your vague accusations about fellow troops, and frankly you disgust me. :threat:



These comments were done in a formal teaching environment as a matter of fact. Though I'll be fair and state that these were Reserve courses (though these comments were frequently made by Regular force members) so I cannot say if this sort of crude demonization is done throughout but from the apologism I get here it is starting to sound like it does. I understand that the emotions involved in combat bring out these things but I personally feel its unprofessional to be calling the enemy such names. 

-C/D


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> These comments were done in a formal teaching environment as a matter of fact. Though I'll be fair and state that these were Reserve courses (though these comments were frequently made by Regular force members) so I cannot say if this sort of crude demonization is done throughout but from the apologism I get here it is starting to sound like it does. I understand that the emotions involved in combat bring out these things but I personally feel its unprofessional to be calling the enemy such names.
> 
> -C/D



Unprofessional to be calling your _Enemy_ names, yet you have no challenge with terminating his life?

I am sorry C-D, now you are really digging at the bottom of the politically correct barrell.  You have no qualms with killing or maiming an enemy in batttle, but you take issue with name calling?

I shall retire to Bedlham....

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> These comments were done in a formal teaching environment as a matter of fact. Though I'll be fair and state that these were Reserve courses (though these comments were frequently made by Regular force members) so I cannot say if this sort of crude demonization is done throughout but from the apologism I get here it is starting to sound like it does. I understand that the emotions involved in combat bring out these things but I personally feel its unprofessional to be calling the enemy such names.
> 
> -C/D



 ???

Really!  I really don't understand your logic at all.  Do you have any concept at all as to what kind of training Combat Arms soldiers must go through?  It doesn't matter what military, or in fact, what insurgent organization, is engaging in "KILLING"; they all will dehumanize their enemies.  What do you think the Taliban call Western soldiers and NGOs?  They demonize their enemies just like anyone else.  

What kind of principles are you teaching your soldiers/combatants if you tell them that their enemy is their best friend?  Get your head out of wherever you have it stuck and smell the coffee.


----------



## PanaEng (17 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Really!  I really don't understand your logic at all.  Do you have any concept at all as to what kind of training Combat Arms soldiers must go through?  It doesn't matter what military, or in fact, what insurgent organization, is engaging in "KILLING"; they all will dehumanize their enemies.  What do you think the Taliban call Western soldiers and NGOs?  They demonize their enemies just like anyone else.
> 
> What kind of principles are you teaching your soldiers/combatants if you tell them that their enemy is their best friend?  Get your head out of wherever you have it stuck and smell the coffee.


It pains me to say it... (there is some cognitive dissonance for you   ) and I am not trying to defend C-D or support his point of view...
but, just because the enemy does it doesn't mean that we should do it too...

but you are right, I don't see anything wrong with calling them *some* as long as we don't generalize and can distinguish between civilians/combatants. 
We don't want guys going of to Darfur (lets say) and talk about "getting some n****rs," etc.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> ............We don't want guys going of to Darfur (lets say) and talk about "getting some n****rs," etc.



I am quite sure that this is not what the discussion was about when we mean "demonizing" the enemy.  That is more of a ignorant comment along racist lines.  Demonizing, as far as I am concerned, doesn't involve racism.  It is more along the lines of making the enemy to be something other than a human being.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> These comments were done in a formal teaching environment as a matter of fact. Though I'll be fair and state that these were Reserve courses (though these comments were frequently made by Regular force members) so I cannot say if this sort of crude demonization is done throughout but from the apologism I get here it is starting to sound like it does. I understand that the emotions involved in combat bring out these things but I personally feel its unprofessional to be calling the enemy such names.
> 
> -C/D



Hey TROLL Boy,

WTF do you know about combat besides maybe reading ON KILLING or watching Saving Private Ryan!

Name calling the enemy? Unprofessional? Good fucking gawd!

IMHO not only are you a waste of IMPs, but also a waste of bandwidth on this site.

If anything for you is in order, its a quick 'chat' behind the POL shed to sort your pathetic ass out.

You are nothing but a TROLL and should be frogmarched off this site now!

Yet again reading Cog-Dis's new high in low,

OWDU


----------



## Fusaki (17 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I understand that the emotions involved in combat bring out these things but* I personally feel its unprofessional* to be calling the enemy such names.
> 
> -C/D



I think you have no fucking clue what it means to be a professional in this army.


----------



## PanaEng (17 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am quite sure that this is not what the discussion was about when we mean "demonizing" the enemy.  That is more of a ignorant comment along racist lines.  Demonizing, as far as I am concerned, doesn't involve racism.  It is more along the lines of making the enemy to be something other than a human being.


That's exactly what I was trying to get at but couldn't say it better.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Drag (17 Nov 2008)

Guys you all are getting too excited and its just feeding the troll...  If you ignore him he will disappear


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Nov 2008)

The term 'enough rope' comes to mind again. he'll hang himself on here sooner or later, but I think sooner is fast approaching.

Hopefully the Mods have had a gutful of him too, its so bloody obvious he is baiting us all, and what is intentions are.

Should he ever have the intestinal fortitude to go on a summer course, he'll be eaten alive by his peers if he presents the attitude he has here.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## PanaEng (17 Nov 2008)

I think this thread has gone on a tangent for a while now.
Lets let it die or lets post something relevant.

cheers,
Frank :argument: :deadhorse: :cheers:


----------



## PAT-Platoon (18 Nov 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Unprofessional to be calling your _Enemy_ names, yet you have no challenge with terminating his life?
> 
> I am sorry C-D, now you are really digging at the bottom of the politically correct barrell.  You have no qualms with killing or maiming an enemy in batttle, but you take issue with name calling?
> 
> ...



Valid point, and I'll address it. One could argue that the reasonings behind the killing of the enemy are of a greater good, or they are for the very purpose we are employed by via the state and the country. I.E. Ours is not to reason why but to do or die, to quote a cliche. However, demonizing the enemy does not serve any higher purpose at all. It has no justification other then pure vitriol and hatred. Yes, emotions run high in these circumstances and I am not downright denouncing nor judging those who do it (as it is very understandable), I just wish the military had better institutions involved or something to combat that demonization. Otherwise, it seems to me that many of the past human rights violations have been motivated, or atleast justified in the minds of those involved, by the demonization of the enemy. The reason I believe it is unprofessional is because it is something that is very emotionally charged, and emotions in the line of work we are involved in need to be checked sometimes to control what we do. We do a very unique, extremely difficult and emotionally challenging job. With this job however we are given powerful tools and training to take on the task that is the most unnatural and difficult thing a human being has to do; that is, kill another human being. Now let me make it clear, I am not discussing the morality of "killing" in general, I am just pointing out that it is indeed difficult for a human to kill another human, biologically and socially speaking. We however do this because we know there is a higher purpose, guided by various ethos and disciplines that we are instilled upon in our institutions.

I find it very uncouth to be spilling such vitriol on an enemy force. When one is put in a position whereby they have to kill another human being, it is because there is in fact a greater reasoning behind it. Call it the ends justifying the means or whatever, however in the end, in the military we do not kill because we want to, we kill because we need to in order to accomplish the mission. However by taking it on a personal level, but actively demonizing the enemy we slowly chip away at the foundations of our ethics. We slowly move towards the forewarned "undisciplined mob, more dangerous to the state" (paraphrasing) then a disciplined, professional tool of a civilian government. 

Now I do not suggest we start charging people, or "jacking-up" people who do demonize the enemy, because they themselves are simply the products of their training an environment. However what I would like to see is a value instilled and furthered upon whereby we understand the foundations of our job and that the emotional contexts of it should be wrestled with so it does not inhibit our mission. How we should do this? That is a difficult question without an easy answer. Maybe it should be something installed ethically? Eitherway I don't believe that it should be perpetuated as much as it is, _however_ I cannot stress this enough I also do not believe that we should actively attack and antagonize those who do. We need to find a progressive option so the next generation of the CF can have these values instilled upon them without antagonization.



> Really!  I really don't understand your logic at all.  Do you have any concept at all as to what kind of training Combat Arms soldiers must go through?  It doesn't matter what military, or in fact, what insurgent organization, is engaging in "KILLING"; they all will dehumanize their enemies.  What do you think the Taliban call Western soldiers and NGOs?  They demonize their enemies just like anyone else.
> 
> What kind of principles are you teaching your soldiers/combatants if you tell them that their enemy is their best friend?  Get your head out of wherever you have it stuck and smell the coffee.



I am aware of the kind of training Combat Arms soldiers go through, as a Reserve Infantryman having completed courses up to DP2A (aka IPSWQ), though obviously not to the extent that a Regular force (or Reserve force for that matter) combat arms preparing for an operational tour overseas. That being said, I still do have Combat Arms training to base some of my assumptions off of.  I understand that militaries, and insurgent organizations (probably these being even more prone to due to lack of discipline and organized structure such as a military) will dehumanize the enemy, I am not denying that fact. What I am arguing is that this demonization/dehumanization is something we should strive to combat.

I am not teaching principles that espouse befriending the enemy. What I am trying to address is that the unnecessary demonization is 1) Unproductive, 2) Serves no other purpose professionnaly other than self-gratification and 3) Leads to creating a toxic environment whereby the attitudes of the members involved can be given justifications towards human rights violations. 

Directly talking about 3) I wish to bring up a good example. The active demonization and dehumanization of, not only the Vietnamese people as a whole but also of Vietnamese insurgents during the United States' operations in Vietnam lead to, while maybe not directly (as one could argue poor discipline, leadership and the use of non-volunteer personnel were very potent in providing the catalysts for massacres) certainly poisoned the minds of those involved. My Lai for example, where an American infantry company massacred 300-500 innocent civilians in the course of their military operations. One quote that strikes to mind, for example is from the BBC News:

"I would say that most people in our company didn't consider the Vietnamese human"

This is very important I believe. When one starts actively desensitize oneself to the humanity of the enemy, in effect you are stripping away the enemy's human rights by denying them the very definition of being "human". Now I wish to make this point clear, in no way do I see the Canadian Forces on any road to any sort of massacre along the lines of My Lai. Even with these faults in mind, I have no hesitation to say that the Canadian Forces is probably the most progressive and humane military in the world at this time. That being said though, the reasons we are at that stage is because we have discussions and professional development regarding values and ethos. So, am I saying that for Pte. Bloggins calling the enemy a "raghead" (Which I would like to bring in adds in serious racist issues aswell, for now I will not address) he can easily succumb to torturing a Taliban insurgent? No. However, by allowing it to go on it creates the environment where human rights violations very well could happen in the future if these attitudes are let to foster and grow.

-C/D


----------



## Towards_the_gap (18 Nov 2008)

Do a tour, watch one of your mates bleed out crying for his mother, then come back here and lecture us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2008)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Do a tour, watch one of your mates bleed out crying for his mother, then come back here and lecture us.



Cognitive-Dissonance,

You can PM me after your first tour [if you actually make it that far]  and I will reopen this thread for you.
Until then you are just a wannabee in the wind..............


----------

