Rolling Stone Embeds with the Taliban

[the 48th regulator]

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

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]

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.  

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.

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]

.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]

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]

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]

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

 

[PanaEng]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TheHead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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

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