Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:12 AM Mar 2012

Robert Fisk: Madness is not the reason for this massacre


I'm getting a bit tired of the "deranged" soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank boys and girls announced that he was "deranged". Not an evil, wicked, mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan, especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.

This was the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly "deranged" in Kandahar province.

"Apparently deranged", "probably deranged", journalists announced, a soldier who "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a "rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose "rampage" (The New York Times) was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of madness" (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff? Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to their bodies. But, no, he didn't kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans. There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off. But so what?


<snip>

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-madness-is-not-the-reason-for-this-massacre-7575737.html
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Robert Fisk: Madness is not the reason for this massacre (Original Post) Logical Mar 2012 OP
Investigation into who let burrowowl Mar 2012 #1
There have been 1000s deployed multiple times. The man killed 16 civilians. Simple as that. n-t Logical Mar 2012 #2
I wish life was really that simple nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #4
I agree he snapped. Like jared loughner snapped. No different. n-t Logical Mar 2012 #6
Actually there is a difference nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #7
It's not a question of it being a simple matter, it's a question of whether he was deranged or not Major Nikon Mar 2012 #11
You know who are deranged malaise Mar 2012 #16
Democracy will come Major Nikon Mar 2012 #18
only for those looking for simple easy explanations. Too bad real life so seldom complies cali Mar 2012 #14
given his traumatic brain injury, I would say it is a factor. So, he's tired of all of this and who roguevalley Mar 2012 #28
And then there's this... PSPS Mar 2012 #3
At least Fisk gets it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #5
100% correct n/t malaise Mar 2012 #17
Well, madness may be the reason because a deranged person did not seem able to tabatha Mar 2012 #8
I wish posters would quit calling reporters liars when they don't like what they write. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #31
Not as a first step. He is applying sanctions first. He has stated he does not want a war with Iran. tabatha Mar 2012 #33
A military empire can't really act any other way n/t eridani Mar 2012 #9
He was thinking rationally enough after the massacre when he turned himself and sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #10
and of course if he is deranged barbtries Mar 2012 #12
And Fisk knows this how? cali Mar 2012 #13
The only description of the traumatic brain injury I've seen is 'concussion' muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #15
a concussion is a very mild form of TBI cali Mar 2012 #19
But the PTSD 'diagnosis' was made by his lawyer, after the killings muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #20
with or without the diagnosis of PTSD cali Mar 2012 #22
You really think you have the information and expertise to make that call? muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #24
BS..FIsk is making a valid point...only when it's us is there mental illness joeybee12 Mar 2012 #25
Yup. polly7 Mar 2012 #32
Has it been mentioned the guy may have also been drunk? .n/t monmouth Mar 2012 #21
since mr fisk never saw a moment of danger it is sad to see him pontificate. agreed, cali roguevalley Mar 2012 #29
Of course! There's nothing 'deranged' about war lunatica Mar 2012 #23
The purpose of the military is to kill people and destroy things FarCenter Mar 2012 #26
It isn't a surprise to me lunatica Mar 2012 #27
Fisk is right on, G_j Mar 2012 #30
k G_j Mar 2012 #34
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
2. There have been 1000s deployed multiple times. The man killed 16 civilians. Simple as that. n-t
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:21 AM
Mar 2012
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
4. I wish life was really that simple
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:29 AM
Mar 2012

I really wish it was.

Here are the defendants at the court.

The sergeant, that is an obvious one.

The US Army

The American People

The US government, the last three are not obvious.

I suspect though that for you this is an open and shut case, which it is not,

Suffice to say, I expect MORE, no less of these incidents.

I even expect a few of these IN THE US, with a vet or two (A really small minority) that will snap. We even have had a few already of those... conveniently we sweep it under the rug.

By the way, I am not justifying it. I just get it... binary thinking is not a good thing.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
7. Actually there is a difference
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:34 AM
Mar 2012

Loughner is not fit to stand trial.

There are a series of events that led to this with the sergeant that are extremely different.

If you cannot comprehend it, we have nothing more to say to each other. I am glad he has an extremely good lawyer and I do hope he does put the army to shame and makes them the accomplice they are.

Have a good day with that eye for an eye thinking.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
11. It's not a question of it being a simple matter, it's a question of whether he was deranged or not
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 04:28 AM
Mar 2012

Nobody who goes on a killing spree does so for rational reasons, and there always will be contributing factors for the reasons why people do these things. However, the question is whether this guy was deranged or not, which implies that he had some sort of psychosis that prevented him from telling right from wrong. The facts don't support that conclusion. This doesn't mean that there weren't others culpable to varying degrees for this tragedy.

malaise

(268,998 posts)
16. You know who are deranged
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 07:49 AM
Mar 2012

Those folks up the chain who believe occupying Afghanistan for ten years and killing people is a good idea.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
14. only for those looking for simple easy explanations. Too bad real life so seldom complies
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 06:40 AM
Mar 2012

with that kind of thinking.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
28. given his traumatic brain injury, I would say it is a factor. So, he's tired of all of this and who
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 12:20 PM
Mar 2012

isn't? The man is damaged and was not supposed to go back. he was re-trained to be a recruiter. then they sent him. It is reasonable to believe to a high degree that he is impaired and not responsible. To throw him away when the fuckers responsible for all of this sit in their houses untouched is bullshit. Fisk needs to direct his ire to the right place. This guy is probably impaired enough under stress to be insane at the time.

PSPS

(13,598 posts)
3. And then there's this...
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:22 AM
Mar 2012

More from the article:

Allen told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said, "resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued. "There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are."

Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined, elite, professional army not to "take vengeance" on the Afghans they are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has. Because – however much I dislike generals – I've met quite a number of them and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.

Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the "experts" when they had to tell us about these killings. No suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our staff sergeant out of the "deranged" bracket and given him a possible motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his head. Didn't know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of Afghanistan at such speed.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
5. At least Fisk gets it
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:30 AM
Mar 2012

and is not engaged in binary thinking. There are so many shades of gray on this, it's not even funny.

tabatha

(18,795 posts)
8. Well, madness may be the reason because a deranged person did not seem able to
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 03:26 AM
Mar 2012

absorb the warning of the US commander.

The military is trained to listen to heir superiors. The culprit probably has all his life until this time. Hence he probably snapped.

I was extremely disappointed in a Robert Fisk interview on Al Jazeera, where he stated that the "President of the United States and threatened Iran with war" and other incorrect claims about the ME. In fact, I was disgusted, because Obama had warned Republicans to not talk about war with Iran. Fisk's statement was a blatant lie.

There are many shades of gray in this one, and Robert Fisk is trying to make it black and white, cut and dried, where he does not mind taking liberties with the truth.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
31. I wish posters would quit calling reporters liars when they don't like what they write.
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 01:12 PM
Mar 2012

Obama absolutely threatened to attack Iran:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

----

Talk about taking liberties with the truth...

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
10. He was thinking rationally enough after the massacre when he turned himself and
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 04:05 AM
Mar 2012

refused to talk about it until he had a lawyer. If he could think that rationally regarding his own self preservation, it seems he was not totally unaware of what he was doing.

However, what he did was madness. All killing in war is madness.

And if we are going to extend sympathy to him, and I am all for doing that for everyone who ends up victims of these wars, then we must extend the same sympathy and understanding to the people of the countries we invade who do the same thing.

And most of all, we need to get out of all of these countries and stop killing people all over the world.

NPR lied the other day when they called this the 'worst such incident since the wars began'. Where have they been? Have they forgotten the early days in Afghanistan? The slaughter of men, women and children at wedding parties eg? The cluster bombings of the market in Iraq? Blackwater's slaughter of 17 innocent civilians in Iraq? Haditha, among other atrocities? And what about all the drone killings? One in which over 120 people were killed? How about the killing recently of 24 Pakistani soldiers?

After the Pakistani soldiers were killed the drone strikes were suspended and people all over the world hoped that would be the end of them. But sadly, nothing stops the killing machine. During that time a member of the State Dept who agreed with ending the drone attacks said 'we cannot kill our way out of this'. But he was wrong to think his government had finally learned that.


barbtries

(28,794 posts)
12. and of course if he is deranged
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 04:31 AM
Mar 2012

that begs the question of why was he there? but the military has PR people working tirelessly to spin their way around that one i'm sure.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
13. And Fisk knows this how?
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 06:38 AM
Mar 2012

God I'm sick of him. I may be in the tiniest minority here at DU but the respect I once had for fisk evaporated long, long ago.

Dear Mr Fisk you freakin' idiot. This man had a traumatic brain injury. Do you even fucking know what that is? No way anyone with that diagnosis should ever ever have been sent back.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,316 posts)
15. The only description of the traumatic brain injury I've seen is 'concussion'
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 07:45 AM
Mar 2012

You ask "Do you even fucking know what that is?" I ask this too. Does anyone know if it was anything other than concussion? What diagnosis, beyond concussion, was there? Would you say no soldier who has had concussion should serve in the front line again?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. a concussion is a very mild form of TBI
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 08:26 AM
Mar 2012


and is normally diagnosed as a concussion. TBIs range in severity. Behavioral aspects (changes) in TBI patients are common.

Someone with a dual diagnosis of TBI and PTSD is likely quite unstable.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,316 posts)
24. You really think you have the information and expertise to make that call?
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 09:13 AM
Mar 2012

How did you assign your likelihood?

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
25. BS..FIsk is making a valid point...only when it's us is there mental illness
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 09:23 AM
Mar 2012

We Americans can't possibly do anything that's not noble. It's the arrogance in our culture and why we're a dying empire burying our heads in the sand.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
32. Yup.
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 03:14 PM
Mar 2012

When citizens of occupied nations 'go off' and people are killed while fighting these foreign occupations, they're labelled terrorists. When the U.S. or NATO do the same there's always a dozen reasons, all sympathetic towards the perpetrator.

When is the last time anyone heard a single word uttered for understanding towards Afghan or Iraqi men who've had their families, friends or even countrymen rounded up, tortured, killed for a decade and have acted against occupying forces? Never. Studies showed PTSD among children in Afghanistan and Iraq was at horrendous levels years ago, with adults recorded as being even worse off. I don't condone killing by anyone, period, but the complete disinterest in understanding the reasoning on all sides has always bothered me. It's hypocritical and sad.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
23. Of course! There's nothing 'deranged' about war
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 08:50 AM
Mar 2012

Why it's an honorable and good thing, especially when you're there to spread peace! Those few who actually go out and slaughter people just make our wars look bad. Damn them!

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
26. The purpose of the military is to kill people and destroy things
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:12 AM
Mar 2012

Getting the military to do something else in Afghanistan is difficult.

That the occasional soldier goes berserk and kills some people should not be a surprise.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
27. It isn't a surprise to me
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 11:39 AM
Mar 2012

since I think wars are berserk abominations perpetrated for the benefit of a mere handful of people. And lots of citizens keep falling for their propaganda to get us whipped up into a patriotic fury. When was the last time a war was really the action of last resort? As far as I can tell if they don't quite feel they have enough reason to go to all out war they'll make a reason happen through demonizing and waving the flag and stirring up American jingoism till all the people want is to spill death onto other countries.

And all the present GOP Presidential wannabes are frothing at the mouth already just thinking about having the power to wage unrepentant bloody war.

But let one soldier act out and viciously slaughter whole families who our government have already turned into demons and sub-humans and everyone screams in disgust. Really?

G_j

(40,367 posts)
30. Fisk is right on,
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 12:49 PM
Mar 2012

and war is madness,

incidently, how many civilians have been killed in drone strikes?"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Robert Fisk: Madness is n...