Confession Video: US Soldier Describes Thrill Kill of Innocent Afghans

[LibertyMage]

Dressed in a t-shirt and Army shorts, a 22-year-old corporal from Wasilla, Alaska casually describes on a video tape made by military investigators how his unit's "crazy" sergeant randomly chose three unarmed, innocent victims to be murdered in Afghanistan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-soldier-describes-thrill-kill-innocent-civilians-afghanistan/story?id=11732681

I hope you are building a group of liberty lovers in your county.

[tpreitzel]

What should we expect from the strictly volunteer, video game trained military?

[oyarde]

What should we expect from the strictly volunteer, video game trained military?

Do you think there would be a difference if it were not volunteer and no video games ? I do not understand .

[Vessol]

What should we expect from the strictly volunteer, video game trained military?

Because soldiers getting thrills from killing only happened after video games were invented.

[Anti Federalist]

Coming soon to your local police or sheriff's department.

[tpreitzel]

Oh, no. Rogue soldiers have always existed, but the continual advancement of technology has desensitized killing. Simply press a button and wipe out hundreds, e.g. drones. Furthermore, a conscripted force would be less cohesive as a percentage of troops would just hate their mandatory duty and would be more prone to reporting abuses. Sure, stressful situations like war whether Vietnam (conscripted) or Afghanistan (non-conscripted) cause some troops to simply lose it. Technology and cohesion simply make the job of killing more productive.

[pcosmar]

Oh, no. Rogue soldiers have always existed, but the continual advancement of technology has desensitized killing. Simply press a button and wipe out hundreds, e.g. drones. Furthermore, a conscripted force would be less cohesive as a percentage of troops would just hate their mandatory duty and would be more prone to reporting abuses. Sure, stressful situations like war whether Vietnam (conscripted) or Afghanistan (non-conscripted) cause some troops to simply lose it. Technology and cohesion simply make the job of killing more productive.

Just wait till they have robots for it. No remorse, No Conscience ,No shame, No regrets.
Ain't technology great.

Oh yeah, you can wipe their memory after. No record.

[tpreitzel]

Just wait till they have robots for it. No remorse, No Conscience ,No shame, No regrets.
Ain't technology great.

Oh yeah, you can wipe their memory after. No record.

Absolutely right ... What's preventing abuses like the one listed here from spreading further? .... conscience and the means to report abuses. Per humanity, one can bet the military is researching the mental (pharmacological) aspects of war to further enhance the killing machine until robots are capable substitutes.

[silus]

This has absolutely nothing to do with desensitization. These soldiers operate on the ground under constant threat, which is why so many are screwed up and commit suicide when they return. We aren't talking about pilots dropping bombs.

Secondly, this is nothing new. Where there is killing you will find different types of killers. Its insane to think a war does not produce people like this. Which just annoys the hell out of me that people with no understanding of anything sit back and judge from the single example they are given. Its a fucking war. There are no cleanly fought wars. If you are going to wince at specific injustices in war, or talk about these "abuses" spreading, well then hey, welcome to war.

Problems like this here is predictable. Soldiers, trained killers, are not peace keepers.

[Vessol]

Oh, no. Rogue soldiers have always existed, but the continual advancement of technology has desensitized killing. Simply press a button and wipe out hundreds, e.g. drones. Furthermore, a conscripted force would be less cohesive as a percentage of troops would just hate their mandatory duty and would be more prone to reporting abuses. Sure, stressful situations like war whether Vietnam (conscripted) or Afghanistan (non-conscripted) cause some troops to simply lose it. Technology and cohesion simply make the job of killing more productive.

Soldiers don't need to be desensitized to killing. It's part of being a soldier. No offense, but soldiers are sanctioned murderers for the State.

There are plenty worse incidents of soldiers killing enmasse before todays modern days.

Genghis Khan's soldiers were brutal and merciless. Something tells me that it wasn't Call of Genghis that desensitized them to violence. Violence is a natural part of human nature and is kept in control usually when someone has to be responsible for their actions.

Simply put, compared to you and me, a soldier is less responsible for his actions if they result in a death.

[pcosmar]

Absolutely right ... What's preventing abuses like the one listed here from spreading further? .... conscience. Per humanity, one can bet the military is researching the mental (pharmacological) aspects of war to further enhance the killing machine until robots are capable substitutes.

Actually and honestly,,That was one of the sub-programs of MK-Ultra.
But of course they ended that program and forgot everything they learned. ;)

:mad:

[tpreitzel]

Soldiers don't need to be desensitized to killing. It's part of being a soldier. No offense, but soldiers are state sanctioned murderers for the State.

There are plenty worse incidents of soldiers killing enmasse before todays modern days.

Genghis Khan's soldiers were brutal and merciless. Something tells me that it wasn't Call of Genghis that desensitized them to violence. Violence is a natural part of human nature and is kept in control usually when someone has to be responsible for their actions.

Simply put, compared to you and me, a soldier is less responsible for his actions if they result in a death.

Wrong. I'm retired military. Regardless of killing as part of "being a soldier", technology has enhanced the ability and desensitized the participants. Violence isn't a "natural part of human nature" nor is killing. Violence is a result of circumstances, i.e. conditions. Normal humans, including soldiers, don't kill for the thrill (hell) of it. ;) As far as your example, I haven't researched Khan's soldiers, but I'm willing to bet "technology" played a role as did cohesion among his troops.

[oyarde]

Wrong. I'm retired military. Regardless of killing as part of "being a soldier", technology has enhanced the ability and desensitized the participants. Violence isn't a "natural part of human nature" nor is killing. Violence is a result of circumstances, i.e. conditions. Normal humans don't kill the hell of it. ;) As far as your example, I haven't researched Kahn's soldiers, but I'm willing to bet "technology" played a role as did his cohesion among his troops.

Use of the laminated bow from horseback if I recall . This would have been better technology than the undermanned , disorganized foot soldier , farmer , villager , peasant they would have been attacking .

[silus]

Wrong. I'm retired military. Regardless of killing as part of "being a soldier", technology has enhanced the ability and desensitized the participants. Violence isn't a "natural part of human nature" nor is killing. Violence is a result of circumstances, i.e. conditions. Normal humans, including soldiers, don't kill for the thrill (hell) of it. ;) As far as your example, I haven't researched Khan's soldiers, but I'm willing to bet "technology" played a role as did cohesion among his troops.
The whole idea behind desensitization applies least to the ground soldier, so I think these arguments are way overstated for the individuals and equipment we are talking about.

Secondly, conflict is a natural part of human nature, and killing, while not necessarily a natural expression, is a natural end state to a physical conflict.

[Vessol]

Use of the laminated bow from horseback if I recall . This would have been better technology than the undermanned , disorganized foot soldier , farmer , villager , peasant they would have been attacking .

The greatest inhumane acts were committed not during combat, but afterwords. I doubt technology came into much play when they killed entire cities en masse and piled their skulls in the center of town.

The same applies to any other inhumane acts. They are not committed usually in the stress of battle or with the aid of great technology.

The German soldiers whom killed so many, Romans..any soldier. They do not commit these acts because they are evil, but because they are given free reign to by their leaders. There is nothing wrong with individual soldiers on the bottom, it is the ones at top that allow such things to go on.

American soldiers perhaps had a command structure that disallowed this..but I'm not so sure. Look at how they treated the American indians, or the German civilians during WW2.

I say again that I do not believe that technology is dehumanizing soldiers. Soldiers are already dehumanized to begin with. What do you think basic training is all about?
It's meant to break down an individual, dehumanize them and make them into a tool of the state.