Proof positive that the USMC wreaks with criminals

[Amianthus]

Figured it out yet, Einstein?  Or must I go into even more excruciating detail in explaining the obvious?

Oh, it had to be a flawed survey published by the MSM to count. My comment was in the general, when I said that I had posted numerous articles about fakery in the past.

However, perhaps this do:

In April 1993, just days before the opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, newspapers across the country reported "chilling" and "startling" news: 22 percent of American adults surveyed in a major public opinion poll said they thought it was possible that "the Nazi extermination of the Jews" never took place.

...

As it turned out, however, the "startling" results of the AJC/Roper survey were not accurate. One of the poll's most serious flaws was the confusing wording of question 16, which produced the response that generated the most media comment: "Does it seem possible or does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened?" The question's compound structure and double negative wording almost certainly confused many respondents. It is also likely that some of the 992 adults and 506 high school students surveyed may have believed that the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews but nevertheless agreed that it "seems" impossible.

Responding to criticism, the AJC recommissioned the poll, changing only question 16. In the second survey, this question was worded: "Does it seem possible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, or do you feel certain that it happened?" The results of the second, 1994 AJC poll were quite different: Only about one percent of Americans thought it was possible the Holocaust never happened, while eight percent were unsure. ("Poll on Doubt of Holocaust is Corrected," The New York Times, July 8, 1994)

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p25_Raven.html

OK, widespread MSM publication of a flawed survey, no "shitstorm" by the right-wing blogosphere, and the correction was not widely reported.

(Of course, the next thing it will be is that only flawed surveys of military members will count...)

[Amianthus]

God-damn right it's a different question.

Yup. The question that Lanya posted the details on was "would you turn in your buddy for ..." while the question I pointed out was "did you mistreat Iraqis."

Yeah, I can see how those are sooo similar.

[Plane]

So this survey was odered and conducted by the US military .

This makes it odbvious that the brass cares.


How would we answer these questions?



Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?

This does not come up with me very often especially the more serious ones , but if I find a minor problem I fix it myself .

Especially for a Union Brother.

But don't tell me who did for Jimmy Hoffa , I wouldn't protect that.

[Michael Tee]

Do a little analysis, Ami.  Who's being maligned in the faulty Holocaust poll, the U.S. military?  No, the American public.  And what's the slur on their good name?  That they're torturers and murderers?  That they wink at the torturers and murderers in their midst and protect them by silence?  No, the worst thing that was said of them by the faulty poll was that they were too fucking dumb to know that the Holocaust happened.

So in your SECOND dumb, irrelevant and pointless example, you compared a poll that suggested that maybe the American people were too dumb to know about the Holocaust with a poll that suggests the U.S. MILITARY tolerates torture and murder.  And then used the "silence" of the right-wing blogosphere as some kind of proof that they'd be equally silent in the face of the much worse slander against a much more sacred cow.  Oy.

Also, I'm not all that sure about the silence of the right-wing blogosphere on this one, given that your own post indicates that the poll question was changed in response to criticism.  So where exactly did this "criticism" come from? OK, that's just a side issue here.

I guess I should follow this up with a lengthy and detailed explanation of why an accusation of being ignorant of certain historical facts is not quite the same thing as an accusation of complicity in torture and murder, but honestly, Ami, I just don't feel like wasting the time.  In the end, the only response I would get for my trouble would be the tiresome mantra of the shot-down BS artist with nothing intelligent left to say, maybe not in the same precise order but definitely relying upon the standard "answers" of "AMBE," "bogus," "typical" hopefully in some random but eye-pleasing order, followed by another exuberant, icon-studded post from sirs, "WHOA, another head-butt to the solar plexus!  How long can Tee hold out now, folks?"

So far, Ami, you're batting 0 and 2 and your side-kick is running out of boxing metaphors, and although I could do this all night, I've only got time for one more.

[Amianthus]

So in your SECOND dumb, irrelevant and pointless example, you compared a poll that suggested that maybe the American people were too dumb to know about the Holocaust with a poll that suggests the U.S. MILITARY tolerates torture and murder.

Actually, the poll at the top of this thread does not suggest that the military tolerates torture and murder. Matter of fact, it suggests the opposite. Those people with a modicum of reading skills and some logic can see that.

As I properly forecast, while my second example meets the updated criteria that you presented, it was not a survey of the military, so you reject it as not being relevant.

I could go on forever, presenting examples, but you would go on picking nits because every detail was not the same.

My point still stands. The MSM has presented flawed polls and other fakery numerous times in the past. Sometimes the blogosphere (both left and right) have called them on it, and other times they have not. The MSM is not something to trust. Just because it was presented via the MSM does not make it true.

[Amianthus]

So far, Ami, you're batting 0 and 2 and your side-kick is running out of boxing metaphors, and although I could do this all night, I've only got time for one more.

ROFLMAO

Like I care how much time you have. You don't bother to read most of the posts here anyway. And your level of understanding of science, statistics, and logic is such that you're a joke anyway.

[Michael Tee]

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all good questions.  The only ones that apply to war are would you turn someone in for torture or murder?

It's kind of a trick question - - puts the burden of enforcing (as opposed to observing) the Geneva Conventions on the soldier in the field, when it belongs on his officers.  It converts what should be a question of pure military discipline into a question of loyalty to buddies.

Another problem I have with the question is that it equates opposition to torture and murder with breaking a bond of brotherhood forged in common service and ultimately in combat.  It relies upon the revulsion we all feel for the snitch and the betrayer.  And it uses that revulsion to indirectly justify the commission of atrocities by U.S. troops.  It identifies the atrocities with reluctance to betray rather than with failure to discipline.

Speaking for myself, I could see a great reluctance to inform on my buddies.  Whatever they did, my informing would be a rat-like and tainted act.   The way to take care of the problem would be to just shoot the guy on the spot.  Nothing underhanded and nothing cowardly about it - - the guy's got the K-Bar out and is about to start torturing his prisoner, it's just barrel to the back of his head and blow his fucking brains out.  Just what he deserves, no more, no less.

As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened.  Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them.  Violators would be treated in a way that would strongly discourage anyone from following their example.  There would be no complicating factors of brotherhood or bonding.  That's why the easiest way to enforce the Geneva Conventions is through discipline, not by leaving it to the men, for each guy to be his buddy's policeman.  THAT way is bound to fail.

[Michael Tee]

<<ROFLMAO

<<Like I care how much time you have. You don't bother to read most of the posts here anyway. And your level of understanding of science, statistics, and logic is such that you're a joke anyway.>>

Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language.  What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"?  I was kinda getting used to them.  Whatsamatter, Ami, did your "50 more examples" just shrink down to two?

[Amianthus]

Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language.  What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"?  I was kinda getting used to them.  Whatsamatter, Ami, did your "50 more examples" just shrink down to two?

Well, apparently all you will accept is a report of a survey among the military, that has been leaked to the media, and all other details identical to the one presented earlier. As far as I know, there is only one report that meets all of those criteria. Don't feel like listening to you nit pick anymore.

Although, from now on, I know that you will accept anything published by the MSM as being true, because they obviously don't ever lie.

I love the blatant hypocrisy on your side. "If it was published by the MSM and I agree with it, it has to be true; if it was published by the MSM and I disagree with it, it's obviously a trick by Rove and company."

[Amianthus]

Jeeze, same petulant snit, different language.  What happened to "AMBE" and "bogus" and "typical"?  I was kinda getting used to them. 

Sorry, I will admit that I'm am nowhere close to you in being able to post "petulant snits." You are most definitely the king of that type of post.

[Michael Tee]

<<My point still stands. The MSM has presented flawed polls and other fakery numerous times in the past. Sometimes the blogosphere (both left and right) have called them on it, and other times they have not. The MSM is not something to trust. Just because it was presented via the MSM does not make it true.>>

The blogosphere calls them on it when the blogosphere cares about it.  They DON'T care about the American public's alleged ignorance of European history.  The right-wing blogosphere DOES care about the U.S. military being falsely accused of torture and murder or the tolerance of torture and murder.  A flawed poll based on defective questions leading to a false inference that the U.S. military tolerates torture and murder would be red meat for the right-wing blogosphere.

I agree, that's pure speculation.  But it's speculation strengthened by the absence of any historical example where the military was slandered as torturers and murderers in the MSM by a transparently defective poll and the right-wing blogosphere just sat on their hands in silence over it.  I say, NEVER HAPPENED.

But you know what, this debate is getting too heated for me.  I don't really give a shit.  If you've got a real example that proves me wrong, let's see it.  Otherwise stop wasting your time and my time by sending up one red herring after another.

<<I love the blatant hypocrisy on your side. "If it was published by the MSM and I agree with it, it has to be true; if it was published by the MSM and I disagree with it, it's obviously a trick by Rove and company.">>

That's not true either.  It's just a blanket accusation and meaningless as such.  I tend to agree with anything that supports my position and question anything that doesn't.  Who doesn't?  If you want to point out one specific instance of a MSM article favourable to my POV that I defended in the face of obvious falsity, have at it - - where?  when?  Otherwise, you're just wasting my time and everyone else's time with blanket bullshit accusations that are so general as to be incapable of proof or disproof.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sorry, I will admit that I'm am nowhere close to you in being able to post "petulant snits." You are most definitely the king of that type of post.>>

Oh, you're way too modest, Ami.  Your last one was a masterpiece.  I wouldn't even attempt to compete.

[Amianthus]

If you want to point out one specific instance of a MSM article favourable to my POV that I defended in the face of obvious falsity, have at it - - where?  when?

CBS Memos.

[Plane]

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a trivial infraction of regulations?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a moderate infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a serious infraction of law?

Would you turn in a close freind and /or collegue for a capital crime?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are all good questions.  The only ones that apply to war are would you turn someone in for torture or murder?

It's kind of a trick question - - puts the burden of enforcing (as opposed to observing) the Geneva Conventions on the soldier in the field, when it belongs on his officers.  It converts what should be a question of pure military discipline into a question of loyalty to buddies.

Another problem I have with the question is that it equates opposition to torture and murder with breaking a bond of brotherhood forged in common service and ultimately in combat.  It relies upon the revulsion we all feel for the snitch and the betrayer.  And it uses that revulsion to indirectly justify the commission of atrocities by U.S. troops.  It identifies the atrocities with reluctance to betray rather than with failure to discipline.

Speaking for myself, I could see a great reluctance to inform on my buddies.  Whatever they did, my informing would be a rat-like and tainted act.   The way to take care of the problem would be to just shoot the guy on the spot.  Nothing underhanded and nothing cowardly about it - - the guy's got the K-Bar out and is about to start torturing his prisoner, it's just barrel to the back of his head and blow his fucking brains out.  Just what he deserves, no more, no less.

As an officer of course it would be my responsibility to see that such a scene never happened.  Men would be told in no uncertain terms how to treat their prisoners and how not to treat them.  Violators would be treated in a way that would strongly discourage anyone from following their example.  There would be no complicating factors of brotherhood or bonding.  That's why the easiest way to enforce the Geneva Conventions is through discipline, not by leaving it to the men, for each guy to be his buddy's policeman.  THAT way is bound to fail.

Did I misunderstand something?

I thought this questionaire was given to the enlisted.

[Michael Tee]

<<Did I misunderstand something?

<<I thought this questionaire was given to the enlisted.>>

OK, geeze, I went beyond the boundaries of the question.   So put the barrel to the back of my head and blow my fucking brains out.

Actually, I was commenting on the complicity of the Army brass who commissioned the poll.  The obvious answer to a "Would you rat out your buddy?" question should be a resounding NO!  except in the case of the most heinous war crimes, and probably only if the guy was thoroughly unpopular in his unit anyway. 

The unspoken assumptions behind the poll are that torture arises spontaneously among the front-line troops and that discipline plays no part in its suppression - -much if not all anti-torture activity would seem to depend on self-policing by the grunts.  IMHO this is just not true.  The most sensational torture allegations involve institutionalized settings, Abu Ghraib, Baghram Base, Guantanamo Bay and the dozens of secret CIA torture chambers outside of U.S. territory.  Furthermore, a strict anti-torture policy would involve draconian disciplinary measures: capital punishment, battlefield executions, 20-year sentences at hard labour for the lesser infractions, equal penalties on those who fail to intervene, equal penalties on those who fail to report, equal penalties on those who fail to discipline.  Torture could be wiped out in a minute if the will existed in the political and military leadership.  You have to ask, where are the Abu Ghraibs, the Guantanamo Bays, the secret torture chambers of WWII?  The answer is clear:  America's WWII leaders were decent and honourable men; Eisenhower, MacArthur, Roosevelt and Truman would never have countenanced even a hint of them.

Murders of civilians and prisoners might be more of a battlefield phenomenon or at least a front-line phenomenon, but all the comments I made about suppression of torture apply there too.  If the will to punish is there, the atrocities will either never happen, or happen once - - and with the example of draconian punishment to follow - - never again.  The punishment to be effective must hit the leaders, the officers.  If they know it is swift and draconian, they will take every possible measure to nip things in the bud.  Where there's a will, there's a way.