Forum menu
Thats an interesting link. You could say part of the trauma is collateral damage, seeing carnage etc and thinking you were part of that. Whereas a sniper knows what he is shooting is the clear and target and why.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
No it isn't, we all do it all the time. It's called empathy.
[i]The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.[/i]
The idea that you're suggesting my home is cosy is etc etc... 😉
I don't think anyone on this thread has pontificated at all, most sensible replies are suggesting that it must be at some point difficult to come to terms with. Most military organsations make sure their snipers and marksmen/women are sensible and level headed, however the taking of human life in such an intimate way might very well be traumatic later in life for some of those men.
discussing that isn't Breathtakingly arrogant (or any other hyperbole you care to add).
geetee1972
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.Service men and women are sent into conflict zones. They are given a set of rules of engagement and for as long as they follow those rules, the only people who get the right to comment on their actions are themselves.
The idea that people can sit in their cosy houses and pontificate about how those people should or should not feel is just breathtakingly arrogant.
No. This is bullshit and deeply offensive. It's rhetoric like this that leads to a deification of soldiers and the military leading to a culture where to question the war, is to denigrate "the troops" and "our heroes". It's a school of thought that has come to the fore since the Iraq war and suits those who would profit from killing and war mongering. Question the war - well you must hate out troops. Question our troops? They fight and die for your freedom, so you can't question them unless you are one.
It's a prevalent attitude in the U.S and has come to the fore in the UK thanks to the Sun, RBL and their parasites like Britain First. Look at the way the Sun uses the terms "Soldier" and "Hero" almost interchangeably except of course when a "Hero" is convicted of assault, rape or murder.
This kind of bullshit glorifies professional killers. People who had no moral qualms being employed in the business of killing foreigners just so long as Dave or Tony says it's okay.
Love our soldiers. Love the war. Love our country. Hate our enemy. Dehumanise our enemy. Kill our enemy without question. Our soldiers are heroes. Killing our faceless inhuman enemy is noble. Killing is noble. Our military is noble. Our government is noble. Our country is noble.
It's a precursor to fascism.
Without soldiers signing up to be paid killers the US and British governments wouldn't be able to pursue illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies in the way that currently are. If you want to join the army, yeah fine. You want to be a tool to kill, I don't hate you for it, but if you believe it's justifiable or "right" then you are an idiot or a liar.
Well there is no "average" serviceman/woman, just as there are no "average" civilians. Different people handle this stuff in different ways. I have a friend who fully utilised a GMPG in Iraq a few years ago, and is completely clear. Talking about it, he's not pleased or upset in any way "I couldn't give a ****". I have another friend who put 2 or 3 down and has been in and out of combatstress for quite some time. Both quite regular, seemingly well balanced chaps.
This kind of bullshit glorifies professional killers.
No, this^^ is Bullshit.
being behind the sights of weapons is one thing, seeing the aftermath is a very different thing. Thankfully, most blokes will go through their entire military career without having to see up close and personal the effects of their skills, though will always know what the outcome was -it's a distance you put between the reality. Patrolling through streets after an IED or firefight are the memories that stay with you. I would liken the experience to seeing some snuff type film as the sights, and being there in person as well, being there in person!
Like Wrecker, ive known people to really struggle with the effects of battle, some having never been near the pointy end. Everyone handles it differently, those that handle it well will have accepted the job that had to do and the outcomes from a very early stage.
Last year I got into a punch up with a driver who knocked me off my bike, couldnt sleep for a week and kept ringing the police to ask if he was ok!
I take the view though that whilst most people may not be able to relate to the more ruthless amongst us we'll be greatfull they exist should push come to shove.
Still makes you wonder what he'd have been like in normal soceiety and what he'll be like on return.
btw wasnt the biggest single loss of life the bombing of Dresden which many average blokes must have contributed, maybe its in us all.
Without soldiers signing up to be paid killers the US and British governments wouldn't be able to pursue illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies in the way that currently are. If you want to join the army, yeah fine. You want to be a tool to kill, I don't hate you for it, but if you believe it's justifiable or "right" then you are an idiot or a liar.
This is "bullshit and deeply offensive".
On joining the forces you are doing just that - joining the forces. Like the police, the NHS and education, you are a tool for the government to use for the good of the country in any manner they see fit. Or, to put it another way, you do your master's bidding whether you agree or not. That may be "...pursu[ing] illegal, morally barren neo-imperial foreign policies", but unfortunately you have signed on the dotted line. Similarly it may be helping to rebuild a typhoon-hit island or stabilising a previously war-torn area, but let's not split hairs here. [i]But[/i], if you can't deal with the idea of that (and I struggled with it when I applied) then don't join. A career in IT probably pays better anyway.
However, what you shouldn't discount the good the forces do for individuals. Character building; motivation; discipline; friendship forming; achieving previously unthinkable goals; education; not to mention travel opportunities. You are not merely a "tool to kill" (which in itself is incredibly offensive).
I agree with geetee here: "Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves." The individual soldier/airman/rating/marine does not decide to invade a hostile country for oil. That's the job of our elected leaders.
Then we need to focus our attention on the governments that put the forces there not the individuals themselves.
Totally with you on that~ as can be seen by the need for charities like Help for Heroes and the Invictus Games, the government makes minimal provision for those they gladly recruit and indoctrinate when they are no longer of value as a 'human resource'
Wonder what the real motives behind recent wars are and who really profits*?
(*apart from Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, G4S etc and the politicians and media propagandists in their employ/clique)
No real-life experience, although i have a few friends / associates that have seen active service and as others have said above, have had very different outcomes as a result of their different attitudes and experiences. One guy is still quite ****ed up as a result of what he saw in Bosnia 20 years ago but was 'powerless' to do anything about; another who by all accounts took lives in a very brutal up close and personal way but has no real issues because it was a them or us moment.
Back on topic - What i wonder is whether someone like a sniper is more or less likely to be affected. Setting aside that they are selected and trained to be the sort of people who can deal with firing a single shot and watching the result through their 'scope, as opposed to people trained to fire lots of shots in 'the general direction of' but maybe not being sure whether you actually hit anyone. Is the fact that you 'know' you're killing bad men easier than for example firing artillery shells on a built up area where innocents may be killed but where you don't know and don't see it happen?
he also scored incredibly highly on the simulated battle range...
😆
You're not far wrong there, Rich_s. 😐
😆
Pimpmaster JazzOn joining the forces you are doing just that - joining the forces. Like the police, the NHS and education, you are a tool for the government to use for the good of the country in any manner they see fit.
The key difference here being of course that in those other professions the likelihood of being sent to another sovereign country to kill it's citizens is pretty slim. Anyway, if it wasn't clear, what I find offensive, and borderline fascistic is the idea that it should be forbidden or taboo to question or discuss the actions of soldiers.
There is a quote I saw in the Imperial War museum, I probably haven't got it right but the general meaning is
War is an act of violence, anything other than total violence is folly (or it might have been insanity)
I for one am glad we have the military to protect us here and abroad. I am glad they are good at their job part of which is deterrent and part of it does involve killing people.
Question soldiers actions all you like. But unless they have committed a war crime, they have done nothing wrong, even if you would not act in that way.
Whilst I/we may disagree with some of the wars that our troops have been involved in, the bottom line is that "most" of the time they are sent to do their job and act that way so that at some point in the future you/we/I don't have to do those same actions to protect ourselves nearer home.
fwiw, I do think it very stupid for this report of this British sniper to be in the press, in what appears to be a case of one-upmanship with the Yanks over a bloody film
It takes a very special kind of person to be a sniper, this makes interesting reading.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield
Most combatants just don't kill the enemy, snipers on the other hand are the 1 in 100 who are really, really good at it and do it without compunction.
Cue ridiculous, irrelevant bollocks about Nuremberg......
This is an interesting piece which brings into question what you state as fact
From your link Jivehoney
But the conclusions contrasted dramatically from previous statements about the research findings from Iraqi Ministry of Health (MOH) officials involved in the study. Earlier this year, BBC News spoke to MOH researchers who confirmed the joint report would furnish "damning evidence" that rates of birth defects are higher in areas experiencing heavy fighting in the 2003 war. In an early press release, WHO similarly acknowledged "existing MOH statistics showing high number of CBD cases" in the "high risk" areas selected for study.
A classic case of confusing correlation with causation, those areas seeing massive increases in Birth defects were also seeing rising birth defects before the 2nd gulf war. Many of these cities and towns were also those heavily involved in the Iraq-Iran war. Many of them are also massively contaminated by a huge array of other environmental contaminants.
That's from Wiki, so a claim of "Birth defects from DU are a total bunch of horseshit, with no epidemiological evidence what so ever to back it up." is clearly wide of the mark.
Not really, that's a pretty flawed epidemiological study. Links between birth defects and DU have never been proven in any other area, such as Kosovo and Bosnia. In fact they don't even have elevated rates of birth defects in comparison to many other countries and localities that have never been bombed by DU munitions.
Does anyone remember a documentary from the '90s, presented by Grub Smith? It started with the stats about how few soldiers in WWII fired their weapons and how few of those who did fired them at anyone. Postwar research showed that the tiny proportion who were actually shooting at people were evenly split between being psychopaths and people who were doing it out of a sense of duty and responsibility to their squad mates.
The documentary then went on to describe the efforts since the war to increase the number of soldiers who would fire at the enemy yet were not psychopaths. Some fairly disturbing attempts were made but in the end it seems to have come down to getting recruits used to shooting at human-like targets through drilling and training. The effect is that when they are faced with an actual human target their training takes over and they don't get stuck on the thought that they are about to try and kill a real live human being.
Apparently this training has become very effective over the years. The documentary however ended by making the point that once a soldier has left the battlefield they often do have those thoughts about having shot and killed people and that armies have yet to become as good as handling the after effects of making people effective killers as they have become in training them to be that way.
EDIT: The documentary was from 2004 and called "The Truth About Killing", according to Wikipedia. Odd, as I was sure I'd watched it when I was a student.
Anyway, if it wasn't clear, what I find offensive, and borderline fascistic is the idea that it should be forbidden or taboo to question or discuss the actions of soldiers.
Isn't that the general gist of this thread? Discussing the actions and mindset required for a particular, highly trained and highly skilled, branch of soldiering?
The documentary however ended by making the point that once a soldier has left the battlefield they often do have those thoughts about having shot and killed people and that armies have yet to become as good as handling the after effects of making people effective killers as they have become in training them to be that way.
Which is something modern militaries have been struggling with for a long time.
Or maybe I just read too much into Rambo - First Blood... 😉
The essence of War is violence, moderation in war is imbecility
said by (I think) a WW1 admiral, who probably knows all about the futility of war I'd have though
without derailing the thread entirely. I personally think it's the duty of citizens [i]and[/i] the armed forces to question and debate every single decision that takes us into war. Were are all a part of society, and the armed forces are not removed from that. Expressing them as mere tools of their political masters is a short step away from "Just following orders"
what seems more worrying to me is that patriotic willy waving about 'our snipers killed more, lets be honest muslims, than the american one did' isnt any different than a jihadi on youtube bragging about blowing up/decapitating westerners?
and likewise, is only likely to provoke more fighting
kimbers, you need to remember that there are/were a large number of mercenary's fighting in Iraq and Afghan and these tended to be some of the bigger issues, alot of them coming from old soviet block states. So stating it was "us" vs "muslims" is harsh but also incorrect. The area of operations was and never will be about race. If the americans wish to think this way then fine, but i would have hoped we can distinguish more succinctly in these matters..
Are private military contractors mercenaries?
[img] 
[/img]
As an aside, Malcolm Ri****d, cousin of Leon Brittan ([url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/defence-secretary-over-rules-advice-and-gives-a-jobs-boost-to-westland-ri****d-puts-britain-first-in-copter-deal-1.690862 ]also known for dealing with Westland[/url]) and father of journalist Hugo Ri****d, also shared directorship of a company with Sir John Chilcot for a number of years...
Could his request for the CIA torture report be a conflict of interest?
RMC's after passing out (32 week training which involves how to kill someone effectively) serve as General Duties RMC's for two years and after that choose a specific field to go into, one being a sniper. So the RM has had a lot of time to think and choose his path with hands on experience/advise from other RM's carrying out the same work who will tell them if they think they are suitable. They also have many, many hours of lectures about taking a life, what to expect after this has happened mentally and physically. Allied to this they have constant support from Pardre's and counselors from day one of their training right the way though till they leave the Royal Navy.
I would question the accuracy of the number !
170 ?
The Bootneck counting course ends at 30
[b]M[/b]uscles
[b]A[/b]re
[b]R[/b]equired
[b]I[/b]ntelligence
[b]N[/b]ot
[b]E[/b]ssential
An oldie but a goodie!
That's a bit rich coming from a squaddie and an institution that brought us the Paras, that bastion of intelligence and foresight! 😆
I want one too ...
[img] 
[/img]
... how bloody much!!! 😯
Whilst figures stated are debatable, given the 'special relationship' between UK+US governments (and intelligence services), this puts things in perspective when we are fed media hype surrounding ISIS/Al-Qaeda/the preferred bogeyman of the war machine:
[img] 
[/img]
From what I've seen on US and UK telly when you join the army all you do is help people after a disaster while the locals wave and smile at you.
Macavity - Member
I am far normal than you lot at 39% ... 
55 percent on that test.
It's a poor test though that is a lot different to what you would see head shrinkers using.
I wonder how many psychopath points you get for saying your favourite animal is a piranha.
Tom_W1987 - Member55 percent on that test.
It's a poor test though that is a lot different to what you would see head shrinkers using.
Hmmm ... that's the voice saying innit ... 😯
Northwind - MemberI wonder how many psychopath points you get for saying your favourite animal is a piranha.
I bet piranha is very nice fish to eat with sweet meat ... yes?
33 on the test, I liked the opening line of the assessment
[i]YOUR
SCORE 33%
You are warm and empathic with a heightened awareness of social responsibility and a strong sense of conscience. You like to carefully weigh up the pros and cons of a situation before you act and are generally averse to taking risks. You are very much a ‘people person’ and dislike conflict. ‘Do unto others…’ are your watchwords. But, although you avoid hurting others, those residing at the higher end of the psychopathic spectrum might not be as considerate, so stay vigilant to avoid being hurt unnecessarily.[/i]
Read more about the psychopathic spectrum
70% 😯
it would seem I'm a 12%. Perhaps I was less than truthful.
88%
You can play hardball with the best of them! You know what you want and are not afraid to go for it – even if it means bending the rules occasionally and putting a few noses out of joint on the way. Nothing fazes you. You are decisive, self-confident and pretty much up for anything. You are a ‘means-to-an-end’ person. For you, it’s not necessarily a matter of right or wrong, but of what gets the job done. ‘Bring it on’ is your mantra, but to help those around you keep their heads, you should learn some tricks to help you temper your self-satisfying tendencies...
That's a bit rich coming from a squaddie and an institution that brought us the Paras, that bastion of intelligence and foresight!
😀
They're not the worst, oh no. Ever met a pioneer?!? Generally the drivers aren't the sharpest, it's where they put those who aren't capable of much else!
I got 48% BTW