. . .that it hates the military.

Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles

Quote :

"The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction. Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Times apparently failed to mention that the murder rate by veterans is significantly lower than the general population:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oagetab.htm

And The Weekly Standard puts the story in perspective:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/592buqao.asp?pg=1

FYI: Bill O'Reilly has called out the Times on this--they have not responded.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 9:10:34 PM

How much lower?

Numbers, please. How many veterans have been in the US?

1/17/2008 9:12:57 PM

^ Read the info in the links I provided or do your own leg work:

Quote :

"The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and other veterans' advocacy groups are absolutely correct that not merely 'many' but the vast majority of veterans not only remain completely law-abiding but go on to lead stable and productive personal, professional, and civic lives. Assuming 121 homicide cases in relation to 749,932 total discharges through 2007, 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have not committed or been charged with homicide. And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has demographic data aplenty on homicide offending rates. For instance, in 2005, for white males aged 18-24, the rate was about 20 per 100,000. The Times opined that 121 was the 'minimum' number, even as it counted veterans charged but not convicted with veterans tried and found guilty. Doubling the number to 242 would double the rate to 32.2 per 100,000."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/592buqao.asp?pg=2

And note well that the Times included driving charges and those facing charges--not just convictions:

Quote :

"Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving."

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 9:19:04 PM

Sounds like the military needs to put more money into reintroducing them to society, something which has been needed for a long time. I remember this issue coming up after the first gulf war as well (the rise in mental illness associated with combat).


It's horrible to see the government essentially ignore our fighting men like this.

1/17/2008 9:21:25 PM

The Wacko-Vet Myth
Now echoed by the New York Times.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/592buqao.asp?pg=1

^ You fell for it, too.

And don't you mean "fighting men [and women]"? Sexist.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 9:24:55 PM

No no, it's much easier to get sand in the vagina about a newspaper being the one to address this issue.

1/17/2008 9:25:43 PM

You're the one making the claims. The burden of proof is on you to support them.

Quote :

"And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000."

Fairly meaningless, as it covers four years. We need yearly numbers.

1/17/2008 9:27:00 PM

From your article

Quote :

"In 2007, the VA expanded its "poly-trauma network sites" and clinics all across the country, but VA officials who testified in Congress all agreed that still more must be done. It will take not only more hard work but more money. "

I fail to see how my saying that we should take better care of these people constitutes me 'falling for it' unless you're saying we should spend less money on them?


And that's damn un-American of you.

1/17/2008 9:27:08 PM

^^^

Quote :

"And regardless of where you come down on this issue, can we agree to retire the 'sand in the vagina' and 'panties in a bunch' trinkets? They're just stupid."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=510398&page=2

You need new material--but you haven't had an original thought in years, have you?

^^ Then go get them. Prove me wrong.

1/17/2008 9:29:40 PM

Also:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22711522/

Support our troops with proper medical care after they've served our country, not trying to use them as a means to further your political hackery.

1/17/2008 9:30:31 PM

Quote :

"^^ Then go get them. Prove me wrong."

That's not how it works. You made the claim, you support it. Otherwise, you're as bad as the New York Times.

1/17/2008 9:32:24 PM

^ I have supported my position. If you want additional numbers, find them yourself--that's exactly how it works.

As a veteran, I am offended by this continual "whacko-vet myth." There's a reason we're a protected class in employment and other areas, you know.

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 9:34:05 PM

No, you haven't. You can claim that there's not enough evidence to say veterans are more prone to committing murder. You can't reasonably claim, as you did, that the veteran murder rate is significantly lower. Not without solid numbers, which you refuse to provide.

1/17/2008 9:36:35 PM

Yes, I did.

1/17/2008 9:38:33 PM

This thread is over, hooksaw won't actually debate normal human beings will and will just end up frustrating everyone. I suggest ending it now before you guys get suspended when this turns into a shouting match.

1/17/2008 9:41:14 PM

So what was the murder rate by veterans in 2004?

Even the linked article concludes we don't know:

Quote :

"Such crude but contextualizing calculations aside, the right question to ask is whether the veterans, other things being equal (controlling for age, race, gender, education, income, prior criminal history, and other variables), offend at rates that are significantly different from otherwise comparable groups (including groups that have an extreme PTSD incidence). Without doing the relevant statistical (multiple-regression) analyses with all the requisite empirical data, it is impossible to say."

1/17/2008 9:41:51 PM

Quote :

"You need new material--but you haven't had an original thought in years, have you?"

Wow, you're one to talk about original thoughts considering that all of yours consist of "new" ways to bash the left. And most of the garbage you spew is just something you are parroting from Rush or Boortz anyways.

1/17/2008 9:44:19 PM

^ Go ahead and give us links to all your quality threads.

1/17/2008 9:51:00 PM

Talk about the need for new fucking material. Is that the only hackneyed retort you can muster? Perhaps I don't feel the need to be an attention whore by littering TSB with shitty repetitive threads.

Here comes the also played out hooksaw response of "If you don't like my threads then you don't have to read them. . ."

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 10:06:33 PM

I think this is a legitimate thread. It does appear the New York Times article was misleading. But hooksaw shouldn't make claims he can't sufficiently support.

1/17/2008 10:22:59 PM

The NY Times doesn't hate the military, at least this report doesn't show it. It seems they are trying to get MORE help for members of the military, not to cast hate to them.

Bill O'Reilly is a joke, no one should care what he says, including the NY Times.

And the difference between the general population and servicemen committing crimes is that for the people in the military, the trauma of war was a significant factor in their crime, and is one that's fairly easy to address. This is not the case for crimes in general, which have a myriad of unconnected contributing factors.

And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread that shows that vets are pretty nuts

Quote :

"hooksaw: As a veteran, I am offended by this continual "whacko-vet myth.""

1/17/2008 11:05:46 PM

so out of the hundreds of thousands of people who have served in combat only 121 have come back and killed someone?

what's the big deal?

i fucking HATE the media

1/17/2008 11:12:34 PM

^^^^ "[R]epetitive threads"? WTF?! I don't see even one thread from you in five pages of TSB, which represents months of postings. GTFO.

BTW, I only listen to Rush once in a while and I never listen to Boortz--I don't even know what station he's on. I listen to NPR a lot more than Rush--but that doesn't fit your stereotype for me, does it? I didn't get this story from Rush or Boortz--and if I did, I would tell you. If you were as smart as you think you are, it would be obvious from my initial post where I got it.

^ Yes, and a number of those veterans have only been charged--not convicted. In addition, those charges are for things like:

Quote :

"Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving."

Why didn't the Times do a story telling the world that the overwhelming majority of returning U.S. combat vets are well-adjusted, law-abiding, and live productive lives? Because (1) such a story doesn't fit the Times' anti-military narrative, and (2) the Times and the rest of the left-wing media don't have bad--meaning bloody--news to report out of Iraq on a daily basis. Hasn't anyone noticed that since things have improved there that you hardly hear about Iraq anymore?

SMEARING SOLDIERS
THE GRAY LADY'S KILLER-GI LIE

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/smearing_soldiers_265875.htm?page=0

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 2:35 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 2:25:14 AM

Quote :

"Sounds like the military needs to put more money into reintroducing them to society, something which has been needed for a long time. I remember this issue coming up after the first gulf war as well (the rise in mental illness associated with combat). It's horrible to see the government essentially ignore our fighting men like this. "

Not all of this is due to PTSD or other mental illness. Some of it is simply blowing off steam after spending months in some shithole, coupled with the invincibility complex built by cheating death for that time.

That's at least, in my opinion, part of what's to blame for the incidence of DUIs, reckless driving crashes, etc.

1/18/2008 2:40:14 AM

^ True. And I don't think it's in any way fair to lump in manslaughter with murder, drunk and reckless driving with intentional homicide, and charges with convictions--what happened to innocent until proven guilty? But the Times has done all these things.

I don't care what anybody says, the Times has got a hard-on for Bush--and by extension the military, which is carrying out his orders that they don't like. And let's face it: the left-wingers in this country only became jock-sniffers for the military when they realized after Vietnam that spitting on returning combat veterans hurt left-wing politics and politicians.

1/18/2008 3:03:54 AM

And you see here? It never stops.

Wolf Paw approval marks healthier vending treats
Paw print indicates compliance with nutritional criteria set by University Dining

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/01/18/News/Wolf-Paw.Approval.Marks.Healthier.Vending.Treats-3157787.shtml?reffeature=textemailedition

[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 4:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 4:01:57 AM

^I'm confused. What does an article about NC State putting more paw prints on things have to do with the New York Times' bad reporting?

Back to the topic at hand, I'm with Skankin on this one (Damn, there I go again agreeing with you. That's starting to scare me, dude.) Pick up the books On Combat and On Killing by David Grossman. He's probably the world's most prominent military psychologist, and he's made a career out of the psychology of killing. Between those two books, you see the disconnect that military training forces the human mind to take to the acts of violence that the military is asking these people to make. The fact that the percentage of people that come back and lash out with violence is so LOW is friggin incredible. Look at any psychological stress model, only you're talking about the absolute highest level of stress (fearing for your life 24/7 for an extended period of time) possible.

As for that whole "fighting men and women" thing, keep in mind that women are never given combat jobs by the military. We can't take the jobs of infantryman, truck driver, or anything else that will put us in the direct fighting line. The closest we ever get is support jobs at a base. Incidence rates of PTSD among women in the military that were actively deployed are far less than men in the military that were actively deployed.

1/18/2008 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"^I'm confused. What does an article about NC State putting more paw prints on things have to do with the New York Times' bad reporting?"

obviously because The Technician and The NY Times are part of the same vast liberal media conspiracy to discredit the troops! duh.


anyway - as several have pointed out, these murder numbers alone don't mean much by them self, and it's also not fair to compare the murders/1000 people to the general public. To get a more accurate picture, the murder rate from Iraq/Afghanistan veterans needs to be compared to a peer, control group. For example, we need to calculate the murder rate of enlisted military people who have not seen combat, or the murder rate for the military as a whole in times of relative peace (when there are no huge deployments) like in the mid to late 90's. Only then can we draw conclusions if returning from the current wars is driving the rate up.

1/18/2008 9:36:17 AM

^^ and ^ Nope--I goofed. I meant to put that in the Menucrats' thread. I regret the error.

1/18/2008 11:46:56 AM

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

The Menucrats are coming!

1/18/2008 12:34:18 PM

and you wonder why you'll never be a mod

1/18/2008 12:36:41 PM

^^ Yes--now you have it. Sound the alarm.

PS: I just ate a big fat cheeseburger at Char-Grill for lunch--it was delicious.


[Edited on January 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2008 12:42:28 PM

Disagreeing with the Government is discouraged in successful democracies.

1/18/2008 12:52:53 PM

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19206255&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=623508&rfi=6

1/18/2008 1:00:54 PM

Op Ed piece as a retort.

Nice.

Tell me, is there any moment in your day when you aren't offended?

1/18/2008 1:25:26 PM

^ When you logout.

1/18/2008 1:49:49 PM

Rolling eyes are a rather effeminate gesture. I wouldn't have pegged a strong, American man such as yourself as someone needing to resort to such bitch like behavior.

1/18/2008 2:17:50 PM

^ I'm quite secure in who I am. And when they add an emoticon that's flipping you the middle finger, I'll use that one instead.

1/18/2008 2:31:59 PM

You know

The sudden rash of closet homosexuals coming out of the GOP actually is making quite a bit of sense.

Feminine behavior masked by mouth-frothing rage (as it was with the cases alluded to above)

Maybe you need to go to a retreat and engage in a introspective exercise to bring your inner chi out.

1/18/2008 2:48:26 PM

Quote :

"^ I'm quite secure in who I am. And when they add an emoticon that's flipping you the middle finger, I'll use that one instead. "

1/18/2008 2:53:25 PM

[Edited on January 19, 2008 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

1/19/2008 12:46:18 AM

The New York Times Hits Veterans Yet Again

Quote :

"Of those 121 summaries, 40 do not show direct ties between the stresses of deploying to combat zones and the homicides for which these veterans were charged, and of those, 14 were of highly dubious nature. The appropriately named Travis D. Beer, an Army reservist deployed to Iraq, pleaded no contest to motor vehicle homicide, and had two prior arrests for driving under the influence. The Times does not note if those prior arrests occurred before he deployed to Iraq. Jonathan Braham, a Marine veteran of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, shot a man whom he thought had sexually abused his stepson. According to the Times' own reporting, he was adamant that his service in Iraq did not play a role in his decision to shoot the alleged abuser. Brian Epting was sentenced to six years for vehicular homicide when he lost control of his car while drag racing in 2005 and killed Robert Duffy, a World War II veteran. Is the Times seriously implying that his deployment to Iraq in 2003 is to blame for a drag racing death? Michael Gwinn Jr. has a history of domestic violence. Robert G. Jackson was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, as was Johnny Williams Jr., which cannot readily be tied to military deployments. Likewise, James Pitts has psychiatric problems predating his deployment to Iraq. Michael Antonio Jordan had a juvenile criminal record and was involved in gang activity. Christian Mariano was acquitted for acting in self-defense, and yet the Times still included him on this list. Jason R. Smith, a National Guard veteran and Atlanta narcotics officer, shot elderly Kathryn Johnston in an infamous no-knock raid, and is currently being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, but his attorney cannot say what the proximate cause of his PTSD may have been. Aaron Stanley's sideline occupation as an alleged methamphetamine and marijuana dealer may have had more to do with his homicides than his deployment to Iraq. Vernon Walker killed two fellow soldiers while dealing drugs. Larry Jaimall West was a member of the Crips street gang. Jared Terrasas had a conviction for misdemeanor spousal abuse prior to his deployment to Iraq. Jessie L. Ullom had already been charged with abusing his infant son before he saw combat."

Quote :

"But the bizarre emphasis of the New York Times upon veteran violence without the provision of context can be understood by remembering that Arthur 'Pinch' Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times, once said during the Vietnam War that if a North Vietnamese soldier ran into an American soldier, he'd rather see the American soldier shot."

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/the_new_york_times_frags_veter.php



[Edited on January 20, 2008 at 4:27 AM. Reason : V I'm not going to spoon feed them. From context, the reason for the post should be quite clear. ]

1/20/2008 4:22:01 AM

explain why you're quoting things boy!

1/20/2008 4:24:14 AM

Quote :

"From context, the reason for the post should be quite clear."

Maybe you're just dumping your baggage on to the thread.

1/20/2008 1:55:33 PM

I still don't understand how this is bashing vets.

It's calling attention to a problem.

Where does the NYT blame vets for the problem?

If you'd reflected on the article for two seconds before you started foaming at the mouth, you would've noticed that the NYT is attributing the "problem" to the war and lack of support after the war.

And while you are technically a "vet," I hardly think your service deserves to be clumped in with the vets discussed in this article, as you were so quick to do.

1/20/2008 11:49:24 PM

I found it ironic that a pundit on AM radio was criticizing the UAE gov't for censoring imported foreign news papers such as the UK's Guardian. Indian immigrant workers would marker out the page 7 ladies (topless or scantly clad models of underwear), any article criticizing islam, and various other topics. I do not think we have much room to talk considering the strict regulations of the FCC on the media.

OMFG janet jackson booby think of the kids!!

1/22/2008 2:07:43 PM

the FCC censors British newspapers like the UAE does? thats news to me

1/22/2008 3:00:10 PM

^^^ Yeah, it's just like you--who never served--to question my service. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else--my record speaks for itself.

I find it laughable that you question war at every turn--particularly when it is initiated by a conservative. Yet you seem to be suggesting that I apologize for not being deployed to a war zone during my honorable service in the U.S. Army.

I was in the Cavalry, youngling--and I joined to fight. We bombed Libya just before I entered the service; the Panama invasion happened while I was serving; and the Gulf War happened about a year after I got out--since I was IRR, I fully expected to be called back but wasn't.

On Veterans Day, it's good to know that we can all check with you, a liberal high school history teacher, to see who "technically" qualifies as a veteran. STFU.

Back on topic please.

1/22/2008 7:54:30 PM

Yeah, were runnin a little bit hot tonight.
I can barely see the road from the heat comin off of it.
Ah, you reach down, between my legs,
Ease the seat back.

Shes blinding, Im flying,
Right behind the rear-view mirror now.
Got the feeling, power steering,
Pistons popping, aint no stopping now!

Panama, Panama
Panama, Panama

1/23/2008 3:00:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html

Quote :

"President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups. art.bush.march03.afp.gi.jpg President Bush addresses the nation as the Iraq war begins in March 2003. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism. According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years. The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations. Video See CNN viewers' reactions to the study » The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda"

Just part of the liberal conspiracy to discredit Bush right hooksaw. I mean the leader of USA #1 wouldn't possibly make a mistake, mislead, or have hidden interests that would cause him to undergo a certain policy NOT in the best interest of the citizens of this country.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : a]

1/24/2008 11:46:59 AM