US News
Report: 121 Iraq, Afghanistan veterans kill after return to US
Jan 13, 2008, 18:54 GMT
On the Web
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. PREVIEW: Stars, fans and cameras set for Whitney Houston's funeral
- 2. Hollywood's sad story: Stars ruined by prescription drugs
- 3. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
- 4. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 5. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
Older Talkback
page: 1
the Pentagon is not going to give credence to these facts. I'm wondering if some of those who killed after they returned from the Bush mess had killed over there - once it's done, it's easier to do it again?? The mental state these returnees are in, whether they were injured or not, would be horrific. How would any of us react going from a 'war' situation to a supposedly normal life again in the span of a short time????
...liberals open their mouths and suddenly become psychiatrists? Has it occured to any of these folks that some of these people would have done these things even if they had not been combat vets?
This makes us ask the other question: if war creates this kind of behavior, why is there not more of it than the 120 per...100,000 persons(?) exposed to it?
Detroit, MI has a murder rate of 490per 100,000 people. Doe's this now mean that, if you live in detroit that you are more likely to murder someone?
The libnazi media has the predilection for making these connections with a famous less-than-scientific basis. Then, it gets into the culture that, if you went to war, you are some kind of psycho. We saw this with the Vietnam vet.
Oh Oh the surge must be working in Iraq because the lib press is looking elsewhere for bad news.
If the left wing media cannot advance a story about something they oppose they quit talking about it.
Notice this story has nothing to do with the progress in iraq. Iraq has more freedoms and a more democratic government than Pakistan.
Yes, it does!!
Anyone who would listen to Rush or believe his spewing, has a problem.
It's been a fact that returning military aren't getting the help they need to deal with their problems related to Bush's war - physical or mental!
of you dick-wads are full of shit. This is a sad story and I can empathize with the accused. One might get calloused while in the middle of this kind of carnage. In the past there was no way of getting stats on this particular issue so it may have been going on for a long time, (it has been). So quit with the selfish perspective!!!!
whenever SP4 opens his mouth, nothing comes out of it but crap? The closest SPfool ever got to combat was the blister he got from typing his idiocy in his mommy's basement.
122 including Bush
Maybe it's time the Pentagon started keeping records on important issues!
After all, it's very important to keep track of soldiers after they've been discharged as opposed to the constitutional responsibility of fighting a war, so let's get the Pentagon to study those, really important issues! Maybe we can shave their heads, tattoo their arms and put them in camps!?
Gina, have you listened to Rush or are you dismissing him out of hand? Most people that I know that hate him have never actually listened to him. Do you know of any examples of things he's said that can be proven false? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like to know if he's a liar. Let's face it, both the left and right bash eachother, that's a given, but if either group has outright lied, they should be called on it personalities aside.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a big share of returning military aren't getting the help they need, so major problems arise. Those are some of the records that need to be kept that don't seem to be.
Of course, maybe you don't have so much sympathy for returning military! Or, better yet, part of the Pentagon?
I've tried to listen to overblown Rush, but his disgusting, know-it-all persona, is a major turnoff. He loves to hear his own voice and could care less what anyone else has to say - he'll just turn them off pronto! Why he has anyone roped into his crap is something to ponder, but he is laughing all the way to the bank anyway. Listen if you wish, but don't expect everyone else to waste their time!
That's fair Gina, at least you tried to listen to him and yes, he can be incredibly full of himself at times. I also try to listen to liberals that I may personally dislike but I do try to figure out the truth, or not, of what they say. I'm just afraid that this split down the middle could end tragically for this country in the long run and I really believe that both sides must listen to some things they may not like and then google to find the truth of it. Hopefully, there will be a compromise at some point.
...but does that make him wrong?
No.
Most of what you hear is theatre. It sells! Rush appeals to about the same demographic that he did 20 years ago. These are people who would agree with him anyway.
The interesting thing is that democrats listen to him too! His polling and marketing shows it. I guess they want to be informed, of what HE is saying.
Personally, once you've heard him, you know what he thinks, so I hardly ever tune in anymore.
And his only claim to fame is being a bigger mouth than someone else. What ever made him an expert on anything or that anyone would want to waste time on him? Of course there is a certain element that would listen to him and I think especially people who want to find fault with everything and every one. Trying to listen to him can bring out the worst in someone - it almost makes you want to strike out at something since you can't tell him to his face how obnoxious he is.......yikes, just thinking about him makes my blood boil!!! Him and O'Rielly!!!!
Who is this SP4 kook? Dude stick to the X-box and leave the Internet alone. You are completely erroneous.
Sorry just had to say it...
If you want to get rid of Limbaugh,stop watching him,even stop discussing him,but most of all punish the advertisers that use him to sell their products,some sort of boycott will dispose of him only once there are bad commercial consequences to his appearances.
...liberals seek to stifle debate, and silence their critics, while conservatives favor a vigorous debate. The two posters above certainly prove that Rush is right about that.
This is one reason he has such a tight following. The major media outlets cannot stand him because he lampoons them constantly, and, if you ever read Bernard Goldberg's book 'Bias' it just confirms what we all suspect about what Rush calls the 'drive by' media.
to get back to the article at hand....I think the Pentagon should do everything they can regarding helping the military on their return, regardless of their situation. They are sent into the most horrific circumstances, serve time, then are sent home again to continue their regular lives on the spot.....not so easy. How many of us could do that in a normal way??? I don't care if there are 21 murders or 121 murders, some of these military aren't getting the understanding and help they need. They have gotten lost in the shuffle. EOS
'SP4:Well, Rush is Right about one thingJan 15th, 2008 - 16:24:05
...liberals seek to stifle debate, and silence their critics, while conservatives favor a vigorous debate. The two posters above certainly prove that Rush is right about that.'
As usual this SP person has it turned around 180 degrees. But does that make him wrong? YES it does, as usual.
'This is one reason he has such a tight following. The major media outlets cannot stand him because he lampoons them constantly'
The tight following is because they are 'tight' (a euphemism for drunk out of their minds)The real reason he is lampoons is because he is a loudmouthed bufoon, with nothing constructive to say. The crass dunce is a yard ape with about as much intelligence as a gnat. But, does that make him wrong? YES it does. Rush, like SP4, is nuttier than squirrel sh*t.
If the people who hate Rush would quit tuning into him, he would disappear in a hurry. I know people who listen just because he makes them so mad - kinda stupid, don't you think?
Wow! What an article. What does it mean? They would like us to think that from the several hundred thousand veterans who served in Iraq/Afghanistan, the whopping number of 121 murders means that our soldiers are depraved monsters.
Actually, its 5 times below the national average.
Nice try!
Play games with numbers and statistics all you want. That does not take away from the fact the the deaths were needless. It does not take away from the fact that there is something very wrong with the situation. I hope that some returning vet takes you out, you idiot.
'Play games with numbers and statistics all you want.'
Its not me playing with numbers. This stupid article tries to portray soldiers as being overly violent/homicidal. The truth is that 121 homicides over the course of 4-5 years and hundreds of thousands of soldiers is way below the average.
'That does not take away from the fact the the deaths were needless.'
Are you a complete ass? Is someone here arguing that the murders were good?
'It does not take away from the fact that there is something very wrong with the situation.'
The point made by the article is not just wrong, it is actually the opposite of the truth. There is something wrong with that.
'I hope that some returning .vet takes you out, you idiot.'
What a sicko you are. You are so ready to believe US soldiers are homicidal maniacs, but when your assumption is proven wrong your best rebuttal is that these non-existent homicidal soldiers should kill me???
That is rich. You are a typical lefty nutball.
'Are you a complete ass?'
No, he could never come close to you. You are a perfect ass.
'Is someone here arguing that the murders were good?'
Nobody said they were good A-hole. He said they were needless. Some deaths are needed, starting with yours.
'The point made by the article is not just wrong, it is actually the opposite of the truth. There is something wrong with that.'
Oh, so charles KNOWS the truth, does he? There is the truth, and then there is the republican neocon truth, whch is a non-thinking, knee jerk reaction to things that they don't like or agree with. Charlie falls into the latter category.
''Is someone here arguing that the murders were good?'
Nobody said they were good A-hole. He said they were needless.'
The irony is obviously waaaay over your head. Let me explain it to you:
The previous poster you are so readily defending was trying to defend the article by making the brilliant (dare I say entirely unobvious?) point that the homicidal soldiers caused 'needless' deaths. My very simple point is that no one who is arguing that the article is stupid and wrong is arguing that murder is 'necessary/needed' or 'good.' Can you grasp that? I doubt it. But take a few deep breaths and think about it.
'Some deaths are needed, starting with yours.'
I must admit your rhetorical subtlety is also a force to be reconed with. Do you realize what a cliche you are? If you are not sure which cliche let me know and I will spell it out for you.
'Oh, so charles KNOWS the truth, does he?'
It just takes 3rd grade math skills and a bit of common sense to rip the article apart. You obviously lack both.
Our returning vets are 5 times less likely to commit a murder than their peers. According to the Justice departments figures, the returning soldiers would have to commit 700-750 murders between 2003 and 2007 to match the number of murders committed by their peer group of 18-35 year olds in the general population. Lying by omission is still lying in my book.
Be careful Kathy - the liberals here will soon be screaming for your blood (while in their deluded minds they will think you are the one who is bloodthirsty...).
Its rich.
I don't think the murders are higher than the general public, but I agree that the military returning are not getting the help they need to re-adjust into civilian life - is that such a crazy statement? People get so hysterical without thinking things through, then the next thing you know there are posters who want to murder themselves..........LOL
The ODD... Officer Drunk on Deck. What a buffoon. You americans don't know basic math. When you use 'times' it is a multiplication factor. What I believe you are trying to say is one-fifth as likely. But then again yanks have never been highly educated, just highly indoctrinated. And I am referring to Chucky baby, in one of it's earlier erroneous posts, not Kathy. Even though she makes the exact, same mathmatical error. However, Kathy, SP4's girlfriend, is just another republican dog.
Jim,
I agree that probably more could be done to provide care to people who have been through the emotional trauma of combat. But I wonder if the treatment being provided to vets is, on balance, really that much worse than in previous conflicts?
Our vets are portrayed as homicidal maniacs, and the VA as a merciless machine run by Bush/cabal to cynically abuse the soldiers. This is premeditated propaganda nonsense targeted at an audience ready to gobble it down without thinking.
I'm not buyin.
You make me laugh.
Its the same thing you twit (as in: 6=half dozen).
You guys are hilarious! The liberal arguing that soldiers are homicidal wants to kill... and the clever professor who thinks I'm ignorant doesn't understand the expression '5 times less.'
100 = 5 * ?
Amerikanisms such as 5 times less aside, does not alter the fact that chuck is a besotted, non-thinking, neocon, washed-up goof, in the finest of amerikan naval tradition. That naval tradition being bullsh*t, booze, and buggery.
The last post was at least slightly witty, albeit factually incorrect on every point.
B.S. booze and buggery. I bet Charles was always on the bottom, that's why he talks so big and loud, to overcome his shame and inadequacies.
What a nice dog that Chuck is, roll over, rover.
Hey - I thought you liberals were all into multiculturalism and metrosexuality?!?
You guys are worse than the worst white trash redneck cliche. Its too funny.
'The last post was at least slightly witty, albeit factually incorrect on every point.'
What a weak reposte. That last shot by whomever he is must have gotten Charles below the waterline. While it may have been below the belt, surely the 'great' Charles, being a former OOD should be able do better than that. But as it were, he turned turtle and surrendered. Head for shore charles, as they say, any port in a storm.
That torpedo got Charles right in the rudder.
'You guys are worse than the worst white trash redneck cliche. Its too funny.'
You powder must be wet, chuck. Either that or you're firing blanks, thinking it is a live round, a mistake easily made by a drunk on deck. You missed, again, anyway. And yes, you are too funny, we're getting a good CHUCKle out off of you.
Nice try fellows. I just found his attempt at being humorous more lyrical and refreshing than your idiotic and shrill nonsense.
You all are incapable of disputing my points with facts so you resort to threats: wanting to kill me - or insults: accusing me of being homosexual.
Keep it up.
'You all are incapable of disputing my points.'
The only point Charles has is the one on top of his head.
You all???? Chuck must be a texan. I bet that's where he got his sea legs, riding a cow. Or was it the other way around?
'accusing me of being homosexual.'
As per usual, chuck distorts things, getting them wrong. But we do wonder which postion he was accustomed to, in that third of the amerikan naval traditions - buggery. We know he is full of the other two, B.S. and booze.
to kill charles? Not that I saw anywhere on these pages. Chuck must have drunk too much of that navy rum. His mind and arguments have all the consistency of a soggy Quiche Lorraine.
For all of your words you haven't been able to put together one logical argument. At some point you ought to start getting embarassed.
Come on - there is a whole group of you it seems.
Is this the very best self professed smart liberals can come up with???
Good night folks.
Here is your homework:
By the time I get back tomorrow, you can use all of your combined brain power and wit to come up with one logical post that is on topic (i.e. not an ad hominem attack).
Good luck!
Charles goes down with his sinking ship. Here's for Chuck's next incarnation: Develope a brain. Think for yourself. Stick to the post, yourself, boy. Don't parrot the party line. Expect ad hominem attacks once more, because you start them.
And with that, goodbye to Chuckles, who isn't man enough to stick around and finish what he started. But, what else is to be expected from a cowardly drunk on deck, of the US navy? Goodbye charles you fat, old, worn out tin pot of a destroyer. One fastboat just chased you away.
is trying to lay down rules of engagement when he said this: 'not an ad hominem attack).'
Tough, charles you tiresome, old bore. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kichen. As you are not a gentleman, expect no quarter. Whining, snivelling coward. Navy, ha. Tin pot scrap heap.
January 15, 2008 -- THE New York Times is trashing our troops again. With no new 'atrocities' to report from Iraq for many a month, the limping Gray Lady turned to the home front. Front and center, above the fold, on the front page of Sunday's Times, the week's feature story sought to convince Americans that combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are turning troops into murderers when they come home.
Heart-wringing tales of madness and murder not only made the front page, but filled two entire centerfold pages and spilled onto a fourth.
The Times did get one basic fact right: Returning vets committed or are charged with 121 murders in the United States since our current wars began.
Had the Times' 'journalists' and editors bothered to put those figures in context - which they carefully avoided doing - they would've found that the murder rate that leaves them so aghast means that our vets are five times less likely to commit a murder than their demographic peers.
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should crunch the numbers. I'm even willing to spot the Times a few percentage points (either way). But the hard statistics from the Justice Department tell a far different tale from the Times' anti-military propaganda.
A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that's not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).
Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.
n other words, the Times unwittingly makes the case that military service reduces the likelihood of a young man or woman committing a murder by 80 percent.
Yes, the young Americans who join our military are (by self- selection) superior by far to the average stay-at-home. Still, these numbers are pretty impressive, when you consider that we're speaking of men and women trained in the tools of war, who've endured the acute stresses of fighting insurgencies and who are physically robust (rather unlike the stick-limbed weanies the Times prefers).
All in all, the Times' own data proves my long-time contention that we have the best behaved and most ethical military in history.
www.nypost.com/seven/01152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/smearing_soldi ers_265875.htm,
Hey Charles, the fact that they can't refute anything you have said isn't lost on other readers.
Maybe the treatment of vets isn't any worse than in previous combats or maybe it is, but if it is, why can't it be improve? As far as returning military turning into killers - that isn't realistic and the general scarcasm here is worse than an angry bunch of grade school kids. It has been reported that the vets are returning with severe mental problems as can be expected - they need more help than they are getting - period!
about:'he fact that they can't refute anything you have said isn't lost on other readers'
He hasn't said anything worth refuting. Like SPfool, nohartess and unRealist, it is merely neocon crap. Preprogrammed pablum. And that hasn't been lost on people who think.
Jim,
I agree. More effective care - and better directed care. I'll bet things have actually drastically improved over the years - but any big bureaucracy is a blunt instrument. Medical treatment, and especially mental health treatment, is very individualized.
'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kichen.'
Um, its just boring fellas. You may get all excited and think that accusing me of being a homosexual drunk (or whatever else) is somehow accomplishing something constructive - but it isn't. But hey - its a free country - go for it!
So actually refute 'the neocon crap' already instead of just attacking.
The libnazi media has to run this story because the news out of Iraq isn't bad enough to print. That being the case, they go to the tried-and-untrue old chestnut of the crazy vet.
We saw this all over the 1970's. Vets were broadbrushed as nutballs. The press insinuated that they all came back and went crazy, becoming risks to society.
This will die off for 6 more months and then come back on a bad news day.
Ever notice now I get preemptive insults? How's that for notoriety?
To those still reading that are confused by the liberal mindset, there's an excellent description of it on utube. No profanity, trashing etc. just food for thought. Go to utube, type in liberals and listen to the one titled 'How Modern Liberals Think' by the Heritage Foundation. I found it to be interesting and not at all nasty which in these times is refreshing.
Maybe the vets in the 70's were not nutballs as you so disgustingly put it, but still had severe mental and psychological problems that weren't correctly addressed or understood at the time - you can't sweep this under the rug. Hopefully medicine has progressed since the dark ages!!
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story