Killers Coming Home?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I noticed the headlines on the right bar and clicked on the one titled:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat

    After reading a bit, I thought, this sounds weird, it's seems the only purpose is to label the returning vets as, 'killers.'

    Just didn't sound right. Yet I'm not interested enough to find the stats and then have someone disagree if they didn't work out. Luckily someone else did:

    http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/the_media_does_it_again.php

     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Looks like another has noticed too:

    http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/003612.html

     
  3. Taomon
    Offline

    Taomon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,563
    Thanks Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +47
    I work for a bio-tech. They have an MS drug on the market that works great and requires weekly injections. They created a stronger version that requires a monthly intravenous injection by a doctor. For many patients it was miraculous because some were able to walk again and enjoy life.

    The company tested the drug before releasing it as is required by Federal law. However, the drug causes one side effect in a very minute portion of the population taking the drug. It causes a very rare disease that killed two patients.

    Now according to Medscape about 350,000 Americans have been diagnoses with MS: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/503246_7

    That is a relatively small percentage of Americans (but that is a lot of people). Only a portion of those patients take the drugs manufactured by my company. Of them a smaller portion (less than 1%) are susceptible to contacting the rare disease. Two deaths out of a few thousand patients who took the new drug.

    My company pulled the drug and notified the FDA. Compare that to a company like Phizer who would say that the percentage is small so let it run until a complaint is lodged by a patient or their family.

    The whole point is that even though the percentage of veterans returning harm who become killers is small (not a new phenomena), those few soldiers can cause the death a many innocent people.

    Plus, you made it quite clear that you wanted stats that made the threat appear smaller. Stats are funny that way; how you present them determines the outcome.
     
  4. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    The Times wants to remind its readership that The military is a bad thing. Soldiers are bad people. War is heck.

    And so on.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,593
    Thanks Received:
    5,909
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,021
    You have called our troops terrorists, murderers and worse, your bias on THIS issue is clear. FACTS are not manipulated and the FACT is there is no way to prove any claim since no one keeps track of information in this manner. Basing a supposed "study" on articles in the press does not work since there is no way to know if every story, especially before 9/11 actually reported any relation to the military.
     
  6. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    A small percentage of troops returning home to commit murder is unfortunate. It is also a pattern that followed every war we've ever been in. Only the labels have changed.

    It's not like the NYT could have mentioned that either.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Actually I think it more likely that young men in general are more likely to murder than other groups. The military consists overwhelmingly of young men, one could conclude therefore that there would be murders committed by enlisted men and recently retired vets. There are, but indeed, they may do so at a lower rate than young men who have not served in the military.

    Actually the point of the piece seemed to be that because of their training and exposure to violence, they would be more prone to murder. There was no consideration of the discipline most of these young men had learned and followed, for varying amounts of time. The later in all likelihood, makes the lower rate more likely, if taken into consideration.
     
  8. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I was thinking more of combat vets. After you've pulled the trigger enough, the idea isn't so scary and the act isn't hard. Add that to battle fatigue, shell shock, PTSD or any other label and I think you will see what I was driving at.

    Too bad the NYT chose the easy route. Lazy reporter or biased editor.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I wonder though Pegwinn, it would be interesting study for some military sociologist. ;)
     
  10. Taomon
    Offline

    Taomon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,563
    Thanks Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +47
    Actually, I wasn't choosing sides in this matter. I gave an example of percentages and what they mean to different people. You are the one trying to find something to make the percentage smaller as stated in your first post.

    You seemed to ignore the fact that I stated that all wars have produced a minority of men who became killers and a larger group of men who became violent in other was (abusive husband/fathers, addiction, suicide, etc).

    And on many occasions I have also said that the veterans should have free or affordable housing for life. There should never be a homeless veteran, especially in a time of war.

    Yes, I have spoken out against the war and our aggression. These are facts that you choose to turn a blind eye to.
     

Share This Page