UPDATE 1 -- U.S. soldier goes on shooting spree, kills 16 Afghan civilians

[maidu]

I tend to agree with the above post; Afghanistan for the Afgnanis. If screw-balls take over and forbid females from going to school, and if they reinstate honor killings and stoning for adultery or being gay, .....let 'em stew in their own juices.

If they export terrorism, perhaps US and/or other westerners go in there and carpet bomb a few insurgent rat nests.

The US doesn't have the moral high ground any more (if it ever did) - particularly if its occupying soldiers allow a deranged pal of theirs to go off base (solo or with a group) to randomly kill and burn 16 local civilians.

From a historical perspective: I can't recall a similar dynamic: where an occupying force allows one or more rogue soldiers to go out and kill civilians. I did hear of an incident where Moses commanded his allied group (the Assasins) to go and kill all the members of another Jewish group (women children babies) within his compound .....but that's a different scenario. I can't recall hearing about Roman Centurians ever doing something like that. If anyone can cite a historical precedence for Sgt. Bales' purported massacre, let me know. Wounded Knee in western US?

[flying]

I tend to agree with the above post; Afghanistan for the Afgnanis.

Many empires refused to believe that & paid the price at the Khyber Pass

and elsewhere...

Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn , other mongols , British Empire , Soviets

The USA will be added sadly to the list of failed attempts.....Because at the end of the day what

will you do to them?

Bomb them back into the stone age as Koheesti suggests?

Sorry they never left the stone age & happily exist there to be left alone.

Sons & Guns...although the speaker is not 100% factual as the assemble weapons he calls it making

But still you see how they live?

Edited March 19, 2012 by flying

[chuckd]

I tend to agree with the above post; Afghanistan for the Afgnanis. If screw-balls take over and forbid females from going to school, and if they reinstate honor killings and stoning for adultery or being gay, .....let 'em stew in their own juices.

If they export terrorism, perhaps US and/or other westerners go in there and carpet bomb a few insurgent rat nests.

The US doesn't have the moral high ground any more (if it ever did) - particularly if its occupying soldiers allow a deranged pal of theirs to go off base (solo or with a group) to randomly kill and burn 16 local civilians.

From a historical perspective: I can't recall a similar dynamic: where an occupying force allows one or more rogue soldiers to go out and kill civilians. I did hear of an incident where Moses commanded his allied group (the Assasins) to go and kill all the members of another Jewish group (women children babies) within his compound .....but that's a different scenario. I can't recall hearing about Roman Centurians ever doing something like that. If anyone can cite a historical precedence for Sgt. Bales' purported massacre, let me know. Wounded Knee in western US?

While it is obvious you have an intense distaste for this tragedy, your broad brush painting of the US and the US Military is hardly justified.

Were the actions of this individual tragic? Certainly.

Were the actions legal or morally correct? Not one bit.

Will the actions be investigated and will the alleged perpetrator be tried in a military court? Certainly.

Do we know the full story merely days after the incident? No.

Did the military "allow" (your word) the alleged shooter to take this action? Absolutely not.

Has the military taken action in similar cases where soldiers have broken laws? Yes.

Currently there are 89,000 US military in Afghanistan. ONE (1) of the 89,000 has taken it upon himself, allegedly, to do this act. I would say that is a pretty good crime rate for most cities to strive for. How about you?

[volk666]

Those who interviewed witnesses and survivors claim there was a group of soldiers, not one shooter. Reuters picked it up first then Afghani politicians confirmed those same fundings. Karzai, Russia Today, group of American Veterans, some Brits, including an article on Karzai's reaction on BBC and some western media repeated them, not to mention all the usual anti-American media.

Now we are asked to believe US military officials instead. Fine, whatever works to rock your boat, the fact is that for the majority of us here it doesn't matter one way or another. Pissed off Karzai, OTOH, is a major problem for the US interests, and pissed off population is even worse. Even if there was only one shooter but the entire Afghani population is convinced twenty US troops were involved and the US army is covering it up - it's a big big problem for the Americans.

Someone mentioned Afghani soldiers turning their guns on Americans as a bigger problem - maybe, but incidents like this massacre will probably make that problem even worse. It is reportedly far worse than whatever disagreements US army had with their Iraqi counterparts before handover there.

Obama scheduled winding up major military operations in the middle of next year in preparation for 2014 hand off to the locals. Maybe some people believe Taleban will surely be defeated by that time and I commend them on their optimism but a more sober view would be that Taleban will take the country back even faster than they won it after the exit of the Soviets. I think it took them two years back then, but I need to double check.

The whole purpose of the US being there is unclear. Back in 2001 they provided shelter to Bin Laden and it was all black and white but now we've found that Bin Laden has been living in Pakistan for years and Taleban way is the preferred mode of living in that country. What can you do about it? It's not just one crazed individual building a dictatorship, it's the religion, philosophy, culture - you can't make them all into suburban Americans.

[myfriendu]

I tend to agree with the above post; Afghanistan for the Afgnanis. If screw-balls take over and forbid females from going to school, and if they reinstate honor killings and stoning for adultery or being gay, .....let 'em stew in their own juices.

If they export terrorism, perhaps US and/or other westerners go in there and carpet bomb a few insurgent rat nests.

The US doesn't have the moral high ground any more (if it ever did) - particularly if its occupying soldiers allow a deranged pal of theirs to go off base (solo or with a group) to randomly kill and burn 16 local civilians.

From a historical perspective: I can't recall a similar dynamic: where an occupying force allows one or more rogue soldiers to go out and kill civilians. I did hear of an incident where Moses commanded his allied group (the Assasins) to go and kill all the members of another Jewish group (women children babies) within his compound .....but that's a different scenario. I can't recall hearing about Roman Centurians ever doing something like that. If anyone can cite a historical precedence for Sgt. Bales' purported massacre, let me know. Wounded Knee in western US?

While it is obvious you have an intense distaste for this tragedy, your broad brush painting of the US and the US Military is hardly justified.

Were the actions of this individual tragic? Certainly.

Were the actions legal or morally correct? Not one bit.

Will the actions be investigated and will the alleged perpetrator be tried in a military court? Certainly.

Do we know the full story merely days after the incident? No.

Did the military "allow" (your word) the alleged shooter to take this action? Absolutely not.

Has the military taken action in similar cases where soldiers have broken laws? Yes.

Currently there are 89,000 US military in Afghanistan. ONE (1) of the 89,000 has taken it upon himself, allegedly, to do this act. I would say that is a pretty good crime rate for most cities to strive for. How about you?

that makes it all ok then,im sure the families will feel alot better now

[myfriendu]

What if it was indeed the work of 15-20 soldiers?

There's no way the military will admit to that, so far it's been confined to the findings of Afghanis and news outlets like "Russia Today" so it's as good as it has never happened, but if these findings break out in the open and US media has no choice but to report them, what will happen then? Perhaps Al Jazeera and a couple of UK newspapers will start the crack in the information war, perhaps not, but if Karzai himself goes public it will be impossible to hide.

Even that highly critical blog linked on the previous page assumes it was one guy who went into two houses then collected the bodies and tried to burn them. Two houses two kilometers apart. That just doesn't compute.

good post man,no excuse,maybe he trained with david copperfield,and transported himself two clicks away,ive seen it done with a jet on fox news so it must be true

Yeah, I agree with both of you. I don't think it is physically possible for a combat trained, well fit soldier to walk 2 kilometers either. At least not in one night.

I wager there was a donkey involved in here somewhere.

i could run 2 clicks in a hour,but i would,nt be able to fire a weapon,in 3 different locations at the same time

[chuckd]

What if it was indeed the work of 15-20 soldiers?

There's no way the military will admit to that, so far it's been confined to the findings of Afghanis and news outlets like "Russia Today" so it's as good as it has never happened, but if these findings break out in the open and US media has no choice but to report them, what will happen then? Perhaps Al Jazeera and a couple of UK newspapers will start the crack in the information war, perhaps not, but if Karzai himself goes public it will be impossible to hide.

Even that highly critical blog linked on the previous page assumes it was one guy who went into two houses then collected the bodies and tried to burn them. Two houses two kilometers apart. That just doesn't compute.

good post man,no excuse,maybe he trained with david copperfield,and transported himself two clicks away,ive seen it done with a jet on fox news so it must be true

Yeah, I agree with both of you. I don't think it is physically possible for a combat trained, well fit soldier to walk 2 kilometers either. At least not in one night.

I wager there was a donkey involved in here somewhere.

i could run 2 clicks in a hour,but i would,nt be able to fire a weapon,in 3 different locations at the same time

It would take you one hour to run two clicks? My guess is you are not in the US Military. Right?

I'm over 70 years old and I can walk two clicks in 20 minutes and take time out for a beer.

Where has it been proven a weapon was fired in three different locations at the same time? Russian television, perhaps?

[maidu]

The killer, whether deranged or not, increased the danger level for Americans in Afghanistan (and elsewhere?). Afghanis who wanted to kill Americans, prior, are now more fired up, and those who might have been on the fence about it, are now probably radicalized.

Will the investigation delve in to whether and how much his buddies knew of his intentions? If others are found guilty of prior knowledge, will they get disciplined for not stopping him?

Am also curious to know how it ended. Did the killer run out of ammo? Did he tire out? ...run out of civilians to shoot? Was he apprehended by his cohorts, or simple saunter back to barracks? If he was apprehended by Afghanis, they would have been justified in tearing him apart, limb from limb.

[Ulysses G.]

Where has it been proven a weapon was fired in three different locations at the same time? Russian television, perhaps?

Only the facts on Russia Today.

[koheesti]

From a historical perspective: I can't recall a similar dynamic: where an occupying force allows one or more rogue soldiers to go out and kill civilians. I did hear of an incident where Moses commanded his allied group (the Assasins) to go and kill all the members of another Jewish group (women children babies) within his compound .....but that's a different scenario. I can't recall hearing about Roman Centurians ever doing something like that. If anyone can cite a historical precedence for Sgt. Bales' purported massacre, let me know. Wounded Knee in western US?

I bet if you went back in time and gave Roman soldiers i-phones to take photos and movies with you'd come back with stuff that makes Sgt Bales actions look like a trip to Disney World.

[chuckd]

The killer, whether deranged or not, increased the danger level for Americans in Afghanistan (and elsewhere?). Afghanis who wanted to kill Americans, prior, are now more fired up, and those who might have been on the fence about it, are now probably radicalized.

Will the investigation delve in to whether and how much his buddies knew of his intentions? If others are found guilty of prior knowledge, will they get disciplined for not stopping him?

Am also curious to know how it ended. Did the killer run out of ammo? Did he tire out? ...run out of civilians to shoot? Was he apprehended by his cohorts, or simple saunter back to barracks? If he was apprehended by Afghanis, they would have been justified in tearing him apart, limb from limb.

I am sure the investigation will probably include talking to his fellow soldiers. My guess is they have already been sequestered and are undergoing rather intensive questioning as we speak.

Your other operational questions have not been answered, but Russian TV might have some opinions to offer quite soon.

By the way, did you ever stop to think when the NY Times released the photos of Abu Ghraib, they also endangered the lives of Westerners in Islamic countries...or did you applaud their actions?

[maidu]

Did the military "allow" (your word) the alleged shooter to take this action? Absolutely not.

How do you know? When I mention 'military', I'm referring to any one of his military buddies who were within earshot when/if he made threats to go out and kill civilians. If the killer had broadcast his intentions prior (which is likely), then anyone who didn't stop him from leaving and carrying out his threats, is (to some degree) an accomplice.

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

Edited March 20, 2012 by maidu

[Ulysses G.]

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. You would not be an accessory unless you helped him in some way.

[maidu]

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. You would not be an accessory unless you helped him in some way.

Ok, I'm wrong in a legal context, in an incident among civilians. How about in a military context, where there's a superior officer in the room? Is that officer in dereliction of duty if he does not at least make an attempt to stop a deranged lower ranking soldier from acting out an obviously illegal act?

[Ulysses G.]

Sure, but that is pure speculation. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened.

[maidu]

Sure, but that is pure speculation. There is no evidence that anything like that ever happened.

It's speculation based upon a knowledge of human nature. Plus, I didn't state it as a fact, but as a factor that should be looked at by investigators. A group of men who have bunked together, eat meals together, go out on combat patrols together - share lots and develop bonds as tight as any bonds between people. They're polarized, isolated, frustrated. If the investigation finds evidence supporting some of the things I mentioned earlier, I hope it's pursued it to its fullest.

Reminder, this rant of mine was triggered by an earlier assertion by a TV poster that the military did "absolutely not" allow the alleged shooter to take the action he did. "military' by definition, would include the shooter's fellow soldiers and his superior officers.

[IMA_FARANG]

From what I've read this guy had 3 previous tours in combat areas in Iraq and this was, I believe his 4th comabt tour; this time in Afghanistan. From what I've read he had been cleared by a psychology rewiew board by the Army...he was apparently referred to that board by one of his superiors because they suspected him from suffering from "stress" after his 3rd combat tour in Iraq. But the board "cleared" him.

Personally, I think the real problem here is that the military has that "suck-it-up and get-over-it" psychology that it does. I spent 6 years in the U.S. Army...5 of them in Vietnam...and I know that very psychology. It was prevalent then, and it's the same today. The problem is that a lot of the higher ups simply ignore the problems evident to the junior officers...and even for a junior officer to try to suggest that one of his NCOs might be over stressed will get him negative comments on his evaluations for promotion.

I'm not condoning what this guy did. I'm just trying to make it known that many of the U.S. military COMBAT troops are over-deployed, stressed out from consecutive combat tours, and are often told just to suck up and get over their problems by their superiors. Seeing a psychologist is considerd as "proof" that you're not a "real man" by far to many senior officers.

You need to understand that over half the U.S. military is in some kind of non-combat slot, maybe supporting combat troops, but not in active comabt slots. That's why those boots on the ground actually in combat slots are repeatedly deployed back to combat areas.

It's common these days to find NCOs who have done 2 or 3 consecutive back-to-back deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's a problem the U.S. military doesn't like to talk about. But I think this time, after this incident; they may finally have to face the problem.

That's why divorce among married NCOs is a big concern among military leaders.

And the experienced NCO is the backbone of a good comabt squad.

As they say, "Old men start wars, but young men have to fight them"

Kipling had it right in his poem:

"It's Tommy this, and Tommy that

and chuck him out, the brute.

But it's "saviour of his country"

when the guns begin to shoot"

Edited March 20, 2012 by IMA_FARANG

[volk666]

Russia Today et al quoted Reuters and Afghani lawmakers who interviewed witnesses. What is the US military version relies on?

Walking 2 km is no big deal, that is what people recommend to cool off when you are angry. It was also not just shooting, but also dragging bodies into piles and burning them, it takes time, I figure.

Otoh, today I learned that Robert Bales could be suffering from PTSD, poor soul.

[flying]

Your other operational questions have not been answered, but Russian TV might have some opinions to offer quite soon.

By the way, did you ever stop to think when the NY Times released the photos of Abu Ghraib, they also endangered the lives of Westerners in Islamic countries...or did you applaud their actions?

2 things............

1) I see RT get slagged a lot but it is a alternate same as Al Jazeera

Nothing wrong with hearing more than MSM. I cannot say I believe anything I hear but I see nothing wrong

with hearing more than one side. If anyone today thinks the Media in the US is not controlled to some degree

as to what they can & cannot say with out risking being shut out of future press conferences etc....

Well I just think the Press is not as free as it once was in the USA sadly.

I would say a good analogy is at any trial if only a certain group of witness was allowed.

Nah...instead let we the jury hear it all & decide which rings true or holds water better.

2) As to your question about Abu Ghraib,...Yes perhaps but I tend to think if the other side saw that

our side treats cruelty to prisoners harshly they would not think less of us. They would see that at least we practice

at times ...what we preach. If instead it is suppressed but bits gets out through other channels then yes it fuels the fire even more.

At the end of the day none of it would be a problem if we got the hell out of where we do not belong period.

Edited March 20, 2012 by flying

[chuckd]

Did the military "allow" (your word) the alleged shooter to take this action? Absolutely not.

How do you know? When I mention 'military', I'm referring to any one of his military buddies who were within earshot when/if he made threats to go out and kill civilians. If the killer had broadcast his intentions prior (which is likely), then anyone who didn't stop him from leaving and carrying out his threats, is (to some degree) an accomplice.

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

UG already corrected your error on being an accessory to crime. Now let me add a little something to the discussion.

Supposition: Assume you are a soldier in an isolated outpost in Afghanistan. You and a few of your team mates have been sitting around drinking while discussing girls and March Madness when one of your party arises from his chair, picks up his weapon and walks outside without a word? What if he picks up his weapon, says he is going to the latrine and walks outside?

What do you do?

Report him to your superiors? Tackle him from behind and take the weapon away from him? Shoot him in the back for walking away from your party? Call 911?

Taking it a little further...what if he gets up, picks up his weapon and says, "I'm going to go shoot some civilians."

Your reaction would probably be to dismiss his comments before he got to the door. After all, this is Sgt. Bales and you have been through firefights with him. He takes care of me but he isn't crazy and you would continue drinking as he walked away.

My dreamed up scenario is as plausible as yours and much more believable.

From personal experience of working with US Military personnel, both officers and enlisted, during many of the past 30+ years I tend to believe the vast majority of them would make every effort to stop Sgt. Bales if they knew of his actions beforehand.

Are there exceptions? Certainly there are and have been.

But did the Military "allow" Sgt. Bales to perform his alleged acts. I repeat...Absolutely not.

My point in all this is it does little good to dream up these cockeyed scenarios that have no basis in fact. Put your efforts to better use to try and figure out what drove the alleged shooter to do this in the first place.

[GentlemanJim]

Did the military "allow" (your word) the alleged shooter to take this action? Absolutely not.

How do you know? When I mention 'military', I'm referring to any one of his military buddies who were within earshot when/if he made threats to go out and kill civilians. If the killer had broadcast his intentions prior (which is likely), then anyone who didn't stop him from leaving and carrying out his threats, is (to some degree) an accomplice.

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

UG already corrected your error on being an accessory to crime. Now let me add a little something to the discussion.

Supposition: Assume you are a soldier in an isolated outpost in Afghanistan. You and a few of your team mates have been sitting around drinking while discussing girls and March Madness when one of your party arises from his chair, picks up his weapon and walks outside without a word? What if he picks up his weapon, says he is going to the latrine and walks outside?

What do you do?

Report him to your superiors? Tackle him from behind and take the weapon away from him? Shoot him in the back for walking away from your party? Call 911?

Taking it a little further...what if he gets up, picks up his weapon and says, "I'm going to go shoot some civilians."

Your reaction would probably be to dismiss his comments before he got to the door. After all, this is Sgt. Bales and you have been through firefights with him. He takes care of me but he isn't crazy and you would continue drinking as he walked away.

My dreamed up scenario is as plausible as yours and much more believable.

From personal experience of working with US Military personnel, both officers and enlisted, during many of the past 30+ years I tend to believe the vast majority of them would make every effort to stop Sgt. Bales if they knew of his actions beforehand.

Are there exceptions? Certainly there are and have been.

But did the Military "allow" Sgt. Bales to perform his alleged acts. I repeat...Absolutely not.

My point in all this is it does little good to dream up these cockeyed scenarios that have no basis in fact. Put your efforts to better use to try and figure out what drove the alleged shooter to do this in the first place.

Well whether he was going to scratch his butt, take a leak or go for a walk, he would ALWAYS be picking up and carrying his weapon, so thats a bit of a norm. If he then said he was going to shoot some civilians, the likely response from exhausted and slightly high troops would be 'yeah, ok mate, off you go and have a great time', as the 'banter' side would take over and nobody would think for one nano second that he was serious.

volk666

Otoh, today I learned that Robert Bales could be suffering from PTSD, poor soul.

Well you clearly display absolutely no understanding of what PTSD is and how it affects an individual. Perhaps if some people would have taken the issue of potential PTSD a little more seriously then all those women and children would still be alive. You think PTSD is a joke? ask IMA_FARANG what the effects of PTSD are. I reckon with 5 years in Vietnam he's seen enough guys go completely off thee rails as a result of PTSD.

[chuckd]

Russia Today et al quoted Reuters and Afghani lawmakers who interviewed witnesses. What is the US military version relies on?

Walking 2 km is no big deal, that is what people recommend to cool off when you are angry. It was also not just shooting, but also dragging bodies into piles and burning them, it takes time, I figure.

Otoh, today I learned that Robert Bales could be suffering from PTSD, poor soul.

Probably some of the evidence will be based on the overhead videos taken from the blimps in the area. They might even tell us if one soldier left the compound or if 20 of them did. Whatcha think?

Uhh, how far did he allegedly drag these bodies? Were they sleeping in different bedrooms or were they sleeping communal style? Were they all in the same house or were they in 16 separate houses? Did he drag them from one village to the next? (If so, that 2 click walk might have taken awhile.)

My point in all this? You weren't there, I wasn't there, Reuters wasn't there, Russian TV wasn't there and I doubt if there were any Afghan lawmakers visiting the village that night.

Let the investigation run it's course, cut through all the bullshit that will be offered by Karzai's government and the military trying to cut their losses, and then have the discussion.

[chuckd]

UG already corrected your error on being an accessory to crime. Now let me add a little something to the discussion.

Supposition: Assume you are a soldier in an isolated outpost in Afghanistan. You and a few of your team mates have been sitting around drinking while discussing girls and March Madness when one of your party arises from his chair, picks up his weapon and walks outside without a word? What if he picks up his weapon, says he is going to the latrine and walks outside?

What do you do?

Report him to your superiors? Tackle him from behind and take the weapon away from him? Shoot him in the back for walking away from your party? Call 911?

Taking it a little further...what if he gets up, picks up his weapon and says, "I'm going to go shoot some civilians."

Your reaction would probably be to dismiss his comments before he got to the door. After all, this is Sgt. Bales and you have been through firefights with him. He takes care of me but he isn't crazy and you would continue drinking as he walked away.

My dreamed up scenario is as plausible as yours and much more believable.

From personal experience of working with US Military personnel, both officers and enlisted, during many of the past 30+ years I tend to believe the vast majority of them would make every effort to stop Sgt. Bales if they knew of his actions beforehand.

Are there exceptions? Certainly there are and have been.

But did the Military "allow" Sgt. Bales to perform his alleged acts. I repeat...Absolutely not.

My point in all this is it does little good to dream up these cockeyed scenarios that have no basis in fact. Put your efforts to better use to try and figure out what drove the alleged shooter to do this in the first place.

Well whether he was going to scratch his butt, take a leak or go for a walk, he would ALWAYS be picking up and carrying his weapon, so thats a bit of a norm. If he then said he was going to shoot some civilians, the likely response from exhausted and slightly high troops would be 'yeah, ok mate, off you go and have a great time', as the 'banter' side would take over and nobody would think for one nano second that he was serious.

volk666

Otoh, today I learned that Robert Bales could be suffering from PTSD, poor soul.

Well you clearly display absolutely no understanding of what PTSD is and how it affects an individual. Perhaps if some people would have taken the issue of potential PTSD a little more seriously then all those women and children would still be alive. You think PTSD is a joke? ask IMA_FARANG what the effects of PTSD are. I reckon with 5 years in Vietnam he's seen enough guys go completely off thee rails as a result of PTSD.

Agreed, completely.

They go outside, they are armed.

...and PTSD is real.

[flying]

Agreed, completely.

They go outside, they are armed.

...and PTSD is real.

Yup it is real & as I mentioned they are actually administered drugs in the field now.

Kind of amazing to think.........I would hope they would be sent home before any ant-depressants or

other PTSD drugs are administered.

I have known folks on such drugs (in the private sector) & to say they have their bad days would be putting it mildly.

Edited March 20, 2012 by flying

[myfriendu]

Where has it been proven a weapon was fired in three different locations at the same time? Russian television, perhaps?

Only the facts on Russia Today.

fox news,so it must be true

[chuckd]

Where has it been proven a weapon was fired in three different locations at the same time? Russian television, perhaps?

Only the facts on Russia Today.

fox news,so it must be true

Does Fox News have it?

Gee, I don't know since I haven't received Fox in about 15 years now.

[myfriendu]

Russia Today et al quoted Reuters and Afghani lawmakers who interviewed witnesses. What is the US military version relies on?

Walking 2 km is no big deal, that is what people recommend to cool off when you are angry. It was also not just shooting, but also dragging bodies into piles and burning them, it takes time, I figure.

Otoh, today I learned that Robert Bales could be suffering from PTSD, poor soul.

Probably some of the evidence will be based on the overhead videos taken from the blimps in the area. They might even tell us if one soldier left the compound or if 20 of them did. Whatcha think?

Uhh, how far did he allegedly drag these bodies? Were they sleeping in different bedrooms or were they sleeping communal style? Were they all in the same house or were they in 16 separate houses? Did he drag them from one village to the next? (If so, that 2 click walk might have taken awhile.)

My point in all this? You weren't there, I wasn't there, Reuters wasn't there, Russian TV wasn't there and I doubt if there were any Afghan lawmakers visiting the village that night.

Let the investigation run it's course, cut through all the bullshit that will be offered by Karzai's government and the military trying to cut their losses, and then have the discussion.

yes lets just put our heads in the sand and belive the us army view.maybe cannot blame the killer let him off all the killing is so second nature.

wait for fox news spin

[luckyluke]

Robert Bales' lawyer: Suspect in Afghan slaughter can't remember killing 16 people.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120320/NEWS07/203200337/Robert-Bales-lawyer-Suspect-in-Afghan-slaughter-can-t-remember-killing-16-people?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

[volk666]

I don't know whether PTSD is real or not, I have no reason to believe it isn't, but please get a little perspective on things - sixteen murdered people, nine children, burned corpses - and they worry about PTSD of the perpetrator(s). How about trauma of the survived kid whose entire family was slaughtered in cold blood? It's like they are not humans comparing to that US soldier.

[myfriendu]

Comparison: Suppose you were in a bar, and a drunk patron started waving a gun around and shouting about how he was going to go out in public and start shooting innocent people. If you didn't at least try to stop him from leaving the bar (or notify authorities), then you would be an accessory to the crime. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. You would not be an accessory unless you helped him in some way.

wrong again but hey you aint a lawyer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)