Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People require a certain amount of remorse displayed by the veteran, whether he feels it or not. This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this society.
In the US, everybody is pretty much spoiled, and they preach about how bad war, and killing, and blowing things up is; yet for some reason they keep on sending men and women to god-forsaken parts of the globe to do just that. Yeah, and then they expect you to be all remorseful, and repentant.
If one does not feel guilt or regret, they call you the psychopath. Do you really know what that word means? Give me a break.
In conflict u have no choice. If u don't destroy the target as defined by mission u will die and be the probable cause of the death of your brothers in arms. Moral arguments tend to be for those who lack the understanding of war.
There are cold blooded killers, (like the killer in the op), there are warriors. Know the differences, please. Warriors kill to eliminate the threats, to eliminate the targets, to save more lives, (often the men standing next to him) Why should they feel guilty about it?
sheesh
I've lost my second true love on the battlefield, I lost at least three best friends on the battlefield. I have a friend who lost a friend because he pushed him away when he saw a sniper. He lost his own life saving my friend. If there is guilt or regret, my friend felt guilt for not taking down that enemy sniper himself. On the battlefield, no one is the fragile little victim flower here, kill or be killed. Why should American soldiers always have to feel the so called guilt? This is ridiculous thinking.
The killer in op was not a warrior, he was a cold blooded killer. Saying PTSD causes this is a lazy argument.
We're hearing that the shooter threatened one of the people in the facility and he was kicked out because of the threat he made. After all the events that occurred in recent times with mentally disturbed individuals that made threats, I'm astounded that nothing was said and done prior to the incident that could have prevented it.
Except that you're wrong. In 1946, it was estimated that at least 20% of American Army veterans who had returned home suffered from a neuropsychiatric disorder, with 300,000 in that year alone requesting treatment from the VA for it.
The 20% statistic is actually about the same as the number of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who are believed to have PTSD.
Studies in the 1970s found that WWII and Korean War veterans were also significantly more likely to suffer from alcoholism and alcohol related diseases than men of the same age who did not serve.
It is also thought that suicide statistics for the 1940s-1970s may be incorrect, as during that time frame there was still a massive social and religious stigma against suicide, meaning that many families (and their doctors) cited different causes of death rather than face further shame.
Just because men who served went to work and had families and moved to the suburbs, doesn't mean that they didn't have their battles. Many did seek treatment, and many turned to alcohol. But of course, it wasn't talked about either socially or in the media like it is today. There was far less public awareness. They were essentially forced to suffer in silence.
What happened in Napa is awful, and inexcusable... but if you go back through old newspaper articles you'll find that there were veterans even back in the day who committed murder. I recall reading a few truly ghastly stories that occurred in the 1940s and 1950s at the hands of veterans. This is awful but tragic cries for help like this aren't new.
So, what branch were you in and where and when did you serve?
Since you're criticizing today's 'woe is me drama', I take it you are a Veteran and therefore in a position to pass that kind of judgment?
Firstly; let me offer my sincere empathy for your husband's "condition" and also my hope for his ability to overcome and prevail. He is already outside the demographic I'm referring to, as he's not excusing or otherwise justifying public bad behaviour by wearing his PTSD on his sleeve.
I thought I made myself abundantly clear. Those veterans of past wars, did not "seem" to occasion their service being used as an excuse to "justify" to the extent we see today.
It would never be my intent to denigrate any serviceman/woman suffering from the trauma of warfare experiences.
If you got that intent from my post, I offer an apology for perhaps not wording it more carefully.
WWII vets fought a justifiable war, as did those in Korea. There is a huge burden on today's veterans for fighting in wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan that are simply not justifiable. Guilt, regret, and depression can dog these soldiers for life.
That is probably part of the problem, but it shouldn't be.
What individual taking their oath today can trust implicitly that their political masters will not involve them in some foreign boondoggle precipitated by the MIC needing another cash infusion?
Surely everyone alive today in America knows not to place blame on the grunt in the field as they're given no say in the matter whatsoever.
It has been that way since well before WWII.
No veteran should carry the guilt or implied remorse for their combat service; that's what we have politicians for. They're the ones whom the public should hold accountable for returning vets leaving their limbs and sanity behind in whatever chit-hole they've been sent to.
Sarcasm aside, terrible situation. We are paying the price for terrible mental health care and nasty cultural stigmas concerning mental health. Oh, and every mental midget being able to get a weapon.
Yes, this is true as long as he or she is white. Open fire in public and in schools, churches etc. All blame goes to mental health and family environment.
But if his name is Mohamed, then it's a different story.
People require a certain amount of remorse displayed by the veteran, whether he feels it or not. This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this society.
In the US, everybody is pretty much spoiled, and they preach about how bad war, and killing, and blowing things up is; yet for some reason they keep on sending men and women to god-forsaken parts of the globe to do just that. Yeah, and then they expect you to be all remorseful, and repentant.
If one does not feel guilt or regret, they call you the psychopath. Do you really know what that word means? Give me a break.
In conflict u have no choice. If u don't destroy the target as defined by mission u will die and be the probable cause of the death of your brothers in arms. Moral arguments tend to be for those who lack the understanding of war.
There are cold blooded killers, (like the killer in the op), there are warriors. Know the differences, please. Warriors kill to eliminate the threats, to eliminate the targets, to save more lives, (often the men standing next to him) Why should they feel guilty about it?
sheesh
I've lost my second true love on the battlefield, I lost at least three best friends on the battlefield. I have a friend who lost a friend because he pushed him away when he saw a sniper. He lost his own life saving my friend. If there is guilt or regret, my friend felt guilt for not taking down that enemy sniper himself. On the battlefield, no one is the fragile little victim flower here, kill or be killed. Why should American soldiers always have to feel the so called guilt? This is ridiculous thinking.
The killer in op was not a warrior, he was a cold blooded killer. Saying PTSD causes this is a lazy argument.
You have, in that last sentence, expressed my attempted kurfuffle of an argument, concisely and eloquently.
It is the use by OTHER than the individuals themselves having PTSD with some hidden agenda to generalize and make these seem part of a larger group and therefore lessen the impact and resultant discussion required to address the problem itself.
For the ones I'm familiar with, it wasn't about guilt. It was about being on guard 24/7, your brain is on high alert. Think constant tornado warning for nine months at a time. Okay, that was probably a silly example, think walking through a minefield everyday. It takes a while to settle back into the normal, but they certainly don't go around killing people.
People require a certain amount of remorse displayed by the veteran, whether he feels it or not. This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in this society.
In the US, everybody is pretty much spoiled, and they preach about how bad war, and killing, and blowing things up is; yet for some reason they keep on sending men and women to god-forsaken parts of the globe to do just that. Yeah, and then they expect you to be all remorseful, and repentant.
If one does not feel guilt or regret, they call you the psychopath. Do you really know what that word means? Give me a break.
In conflict u have no choice. If u don't destroy the target as defined by mission u will die and be the probable cause of the death of your brothers in arms. Moral arguments tend to be for those who lack the understanding of war.
There are cold blooded killers, (like the killer in the op), there are warriors. Know the differences, please. Warriors kill to eliminate the threats, to eliminate the targets, to save more lives, (often the men standing next to him) Why should they feel guilty about it?
sheesh
I've lost my second true love on the battlefield, I lost at least three best friends on the battlefield. I have a friend who lost a friend because he pushed him away when he saw a sniper. He lost his own life saving my friend. If there is guilt or regret, my friend felt guilt for not taking down that enemy sniper himself. On the battlefield, no one is the fragile little victim flower here, kill or be killed. Why should American soldiers always have to feel the so called guilt? This is ridiculous thinking.
The killer in op was not a warrior, he was a cold blooded killer. Saying PTSD causes this is a lazy argument.
You had me until your very last statement. PTSD of course is a major problem and is at the root of many of these types of murders. What do you know that others don't? He is a Veteran. What proof do you have he doesn't have PTSD when in most of these cases that is the problem. So he can go into battle and save the lives of Americans and he's a "warrior" but when he looses it mentally that somehow takes away what he's done in the past?
Americans go overseas in one piece and after just witnessing the after affects of combat they can fall victim to PTSD.
You ask "Why should American soldiers always have to feel the so called guilt?". Maybe they're asking themselves the question of "why are we over there". When you kill someone, even while defending yourself, guilt can creep in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
