Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-16-2008, 01:10 PM   #126
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by bumbleroot View Post
Instead, Brigiid is right- the instances are there to illustrate the point. You don't like it because of your bias. Too bad- get over it. They don't write articles to seek your approval. They don't write them for anyone's approval.
Thought you were done here, bumbles. You decided to come out and play again? You finished sucking your thumb?

Can't come up with your own argument so you decide to piggyback on Brigiid?
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 01:12 PM   #127
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
Alright. We can keep going back and forth about our opinions on what the author really meant to say, but because neither of us is the author and can say for sure, this is kinda pointless. And boring. So I'm done.
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 01:14 PM   #128
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by Brigiid View Post
Alright. We can keep going back and forth about our opinions on what the author really meant to say, but because neither of us is the author and can say for sure, this back-and-forth is kinda pointless. And boring. So I'm done.

It is pointless. And I'm hoping that the concern regarding this article will lead to an uncovering of the true numbers in the future articles to come in this series. Remember, this is only article 1 of 9.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 01:15 PM   #129
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
I'm just hoping it encourages soldiers and their friends and family members to seek help, and that our military/government makes that help available to them with a minimal amount of hassle or harassment.
__________________
Meh.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 09:56 AM   #130
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Ok.. who here works for the NY Post and used my post as inspiration for this editorial response?

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...lie_443219.htm

January 17, 2008 -- Memo to New York Times Public Ed itor Clark Hoyt: Your urgent atten tion is needed on the slanderous 7,000-word front-page article published last Sunday about homicides allegedly committed by US veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.
We say "allegedly," because the article lumped those merely accused of a homicide with those who've already been convicted. But that was the least of the piece's problems.

As our colleague Ralph Peters so adroitly demonstrated on these pages Tuesday, the article embraced the hoariest of overwrought clichés - the US combat vet as psychotic killer.

But on what evidence?

None at all.

Indeed, it's impossible to take issue with the statistics cited by reporters Deborah Sontag and Lisette Alvarez - because their article doesn't have any.

For most editors, that would be a red flag. Not at the Times, not in a piece that appealed to the editors' dearest prejudices.

The article, said to be the first of several, reports that there have been 121 homicides involving active-duty or recently discharged Iraq/Afghan combat veterans.

(Need we mention here what the Times thinks of that war - as has long been clear in both its news and opinion pages? Didn't think so.)

"Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories," wrote Sontag and Alvarez of this "quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak."

Lock your doors, America: Here come the killer vets!

And if that didn't drive the point home, consider this: "This reporting," the Times warns ominously, "most likely uncovered the minimum number of such cases, given that not all killings, especially in big cities and on military bases, are reported publicly or in detail."

Really?

As any police reporter knows, homicide statistics are among the most difficult for the authorities to fudge: There are all those pesky bodies to be accounted for. (Maybe Sontag and Alvarez should have asked a police reporter?)

But while 121 are a lot of homicides in absolute terms, what about context?

Is the number of killings by combat vets dramatically higher than the rate involving people of the same age who've never served in the military?

It's a good question - in fact, it's the key question. But the Times never asked it. Or, if it did, it never reported the answer.

Perhaps for good reason - because the statistics tell a far different tale than that appearing in the Times.

As Peters noted, "to match the homicide rate of their [nonmilitary] 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" - six times the number the Times cited.

That estimate is borne out by University of Pennsylvania political scientist John DiIulio, who notes on the Weekly Standard's Web site that 749,932 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had been discharged by the end of 2007. Apply that to the 121 killings cited by the Times, and the homicide rate works out to 16.1 per 100,000 - over the entire six-year period.

By way of imperfect comparison, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics' most recent numbers demonstrate that the same rate among males ages 18-24 was 26.5 - 65 percent higher - for a single year, 2005.

It's not necessary to extrapolate that stat to understand that the Times has slandered some fine young Americans.

For none of those numbers appeared among the 7,000 words the paper published. Which means that the numbingly long piece, while loaded with affecting details, contained nothing that would place these cases in any sort of meaningful context.

Clearly, the Times was out to suggest that the experience of war creates post-traumatic stress disorder, which - if untreated - creates a horde of psychotic killers in combat fatigues.

Who's editing the paper these days - Oliver Stone?

The Times suggests that it has only the best interests of our men and women in uniform at heart. But ignoring the numbers that disprove its case out of hand is a disservice to the vets - and certainly to America.

The Times has committed a gross slander. And that's simply unforgivable.

For shame.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:16 AM   #131
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
It's actually quite sad to see the NYT sinking this low.

It's as if they've run out of steam when it comes to attacking the Bush administration, so they resort to this type of journalism. The vets take the hit here, and I'm just wondering why the NYT so conveniently picks this particular timeframe to bring up this article.

The research isn't new. The PTSD has been around for quite some time, and many other newspapers have already written respectable articles covering it. So why now?

I think it's because they just hate the fact that the troop surge is paying off and showing marked success in Iraq.

The NYT just can't stand it. And you sure as hell don't see them writing articles lauding the Administration for the surge's success and the outstanding service given by our military members.

Instead, you see a smear campaign against those men and women who fought hard and have returned home.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:26 AM   #132
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
I agree with what you posted until the very last sentence. I dont see this as a smear against Veterans as much as an anti war arguement using Vets as the hammer. You might not see a difference, but I do.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:32 AM   #133
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
Originally Posted by ShardmoonVer.1 View Post
I agree with what you posted until the very last sentence. I dont see this as a smear against Veterans as much as an anti war arguement using Vets as the hammer. You might not see a difference, but I do.
Their intent may not be to smear the vets, but that is the effect this article has.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:40 AM   #134
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by furo View Post
Their intent may not be to smear the vets, but that is the effect this article has.
It's the NYT. Of course their intent was to smear vets.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:42 AM   #135
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
I can only speculate about their intent. But the effect the article has is clear:

It smears vets.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 01:31 PM   #136
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
It's rabid. Shoot it.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 01:02 PM   #137
furo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,740
It looks like the NYT posted some facts for a change, although it is left to the reader to sort through the 121 snapshots on his/her own to determine the true numbers.

Here is my count:

Out of the 121 convicted and/or charged for murder, the numbers are:

48 = Convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder
20 = Convicted of vehicular homicide (19/20 involved alcohol)
6 = Convicted of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter
2 = Convicted of negligent homicide (accidental shootings)
7 = Acquitted of murder


Also of interest (out of the 121):
1 = Convicted of kidnapping (murder charge dropped)
1 = No charges pressed, suspect was shot by cops

In conclusion, these numbers paint a significantly different picture of the statistic. Now we know that the only true number of convictions is 76 to date.

We now know that 76 have been convicted of homicide in some form, out of the roughly 1.5 million troops who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan, representing .0051%

In other words, One out of every 19,737 veterans has been convicted of a homicide since returning from Iraq/Afghanistan. You won't see the NYT print that statistic.

Last edited by furo; 01-19-2008 at 01:12 PM.
furo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 01:38 PM   #138
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Somehoe I suspect the NYT isn't putting this in a positive light...
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 01:58 PM   #139
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Originally Posted by Everclear View Post
It's rabid. Shoot it.
Leave your vagina out of this please.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.