121 Iraq, Afghan vets linked to murders

[gabosaurus]

What is happening to our servicemen when they return from combat? Are they not being prepared to re-integrate back into society?
Sounds like a blatant indictment of our current military structure.


The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89-percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.

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

[82Marine89]

Sounds like a blatant indictment of our current military structure.


Care to elaborate?

[gabosaurus]

Sure. What are they teaching people?

[82Marine89]

Also that is 1.68 murders per month for veterans and 4.84 per month for the military as a whole. Not very big numbers when you look at the number of murders that occur on a daily basis in America. In Los Angeles alone there were 216 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1702622,00.html) gang related murders in 2007. Down from 294 in 2006. How come you don't take an active interest in this? Why do you constantly attack the military? Why do you hate us?

[Gunny]

What is happening to our servicemen when they return from combat? Are they not being prepared to re-integrate back into society?
Sounds like a blatant indictment of our current military structure.



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

What is happening to our society that they report one-sided junk like this, and then it gets repeated?

How many total military personnel have been deployed to Afghanistan and/or Iraq since Sep 11, 2001? How many of that number actually saw combat, as compared to how many of the 121 actually saw combat?

How many of the 121 vets committed premeditated 1st degree murder vs how many committed 2nd degree murder vs how many committed unintentional manslaughter; the last being included by the NY Times?

When you figure THOSE numbers out, how does that percentage compare to the percentage for nonvets in the US?

This is just another attempt by the NY Times to mislead.

[Kathianne]

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


From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that's about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.

That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.

Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high - fewer troops from 2001 - 2003; I'd love a better number if someone has it.

But for initial purposes, let's call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.

Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?

Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 - 34, it's 13.5/100,000.

See the problem?

Damn, is it that hard for reporters and their editors to provide a little bit of context so we can make sense of the anecdotes? It's not in Part 1 of the article. And I'll bet it won't be in the future articles, either.

Because it's not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.

The NY Times Public Editor can be reached at public@nytimes.com.

[pegwinn]

Sure. What are they teaching people?

They teach people to break things and kill people.

They teach them how to survive in insane environments.

I'm not going to go over the numbers. Others have done an admirable job.

The US Military takes the very best from society and teaches them discipline and ethics. They teach them how to apply the training under stress and do the right thing. Actually, the odds of a military person committing a major felony is less than society at large. So, among the things the military teaches is how to be a better citizen.

After every war, there are those who are damaged from the exposure to the "loud noises". I would suggest you check the crime stats following other major wars prior to the 1980's before the reforms where we took the best of society.

I think the question should be, "How can we teach the rest of society what the military is taught?"

[5stringJeff]

So, to take Kathianne's post into context, our veterans are murdering at roughly half the rate of their non-veteran peers. What the hell is wrong with them?!? :rolleyes:

[gabosaurus]

Just proving a point, among other things.
If I made the same post, except substituting New Orleans refugees or poor Mexicans into the equation instead of war vets, everyone would be agreeing and applauding at the same time. But stating that the returning veteran homicide rate is above normal is somehow construed as "hating on the military." How do you get that?

[5stringJeff]

Just proving a point, among other things.
If I made the same post, except substituting New Orleans refugees or poor Mexicans into the equation instead of war vets, everyone would be agreeing and applauding at the same time. But stating that the returning veteran homicide rate is above normal is somehow construed as "hating on the military." How do you get that?

It's not above normal. It's below normal, by half.

[gabosaurus]

How does an 89 percent increase over the last six years come out to be half below normal?

[pegwinn]

Just proving a point, among other things.
If I made the same post, except substituting New Orleans refugees or poor Mexicans into the equation instead of war vets, everyone would be agreeing and applauding at the same time. But stating that the returning veteran homicide rate is above normal is somehow construed as "hating on the military." How do you get that?

So I wasted my time explaining things to you? Hmmph. Be awhile before I make that mistake again.

[NATO AIR]

The reporter should be fired, as should the editor. This is a flat-out hit job on the returning vets. There are true and accurate stories to be told about bad things happening to and with some of our returning vets. To pick one rather embarrassing example I think the media totally ignores the problem of rape and harassment of female troops by a FEW cretins in the military. Ditto for the lowering of standards for incoming Army personnel (and for that matter, sailors as well).

Yet these folks just can't do honest reporting sometimes. Sometimes their hatred of Bush and the military just drives them batty and they lose all standards and skill, not to mention objectivity.

Again, this is a big enough goof that some heads at the NYT should roll. There is absolutely no defending this shoddy nonsense.

[manu1959]

How does an 89 percent increase over the last six years come out to be half below normal?

the normal rate for society as a whole is twice that of the most recent rate for the military......

in other words the average american citizen is twice as likely to kill as a vet....

therefore if everyone was required to join the military the murder rate could be cut in half....

[Gunny]

Just proving a point, among other things.
If I made the same post, except substituting New Orleans refugees or poor Mexicans into the equation instead of war vets, everyone would be agreeing and applauding at the same time. But stating that the returning veteran homicide rate is above normal is somehow construed as "hating on the military." How do you get that?


You have done nothing to support your statement except post a one-sided, uncorroborated by actual data misleading NY Times article.

Want to validate your argument? Go back to my previous post and provide the numbers requested.

[gabosaurus]

Why should I? There have been stories quoted here that cherry pick crimes numbers for New Orleans refugees and migrant workers. Those totals would be pretty low in the overall numbers as well.
Service veterans are honorable people, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are not exempt. If nothing else, they are held to a higher standard.
You can't have it both ways.

[pegwinn]

Why should I? There have been stories quoted here that cherry pick crimes numbers for New Orleans refugees and migrant workers. Those totals would be pretty low in the overall numbers as well.
Service veterans are honorable people, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are not exempt. If nothing else, they are held to a higher standard.
You can't have it both ways.

Service members are held to a higher standard morally speaking. And, they live up to the standard better than non-vets in the legal areas as well.

OF course I can have it both ways :coffee:

[Yurt]

Why should I? There have been stories quoted here that cherry pick crimes numbers for New Orleans refugees and migrant workers. Those totals would be pretty low in the overall numbers as well.
Service veterans are honorable people, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are not exempt. If nothing else, they are held to a higher standard.
You can't have it both ways.

your argument is essentially:

I know you, but what am I, I'm rubber you're glue

Just admit the article you posted is biased and wrong.

[actsnoblemartin]

a subversive who will say and do anything to aid the enemy in making sure we lose the war


You have done nothing to support your statement except post a one-sided, uncorroborated by actual data misleading NY Times article.

Want to validate your argument? Go back to my previous post and provide the numbers requested.

[Gunny]

Why should I? There have been stories quoted here that cherry pick crimes numbers for New Orleans refugees and migrant workers. Those totals would be pretty low in the overall numbers as well.
Service veterans are honorable people, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are not exempt. If nothing else, they are held to a higher standard.
You can't have it both ways.

So if you perceive that "everybody else" is looting, you might as well grab a TV as well?

I didn't ask you to exempt military veterans. I asked you to provide data that would put your argument in proper perspective in a fair and unbiased manner.

As it is, without the additional comparative data, you have nothing but a baseless accusation.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am willing to concede something is going on....this morning a man I know is being arraigned for murdering his wife.....he has been a good man, good father, police officer, church member, kids in private Christian school, National Guard ......a few months ago my daughter ate lunch with his daughter and her mother and they talked about how excited they were Dad was coming home from Iraq safely.....last Wednesday he walked into the house and shot his wife of 22 years......

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/290739827553219.bsp

[darin]

I think this suggests the value of the many programs for War veterans; it shows how they can get help before they kill somebody. It shows the Army is doing a pretty-damn good job of taking care of it's own. Navy and AirForce, too, I'd imagine.

[Gaffer]

deja vu. The media is repeating their efforts of the 70's. Condemn the military and then go after the returning vets. Have you any idea how many times a Vietnam Vet did this and that. If a vet did something the media played on it.

This is just the next step in the media's hate the military campaign.

[gabosaurus]

I see. It's OK to go after Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and liberals. But it is not OK to go after the military in any manner.
I should have known.

[darin]

There are Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and Liberals in the Military...blows your theory out of the water, eh?

It's just not okay to go after ANYBODY with crappy data...that's the point, Gab. Here's a hint - check this out...

[Gaffer]

I see. It's OK to go after Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and liberals. But it is not OK to go after the military in any manner.
I should have known.

In the article I see a media attempt to besmirch the military and particularly the vets. This stuff was all over the media in the 70's. Vietnam Vet did this, Vietnam Vet did that. It was almost daily. I began to think I was unique as i wasn't having flashbacks going on killing sprees. It actually became a defense for people to blame their actions on their experiences, many of them phony.

Vietnam Vets were looked on with suspicion and fear. All because of the media propaganda. You would never understand it unless you had been there. Things didn't really improve until the 80's. Most Vietnam Vets were not messed up from their experiences in Vietnam, they were messed up from their experience here at home. I had a lot of friends in the 70's that never knew I was in Vietnam.

I bash liberals because they were responsible for what went on back then. The liberals and their media hacks. They are back to their old tricks of trying to undermine the military and destroy the Vets that return. Vietnam Vets aren't going to let it happen again.

[Trigg]

I see. It's OK to go after Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and liberals. But it is not OK to go after the military in any manner.
I should have known.

you can go after the military, and you certaily do, but have the right facts. This story was on Fox last night and they said the same things that were posted here. The vets rates are actually lower than the general population.

This was a smear piece, plain and simple.


Service veterans are honorable people, but they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. They are not exempt. If nothing else, they are held to a higher standard.

Who said that service people should not be held to the same laws as everyone else??

[manu1959]

the normal rate for society as a whole is twice that of the most recent rate for the military......

in other words the average american citizen is twice as likely to kill as a vet....

therefore if everyone was required to join the military the murder rate could be cut in half....

http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-1.wav

[Gunny]

I see. It's OK to go after Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and liberals. But it is not OK to go after the military in any manner.
I should have known.


No, you DON'T see. If you're going to go after the military, gets your ducks lined up. As it is, you have presented no argument, just a one-sided accusation.

[manu1959]

http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-1.wav

http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav

[PostmodernProphet]

I see. It's OK to go after Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and liberals. But it is not OK to go after the military in any manner.
I should have known.

liberals, yes....but where in the world is it "ok" to go after blacks, Mexicans or Muslims?.........

[remie]

http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-1.wav

CRICKETS I hear nothing but CRICKETS

[Classact]

What is happening to our servicemen when they return from combat? Are they not being prepared to re-integrate back into society?
Sounds like a blatant indictment of our current military structure.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combatI think Glen Beck sited this survey and pointed out that soldiers/vets rates were less than non-soldiers/vets per capita.

From the invasion of Afghanistan through the first year of Iraq more soldiers were killed by traffic accidents than by war. The Army's Command Sergeants Major warned Enlisted members driving related casualties were the number one concern of leaders. Did war save lives?