The Iraq war's first "fragging"!

[Urban Rubble]

So I've just read that the U.S. military has filed charges against a National Guard staff sergeant for killing two of his officers.

The article I read basically wrote it off as an angry flunky who killed these two because they had been bossing him around. Does anyone buy that? Could it really have just been a disgruntled soldier or could this have been a legitimate act of resistance?

[hamperleft]

there have been several of these, the first right at the beginning of the Iraqi occupation, all that I have read about do not seem to be bitter acts of resistance, more of crazed acts of violence. And if it was an act of resistance, it is not very respectable at all, killing, especially the killing of those that probably would have saved your life, or come to your funeral is never respectable or forgivable.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

It will be interesting to see if this is simply an isolated incident or a sign of things to come.

HamperLeft, fragging is not a "crazed act of violence." In the late 1960's-early 1970's there were many cases of soliders killing their superior officers in Vietnam. It was a direct result of an unpopular and unwinnable war of aggression not some seneless, random act of rage.

[Urban Rubble]

hamperleft, many times in our culture when we are attacked, an easy explanation for it is "They were just crazy people". 9-11 was explained with "Well, they're just crazy Muslims who hate freedom", totally ignoring Bin Laden's explanation that it was a direct result of U.S. actions in the Middle East.

Man's actions are inumerably more complex than our subsequent explanations of them-- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

What evidence do you have that they were just "crazed acts if violence"? I find it pretty improbable that this man decided to kill two superiors out of craziness. If that was the case, why not other soldiers, civilians, anyone? Why deliberately target officers if you're just "crazy"?

As far as it being "respectable", sending children into the desert to kill Arabs and be killed themselves isn't very "respectable" either. Obviously I don't want to see anyone die, but if killing a few officers is going to contribute to U.S. withdrawl (which will save far more lives than those couple officers cost) I say it's worth supporting. Remember, this is war and those officers are the enemy. Sure, they'd have come to the soldier's funeral, but what about the funerals of all the dead Iraqis these officers are ordering their men to kill?

It's not ideal. I know these officers have families and all that, obviously I'd rather nobody have to die at all. But again, it's a genuine act of resistance that has the potential to save more lives than it costs.

[bed_of_nails]

Reminds me of Full Metal Jacket


Your ass looks like 150 pounds of chewed bubble-gum!

[TC]

its only fragging if they get caught...otherwise its "indirect enemy mortor fire" or "friendly fire" or something like that...so who knows how many times its actually happened. They'd obviously want to minimize the number reported to the press

[RedSkinheadUltra]

That would mean the person or people responsible for the fragging wouldn't be punished. It'd be pretty hard to have a US soldier given a secret trial in front a military tribunal without his family, fellow soldiers or the press ever finding out.

The military keeps it's secrets and spreads plenty of propaganda but that would be impossible to do.

We know more and more soldiers are disgruntled and disillusioned about the war for one reason or another and that's what matters.

[Raisa]

The word friendly fire makes me chuckle alittlebit.

War sucks so bad that when your own people shoot at you, its friendly.

[Andy Bowden]

The whole concept of "fragging" - the killing of officers by ordinary soldiers really shocked me the first time I heard about it in Vietnam. I read that some US soldiers in 'nam even put out a contract on their commanding officers life after he sent most of their company to their deaths.

[Urban Rubble]

The whole concept of "fragging" - the killing of officers by ordinary soldiers really shocked me the first time I heard about it in Vietnam. I read that some US soldiers in 'nam even put out a contract on their commanding officers life after he sent most of their company to their deaths.

Well, you've got to understand (and this is more true of Vietnam than it is with Iraq, "volunteers" you know) these people were basically dropped into a jungle full of angry Asians with Ak-47's and no fear of death. They were pissed off at being put in that situation. And any rational human in that situation is going to see that it isn't the "enemy's" fault he is there, it's the fault of the men who sent them there. Now obviously these officers didn't actually put them there, but they are still representatives of the men who did send them there.

And not only were they looking for someone "responsible" that they could take their anger out on, much of the time these officers were nutjobs who would send entire Platoons on suicide missions while they sit back at camp reading maps and cooking canned beans. I find myself getting pissed off at work when co-workers are sitting around while I'm working, can you imagine how pissed you'd be to see your commander sitting back at camp hanging out after he just sent you and your friends on a suicide mission?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 17 2005, 01:29 AM
So I've just read that the U.S. military has filed charges against a National Guard staff sergeant for killing two of his officers.

The article I read basically wrote it off as an angry flunky who killed these two because they had been bossing him around. Does anyone buy that? Could it really have just been a disgruntled soldier or could this have been a legitimate act of resistance?
Fraging has been going on since the begginning of time. Roman Emperors have been fragged. There are stories of Greek leaders being fragged. Fragging has is nothing new or unique to US Department of Defense.

[Urban Rubble]

Fraging has been going on since the begginning of time. Roman Emperors have been fragged. There are stories of Greek leaders being fragged. Fragging has is nothing new or unique to US Department of Defense.

O.K.......

Care to show me where I said this was unique to the U.S. dept of Defense?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 18 2005, 05:46 PM

Fraging has been going on since the begginning of time. Roman Emperors have been fragged. There are stories of Greek leaders being fragged. Fragging has is nothing new or unique to US Department of Defense.

O.K.......

Care to show me where I said this was unique to the U.S. dept of Defense?
Care to show me where I said you said that?

[fernando]

Okay...but what does the 'fragging' of leaders in ancient times have to do with the fragging of current US officers now?

[Guerrilla22]

Are you talking about the 101st Airborne soldier who through several grenades into his officer's tent back when the war first started in 03?

[hamperleft]

that was the one I was referring to, but apparently there have been others. I can see why people would think that it would be for the better good, if some of the officers were killed, but I have to disagree, killing anyone, in almost every situation is wrong, I can see what people are thinking. Some of the fragging incidents may have just been crazy, but once you think about it, they may have been acts of rebellion, brave, but couldn't there be another way other than killing people.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:12 PM
Okay...but what does the 'fragging' of leaders in ancient times have to do with the fragging of current US officers now?
Just pointing out fragging of leadership has been happening universally since there has been organized armies. Fragging today in Iraq means nothing, if fragging DIDN'T happen, then that would really be news.

[Andy Bowden]

I don't believe there was much if any fragging in WW2*, so I don't think it happens in all circumstances.


*I'm not sure if it happened in the Soviet Union though, where retreating soldiers were shot.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19 2005, 02:08 PM
I don't believe there was much if any fragging in WW2*, so I don't think it happens in all circumstances.


*I'm not sure if it happened in the Soviet Union though, where retreating soldiers were shot.
"I believe........" is not the same as "I know.......".

Can you please go and check to make sure before you try and convince me your right.

[Jersey Devil]

Two House Republicans and two Democrats (one of which includes Dennis Kuchinich) have purposed a resolution to with draw troops by late 2006. Bush however has rejected this call for a withdrawl.

Source: The New York Times

Bush Rejects Withdrawal

By REUTERS
Published: June 19, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday rejected calls to withdraw American troops from Iraq and tried to counter growing impatience with the war by calling it a "vital test" for American security.

"The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight," he said in his weekly radio address.

A Congressional resolution proposed this week calls on the administration to develop a strategy for removing all United States troops from Iraq and to begin the withdrawal by Oct. 1, 2006.

[Vallegrande]

So I've just read that the U.S. military has filed charges against a National Guard staff sergeant for killing two of his officers.

The article I read basically wrote it off as an angry flunky who killed these two because they had been bossing him around. Does anyone buy that? Could it really have just been a disgruntled soldier or could this have been a legitimate act of resistance?

This is what terrorism is in itself. A voiceless human going berserk due to ignorance.

[elche08]

PTSD has also been reported to be the reason behind some of the murders of not only officers but fellow soldiers as well. there's a good article about PTSD on the guerilla news network site.