A DANG - DInGIE Americans Retort to:What Pentagon says about US Troops?by B.Marwat

BarkatUllah started with:

++The Pentagon has published a disturbing report on the attitudes of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report indicated that fewer than half the soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines believe noncombatants should be treated with respect. Some 40 percent also think that in order to extract information, torture is legitimate, particularly if used to save the lives of comrades.++

He gives no reference link which could be as simple as this:


Which would reveal info regarding the survey itself,like this:

~The survey of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines was conducted last year.~

Which give us NUMBERS regarding the polling pool.Now,,I know I have a slightly different take on polls as regards 'true validity' UNLESS one actually polls the entire population that the 'poll' claims to represent.So my retort to this is the same as any other set of assumptions that poll trusters tend to accept blindly.

Such as,,Exactly how can 1,300+450=1,750 individuals opinions be used to accurately determine the 'opinions and attitudes' of 135,000 troops?(as according to this site,,I ain't impartial,,I needed a number,,leftys ought to enjoy the article and the site):


~AP noted that the US military “has outsourced so many” support and security duties “that there are almost as many contractors (120,000) as US troops (135,000) in the war zone”.~

Now,,can any one tell me how such a small percentage should truly be considered a determining set of factors for such a statement to be made that 40% of all troops are thinking 'such and such'?

IOW,,why not simply be open and say something along the line of,,'out of 1,750 soldiers and marines surveyed,,40% said something' UNLESS one is desiring to obfuscate the actual numbers to bolster ones own case regardless of the truth/facts of the matter?

And as a human being,,if I truly believed someone had 'life saving' info that definately would prevent someone that was resisting murderous psychopathsfrom being killed,,or would prevent some innocent person becoming a victim of a psychopathetic act such as a 'terror attack' or 'murder-suicide bomd attack',,I might think beating up someone a little bit wouldn't be a bad idea.

Much like this Iraqi fellow did:


~What the Americans did not know and what the Iraqis had not told them was that before handing over the detainees to the Americans, the Iraqi soldiers had beaten one of them in front of the other two, the Iraqis said.~

~“I prepared him for the Americans and let them take his confession,” Capt. Bassim Hassan said through an interpreter. “We know how to make them talk. We know their back streets. We beat them. I don’t beat them that much, but enough so he feels the pain and it makes him desperate.” ~

~But beating is strictly forbidden by the United States Army’s Field Manual, as well as American and Iraqi laws. When the Americans learned about the beating, they were quick to condemn it.~

Yet,,what would one do if one thought someone was with-holding info that may stop 'hundreds of thousands' from being obliterated by,,oh,,say,,a US initiated nuclear attack and you had the guy in a room under YOUR control?[3484]

Now,,according to the Geneva Regs which apply to members of a Nations Standing Army and identifies enemy combatants dressed in civvies as 'spys' and allows for speedy executions',,says torture is forbidden.

I do suppose a 'speedy execution' would be a much more effective deterrent to 'insurgent recruitment projects'.

Of course,,I have to ask,,Isn't threatening to blow up innocent non combatant civilians,doing such,booby trapping girls schools,kidnapping people for ransom,,or simply to behead them and show the images to the world in order to achieve their goals more of an egregious act of torture than any one thing you've heard of being done to any single 'enemy combatant dressed in civvies'?

He then touches on a truth yet doesn't follow through by actually extended it to the reality of the situation:

++It is precisely because the results are so negative that

Washington deserves credit for allowing them to be made public. The bitter truth about

any war is that stressed and frightened troops often find it hard to balance normal

decent behavior with the urgent anxieties and needs of the moment.++

Please note the leading statement regarding the Pentagon allowing them to be made public,,as though the Pentagon could keep such a report secret in the prevailing political atmosphere of the US right now.

It places the imagery of the Pentagon being 'bad' foremost in the readers mind.His following comment is as accurate as anything I've ever heard.But,,there is where he doesn't add in the actuality of the 'current situation'.

That is,,In addition to the 'events' of 'standing army conflict' there is the added 'element' of not being able to clearly and easily distinguish between 'civilian and combatant'.

In the case of the average American Soldier,,who is basically an average American citizen,,who is on average a 'kind hearted person' that added element adds uncountable levels of distress that the soldier experiences.

It's an element of the kind of insidious psychological tactics of these psychopathic murderers those Troops are opposing.As we can all see,,it adds to the chances of our own 'interior factions' to become 'emotionally invested' in pulling out and allowing defeat.

This contributes to our 'national psyche' becoming even more schizoid than normal for such a 'melting pot' type of culture as ours is.

This is divisive to the extreme and allows for added chances for advancement of the murderous psychopaths goals and desires.

Marwat continues this Tokyo Rose-esque missive with this,,again,,it's a truth:

++Nonetheless, the Pentagon report is to be condemned, not for what it says but for what

it does not say. US Army psychologists who were involved in producing the document were

primarily concerned with the effect of combat tensions on the morale, and thus the

effectiveness, of America?s fighting men. They focused on their impact on the mental

health of American soldiers.++

Of course,,the moral of the troops would be a natural concern,,and a rightful one,,for any country involved in a conflict of this nature.

After that,,Marwat makes a claim that you will see is a set up for his follow up idea:

++What the psychologists chose to ignore is the significant contribution of ignorance to

the attitudes and behavior of US servicemen.++

That's his claim,,here's the zinger,,

++ With precious few exceptions, Americans do

not understand the religion, culture or subtle concerns of the ancient land which they

invaded. In-country induction courses are at best rudimentary.++

Point one from my DANG mind regarding this is that the problem is NOT one of understanding the religion NOR culture since the 'murderous psychopathic' behaviour

the 'insurgents' display are NOT actually things that the religion of Islam advocate are they?

If they are,,then the understanding the Troops appear to have is appropiate,,if they ARE then the understanding is also appropiate.

Can you,,Mr.Marwat,,point out to me,,where in the Religious Texts of the Iraqi people it says it's okay to get a Muslim Brother to strap boms to his chest,,walk in to acrowd of Iraqis civilian non combatants and blow himself up to 'spill innocent blood'?

As top the culture,,unless I am mistaken,,a more believable line of thought would be that since the culture was dominated by Saddam,,then it would be much more likely that the culture would be MORE antagonistic to an ideological group that Saddam did NOT like,wouldn't it?

As well as,,since MOST of the 'fighters' are NOT Afghani,,then the cultural misunderstanding tact is shown to be distrating obfuscation on the part of the author.

NOw,,regarding the subtle concerns,,that aren't understood well enough,,,there are psychopathic murderers killing innocent folks while hiding behind a hi-jacked religioun.

Which you clearly pointed out ,,IS one of the ploys they attempt to utilize to sway world opinion to their side and attract the more 'zealous' and 'emotionally/intellectually infringed to their 'Schools'.

And as we Americans see it so well displayed in our politics,,it can affect the outcome of the conflict by causing a deep enough rift in US to allow the 'terrorists' a significant advantage by boosting their moral.

And Marwat brings that last bit home in the next line:

++Fresh soldiers now

arriving in Iraq know that they are being ordered to fight a war that is deeply

unpopular at home.++

His next one adds an opinion,or I guess,,mind reads ALL the troops involved,yet it's not a fact:

++They have never understood why the Iraqis did not welcome them as

liberators and bringers of democracy.++

After all,,unless the culture,religion and subtle concerns are such that the Iraqi non combatants should be acceptable to the idea of being blown up while shopping for an alledged religious group to gain political goals

then it's isn't as Marwat spins it.

Then he supposes,,or I guess,,mind reads ALL the troops involved and dispenses this:

++ They are angry at this perceived ingratitude. They

certainly no longer care about Bush?s ?Mission.?++

I still wonder why Marwat appears to think being involved in an endeavor that opposes genocidal tyrants and murderous folks from running freely rampant is bad?

Naturally,,he does point out another plain truth,,and of course,,presents in the most appropiate Tokyo-Rose-esque manner:

++The most important personal mission now

for virtually every GI is to survive and get home in one piece.++

Yes,,,much like Police Officers who face psychopathic murderers as matter of course do.Or firefighters who face the results of 'mental aberations' in the not too uncommon arsonists actions.

And it is a truth for US troops to have it in their mind to return safely home.That is a part of their training isn't it?UNLIKE the 'group' they are facing,,they are NOT taught to 'commit suicide' in order to 'terrorise and torture' decent,kind hearted,compassionate,SANE folks into giving into their 'demands'.

NO,,they are actually trained to allways wear their uniforms and to NOT harm non combatants,,aren't they?What are The Insurgents trained to do?I think one thing is obvious,,they aren't trained to wear uniforms,,are they?Well,unless you count bomb vests and back packs.

Think about the added complexity to the situation for that same 'kind hearted' type of soldier who has to face these 'nuts' that hide behind,kill AND blow up innocent folks.What about that aspect of added stress,Marwat?{3601}

Of course they want to survive.Yet that being a fact doesn't negate nor cause the desire to 'defeat the group whos ideaology allows for murdering innocent non combatants' to be excluded,,does it?

Here again,,Marwat is posting a plain and obvious truth,,but he then swerves away from the logical conclusion:

++Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds the sort of violence that has resulted in the

regular gunning down of innocents.++

See,,an obvious,,plain truth,,although I would add that psychotic minds are a giant factor in such deeds.

And then another one,,

++ American soldiers are not monsters.++

Then,,here's the swerve:

++But as happened

in Vietnam, the circumstances of this unwinnable Iraqi war are spawning monstrous


Yes,,as in the Vietnam War,,which has the same kinds of psychotic behaviours being exhibited by The Viet Cong,,like strapping handgrenades to children to blow up soldiers and/or civilians.Or bombing places where the soldiers group,,getting soldiers and civilians of course.

Or having to figure out who is the 'combatant' in a crowd when No One swearing a uniform.

The US troops then were also victims of the same 'terror' type of tactics that damage them in this current conflict.

After all,,they are facing an opponent that commonly and routinely act beyond the bounds laid out as Rules of Engagement in what's termed civilised martial conflict.

And as most would agree,,that NON Psychotics should reasonably adhere to.

What follows is driving the concept more firmly in to the readers mind:

++In Southeast Asia, this was assisted by the dehumanizing of the locals. They

came to be known as ?gooks.? It was easier to shoot and bombard ?gooks? than fellow

human beings with the same hopes and fears as their own friends and family back in the

US. Exactly the same thing, the same dehumanization now seems to be happening once again

in Iraq.++

This conclusion is a half truth.Sort of like a compass which is influenced by a nearby magnet in order to allow for an 180 degree deviation he pulls the understanding away from the above pointed out truth.

The folks they are opposing use the kinds of tactics that 'purposely cause' such reactions in those troops.And their use IS purposeful.

So,,now that you know the 'compass' is pulled 180 degrees out of true,,look back the way he doesn't want you to go.

The 'damage' referred to is caused by intentional blurring of identity by the 'insurgents'.Their desired result is to have the US turn on it self politically by taking advantage of the 'angst prone' kind hearted average Americans sympathy.

That IS how terror is used to gain political goals,,isn't it.Isn't their M.O. summed up sufficiently with this,,Do what we want,,or more innocent people will die and we will blame you for their deaths,,even thouh we instigated it for our own purposes?

This comes to mind as well when considering it,,Exactly HOW do the 'Terrorists' make it easier to kill mass numbers of innocent people ON PURPOSE in order to force some other group to do what they want?

Since they (Alledged Muslims that act radically) acted in that fashion first and do so consistantly,,why complain if that results in their opponents doing such by accident,,not intentionally,,while trying to stop psychopathic murdering of innocent folks?

I mean really,,come on,,where's the logic,Marwat?Why do you apparently ignore the simple fact that the fact that THEY (the group of Alledged Islamic Radical Fundamentals the US is fighting) purposely targeting civilians,,hiding among them and holding their safety and well being hostage to influence caring people to acquiesce to their demands IS a reason those folks are being opposed by The US and others.[3668]

Naturally,,we do eventually get to what is evidently the reason for Marwats post:

++Yet if the American forces in Iraq are guilty of a massive lack of understanding of the

people whose country they occupy, they are merely a pale reflection of their commander

in chief, President George W. Bush.++

Considering what is factual about the situation,such as:

Most of what is reported as being involved in and in almost all cases as being the instigators in the actual fighting and killing are 'foriegn to Iraq' nationals,as in NON Iraqi.

The conclusion that US forces are guilty of that kind of 'lack of understanding' is obviously erroneous or purposely misleading.

He continues with the thrust of his attack,,at the President:

++He clearly had no time for the facts nor the complex

realities of the Middle East. Instead, Bush used lies to attack an Iraq supposedly

bristling with WMD and packed with Al-Qaeda terrorists.++

Again,,simple facts,,Saddam messes around with the International Community long enough that they 'brought consequences of a militart nature' to bear.

Clinton even penned the Iraqi Freedom Act which enabled Bush to set it in motion,,uhh,I do believe that would be before 9/11,,right?

The 9/11 Group and Saddam are two different projects.The 911 Group were afraid of the Viscious Saddam so as soon as Saddam was taken out,,they moved in.

The 9/11 Group is now the group responsible for 'killing civilians in order to terrorize the world into conceding to their demands' just like they did at The WTC in Ney York.

What's so complex about that?Did Iran or Kuwait like having Saddam as a neighbor?Who actually misses him other than the murderous psychopaths he had doing his dirty work?

This is proven wrong with the above:

++He bungled the occupation and

unleashed the very terror he came to destroy.++

He went to Iraq to destroy Saddams Admins Power,,he did.The 9/11 Group 'predictably followed' in an attempt to fill the Power Vaccum left by Saddams Aadmin.

The 9/11 Groups tactics used in seeking to fill that vaccum are what is 'causing the Occupation to continue',,not the other way around.

And again,,what's wrong with opposing folks who would purposely target innocent non combatant 'alledged fellow Muslims' in order to affect political power ascension through holding their 'peace' and 'safety' hostage?

I mean really,,where's the logic in allowing psychopathic murderers to freely spread death and anguish,,for what ever reason?

Now,we're down to the final parting slams at Bush:

++ He still seems unaware why things went


I myself would like to know why the 'fellow Americans' that were all for him have been swayed away from the 'most noble cause' a nation could participate in,,'freeing an oppressed people from a murderous ideology'.{2748}

I myself would like to know what went wrong ,,and exactly when it started,,to enable such a 'self loathing' attitude to permeate our 'nations psyche' at a time when,,like with the genocidal Hitler and other NON justifiable attrocities were committed,,we and other 'sane' nations need to be united against such.

I myself would like to know why it's so 'in vogue' to be Anti-Compassionate for Innocent Civilians and Compassionate for Murderous Psychopaths.

Isn't allmost every religion across the globe against such?

Doesn't virtually every body want 'innocent civilians' to be protected from rampaging homocidal acts?

I am not unaware why,,neither is he,,the minds of certain folks have gone bad and they became people who think mudering innocent civilian non combatants in order to terrorise government into doing what they desire.

That's why things in this world have gone bad in the way they have.

And here's the last 'belittling' remark that associates the 'troops' with the 'much maligned',obviously misunderstood and under appreciated efforts of them both.

Not to mention that Bushs not so small place in history,,for good or bad,,is assured.

++If he does not know, then why should we expect the US troops to try to guarantee

his already small place in history?++

Oh,,and by extension,,the very Iraqi people Marwat claims agree with the idea of 'getting blown up while shopping' so Bin Laden and the other folks alledgedly doing the will of the God Of Abraham.

So,,the assessment of this article is not as terrible as the one I gave to the article Marwat previously dropped in the Excite Boards Forum,Jews vs Christians.

After all,to properly assess it in an haonest fashion one must take into consideration the 'purpose and intent' of writing the piece.

Considering the obvious similarity to 'historical precedence' set by such as 'Tokyo Rose' I have to say he has done some justice to the genre and has reproduced a comparable flavor.

Given that but taking into account the lack of sufficient 'logic trail muddling' required to actually submerge true intent into projected intent I have to give it a solid,resounding 4 out of 10.

Yet,,hey,,Marwat,,really,if you never ever answer any other question I ask of you,,please answer this one:

~?~>Does Islam advocate the purposeful spilling of innocent blood in order to achieve a political goal?<~?~

Here,,I'll put it another way,,just so you understand it enough to answer succinctly:

~?~>Does Islam advocate innocent human blood being involuntarily sacrificed to spread Islams Influence?<~?~


With all seriousness regarding an answer to that question,

Yet,,still shooting straight at it,

The DANG - DInGIE American

aka,,The Evil White Man

Barkatullah Marwat is the Cheif Editor of the Marwat Post
(All rights reserved:Roy L.Harbin 2007)




roy harbin is roy l.harbin aka,,the dang-dingie american aka,,the evil white man