Why the Negativity?

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

Credit lies squarely on those who "actually" do the work. While truley not only the Warriors much can be offered to those working to build and supply the effort.
That doesn't give much credit to journalists, who regardless of how much stupidity shown in life threatening exposure they incur. They don't add to the combat effort but are mere observers of the real effort.
In combat as well as other greatly hazardous events the individual view of the participants will be from a very predator's myopic (hunters) view of the particular threat and not so clear of the whole, hence so many varied views of the same whole. Just my zwei centavos. Blitzzz

[Richard]

I enjoy reading the narratives of Ernie Pyle and the cartoons of Bill Mauldin - so did my Dad who served in the PTO and my uncle who served in the ETO - both felt they told the true GIs story.

On April 18, 1945, Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, after being hit by Japanese machine-gun fire.

The captions for the cartoons read:

• "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient."
  
• No caption necessary for the old Cav NCO putting his 'mount' out of its misery - one of Mauldin's most famous and popular cartoons.
  
• "Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour." This 'dig' at Patton caused quite a stir - Patton and Mauldin didn't like each other and Patton sought to censor Mauldin at one point - but the GIs loved Mauldin whose humor reflected theirs, and Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine.

Richard

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Richard

...Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine...

I found the last cartoon especially funny given the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan...

[akv]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Credit lies squarely on those who "actually" do the work. While truley not only the Warriors much can be offered to those working to build and supply the effort. That doesn't give much credit to journalists, who regardless of how much stupidity shown in life threatening exposure they incur. They don't add to the combat effort but are mere observers of the real effort.
In combat as well as other greatly hazardous events the individual view of the participants will be from a very predator's myopic (hunters) view of the particular threat and not so clear of the whole, hence so many varied views of the smae whole. Just my zwei centavos. Blitzzz

I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, the soldiers who do the actual work should absolutely get the credit. But how are they going to get the credit they deserve without somebody telling the world about it? Particularly in a Republic and Democracy where our military answers to civilian leadership, who in turn are voted into office.

Maybe we just need better journalists as opposed to clueless liabilities like Geraldo who actually endanger our troops, ( no tears here if he had an accident in theater). Ernie Pyle in contrast was adored by our combat troops, he wrote stories which improved morale both overseas and back home. He took risks and was eventually killed by an enemy sniper in the Pacific. Perhaps I'm naive but politicians are essentially re-election whores, if enough noise was made about look at the incredible job our boys are doing in Afghanistan, and the message the nation heard was we can win if we give them what they need, Obama's gutless not stupid, okay maybe he is both, but if politicians feel the votes wanted this, ie more troops helps them win "Midterms-istan" General McChrystal would have had his 40,000 troops weeks ago.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

TS--

With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.

In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*

Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.

I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.

However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?


____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.

IMO WWII was decided once the United States entered the war.

I never said warriors alone made all the history, I am not that ignorant. Politian's start wars, warriors fight and finish them.
I will tell you that even "history" can be distorted quite a bit by those that write it and those that report it. I also understand the theory of "oral reports", funny how many of us were never asked for an oral report yet our history has been written.

Not all of us require such in-depth history, some just want to hear one man's perspective on the battle he fought, share his thoughts, see his emotions, all things one cannot glean from a history book.

I am that sort of person, I have listened to old warriors, their stories from their perspective. You said: "what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences" I can tell you this; that unless you have been in that specific profession, a warrior, it sure would be difficult to distinguish between the truth and the bullshit.

I'm sure they're quite a few warriors on here that have been involved in historic events or missions that have made "history" but will never be written about.....

BTW there's quite a long list of "individuals" I'd rather talk to than read any number history books about what they did or the battles they fought. Some I have spoken with at length, some I have worked with and some I have only read about.

"Of every One-Hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle. Ah, but the One, one of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back." Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
Some here have had the honor to have spoken to, worked with and even fought along the side of that "One". History books, movies, news articles all pale in comparison.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Richard

I enjoy reading the narratives of Ernie Pyle and the cartoons of Bill Mauldin - so did my Dad who served in the PTO and my uncle who served in the ETO - both felt they told the true GIs story.

On April 18, 1945, Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, after being hit by Japanese machine-gun fire.

The captions for the cartoons read:

• "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient."
  
• No caption necessary for the old Cav NCO putting his 'mount' out of its misery - one of Mauldin's most famous and popular cartoons.
  
• "Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour." This 'dig' at Patton caused quite a stir - Patton and Mauldin didn't like each other and Patton sought to censor Mauldin at one point - but the GIs loved Mauldin whose humor reflected theirs, and Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine.

Richard

My Dad told me he really enjoyed Mauldin because they lightened up the war for the guys overseas.............

Big Teddy

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

• Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?

Read In Defense of Internment, the Case for "Racial Profiling" in WWII and the War on Terror by Michelle Maklin for a look at why the "internment camps" were created in the first place. Ever hear of MAGIC?

There was no "ethnic cleansing" when it came to the evacuation and relocation of Japanese, Italians and Germans and other undesirables from the West Coast and proximity to Military installations/Naval bases.

Unfortunately history has already been rewritten when it comes to "American concentration camps" and Japanese racial discrimination.

[Richard]

Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?

There was no "ethnic cleansing" when it came to the evacuation and relocation of Japanese...

I think there was some confusion here over the terms 'cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans' as in to merely move or relocate (cleanse) Americans of Japanese ethnicity from among American communities for whatever reasons and forever how long versus the euphamistic terminology employed by the Nazis to enigmatically obfuscate their so-called 'Final Solution' programs of 'ethnic cleansing' (cleansing as in literally destroying or erasing entire ethnic cultures).

Richard

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Richard

I think there was some confusion here over the terms 'cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans' as in to merely move or relocate (cleanse) Americans of Japanese ethnicity from among American communities for whatever reasons and forever how long versus the euphamistic terminology employed by the Nazis to enigmatically obfuscate their so-called 'Final Solution' programs of 'ethnic cleansing' (cleansing as in literally destroying or erasing entire ethnic cultures).

Richard

Ah, ok...I originally took Sigaba's comment to mean the "Final Solution" kind of ethnic cleansing.

[HOLLiS]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.

Historians are not some great keeper of all things past. The war that I enjoy reading about is the US Civil War. I no longer read historians accounts of that war, mostly personal accounts. There are a few people like Bruce Catton who I do like to read. He has a good feel for the life of a soldier. Like reading [I]All Quite on the Western front[I] by E. M. Remarque. I read it when I was in High School and later when I came home from RVN. On the second reading I felt a brotherhood, so to speak. I knew he was there.

I am sorry for academics who feel they are different and because of their studies they can see in to things us mortal can not. IMHO, they are out to lunch. They are full of their own greatness and can not realize there is more to the story. Something that can not be read about, something that must be experienced.

I am not saying all historians are like this, I mentioned B. Catton. I am not interested in playing the game "armchair quarterback". I am interested in History, but form the actual players themselves rather than those who only watch.

To quote " T. Roosevelt;

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

definintly a shared belief, great post, Thanks.

[Richard]

I no longer read historians accounts of that war, mostly personal accounts.

<snip>

I am interested in History, but form the actual players themselves rather than those who only watch.

Not all historians are correct - nor are all incorrect - and not all participants in a historical event tell the truth about what happened to them, either. History is complicated - and not nearly as 'cut and dry' as many - including historians - would probably prefer.

As for reading History, Stephen Ambrose's style of using the greater view of historical perspective - combined with personal narratives of those involved and a 'tell the story' literary style - is IMO what continues to make his works so readable and popular - and why more historians have adopted such a style.

Richard's $.02

[The Reaper]

To me, individual participants in combat have perspectives like the blind men examining the elephant. They each have differing viewpoints, based on where they were and what they were doing. The shooter may not even know if the battle was won or lost, merely that he survived. An infantry PFC is going to have a far different view of the conflict that the Major in his S-3 shop. The individual combatants have a raw visceral impression of the war that the historian has to capture and put in its proper place with the overall context of the tactical, operational, and strategic perspectives.

A good historian (in the sense that it reads well) takes the individual accounts of actions, and melds them into the dryer aspects of what was happening from the higher levels. Think of "The Killer Angels" or "Gates of Fire". Both have a liberal amount of fiction, mixed with vignettes and historical accounts. Both are also excellent novels based on military history and read very well.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Warrior-Mentor]

Since it's been several months since our last post here, I'm resurrecting this thread in it's original spirit ....

Ex-Muslim on Why Islam Should Be Criticized
Jan 23, 2010
Arslan Shaukat

Hello Miss Geller,

You are a superwoman. Bravo . I am Arslan, ex-Muslim atheist, and an anti-islamist. You have spoken truth about islam on many forums which is very brave and praise worthy.

I have also strived to make the truth about islam known to people by any means available. I believe its the duty of those people who know the truth!!

I am member of CEMB ( British council of ex-muslims), Leeds Atheist society and an author on Islam-watch.

What the West Needs To Understand about Islam
January 2010
Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn-Waraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals, who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with axe and knife, entered Westergaar’s house and tried to kill him. This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....240f970b-popup

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

Here, I am quoting a few points from one of my presentations.

1. Firstly, Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly, a great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

1. Al-Quran: This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

- O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

- Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

1. B. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

- He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So, it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

4. I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

Why criticize when Islamists will react violently

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

1. Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?

Secondly, it is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly, One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma.

The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

[Warrior-Mentor]

What good will come out of criticizing Islam?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me Explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, currently the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law."

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).”

In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. He glorified the perpetrators of 9/11 atrocity as the ‘Magnificent Martyrs.’ (Wikipedia).

Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population, that will amount to ~20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So, how can we meet this challenge?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos.

There is no other alternative. Political correctness, appeasement and other such strategies will simply not work.

The reason is: these Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam. They can only be challenged by facing them squarely.

Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analysed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

What the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Again, ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system

2. and in true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

3. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

4. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

5. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done.

Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

SOURCE:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...riticized.html