Just what we needed... more zealotry in war

[Yahzi]

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=3902

The soldiers often explain they overcome their fear on patrol by reciting their officer's refrain: "We are immortal until God decides otherwise."
...
"I truly believe we are protected by God," he said.
...
"We are fighting darkness here, we are fighting the devil,"
...
"They could shoot a thousand rounds and they still would not kill me."
These are American soldiers talking.

:o

[c4ts]

Yeah, right. You are immortal until you step into the path of an incoming RPG or other projectile. Then TLOP decides your fate.

[UnrepentantSinner]

For some reason neither the story nor the main page is coming up, but I just want to know if these are active duty guys or National Guardsmen? For some reason I would think that the Guardsmen would be more succeptible to that sort of thinking.

O.k. not for some reason, but because it's Georgia and they're Guardsmen, that's why.

I wonder if the "1000 bullets and won't harm me" was wearing his helmet or Kevlar vest when he said that...

[Yahweh]

"They could shoot a thousand rounds and they still would not kill me."
I guess you are referring to the bullets that dont actually hit you...

Perhaps you wont be so optimistic when one of those rounds fails to whiz by like the rest of them...

Seriously, if these people truely believe wholehearted in what they say (although I suspect its just "god talk"), they have some potentially dangerous ideas in their head.

[ceo_esq]

These guys know that if they step in front of a bullet, they've had it. That's the reason they have a fear they're trying to overcome in the first place.

Under the circumstances, what's potentially more dangerous for the individual soldier in the field and the comrades around him - thinking that God (or a lucky rabbit's foot, or whatever) is protecting him as he walks through the valley of the shadow of death, or being paralyzed by perfectly rational fears of getting shot?

Even if those GIs believe these things wholeheartedly, I'm not about to criticize them for it. These are obviously attempts to quell potentially debilitating emotions of fear, rather than expressions of religiously motivated bloodlust.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
For some reason neither the story nor the main page is coming up, but I just want to know if these are active duty guys or National Guardsmen?

Hmm, the link works for me.

They are active duty. They're not all crazy: one soldier asked to be transferred out of the unit because they were being "stupid" (acting like they were immortal.)

And they've already survived an RPG attack by miraculous coincidence (one rocket failed to detonate and the other went thruogh a vehicle and out the other side).

I wonder what they will think when they do lose somebody. But at one a day spread amongst 200,000 men, their odds aren't that terrible.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Under the circumstances, what's potentially more dangerous for the individual soldier in the field and the comrades around him
You didn't read the article, and you don't know anything about combat. Yet you still insist on excusing religious behavior.

FYI, every combat soldier I've ever talked to or read, has asserted that those crazy guys that act like heros and think they are invincible are the most dangerous people on the battlefield - to you. Cops know this, firemen know this, everybody who works in a dangerous job knows this. Fear is good, because it's real. If you can't handle the fear, go home: but when you start ignoring the fear, you become a danger to yourself and your teammates.

Specialist Mastro represents not only the typical view of the professional soldier, but also the Army's official viewpoint. This is a viewpoint derived not for its anti-religious views but for its statistical validity. Against this long history of expierence we have only your automatic, reflexive defense of religious behaviour, regardless of how inappropriate the context.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
These guys know that if they step in front of a bullet, they've had it. That's the reason they have a fear they're trying to overcome in the first place.

Under the circumstances, what's potentially more dangerous for the individual soldier in the field and the comrades around him - thinking that God (or a lucky rabbit's foot, or whatever) is protecting him as he walks through the valley of the shadow of death, or being paralyzed by perfectly rational fears of getting shot?

Even if those GIs believe these things wholeheartedly, I'm not about to criticize them for it. These are obviously attempts to quell potentially debilitating emotions of fear, rather than expressions of religiously motivated bloodlust.
Complete and utter BS.
Fear is good. Fear is natural and safe. Fear can be used to your advantage with good training and leadership. Risk assessment is an integral and vital part of combat. If you have no fear and are unable to evaluate likely outcomes of your actions you become a danger to yourself and your comrades.
These people should be shipped home at the earliest opportunity.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

These people should be shipped home at the earliest opportunity.
Maybe that's their plan. See, you can only get out of doing your mission if you're crazy. But only crazy people want to do the mission... ;)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You didn't read the article, and you don't know anything about combat. Yet you still insist on excusing religious behavior.The link isn't working for me either; I assumed you highlighted the part that bothered you the most. You have no idea what I know about combat, but I suppose you're just being rhetorical.
Originally posted by Yahzi
FYI, every combat soldier I've ever talked to or read, has asserted that those crazy guys that act like heros and think they are invincible are the most dangerous people on the battlefield - to you. Cops know this, firemen know this, everybody who works in a dangerous job knows this. Fear is good, because it's real. If you can't handle the fear, go home: but when you start ignoring the fear, you become a danger to yourself and your teammates.What I wrote is not about ignoring fear; it's about attempting to keep it under manageable levels that will not unduly compromise morale.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Against this long history of expierence we have only your automatic, reflexive defense of religious behaviour, regardless of how inappropriate the context. Is there any conversation we can have these days that does not devolve into resentful comments from you alluding to the religious biases you imagine I harbor? It's not true, and even if it were true, would it justify your apparent near-obsession? I don't attempt at every turn to get rhetorical mileage out of the fact that you have an unreasoning enmity toward things religious, do I?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The link isn't working for me either;
It works for me, so I don't know what the problem is. Try googling for "U.S. Troops Run RPG Gauntlet with Guns and God" It shows up as the fifth link for me.

What I wrote is not about ignoring fear; it's about attempting to keep it under manageable levels that will not unduly compromise morale.
And, as mummymonkey pointed out, this is not the way to do that.

Is there any conversation we can have these days that does not devolve into resentful comments from you alluding to the religious biases you imagine I harbor?
As you may have noticed, numerous other people detect the same bias. This is not merely my impression.

I don't attempt at every turn to get rhetorical mileage out of the fact that you have an unreasoning enmity toward things religious, do I?
Because I don't pretend I don't have a bias. It's not your bias that I object to: it is your pretense that you don't have one.

We all have biases. Knowing that allows us to correct for them. I object to the assertion that I am unreasonably biased against religion, but I am certainly biased against it. For me to pretend otherwise would be both disingenous and confusing. I am also biased against racism: if someone wanted to present usefull or good cases of racism, I would require considerable evidence before adjusting my position. Bias isn't bad. It's ignorance of bias that is bad.

Now, the fact that you are biased in favor of religion is obvious. So the question is, why do you pretend otherwise? Either you are being deceitful on purpose, or you honestly are unaware that you are religiously biased. Either case destroys your credibility.