Had you bothered watching your own video, they would have disproven your first post right off the bat. To those of us that have served, you're coming off as a troll, not an actual contributor.
If you wish to dissuade people from joining, fine. But used reasoned arguments, not Fox-like exaggerations.
Your post had the phrase "The question is back on the table...", even after correcting yourself. The torture doesn't apply to but a small fraction of the soldiers, and even they volunteered for it. There was no "had to" about it. Basically, neither of your initial premises apply.
Which is still disingenuous, as few soldiers belong to the special forces. Not "many", few.....
You did nonetheless make it sound like this commonplace to the military in general. You didn't really clarify that few take this training, and then pounded your initial message home. Makes you about as accurate as a recruiter; congrats!
You may want to get a refund on that sarcasm detector...
RG
RE: "Had you bothered watching your own video, they would have disproven your first post right off the bat. To those of us that have served, you're coming off as a troll, not an actual contributor."
It's extremely obvious that the question in my opening post wasn't intended as a synopsis of the video, and everyone knows that regular recruits are not sexually tortured as part of their training. That's just simple common sense. Because if it was a standard part of basic training for all soldiers, their relatives would be up in arms and screaming about it to any politician and news media outlet that would listen.
And again, the first word in the thread title makes it clear that I wasn't trying to imply the torture training described in the video is "commonplace." As well, the video spells out that only special forces are subjected to the training. So if anyone misinterpreted my question other than you, the facts would have been clarified for them as soon as they watched the video.
Thus,
you're the one who's "coming off as a troll," as evidenced by the fact that you didn't even read past my opening post before rubber stamping me as "disingenuous" in your initial response. And now you've made an inflammatory allegation that I didn't watch the video, which is in itself a trollish remark.
RE: "If you wish to dissuade people from joining, fine. But used reasoned arguments, not Fox-like exaggerations."
First of all, I wasn't trying to dissuade anyone from joining, and second, "exaggeration" is clearly the wrong word to use here. Because stating (or implying) that anyone who joined the military would have to undergo sexual torture as part of their basic training would be a
blatant lie,
not an "exaggeration."
My only intent with the question was to see how the average person would react to the prospect of being tortured in that manner by joining the military as a basic trainee. Because it's obvious from the video that special forces don't have a problem with it, since they submit to it voluntarily.
RE: "Your post had the phrase "The question is back on the table...", even after correcting yourself."
I didn't "correct" myself, as I hadn't said anything that needed to be corrected. Swerve indicated that my question was mute because he was under the impression that sexual torture at the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident. And I was merely conveying to him that it appeared to be an ongoing part of training for special forces, on a voluntary basis.
RE: "The torture doesn't apply to but a small fraction of the soldiers,"
Agreed, but the number of U.S. soldiers subjected to the torture could potentially be in the thousands, hence my use of the word, "Many" in the title of this thread.
RE: "and even they volunteered for it. There was no "had to" about it."
At the risk of sounding sarcastic,
duh. As I clearly spelled out the volunteer nature of it in my response to Swerve. But after thinking about it, now I'm wondering just how "voluntary" it really is, since the "penalty" for refusing it would probably mean being ostracized by the team members who do submit to the training.
RE: "Basically, neither of your initial premises apply."
Basically, as my response proves, none of your disingenuous hair splitting applies, as again, my opening post obviously was just a question, period, the intent of which I've already explained.
RE: "Which is still disingenuous, as few soldiers belong to the special forces. Not "many", few....."
A "few?" Where are you getting your information from? The USASOC site indicates 26,000 personnel total, and who really knows for sure how many of them have undergone the torture training, other than someone with a much higher rank than you? As well, the following site states the Special Forces and Rangers are comprised of approximately 1,400 soldiers each:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2256948
RE: "You did nonetheless make it sound like this commonplace to the military in general."
Not true, at all. In your haste to split hairs and find a reason to attack this thread, you simply misunderstood what you read.
RE: "You didn't really clarify that few take this training,"
Again, not true. My response to Swerve clarifies that the training is limited to the special forces, as does the video.
RE: "and then pounded your initial message home."
You mean, like
you're doing?
RE: "Makes you about as accurate as a recruiter; congrats!"
Haha, your misguided attempts to villainize this thread by splitting hairs and ignoring the facts makes you about as accurate as a politician running for office; congrats!
RE: "You may want to get a refund on that sarcasm detector..."
Haha, you may want to take your own advice, because I didn't interpret your welcome as sarcasm, nor was I being sarcastic in my response.
RR
